The Missal of Paul VI is both valid and licit: a response to Dr John Lamont

In his essay entitled “Is the Mass of Paul VI licit?” Dr John Lamont argues that the Mass of Paul VI – which for the sake of simplicity we can call the Novus Ordo – is valid but illicit. I am happy that Lamont affirms the validity of the Novus Ordo “and the other sacramental rites promulgated by Paul VI and John Paul II.” Later in his essay, though, he claims that, because the Novus Ordo is illicit, “[t]he fruits produced by the worship of God have as a result largely been lost to the Church” and “the grace and mercy that God provides in response to such worship are lost.”

Lamont’s position strikes me as theologically incoherent. If the Novus Ordo is valid, then the one sacrifice of Christ is re-presented in an unbloody manner (cf. Council of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Denzinger-Hünermann [hereafter: DH] 1743). Moreover the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Trent on the Eucharist, DH 1640 and 1651). If those attending the Novus Ordo are properly disposed, they receive the grace and mercy of God. Dr Lamont cannot speak for God and claim that divine grace and mercy are not received by those who worthily receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord at the Novus Ordo Mass.

Dr Lamont cites the argument of Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX that the law of the Church has the object of the common good of the Church. Because the Novus Ordo is destructive of the common good – in the opinion of Fr. Gleize – “it is not only bad but illegitimate (“elle est non seulement mauvaise mais illégitime.”) This argument, though, depends on the unproven premise that that Novus Ordo is destructive of the common good. But even if this premise were true, it doesn’t prove that the Novus Ordo is illegitimate. A law might not achieve its intended purpose, but that does not mean it is not a law (i.e. legitimate). The 1704 decision of Clement XI to ban the Chinese Rites – reinforced in 1715 – had the intention of purifying and strengthening Catholic missionary efforts in China. Many historians, though, believe the ban on the civic veneration of Confucius and other ancestors actually hurt missionary efforts in China.[1] The law might not have contributed to the common good of missionary efforts in China, but it was still the law (i.e. legitimate).

Dr Lamont discusses the extent of papal authority over the liturgy, and he cites principles articulated by Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium that he says are not in dispute. He then argues that “only those portions of the liturgy that can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be of human origin can be changed by any authority in the Church.”  He then manifests his intention to show that “the Novus Ordo did in fact remove aspects of the liturgy that are of divine origin and that it is illicit for that reason.”

 In laying out this principle, it’s not clear what specific law of the Church Lamont has in mind. The Council of Trent, in its “Doctrine and Canons on Communion under both Species and by Children,” declared that “in the administration of the sacraments – provided their substance is preserved – there has always been in the Church that power to determine or modify what she judged more expedient for the benefit of those receiving the sacraments or for the reverence due to the sacraments themselves – according to the diversity of circumstances, times and places” (DH 1728).

According to the Council of Trent, the Church must preserve the substance of the sacraments (salva illorum substantia). As long as the substance of the sacraments is preserved, the Church possesses that power (hanc postestatem) to make modifications in the administration or disposition of the sacraments (in sacramentorum dispensatione). Dr Lamont does not cite this teaching of Trent. Instead, he argues that the changes made to the Mass in the Novus Ordo – as well as the Roman Breviary, the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, and the Caeremoniale Episcoporum – are so great that they are illicit.

Dr Lamont does cite, as noted above, various principles articulated by Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II, and he also cites Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s preface to Alcuin Reid’s book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005). What Cardinal Ratzinger says in his preface about the pope not being an absolute monarch with respect to the liturgy is true. The pope, following the teaching of Trent, cannot change the substance of the sacraments. The question, though, is whether the changes made in the Novus Ordo affect the substance of the sacrament. Because Lamont himself accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo, then the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist has been preserved and no law of the Church has been violated. Therefore, the Novus Ordo is legitimate. Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI never questioned the validity and the liceity of the Novus Ordo. In his apostolic exhortation of February 22nd 2007, Sacramentum Caritatis, he writes:

If we consider the bimillenary history of God’s Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can gratefully admire the orderly development of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of our salvation. From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church’s history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety. The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities. (no. 3; emphasis added).

Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to Dom Alcuin Reid’s book was written as a private theologian, As pope, though, Benedict XVI not only saw the liturgical renewal called for by Vatican II in continuity “within the overall unity … of the rite itself,” but he also affirmed the “dignity and harmony” of the liturgical books of Paul VI and John Paul II with the “liturgical edifice” of the Latin Church. This is clear from his apostolic letter, Summorum Pontificum of July 7th 2007 in which he says:

In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and partly renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful.  Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak … reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.”

In article 1 of Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI leaves no room for doubt that the Missal of Paul VI is a valid and licit expression of the Roman Rite:

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite (emphasis added).

Dr Lamont ultimately concludes that “the Novus Ordo is not a form of the Roman Rite.” This conclusion, though, is directly contradicted by the words of Benedict XVI who states that the Missal of John XXIII – the traditional Latin rite -and the Missal of Paul VI – the Novus Ordo – “are two usages of the one Roman rite.”

There are some other points of Dr Lamont’s essay that deserve consideration. He notes that Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium “clearly rejected the idea of replacing the Roman Rite (in paras. 38 and 50).” Benedict XVI, though, sees the older Latin Missal and the Novus Ordo “as two usages of the one Roman rite.” Therefore, the Roman Rite was not replaced but revised.

Lamont believes that the intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium is obscured by the translation of “instauare” as “reform” rather than “restore.” He is correct that instauare can mean “restore.”  The 1907 edition of the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary, however, gives the following translations of instauro: “to renew, repeat, to celebrate anew, to repair, to restore, to erect, to make.”[2] In Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI writes:

In the course of the centuries, many other Roman Pontiffs took particular care that the sacred liturgy should accomplish this task more effectively. Outstanding among them was Saint Pius V, who in response to the desire expressed by the Council of Trent, renewed (innovavit) with great pastoral zeal the Church’s entire worship, saw to the publication of liturgical books corrected and “restored in accordance with the norm of the Fathers” (ad normam Patrum instauratorum) and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

Benedict XVI here notes that Saint Pius V renewed (innovavit) the liturgical books in accordance with the norm of the Fathers of restoration (ad normam Patrum instauratorum).  Renewal, therefore, must not be seen in opposition to the norm of restoration (ad normam … instauratorum). Renewal can also be understood as a type of reform. In his Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, Leo F. Stelton defines “reformare” as “renew, reform, remake.”[3]

Lamont’s point, though, seems to be that the “reform” of the Roman Rite in the Novus Ordo was illegal because it changes aspects of the Roman Rite that are of divine origin. As a result it undermines the main purpose of the liturgy which is sanctification. He then lays out a central core of his argument: “If the Roman Rite itself is of divine origin, it is clear that not only does the pope not have the legal power to abolish it, he also does not have the legal power to permit the use of a ritual of human origin in its place.”

The basic principle that Lamont articulates seems sound. The liturgy is “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). Therefore, the divine character of the liturgy cannot be obscured by replacing it with a ritual of purely human origin. The question, though, is whether the Novus Ordo is a rite of purely human origin. Lamont further argues that “in objective terms, there is not really any case to be made for the Novus Ordo being a form of the Roman Rite.”

I don’t believe Lamont provides a strong case for the Novus Ordo being of purely human origin. He provides standard arguments of Catholic traditionalists that the changes made in the Novus Ordo were too radical. He admits that Roman Canon was retained, but the introduction of new Eucharistic prayers made it “a (seldom used) option rather than the centre of the Roman Rite.” But if the Roman Canon is retained in the Novus Ordo – and Lamont certainly believes the Roman Canon contains elements of divine origin – then it’s impossible to claim that the Novus Ordo is entirely of human origin. Lamont also does not demonstrate that the other Eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo are devoid of divine elements. All of them contain the words of consecration that are derived from sacred Scripture. There is also the Agnus Dei, which comes from John 1:29. It would not be difficult to go through all of the Eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo and indicate words and expressions rooted in sacred Scripture, which is of divine origin.

The other argument of Lamont is that the Novus Ordo departs from the Roman Rite so radically than it is no longer the Roman Rite, and, therefore, it was illegally introduced. If you’re going to argue that the Novus Ordo is illicit, you need to cite a clear law of the Church that has been violated.  This Lamont does not do. Instead, he articulates laws of his own making to determine what constitutes the essential elements of the Roman Rite. He also does not deal adequately with the question of who has the authority to decide whether even his own criteria have been adequately followed.

Dr Lamont notes that the pope is bound by the natural law. This is true, but St. Thomas Aquinas describes the natural law as the “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature” (participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura) whereby the rational creature “has a natural inclination to its proper act and end (naturalem inclinationem ad debitum actum, et finem) [Summa theologiae I-II, 91, 2].  The question, of course, is who decides whether decisions of the pope violate the natural law. Dr Lamont only mentions that papal power is limited by the natural law, and he does not pursue this line of argument with regard to the liturgy. This is wise on his part because it’s not clear how the papal approval of the Novus Ordo violates the natural law, which is the law of right reason (ratio recta).[4] Lamont’s argument instead is based on the assumption that “only the divinely instituted aspects of the liturgy are beyond the scope of papal authority.”

Dr Lamont states that the Roman Rite “essentially reached its mature form under St. Gregory the Great,” who was pope from 590 to 604. He goes on to offer some observations about the development of the different rites within the Catholic Church. He notes that these rites – descended from the great apostolic sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch – have the apostolic tradition as their foundation. He then points out that these rites are of divine origin because “the Holy Spirit was active in the Church during the post-apostolic centuries to produce results that were divinely established and immutable.” Dr Lamont then notes that the divine origin of the liturgy was a view that was “universally held by the Fathers of the Church.” He then cites Pope St. Clement I’s First Letter to the Corinthians who states that Christ “commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services … at fixed times and hours.” Lamont sees in Clement’s letter evidence that “the general structure and basic features of the liturgy are not human constructions, but are the work of divine authority.”

Certainly, Clement I is correct that Christ commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services and that these “offerings and acts of worship” are not to be done “in an empty and disorderly manner, but at set times and hours.”[5] Clement I does not, however, specify how the liturgy was celebrated towards the end of the first century (ca. 96 AD) when his letter was written. It’s not clear how this passage from Clement I argues against the liceity of the Novus Ordo. Certainly the form of the liturgy during the time of Clement I was grounded in apostolic tradition, and the Holy Spirit was certainly active in the Church during this time. This, though, does not lead to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is illicit and that its main elements are not of divine origin. Was the Holy Spirit active during the time of Pope Clement I but not during the time of Pope Paul VI?

Dr Lamont further argues that the goal of the liturgy is not aimed at a merely natural good but a supernatural purpose. This is certainly true, but how does this lead to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is illicit? Such a conclusion seems to be a clear case of petitio principii or begging the question. Dr Lamont would need to prove that the Novus Ordo does not have a supernatural purpose. If, though, the Novus Ordo is valid – as he himself admits – then it is a valid re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, which certainly has a supernatural purpose.

Lamont then goes on to claim that “the pope does not have the legal authority to establish an alternate form of worship that is of purely human origin.” He then states: “If the Novus Ordo is not a form of the Roman Rite, it follows that the pope does not have the authority to permit it as a form of Catholic worship, and hence it is not licit, regardless of the fact that it was promulgated using the correct legal forms.” This seems to be the core of his argument.

A major weakness to this argument is the fact that the Novus Ordo retains the Roman Canon, which Lamont certainly accepts as an expression of the Roman Rite. If the Roman Canon is a form of the Roman Rite, then Lamont’s argument that the Novus Ordo “is not a form of the Roman Rite” cannot be sustained because it contains the historical Roman Canon. The question, then, is whether the inclusion of additional Eucharistic prayers within the Roman Canon renders it illicit. As support for his position, Lamont claims that “the new prayers and the changes to the old prayers that survived were motivated by a radically different theologically outlook that was designed to be acceptable to Protestants and to the modern world,” and for support he cites a statement of John F. Baldovin, S.J. that “the reformed liturgy does represent a radical shift in Catholic theology and piety.”

Lamont’s claim about “the radically different theological outlook” of the Novus Ordo and Baldovin’s claim about the “radical shift in Catholic theology and piety” are opinions of two theologians. These opinions are open to challenge, and they have no probative force to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo is illicit. What makes the Novus Ordo licit is the fact that it was licitly approved by the Roman Pontiff.

As mentioned above, to claim an action is illicit you must cite a law that has been violated. Lamont does not cite any Church law that has been violated by the Novus Ordo. Instead, he provides his own laws. He complains about how many orations of the prior Roman Rite were removed by the Novus Ordo. But where is there a Church law that says you cannot remove and replace these orations? He complains about the introduction of new Eucharistic prayers that can be used as options along with the Roman Canon. Where, though, is there a Church law that forbids the introduction of new Eucharistic prayers to the Roman Missal?

When we look at actual Church laws regarding the authority of the Roman Pontiff over the liturgy, then the weakness of Lamont’s arguments becomes clear. Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code reads: “It belongs to the Apostolic See alone to order the sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books” (Unius Apostolicae Sedis est tum sacrum ordinare liturgiam, tum approbare libros). Canon 838 §1 of the 1983 Code states:  “The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.”

The ecumenical council Vatican I teaches that the authority of the Roman Pontiff extends not only over faith and morals but also to matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church:

And so, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection and direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world (ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent); or if anyone says that he has only a more important part and not the complete fullness of this supreme power; or if anyone says that this power is not ordinary and immediate either over each and every Church or over each and every shepherd and member of the faithful, anathema sit (Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, chapter III; DH 3064).

The approval of a Roman Missal certainly pertains to the discipline and government of the Church.  The claim that the Roman Pontiff lacks such disciplinary authority over the liturgy falls under the anathema of an ecumenical council.

            Vatican II reaffirms the full, ordinary authority of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church in Lumen Gentium, 22:

In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power” (Romanus enim Pontifiex habet in Ecclesiam, vi muneris sui, Vicarii scilicet Christi et totius Ecclesiae Pastoris, plenam, supremam et universalem potestatem, quam semper libere exercere valet.)

Pope Pius XII affirms the authority of the Roman Pontiff over liturgical matters in explicit terms in his 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, no. 58:

It follows from this that the Supreme Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

As can be seen, Pius XII specifically affirms the authority of the Roman Pontiff to introduce and approve new rites and also to modify those he judges in need of modification. We’ve already seen that Benedict XVI does not regard the Missal of Paul VI as a new rite but a form of the one Roman Rite. The introduction of new Eucharistic prayers into the Novus Ordo Missal, therefore, must be seen as a modification of the Roman Rite. The Roman Pontiff has the authority to make such modifications in spite of what Lamont claims.

Dr Lamont, however, might respond that the pope does not have the authority to make modifications that are so radical that they introduce a radical shift in Catholic theology. According to Lamont, “references to sacrifice, sin, guilt, penance, punishment, hell, the necessity of grace, and divine anger have been almost entirely removed from the Novus Ordo, and the subordination of this world to the next is no longer emphasised or clearly presented in it.”

Lamont’s accusations against the Novus Ordo are not accurate.  With regard to sin and penance, the Novus Ordo has several penitential rites. With regard to sacrifice, it’s clear that the sacrificial character of the Mass is expressed in each of the four main Eucharistic prayers. Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) speaks of “this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim.” Eucharistic Prayer II refers to “the memorial of his Death and Resurrection.” Since Christ’s death was sacrificial, the “memorial” makes present Christ’s sacrifice. Eucharistic Prayer III uses very strong sacrificial language, asking God, the Father, to recognize “the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself” (hostiam cujus voluisti immolatione placari). Finally, Eucharistic Prayer IV makes this petition: “Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church.”

It is not difficult to show how the other accusations of Lamont are refuted by the actual texts of the Novus Ordo. In Eucharistic Prayer I of the Novus Ordo there is an appeal “that we be delivered from eternal damnation.” In Eucharistic Prayer II, there is a plea to God “to have mercy on us all” so “we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life.” In Eucharistic Prayer III, the merciful Father is asked to give to the deceased “kind admittance” to the Kingdom where “we hope to enjoy forever the fullness of your glory.” Likewise, Eucharistic Prayer IV appeals to the “merciful Father” that we may “enter into a heavenly inheritance” where “freed from the corruption of sin and death” we may “glorify you through Christ our Lord.” It is simply false to claim that the Novus Ordo does not clearly present the subordination of this world to the next” or that it lacks a sense of sin and sacrifice. Why are there so many appeals to the “merciful Father” if there is no sense of sin?

In the final part of his essay, Dr Lamont lapses into rhetorical excess, claiming that the Novus Ordo is a “human fabrication” that does “damage to souls”. He calls the Novus Ordo “an illicit form of worship” that is “unfit to be used to celebrate the Eucharist”. Dr Lamont is entitled to his opinion, but we have shown that many of his claims are based on false accusations and questionable assertions.  The issue, though, is not whether Dr John Lamont likes the Novus Ordo but whether or not it is a licit expression of the Roman Rite.  The Novus Ordo Missal was approved by St Paul VI and revised at the direction of St John Paul II. It has been accepted as valid and licit by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Who has the lawful authority to approve a Missal for the Roman Rite? It is the Roman Pontiff not Dr Lamont. The Novus Ordo includes the Roman Canon, which Lamont himself sees as of apostolic and divine origin. There is no law that says the pope cannot authorize new Eucharistic prayers. In spite of what Dr Lamont claims, these new Eucharistic prayers have been licitly approved by the Roman Pontiff and they express the same faith and the same sacrifice of Christ as the various forms of the Roman Rite going back to apostolic times.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Robert Fastiggi (A.B. Dartmouth; M.A. Ph.D. Fordham) holds the Bishop M. Kevin Britt Chair of Dogmatic Theology and Christology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI where he has taught since 1999. He previously taught at St. Edward’s University in Austin, TX (1985–1999). He was the co-editor of the English translation of the 43rd edition of Denzinger-Hünermann, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals (Ignatius Press, 2012) and the executive editor of the 2009–2013 supplements to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. He also revised and updated the English translation of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for Baronius Press (2018). He is a council member of the Mariological Society of America and a corresponding member of PAMI (Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis)

[1] See Paul A. Rule, “The Chinese Rites Controversy: A Long-Lasting Controversy in Sino-Western Cultural History” Pacific Rim Report Number 32 (February, 2004): 2–8.

[2] Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A New Latin Dictionary (New York: American Book Company, 1907), 968.

[3] Leo F. Stelton, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 226.

[4] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) no. 1956.

[5] This is how the English translation of the passage reads in the 2012 Ignatius Press edition of Denzinger-Hünermann, no. 101.