November 1981 Print

 
ONE of the most distinguished living members of the papally approved liturgical movement is the French Oratorian, Father Louis Bouyer. He was most enthusiastic about the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, which he saw as the culmination of the liturgical movement and the blueprint for a liturgical renewal which would bear an abundant pastoral harvest. He expressed his enthusiasm in a book entitled The Liturgy Revived. Within a few years he stigmatized the reforms carried out in the name of the Council as a betrayal both of the Council itself and the liturgical movement. His new book was entitled The Decomposition of Catholicism, and in it he claimed that: "Unless we are blind, we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition." In the 8 December 1968 issue of L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI is quoted as admitting that the Church was undergoing a process of self-destruction.

Lay Catholics who are conscious of their responsibility as confirmed Christians to uphold the Faith during this period of self-destruction are frequently hampered by a lack of information. Even worse, they are sometimes misinformed by those they might expect to give them the facts. It was to correct this imbalance that I wrote my book Pope Paul's New Mass. It is, I hope, written with complete objectivity and a scrupulous regard for truth. It should provide Catholics wishing to resist the liturgical revolution with all the facts they need. I have been gratified at the extent to which some journals completely unconnected with (and even hostile to) the traditionalist movement have conceded the objectivity of its factual content. The Homiletic and Pastoral Review is the journal for priests with the largest circulation in the English-speaking world. A review of my book in the July 1981 issue commends it as "the most important book I have read on the general topic of liturgy in the post-conciliar Church."

As an example of the manner in which the faithful are often misinformed today, I cite (p. 428) the case of a group of English parishioners who wrote to their bishop asking why their beautiful sanctuary had to be vandalized, and the tabernacle demoted from the place of honor on the high altar. The bishop informed them that the proposed sanctuary changes in their church had been ordered in the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Most Catholics would have taken their bishop at his word, but in this case they took the trouble to obtain a copy of the Liturgy Constitution and discovered that it contained no such instruction. When they wrote back and pointed this out to the bishop he was honest enough to admit that he had been mistaken. It is quite possible, even likely, that he had never read the Constitution, and had obtained the advice of a liturgical "expert" in compiling his reply. The moral of this story, and many similar incidents could be cited, is that in the post-conciliar Church we cannot take "official statements" at their face value, even when they emanate from bishops or liturgical "experts." If we check the facts out for ourselves we may discover that they are very different from the official version.

These remarks have been prompted by an article published in the 6 September 1981 issue of The Southern Cross, a South African Catholic paper. The article is entitled: "Yes, Tridentine Rite has been Abrogated." It is by Father Bonaventure Hinwood and is an answer to two questions. I shall quote the questions and Father Hinwood's answer in full, and demonstrate how seriously he has misled his readers. I am quoting his article in full so that he cannot accuse me of misrepresenting him by quoting passages out of context. He will receive a copy of this issue of The Angelus. I hope that he will have the integrity to rectify his errors in a subsequent issue of The Southern Cross. He has an obligation to do this, not simply as a Catholic but as a journalist. His article follows:

Yes, Tridentine Rite Has Been Abrogated From W. P. Topper, Ottery, Cape: Did Pope Paul VI abrogate the Tridentine Mass? If so, why, how, when? From C. O'Connor, Bulawayo: Is the Tridentine Mass still valid? If it is still valid, may the laity assist at it? If we may not do so, can you give the reason? By the Tridentine Mass, I presume that the questioners are referring to the rite of Mass as used up to 1970. It is doubtful if anyone in this century has ever used the Mass as promulgated by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent. That text had been altered many times over the centuries, before being completely overhauled under Pope Paul VI to produce the present revision of the Roman rite.

 

Comment: This, of course, is completely untrue! Those who want the facts can refer to Chapter I of my book Pope Paul's New Mass. (I shall refer to pages in this book during the course of my article, and will abbreviate it as PPNM.) The truth is that the text of the Mass as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V had not been altered "many times" prior to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. It remained totally unchanged until 1960, when Pope John XXIII made some very minor revisions. The text of the mass can be divided into two parts—the Ordinary and Proper. The Ordinary is the part that remains the same each day, the Proper is the part that varies—Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gospel, etc. The Proper is also divided into two parts—the Proper of the Season and the Proper of the Saints. The only changes of significance made to the missal between 1570 and 1960 were the additions of new propers for the feasts of new saints, or additional feasts of Our Lord or Our Lady. I own a Missal printed in 1577 and several printed in this century—the texts of Ordinary and the Proper of the Season are identical. Father Hinwood has, then, misled his readers with a statement that is totally untrue.

Pope Paul VI promulgated this revised rite in the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969.

Comment: The Pope approved the new order of Mass with the constitution Missale Romanum. It was promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 6 April 1969.

The words he used were:

It is our will that those things which we have decreed and laid down are binding and to be put into operation now and in future, notwithstanding any constitutions or apostolic ordinances of whatever kind promulgated by our predecessors, or any other thing laid down, even if they be considered worthy of special mention or of a particular repeal.

Comment: This is correct, but nowhere in Missale Romanum is it "decreed and laid down" that the Bull Quo Primum has been abrogated, let alone the Mass which St. Pius V promulgated with this Bull. Father Hinwood's problem is that he clearly does not know the meaning of "abrogated." He is evidently not a Canon Lawyer, and hence would do well to leave the discussion of Canon Law to those who are. In all fairness, the same must be said of a good number of traditionalist writers who publish comments on the legal status of the Tridentine Mass. Their conclusions are frequently as misleading and inaccurate as Father Hinwood's. In my book I have contented myself with citing the opinion of competent canon lawyers on this matter, and what follows is based upon their conclusions.

There are three ways in which legislation can cease to apply:

(1) It can be "abrogated," i.e., abolished completely. If a law is abrogated the new legislation must say so specifically and clearly.

There is not one word in Missale Romanum stating that either the Bull Quo Primum or the Tridentine Mass has been abrogated. The full text of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum is included in PPNM (pp. 550-4) for anyone wishing to verify this claim.

(2) It can be "derogated." This means that the legislation still remains in force, but is modified in some way. Father Raymond Dulac, an eminent French canonist, accepts that the Bull Quo Primum has been derogated. Its prohibition against the use of any Missal but that of St. Pius V by Roman Rite priests cannot be said to apply to the Mass of Pope Paul VI. But he argues that the perpetual privilege it gives to every priest to say the Tridentine Mass is still valid. Father Dulac's thesis is included in PPNM (pp. 571-580).

(3) It can be "obrogated." Obrogation is the substitution of new legislation which automatically replaces previous legislation without any specific words of abrogation. If Quo Primum has been superseded this is the only method by which it could have happened.

It is thus certain that Quo Primum has not been abrogated, but it may have been obrogated. At the very least it has been subjected to derogation, and this is something which Catholic traditionalists should accept and admit. We do not help our cause by adhering stubbornly to untenable arguments. There are still some traditionalists who claim that Quo Primum precluded any pope subsequent to St. Pius V from making changes in the Mass or introducing a new rite of Mass. This error is not hard to understand when those unversed in Canon Law or Church History read the text of the Bull (see PPNM, pp. 531-534). But clauses making bulls binding forever were simply the standard canonical formulae in use at the time. They were in no way binding upon subsequent popes. Examples could be cited of bulls containing clauses almost identical to those found in Quo Primum which were abrogated or even reversed by subsequent popes. Therefore those who argue that Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority in introducing the New Mass simply make themselves and the traditionalist movement appear ridiculous.

But there is an equally important question which traditionalists are entitled to put, and this is whether Pope Paul VI ought to have introduced a completely new rite of Mass, whether he ought to have disregarded Quo Primum, whether in doing so he was not simply imprudent but guilty of a serious abuse of his authority. Most people tend to equate legal correctness with moral correctness, but when we look at society today we can see that much that is legal is clearly immoral, abortion providing the most obvious example.

Pope John Paul II has the legal authority to demolish St. Peter's Basilica, sell the site for a parking lot, and use the proceeds in any way he wishes. But as he is the custodian of the Church's patrimony this would clearly be an immoral act, even though it would violate no Church law. But compared with the destruction of the Roman Rite, permitted and even encouraged by Pope Paul VI, the destruction of St. Peter's Basilica would be almost trivial.

The legal position of Quo Primum today is, then, that it may still be in force, although in a modified (derogated) form. This is the view of Father Dulac (PPNM, pp. 571-580). If he is correct then the perpetual indult authorizing every priest to say the Tridentine Mass is still in force, and no priest can be censured for offering it. But QuoPrimum may have been obrogated, and so have lapsed completely. Would this mean that no priest could legally offer the Tridentine Mass without Vatican authorization? Not at all, as the abrogation or obrogation of the Bull Quo Primum can be considered independently from the abrogation of the Tridentine Mass, for the Tridentine Mass did not come into being as a result of the Bull Quo Primum. The term Tridentine Mass, or Mass of St. Pius V, as it is known in France, is somewhat misleading as it gives the impression that the Mass of the Roman Rite as we knew it until 1969¹ is a rite that was composed in the mid-sixteenth century. Nothing could be further from the truth. Father David Knowles, Britain's most distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974, explained that: "The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, and Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and its rites."²

The rite of Mass promulgated by St. Pius V was, then, not a new order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) but simply the codification of the existing and immemorial Roman Mass, which was extended throughout the entire Roman Rite, with certain exceptions specified in Quo Primum. As the rite of Mass codified by St. Pius V was what is known in Canon Law as an "immemorial custom," it was already protected or "regulated" by customary law before the publication of Quo Primum. Respect for long standing customs and traditions has always been a primary characteristic of Catholicism, so much so that such customs frequently achieve the status of a law. The true Catholic attitude is expressed perfectly in a dictum cited by St. Thomas Aquinas: "It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old" (Summa Theologica, II, I, Q. 97, Art. 2). Father Adrian Fortescue, England's greatest liturgical authority, wrote in his classic work, The Mass, a Study of the Roman Liturgy: "Certainly we in the West must be very glad that we have the Roman Rite in the form of Pius V's Missal ... There are many days on which we say the Mass that has been said for centuries, back to the days of the Gelasian and Leonine Book. And when they do come, the new Masses only affect the Proper. Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V. We must be very thankful that his Commission was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition."

As the Tridentine Mass is an immemorial custom, it would be necessary for the Pope himself to abrogate it by special mention if it were to be legally prohibited. Pope Paul VI could easily have done so. The arguments from immemorial custom (ex consuetudine) were well known to him. He could simply have said: "The immemorial custom is abolished." Why he did not is a mystery—perhaps the Holy Ghost prevented him. But the important fact is that he never went as far as taking this step.

An argument put forward by those claiming that the Tridentine Mass is now illegal is that, although originally an immemorial custom, it lost this status when it became regulated by the written law of Quo Primum, thus if Quo Primum has been obrogated then the Tridentine Mass has been obrogated with it. This argument has been refuted by Count Neri Capponi, a Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, and an advocate of the Holy Roman Rota and the Apostolic Signatura (the highest court in the Church). He explains that it is the consensus of canonists that if an immemorial custom "becomes also regulated by written law, the latter does not take the place of custom but is added to it in such a way that the subject matter becomes controlled both by the preceding customary law and by the subsequent written law, with no abrogation of the customary law, which still continues to regulate the matter in question." In view of this, should the written law eventually be subjected to abrogation, obrogation, or derogation, the immemorial custom would revert to its original status, and be protected by customary law unless and until abrogated by specific mention (see PPNM, p. 582). On 28 October 1974, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a statement denying that the Tridentine Mass could be celebrated under "any pretext of custom, even immemorial custom." But as the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass from immemorial custom clearly exists, a gratuitous denial of the existence of the right is simply nonsensical and of no legal force.

Those wishing to study Professor Capponi's arguments in more detail will find them in PPNM, pp. 581-583. The position can be summed up as follows:

(1) Contrary to the totally gratuitous allegation made by Fr. Hinwood, the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated. If he wishes to persist in his allegation, let him name the Pope who did so, together with the date, the title of the document, and the specific words of abrogation used—words which must state clearly that the Tridentine Mass has been abrogated and must no longer be used.

(2)  Not only has the Tridentine Mass never been abrogated, neither has Quo Primum.

(3) Although Quo Primum has been the subject of derogation, there is a good case for arguing that the perpetual privilege it grants to every priest to say the Tridentine Mass remains in force.

(4) But even if Quo Primum, the perpetual privilege included, has been totally obrogated, every priest of the Roman Rite is still entitled to celebrate the Tridentine Mass due to its status as an unabrogated immemorial custom. Count Capponi's conclusion is that "at least by virtue of established custom all celebrants should be free to use it [the Mass of St. Pius V] and all the faithful to take part in it " (PPNM, p. 583).

Father Hinwood continues his comments on the promulgation of the New Mass as follows:

In doing this, Pope Paul was simply carrying out the decision of Vatican II, that the rite of the Mass be revised (Liturgy 50).

Father Hinwood is correct in stating that the Liturgy Constitution did authorize a revision of the rite of Mass. Few Catholics at that time, in 1963, would have opposed a revision of the Mass as a matter of principle. Archbishop Lefebvre himself felt able to sign the Liturgy Constitution in view of the safeguards it contained which appeared sufficient to make the subsequent liturgical revolution inconceivable. Article 23 stated that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."

It would be a most interesting experience to sit down with Father Hinwood and compare the texts of the ordinaries of the old and new rites of Mass, prayer by prayer, action by action, and hear him explain how all the innovations conformed to this directive. Did the good of the Church genuinely and certainly require that we should be forbidden to kneel at the Incarnatus in the Creed? Did the new Offertory grow organically from forms already existing? Well, yes, if by existing forms were meant those in the Jewish as well as the Catholic religion, as these prayers are based upon a Jewish form of grace (see PPNM, p. 320). A careful examination of the changes made in preparing the New Mass reveals beyond any possible doubt that the guiding principle followed was to remove the maximum possible number of prayers which Protestants found unacceptable. The result has been fulsome praise from Protestants for our "seeing the light" after four hundred years (see PPNM, Chapter XIII). This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Protestant consultants played an active part in the preparatory stages of the New Mass (see PPNM, Appendix III).

Article 36 of the Liturgy Constitution ordered the preservation of the Latin language in the Mass. It is quite possible that the Council Fathers never envisaged a wholly vernacular Mass. During the debate on the Constitution, Cardinal Montini [Pope Paul VI] of Milan said that the idea of a vernacular Canon was unthinkable, and Cardinal Heenan has testified to the fact that Pope John XXIII did not suspect what the liturgical experts who drafted the Liturgical Constitution were planning. As I have proved in my book Pope John's Council, these experts inserted ambiguous passages into the Constitution, passages which meant one thing to the Council Fathers, but would be interpreted in a very different manner by those same experts when they came to interpret the Constitution after the Council Fathers had returned to their dioceses (see Pope John's Council, pp. 221-4, 250-2). The Constitution also ordered that Gregorian Chant "should be given pride of place in liturgical services." Perhaps this instruction is implemented faithfully in South Africa, it most certainly is not in Great Britian or the U.S.A.

The Constitution also commanded that "in faithful obedience to tradition, this most sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal authority and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

Father Joseph Gelineau, S.J., is one of the liturgical experts who was active both in the preparation and the propagation of the New Mass. He has spoken with commendable frankness of the final result of the revolution to which he and his colleagues devoted such effort: "To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. Some walls of the former edifice have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building" (PPNM, p. 78). Father John A. Kiley, a columnist of The Providence Visitor, a Catholic weekly in America, made the same assertion in its 17 September 1981 issue: "The 'new liturgy,' the Mass of Pope Paul VI, should be tested on its own merits. It is not a revision of the old Mass—a trim version of the old Mass—it is a brand new rite." Well, Father Kiley, no traditional Catholic will take issue with you on this point!

We thus have the Liturgy Constitution ordering that all rites shall be preserved and fostered, and Father Gelineau boasting that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. We have the Liturgy Constitution authorizing a revision of the Roman Rite, and Father Kiley boasting that it has not been revised but destroyed. No, Father Hinwood, the New Mass is not an act of obedience to a decision of Vatican II, it is a calculated rejection of the Liturgy Constitution of that Council. Dietrich von Hildebrand must certainly be ranked among the half-dozen greatest Catholic thinkers of the post-war era, possibly of this century. His verdict on the New Mass is one which you would do well to consider seriously: "Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better" (PPNM, p. 80).

Father Hinwood continues:

Vatican II, in making this decision, was acting in conformity with the Church's age-old practice. This practice the Council of Trent had neatly summed up in its decree on holy Communion of July 16, 1562, where the principle is stated:

"Apart from the essential kernel of the sacraments, the Church has always had the power with regard to the administration of the sacraments to lay down and change whatever it considers will help the person receiving or will contribute to the veneration of the sacraments themselves, according to differing circumstances, times, and places."

What is referred to as "the essential kernel of the sacraments," in this rather inept translation of the Tridentine decree, is actually the "substance" of the sacraments, the basic matter and form essential for validity. In referring to the Church's "age-old practice" concerning sacramental rites, Father Hinwood reveals that he is as ignorant of liturgical history as he is of canon law. In saying this I have no wish to denigrate him. The average priest does not have a specialized knowledge of liturgical history, the average priest does not need a specialized knowledge of liturgical history, but the average priest is wise enough not to pontificate upon liturgical history in the press. Father Hinwood, alas, lacked this prudence, and thus has no reason to complain if his public errors are publicly refuted.

The first point to make about the Tridentine decree he cites is that it was a justification of the practice of Communion under one kind. Protestant heretics alleged that this was contrary to divine precept, the Church naturally defended her current practice. A detailed history of the controversy concerning Communion under both kinds can be found in PPNM, Chapter XXI. Father Hinwood gives the impression that the Church has an "age-old" practice of revising her sacramental rites. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact, such a suggestion is sheer fantasy. Prior to the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution there had never been a radical revision of any Catholic liturgical rite. If Father Hinwood disputes this let him name the rite revised, and the date the revision took place. Where the reform of St. Pius V was concerned, few if any laymen would have noticed that any change had taken place at all. As I show in Chapter I of PPNM the Catholic sacramental rites evolved naturally and imperceptibly over centuries. The change to the practice of Communion under one kind for the laity was not the result of the deliberation of a committee of liturgical experts, let alone a commission of experts assisted by heretical consultants! It was something which happened gradually, almost without being noticed.

The true Catholic attitude to liturgical development was expressed perfectly by the English Catholic Bishops in a defence of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, which determined irrevocably that Anglican Orders are invalid. The so-called Anglican "bishops" published an attack upon the Bull, using arguments not unlike those employed by Father Hinwood. The Catholic Bishops replied with a vindication of the Bull in which they explained that it was dangerous to change "anything in those forms which immemorial Tradition has bequeathed to us. For such an immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of ages incorporated superfluous accretions, must in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded, visible Church, at least have retained whatever is necessary: so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Church has always followed ..."

So much for the "age-old practice" of the Church which exists only in Father Hinwood's over-active imagination. But his imagination had evidently reached fever pitch by the time he reached his next paragraph:

This principle was stated more briefly by Pope Pius XII when on January 28, 1948, he changed the rite of the sacrament of orders probably more seriously than Pope Paul VI did the rite of Mass: "Everyone knows that what the Church has laid down she can also change and abrogate."

Here, to put things as charitably and moderately as possible, one can only say that Father Hinwood is raving! Pope Pius XII did not change one word, capital letter, period, or comma in the Ordination Rite. He simply stated definitively in which part of the rite the matter and form of the sacrament were located (see PPNM, p. 626).

Father Hinwood continues:

That it was indeed Pope Paul VI's intention to abrogate the Tridentine Mass is clear from two facts.

On June 14, 1971 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a special instruction allowing bishops and major religious superiors to grant permission to use the previous rite of Mass, as revised up to 1967, to priests who on account of old age or illness were finding difficulty in adapting to the new liturgy. This applied only to celebrations without a congregation. Had the previous Mass rite not been withdrawn from use by Pope Paul's earlier Apostolic Constitution, such permission would not have been necessary.

The Instruction to which Father Hinwood refers can be found in PPNM, pp. 560-563. This document is not what is known as "a papal act," as is an encyclical or the Constitution Missale Romanum. This means that it carries only the authority of the Vatican department which issued it, and where such documents are stated to have received papal approval this is no more than a legal formality and does not so much as signify that the Pope has read it. Such a document is not immune from error concerning matters of fact, and it does not follow that simply because it gives special permission for certain priests to say the traditional Mass that such permission is required. A comparison can be made to a practice utilized by some manufacturers until recently. They would provide guarantees with their products, offering, for example, to replace defective parts free of charge, providing that the customer agreed to pay for transportation and labor. In almost all cases, by signing the guarantee agreement the customer was depriving himself of statutory rights he already possessed; had he not signed he would have also been entitled to have the costs of transportation and labor paid by the manufacturer. This practice has, I believe, been the subject of legislation in a number of countries.

It is very significant that one of the signatories of the 1971 Instruction and the man certainly responsible for drafting it, was Father Annibale Bugnini. As I have shown in Pope Paul's New Mass, Father (later Archbishop) Bugnini was a very smooth operator, not above bending the facts when it suited his purpose. He was dismissed from important positions by both Pope John XXIII and later Pope Paul VI. There is very good reason to suppose that he was dismissed from the secretaryship of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1975 because Pope Paul VI was given documentary proof that the Archbishop had enrolled secretly in a Masonic Lodge. In fairness to the Archbishop it must be noted that he has strenuously denied the charge. The full facts can be found in PPNM, Chapter XXIV. Whatever the reason for his dismissal, it certainly provoked outrage among progressive Catholics, particularly those who were delighted with the direction the liturgical revolution was taking. Thus, the fact that the 1971 Instruction gave permission to certain priests to say the former Mass by no means proves that that Mass had been abrogated. It could also indicate that the author of the Instruction thought that the traditional Mass had been abrogated, or wanted to make others think that it had. As I have already shown, Missale Romanum abrogated neither Quo Primum nor the Tridentine Mass. If, for the sake of argument, we accept the hypothesis that it obrogated Quo Primum, then every priest of the Roman Rite is nonetheless entitled to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in virtue of its status as an immemorial custom.

In order to omit no fact relevant to the matter, it should be noted that Pope Paul VI himself stated in his Consistory Allocution of 24 May 1976 that "the adoption of the (new) Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful." This indicates that he himself believed the New Mass to be mandatory—but, astonishingly, as his authority for this opinion, he cited the 1971 Instruction and not his own Apostolic Constitution. If the Pope thought that the Tridentine Mass had been abrogated does this not prove that it must have been? Not at all, the Pope does not govern the Church by his whim or his nod. A president or prime minister might well like to have the level of taxation raised by 5%, might even had initiated steps to do this, but unless such legislation was enacted with the full legal form he could not expect the tax payers to hand over 5% more of their income voluntarily, simply because that was what he wanted, and because he thought that he had enacted the necessary legislation. Pope Paul VI was well aware of the controversy surrounding the Mass, he was well aware of all the arguments adduced to demonstrate that the Tridentine Mass had not been abrogated, all he needed to do was state quite clearly that he had abrogated it. He could probably have done so quite simply at that very Consistory, simply by stating solemnly that he abrogated the Tridentine Mass and ended its status as an immemorial custom. But he did not do so. We are entitled to ascribe this to the influence of the Holy Ghost. Father Hinwood continues:

Furthermore, as pointed out in my answer headed "When the old rite of Mass may be used" (Southern Cross, October 12, 1980), Pope Paul VI in October 1971, through Cardinal Heenan gave the bishops of Great Britain the privilege of allowing the previous rite of the Mass, as revised up to 1967, to particular groups on special occasions for spiritual and artistic reasons.

There was no question here of people who rejected the Vatican II reforms. All regular parish and community Masses, however, were to be celebrated according to the new missal.

Again, it is clear that no special indult would have been necessary if the old form of the Mass could be used at will.

Father Hinwood is wrong yet again in a point of fact in stating that the indult applied to the bishops of Great Britain. There are two hierarchies in Great Britain—that of England and Wales and that of Scotland. The indult applies only to England and Wales. The full text of the indult and all the relevant correspondence is available in PPNM, pp. 564-568. The indult was not requested by British traditionalists. It was a response to a paternal and pastoral request by Cardinal Heenan, made solely on his own initiative. The comments I have made regarding the 1971 Instruction apply equally to this indult. Father Hinwood argues: "It was granted, therefore it was necessary." To this I must reply: "The fact that it was granted by no means proves that it was necessary." Father Hinwood continues:

Two things emerge from these documents. Even when the Tridentine Mass may be lawfully celebrated, it can only be done with proper permission. No priest is entitled to take the law into his own hands.

It is indeed correct that no priest is entitled to take the law into his own hands. But in accordance with the soundest principles of Catholic Tradition and Canon Law, any priest of the Roman Rite is entitled to celebrate the Tridentine Mass anywhere at any time, in accordance with liturgical laws.

Secondly, the laity may legitimately attend such a celebration in places which, like Great Britain, have an indult, and only on those occasions for which the local bishop has given permission.

As Professor Capponi has explained, and Professor Capponi is a canonist whereas Father Hinwood is not, the laity are just as much entitled to assist at the Tridentine Mass as priests of the Roman Rite are to celebrate it.

The reason why Vatican II decreed a revision of the liturgy was the same as that which prompted Trent to take similar action. Over the years various customs and practices had arisen which obscured the structure and simple beauty of the Mass. It had been Trent's intentions to bring the Mass rite back to its original purity.

The only similarity between the reform which followed Trent and the present liturgical revolution is that in each case a General Council of the Church ordered a revision of the Mass. In the first case what followed the reform was virtually identical with what preceded it, in the case of the Ordinary of the Mass there was complete identity. The type of change made was a reduction in the large number of sequences or the prohibition of music for the Mass based upon secular tunes. The post-Vatican II reform, as Father Gelineau expressed it, destroyed the Roman Rite.

The principal motive for the Tridentine reform was the strengthening of the Church in the face of Protestant heresy. The Church has never demanded absolute liturgical uniformity as a condition or sign of her unity. Rome has never demanded that Catholics of the various Eastern Rites should adopt the Roman rite. But, strangely enough, until the publication of the Bull Quo Primum she had never demanded that this rite should be used universally by priests within her immediate jurisdiction. As well as being the Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church on earth, the Pope occupies a number of other offices. He is Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Patriarch of the West. The patriarchates are the most ancient and prestigious sees in Christendom. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were recognized as such by the Council of Nicea (325), Jerusalem and Constantinople were later recognized as patriarchates by the Council of Chalcedon (451). The prestige of the patriarchates was such that neighboring dioceses tended to adopt their liturgies, until the principle arose that rite followed patriarchate, with one exception—that of Rome. Within the Roman patriarchate any diocese was free to adopt its own rite of Mass, but with a few exceptions, such as the Ambrosian Rite of Milan or the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo, the form of Mass used was simply a variant of that used in Rome. Such forms of Mass are more correctly called "uses" than rites. Thus in England and Wales there co-existed the Uses of Sarum (Salisbury), York, Lincoln, Bangor, and Hereford. As I have already stated, the Council of Trent felt that the Church would be strengthened by greater liturgical uniformity, and so in 1570 the use of the Roman Rite was extended throughout the Roman Patriarchate, except where a diocese or religious order preferred to maintain a rite with a customary usage dated back at least 200 years.

In his book, The Mass, Father Adrian Fortescue explains: "The Protestant Reformers naturally played havoc with the old liturgy. It was throughout the expression of the very ideas (the Real Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice and so on) they rejected. So they substituted for it new communion services that expressed their principle but, of course, broke utterly away from all historic liturgical evolution. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), in opposition to the anarchy of these new services, wished the Roman Mass to be celebrated uniformly everywhere. The medieval local uses had lasted long enough. They had become very florid and exuberant; and their variety caused confusion" (p. 205).

The only objective judgment concerning the post-Vatican II liturgical reform is that it, too, "broke away utterly from all historical liturgical evolution." Hence it is correct to describe it not as an evolution, not as a reform, but as a revolution. If Father Hinwood, or any other apologist for the New Mass, wishes to dispute this, let him cite any comparable drastic revision in the entire history of the Church. He will not be able to do so as there are none. The only comparable revisions were those undertaken by the various Protestant Reformers, and in Chapter XXV of PPNM, I demonstrate how closely the reform of Archbishop Bugnini corresponds to that of Archbishop Cranmer. Examine the prayers removed by the two archbishops from the rites they "reformed," and it will appear that both were the work of a single hand, with one crucial exception. The Roman Canon was retained as an option in the New Mass of Pope Paul VI, but excluded from the communion services of all the Protestant Reformers. Archbishop Bugnini's Commission (the Consilium), with its Protestant consultants, had wished to prohibit the use of the Roman Canon, but, thankfully, Pope Paul VI intervened personally and insisted upon its retention (see PPNM, p. 329). In any overall assessment of the New Order of Mass, the retention of the Roman Canon is of considerable significance, although, alas, it appears to be rarely if ever used in most parishes.

Father Hinwood continues:

Knowledge of the history of the liturgy at that time was much less complete than it is now. The research and reflections due to the liturgical movement of the past century and a half have put the Church of our times in a far better position than before to evaluate her liturgical practices.

It is correct to state that more is known today of "liturgical archaeology" than was known at the time of the Council of Trent. But it by no means follows that an earlier practice is necessarily better. Liturgy, like dogma, evolves by a gradual and scarcely perceptible process, a process explained admirably by Cardinal Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Where the liturgy is concerned, the "liturgical practice" of the Church could not be described more exactly than in the quotation already cited from the English Bishops' vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae. It was also well expressed by Professor Owen Chadwick, in his book The English Reformation: "Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of centuries" (p. 119). In his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned "a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father." This "wicked movement" was concerned with reviving obsolete liturgical practices on the grounds that they are more primitive. (The relevant section of the encyclical is quoted in PPNM, pp. 469-470.) Among the suggestions condemned by Pope Pius XII are the following: "It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches." As regards the liturgical movement, I would be most interested to see Father Hinwood indicate the manner in which the post-conciliar revolution corresponds trine consensus of its great spokesmen, priests such as Dom Cabrol or Father Pius Parsch. As I have already mentioned, in his book, The Decomposition of Catholicism, Fr. Louis Bouyer states that the type of change which has followed the Council represents a turning of the back not simply upon what the Council Fathers had mandated but upon the liturgical movement itself (p. 99).

Father Hinwood continues:

Pope Pius X in the early years of this century began a reform of the Tridentine liturgy, and intended a large scale revision as he stated in 1913. The project, held up by two world wars, was only taken up again by Pope Pius XII. His substantial revision of the Holy Week liturgy, to mention only the most striking change he introduced, was a dress rehearsal for the Vatican II reforms.

A detailed account of the reforms of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII is available in Chapter I of PPNM. To describe the Holy Week revisions of Pope Pius XII as "a dress rehearsal for the Vatican II reforms" is utter nonsense. These reforms were welcomed and praised by some of the traditionalists who are most implacably opposed to the post-conciliar revolution (see PPNM, p. 12).

Two reasons immediately come to mind as to why the revised missal was made obligatory.

The fact is that the new missal has not been made obligatory in accordance with the accepted canonical norms for abrogating an immemorial custom; it is even possible that the perpetual privilege contained in Quo Primum still applies.

There was first of all the legitimate desire to express the Church's oneness by people worshipping within the same liturgical structure, albeit in their various languages and with music suited to their different cultures.

The practical effect of the revolution has been to destroy the liturgical unity of the Roman Rite. The Liturgy Constitution warned about too great a diversity between different regions, it is now hard to believe, in some cases, that adjacent parishes both belong to the same religion, so different are their manners of celebrating Mass. Indeed, in all too many parishes today it is difficult to recognize what takes place as the Mass. Many such instances are documented in Chapter X of PPNM.

Secondly, it was to prevent individual priests or pressure groups of the laity, who were opposed to change, keeping from their fellow Catholics the liturgical benefits desired by Vatican II (these benefits are briefly outlined in my book Your Questions Answered, pages 90-91).

Thankfully, the false claim that the Tridentine Mass has been abrogated has not prevented tens of thousands of devout Catholics in many countries remaining faithful to the traditions of their fathers, and ensuring the continued and constantly increasing celebration of the Tridentine Mass. It is of considerable importance that this should be done as should the traditional Mass cease to be said, then its existence as an immemorial custom would end. However, as more and more priests are ordained in the seminaries of Archbishop Lefebvre, and more and more older priests revert to the celebration of the traditional Mass, its existence is in no danger whatsoever. Indeed, it seems certain to outlast the New Mass of Pope Paul VI. As regards the "benefits" of the liturgical revolution—there are none. The Council Fathers certainly desired that the revision they mandated should bring benefits, but these benefits have never emerged. The avowed aim of the changes was pastoral, to deepen the participation of the people in the Mass, to make it more meaningful to them, and to bring more of them to Mass each Sunday. But in practice it has not simply been a doctrinal and theological disaster. It has been a pastoral catastrophe. Mass attendance has declined in country after country—by over 50% in France, Holland, and Italy, by 30% in America, by 20% in England and Wales. The best that can be said in any country is that there has not been a serious decline, nowhere can an increase in Mass attendance, and renewed fervour for the Faith, be attributed to the New Mass. And where there has been no serious decline, in a country such as Poland, sociological factors external to the liturgy can be evoked to explain the fact.

Having completed my examination of Father Hinwood's article, I will refer briefly to one more very relevant question. The reader will, I hope, agree that I have proved that the Tridentine Mass has not been abrogated. But what if the present or a future pope should do so specifically, making special mention of his abrogation of its status as an immemorial custom? Would this mean that traditional Catholics would have an obligation to adopt the New Mass? Not at all. Although the Pope's powers are absolute they are not arbitrary. When legislating on disciplinary matters, he has a duty to observe the principles enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas which are incumbent upon all legislators. A legislator should not simply refrain from demanding something that his subjects would find impossible to carry out, his laws should not be too difficult or distressing for those subjected to them. St. Thomas explains that for a law to be just, it must conform to the demands of reason and have an effect which is both good and for the benefit of those for whom it is intended. A law can cease to bind without revocation on the part of the legislator when it is clearly harmful, impossible, or irrational. It would certainly constitute an abuse of authority for a pope to forbid the celebration of so hallowed, venerable and Catholic a rite as the Tridentine Mass. Should it be done there is a sound case to justify the faithful in resisting him, based upon accepted norms within Catholic theology.

 

1. Even with the modifications introduced by Pope John XXIII, and those which followed the Second Vatican Council, the Mass of the Roman Rite when celebrated in Latin was still clearly the "Tridentine Mass" until 1969. The Bull Quo Primum was included in the Missals published up to this date.

2. Cited in Cranmer's Godly Order, p. 74. Chapter X of this book gives a detailed history of the "Mass of St. Pius V." An outline history of the development of the Roman Rite is included in Chapter I of Pope Paul's New Mass.