The Freedom of the Traditional Liturgy belongs to the Freedom of the Church
Last week was the week of July 14[1], when amid the fanfare of Macron’s garden parties the “freedom” won by the storming of the Bastille was celebrated. Those of us who fight for the freedom of the liturgy affirm that the latter has nothing to do with the former. For, indeed, some say (especially sociologists of religion, such as Danièle Hervieu-Léger) that the defenders of the traditional liturgy are, in reality, also “modern”, enemies of the authority to whom they pay lip service, but who nonetheless do whatever suits their fancy. This is far from the truth. It is true that this temptation exists in our paradoxical situation, given that modernity is simply so pervasive. In order not to succumb to this temptation, or to avoid giving the impression that one is succumbing to it, thereby causing scandal as a result, it is important to have clear ideas and firm principles.
There are two points to consider:
- That of concrete action, where we say: since the liturgical reform allows a myriad of things and even more variants, why should it not also allow us to celebrate according to the liturgy of the past? For we are, in a way, in “occupied” territory, liturgically speaking, and not only liturgically (hence the difficulty of teaching the traditional catechism). The new liturgy, defective in its expression of dogma, reigns supreme; the Tridentine liturgy, the clear expression of the Catholic faith, is, at best, tolerated.
And yet it must live on. So much so that our situation is somewhat similar to that of the “reactionaries” in the decades following the Revolution: they demanded for the principles they defended that “freedom” which the new principles falsely proclaimed. In other words, they used the good and noble part of the new freedom to serve the truth. We too, since in fact our pastors permit nearly any which thing to be done, demand this right to exist for the Tridentine liturgy. It is granted to us only sparingly, because there is “no freedom for the enemies of freedom!” But in doing so, and by taking a few risks of which we are aware (relativizing the rights of truth), we at least bring to light for Catholics of good will the true face of the liturgical novelties, which is that of persecution.
- The other point is that of general principles. There are, in fact, two meanings of the word freedom, as Leo XIII recalled in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888):
- True freedom which proceeds from God, supremely free, and who can only exert it infallibly in the sovereign good that he himself is, without the possibility of failure. At the level of man, this freedom can fail, which is clearly an imperfection, for the faculty to sin is not a freedom, but a servitude. Therefore, the law, the human law when it deserves this name as a concrete implementation of the natural law, and the law of the Church, helps him as a pedagogue to do good reasonably, freely.
- And, on the other hand, there is the false modern freedom, objectively diabolical, according to which man depends upon no one but himself, and can think and believe whatever he wants in complete “freedom”, and do whatever he pleases accordingly. The sovereignty of God is replaced by that of man, individually and socially (the “general will”).
Without claiming that the liberal Catholicism that governs us has purely and simply enthroned July 14 in the Church, there is no doubt that it has more or less made such a compromise. Just as the doctrines in vogue today (ecumenism, new morality, synodality) use duplicity with regard to the dogmatic norm, so likewise the Reformed liturgy is a liturgy weaker in its message, more inventive and more freely interpretable, which picks and chooses among the rubrics which, however, are there to protect the faith, that of the old liturgy. The new liturgy is a liturgy that is “freer” than the old liturgy, but not for the better.
On the contrary, we defend true liturgical freedom, which belongs to the freedom of the Church. We say that it is not permissible for anyone to prevent the Church from preaching the truth according to the Creed, nor is it permissible to prevent her from worshiping God and giving the sacraments in such a way that this worship, lex orandi, is the unblemished expression of the lex credendi. It is not, therefore, out of aesthetic taste, even if it be pious, spiritual or mystical, that we defend the rights of the traditional liturgy, but quite simply because it expresses, without weakening or complacency towards the world, the Mass as a sacramental sacrifice, the sacrament of Holy Orders as a mandate given to men to cooperate in Christ’s sacrifice for the living and for the dead, and the sacrament of baptism as liberation from the diabolical chains of original sin, etc.
Christian Marquant
[1] We reproduce here a Letter of Paix Liturgique of July 24, 2026, with the kind permission of its management.