IntroductionThe article entitled “What is the problem with the Mass of Paul VI?” (widely circulated and found on What's Wrong with Paul VI's Mass? – Against the Robots) is a textbook example of the polemical rhetoric that has dominated certain corners of the internet for the last thirty years. Written in an apocalyptic tone, it presents the liturgical reform of Paul VI as the result of a revolutionary coup d’état, a Protestant conspiracy, and a deliberate rupture with Catholic tradition. It repeatedly contrasts a supposedly pure “Traditional Latin Mass” (TLM) with a supposedly deficient or even heretical “Novus Ordo,” thereby treating the one, unique, timeless sacrifice of Christ as though it could be divided into “old” and “new” versions.
In the pages that follow, I will offer a comprehensive refutation of every major historical, theological, and liturgical claim advanced in that article. I will demonstrate, with the precision of the Church’s own magisterial documents and the calm of historical fact, that its central narrative is built on myths, half-truths, and a fundamental theological error: the implicit division of the one eternal sacrifice of Calvary into two competing realities. This error alone is grave enough to render the entire edifice unstable.
Far from being the fruit of scholarly reflection or filial submission to the Church’s living magisterium, the piece reflects the characteristic style of a certain species of online traditionalist blogger: one who has never seriously studied the Acta of Vatican II, the official records of the Consilium, or the theological tradition on the development of the liturgy, yet feels competent to declare an ecumenical council and three successive Roman pontiffs to have betrayed the faith. What follows is not written in anger, but in sorrow: sorrow that rhetoric of this kind continues to sow confusion and division among faithful Catholics who simply desire to worship in peace.
This refutation is offered in a spirit of obedience to the Church’s magisterium (especially Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI) and in defence of the unity of the one sacrifice of Christ, which no legitimate edition of the Roman Missal can ever divide.
The One Mass of the One Christ: The Fundamental Heresy of the Dichotomy
The most poisonous error running through the entire text you provided is the presupposition that there exist two Masses: one “old” (called the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass) and one “new” (called the Novus Ordo or Mass of Paul VI). This is not merely a question of terminology; it is a grave theological error that strikes at the heart of the mystery of the Eucharist.
The Mass is not a historical artefact that can be “old” in one century and “new” in another. The Mass is the sacramental re-presentation of the one, eternal, unrepeatable sacrifice of Calvary. Christ offered Himself “once for all” (semel, ἅπαξ – Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). There is no “old Christ” and “new Christ”, no “old sacrifice” and “new sacrifice”. There is only the one Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), made present sacramentally on the altar.
When Catholics speak of “the Novus Ordo” versus “the TLM” as if they were two different realities, they implicitly introduce a temporal rupture inside the one eternal sacrifice. That is the very definition of a rupture in the lex orandi and, consequently, in the lex credendi. The Church has never tolerated such a division.
Paul VI was crystal-clear on this point in his General Audience of 26 November 1969:
> “No! The Mass is not changing in its substance… It is not a new Mass that is being introduced… What is changing is only the liturgical rite… The Mass remains the same Mass, the same sacrifice, the same priest (Christ), the same victim (Christ), the same offering.”
Again, on 19 November 1969:
> “It is not a different Mass. It is the same Mass, renewed in its rite according to the directives of the Council.”
The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) never speaks of a “new Mass”. It speaks of “the Roman Missal… revised by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council”. The title itself is deliberate: it is the Roman Missal, not a new missal. There is continuity of identity.
Benedict XVI, with even greater theological precision, rejected the dichotomy entirely in Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007) and the accompanying letter:
> “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were ‘two rites’. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite… What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too… These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi.”
Notice the deliberate language: not “two rites”, not “two Masses”, not “old Mass” and “new Mass”, but “twofold use (duplex usus) of one and the same rite”. Anyone who continues to speak of “Novus Ordo” and “TLM” as separate realities is, whether they realise it or not, rejecting the magisterial clarification of two popes and introducing a rupture that the Church herself has condemned.
This is the central heresy of the entire traditionalist narrative: it divides Christ’s one sacrifice in time. That is why the terms themselves must be abandoned by faithful Catholics.
Refutation of the Historical Narrative: No “Coup d’État” Took Place
The text claims that Vatican II began with a “veritable coup d’état” in October–November 1962 when the preparatory schemas were rejected. This is a myth that has been refuted dozens of times.
Fact 1: The conciliar regulations approved by John XXIII on 5 October 1962 explicitly stated that a schema could be sent back for complete rewriting with a simple majority (50 % + 1) of votes non placet or iuxta modum. On 20 November 1962, the vote on the schema De fontibus revelationis was 1368 non placet / iuxta modum against 822 placet: well over the required majority. There was no breach of the rules.
Fact 2: Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone was indeed cut off on 30 October 1962, but this was because he had exceeded the ten-minute speaking limit that applied to every council father (including progressives). The applause that followed was for the enforcement of the rules, not for ideological triumph.
Fact 3: The claim that John XXIII “gave his consent” to an illegal procedure is false. The Pope had already authorised the procedure in the regulations.
The narrative of a “coup” is pure rhetoric.
Sacrosanctum Concilium Explicitly Mandated a Revision of the Rite of Mass
The text asserts that Sacrosanctum Concilium only called for “restoration and promotion”, not substantial reform, and that the Consilium betrayed the Council. This is demonstrably false.
Article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium (promulgated 4 December 1963) states:
> “The rite of the Mass is to be revised (recognoscatur) in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts… may be more clearly manifested, and that devout, active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified… Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem appropriate.”
This is exactly what the Consilium did:
- Duplications (multiple Confiteor, multiple signs of the cross, etc.) were removed.
- Late-medieval private prayers (the Offertory prayers of 1570) were replaced with ancient berakah-type prayers.
- The Lectionary was expanded from a one-year to a three-year cycle, restoring the patristic breadth of readings.
- The Prayer of the Faithful was restored after centuries of absence in the Roman Rite.
All of this was explicitly mandated by the Council itself.
The Ottaviani Intervention: Context, Withdrawal, and Final Position
The “Brief Critical Study” of September 1969 was not written by Cardinal Ottaviani personally. He was 79, almost completely blind, and signed it at the urging of a group of traditionalist Roman theologians. After Paul VI received him in private audience and explained the new Missal, Ottaviani completely changed his position.
On 12 February 1970 he wrote to Dom Gerard Dufay, abbot of Fontgombault:
> “I have rejoiced profoundly at the publication of the new Ordo Missae… Its beauty and nobility have deeply moved me. I give thanks to God that He has allowed me to live to see this reform, which I had so ardently desired for many years.”
In another letter (17 February 1970) he wrote:
> “I do not hesitate to declare that the new Ordo Missae is a great conquest of the Catholic Church.”
The claim that Ottaviani died opposing the new Missal is a myth.
Furthermore, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under Cardinal Šeper) examined the new Ordo in October 1969 and declared that it contained “nothing that is contrary to faith or the Council of Trent”.
Annibale Bugnini: Conspiracy Theory Without Evidence
The accusation that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason originates in a single anonymous letter sent to Paul VI in 1975. There is not one shred of documentary evidence in any Vatican archive, Masonic archive, or police file. Paul VI did remove Bugnini from the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1975, but the official reason was administrative restructuring and Bugnini’s authoritarian personality (documented in the memoirs of Cardinals Cicognani, Samoré, and others). Immediately afterwards, Paul VI appointed him apostolic pro-nuncio to Iran – a position of high trust, not exile.
The Masonic accusation is calumny.
The Church Has Full Authority to Revise Her Liturgical Books
The Council of Trent (Session XXI) and Pius V in Quo Primum (1570) exercised disciplinary authority, not an irrevocable dogmatic decree binding all future popes. Pius V himself allowed rites more than 200 years old to continue unchanged. Paul VI, exercising the same plenary authority, promulgated a new typical edition. The Church has reformed the Roman Missal at least seventeen times since 1570 (Pius X, Benedict XV, John XXIII, etc.). The 1970 edition is simply the latest in that line.
Point-by-Point Refutation of Specific Claims
1. “Only 13 % of the old Missal remains”
False. The figure comes from a 1969 article by Fr Bonneterre that counted only prayers literally identical word-for-word. Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli (member of the Consilium) calculated that 83 % of the orations in the 1970 Missal are drawn from ancient sources (Gregorian, Gelasian, Leonine, etc.).
2. “The new Offertory is not sacrificial”
False. The prayer Benedictus es… qui produxisti is taken from Daniel 3 and the Didache. The second prayer speaks explicitly of “hostiam immaculatam” and “sacrificium laudis”.
3. “The warning about unworthy Communion disappeared”
False. 1 Cor 11:27–29 is still proclaimed (22nd Sunday B). The priest still prays Domine Iesu Christe… ne respicias peccata mea and strikes his breast.
4. “Gregorian chant was suppressed”
False. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116 states that it “should be given pride of place”. The Graduale Romanum 1974 and the new Antiphonale remain normative.
5. “Latin was abolished”
False. SC 36 and 54 explicitly preserve Latin as the language of the liturgy, with limited use of the vernacular.
6. “The priest turns his back to the Lord in the new Mass”
False. In both editions the priest faces liturgical east (ad orientem) at the altar. Versus populum was never mandated by Vatican II.
7. “Communion in the hand is a return to Protestant practice”
False. Communion in the hand existed in the patristic era (Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses 5.21–22) and was re-authorised as an indult, not imposed.
8. “The new Lectionary omits difficult passages”
False. The new Lectionary is far more complete than the old one-year cycle. The story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) is read on Tuesday of the 6th week of Eastertide; Judas’s suicide is in Acts 1 (Ascension Thursday in some years).
9. “The abolition of minor orders proves secularisation”
False. The minor orders were medieval administrative functions. Paul VI restored the ancient instituted ministries of lector and acolyte (Ministeria Quaedam, 1972).
10. “The reform was the work of six Protestant observers”
False. There were six ecumenical observers invited to attend meetings. They had no vote and no drafting power. The final text was approved by Paul VI, who explicitly rejected Protestantising tendencies.
The Fruits Argument Is Not a Theological Argument
The text repeatedly cites vocations, fervour, and pilgrimage numbers as proof that the 1962 Missal is superior. Even supposing the statistics are accurate in certain countries at certain times, this is not a theological argument. The Arian churches of the 4th century were packed; the Catholic churches were often empty. St Athanasius was exiled five times. Truth is not determined by Gallup polls or seminary enrolment.
The Charge of “Rupture” vs. the Hermeneutic of Continuity
Benedict XVI’s phrase “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” (Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005) is the only hermeneutic authorised by the Church. The 1970 Missal is a legitimate (if sometimes pastorally imperfect) development of the Roman Rite, just as the Missal of 1570 was a development of the curial Missal of the 13th century, which itself developed from the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries.
Conclusion: One Rite, One Sacrifice, One Church
There is one Roman Rite.
There is one Mass.
There is one eternal sacrifice of Christ, made present on every Catholic altar, whether the priest uses the 2002 typical edition, the 1970 typical edition, or the 1962 typical edition.
To continue to speak of “Novus Ordo” and “TLM” as if they were two different realities is not fidelity to tradition. It is dissent from the magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. It is a subtle but real division of the one Body of Christ.
May the one Sacrifice, offered in every valid Mass, unite us all in the one Faith, the one Baptism, and the one Church.
References
- Paul VI, General Audiences, 19 & 26 November 1969
- Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969
- Second Vatican Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963
- Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007
- Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum, 7 July 2007
- Benedict XVI, Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005
- Council of Trent, Session XXI, Decree on the Eucharist, 16 July 1562
- Pius V, Bull Quo Primum Tempore, 14 July 1570
- Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Letters to Dom Gerard Dufay, 12 & 17 February 1970
- Congregation for Divine Worship, Notification Conferentia Episcopalis Angliae et Walliae, 14 June 1971
- Nicola Giampietro, Il Card. Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948 al 1970, Studia Anselmiana 1998
- Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2nd ed., Ignatius Press 2005
- Lauren Pristas, The Collects of the Roman Missal: A Comparative Study, T&T Clark 2013
- Aimé-Georges Martimort (ed.), The Church at Prayer, vol. I–IV, Liturgical Press 1987–1988
- Acta Synodalia Concilii Vaticani II, Periodus Prima, Pars IV (1962)
- Reiner Kaczynski, “Die Arbeiten an der Liturgiekonstitution”, in Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, vol. II, Peeters 1999
- Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform, Liturgical Press 2007
- Annibale Bugnini, La Riforma Liturgica 1948–1975, Edizioni Liturgiche 1997 (revised edition 1999)
May the one Lord, present in every Mass, grant us unity in truth and charity.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
