Detection and Overthrow
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called,
Part 1- Section 2
by I. Shawn McElhinney

[T]he creation of the Novus Ordo Missae do not seem to focus on God and the glory of God, but, rather, seem to focus on the glory and honor of man. As can be seen from the fact that 1) most Masses are said in the vernacular (for man, not God)

What an idiotic comment!!! They are said in the vernacular so that people can actually understand what is going on!!! Why would God care one way or the other what language was used to honour Him provided that the Mass was said with the proper disposition??? The Masses of the first millennium were in almost all cases said in the vernacular. Does that mean that the early church was against God and seeking to exalt man???

2) most Masses are said facing the people,

Masses facing towards the people were the normative ancient position in antiquity. It became a minority position after the start of the second millennium of course but the direction the priest faces does not determine the validity or invalidity of the Sacrifice offered. This is another example of the "trad" getting hung up on externals.

3) we now have quite a few "optional" parts of the Mass, where people can decide for themselves if they are going to honor God, or if they’re not,

Boy these fellows need an education and badly. A variation in rubrics is how Masses were done in the early church as Fr. Fortescue noted in his article on the liturgy:

One knows too how strong conservative instinct is in any religion, especially in one that, like Christianity, has always looked back with unbounded reverence to the golden age of the first Fathers. So we must conceive the Liturgy of the first two centuries as made up of SOMEWHAT FREE IMPROVISATIONS ON FIXED THEMES IN A DEFINITE ORDER; and we realize too how naturally under these circumstances the very words used would be repeated -- at first no doubt only the salient clauses -- till they became fixed forms. The ritual, certainly of the simplest kind, would become stereotyped even more easily. THE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE DONE, THE BRINGING UP OF THE BREAD AND WINE, THE COLLECTION OF ALMS AND SO ON, EVEN MORE THAN THE PRAYERS, WOULD BE DONE ALWAYS AT THE SAME POINT. A change here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order of the prayers. [1]
4) right in the middle of the mass, after the Consecration, the "Rite of peace" came in, where we all get to wander around the Church and concentrate upon man while ignoring God upon the Altar. All of these innovations were brought in not for the greater honor and glory of God, but for man.

The Rite of Peace is an ancient part of the Mass as I covered in my treatise (in one of the Addendums that these fellas "overlooked"). It was restored to the Roman Rite as it was in the ancient Church. It was a move that gradually was reduced to only the ministers at the altar. It used to be that during a Solemn High Mass priests would exchange the Kiss with those around the altar in the Tridentine Mass. The Church in restoring the liturgy restored this ancient rubric by extending the practice to the people exchanging the Kiss of Peace also as it was done in the early Church.

However, the Rite of Peace is admittedly abused but again that does not mean that the idea itself is a bad one. I would certainly favour tightening it up a bit and personally limit my participation to only the people directly around me and about 20 seconds maximum time-wise. Most other people are similarly disciplined but admittedly not all are (I counted and the Kiss of Peace at my Church took less then 20 seconds before virtually everyone was paying attention again at the breaking of the Host and the start of the Agnus Dei.) In some places this rubric probably is abused though and tightening this rubric up a bit is something I can fully concur with.

A large number of the little distinctive are absent from the ancient Masses of the first few centuries. This should not surprise since the Tridentine Rite received much of its current structure in the late 6th century in the Gregorian reforms of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) and the Tridentine Rite did not exist in the substantial form we have it now before the 11th or 12th century.

Shawn’s statements above are "comments that betray a profound degree of historical ignorance." As the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 stated:

"We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590-604). Gregory knew the Mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the Canon is concerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it. (2)

The Mass of St. Gregory’s time was the Mass "practically as we still have it."

Now now boys…I have to correct your errors once again. Answer me this one question while you are at it: Why was it okay to "recast" the canon before but not today??? Besides, in my treatise in the original Addendum section (which was "conveniently" ignored in this so-called "rebuttal" and which I included in Appendix A of this project), I noted the following:

To give an idea of the Mass at this epoch we may perhaps mention a text which was drawn up in the fourth century, though most of its leading features are more ancient, and to which certain liturgiologists have given a rather exaggerated importance, as they consider that it represents the Apostolic anaphora better than any other. Yet it has not the same value as the anaphora of Hippolytus, though it uses his text. The liturgical design of the Mass is as follows: readings from the Old and New Testament, preaching; then, prayer for the catechumens, penitents, and those in other categories; the "oratio fidelium," the Kiss of Peace, the ablution of the hands, the Offertory, Preface, "Sanctus," the prayer of institution, the "Anamnesis," "Epiclesis," Memento, Communion, thanksgiving, and dismissal. [2]
These are all features of the Pauline Rite of Mass (albeit the rubric order is arranged a little bit differently). Remove the prayer for the penitents, the Epiclesis, the "general intercessions", and the reading from the Old Testament, and the structure is almost identical to the Tridentine Rite as well. THIS is the essence of the liturgy along with the words of consecration. Otherwise earlier Mass rites were not valid ones and to make that assertion is to (for all intensive purposes) apostasize from the Faith. Be very careful…

As Father Jungmann said in his book "The Mass of the Roman Rite," Later on, in the course of our study of various Mass-elements, we will encounter only a few modifications by Gregory the Great (590-604) - chiefly in the Kyrie, Pater noster, preface and Hanc igitur; but these are for the most part a return to older and simpler forms. (3)

Well, what do you think Vatican II's revision of the Roman Missal was???

Appendix A of our rebuttal refutes the nacent "trad" lie about the Pauline Mass being an "invention" rather then the restoration that it was. As for "older and simpler forms", the ancient canon WAS simpler before the fifth century then it was previously. Or as Fr. Adrian Fortescue noted:

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed  from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries...Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say with Rauschen: "Although the question is by no means decided, nevertheless there is so much in favour of Drews's theory that for the present it must be considered the right one. We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).  [3]

The Pauline Rite has the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory, the Kiss of Peace after the Consecration, and the Epiclesis has been restored as well. Again, I am not the one being inconsistent here. I am not the one claiming that recasting the Canon in earlier times was okay but now it is not okay. I recognize that the Church in her wisdom made a decision and I accept it regardless of my personal discomforts with parts of the Pauline Mass as it is celebrated. You see, I exercise faith unlike these authors who utilize their Protestant private judgment and seek to decide for themselves what is and is not a legitimate change to the liturgy, sacramental norms, or other areas. I know enough about history (far more then these so-called "historians" do) to recognize that the Church has made many paradigm shifts in the past and will make many more in the future. The doctrines of faith are safeguarded through them all and always will be.

Numerous additions were made in the first centuries of the second millennium including adding the "filioque" to the Creed and making the Creed a fixture of all Masses (11 century), the introduction of Low Mass for the first time (12th century), and other modifications through the 13th and 14th centuries. This culminated in the Old Roman (or Tridentine) Rite of the 15th century (represented by the Roman Missal of 1474) that was identical to the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. That these changes were made does not seem to disturb the "traditionalist" whom (for some reason) believes that the Church was justified in making previous liturgical modifications but no longer is.

There is a difference between making "liturgical modifications" and overhauling the Mass and creating a completely new one. Pope Paul VI didn’t just add a new creed, or a few words to the Creed, or translate the Mass into a different language. He manufactured a completely new one.

Much as what happened in the "fourth to sixth or seventh centuries" according to Fr. Fortescue???

In case I did not mention it earlier, consistency is not exactly a hallmark of "traditionalism" and this factor will become more explicit as we move through the subsequent sections of this treatise.

Here we see a personal shot against Traditionalism made by Shawn which has no basis in fact.

My treatise illustrates very nicely the many facts behind that statement. In case our opponents did not notice, my work was written SYSTEMATICALLY and they took the Mass section out of the middle. I had already covered a few historical parallels and the subject of Tradition and the Living Magisterium BEFORE discussing the Mass topic. After separating true Tradition from mere ecclesiastical traditions in the original (and current) url 1, it drew out a picture for the reader to notice much more clearly the Traditions from the traditions in the original url 2. (Now both of these url’s are consolidated onto the new url 1.) This is why reading in CONTEXT is always so important if a person really wants to properly grasp the points being made since so many areas where these fellas are erring (and will err in Parts 2-4 of their work also) I have already covered in other areas of the treatise. But just as Protestants do not read the Bible in context "traditionalists" (aka "Protestants of the right") do not read council documents, papal encyclicals, and other Magisterial documents in proper context either.

Furthermore, in reality here we see, as we have seen above, innacuracy in Shawn’s history, which we shall go into further down below - while, at the same time, he accuses Traditional Catholics as being inaccurate insofar as history is concerned. Hypocritical? I would think so.

Excuse me, error wise it is running 22-1 here (and these guys are on the losing end of the stick). My ONLY historical blunder that has been pointed out thus far by these authors was ascribing the recasting of the Canon to Pope Gregory. These authors have erred in every other point they have raised without exception.

Second of all, as we shall see, Shawn isn't the one who should be throwing stones here - as the innovators themselves are not very consistent.

I know. You "trads" are amazingly inconsistent are you not???

Now admittedly the Pauline Rite was the largest overhaul of the Mass liturgy at one time since the days of Pope Gregory the Great, but (as I have noted already) in Gregory's time a similar overhaul was done of the liturgies.

As we have already seen above, this is a good example of Shawn’s false history. Pope St. Gregory the Great did not add a new canon, or take away 70% of the old one. The Reform that Pope St. Gregory the Great started was a minor one, when compared with the revolution which took place under Paul VI.

Actually this is a point I will concede because the recasting of the canon took place before Gregory’s time about a century. But the recasting of the canon then is hardly different then what was done at Vatican II. My principle is consistent even though I pinpointed the wrong pope. It was actually Pope Gelasius I (492-496) I had in mind and others prior to and subsequent to him that made the overhaul. With all likelihood the primary reformer was Pope Leo the Great (440-461). Pope Gregory merely put the finishing touches on it.

Furthermore, as Michael Davies noted in his book "A Short History of the Roman Mass":

"The keynote of the reform of St. Gregory was fidelity to the traditions that had been handed down (the root meaning of the Latin word traditio is to hand over or hand down). His reform consisted principally of the simplification and more orderly arrangement of the existing rite, the reduction of the variable prayers at each Mass to three (Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion), and a reduction of the variations occurring at that time within the Canon, prefaces and additional forms for the Communicantes and Hanc Igitur. These variations can still be found on a very few occasions such as Christmas and Easter. His principal work was certainly the definitive arrangement of the Roman Canon. The Lectionary was also given a definitive form, but was still to undergo considerable change subsequently. The Order of Mass as found in the 1570 Missal of St. Pius, apart from minor additions and amplifications, corresponds very closely with the order established by St. Gregory. It is also to this great Pope that we owe, to a large extent, the codification of the incomparable chant that bears his name."

Yes the recasting happened before Gregory’s time I have said this 3 times now that I made an error here (mea culpa). But notice that Michael Davies does NOT note what Fr. Fortescue and Rt. Rev. Cabrol noted about the canon being "recast" in the fifth to sixth centuries in a "dramatic" fashion pertaining to the "fundamentals." My point stands albeit my target was a tad bit off. Consider the riflescope properly focused now…

Hence we see that, compared to Pope Paul VI's "reform," the Reform of Pope St. Gregory the Great was a minor one, and was faithful to "the traditions that had been handed down." In what way can this Reform of His Holiness, Pope St. Gregory the Great, be compared to the revolution of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI?

The recasting of the Canon in the fifth and sixth centuries is very similar. Besides the point is irrelevant. The Church made a decision and those who claim she promulgated an invalid liturgy to the Universal Church are proximate to heresy.

Undoubtedly if those of the SSPX were around at the time, they would have shrieked and screamed over the entire process calling Pope Gregory's modifications to have been "against tradition."

This is rather funny, because when Pope St. Gregory the Great added a few words to the Hanc Igitur, the people of Rome were outraged. According to Canon Hesse, they threatened to kill the Pope — because he had dared to touch liturgy (The New Mass Mess audiotape). Apparently, the Society of Saint Pius X was around then - maybe not in an organization as they are now, but as far as people who love the Traditional Mass like they do certainly were around. Yes, we can definitely find them in existence, even way back then. Furthermore, Pope Gregory the Great’s additions to the Mass were negligible.

According to whom??? It is not up to individuals to decide which changes are negligible or not. That is what Protestants do. And no the alterations of the canon by the popes of the fifth century were NOT negligible unless a complete overhaul of the canon is ‘negligible’ to these fellas. Based on the import of their criticisms that would not seem to be the case.

The "Michael Davies" of the late 6th-early 7th century would have written a series of books on "Pope Gregory's Mass", etc much as the self-styled "traditionalists" in every other period would have acted. I can see numerous parallels taking place actually but I think I have made my point.

The only parallel that is taking place is the one that is located in Shawn’s mind. After all, if anyone had read this article he would have seen that Shawn is attempt to parallel what he believed would have happened in the late 6th and early 7th centuries if the SSPX had been around. And then he wishes to parallel them with what he perceives, very erroneously, as we shall see later on, the Society of Saint Pius X to be today. There is no "parallel," when one side of it is completely imaginative.

Please, these kinds of obdurate people exist in ALL centuries. They are the fountains of heresy and schism because they take it upon themselves to decide what is and is not right and acceptable. My parody is 100% accurate in reference to the MENTALITY of the "traditionalist" who has little faith in the Lord and His promises. No the Lord failed and His Church fell and MAN must fix what God could not preserve: this is Protestantism in a nutshell (and Donatism, and every other rebellious movement historically: the model is amazingly predictable).

The overhaul of the liturgy (not to mention the inclusion of "Gregorian Chant" by this same Pope) would have seemed to be "novelties" by those with the Society mindset. The Gregorian reforms kept the essentials in structure of the Masses of the previous periods but there were differences in content, prayers, etc. Likewise, the Masses in the first few centuries were structurally similar in essentials but there were differences in content, prayers, etc much as the Masses of the 7th century and the Mass of the 16th century (Tridentine Rite) had differences in like manner. This is fundamentally no different then the contrast with the Pauline Rite and the Tridentine Rite.

Shawn’s statement above betrays a complete ignorance of both the history of the Traditional Mass, and the history of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, as well as the history surrounding the early centuries, and tinged with a large amount of imagination.

Some of the traits of the self- styled ‘traditionalist’ include historical revision, selective amnesia, and a penchant for serious error. Our opponents possess these traits in spades as I have shown and will continue to show (along with my friends Matt1618 and Dr. Art Sippo in their respective sections of this work).

He cites no sources here, and, as we will see below, he is not at all immune to dishonesty and fabrications - even when he does cite sources. But what it boils down to is nothing more than speculation on Shawn’s part, in a desperate attempt to justify the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. It has no historical precedent, and Shawn knows this.

I covered this in the Addendum that our opponents did not bother to read. If they did than they would not make such stupid ill-informed statements as these. I have no need to "desperately" defend the Pauline Mass because it is a legitimate restoration of the ancient rite of Mass as I have shown meticulously in another essay I wrote based in part on the old Addendums to the treatise (that these guys did not bother to read) and passages from Fr. Fortescue’s Liturgy article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. That essay has been included in this project as Appendix A.

My position has AMPLE historical support; however to realize this is to understand liturgical history. My position also carries the stamp of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and I am not in the very un-Catholic position of judging the Magisterium by past Magisterial document interpreted by my own personal private judgment ala the Protestants and Jansenists (and nowadays the "traditionalists" [Ecc. 1:10]).

His statement concerning the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Rite are complete founded upon ignorance. As Shawn himself admitted above, the Novus Ordo Missae received the largest overhaul in history. Whereas we have already shown (and will show below), Pope St. Gregory the Great made slight changes only. Furthermore, not just that, but the Canon itself was retained completely intact, except for a few words in the Hanc Igitur. With Pope Paul VI, 70% of it was deleted and changed. The Canon of the Mass that St. Gregory knew was essentially the same as the Canon of the Mass today, with the exception of a few words in the Hanc Igitur.

I erred ONLY in ascribing to Gregory what had happened before him in the fifth and sixth centuries. That is all.

Of course the Tridentine Rite was the "Novus Ordo" of the 14th-16th centuries.

Fortunately, only in Shawn’s pseudo-history can this be true. This has been more than amply shown above and below, the Traditional Mass was a restoration to the Mass of Fathers.

The Pauline Mass has FAR more in common with the early Masses of the first through fifth centuries then the Tridentine Rite does. Again if these guys had bothered to read my treatise’s Addendum in the Micro section they would have realized this. With the exception of the Gregory point, the Mass sections of my treatise have been 100% accurate factually thus far in every point these authors have raised. Meanwhile there have been over 28 errors committed by these pseudo-historians. I will take those odds.

Furthermore, it was essentially the same as that of Pope St. Gregory the Great — the Canon was the same, and many of the prayers surrounding the Canon were the same. Shawn’s statement above would have the reader believe that the Traditional Mass was a "New Order," whereas it wasn’t at all. The majority of Churches at that time had the Traditional Mass, as was codified in St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, with only a few slight differences in rubric.Hence, we see that it could not possibly have been a "New Order," and this is merely a product of Shawn’s overactive imagination.

There were almost 2 dozen Western rites suppressed by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. These fellas need to start educating themselves on what actually happened and not what their little "trad" Fairyland version of history consisted of. The Canon was recast before Gregory’s time. I realize that I will have to correct that one tiny error in the treatise which I will do (thank you guys for pointing it out: you only strengthen my case against you) but thus far this "refutation" of yours is a joke.

What I had in mind when writing that section was the Gelastian Sacramentary and the pope by the same name. I apologize that in a detailed project such as the treatise that I made a few minor errors. I have made no claims to infallibility so unless our opponents are doing this, they should be careful about throwing stones. Especially since they have committed much more than a few minor errors in this ‘superb’ work of theirs and we are nowhere near finished cataloguing their numerous errors and omissions.

Because of this, what creates the "traditionalist" reverence towards the Tridentine Rite is not that they believe that it is so much ancient and hallowed (since it differs in many significant ways from earlier liturgies), but because it is what they are used to and that is it.

Here we Shawn attempting to crawl into the mind of the Traditionalist and analyze it. Allow me to provide a helping hand to Shawn and explain the Traditional Catholics’ reverence for this hallowed Mass. To begin with, it is the Mass of the Fathers and can be traced back to the Apostles. This alone is enough reason to give it the respect that it deserves. Secondly, our reverence for the Traditional Mass is also based upon the amount of reverence that the Mass gives to God. The Dignity of God is upheld in the Traditional Mass, while the opposite is true with the New Mass. Here is the problem, and one of the many differences between Shawn and the Traditional Catholic. The Traditional Catholic believes that God has dignity, which dignity must be upheld. Whereas Shawn seems to deny this fact.

No, Shawn believes that God works through His Church and that He commanded me and others to heed His Church or else be treated as the heathen and the publican (Matt. 18:17). There are areas of the Pauline Rite I do not like but I submit to the Church as the Lord expects I do not rebel and set up my own "Magisterium" to judge the Church as these fellows do. I was in that racket for far too long and could not justify the position either logically or historically. Only by factoring out the emotions and focusing on the issues logically and consistently was I able to break away. I hope and pray that these fellows will receive the grace from God to stop being rebels and submit to the Church as the Lord intends.

In his appendix, he provides an article by Dr. Art Sippo on Ecumenism. In this article, the doctor says:

When we try to preserve the dignity of God we forget that after the humiliation of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, God has no dignity left to defend..... We do not need to defend God's dignity. He has already given that up for us and, frankly, he can defend himself if need be.

Hence, how in the world can Shawn even begin to believe that he understands the Traditional Catholic’s mind? With this type of fundamental differences, it becomes impossible for Shawn to understand the Traditional Catholics’ mind and the Traditional Catholics’ Love for God and the Traditional Mass, which uphold the Dignity of God.

I have no problem with the Tridentine Rite indeed I attended it for close to 15 years. I am not even addressing whether it is a better overall rite or not but merely that the much-maligned Pauline Rite is not invalid. That is all. Can we please stay on topic here???

Concerning the age of the Traditional Mass, as Michael Davies pointed out in his booklet "A Short History of the Roman Mass": Regarding the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite, the "Tridentine" Mass, Father Fortescue concludes:

Since the Council of Trent the history of the Mass is hardly anything but the composition and approval of new Masses. The scheme and all the fundamental parts remain the same. No one has thought of touching the venerable liturgy of the Roman Mass, except by adding to it new propers.

His final assessment of the Missal of St. Pius V merits careful meditation:

There are many days still on which we say the Mass that has been said for centuries back to the days of the Gelasian and Leonine books. And when they do come, the new Masses only affect the Proper. Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V We may be very thankful that his Commission was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the Missal of Pius V. is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise De Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. 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 and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.

[snipped a bunch of stuff put in to attempt to play the "sentimental card."]

We are dealing with cold hard facts here and these guys have to play on emotions because their position is so weak. They are in rebellion against the Magisterium so they need any straws they can grasp at to justify their obdurance. I will not be distracted from addressing the primary points by their attempts to take a trip down nostalgia-land and wickedly misrepresent the Pauline Mass liturgy.

[snipped another Gregory go-around.]

"Traditionalists" would have protested at Pope Pius V suppressing almost 2 dozen local Western Rites and promulgating the Roman Missal on the entire West with only a few exceptions (e.g. the Dominican and Ambrosian Rites).

These "Western Rites," as they are termed by Shawn, had no major differences with the Missal of St. Pius V. In fact, they were the exact same, with the exception of a few differences with the rubrics.

This is not true at all. As Dr. Sippo noted earlier on:

Despite the pretentions of the trads, Western liturgical forms were regionally diverse and there was no attempt to conform to the Roman traditions. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VARIOUS USAGES IN THE WEST WERE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ROMAN LITURGY. (I confronted Michael Davies about this on the dais in 1991. He started back pedalling because he knew that [it] was true.) The only exceptions were the attempts at uniformity by Charlemagne with the Leonine Sacramentary (which was a failure) and the program of suppression started by Pope St. Pius V (which was a limited success). Conservation of the liturgy was more a trait of the several Eastern Rites. [4]
Dr. Sippo has been involved in Catholic Apologetics probably longer then these three "trads" have been alive and unlike them he is a man of integrity. Unlike our opponents Art has no agenda that he has to protect at the expense of promoting lies and slander. In fact, Michael Davies has backpeddled from many of his previous positions including that the sacramental forms of the post Vatican II period were invalid (we may cover this later on in fact). You "trads" canonize Mr. Davies as a kinda "Superpope" when in reality he makes many errors in history, doctrine, and fact. However, to his credit he does admit it when he is shown to be mistakened at times. Even though he is infused with the errors of Lefebvre’s theology he is still not above admitting to errors. May these 3 "trads" (and others like them) learn to do likewise.

And there is nothing wrong with having uniformity, especially when the Rite that is being made uniform throughout the Church is the Rite that was already in use, with the exception of a few differences with the rubrics. Furthermore, the Mass codified by His Holiness Pope St. Pius V contained no heresies, it was certainly not protestant-friendly, and was not manufactured with ecumenism, modernism, and Americanism as its foundation - as we shall soon see is the case with the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI. Hence, there was nothing objectionable in the Reform of Pope St. Pius V at all - nor was there anything objectionable in the suppression of the "almost 2 dozen local Western Rites."

Another stunted "trad" problem is recognizing the "homoousian" principle in history. This is what I call the Church taking what was once condemned (either a term or a concept), correcting/purifying it, and then appropriating it as orthodoxy in the Church. This is what Vatican II did in outlining HOW ecumenism was to be undertaken and what was not to happen. These fellows are now making accusations of Modernism and Americanism being the heresies that influenced Vatican II. In like manner the Jansentists (as I pointed out in url 3) objected to the Council of Trent being too "Humanist." History repeats itself because heresies borrow the same tactics from other heresies (Ecc. 1:10). But I will address their meager arguments later on and expose their profound flaws (as will Art and Matt in their respective sections).

After all, according to the "traditionalist" this move would go against "tradition." I covered tradition in a macro form earlier and later I will be covering it in a micro format when discussing the finer details of the Mass and explaining the erroneous views of the Society and other self-styled "traditionalists" on what is and is not authentic Tradition. Right now though, I wish to cover the Pauline Rite Mass and will examine the prevailing "traditionalist" mindset that I have alluded to here in subsequent sections of this treatise. However, I need to show the position of the Society and its Magisterial hierarchy towards the Revised Missal so that their position is clear. I present here the following statements from SSPX officers (and some statements from the Church Fathers and Councils I have interspersed in-between). I hope the point I am seeking to make here by doing this is obvious:

As far as Traditionalists protesting the suppression of those rites, and the enforcing of the Traditional Mass as the uniform Rite of the West (with the exception of several "sub-rites," such as the Dominicans), this shows that Shawn simply doesn't understand the Traditionalist mindset. Traditional Catholics at that time would have understood the reasons for the suppression of those local Western Rites, and the fact that in order to better combat the heresies of protestantism a uniform Liturgy was necessary. But, as it is, the Novus Ordo Missae was not formed in order to combat the heresies of protestantism, but is, rather, a protestant-friendly meal-service - and most certainly cannot be considered a uniform liturgy, as is obvious by its very lack of structure (another protestant attribute).

Again I quote Fr. Fortescue on the early Mass liturgies:

[I]t must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.  [5]
Are these authors claiming that the early liturgies were "Protestant" then???

Yes, it is very obvious. In this section, Shawn will go into a head-long attack on the Society of Saint Pius X, which he perceives to be the basis and foundation of the Traditionalist Movement. We shall see him resort to fabricating citations from the Society of Saint Pius X, twisting citations from the Councils to meet his own desires, a complete fabrication of history, and, basically, dishonesty.

No, we shall see me recognizing dogmatic decrees for precisely what they are and how they are applicable not only to the Church of yesteryear but also to today.

SSPX: "All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite…"

As it is, I happen to have a copy of the book which Shawn here cites (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics," copyright 1986), and I read (and reread) page 116 which he gives as the source for this citation. Unfortunately, this phrase simply doesn’t exist. The page does not contain it anywhere. Nor does the page before or afterwards. We have scanned in this page and the one following it (pg. 116-117) as a photograph (so there can be no claim of tampering) so the reader can see for themselves this citation does not exist in the book referred to by Shawn, "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics." photograph of pg. 116-117 Hence, we have one of two choices. Either A) Shawn completely fabricated this statement, and it is nothing more than a lie, set up to completely discredit the good Archbishop and the Society which he founded, or B) Shawn gave a false source for this citation, which would show that he did not research this citation properly - and would make one wonder where he got it, since he didn't do the research necessary to locate it. As it is, whichever way we go this shows a lack of 1) honesty, 2) open-mindedness with regards to the situation at hand, 3) viable research. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Shawn, and the reader, of the following citation from Sacred Scripture:

A false witness shall not be unpunished: and he that speaketh lies, shall perish---Prov. xix 9

This citation does show that, at any time that we are going to bear witness against someone, we need to speak the truth. And we are responsible if we do not, and the result will not be good - and could mean, as the citation says, that our immortal soul will perish with the lies it concocted.

I spoke to my source for those quotes. Oh and yes part of my research was conducted by associates. You see, that is what one does when they actually write books and essays and do not simply mooch off of other people and write endless faulty rebuttals and refuse to face up to the inconsistencies of their theological foundations. Real Catholics do not defend their positions by arguing against the Church in the post-VC II period with tactics and arguments that are aped from Reformed Protestants (who use them to argue against the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ). My source’s copy of Lefebvres book is numbered differently then mine is. In my book these quotes are on a different page completely. This was a case of my source and I having different numbered copies of Lefebvre’s book so no error was committed by either of us considering the circumstances. As for the page number, you can find these passages that I "lied about" and "fabricated" to "slander the good name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre" on page 111 of his own book.

[6/18/01 Clarification: This section was removed from the treatise back in December of 2000]

Council of Trent: [That no room may be left for superstition]; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; NOR EMPLOY OTHER RITES, OR OTHER CEREMONIES AND PRAYERS, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASSES, BESIDES THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED OF BY THE CHURCH…"

As it is, at that time the Novus Ordo Missae wasn’t even in existence. Furthermore, the Traditional Mass has most certainly been approved. There is no argument here, as the Traditional Mass was approved by the Church, promulgated by a Saint, and was said hundereds of times by Saints.

The Canon is solemnly proclaimed and is thus applicable for all time regardless of the rite of Mass. (Provided that it is approved at least tacitly by the Roman Church.) That is what a "Dogmatic Decree" means. Ceremonies and rites approved by the Church are licit and those not approved are not licit. All Trent was doing was making explicit what the Church always believed implicitly and thus Trent’s decree is still in force and it covers ALL rites and ceremonies of the Mass and sacraments approved by the Church and Catholic Theology has always recognized this fact (more on this later).

[snipped some quotes from above that were not relevant to the topic of the Pauline Mass’ validity]


St. Ignatius, in the first sentence of his statement, points out to us that we must keep away from those evil plants which "Christ does not tend," because they were not planted by God. In this statement we see that he is ordering us to avoid heretics, and to keep away from them. Secondly, his statement concerning the Bishop applies only in the case with an Orthodox Bishop. After all, if we were in England during the 16th century, and kept to Shawn’s theory concerning "obedience" to heretical bishops in matters which are contrary to the Faith, then we would all have apostatized and been on our road to hell. Thirdly, it is the Novus Ordo that is destroying the unity of the Church, as we - and Shawn’s scholar - have already shown above.

Dr. Mirus merely said that there has been an upheaval since VC II. There was an upheaval after Nicaea too. There was almost 80 years of rebellion after Chalcedon including a controversy about Constantinople II [where it appeared to some that there was an attempt to reverse Chalcedon: I point out the history behind this later on in addressing the numerous errors of Atila Guimeres in Appendix 1 of this "superb" rebuttal (falsely so-called)]. Also, the only bishops that obedience are expected from are those that are in union with the Apostolic See. The heretical bishops in England were not in communion with the Apostolic See and thus could be rebuked for their errors even by a layman. Our opponents have committed over 34 errors thus far (the last one about the Pauline Mass destroying the unity of the Church I have not addressed yet but I will) and we have only just started. Oh and my error total is a mere 2 unless you count the fact that I made both errors 3 times each.

[Snipping a tiny part where these guys repeat themselves and state that the Tridentine Mass goes back to the fourth century. Actually the canon was dramatically recast in the fifth and sixth centuries according to Fr. Fortescue and the Pauline Rite as I show in the smaller essay has many pre-fourth century features to it which one would expect from a restoration of the liturgy.]
SSPX: "One of the conditions for the granting of the ‘favour’ is that the new mass be recognized as being as good as the traditional Mass...

There is no such thing as "the traditional Mass." The Mass has been modified innumerable times throughout the centuries.

In the first place, the Canon of the Traditional Mass "consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs." (Council of Trent, Chapter 4 Session XXII) The Traditional Mass consists of Tradition. It is full of Tradition. It has been handed down to us over the course of the centuries! As Michael Davies pointed out "the root meaning of the Latin word traditio is to hand over or hand down." (A Short History of the Roman Mass) That the Traditional Mass has been protected and handed down to us by our fathers is a point that is completely indisputable!

We will be looking into the accuracy of Mr. Michael Davies later on. All I will say is that he is not exactly the most accurate theologian around (to put it mildly). However, I will not let this claim go without comment and (because I am a nice guy) I will not count this error against our opponents (since I am adding this section into an already-predominently finished refutation and do not want to reformat everything):

The Mass of the Faithful [this was the African Mass of the 3rd and 4th centuries] was thus composed:
Prayer of the faithful;
Reading of the Diptychs;
Offertory, with chanting of a Psalm and a prayer over the offerings, which corresponds to our Secret, or the "Oratio post nomina;"
The "anaphora" or Eucharistic prayer, which is interrupted by the
The recital of the institution, which is the center of the Mass;
Fraction (before the "Pater," as at Rome until the seventh century);
Kiss of Peace;
Communion (under both kinds…ed.), with the singing of a Psalm;
All these features are fairly general, and in themselves not sufficient to determine precisely to which class this liturgy belongs. However, Mgr. Duchesne and other liturgiologists with him declare without hesitation that, excepting for insignificant details, the African liturgy is identical with that of Rome. Le Blant has pointed out numerous analogies in the inscriptions of these two places. [6]
According to Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol, this was identical to the Roman Liturgy for the most part in the same period. If you look it is remarkably like the Pauline Mass except for some areas where the Pauline Mass has some of the newer features to it (like the Creed for example). In the meantime (since our opponents will bring up objections to the literal words of Mediator Dei before long), here is what Rt. Rev. Cabrol noted about the Masses of the seventh to twentieth centuries (this book was written decades before Vatican II):
We shall describe it here in some detail, for if modifications have been brought in later, the Mass has remained substantially the same, and in the following chapters on the Roman Mass from the seventh-twentieth centuries, we need only note what has been added or omitted. But the very fact that this is the Mass of the Pope and of his court explains any changes, for such a ceremony, in the presence of many Bishops and of a numerous assembly, could hardly remain unaltered. The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions several of the reforms which were made in it, but not all, since St. Gregory alone, as we know by his correspondence, made many alterations, of which the principal are: the introduction of the singing of the "Kyrie," changes in that of the "Alleluia," the alteration of the place of the "Pater," important modifications of the Gelasian text, and probably of the chant. We must not, then, be astonished if the Roman Mass has conformed far less to the primitive form than the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian Masses, and more especially the Eastern liturgies.
This conforms precisely with what Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei. As for the claims that "well the Popes cannot change the essentials" I agree. The essentials have not been changed.

This claim is sheer historical ignorance on the part of Fr. Violette. The Tridentine Rite was the "new order Mass" of the early Middle Ages. The Pauline Rite is the "new order Mass" (or Novus Ordo) now.

The Traditional Mass was not the "new order Mass" of its day. For Shawn to make such an utterly ridiculous claim is for him to show forth his ignorance!

It is an example of me throwing that annoying term back in your faces. Only someone with little no knowledge of liturgical history whatsoever would dare make such a claim (that the Pauline Rite was a ‘New Ordo’ Mass). The Pauline Mass was a restoration of the Mass to a more ancient form then the Gelastian Sacramentary. But I go over this a bit in the Addendum of the treatise which these authors did not read or critique and also in a smaller essay which was a "spin off" from the treatise where I incorporated additional resources most notably Fr. Adrian Fortescue’s Liturgy article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[snipped a bunch of "Pope" Davies citations]
Frankly I could care less about what Davies has to say since he has shown a lack of knowledge on liturgical matters for a long time especially regarding the ancient liturgies. He is not a pope so under no circumstances am I required to accept his "encyclicals" on these matters. The question is this: what does the Church Magisterium say about these matters. That is the real gravy here is it not???

Here is what the Holy Father himself (the one who did the promulgating of the Revised Roman Rite and who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters) had to say. The entire text of the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Revised Missal can be read here. Please read it over carefully before resuming this url. The passage most applicable to this argument is the following one:

The effective date for what we have prescribed in this Constitution shall be the First Sunday of Advent of this year, 30 November. We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on Holy Thursday, 3 April 1969, the sixth year of our pontificate. [8]

Of course since Quo Primum was not "necessary" with the promulgation of the Pauline Rite, it is thus no longer legally operative. Also, here are some of the words of the Holy Father after the Pauline Rite was promulgated and shortly before it went into effect as the primary rite in the Western Church:

"The Mass Is The Same"

Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, November 19, 1969
Our Dear Sons and Daughters:
1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from thereign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will it have on those who attend Holy Mass? Answers will be given to these questions, and to others like them, arising from this innovation. You will hear the answers in all the Churches. They will be amply repeated there and in all religious publications, in all schools where Christian doctrine is taught. We exhort you to pay attention to them. In that way you will be able to get a clearer and deeper idea of the stupendous and mysterious notion of the Mass.
3. But in this brief and simple discourse We will try only to relieve your minds of the first, spontaneous difficulties which this change arouses. We will do so in relation to the first three questions which immediately occur to mind because of it.
4. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.
5. "For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is 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. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers." (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from theChurch. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.

7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante's improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.

8. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all "one single heart and a single soul" (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church's prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her catholicity. The change about to be made must not break up that choral character or disturb it. It ought to confirm it and make it resound with a new spirit, the spirit of her youth.

9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. [9]

More details can be ascertained by reading the full general audience address which can be accessed here. The essence of it though is this: the Pope and the Council saw the liturgy as a restoration as do I. Ultimately my view is not what decides these matters but I have the united episcopate and the Pope on my side which is FAR better company then a bunch of obdurate "trads" who are arguably heretical in their philosophies. Oh and might I add obstinate "trads" who do not know squat about the scope of Magisterial infallibility!!!

It would be impossible to lay too much stress upon the fact that St. Pius V did not promulgate a new Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae). The very idea of composing a new order of Mass was and is totally alien to the whole Catholic ethos, both in the East and in the West. The Catholic tradition has been to hold fast to what has been handed down and look upon any novelty with the utmost suspicion. Cardinal Gasquet observed that:

Every Catholic must feel a personal love for those sacred rites when they come to him with all the authority of the centuries. Any rude handling of such forms must cause deep pain to those who know and use them. For they come to them from God through Christ and through the Church. But they would not have such an attraction were they not also sanctified by the piety of so many generations who have prayed in the same words and found in them steadiness in joy and consolation in sorrow.

The essence of the reform of St. Pius V was, like that of St. Gregory the Great, respect for tradition — there was no question of any "rude handling" of what had been handed down.

Again we have these authors expressing their private opinions. I will not disagree that the handling of the Tridentine Rite after the Pauline Rite was promulgated was disgraceful. However, the Pauline Rite was not a "rude handling" of what was handed down but instead was a restoration of the Mass along the lines of the more simple earlier rites. Whether or not it was a faithful adherence to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is of course debatable. However the rite itself IS valid.

These guys for all their arrogant boasting in the introduction cannot avoid playing the sympathy and emotion cards now can they??? WHEN TALKING ABOUT VALIDITY AND INVALIDITY, EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PREFERENCES DO NOT MEAN SQUAT!!! Yet these guys build their entire case it seems on emotion. But then they have no case anyway, just a bunch of "trad" hot air.

In a letter to The Tablet, published on 24 July 1971, 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.

Well...what do you think I was saying when I said it goes back in substantial likeness to Innocent III (1198-1216)??? All this scholar did was make the same point I have made all along. These authors need to put a pot of coffee on, wake up, and actually read something before they decide to critique it. Maybe then they might learn something. The degree of error committed in just this first section alone is disgraceful.

Writing in 1912 Father Fortescue was able to comment with satisfaction:

The Missal of Pius V is the one we still use. Later revisions are of slight importance. No doubt in every reform one may find something that one would have preferred not to change. Still, a just and reasonable criticism will admit that Pius V's restoration was on the whole eminently satisfactory. The standard of the commission was antiquity. They abolished later ornate features and made for simplicity, yet without destroying all those picturesque elements that add poetic beauty to the severe Roman Mass. They expelled the host of long sequences that crowded Mass continually, but kept what are undoubtedly the five best; they reduced processions and elaborate, ceremonial, yet kept the really pregnant ceremonies, candles, ashes, palms and the beautiful Holy Week rites. Certainly we in the West may be very glad that we have the Roman rite in the form of Pius V's Missal.

From the above, it is obvious that the Traditional Mass was a restoration, not the introduction of a completely new missal.

So was the Pauline Liturgy. The Missal was new but the liturgy was restored to its more ancient pre-fifth century form. The "trad" claims otherwise show that they pay attention only to externals and not internals. I cover this more in detail in a smaller essay titled "The Pauline Rite — A True Restoration" where I use Fr. Fortescue’s Encyclopedia article rather liberally. It will be Appendix A of this rebuttal. It also I should add constitutes a section of my original treatise Mass sections that our opponents overlooked when writing their critique.

As Father Fortescue said:

Essentially the Missal of Pius V, is the Gregorian Sacramentary, that again is formed from the Galasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the 4th century. 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 and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. (4)

This is perfectly in agreement with His Holiness’s statement in Quo Primum, where he states:

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they...with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. (5)

Thus, according to Father Fortescue and His Holiness, Pope St. Pius V, the Traditional Mass stems from the "form and rite of the holy Fathers," can be traced back as far as the fourth century, and the Traditional Mass itself was not the creation of a "new order of mass" but a restoration of the Mass used for centuries in Christendom by the Early Church Fathers and by the Latin Rite itself.

To listen to our opponents misunderstand what Fr. Fortescue and Catholic theology means by something being ‘traced back’ or ‘from the form of the holy Fathers’ is akin to listening ro Protestants claim that doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception are ‘fabricated’ by the later Roman Church. The Tridentine Missal is ‘Apostolic’ the same way papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception are. Yet the latter cannot be shown before the fifth century and the former is pretty much implied only until the early sixth century Formula of Hormisdas. However, even there the concept of papal infallibility is not expressedly stated.

Protestants do with doctrines what ‘trads’ do with the liturgy. The principle of development is the same. Of course the Tridentine Missal stems from the ‘rite and form of the holy Fathers’. So does the Pauline (Novus Ordo) Missal. So does any valid rite of Mass. I have already revealed what else Fr. Fortescue said and it mitigates heavily against our opponents position. The pattern of the Mass has been outlined in this section. (Matt and Art will go over more of the micro details later on.)

As The New Catholic Dictionary (Vatican Edition, 1929) states:

As far as the Mass is concerned, it is practically the same today as in the time of Gregory the Great (590-604). It is the constant tradition that Gregory was the last to make any change in the Canon. (p. 833)

Hence, we see that it wasn’t the "New Order" of Pius V’s day, as Shawn erroneously claims. His statements are completely dishonest and ridiculous when one examines them in the light of reliable references such as the above.

Again, you guys need to learn to understand sarcasm when it is used. I am being 100% consistent. The Pauline Rite was also a restoration but based on earlier texts then the Gelastian Sacramentary yet you "trads" err by calling it a "New Order" when if it is a "New Order" based on a restoration then so is the Tridentine Mass since it too was a restoration that Pope St. Pius V and the Fathers of Trent restored the Roman Rite of their time period (Tridentine Rite). The problem is that our opponents here do not want to look at this issue objectively at all because it injures their case. No they would rather play the sympathy card and post pictures of Pauline Masses being said in an abominable manner by schismatics and those proximate to heresy rather then pictures of one reverently said rite next to another. They are incapable of being honest as the picture opening up their so-called "refutation" noted. Heck, this paper of theirs is about as much of a "refutation" as Walter Mondale’s campaign in 1984 was a "refutation" of the Reagan agenda…

There is no such thing as one Mass being "as good as" or "better" than another one: this is a purely arbitrary conjecture by Fr. Violette. The Mass when said according to the prescribed rubrics is infinite in its merits.

[snipped another irrelevant and disingenuous picture and commentary that was put in as a red herring]

merits because the sacrifice offered is an unbloody re-presentation of the same sacrifice of Calvary: that of the Son of God who acts as both priest and victim with the human priest merely that of a proxy. Divers liturgies are merely different ways of worshipping and are certainly not wrong in and of themselves; otherwise millions of people for the first 15 centuries were in error (will Fr. Violette make this claim???). The various approved rites all have the same substance and structure. None is more or less valid or more or less "holy" than the other and comments of this sort are purely arbitrary.

Insofar as the merits of Christ are concerned, it is in doubt that they are even present at the Novus Ordo Missae, the validity of which Missae has been called into question by Traditional Catholic theologians.

So what??? Tanqueray and other legitimate theologians debunk the ignorant presumptions of these pseudo-"trad" so-called "theologians." Luther and Calvin called into doubt the various rites of Mass in their period. "Traditionalists" do that with the Pauline Missal now. It is common for heretics (or those approaching heresy) to question the validity of the Mass. This is why I could care less what schismatic "trads" (who are proximate to heresy in their beliefs) say about the Mass when the Pope has said that it is valid then it is valid. Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est!!!

Furthermore, concerning Shawn’s statement about one Mass not being as good as another, this is simply wrong. For example, he cannot state that the Mass said by a disrespectful Novus Ordinarian priest, is just as good and pleasing to God as the Traditional Mass said by a respectful Priest. The one is an example of irreverence, while the latter is one of the most profound examples of reverence.

I was referring to one reverant Mass from each respective rite performed in accordance with their prescribed rubrics with the proper intention. Pretty simple really but I guess I have to break it down for these authors.

Would Shawn say that the "mass" said by Luther, after he began his schism, was just as pleasing to God as that said by the Pope in Rome?

No more pleasing to God then the Masses said by schismatic "trads" who are separated from the Church (AHEM) are…

SSPX: "THIS INDULT IS AN INSULT. IT IS NOT FOR US...we do not accept the new mass as adulterous union with its bastard fruits...we want the concubine gone...we hope and pray...for the condemnation and total disappearance of the new mass...the traditional mass...IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD. The new mass is not.

This was followed up with quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre of unstated date: Regarding ‘"..our enemies on the other side...’celebrating the Tridentine Mass...THEY ARE BETRAYING US...they are doing the devil’s work.’ "

In the first place, the above two citations have been thoroughly chopped to bits, and are from two separate letters. There are eleven sections taken out of the above citations. We have already seen an example of what Shawn can do to a citation, now we see his ability to completely chop up and paste them together in any form that he wishes.

No what you pointed out earlier was an example of one copy of Lefebvres book having quotes on page 116 and another having the same quotes on page 111. Your previous assessment was flat out wrong (as usual, the errors of these authors continue to mount). Was I supposed to post the entire 11 section in each spot??? Get real. I used the relevant parts of each in the form of a summary statement. Having belonged to SSPX I was hardly misrepresenting their position as anyone who received SSPX newsletters could tell you.

[snipped a few small quotes and stuff already covered]

Cyprian of Carthage:"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]). On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT HOLD FAST TO THIS UNITY OF PETER, CAN HE IMAGINE THAT HE STILL HOLDS THE FAITH? IF HE [SHOULD] DESERT THE CHAIR OF PETER UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS BUILT, CAN HE STILL BE CONFIDENT THAT HE IS IN THE CHURCH?"

In the first place, no Traditional Catholic (with the exception of the sedevacantists) has deserted the Chair of Saint Peter. We are loyal subjects of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and heartily condemn all those who reject his supremacy and his authority. No matter how bad Shawn attempts to twist the words of Father Violette (provided they are his words, and unaltered). Second of all, Father Violette no where declared that His Holiness, John Paul II, was not the Pope, or that he was not subject to him or that he did not accept his authority. This is something that is being read into the above statements by Shawn, we have seen in the past that even when Shawn fabricates statements, he has a bad tendency to pull these fabricated statements out of context.

Excuse me but refusing to comply with the Pope is showing disrespect for his authority when what he is legislating involves matters promulgated to the Universal Church that directly affect faith or morals (Decrees from Vatican II, Missae Romanae, etc). "Traditionalists" do this (I refer not to pro-Tridentine groups like FSSP and TCR with this statement) and thus they are NOT obedient to the Pope no matter what they claim. Luther claimed to be obedient to the Church too by disobeying the Pope, the parallel is rather eerie actually for those who look into it (which "trads" never do I might add).

What Father Violette was obviously saying, was that he did not accept as Catholic the changes that have occurred, and how they are not Catholic. This is perfectly correct.

No it is not. That is no different then the Jansentists and the Protestants. Not ONE IOTA of difference between the three whatsoever attitude-wise.

He did not state that he rejected the primacy of the Pope, nor did he state that he rejected the fact that His Holiness, John Paul II, was the Pope.

His actions belie his true intent not his words. He is a schismatic.

Lastly, it is also important to note that Father Violette was speaking for himself alone. Not for the Society of Saint Pius X, nor for the entire Traditional Movement. Note that he says "I" and not "we."

I know this. I was using him as an example. Those that act as he does were the targets of that passage (I will bet the three authors have the same or similar views as Fr. Violette in fact).

Can. 751: Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Father Violette did not obstinately deny or doubt a Truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic Faith,

He has denied the binding authority of a General Council and rejected its decrees. This is a position that is profoundly dangerous and arguably approaching heresy since there are secondary truths confirmed by the Council which requirefull and irrevocable assent. Oh, we are up to over 42 errors now that these authors have committed (just thought you might be interested in the running totals. I on the other hand in the treatise have committed but 2 mistakes in the original treatise in the parts thus far covered).

nor did he totally repudiate the Christian Faith, nor did he refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or withdraw from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Hence, the above citation is irrelevant.

He is a part of a schismatic society of priests whose leaders are excommunicated for the grave offense of schism. So the citation is perfectly relevant.

The most Shawn could accuse Father Violette of doing was resisting certain changes in the Church made by various post-Conciliar Popes, for further information on this, and for more information on the fact that Catholics have the right and sometimes the duty to resist the Pope, we refer the reader to Appendix I.

Our opponents appear impatient. No need to be as I will get to refuting the many glaring errors in Appendix I in short order.

Vatican I: Session IV - July 18, 1870

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

…8.) Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

9.) If anyone says that: The Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Denying the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council is heresy. Vatican I is an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Fr. Violette demonstrates a heretical and schismatic mentality in his views viz. the Catholic Church. How is he any different from the Syrian Monophysites after Chalcedon or Dollinger after Vatican I (to name two of many examples)??? They both denied the doctrinal teachings of an

Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church thus making them both (Dollinger and the Monophysites) heretics. In separating from the Church (refusing to submit to the Successor of Peter), they became schismatics as well. How is Fr. Violette any different from the Monophysites or the Neo-Ultramontanes who did exactly what Fr. Violette and the Society have done and who believed as the Society and Fr. Violette believe (that they were right and the Church was wrong)??? The Monophysites and the neo-Ultramontanes (and every other heretic/schismatic group in history) also claimed to be following "tradition" so again, why or how does the SSPX differ from other groups from church history who made the same or similar claims???

In the first place, one of the primary differences is that the heretical sects mentioned above denied Doctrines of the Church, while Father Violette does not. In the second place, the citation give above from Vatican I by Shawn refers specifically to the authority of the Pope, which authority Father Violette never denied in his statements!

Again words are meaningless when one’s actions contradict them. Fr. Violette says one thing and does another.

As a matter of fact, he never even mentions Pope John Paul II. In the third place, Father Violette did not refuse submission to the Pope - what he has done is refuse to accept various immoral and sinful changes that were made by the post-conciliar Popes to the Church.

I have a small but very significant point that our opponents (and Fr. Violette and likeminded sorts) need to learn to comprehend. Since they have not seemed to get it when spoken to them quietly, I will shout it: TRADS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO JUDGE WHAT IS AND IS NOT SINFUL!!! TRADS HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO REJECT ANY TEACHINGS PROMULGATED BY THE ORDINARY OR EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH BE IT CONCILIARLY OR BY THE PAPAL MAGISTERIUM!!! Vatican II taught a number of teachings infallibly via the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which I explain meticulously in url 2 and show the ignorance of the "traditionalist" at understanding what is and is not proper Magisterial teaching. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are Dogmatic Constitutions of the Catholic Church promulgated by the Pope and college of Bishops to the Universal Church. They contains several teachings promulgated definitively including religious assent being owed to all non-definitive papal teaching. Fr. Violette does not do this so Fr. Violette is in serious error and arguably proximate to heresy.

This is not a denial of the authority of the Pope, nor is this a withdrawal from submission to the Pope. Even Saints have done it (cf. Appendix I). As St. Robert Bellarmine said:

"Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior." (6)

Now Cardinal Bellarmine’s theological opinions are what determines doctrine??? This is what Protestants do.

[small snip]

At least Michael Davies (unlike Fr. Violette) is not denying the authority of the Pope to promulgate (and celebrate in the latin or the authorized vernacular) a new liturgy.

Father Violette is not at all denying the authority of the Pope. What Father Violette was denying was that the Novus Ordo Missae was the official Mass of the Church. Period.

Doing his "Luther act" then huh??? The Pope and the Magisterium make these decisions not you, me, or Fr. Violette. PERIOD. Besides, for all of your quoting of "Pope Davies" why do you not accept his position on the Pauline Mass (that it and the revised sacramental norms are valid)??? So you practice private judgment of doctrine even with your hand-picked "popes" too it seems…

He was not saying that the Pope didn’t have the authority to promulgate a NEW liturgy! Or that the Pope didn’t have the authority to say the Mass in whatever language he wished. But, as it is, Shawn’s statement above concerning the Novus Ordo Missae, and it’s being a "new liturgy" is a very interesting admission, especially considering the fact that he tries to twist statements referring to the Traditional Mass, to referring to this new liturgy. This is quite dishonest.

The liturgy is new, the mass is not. There is no dishonesty involved except in the overactive imagination of my critics here who are so desperate to "refute" me but this far have not proven that I have actually erred at all except in 2 small points (one of which was my source quotes which I did not scrutinize too well). Meanwhile, our opponents have made over 47 errors in their presentation and have already been soundly whipped in this discussion. They cite opinions from dissident "trads" and I cite the Pope, and theology manuals which carry a pre-Vatican II Imprimatur. Therefore, our opponents cannot accuse me of using "post-conciliar manuals", etc. But we are not done yet gentle readers for these fellas have deserved this beating for a long time and I, Matt1618, and Dr. Sippo did not come to Rome just to buy souvenirs at the gift shop…

[snipping the citation from Mediator Dei]
In the first place, the above citation from Pius XII’s Encyclical "Mediator Dei" is completely irrelevant, as Father Violette didn’t refer to any of the things referred to in His Holiness’s encyclical.


Secondly, this Encyclical was referring to the Mass which Father Violette still says, namely, the Traditional Mass.

The Encyclical says "the Mass" with no distinction of rites. The Pope was laying down general principles relevant to all times not just his own. (This is what Popes do when they write encyclicals and apostolic letters to address doctrinal issues: again basic "Magisterium 101" here.) According to the ‘logic’ of our opponents, the decrees of past Councils are not relevant today it seems. This must be how "trads" justify ignoring huge chunks of Trent and Vatican I that condemn their positions. We used to call people like this "cafeteria Catholics" years ago.

In the third place, the Encyclical admits - in paragraph 50, which, incidentally, Shawn passed over

It is called space constraints.

that various elements of the Sacred Liturgy are unchangeable, and that there are limitations to the changes that are allowed. The Pope cannot, for example, eliminate those elements of the Mass which are of divine origin, or change them.

I agree. And that has not been done as the only authority competent enough to make this determination has declared this so (the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church).

To cite paragraph 50:



The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

Which of course are words that our opponents ignore. Let me restate them again:

I challenge our opponents to PROVE that the Tridentine Missal was the very missal used by the Apostles. If they cannot do this (and they cannot as no credible liturgical historian would DARE make such an obviously erroneous claim) than they are forced by default to confess that the ecclesiastical hierarchy under Pope Paul VI authorized ‘various modifications’ that they thought (rightly or wrongly) that the ‘needs of the age’ required. It is not necessary for our opponents to claim that they personally like the Pauline Missal, only that it is validly promulgated and the universal scope of its promulgation guarantees dogmatic stability to the rite when celebrated in accordance with its rubrics. There is a bit of variation within the rubrics certainly but the Pope in promulgting the rite by Apostolic Constitution (replacing Quo Primum which as a governing document was likewise an Apostolic Constitution) expressedly stated that "we have accepted into the new Roman Missal lawful variations and adaptations". That is what our opponents must confess if they are to remain Catholics at all and not schismatics. They need not agree with the rubrical laws and indeed they can even write position papers questioning the prudence of the Magisterium in doing this. But the lawfulness of the variations approved (which I might add does not include the abuses that our opponents bring forward at every opportunity) are valid and dogmatically sound. No Catholic can affirm otherwise without falling into de facto apostasy from the Catholic faith. Quid pro quo.

Hence, there are limitations to the changes which may effect the Liturgy. His Holiness further states in paragraph 59:

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 (note, His Holiness does not state that she gives birth to an entirely different liturgy)

And as I noted already, Pope Paul VI did not do this. In fact, he specifically reinforced this point many times in the Apostolic Constitution. Since he is the only formally competent judge on the matter (and since he is protected when acting as Universal Shepherd), I side with him.

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.
Hence, we see that this is yet another limitation. The Doctrine of the Church must be safeguarded in the Mass, and the Divine Elements of the Sacred Liturgy cannot be changed in any way - both in meaning, as well as in form. Hence, we see that the Pope does have limitations in this regard.

Who is the judge of when these elements have been preserved or not??? That is right the Sovereign Pontiff. It is part of his job aided by the Holy Spirit. I covered this earlier when discussing infallibility but again Bro. Bugnolo’s passage is relevant so I will reprint it (again all emphasis is mine):

It is true that infalliblity inheres only in the teaching office, not in the governing office. But this theological distinction exists only on the theoretical level; for in practice the exercise of the teaching office and the governing office normally unite in every document in some manner. ESPECIALLY this is true in the promulgation of liturgical directives AND PARTICULARLY IN THE PUBLICATION OF A MISSAL. It is false that the promulgation of a form of worship does not involving the teaching office of the Church, inasmuch as the lex orandi statuit legem credendi, according to the ancient addage of the Roman Church. Fr. Wathen may want it otherwise, but in this he introduces a distinction non-existent in Catholic Theology. Indeed, the only way it could exist would be if there were no unity of truth and authority in the Church, which could only be if the Church was Herself defectible or vincible. [11]
Since "trads" cannot seem to get it through their thick skulls I will continue to swing the wrecking ball at them…

In the fourth place, the entire Encyclical makes it quite clear that the form of change that it is referring to is a "growth," a "development," not a brand-new liturgy manufactured by a commission. Hence, it doesn’t apply to the Novus Ordo Missae.

The Pauline Rite is not a "new" Mass but instead is a restoration of the Roman Rite. If these guys would have read my Addendum I covered this there. The accompanying Appendix A goes over this point in detail.

If the reader were to read the section which was cut out by Shawn (namely, paragraphs 50-57) we would see that the authority to approve rites and such, was not necessarily the approval of brand-new liturgies, but, rather, as The Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says: "Any customary observance or practice." (p. 1237)

Now our opponents are acting like Protestants saying that the Pope did not really say what he said. He said (and I quote):

58. THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE ENJOYS THE RIGHT TO RECOGNIZE AND ESTABLISH ANY PRACTICE TOUCHING THE WORSHIP OF GOD, TO INTRODUCE AND APPROVE NEW RITES, AS ALSO TO MODIFY THOSE HE JUDGES TO REQUIRE MODIFICATION. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship…[12]
Accept what the Pope says and do not put words in his mouth or attach meanings to his words that he did not say (again, very Protestant-like there).
Not a brand new "rite" as in an entirely new liturgy.



Reread the previous citation. The Pope does not agree with you guys.

Furthermore, paragraph 57 points out quite clearly that the Pope’s authority over the Mass is, rather, for the protection of the Mass, and not a complete elimination of it, and a starting out with a "clean slate." Or, as Shawn would say, an "overhaul."

The structure and content as I showed in the treatise is consistent between the two rites overall. This is the same principle as in the earlier Church with multiple rites: all of them were constructed along the same basic plan. I also pointed out that the Popes have always recognized the right among them to change the ceremonial of the Mass. The basic structure of the Pauline Missal is the same as the Tridentine Missal. Further Tanquerey noted that the Pope cannot universally promulgate a liturgy with dogmatic error to it and Dr. Ludwig Ott has made similar notations on the matter in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I realize that my treatise effectively sank your ship boys and you cling to the life-rafts for dear life. And thanks to your work I employed passages from my Ott book in my revisions of the Mass sections of the work. I am surprised that I never thought to utilize them previously but then like the Church facing heresies I guess I needed this jolt from dissident schismatics to more solidly re-affirm my points and make the treatise even stronger.

[snipping these people’s anti-Jewish Adolph Hitlerian blather]

The error count of our opponents ‘superb prescription’ is up to over 52 now. The 2 errors they pointed out (minor as they were) were corrected in both subsequent revisions. Nevertheless, I will take 26-1 odds in my favour any day. This so-called "refutation" of theirs is an utter joke.


[1] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913 obtained at the following link:

[2] Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol: "Mass of the Western Rites" excerpts (circa 1934) obtained at the following link:

[3] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913

[4] Dr. Art Sippo: On the Western Rites (part of an email correspondence)

[5] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913

[6] Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol: "Mass of the Western Rites" excerpts (circa 1934)

[7] Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol: "Mass of the Western Rites" excerpts (circa 1934)

[8] His Holiness Pope Paul VI: Apostolic Constitution, Promulgation Of The Roman Missal Revised By Decree Of The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, (April 3, 1969), obtained at the following link:

[9] His Holiness Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, November 19, 1969 obtained at the following link:

[10] His Holiness Pope Pius XII: Mediator Dei - 50 (November 20, 1947) obtained at the following link:

[11] Br. Alexis Bugnolo: Response to Fr. James Wathen

[12] His Holiness Pope Pius XII: Mediator Dei - 58 (November 20, 1947)

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 1,Section 2), written by I.Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to I. Shawn McElhinney

Go to Next Section of “Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Index Page of“Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

Go to Matt’s Ultratraditionalist Page