TLM versus NO

With the ascension of Pope Leo XIV to the papal throne, a topic returned to the ecclesiastical discourse that had been discussed by only a few enthusiasts during Francis's time — which version of the Latin rite can be used and by whom? This concerns the rite of the Mass that existed before the reforms of Pope Paul VI, recommended by the Second Vatican Council. This rite was formed after the Council of Trent, was established in 1570, and with minor changes, survived until the second half of the 20th century. Its last edition was released in 1962 — 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 Pope Paul VI, which is now used in most Catholic parishes worldwide. This rite was the first major overhaul of the Roman rite in several centuries — not a gradual evolution, but essentially the creation of a new rite "from scratch." The reaction to it was far from unanimous. Therefore, the question of which rite to use and by whom remained acute throughout the existence of the NO.

Resistance to the reform arose immediately. Its key figure is considered to be Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who shortly after the reforms began, founded the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX). The Society immediately aimed to consolidate conservative clergy opposed to the reform, finding 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 reformers grew in the 1970s and 80s, peaking in 1988 when the archbishop consecrated four new bishops without Vatican permission, resulting in his and the four new bishops' excommunication. Subsequently, the sharp confrontation between the Vatican and the Society subsided, and the bishops, except for the late Lefebvre, were reinstated.

After the events of 1988, the Vatican realized that opponents of the reform would not disappear. The official approach became more systematic — the "Ecclesia Dei" commission 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 (FSSP), founded by former FSSPX priests 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, Pope Benedict XVI crafted a compromise, issuing a letter titled "Summorum Pontificum" — TLM and NO were granted the status of two equal forms of the Roman rite, and priests were given autonomy in choosing between them based 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 1962 Roman Missal. 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 a similar view, and in 2021 he overturned Pope Benedict's decision with a 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:

"Priests ordained after the publication of this Motu Proprio (a papal document published without external request) who wish to celebrate using the 1962 Roman Missal must submit a formal request to the diocesan bishop, who, before granting permission, must consult the Apostolic See. Priests who already celebrate according to the 1962 Roman Missal 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 "Ecclesia Dei" commission, 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 Pope 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 understand.

Origin

The main elements of the Mass in the Roman rite were inherited from the Apostles: confession of 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 adding Latin to 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, remain an important part of the Liturgy to this day — Gregorian chant, Gloria, hymns Agnus Dei, Kyrie Eleison, etc. The next 10 centuries saw mostly minor changes, but the development of the liturgy became more decentralized — numerous variations of the liturgy (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 all — the Roman Missal of 1570. This missal became mandatory for all Catholics, with exceptions made only for territories where another liturgical tradition had existed for more than 200 years. Moreover, according to Pius V's bull Quo Primum, this rule would always be in effect, and no one had 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. <...> In the same way, we command that no one may be forced or compelled to change this Missal, and this letter can never be revoked or revised, but it is in force forever and will always have the force of law. <...> If anyone dares to attempt this, he 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 late 1960s, there were only two minor changes — in 1955 by Pope Pius XII and in 1962 by Pope John XXIII — and for 400 years, the liturgy remained fundamentally unchanged.

Conflict over the Reform 

Pope 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, and in some parishes, certain parts of the liturgy may be sung in Latin — but in the vast 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 understanding of the Mass by the congregation. 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 reformers interpreted these guidelines in a very radical way and decided that traditional altars in the eastern part of the church were no longer needed. Instead, a stone table was installed in each church (necessarily so that it could be approached from any side), where most of the service was moved. The position of the priest also changed — whereas previously the majority served 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 located. Turning one's back to God during the service is not allowed, so tabernacles were moved to separate rooms or even buildings, depriving the congregation of the opportunity to venerate the Holy Gifts.

Vestments

Most elements of the priest's attire remained unchanged, but what was changed is very noticeable visually. The Council, again, did not provide clear instructions, apart from a general call for "noble simplicity." In practice, this led to the ornaments and decorations in vestments almost going 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 headpiece worn by priests during the sermon, symbolizing authority. Although neither is prohibited, they have practically ceased to be used.

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

Structure

One of the integral parts of the Mass is what is said during it. The most enigmatic change is the number of repetitions of the prayer Kyrie Eleison (Greek for "Lord, have mercy"). In 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, two times for each. This saves about four seconds, and the necessity for this is not explained.

The structure of Scripture reading also changed. Before the reform, one of the epistles or the Acts of the Apostles (very rarely a book from the Old Testament) was read at Mass, 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 separate passage from the Old Testament was added at the beginning of the Mass, the Gradual became longer and was renamed the "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 received the least criticism.

Conclusions

Today, nearly 60 years later, the disputes 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, so they are hostile to any attempts to simplify it. Supporters of the reform, in turn, prioritize the individual, so luxury and pomp seem to them excesses that 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.