The “Old Mass and the “Novus Ordo” Mass: Irreconcilable differences?

“Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” (Col. 3:21)

The relationship between the preconciliar and postconciliar forms of Mass has become like a problematic marriage needing long-suffering, patience, goodwill, and hatred of divorce. During his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI played the part of the kindly counselor interested in reconciling the two parties. In a disturbing contrast, Pope Francis appears as a partisan counselor, provoking a rupture in the relationship, although his stated goal is unity.

By revoking permission for widespread access to the Old Mass, Pope Francis has exacerbated the discord by effectively, if implicitly, accusing all traditional-minded Catholics of rejecting Vatican II and suggesting the two forms of the Mass have irreconcilable differences. (There are some traditional-minded Catholics who reject Vatican II, but their numbers are comparatively small.) Refusing to recognize the possibility of liturgical complementarity can only lead to bitterness, entrenched positions, and an ugly divorce.

Until the Second Vatican Council, the Mass gradually developed with organic changes that continued even after the reforms of the Council of Trent. The so-called “Tridentine Mass,” or, if one prefers, “the Old Mass,” was the Mass of countless saints. A careful reading of the documents of Vatican II does not reveal the intention to overhaul the Mass in radical ways. The Council Fathers wrote: “…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” (SC 23). Indeed, very few traditional Catholics would have objected to the interim Sacramentary of 1964 had it ended there.

Undoubtedly, the reform of the Mass under Pope Paul VI with Annibale Bugnini as the architect went far beyond the intentions of Vatican II. Even though then-Cardinal Ratzinger welcomed the revised forms, he lamented the “cookbook” mentality of many liturgical constructs. Poor translations from Latin added to the dismay. Yet, the structure of the Mass remains recognizable: The Penitential Rite, the Gloria, the Scripture readings, the Roman Canon, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Communion Rite. Nevertheless, several generations of Catholics were born into the so-called Novus Ordo Mass, and most Catholics know only the New Mass.

There are worthwhile liturgical debates that good liturgical marriage counselors could moderate. Did the liturgical reformers needlessly change the Offertory prayers? Does the multiplication of liturgical options encourage abusive liturgical practices? On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger points out how synagogue worship finds its fulfillment in the Liturgy of the Word of the Novus Ordo, while the sacrifice of the Temple finds fulfillment in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Novus Ordo – a liturgical expression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Divine Bridegroom – has strengths and flaws. But so does the preconciliar liturgy—as does every form of liturgical expression.

As an altar boy in the 60s, I remember a priest celebrating his early morning Sunday Tridentine Mass in twenty minutes! The Latin provided cover for innumerable omissions. Poor liturgical formation was prevalent and pointed to the need for some form of liturgical renewal. An usher, comically wagging his head in pain, told my dad he might leave the Church if the pastor continued to allow a particular woman to murder the Gregorian Chant at the high Mass on Sunday.

In the 1970s through the early 1990s, liberal contempt for priests reverently celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass was pervasive. Playing by the liturgical rules was a “formation issue” in the seminary. In the 1980s, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee said that “rubricism” was among the most serious problems in the Church (sic!). I remember a transitional deacon instructing me to adjust the words of the readings of the Mass for so-called “inclusive language” purposes. I declined, and he sternly advised me to speak to my formation advisor about my rigidity. (Scratch a young punk liberal transitional deacon, and a tyrant bleeds.)

When traditional-minded seminarians (relatively few) were ordained in the 1980s and early 1990s, many older priests — and many of the laity — considered them “ultra-conservative.” They weren’t. They merely desired to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with reverence, using legitimate traditional options. Indeed, they were the first wave in the reform-of-the-reform, landing on the mainstream ecclesiastical Normandy beaches facing the withering, hostile fire of liberal Catholics.

Every inch of turf came at a price. A young assistant priest usually faced flamboyant cantors, folksy readers, and busybody feminist nuns hell-bent on running the liturgy. People got used to priests canonizing the deceased during funerals. The laity often angrily objected if a priest presumed to “pray for the repose of the soul” of grandma. The struggle continues today, although the divide between traditional and “progressive” Novus Ordo parishes is much more pronounced than between traditional Novus Ordo and Extraordinary Form parishes.

As a newly ordained priest, I advised my first pastor that he had nothing to worry about because I intended to celebrate Mass according to existing liturgical legislation. In other words, he had good reason to worry! I added that my only liturgical agenda item was promoting an accurate translation of the Mass. I never imagined that within a few years, a politically-correct translation committee (ICEL) would provoke me (with several other priests) to launch “CREDO: A Society of Priests Dedicated to the Accurate Translation of the Liturgy”. The tumultuous “translation wars” came to a happy conclusion in 2011 when the Vatican approved a mostly accurate translation of the Roman Missal.

By 1995, Adoremus spun off from CREDO with Helen Hull Hitchcock, Father Joseph Fessio, and myself as co-founders. Our purpose was to promote authentic liturgical reform following the thought of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. By the mid-1990s, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was flourishing, celebrating the Old Mass (so-called Tridentine Mass, later labeled the Extraordinary Form, [EF]) under the provisions of Pope John Paul’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei. Our attitude toward the Old Mass was friendly, although we thought there was a need for reform similar to the 1964 Sacramentary (why not allow the readings in the vernacular?). We also recognized how the Novus Ordo needed the example of reverence that the Old Mass provided.

But we focused most of our energies on promoting an accurate translation of the Novus Ordo Mass and reverent liturgical practices. We fine-tuned our goals to include traditional liturgical options in the Novus Ordo even when Pope John Paul II approved female altar servers. It worked. When we celebrated post-Vatican II Novus Ordo Masses offered by the book, many old-time Catholics delighted in the “pre-Vatican II” flavor! The General Instruction anticipated this possibility by expressing this hope: “The two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition” (GIRM 6).

We never objected to the celebration of the Old Mass or were displeased when it gained traction in many parishes. As a pastor, I introduced the Old Mass in my parish when I had a competent priest for the job. Properly trained priests were hard to find. Thankfully, times were beginning to change.

Liturgical legislation never mandated that the priests celebrate Mass versus populum (“facing the people”). Nor did the legislation require the removal of Communion rails or the horrible destruction of traditional church architecture. Pope Benedict XVI permitted the widespread celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, even suggesting that the Church never suppressed the Old Mass. The priests with whom I associate often celebrate both forms of the Mass. We may favor one over the other, but we don’t hold either of the expressions of the Holy Sacrifice in contempt. Both forms have produced and nourished many holy children. A reverent celebration of the Mass begets a reverent laity.

Alas, many young traditional-minded priests today – happily the product of the orthodox pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI – have little or no appreciation for the liturgical battles in defense of the Novus Ordo that paved the way for the reintroduction of Extraordinary Form. While the celebration of the Old Mass provided a haven from crazy and intolerable liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo, attempts to restore reverence to the celebration of the Ordinary Form also helped to inculcate a spirit of liturgical sanity and acceptance of the Old Mass within parishes. In metropolitan areas, it is common to see a healthy and respectful migration in attendance between the two Forms celebrated with reverence. The all-too-casual dismissal of “Novus Ordo Catholics” reveals a denial of those sacrifices and fuels the unfortunate depiction that all traditional Catholics deny the authority of Vatican II.

The Novus Ordo is a kind of spouse to the Tridentine Mass. Maybe the marriage was ill-advised because the Novus Ordo was too immature, and the Tridentine Mass set in its ways. Pope Benedict XVI wisely hoped to heal the tensions by promoting a “hermeneutic of continuity” in our worship. Despite the deficiencies, the marriage is historical and valid. The suppression of one form or the other disrupts legitimate religious sensibilities, undermines the faith of many, and tears apart parishes and even families. (I recently argued that Vatican officials should apologize for their cruel and unusual punishment of faithful Catholics devoted to the Latin Mass of the Extraordinary Form.)

Great harm will come to the Church if there is a divorce, and her children will suffer irreparable wounds. Do not defend the Old Mass by hating the Novus Ordo. Let’s keep the Old Mass alive in our hearts – and in our churches where we can — hoping for a better day when God sends a benign and wise counselor to help heal the tragic conflict for the good of the Church.

Catholic World Report