TLM versus NO

Philosophy

TLM versus NO

Since the 1960s, a confrontation has been unfolding within the Catholic Church between modernists, who support the updated Mass, and traditionalists, who adhere to the old Tridentine Mass. With the ascension of the new pontiff Leo XIV to the papal throne, these disputes have only intensified.

Danila

22.04.2026

Report a problem

With the accession of Leo XIV to the papal throne, a topic returned to the church discourse that was only discussed by a few enthusiasts during Francis's time: which version of the Latin rite can be used and by whom? This concerns the order of the Mass that existed before the reforms of Paul VI, recommended by the Second Vatican Council. This order was formed after the Council of Trent, was established in 1570, and with minor changes, lasted until the second half of the 20th century. Its last edition was released in 1962, and it is commonly referred to as the Tridentine Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). In 1969, it was replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae (NO) authored by Paul VI, which is used today in most Catholic parishes worldwide. This order was the first major overhaul of the Roman rite in several centuries—not a gradual evolution, but essentially the creation of a new order "from scratch." The reaction to it was far from unanimous. Therefore, the question of which order to use and by whom remained pressing throughout the existence of the NO. Resistance to the reform arose immediately. The key figure is considered to be Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who shortly after the start of the reforms founded the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X, or FSSPX). The Society immediately aimed to consolidate the conservative clergy opposed to the reform, which found a home in the town of Écône, in southwestern Switzerland. While the Holy See was universally replacing the old Mass with the new one, Lefebvre gathered around him all who disagreed with this. Tensions between the FSSPX and the reformers grew in the 1970s and 1980s, reaching a peak in 1988 when the archbishop, without Vatican permission, consecrated four new bishops, for which he, along with them, was excommunicated from the Church. Subsequently, the acute confrontation between the Vatican and the Society subsided, and the bishops, except for the late Lefebvre himself, were reinstated.

After the events of 1988, the Vatican realized that opponents of the reform would not disappear. The official approach became more systematic – a commission «Ecclesia Dei» was created to work with adherents of the old Mass who remained loyal to the Vatican. Among them was, for example, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (Latin: Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri, or FSSP), which was founded by former priests of the FSSPX who disagreed with Lefebvre's actions. Pope John Paul II recognized the legitimacy of the traditionalists' request but sought to keep them within strictly defined boundaries.

In 2007, Benedict XVI reached a compromise by issuing a letter titled «Summorum Pontificum» – TLM and NO were given the status of two equal forms of the Roman Rite, and priests were granted autonomy in choosing between them depending on the needs of the parish:

«In parishes where there is a stable group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their request to celebrate the Holy Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962. He should strive to harmoniously reconcile the good of these faithful with the ordinary pastoral care in the parish, under the guidance of the Bishop and according to the norms of canon 392, avoiding discord and striving for the unity of the whole Church».
Summorum Pontificum, Art. 5. § 1.

This status quo existed for 14 years, but it did not satisfy everyone. Some saw elements of sectarianism and potential for schism in the use of TLM. Pope Francis held the same opinion, and in 2021 he revoked Benedict XVI's decision with his letter titled «Traditionis Custodes». The NO was declared the sole expression of the Roman Rite, and the use of TLM became permissible only with permission from above:

«Presbyters ordained after the publication of this Motu Proprio (a papal document published without external request – ed. note) who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962 must submit a formal request to the diocesan bishop, who, before granting permission, must consult with the Apostolic See. Presbyters who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 must request permission from the diocesan bishop to continue exercising these faculties».
Traditionis Custodes, Art. 5-6

This was not even a return to the situation of John Paul II's times – it was a course towards the complete exclusion of TLM from church life. The commission «Ecclesia Dei», established by John Paul II, was abolished, and already issued permissions for TLM were gradually revoked. Predictably, this approach caused a sharp division of opinions. Supporters of Traditionis Custodes accused TLM defenders of elitism and schism, while opponents saw their adversaries as modernists hostile to tradition. After Francis's death, the crisis only intensified when leaked Vatican documents revealed that Francis's arguments did not correspond to reality – most bishops were in favor of maintaining the status quo of Benedict's times. With the arrival of Leo XIV, even moderate clergy began to openly speak about the need to ease restrictions on the use of TLM.

So what is the practical difference between the two versions of the Roman Rite? Let's try to figure it out.

Origin

The main elements of the Mass in the Roman Rite were inherited from the Apostles: repentance for sins, prayer, reading of Scripture, offertory (offering of bread and wine on the altar), anaphora (invocation of the Holy Spirit upon them), reading of the «Our Father», communion, conclusion. Initially, the Roman liturgy was read in Greek, but around the 2nd century, Pope Victor I began to incorporate Latin into it. Latin became the dominant language closer to the end of the 4th century during the time of Pope Damasus I. In the 6th – 7th centuries, additional elements appeared in the Roman liturgy, which, although not inherited from the Apostles, are an important part of the Liturgy to this day – Gregorian chant, Gloria, hymns Agnus Dei, Kyrie Eleison, etc. The next ten centuries saw mostly minor changes, but the development of the liturgy became more decentralized – many variations (Latin: usum) arose for different peoples, orders, and other groups. For example, the Gallican Rite in France, the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, etc.

This situation ended in the late 16th century. Following the decrees of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V created unified rules for everyone – the Roman Missal of 1570. This missal became mandatory for all Catholics, with exceptions made only for territories where a different liturgical tradition had existed for more than 200 years. Moreover, according to Pius V's bull «Quo Primum», this rule would be in effect forever, and no one has the right to cancel it:

«The Mass, according to the rite, manner, and norm now introduced by Us in this Missal, should be read and sung; let them never dare to add other ceremonies or read other prayers than those contained in this Missal. <...> Similarly, we command that no one can be persuaded or compelled to change this Missal, and this letter can never be revoked or revised, but it is in effect forever and will always have the force of law. <...> If anyone dares to attempt this, they will incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul».
Quo Primum

Thus, what is now called TLM emerged. Until the end of the 1960s, there were only two minor changes — in 1955 by Pius XII and in 1962 by John XXIII — and for 400 years the liturgy fundamentally did not change. Conflict over the Reform Paul VI's reform, carried out in 1969 following the Second Vatican Council, was fundamentally different from everything that came before it. This is the main reason for all the problems — the reform was not a modification or clarification of the existing liturgy, but the creation of a new one, with many differences. What are these differences? Let's find out. Language Before the reform, the language of the liturgy was Latin, with small additions of Greek and Hebrew. Although the Second Vatican Council prescribes maintaining a balance between the use of Latin and local languages, the 1969 reform effectively abolished the use of Latin in the liturgy. Exceptions exist — some parishes in Rome conduct services in Latin, in some parishes certain parts of the liturgy may be sung in Latin — but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the liturgy is conducted entirely in the local language. Positioning One of the goals of the reform, outlined by the Second Vatican Council, was to improve the congregation's understanding of what happens during the Mass. This concerned not only the content of the Mass itself but also the place and manner of its conduct. However, instead of specific instructions, the Council provided only general guidelines, leaving much room for interpretation. The reform implementers interpreted these guidelines extremely radically and decided that using traditional altars in the eastern part of the church was no longer necessary. Instead, a stone table was installed in each church (necessarily so that it could be approached from any side), to which most of the service was moved. The position of the priest also changed — whereas previously the vast majority served together with the congregation, facing east (ad orientem), now they were to serve facing the congregation (versus populum). But here a problem arose. In the old altars, tabernacles — vessels with consecrated Gifts, which, according to Catholic teaching, are the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread — were still present. Turning one's back to God during the service is not allowed, so the tabernacles were moved to separate rooms or even buildings, depriving the congregation of the opportunity to venerate the Holy Gifts.

Mass in Honor of the Founding of the Order of Trinitarians. Juan Carreño de Miranda and Francisco Rizi, 1666

Vestments

Most elements of a priest's clothing have remained unchanged, but what has been altered is very noticeable visually. The Council itself, again, did not provide clear instructions, apart from a general call for “noble simplicity”. In practice, this led to decorations and ornaments in vestments almost falling out of use.

They also abandoned the wide band on the priest's left arm called the maniple (a symbol of readiness to serve) and the square headwear worn by priests during sermons, symbolizing authority. Although neither is prohibited, they have effectively ceased to be used.

An interesting case is with the largest element of vestments – the chasuble. Neither before nor after the reform were there prescriptions regarding its shape. However, there is still a distinction between the old and the new, albeit spontaneous. If a priest serves according to the old, he is likely to wear the so-called Roman chasuble, shaped like a violin. If according to the new, then the Gothic one, resembling a poncho.

Structure

One of the integral parts of the Mass is what is spoken during it. The most mysterious change is the number of repetitions of the prayer Kyrie Eleison (Greek “Lord, have mercy”). In the TLM, there is a clear principle – three repetitions for each member of the Holy Trinity (for God the Son, Christe Eleison is sung), a total of nine times. During the reform, this number was reduced to six, twice for each. This saves about four seconds, and the necessity of this remains a mystery.

The structure of Scripture reading also changed. Before the reform, one of the epistles or the Book of Acts was read at Mass (very rarely a book from the Old Testament), followed by the Gradual – a passage from the Psalter, then the Gospel. Specific passages were scheduled for the year and repeated annually. During the reform, a passage from the Old Testament was added at the beginning of the Mass, the Gradual became longer and was renamed “responsorial psalm” (because the congregation responds to the priest), and the cycle length increased to three years. Thus, the congregation began to hear more different parts of Scripture during Mass, so this change was the least criticized.

Conclusions

Today, almost 60 years later, the debates between opponents and supporters of the reform have not subsided. The fact that this issue is raised with each new pontificate shows that it will not go away, and those dissatisfied with the reform will not disappear.

One thing is clear: liturgy is not a matter of taste and aesthetics, but a matter of theology, church identity, and how Catholics understand their relationship with God. Opponents of the reform believe that the liturgy is performed primarily for God, and therefore they oppose any attempts to simplify it. Supporters of the reform, on the other hand, prioritize the individual, so luxury and pomp seem excessive to them and should be eliminated.

The question of which liturgy better expresses the essence of the Catholic faith remains open – and continues to divide the Church today.