In the book History of the Forbidden Mass (Histoire de la Messe interdite), by the French writer Jean Madiran, we find a thorough chronological review of the key events and documentation concerning the Mass from the end of the Second Vatican Council until the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in 2007. Madiran specifically devotes chapter IV to a detailed examination of the question of whether the traditional Mass was truly prohibited by Paul VI, based on the documents issued by the Vatican and the episcopal conferences of France, Germany, Switzerland, and England.
The novus ordo Misae of Paul VI, Missal and introductory instruction, was published in 1969. The new Mass of Paul VI sparked a controversy that was not new, since from 1964 onward, following the appearance of the conciliar constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, all kinds of liturgical experiments had been carried out, endorsed by the Roman hierarchy.
From January 1964 onward, the liturgy was disrupted by the combined effect of a flood of reforming decrees and local initiatives in the parishes. In nearly every sphere of the Church’s life, and particularly in the liturgy, the accuracy of Fr. Congar’s provocative yet apt phrase announcing “the October revolution in the Church” was confirmed. The casual suppression of “consubstantial” in the French translation of the Creed crowned and, in a way, confirmed the devastation of the Catholic catechism, openly set in motion from 1967 onward. The effort to rescue the catechism had fostered a refractory mood among Catholics denounced as “integrists” or “traditionalists,” a small minority regarded as pariahs in moral terms and sociologically relegated, yet fully aware of standing on what had always been believed, said, and done in the Church.
The prevailing opinion among the clergy and the powerful secular media tended toward a general change in the name of the Council and its “renewal”. The refractory were universally branded as nostalgic for a past already gone.
The plurality of “typical editions” of the new missal increased the confusion. Almost all parishes and the majority of the faithful welcomed or accepted without major protest the liturgical novelties tolerated or even imposed by the bishop of the diocese. In this one recognizes Catholics: except for exceptions and passing moods, they accept without overthinking the doctrine of their parish priest, provided it has the bishop’s agreement, he himself being in communion with the Pope. The great majority of practicing Catholics attended Mass without a missal and saw no problem in the innovations. It would soon be said that ordinary faithful were not interested in the dispute between the old and the new Mass because they could not reliably distinguish one from the other, for the simple reason that there are more differences between two new Masses than between a traditional Mass and a new Mass celebrated as it should be according to the Ordo of Paul VI. It is true that the Ordo of Paul VI is rarely observed exactly: from the outset an anarchic liturgical creativity was exercised in every direction. But, in reality, everyone knows how to recognize the new Mass: it is in the vernacular and the celebrant is no longer facing God, so as to avoid “turning his back on the people.” It is very visible and more democratic. The prevailing opinion, fed or prompted by the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the secular media, was that this was an improvement, the fruit of an irresistible movement toward progress and modernity.
Reaffirmed by a broad media consensus in favor of this “new spirit” and this “rejuvenation,” and perhaps without realizing that unbelievers, the lukewarm, the worldly, and even the Church’s enemies occupied an important place in that consensus and were the most active in its organization, the ecclesiastical hierarchy was not greatly troubled by protests and acts of indiscipline. They doubtless annoyed it. But it comforted itself with the belief that things would calm down spontaneously, imagining that the younger generations, enthusiastic about the conciliar dynamic, would flock en masse and enlist in the ranks of the new Church.
In reality, two camps formed. Despite the enormous numerical disproportion, all the factors for a head-on confrontation were in place. The claims and protests of the rebels, far from diminishing, increased, while the conciliar impetus gradually exhausted itself.
Those who resolutely rejected the new Missal did not do so from a vacuum; they documented themselves on the precedent that Rome falsely invoked: the Roman Missal of Pius V of 1570.
The minority sector that rejected the new Mass also questioned the brutal prohibition of the traditional Mass that accompanied it and never ceased celebrating the traditional Mass.
During the years 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and until May 24, 1976, there is no explicit, precise, and dated mention of an act of the Pope promulgating the prohibition of the traditional Mass.
The prohibition was first implicit, as a silent but imperative consequence of the obligatory character with which the new Mass was invested. But was such an obligation truly decreed by the apostolic constitution Missale romanum of 1969? This is a disputed point, since translations and interpretations diverge and the controversy is public. Several decrees, notifications, or communiqués from the Roman congregations declared or presupposed the obligation, by explicit or implicit reference to Missale romanum, and on this point the interpretation of Missale romanum remains uncertain.
Later the debate was considered settled by the authority of the so-called “Notification of June 14, 1971”; a notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship published in L’Osservatore Romano that was neither dated nor signed. Only several weeks later would it receive a signature and a date. Such an anomaly made it suspect; for it diminishes or nullifies the authority of the strict “norms” it purported to institute.
This notification, without date or signature, began by recalling that on October 20, 1969 the Congregation “gave the norms relating to particular cases and the difficulties raised by the use of the New Roman Missal” and that it “authorized the Episcopal Conferences to extend the vacatio legis until November 28, 1971.” It then specified that it “has established the following norms”:
1.- In celebrations in Latin, “the (new) Roman Missal may now be used.”
2.- The Episcopal Conferences must “ensure that the translation and publication in the language of the people of the new liturgical books are completed as soon as possible.” They shall set the date from which the translations approved by them and confirmed by the Apostolic See “may or must enter into use, in whole or in part.”
“But from the day on which the translations thus defined must be adopted in celebrations in which the language of the people is used, those who continue to use Latin must use only the renewed texts.”
3.- For elderly, sick, or disabled priests who have great difficulty in becoming accustomed to the new missal, it will be possible, with the authorization of their bishop, “to continue using the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962, modified by the decrees of 1965 and 1967,” but on the condition that it be sine populo, that is, without anyone assisting.
4.- The Episcopal Conferences have the right to decide the use of the language of the people “in any part of the Mass.”
For Masses celebrated sine populo, any priest may use either Latin or the language of the people.
(The rest of the notification concerned the Liturgy of the Hours and the calendar).
All these provisions proved superfluous for a country like France, from which Madiran was writing, and where the bishops had already gone ahead of and surpassed Rome. In publishing this Notification, the Documentation catholique of July 4 was able to state gloriously in a note: “In France, the new Ordo Missae has been obligatory since January 1, 1970.”
Certainly, this Roman notification declared the new rite obligatory. But almost immediately it seemed to contradict itself by an act of the Pope: in November 1971 it was officially announced that Paul VI had granted the English permission to celebrate the traditional rite occasionally; an authorization that was a response to the insistent petitions of the Latin Mass Society, “association for the Tridentine rite,” member of the International Una Voce Federation presided over by Éric de Saventhem. Such a privilege clearly demonstrated that the traditional Mass had not been abolished and suggested that the prohibition was not absolute.
Faced with such uncertainty, in 1973 there appeared for the first time, from Switzerland, an official vocabulary that spoke explicitly of prohibition and even of derogation. In April, Msgr. Adam, bishop of Sion, proclaimed that it was PROHIBITED to celebrate according to the rite of St. Pius V, which was ABOLISHED by the constitution “Missale romanum” of April 3, 1969. He specified that “this declaration is made on the basis of authentic information and formal indication from the Authority.” And in July, a communiqué of the Plenary Assembly of Swiss Bishops was published: “By virtue of the decisions of Rome, it is no longer permitted to celebrate Mass according to the rite of St. Pius V.” Thus the Swiss episcopate would have taken four years to obtain from the “Authority” (anonymous) “authentic information” and a “formal indication” on the radical reality of the derogation resulting from Missale romanum.
In October 1973, France followed the Swiss example, in an even more indirect and impersonal manner. In the name of Msgr. Badré, bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux, the dean of Orbec published a communiqué stating that “concern for obedience to the Church prohibits celebrating Mass according to the rite of St. Pius V under any circumstances.” And this declaration was reproduced in most dioceses. The following year, the French episcopate published, for the first time since 1969, a new ordinance on the Mass and a communiqué explaining its ordinance. To rule out the traditional Mass, the communiqué this time invoked “the norms laid down by the Roman Authority,” adding “the will of the bishops of France.” Like the Swiss episcopate, the French version speaks of an anonymous “Authority,” of “Roman decisions,” and of “concern for obedience to the Church,” without any of the precise explanations and references that would be necessary.
Thus, in both cases there emerges an uncertainty about the possibility of invoking the personal authority of the Pope. It is also observed that, in general, there remained a certain reluctance to speak openly of “prohibition.” The word was avoided. Periphrasis was resorted to. The formula that gradually came to prevail consisted in affirming, as a simple administrative observation, that the Missal of Paul VI “replaces” the Missal of St. Pius V.
Sed contra, the most determined opponents, priests and laity, continued to oppose the liturgical revolution with reasoned conviction that the traditional Mass needs no authorization.
On October 28 (or 29), 1974, a notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship “on the Missal of Paul VI” stated that “when an episcopal conference has decided that, in its territory, the Roman Missal must be adopted in the language of the country, from that moment onward, Mass can no longer be celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, except according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on April 3, 1969.”
As for elderly or sick priests, the Notification prohibits the bishop from authorizing them to celebrate the traditional Mass with the assistance of the faithful.
On November 14, 1974, the French episcopate published a “communiqué” accompanying and explaining an “ordinance.” Since its ordinance of November 1969, that is, for five years, the episcopate had remained silent on the matter of the Mass. But this episcopal communiqué attacked Catholics who do not consider the traditional Mass prohibited: “For some years now, the opinion has been spreading that the liturgical reform called for by the Second Vatican Council is not obligatory. It is said, in particular, that the use of the ancient Ordo missae of Pius V may continue to coexist with that of Paul VI. The norms promulgated in this regard by the Roman Authority are clear and it is the will of the bishops of France that they be respected: the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI must replace the Missal of St. Pius V. Exceptions to this norm may be made only for elderly or sick priests, in private celebrations without the assistance of the faithful and with the express authorization of the bishop.”
But if this communiqué imposed the Mass of Paul VI as obligatory, it only sought to impose it on those who remained faithful to the traditional Mass. For, in fact, in 1974 the authentic Mass of Paul VI was rarely celebrated in France: the liturgical “reform,” in the name of its incessant “creativity,” proclaimed that one cannot afford the luxury of locking oneself into the fixity of a rite established once and for all in 1969 and since then surpassed by the perpetual movement of the vital impulse. But no episcopal communiqué imposed any obligation on the practitioners of permanent liturgical revolution. None called to Catholic order those who profess that their Mass is no longer a sacrifice and that “it is simply a matter of making remembrance”; nor those who practiced the buffet-Mass, the disco-Mass, the music-hall Mass. For all of them there was no obligation to adhere to the Mass of Paul VI. This obligation is imposed only on the faithful of the traditional Mass.
Therefore, in practice, the true declaration of this “obligation” imposed by the episcopate is that Mass had to be celebrated in any way, provided it was not according to the Missal of St. Pius V. This led the “refractories” to affirm that the Mass of Paul VI was above all a “weapon by destiny” against the Tridentine Mass.
The Ordinance of the same November 14, 1974 decreed that, “in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Missal was reformed and promulgated by Pope Paul VI: ‘Missale romanum’ ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum (Vatican 1970). The conditions for its entry into force in the various countries and the role of the episcopal conferences to that effect were ultimately specified by the ‘notification’ of the Congregation for Divine Worship of June 14, 1971 (…). In France, the episcopal conference, by its ordinance of November 12, 1969, set the date of entry into force of the French translation of the new Ordo missae (…). The episcopal conference, in application of the ‘notification’ of June 14, 1971, confirmed its previous decision (of November 12, 1969) and decided the following:
1.- From the first Sunday of Advent 1974, in celebrations in French, etc., etc.
2.- In the event that celebration in Latin is foreseen, only the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI shall be used…”.
This gave rise to the following observations:
1.- The 1974 ordinance was not merely a confirmation of that of 1969, but also a rectification: it no longer imposed that the Mass be obligatory in French.
2.- In 1969, the French episcopate had intended to abolish the traditional Mass and Latin by its own authority. This time it declared that it only ordered “in application” of the Roman decisions. That was implicitly recognizing that an episcopate can only substantially modify the official liturgy of the Church in application of the laws, decrees, or dispensations of the Holy See.
3.- As the Roman foundation of the new liturgy, the episcopate chose the weakest: a simple “notification” of the Congregation for Divine Worship. A foundation undoubtedly insufficient for something as momentous as the abolition of the traditional Catholic Mass. If such an abolition were possible, at least an explicit act of the Supreme Pontiff himself would be required.
4.- In this case, the only act of Paul VI was the apostolic constitution Missale romanum of April 3, 1969, which promulgated a reformed Missal. If the reformed Missal was imposed to the exclusion of any other, it was from this constitution, and only from it, that a legally binding authority could derive. It was not a simple decree of application published by a Roman congregation that could have conferred on the new Missal an authority that the apostolic constitution promulgating it had not granted it.
5.– The episcopal ordinance, referring to the promulgation of the new Missal, gave as reference the date of 1970: the date of publication, by the Vatican press, of a new “editio typica” of the reformed Missal, and not of its promulgation.
For centuries, theologians have debated whether texts written and published under the authority of the Pope are necessarily and always free not only of ambiguity, but also of heresy. The Third Council of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo II, and, two centuries later, Pope Adrian II condemned the texts “written and published under the authority” of Pope Honorius I. But it seems that no one, before the French bishops Coffy and Marty, had imagined imposing as obligatory the belief that a text written and published under the authority of the Pope cannot contain the slightest ambiguity.
In the autumn of 1975, a letter from Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, opened the way to a new situation. This official letter was sent on October 11 to the president of the French episcopal commission for the liturgy. Its novelty lay in affirming that, by the apostolic constitution Missale romanum of 1969, the Pope “prescribed that the new Missal replace the old, without prejudice to the constitutions and ordinances of his predecessors.” For the first time, a Roman authority—and the highest after the Pope—explicitly enunciated such an interpretation: Paul VI would have promulgated, by his apostolic constitution, the disappearance of the traditional Mass. Until then, this interpretation had only been defended as an indication.
But this interpretation would in turn be modified, less than a year later, by Paul VI himself: in his address to the consistory of May 24, 1976, the Pope no longer mentioned Missale Romanum when referring to the New Ordo. He spoke of a promulgation as an accomplished fact, without specifying date or designation: the promulgation of a new Mass that would replace the old. It was more a declaration of intentions than a reference to a decision. From that moment the Roman custom was established of referring to the promulgation “of 1970” instead of that of 1969: in fact, in 1970 another official edition (editio typica) of the New Ordo was surreptitiously printed at the Vatican. The presentation of this new Mass already had three successive official editions: a first “typica” edition in 1969, a second in 1970, a “typica altera” in 1975 (and a fourth in 2002). Paul VI, in his 1976 allocution, when wishing to mention a previous Roman document, could only find the instruction of the aforementioned instruction published without date or signature on June 16, 1971 in L’Osservatore Romano.
In that same speech of May 24, 1976, Paul VI ordered the disappearance of the traditional Mass: “In the name of Tradition itself, we ask all our sons and all Catholic communities to celebrate with dignity and fervor the rites of the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is not, certainly, left to the free decision of priests or the faithful. The instruction of June 14, 1971 provided that the celebration of Mass according to the ancient rite would be permitted, with the authorization of the Ordinary, only to elderly or sick priests who offer the divine sacrifice without the assistance of the faithful. The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old, after mature reflection and in order to carry out the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. It is no different from the way our holy predecessor Pius V made the Missal revised under his authority obligatory after the Council of Trent.
“With the same supreme authority that comes to us from Christ Jesus, we order the same prompt submission to all the other liturgical, disciplinary, and pastoral reforms matured in recent years in application of the conciliar decrees.”
It was the first time, seven years after the constitution Missale romanum, that Paul VI spoke personally and explicitly of “replacing” the old Mass with a new one, that is, of making the former disappear. For this, the only previous Roman document to which he referred is the suspect “instruction” published without date or signature in L’Osservatore Romano of June 16, 1971.
But that laborious pontifical declaration of an undated intention to replace the old Mass with a new one had changed level: it received the explicit and fearsome confirmation of being declared by Paul VI “in the name of Tradition” and “with the supreme authority that comes to us from Christ Jesus.” The prohibition of the traditional Mass, which had been developing more or less openly for seven years, now reached its peak. At last it became the object, for the first and only time, of a personal act of the Supreme Pontiff: the consistorial address of May 24, 1976.
It must have been like a thunderclap. A radically new situation seemed to have been created. In theory, there is reason for the resolution of the rebels, the “traditionalists,” who have great respect, doctrinal and supernatural, for the authority of the Pope, to waver. Does not the invocation of his “supreme authority that comes to him from Christ Jesus” engage his infallibility, which is precisely the supreme degree of his authority? Yet the moral authority of Paul VI had been gravely and lastingly affected since the incredible episode of “article 7.”
What was article 7? From its promulgation in 1969, the New Ordo was accompanied by a compendium of general norms entitled Institutio generalis. Its article 7 gave an unacceptable definition of the Catholic Mass: “The Lord’s Supper, also called Mass, is the sacred synaxis (synaxe) or gathering of the people of God who assemble under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Therefore, the promise of Christ is especially valid for the assembly of the local Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst’ (Mt 18:20).”.
Such a definition turned the Mass into a simple prayer meeting and an assembly of remembrance. This was immediately understood by the French episcopate: from the first edition, prepared in 1969, of its New Sunday Missal, it inserted a “reminder of faith” in which it specified that the Mass consists simply in making remembrance of the one sacrifice already accomplished. This doctrine was maintained and reiterated by the French episcopate for several years. In Rome, however, from 1970 onward there was a discreet correction of article 7. This discreet correction, however, did not remove the fact that Paul VI had signed and promulgated the first version: therefore, it expressed the Pope’s thought, or at least had not contradicted it.
It was a phenomenal accident, which remained without explanation. Added to this, in the consistorial address of May 24, 1976, is a manifest historical falsehood. Paul VI claims to have proceeded with the Mass in the same way (haud dissimili ratione) as St. Pius V had done. Yet St. Pius V had not replaced one Mass with another, had not abolished the existing Mass, but, on the contrary, had confirmed, in matters of rite, all legitimate customs that had more than two hundred years of existence. For six or seven years, in 1976, the refractories had abundantly disseminated all that needs to be known about the bull Quo primum tempore of St. Pius V. They were not so disarmed on this subject as to be deceived.
Only at the end of the 1980s did one begin to hear cardinalatial declarations, first private and then public, assuring that the Tridentine Mass “has never been prohibited”.
In August 1976, the French writer Michel de Saint Pierre wrote a letter to the Pope signed together with Louis Salleron, Gustave Thibon, Henri Sauguer, Colonel Rémy, Michel Droit, and Michel Ciry, in which they said that “Cardinal Marty himself recently revealed to us that, between 1962 and 1975, Sunday practice had decreased by 54% in the parishes of Paris. Why? Because the faithful no longer recognize their religion in a certain liturgy and a certain new pastoral approach (…). Was it not you yourself, Most Holy Father, who spoke of the self-destruction of the Church? The fact is that in France this self-destruction is in full swing, and we are witnesses to it (…). At present, there are as many rites, practices, and opinions as there are churches, priests, communities, groups, and subgroups (…). Everywhere strange Masses are celebrated with total impunity, sometimes ecumenical, that have nothing to do with the Mass of Paul VI. Is any “Eucharistic celebration” permitted except the traditional Mass?”.