The bishop of Pilsen (Czech Republic), Tomáš Holub, has stated that the Vetus Ordo “no longer responds to the current needs” of the Church and has defended that synodality can only be fully expressed through the Novus Ordo Missae. In his view, the Roman rite prior to the liturgical reform reflects a “Tridentine and modern” ecclesiology that no longer corresponds to the vision of the Church promoted by the Second Vatican Council.
The statements appear in an extensive article titled Synodality and the Novus Ordo Missae, published on 21 July on the Italian blog Come Se Non, directed by the liturgist Andrea Grillo, one of the main advocates of the restrictions on the traditional Mass introduced by the motu proprio Traditionis custodes.
«The Novus Ordo allows synodality to be applied»
Holub develops his reflection based on the experience of the diocesan synod held in Pilsen between 2024 and 2026. According to him, synodality should not be understood merely as a method of ecclesial organization, but as a way of living the faith and understanding the Church.
In this context, he maintains that the rite reformed after the Second Vatican Council better expresses this ecclesiology.
“The Novus Ordo allows this synodality to be applied in the liturgical sphere. Otherwise it would be very difficult, since the Vetus Ordo is the expression of a Tridentine vision and of the modern era of the Church that no longer responds to current needs,” the bishop writes.
In his opinion, the Novus Ordo manifests a “ministerial, communal, and assembly-gathered” Church, while the earlier liturgical form corresponds to a different ecclesiological understanding.
Calls for dialogue with the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy
The bishop acknowledges that in his own diocese there are faithful attached to the Vetus Ordo and admits that many continue to have difficulties accepting the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council.
According to Holub, regular participation in the traditional liturgy ultimately shapes a certain understanding of the Church and can foster an attitude of distrust toward the conciliar reforms.
Nevertheless, he rejects responding solely through disciplinary measures and proposes applying to these faithful an approach based on encounter, mutual listening, and discernment.
“I believe it is prudent to also use a synodal approach with them: to meet, to listen to one another, and to be able to discern together,” the bishop states. At the same time, he maintains that this dialogue must be carried out from a firm acceptance of the Second Vatican Council as an expression of the Church’s Magisterium.
Finally, Holub warns of the risk that liturgical debates may absorb ecclesial life while a large part of society remains distant from the faith, and he invites the Church’s mission to be oriented toward the evangelization of the contemporary world.