Latin Mass & Catholic Tradition: Q & A (Page 5)

Question

Answer

Do You Say 'Amen' at Communion in a 'Tridentine' Mass?

No. The Communicant does not say Amen when receiving Holy Communion at the Tridentine Mass. Instead, you should silently adore the Host and recite (interiorly) the historically indulgenced aspiration "My Lord and My God".

Do You Say Anything if the Priest Indicates That it is the "Word of the Lord" in the 'Tridentine' Mass? 

No. Such responses are not given by laity in the 'Tridentine' Mass. (Note: If this does occur in your parish, it may be because the people are accustomed to do so at the Novus Ordo Mass. If so, they should be instructed that this is not to be recited by the laity at the 'Tridentine' Mass.)

Why Do Women Wear Veils at the 'Tridentine' Mass?

Women should wear veils in church (and during prayer) regardless of which Mass they attend. From the very earliest days of the Church women have been instructed/required to wear veils, and this has nothing to do with local custom or particular styles of dress. Rather, it has to do with the fact that women have been placed in a state of subjection by Almighty God (see Gen. 3:16, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, etc.). As St. Paul says in Scripture, women should wear veils as a sign that they are under authority of men (as a mark of subjection), because of the angels, and because women who pray with unveiled heads "bring shame upon their heads":

"Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." (St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 11:4-10, emphasis added)

Veils further serve to protect modesty (larger ones are most desirable in this regard - as one Early Church Father has said, "The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled"), reduce distractions, and help protect against becoming an object of another's concupiscence.

One should further note that the so-called "exemption" (ibid. 11:16) is only for women who wish to be "argumentative". But what kind of good Catholic woman would want to be "argumentative" to St. Paul who wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit - that is, Almighty God?

Click Here for 'Proper Role & Behavior of Women' Reflections (Priests & Vocations Section)

Click Here for Flier: "Scripture Passage: Women's Head Covering"

Is the Traditional Latin Mass of Interest to Young Persons?

The Traditional Latin Mass is of interest to persons of all ages - most definitely including young persons. In fact, the growing popularity of the ancient Mass includes many young persons who had never previously been exposed to this glorious Mass. The false belief that young persons are not interested in the Traditional Mass arises merely from the fact that so many young persons are not even aware that such a precious possession has been taken from them. As Davies has pointed out: "[T]o destroy the Mass of St. Pius V truly 'the most beautiful thing this side of heaven' - this is an act of liturgical vandalism on such a scale that beside it the destruction of all the cathedrals of Europe would appear of little consequence. Many young Catholics today wonder why some of their elders make so much fuss about the Tridentine Mass. This is not surprising as it is hard for any individual to feel real concern for a cause of which he has had no direct experience. Young Catholics have been deprived of their birthright for a mess of ecumenical pottage (Genesis 25:29-34). It would not be true to state that this pottage satisfies them, the exodus of young people from our churches has been one of the most dramatic manifestations of the 'Conciliar Church,' but as the nature of their true birthright is something of which they are kept in total ignorance they are hardly likely to lament its absence. However, it is both remarkable and encouraging that when young people do discover the Tridentine Mass, their fervor and enthusiasm, their determination to defend and extend its use, is proving to be a source of encouragement and inspiration for many older Catholics."

Why Are Some Parts of the Mass Called 'Ordinary' and Some Called 'Proper'?

In the 'Tridentine' Mass, certain parts of the Mass do not change and these may be called "Ordinary", whereas parts of the Mass which change (or are "proper to the day or season") may be called "Proper".

Do the 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass Use the Same Calendar?

No. The 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass use a different calendar. The 'Tridentine' Mass has a fuller calendar, whereas the Novus Ordo Mass has dropped many feast days (including highly popular feasts, feasts of popes, etc.). The old calendar is still in use, however, by traditional orders and in places where Masses are celebrated according to the old ('Tridentine') rite. Note: To find a 'Tridentine' Mass, click here. For feasts of the old and new calendar, try here.

Aren't the 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass Very Similar?

Besides the many noticeable external differences (e.g. language, orientation of the priest, use of incense, lack of 'lay ministers', etc.), there are many notable differences between the 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. In fact, it has been estimated that around 70% of the traditional Mass has been replaced or eliminated from the Novus Ordo Mass. Of the remainder, various parts may have been changed, leaving just a small amount unchanged. Clearly, there are numerous and significant differences between the 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. Note: For more information on the differences between the 'Tridentine' Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, click here.

Doesn't the Novus Ordo Mass Contain the Roman Canon? 

A modified version of the Roman Canon was added back to the Novus Ordo Mass as an option, but it is longer and therefore not often used. Further, parts of it are made optional, and various parts have been mistranslated into vernacular languages. As Davies has said, "Thanks be to God, Pope Paul VI ordered Msgr. Bugnini to replace the Roman Canon which he had removed from the 1969 rite of Mass. It is, alas, only an option and is very rarely used."

Do Traditional Catholics Consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be Valid?

Generally, Traditional Catholics consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be valid if said with the proper form, matter, and intention (although there are exceptions - e.g. some see the translation error in the words of consecration to invalidate the Mass). However, even if traditional Catholics do recognize that the Novus Ordo Mass to be valid, they may point to concerns that the new rite makes it easier to have an invalid consecration - for example, consider that the entire consecration may now be recited as part of a narrative (the "Institution Narrative"), and that if a priest recites the prayer as a mere narrative, his intention may be defective, resulting in no consecration whatsoever (for a valid consecration, the priest must have the desire to consecrate in the here and now, and not merely read about Our Lord's past actions).

Furthermore, Traditional Catholics may point out that validity isn't the only criterion that should be considered - but that is merely the bare minimum necessary for there to be a consecration. A Mass can be valid as well as sacrilegious! A priest with valid orders who leaves the Church and becomes a Satanist can have a "valid" Mass, yet no one would question whether it was acceptable to attend, simply because it is "valid". At a "valid" Mass, a priest may preach heresy from the pulpit. At a "valid" Mass, many liturgical abuses - and even great sacrilege & profanation - may occur. In fact, no matter what happens after a valid consecration, the Mass is valid. That does not, however, guarantee that the Mass is "acceptable".

Why Shouldn't the Mass be Changed in Order Not to Offend Protestants?

First of all, the Mass is not for Protestants, it is for Catholics. Secondly, it is wrong to change a Catholic Mass to please those who hold erroneous / heretical views. Scripture tells us not to even greet heretics (see 2 Jn. 1:10-11), much less change one of our most sacred possessions to please them! It is in no way "charitable" to Protestants to leave them in their errors - much less to confirm them in their errors. Finally, it is not charitable to Catholics to take what is most precious from them - and endanger their faith - to please those who reject the Church. As Scripture says, "do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith." (Gal. 6:10) As Bouyer says:

"The fact that the liturgy is made for the faithful, and not for those who are still outside of the Church, must be stressed especially. More exactly, it is only when they are brought into the threshold of the Church that the liturgy is opened to them"

And:

"It would be a misguided pastoral effort that would try to adapt the liturgy in such a way that even unbelievers could easily follow and understand it. This, indeed, would not be a healthy adaptation of the liturgy, but its destruction." 

Why Do Traditional Catholics Reject Practices Like Liturgical Dancing?

Traditional Catholics primarily reject practices such as 'liturgical dancing' during Mass because it is not appropriate for God's house or for a solemn sacrifice. Mass is the true re-presentation of Calvary and one would not expect to have found people dancing around the cross 2,000 years ago. Furthermore, it introduces a profane element into the church, and may even excite some persons to lust (often the dancers are immodestly dressed). Those who argue that liturgical dancing is biblical should take note of Davies' remarks: "Dancing formed no part of the prescribed ritual for Jewish worship in either the Temple or the synagogue... [Exodus 15:20] is not a liturgical dance but a spontaneous outburst of exultation common to primitive peoples upon the destruction of their enemy, i.e. a war dance!"

But Didn't God Want All These Changes?

Are we to believe that God - who is unchanging - suddenly wanted us to drop a Mass which developed over the centuries under the guidance of Holy Spirit for one created by men in the 1960's with the assistance of protestant 'observers'? Are we to believe that God wanted us to abandon the Mass that was called "the most beautiful things this side of heaven" and produced many saints for one that is plagued with abuse and one that even high-ranking prelates call "banal"? Common sense alone tells us that the changes - which have resulted in a loss of faith, rampant sacrilege, widespread heresy, a "near collapse" of the Church, and include changes which are contrary to the teachings / warnings / practice of many popes, saints, councils, and even those which oppose Scripture (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:33-35, 1 Cor. 11:4-10) - could not be positively willed by God. In fact, not even Vatican II called for - or wanted - all the changes which have occurred. We must remember that the mere fact that something has happened, does not mean that God positively willed it, but rather that He tolerates it. In fact, we know that God tolerates many bad (and even evil) things - and the fact that they have occurred in no way means that God directly wills them. 

Wouldn't Traditional Catholics Just Be Happy if the Novus Ordo Mass Was Said in Latin?

No. The desire for the 'Tridentine' Mass has little or nothing to do with the language used. It is important to remember that Traditional Latin Mass is an entirely different rite of Mass than the Novus Ordo Mass. Besides the language, there are numerous and significant differences between the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass. Note: For more information on the differences between these Masses, click here.

However, due to the mistranslations, a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin would be somewhat preferable to a Novus Ordo Mass said in English. Such Masses have been offered in various locations, but they are still not comparable to the 'Tridentine' Mass. As Davies has said, "[O]pposition to the New Mass is not based upon the question of Latin... although the New Mass can be celebrated in Latin, in most western countries it rarely is, and, in the U.S.A., for example, some Bishops even forbid a Latin celebration of the Novus Ordo. (One American priest has told me [Davies] of a parish where such a celebration had been stopped by the Bishop on the grounds that it was drawing away the faithful from all the neighboring parishes.)"

But Can't One of the Eucharistic Prayers in the Novus Ordo Mass Be Traced Back to a Saint?

While it is true that one of the Eucharistic Prayers in the Novus Ordo Mass is said to be derived from a writing attributed to St. Hippolytus, this is still controversial for various reasons. St. Hippolytus (c. 170-235 A.D.), first of all was of suspect orthodoxy in some areas. He not only was in conflict with at least two popes, but is generally considered to be the first anti-pope. Eventually, however, he was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Still, though, his writings are of a personal nature, and are, of course, not binding on the Church. Further, there is no guarantee of the authenticity of writings attributed to him (there is no extant original), or that they were even written by him, or that they represent the most desirable practices, or that they represent the mind of the early Church as a whole. Remember further that "just because it's old, doesn't mean that it's best." Also, note that many of the traditional prayers in the 'Tridentine' Mass that were simply 'discarded' by the creators of the New Mass were written by saints (so it is clear that authorship by a saint was not the overriding concern in the selection of prayers for the New Mass).

It is believed that the real reason people "cling to" writings attributed to St. Hippolytus is because his writings were written at an early point in doctrinal development (even before the Bible was codified and before the doctrine of the Trinity was formally promulgated). Therefore, it fails to include various references that Protestants might object to. Further, they only selectively quote his writings and fail to include other parts of his writing parts that they don't care for (e.g. standing naked in the water for baptism). As Davies says:

"Canon II (the mini-Canon) incorporates passages from the so-called Canon of the anti-pope, Hippolytus. The prayer was originally intended only as a model of the form a Eucharistic Prayer should take; no one knows its original format as the original Greek has been lost; this original text has certainly been modified and its integrity is a matter of dispute among scholars. The chief value of the Canon of Hippolytus from the ecumenical standpoint is that its sacrificial phraseology is minimal - it was composed at a stage in the third century when there was still a long way to go before the matter which was implicit in the Mass was made explicit in its prayers. Bringing this prayer into the Mass in the twentieth century is precisely the type of liturgical archaelogism condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei. And yet it is because elements from a modified version of a suggested form for an anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), written by an anti-pope and never part of the Church's official liturgy, are included in the mini-Canon that we are all supposed to feel reassured according to Mgr. Martimort." 

If the Novus Ordo Mass Really is Less Desirable Than the 'Tridentine' Mass, Why Was it Approved?

The introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass never did receive overwhelming approval from the voting prelates (in fact, about 25% rejected a draft of the New Mass and another 35% had reservations - totaling about 60% who rejected it or had reservations about it). However, it was ultimately approved and imposed on the faithful. Since that time, orthodox prelates and loyal members of the faithful have issued strong criticisms of the Mass. In fact, it has been reported that some Council Fathers later regretted some of their votes. According to Davies, the retention of the Roman Canon (although rarely used nowadays) was the reason the fathers were able to give approval to the New Mass: "It is true that a modified version of the Roman Canon is available as an option in the New Mass although it is not obligatory on a single day throughout the year. It was the retention of this Canon which enabled the majority of orthodox priests to accept the New Mass without doing too much violence to their consciences. Thus most of the priests who might have been expected to stand up in protest against the New Mass contented themselves instead with opting to use the Roman Canon".

Was the New Mass Ever Officially Made Obligatory?

According to Parsons, "It is now widely recognized that it is impossible to point to any document signed by Pope Paul that ever made the use of the new Missal obligatory. It is also certain that Pope Paul [VI] said late in his reign that its use was obligatory, but he at no time indicated what decree was alleged to have made it so." That is, "saying it is obligatory is different than making it obligatory."

When Was the Mass Changed?

The Traditional Latin 'Tridentine' Mass was replaced in most parishes by the Novus Ordo Mass in the wake of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960's. However, the traditional Mass has been in continued used in various places since that time and, in recent years, the 'Tridentine' Mass has been making quite a comeback. In fact, the desire for this Mass has been called a "rightful aspiration" deserving of "respect" by Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI has also supported the desire for the Traditional Mass. Recent years have seen an increase in priestly orders dedicated to the traditional rites and even a whole diocese has received papal sanction to be an "entire traditional diocese". The number of Traditional Masses has increased over recent years and many dioceses have at least one 'Tridentine' Mass per week, while some have daily 'Tridentine' Masses. Additionally, the number of traditional Catholics has been swelling over recent years and even high ranking prelates have publicly said the Traditional Mass. Note: For more information on the status of the 'Tridentine' Mass, click here.

Are 'Tridentine' Masses Supposed to Be Available to All Who Desire Them?

CLICK HERE For Most Current Info. (7/07 & Later Updates)

According to Pope St. Pius V, the Mass may be said in perpetuity:

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this [Traditional, the so-called 'Tridentine'] Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world... This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever... whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure... Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force... Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should [anyone venture to do so, let him] know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, emphasis added)

According to the Second Vatican Council, all rites are to be preserved and fostered: 

"Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, December 4, 1963, emphasis added)

Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) has said:

"It is good to recall here what Cardinal Newman observed, that the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished or forbidden orthodox liturgical forms. [To do so] would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy [is] one which expresses the true faith.... The authority of the Church has the power to define and limit the use of such rites in different historical situations, but she never just purely and simply forbids them! Thus the [Second Vatican] Council ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not prohibit the use of the previous books." (emphasis added)

To the displeasure of many liberal prelates, Pope John Paul II called upon the bishops to allow for a "wide and generous" use of the 'Tridentine' Mass in 1988: 

"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church...moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Pope John Paul II, from the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei"*, 1988 A.D.) (emphasis added) *Note: "A document issued Motu proprio ('of our own accord') is a binding papal document involving the supreme authority of the Sovereign Pontiff as opposed to the documents of Vatican Congregations which, although issued frequently with papal approval, are not papal acts. There have been about 300 post-conciliar documents concerned with the liturgy [at the time of this quote]. Ecclesia Dei is only the third one to constitute a papal act, and hence its authority can hardly be exaggerated." (Davies)

Despite the above, however, many bishops have been unwilling to show obedience to the pope in this matter. Often, they refuse to allow the 'Tridentine' Mass or make it so inconvenient or uncomfortable that persons may not attend (e.g. placing the Mass at difficult times, moving the Mass from parish to parish, placing the Mass in ultra-liberal or awkward locations, not allowing the Mass to be publicized, etc.).

The Vatican has taken note of this unfortunate situation. For example, consider Cardinal Ratzinger's (the future Pope Benedict XVI's) comments:

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It is impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." (emphasis added)

Apparently, for the time being, the short answer is that yes, the 'Tridentine' Mass should be made available to all, but that, in practice, it often is not made available. Traditional Catholics continue to hope that the situation will change quickly.  

[Note: The above answer was current as of 8/06. However, it should be remembered that all items may change at any time. It may be greatly hoped that the 'Tridentine' Mass will be made even more widely available in a short time. For more current information on this topic, consider other applicable places on this site (e.g. Latin Mass posts, Catholic News Section, etc.)]. Also see 'Latin Mass Updates: 7/07 & Later' for current information.

Why Do Some Traditional Catholics Draw Comparisons Between Catholic Practices After the Second Vatican Council and the Issue of Invalid Orders of Anglicans?

Some traditional Catholics have expressed concern over the nature of changes to the Mass and to the Ordination of priests after the Second Vatican Council because the new rites have deleted certain references (e.g. to a sacrifice), and because the new rite of Mass is said to be a "return to a primitive form". They cite the official declaration of Pope Leo XIII regarding the nullility of Anglican orders - meaning that Anglican 'priests' are not really priests at all, but merely laymen since they lost Apostolic succession after their rupture with the Catholic Church due to the changes they implemented ["Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." (Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae", 1896 A.D.)] - and express concern over certain perceived parallels. As Pope Leo XIII has said: 

"Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between 'the law of believing and the law of praying', under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the [Eucharistic Sacrifice], of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering [the Eucharistic sacrifice] but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself." (Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae", 1896 A.D.)

The defect of form, combined with their defect of intention, ultimately resulted in their failure to confer a sacrament, and the loss of Apostolic succession.

Weren't the Reforms of Pope Paul VI Similar to Those of Other Popes?

No. In fact, the reforms of Pope Paul VI were unprecedented in the entire history of the church (click here for more information / Latin Mass history). As Davies states:

"But there is no possible comparison with what Pope Paul VI has permitted and the revisions of these other Popes. To repeat a point that has already been made, if a martyr priest of England or Wales could have been transported from the sixteenth century to any Catholic Church of the Roman Rite in 1961, even after the reform of Pope John, he could have followed the Mass or celebrated it without noticing that four centuries had passed. Had he been transported to a vernacular Mass using Penitential Rite II and Canon II in 1971, he would have rushed from the church in horror within a few minutes, seconds probably, convinced that he had been present at a Protestant service. To compare a revolution of this magnitude with, say, an attempt to restore order to a Calendar that had become chaotic is, to put it mildly, to ask not to be taken seriously." 

Why Do Traditional Catholics Reject the Concept of Returning to Primitive Practices?

Note: This refers to 'Antiquarianism', which has received papal condemnation: 

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (Pope Pius XII, "Mediator Dei", 1947) 

Note that Antiquarianism refers to the modernists quest to 'restore' the Church to a 'primitive form' that better corresponds with Protestant sensibilities, NOT to the Traditionalists' attempts to restore the traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass and pre-Vatican II practices. In fact, the 'reduction to antiquity' of the Modernists and the restoration sought by the Traditionalists are diametrically opposed. The 'reducing to antiquity' of the Modernists has been condemned by the popes - whereas true faithfulness to tradition has always been guarded in the Church, and is even praised in Holy Scripture. 

While the idea of returning to a 'Primitive Christianity' may appear attractive at first glance, the concept is faulty for a number of reasons. For example:

* The early Church was illegal and persecuted - therefore early behaviors and practices were conditioned by the times.

* The fact that something was earlier does not necessarily make it better.

* Earlier practices were less developed and did not express the faith as well as later practices.

* There was a "less developed understanding" of certain dogmas in the earliest days of the Church. For example, in the early Church, the dogma of the Trinity was not formally declared, nor was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Although these were implicit in her teachings, they had yet to be put forth in a more formal, more developed manner. Therefore, "to go back to the old ways would be a step backwards."

* In the earliest days, they did not yet have "theological sophistication". They did not even have a complete Bible for many years.

* The practice has been condemned by the pope. For example, consider what Pope Pius XII has said:

"The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity... But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (Pope Pius XII, "Mediator Dei", 1947 A.D.)

"We earnestly call your attention to all this, venerable brethren, confident that, between widespread passion for the new and exaggerated attachment to the past, you will use a prudence which is circumspect and vigilant even when it tries fresh paths of activity and struggle for the triumph of the truth... Let everyone be persuaded of this: that it is necessary to follow the Will of God and not that of the world, and to regulate the activity of the apostolate according to the directives of the Hierarchy and not according to personal opinions. It is a vain illusion to think oneself able to hide one's own inner poverty and still cooperate effectively in spreading the Kingdom of Christ by novelties in his method of action." (Pope Pius XII, "Menti Nostrae", 1950 A.D.)

"[A]ll moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected" (Pope Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu", 1943 A.D.)

"The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times." (Pope Pius XII, "Mediator Dei", 1947 A.D.) 

"But in all these matters, it is essential that you watch vigilantly lest the enemy come into the field of the Lord and sow cockle among the wheat; in other words, do not let your flocks be deceived by the subtle and dangerous errors of false mysticism of quietism - as we know We have already condemned these errors; also do not let a certain dangerous 'humanism' lead them astray, nor let there be introduced a false doctrine destroying the notion of Catholic faith, nor finally an exaggerated zeal for antiquity in matters liturgical [Note: This does not refer to the Traditional Latin Mass, but to those who sought changes to similar to those which were incorporated into the Novus Ordo (New) Mass]. Watch with like diligence lest the false teaching of those be propagated who wrongly think and teach that the glorified human nature of Christ dwells in the 'just' by his presence and that one and numerically the same grace, as they say, unites Christ with the members of His Mystical Body." (Pope Pius XII, "Mediator Dei", 1947 A.D.)

* An attempt to return to primitive practices strips the liturgy of various protections as well as the beautiful enhancements added over the centuries: "Trying to return this worship to the practices of Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of ancient times is to engage in that 'unhealthy archaelogism' Pius XII so roundly condemned. It is, moreover, to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for centuries. And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - in the Church's history!" (Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci)

* It is wrong to throw out hundreds of years of development. As time has gone on, the Church has been able to express truths more clearly and more explicitly.

* The hundreds of years that have passed are "not a contradiction, but a development - the essence remaining the same. Would you fault a tree for changing from its beginning as a seed to a more mature, fuller tree (but of the same essence)? Would you want it returned again to a seed?"

* It is a flawed concept to want to return to a time when the faith wasn't expressed as precisely, to a time when there was only a little experience, to a time before hundreds of years of wisdom were added to the Church's patrimony, to a time before the Church had "centuries of experience on how to work with our human nature to achieve holiness". One may rightly ask: "Would you want to return to your childhood now that you know more? Would you want to give up all your experience, growth, and wisdom? 

* It is going backwards to discard a liturgy that has been gaining more and more completeness over the centuries. As Davies has said: "In 1947 Pope Pius XII warned us against the very practices which are now universally triumphant through the west...he warned us of a 'wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.' This wicked movement was concerned with reviving obsolete liturgical practices on the grounds that they are more primitive... But what was rightly condemned in 1947 was wrongly imposed in 1977".

* It would be unrealistic to take what occurred in the early Church - during the height of persecution - as the norm for other times. As Davies states: "[E]arly Christians worshipped in their homes...or, less frequently, in the catacombs. It would be unrealistic to take what was done in time of persecution as the norm in time of freedom. It must also be remembered that liturgy, like dogma, is not static. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity was understood and defined more clearly as the centuries passed, so the liturgy gradually came to show ever more clearly in its outward signs that it was a solemn sacrifice."

* It would be wrong to discard the doctrinal clarity that has been achieved throughout the centuries (often in response to articles of faith that were denied by heretics).

* It would be wrong to pattern the Church after the early Church since the circumstances are so different (e.g. at first all members of the Church were converts, many of them had practiced now unnecessarily Jewish rituals, etc.). Remember also that the early Church had no shortage of miracles and other special phenomena to testify to the faith that are no longer necessary in our days since the faith is established. 

* To go back to earlier times ignores the fact that certain terms and practices that were once acceptable may no longer be acceptable since they have been distorted by certain sects.

* Those who lived in earlier times would not have wanted to stay stuck in their time, but would have wanted to go forward to better times (e.g. to when persecutions were over, to when the Bible was promulgated, to when the doctrine of the Trinity was presented more formally and with more clarity, to when debatable matters of doctrine were infallibly settled, etc.)

* It is wrong to go back to less developed times since we now have a deeper appreciation of our doctrines.

* Practices of the early Church weren't uniform (and in some cases weren't even desirable).

* Early Christians understood certain terms differently than we do today. For example: "[T]he early Christians referred to the 'table of the Lord.' This is because the word 'altar' was avoided in the early centuries as a result of its pagan connotations.. The Christian altar [however,] could be most accurately described as an altar-table." (Davies)

* Numerous practices of the early Church were dropped due to various reasons. Should we now say we know better than them? That they shouldn't have dropped such practices? Even though they are the ones who had experience with them and knew the reasons for the practices and for discarding them?

* To want to return to primitive times essentially condemns the following nineteen hundred(ish) years of the Church's life. What makes the Church in the year 200 better than the Church in the year 1700 or 1800 or ...?

* Returning to primitive times fails to fully appreciate the various developments which occurred naturally over time. As Davies states: "[I]t was not only natural but inevitable that there should be developments in every aspect of the church's life. The first Christians still frequented the synagogues and, in many cases, observed Jewish dietary regulations... Forms of worship used in times of persecution were clearly no longer adequate when the Christians emerged from the catacombs and were presented with great basilicas."

* It is impossible to truly return to primitive times since the historical factors are so different. Further, there would be no way of knowing the contexts in which certain things were appropriate. Also, the true meaning of some practices can only be determined if they are in their full, original context. In any event, it would be impossible to know all the relevant early Church practices since written records are so scarce.

Further, it is clear that this "zeal for the primitive" has only been selectively adopted by modern persons in the Church and may rightly be called a "pretended loyalty to the early Church." They are not really interested in restoring primitive practices, but are rather interested in subverting the faith. They clearly only want to return to the primitive practices which suit their agenda (usually practices that Protestants prefer). They are noticeably silent concerning all other primitive practices. For example, some early Church practices they do not want to consider include...

* The restoring of Communion only after showing "fruitful repentance"

* Allowing only one confession in one's lifetime in order to encourage others not to fall into sin

* Long and arduous penances for those who fell into serious sin

* Public penances

* Lifetime penances

* Frequent fasting / abstinence

* Separation of the men and women in church: "And let the women stand in the assembly by themselves apart from the men, both the baptized women and the women catechumens." (St. Hippolytus, 3rd century A.D.)

* Excluding of penitents from church buildings - e.g. certain classes of penitents (weepers, kneelers, etc.), some of whom had to stand outside in sackcloth and beg for prayers.

* Denying of Holy Communion to certain persons even at death.

* Etc.

Although they claim that certain changes bring us closer to primitive Christianity, this is also far from true. In fact, the changes taken as a whole bring us farther from the early Christians (e.g. the reduction / elimination of fasting, the failure to mention tough concepts such as sin / hell / judgment, etc., the lack of emphasis on penance and mortification, etc.) and closer to Protestants.

Where Did the Traditional Latin Mass Come From?

For information on the history of the Traditional Latin Mass, click here.

What Are the Parts of the Traditional Latin Mass? 

For information on the parts of the Traditional Latin Mass, click here.

But Aren't There a Lot of Rules in the 'Tridentine' Mass?

Yes, there are a number of rubrics in the 'Tridentine' Mass, but this serves as a valuable protection (e.g. from a priest imposing his style / heterodox beliefs on you, protects against sacrilege and profanation, protects against priests' experimentation, protects the rights of the faithful, etc.). Furthermore, this agrees with the Old Testament where we can see that God made detailed requirements for worship, vestments, etc. (cf. The Book of Exodus).

Do You Have Any Recommendations For Those Attending the 'Tridentine' Mass For the First Time?

For 'Latin Mass for the First Time', click here.

How Can I Find Out More About the Latin 'Tridentine' Mass?

For 'How to Learn More About the Latin Mass', click here.

How Can I Find a Latin 'Tridentine' Mass?

For 'How to Find a Latin (Tridentine) Mass', click here.

Are Some 'Tridentine' Masses Considered 'Illicit'?

Click here for "Cautionary Statement Regarding 'Illicit' Latin Masses".

Is There Any Encouraging News For Those Who Love the 'Tridentine' Mass?

Try here for 'Encouraging News for Traditionalists'.

What Have Others Said About the 'Tridentine' Mass?

Click here for 'Traditionalist Testimonies'.

What Can I Do? / How Can I Help? 

Click here for 'What to Do / How to Help'

Did Vatican II Condemn Traditional Catholics Or the Traditional Mass?

Click here for 'Vatican II Did Not Condemn Traditional Catholics or the Traditional Mass' (Printable Flier)

What Music is Commonly Associated With the 'Tridentine' Mass?

Gregorian Chant is often associated with the 'Tridentine' Mass. For more information about Gregorian Chant, click here.

What Does "Quo Primum" Refer To?

Quo Primum refers to the document of Pope St. Pius V which officially promulgated the 'Tridentine' Mass. To read Quo Primum, click here. Note: For information regarding the history of the traditional Latin Mass, click here.

What is a Missa Cantata?

This refers to a "sung Mass". It may be said that it is a Tridentine Mass "in between" a Low Mass and a High Mass. It resembles a High Mass in some regards, but it has no deacon/subdeacon.

Is Pope Leo's Vision Somehow Connected to the 'Tridentine' Mass?

On October 13, 1884 (exactly 33 years to the day before the miracle of the sun at Fatima), Pope Leo XIII had a frightening vision in which the Devil told Jesus he could destroy the Church within 100 years. After the vision, Pope Leo XIII composed a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. A short version of this prayer is recited after 'Tridentine' Low Masses, but this practice was dropped with the Novus Ordo Mass. Since the time of Pope Leo's vision (generally after the Second Vatican Council), the Church has seen a dramatic drop in Mass attendance and falling away from the faith, a precipitous decline in vocations, widespread scandal, profanation, sacrilege, etc. Then, just 10 days short of 100 years from Pope Leo XIII's vision, on October 3, 1884, Pope John Paul II issued his first 'indult' in favor of the 'Tridentine Mass'. Since that time, the availability and demand for 'Tridentine' Masses has grown dramatically, with corresponding increases in its attendance, vocations growth from tradition-minded persons, etc. Given the state of the Church over the past several decades and the almost exactness of the period to 100 years, many Traditionalists see a connection between the vision and the 'Tridentine' Mass, noting that the restoration of this precious Mass marks the end of the 100 years. 

Where Can I Find a Missal for the 'Tridentine' Mass?

'Tridentine' Missals are available from various Catholic merchants and organizations. For sources on this site, consider the Commercial Sections (click here). To make a printout of the text of the Mass, try the Catholic Web Links section (click here).

How Do I Use a 'Tridentine' Mass Missal?

Use of the Missal may vary depending upon its arrangement and content. Some Missals may be comprehensive (e.g. they may have the prayers for all Sundays and feasts in both Latin and English), others may be less comprehensive (e.g. they may have the prayers for Sundays only, they may contain the Proper prayers in English only, they may exclude the Proper prayers, etc.). Generally, when the Missal contains both Latin and English, the Latin will appear on one side and the English will appear on the other side. Usually it will be necessary to flip to different parts of the Missal during Mass to view the Proper prayers for that day. Multi-colored ribbons may be provided to aid in finding particular pages. In some parishes, small Missals may be provided which contain all the unchanging prayers (called "Ordinary") in Latin and English. These may (or may not) be supplemented with a sheet containing the Proper prayers for that day.

When Do You Sit, Stand & Kneel at a 'Tridentine' Mass?

Click here for user-submitted article "When to Sit, Stand & Kneel at the Traditional Latin Mass"

Are All 'Tridentine' Masses Perfect?

Unfortunately, rubrics can be violated even in a 'Tridentine' Mass. In fact, it has been reported that in certain parishes, Novus Ordo type novelties (e.g. Communion in the hand, Communion under both species, etc.) have occurred. Such abuses should be reported to the proper authorities. Note: One must be keep in mind that some liberal prelates so dislike the 'Tridentine' Mass that they may wish to see abuses occur in 'Tridentine' Masses so that Tradition-minded Catholics may become accustomed to them. In fact, it is theoretically possible to take a 'Tridentine' Mass and "Novus Ordo-ize" it (e.g. by turning around the altar, using 'lay ministers', offering Communion in the hand, etc.). Of course, the difference still remains that such occurrences are abuses in the 'Tridentine' Mass (whereas they are not considered abuses in the Novus Ordo Mass). Traditional Catholics must be wary of liturgical abuses in 'Tridentine' Masses and report them accordingly. If those in charge are not responsive, it may be necessary to take the matter to higher authorities.

Are Other Sacraments Available in the Traditional Rite?

CLICK HERE For Most Current Info. (7/07 & Later Updates)

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, every Sacrament suffered an overhaul. Many of the changes have been criticized for various reasons (even Pope Paul VI criticized a new rite of Baptism). Essentially, the changes tend to make the Sacraments more pleasing to non-Catholics, more "positive" sounding (e.g. reduced or eliminated references to sin, sacrifice, etc.), more earthly focused (e.g. reduced references to the supernatural, miracles, etc.), more egalitarian, etc.

Thankfully, however, all the Sacraments - not just the Mass - may still be licitly and validly available in their traditional rites! Note that Archbishop Burke has confirmed that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos wrote him that "it was indeed the mind of the Holy Father that bishops be generous in permitting the celebration of all the sacraments in the former rites." (emphasis added)

In recent years, there has been an increased use of the traditional rites for the other Sacraments, such as weddings & baptisms (and also for funerals). To receive a Sacrament according to its beautiful and orthodox traditional rite, one may simply ask the proper person (you may start with a priest who licitly celebrates the Traditional Mass in your diocese). If you encounter resistance, you may pursue your rights through various other appropriate channels [e.g. consider contacting the Bishop, obtaining legal assistance from Canon lawyers (that is, Church lawyers), petitioning, corresponding with the Vatican, etc.]

Question

Answer

What Does the 'Ottaviani Intervention' Refer To? Was it Revoked?

The 'Ottaviani Intervention' refers to a writing signed by Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci in the wake of the Second Vatican Council ("Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae"). It concerns the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass promulgated in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Among other things, it states that:

"the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline." 

It also says that:

"[T]he Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluation, which appear to be implied or taken for granted - represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery." 

It further states that:

"To prepare a complete study of all the pitfalls, dangers and psychologically and spiritually destructive elements the new rite contains, whether in texts, rubrics or instructions, would be a vast undertaking."

Some liberals may argue that this original writing was revoked, pointing to a later letter that allegedly came from Cardinal Ottaviani. This later letter is quite controversial since Cardinal Ottaviani showed consistency in his opinions (both before and after the council) and since the new rite of Mass did not change, and since the events surrounding the letter are quite controversial. As Davies explains: "At this time Cardinal Ottaviani was almost totally blind and had to rely on the advice of his secretary with regard to the documents he signed. Jean Madiran [a respected editor] had no hesitation in claiming that Mgr. Agustoni had tricked the Cardinal into signing the letter and accused him of a public felony - challenging Mgr. Agustoni to contest this charge in the ecclesiastical courts if he disputed it. Mgr. Agustoni did not accept the challenge and soon afterwards relinquished his position as Cardinal Ottaviani's secretary." As Davies states, "Can it be imagined for one moment that a public figure with the reputation of Jean Madiran would make such serious charges against Mgr. Agustoni and offer to substantiate them in court, if there was the least possibility of his being proved wrong? If there is one man in France whom the progressive establishment would dearly love to discredit, that man is Madiran." Further, it has been claimed that the signature of the letter is different than other signatures of Cardinal Ottaviani.

Those who complain that there was no authorization to publish the Cardinals' letter to Pope Paul VI should note that Madiran stated that he "received a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani himself that the authorization [to publish the letter] was authentic, real, not revoked, and that there was no misunderstanding about it, nor about the use which we have made of it." He offered to make this testimony in front of the ecclesiastical courts and acknowledged the gravity of his declarations and signed them "before God and men".

Who is the 'Davies' Referred to So Frequently in the Latin Mass & Catholic Tradition Section?

The 'Davies' so frequently referred to in the Latin Mass & Catholic Tradition section is Michael Davies. He was a popular traditional Catholic author and gentleman who wrote numerous works concerning the New Mass, liturgical abuses, etc. He expended much effort for the restoration of the Traditional Mass, and is greatly missed by traditional Catholics worldwide since his recent passing. As Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XIV has said:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord's mercy." (Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XIV, November, 2004)

Requiescant in pace.

Are Traditional Catholics the Same as 'Old Catholics'?

No. This group is in no way related to traditional Catholics. In fact, 'Old Catholics' refers to a group that broke away from the Church after the First Vatican Council in defiance of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. They have "no connection with the Catholic Church" (decree of the Inquisition) and represent a "religious society entirely separate from the Church" (Brief, 1873). Not only do they reject papal infallibility, but they have implemented "very radical liturgical, disciplinary, and constitutional ordinances" and "hardly differ from a liberal form of Protestantism" (Catholic Encyclopedia). They may accept contraception, openly practiced homosexuality, female "priests", etc.

Why is This Section Called the 'Latin Mass & Catholic Tradition' Section?

While we know that the Latin ('Tridentine') Mass is inseparable from Catholic Tradition, we thought it helpful to highlight them individually herein, especially since many persons today may not be aware of the Traditional Latin Mass.

How Can I Help? / What Should I Do?

You might be able to help increase the number of traditional Latin Masses - a great inheritance to pass on to the future! Not only might this precious Mass help souls become closer to God, but the spread of this highly reverent, orthodox Mass may be especially pleasing to God. For information on how you might be able to help the Traditionalist cause, click here.

What Are Some Traditional Prayers & Practices?

Click here for 'Traditional Prayers & Practices'

What Materials Might Be Helpful for Those New to Tradition? 

In keeping with our general policy of not commercializing the non-commercial areas of this site, we will refrain from including specific titles of books and other materials here that may be of assistance. However, for the benefit of our visitors, we have included a short list of some items for consideration on a separate page (click here). Note that this list is not comprehensive and that inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that we endorse the author, any/all the content, the publisher, those who sell the books, any associated organizations or publications, etc.

What Are Some Reasons Participation of the Laity Can Cause Difficulties in the Church?

Although 'active participation' by the laity is frequently promoted nowadays, it may not be without problems. Laity participation - while it may be helpful and even necessary - may also tend to cause troubles in the Church for various reasons, including: personal agendas, forming of cliques, forcing one's views on others, laity are frequently poorly catechized, laity often set a bad example for others, laity frequently attempt to usurp priestly roles, etc. Their participation may be distracting to some and contrary to the forming of humility. It is even possible that their participation may lead to the loss of eternal souls (click here for an example). And further, the more lay persons participate, the more they may tend to see the Church as a democracy.

"Contrary to Modernist belief, the Church is not a democracy in which the Pope derives his mandate from the people, or has the duty to proclaim as Catholic teaching whatever a majority of them cares to believe." (Davies) 

With Regard to Tradition, What Do Popes Pius V and X Have in Common?

Pope Pius V was the last canonized pope until Pope Pius X was canonized in the 20th century. Pope St. Pius V formally promulgated the Traditional Latin Mass - a certain barrier against Modernism, whereas Pope St. Pius X was a "great champion" against Modernism.