In my previous article, The Validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, I argued that any form of the Mass approved by the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops must be valid, due to the indefectibility of the apostolic Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith. In this article, I will reply to the claim made by Dr. John Lamont, that the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is valid but not licit. My position is of course that the Mass is both valid and licit.

Dr. Robert Fastiggi has previously replied to Dr. John Lamont on the topic of the liceity of the Novus Ordo Mass here: The Missal of Paul VI is both valid and licit: a response to Dr John Lamont.

Here is the article by Dr. Lamont, which claims:

Lamont: “But of course it is not the case that a valid ritual must be a licit ritual; and it is the question of liceity that will be considered here. The term ‘licit’ will be understood as meaning ‘legally established and legally permitted’. There is no doubt that the Novus Ordo was established using the proper legal forms, in the apostolic constitution ‘Missale Romanum’ of 1969 promulgated in due order by Paul VI. The question is whether or not the act of establishing the Novus Ordo using this form was an act that fell within the legal powers of the Pope, and hence of whether or not the legal form that established the Novus Ordo actually had its intended effect of making the Novus Ordo licit.”

It is true that a valid ritual might not be licit, as when a schismatic Bishop ordains a man as a deacon or priest (or, worse still, as a bishop). The Sacraments are not fragile, and so they retain their validity and their ability to assist human persons towards salvation, even when a schismatic or heretic administers that Sacrament — just as the Council of Trent taught in the Decree on the Sacraments, on Baptism, Canon IV. However, anyone administering a Sacrament must still fulfill all the conditions for validity. So, for example, a schismatic Bishop cannot validly ordain a woman as a priest, nor can any valid priest use other than wheat bread and grape wine for the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Dr. Lamont defines licit, in this context, as “legally established and legally permitted”. This presents an immediate problem for his position, as the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops have full authority over what is legal in the Church. In the case of the Novus Ordo Mass, the decisions of an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) were followed by decisions from Pope Saint Paul VI, Pope John Paul I [who chose his papal name to affirm his commitment to the reforms of Vatican II], Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis. Then the body of Bishops under each Pope during that long span of time affirmed these decisions, which instituted and developed the Novus Ordo rites. Since the Church is indefectible and apostolic, the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops, being the successors to Saint Peter and the other Apostles, cannot defect by erring gravely on something of such great value to the nature of the Church and the path of salvation as the rites used to worship God and to administer the Sacraments. Thus, the legality of the Novus Ordo Mass cannot be doubted — successive Popes and the body of Bishops successively have approved of this form using their legitimate legal authority in the Church, given to them by Christ as successors to the Apostles. And this process began with a valid and licit Ecumenical Council.

Dr. Lamont states: “There is no doubt that the Novus Ordo was established using the proper legal forms, in the apostolic constitution ‘Missale Romanum’ of 1969 promulgated in due order by Paul VI.” That is something of a strawman argument, as the legal acts used to institute, develop, and continue the Novus Ordo rites were many: Vatican II as well as many documents by successive Popes and the body of Bishops in their Bishops’ Conferences. These rites are in the vernacular, in many languages, and so the local Bishops are involved in approving each vernacular “edition” of these rites. And the Holy See then approves of the decisions of the Bishops’ Conferences. Thus, there are many documents and many acts of proper Church authority by the Roman Pontiffs and the Bishops around the world, which support the legality of these rites.

Dr. Lamont states: “The question is whether or not the act of establishing the Novus Ordo using this form was an act that fell within the legal powers of the Pope, and hence of whether or not the legal form that established the Novus Ordo actually had its intended effect of making the Novus Ordo licit.”

The intention of the Roman Pontiffs and the body of Bishops was to establish the Novus Ordo Mass and other liturgical forms used to administer Sacraments as valid and licit rites in the universal Church. And they are the successors of the Apostles, exercising the authority of Christ handed down to them, with the approval of successive successors of Saint Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Lamont’s admission that the liceity of the Novus Ordo rites was intended — by the successors of the Apostles — actually helps to establish that the Novus Ordo is licit.

But instead, Lamont claims that the Roman Pontiff does not have the authority to establish the Novus Ordo rites. My reply is that Lamont and his fellow papal critics do not have the authority to declare the Novus Ordo rites to be illicit (or invalid). Against an authority in fact exercised by successive Popes and the body of Bishops successively and continuously — to establish, develop, and maintain the Novus Ordo rites — Lamont proposes his own judgment to the contrary. But the faithful are required to accept the doctrine and discipline of the Pope and Bishops. We would be unfaithful at the very least, and possibly schismatics or heretics, if we rejected the teachings and decisions of the successors of the Apostles in favor of our own ideas and judgments, or the ideas and judgments of those who oppose the Pope and Bishops. Lamont lacks the authority to judge and condemn the Novus Ordo rites, on any basis whatsoever, regardless of his own ideas and arguments, as these rites are in fact approved by the successors to the Apostles in the Popes and Bishops since Vatican II.

So the very fact that the Popes and Bishops have instituted and continued the Novus Ordo rites necessarily implies that such rites are valid and licit, as they hold full authority over doctrine and discipline for the universal Church. The claim that the elements of the Mass that they changed are not the changeable human elements, but are unchangeable divine elements, is disproven by the very fact that the successors to the Apostles are the ones who made those changes. They hold the authority to teach what is and is not changeable, and they hold the authority to make changes. So while Popes and Bishops can err, they cannot err to such an extent as is claimed by Lamont and other critics of the Novus Ordo rites, as if they had instituted for the universal Church and for the rites containing all the Sacraments, liturgical forms which are invalid, or illicit, or gravely harmful. Such an extent of claimed error is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff.

And make no mistake about Lamont’s claims here. While he presents an argument of a lack of liceity of the rites, he implies necessarily that the Church has defected — including the defection of multiple successive Popes and the vast majority of the Bishops since Vatican II. And that claim is contrary to the teaching of Jesus that the gates of Hell cannot prevail over the Church founded on Peter and the other Apostles.

Now Lamont quotes another author — Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize of the schiamtic group SSPX — as saying that the Novus Ordo Mass is “destructive of the common good”. And I know some Catholic traditionalist or conservative authors have similarly condemned the Novus Ordo rites as somehow gravely harmful to the Church and the faithful. Dr. Lamont does not refute that claim. Rather, he at first sets it aside from his claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is a human fabrication, while the traditional Latin Mass is of divine origin as a whole (not in each particular point).

But if the rites of divine origin were replaced by rites merely of human fabrication, such a change would certainly gravely harm the Church and the faithful. Such a claim implies that the Church committed a type of apostasy, for rejecting a rite of divine origin, to replace it with merely human rites. Certainly, this is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. So this is not merely a question of legality. Then, after seemingly setting aside the argument that the Novus Ordo rites are gravely harmful to the Church, Dr. Lamont ends his article with a clear assertion that the Novus Ordo rites are gravely harmful, thus presenting, in the end, an accusation against the indefectibility of the Church:

Lamont: “The ostensible reason for the introduction of the Novus Ordo and the de facto, illegal suppression of the traditional Latin rite was the promise that the Novus Ordo would bring about a deepening in faith, an increase in Mass attendance, a flood of new Catholics hastening into the Church, and a great renewal generally. What in fact occurred was a collapse in faith, Mass attendance, and Church membership that is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church. This collapse was not shared by the small communities that persisted in using the traditional Latin rite, despite severe difficulty and discouragement. This result, which is what one would expect from the adoption of an illicit form of worship, makes the abandonment of the Novus Ordo obviously desirable and urgent.”

Dr. Lamont in fact claims that the Novus Ordo rites have gravely harmed the Church and the Faith and the faithful, blaming the adoption of these rites for “a collapse in faith, Mass attendance, and Church membership that is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Church”. Such a claim accuses Vatican II, all the Popes since Vatican II, and the body of Bishops continuously since that time of adopting “an illicit form of worship”. These claims amount to an accusation of apostasy against the Church Herself, as well as a grave accusation against the indefectibility of the Church. Lamont makes the Novus Ordo rites out to be no better than a form of pagan ceremony, “a human fabrication”, which he thinks have replaced the rites of divine origin, the Latin rites.

So my argument stands, that the indefectibility of the Church necessarily implies that the Novus Ordo rites are valid, licit, and helpful to the path of salvation — not gravely harmful to the Faith or the faithful. For the Keys of Peter are two, over doctrine and discipline, and these Keys are the very authority of Christ over the same. Then “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only head” of the one Church [Pope Pius XII, Mystical Body of Christ, 40]. So it is not possible for the Church, which is indefectible and apostolic, to reject a rite of divine origin (supposedly the Latin rites) and replace them with a rite of merely human origin (supposedly the Novus Ordo). For indefectibility applies to the whole Church, not merely to teachings and not merely to what is infallible. The successors of Peter and the successors of the other Apostles, in the apostolic indefectible Church, cannot have gone so far astray as to have replaced rites of divine origin with those of human origin.

Dr. Lamont presents his position in two questions, both of which are answered “No” by him.

“1. Does the Pope have the authority to establish a ritual that is not a form of the Roman Rite or of any other traditional rite of the Church?

“2. Is the Novus Ordo of Paul VI a form of the Roman Rite?

“It will be argued that the answer to both these questions is ‘no’, and hence that the Novus Ordo is not licit.”

Dr. Lamont has no authority to declare that the Pope and Bishops have erred to such an extent, nor that the Novus Ordo is illicit, nor that the Roman Rite is unchangeable. The opponents of Pope Francis, who have made themselves into opponents of many Popes and Ecumenical Councils, make the same mistake again and again. They exalt their own judgment and arguments above the divine authority of the Catholic Church, condemning whatever they wish to condemn, as if they were above the entire Church, even above Christ. For they do not care that Christ established His Church — not theirs — upon Peter and his successors. They argue with many words, always to the effect that the authority of the Church should be transferred to them away from the successors to the Apostles.

Lamont continues: “We could say that when it is not known whether or not a part of the liturgy is of divine origin, it is wrong and illicit for the Church to alter or remove that part of the liturgy. Since the alterations to the liturgy made by the Novus Ordo were so substantial that they included changing or removing parts of the liturgy that are not known to be of human rather than divine origin, these alterations are wrong and illicit, and the Novus Ordo itself is illicit.”

That argument is laughable. The Church has the authority to teach definitively which parts of the divine liturgy are of divine origin and which are changeable. The very fact that the Pope and Bishops have established, approved, developed, and continued the Novus Ordo rites implies necessarily the definitive judgment of the authority of the Church that these elements which were changed are changeable. There is no ignorance in this regard, as the Church is led by the Holy Spirit:

[John]
{16:12} I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now.
{16:13} But when the Spirit of truth has arrived, he will teach the whole truth to you. For he will not be speaking from himself. Instead, whatever he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
{16:14} He shall glorify me. For he will receive from what is mine, and he will announce it to you.

The Church is not merely a human institution, such that the judgment of Dr. Lamont would prevail over the divine authority exercised by the Pope and Bishops. The Church is competent to judge which elements of the Mass are unchangeable, such as the consecration of the Eucharist, and which are changeable, such as the languages used, and the particular prayers and order of the parts of the Mass.

Christ established the Mass at the Last Supper, but He did not establish the Mass in immutable specifics. He did not preside over a Latin rite at the Last Supper, and this rite developed only later, under the authority of the Popes and Bishops. So the Latin Rite is not, as a whole, of divine and immutable origin. In this regard, the same papal and episcopal authority that established the Latin Mass and which changed it over time also established the Novus Ordo Mass. There is no such distinction making the Latin rites immutable and the Novus Ordo Mass of entirely human origin.

Pope Saint Paul VI, consistory of Cardinals, 1976: “What traditions? It is this group of men — but not the Roman Pontiff, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecumenical Council — who wish to become those who establish a binding decision on which of the innumerable traditions are to be held as norms of faith! As you see, our venerable Brothers, this attitude speaks as if it were judge over that Divine will which placed Peter and his successors at the Head of the Church, so as to confirm his brethren in the faith and so pasture the universal flock (Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.) and thus establish him as guarantor and custodian of the deposit of the Faith.”

“And this is all the more serious, in particular, when division is introduced, precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor [the love of Christ gathers us as one], in the Liturgy and in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, refusing respect for the norms defined in the liturgical field. It is in the name of Tradition that we ask all our children, all Catholic communities, to celebrate the renewed Liturgy in dignity and fervor. The adoption of the new “Ordo Missae” is certainly not left to the discretion of the priests or the faithful: and the Instruction of June 14, 1971 provided for the celebration of Mass in the old form, with the authorization of the ordinary, only for elderly or infirm priests, who offer the Divine Sacrifice sine populo [without the people]. The new Ordo was promulgated to replace the old one, after mature deliberation, following the requests of the Second Vatican Council. Likewise, our holy Predecessor Pius V had made the reformed Missal compulsory under his authority, following the Council of Trent.”

“We demand the same availability, with the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms that have matured in recent years in application of the conciliar decrees. Any initiative that aims to hinder them cannot assume the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church: in fact it causes serious damage to it.”

The authority which instituted the Novus Ordo rites is the same authority which instituted the Latin rites. Pope Saint Pius V instituted “the reformed Missal” (in Latin) after the Council of Trent, and Pope Saint Paul VI instituted the Novus Ordo Mass after the Second Vatican Council. Both forms have seen multiple successive Popes approve and continue each form along with the body of Bishops worldwide. There is no basis for Lamont’s claim that the Latin rites are on the whole of divine origin and the Novus Ordo rites are a human fabrication. Such a claim implies grave false accusations against the Popes and the Bishops exercising the authority of Christ.

Pope Saint Paul VI is correct in saying that he holds “the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms that have matured in recent years in application of the conciliar decrees”. Dr. John Lamont’s claims to the contrary are schismatic, as he rejects the authority of the Popes and Bishops over the rites used to worship God, the same rites which administer the Sacraments to the faithful.

I should also point out that Dr. John Lamont is one of the original signatories to a Letter which publicly accused Pope Francis of “the canonical delict of heresy” — here is the link at NCRonline.org and here is a link to the Letter itself. Accusing any Roman Pontiff of heresy is contrary to the teaching of the Church on the charism of truth and never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff. This charism is the ancient and constant teaching of the Church, confirmed infallibly by the First Vatican Council. See the many sources for this teaching from Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Popes throughout Church history. The indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith absolutely prevent any Roman Pontiff from teaching or adhering to heresy. So Dr. Lamont has committed public formal heresy and formal schism by his accusation in that Letter. No one who thinks the Pope is a heretic will submit to his authority over doctrine and discipline; refusal of said submission is schism. And the teaching that Popes cannot teach heresy and cannot be heretics is dogma; the contrary is heresy. Thus, Dr. John Lamont is continuing his schism against the Roman Pontiffs by rejecting their authority over the rites of divine worship.

Ronald L Conte Jr.