As Catholics, we are united by sharing the same faith, the same sacraments, the same law and the same hierarchy. But there do exist different liturgical rites within the Catholic Church. Apart from the Latin Rite, there are the various eastern rites: Byzantine, Armenian, Alexandrian etc. Even within the Latin Rite there are very ancient variations, for example the Ambrosian Rite celebrated in Milan is a variant within the Latin Rite. This variety of expression is a great spiritual treasure for the Church; it does not constitute a form of relativism, because all these rites trace their origins back to the apostles. Of course, if there were liturgical rites within the Church that were altogether new, or at variance with the Church's unchanging faith, then that would be a problem. When we talk about Church unity, we must also remember that we are talking about the unity of Catholics across time, and not just from place to place. The TLM expresses this unity to an extraordinary degree, because on the one hand it uses the same language and the same gestures all over the world, and on the other hand this rite has been handed down through the centuries with very little change.

So long as a Mass is a valid (or true) Mass, certainly it has an infinite value in the eyes of God, because it is the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary: “The Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, the rite of the Mass – the prayers, gestures, manner of celebrating etc. – does have an importance as well. The rite can express well or less well the doctrine of the Church, and in particular what the Mass is; it can dispose those who are present well or less well to receive what God is giving us. If the rite were not important, the Church would never have developped it in the first place, and certainly would not have bothered to reform it. But in the 1960s, those responsible for “reforming” the liturgy ended up removing or changing 87% of the prayers (orations) of the Mass, so clearly they felt that it was important. In the 16th century in England the Anglicans changed the rite of ordination so much that in fact it was no longer valid, and that is how they lost the Apostolic Succession and no longer have real priests or bishops. God will never permit such a thing to happen in His Church. Nevertheless, we think that among liturgical forms the TLM is an extremely eloquent and indeed unrivaled expression of Catholic doctrine, and as such has its place in the Church. The faithful who rediscover the TLM very often appreciate it for its objective reverence and peace.

Pope Pius XI gives us three good reasons for the use of Latin in the liturgy: “The Church […] of its very nature requires a language that is universal, immutable and non-vernacular” (Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium). (1) Latin is a sign and a instrument of universality. It binds people of different nations and tribes, without giving preference to one group over another. In a post-colonial setting, Latin has the advantage of being the language neither of former colonial masters, nor of current neo-colonial powers. With the advent of globalisation, increasing numbers of people travel for work or leisure, and can find themselves attending vernacular Masses that they do not understand. (2) Latin is useful because of its immutability: it is no longer a living language that evolves over time. This means that words are fixed in their meaning, and this is important for maintaining the unchanging truths of the faith. As Pope John XXIII wrote: “Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. If the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifest to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language that could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings. But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. It has long ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words that are the normal result of daily, popular use” (John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia). (3) Latin is also useful as a non-vernacular or sacred language. In the Liturgy, it makes us aware that we have left the realm of the profane and that we are engaged in something different, something sacred. The use of a sacred language, one that is not used in everyday life or business, reminds us that in the liturgy we must leave behind wordly thoughts and raise heart and mind to God. We need such barriers between sacred and profane, because without them we tend to neglect God altogether. For example, although we should worship God with our whole life, He has nevertheless commanded that one day in the week be set aside especially for His worship, because without this setting aside of one day as sacred, many would neglect to worship God at all (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the 3rd Precept of the Law). During the 4th century, Latin replaced Greek as the language of Christian liturgy in Rome, but it was already a kind of Latin that was different from the language used by ordinary people in everyday affairs. From the 4th century to the 20th century, Latin was the unique language of the Roman rite. But apart from the authority that comes from this prolonged use, the pronouncements of popes and Councils show us that the use of Latin in the liturgy is not only legitimate, but highly recommended: “If anyone says, […] that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only […], let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session XXII, can. 9). “That the use of the common language should be introduced into the liturgical prayers [is] false, rash, destructive to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of numerous evils” (Pius VII, Auctorem Fidei, §66). “The Church […] of its very nature requires a language that is universal, immutable and non-vernacular” (Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium). “The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth” (Pius XII, Mediator Dei, §60). “The Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. […] Latin is such a language. […] It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity” (John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia).

When the priest is addressing the people, he faces the people. When he is addressing God, priest and people face the same direction, united in this common gesture. Because almost all the time during the TLM the priest is praying to God, he is usually facing the altar, on which are placed the cross and tabernacle. The priest doesn't pause during the liturgy to make comments or small-talk: the Mass is a solemn and public act of worship offered to God, not a party or a get-together. This practice of priest and people facing East together in the liturgy is mentioned by St. Basil the Great (329-379) as a tradition received from the Apostles: “Of the dogmas and proclamations that are guarded in the Church, we hold some from the teaching of the Scriptures, and others we have received in mystery as the teachings of the tradition of the Apostles. […] What sort of scriptural text teaches us to turn to the East for prayer? […] Does it not come from this secret and unspoken teaching, which our fathers guarded?” Traditionally, churches are built so that priest and people pray facing towards the East. This is a very beautiful symbol with many levels of meaning. On one level, it expresses the eschatological orientation of our prayer and of our whole christian life: the East is a symbol of the future, because by the rising of the Sun it is where each new day begins. So when priest and people face East to pray, they are expressing their hopeful expectation of the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who will come at the end of the world “to judge the living and the dead”; they are expressing their journey in faith, hope and charity towards the future life of glory, towards our heavenly fatherland. Even in a church which is not directed towards the East, priest and people turn together towards the crucifix of the altar which represents “liturgical East”: it remains an eschatological sign, reminding us of the prophecy of Zechariah that at the Second Coming: “They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced” (Zech. 12.10). In the Bible, the Sun itself, which rises in the East, is a symbol of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so St. John Damascene (675-749) states, “It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the East […] since God is spiritual light and Christ is called 'Sun of Justice' (Mal. 4.2) and 'Orient' (Lk. 1.78), the East should be dedicated to His worship...” One should point out that nowhere in the documents of Vatican Council II is there any call to change the direction of liturgical prayer, to shift the altars around and have priest and people facing each other.

“The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, §36.1). “Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (SC, §54). “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (SC, §116).

Of course! Everyone is welcome! For those who wish we provide booklets with the texts of the Mass in Latin and English, and indications of all the usual gestures. The readings and gospel are translated in English after being sung or read in Latin, and of course the sermon is in English! But one should not get stressed about what to do or say: the important thing is to pray, to unite oneself interiorly – heart and soul – with the intention of the priest, which is to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation and supplication. The TLM provides a space that lets people pray.

Of course we accept all the Oecumenical Councils of the Church. Vatican II was a Council of the Church, but what did it really teach and how? Like a pope, a Council does not always teach with the same level of authority. So there must always be a process of discernment to discover the authentic voice of the Church. For example, we can start by asking ourselves, 'have the conditions for infallibility been met?' A Catholic must receive with faith what is taught infallibly as contained in God's Word (Can. 750 §1). When a teaching is not infallible, it may, through human frailty, contain errors. The documents of Vatican II should be read in the wider context of the Church's Tradition and teaching. Vatican II posed some very important questions, but often answered them in an ambiguous manner that caused much debate; the Church has already begun a very necessary process of clarification, for example the 2007 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church. This should not scandalise us. In the 7th century pope Honorius I was even anathematised (condemned) by his successors and by the Third Council of Constantinople for the ambiguity of his teaching and policies! Did Vatican II change the Church's doctrine? There are those who answer “yes” because they want to reject Vatican II, and there are others who answer “yes” because they want to reject the Church's doctrine! If anything was changed in the sense of contradicting what was before then a Catholic should certainly reject that innovation; and if nothing changed, then we cannot go wrong in holding to what was taught before. We can apply to Councils what Vatican I taught about the Roman Pontiff, namely that their Magisterium is traditional (transmitting what was believed before) rather than inventive (inventing new beliefs): “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth” (Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Æternus, ch. 4; D3070). In the course of their seminary formation, the members of the IBP take the anti-modernist oath prescribed by Pope St. Pius X in 1910, affirming among other things, “I sincerely hold the doctrine of faith handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always with the same meaning and the same interpretation; and so I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of the human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely”. This oath is an expression of the essential humility of christian discipleship and adoptive sonship in Jesus Christ; with Our Lord we say, “My doctrine is not my own, but His that send me” (Jn. 7.16).

Not at all. The pope is the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. We adhere to his teaching to the extent that his authority is engaged, and we obey him in the legitimate exercise of his authority. But as everyone knows, not everything that the pope says nor all that he commands are necessarily to be followed by Catholics. Regarding the TLM, the simplest answer is that as members of the Institute we are bound by the Church's canon law to observe the Statutes that the Church has given us (Can. 731 §1). And these Statutes state that we must celebrate the TLM and not any other form of Mass. Catholic priests of the Byzantine or Coptic or Maronite Rites are also required to celebrate a form of Mass that is different from the pope, but they are still Catholic and still in communion with the Holy Father!

The Institute of the Good Shepherd (Institutum a Bono Pastore, IBP) is a congregation of priests and seminarians in the Catholic Church, a “Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right,” like the Missionaries of Africa, Oratorians, Vincentians, Mill Hill... We were founded in 2006 and our Statutes were appropoved in Rome by the then Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei headed by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. Our Superior General answers directly to the pope, and has the jurisdictional powers of a local ordinary over the members of the Institute. For example, he has the right to call seminarians forward for ordination to the priesthood, and then invites a bishop to come and perform the ceremony of ordination. Our very first priestly ordinations, in 2007, took place in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome, the pope's own cathedral, as a sign of our attachment to the Roman See. The list of bishops and cardinals who have come to ordain the priests of the Institute is an eloquent testimony to the place of the Institute in the Church. They include: Cardinal Gerhard Müller (2022, 2023), Archbishop Fernando Guimarães (2012, 2022), Bishop Athanasius Schneider (2013, 2015, 2021), Bishop Czeslaw Kozon (2020), Archbishop François Bacqué (2016, 2019), Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke (2018), Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta (2017), Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca (2014), Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos (2011), Archbishop Ennio Appignanesi (2009, 2010), Cardinal Luigi de Magistris (2007). Apart from the public chapels and oratories attached to our houses, the Institute has also received from diocesan bishops the care of certain parishes, such as St. Eloi in the archdiocese of Bordeaux (France), or St. Stanislaus in the diocese of Manchester (New Hampshire, USA).