What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

The Franciscans in Malta have something to say about the Motu Proprio.  The author,  Noel Muscat OFM, is in Jerusalem.

My emphases and comments.
 

1
FRANCISCANS
AND THE MOTU PROPRIO
«SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM»
Noel Muscat OFM

On 7th July 2007 Pope Benedict XVI published the Apostolic Letter Motu
Proprio data «Summorum Pontificum», concerning norms about the celebration of the
Eucharist according to the Tridentine Rite of Pope Saint Pius V, as updated by the
1962 version of the Roman Missal, published by Blessed Pope John XXIII.1 Together
with this Apostolic Letter, Benedict XVI also published a Letter, which he sent to all
bishops, explaining the pastoral aspects of «Summorum Pontificum» and the use of
the Roman Liturgy preceding the liturgical reform undertaken by Pope Paul VI in
1970.2

The Apostolic Letter contains two parts. The first part is a brief historical
outline of the progress of the Roman Rite from the times of Pope Saint Gregory the
Great, right down to the Council of Trent, and to Popes Saint Pius V, Clement VIII,
Urban VIII, Saint Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII, all of
whom updated the liturgical books, particularly the Roman Missal, especially in the
period following upon the Council of Trent. This section ends with a reference to the
liturgical reform of Vatican II and the first typical edition of the new Roman Missal
by Paul VI in 1970, followed by two other editions by John Paul II. The second
section contains the new norms regarding the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to 1970,
and particularly regarding the indult given by John Paul II in the Apostolic Letter
Motu Proprio data «Ecclesia Dei» (2nd July 1988) in favour of those priests and
faithful who ask bishops for permission to celebrate Mass according to the form
contained in the latest edition of the Tridentine Roman Missal (1962).
The days immediately following the publication of «Summorum Pontificum»,
which will take effect as from 14th September 2007, witnessed a variety of attitudes
and feedback from Christian associations and the press. They ranged from outright
rejection by “progressives”, to moderate criticism by supporters of the achievements
of liturgical reform after Vatican II, to euphoria and a sense of victory on the part of
“traditionalist” sectors of the Catholic Church.

Article 3 of «Summorum Pontificum» states: “Communities of Institutes of
consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan
right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal
promulgated in 1962, for conventual or community celebration in their oratories, may
do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to
undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be
taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own
specific decrees and statutes.”3

Given the nature of such a new legal provision, one would immediately ask
whether any Franciscan fraternity which specifically opts for such a celebration,
either habitually or permanently, and which would receive permission for doing so
from the competent authorities (major superiors for example), could be regarded as
still being in the “mainstream” of what Franciscan spiritual tradition has lived for
eight centuries, regarding the celebration of the liturgy (for example, the divine

2
office) “according to the Rite of the holy Roman Church.”4 Such an assertion might
seem out of place, since the Roman Missal of 1962 is certainly part and parcel of
venerable ecclesial liturgical tradition, which has been valid in the Church for
centuries, and therefore still remains valid today.5 Our aim is simply that of providing
food for thought if we are to delve into what Francis meant when he commanded the
friars to pray the divine offices “according to the Rite of the holy Roman Church,”6
and if we consider the role of the Franciscan Order in liturgical reform in the Roman
rite.

Saint Francis and the liturgical reform of the Fourth Lateran Council
Francis lived during one of the great moments of reform in the Church,
namely that of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and its aftermath. We can compare
the Franciscan Order in that period to the Franciscan Order in these last 40 years after
Vatican Council II. The Fourth Lateran Council was instrumental in reforming the
liturgical and sacramental practice of the Church. Among the post-conciliar
documents of Lateran IV we can quote the decree «Sane cum olim» of Pope Honorius
III (22nd November 1219), regarding respect and reverence towards the Eucharist,
liturgical books, vessels, altars, etc.7 On 3rd December 1224 Honorius III issued the
decree «Quia populares tumultus», addressed specifically to the Order of Friars
Minor, in which he gave them the privilege of having a portable altar in their
oratories, on which to celebrate solemn Mass and the other divine offices.8 Francis
himself wrote many a time to his brothers, to clerics and to the faithful, regarding
respect and reverence to the holy Eucharist, and regarding faithfulness to the Church
of Rome with respect to liturgical norms promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council.9
Scholars of Franciscan liturgical tradition agree on one important point, namely, that
since the time of Saint Francis, the Friars Minor were keen upon spreading among
their fraternities, and subsequently in their conventual churches, the updated form of
liturgical practice in the papal court, and that they tried to update their own legislation
and fraternal traditions to the needs of the Church in the post Fourth Lateran Council
period.10

In his Chronicle, Salimbene de Adam of Parma attributes to Pope Innocent III
the revision of the ecclesiastical divine office during the Fourth Lateran Council.11
This revised office soon became popular with the Friars Minor, who according to the
witness of Matthew of Paris, carried their liturgical books in their haversacks during
their missionary journeys of preaching12.

The general chapter of Pentecost of 1230 decreed that all the provinces of the
Order should receive the breviaries and antiphonaries proper to the Order.13 The
chronicles of Jordan of Giano and Thomas of Eccleston both speak about the practice
of the friars to go to the cathedral and parish churches to sing the divine office, since
they still did not have their own oratories.

In the years 1240-1244 the minister general Haymo of Faversham undertook a
thorough revision of the liturgical books of the Order. The first liturgical books in the
Order had been published during the pontificate of Gregory IX. They included the
breviary and missal, together with the rubrics and calendar. These liturgical books
had the aim of spreading the Roman rite. The insistence of the Rule upon liturgical
faithfulness to the liturgy of the papal court is evident in the fact that scholars speak
about the “Regula breviary”, the “Regula missal” and the “Regula ritual”.14
3
The spreading of the Roman liturgy by the Franciscans was so effective, that
the breviary they used became to be called the “Roman-Franciscan” breviary. Pope
Nicholas III (1277-1286) decreed that in the churches of Rome the old antiphonaries,
graduals, missals and other liturgical books of the divine office were to be replaced by
the liturgical books and breviaries in use in the Franciscan Order. The popularity of
the liturgical reform after Lateran IV was such that, wherever the Franciscans settled
down, including the university cities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna and Padova, they
brought with them the revised Roman liturgy, particularly through the spreading of
the “Breviarium Curiae”. This trend continued right down to the Council of Trent and
the papacy of Saint Pius V, who unified the liturgy of the western Church by
providing it with the Roman model which, with periodic modifications, remained in
use until the latest liturgical reform, that of Vatican Council II.
Franciscans and the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council
The brief historical outline regarding the liturgical reforms introduced by the
Fourth Lateran Council and the role of the Franciscan Order in spreading them, tells
us one important fact, namely, that the Friars Minor were instrumental in promoting
Church reform and that the Franciscan liturgical tradition has always progressed along
the same lines indicated by the Church of Rome. The great Franciscan preachers of
the Observant family in the fifteenth century are a proof of the beneficial use of the
vernacular in popular preaching, just as the first Franciscan missionaries to the Far
East and to the Americas were innovators in translating the Bible and other liturgical
books into the native languages of the peoples they evangelised.
At this point of history we are faced with an option regarding the Roman
liturgical tradition. «Summorum pontificum» states this plainly in Article 1: “The
Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’
of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated
by Saint Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an
extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi’, and must be given due honour for
its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s ‘Lex orandi’
will in no way lead to a division of the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’. They are, in fact,
two usages of the one Roman rite.”15

It is up to theologians to discuss whether there is, in fact, the one and same
‘Lex credendi’ in the Missal of Saint Pius V and that of Paul VI, given that the
liturgical tradition prior to Vatican II, in some aspects, certainly expresses a different
ecclesiology than that which developed after Vatican II regarding the celebration of
the Eucharist. The aim of these reflections is that of asking ourselves if, as
Franciscans, we are, in fact, free to decide personally and on a fraternal basis, whether
we can opt for one or another of the liturgical forms being presented. The question of
these forms being “ordinary” and “extraordinary” is not a question of substantial
difference, given that the same ‘Motu proprio’ states, in Article 2: “For such
celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission
from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.”16

One of the problems in accepting this provision without any sense of
discernment [Why, after making the case of the great benefits receivedf from Roman Pontiffs, and the role Franciscan have played in liturgical development, would the author present such a hermeneutic of discontinuity?] in the case of us Franciscans is linked with a correct understanding of the
ordained ministry in the fraternity. The Missal of Honorius III, which the friars used
in the 13th century, had a rubric, which stated: “If there are more priests [The vocation of a priest in the Church is not the same as the vocation of a friar.] in the same
4
place, they can individually sing the Mass they want.”17 It is important to confront
these words with what Francis himself states in the Letter to the Entire Order:
“I admonish and exhort you in the Lord, therefore, to celebrate only one Mass
a day according to the rite of the Holy Church in those places where the brothers
dwell. But if there is more than one priest there, let the other be content, for the love
of charity, at hearing the celebration of the other priest.”18 [I ask if there isn’t a subtle juxtaposition between the Pope and their great and saintly founder.]
In a time when there was no possibility of concelebrating the Eucharist,
Francis prefers the primacy of charity in the fraternity above the personal choices of
the priest in exercising his right to celebrate Mass. With the possibility of
concelebration during “conventual” Mass, given to all religious communities after
Vatican II, the question of the convenience of celebrating “private” Masses, at least in
the Franciscan family, remains open to debate, just as the question of
“concelebration” is still an object of debate in some sectors of the Church.
We shall not deal, at this point, with the pastoral aspects of one or the other
kind of celebration, even though this is also a point of discussion, given that the
Church has entrusted many parishes to the pastoral care of the Franciscan Order. This
discussion would entail an examination of the role of the parish priest in relation to
the local Ordinary, whose authority in decision making regarding the use or otherwise
of the Tridentine Mass seems to have been curtailed [In one sense this is true.  I prefer to see it from another point of view.  I prefer to say that the rights of priests and laypeople were underscored, rather than that the authority of bishops was curtailed.  It is an important distinction.] in «Summorum pontificum»,
article 7.19
With all due “obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope”, we cannot accept
the provisions of «Summorum pontificum» without some sense of preoccupation not
only regarding its long-term effects on Church unity and pastoral ministry, but more
so regarding its implications for us, as Franciscans. In our long history, we have
hardly been an example of unity or uniformity. Nevertheless, the Franciscan family
has always been a dynamic force in the Church. It has understood its faithfulness to
the Church of Rome as implying a sincere effort to move on with the Church, to open
up new spaces in which the Spirit of the Lord can operate. [Is there in this a suggestion that the "Spirit of the Lord" and the role of the Roman Church are being juxtaposed?] In this endeavour, ever
faithful to Catholic tradition, and rejecting all kinds of innovations not based on sound
Catholic doctrine, every Franciscan feels that it is his duty to move on. The Second
Vatican Council has provided such an opportunity, which still needs to be studied in
depth and valued for the future of the Church. Among the new fruits of the Spirit
born out of Vatican II, the revised edition of the Roman Missal has certainly been a
great success. [Really?  Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.] The words of Pope Paul VI remain prophetic for us, Franciscan priests,
if we have to discern whether we can, in fact, remain faithful to our tradition by
making use of the privileges granted by «Summorum pontificum»:
“We hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an
instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus,
in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable
offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy
Spirit.”20  [Hang on.  Are not the words of Benedict XVI equally prophetic?]


NOTES
1 The original Latin version I shall quote is that found in the official web-site of the Vatican:
http://www.vatican.va
2 The English translation of the Letter will be quoted also from the official web-site of the Vatican.
5
3 BENEDICTUS XVI, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio datae Summorum Pontificum, Art. 3: “Si
communitates Institutorum vitae consecratae atque Societatum vitae apostolicae iuris sive pontificii
sive dioecesani quae in celebratione conventuali seu “communitatis” in oratoriis propriis celebrationem
sanctae Missae iuxta editionem Missalis Romani anno 1962 promulgatam habere cupiunt, id eis licet.
Si singula communitas aut totum Institutum vel Societas tales celebrations saepe vel plerumque vel
permanenter perficere vult, res a Superioribus maioribus ad normam iuris et secundum leges et statuta
particularia decernatur.”
4 Later Rule, 3,1, Francis of Assisi. Early Documents, Vol. I, ed. R.J. Armstrong, J.A. Wayne
Hellmann, W.J. Short, Franciscan Institute, St. Bonventure University, NY 1999 [= FAED I], 101.
5 BENEDICT XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter
“Motu Proprio data” «Summorum Pontificum» on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of
1970: “In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second
Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into
question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul
VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be
the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale
Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962
and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical
celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were
‘two Rites’. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
6 Reg. Bullata (1223), 3,1: “Clerici faciant divinum officium secundum ordinem sanctae Romanae
Ecclesiae”. The Cistercian chronicler Alberic de Trois-Fontaines, in his Chronicle (1227-1235) writes:
“Regarding the usage (of the friars minor) in reading Scripture and singing psalms, he (Francis) chose
the form of the Church of Rome” (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 13,887-888).
7 HONORIUS III, Decree Sane cum olim (22 November 1219), in Bullarium Romanum, Honorius III,
n. XI, tom. III, 366a-366b: “We strictly enjoin by precept that the Eucharist be reserved always
devotedly and faithfully in a place of honour that is clean and designated for It alone. Every priest
should teach his people frequently that they should bow in reverence whenever the life-giving Host is
elevated at the celebration of Mass and that each one should do the same when the priest is carrying It
to the sick. At the same time, the priest should carry It in becoming apparel covered with a clean veil
and should bring It back opening at his breast and with respect. The priest should be preceded by a
torch, since the Eucharist is the radiance of Eternal Light” (translation taken from FAED I, 55).
8 HONORIUS III, Decree Quia populares tumultus (3 December 1224), in B