Tradition: Was Pope Pius XII Wrong?

Tradition: Was Pope Pius XII Wrong?

Tradition: Was Pope Pius XII Wrong?

Following some comments on another thread, sparked by the question of whether or not Jesus prayed in Latin at the first Mass, Petrus offered the following article to allow us to debate the legitimacy of seeking to restore the Mass to its original, very earliest form. Those who want to do this, claim that they are the true defenders of “Tradition”. Pope Pius XII disagreed.

Read on and then tell us if you agree with Petrus. Or, rather, if you agree with Pope Pius XII. You can check the pontiff’s own words on the topic by clicking on his photo.

Petrus writes…

Time and time again we hear from Modernist voices, “What did the early Christians do?” They direct their poisonous venom at various old chestnuts. Usually, these haters of tradition save their fiercest criticism for the Traditional Latin Mass, such is their hatred for the traditional liturgy.

What these Modernists don’t realise is that their attacks on Catholic Tradition are nothing new. The last pope truly faithful to Catholic Tradition, Pope Pius XII, condemned their arguments as heresy in his encyclical letter “Mediator Dei”. Let’s take a look at how this great pope torpedoes the arguments of liberals.

“The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.” The liturgy is organic and has always evolved. Just because the early Church did something a certain way is not a good enough reason for doing it now.

The Latin language is usually a target. “Did Jesus pray in Latin?”. Well, he certainly didn’t attend liturgical worship in the vernacular. Hebrew was the liturgical language of the time – used to protect the liturgies of the Jewish people. Pope Pius XII condemns this attack on the official language of the Church:

“It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic.”

So, the argument that Our Lord didn’t use Latin just does not wash. It’s an attack on the Sacred Liturgy and an attack on Sacred Tradition.

These attacks on the Holy Mass are nothing new. So important is the Mass to Catholics that the Church’s enemies have always tried to attack it. Martin Luther attacked the Mass. The innovators who attempted to destroy the Roman Rite after Second Vatican Council used the antiquarian heresy that Pope Pius XII condemned just a few short years before the Council. These proponents of innovation are the heirs of Martin Luther. Indeed, one of the six Protestant advisers who helped Archbishop Bugnini concoct the New Mass declared triumphantly, “We have finished what Luther started”.

So, for the Modernists out there who think they are being clever writing to Catholic Truth, or submitting a comment on the blog, asking sarcastically “What did the early Church do?”, I suggest you ponder the words of Pope Pius XII before you lift the pen or hit the keyboard. You are supporting, intentionally or unintentionally, a diabolical attempt to destroy the Mass.

Comments (23)

  • Eileenanne

    Once again I can’t help wondering about the difference between the kind of people Petrus seems to come across and those I meet.
    I have NEVER met even one Catholic who hates what he calls the Traditional Mass and what the Church calls Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I know a few folk with some nostalgia for the EF, but the vast majority are happy with the Mass they attend and have little or no interest in any of the other forms available. The only active dislike or hostlity towards any Mass I have ever heard of is that directed against Mass in the Ordinary Form on this blog..

    November 9, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    • editor


      “The Church” does not refer to the ancient Mass as the “Extraordinary Form” – that is yet another innovation and is only used by modernists. Catholics now referred to as “traditionalist” will use that term the day after Hell freezes over.

      I’m interested in your views on this extract from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei, which Petrus included in his article:

      “It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic.”

      Well? Did Pope Pius XII get it wrong ?

      PS Eileenanne, and this applies to everyone else, as well, please feel free to email me any articles which you would like posted for discussion. All submissions will be seriously considered. Our default position would be to publish. So, all welcome.

      November 10, 2013 at 12:10 am
    • Whistleblower


      “We have finished what Luther started.”

      What do you make of this? Are you happy being an heiress of Martin Luther?

      November 10, 2013 at 6:40 am
    • sixupman

      Worse, I have first hand witness of Diocesan clergy referring to those of clergy who preceded them and current Diocesan clergy, exhibiting a Traditional outlook, in most derogatory and disgusting terms. Therefore, they must have similar feelings towards The Mass.

      November 10, 2013 at 8:46 am
  • crofterlady

    “The liturgy is organic and has always evolved. Just because the early Church did something a certain way is not a good enough reason for doing it now”

    Now that statement seems to say what the modernists say i.e. the liturgy has always evolved and so we now have the novus ordo missae.

    November 10, 2013 at 10:58 am
    • Petrus


      I’ve never heard Modernists claim the changes in the liturgy in 1969 were organic. Organic growth is a very slow and is always enriching. In fact, the majority of changes in the liturgy have been additions. Never in the history of the Church was the liturgy butchered the way it was in the 1960s. So even if a Modernist tried to claim those changes were “organic” their claims wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny.


      Steady on! Eileenanne is not an heiress of Luther. She’s been led astry by bad popes, bishops and priests. Remember, “Satan’s masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Traditon through obedience …”

      November 10, 2013 at 11:56 am
    • editor


      I understand what you mean but that statement is actually saying the opposite to what the Modernists mean when they talk about the Mass “evolving”. The right way of thinking about this, she said in utter humility, is to realise that first Christians grew in their understanding of the Mass and the Real Presence, so the prayers around the Mass developed accordingly. One old priest said to me years ago, that “the prayers of the old Mass are like hedges protecting the doctrine.”

      Therefore, to strip away those prayers in the name of restoring the Mass to its original form, or, as the Mods like to say “its original simplicity” is to ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in deepening the Church’s understanding and appreciation of the Mass, of the reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, and of the relationship between the Mass and Calvary.

      Signed: Theologian of the Year 🙂

      November 10, 2013 at 3:25 pm
  • crofterlady

    I stand corrected, Petrus and Editor.

    November 10, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    • editor

      Well, sit down, Crofterlady, you’re cluttering up the place!

      November 10, 2013 at 6:32 pm
  • Leo

    A priest who said the Mass in 1570 could have been transported in time to 1962 and have no problem saying the Mass of that time. For many priests and laity, the Mass was unrecognisable eight years later. Can someone, with a straight face now talk of continuity or organic development? The man-centred, desacralized, Novus Ordo Missae, fabricated by a shadowy committee with undeniable revolutionary intentions, is defined by its being at variance, on a line by line basis, with the unambiguous presentation of Catholic dogma in the Mass of All Time. No one can creditably say that the alarming replication of the liturgical changes wrought by heretics in the sixteenth century which has engulfed unsuspecting Catholics since 1970 was due to some strange coincidence. The fabricators knew exactly what they were doing.

    The new way that the overwhelming majority of Catholics now worship is of course the most obvious manifestation of the Invasion of the Modernists. Many loyal, faithful Catholics appear to be utterly and determinedly unaware of the part the liturgical revolution has played in the “silent apostasy” amidst the Conciliar devastation.

    The familiar “don’t judge by the more extreme, sacrilegious abuses” defence of the Novus Ordo Missae fails to take account of the fact that the 1969 General Instruction that accompanied it represented a sort of liturgical “Big Bang” whereby regulation was thrown out the window. Pre Vatican II, a uniform set of laws minutely regulated the Catholic liturgy. Priests were obliged to stick to the rubrics and had no opportunity for personal creativity. Very importantly, liturgy was inextricably linked with doctrine and discipline. And everyone knew it. As Petrus has pointed out, Pope Pius XII addressed this subject in detail in Mediator Dei.

    The very character of the 1969 General Instruction, in stark contrast to what was previously in place, leads to liturgical indiscipline, creativity and abuse. The fact is that following the General instruction, wild-man liturgists were unleashed on the unsuspecting and obedient flock throughout the Catholic world.

    In 1973, a Vatican directory created by the master of disaster himself, Annibale Bugnini and approved by Pope Paul VI allowed celebrants near-total creative freedom in the celebration of Mass for children with predictable and lamentable results.

    Pagan ritual and cultural practices were introduced into the New Mass in many non-western countries. In his memoirs, Bugnini was happy to list the litany of adaptations in Zambia, The Congo, and Zaire, including the liturgical dance in Africa and the celebration of Chinese New Year, which, as he noted, was condemned as superstitious by Pope Benedict XIV.

    Compare this with the warning given by Pope Saint Pius X’s in his 1907 condemnation of Modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

    “The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society.- paragraph 26

    What exactly does it take for Catholics to heed the sainted Pope’s magnificently prescient and prophetic example of true pastoral care?

    November 10, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    • Josephine


      Your final question is one that I ask myself all the time – how much more damage has to be witnessed by the faithful before they realise that there really is a very serious crisis in the Church, and that the Mass should never have been changed?

      Your post, as always, is extremely helpful. Thank you.

      November 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm
  • Leo

    We’ve had the New Theology, New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime, New Canon Law, New Catechism, New Sacraments, and New Evangelisation. Does anyone seriously believe the New Mass is a coincidence?

    And New Mass is certainly what we are talking about. Don’t take my word for it. At the risk of boring people with lengthy quotes, that some may have read before, the following selection of words should make the point. I would say that reading one or two at random is sufficient to understand that talk of continuity and organic development is unsustainable.

    On November 26 1969, Pope Paul VI uttered some of the strangest words ever spoken by a reigning Pope, arguably on a par at least with the same Pontiff’s “smoke of satan” remarks:

    “We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of Mass…a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled…It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits…This novelty is no small thing…We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.”

    Here’s the evidence of some of the fabricators themselves:

    “We must strip four our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” – Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

    “The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimension, since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.” Bugnini, Notitiaem no 92, April 1974, p. 126

    “It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites…it will truly be a new creation.” – Annibale Bugnini, May 7 1967, La Documentation Catholique, no. 1493

    “Let them compare it with the Mass we now have. Not only the words, the melodies and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we know it no longer exists. It has been destroyed. Some walls of the former edifice have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building.” – Joseph Gelineau SJ, Demain La Liturgie, Paris, 1976, pp 9-10

    “An ecumenically-oriented sacramental theology for the celebration of the Mass emerged…it leads us…out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice, and corresponds to the agreements signalled by many of last’s year’s interfaith documents.” Fr. Lengeling, Consilium member

    Evidence of the intended doctrinal changes comes from an irrefutable witness- Bugnini’s assistant, Father Carlo Braga:

    “Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This (revision) is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods…In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives.”

    I counted the word “new” five times in that paragraph.

    Consilium actually considered abolishing Ash Wednesday but reluctantly retained it because “it would be difficult to take it away without encountering other inconveniences.”- Fr. Braga, Ephemerides Liturgicae 83 (1969).

    Fr. Braga admitted that the Novus Ordo had been given “an entirely new foundation of eucharistic theology” resulting from a revision affecting “not only form, but also doctrinal reality”, dictated by “ecumenical requirements…in harmony with the Church’s new positions.” – Fr. Carlo Braga, Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419

    If anyone is inclined to dismiss the importance of the changes to the orations in the Mass and their effect, they need to read the words of Monsignor A.G. Martimort, another of Consilium’s experts:

    “The content of these prayers is the most important of the liturgical loci theologici ( theological sources). The reason is that they interpret the shared faith of the assembly.” (- The Church at Prayer, vol. 1)

    Compare the words of Father Braga when he said that the New Missal will indeed “have a transforming effect on catechesis” (Il Nuovo Messale Romano, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970) with those of Pope Pius XII who wrote in his encyclical, Mediator Dei, that the entire liturgy “bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”

    I think anyone who claims that those “triumphalist”, “restorationists” Catholics who want the Mass of All Time, the Mass which sanctified and sustained so many Saints and Martyrs, are motivated by aesthetics (“bells and smells”) or nostalgia, really, with respect, needs to get a whole lot better informed.

    Then they might understand why the “banal fabrication” of Bugnini must be returned to the workshop for permanent mothballing.

    November 10, 2013 at 6:22 pm
  • Josephine


    “We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of Mass…a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled…It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits…This novelty is no small thing…We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.”

    I see Pope Paul VI said the above in 1969, but that is even before the new Mass took hold, isn’t it? What was the occasion when he said this, do you know? It seems incredible that he already regretting the new Mass in 1969 but allowed it to continue to be used in parishes as the normal Mass for the people.

    November 10, 2013 at 9:33 pm
  • Leo


    Thank you for raising that point about dates. I think Pope Paul was speaking at a general audience. Yes, his words truly “seem incredible”. Absolutely. But that’s what he said. It looks like the Pope’s Guardian Angel, or the Holy Ghost had put a warning sign in front of him.

    The Novus Ordo Missae and the General Instruction had actually been presented on 3 April 1969. Between April and September 1969 the text of the Ottaviani Intervention was prepared before being presented to Pope Paul, along with a the Cardinal’s covering letter, on 29 September 1969.

    I’ve posted the following comments on a previous thread, but they may bear repetition here.

    The undeniable truth is that, from the time Bugnini’s Mass was brought out from behind the curtain, the objections were doctrinal. The expression lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of believing) was at the heart of the many critiques that followed. It wasn’t a novelty either. The doctrinal importance of the liturgy has been keenly felt by the Church and Her enemies since the time of Cranmer and Luther.

    If anyone wants to understand the theology behind the new Mass, the best place to start is the General Instruction (GI) which accompanied Pope Paul’s New Missal in 1969. The Instruction was meant to be the theological blueprint of the New Mass. On 30 August 1968, Bugnini had stated that “the General Instruction is a full theological, pastoral, catechetical, and rubrical exposition, that it is an introduction to the understanding and celebration of the (New) Mass.”

    Such was the uproar caused by doctrinal objections to the New Missal and General Instruction, notably those objections included in the Ottaviani Intervention, that publication of the Missal was delayed for five months. And we’re not talking about clown masses and tambourines here.

    To save the project, a bit of nifty needlework was required with the wording of the General Instruction. To allay fears and keep the quell disturbance in the ranks, an altered Instruction was produced with the intention of putting a “Tridentine” gloss on things.

    Hardly surprisingly, the language used in the revised General Instruction’s definition of the Mass glows with the ambiguity and double speak, the familiar stamp of the modernists. The Catholic terms Mass and Eucharistic Sacrifice are presented alongside the Protestant terms Lord’s Supper and memorial of the Lord respectively. Christ’s substantial, corporeal presence is equated with His presence in the congregation and in the Scripture readings. And just for good measure, it’s the “people of God” who celebrate, having been called together.

    The revised Instruction does not clearly state that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation, offered to God for the sins of the living and the dead. We know why, of course. Also, wherever the word sacrifice appears in the Instruction, the word meal is never far away. So Catholics are now left to choose to believe that the Mass is either:

    A propitiatory sacrifice, the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, offered by an ordained priest, in which Our Lord is made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through transubstantiation.
    An assembly of the people, with a priest presider, celebrating the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, during which Our Lord is present in the congregation, and the readings, as well as in the bread and wine.

    Realistically, no amount of reform of the reform of the reform is going to protect Catholics from random spectacles of sacrilege. I know there are good priests with the very best of intentions, but does anyone believe that reverence at Mass and in Church will once more become the universal norm, anytime soon? Or indeed ever, as long as the Bugnini programme is in place? The novus ordo reforms are programmed to facilitate a laissez faire policy, precisely because of a lack of rubrics. I dare say the vast majority of liturgical lunatics at large today are pretty much operating with impunity.

    Before children masses, clown masses, circus masses, balloon masses, puppet masses, beer tent masses, beech masses, world cup masses, country and western masses, jazz masses, rock masses, hindu masses, voodoo masses, masonic masses and sodomite masses were ever suspected by Catholics, the doctrinal threat to their faith was highlighted by those who refused to go along with the revolution. The evidence was available, written down for all to see, or least for those who cared to look. Problems with the novus ordo don’t begin with incense maidens and balloons. They begin with the General Instruction presented in 1969. If anyone disagrees, they can take it up with one of Bugnini’s band of helpers, quoted in my previous post.

    In a 1975 statement, Father Emil Joseph Lengeling, a member of the Consilium’s Study Group 18, gave the following rather revealing commentary on the 1970 Instruction:

    “In the 1969 General Instruction for the (new) Missal, an ecumenically oriented sacramental theology of the celebration of Mass emerged – a theology already self-evident in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and in Pope Paul VI’s instruction on the Eucharist. Despite the new 1970 edition forced by reactionary attacks – but which voided the worst, thanks to the cleverness of the revisers – it takes us out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice and corresponds to the agreement marked out in many of last year’s interconfessional documents.” – (Tradition und Fortschritt in der Liturgie (1975), 218-219.

    The following words of Pope Leo XIII could have been written with the twentieth century destroyers of the true Catholic Mass in mind:

    “They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer,’ and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” – Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896

    November 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm
  • Nolite Timere

    Just a thought…

    …“The liturgy of the pre V2 era is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But pre V2 usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.” The liturgy is organic and has always evolved. Just because the pre v2 Church did something a certain way is not a good enough reason for doing it”

    What makes the Tridentine Mass any better than that of the early Church, or the Mass that was in use before Trent????

    Just out of interest, apart from the SSPX how many Tradional Masses are celebrated in Glasgow/West Scotland??

    Are they always Low Masses, or are there sung or even high Masses in Glasgow/West Scotland?.

    November 12, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Couldn’t possibly tell you! Una Voce Scotland kept a list of all diocesan/ indult Masses in the 1962 Rite. However, their website has disappeared off the face of cyberspace. Strange.

      November 12, 2013 at 10:35 pm
      • editor

        Miles Immaculatae,

        That’s very interesting – didn’t know the Una Voce website had disappeared.

        November 13, 2013 at 12:09 am
    • editor

      Nolite Timere,

      Naughty, naughty! You quote from Mediator Dei, without saying so, taking paragraph 61 completely out of context… Allow me to provide the full context:

      61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

      62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a colour for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

      63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation. END.

      Clearly, Pope Pius XII is warning against the danger of trying to restore the Mass to its original form, because to do that is to forget that the Holy Spirit enlightened the first Christians about the true significance of the Mass, its relationship to Calvary and the Real Presence.

      Pope Pius XII (Mediator Dei) merely underlines the importance of recognising that the Mass grew organically by having prayers added (nothing ever subtracted) which reflected the deepening comprehension of the Church about the divinity of Christ and the Real Presence in the Mass.

      That’s why – to answer your question – the Mass codified at Trent is better, by far, than the new Mass. Before Trent all the elements of the Traditional Mass were there, although not necessarily all included in the Mass in every particular place. Trent brought it all together, so to speak.

      The novus ordo after Vatican II, however, was almost “brand new” – a break with what had gone before. Thus, it does not fit the words of Pope Pius XII in paragraph 61, because by not rejecting the “new” he meant not rejecting the developed Mass. The fashion has been for liturgists to argue for a return to the “table” (as per the Last Supper) for example, just because that was the original form of the Mass and the Pope is arguing to stay with the developed Mass which reflects the growth in knowledge and understanding about the Mass being the Sacrifice of Calvary. By no stretch of the imagination would Pope Pius XII have expected his words to be used to support a brand new Mass, the authors of which expressed themselves ecumenically motivated.

      Hope this is clear – it’s late and li’l ole me is feeling ready to hit the hay – but worry not, I will be praying my all night vigil as usual… 🙂

      November 13, 2013 at 12:01 am
      • Whistleblower


        Quite so and very well put. In actual fact, Pope Pius XII was condemning what his successors would embrace!

        November 13, 2013 at 8:01 am
      • editor


        Thank you for agreeing with me and allow me to say that I agree with you for agreeing with me! I absolutely know that you will agree with me for agreeing with you in your original agreement with me, so no need to say so!

        November 13, 2013 at 10:11 am
    • editor

      Nolite Timere,

      There’s a document on our Mass page giving details and contact no. for Traditional Masses in Scotland other than the SSPX.

      But I want you to come to the SSPX in Glasgow – I’ll buy you a cup of tea/coffee afterwards and throw in a chocolate biscuit as well, if you’re nice to me 🙂

      November 13, 2013 at 12:12 am
  • Lionel (Paris)

    I think that at the beginning the Mass was said in Greek; is it not right?

    November 16, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    • Josephine

      Lionel (Paris)

      The first Mass (at the Last Supper) would have been in Hebrew, I suppose, because that was the language of the synagogue. The people spoke Aramaic, so I’m not sure if Jesus would have spoken in the ordinary tongue since they wouldn’t have yet really understood the importance of what he was doing by saying “This is my body” etc. But if he’d been using the language of their liturgy at that time, it would have been Hebfew. In the traditional Mass to this day there is Greek (Kyrie Eleison) as well as Latin, though, if that is what you are thinking of.

      November 16, 2013 at 10:37 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: