From Knoxville to Cleveland, TLM decisions remain wildly inconsistent across dioceses. The Bishop of Knoxville, Mark Beckman, has set out his reasons for not extending the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
In a recently published pastoral letter, the Bishop’s decision was communicated to parishioners of St Mary’s Parish Church in Johnson City, where the older rite was previously offered within the diocese. In the letter, Bishop Beckman confirms that he received “numerous communications and petitions from many” requesting that the 1962 Missal continue to be available in parish churches.
Bishop Beckman said he was “truly grateful” for the candour of those who wrote, and for their “great respect” in the way they presented their concerns. However, he went on to say that the older rite would cease to be offered in parish settings across the diocese, and would continue only “on a monthly basis at the chapel of the retreat centre, Christ Prince of Peace in Benton, Tennessee.”
He said the decision followed instructions from the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments directing him to “personally revisit the direction set by Pope Francis in Traditionis Custodes in 2021.” He added that, in recent discussions with the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Nuncio affirmed that “the Motu Proprio remains the normative guide.”
The Bishop also explained that he had initially explored every possibility to maintain the older form of the Mass within the limits established by the Holy See, reporting that his “first thought was to inquire about suitable nonparochial chapels or churches where the 1962 Missal could continue to be used”. According to Bishop Beckman, he was unable to find a workable option, stating that “it seemed that the better alternative was to move in the direction of celebrating Mass according to the current liturgical books, while retaining as many traditional elements as possible”. His hope, he told parishioners, was that such an approach would “support the communities in those parish settings”.
Furthermore, he noted that “current indications are that Pope Leo does not intend to abrogate Traditionis Custodes which still serves as the current definitive guidance of the Church Universal.” He concluded that “for the sake of the communion of the whole Church, the Extraordinary Form is now more limited,” presenting his decision as an act of pastoral unity rather than disciplinary sanction.
It is fair to say that the use of the Traditional Latin Mass is an issue of pastoral unity. The matter is not merely a question of liturgical preference, but of who ultimately controls the system governing its permission, renewal, and restriction.
The Church’s ability to regulate permission for the Traditional Latin Mass, as seen in 2007 under Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, depends upon clear, coherent discipline and a shared understanding of tradition. It appears that the modern Curia’s system of two-year dispensations follows a centralising logic driven by institutional caution, and that the tensions now surfacing stem not from doctrinal dispute but from bureaucratic structure.
The Vatican’s recent clarification makes this clear. During the Latin Mass rumour fiasco involving the Apostolic Nuncio for England and Wales, Bishop Enda Murphy confirmed that Pope Leo “does not intend to overturn” Traditionis Custodes and that the Church would continue granting renewable two-year exemptions to bishops who formally request them. Mgr Murphy described the statement as “no more than a restatement of the Dicastery’s practice … since the motu proprio came into force.”
Yet the clarity has deepened confusion. Reports from The Pillar that “Leo will ask Archbishop Arthur [Roche] to be generous in granting Latin Mass requests” implied a softening. After this came the news just two states away that in Ohio, the Diocese of Cleveland confirmed that the Holy See granted permission for the Traditional Latin Mass to continue for a further two years at two parish churches.
The question that follows is unavoidable: if the norms remain the same, why has the global experience been so inconsistent?
Of course, beyond theology, there are considerations of geography and people. Unlike much of Europe, the United States has well-established traditionalist communities, from Post Falls to Society of Saint Pius X strong networks with distinct identities and the capacity for soft-power disruption if diocesan leadership mishandles relations.
Some bishops regard the possibility of traditionalist resurgence less as a theological challenge than a question of authority, and have applied restrictions not for reasons of doctrine but to avoid the formation of self-sustaining ecclesial enclaves.
Yet the irony is that many bishops previously maintained that the Traditional Mass “did no harm.” The widely discussed Diana Montana letters revealed notable episcopal sympathy for the continuation of the older rite, and for the Traditional Latin Mass in particular. This raises a central analytical question: who is ultimately driving the restrictions? If bishops are not the architects, their role is managerial rather than determinative.
Which brings us back to the two-year exemption system itself. For many of the faithful, it appears incoherent. If the 1962 Missal is to be tolerated, why must dioceses petition Rome every two years? And if the liturgy is intended to be phased out, why should a Mass that endured for centuries be governed by temporary administrative permissions?
What matters now is not simply whether dispensations increase, but whether the Church can provide a clear, coherent rationale for a system that neither resolves the question nor satisfies those most affected. Geographical location should not determine liturgical permissions, and a clear, coherent Church-wide policy would support the sense of justice and pastoral care sought by many traditional Catholics.
.jpg)
.jpg)
