THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS  
		by Fr. Paul Leonard, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div.  
  
       On July 11, 1988, Pope John Paul, speaking of those  
Catholics who feel attached to the traditional Latin Mass stated  
in his Motu Proprio: "...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 of the Church." In this  
statement, the Holy Father has made it clear that Catholics do  
indeed have a right to their traditional rite of Mass, and he  
makes it equally clear that the bishops and pastors must respect  
this right.  
  
     Cardinal Silvio Oddi further clarified the matter when he  
stated: "It needs to be said that the Mass of St. Pius V has in  
fact never been officially abrogated. Paul VI's motu proprio  
instituting the new mass contained no form of words explicitly  
forbidding the Tridentine rite."1 Bishop Forester, quoted by Fr.  
Brian Houghton, also explained the matter when he wrote : "The  
New Ordo ...is merely a licit exception, a derogation, to the  
previous laws which are still in force."2 What this means is that  
THE TRIDENTINE MASS REMAINS TO THIS DAY THE OFFICIAL LITURGY OF  
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Legally the traditional rite remains  
in force as it was mandated by Pope St. Pius V, while the Novus  
Ordo is merely an exception to the rule.  
  
     Nevertheless, a great number of bishops and other  
ecclesiastics who occupy positions of authority have attempted to  
unlawfully suppress the traditional Roman Rite of Mass. The  
intolerance and injustice which a large segment of the hierarchy  
has demonstrated towards the rightful aspirations of  
traditionally minded Catholics has prompted Cardinal Joseph  
Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of  
the Faith, to call for "an examination of conscience,": "We  
should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the  
defects in the pastoral life of the Church...", Cardinal  
Ratzinger said.3  
  
     Certainly there may be many who will ask: "What about  
Vatican II? Didn't the Council decree that there should be a new  
rite of Mass?" The answer to this question is a very emphatic  
NO. The Second Vatican Council decreed that the liturgy of the  
Roman Rite be revised. It did not decree a radical reform or an  
entirely new rite. The Liturgy Constitution, SACROSANCTUM  
CONCILIUM, reads:  
  
     The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a  
     way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its  
     several parts, as well as the connection between them,  
     may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and  
     active participation by the faithful may be more easily  
     achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be  
     simplified, due care being taken to preserve their  
     substance; elements which, with the passage of time,  
     came to be duplicated, or were added with but little  
     advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements  
     which have suffered injury through accidents of history  
     are now to be restored according to the pristine norm  
     of the holy Fathers, to the extent that they may seem  
     useful or necessary. 4  
  
     There are some key passages in this text, and elsewhere in  
this conciliar document that must be examined in order to  
determine if the creation of a New Order of Mass and the  
suppression of the traditional rite corresponds to the express  
wishes of the Second Vatican Council, or if it is rather a  
rejection of both that Council and the perpetual teaching and  
tradition of the Church:  
  
     1)   The rite of the Mass is to be revised...      
               The revision of the ancient Roman Rite is  
          prescribed, there is no mention of a liturgical reform  
          that will sweep away the old rite and replace it with a  
          new one.  
     2)   ...the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several  
          parts...more clearly manifested...  
               The sacred mystery of the altar must be manifested  
          more clearly, it must not be obscured in ambiguities.  
     3)   ...restored according to the pristine norm of the holy  
          Fathers.  
               Restoration means that the ancient structure and  
          form are to be preserved, and not be replaced with  
          novel inventions.  
  
     In addition to these there are other passages of this  
document which express the mind of the Council in those matters  
concerning the revision of the liturgy:  
  
          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.  
          The Council also desires that, where  
          necessary, the rites be revised carefully in  
          the light of sound tradition, and that they  
          be given new vigor to meet the present-day  
          circumstances and needs. 5  
                            --------  
          In order that sound tradition be  
          retained...there must be no innovations  
          unless the good of the Church genuinely and  
          certainly requires them, and care must be  
          taken that any new forms adopted should in  
          some way grow organically from forms already  
          existing. 6  
                            --------  
  
          In this restoration both text and rites  
          should be ordered so as to express more clearly  
          the holy things they signify. 7  
  
Here are the key passages:  
  
1)   ...in faithful obedience to tradition...  
2)   ...all lawfully recognized rites...to preserve them in the  
     future and to foster them in every way...  
3)   ...the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound  
     tradition...  
4)   ...In order that sound tradition be retained...there must  
     be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely  
     and  certainly requires them...  
5)   ...any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically  
     from forms already existing...  
6)   ...In this restoration both text and rites should be ordered  
     so as to express more clearly the holy things they signify.  
  
     It is absolutely clear according to the text of SACROSANCTUM  
CONCILIUM, that the traditional rite of Mass of the Roman Church  
is to be preserved and restored, and it must clearly express the  
dogmatic truths that it had previously expressed. The Council  
very clearly did not call for the institution of an entirely new  
rite of Mass, but, not unlike the Council of Trent , it intended  
to revise and preserve the ancient Roman Rite.  
  
     In 1570 Pope St. Pius V revised and codified the Roman Rite  
of the Mass in the bull QUO PRIMUM. It is important to bear in  
mind that Pope St. Pius V did not institute the Tridentine Mass,  
but he merely restored and codified the immemorial Roman Rite of  
the Mass.  The Council of Trent had no intention to institute a  
new liturgy. "The Council of Trent (1545-1563)," Davies observes,  
"did indeed appoint a commission to examine the Roman Missal, and  
to revise and restore it 'according to the custom and rite of the  
Holy Fathers.' The new Missal was eventually promulgated by Pope  
St. Pius V in 1570 with the Bull QUO PRIMUM."  
  
     In the Bull QUO PRIMUM, Pius V did not institute a new rite  
of the Mass. Davies demonstrates this by citing eminent  
authorities:  
  
          ...Father David Knowles, who was Britain's most  
          distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974,  
          pointed out" that:  
  
          The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of  
          instructions given at Trent, but it was, in  
          fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper  
          of the time and much else a replica of the  
          Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn  
          repeated in all essentials the practice of  
          the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent  
          III, which itself derived from the Usage of  
          Gregory the Great and his successors in the  
          seventh century.In short, the Missal of 1570  
          was, in all essentials, the usage of the  
          mainstream of medieval European liturgy which  
          included England and all its rites.8  
  
     Although the rite continued to develop after the time of St.  
Gregory, Father Fortescue explains that:  
  
          All later modifications were fitted into the  
          old arrangement, and the most important parts  
          were not touched. From, roughly, the time of  
          St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, in  
          order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition  
          that no one has ventured to touch except in  
          unimportant details.9  
  
Fortescue continues:  
  
          So our Mass goes back without essential  
          change, to the age when it first developed  
          out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still  
          redolent of that liturgy, of the days when  
          Caesar ruled the world ...The final result of  
          our enquiry is that, in spite of unresolved  
          problems, in spite of later changes, there is  
          not in Christendom another rite so venerable  
          as ours. 10  
      
     Father Louis Bouyer:  
  
          The Roman Canon, as it is today, [written before  
          Vatican II] goes back to Gregory the Great. There is  
          not, in the East or in the West, a Eucharistic Prayer  
          remaining in use to this day, that can boast of such  
          antiquity. In the eyes not only of  the Orthodox, but  
          of Anglicans and even those Protestants  who have  
          still to some extent, a feeling for tradition. To  
          jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the  
          part of the Roman Church to represent the true  
          Catholic Church."  
  
Similarly, Kevin Starr in the SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER (15 April  
1978) explains:  
  
          It took the Latin Church 500 years to  
          evolve a worship service equal to this  
          awesome compelling leap to the Godhead  
          through the Risen Eucharistic Christ. For a  
          Thousand years Catholics prayed this way at  
          Mass. In the 16th century Council of Trent,  
          this 1000 year old Mass was standardized,  
          codified, made the norm of the universal  
          Church. Another 400 years went by - 400 years  
          of dignified compelling worship...  
  
     In his recent work, THE ETERNAL SACRIFICE, Davies makes the  
important observation that:  
  
          At no time in the history of the Roman  
          Rite was there ever any question of a pope  
          setting up a commission to compose new  
          prayers and ceremonies. The ceremonies  
          evolved almost imperceptibly, and in every  
          case, codification, that is the incorporation  
          of these prayers into the liturgical books,  
          followed upon their development...particular  
          prayers and ceremonies were found in the  
          Missal because they were being used in the  
          Mass, and not vice versa. Professor Owen  
          Chadwick, one of Britain's greatest  
          historians, remarks: "Liturgies are not  
          made, they grow in the devotion of the  
          centuries." 11  
                                 
     Precisely what St. Pius V did to the ancient Mass rite of  
the Roman Church is succinctly summed up by Davies:  
  
     The Bull QUO PRIMUM of St. Pius V:  
  
1) does not promulgate a new rite but consolidates and  
   codifies the immemorial Roman Rite;  
      
2) It extends its use throughout the Latin Church, except,  
  
3) for rites having a continuous usage of over two hundred  
   years;  
  
4) and grants an indult to all priests to freely and                
   lawfully use this Missal in perpetuity;  
  
5) The Bull specifies minutely the persons, times and the  
   places to which its provisions apply;  
  
6) The obligation is confirmed by express sanctions.  
  
     Since that time, no Pope has ever himself formally decreed  
the abrogation or obrogation of QUO PRIMUM, and certainly no Pope  
has ever presumed to abolish the traditional Roman Rite of the  
Mass.  From this it should already be clear that any priest of  
the Roman Rite is entitled to celebrate the traditional Mass  
anywhere, at any time, in accordance with liturgical laws...(and)  
the laity are just as much entitled to assist at the traditional  
Mass as priests of the Roman Rite are to celebrate it.  
  
     The traditional Roman Rite of Mass is the universal and  
perpetual custom of the Church, rooted in Apostolic Tradition. It  
cannot ever be lawfully suppressed. The proposition that the  
established customary ceremonies and rites of the Roman Church  
can be suppressed and replaced by the innovations and inventions  
of bureaucrats is contrary to the doctrine of the Faith. The  
Roman Rite, as we have seen, is the most ancient rite of Mass;  
and, as Jungmann points out, it grew out of the apostolic  
traditions. Concerning the Canon of that rite, the Council of  
Trent declared,  " it is made up from the words of Our Lord from  
apostolic traditions, and from devout instructions of the holy  
pontiffs."  12  
  
     Very clearly, the ancient Roman Rite of the Mass is not  
something that a Pope instituted or decreed into existence. It  
is the sacred patrimony of the Roman Church, and it cannot be  
lawfully suppressed. St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church,  
wrote in his Summa Doctrinae Christianae: "It behooves us  
unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical  
traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary  
practice of the Church." We see the same teaching set forth by  
St. Peter Damien, also a Doctor of the Church: "It is unlawful to  
alter the established customs of the Church...Remove not the  
ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." This doctrine is  
the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore it  
must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith, since it is set  
forth is the Profession of Faith of Pius IV:  
  
     I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and  
     Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and  
     institutions of the said Church...I also receive and  
     admit the received and approved ceremonies of the  
     Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of  
     the sacraments.  13  
  
     When Pope Paul VI approved the Missal for the New Rite of  
Mass, he did not abolish the Traditional Rite. Pope Paul's  
Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum is a very curious  
document. Being an Apostolic Constitution, one would expect it to  
solemnly decree legislation for the purpose of regulating the  
discipline of the universal Church. However, Missale Romanum does  
nothing of that nature.14 It does not establish any norms for the  
use of the new Missal in the churches of the Latin Rite. In  
Missale Romanum, Pope Paul VI did nothing but approve the text  
of the new Missal. In doing so he also decreed the addition of  
three new Eucharistic Prayers into the Missal and establish the  
formulae of consecration to be published in the new Missal.  
Hence, when Pope Paul VI declared: "We wish that these our  
decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in  
the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the  
apostolic constitutions and ordinances issues by our  
Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving  
particular mention and derogation", he made no ruling over the  
discipline that governs the worship of the Church. Nothing at all  
is prescribed concerning where when, and by  whom this new  
liturgical book must, or even may be used.  
  
     The use of the new Missal is simply not mandated. It is  
nowhere mandated that this Missal is henceforth to be used in the  
Churches of the Latin Rite by the clergy of that rite. The only  
thing that Missale Romanum mandates is the inclusion of prayers  
and formulae into the book! It derogates the laws that had  
previously proscribed the publication of any new missal, but it  
does not derogate the previous legislation which forbids the use  
of any new missal.  
  
     Bishop Forester, in Fr. Brian Houghton's book, MITRE AND  
CROOK observes:  
  
          This has been the most puzzling history of all.  
          May I remind you, Fathers, that we already have two  
          documents of the highest conceivable authority: the  
          Bull QUO PRIMUM and the Constitution SACROSANCTUM  
          CONCILIUM, which are, moreover, in line with each  
          other. What happens next?  
       
          On April 3rd, 1969, a Papal Constitution entitled  
          Missale Romanum was promulgated purporting to be the  
          law governing the New Order of Mass, as yet  
          unpublished. In this original version it is not a law  
          at all but an explanatory introduction to a permission.  
          Even the word 'Constitutio' is nowhere to be found in  
          the text, merely in the title:  
  
          1) There is no abrogation of previous legislation and  
          no clause ordering the use of the new rite.  
  
          2) There is no sentence to show that it is  
          obligatory, let alone exclusive.  
  
          3) There is no dating clause to show when it should  
          come into effect.  
  
          This of course did not prevent the powers that be from  
          saying that it was a binding law. to do so they had  
          recourse to a mistranslation. What is so curious is  
          that the mistranslation was common to all languages. I  
          have read it myself in English, French and Italian I am  
          told that it is the same in German and Spanish. How can  
          this possibly come about? How can all these expert  
          translators make the identical mistranslation? Your  
          guess is as good as mine.  
  
          Here is the sentence, the fourth before the end of  
          the original version, the fifth in the Acta:  
  
          Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactenus de novo  
          Missale Romano exposuimus quiddam nunc cogere  
          et efficere placet...  
  
          I have underlined the mistranslated words. "Cogere  
          et efficere" is a well known Ciceronian phrase to be  
          found in most dictionaries. Even if the translators  
          could not be bothered to look it up, it is perfectly  
          clear that "quiddam cogere" breaks down into "agere  
          quiddam con" = to work something together, which is in  
          the context "to sum up." Equally, "quiddam efficere"  
          breaks down into "facere quiddam ex" = to make  
          something out, which is in the context "to draw a  
          conclusion."  
  
          And what did all the translators make of it? "In  
          conclusion, We now wish to give the force of law to all  
          We have declared..."; and in French, "Pour terminer,  
          Nous voulons donner force de loi a tout ce que Nous  
          avons expose..."; and in Italian etc. It is strange, my  
          dear Fathers, but such is the truth: "to sum up and  
          draw a conclusion" becomes "to give the force of law."  
  
          And what did I do about it? Absolutely nothing for  
          the simple reason that I did not bother to read the  
          Latin until two or three years later. Do not judge me  
          too severely. Have you read it?  
          But that is not the end. Worse is to come. The  
          Acta for June, 1969, were published as usual about two  
          months later. When it appeared, a brand new clause had  
          been inserted into the original document as the  
          penultimate paragraph. It reads: Quae Constitutione hac  
          Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient a XXX proximi  
          mensis Novembris hoc anno, id est a Dominica I  
          Adventus. That is, "What we have ordered by this Our  
          constitution will begin to take effect as from  
          November of this year (1969), that is the first Sunday  
          of Advent." You will notice:  
  
          1) that for the first and only time the word  
          "Constitutio" appears in the text.  
  
          2) For the first time, too, a word signifying "to  
          order" is introduced - "praescripsimus."  
  
          3) For the first time a date is given on which the  
          order is to become effective. This is a permission  
          turned into a law.  
  
          Actually, there are a couple of snags even about  
          this insertion. The word "praescripsimus" = We have  
          ordered - is not the proper term in Latin, but I shall  
          not bother you with refinements. More important, it is  
          in the wrong tense. Up to this point the legislator has  
          prescribed nothing at all. It is precisely in this  
          clause that he claims to do so. The verb, therefore  
          should be in the present tense: "praescribimus" = "what  
          We are ordering by this our Constitution": not in the  
          past perfect, "what we have prescribed." The only  
          explanation I can think of for this howler is  
          recognition by its author that he is tampering with a  
          pre-existing text. Moreover, the logical conclusion  
          from the use of the wrong tense can scarcely be what  
          its author intended: since nothing was prescribed,  
          nothing is prescribed; and the legislator, to boot, is  
          still prescribing nothing. What a mess! I wonder how  
          long a civil government would last which thus tampered  
          with its own laws?  
  
          There is a last remark I wish to make about this  
          strange document. It winds up with the usual clause de  
          style: "We wish , moreover, that these decisions and  
          ordinances of ours should be stable and effective now  
          and in the future, notwithstanding - in so far as may  
          be necessary - Constitutions and apostolic regulations  
          published by Our predecessors and all other ordinances,  
          even those requiring special mention and derogation."  
  
          At long last - indeed it is the last word - there is a  
          "technical" term in the constitution, so we know  
          exactly where we stand: "derogation". The New Ordo is  
          therefore only a permission after all. It is merely a  
          licit exception, a derogation, to the previous laws  
          which are still in force. They have not been  
          abrogated...It is nonsense to claim that the bull Quo  
          Primum has been abrogated.  
  
     After the publication of Missale Romanum there appeared  
other documents emanating from the Sacred Congregation for Divine  
Worship, all of which seem to implicitly assume as their point  
of departure the legally unfounded notion that the New Missal has  
replaced the Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Ordo Missae  
specifies the rubrics for the new rite. Ordo Lectionum Missae  
presents the new Lectionary for the new rite. There is an  
Instruction on October 20 1969. None of these documents bears the  
signature of the Pope. They are curial documents.  
  
     All of the curial legislation that would attempt to nullify  
QUO PRIMUM is deficient, because no office, congregation, or  
commission can validly overrule the solemn decrees of a Supreme  
Pontiff.  Only the Pope possesses the plenitude of power which  
the Lord conferred upon Peter and his successors when He said: "I  
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And  
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in  
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be  
loosed also in Heaven."15 While it is true that the Pope's  
subordinates exercise papal authority when it is delegated to  
them, that delegated authority only exist within defined limits.  
Only the Pope can exercise the full plenitude of power of the  
keys, because Christ conferred that singular prerogative upon his  
vicar alone. The Pope, therefore, cannot validly confer that upon  
anyone, and hence, it is impossible for the officials of the  
Roman Curia to exercise the supreme power of the keys to loose  
what  a previous pope has solemnly declared to be binding in  
perpetuity. This is a power that Christ singularly bestowed upon  
the Roman Pontiff, and therefore cannot be validly delegated to a  
subordinate. This is precisely the juridical deficiency of the  
above mentioned post conciliar curial documents, since there is  
absolutely nothing of a legal nature in the Conciliar decrees  
which presumes or intends to abrogate QUO PRIMUM or to abolish  
the traditional Roman Rite.  
  
     After the publication of Missale Romanum, someone in the  
Vatican noticed that Pope Paul's promulgation was only an  
approval for the text of the new book, and therefore someone  
decided that the Missal for the New Mass needed to be promulgated  
in such a manner that would authorize the use of the new Missal.  
This is precisely what the bureaucrats did when on March 26,  
1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, by order of  
Paul VI "promulgated" the new Missal. It acknowledges the fact  
that Missale Romanum approved texts for the Missal (approbatis  
textibus ad Missale Romanum pertinentibus per Constitutionem  
Apostolicam Missale Romanum). The document allows the immediate  
use of the Latin edition as soon as it is published and concedes  
to the bishops' conferences the authority to establish when the  
vernacular editions may be used. This decree in no way attempted  
to abrogate the old rite, nor did it mandate the use of the new  
rite, but it merely permitted the use of the new Missal. 16  
  
     Similarly the Sacred Congregation's Instruction of Sept. 5,  
1970 does not presume to impose any obligation that would require  
the use of the New Rite of Mass. It contains no nonobstat, and  
when asked, Paul VI did not refer to this document as imposing  
any obligation to use the New Missal.  
  
     Just what was the origin of the alleged obligation to use  
the new Missal?  Michael Davies explains that "...Pope Paul VI  
himself stated in his Consistory Allocution of 24 May 1976 that  
'the adoption of the (new) Ordo Missae is certainly not left up  
the free choice of priests or faithful.' This indicates that he  
himself believed the New Mass to be mandatory - but,  
astonishingly, as his authority for this opinion, he cited the  
1971 Instruction and not his own Apostolic Constitution." That  
document was in fact, not even an Instruction but merely a  
Notification. It is impossible for a mere notification made by a  
Roman Congregation to overrule the solemn decree of a Supreme  
Pontiff, and it is absolutely incredible that a Pope could  
believe that curial bureaucrats can establish the liturgical  
discipline of the Roman Church, and that they could do it by  
means of a mere notification! Unfortunately, that is what Pope  
Paul believed, but that was only his personal opinion which he  
never expressed in any formal and legally binding decree.  
  
     Some have had recourse to the law governing immemorial  
customs in order to adhere to the traditional rite without being  
persecuted by various ecclesiastical authorities. The Sacred  
Congregation for Divine Worship, however, has demonstrated that  
it has no respect for Canon Law when the law interferes with  
their agenda. According to both the old and the new codes of  
Canon Law, an immemorial custom cannot be abrogated except by  
explicit mention in the new legislation, and no post conciliar  
legislation has ever presumed to abrogate the immemorial custom  
of the venerable Roman Rite. That unfortunately did not prevent  
the Sacred Congregation from issuing a ruling on 28 October 1974  
which denied that the Tridentine Mass could be celebrated under  
"any pretext of custom, even immemorial custom." Unabashedly and  
in dictatorial strongman fashion, the bureaucrats of the Roman  
Curia seem to be saying: "To Hell with the Law, you must obey us  
even if we are outside the Law."  
  
     Davies summed up well the legal quandary of the Curia when  
he wrote:  
  
          The problem faced by the Vatican as a  
          result of the widespread support for the  
          Tridentine Mass was that it had condoned its  
          almost universal suppression without giving  
          formal and binding legal sanction to this  
          suppression; and, furthermore, this illegal  
          suppression has been given support in  
          documents emanating from the Sacred  
          Congregation for Divine Worship. 17  
  
     All of the new legislation enacted by Paul VI only derogates  
the previous legislation which would have prohibited the new  
rite,18 but nowhere does any of Paul VI's legislation ever  
presume to abrogate, obrogate 19 or in any manner abolish the  
provisions of QUO PRIMUM which explicitly "give and grant in  
perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any Church  
whatsoever this Missal (the Tridentine Missal) may be followed  
absolutely, without any scruple of conscience, or fear of  
incurring any penalty, judgement or censure, and may be freely  
and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons,  
chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever  
order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate  
Mass otherwise than enjoined by us." Hence, any prelate, be he  
bishop or cardinal or whatever, who attempts to forbid the  
celebration of the Traditional Mass is entirely outside the law.  
In fact, if any ordinary presumes to forbid the traditional Latin  
Mass, he thereby refuses submission to formally enacted papal  
legislation which remains in force, and therefore that bishop  
falls into schism.20  
  
     The indult granted by Pope John Paul II in 1984 in no way  
abolishes the traditional Mass. First of all, the document does  
not mandate the use of the new Missal nor suppress the old rite.  
It is only a permission: The indult permits the use of the old  
Missal under certain circumstances, but there is no law that  
prohibits its use when those conditions are not present.  
  
     It is very important to bear in mind that a priest is bound  
in conscience under pain of mortal sin to obey the solemn  
decrees whereby the Pope governs the liturgical discipline of the  
universal Church. Pope Paul VI only approved the text of the new  
Missal, and therefore, in accordance with Canon 18 of the new  
Code of Canon Law (Canon 19 in the old Code), the derogations  
mentioned in the nonobstat clause of Missale Romanum refer only  
to previous legislation that proscribed the publication of any  
new Missal, but it did not derogate or in any way nullify the  
solemnly decreed papal legislation that prohibits the use of a  
new rite of Mass. That legislation, which forbids the use of any  
new rite  remains in force to this day.   
  
     The traditional Roman Rite of Mass grew out of the worship  
of the entire Church, and was then legally codified after the  
development had already reached its term. The Tridentine Mass  
was truly and fully a profession of the faith of the Catholic  
Church. As Jungmann observes, "The entire teaching of the Church  
is contained in the liturgy".(Handing on the Faith)  
  
     The New Mass, on the other hand, did not spring forth from  
the living worship of the Catholic Church, but was drawn up by a  
commission of bureaucrats. It is not an explicit profession of  
faith as was the old rite, but rather it clearly reflects the  
mind-set of that relatively small group of bureaucrats and  
experts. The New Mass has, as Davies points out, "in many points  
every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of  
Protestants." This was also the opinion of Cardinals Ottaviani  
and Bacci, who presented to Pope Paul VI the Critical Study on  
the New Order of Mass which states: "...the Novus Ordo Missae--  
considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing  
evaluations, 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..."  
  
     The bureaucrats have mesmerized a considerable portion of  
the bishops, many of whom believe that the New Mass is the fruit  
of the liturgical reform decreed by the Council. We have seen, as  
Davies points out, "the Liturgy Constitution ordering that all  
rights shall be preserved and fostered...authorizing a revision  
of the Roman Rite (but)...the New Mass is not an act of  
obedience to a decision of Vatican II, it is a calculated  
rejection of the Liturgy Constitution of that Council." 21  
  
     SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM stated that "the liturgy is made up  
of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements  
subject to change."22 The Council, however, did not make any  
declaration regarding what changes would be licit. Nevertheless,  
there is a body of Catholic teaching regarding what may lawfully  
be done to the liturgy which, unfortunately seems to have been  
largely forgotten by the vast majority of Catholics, laity and  
hierarchy alike.  
  
     Changes in the liturgy, throughout the history of the  
Church, have been the result of a gradual development that took  
place during the course of the centuries. This is what Canon  
Smith explained in THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, where he  
says "...throughout the history of the development of the  
sacramental liturgy, the tendency has been towards growth-  
additions and accretions, the effort to obtain a fuller more  
perfect symbolism."23 "This", Davies points out, "was a key point  
in the Catholic Bishops' vindication of APOSTOLICAE CURAE":  
  
          That in earlier times local Churches were  
          permitted to add new prayers and ceremonies  
          is acknowledged...But that they were also  
          permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies  
          in previous use, and even to remodel the  
          existing rites in a most drastic manner, is a  
          proposition for which we know of no  
          historical foundation, and which appears to  
          us as absolutely incredible. 24  
  
     Pope Leo XIII explained in his Constitution Orientalium  
Dignitas, that the Church "allows and makes provision for some  
innovations in exterior forms, mostly when they are in conformity  
with the ancient past." So, Pope Leo explained, that some  
innovations can be made, but these are mostly changes that  
restore the rite. Pope Pius XI summed up well what has always  
been the mind of the Church down through the ages when he, in  
Divini Cultus stated:  
  
     No wonder then, that the Roman Pontiffs have been so  
     solicitous to safeguard and protect the liturgy. They  
     have used the same care in making laws for the  
     regulation of the liturgy, in preserving it from  
     adulteration, as they have in giving accurate  
     expression to the dogmas of the faith.  
  
     It is not sufficient that a liturgy merely be free from any  
explicit error in  order to be licit. The liturgy is not only an  
expression of worship, but it is also a profession of faith, and  
as such it must give clear expression to the doctrine of the  
faith. Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947),  
declared:  
  
     In the liturgy we make explicit profession of our  
     Catholic faith;...the whole liturgy contains the  
     Catholic faith, inasmuch as it is a public profession  
     of the faith of the Church...This is the origin of the  
     well known and time-honored principle: 'the norm of  
     prayer establishes the norm of belief'.  
  
     Pius XI also issued statements of a similar nature: "It (the  
Mass) is the most important organ of the Ordinary and Universal  
Magisterium of the Church"25 ; and in his Encyclical "Quas  
Primas" 1925, the same Pontiff explained that "people are  
instructed in the truths of the faith and brought to appreciate  
the inner joys of religion far more effectively by the  
...celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any pronouncement,  
however weighty, made by the teaching of the Church." Three years  
later the same Pope elaborated this point more fully in the  
Apostolic Constitution Divini Cultus (1928):  
  
     There exists, therefore, a close relationship between  
     dogma and the sacred liturgy, as also between the  
     Christian cult and the sanctification of the people.  
     This is why Pope Celestine I thought that the rule of  
     faith is expressed in the ancient liturgical  
     formulations; he said that 'the norm of prayer  
     establishes the norm of belief'.  
  
     It may be objected that the New Rite of Mass is only a  
revision of the immemorial Roman Rite. This is quite simply not  
true. The author of the New Mass was Annibale Bugnini and the  
bureaucrats who worked under him. Concerning the New Rite,  
Bugnini himself said: "It is not simply a question of restoring a  
valuable masterpiece but in some cases it will be necessary to  
provide new structures for entire rites...it will be a truly new  
creation..."26  
  
     Likewise Joseph Gelineau S.J. :  "Let them compare it with  
the Mass we now have. Not only the words, the melodies and some  
of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a  
different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be  said without  
ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no  longer exists. It has  
been destroyed. Some walls of the former edifice have fallen  
while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it  
appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a  
different building"  
  
     For those who are not familiar with the name of Joseph  
Gelineau, Michael Davies provides the following information:  
  
          Father Gelineau was present at the Council as a     
     liturgical expert. He performed the same function after   
          the Council for the CONSILIUM, the commission set up to  
          implement the Constitution."  
  
     It is a matter beyond any reasonable dispute that the Novus  
Ordo Missae is a new rite of Mass, as different from the Roman  
Rite as the Roman Rite is different from the Byzantine Rite. The  
authors of the New Rite have explicitly stated this. What further  
need have we of proof when they themselves admit so much, and are  
therefore judged by the words of their own mouths?  
  
     In a well known quotation, Paul VI lamented the fact that  
the Church seemed to be undergoing its own self demolition. He  
was not alone in giving expression to this belief. Valerian  
Cardinal Gracias made the same observation when he said that "The  
Church is being threatened by a real disintegration which is  
taking place within..." The Modernist Apostasy has been greatly  
aided in the nurturing of this process by the replacement of the  
traditional liturgy by the New Mass. The Council of Trent, as the  
Critical Study on the New Mass presented to Paul VI by Cardinals  
Ottaviani and Bacci explains, "by fixing definitively the  
"canons" of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against  
any heresy which might attack the integrity of the mystery." In  
the post-conciliar Church, that barrier has been torn down, and  
with it has been demolished the most powerful bulwark of defense  
against the Modernist Heresy, the most deadly enemy our Faith  
has ever faced.  27 28  
  
     This article has been written in response to Cardinal  
Ratzinger's call for an examination of conscience. I would  
therefore like to conclude this essay with a portion of a page  
from Davies which presents Cardinal Ratzinger's own observation  
about the present state of the Church:  
  
     How could it be that a Council which was intended  
     to inaugurate an era of renewal was, in fact, followed  
     by a period of what Cardinal Gracias described only  
     too accurately as "a real disintegration"? That this is  
     indeed the case was observed by the outstanding French  
     theologian and liturgist, Father Louis Bouyer, who was  
     an expert adviser at the Council. "Unless we are  
     blind," he remarked, "we must even state bluntly that  
     what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration  
     of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition."29  
     There are, of course, many in the Church today who  
     prefer not to face up to the reality of what is taking  
     place by closing their eyes. Many bishops, alas, are  
     numbered among them. In 1985, an Extraordinary Synod  
     took place in Rome...In many cases...the bishops  
     claimed that the hoped for renewal had indeed taken  
     place, and that the Church was flourishing as never  
     before; and they said this despite the fact that every  
     available piece of statistically verifiable evidence  
     pointed to the opposite conclusion. There was  
     considerable animosity manifested by European bishops  
     toward Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the  
     Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who had  
     admitted frankly that "it is incontrovertible that this  
     period has definitely been unfavourable for the  
     Catholic Church." 30  
  
  
                            FOOTNOTES  
  
N.B. THERE IS A SLIGHT PROBLEM WITH THE ORDER OF THE FOOTNOTES.  
  
  
1- Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Camerlengo of the Sacred College, made  
this statement to Michael de Jaeghere in an interview published  
in the first week of August 1988 in Valeurs Actuelles.  
  
2- This quotation appeared in Fr. Byron Houghton's book, MITRE  
AND CROOK, and is reproduced at length below.  
  
3- Address of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops of Chile, July  
13, 1988; Santiago, Chile. Published in Italian in the July 30  
- Aug. 5 edition of Il Sabato, and in English by The Wanderer,  
Sept. 8, 1988.  
  
4- SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, par. 50.  
  
5- ibid., par. 4.  
  
6- ibid., par. 23.  
  
7- ibid., par. 21.  
  
8- cf. Davies, THE TRIDENTINE MASS, p. 21; The Tablet, 24 July,  
1971, p.724.  
  
9- Fr. Adrian Fortescue, THE MASS, London, 1917, p. 173.  
  
10- ibid., p.213.  
  
11- Davies, THE ETERNAL SACRIFICE; Long Prairie, 1987, p. 14.  
  
12- D 942.  
  
13- A MANUAL OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas  
Scannell, Kegan Paul:London, 1909.  
  
14- It must be recalled that it pertains to the very essence of  
the law that it:  
  
     1) Must be preceptive in its wording if it is going to  
        make something obligatory.  
     2) It must specify who are the subjects of the law, and it  
        must specify where and when the law will be in force.  
  
     3) The law must be publicly promulgated in the manner  
        specified by law, by the competent authority.  
  
     It is manifestly evident from the above considerations that  
Pope Paul's Missale Romanum did not make the new Mass obligatory.  
  
15- Mt. 16:19.  
  
16- This raises the important legal question regarding the   
validity of the authorization for the use of the new Missal.   
Pope Paul VI only approved the text for the new Missal, but he  
himself never formally authorized its use, nor did he derogate  
those provisions of QUO PRIMUM which explicitly proscribe the  
use of any missal other than the Tridentine Missal. Now only   
the Pope himself is juridically competent to validly enact such  
legislation whose validity requires the exercise of the full   
plenitude of the power of the keys, and consequently the use of  
the new Missal of Paul VI remains legally irregular to this day.  
  
17- Davies, THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS, Dickinson,  
1982, p.35.  
  
18- From a strict legal viewpoint which Canon Law requires in  
such matters (can. 18), it can be seen that Pope Paul VI only  
derogated those provisions which prohibited the publication of  
any new missal; but since Missale Romanum nowhere authorizes   
the use of the new Missal, none of its nonobstat provisions has  
derogated the decrees which prohibit the use of any missal   
other than the Tridentine Missal.  
  
19- Legislation that abrogates explicitly abolishes previous   
legislation, whereas legislation that obrogates replaces what  
was there before it. Legislation that derogates leaves the   
previous legislation in force while nullifying some of its   
provisions. No Pope has abolished QUO PRIMUM, and therefore it  
is not abrogated; no Pope has formally mandated the use of the  
new Missal by a legislative decree, therefore QUO PRIMUM is not  
obrogated.  
  
20- cf. Can. 751.  N.B.It is the teaching of both Suarez and   
Cardinal Torquemada that by the attempt to suppress the   
traditional liturgy of the Church, one falls into schism.  
  
     Cardinal Juan de Torquemada O.P., 1388-1468; Commentarii in  
Decretum Gratiani (1519), and Summa de Ecclesia (1489):  
  
          In this way, the Pope could, without doubt, fall into  
          Schism...Especially is this true with regard to the   
          divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish   
          personally to follow the universal customs and rites of  
          the Church....  Thus it is that Innocent states (De   
          Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in   
          all things as long as he does not himself go against   
          the universal customs of the Church, but should he go   
          against the universal customs of the Church, he need   
          not be followed...."  
  
     Francisco Suarez S.J., 1548-1617, called by Pope Paul V  
"Doctor Eximius et Pius" (Excellent and Pius Doctor), usually  
considered the greatest theologian of the Society of Jesus:  
  
          A Pope "falls into Schism if he departs himself from   
          the body of the Church by refusing to be in communion   
          with her.... The Pope can become a schismatic in this  
          manner if he does not wish to be in proper communion   
          with the body of the Church, a situation which  
          would arise if he tried to excommunicate the entire   
          Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if   
          he wished to change all the ecclesiastical ceremonies,   
          founded as they are on Apostolic Tradition."  
  
21- Davies, POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS, p.351:  "The new Eucharistic  
Prayers, those introduced in 1968, and all those which have   
followed since, were not required for the good of the Church   
and certainly did not grow organically from forms already   
existing within the Catholic Church. They thus constitute an   
act of disobedience to the Council and corroborate Father   
Bouyer's claim that there is formal opposition between the     
liturgy we have and what the Council worked out."  (Louis   
Bouyer, THE DECOMPOSITION OF CATHOLICISM, London, 1970, p.99.)  
  
22- SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, par. 21.  
  
23- Canon George Smith, THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,  
p. 1056.  
  
24- A VINDICATION OF THE BULL APOSTOLICAE CURAE (London, 1898),  
pp. 42-43.  
  
25- Rev.Greg. 1937, p. 79.  
  
26- La Documentation Catholique, no. 1493, 7 May 1967.  
  
27- Cf. POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS, p.78., Demain la Liturgie,   
Paris, 1977, p.10  
  
28- Our Lady of La Salette revealed to Melanie that Rome would  
lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist, but  
first, according to Sacred Scripture, an obstacle must be  
removed from out of the way:  "And now you know what  
withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time." (2 Thess.   
2:6).  The traditional Roman Rite was a barrier against all  
heresy, but is no longer an obstacle to the modernist and other  
heretics who have taken liberties with the new Mass. The   
promoters of the Modernist Apostasy have thus far been able to  
act in contempt of the Pope's authority, and this seems to   
usher in what may eventually be the fulfillment of the   
following verse:  "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh;  
only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of  
the way" (2 Thess. 2:7).  
  
29- Father Cornelio Fabro, one of the most respected scholars in  
the Catholic world has stated in his Problematica della   
Teologia Contemporanea that the present crisis of the Church is  
mord serious than any crisis in all the past history of the   
Church.  
  
30- Louis Bouyer, op. cit., p.1.  
  
31- Davies, THE ETERNAL SACRIFICE, p.22.  Ratzinger:  
L'Osservatore Romano (English Edition), 24 Dec. 1984. 

    Source: geocities.com/athens/rhodes/3543

               ( geocities.com/athens/rhodes)                   ( geocities.com/athens)