One hundred years ago, Catholics were Catholics. Some were good Catholics and some were bad Catholics. But we didn’t have political terms like “liberal Catholic” or “conservative Catholic.” All Catholics one hundred years ago were traditional Catholics because that’s all there was. However, Vatican II fractured Catholics all over the world. Now, every Catholic needs an adjective to describe where he is on a spectrum. Of course, Jesus Christ never designed it to be that way.
As much as I dislike political terms, we will—for the sake of brevity—look at six common die-hard attitudes towards the TLM using terms that are found on that spectrum from left to right. Following St. Thomas Aquinas at a far distance, I will try to avoid straw-man arguments and give even better arguments than my opponents for their views on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM—the Mass of antiquity) and the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM—the Mass invented in the 1960s connected to Vatican II.) I believe I know well these attitudes to the TLM since I have believed them all, at least at some point in my life.
1) Liberals want exclusively the NOM. Their argument against the TLM goes something like this: Vatican II was a valid Council presided over by valid Popes. All Popes since Vatican II have celebrated the NOM. Because Catholics need to be united in one faith, we need to be united in one liturgy. Thus, the TLM should be abrogated for the sake of unity in the Church. Everyone should accept Vatican II and get on-board with not only the new Mass, but also the new sacraments. If the NOM is good enough for the last seven Popes, then it should be good enough for American Rad-Trads, unless they want to admit they’re sedevacantists, which are no better than Protestants. So do the new Mass, or leave the Church.
2) Neo-Cons want the NOM, but may tolerate the TLM. Their ambivalence to the TLM reads something like this: The local bishop should perhaps allow for occasional TLMs, but those communities are very prone to crypto-schismatic attitudes towards the NOM and Vatican II. Even Pope Benedict XVI celebrated exclusively in his papacy the NOM and called it the “ordinary form of the Roman liturgy.” St. Ignatius of Antioch greatly promoted unity with the bishop in all liturgical functions. Because all ordinaries (bishops of geographical areas) in the United States offer the new sacraments that followed the Council, so also should traditionalists who claim to be in union with their local bishop. The ordinary form of the Roman Rite should be trads’ ordinary Mass and the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite should be their extraordinary Mass.
3) Never Heard of the TLM. 95% of Catholics in the world have never been to a TLM and 80% don’t even know what it is. For example, there are millions of faithful Catholics in Africa who—if they heard about a certain Mass in Latin— they would think you were speaking about the NOM in Latin. (I don’t use “faithful” sarcastically or lightly there.) Most Catholics’ approach to the TLM is not ecclesiastically charged because they honestly have no idea what the TLM even is. Due to that “neutral charge” found in this category, I simply put it in the middle of the spectrum of attitudes to the TLM.
4) TLM is just “my preference.” Many conservative diocesan priests in the USA will say “The NOM and TLM are both valid forms of the Roman Liturgy. I happen to like the TLM more, but that does not mean it is objectively better.” Those diocesan priests are telling the truth of their conscience, as their formation came from a mainstream seminary, but they know what seems Roman at the same time. Similarly, if a local bishop were to ask a priest of a former Ecclesia Dei congregation (eg FSSP or ICK) if he believes the TLM is better than the NOM, that trad priest would quickly say it’s only “his preference.” Such a response reflects their public training to keep in good-standing with the modernists. However, their private convictions are quite different, which leads us to…
5) TLM is superior to the NOM. Some more hard-core traditionalists believe that while the NOM and the new sacraments are valid, they are inferior due to the origin. This is because Archbishop Bugnini (the creator of the new Mass) was a freemason. In the writing of the NOM, Bugini had the help of Protestants. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact found in public archives of the history of Vatican II. On the other hand, the old school sacraments were Apostolic in origin with extremely small changes every century. Therefore, many traditionalists have observed the obvious: It’s better to offer the Mass of the saints than the Mass of the Freemasons and Protestants. In other words, God kept the NOM valid by His mercy, not His inspiration. (This happens to be my view. It is similar to that of the SSPX, but slightly different. As explained above, many Ecclesia Dei priests secretly hold a modified version of this view, but dare not speak it aloud.)
6) TLM is valid, but the NOM is not valid. Sedes argue something like this: Pope Leo XIII wrote in Apostolicæ Curæ in 1896: “The Church is forbidden to change or even touch the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or ‘ceremonial’ parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns.” St. Pius X wrote in Ex Quo Nono in 1910: “It is well-known that to the Church, there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the sacraments.” Thus, sedes argue, only antipopes following the Council could have even tried to change the sacraments in their very substance. Thus, the new Mass (and the new sacraments, including Holy Orders) are likely invalid. Any “pope” who tried to change the faith or liturgy would be an antipope. Again, this is the view of 58-sedevacantists towards the old and new sacraments.
Again, I hold to category number five above. However, I have believed in the other five categories at one point in my life or another. Thus, I think I know all arguments quite well. If you re-read the above categories, keep in mind most Catholics in the world are confused at the Church crisis (including me) so most people’s high-energy attitudes towards the TLM all across the left-to-right spectrum are rooted in either limited-information or confusion-on-obedience. It is usually not malice that leads to such confusion. Only a holy and traditional Pope will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and restore the Church to her former glory, including sacramental glory. Awaiting his arrival, the infighting will continue.