The Mass, as the central act of worship in the Catholic Church, is inherently traditional because it is the re-presentation of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the Cross. This essay argues that the Mass transcends distinctions such as “old” or “new,” as its essence remains unchanged regardless of ritual form. The historical development of the liturgy, from its apostolic origins to its codification at the Council of Trent and subsequent revisions, demonstrates that no single point in history can exclusively claim the title of “traditional.” Furthermore, the use of terms like “Traditional Latin Mass” (TLM) or “Vetus Ordo” by some Catholics reflects a misunderstanding of the Church’s liturgical theology and norms, necessitating greater education by bishops. The validity of Eastern Rite liturgies further complicates the notion of a singular “traditional” Mass, highlighting the universal character of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Through a detailed examination of liturgical and theological documents, this essay seeks to affirm the inherent tradition of the Mass and correct misconceptions about its forms.
The Theological Essence of the Mass: One Sacrifice, Eternally Present
The Mass is fundamentally the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, a truth rooted in Scripture and defined by the Church’s magisterium. The Epistle to the Hebrews declares, “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). This singular, unrepeatable sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist, as Christ instituted at the Last Supper when He said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The Greek term for “remembrance” (anamnesis) implies not mere recollection but a making present of a past event, allowing the faithful to participate in Christ’s sacrifice across time.
The Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session 22, 1562), articulates this theology clearly: “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” This teaching underscores that the Mass does not multiply Christ’s sacrifice but re-presents it, making it accessible to every generation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) reinforces this, stating, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice” (CCC 1367). The Mass, therefore, is inherently traditional because it is rooted in the eternal act of Christ’s redemption, instituted by Him and preserved by the Church.
This theological reality precludes the possibility of an “old” or “new” Mass. To speak of multiple Masses would imply multiple sacrifices, contradicting the doctrine of Christ’s once-for-all oblation. Whether celebrated in the Roman Rite, an Eastern Rite, or any other valid form, the Mass is the same sacrifice, differing only in its ritual expression. The Catechism further clarifies, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit” (CCC 1366). This continuity ensures that every Mass, regardless of its liturgical form, is traditional by virtue of its participation in Christ’s eternal priesthood.
Historical Development of the Mass: A Living Tradition
The liturgy of the Mass has evolved over two millennia, reflecting the Church’s living tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The notion that one specific form of the Mass is uniquely “traditional” ignores this historical development. In the apostolic era, the Eucharist was celebrated in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and His disciples. Early Christian texts, such as the Didache (c. 1st century), describe simple Eucharistic celebrations involving prayers of thanksgiving and the breaking of bread, often in domestic settings. The use of Aramaic is evident in liturgical terms like Maranatha (“Come, Lord!”) found in 1 Corinthians 16:22, indicating continuity with the Last Supper.
By the second century, Greek became the dominant liturgical language in many Christian communities, particularly in the East and parts of the West. St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology (c. 155 AD) provides a detailed account of the Eucharistic liturgy, describing a structure that includes readings from Scripture, a homily, prayers, and the consecration of bread and wine. This early liturgy, while less formalized than later rites, contained the essential elements of the Mass, demonstrating its apostolic roots.
In the Western Church, Latin gradually replaced Greek as the liturgical language by the fifth century, reflecting its status as the vernacular in Rome and surrounding regions. The Leonine Sacramentary (c. 6th century), attributed to Pope Leo the Great, and the Gelasian Sacramentary (c. 7th century), associated with Pope Gelasius I, preserve early Roman liturgical texts. These sacramentaries reveal a diversity of practices, as the Roman Rite coexisted with regional rites such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, and the Gallican Rite in Gaul. Each rite varied in its prayers, gestures, and calendar, yet all were valid expressions of the same Eucharistic sacrifice.
This regional diversity challenges the notion that a single rite can be deemed exclusively “traditional.” If “traditional” implies fidelity to the Church’s earliest practices, then the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Gallican Rites could equally claim this title. For example, the Mozarabic Rite, with its ancient Hispanic origins, preserves prayers and structures predating the Roman Rite’s standardization. Yet, these rites are rarely included in discussions of the “Traditional Latin Mass,” highlighting the selective application of the term.
The Council of Trent and Liturgical Standardization
The Council of Trent (1545–1563) marked a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman Rite, as it sought to address liturgical abuses and ensure uniformity in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Decree on the Sacrifice of the Mass (Session 22, 1562) reaffirmed the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and condemned errors that denied its connection to Christ’s sacrifice. To promote unity, Pope Pius V promulgated the Missale Romanum in 1570, standardizing the Roman Rite across most of the Western Church. The Tridentine Rite, as it became known, was not a new creation but a codification of existing Roman practices, drawing from earlier sacramentaries and traditions.
The Missale Romanum of 1570 was not intended to suppress all liturgical diversity. Pius V’s bull Quo Primum allowed rites older than 200 years, such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, to continue. Moreover, the Tridentine Rite was not static. Subsequent popes revised the Missal to incorporate new feasts, adjust rubrics, and address pastoral needs. For instance, Pope Clement VIII (1604) and Pope Urban VIII (1634) issued updated editions of the Missale Romanum, introducing minor textual and calendrical changes. These revisions demonstrate that the Roman Rite was always subject to organic development, guided by the Church’s authority.
The 20th century saw further adaptations. Pope Pius X reformed the breviary and calendar in 1911, emphasizing the centrality of Sunday in the liturgical year. Pope Pius XII’s 1955 reform of the Holy Week liturgies restored ancient elements, such as the Paschal Vigil, while adapting them to modern contexts. These changes reflect the Church’s commitment to preserving the substance of the liturgy while allowing its form to evolve. If the 1570 Missal is considered “traditional,” why not the revised editions of 1604, 1634, or 1962? The selective elevation of the 1962 Missale Romanum as the “Traditional Latin Mass” ignores this history of adaptation, arbitrarily privileging one moment in liturgical history.
Vatican II and the Continuity of Tradition
The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) continued the Church’s tradition of liturgical reform with the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). The Council called for a revision of the Roman Rite to promote “full and active participation” while preserving its sacred character (SC 14). The resulting Missale Romanum of 1970, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, is often referred to as the “Novus Ordo” or Ordinary Form. Critics who view it as a break from tradition overlook its continuity with earlier practices. The Ordinary Form retains the essential elements of the Mass—Scripture readings, the Eucharistic Prayer, and the consecration—while incorporating ancient texts, such as prayers from the Gelasian Sacramentary, and restoring practices like the Prayer of the Faithful, which had been absent in the Tridentine Rite.
Sacrosanctum Concilium emphasizes that liturgical reform must respect tradition: “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). The Ordinary Form adheres to this principle, drawing from the Church’s liturgical patrimony while adapting to contemporary needs. For example, the use of the vernacular, permitted by SC 36, echoes the early Church’s use of Aramaic and Greek, which were the vernacular languages of their time. The Ordinary Form is thus a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite, rooted in the same tradition as its predecessors.
The Misuse of “Traditional Latin Mass” and the Need for Education
The terms “Traditional Latin Mass,” “TLM,” and “Vetus Ordo” are often used to refer to the 1962 Missale Romanum, in contrast to the Ordinary Form. These terms, however, are not found in official Church documents and reflect a theological and liturgical misunderstanding. In his 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI designated the 1962 Missal as the “Extraordinary Form” and the 1970 Missal as the “Ordinary Form,” emphasizing their unity: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture” (Letter to Bishops, 2007). The use of “TLM” or “Vetus Ordo” suggests a false dichotomy, implying that the Ordinary Form is less traditional or authentic, which contradicts the Church’s teaching.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) underscores the unity of the Mass, stating that it is ordered to “the glory of God and the sanctification of the Christian people” (GIRM 2). Both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms fulfill this purpose, differing only in their ritual expression. Catholics who insist on terms like “TLM” often lack a comprehensive understanding of the Church’s liturgical history and theology. This misunderstanding is compounded by a romanticized view of the 1962 Missal, which ignores its own status as a revised edition of earlier Missals.
Bishops have a critical role in addressing this confusion through catechesis. The Catechism calls for education that fosters a “deeper understanding of the liturgy” (CCC 1074), which includes correcting erroneous terminology. By teaching the faithful about the unity of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, bishops can counteract divisive narratives and promote appreciation for the Church’s liturgical diversity. The 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes by Pope Francis further emphasizes the Ordinary Form as the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite,” urging bishops to regulate the use of the Extraordinary Form to prevent division.
Eastern Rites and the Universality of the Mass
The notion of a singular “Traditional Latin Mass” is further complicated by the existence of Eastern Catholic liturgies, which are equally valid and traditional. The Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 1964) affirms that Eastern Catholic Churches “have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines” and that their liturgies are “of equal dignity” with the Roman Rite (OE 3). Rites such as the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Maronite Qurbono, and the Chaldean Qurbana predate the Tridentine Rite and preserve apostolic traditions.
For example, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, formalized in the fourth century, includes ancient prayers and structures that parallel the Roman Rite’s Eucharistic Prayer. If “traditional” refers to fidelity to Christ’s institution, these Eastern liturgies are as traditional as the Roman Rite. The exclusion of Eastern Rites from the “TLM” label often stems from their use of languages like Greek, Syriac, or Old Church Slavonic rather than Latin. This linguistic bias is arbitrary, as Latin was adopted for practical reasons, not theological necessity. The Catechism affirms the diversity of liturgical traditions: “The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition” (CCC 1201).
The emphasis on Latin as a marker of tradition reflects a cultural preference rather than a doctrinal requirement. The early Church celebrated the Eucharist in the vernacular, and the use of Latin in the Roman Rite was itself a vernacular adaptation. To privilege the Latin language over other liturgical languages is to misunderstand the universal nature of the Mass, which transcends linguistic and cultural boundaries. The use of "TLM" or "Traditional Latin Mass" is, in fact, heretical.
Conclusion: The Mass as Inherently Traditional
The Mass, as the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, is inherently traditional, uniting all Catholics in the one sacrifice instituted at the Last Supper. Its historical development—from Aramaic to Greek to Latin, from regional diversity to Tridentine standardization and Vatican II reforms—demonstrates that tradition is dynamic, guided by the Church’s magisterium. The terms “Traditional Latin Mass” and “TLM” are imprecise and divisive, failing to account for the unity of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms or the validity of Eastern Rites. Bishops must educate the faithful on the proper theology and terminology of the liturgy, fostering unity and appreciation for the Church’s diverse traditions.
By grounding our understanding in Scripture, the Catechism, conciliar documents, and papal teachings, we see that the Mass is not confined to one form or language. It is the eternal sacrifice of Christ, celebrated across time and cultures, uniting the Church in the one Body of Christ. To label one form as exclusively “traditional” is to diminish the richness of the Church’s liturgical heritage and to obscure the truth that every valid Mass is, by default, traditional.
Sources
1. The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.
2. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Session 22, 1562.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1997.
4. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, c. 155 AD.
5. Didache, c. 1st century.
6. Leonine Sacramentary, c. 6th century.
7. Gelasian Sacramentary, c. 7th century.
8. Pope Pius V, Quo Primum, 1570.
9. Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), 1963.
10. Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite), 1964.
11. Pope Paul VI, Missale Romanum, 1970.
12. Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, 2007.
13. Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops Accompanying Summorum Pontificum, 2007.
14. Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes, 2021.
15. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.