'Traditionalist' Errors Syllabus Part II - On the Mass

The following is a short syllabus of errors on the Mass that are commonly circulated in 'traditionalist' quarters:

"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…"
"[T]he sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it…"
"The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls."
"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…"
"THIS INDULT IS AN INSULT. IT IS NOT FOR US…we do not accept the new mass as lawful…an 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.
Regarding ‘"..our enemies on the other side…’celebrating the Tridentine Mass…THEY ARE BETRAYING US…they are doing the devil’s work.’ "
As to "conservative" Catholics: "…to associate in friendship or solidarity with them is implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith…"
"… I refuse to cooperate with the Ecclesia Dei people…the Society of St Peter or Dom Gerard…I want nothing to do with them either…the Ecclesia Dei movement here in Australia…they must also agree that the new mass is good…and most of them accept the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre."
"Mr Pickford says: ‘The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.’ Yes absolutely!… "
"Fr. Violette says: ’ I distinguish; what I hold as the true religion is other than (he actually means "what", F.J.L.) the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII (sic.!!!); I deny, the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede."
"...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil."
Regarding the New Mass: "...it is of itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you cannot: the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church."; (that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church).
"Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it’s) nocivity (sic)...If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..."
(Regarding ‘The corruption of the Holy Mass’ spoken of by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988)..."in the majority of churches still operating, it is the abomination of desolation and a mockery of the truth which have replaced the Holy of Holies..."
"Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of "president" has been borrowed directly from Protestantism…"
F. John Loughnan is deserving of a good deal of credit for helping with this short syllabus of common errors espoused by ‘traditionalists (along with the first one with errors on Tradition). They were culled from a cornucopia of different 'traditionalist' sources and are general norms for how 'traditionalists' look at the Pauline Missal promulgated in 1969 by Pope Paul VI (some are more extreme then this and others less so).

A Macro Look at the Two Rites

As a Protestant clergyman I have run into the rather peculiar bit of truth that the average Lutheran will look upon the liturgy of the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church with complete disdain and abhorrence; he fails, at the same time, to realize that his own Order of Service is basically the same. Lutheran liturgies have drawn from the liturgical thesaurus of Catholicism; but because of the language barrier, many of the clergy, and practically all of the laity, fail to realize this. Instead they condemn liturgical practices in the Roman Church which they themselves are observing, but in a vernacular language.
I believe, most sincerely, that one might make the rather categorical statement that Protestantism fears the vernacular movement in the Roman Church. With the rites in the vernacular, there will be for all of Protestantism to see, a body of faith and action which for so long they have condemned as mere Hexerei (witch-craft).
If Lutherans today could behold the Mass in the Roman Church even partly English, as a form consisting of: Introductory prayers, Confession and Absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, Post-Communion, ALL OF WHICH MAKE UP THE LUTHERAN COMMUNION SERVICE, then I believe most sincerely that the Lutherans of today would stop and re-evaluate the Reformation. [Rev. John Murphy, The Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956, p. 280 (quote courtesy of ‘Matt1618’)]
In light of the previous errors syllabus on the Mass, meditate on those words from Rev. John Murphy from the 1950’s while we contrast the Pauline Missal with the Tridentine Missal.

I - The Liturgy and Church History:

To start off this section, a look at part of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the Sacred Liturgy) from the Second Vatican Council is in order since it is the source for all of this controversy.

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy  itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject  to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if  they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable.

In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community.[1]

Many 'traditionalists' as they call themselves react with comments like "the Novus Ordo is either (i) illicit or (ii) it is invalid and thus sacrilegeous or (iii) it is not a valid Mass or (iv) if valid, then it is still somehow sacrilegeous.  At the same time, comments are made defending the Tridentine Ritual most commonly along the lines of "the Traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine Rite codified by Pope Pius V in 1570) has been the Mass for the past 2,000 years" or "it is the Mass of All Time" which are comments that betray a profound degree of historical ignorance. Before doing a macro contrast of the two rites of mass, it seems appropriate to refute this notion of THE Traditional Latin Mass. (As if there was never any other Latin masses celebrated throughout the centuries.)

Initially Mass was celebrated in a more intimate house setting and before Mass there was an "agape" or love feast. The "agape" was dropped in the early to mid second century and the self-styled 'traditionalists' of that period probably voiced their disapproval as something along the lines of the modifications being "against tradition". (Were they correct to do this at the time??? By so-called 'traditionalist' criteria they probably were since the "agape" was a holdover from the days when most of the Church was comprised of Jewish Christians.) Many other modifications along these lines could be noted but they all revolve around the same themes as the one listed above. However, the arguments about changes of the Mass forms along the lines of replacing certain liturgical sections are ones that boomerang back at the 'traditionalists'  for one very good reason: such modifications are not at all uncommon throughout history. Where for example was the Te Igitur, Secret, Gloria, or Nicene Creed in the pre-Nicene Masses??? They are not to be found. More could be mentioned but that is adequate to make the point at this time.

A large number of the little distinctive common to the Tridentine Mass were absent from the ancient Masses of the first few centuries. This should not surprise since the Tridentine Rite received much of its current structure from the fifth century on when the liturgy was "dramatically recast" including the Canon of the Mass itself which to 'traditionalists' is supposedly untouchable. It is strange that self-styled 'traditionalists' today have no problems with radical transformations of the liturgy in days of yore but if it happens today as it did in the restoration of the Roman Rite at the command of Vatican II then there is a problem with it. However the pattern in the early Church was not one of liturgical preservation but in fact was quite the opposite. As Fr. Adrian Fortescue noted on the matter:

From what date was there a fixed and regulated service such as we can describe as a formal Liturgy?...[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. [2]
There were of course some established patterns which created a kind of loose uniformity. However, within that core pattern was a degree of flux that enabled a moderate degree of liturgical diversity from dioceses to dioceses. These points will be gone over in greater detail later on but to touch on a few of them in the beginning here would not hurt to set the stage for what is about to be discussed. The Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol concurs with Fr. Fortescue on the fluidity of the early Mass liturgies. Speaking of the reforms of Pope Gregory the Great, Rev. Cabrol noted the following:
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. The Popes possessed an authority which allowed them to change any part of the ceremonial, and they used it. [3]
Keep that last statement in mind throughout these sections because that is precisely what these self-styled 'traditionalists' are arguing against: the right of the Pope to alter portions of the ceremonial of the Mass. They claim that the Pope is not protected from error in promulgating a liturgy to the Universal Church. Infallibility will be covered later on in the sections on Vatican II but for the moment, Dr. Ludwig Ott has the floor for a short dissertation on the importance of the Roman Pontiff for the protection of the faith from error:
[T]he unity and the solidarity is not possible without the right Faith. Peter is therefore also the supreme teacher of the Faith. As such he must be infallible in the official promulgation of Faith, in his own person and in his successors since by Christ’s decree the Church is to continue for all time. Again, Christ bestowed upon Peter (and on his successors) a comprehensive power of binding and loosing. As in Rabbinical speech one understood by binding and loosing also the authentic declaration of the law of the New Covenant, the Gospel. God in Heaven will confirm the Pope’s judgment. This supposes that, in his official capacity as Doctor of the Faith, he is preserved from error. [4]
The Supreme Pontiff's promulgation, of a Missal to the universal church, is an example of the pope acting as a Doctor of the Faith. Therefore, the Pope is protected from error in incidences as these unless the self-styled 'traditionalist' wishes to impose a false Protestant-like "either/or" dichotomy between the governing office and the sanctifying office that has never been recognized to exist in the history of the Church. Self-styled 'traditionalists' need to ask themselves why it was okay to revamp the canon in the past and yet not okay to do so today. The Popes of today have the same authority as previous popes and in all areas not bound by the Constitution of the Church as given to her by Our Lord (and by definitive teachings of his predecessors which reinforce areas of this Divine Constitution), the Pope has the authority to make changes as he sees fit. It is impossible for any Pope to bind his successors in perpetuity on matters not of dogma or doctrine and the liturgy is neither of these (although it is intimately connected to the two). The liturgy is the rule of prayer (orandi) which determines the rule of faith (credendi). This is the source for the tradition of lex orandi lex credendi (let the rule of prayer determine the rule of faith). Thus, since liturgy is the prayer of the Church that liturgy likewise determines (in some sense) the faith of the Church.

The faith of the Church never changes. Therefore, since liturgies do change and have throughout history, there must be protection from error inherent in the policies of liturgical modification especially when the Pope promulgates a Missal to the Universal Church as Pope Pius V did in 1570 and as Pope Paul VI did in 1969. After all, a bit of common sense is in order here. The Church is protected from the gates of hell and thus being overcome by error in matters of faith, morals, and matters intimately connected to these two areas. (Since those are the areas that impact salvation.) By logical extension then, if Church infallibility did not extend to the rule of prayer to safeguard the rule of faith, the devil could indeed prevail. Other sections of this treatise will cover why the universal actions of the Pope are always tied to the consent of the Church; however it was suitable to cover these points in brief before discussing the liturgy since the liturgy is connected with dogma albeit it is strictly speaking not infallible in and of itself.

As for the venerable old Roman Canon being the "Traditional Mass" canon, Fr. Fortescue pointed out, the canon has not only been changed before but dramatically so:

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). [5]
The part removed from the ellipse stated simply that "[d]uring the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer" (Fortescue: Catholic Encyclopedia article "Liturgy of the Mass" c. 1913). These are three aspects of the current Pauline Mass that were restored after Vatican II which are absent from the Tridentine Rite of Mass - the kiss of peace being later dropped altogether when the mass became more of a private devotion then it originally was when the people had a more active role in it. However, this writer does not want to get ahead of himself here.

Though the Roman Canon was retained in the Revised Missal the three additional anaphora prayers all have a clear epiklesis in them though it precedes the Consecration rather than being after it. This provided for a certain pneumatological balance which the Roman Canon lacked. Ironically this deficiency attests to the fact that the Roman Canon of the Tridentine and Pauline liturgies is quite likely one of the oldest anaphora prayers still in use. The lack of a clear epiklesis attests to its recasting being most likely before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The First Council of Constantinople, where the divinity of the Holy Spirit and His coequality with the Father and Son were defined solemnly, was originally a plenary synod of the Orient. (And this synod appears to have been recognized as ecumenical for the first time at Chalcedon - where it was affirmed with Nicaea and Ephesus as one of the universal synods.) This would place the recasting of the canon with all probability in the early fifth century between about 400 and 450. And this brings us to our bottom line really: the canon was radically altered before and it thus could be radically altered again - whatever the perceived wisdom or lack of it in such an action may be.

If the current Pontiffs are not protected from error when approving modifications of the Canon then neither were the popes from approximately Innocent I (401-417) to Gregory I (590-604) who were the popes who took part in dramatically recasting the canon. The bulk of the recasting took place before Pope Gregory’s time, but the important matter of note is that it did happen before in Church history and in most particulars it was with all likelihood before Chalcedon for the reasons noted above. Therefore, there is nothing stopping such modifications as needed from being made again. The authority which makes such determinations as to when and what is "needed" of course is the Magisterium of the Church and especially the Roman Pontiff: not presumptuous and myopic self-styled 'traditionalists' who have not advanced past Baltimore Catechism Four in their knowledge of theology.

Further still, the imposition of liturgical uniformity from the seventh century onward in some places was not papal in origin but instead it was initially done by secular authorities. Pepin III (714-768) tried to impose the rite and practices of the Roman Church upon his subjects in the Frankish kingdom but did not fully succeed because there was a scarcity of books of Roman import in his kingdom. Charlemagne after visiting Rome in 781 "requested Pope Hadrian I for a copy of the sacramentary currently in use in the church of Rome" (The Study of Liturgy: section on medieval western rites pg. 227). The intention of the Emperor was to make obligatory  in all of his lands the usages of the Roman Church - a process he forcefully sought to implement between the years 785 and 790. Pope Hadrian I sent him a copy of the sacramentary which he noted in a letter to Charlemagne was "pure 'immixtum' Roman use" (ibid). Further still, a supplement was added to make application of the sacramentary easier. The supplement included "the addition of Mass formularies for the thirty-seven Sundays of the year not provided for in the [sacramentary]" (ibid pg. 228) and much of the new material was "clearly derived from the eighth century Gelasian tradition" (ibid). Another feature that became prevalent at this time was the alteration of plural prayer forms into singular ones - a factor that will be looked into later on in this examination.

Many other elements could be covered in brief at this time but the above examples are sufficient to highlight the fact that there are many errors spouted off every day by the very vocal 'traditionalists' on these matters. (The very same people who on one hand are critical of Protestant private interpretation of the Scriptures but who, with the other hand, treat Denzinger and various magisterial documents no differently.) Since this is an examination of the two most prevalent Western rites today, the goal is to stay away from getting too far off track. However, a few of the common errors need to be addressed and that will be done that in brief at this time. To start with, any rite approved by the Church Magisterium is a valid rite and any sacraments administered by the Church which conform to the precepts she sets down as binding are validly administered. This was explained by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei:

44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.

45. Additional proof of this indefeasible right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy lies in the circumstances that the sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God...

48. For this reason, whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the "theological sources," as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" -- let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief....The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" -- let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. The same holds true for the other theological virtues also, "In . . . fide, spe, caritate continuato desiderio semper oramus" -- we pray always, with constant yearning in faith, hope and charity...

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...

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...

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about -- during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors -- that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation...This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy...

58. It follows from this that 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...Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

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 to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [6]

The statement by Pope Pius XII is in reference to "recognizing and approving new rites" and cannot be twisted by 'traditionalists' to mean anything other then what he has said here: that the Sovereign Pontiff has the authority and 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." This logically includes the promulgation of a Missal to the Church Universal and the establishment of a new rite of Mass. According to the 1950 book "Angelic Shepherd", the gist of the Pope's authority on these matters (and the proper context for understanding the many warnings he set forth in the encyclical letter quoted above) can be summarized as follows:
[A]ny modification of old rites or establishment of new rites depends on the authority of the Church. This authority is vested in the Pope, who delegates it to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Hence "imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches" are abuses. [7]
Notice the above distinction which refutes the understanding of many a self-styled 'traditionalist' who haphazardly quotes various elements from Mediator Dei. Many a time do such individuals quote a snippet from the encyclical letter of certain elements that have come to pass subsequently and say "see, Pius XII condemned the changes made by Vatican II" when in reality he did nothing of the sort. Pope Pius XII spoke against some practices currently in use but in a certain context: the context of private individuals or particular churches introducing such practices "out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics" and how those such people and groups were "deserving of severe rebuke" (Mediator Dei §59).  At no time does the Pope say anything whatsoever about the institution of such practices by the Magisterium - indeed he gives a blanket approval to the rights of the Sovereign Pontiffs to make whatever changes they feel are fitting or proper. So those who wield this encyclical letter in any of its parts against the Council or Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, or John Paul II directly contradict the very teaching of Pope Pius XII on the prerogatives of the Popes and their apostolic authority.

For Mediator Dei makes it abundantly clear in more then one place that the authority of the Roman Pontiffs in matters liturgical and disciplinary is supreme and above reproach by any faithful Catholic. To those so-called 'traditionalists' who deny the validity of the newer rites approved by papal authority (a subject to be dealt with in this and the two subsequent urls), they are hereby challenged by this author to find at any time in Church history where orthodox Fathers or Doctors propounded the argument that the infallibility of the Church did not embrace all elements of the central mysteries of the faith in some form or another. By logical extension, this would involve the liturgy and the rites for the administration of the sacraments. (If you cannot do this then your case has no merit whatsoever.) After all, the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith.

The individuals who would deny the validity of the Revised Missal or revised norms of sacramental administration need to ask themselves how logically Satan does not prevail if he is capable of suffusing the rule of prayer (the liturgy) with errors and likewise not affect the rule of faith of the Church (if the liturgy was promulgated to the Universal Church). And if the liturgy as Pope Pius XII taught in Mediator Dei was "intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions" (Mediator Dei §48) then the question that remains is how those truths are preserved from being obscured by the very teaching authority of the Church whom the same pope taught "enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God...as also to modify those [rites] he judges to require modification" (Mediator Dei §58). How do those who make such criticisms can avoid denying the indefectibility of the Church??? To summarize them in brief, self-styled 'traditionalists' need to ask themselves not only  (i) how the gates of hell do not prevail over the Church if the pope acting in this capacity is not protected from doctrinal and moral error but also (ii) how their assertions - if they presume that error in such instances can exist - do not logically make shipwreck of the faith and (iii) how are they avoiding the same kind of private judgment with the liturgy and sacraments that they condemn Protestants for doing with the Sacred Scriptures.

Of course the answer is that in the situation noted above, Satan would prevail and there is no consistent way around this fact. (Which means that the thesis must be rejected by any faithful Catholic.) If you are a 'traditionalist' who advances this thesis, then kindly explain both (i) how you are competent to determine this and (ii) where in history has any orthodox Father or Doctor espoused the view that the Church was not safeguarded from error in her regulations touching divine worship. This is important especially in light of the fact that there have been numerous liturgies in the past 2000 years that have been celebrated. Until the 'traditionalists' can do this (and establish their credentials for being competent judges in these matters), there is no reason for anyone to give them the time of day on these or any other matters.

Can anyone honestly say that an officially promulgated Mass that was either illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even an invalid Mass (in essence a Mass that was a true "abomination") would not be representative of the gates of hell prevailing over the Church??? Can anyone honestly claim that Our Lord who promised to be with the Church "all days unto the consummation of the world" is not with the Church now??? Bishop Vincent Gasser noted at Vatican I at the deputation De Fide (when explaining to the Council Fathers precisely how the dogma on papal infallibility was to be understood in accordance with how the popes had utilized it throughout Church history): "We cannot separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent can never be lacking to him". Therefore, logically (i) if the pope cannot be separated from the consent of the church and (ii) if the Pope promulgates to the Universal Church a liturgy then (iii) that liturgy is intimately bound up in the consent of the whole Church. This is a conclusion that presents a whole truckload of problems for the weltanschuung of the self-styled 'traditionalist'.

To emphasize one final time before starting the examination of the two rites: if (i) the liturgy is heretical or otherwise containing errors in doctrine and (ii) the Pope is not protected from error when imposing the rule of prayer that is intimately connected with the rule of faith (ala lex orandi lex credendi), then the only logical conclusion is (iii) Satan has triumphed. There is no other conclusion that is logically tenable. And that conclusion is not possible to retain and still remain Catholic so it must be thrown on the trash heap where it rightfully belongs.

II - Examining the Two Rites of Mass Part I (Liturgy of the Word):

As it has been established that to preserve the Church's indefectibility, it must be upheld that the Pauline liturgy is a valid liturgy and it contains no errors in doctrine, this does not mean that such a conclusion is so readily apparent to those who have a habitual reaction against the Revised Missal. Nonetheless we can now move forward and examine the last two Roman Missals reproducing the text of the Tridentine liturgy and the Pauline liturgy side by side. This will be a macro contrast to see if they are in substantial conformity in structure if not exact details. What is being used here is vernacular translations from each Missal; therefore there will be less variation in the common prayers then it may appear to the reader here. (For example, prayers such as the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Domine non sum Dignus, etc read exactly the same in the typical Latin editions of both Missals.) The text from the Tridentine liturgy was obtained from a web site this author does not recommend and supplemented with rubrics from his St. Joseph Daily Missal circa 1958. The Pauline text was from an article originally written to defend the Scriptural basis of the Mass. Thus in using them with permission from the author they have been left in because it was about time 'traditionalists' read more of the Bible and see where the Pauline Missal draws on the themes and very phrases of Sacred Scripture.

Unlike the previous two treatise versions, the author learned how to install a side by side column format for this version. The problem with these kinds of formats is that they give a rather deceptive view of the two liturgies. The Pauline liturgy is shorter in almost all parameters but at the same time there are intangible factors which mitigate this which cannot be fully reproduced on a page of writing. To the extent this is possible, they have been reproduced either in the columns themselves or in commentary interspersed between the columns. There is also the element of certain parts which are summarized in brief in the column which act as "equalizers" if you will with regards to the length of the sections. Nonetheless, without further ado, here is the contrast with additional comments and referenced sources as needed to flesh out the more controversial points.
Tridentine Introductory:

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

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

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


The priest and server say alternately: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Server: Who made heaven and earth.


Pauline Rite Introductory:

Entrance Antiphon for the Mass of the day is recited or sung.

Priest : In the Name of the Father (+) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)

People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)

People: And also with you.

At this point the priest may say a few words about the Mass for the day before beginning the Penitential Rite.


In comparing the two texts side by side, the reader will immediately think something is askew when they see the large empty space in the second column that is filled with text in the first column. After all, the Pauline rite introductory admittedly looks pretty meager compared to the Tridentine on paper. In reality they are about the same length if you take into account that (i) in the Pauline liturgy, the priest after the greeting usually takes about thirty seconds to explain the significance of the mass that day - usually a theme from one of the readings or if it is a feast day something pertaining to the feast - and (ii) in the Tridentine liturgy the priest and server usually alternate Psalm verses at low volume and quickly in a manner whereby if they said them aloud it would sound rambling. (This writer served at many a Tridentine mass and in every case the priest recited Psalm 42 as if he was in a hurry.) So what appears on paper to be a gross imbalance in length is mitigated by those two factors. As far as the usage of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass, it was added at around the eleventh century. Therefore, it cannot be considered an "essential" part of the rite as if going without it somehow made the Pauline rite in any way deficient. That is the primary point to be made here, not whether it is better to have retained it or not. (Such views are purely subjective though subjectively the author if a choice was to be made would prefer the older sequence.)
Tridentine Confiteor:

Priest: 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.

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

Priest: Amen

[At this point the server says the Confiteor substituting "et tibe pater" (and you Father) for "et vobis fratres" (and you my brethren). The priest responds as the server did above and the server responds with "Amen".]

Pauline Rite Confiteor:

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. (Jas. 5:16) In my thoughts and in my words, (Rom. 12:16) In what I have done and what I have failed to do; (Jas 3:6) 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. (1 Thess 5:25)

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)

People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)


While it is true that the Confiteor is one of three optional introductory rites, the experience of this writer is that it is used about 90% of the time and therefore can be considered the "normal usage" of the Pauline Missal by default. The second Confiteor was deleted because it gives the illusion of vastly greater length when in reality the priest and server say the Confiteor so quickly that it is practically a ramble. (And yes that is what they do having said many a fourteen second Confiteor when the author was a server.) By contrast the Pauline liturgy has one Confiteor recited in the plural and is done slower with much better enunciation. (This is not to be condescending but to state the truth.) Since many 'traditionalists' gripe about the "necessity" of two Confiteors as if to keep some kind of separation between the priest and the people, it should be pointed out once again that a 'traditionalist' making such claims has a very myopic understanding of liturgical history. Or as the Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol noted on the matter:

Before closing this chapter we must note the character of the changes produced in the Mass during this period. These changes affect particularly the beginning of Mass, the Offertory, Communion, and conclusion; the Canon was respected. The additions mentioned are for the greater part prayers of private devotion, formerly said by the Priest in the sacristy--in any case, outside Mass. These, little by little, slipped into Low Masses, and thence into the Missal. The Mass which up till the ninth century was a public ceremony of which all the prayers are in the plural, became, through the multiplication of Low Masses, very often a private devotion. This does not mean that the Low Mass dates from the ninth century, we have, on the contrary, examples of it in the fourth and even earlier centuries (cf. Chap. XII). But the Roman Mass, as described from the seventh-ninth centuries was the Mass celebrated by the Pope; the Bishops and clergy who surrounded him "concelebrated" with him, and all the people united with him. It was a solemn and public ceremony of the whole Christian community, and, as if to insist on this unity, the "fermentum," or part of the Sacred Species, was sent to those Priests of the "tituli," or Roman parishes, who, for some reason or another, were unable to be present at that Mass. Yet they participated in it by uniting their Consecration to that of the Pope. [8]
So this argument against duplicate prayers that the 'traditionalists' espouses has no historical foundation to stand on and the Pauline practice of prayers in the plural has a much earlier pedigree then the Tridentine practice which started at around the ninth century. Both are valid but if any deserves a special mention as being more faithful to the authentic liturgical tradition, it is the Pauline restoration of the plural form of the prayers.
Tridentine Introit, Kyrie, and Gloria:

Priest: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution, and remission of our sins.

Server: Amen.

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

Server: And Thy people will rejoice in Thee.

Priest: Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy.

Server: And grant us Thy salvation.

Priest: O Lord, hear my prayer.

Server: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Let us pray.

Priest: 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.

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


Standing at the Epistle side of the altar, he reads the Introit of the Mass being celebrated.


Priest: Lord, have mercy on us.

Server: Lord, have mercy on us.

Priest: Lord, have mercy on us.

Server: Christ, have mercy on us.

Priest: Christ, have mercy on us.

Server: Christ, have mercy on us.

Priest: Lord, have mercy on us.

Server: Lord, have mercy on us.

Priest: Lord, have mercy on us.


Priest: Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace to men of good will. We praise Thee; we bless Thee; we adore Thee; we glorify Thee. We give Thee thanks for Thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly king, God the Father almighty, O Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son. O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. Who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Who sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For Thou alone art holy; Thou alone art the Lord; Thou alone art most high, O Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Ghost, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Pauline Kyrie and Gloria:

All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4)

All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4)

All: Christ have mercy (1 Tim 1:2)

All: Christ have mercy (1 Tim 1:2)

All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4)

All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4)


All: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14) Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 19:6) we worship you, (Rev. 22:9) we give you thanks, (Eph. 5:20) we praise you for your glory. (Rev 7:12) Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3) Lord God, Lamb of God (John 1:42), you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; (John 1:29) You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Rom 8:34) For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34) You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32) with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26) Amen (1 Chr 16:36)


The extra length of the Tridentine liturgy above is somewhat deceptive since the priest-server dialogue parts are done in about thirty seconds total. (Almost as a mumble actually.) While an argument could be made that the elimination of the Introit Prayer preceding the Gloria was not a good idea, it can also be argued that the Entrance Antiphon in essence takes the place of the Introit albeit being recited earlier in the Mass than the Introit was. The Pauline Rite Kyrie and Gloria maintain the substance of both prayers intact. Remember, brevity in spots for the sake of maintaining focus on the object (worshipping God) cannot be said to be a bad (or "invalid") feature anymore than repetition of a prayer is necessarily "vain" or an exercise in Pharisaical "external" emphasis with a lack of proper internal intention. Claiming that either method is "wrong" or "objectively inferior" is demonstrating an arbitrary exercise in personal private judgment. (Though there is merit to the assertion that using two responses makes liturgical dialogue more fluid, the author still feels that the Kyrie should have retained the three repetitions in part because it better affords for singing this part in the non-vernacular with the ancient hymnology.) The Pauline prayer after the Confiteor does not mimic the priest’s prayer of absolution from the confessional which is important because the priest is not absolving people of sin during the Mass; however it can appear that way in the Tridentine Mass since the wording is the same as that used in the confessional. This is another important part of the liturgy that the Pauline Mass restoration corrected.
Tridentine Liturgy of the Word:

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Let us pray

[Here the priest says the Prayer appointed for the day. At the Epistle side of the altar, the priest reads the Epistle or Lesson from the Mass he is celebrating. He then follows it up with the Gradual, Tract, or Sequence for the day.]

[The Alleluia follows the Gradual or Tract and precedes the Gospel. Before the Gospel the Priest prays the following prayer]

Priest: Cleanse my heart and my lips, O almighty God, Who didst cleanse with a burning coal the lips of the prophet Isaias; and vouchsafe in Thy kindness so to purify me that I may be enabled worthily to announce Thy holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Vouchsafe, O Lord, to bless me. The Lord be in my heart and on my lips, that I may worthily and becomingly announce His gospel. Amen.

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: (+) The following (or the beginning) is taken from the Holy Gospel according to St. N.

Server: Glory be to Thee, O Lord.

[Usually any announcements are made at this time before the Sermon]

Pauline Rite Liturgy of the Word:

Priest: Let us pray

[At this point the priest prays the Opening Prayer for the Mass being celebrated that day.

The Liturgy of the Word consists of four readings from Scripture:

The First is typically from the Old Testament

The Second is a Psalm

The Third is a reading from one of the Epistles.

The Alleluia follows the Epistle reading and precedes the Gospel. The prayer said before the Gospel by the priest is similar to the Tridentine prayer (minus the part about Isaiah and the burning coal).]

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And also with you

Priest: (+) A reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. N.

Server: Glory to You O Lord.

[The prayer said before the Gospel by the priest is similar to the Tridentine prayer (minus the part about Isaiah and the burning coal).]

[A Sermon on the readings follows.] (2 Tim 4:1-2)


In essence the Pauline "Opening Prayer" and the Tridentine "Prayer" are synonymous. There is perhaps a bit more outward reverence in the Tridentine approach but this may be deceiving because of the Latin language which has a certain quality to it that the English language does not have. There are Pauline Rite Masses which display a similar aura as the Tridentine - where Latin is used in the common prayers as Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned (cf. SC §54). One of the areas where the Pauline Rite definitely has it over the Tridentine Rite is in the allotment of Scripture readings. There is more Scripture read and the readings are alternated so much more of the Bible is covered in a liturgical year including the Old Testament which is not often read in a Tridentine Mass during Sundays and Feast Days in accordance with the pre-1962 Liturgical rubrics. This was a good improvement over the Tridentine Rite and should definitely be noted as a positive change for the better.
Tridentine Creed:

Priest: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by Whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, (Here all genuflect rising at the end of the words in caps) and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, AND WAS MADE MAN. He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead: and His kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified: Who spoke by the prophets. And in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I expect the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Pauline Rite Creed:


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19) of all that is seen and unseen. (Col 1:16) We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Luke 1:35) eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. (Heb 1:3) Through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3) For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13) (An optional bow of the head respectfully until the end of the words in caps) by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18) AND BECAME MAN. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16) he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4) He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51) and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1) and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33) We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17) who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16) With the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11) We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5) We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38) We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

The Tridentine Creed has the genuflection whereas the Pauline Creed replaces it with an reverent bow. (Arguments about the latter or former being more "proper" are purely subjective.) The Tridentine Rite has just the priest saying the Nicene Creed while the Pauline Rite version of the Credo is verbally smoother for the most part and is said or sung by both the priest and the people simultaneously. As was shown earlier, the plural prayer form is far more ancient then the Tridentine practice of segregating the main liturgical parts. (With the exception of course for certain parts of the Canon which only the priest is allowed to pray.) Thus this aspect of the Pauline Rite Mass is a good addition and an example of correction from within the liturgical tradition.

III - On Exterior Piety:

It would be beneficial at this time to point out that the ceremonial of the Mass as far as different gestures are concerned was embellished over the centuries in ways that were not commonly utilized in the early Church. Therefore, if the 'traditionalist' is going to complain that the Pauline Mass should have more outward signs of reverence then it does that is fine subjectively speaking (as they have a right to their opinions on the matter). However, they cannot use outward signs of reverence as the criteria for a Mass being "more pleasing to God" because this is not objective criteria. If this is the foundation of their arguments then it falls apart when one examines the history of the liturgy which (as Fr. Adrian Fortescue notes), used to be much simpler and plainer then the Tridentine Rite of Mass:

[A]t the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. [9]
Fr. Fortescue points to the eleventh century as the origin of the embellishment of the Roman Rite. The Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol likewise concurred with the understanding that the earlier rites were simpler and less elaborate with ceremonial ornament:
The kissing of the altar is another act which frequently takes place in Mass. In the seventh century this gesture was far less common, but was surrounded with a greater solemnity. Thus at the beginning of the Office of Good Friday, as has been mentioned, the Pontiff, after the conclusion of Nones, left his throne to go and kiss the altar, returning afterwards to his place. This rite at the beginning of Mass was already a characteristic of the Papal Mass in the seventh-eighth centuries. It is still preserved to-day, with the "Oramus te, Domine," which gives the reason for it--"Sanctorum quorum reliquiae hic sunt." The altar is a sacred stone, containing the relics of Saints; it is the "mensa" which recalls the table of the Last Supper, or again, the stone of Golgotha. It is unnecessary to compare this act with that of the Romans, who kissed their pagan altars, in order to understand the act of veneration accomplished by the Priest at this moment. Today the Priest kisses the altar each time he comes to it, as well as before the "Dominus vobiscum" of the prayers. [10]
Thus that there is less outward signs of reverence does not diminish the Pauline Mass in an objective manner unless the 'traditionalists' are going to claim that the older simpler Roman Rite showed God less dignity and respect then the later Gallicanized rites did. If they were to claim this, how can it be objectively verified except for appeals to their own private opinions which hardly constitute an objective basis of examination any more than the Protestant appeal to the Bible to establish the Bible's authority is an avoidance of circular argumentation. Ergo, the argument about ceremonial externals being the evidence of a Mass "more pleasing to God" is laid to rest as having no credibility whatsoever as an argument against the Pauline Rite of Mass.

However, as important as these points all have been, the main beef of the self-styled 'traditionalists' is that they claim that the Mass of the Pauline Rite is "not a sacrifice but instead is a Protestantized meal service". Whether this is true or not will be looked at in the next part as we move into the core part of the Mass now, the Liturgy of the Eucharist starting with the Offertory prayers.

IV - Examining the Two Rites of Mass Part II (Liturgy of the Eucharist):

Tridentine Rite Offertory:

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Let us pray.


The priest now says the Offertory for the Mass being offered. He then uncovers the Chalice and in a lower voice says:


Priest: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless [victim], which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

At this point the priest pours wine and a little water into the chalice saying quietly

Priest: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.


Priest: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

Priest: Humbled in mind, and contrite of heart, may we find favor with Thee, O Lord; and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.

Priest: Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (+) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.


At this point the priest stands at the side of the altar and washes his hands saying quietly

Priest: I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked; nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen.

Priest: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.


Turning to face the people the priest says

Priest: Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be well pleasing to God the Father almighty.

Server: May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of His name, to our own benefit, and to that of all His Holy Church.


The Priest recites one or more "Secret Prayers" in accordance with the Mass being said.

Pauline Rite Offertory:


[The gifts are brought to the altar. These include the bread and wine and the offering collected from the people. (Malachi 3:10) An offertory hymn may be sung at this time in which case the priest may elect to recite the offering prayers in silence up to the Orate Fratres which is recited aloud with the rest of the Mass prayers. If no song is sung the priest may recite the Offertory prayers aloud.]


Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)

People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)

At this point the priest pours wine and a little water into the chalice saying quietly

Priest: By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled Himself to share in our humanity.


Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)

People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)


At this point the priest stands at the side of the altar and washes his hands saying quietly

Priest: Lord wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.


Priest: Pray, brethren, THAT OUR SACRIFICE may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28; 13:10)

People: MAY THE LORD ACCEPT THE SACRIFICE AT YOUR HANDS for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his Church. (Ps 50:23)


The priest says the corresponding Prayer for the Mass being said that day.


A good argument could be made here that the Pauline Rite may have simplified this portion of the Mass too much but that view is irrelevant in examining the Mass differences in terms of looking for characteristics that render the Mass’ licitness as questionable. (Or even changes that could be termed "invalidating", "illicit", "doubtfully valid", "sacrilegeously valid", or even "objectively inferior".) Considering that "[a]ll the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century...before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers" (Fr. Adrian Fortescue: "Liturgy of the Mass"), the addition of these prayers to the Tridentine liturgy was a very late addition indeed. There is also the problem of the older Offertory prayers appearing to offer the unconsecrated elements as sacrifice. (This writer replaced the word "host" with "victim" above because the Latin hostiam is a derivative of hostia which means "victim" in Latin.) So the text of the prayer at this point could easily be misunderstood as an offering being made at that point in time. Whatever one wants to say about the Offertory Prayers of the Pauline Missal, at the very least they do not have this difficulty but instead indicate that at the time of the Offertory that they are bread and wine. The language is indisputably more "directly anticipating" of the consecration then the Tridentine liturgy Offertory is.

With regards to essentials, nothing in the changes made to the Mass in the Revised Missal effects the essence of the Mass itself. Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with 'tradition' but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity. (This was due to the type of bread being used in earlier days getting on the fingers of the priest.) The addition of the Psalm at this time was to give the priest something to say when he was washing his fingers and Psalm 25 was of course very fitting. Eventually the action became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to thoroughly wash fingers was no longer there (and it no longer is). The "Secret" is synonymous with the "Prayer Over the Gifts."
Canon Preface - Tridentine Rite:


Then with hands extended, the priest says the Secret prayers.


Priest: World without end.

Server: Amen.

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Lift up your hearts.

Server: We have them lifted up unto the Lord.

Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.

Server: It is fitting and just.

[The following is the main Preface for Sundays and differs a bit from the Preface for Weekdays and certain feast days or periods in the liturgical year which have their own Preface prayers]

Priest: It is truly meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all places, to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father almighty, the everlasting God: Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord, not in the singleness of one Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For that which, according to Thy revelation, we believe of Thy glory, the same we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or distinction; so that in the confession of one true and eternal Godhead we adore distinctness in persons, oneness in essence, and equality in majesty: Which the angels praise, and the archangels, the cherubim also and the seraphim, who cease not, day by day crying out with one voice to repeat:


Priest: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. The heavens and the earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He Who cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Canon Preface - Pauline Rite:


Priest: The Lord be with you

People: And also with you

Priest: Lift up your hearts.

People: We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41) .

Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord Our God. (Col 3:17)

People: It is right to give him thanks and praise. (Col 1:3)

[Depending on the given Mass the Preface often differs. There are about 60 different Preface prayers. The ones used depend on the season or occasion (i.e. of the 33 Sundays in what is called "Ordinary Time" there are 8 different Preface prayers that the priest can choose from with different themes). The following is from the second Sunday in Ordinary Time (the theme is the salvation of man)]

Priest: Father all powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Out of love for sinful man, he humbled himself to be born of the Virgin. By suffering on the cross he freed us from unending death, and by rising from the dead he gave us eternal life. And so with the choirs of angels in heaven we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise:


All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3) Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)


The Pauline Rite version is slimmer but is lacking no noticeable differences substantially from the Tridentine Rite and certainly nothing that would at all render it defective or illicit, etc. There is a greater variety of Preface prayers which helps keep the liturgy more "vibrant" to some extent as well as introducing different themes from salvation history into the mix. This is a necessary quality much as the diversity of Eucharistic Prayers (which we will get to shortly) accomplishes the same purpose. Considering that there were 267 Preface prayers in the Leonine Sacramentary from the mid fifth century, the self-styled 'traditionalist' who gripes about a variety of Preface prayers as "against tradition" demonstrates by this example a poor grasp of these issues.

In the Pauline Rite there were originally four different Eucharistic Prayers (EP) authorized. (Since that time more have been authorized for use but we will focus on the original ones in this examination.) The Eucharistic Prayers (also referred to as "canon prayers" or "anaphoras") are all based on ancient prayers of the Church - a point that will be touched on a bit later on. Anaphora 2 is the most controversial of these prayers and it will be discussed later on. In this comparison Anaphora 3 will be used. (Anaphora 1 is the Roman Canon but it is not used very often so it would not be right to use it in this comparison. Nor is Anaphora 4 used much either so it would not be proper to use it here either.)
Canon - Tridentine Rite:


Priest: Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these (+) gifts, these (+) presents, these (+) holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world: as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith.


Priest: Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, N. and N., and of all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to Thee, for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, their families, and their friends, for the salvation of their souls and the health and welfare they hope for, and who now pay their vows to Thee, God eternal, living, and true.


Priest: Having communion with and venerating the memory, first, of the glorious Mary, ever a virgin, mother of Jesus Christ, our God and our Lord: likewise {of blessed Joseph, spouse of the same virgin} of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints: for the sake of whose merits and do Thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen.


The bell is rung once to alert the faithful of the consecration which is fast approaching.

Priest: Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; grant that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.


Priest: And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless (+), consecrate (+), and approve (+) this our oblation, to perfect it and render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the body (+) and blood (+) of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.


Priest: Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it (+), broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye and eat ye all of this:


Priest: In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it (+), and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this:


The priest adores and elevates the Chalice. The bell is rung. He then continues:

Priest: As often as ye shall do things, ye shall do them in memory of Me.

Priest: Wherefore, O Lord, we, Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, His resurrection from the grave, and His glorious ascension into heaven, we offer up to Thy most excellent majesty of Thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a victim (+) which is pure, a victim (+) which is stainless, the holy bread (+) of life everlasting, and the chalice (+) of eternal salvation.

Priest: Vouchsafe to look upon them with a gracious and tranquil continence, and to accept them, even as Thou wast pleased to accept the offerings of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham, our patriarch, and that which Melchisedech, Thy high priest, offered up to Thee, a holy sacrifice, a victim without blemish.

Priest: We humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high in the presence of Thy divine Majesty; that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred (+) Body and (+) Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.


Priest: Be mindful, also, O Lord, of Thy servants N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith and who sleep the sleep of peace.

Priest: To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

Priest: To us sinners, also, Thy servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy apostles and martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all Thy saints. Into their company do Thou, we beseech Thee, admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely pardoning our offenses: through Christ our Lord.

Priest: By Whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify (+), quicken (+), bless (+), and bestow upon us all these good things.

Priest: Through Him (+), and with Him (+), and in Him (+), is to Thee, god the Father (+) almighty, in the unity of the Holy (+) Ghost, all honor and glory.

Priest: World without end.

Server: Amen.

Eucharistic Prayer - Pauline Rite:

Priest: Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east  to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name. 


Priest: And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood + of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist. (1 Cor. 11:23-26) 


Priest: On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. (Mark 14:17-22)  He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: 

Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.  (Luke 22:19)

[The priest adores and elevates the Sacred Host. The bell is rung.]


Priest: When supper was ended, he took the cup. (Luke 22:20) Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of  my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. (Matt. 26:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:25)

[The priest adores and elevates the Chalice. The bell is rung.]

Priest: [Let us proclaim] the mystery of faith.

One of the following four responses is given here by the people:

A. Christ has died, (Matt. 27:50) Christ has risen. (Mark 16:6-7) Christ will come again. (Matt. 25:31ff; 2 Pet. 3:8-13; Rev. 22:12)

B. Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, come in glory. (Heb 2:14-15)

C. When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 11:26) Until you come in glory. (2 Tim. 4:10)

D. Lord by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. (Rom. 6:6-11) You are the Saviour of the World. (1 John. 2:2)

Priest: Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. 

Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant  that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. (1 Cor. 10:17) 

May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help. 


Priest: Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you (Heb. 9:12), advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope John Paul, our Bishop {name of bishop}, and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your son has gathered here before you. Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all you children wherever they may be. 


Priest: Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. (2 Macc. 12:45-46) We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come. 

Priest: Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

All: Amen. (Rom 11:36)


Though originally Anaphora 2 was used in this project, with the side by side feature Anaphora 3 seemed more fitting as it is used fairly often. (Most of the masses the author has attended at different churches have used Anaphora 3 so this modification is hardly unreasonable.) There is nothing illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even invalid about this canon whatsoever. Nor is there with Anaphora 2 which is used relatively frequently as well. We can talk matter and form of Consecration of course: points to be discussed in the micro section. However, from a macro standpoint it cannot be credibly argued that Anaphora 3 does not emphasize explicitly the sacrifice of the Mass - though with Anaphora 2 it is more implicit.

It would not hurt to mention here that the Tridentine Canon is still used in substantial form as Anaphora 1 of the Pauline Rite. In this prayer, the offering made is referred to as a sacrifice four times explicitly and arguably two more times implicitly. (Will 'traditionalists' claim that the Tridentine Canon is not "sacrificial" in nature???) Anaphora 3 is used above. It is a new prayer based on the old Spanish Mozarbic anaphoras. It mentions the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering explicitly twice, implicitly as a "perfect offering" twice, and Our Lord as the "victim" being offered once: NO sacrificial overtones there right??? Anaphora 4 is a new prayer (based on the ancient West Syrian Byzantine Anaphoras) but still mentions the Eucharist as a sacrifice explicitly 4 times (and implicitly 2 additional times). The claims that Anaphoras 1, 3, and 4 are not "sacrificial" in nature is patently absurd. We will deal with Anaphora 2 later on in this examination.
Pater Noster to the Dismissal - Tridentine Rite:


Priest: Let us pray. Admonished by salutary precepts, and following divine directions, we presume to say:

Priest: Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation.

Server: But deliver us from evil.

Priest: Amen.

Priest: Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come: and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever a virgin, Mother of God, and of Thy holy apostles Peter and Paul, of Andrew, and of all the saints, graciously grant peace in our days, that through the help of Thy bountiful mercy we may always be free from sin and secure from all disturbance.

The priest breaks the Sacred Host, saying:

Priest: Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, World without end.

Server: Amen.

Priest: May the peace (+) of the Lord (+) be always with (+) you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: May this commingling and consecrating of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ avail us who receive it unto life everlasting. Amen.


Priest: Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world: grant us peace.

Priest: O Lord Jesus Christ Who didst say to Thine apostles: Peace I leave you, My peace I give you: look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church, and vouchsafe to grant her peace and unity according to Thy will: Who livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.

Priest: O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, Who, according to the will of the Father, through the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast by Thy death given life to the world: deliver me by this Thy most Sacred Body and Blood from all my iniquities, and from every evil; make me always cleave to Thy commandments, and never suffer me to be separated from Thee, Who with the same God, the Father and the Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.

Priest: Let not the partaking of Thy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, all unworthy, presume to receive, turn to my judgment and condemnation; but through Thy loving kindness may it be to me a safeguard and remedy for soul and body; Who, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, livest and reignest, God, world without end. Amen.


Priest: I will take the bread of heaven, and will call upon the name of the Lord.

Priest: Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed. (three times)

Priest: May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

Priest: What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies.

Priest: May the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

Here the faithful come forward to receive Holy Communion at the Communion. [The server recites the Confiteor in the name of the communicants. The priest responds with the Misereatur and the Indulgentiam.] Then, the priest faces the people with the Ciborium and, holding up one of the Sacred Particles before the communicants, he says:

Priest: Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins of the world.

Priest: Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed. (three times)


Priest: May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk cleave to mine inmost parts: and do Thou grant that no stain of sin remain in me, whom pure and holy mysteries have refreshed: Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.


Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Let us pray.

The priest reads the communion prayer


The priest reads the post communion prayer

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Server: And with thy spirit.

Priest: Go, the mass is ended.

Server: Thanks be to God.

Priest: May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.


Priest: May almighty God, the Father, and the Son (+), and the Holy Ghost, bless you.

Server: Amen.

Pater Noster to the Dismissal - Pauline Rite:


All: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matt 6:9-13)

Priest: Deliver us, Lord, from every evil and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ. (John 17:15)

All: For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen

Priest: Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles; I leave you peace, my peace I give to you. (John 14:27) Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live forever and ever.

Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always! (John 20:19)

People: And also with you!

[The priest then directs the people to exchange a sign , such as a handshake or a kiss, or a word of God's peace to one another.]

THE AGNUS DEI (or Breaking of the Bread: Acts 2:42)

All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace. (John 1:29; Rev. 19:6-9)

Priest: O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, (Matt. 16:16) Who, according to the will of the Father, through the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast by Thy death given life to the world: DELIVER ME BY THIS THY MOST SACRED BODY AND BLOOD from all my iniquities, and from every evil; make me always cleave to Thy commandments, and never suffer me to be separated from Thee. Amen.

[This prayer from the Tridentine Rite is essentially the same prayer said by the priest in the Pauline Rite before he communicates except he says it corporately for himself and the congregation whereas in the Tridentine Rite it is said by the priest for himself alone. Bear in mind the traditional pedigree of plural prayers in the liturgy.]


Priest: THIS [the host he is holding up] IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD. Happy are those who are called to his supper. (Rev. 19:9)

People: LORD, I AM NOT WORTHY TO RECEIVE YOU, but only say the word and I shall be healed. (Matt 8:8)


[Communion is distributed to the faithful at the altar by the priest and lay ministers. After communion there is a period of silence or a meditation hymn is sung. After this is ended the priest will make any announcements from the pulpit that are needed to be made about events related to the chapel, Archdioceses, etc. It is also not uncommon to offer prayers for the recently departed at this time. After the announcements are made, the priest returns to the altar and facing the people begins the rite of dismissal]


Priest: The Lord be with you.

People: And also with you.

Priest: Let us pray.

Priest says the Post-Communion prayer for the Mass being said that day.


Priest: The Lord be with you.

People: And also with you.

Priest: (one of 3 different forms is used. The following is form C)

Priest: Go in peace (Luke 7:50) to love and serve the Lord. (2 Chr 35:3)

During the blessing the people make the Sign of the Cross

People: Thanks be to God. (2 Cor 9:15)


The two rites have a number of similarities to them primarily in structure. There are areas where the Pauline Mass is more truncated than the Tridentine Rite but there are also areas where the Tridentine Rite could be said to be redundant where the Pauline Rite is not. What was not included in this comparison the prayers after Mass in the Tridentine Rite because they were added by Pope Leo XIII and were not a part of the original 1570 Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Also, the parts of the Pauline Rite that emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass were highlighted to show explicitly that the claims that the Mass is "Protestatized" or that the Mass is not viewed as a sacrifice (the standard 'traditionalist' claims about the Pauline Rite) are from a macro standpoint at least - demonstrably false. However, there is still the claims made by self-styled 'traditionalists' that Anaphora 2 is deficient or somehow flawed. Therefore we will look at that presumption at this time.

V -  A Look at the Controversial Anaphora Two:

Logically, if the canon that is the least "sacrificial" in terms of explicit affirmations - referring to Anaphora 2 - can withstand legitimate scrutiny (and not just incessant carping by 'traditionalists') then from a macro standpoint the validity of the Pauline rite stands. Remember, the primary argument here is for VALIDITY of the Pauline Rite. The concern is NOT personal preferences as to composition of the canon or other optional elements the addition or suppression of the 'traditionalist' likes to complain about. (*)

With regards to Anaphora 2, there are four implicit references to the Real Presence though the word "sacrifice" is not actually used. Does this constitute a denial of the sacrificial nature of the mass??? Only if Our Lord by not explicitly referring to His offering at the Last Supper as a "sacrifice" was thereby denying this reality and who among us would make that claim??? (Hopefully no one.) The sacrificial overtones of Anaphora 2 are hardly non-existent even if they are not as explicit as in the Tridentine Rite or indeed the other three Anaphoras of the Pauline Rite. (*) Some rubrics are switched in order but if that is an illicit or invalidating feature then we have been without a licit or valid Mass since at least the third century if not earlier. (Since Anaphora 2 was based on a second century canon which was used in the city of Rome according to St. Hippolytus who was there and appears from his writings to be about as likely to have invented new liturgical forms as Archbishop Lefebvre was.) Neither rubrics switched in order nor a sleeker liturgy are valid arguments against the postulated illicity/invalidity of the Pauline canon as long as the essentials remain. (Furthermore, there is no evidence that they have been removed in this section nor any that have preceded it.) As it was shown previously in quoting Fr. Adrian Fortescue and the Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol, these arguments are all from a historical standpoint without any merit whatsoever.

Much more could be said on Anaphora 2 - the least "sacrificial" of the four Prayers of the Pauline Rite - and more will be said later on in this treatise. However, first we need to finish looking at the contrast between the Tridentine and Pauline Rite Liturgies. Does the slimmer liturgy remove any possible confusions that may have possibly resulted from the structure of the Tridentine Rite??? Yes there was at times a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. As Catholic evangelist Matt1618 noted in an essay he wrote on the Pauline Rite:

The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine came during the offertory. Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of the Roman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. The Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wine constituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example "We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation." and "Receive O Holy father.. this immaculate host which I...offer Thee...,". This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place. In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council of Trent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120). [11]
This is a point that needs to be emphasized because actions speak louder then words. If this Pauline Mass is "Protestantized" (as many self-styled 'traditionalists' claim it is), then it needs to be asked why it not used by any Protestant groups who emphasize the importance of liturgical worship who have liturgies of their own. To once again quote Matt 1618 on the matter:
For those who say the Mass is Protestantized, there is one question to ask? Do you know of one Protestant church who celebrates the Novus Ordo liturgy and any of the 4 Eucharistic prayers? No, the proof is in the pudding. No Protestant services recognize any of these distinctly Catholic doctrines. Max Thurian, a Calvinist monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Novus Ordo:

“Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants... the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation" (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the third Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic. [12]

If this Mass was "Protestantized" as many self-styled 'traditionalists' claim, then they need to explain not only why it is it not used by any Protestant groups who emphasize the importance of liturgical worship but particularly in the case of those who believe in the Real Presence (as the Anglicans and the Lutherans do) who also do not use it. They need to explain how "Protestant" a liturgy is that Protestant groups will not (and even refuse to) use it without making various alterations to remove the parts that are not congruent with their respective theologies. Now some self-styled 'traditionalists' have claimed that there are Protestant groups who have used the newer rite of mass. But to claim (as some 'traditionalists' have) that it is used by Protestant groups is not sufficient. Either they produce evidence or they have no reason whatsoever for the accusations that they throw around denigrating the Pauline Mass. They should put up or (to put it bluntly) shut up.

Of course should they actually produce evidence of any of the prayers being used in all of their parts by any non-Catholic churches, that will still not prove their case anyway. What needs to be shown is that the intention is identical and this is something that so-called 'traditionalists' cannot do. (Not to mention the references to the Real Presence, intercession of the saints and prayers for the dead that are present in all 4 Anaphoras being diametrically opposed to Protestant theology.) Also, it is interesting that Anaphora 2 was based on material from the Canon of St. Hippolytus - the manuscript dating from around 215 AD but in terms of antiquity the canon itself goes back to the second century. Max Thurian claimed that the view of a Protestant commission revising their Last Supper prayers rejected using Anaphora 2 claiming that "it presupposed transubstantiation". Since when is transubstantiation a Protestant doctrine??? It only goes to show the old proverb of not seeing the forest for the trees plagues most 'traditionalist' thinking much as it does with most Fundamentalist Protestant thinking.

What is it that can be brought forth as a preliminary argument in favour of the Pauline Mass as a sacrifice in the event of an admittedly more implicit canon such as Anaphora 2??? To start with, looking at the elements and the actions that denote a sacrificial character which is evidence enough even if explicit language is lacking. Consider the following points on the matter:

As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to shed one's blood for others unto the remission of sins" is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Lev., vii 14; xiv, 17; xvii, 11; Rom. iii, 25, v, 9; Heb. ix, 10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. [13]
So in the double consecration of the bread and wine a sacrifice is implied both in action and also in the words of consecration denoting the "shedding of blood unto the remission of sins" as "genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice" which also "designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation"??? That is what is being said by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The very next paragraph of the article reads as follows:
[I]f the "pouring out of the chalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As, however, it really reads "drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins," the double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testament", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the 0ld Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Ex., xxiv, 8): "This is the blood of the covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however, (Heb., ix, 18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament ".  It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church, is also established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament. Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me’. [14]
Thus the controversial Anaphora 2 specifies that it is sacrificial from the actions of the priest and in the OT sacrificial symbols that are conveyed if not from explicit words used. (*) This may not be ideal or significant from a Micro standpoint; however from a Macro standpoint it is sufficient for validity provided that the words of consecration are valid of course. Those will be points looked at in the Micro section.

Summary of Preceding Points:

Obviously there are other factors involved than just the liturgy but at first look, there is nothing in the Pauline Rite that makes it at all illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even invalid. It is a rite with the same basic structure, many of the same prayers similarly worded. While it is true that Anaphora 2’s canon emphasizes more by its actions the sacrificial nature of the Mass then it does by verbal explicitness, Anaphoras 1, 3, and 4 make the same emphasis in actions and are explicitly "sacrificial" in tone in the same sense as the Tridentine Canon. (And certainly if the arguments about possible misunderstandings are valid, there is nothing here that proper catechesis cannot correct.) Either way though, there is no illicitness or invalidity.  We will see in the micro examination if the self-styled 'traditionalists' have any valid points in this area or if they are instead speaking of something they know little to nothing about. In the interim though, a few more salient points to put their general positions on the Pauline Rite in better perspective.

VI - An Example of the "Inviolability" of "Tradition":

The following is from an email correspondence with F. John Loughnan about some SSPX activities that he witnessed in Australia attending Society Masses a few years ago. Look this over and ask yourself if the impression you get is one of a group really caring about "preserving tradition." When Mr. Loughnan refers to the term "contrary to tradition" he is referring to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal (which the SSPX claims that they follow), not that he personally adheres to this belief himself.

"What "twigged" (alerted) me to a problem was the refusal of Fr. Todd Angele (formerly of Post Falls, USA) now Prior of Our Lady’s, Hampton, Australia) to say the Oremus, Flectamus genua, and Levate, in the Good Friday Intercessory Prayers — contrary to Pope Pius XII’s Reform of the Holy Week liturgy. Here are my notes for that time:
During choir practice (Good Friday April 1, 1994), Fr Angele said words to the effect that in the Prayer for the Jews, the Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate would be omitted as the Jews had mockingly knelt before Our Lord. After the ceremony, Max Longford asked FJL (in the presence of Russell & Marlene Morgan, Carmen & Ted Reiners & Norma L.) why had Fr. Angele omitted the Oremus, etc.
Q: Why then did Fr. Angele positively exclude them?
For the Adoration of The Cross, the "restoration" prescribes "The celebrant ministers…clergy…and servers…all these first remove their shoes, if it can be done conveniently, and approaching the Cross one after another, make three simple genuflections, and kiss the feet of the Crucifix. "…the faithful, passing by the Cross in an orderly manner, first the men and then the women, may devoutly kiss the feet of the Crucifix. They make one simple genuflection."
Q: Why did Fr. Angele instruct
1) he mixed congregation as opposed to men then women
2) minus shoes
3) to genuflect three times?
Holy Saturday, April 2, 1994.
Q: Why did Fr. Angele read the Last Gospel at this Mass?
Holy Thursday & Good Friday (April 14 & 15, 1994 ) repetition of 1994, Plus After Blessing of the Candle, the crowd told to go back into the church and the procession later followed Non-ordained lector (John Freriks) was used to chant the first lesson — Contrary to tradition. Non-ordained lector (Trevor McLean) was used to chant the second lesson — Contrary to tradition. Non-ordained lector (Peter Holden) was used to chant the third lesson — Contrary to tradition. Non-ordained lector (name unknown) was used to chant the fourth lesson — Contrary to tradition.
There was a lot more to it than just the above (which I have on record.) But, were the SSPX sifters of "Tradition/tradition" picking and choosing what suited them?" [15]
Of COURSE they pick and choose what they want to. After all, when 'traditionalists' answer to no one but themselves then they inexorably do what they want on these matters. It is not necessary to mention that the extreme 'traditionalists' (referring to the really anti-Semitic ones) probably omit the Oramus, Flectamus Genua, and Levate for the Jews in the Good Friday Intercessions much as the sedevacantists refuse to pray for the Pope during their Masses. It is a common trait of 'traditionalists' to only adhere to what they want to and reject what they do not like from the past solely on their own whims: this is the logical extension of "Sola Traditio" after all and is a trait of course that has historical parallels in the sixteenth century "reformation" and a similar OT movement. The latter was documented in the Book of Numbers Chapter 16 and alluded to by the Apostle Jude in his epistle (1:8-13).

VII - Epilogue - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Liturgy:

Regardless of their positions on the liturgy, all Catholics need to recognize that the history of Catholicism is one of a degree of diversity in worship. Cardinal Ratzinger underlines this fundamental defect in the 'traditionalist' mindset by their rigid insistence on the Tridentine Ritual as the "only acceptable Mass." As the Cardinal (in light of the later 1984 Indult) had noted:

Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression… [16]
Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source of his identity. And another reason why it must be a ‘given’ and a ‘constant’ is that, by means of the ritual, it manifests the holiness of God. The revolt against what has been described as the ‘old rubricist rigidity’, which was accused of stifling ‘creativity’ has made the liturgy into a do-it-yourself patchwork and trivialized it, adapting it to our mediocrity… [17]
The Council rightly reminded us that liturgy also means ‘actio’ something done and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an ‘actuosa participatio’, an active participation…But the way it has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible exterior activity —speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under ‘actuosa participatio’, for silence facilitates a really deep personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence. [18]
In short, the situation in the Church at the present time is certainly not ideal and there are problems that need to be addressed. But the problems go much deeper than the mere superficialities of reverting wholesale back to the Tridentine Ritual which would be detrimental to the Church in the same manner as the wholesale discrediting of the Tridentine Ritual was after the promulgation of the Revised Missal. As has been shown in this macro section, there is substantial conformity and structure to the texts of the two rites and the Pauline Rite cannot be shown on a macro level to be at all invalid or defective. (*) However, there are still numerous other "micro" details that self-styled 'traditionalists' seek to use to discredit the legitimacy or dignity of the Revised Missal and they will be the focus of the next two urls.

It is a maxim of the faith that one cannot do evil in the hope that good may come out of it. Those that seek to restore what they perceive is the "good" of the Tridentine Ritual by ripping down and demeaning the Revised Missal violate that maxim. There is a difference between legitimate criticisms and borderline-heretical speculations. Unfortunately, many if not most in the various 'traditionalist' organizations do not realize when they have actually stepped across the line in the discussion of these issues. In the next two sections the micro elements of the Pauline Mass will be looked at in detail. For there are many denigrating points raised by self-styled 'traditionalists' to smear the Pauline Missal. We will expose and refute them as they have no foundation whatsoever in tradition, history, logic, or common sense.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. . For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. [St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against Heresies Book III Ch. 3 (c. 180 AD)]

(*) For these points, the following addendum intends to clarify them to remove any possible preceived ambiguities on this subject.


In the subjective opinion of the author, Anaphora 2 should be restricted to weekday Masses and not allowed in Sunday Masses or Masses celebrated on Holy Days of Obligation. This is not a question of validity but instead of fittingness. This also is in accordance with the intentions of the Anaphora being formulated for the shorter masses celebrated on weekdays. The greater theological depth and richness of Anaphoras 1, 3, and 4 makes them much more suitable for Masses on Sundays, Holy Days, etc. where the greatest number of people attend and the celebration itself thus should be more solemn. Likewise, any additional anaphoras approved should be of a similar richness as prayers 1, 3, and 4 as the anaphora is the heart of the liturgy and should therefore be treated as such.

However, this is not to be misunderstood as a derogation of Anaphora 2 but instead to have it used as it was originally intended. For additional information on the sacrificial emphasis of Eucharistic Anaphora 2, this essay written by Dr. Art Sippo on these very subjects is recommended reading. This writer initially requested some material to add to an Addendum to flesh out what Dr. Sippo preceived was not enough detail on this subject in the treatise section you have just read. However, Dr. Sippo's essay succeeds both in brevity as well as in detail so this writer recommends reading it in full as an addendum to what was covered in the above sections of this url on Anaphora 2.


[1] Vatican II: Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" §21 (December 4, 1963)

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: From Fr. Adrian Fortescue's article "Liturgy" (c. 1913)

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

[4] Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 287 (c. 1960)

[5] Catholic Encyclopedia: From Fr. Adrian Fortescue's article "Liturgy of the Mass" (c. 1913)

[6] Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei" §44-45; §48-49; §57-60 (November 20, 1947)

[7] Most Rev. Jan Olav Smit: "The Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope Pius XII" pg. 168 (c. 1950)

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

[9] Catholic Encyclopedia: From Fr. Adrian Fortescue's article "Liturgy" (c. 1913)

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

[11] Matt1618: "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass" (c. 1998)

[12] Matt1618: "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass" (c. 1998)

[13] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Sacrifice of the Mass" (c. 1913)

[14] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Sacrifice of the Mass" (c. 1913)

[15] F. John Loughnan — Text of an email correspondence from December of 1999 used with permission.

[16] The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (translated by Vittorio Messori); Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1985 pgs. 124-125

[17] ibid. pgs. 126-127

[18] ibid. pg. 127

Additional Notes:

The citation from the Second Vatican Council's Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" was obtained at the following link: http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/dei.ver

The citations from Fr. Adrian Fortescue's Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article "Liturgy" were obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm

The citations from "The Mass Of The Western Rites" by the Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol were taken from the online version of his book which is located at the following link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT

The citation from Dr. Ludwig Ott was taken from his theology manual "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", Tan Books Fourth Edition (c. 1960)

The citation from Fr. Adrian Fortescue's Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article "Liturgy of the Mass" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

The text of the Tridentine liturgy was obtained from a site which this writer can no longer in conscience recommend. (It is not necessary to be linked to; therefore it will not be.) The Tridentine Missal (TM) from which the rubrics were borrowed was the "St. Joseph Daily Missal", Kaufer Company Inc., 1959, Catholic Book Publishing Co., NY. The author added the reference to a second Confiteor before communion - though it was suppressed in the 1962 Missal - because all the Tridentine masses he attended and/or served at when with the SSPX all contained this element. The addition of St. Joseph to the Canon was done by the site from which the text of the TM was taken from. All other additions of the rubrics were supplemented by the author from his TM missal.

The text of the Pauline liturgy was obtained from the following link: http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/Mass.html

The only exceptions made to the above mass link are most of the rubrics and the substitution of the Third Eucharistic Prayer for the Second Eucharistic Prayer which is used at the link above. The Pauline Missal (PM) from which the rubrics were borrowed was the "Vatican II Sunday Missal", Daughters of St. Paul, 1974. The English translation of Eucharistic Prayer #3 were from the same missal but were copyrighted 1969, 1970, 1973 by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Inc.

The citation from Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei" was obtained from the following link: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

The citation from Most Rev. Jan Olav Smit was taken from his book "The Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope Pius XII" adapted into English by Reverend James H. Vanderveldt, O.F.M. New York, 1950, Dodd, Mead, and Company Publishers.

The citations from Matt1618's Treatise "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass" were obtained at the following link: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

The citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article "The Sacrifice of the Mass" were obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

The citation of St. Irenaeus' work "Against Heresies" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

©2003, 2000, "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (Part 3), 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.




Go to Next Section of "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Return to Index Page "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Go to Ultratraditionalist Page


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page