Detection and Overthrow
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called,
Part 2, Section 1
by ‘Matt1618’

Before I get directly into analysis of Part 2, and our opponents' critique of the Pauline Rite Mass, I want to show something that our opponents will not admit: That the Church had authority to change the Mass, and this was not an invention of 'heretics.' Also, the 20th century Popes who they consider their heroes (on this issue at least), Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII, in fact paved the way for these changes. All the popes since Leo XIII recognized that there had to be at least some reform to the Tridentine Mass, our opponents inability to recognize this notwithstanding.

The Church always has had the power to change or alter its rites, if the Church sees fit. This is highlighted in the very Council of Trent that our opponents will selectively refer to:

CHAPTER II. The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. (m) And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come. (n) Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one(o) species, (p) and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at plea sure, without the authority of the Church itself. [1]
Thus, despite the sentimentality and emotionalism shown by our opponents, the Catholic Church has made changes in the past, and always has the power to make new rites, as long as it retains the substance. Only the authority of the Catholic Church allows it to do so. Of course, our opponents operate on the assumption that 'well, if only we went back to pre-Vatican II, everything would be great and there would be no problems at all.' When one rejects that authority, and calls it heretical, one rejects the Catholic Church that one claims to be a part of.

So, the Church has this power to change. However, was this a good change? Did Popes like Pope St. Pius X, the anti-modernist of them all, reject any change to the Liturgy? What about Pope Pius XII? What we do see is the fact that the changes in the Liturgy that resulted in the Pauline Rite Mass reflect the culmination of increasing support from every pope since Pope Leo XIII of getting the people more involved in the Mass.

Many "traditionalists" for example take for granted the missals that people have during the Mass that they attend. They will say "well, the people were able to follow along with the priest saying the Latin Mass because they had the missal. Thus, the people were not ignorant." Even though just reading along in a language one does not understand individual words, is not easy to begin with, it is indeed good that people in the 20th century Latin Masses, in many places had missals. However, those who make such statements take for granted something which was only an innovation of the late 19th century. Latin to English Missals were prohibited prior to that point. I am sure there were some "Traditionalists" at the time who opposed the issuing of the missal in the vernacular. This was a great step forward. There was a movement for liturgical change that began approximately in mid-19th century to get people more involved in the Mass. Prior to Pope Leo XIII there was a prohibition on the translation from the Latin to the vernacular. Joseph Jungman in his Massive work on the History of the Mass notes that this attempt to get people more involved in the Mass began to bear fruit with Pope Leo XIII:

The liturgical movement, which, especially in its first beginnings was almost entirely a movement promoting the Mass, had come closer to the Mystery of the altar also from another angle. When the movement - a closed movement enbracing wider circles - suddenly came into being in Belgium only to spread at once into Germany and other countries, it made itself manifest, above all, by a new way of participating in the celebration of Mass. Growing out of the intellectual movement of the past decade, it had still to overcome many obstacles. The first thing that demanded solution, even if it was not formally expressed, was the question whether the separation between people and celebrating priest, maintained for more than a thousand years, was to be continued. It was certainly continued in law by the prohibition to translate the Mass books. Efforts had been made to shake this prohibition, but even as late as 1857 the prohibition to translate the Ordinary of the Mass was renewed by Pius IX, although, to be sure, its enforcement was no longer seriously urged. However, it was not openly and definitely rescinded until near the end of the century. In the revision of the Index of Forbidden Books, issued under Leo XIII in 1897, the prohibition was no longer mentioned. After that the spread of the Roman Missal in the vernacular took on greater and greater proportions.[2]
Thus, until the time of Pope Leo XIII, Latin to English missals were in some way put in the same category as heretical books by Martin Luther. Thus, what many "traditionalists" take for granted was an innovation of the very late 19th century. The removal of the prohibition by Pope Leo XIII was an important but first step of getting the people more involved in the Mass. We also see in the 19th century a liturgical movement that saw the need to restore the people's input into the Mass, that was indeed restorative of an ancient tradition. Here we see Pope Leo XIII's blessing of this important step.

The succeeding Popes, starting with Pope St. Pius X showed this desire to get the people more involved in the Mass in the following ways:

The great St. Pope Pius X made changes in Divino Afflatu (1911) and in his Abhinc Duos Annos (1913), was concerned with the reform of the Psalter and the Roman Breviary. Both of these papal documents were concerned with the restoration of the true spirit animating the liturgy, and both were prophetic about the changes that would come. Pope Pius XII prepared the way for the recent attempts to develop a solid Christian spirituality through encouragement of a more intense and more active participation of all Catholics in the liturgy.[3]
Pope Pius X, when focusing on changes to the music called for the active participation of the faithful, reflecting his overall view that people should not be mere spectators at Mass. In his Motu Proprio on Church Music, for example he writes on November 22, 1903:
Filled as we are with the most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the people, we deem it necessary to provide before aught else for the sanctity and dignity of the Temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable fount, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. [4]
What is the purpose of the faithful assembling, according to Pope St. Pius X? The active participation in the most holy mysteries and prayer. Thus, there was a necessary change to be done to the Mass to fulfill that purpose.

In a letter to his Vicar for Rome, Cardinal Respighi, dated December 8, 1903, he further issues another statement on the importance of people participating. The issue at hand is congregational chanting but look at the purpose of getting the congregation involved in the Mass:

Special efforts are to be made to restore...(the chanting) by the people, so that the people may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in olden times.[5]
Notice again that the purpose of making the congregational chanting a part of the Mass, according to Pope St. Pius X, is so that the people will take an active part in the Mass. This is clearly a reform that he pushed to restore tradition, as getting them more involved in the Mass is called ‘the olden times.’

Pope St. Pius X wanted reforms so that the congregational chant program would "invite the laity to cooperate by taking a more active part in the sacred functions, by singing the Kyrie, the Glorian, at high Mass, as well as...hymns"[6]

Pope Pius XI his successor also renewed desires for the people to be more active in the Mass, when he writes in his Apostolic Constitution, Divini Cultus, issued in 1928:

So that the faithful take a more active part in divine worship, let Gregorian chant be restored to popular use in the parts proper to the people. Indeed it is very necessary that the faithful attend the sacred ceremonies not as if they were outsiders or mute onlookers, but let them fully appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and take part in the sacred ceremonies, alternating their voices with the priest and the choir, according to the prescribed norms.[7]
Notice that the purpose of this was to have the people more involved in the Mass. He wanted this reform so that they take part in the Mass. In other words, in the Tridentine Mass, the people were more likely to be mute onlookers, and Pope Pius XI pushed this change so that they would no longer be such, at least in this area.

Pope Pius XII both recognized the power to change the rite of the Tridentine Mass, and the efficacy of making the change. First, in reference to the power to change the Mass, as long as the substance of the Mass was retained, he wrote in Mediator Dei:

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow?keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact?to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[8]
Thus, he clearly recognized the power of the Church to make the changes that would followed. However, did he approve of any changes to the Mass at this time? We do see some indications that he clearly was not upset about changes to the Tridentine Mass in relation to the change of language from Latin to the vernacular. John Murphy, in the 1957 book The Mass and Liturgical Reform, notes that a Third Congress on Liturgical Studies was held in Lugano, Switzerland on September 15 to 17, 1953, which included, as two of its four final conclusions, the request for introduction of the vernacular into the Mass (16 years ahead of the Pauline Rite Mass). This was a meeting of Bishops who were studying the issue. They submitted these conclusions and requests to Pope Pius XII:
"Most humbly therefore, and confidently does this Congress submit to the benign consideration of the Supreme Pontiff the present petitions...
II. Recalling the apostolic concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs, made manifest by the decrees of Blessed Pius X and by the more recent constitution of our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XII, that the faithful be nourished with the Eucharistic Bread by more frequent participation at the holy Table, this Congress expresses the wish that the nourishment of the divine word may similarly be made more easily available to the minds of our people-and this result would seem to be obtainable if the family of God could hear the scriptural lessons in Mass directly and immediately from the mouth of the celebrant in its own mother tongue whenever the number of people present would warrant it.
III. In order that the people may participate more easily and more fruitfully in the liturgy, this Congress most humbly asks that the local Ordinaries be empowered to permit the people (if they so judge opportune) not only to hear the word of God in their own tongue, but also, as it were, to respond to it, by praying and singing in their own tongue even during a Missa cantata." [9]
Then Murphy goes on to note that these vota, or earnest wishes were unanimously approved in a special meeting which included many bishops and outstanding scholars. Then on down Murphy notes:
"Bishop Jelmini, Ordinary of Lugano, presented the petitions to the Holy Father, and CARDINAL OTTAVIANI personally gave him a detailed report of the Congress and its deliberations, which His Holiness was pleased to call 'molto consolante'... And with the personal permission of His Holiness, the entire proceedings of the Lugano meeting have been made public." [10]
Here we see that this request for this significant change of the language into the vernacular was termed by Pope Pius XII as very consoling. Notice also that Cardinal Ottaviani took this request himself to the pope, and noticed that Pope Pius XII looked upon this request favorably. Why did Pope Pius XII not put this request in the Index of Forbidden books, as our opponents would have liked him to and why didn't their supposed ally, Cardinal Ottaviani (who down below we will see is not their ally) so urge him to send this request to the Index? Instead, this request is termed by Pope Pius XII as 'very consoling'. We also have absolutely no record of Cardinal Ottaviani opposing this request.

Not only do we have evidence that Pope Pius XII looked with favor upon this request, but we have papal testimony that he wanted a serious reform of the Roman Missal. Pope John XXIII had an audience with Pope Pius XII and clearly alludes to this approval:

In 1956, while the preparatory studies for the general reform of the liturgy advanced, our predecessor, Pope Pius XII, wished to hear for himself the opinion of the bishops concerning a future liturgical reform of the Roman Breviary. . . . And after having examined the matter well, We came to the decision to place before the Fathers of the future Council the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform and not to delay any longer the reform of the Roman Missal." [11]
We thus see popes clearly approving of different changes to the Mass well before the Pauline Rite Mass was established. Every single pope of the 20th century wanted to get the people more involved in the Mass than that which was available in the Tridentine Mass. Now when we arrive at Pope Pius XII we clearly see him approving of changes to the Tridentine Mass, and he wanted a future Council to not only specifically deal with Liturgical Reform, but to seriously reform the Mass. He apparently had had enough of delay in the reform of the Roman Missal. He wanted to get on with it. He himself commissioned the preparatory work for the changes that would ensue.

Now, on to the critique of the critique:

I will respond point by point to their critique. Shawn's original comments are in dark blue font and the opponent's response is in red and I will respond to their attempted points in blue.

As it is, below is a comparison between the texts of the Traditional Missal and the Novus Ordo Missal. In order to give the reader a chance to examine the issue more in depth, fairly, line by line (without excisions), we have formatted the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo in a side-by-side comparison. As it is, we felt that this would be easier for the reader to keep track of the issue, and compare the texts in question, than the format chosen by our opponent - which is very cumbersome.

Agreed. You have a fancier formatting, which I will use here. You also of course bring in pictures from web sites that ask people for the worst pictures that you can find to so distort things, but that is another issue.

(Due to editing problems, I was unable to load the very first section of the Mass comparison on side by side columns, but do in that manner after the very beginning section. In the very beginning section, I give you the format similar to Shawn's.)

For the Tridentine Mass, the rubrics and English translation are taken from the New Roman Missal in Latin and English by Rev. F.X. Lasance and Rev. Francis Augustine Walsh, O.S.B. (1945).

The rubrics and English is taken from the New Missal, 1973 translation, with some minor additions - we avoided using Shawn's version because 1) it excluded the rubrics, 2) it contained large numbers of (almost) useless Scripture citations. As we assume the reader is already Catholic, this won't be necessary.

I find it interesting that our opponents want to avoid the fact that Scriptures are repeatedly used in the Pauline Rite. They want to avoid the fact that written tradition (2nd Thessalonians 2:15 shows that we have oral and written Tradition that we are to hold to) is highlighted more in the Pauline Rite. It is obvious that our opponents want to avoid the most ancient tradition. Are our opponents afraid of us alluding to the Scriptural backdrops for the Pauline Rite Mass? They call Scripture useless? hmm.

Tridentine Mass

A LOW MASS is presented - in a Sung Mass the congregation often join the choir with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and the Agnus Dei, as well as saying out loud the "Lord, I am not worthy..." ["Domine, non sum dignus..."], silently reciting the other prayers.

Pauline Rite Mass

A general Mass is presented with standard options, including the Greeting, the Act of Confession, the "Mystery of Faith", and the final Blessing. A point by point comparison is very difficult as many prayers are optional and the rubrics are usually not specified in a standard missal (often left to the priest in many instances), so the basic Ordinary of the Mass is listed for each liturgy.


Tridentine Mass


(continues till the "Take away from us our iniquities" prayer)

[Bowing before the altar, the priest makes the sign of the cross, saying:

P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

P: I will go in to the altar of God.

R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.

Pauline Rite Mass


[The priest kisses the altar, goes to his chair and stands facing the people.]

P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

R: Amen.

Tridentine Mass


 [The priest and server say alternately:]

P: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

R: For Thou art, God, my strength; why hast Thou cast me off? and why do I go all sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?

P: Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.

R: And I will go in to the altar of God: to God Who giveth joy to my youth.

P: To Thee, O God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?

R: Hope in God, for I will still give praise to Him, the salvation of my countenance and my God.

P: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.

R: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

P: I will go in to the altar of God.

R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.

P: Our help (+) is in the name of the Lord.

R: Who made heaven and earth.

Pauline Rite Mass


[Option 2 and Option 3 are available, Option 1 proceeds thus:]

[The priest then welcomes all present with one of the following greetings:]

1. P: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

R: And also with you.

[After the Greeting the Entrance Antiphon may be read by the priest if it has not already been said or sung.]

[The priest may now comment briefly on the Mass of the day.]

Personally I do not think they should have eliminated Psalm 42 from the Introductory but then it is not my decision to make. Neither introduction is wrong but I do personally prefer the recitation of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass.

In the first place, the difference in structure here is obvious. While one is a set thing, the other is optional - there are at least two different "greetings" that can be given, according to the day, and according to the personal preference of the Priest who is "presiding" over the service. Even the prayers are different. A quick reading of the citations from the Traditional Mass is sufficient to show that it’s emphasis is the Sacrifice which is about to follow, and the "Altar of God." And he immediately requests that God separate him from the unjust man and nation. Whereas the emphasis has changed in the "new order of mass." It is no longer emphasizing the Sacrifice which is supposedly about to follow, it doesn’t even mention the "Altar of God." The whole emphasis is on the people. As the "New Order" of greeting states:

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Several things to point out. First, as already shown you, the Church has declared that there can be changes done to the Mass, as was done when the Tridentine Mass suppressed many other Rites when it was instituted. This would obviously include the start of the Mass. The change reflected here is in conformity with the fact that there was fluidity in the Ancient Masses:
WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST QUESTION IT 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. [12]
This is to be remembered throughout this whole analysis. Just the fact that there are sometimes a variety of ways in which things can be done by the Priests, only reflects ancient tradition. Whenever there is a mention of the fact that there are a variety of ways that the Pauline Mass does things, we must remember this. It is not a strike against the Pauline Rite, but a restoration of tradition.

Second, I note that they highlight the word ‘preside’. That is a horrible word for these "Traditionalists". That is Protestant, according to them. I guess that is why they put ‘preside’ in quotes. Remember, as Shawn clearly pointed out in the Treatise, the word ‘preside’, and the Priest ‘presiding’ over the congregation has ancient usage. As St. Justin Martyr wrote, in the 2nd Century:

CHAP. LXV.--ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS. But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.(3) There is then brought to the president of the brethren(4) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. [13]
I wonder if St. Justin Martyr was a ‘Catholic’ heretic when he used the phrase President and he did not have it in quotes. The word Preside, in the context of the liturgy has a distinctly Catholic meaning. The priest is the only one who does preside. The congregation does not ‘preside’. The word ‘preside’ means ‘to preside, to have the care or management of’. It does not mean that the Liturgy is a democracy. It is that the priest has the power to officiate at the sacrifice. That is the meaning poured into the context of the Mass

Our opponents decry the emphasis on the people where it says the "Grace of the Father, Son & the Holy Spirit with you." How horrible of the Pauline Rite Mass to quote from the Bible during Mass, that ancient horrible tradition!!! Paul must put too much emphasis on the people for our opponents, that humanist, according to our opponent. Paul writes in 2nd Cor. 13:14:


The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Of course that is what is referred to in our opening prayer that our opponent derides. Now, in the Byzantine Catholic Church which has an ancient Liturgical Tradition, is, the Eucharistic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem which continues to be celebrated, but has never been condemned by the Catholic Church as ‘too much emphasis on the people’, the opening of this Eucharistic prayer is:
Deacon: Let us stand well. Let us stand in awe. Let us be attentive, that we may present the holy offering in peace.
People: Mercy and peace, a sacrifice of praise.
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all of you.
People: And with your spirit.
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord.
People: It is proper and right. [14]
Just in this prayer we see several things that drive Ultra-traditionalists bonkers:

1) People are told to stand during a Eucharist prayer. Of course we do not practice this in the United States in the Latin Rite, as we only kneel during the Eucharistic prayer (Though some do stand in opposition to what they are allowed to do), but the thought of this drives Ultra-traditionalists bonkers some times.

2) The point I want to emphasize here is about the grace of Our Lord being extended to us, is not only Biblical, (which our opponents don’t like us to quote), and reflective of the truth of the Trinity, but is part of an ancient tradition in the Liturgy as well. This greeting has always been accepted by the Church, and never denigrated by the Latin Rite, as our opponents are attempting to so denigrate the Pauline Rite . It is not about there just being too much of an emphasis on people. Even the greeting is Restorative of Tradition.

3) Notice by the way, people participating & responding to the Priest. This is later during our Mass, but even the words are very similar to our responding and participating in the Mass. The Pauline Rite is in fact not destructive but Restorative of tradition. This is one of the very things that the Ultra-Traditionalists bash the Pauline Rite for!

To cite both versions of the "Confiteor" (with rubrics): 

[Bowing down low, the priest says:] 

P: I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed: (The priest strikes his breast three times saying:) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brethren, to pray to the Lord our God for me. 

R: May almighty God have mercy on thee and, having forgiven thee thy sins, bring thee to life everlasting. 

P: Amen. 

[The server now says:] 

R: I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed: (The acolyte strikes his breast three times saying:) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and thee, Father, to pray to the Lord our God for me.

  Option 1 proceeds thus:] 

P: My brothers and sisters (or similar wording), to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins. 

[After a brief silence, the priest and people together recite:] 

1. A: I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault (all strike their breast) in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

P: May almighty God have mercy on you and, having forgiven you your sins, bring you to life everlasting. 

R: Amen. 

[The priest signs himself, saying:] 

P: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, (+) absolution, and remission of our sins. 

R: Amen.

  P: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. 

R: Amen.

[Again bowing slightly, the priest goes on:] 

P: Thou wilt turn again, O God, and quicken us. 

R: And Thy people will rejoice in Thee. 

P: Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy. 

R: And grant us Thy salvation. 

P: O Lord, hear my prayer. 

R: And let my cry come unto Thee. 

P: The Lord be with you. 

R: And with thy Spirit. 

P: Let us pray. 

[Going up to the altar, the priest prays silently:] 

P: Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. 

[He bows down over the altar, which he kisses, saying:] 

P: We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of those of Thy saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to pardon me all my sins. Amen.


Either way is fine as I see it although the Pauline Rite variation cuts down on unnecessary repetition (one Confiteor vs. two being said) while not removing the plea for intercession on the part of the Blessed Virgin and the saints on our behalf before the Lord. On this aspect, I prefer the Pauline Rite version to the Tridentine one. Neither method is any less "valid" than the other.

Validity is not the issue here, that issue will come up presently. Though his statement about the two confiteors being "unnecessary" shows a lack of understanding of the Traditional Mass. Look at who’s saying the two confiteors... one is said by the Priest, and the other is said by the Altar Boy, who represents the People. It is an important distinction that is being made here between just who is offering the Mass. The Novus Ordo does not only blur this distinction, but it also eliminates the absolution that followed the second Confiteor in the Traditional Mass, and only has a plea for forgiveness. But as far as the two confiteors is concerned, who is Shawn to say that they are unimportant and unnecessary? Who is Shawn to declare that something which has been in the Mass for hundreds of years is unnecessary and unimportant? How dare he show such little regard for this prayer, which has been said for centuries by Popes, Saints, Bishops and Priests? The antiquity of prayers is obviously of little concern for Shawn, as is obviously the wording of such prayers, or the emphasis of them.

First, who are you to deride Shawn! You just derided the prayer celebrating God’s grace given to the people as ‘too much emphasis on the people’, when in fact the prayer is part of a Tradition of a Liturgy that has always been accepted by the Church, in addition to being from Holy Scripture.

The fact that in the Pauline Rite Mass we confess our sins show that we are indeed unworthy and need to approach God with our sins in mind. This is ignored by the folks who just claimed that the Pauline Rite show no reverence to God. Then they go harping on to something else. Who, in the Tridentine Rite, thinks ‘well, the altar boy represents me, and the Priest represents himself, and thus, here we maintain the difference between the priest and I? ’ Isn’t it better for the congregation itself to actually say those words? What is more reverent, letting somebody else speaking for you and your sins, or saying them yourselves? Doesn’t speaking the words themselves "I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts words and deeds" bring to our mind the fact that we ourselves personally have sinned? Isn’t it better to say "I have sinned" then to think, "Well, I know that altar boy has sinned?". Doesn’t the fact that we admit the sins ourselves bring up our unworthiness more than letting somebody else speak for you that you have sinned?

Third, the following is from a very early Liturgy of the Church, "The Divine Liturgy of James". Throughout the Liturgy people are always responding to the Priest, which you folks think is ‘too humanistic’ and self-centered. Here is just a very small part of the prayer, which is in the midst of a running dialogue between the people and the priest:

The Priest says aloud: Wherefore, both to them and to us, do Thou in Thy goodness and love:
The People: Forgive, remit, pardon, O God our transgressions, voluntary and involuntary; in deed and in word; in knowledge and in ignorance by night and by day: in thought and intent in Thy goodness and love, forgive us them all.
The Priest: Through the grace and compassion and love of Thy only-begotten Son, with whom Thou art blessed and glorified....
The People: Amen
The Priest: Peace be to all
And to thy spirit [15]
Besides being in the midst of the running dialogue between the Priest and the People, this ancient Liturgy has the people themselves confessing sins. The people themselves say this. There is no altar boy present confessing for them. Again, are the Ultra-Trads, going to condemn another ancient Liturgy because it doesn’t conform to what they think it should be? It is too ‘humanistic and people centered’ and were the people too ignorant of making the distinction between the Priest and the Laity? In fact the Pauline Rite is restorative of tradition.


Also, a misleading impression is given by the Tridentine Rite which is corrected in the Pauline Rite Mass. As Dr. Art Sippo noted:

"At the penitential rite in the TM, the priest used the same formula of blessing as was used in the confessional to grant absolution. This was misleading since the formula was not intended to be formal absolution from Mortal Sin. The Revised Missal changed the wording so that it was clear that this was NOT sacramental absolution" [16]
The wording in the Tridentine Rite could give the impression to the faithful that one was getting an absolution from Mortal sin from this confession. There was no reason to use the same formula that was used by the priest in the confessional.

Do not put words in Shawn’s mouth about him not caring about the antiquity of prayers. If you were so worried about the antiquity of prayers, where in the ancient liturgy of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, was this Double idea of "Well, the priest says this, and the altar boy who represents the people says this"? Where was that? When the Tridentine Mass was imposed on the earlier traditions, was this not a "Novus Ordo"? Were there ‘Pope Hammers’ running around saying, "Ahh This is an invention!! Why are you imposing this double saying on us now!!! " Obviously Altar boys were a much later invention. The fact that altar boys came on very much later in Tradition surely must have given the ‘Pope’ Hammers of their time heart attacks.

Now, on to the idea of this horrible thing called people participation in the Mass, a few things must be said:

Pope St. Pius X in Divino Afflatuurged "More active participation in the most sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church". [17] Thus, Pope St. Pius X helped to lay the groundwork for what developed in the Pauline Rite of the Mass. That is far different from the Organization that uses his name, who pretend that there was absolutely no change needed at all, and sees it as practically heresy.

As we saw earlier, Pope St. Pius XII likewise saw a need for the people to participate in Mass. Not only does Pope John XXIII testify to Pope Pius XII’s approval and encouragement of the changes to the Tridentine Rite, as shown earlier, he testified to that himself:

Of its nature the Mass demands that all those who are present should participate, each in his own proper way. [18]
He also encouraged responses, prayers, and singing by the faithful at Mass. In other words, the Tridentine Mass was lacking in these areas, according to Pope Pius XII.

In the Didache, 1st century, we see people responding to prayers during the Liturgy. In the Liturgical prayer of St. Justin Martyr, 2nd Century, there is participation of the People in Mass. In a variety of traditions from the founding of Christ's Church there is a tradition of people participating in Mass. In the Liturgy of James the Apostle the following is a portion of people’s response that we saw earlier:

The Priest says aloud: Wherefore, both to them and to us, do Thou in Thy goodness and love:
The People: Forgive, remit, pardon, O God our transgressions, voluntary and involuntary; in deed and in word; in knowledge and in ignorance by night and by day: in thought and intent in Thy goodness and love, forgive us them all.
The Priest: Through the grace and compassion and love of Thy only-begotten Son, with whom Thou art blessed and glorified....
The People: Amen
The Priest: Peace be to all
The People: And to thy spirit [19]
The earlier allusion to the Ancient Liturgy of John Chrysostem which continues to be celebrated today in the Byzantine Rite, has people participate in a running dialogue even during the Eucharistic Prayer. Other early and ancient liturgies such as "The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles", "The Liturgy of St. Mark," also have a tremendous amount of input from the People: I.E. Participation of the people in Mass. The Pauline Rite thus is restorative of this tradition, not a taking away of the God’s dignity and merely focusing on man, as alleged by our opponents.


[1] Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapters V and VI

[2] Father Joseph Jungmann, S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, Christian Classics, Volume I, pp. 161-162.

[3] James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, The Council and the Mass, The Christopher Publishing House, W. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1981, p. 74.

[4] John Murphy, The Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1956, p. 121, quoting from Pope Pius X Motu Proprio on Sacred Music.

[5] The Mass and Liturgical Reform, p. 122, quoting from Gerald Ellard, S.J., The Mass of the Future, Milwaukee: Bruce, 1948), p. 166.

[6] The Mass and Liturgical Reform, p. 122, quoting from Ellard, p. 167.

[7] Pope Piux XI, Divino Cultus, Referred to by Pope St. Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 192, footnote 173. Mediator Dei is available at

[8] Pope St. Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 49. Available at

[9] The Mass and Liturgical Reform, p. 201, quoting from Conclusions of the Third Congress, 1953, in Worship (February 1954), Vol. 28:162-163.

[10] ibid., The Mass and Liturgical Reform, p. 201, Conclusions of the Third Congress, pp. 162, 116.

[11] Pope Pius XII, Instruction of the Congregation of Rites on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, September 3, 1958. Text in The Pope Speaks, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, 1959, pages 223 ff, as cited in The Pope, The Council and the Mass, p. 75.

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

[13] St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap. LXV, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Chap LXV, p. 185, available at

[14] The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, available at

[15] Philip Schapf, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7, The Divine Liturgy of St. James, Early Liturgies, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994, p. 547.

[16] Email correspondence from Dr. Art Sippo

[17] Pope St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecutudini, November 27, 1903, In Papal Teachings, Daughters of St. Paul, St. Paul Editions, Boston Massachusetts, as cited in, Kenneth Whitehead & James Likoudis, The Pope, The Council and the Mass, The Christopher Publishing House, W. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1981, p. 74.

[18] Pope, The Council and the Mass, p. 75, quoting from Pope Pius St. Pius XII, Instruction of the Congregation of Rites on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, September 3, 1958.

[19] Philip Schapf, Anti Nicene Fathers, vol.7, The Divine Liturgy of James, op cit., p. 547.

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 2, Section 1), written by Matt1618. 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 or comments on this writing to Matt1618


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