|
When going to Mass today, Latin Catholics generally have five options:
| 1) |
attend the
vernacular Novus Ordo Mass published in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. This is the
Mass offered in most parishes today. |
| 2) |
attend the
1970 Novus Ordo Mass offered in the Latin language (note: this is not
the same Mass that was offered before Vatican II) |
| 3) |
attend Mass
at a non-Latin ritual Catholic Church (Byzantine, Greek, Maronite, etc.) |
| 4) |
attend the
rare Masses offered by certain religous Orders who have their own Rites,
e.g., the Dominican Rite, the Carmelite Rite ("The Rite of the Holy Sepulchre"),
etc. |
| 5) |
attend the
traditional Latin Mass that sustained millions of Roman Catholics for centuries
and centuries. The traditional Mass is also referred to as: the the Mass
of Pope St. Peter, the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great; the Mass of Pope
St. Pius V; the "Tridentine" Mass, the Pian Rite, etc.
Contrary to popular belief, the traditional Mass has not disappeared; it
had been offered by "indult" (with the permission of local Ordinaries) by
the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (the F.S.S.P.), the Institute of Christ
the King (I.C.K.) since the 1988 motu proprio
"Ecclesia Dei," may be offered now by any
Latin rite priest according to the 2007 motu proprio
"Summorum Pontificum," and has always been
offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X (S.S.P.X.) and other
priests outside of ordinary diocesan structures, all over the world.
|
In this section,
I focus solely on the traditional Latin Mass based on the Missal of 1962
which is used by most traditional priests (including the F.S.S.P. and the
S.S.P.X.). After much study, I've come to the conclusion that, validity issues
aside, the "Novus Ordo Mass" is tragically flawed, something my instincts
and "common sense" have told me since I was a child. The very name of this
Mass -- "Novus Ordo," i.e., "New Order" -- should make anyone with a true
Catholic nature cringe, and its effects are so incredibly sad it almost hurts
to think about it. It has turned out to be a "New Mass" for a "New Religion"
-- and that religion is "not Catholic enough."
The "Novus Ordo," whether offered in English or Latin, is a violent
break with Tradition, directly responsible, in part, for the great
loss of faith which followed its publication. "Lex credendi legem statuat
supplicandi" -- let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer" is the
rule of liturgy -- but the prayers of the Novus Ordo, designed to make
Protestants comfortable with the Mass, express Protestant belief not by what
it says, but by what it fails to say -- that is, by its omissions --
and serve to lead us to believe as Protestants in that it practically nullifies
the experience of the realities of the Sacrifice and the priesthood. The
Novus Ordo -- not so much for what it is inherently, but for what
it isn't, for what it lacks -- appears as the "Mass of Cain,"
arrogantly bringing his own works to God; the ancient Mass is the "Mass of
Abel," who humbly offered God a sacrifice -- a lamb that prefigured the Passover
lamb which, in turn, prefigured the Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world,
Whose offering of Himself to us is eternal.
The stripping away of the signs and symbols of the Mystery, the eradication
of the poetic, the intentional blurring of the line between the ordained
and common priesthoods, music that ranges from the banal to the offensive,
the total ignoring of Gregorian chant, the failure to retain our sacred language,
the "busy-ness," the dearth of silence, and, most of all, the almost total
lack of emphasis on the Sacrifice -- to not be offended by these things,
especially after having studied the purpose of the Mass and our worship's
relationship to our belief, is to be either ignorant of or ill-willed toward
the Catholic Faith.
Further problems with the Novus Ordo are the International Committee on English
in the Liturgy's (ICEL) translations of the text, its failure to conform
itself with Vatican II and Council of Trent documents, and the fact that
its own pale rubrics are so often abused.
Abuses not inherent in the 1970 Missal but which predominate thanks to the
"the spirit of Vatican II" -- the use of altar girls which destroys priestly
vocations, not kneeling to receive the Eucharist, lay people taking the Blessed
Sacrament in their hands, lay people (usually women) swarming the sanctuary
in perfect imitation of Korah (see Jude 1:11 and Numbers 16) -- there is
no defense for these practices. None. But they are so prevalent as to be
almost universal.
Even celebrated according to its rubrics (and God bless those few,
well-intentioned priests who even try to do that), the New Mass is a
Protestantized (not Protestant) "service" up to its core, with
an abbreviated Kyrie thrown in. Even with the few words retained in
the Consecration to keep it valid, its semblance to the ancient Mass is like
that of a dry twig to a flowering tree. What the modernists (may God have
mercy on them!) have done to the Church is the liturgical equivalent of
whitewashing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and this has happened with
all of the liturgical rites, from Baptism to
Unction.
Each Catholic must study this issue prayerfully. And each must know that
believing -- knowing -- that the 1970 Mass was an extremely bad idea,
a break with Sacred Tradition, an unlovely thing that leads to heterodoxy
and disbelief -- is not "disobedient" and does not make you a "bad Catholic";
it makes you an informed one with eyes to see. Saying these things aloud
does not make you "dissident" or "schismatic"; it makes you a warrior for
the true Faith.
Now, I can imagine a dialogue with some of you who are new to the concept
of "liturgy" -- and many who have been Catholic for years but "really like"
the Novus Ordo Mass:
"What's the
big deal?"
The 'big deal'
is that Jesus Christ glorified becomes really and truly present at the Mass
-- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity -- under the appearances of bread and
wine, in fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices and as predicted
by the Prophet Malachias. He is then offered up to appease the Father 's
wrath and for the remission of our sins; Calvary is made present before our
eyes. You either believe this and are Catholic, or you do not believe this
and are not Catholic. If you believe this and are Catholic, you will want
everyone else to believe this, too. You should, therefore, want liturgy that
points to the reality of this Mystery in every way possible, and should be
extremely bothered by liturgy that is banal, ugly, sterile, offensive, and
that may as well have been designed to lead to heterodoxy.
The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our greatest prayer to God and our
most solemn act of worship; should't we give Him our very best?
Please read An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing
my Service on I.C.E.L. by Father Stephen Somerville, STL., who worked
with the "ICEL," the Committee that translated the Novus Ordo Mass into
English.
"We shouldn't
get 'hung up' on this 'religious' stuff!"
Was God "hung up"
on "religious stuff" when He commanded the ancient Israelites to take a male
lamb without blemish (not a female one or one with blemishes), one year old
(not two), and to kill it on the 14th day of that month (not the 15th day
of the next month), in the evening (not the afternoon)? Was our Lord "hung
up" on "religious stuff" when He kept the Old Testament Feasts or demanded
that His Father's House be kept holy? Was He "hung up" on "religious stuff"
when He told His disciples to do what the Pharisees told them because they
sat on the chair of Moses? Was Jude "hung up" on "religious stuff" when he
admonished those who followed in Korah's footsteps?
Those who believe that "religion" is unimportant because we are under Grace
and not the Law seem not to understand that the Sacraments are media
of Grace. Balking about "religous"stuff" as though it's sheer silliness is
to betray ignorance about the nature of man: look around and see all the
"religous stuff" in every culture of the world. This is so for a reason.
The question is, "Which 'religious stuff' is true? Which 'religious stuff'
honors well the true God? Which 'religious stuff' serves the needs of human
nature?"
So, what,
are you saying the Mass can never change? Has never changed?
Of course the Mass
can change in some ways. But the words of consecration, its expressed theology
and catechetical qualities, its sacred purposes, its holiness, its beauty
and arrows toward the Transcendent -- these things cannot be changed without
danger.
When the Mass has changed in the past, it was done in keeping with
Tradition, the Mass's sacred purposes, and the purpose of expressing
sound Catholic teaching. This is the key. What was done post-Vatican II was
not a "face-lift"; it was a head transplant, and the patient woke up Protestant.
The millions of Catholics who've left the Church, the horrible state of the
Faith, the scandals, and the crisis of Catholic culture are evidence that
the Novus Ordo Missae has failed to teach and inspire Catholics.
But I really
like the sound of guitars at Mass, and the Protestant song 'Shine, Jesus,
Shine' really makes me happy!"
Buy the CD. You
can listen to it after the the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
What's the
matter with being "upbeat" and happy and joyful and stuff?
Not a thing! We
are called to be joyful! But if you think that glee is the appropriate attitude
while standing at the foot of the Cross, I think there might be a
little something wrong with your wiring. If you don't understand what I mean
here, then trust me, my friend, with all due respect, you don't understand
what the Mass is. I beg you to consider that possibility and study this!
Really, do you think Our Lady and St. John were standing at the foot of the
Cross singing anything like "Shine Jesus Shine" or dancing or waving their
arms around in joy? Even if the Mass were only a memorial of the "Last
Supper" as as in the Protestant way, what's the "mood" of a Jewish seder,
anyway? Are they be-bopping all over the place and raising the roof? Or are
they somberly, with gratitude and humility, re-experiencing their deliverance?
Even if the Mass were a mere memorial of Calvary, would you commemorate
the Sacrifice of anyone or anything else by bringing out the Rock and Roll
and having a party? Have we lost all sense of majesty, awe, thanksgiving,
gratitude, and duty?
But He is
risen!
Amen and alleluia!
But we are not; we have work to do. And Christ, the High Priest and Perfect
Victim, appearing to St. John the Divine in Heaven as a "lamb as it had been
slain," pours out the graces of His once and for all time Sacrifice to us
in the Mass so we might be sanctified -- something we must become in order
to have our own "little Easter." We get to the Resurrection through the
Cross. It must be always remembered that it isn't Christ's Resurrection
that saves us in itself, by itself; it was the shedding of His Blood on the
Cross that led to His Resurrection! His having shed His Blood is what remits
our sins and is what will allow us to experience the fruits thereof: our
own resurrection.
Our awareness of the glorious fact of His Resurrection is ever-present (it
is the very reason we worship on Sundays!); but that joy is tempered by the
Sacrifice and by the knowledge that while He is risen, He pours Himself out
to us yet -- and we still have our own Calvary to go through.
Well, who
the heck are you? You like the traditional Mass, I like the New Mass. Why
should your opinion matter more than mine?
My opinion doesn't
matter more than yours per se; neither of our opinions are what
matters because the Mass isn't a matter of "opinion" or "preference." The
Mass is not about me or you; it is about the worship of Almighty God, and
the way it is "supposed to be done" has been shown to us by the Apostles,
Fathers, and Saints. We can no more treat it as a plaything than we can Sacred
Scripture. It isn't a coffee flavor or a new Fall TV show one either "prefers"
or not. It's not a performance in which "creativity" (as it were) and "getting
the audience's attention" matter. To paraphrase the Talking Heads, "It ain't
no party, it ain't no disco, it ain't no fooling around!" And it's not (despite
popular jargon) a mere "meal" where we all "gather" to admire ourselves,
ponder the "mystery of man," and bond over a snackie-poo. It is a matter
of divine realities -- Christ's very sacrifice!
And, very importantly, aside from the Sacrifice itself, the Mass has distinct
purposes which are either fulfilled or not: it either feeds the Faith or
it destroys the Faith through either negligence or positively dangerous changes.
That so many "Catholics" are about as "Catholic" as Calvin, Zwingli, or your
neighborhood Wiccan is proof enough for me that the New Mass destroys the
Faith. And it's no great shock considering that Jean Guitton, close friend
of Paul VI said
… the intention
of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform
the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the
Protestant liturgy… there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention
to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic
in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic
Mass closer to the Calvinist mass.
But I don't
speak Latin! How can I understand what's going on?
Quite frankly,
you don't have to intellectually understand the minutiae of the Mass (though
this is of tremendous subjective benefit and is absolutely encouraged); one
doesn't need to understand every word of Latin to offer his own heart to
Jesus, to pray, to understand the basic purpose of the Mass and kneel in
awe and humility as the Sacrifice takes place.
As to "understanding what's going on," consider that now, since the institution
of Bugnini's Mass, 70% of Catholics between the ages of 18 and 44 do not
believe in the Real Presence -- that is, they are material heretics. Can
you honestly say that the Novus Ordo Mass increases understanding
of what the Mass is?
As to not speaking Latin, neither do I, and neither did most Catholics who
attended the traditional Mass throughout its history -- including many of
the great Saints. But that's what they make Missals for -- and after a while,
one can recognize and easily understand those parts of the Mass that do not
change. You've heard the expression "hasta la vista" enough times to know
what it means, right? I'm sure you know what "merci," "la vida loca," and
"je ne sais quoi" mean, too, eh? Then you can come to know what "Deo gratias"
and "per omnia saecula saeculorum" mean, too, just as have millions of Catholics
before you.
Consider: Millions of Muslims can figure out how to pray in Arabic, even
if they are not native Arabic speakers. Jews from the Midwest, USA manage
to pray in Hebrew, even though English is the language they grew up with;
their young boys even learn to pray in Hebrew at a very young age when they
go through their "bar-mitzvahs." Our Lord Himself prayed in Hebrew -- even
though Aramaic was His family language, Greek was the lingua franca of the
area, and Latin was the official tongue (Hebrew may well have been, outside
of Jewish liturgy, a dead or dying language)! Hindus all over the world have
the intelligence to handle prayer in Sanskrit. Are we Christians too stupid
to figure out a little Latin?
Besides, and this is the greater point, not all understanding comes from
hearing language; it also comes from silence and prayer and beauty and sign
and gesture, from the other things one hears (chant and bells), and from
what one sees (stained glass, statues, beautiful vestments) and smells (incense)
and experiences (majesty). All of these things teach us and impress themselves
onto our minds in a way that words alone can't. Recall how Proust wrote that
one taste of a tea-soaked madeleine brought forth a rush of associations
which "taking their proper shapes and growing solid, sprang into being...all
from [his] cup of tea." (read a short excerpt from
the relevant scene in "The Remembrance of Things Past" here). In the
same way, incense and bells and silence can affect the Catholic.
Imagine two married couples:
Couple 1:
They never say in words that they love each other, but: he brings her bouquets
of lillies, he touches her lovingly and for no other purpose than to make
her feel cherished, he listens to her and looks deep into her eyes when he
talks to her, his respectful protectiveness of her shows in every gesture.
She bakes his favorite muffins every Satuday evening for breakfast the next
day, she kisses his receding hairline and calls it beautiful, she signs "XO"
at the bottom of grocery lists she gives to him, she brings him coffee in
bed every morning and wakens him gently with a warm smile.
Couple 2:
They say they love each other and, well, that's about it.
Both marriages
are "valid" -- they each have a license. But which couple leads you to
believe that a marriage exists? Which couple would you want your
children to see as an example of what marriage should be? Which couple
makes a mockery out of marriage? Which couple teaches you what marriage is
-- and which couple has the potential to destroy the concept of marriage
in your mind? Which couple inspires you? And which couple leaves you feeling
empty?
Couple 1 is to Couple 2 what the traditional Mass is to the Novus Ordo liturgy
-- except that the traditional Mass has the language, too -- a much richer
language that makes no bones about things like the Sacrifice, sin, contrition,
etc. The language is just in Latin, so we use Missals or learn the
language.
In addition to the importance and catechetical value of those "right-brained"
elements (as it were), the use of Latin assures unity in a way that the sole
use of the vernacular cannot. As things are, the English Catholic travelling
to Italy or Brazil or Korea would be lost during the liturgy; "back in the
day," a Catholic could travel anywhere in the world and hear the exact
same Mass he would have heard at home, and his Missal would've been good
anywhere. Now we have, in a single parish, an English Mass at 9:00
and a Spanish Mass at 10:00 -- with the English-speaking Catholics and
Spanish-speaking Catholics fighting over the best Mass Times and saying not
a word to each other in between. All this "diversity" is nothing but divisive!
Latin unifies us all -- Hispanic, Anglo, African, Asian -- into one
people worshipping God in the same way, the way of our ancestors.
Another analogy for those who've seen Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ":
did the fact that the movie was in Aramaic and Latin take anything away from
the experience of it -- or did it, on the other hand, add richly to the
experience? Could the movie have possibly been experienced in the same way
if Jesus had spoken in the standard movie-Jesus English with a British accent?
That movie, as I write, is being shown all over the world -- France, England,
Brazil, the United States -- and each movie-goer experiences the exact same
film in the same way, just as traditional Catholics from all over the world
experience the Mass in the same way. The only difference is in the subtitles,
which is the equivalent of the translation of the Mass's Latin found in our
Missals. If a "Novus Ordo-oriented" person had directed that movie, Jesus
would have spoken English with an American accent (to be dubbed into local
dialects for other countries), and would have thrown in slang and politically
correct, inclusive language to make everyone (but traditional Catholics)
feel more "comfortable." The movie wouldn't have been shot in rich amber
hues with deep Caravaggio-esque shadows, but on a stripped-down sound stage
with bare walls. The Jews would have been nowhere in sight unless they were
pleading for His release, or somehow shown as victims in the entire spectacle.
There would have been no brutal Cruficixion, but maybe one slap across His
Face, a bloodless nailing to the Cross and a rapid death (for political causes,
of course) -- all followed by a Resurrection and images of people -- some
of them noticeably lesbian couples -- holding hands and singing vapid
happy-songs. Wow! If anything would not lead one to examine his conscience
and desire to appease the Father for one's sins, that would be it.
The smallest of rubrics in the traditional Mass all point to the Sacred.
The priest facing East, toward the tabernacle, signals that he is worshiping
God with us and for us. In the Novus Ordo, whether or not it
is through the actual rubrics or how it is almost always done, the priest
faces us, forcing him into a "show business" mentality -- and, worst
of all, putting him in the position of literally turning his back to God
in the tabernacle. Our focus is not on the Transcendent, but on the priest
himself, his face, his mood.
The traditional priest's keeping his fingers joined after the consecration
of the Host so that not even the tiniest particle could be lost :
contrast that with "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers" or "Extraordinary
Ministers of Holy Communion" -- lay people, usually women, dressed in anything
they may have thrown on that morning --- handling the Blessed Sacrament with
their unconsecrated hands and placing it in your unconsecrated hands. What
a radically different attitude toward the most profound Mystery of
the Eucharist! Is it any wonder at all that Catholics of 100 years ago believed
in the Real Presence while those of today don't?
Using the
old Missal is a step backwards! We must move forward; we can't go back in
time, and traditionalists' longing for the old Mass is mere nostalgia. Get
over it, and get with the times! Sure the Novus Ordo is sometimes sloppily
celebrated, but there's no real difference between the old Mass and the new.
What we need is a reform of the reform, not a leap
backwards.
A "reform of the
reform," eh? Why would you waste time trying to fix up a rusted-out Pinto
when you have a polished, classic, perfectly-running Mercedes in the garage?
And why would you do that when the situation is urgent? Souls are at
stake!
Now, first, the alleged "reform" was not a reform at all; it was a destructive,
revolutionary exercise in politically correct ecumenism -- an experiment
that resulted in a tragic loss of faith. Why should one use that as
a starting point for the Mass of the future?
Second, those who see no "real difference" between the Novus Ordo Mass and
the ancient Mass are like the "personage"
of Hillaire Belloc's youth who insisted that a diamond "is the same thing"
as a lump of coal. They can point to the Novus Ordo's short Kyrie, the
Canon, the changed words of Consecration, etc., and say that because these
elements are there, "it is the same" as the ancient Mass, but this sort of
thinking makes me wonder if those same people would buy their wives rings
encrusted with coal because both diamonds and coal are made of carbon. Belloc
would say these people have lost their power to know "an oak tree when they
see one" without havng to examine every leaf. In short, he'd say they've
lost their powers of "integration."
Finally, on a practical level, even if the Novus Ordo were worth
salvaging, how could you possibly "reform the reform," in any sense that
even a moderately orthodox Catholic could mean by the word "reform," when
so many of our hierarchs are so liberal? Would you leave this "reform of
the reform" in the hands of a Cardinal Kasper? A Weakland? A Mahony? What
sorts of "working groups" and "dialogues" would have to take place to please
all the political elements in the human element of the Church in getting
the Mass "just right" for them? And how can one "reform" what is
inherently flawed and what is an egregious break with Tradition? And
how would each country's Bishops handle all the thousands of vernacular
translations? What further committees and working groups would have to be
thrown together to manage all that -- and all the rubrics? Stand? Kneel?
When? Isn't there enough confusion?
We have a Mass that has worked for two millennia, a Mass that is the product
of Apostolic Tradition and the greatest Popes and Doctors who've ever lived,
a Mass that perfectly reflects Catholic theology; why not use it and
fight for it?
But the Latin
High Mass is so long!
"Can you not watch
one hour with Me?"
Yes, the traditional Mass is longer than the Novus Ordo Mass, but don't think
of it that way; think of it as the amount of time it takes to watch a few
episodes of "Friends."
Look, a microwaveable McMass isn't healthy; you really need to slow down
and eat something substantial. Take some time....
Shhhhh...quiet yourself. Breathe in the sounds of bells that call you here,
and the stillness between the chimes. Contemplate. Don't you know why you've
been summoned? It is the Lord's Day! Christus resurrexit! -- and a
miracle will occur again at the Altar when the bread and wine become the
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ -- the Pure Offering as predicted
by Malachias (Malachias 1:10-11). Has the "Our Father" ever sounded so beautiful
as when it is chanted in the same ancient melody heard by Sts. Augustine
and Thomas, Catherine and Joan -- made our brothers and sisters by the very
sacrifice which will be re-presented today? Pray for His coming. Offer
your life to him -- your joys, your sorrows, your suffering. Give yourself
to Him as He gave Himself to you at Calvary and gives Himself to you now
in the Eucharist. Look at the Crucifix above the Altar and behold the
Lamb Who appears "as it had been slain"; He pours out His life for you, now
and ever and unto Ages of Ages. Kneel when you receive Him, and tell me if
it doesn't feel right and, more importantly, is not right.
Savor the sweetness of the incense that blesses this holy place. Can you
locate yourself in time, Christian, as you sit in that pew praying as your
ancestors have done for two millenia and as the Saints do now in Heaven with
the angels beside them? Or are you both in time and touching eternity?
Here's the bottom line: though "emotional highs" and "good times" aren't
the purpose of the Sacrifice, you will emotionally take from the Mass
what you bring to it, and the more you understand the Mass, its Sacred purpose,
its history, and, most of all, the more you pray the Mass,
the more you will "get out of it" emotionally. Everyone has bad days - days
they are sick, tired, distracted, easily bored, or just not "in the mood"
to be at Mass (and that's OK); but it remains true that these challenges
are problems with you, not the Mass. And it remains true that the Mass is
not about us, but about honoring, glorifying, beseeching, and appeasing God.
I imagine our Israelite ancestors didn't find the incessant slaying of lambs
and red heifers entertaining after a thousand years or so.
Please, for the love of all that is Holy, study this issue (links below).
And then fight for the traditional Mass, support traditional orders which
train priests in orthodoxy, and ask the Ordinary of your diocese to support
the traditional Mass in your diocese. And, no matter what, if your parish
is filled with dissidence, if its priest and "catechists" water down Catholic
teaching, if your pastor abuses even the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, if he
is soft on sin -- do not support that parish, and tell your priest and Bishop
why. Support the Church as is your duty, but do it in a way that does not
hurt the Church. Give your tithe to orthodox, fully traditional priests,
parishes, orders, and missions.
External Links on this Topic
Below are links
to offsite essays, books, and audio
on this topic which will open in new browser windows.
 New American Bible: Is It Good for Catholics? The Bible
of the New Mass
Missal of 1962: Rock of Stability
A Priest's First Tridentine Mass
The Spirituality of the Ancient Liturgy: Part I and
Part II
The New Mass: A Flavor of Protestantism
Assault on the Roman
Rite
Novus Ordo Missae: The record after thirty years
As it Was and Ever Shall Be
Dossier on the Novus Ordo Missae Cranmer's "Mass" and
the Novus Ordo
Pius
XII and "Paschal Mystery
Theology"
Can the Tridentine Latin Mass Change Your Life?
The Ottaviani Intervention Onsite. A critical study of
the "New Mass."
Mediator
Dei
Onsite. Pope Pius XII's Encyclical on the liturgy.
The Problem of Liturgical Reform (.PDF file)
How the liturgy fell apart: the enigma of Archbishop
Bugnini
Book Review: Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II
The
True Notion of
Tradition
The New Mass
Bishop de Castro Mayer and the New Mass
Was Dom Gueranger Right?
The Case for the Latin Mass by Dr. Dietrich von
Hildebrand
When and Why I returned to the Old Mass by Gerry
Matatics
My Return to the Traditional Mass by Bishop Lazo of
Tuguegarao
Why I Go to the Latin Mass by Jerry Benitz
Online Tutorial for Priests wanting to learn how to offer
the traditional Mass
|
|
