Posted on 09/04/2026 6:07:46 PM PDT by ebb tide
In his article À quand la paix liturgique ? (When will there be liturgical peace?), in the July-August 2025 issue (no. 382) of La Nef, Christophe Geffroy raised a question to which the consecrations recently conferred within the Society of Saint Pius X give particular prominence. In it, he championed the equality in "value and holiness" of the two forms of the Roman rite, and reproached the "priests who refuse any celebration of the new ordo" for contesting this value and holiness "because they judge this liturgy to be 'deficient'." However, it turns out that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith specifically mentioned the "legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae" in the preamble to the procedure allowing clerics of the Society of Saint Pius X to return to full communion after the consecrations.
As far as I can judge, this notion of legitimacy applied to the liturgy is of relatively recent use. We were familiar with the classical notions of validity and liceity. It is Pope John Paul II who seems to have introduced it, through the voice of the Congregation for Divine Worship, with Quattuor abhinc annos (October 3, 1984), establishing as a condition for the faculty of using the indult:
"that it should be made abundantly clear that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and that this position should be publicly recognized and completely free from ambiguity."
We must believe that these conditions were not so simple to fulfill, since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made these commitments in the protocol of agreement of May 5, 1988:
"3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which appear to us difficult to reconcile with Tradition, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."
In these commitments, there is no trace of any legitimacy that would need to be recognized regarding the Novus Ordo Missae. Yet, this protocol of agreement is the foundation upon which the relationship between the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and Rome was established from the beginning. These commitments made by Archbishop Lefebvre, and accepted in the name of the Holy Father by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, constitute the common foundation of the societies of apostolic life or Ecclesia Dei communities, at least of the three "historical" ones—the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, and the Abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux—in their relationship with Rome. In fairness, one should only demand of them the recognition of the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the new liturgy, and even then, only according to the typical editions.
What Josef Ratzinger, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, had accepted in 1988, the Holy Father Benedict XVI could not call into question. It was therefore not the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007) that would bring the question of legitimacy back to the table, but rather the instruction on the application of the motu proprio dated April 30, 2011, in its article 19:
"The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria […]."
Thus, with the instruction on the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the question of the legitimacy of the new liturgy made its return after an eclipse of 23 years. Obviously, this article 19 could not fail to arouse questions about the meaning to be given to "legitimacy", and thus questions in the form of dubia addressed to the Commission. The response of the PCED (Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei), dated May 23, 2012 (ref. Prot. 156/2009), consisted of affirming that legitimacy was to be understood as strictly equivalent to liceity. This was obviously a minimalist response and the most conciliatory solution, the one that avoided casting into outer darkness all the troublemakers of my sort who, despite all their efforts and goodwill, using their senses and their intelligence, could not bring themselves to follow the equalizing injunctions.
It was quite logical and unsurprising that the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, taking up the question of legitimacy in its article 3, drove the point home on July 16, 2021:
The bishop, in dioceses where there are currently one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 […] must determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Supreme Pontiffs;
It is not attributing false motives to Pope Francis to imagine that he had in mind a much less pacifying definition of legitimacy than that of simple liceity, to which the Commission had claimed to assimilate it in 2012: the general content of the document, and its tone, reveal a much more restrictive, and paradoxically more traditional, understanding, despite its grave weaknesses—injustice of the intention that presided over its drafting, partial inapplicability resulting from its inconsistencies, and juridical irrationality (cf. Réginald-Marie Rivoire, Does 'Traditionis Custodes' Pass the Juridical Rationality Test?).
And, if he had then affirmed that the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, well beyond simple liceity, had to be judged against its alignment with the objective Common Good of the Holy Church, well, we would have been in full agreement with him, particularly regarding the Lex Credendi—he had the merit of recalling this link between the law of prayer and the law of Faith. It is just as certain that with Traditionis Custodes, recalcitrants of my kind were once again running the risk, after years of relative impunity, of being ostracized.
The 1988 protocol of agreement shows us, if it were necessary, that the two signatories, and, one imagines, John Paul II himself, either admitted at least the possibility of a deficiency in the new rite, or did not consider it improper and absurd to debate it. None of the signatories apparently saw it as an attack on the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
That the Novus Ordo Missae presents "deficiencies in its liturgical being," to use a formula dear to a certain father from Chémeré-le-Roi, is possible to demonstrate, and reasonable to maintain. Others, much more eminent, starting with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (one could also profitably read this, taken from LA PENSÉE CATHOLIQUE N°122 of the 4th quarter 1969), set about doing so, and there is no need to revisit it. Let us remember the offertory, downgraded to a simple presentation of gifts, the substitution of—numerous and unequal—so-called eucharistic prayers for a sacrificial prayer (the canon), the modification of the words of consecration (words and ritual context). All these elements objectively contribute to blurring nothing less than the dogma of the Real Presence of Christ, the oblation and immolation of his redeeming (propitiatory) sacrifice, and finally the ministerial sacramental power of the priest, even insinuating an erroneous understanding of it. The consequences? The Novus Ordo Missae prepares souls less well to receive all the fruits of the divine sacrifice; it diminishes the testimony of Faith and the manifestation of the glory of God required by any liturgical action, by leaving the door open to a Protestant interpretation. Anthropocentric, focused on the presence of the faithful, it expresses less the sacrificial, propitiatory, and cultic dimensions of the Mass and the adoration of God to whom the sacrifice is offered—sticking to the case of the minister celebrating according to the typical editions. A very concrete illustration of the effects of this deficiency and equivocation was provided by an American study on the belief in the Real Presence.
Thus, to put it cautiously, it is defensible to say that the Novus Ordo contributes less powerfully and less surely than the usus antiquior or other venerable rites, such as the Dominican rite, to the Common Good of the Church (ordered to the Glory of God and the sanctification of souls). And it is equally so to say that the Novus Ordo is not the result of an organic development, but rather the product of the work of scholars and experts, the fruit of an anti-liturgical process: if one made the method of elaborating a rite a criterion of its legitimacy, the Novus Ordo would fail to pass the test. As the future Benedict XVI wrote:
"the new missal was published as a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before […]" (in Theology of the Liturgy – Parole et silence, p. 556).
Having reached this point, we must face the facts: against the opinion of Christophe Geffroy, Abbé Spriet, or even Dom Pateau, it is reasonable and defensible to hold the inequality in value and holiness of the two Roman rites, the old and the new. It is reasonable and defensible to hold the Novus Ordo as deficient, and even equivocal in its liturgical being, without contesting its validity for a second—which, by pulling the thread, would lead to denying the indefectibility of the Church. It is reasonable and defensible for a priest to absolutely refuse to celebrate it—and even to concelebrate it—and to argue to that effect. Those who benefit from the canonical shelter of the specific charism of their society of apostolic life or institute of affiliation must remember that it was obtained by their founders on the theological basis of a critique of the liturgical deficiencies of the Novus Ordo; and it is reasonable and prudent for them to argue in this direction if necessary. It is reasonable and defensible for a simple lay faithful to habitually avoid attending a Novus Ordo Mass. This position is legitimate. For my part, I will hold it.
"the new missal was published as a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before […]" (in Theology of the Liturgy – Parole et silence, p. 556).
...
It is reasonable and defensible for a simple lay faithful to habitually avoid attending a Novus Ordo Mass. This position is legitimate. For my part, I will hold it.
Ping
If the Tridentine mass was good enough for St Paul it is good enough for me.
Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.
Fr. Wathen: When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal. When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.
When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.
I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.
Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?
Fr. Wathen: That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.
Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr. Wathen: That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.
Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine….
Fr. Wathen: That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.
Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?
Fr. Wathen: I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement. ……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.
Question:: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it’s not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that’s what people are saying and that’s why your wrong father.
Fr. Wathen: People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.
People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it.
Thank-you for you post!
This nutjob, wathen, abandoned his parish without an assignment by his Bishop and was never again associated with the Catholic Church. Does this make him a better or worse “priest” than fired strickland who also abandoned his diocese through insubordination, ebby?
BTW, thank you for not posting this anti-Catholic material in the Catholic Caucus, ebby. Too much anti-Catholic material gets posted there.
From such heritage came the author. His grade school education was obtained at St. Francis Academy where he was taught by the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, Kentucky. Sensing his vocation at an early age, he entered the Minor Seminary at St. Charles College in Catonsville, Maryland where he was taught by the Sulpician Fathers from 1946 to 1952. He then progressed to the Major Seminary at St. Mary's University in Baltimore, the oldest and most prestigious Catholic Seminary in America. There he studied under the Sulpicians from 1952-1954, receiving a B.A. in Philosophy. He completed his priestly education under the Benedictines from 1954-1958 at St. Maur's Priory and Seminary in his home diocese in Kentucky. Father Wathen was ordained on May 3, 1958 by Bishop Francis R. Cotton of Owensboro.
Father Wathen's diocesan appointments included that of assistant pastor and high school teacher, 1958-1965; Pastor of Rosary Chapel, Paducah, Kentucky and St. Mary's Church, La Center, Kentucky, 1965-1967; Pastor of St. Joseph's Church, Central City, Kentucky, and St. Charles' Mission, Livermore, Kentucky, 1967-1970.
In 1970, at his own request, Father was granted a leave of absence by Bishop Henry Soennecker. His mission was to serve as the spiritual director for a soon to be founded religious community devoted to perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. When this effort was aborted by the diocese of Corpus Christi Texas, Father Wathen proceeded to work as chaplain for the Sovereign Order of St. John, which he had joined in 1969, before he left the Owensboro diocese.
Father Wathen prides himself on two things only: his effort to adhere strictly to the traditional Catholic Faith, and his never having said the Novus Ordo Missae, the so-called "New Mass" of the Roman Rite. His work as a "Traditionalist" priest has resulted in being the author of 4 books.
In 1972, he authored one of the first critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of the Mass), which was introduced in 1969 in the wake of Vatican Council II. The new liturgy had been established to try to supplant the historic, valid, orthodox, Latin Mass. The book, which he is best known for, titled "The Great Sacrilege" is an analysis of the New Mass in terms of its morality. More than 40,000 copies have been sold. While many books and hundreds of theses have since been published on this subject, Father Wathen's book remains the classic work.
Bishop Strickland did not abandon his flock, oystir; Francis abandoned the Catholic faithful by removing Strickland and promoting the likes of Cardinals Parolin, Baldisseri, "Nighty-nite" Tobin, Grech, "Wilting" Gregory, Cantalamessa, Arthur "Cockroach" Roche, "His boy" McElroy, Tucho Fernandez, Timmy Radcliffe and other heretics.
“As a basic principle I cannot resign the mandate given to me by Pope Benedict the XVI,” he wrote. “Of course that mandate can be rescinded by Pope Francis, but I cannot voluntarily abandon the flock that I have been given charge of as a successor of the apostles.”
Pope Francis, known for his more progressive values, was open about his concerns with conservatives being in the U.S. Catholic hierarchy. Strickland opposed Francis’ stance on LGBTQ Catholics and having women in governance, according to the Associated Press.
Nice, fraudulent try, ebby. It is a lie. wathen abandoned his parish. He did not remain under the jurisdiction of his bishop, his diocese, or the Catholic Church.
In fact, there is no documentary evidence that ANY bishop exercised jurisdiction over Fr. Wathen after he left Owensboro in 1970 — no identified reassignment, incardination in a new diocese, membership in a Church -recognized religious institute, or grant of ministerial faculties.
What is known is that this little OSJ group is not authorized by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or recognized by the Catholic Church/Holy See. In simple terms, OSJ is NOT Catholic. Nice, try ebby.
wathen never rejoined the Catholic Church that he abandoned, ebby. He went rogue.
You are incapable of telling the truth.
I’m convinced of that now.
Everything I posted was fact. Which is in direct opposition to the fraud you attempted by passing off the fake “schneider credo” as authentic Catholic Church teaching and everything you stated about the discredited, un-canonically, untethered wathen
You haven’t posted any Catholic teaching. You just cry like the baby you are.
You obviously support the abuse of Catholic children by forcing then to receive a dubious, immoral clotshot , derived from the murder of a baby girl, in order to attend a “Catholic” school.
You’re no moral than your hero, Tucho Fernandez, and the heretic who put him in his current position.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a pro-abort.
Since when is “no evidence” a fact?
That’s about as ridiculous as a detective saying there was no murder, because there was no evidence of a murder.
-Deacon-Nick-Donnelly-on-X-Do-you-see-the-lit-sanctuary-lamp-be.png)
-Deacon-Nick-Donnelly-on-X-Do-you-see-the-lit-sanctuary-lamp-be.png)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.