Why the Tridentine rite has no abuses

I just want to poke a hole in an invalid argument I see repeated over and over again here.

Lots of abuses in liturgy today. Yes. Where are they happening? In the Mass celebrated according to the current missal. Hm, correlation between the “NO” and abuses. Right. So, obviously, the “NO” somehow causes/encourages/allows for abuses, whereas the Tridentine rite, according to some Papal magic, does not.

Please. There’s nothing under heaven that can’t be abused by sin. I wasn’t alive back then, but maybe somebody from the the glory days can testify that liturgical abuse wasn’t invented by Vatican II.

I don’t care how precise the Latin language is–the current rite is written in Latin, too. Between the 2002 missal and Redemptionis Sacramentum, there really aren’t any more glaring ambiguities to speak of. If someone desires to celebrate the current rite of the Mass without abuses, it is exceedingly easy for them to do so (unless the people have been conditioned to be intolerant of a correct liturgy).

Anyway, why is the Tridentine Mass today so pristine and free of abuse? Because almost by definition, nobody who attends or conducts a Tridentine Mass supports liturgical abuse.

It’s as easy as that. It has nothing to do with some mysterious sort of “built in abuse-protectors” that the Tridentine rite has and the Vatican rite doesn’t. The “abuse protectors” are the priests who celebrate it and the people who attend it.

That seems reasonable and logical to me.

I would say that the reason you do not see as many abuses within the Tridentine Mass today is that those who are celebrating it are not the type to abuse the Liturgy. If/when they celebrate the normative Mass they also do it abuse free.

I will attempt to pull myself out of the cobwebs and resurrect my bones from the grave ( oops:o sorry Jean! )

There were and still are many abuses…I would venture to say that performing a mass in an illicit mode is terribly abusive and may I venture to add sinful.

I can remember priest mumbling so fast that we were speedily flipping pages…all that you could hear sometimes was the pages being turned:(

Be this as it may…both masses have their place in today’s world:thumbsup:

can remember priest mumbling so fast that we were speedily flipping pages…all that you could hear sometimes was the pages being turned

Those are the ones that Alice Von Hildebrand said hated the Mass and were happy to see it go…That is terriable.

As someone who is sympathetic and encouraging of most things traditional, I think there is a widespread misuse of causality arguments in traditionalist circles. I think you are right on, Godefridus.

If there’s anything in the Pauline Missal that lends itself to abuse, it would be the many “options” present within. Options were interpreted to mean this liturgy is now my personal plaything.

I have heard it said that Greek is more precise than Latin, and lends it self better to the Mysteries of our Faith. Perhaps this is why God chose to use it the first few hundred years. According to some, the Faith began to be watered down after the advent of Latin in the Church, (and the domination of the West according to these same people.) I can see how that could happen.

Latin is a beautiful language, but I get the impression the Latin is worshipped above Christ by some [edited by moderator]. It’s as if the TLM has become the official Latin Fan Club: " Defender of the Faith". Honestly, it seems if one were truly interested in the purity of the Faith, they would prefer Greek over Latin.

So true. When our PP celebrates the NO Mass each Sunday he uses incense. It helps people to realise God is present and we are there to worship and take part in something Sacred.

The abuses issue is a superficial one.

Even without any abuses, the New Rite is inferior to the Tridentine.

Cardinal Ottaviani’s criticisms were of the New Rite in its purest, abuse-free form.

It isn’t a patch on what it has tried to “replace”.


Yes indeed!
The same types are currently abusing the liturgy be it the Pauline or Tridentine.
Disobedience and irreverence have no place in our Worship of The Almighty.

This is a simpler explanation than it doesn’t lend itself to abuse. My father-in-law can still say parts of the Latin Mass lightening fast because of the races they used to have to see who could say it the fastest. It is only reasonable that the more disrespectful priest would have fled to the new Mass when it came out and used the liturgy as their own playground.

Latin is the language of Angels…The Saints talk about this. Also Father Amorth, Exorcist in Rome says Satan hates the latin language. When he speaks to the demon in Latin, the demon **has to **respond in Latin. Second it is not the language that traditionalist have a disagreement with it is the rite.

[Edited by moderator]

Your first point would seem to contradict your second point.

So would most traditionalists be ok with a translation of the Tridentine Mass into the vernacular language?

The Mass I attend is an one and half hours…I don’t even know I’m there a hour and half, because of God’s presence. I totally feel immersed in God’s grace and in Heaven praising God with the Angels and Saints.

I would disagree there is abuse where the Tridentine Mass is said. My experience is people that attend are totally committed, 100% and are very well read. We have Stations of the Cross on Friday, the Church is packed out. You wouldn’t see that at a Church where the Norvus Ordo is being said. I attended even First Fridays Reparation at the last Parish, maybe two from our Parish would show, I’ll stretch it to 10 all the other people were spanish and were from different Parishes a total of about 20 people.

I think they would, but I can’t speak for them. If any see your post let them speak for themselves, but I think they wouldn’t have a problem with it all.

One word of caution: translations differ a lot from each other and from the original as well. E.g. doesn’t English have, “and also with you,” for, “et cum spiritu tuo,” which in reality means, “and with your spirit?” I’ve noticed more when comparing Polish, English and Latin.

I can understand why the devil doesn’t like it. Conversing in latin is very awkward. I’d be mad, too.

Has the Church ever defined this as doctrine? I know it was the language of Nero and Caligula. Maybe they learned it from angels?

I also get the impression that Pope John XXIII liked Latin quite a bit, but I don’t think he worshipped it above Christ even though his language regarding it in Veterum Sapientia is as strong as any Traditionalist’s:

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin’s formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.


I know some people seem to view the phrase Latin is a dead language as a negative but it really fits the Church quite well. Latin doesn’t develop colloquilisms or change meaning over time. Because it is not spoken (dead, in a sense), it doesn’t change and it’s meaning is always consistent just like the Church. It’s really perfect for the Church.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.