Summorum Pontificum: my intro comments and the text

Thanks to be to Pope Benedict, who has given back to the Church and the world a great gift. As one friend put it, the world has been made just a little bit safer to live in. This document is about opening hearts and healing. In his explanatory letter Pope Benedict even quotes 2 Cor 6:13: “Widen your hearts!” Read Summorum Pontificum with a wide heart, and no one need fear that rights will be trampled or due authority undermined. The Motu Proprio goes into effect on 14 September. We have time to chew and digest, collect things and make arrangements. We must not jump the gun. But we can make a start. What this Motu Proprio does Effectively it levels the playing field for people who want to use the older liturgical forms. Remember: the MP applies to all the sacraments as they were before the Council, not just Holy Mass. It concerns the liturgy, not just Holy Mass. Thus clerics (bishops, priests, deacons), who are obliged to recite the Liturgy of the Hours can use the older Breviarium Romanum as it was in 1962. Benedict is establishing the older form of liturgy, as in was in 1962, as an extraordinary form (forma extraordinaria). The Novus Ordo of the Roman Missal and all other liturgical books remain the ordinary way of celebrating the liturgy. "Extraordinary", here, does NOT mean "rare" or "unusual" or "special". It simply means "out of the common order". If we turn to how the Church uses Latin in, for example, a pretty good Latinist, St. Jerome, the adverb extraordinarie means "with excessive frequency" (cf. On Ephesians 1 ad. 2, 13). It cannot be argued legitimately from the word "extraordinary" that use of the older forms must necessarily be "rare". It can be quite regular, depending on the circumstances, while in the larger scheme of things the Novus Ordo remains now the usual way things are done. The Motu Proprio responds to THREE GROUPS of people: 1) Followers of the SSPX, for whom this form of Mass is a "mark of identity", even though there are also deeper theological reasons for that break. 2) There are many lay people who also remember the older form of Mass from before the changes. And you don’t have to be to 80 to remember those days. There are people in the 40’s and 50’s who remember living with the old Mass. They have always remained attached to the old Mass or have regained a longing for it. 3) There are those who were neither in a separated group nor remember the pre-Conciliar Mass. These are younger people who have discovered the older form. As a result, it is unacceptable to suggest that these provisions were made merely to accomodate a bunch of nostalgic old foggies who can’t get with the program. The provisions were made with anyone in mind who wants older forms, for any decent reason. People who want to avail of this extraordinary use are not second rate citizens. They may not be treated any longer like the nutty aunt in the attic. There are a few things to dispell.

  1. In the explanatory letter the Pope invites bishops, "I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought." This does NOT impose an expiration date. What it does is ask for information about what is going on. If, in light of experience, the provisions need to be changed, they can be changed based on experience. However, I hasten to point out to the whiners who will say this weakens the Motu Proprio, that this invitation is NOT in the Motu Proprio itself. I will remind those who see the glass always as half empty that if the experiences are POSITIVE, the provisions could be adjusted positively. So, in a way, it is up to you. Open hearts. Work together. Save the Liturgy – Save the World, as we say around this blog.
  2. The bishops retain authority in their dioceses. Can it be any other way? This is entirely normal, good and proper. However, the Pope has with this Motu Proprio made many things that were once rather vague far more concrete and clear. Remember, bishops can be allies. You must approach them properly, which is only common sense. It may be that Fr. Guido O’Brien at St. Ipsydipsy doesn’t want to or in incapable of celebrating Mass in the old way. In that case, the bishop could be helpful in resolving the dilemma.
  3. Private Masses/liturgies in the old form can’t be celebrated in private in the Triduum. That is normal and reasonable. that is the way it is in the Novus Ordo. In places where the older form is established in a parish for the older use, the Triduum CAN be celebrated with the older books. However, in parishes where the newer forms are the usual fare, and there is a regularly scheduled Mass with the older form, when the Triduum arrives, the older, extraordinary liturgy must give way to the ordinary. That is logical. In the Novus Ordo, as in the older days, there cannot be two Masses of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, two Good Friday liturgies, or two Vigils. So, in this case, the ordinary takes precedence.
  4. The issue the Triduum and this reasonable restriction has nothing to do with the prayer about the Jews on Good Friday. This is simply a matter of what the Church’s logical practice is based on the sacred nature of those Triduum liturgies. The Jews were not part of the equation. Remember also that the 1962 Missale Romanum is used for the Triduum in those places where it will be permitted to use the older form at that time. The 1962 edition and not some earlier edition before the changes to those Good Friday petitions.
  5. As stated above, the 1962 Missale, the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is to be used, and NOT some earlier edition. Priests who are not adhering to the 1962 rubrics should be now ready and willing to adjust what they are doing. Lay people must be ready and willing to adjust their expectations.
  6. The Motu Proprio does NOT set a minimum number of people who must ask for the older form of Mass before it can be conceded. It does talk about stable groups for regularly scheduled Masses.

Remarkably, on the Vatican website only the LEGAL section (second part) of the Motu Proprio is rendered into ENGLISH. Here it is: Link to Vatican site The Explanatory Letter.

Attenzione: è stata tradotta solo la parte dispositiva del Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (…….) … Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters We establish the following: Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. 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 any way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite. It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents Quattuor abhinc annis and Ecclesia Dei, are substituted as follows: Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. 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. Art. 3 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 statues. Art. 4 Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted. Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. § 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. § 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. § 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. § 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission. Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See. Art. 7 If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei". Art. 8 A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance. Art. 9 § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. § 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. § 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962. Art. 10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law. Art. 11 The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it. Art. 12 This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions. We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary. From Rome, at St. Peter’s, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

There are a few difficulties in the English translation, as I compare it to the Latin. The English in a few cases softens what the Latin says. I will be digging into them in other entries.

LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE MOTU PROPRIO DATAE BENEDICTUS XVI SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM cura ad hoc tempus usque semper fuit, ut Christi Ecclesia Divinae Maiestati cultum dignum offerret, «ad laudem et gloriam nominis Sui» et «ad utilitatem totius Ecclesiae Suae sanctae». Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est «iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet»1. Inter Pontífices qui talem debitam curam adhibuerunt, nomen excellit sancti Gregorii Magni, qui tam fidem catholicam quam thesauros cultus ac culturae a Romanis in saeculis praecedentibus cumulatos novis Europae populis transmittendos curavit. Sacrae Liturgiae tam Missae Sacrificii quam Officii Divini formam, uti in Urbe celebrabatur, definiri conservarique iussit. Monachos quoque et moniales maxime fovit, qui sub Regula sancti Benedicti militantes, ubique simul cum Evangelii annuntiatione illam quoque saluberrimam Regulae sententiam vita sua illustrarunt, «ut operi Dei nihil praeponatur» (cap. 43). Tali modo sacra liturgia secundum morem Romanum non solum fidem et pietatem sed et culturam multarum gentium fecundavit. Constat utique liturgiam latinam variis suis formis Ecclesiae in omnibus aetatis christianae saeculis permultos Sanctos in vita spirituali stimulasse atque tot populos in religionis virtute roborasse ac eorundem pietatem fecundasse. Ut autem Sacra Liturgia hoc munus efficacius expleret, plures alii Romani Pontifices decursu saeculorum peculiarem sollicitudinem impenderunt, inter quos eminet Sanctus Pius V, qui magno cum studio pastorali, Concilio Tridentino exhortante, totum Ecclesiae cultum innovavit, librorum liturgicorum emendatorum et «ad normam Patrum instauratorum» editionem curavit eosque Ecclesiae latinae usui dedit. Inter Ritus romani libros liturgicos patet eminere Missale Romanum, quod in romana urbe succrevit, atque succedentibus saeculis gradatim formas assumpsit, quae cum illa in generationibus recentioribus vigente magnam habent similitudinem. «Quod idem omnino propositum tempore progrediente Pontifices Romani sunt persecuti, cum novas ad aetates accommodaverunt aut ritus librosque liturgicos determinaverunt, ac deinde cum ineunte hoc nostro saeculo ampliorem iam complexi sunt redintegrationem»2. Sic vero egerunt Decessores nostri Clemens VIII, Urbanus VIII, sanctus Pius X3, Benedictus XV, Pius XII et beatus Ioannes XXIII. Recentioribus autem temporibus, Concilium Vaticanum II desiderium expressit, ut debita observantia et reverentia erga cultum divinum denuo instauraretur ac necessitatibus nostrae aetatis aptaretur. Quo desiderio motus, Decessor noster Summus Pontifex Paulus VI libros liturgicos instauratos et partim innovatos anno 1970 Ecclesiae latinae approbavit; qui ubique terrarum permultas in linguas vulgares conversi, ab Episcopis atque a sacerdotibus et fidelibus libenter recepti sunt. Ioannes Paulus II, tertiam editionem typicam Missalis Romani recognovit. Sic Romani Pontifices operati sunt ut «hoc quasi aedificium liturgicum […] rursus, dignitate splendidum et concinnitate» appareret4. Aliquibus autem in regionibus haud pauci fideles antecedentibus formis liturgicis, quae eorum culturam et spiritum tam profunde imbuerant, tanto amore et affectu adhaeserunt et adhaerere pergunt, ut Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II, horum fidelium pastorali cura motus, anno 1984 speciali Indulto "Quattuor abhinc annos", a Congregatione pro Cultu Divino exarato, facultatem concessit utendi Missali Romano a Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito; anno autem 1988 Ioannes Paulus II iterum, litteris Apostolicis "Ecclesia Dei" Motu proprio datis, Episcopos exhortatus est ut talem facultatem late et generose in favorem omnium fidelium id petentium adhiberent. Instantibus precibus horum fidelium iam a Praedecessore Nostro Ioanne Paulo II diu perpensis, auditis etiam a Nobis Patribus Cardinalibus in Concistorio die XXIII mensis martii anni 2006 habito, omnibus mature perpensis, invocato Spiritu Sancto et Dei freti auxilio, praesentibus Litteris Apostolicis DECERNIMUS quae sequuntur: Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones "legis orandi" Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem "legis credendi" Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani. Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus "Quattuor abhinc annos" et "Ecclesia Dei" pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur: Art. 2. In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato, et quidem qualibet die, excepto Triduo Sacro. Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui. 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 celebrationes saepe vel plerumque vel permanenter perficere vult, res a Superioribus maioribus ad normam iuris et secundum leges et statuta particularia decernatur. Art. 4. Ad celebrationes sanctae Missae de quibus supra in art. 2 admitti possunt, servatis de iure servandis, etiam christifideles qui sua sponte id petunt. Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. Ipse videat ut harmonice concordetur bonum horum fidelium cum ordinaria paroeciae pastorali cura, sub Episcopi regimine ad normam canonis 392, discordiam vitando et totius Ecclesiae unitatem fovendo. § 2. Celebratio secundum Missale B. Ioannis XXIII locum habere potest diebus ferialibus; dominicis autem et festis una etiam celebratio huiusmodi fieri potest. § 3. Fidelibus seu sacerdotibus id petentibus, parochus celebrationes, hac in forma extraordinaria, permittat etiam in adiunctis peculiaribus, uti sunt matrimonia, exsequiae aut celebrationes occasionales, verbi gratia peregrinationes. § 4. Sacerdotes Missali B. Ioannis XXIII utentes, idonei esse debent ac iure non impediti. § 5. In ecclesiis, quae non sunt nec paroeciales nec conventuales, Rectoris ecclesiae est concedere licentiam de qua supra. Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis. Art. 7. Ubi aliquis coetus fidelium laicorum, de quo in art. 5 § 1 petita a parocho non obtinuerit, de re certiorem faciat Episcopum dioecesanum. Episcopus enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat. Si ille ad huiusmodi celebrationem providere non potest res ad Pontificiam Commissionem "Ecclesia Dei" referatur. Art. 8. Episcopus, qui vult providere huiusmodi petitionibus christifidelium laicorum, sed ob varias causas impeditur, rem Pontificiae Commissioni "Ecclesia Dei" committere potest, quae ei consilium et auxilium dabit. Art. 9, § 1. Parochus item, omnibus bene perpensis, licentiam concedere potest utendi rituali antiquiore in administrandis sacramentis Baptismatis, Matrimonii, Poenitentiae et Unctionis Infirmorum, bono animarum id suadente. § 2. Ordinariis autem facultas conceditur celebrandi Confirmationis sacramentum utendo Pontificali Romano antiquo, bono animarum id suadente. § 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato. Art 10. Fas est Ordinario loci, si opportunum iudicaverit, paroeciam personalem ad normam canonis 518 pro celebrationibus iuxta formam antiquiorem ritus romani erigere aut rectorem vel cappellanum nominare, servatis de iure servandis. Art. 11. Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" a Ioanne Paulo II anno 1988 erecta5, munus suum adimplere pergit. Quae Commissio formam, officia et normas agendi habeat, quae Romanus Pontifex ipsi attribuere voluerit. Art. 12. Eadem Commissio, ultra facultates quibus iam gaudet, auctoritatem Sanctae Sedis exercebit, vigilando de observantia et applicatione harum dispositionum. Quaecumque vero a Nobis hisce Litteris Apostolicis Motu proprio datis decreta sunt, ea omnia firma ac rata esse et a die decima quarta Septembris huius anni, in festo Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis, servari iubemus, contrariis quibuslibet rebus non obstantibus. Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die septima mensis Iulii, anno Domini MMVII, Pontificatus Nostri tertio. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Summorum Pontificum: my intro comments and the text

  1. Joey says:

    Te Deum laudámus:
    te Dóminum confitémur.
    Te ætérnum Patrem,
    omnis terra venerátur.
    Tibi omnes ángeli,
    tibi cæli
    et univérsæ potestátes:
    tibi chérubim et séraphim
    incessábili voce proclámant:
    Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
    Dóminus Deus Sábaoth.
    Pleni sunt cæli et terra
    maiestátis glóriæ tuæ.

  2. John Topolosky says:

    BLESSED BE GOD
    BLESSED BE HIS HOLY NAME
    DEO GRATIAS

  3. Mark says:

    Father,

    Wonderful!!! (But I cannot find it on vatican.va…)

    Anyway, a question : what does “in sacris constitutis”, in art. 9 § 2 mean? Also, I take it art. 5 § 1 is the enabling part, so to speak: how big is a group? And also, doesn’t it posit that such a group already exists?

    I’m not grumping: I just have questions!

    Thanks for posting this as I was looking at my clock in earnest!

    Best wishes,
    Mark

  4. A great day to be Catholic. Fr., you said not to gloat but thats hard not to do today at least a little bit. Sweetnesssssssss.

  5. Paul, South midlands UK says:

    Alleliua Amen

  6. Will Cubbedge says:

    Thanks, Father.

    Going to the Extraordinary Rite now to thank God.

    WAC

  7. anon says:

    Te Deum laudámus:
    te Dóminum confitémur.
    Te ætérnum Patrem,
    omnis terra venerátur.
    Tibi omnes ángeli,
    tibi cæli
    et univérsæ potestátes:
    tibi chérubim et séraphim
    incessábili voce proclámant:
    Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
    Dóminus Deus Sábaoth.
    Pleni sunt cæli et terra
    maiestátis glóriæ tuæ.

    Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar

  8. Kathy says:

    Notice how “the Missal of Bl. John XXIII” rings through the legislation like a refrain.

    Blessed John XXIII!!

  9. Christopher says:

    Deo Gratias.

    Fr. Z, thank you for your translations and commentary- and the Te Deum cast.

    Peace be with you and may God bless you.
    Holy Mary protect you.
    -Christopher

  10. M. says:

    I’m just off to the Accident and Emergency dept. with a probable broken finger and I don’t mind one bit. Deo Gratias.

  11. swmichigancatholic says:

    Fr Z, when you first wrote on this blog that this was going to happen, I have to admit, I didn’t believe you. This is an incredible development. I am sooo glad I was wrong. Thank you for all that you do for us.

    And thank God for Pope Benedict XVI.

    M, ouch. I hope your finger is okay!!

  12. swmich: Trust Fr. Z!

  13. Treat says:

    Excellent analysis and advice, as ever, Father.

    What a day!

  14. Fr.,
    It is clear that your posting was exaclty at 0300 pacific time that you are indeed an insider and you have angels (spies) throught Rome.

    It seems to me that Rome did get all the letters over the years of how poorly the traditional communities have been treated. I feel the Holy Father did us all a great favor and that he is indeed aware of our desires and of our pastoral needs. The question now is, will the American bishops obey?????

  15. Breier says:

    From the explanatory letter:

    “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

    Does this establish that the FSSP must now say the New Mass?

  16. Breier says:

    Father,

    I’m worried that we’re not getting the accurate text of either the Motu Proprio or the explanatory letter. For example, the Holy Father’s letter seems to say that “extraordinary” indeed means infrequent, and that’s why it won’t cause division in parishes, because it will be rare. Is that what the original says?

  17. swmichigancatholic says:

    =) Will do, Fr.

    I am so happy, and not only for myself. A great injustice has been righted and the reason for much pain has been dissolved.

    I hope this eases the conflicts in the Latin rite for many people as time passes and we all come to understand better how it’s supposed to be, and I hope it helps to bring us the peace and unity for which we long.

  18. surge says:

    Surge shall correct the Unable to “Enable” in the paragraph with the Corinthians quote.

  19. Michael says:

    This is wonderful news!

    One parish in my city has this weekend Mass schedule:

    Saturday
    4:30 PM (English Mass – Paul VI)

    Sunday
    8:00 (Low Mass – John XXIII)
    10:00 (English Mass – Paul VI)
    12:00 (Sung Mass – John XXIII)

    Will this be allowed to continue after September 14, or will they have to limit themselves to only one Sunday Mass using the Missal of Bl. John XXIII?

  20. Sean White says:

    Deo Gratias!
    I feel like the Holy Martyrs and Saints are closer to me today. My parish will probably throw a party. God bless and preserve our marvellous Holy Father.

    Bless you all my Catholic bretheren. What a great day !

  21. Al says:

    While this won’t satisfy those who want to go back to 1962 & get rid of the Novus Ordo completely, Papa Benedetto has done things in exactly the best way possible.

    I do have a couple of questions (technical) about what is or isn’t allowed.

    1) Given that in some parts of Eastern Europe the Tridentine Mass was said in Slavonic not Latin, are they now able to say it in Slavonic again?

    2) What about the rules allowing the 62 Missal to be said in the vernacular after Vatican II & before 1970 when the Novus Ordo Came out? Will those translations be allowed along with the Latin?Slavonic?

  22. John says:

    A question on the matter of using the old form of the breviary:

    Does that mean that a priest has to use either all prayers of the old form for a day, or all of them of the new form? Or can he just say the 5 hours of the new form, and decide to just replace Lauds with the prayer from the old form? Or would that be considered not praying all 8 hours of the full office?

  23. Graeme says:

    Thank you so much for the translation. This is a happy day for the entire Church.
    Let’s hope the celebration of the Mass of Paul VI is enriched by this gift of our Holy Father too.

  24. Ernie Bragiel says:

    Fr. Z,
    I see the USCCB has the following on their website this morning.
    http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjuneo7.pdf
    Any comments?
    God Bless and Praise God for giving us many blessings beyond our understanding.
    Ernie B.

  25. Breier says:

    Here’s an unofficial complete translation of the Motu Proprio:

    http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf

    Acknowledging the great good this can bring about, I am concerned about some aspects in the text which seem to be a step back from the present situation for traditionalists:

    1. Limitation to only one Sunday Tridentine Mass

    “Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.”

    So is the the Missal prohibited for more than one celebration? If it isn’t abrogated, how can there be this kind of limitation?

    2. Seeming requirement that groups like the FSSP celebrate the New Rite. How is this not a disaster for them? And what of those who actually desire to strive restore the Missal of John Paul XXIII as, in the Lord’s good time, the ordinary usage? I know we can’t talk about “two rites,” but how does making traditionalists priests bi-ritual help matters?

    “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, also the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new
    rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

    3. The implication, in the Holy Father’s letter, that if the New Mass were just celebrated according to the rubrics, then people wouldn’t be attached to the Tridentine Mass. This seems to ignore the principles of even the “reform of the reform.”

    “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.”

  26. techno_aesthete says:

    Father,

    Is it the first part of the MP where Benedict XVI gives a condensed history of the liturgy? If so, I can’t wait to see a translation of that. Also, I couldn’t find the English translation of the legal part at the link you provided. Thank you for your commentary.

  27. Niels says:

    GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO!!!

  28. Tim Ferguson says:

    I’m pleased to see that the norm of Art 5, paragraph 2 is not restrictive, but, in keeping with the nature of any indult or favor, is subject to a broad interpretation. That is to say, it does not mandate that “only” one celebration of the Mass using the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is permitted on Sundays.

    In fact, what it’s saying is that the Mass of Bl. John XXIII ought not be restricted to ferial days, but in those places where it is used, it can also be used on Sundays and Feasts.

  29. Claud says:

    Father:

    The USCCB document that Ernie linked to above states that
    this MP allows for “The 1962 Missale Romanum and all other Roman liturgical rites in force in 1962.”

    I didn’t see anything about that in the MP itself though.

  30. Breier says:

    Tim:

    “Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.”

    This clearly contrasts an indeterminate number on weekdays with “one” on Sunday. It seems a concession to ensure that the Tridentine Mass stays in its box and doesn’t expand too much. Keep the Extraordinary rite “extraordinary”.

    Otherwise couldn’t it have just said:

    Celebrations can take place on weekdays, Sundays, and feast days?

  31. The english translation of the Summorium Pontificum has:

    If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

    However, I note that the USCCB site, in their answers to questions about the
    MP, has “may be referred”

    (see the BCL Newsletter on SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM on the home page http://www.usccb.org/

  32. Breier says:

    Claud,

    You’re right, it doesn’t mention the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Why was that left out? It does mention the other Sacraments:

    Art. 9 § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

    § 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

  33. Dana Cole says:

    Father, thank you so much for your summary and comments. Enjoy your champagne and a beautiful day in the country.

    I attend an oratory of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and I, too, wonder if they’ll be required to celebrate the Novus Ordo at times. This is not a complaint, just a reflection. Since the Holy Father singles out the religious orders dedicated to the traditional rite and makes them an exception to the general rules, they might be excused from this obligation. However, if they are required to celebrate it, they may do us a great favor by finding the most precise, reverent way to celebrate it, and this could “leak” into general practice.

  34. John Giglio says:

    This old ” nutty Aunt in the attic” sings Praise to God for Pope Benedict XVI for allowing us to come down into the family parlor again, to be free to pray in the way of our ancestors! Tears of joy have welled up within me!
    One question: Can I attend the local unauthorized Traditional Latin Mass now, without being called a heretic, and receive Holy Communion there?
    Could somebody answer this question for my spirituality?
    Thanks

  35. prof. Basto says:

    Non nobis, Domine, sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

  36. Christopher says:

    Laudetur Jesus Christus!

    In the midst of all the commentary and debate which will undoubtedly follow the publication of “Summorum Pontificum”, we should remember to express our gratitude to our Pope himself. One can use the following address to e-mail the Holy Father:

    benedictxvi@vatican.va

    Perhaps someone could post the proper address for snail mail?

    God bless!

  37. Francis says:

    “Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.”

    I may be wrong, but I doubt that if there really was a need for a parish to have more than one Mass according to the ’62 Missal on a Sunday that it wouldn’t be allowed in some way. I think that this passage reflects the reality seen even in most indult communities that, at least for now, one Mass on a Sunday is usually sufficient. Note also that the MP encourages the establishment of personal parishes that certainly would be able to have more than one Mass on a Sunday if needed! I also wouldn’t worry about current indult communities that have 2 or 3 weekend Masses being reduced– such as FSSP apostolates. I just can’t see using this document to limit conditions already in place for certain groups.

    “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, also the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

    First of all this is in the letter, not the MP, but I don’t think any priest of a current Eccelsia Dei society will be forced into saying the current rite with this. It seems to me more a restatement of protocol 1411 from a few years ago.

    This is a very wonderful document– even Bp. Fellay thinks so– so we should not be getting worried about small details, I think.

  38. Anamaria says:

    What exactly does the term ‘personal parish’ mean? Can you give me an example of an existing one? Thank you.

  39. Cantor says:

    Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

    Does this mean we will have an English-language Lectionary for the 1962 Missal?

  40. prof. Basto says:

    Breier,

    “referatur” is the verbal form here. It is imperative. Shall be reffered.

  41. Congrats to Fr. Z for being quoted in this morning’s AP story on the Motu Proprio.

    A personal parish is a parish organized around some criteria other than territory, for intance a parish for people from a certian country (national parish), a university chaplancy, or people attached to the extraordinary form of the Mass.

  42. Robert Linz says:

    Overall, this is very good and I am very grateful. I suspect the language stating that priests can not exclude saying the Mass according to the new books “as a matter of principle” is there for the SSPX and other priests who refuse to say the Novus Ordo. At least “in principle” priests who say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal must accept the Novus Ordo as valid and be willing to say that Mass. I don’t think that changes anything for FSSP et. al.

    I believe this statement addresses itself to a larger theme in the letter; namely, the use of the 1962 missal to reform the Novus Ordo. The Holy Father makes it clear that the Novus Ordo is valid and is part of the same liturgical tradition as the “extraordinary” rite. However, it (the Novus Ordo) is too often and in too many places improperly done, as we all know.

    The statement about only one TLM on Sundays is more troubling. I don’t think it would affect FSSP et. al. or parishes that are or become TLM parishes which I believe is permitted in Art. 10 (“Art. 10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.”). It seems to me that this addresses the concerns of those faithful attached to the Novus Ordo that their local parish will no longer offer a Novus Ordo mass on Sundays.

  43. dcs says:

    What exactly does the term ‘personal parish’ mean? Can you give me an example of an existing one? Thank you.

    St. Francis de Sales (FSSP) in Marbleton, GA.
    Mater Ecclesiae (technically a mission, not a parish, but whatever) in Berlin, NJ.

  44. prof. Basto says:

    Good Father Z,

    As you surely must have noticed, neither in the Bulletin of the Holy See Press Office nor in the links to the MP provided in the Vatican website (icon on the cover page of the site and link in
    the section of Pope Benedict’s MPs), is the text given in English, or in any
    other vernacular language. The only text published in the website is the
    Latin one. The only exception is the issue of the “Vatican Information
    Service” (VIS), that does not provide the text of the MP in Latin, but provides
    a(n imperfect) study translation of the normative part of the MP in English.

    On the other hand, the Bulletin of the Press Office – that contains the MP only
    in Latin, provides the “Letter to the Bishops” in several vernacular versions.

    Thus, it is clear that the translation into English provided by the VIS is not
    meant as an official translation (not even of the normative part of the MP –
    otherwise it would have appeared in the Bulletin of the HSPO – but only as an
    aid to journalists

  45. Michael J. Houser says:

    Adveniat Regnum Tuum!

    God be praised for a document we would all have thought impossible only a few years ago. I was wondering if Fr. Z or anyone else could clarify a few points:

    Is there a specific legal meaning to the expression “a stable group of the faithful”? I presume it must be a group of some size, and that pastors aren’t being asked to introduce the extraordinary use in response to only one or two individuals (which is reasonable). But how many do you have to have?

    On a related note, what about cases where clergy like myself are ready and eager to celebrate the extraordinary use publicly? Do we have to wait for a stable group of the faithful to come along, or can we start public celebration of the extraordinary use on our own initiative? (Admitttedly, this wouldn’t be common, but I’d like to at least be able to use it for my first Mass, etc.)

    Also, where does this leave the blessings in the pre-1970 Roman Ritual? Are these now available for any priest (or deacon, where applicable) to use? That would seem in keeping with the spirit of this document, but he doesn’t address it directly.

    How does the permission to use the old Roman Breviary work in practice? Does a cleric have to do all one or the other, or can one alternate between both versions? (I have to admit, though I love the old Office and look forward to becoming more familiar with it, I do sometimes appreciate the greater brevity of the new!)

    I am particularly gratified by the candor of the Holy Father’s letter to the bishops, which can be recognized as classic Ratzinger by those familiar with his earlier words on this subject. He goes through all the most common arguments heard against allowing the extraordinary use, and responds to them with pastoral charity and common sense. He continues the theme of continuity vs. rupture which has become something of a hallmark of his pontificate. And he makes it clear that it’s perfectly OK for young people to adhere to the Missal of John XXIII, that this isn’t just a temporary thing to accommodate nostalgic septuagenarians. God grant that all the Church’s shepherds will respond willingly to the Holy Father’s manifest desire in this regard.

  46. Tim Ferguson says:

    Please note, the motu proprio does not say ANYTHING about “only one” celebration of the Tridentine Mass on Sundays. This is a tack that, I suspect, a number of those opposed to the extension of this Mass will try to make. Simply remind them that the motu proprio does not use the word “only,” and, as a favorable decree, not a penalty, it is subject to a broad interpretation. Hence, one Mass according to the 1962 Missal may be allowed, but it need not be limited to one.
    See canons 18 and 36 of the Latin Code.

  47. RBrown says:

    The english translation of the Summorum Pontificum has:

    If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

    However, I note that the USCCB site, in their answers to questions about the
    MP, has “may be referred”

    (see the BCL Newsletter on SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM on the home page http://www.usccb.org/
    Comment by Thomas Dunbar

    The verb referatur is in the subjunctive and may be translated as “should be referred” or “may be referred”. Perhaps the best translation is “let the matter be referred”. More importantly, the text seems to say that referring the matter to the EC is not merely a matter for the bishops but also is extended to priests and the laity.

  48. Michael J. Houser says:

    Adveniat Regnum Tuum!

    John Giglio,

    The Motu Proprio says that priests saying the extraordinary use (henceforth EU) must not be juridically impeded. This seems to exclude renegade priests who have been acting independently of bishops, at least until things are regularized. In any case, these prescriptions aren’t in effect until September 14.

    Breier,

    The line about traditionalist priests not excluding celebration of the Missal of Paul VI is, I think, meant to exclude a total rejection of it as seen in SSPX. The priests of the Institute of Christ the King whom I know are in fact willing to concelebrate the Paul VI Missal for occasions such as the Chrism Mass or the priestly ordinations for the diocese. This, I think, is probably sufficient.

    As for “one” Mass on Sunday, it would seem unlikely that the Holy Father’s intent here is to limit Masses that already go on, say at St. John Cantius in Chicago. A canonist will have to tell us how exactly “una etiam celebratio fieri potest” should be taken. It seems to presume that one is dealing with a situation where there has been no such celebration to date, but I could be wrong.

  49. Michael says:

    The document says that the pastor may permit the use of the old rite for Baptism, Penance, Matrimony and Extreme Unction, and that the Ordinary may use the old rite for Confirmation. No mention is made of ordination. I wonder if that means anything. Maybe only clerics of communities that exclusively use the 1962 Missal can be ordained according to the old rite.

    The document says that it will be effective on September 14, 2006. If the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, doesn’t that mean that priests would be able to use it “privately” (even with people present) immediately, without asking the bishop’s permission?

  50. The USCCB newsletter is pretty good, except for this section comparing the two forms:

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    includes 1% of Old Testament
    includes 17% of New Testament

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    includes 14% of Old Testament
    includes 71% of New Testament

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    Begins with prayers at the foot of the altar prayed
    privately by priest and server

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    Begins with a greeting and communal
    penitential rite

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    One Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman Canon Nine Eucharistic Prayers, the first of which is
    the Roman Canon

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    Faithful usually receive Holy Communion only
    under one kind

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    Allows for wider distribution of Holy
    Communion under both kinds to the faithful

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    Last Gospel and Prayers to Saint Michael the
    Archangel included in closing rites

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    Closing rites include Prayer after
    Communion, Blessing and Dismissal

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    Preserves prayers and rites of 1570 with some
    changes

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    Simplifies prayers and rites in the light of
    contemporary research and understanding

    Extraordinary Form (1962)
    Only clerics or “altar boys” perform liturgical
    ministry

    Ordinary Form (2007)
    Restores lay liturgical ministries and
    encourages careful differentiation of roles

    My Comments: Several false comparisons here (what’s not communal about the penitential rite f the new mass? plus both forms have an introit, there’s still a blessing and dismissal in the older form), plus the invocation of “altar boys” which isn;’t the only kind of altar server in the extraordinary form (just like in the new).

  51. RJC says:

    Dear Father,

    I think (and hope) you are mistaken about one thing. You noted that “However, in parishes where the newer forms are the usual fare, and there is a regularly scheduled Mass with the older form, when the Triduum arrives, the older, extraordinary liturgy must give way to the ordinary.” I don’t see that. What I see is that no PRIVATE traditional Latin Masses may be offered during the Easter Triduum; I don’t see any such restriction under Art 5 (which addresses formal / public traditional Latin Masses, wherever they might be offered).

    I think this is an important point, that needs to be clarified one way or the other.

    God bless,
    RJC

  52. surge says:

    Surge is further expecting (Article 3) Institutes &c to follow their own particular statues!

  53. One 1962 Mass on Sundays and Feasts?

    My understanding is that this applies to regular territorial parishes. By saying that one 1962 Mass is permitted, the MP (justly, in my opinion) prevents a pastor who is very enthusiastic about the 1962 Missal from changing all his Sunday Masses to the 1962 form.
    That restriction makes sense by remembering that in general, apart from personal parishes, the vast majority of parishes are territorial and the pastor has responsibility for all the Catholics within the boundaries of his parish. Therefore, except in extraordinary cases, it would not be fitting for the pastor to totally eliminate the ordinary celebration of the Roman rite from his parish.

    FSSP, ICKSP and special personal parishes are a different situation. These will still be able to offer all their Sunday Masses in the 1962 manner.

  54. swmichigancatholic says:

    The real key to this is that the bishops have to stop trying to control our every breath. We can hear latin and it won’t hurt us. Or we can hear English. And we can decide.

    These strong attempts to control everything seem to be political in nature and they seem to have appeared around Vatican II. They are also sometimes financial.

    The church isn’t really like that, you know. We’ve often had parallel equal forms of Mass, as history books attest.

  55. swmichigancatholic says:

    RE attempts to control:
    Just like this alternate translation which they paid someone good money to make. There are only a couple of reasons I can think of why they would do that and they all involve trying to control us or get cash from us. Even people who don’t have access to the computer would have been served every bit as well with a printout from the Vatican site. Cost = copy paper.

    This is the real problem. The Motu Proprio addresses it quite squarely too.

  56. John says:

    My memory is foggy but if I recall, one of the criticisms by the SSPX of the FSSP is that they (FSSP) could on occasion be required to say the N.O. Mass. There was an internal dispute of the FSSP with some of it’s priests wanting to say the New Mass contrary to the desire of the majority including the then Superior of the FSSP. However the Vatican decided that the FSSP would not be able to exclusively say the Tridentine Mass. This was used by some of the SSPX to justify their opposition to Rome and prevent their return since they did not want to be required to say the New Mass and pointed to what happened with the FSSP. Therefore this does not appear to be anything new or a cause for concern.

  57. Sid Cundiff says:

    I am very joyful also. Benedict was never the problem, and I should have recognized that sooner. The real problem is many diocesan clergy.

    1. stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition,
    coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter

    I have long experience, both in the seminary and in the parish, of “liturgists” who twist documents to mean what they want them to mean. Call it “liturgical deconstruction”. I fear that “stable group” will be twisted into a number, a number decided arbitrarily, and a number that must be present every single day or Sunday – or the guillotine. Or instable will be held to mean “nutcases” or “disobedient to the pastor’s (heterodox and heteropraxis) whims”.

    2. The “my-way-is-the-only-way” types enjoy being entertainers and the center of attraction. They consider their “touchy-feely” antics to be “loving”, “concern”, “welcoming”, “building community” – you know their lingo. And I am very sorry to report, but based on my own painful experience in the seminary and in local churches, and based on rumor, report, law suits, and criminal prosecutions, many of these types are also homosexuals, and regard their “play liturgy” part of their sexual identity. Others just have a pathological hatred of “the old Church”.

    In short, plenty of these clergy will now dig in their heels and fight tooth and nail. We’ve got a lot of struggle before us.

    3. We all live in a particular culture. Americans are largely influenced by the Non-Conformist Ranter and Evangelical emotional tradition in religion, and otherwise live in a culture of banal, insipid, vulgar, sensationist, or kitsch emotions. Serious, devout, formal, and traditional solemnity isn’t what most folk are used to, and certainly not what they haven’t gotten at Mass for the last 40 years. We have this resistance as well.

    Just letting you know before a stonewall hits you at your home church.

  58. I’m curious about the training of the clergy piece. What sort of threshold for proficiency will be used and who decides? Is this then the proper domain of the bishops to regulate? Suppose a priest desires training for his diocese. Would he still require permission from his bishop to obtain the training?

    In ICXC,

    Gordo

  59. Cantor says:

    One quibble:

    SumPon says:
    —————–
    In Masses celebrated with the people according to the Missal of Blessed
    John XXIII, the
    Readings can be proclaimed even in the vernacular, using editions that
    have received the recognitio of
    the Apostolic See.
    —————–

    The BCL says (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf):
    —————–
    The vernacular edition of the Lectionary
    for Mass may be used in the extraordinary
    form, while the 1962 calendar is to be
    followed.
    —————–

    Wouldn’t, though, the readings have to be the same in the 1962 rite and
    the modern Lectionary? Is there something to contradict the idea that
    SumPon actually envisions *new* translations being made of the 1962
    Missale’s readings, rather than “back-porting” the new Lectionary into
    the 1962 Mass?

  60. PNP, OP says:

    Father Z.,

    Thank you for your sensible commentary and cautions. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed that the M.P. wasn’t just a tad more…what?…insistent? The irony here is that I am not trained to celebrate the Extraordinary Rite! However, that the E.U. will enhance the dignity and reverence of the O.U. seems inevitable. Last night, in a fit of insomnia, I predicted the responses to the M.P. from the professional liturgical class in the U.S. (http://hancaquam.blogspot.com) I predicted six stages to their dissent. One reader has already noted that the first stage is complete! Let’s pray that my other predictions prove false. Fr. Philip, OP

  61. Richard says:

    Two points:

    1. “The USCCB newsletter is pretty good, except for this section comparing the two forms:”

    Clearly a biased and selective comparison by whoever wrote this.

    There are some other comparisons which could be made which reflect less well on the 1970 missal, after all. I won’t question the notion that the modern (ordinary) form made some improvements; but it is also impoverished in many ways, as Lauren Pristas and Msgr Gamber have pointed out.

    Well – Can’t say I’m surprised.

    2. Question for Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

    Like several others here, I was also drawn to this passage in the Holy Father’s letter: “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

    Obviously this can raise alarm bells for societies attached to the older rite (FSSP, ICK, et al) and their lay followers. While in principle they accept the modern form as valid and licit (as they must) they do not celebrate the new form, precisely because of the sensitivities involved in their apostolate bring back into full communion traditionalists who have strayed outside the flock in some way.

    At least two posters have reasonably suggested that the Pope means not to change this state of affairs. But given the sensitivity of this question, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, I wonder if you might reflect on the real implications of this passage?

    And let me add my thanks to that of many others here for all of your work in analyzing this magnam gaudium which the Holy Father has provided to us all this morning.

  62. Joshua says:

    Further to Cantor’s comment,

    I too think that the US BCL has misread Article 6 “Summorum Pontificum” –

    Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis.
    (unofficial trans.)
    Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

    I cannot see that the Holy Father intends the use of so-called “Hybrid Mass”, that is, the Traditional Liturgy with Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Word inserted!

    Frankly, who would want that anyway? It’s such a relief to live in the liturgy’s “year of salvation” instead of A, B, or C. And how on earth would it work to maintain the Gradual, Alleluia, etc. while inserting 3 readings? A moment’s consideration shows that this US BCL interpretation is wrong, undesirable and unworkable.

    Since reference is made elsewhere ONLY to adding a few more saint’s days and prefaces to the Missal of Bl John XXIII, any idea of inserting a wholly new lectionary is ruled out of court.

    Rather, what is spoken of here is what was coming in in France and Germany prior to the Council – having the readings for Mass acc. to the 1962 Missal read in the vernacular.

    It is wise to recall an official response from the 1960’s that required that the translations read out at Mass be made from the liturgical text, and not just the relevant pericope from a Bible, since the liturgical texts often have certain additions or slight adjustments made to their texts: for instance, beginning “At that time, Jesus said to his disciples…” or ending a passage from an epistle of St Paul “… in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Another example would be a passage from Jeremiah (used toward the end of Lent) where the Missal reads “the just man” instead of “Jeremiah”, in order to bring out the typological meaning of the lesson.

  63. BethAlice says:

    There are many comments, about how the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, etc will be forced to say the N.O. I think if they were to say the N.O. (and I know my Institute of Christ the King priest has participated in N.O. Masses – Masses where many priests come together, usually a diocesan event like Corpus Christi), it would be at the request of the faithful (just as the TLM is to be said if the faithful request it). I think the Holy Father was prudent in this decision, so as not to “play sides”. I also think he knows that the faithful who do go to the Masses offered my the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, etc. would not request the N.O. anyway.

    Oh, and Father Z, my “anti-spam word” was “Motu Proprio?” Don’t you think it should be changed to “Motu Proprio!”?

  64. Fr. Z:

    Your point on “extraordinary” not meaning “rare” can be succinctly made in four words:

    “Extraordinary minister of communion.”

  65. prof. Basto says:

    Zadock the Roman,

    Exactly. Otherwise there would be no point in establishing personal parishes.

    If there is to be a personal parish for those attached to the extraordinary form,
    that is because, in the personal parish, the use of the extraordinary form will
    be wider than in territorial parishes.

    After all, the establishment of personal parishes “for celebrations according to
    the ancient form of the roman rite” is expressly provided for in article 10,
    and it wouldn’t make sense to establish a personal parish if the situation were
    to be the same as in a normal (territorial) one.

    The restriction of one extraordinary form Mass per Sunday and Feast is contained
    in paragraph 2 of article 5. And it is clear that article 5 deals with
    celebrations in normal parishes, where the ordinary form co-exists with the
    celebration of the extraordinary form for the benefit of a stable group. Thus,
    the restriction of one Mass per Sunday and Feast aims at normal parishes.

    Also, the Holy Father states expressly that the norms of Summorum Pontificum
    replace the conditions of Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei; however, it
    seems that the intent of the legislator is to expand the possibilities for the
    use of the ancient form of the Roman Rite, and not to restrict previous
    concessions regarding the use of the Books of 1962 for specific communities.

    For instance, the grant to the FSSP mentions the use of “all Liturgical Books”,
    in accordance with the editions in force in 1962. That includes rites that
    are not mentioned in Summorum Pontificum, such as the blessings, the rites for
    conferring Holy Orders, the rite of exorcism, etc. It seems to me that it is
    not the intention of the legislator to reppeal wider a concession made to a
    specific group, such as in the case of the FSSP.

    Also, in the case of the Apostolic Administration St. John Mary Vianney in Campos,
    Brazil, the Decree Animarum Bonum grants the celebration of “all Liturgical actions”,
    in accordance to the form of 1962; it decrees that the form of the roman rite
    codifyed by St. Pius V and updated up to and including Bl. John XXIII is the
    “proper” liturgical form of the Apostolic Administration.

    The FSSP and the Apostolic Administration even ordain to Minor Orders, and probably
    other groups such as the ICKSP does so as well, and, in the case of the
    Administration, there is even provision in the Decree Animarum Bonum establishing
    a record of lay faithful who, either upon baptism or afterwards, become enrolled
    as subjects of the Administration, and therefore come under the authority of its
    Bishop, the only current Bishop of the Catholic World that was lawfully ordained
    to excercise jurisdiction over a flock of people attached to the extraordinary
    form of the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, in those communities, there are SEVERAL
    Masses a day and other liturgical actions celebrated in accordance with the
    Books of 1962. It seems obvious that it is not the intent of the legislator
    to change the situation of those specific communities, who received specific
    permissions different from the general norms (that then were those of Quattuor
    abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei), for a reason.

  66. swmichigancatholic says:

    That’s why the emphasis on freedom for the Mass of 1962 is so important. When you find a priest who can say it, he doesn’t have to ask permission from the bishop. The bishop must not be allowed to micromanage every thought everyone has. He has legitimate responsibilities and micromanaging exactly every thought I have, every bending of my knee, every disposition I have in Mass, is not among them. Even if it involves my supposed requirement to feel soft & fuzzy community emotions during the “handshake of peace” and other such things.

    RE a related issue,
    I think it’s important that the Mass of 1962 doesn’t require a second set of faculties. I don’t think one should be imposed either in a de facto fashion….

    And supposing the bishop isn’t going to follow too many people around 24/7, perhaps this isn’t such a problem?

  67. prof. Basto says:

    The anti-spam word Chilling the Veuve! should be changed to Drinking the Veuve!

  68. prof. Basto says:

    I don’t think that article 6 is making reference to the readings of the
    ordinary form of the Roman Rite.

    The article itself states that:

    “In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by
    the Apostolic See.”

    Thus, if the Mass is to be said in accordance with the Missal of bl. John XXIII,
    the calendar, the passages for the readings, will be those of that Missal.

    What is being authorized here is NOT the celebration of a Mixed Mass, partly
    using the Missal of John XXII and partly using the Lectionary of the Missal
    of Paul VI. Instead, what the article allows is that, as an option, the readings
    contained in the Missal of bl. John XXIII may be proclaimed in the vernacular,
    using traslated edditions approved (or to be approved) by the Holy See.

    Otherwise, it wouldn’t simply be a matter of translation, given that Epistle and
    Gospel texts for several dates are different in the two rites. Thus, if the
    Pauline lectionary were to be used, it would mean not only a proclamation in
    the vernacular, but a change in the passage read. And that’s not what’s intended.

    Furthermore, it is clear that the reading in the vernacular is a faculty, not
    an obligation. The verbal expression is very clear. Thus, the priest can celebrate
    using the Missal of bl. John XXIII with the people and still proclaim the readings in Latin.

  69. prof. Basto says:

    Of course, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is there and it is empowered
    to solve any dubia. Queries will be submitted, and the Comission will provide the
    proper interpretation.

  70. swmichigancatholic says:

    Prof. Basto,
    Are those readings actually excerpts from Scripture or are they paraphrased in some way as the Pauline ones are?

  71. RC2 says:

    “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.” That line, which cuts both ways, seems to me to be the heart of this motu proprio. The Pope is defending the unity of the Church…and its charity. God bless him!

  72. swmichigancatholic says:

    I trust you know what I mean. The excerpts used in the Pauline mass aren’t really part of any of the common Bible translations. (I believe, in fact, the Vatican has remarked on this as a regrettable thing.) They are pulled out and paraphrased for use in the mass, I believe, proclaimable and all that. And the paraphrases aren’t very good at all. Same thing with the contemporary liturgy of the hours.

  73. laura says:

    Nutty aunts in the attic everywhere thank you, Father for this very thorough explanation!

  74. Joe says:

    Cantor: I think the USCCB site is mistaken on the reference to the Lectionary.

    All the Holy Father is saying is that the readings can be in the vernacular using an edition recognised by the Holy See eg the RSV is approved for England and Wales, though it’s been effectively overtaken by the Jerusalem Bible.

    Even before the Council, the readings were always repeated in the vernacular – as the existince of so many editions of the “Epistles and Gospels”. Here in England the Douay-Rheims was used as well as the Knox translation.

    There can be no question of using the 1970 Lectionary at 1962 Masses – it wouldn’t work.

  75. Raymundus says:

    How do they get “worthy” out of the Latin “idonei” in the USCCB translation (Art. 5, #2)? “Qualified” sounds a little better and a little less…Donatist.

    And yeah – this Lectionary thing has me turned around BACKWARDS. Aiutami?

  76. nab says:

    I don’t understand the calendar thing…is it keep the old calendar, but insert new saints on days that aren’t full? Is there going to be yet another calendar? What about the octaves and such? Especially for a priest who prays the old er Mass and the older Breviary?

  77. Devereaux Cannon says:

    I have here a 1964 Lectionary, which has the Epistles and Gospel according the to TLM calendar using the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine’s English translation of the Vulgate. My guess is that this qualifies as “readings [which] may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.”

  78. Calvin Hazelwood says:

    Sandro Magister writes re that prayer for the “perfidious Jews”:

    The missal of 1962, the only one authorized for those who wish to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rite, does not contain the prayer “pro perfidis Judaeis” – which properly means: “for the Jews who do not believe [in Jesus Christ]” – nor other formulas that have today become objects of criticism, these having been modified already by John XXIII. Nor do these formulas exist in the baptismal ritual preceding Vatican Council II: this ritual, too, is authorized by the “motu proprio.”

    So if the 1962 Missal no longer contains those prayers (I’m afraid I wish it did — just use a more appropriate translation for “perfidis”), what’s the issue? Can clarification be offered? Thanks, Calvin

  79. Myrna M says:

    This is the only part that bugs me. “Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it…”
    I was only 30 years-old. I wasn’t an old person.
    I rejoice about the rest, however. I feel that the Ship of the Church has corrected its path and is back on course.

  80. Parochus says:

    Prof. Basto is correct in his presentation of what is said about the possibility — not requirement — of reading the Scripture lessons in the vernacular.
    Remember: from 1964 to 1970 the readings, which were proclaimed in English, were those of the 1962 Missal. Many parishes, including my own, still have a copy of the book used at the time: “Lectionary: Containing the Epistles and Gospels Together with the Intervenient Chants for Each Day of the Year.” These are exactly the readings in the 1962 Missal.
    The BCL commentary says exactly the opposite of what some are alleging: if you do the readings in the vernacular, they must be those corresponding to the 1962 cycle; there’s to be no “mixing” of usages.
    Please, people, read what’s actually written before jumping to conclusions.

  81. milanta says:

    7 7 7

    Excellent Motu Propio Day!

    Deo Gratias!

  82. Tim Ferguson says:

    I’m experiencing mild post-motu proprio depression. What do we have to look forward to now?

    Oh, right – Tuesday’s document from the CDF. Woo hoo!

  83. Paul Priest says:

    One of the major problems is going to be the hundreds, if not thousands, of priests who hardly know a word of latin; let alone the 1962 Rites ! In my four years studying for the priesthood The only time latin was even used was in the sung Salve Regina, Tantum Ergo, Veni Creator Spiritus, Regina Caeli, Sanctus and Agnus Dei!!!
    during my time in the US my diocese was ‘strongly reccommended to not use latin’ by the Bishop – even in Expositions and Benedixion !
    More than a few recalcitrant, embarassed clerics will realiate in some way….

  84. Eric says:

    Michael Houser asks:

    “Is there a specific legal meaning to the expression “a stable group of the faithful”? I presume it must be a group of some size, and that pastors aren’t being asked to introduce the extraordinary use in response to only one or two individuals (which is reasonable). But how many do you have to have?

    “On a related note, what about cases where clergy like myself are ready and eager to celebrate the extraordinary use publicly? Do we have to wait for a stable group of the faithful to come along, or can we start public celebration of the extraordinary use on our own initiative? (Admitttedly, this wouldn’t be common, but I’d like to at least be able to use it for my first Mass, etc.)”

    Michael, My understanding of the idea of a “stable group” does not refer to quantity. I would interpret this as a group of parishioners already actively involved in the parish. So, for example, a pastor who is approached by a group of people he has never met and who have never been to his church asking for the older use could, quite rightly, be turned down. Obviously, it couid not refer to quantity, as this would vary froma small parish to a larger one.

    The document does not seem to indicate that a priest could just begin regularly scheduled public celebrations of the older usage without a request from the people, that is, a pastoral need. However, it does permit it for special occasions, so that could include a First Mass.

  85. Justin says:

    The response of the Scottish Bishops:

    The publication of the document on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 reflects the pastoral concern of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for those who find themselves drawn to that form of the Eucharistic celebration – a pastoral concern which the Bishops of Scotland share.

    The Bishops of Scotland also share Pope Benedict XVI’s concern about the unity of the Church. In both his writings and his statements the Pope has reminded us of the centrality of the Eucharist as the source of unity in the life of the Church. Writing earlier this year in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis the Holy Father says, “The fact that the one Eucharist is celebrated in each Diocese around its own Bishop helps us see how those particular Churches subsist in and from the Church.” (15).

    “In thanking the Holy Father for this most recent document, the Bishops of Scotland wish to note that since 1970 Catholics in Scotland have embraced the reform of the liturgy, with the same openness of heart as they had already begun to accept the other decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Father’s decision to issue this document is motivated above all by his desire to mend divisions where they have occurred and to prevent future divisions by helping to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”. Echoing what the Holy Father says, the Bishops wish to point out that there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal (1962 and 1970) and that they in fact demonstrate that in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress but no rupture.

    Having consulted widely throughout the Church before issuing this document and the norms it sets down, the Pope reminds bishops that each of them is moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese and has the responsibility to be watchful to ensure that all is done in peace and serenity. Bishops are invited to monitor the effect of the norms so that the whole Church can be involved in an evaluation of them in three years time.

    The Bishops of Scotland acknowledge this responsibility and intend to study the Holy Father’s document thoroughly to ensure that that its provisions are fully available to those Catholics in Scotland who may wish to encounter the mystery of the Eucharist through the form of celebration set out in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.

    The Bishops of Scotland pray that God will continue to bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in his ministry of love and reconciliation. We ask that the Blessed Virgin Mary will intercede with her Divine Son on behalf of the Church so that together with our Holy Father the Pope we will all be faithful and obedient sons and daughters of God as we carry out his will.

    The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and his brother bishops in England and Wales have yet to present an official statement.

  86. That’s funny Father: you say the MP was addressed to three groups of folks (for now). You also state: “it is unacceptable to suggest that these provisions were made merely to accomodate a bunch of nostalgic old foggies who can’t get with the program.”

    May I add: “it is unacceptable to suggest that these provisions were made merely to accomodate a bunch of SSPOX’ers who can’t get with the program.”

    Over at Rorate Caeli a poster who seems familiar with Miami posted the following response from the Archbishop there.
    _____________________

    Here is how the Archdiocese of Miami interpreted the Motu Proprio. A little context… Lighthouse Point is about 50 miles from Miami and Robert Bellarmine is a small church in not the best of neighborhoods.

    I will reread Fatehr Z’s five points and say one hundred “Ave”s daily to focus myself on the positive…. and pray for my Bishop

    Vatican Announcement Addresses Pastoral Needs of Universal Church
    The Archdiocese of Miami Continues to Offer Latin Mass
    Miami, FL

    With the announcement of the Vatican?s approval of use of Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970, the Archdiocese of Miami reaffirms its commitment to addressing the pastoral needs of all Catholics in South Florida.

    Pope Benedict XVI?s Apostolic Letter Given Motu Proprio issued Saturday, July 7, 2007, allows for parishes to celebrate daily and Sunday Masses in Latin without special permission from the local ordinary (archbishop/bishop).

    Following Vatican II Council held in Rome from 1962-1965, daily and Sunday Masses throughout the world have been celebrated in its local vernacular. However, some Catholics wanted to enjoy the Roman Rite (Latin) Mass which had been familiar to them from childhood.

    Realizing this need over 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Miami granted permission to celebrate the Sunday Mass in Latin, most recently at St. Robert Bellarmine in Miami and St. Paul the Apostle in Lighthouse Point.
    In addition, Masses throughout the Archdiocese of Miami are celebrated in 16 other languages as well, including sign language.

    It is the intention of Archbishop John C. Favalora to continue providing the Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Miami and takes this opportunity to welcome back anyone who has been away from the church.

    _________________

    Sad.

  87. Publius says:

    I just e-mailed the following letter to His Holiness:

    [my name omitted]
    Benedicto XVI Pontifici Optimo Maximo
    Salutem dicit in Domino.

    Sanctissme Pater:

    Litteris Vestris Apostolicis motu proprio datis, sub nomine “Summorum Pontificum,” hodie promulgatis, breviter Vobis gratias maximas agere pro sollicitudine Vestra paterna volo. Hae enim decreta, longe et ferventer expecta, Ecclesiae sanctae multas benedictiones coelestas deferent. Totum per orbem terrarum hymnum “Te Deum” canitur pro liberatione “Missae Sanctorum” necnon aliorum librorum liturgicorum rituumque veteris usus Sancti Pii V, Beato Ioanne XXII emendati. Fas est, ut dixistis.

    Ideo reverecunditer Vobis propono et rogo ut Pontifex Romanus in Basilica Vaticana mox sanctam Missam iuxta ritum extraordinarium, Tridentinum vocatum, solemniter et pontificale, cum omnibus caerimoniis debitis, offeret, ad maiorem Dei gloriam, “ob memoriam passionis, resurrectionis, et ascensionis Iesu Christi, Domini nostri, et in honorem beátæ Maríæ semper Vírginis, et beati Ioannis Baptístæ, et sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, et omnium sanctorum,” et pro aedificatione magna totius Ecclesiae.

    Cum omne pietate filiali, Vobis salutem felicitatem pacem honorem precor, et pro intentionibus Vestris oro, et humiliter benedictionem Vestram peto.

    Scriptum Novi Eboraci, in Foederatis Civitatibus Americae, in nonibus Iuliis anno Domini MMVII.

  88. mike says:

    Aaaahhhhhhh…(smacking lips). Hmmmphhh. Just woke up.

    What’s goin on guys – did I miss something?

    m

  89. Breier says:

    Regarding lack of Latin knowledge, English rubrics for the 1962 missal are available here:

    http://www.pcpbooks.com/new_books_pages/rubrics_roman_breviary_missal.htm

    http://www.pcpbooks.com/new_books_pages/celebration_of_mass.htm

  90. Richard says:

    Hello Simon-Peter,

    I have been to Bellarmine, and I second the observations you make about it.

    There are dioceses that have been even more stingy with the indult, but there are plenty much more generous.

    Here the Chancery seems to say: “We’re already with the program. There’s nothing we need to change in what we’re doing.”

    But the attitude toward the indult is, alas, one of the least of Miami’s problems. It is left to us to pray, in charity, that this diocese will be restored and renewed in the faith in the coming years.

  91. Mark says:

    @Publius:

    Care to translate? All I know is that you are in New York…

    @Justin:

    Where did you find the response of the Scottish Bishops?

  92. Justin says:

    Mark – I got it from the Times Online via Ruth Gledhill’s religion blog.

  93. Publius says:

    C’mon all you Latinists–I need to translate? ;-)

  94. RBrown says:

    One of the major problems is going to be the hundreds, if not thousands, of priests who hardly know a word of latin; let alone the 1962 Rites ! In my four years studying for the priesthood The only time latin was even used was in the sung Salve Regina, Tantum Ergo, Veni Creator Spiritus, Regina Caeli, Sanctus and Agnus Dei
    during my time in the US my diocese was ‘strongly reccommended to not use latin’ by the Bishop – even in Expositions and Benedixion !
    More than a few recalcitrant, embarassed clerics will realiate in some way….
    Comment by Paul Priest

    I was in Rome eight years, living in a residence with as many as eighteen different nationalities. There were usually at least 30 priests living there, almost none were American.

    In those eight years it is safe to say that no more than half knew the Salva Regina.

  95. RBrown says:

    There are also deficiencies other than Latin.

    The Angelicum has the Mater Ecclesiae Institute, a program to train those (e.g., sisters and laics) who will teach religion in primary and secondary schools. The theology required in that catechetics program exceeds what is required in almost all US seminaries for those in priestly studies.

  96. Publius says:

    Just kidding. In English, here is what I wrote:

    [Publius]
    to Benedict XVI Supreme Pontiff
    sends greetings in the Lord.

    Most Holy Father:

    Your Apostolic letter motu proprio, under the name “Summorum Pontificum,” having been promulgated today, I wish briefly to give my great thanks to you for your paternal solicitude. This decree, long and fervently awaited, will bring many heavenly blessings to the holy Church. Throughout the whole world, the hymn “Te Deum” is being sung on account of the liberation of the “Mass of the Saints” as well as the other liturgical books and rites of the ancient use of St. Pius V, revised by Bl. John XXIII. It is “religiously permissible”, as you have said. [Benedict uses the term “fas est” in the letter, which is an ancient Roman formulation with no equivalent word in English.]

    And so I respectfully propose to and beg of you that the Roman Pontiff soon offer, in the Vatican Basilica, holy Mass according to the extraordinary rite, called Tridentine, solemnly and pontifically, with all due ceremonies, for the greater glory of God, “in memory of the passion, resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, and Blessed John the Baptist, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints” [from the offertory prayers], and for the great edification of the whole Church.

    With all filial piety, I entreat for you health, happiness, peace and honor, I pray for your intentions, and I humbly ask your blessing

    Written at New York, in the United States of America, on the Nones of July [July 7], in the year of Our Lord 2007.

  97. RBrown says:


    In thanking the Holy Father for this most recent document, the Bishops of Scotland wish to note that since 1970 Catholics in Scotland have embraced the reform of the liturgy, with the same openness of heart as they had already begun to accept the other decisions of the Second Vatican Council.

    The Bishops in Scotland remind me of George Bush talking about the successes of the Iraq War.

    Checking the drop off in numbers of priests in Scotland since 1970, it is easy to see that this is a group of bishops who are lying to themselves–and perhaps others.

    http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/dgb2.html

  98. Mark says:

    Thanks, Justin. Curious; I wonder why it did not appear as a press-release on the Scottish Catholic Media Office website.

    Publius, I like your thinking! :)

  99. Tim Ferguson: What do we have to look forward to now?

    More of your great parody songs, which I hope will be a regular feature here.

    Whaddya think folks? More parody songs?

    I am thinking about one on, say… perhaps… embargoes….

  100. Craigmaddie says:

    There has also been a huge drop in the number of Catholics attending Mass in Scotland so it’s not completely true to say that “Catholics in Scotland have embraced the reform of the liturgy”…

  101. Publius: Hae enim decreta, longe et ferventer expecta,…

    Perhaps expectata?

  102. Mark says:

    Hrmmm… our Church is always full (though the music is yuck!). Hence tomorrow, I just have to go into town to the er… Forma extraordinaria. :)

  103. Publius says:

    You got me Padre. Expectata it is. But if there was only one mistake, that’s pretty good for me. I wonder how many letters in Latin B XVI gets. Maybe I will get a reply! And maybe he will correct me too!

  104. Publius says:

    Do you think there is any chance that we will see the Tridentine mass celebrated by the pope in St. Peters anytime soon? Silver trumpets and flabella anyone?

  105. john says:

    Bye bye Kumbaya!

  106. Cerimoniere says:

    Ah, the anti-spam word has changed! My Veuve-sipping will begin in about at about 6pm this evening, but I’m delighted to be in fellowship for those for whom it has already begun. What an utterly joyful day this is. As many others have already done, I’d like to take the oppotunity to thank Father for accompanying us all on our journey to this wonderful moment, and doubtless for much guidance still to come in the future.

    Incidentally, Publius, I once wrote to the Holy Father in Latin, albeit when he was still a Cardinal, and received a very gracious response in the same language. I’m not sure if one will be so lucky, now that his volume of mail has presumably increased significantly, but it may be!

  107. anonymous 7-7-7 says:

    Dear Fr. Z:

    Is it possible that the Easter Triduum exception in Article 2 (for private masses) means that the same missal must be used throughout and not swapped one day to the next?

  108. elizabeth mckernan says:

    Deo Gratias! Te deum laudamus! Oh happy Day! It’s been a long wait …

  109. Rahem Ensar says:

    Aure Entuluva! Lacho calad, drego morn!

  110. RAHEM!!  MELON!

    Aure Entuluva! Lacho calad, drego morn!

    Merethor Veren!

    o{]:¬)

  111. bim says:

    crazy nut aunts in the attic?
    it isn’t simply for nutty aunts…….
    most of those who are “rejoicing” have fallen off the deep end of the titanic along time ago………

  112. Mike says:

    Just as a side note…that’s a great “Te Deum” on the podcazt! I love the organ…very appropriate! I shall continue listening to it as I revel in motu-mania!

  113. Marie Antoinnette says:

    Father Z,

    I have found the English somewhat different from the French:

    art 5:
    Art. 5, § 1. Dans les paroisses où il existe un groupe stable de fidèles attachés à la tradition liturgique antérieure, le curé ACCUEILLERA volontiers leur demande de célébrer la Messe selon le rite du Missel romain édité en 1962.

    and English:
    the pastor SHOULD willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962,

    My English is poor but I would have translated it by: WILL willingly accept

  114. Mary Ann says:

    Fr. Z,
    What do you think this means in the near future for people like me who love the Latin (ordinary form) Mass? Do you think its availability will increase? Specifically, our parish currently has one- well attended- Mass like this a month. Could we ask for a more regular offering in light of the MP?

  115. Michael says:

    Laudetur Jesus Christus!

    Maybe a dumb question,dear Father Z, but what about the CALENDAR?

    Simple example: on the day the MP was published the “old” calendarium universae ecclesiae has the third class feast of SS Cyril & Methodius. In the “current” general Roman calendar this celebration is a Memoria on February 14. There a quite a few other more problematic questions that could arise.

    I can see no problems in private Masses/Office, but what about public celebrations of Holy Mass and Divine Office?

    Grateful for some guidance, please.

    God Bless.

  116. Joshua says:

    What about religious bound to the Office, but not in Holy Orders – do they still have to recite the new Office to fulfil their obligations, or could they recite Bl John XXIII’s Breviary, at least in private?

    And what of those Orders with their own liturgical patrimony, e.g. Dominicans? Are they implicitly allowed to use their former liturgy as of 1962?

  117. Joshua says:

    What about religious bound to the Office, but not in Holy Orders – do they still have to recite the new Office to fulfil their obligations, or could they recite Bl John XXIII’s Breviary, at least in private?

    And what of those Orders with their own liturgical patrimony, e.g. Dominicans? Are they implicitly allowed to use their former liturgy as of 1962?

  118. Pristinus Sapienter says:

    Yes, Father, thank you for your insightful message – BUT – permit me to comment to and about Andrew’s video gift –

    Yea, Andrew, thou art blessed.

    Te Deum laudamus, equidem! God bless you for your praise of Him! Your tribute holds God, His Church and His Vicar so high as to give angels refreshment. I, so finicky about ‘putting my finger in the Internet’, have bookmarked this.

    Do, O Lord Jesus Christ, make our hearts like unto Thine Own Sacred Heart.

  119. Marie: Thanks for pointing out that difference with the French version.

  120. Mary Ann: I can imagine that some priests, to head off people asking for the older use of the Roman Rite, which is always in Latin, will perhaps be more open to the newer use of the Roman Rite whose official language is also Latin.

  121. Michael: I don’t know how the calendar thing is going to work out. However, I suppose that if a priest decided to follow the new calendar on, say, the Solemnity of Christ the King at the end of the liturgical year, and port over the Mass in the older use which fell on the last Sunday of October, no one would wind up in hell or in priest jail. I know some people would fume about that, but I can’t see it as a big deal. I was rather hoping at some point that the two uses would be published in the same book with the same calendar (a big book, but of greater use, if you get my pun), or some guidance would be given about the coordination of calendars. That is something that bothers me about this whole thing. It doesn’t bother me much, but it bothers me.

  122. Joshua: Summorum Pontificum deals with the Roman Rite.  In Art. 1 the Pope says: “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani“.   All through the document the Pope speaks of the Missale Romanum.  He doesn’t talk about other Rites, neither the Ambrosian, nor Braga, nor Mozarabic, nor the Dominican.  While I believe that the “spirit” of Summorum Pontificum points to the conclusion the Domincan Rite could be used, that is not spelled out in the Summorum Pontificum.  This document concerns the Roman Rite.

  123. Joshua says:

    Thank you, Fr Z, for your clarification; I suppose the Ecclesia Dei Commission may well update its former rulings on this point. On Sunday our Latin Mass chaplain mentioned that the Motu Proprio permitted all the sacraments and sacramentals to be done as they had been prior to the post-conciliar reforms; I understand that this was probably not quite what the MP said, but I assume that any priest running a “Tridentine” (“Extraordinary”?) parish generally has faculties to use the old Roman Ritual, etc. Also, a seminarian friend of mine is depressed that the MP didn’t make any allowances for seminarians wanting the old Mass at their seminary… And I posed the question of consecrated religious wanting to use the old breviary since I know at least one who would – would he fulfil his obligation if he used the 1962 Office?

  124. Mark says:

    Joshua,

    Have any of the seminaries reacted publicly to this yet?

    Mark

  125. RBrown says:

    Joshua: Summorum Pontificum deals with the Roman Rite. In Art. 1 the Pope says: “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani“. All through the document the Pope speaks of the Missale Romanum. He doesn’t talk about other Rites, neither the Ambrosian, nor Braga, nor Mozarabic, nor the Dominican. While I believe that the “spirit” of Summorum Pontificum points to the conclusion the Domincan Rite could be used, that is not spelled out in the Summorum Pontificum. This document concerns the Roman Rite.
    Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

    Because the permission for those rites (at least 200 years old by 1570) is given in Quo Primum, I would think that they would be included in the MP.

  126. RBrown says:

    Re the Calendar: I had an Argentinian friend who worked at the Cong of Bishops. He preferred the old Breviarium Romanum to the new Liturgia Hororum, but wanted to follow the new calendar–a difficult situation.

    He solved the problem by purchasing an ordo from Solesmes.

  127. Paul Dion says:

    I am an unabashed admirer of BXVI. I have admired him since the late 50’s. My admiration has never waned. I admire him still, but I wholeheartedly disagree with him about his latest Motu Proprio. I do not have a “mandatum”, but I do have an STL, and I earned it by knowing Latin fluently.

    I have many reasons (about 4) that I can bring to the fore about why I am against this opinion of BXVI. The main one is this:
    I think that it is diametrically opposed to the Mission of Jesus Christ to “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mk 10; 17 – 30) True Catholics are disciples of Jesus.
    Disciples are not only about taking care of themselves, they are about reaching out to those who are sick and weak and need the grace of God in them. We are not true Catholics if we are not missionaries. Latin does not feed missionaries. It feeds those who are in love with what they feel when they hear a language that they do not even understand. Jesus never caved in to those who opposed him, even if they represented the majority. He was carrying the message of God the Father, not the wishes of the discontent. This in and of itself, to me, is a terrible about face on the part of Josef Ratzinger. Isn’t this the same guy who once said publicly, “if you don’t agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, you are free to go somewhere else?”
    I am not going anywhere, but I am not going to the Tridentine Mass either, even though I understand Latin and even though I can live the “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” to the letter. I can also live the axiom of Paul, “Faith comes through hearing” (Romans 10;17). That means that if your have to be reading the translation, you are not living the basic tenets of how to acquire nor how to grow your faith.
    Say what you want, Latin is a dead language, there is no away that it can help to revivify the faith of the world. Do you think that this could be the reason why BXVI did not have the theological part of his Motu Propio translated? How many bishops and priests do you think are going to be able to appreciate the finer points of the official language of the letter? This is the 21st century, wake uop and make it God’s.

  128. Ellen says:

    I am wondering if there is a mistranslation in Art. 5 §1 of SP. “coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit” is translated both on the Holy See’s site and by the USCCB BCL as “a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition.” Is “continenter” best translated as “stable”? The Holy Father did not use “stabiliter.” Would perhaps a better translation be “continuous” or “unceasing”?

  129. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    If Latin is a dead language, then my (thriving and large) classes of young people…Catholic and non-Catholic…must be composed of zombies.

    Perhaps the most interesting reaction to the Motu Proprio I have experienced has been the handful of e-mails from academic colleagues who have written to congratulate me on the Motu Proprio. These colleagues include non-Catholics (even some Jewish friends, who apparently don’t know about the minor firestorm in some media outlets)…and many Catholics who haven’t practiced the faith since…the changes in the liturgy. All of them…self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics…have expressed the same sentiment: respect for a pope who has realized you can’t ban or declare forbidden/unseemly what was once your most valued treasure. As one wrote, “I may be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith…but I always admired and respected the traditional Latin Mass”. The Motu Proprio is…I would say…an ecumenical document of the most beautiful and profound sort.

  130. Dr. Anthony D'Amico says:

    Father Z,
    I happen on to your blog occassionally. I am a traditional follower, and believe the Novus Ordo has brought about great destruction to Holy Mother Church. Our bishop has, for many years, rebuffed our efforts to enjoy the fruits of the Gregorian Mass (spiritual renewal and quiet time for prayer). Consequently, we found a duly ordained priest to minister to our spiritual needs, and have established an independant group. The bishop is very unhappy about us, but, for us, the Gregorian rite is the ONLY rite that expresses the teachings of the Church over the centuries. We don’t believe there is any legitimate “living” Magesterium. This Motu Proprio seems to do nothing for us (or, for that matter Pius X group) since it seems to insist on acceptance of the Novus Ordo. It is as if the Holy Father is not aware of the theological objections to the Novus Ordo. You certainly are also aware of the abuses of even the Novus Ordo Masses, where tacos, fruit, cookies, etc were used, instead of the host, the substance as prescribed in the Sacramentary. Also, you are aware of the “cheesehead mass”, african dance mass, etc. Why does noone, including you, talk about the aims of the “new” theology, which include ecumenism and elimination of any biblical teachings, comments, homilies-“suppers” with a “presider”. These “masses” are grotesque perversions of the ancient tradition of the Church, and in no way are they consistant with such teachings. Vatican II and it’s followers have thrown Catholics around the world to the wolves and keep us in religious limbo with this nonsense. This motu proprio does nothing to help us out of our situation. Please spend some time comparing the new teachings and the abuses of even those teachings that occur continuously, with the ordinary Magesterium, and the pre Modernist church. We are more interested in salvation of our souls than whether or not we are stepping on our bishop’s authoritative toes. I will check back in a few days to see if you answer my questions. Thank you.
    Anthony D’Amico