Tradition in Action, Inc.,

Regarding your article: The Novus Ordo Mass Broke the Identity of the Church,

I agree that the Tridentine liturgy is meant to be forever and no new liturgy was ever needed or could be introduced. Truly it was codified "to endure to the end of the world." The only reform that was truly needed was to accurately translate it into the vernacular. But how do you reconcile this (Quo primum) with articles 58 and 59 of Pius XII's Encyclical Mediator Dei... which are indeed very disturbing and contradict Quo primum. It seems nothing of the past is sacrosanct. Just about anything can be changed.

“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.

“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” (Mediator Dei).

The above views are reflected in the pathetic Sacrosanctum Concilium. And that's exactly what Paul VI did. He changed the liturgy based on what he thought was correct.

I wish the Traditionalists would also critically analyze the "Magisterium" prior to 1958.

One last point. If the Novus Ordo liturgy is evil, then it must also be invalid. The same would apply to the other sacraments. Since the Catholic Church does not admit of degrees, the other sacraments must also be evil and invalid. What will that make of Benedict XVI's pontificate? He would not be a Bishop as he was consecrated with the new rite. That would make this a true sedevacancy!!

Appreciate a reply

      Dr. N.J.R., Goa, India.

TIA responds:

Dr. N.J.R.,

We are pleased to acknowledge that you agree on one point in our position when you mention that Quo primum must govern forever.

Regarding the other points, we will answer your questions and objections simply and directly as is our custom in this section.

1. Contradiction between Mediator Dei and Quo primum

You affirmed that Mediator Dei contradicts Quo primum. We don’t agree with this simplistic charge.

In theology and theodicy there is a definition of the powers of God that correctly affirms: God is omnipotent, that is, He can do whatever He wants that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, even the omnipotence of God has its own limits.

This applies to the pontifical powers of jurisdiction and teaching. These papal powers enable a legitimate Pope to do whatever he wants that does not contradict what was duly established by those same powers before.

So, when Pius XII wrote 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 (n. 58),” this means that a Pope can do these things insofar as he does not contradict what was previously established by another Pope as valid forever.

Thus, this right should not be understood as the power to change the unchangeable codification of Mass made by St. Pius V regarding the Latin Rite, but rather as the power to approve, regulate or reform other rites that exist or will appear in the Church, such as the many Eastern rites that the Church approved in the past as different peoples converted to the Catholic Faith.

The same text also applies to modifications in the Divine Office, official prayers or chants, and liturgical ceremonies that are linked to the worship of God without being part of the Tridentine Mass.

The next paragraph of Mediator Dei confirms this interpretation when it says that the Pope cannot modify those parts that change the integrity of doctrine – “provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded” (n. 59).

Therefore, the most probable interpretation of the cited texts of Mediator Dei harmonizes perfectly with the past of the Church. This is how we interpret them.

We realize that, considered from the perspective of what has happened in the last four decades, those texts also can be interpreted today, as you do, as a preparation for the progressivist reforms of Vatican II.

Actually, is not a secret to anyone that in the last phase of his pontificate Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism. It is known that during his reign he oscillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecumenism, and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.

2. Quo primum and the Novus Ordo Mass

In our opinion, Paul VI greatly exceeded his pontifical rights when he established the New Mass at complete variance with Quo primum. We do not believe that it is legitimate for a Pope to oppose a law and doctrine established by another Pope for all times. This opinion can be defended from different points of view:

A. Regarding the power of jurisdiction, certainly a Pope can revoke any positive law made by another Pope to rule on this or that particular need of the Church. Positive law here is understood as a human law to govern the human needs of the Church. This can apply to liturgy and the divine worship within the limits explained before.

This power does not seem to apply to the virtual revocation of Quo primum that Paul VI attempted to make. He tried to ban the Tridentine Mass and replace it with the New Mass. After decades of sad experiences wherein the New Mass exerted a very bad influence over the Church, Benedict XVI stepped back and considered both Masses as two different Latin rites. This "new status" given to the Tridentine Mass, until then forbidden de facto for around 40 years, does not attenuate the clear intent of Paul VI to destroy what St. Pius V had established forever. Instead, it perpetuates Paul VI’s error. It is our opinion that neither Paul VI nor any other Pope has the right to oppose what Quo primum established. And if he does, he enters the field of illegitimacy and must be resisted until his action is rescinded inside the whole Church.

B. Regarding the power of teaching, a Pope does not have the right to revoke the Tradition of the Church. Indeed, the codification of St. Pius V was a condensation of around 1500 years of the Latin Rite’s customs in worshiping God, which were formulated as a counterattack against Protestantism. From the time of Trent, almost 500 years passed and enriched that same Tradition. Then Paul VI entered the picture and tried to destroy this legacy. His action was profoundly detrimental to Church Tradition, one of the main sources of her life. For this reason, that self-destructive action was illegitimate, and must be resisted until it disappears from the entire Church.

C. Still regarding the power of teaching, the deliberate intent of Paul VI to establish a Mass that would please the Protestants – practical denial of its sacrificial character, dissimulation of the real significance of the Eucharist, elimination of the difference between the celebrant and the congregation, dethroning God and enthroning the people, etc – is diametrically opposed to the intent of either Pope St. Pius V or the Council of Trent. This New Mass clearly has the flavor of heresy, the same heresy the Tridentine Mass was made to avoid. For this aggravating reason, it must be resisted until it no longer exists.

These points summarize our position regarding the illegitimacy of Paul VI’s New Mass.

3. Illegitimacy and validity

In your last point you say that if the Novus Ordo is evil, it is necessarily invalid; as a consequence, the Sacraments would also be invalid. Hence the consecration of Joseph Ratzinger would also be invalid, and therefore, we in TIA would be sede-vacantists.

This apparently indisputable reasoning seems also unwise.

You may consider that Luther’s heresy was declared in 1521 and until today, the Catholic Church has not declared invalid the sacraments administered by most of the Protestant bishops. When the Church baptizes a convert from Protestantism, she uses a conditional formula, which means that in the space of time of some five centuries, she still has not decided whether the Apostolic succession ceased in those heretical sects and the sacraments administrated in them are valid or not.

Only regarding the Anglican sect that separated from the Catholic Church in 1534 did the Catholic Church declare its orders invalid and null. However, more than 300 years passed before Pope Leo XIII wrote his Encyclical Apostolicae curae in 1896 clarifying this question regarding the Anglicans.

Thus, if the Catholic Church, which is the source of wisdom, took and is taking so long to declare invalid orders and sacraments administrated by known heretics, this teaches us that heresy does not automatically bring about invalidity of orders and the sacraments, as you unwisely conclude.

Therefore, one may calmly consider that even though Paul VI committed an illegitimate action when he promulgated the New Mass, an immediate and indispensable consequence of this would not be that he is an invalid Pope. One may go even further and consider him a heretic as bad as Luther, and still in this case, his validity would not be put into question for a long while, as is the custom of the Church. We think that good Catholics should understand the mind of the Church in this way.

We hope these considerations will help you to better understand the Catholic sentire cum Ecclesia.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk