![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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 PontÃfices 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
Te Deum laudámus:
Comment by Joey — 7 July 2007 @ 5:05 amte 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 GOD
Comment by John Topolosky — 7 July 2007 @ 5:14 amBLESSED BE HIS HOLY NAME
DEO GRATIAS
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,
Comment by Mark — 7 July 2007 @ 5:16 amMark
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.
Comment by Central Valley Catholic — 7 July 2007 @ 5:16 amAlleliua Amen
Comment by Paul, South midlands UK — 7 July 2007 @ 5:17 amThanks, Father.
Going to the Extraordinary Rite now to thank God.
WAC
Comment by Will Cubbedge — 7 July 2007 @ 5:20 amTe 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
Comment by anon — 7 July 2007 @ 5:22 amNotice how “the Missal of Bl. John XXIII” rings through the legislation like a refrain.
Blessed John XXIII!!
Comment by Kathy — 7 July 2007 @ 5:25 amDeo Gratias.
Fr. Z, thank you for your translations and commentary- and the Te Deum cast.
Peace be with you and may God bless you.
Comment by Christopher — 7 July 2007 @ 5:27 amHoly Mary protect you.
-Christopher
I’m just off to the Accident and Emergency dept. with a probable broken finger and I don’t mind one bit. Deo Gratias.
Comment by M. — 7 July 2007 @ 5:27 amFr 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!!
Comment by swmichigancatholic — 7 July 2007 @ 5:32 amswmich: Trust Fr. Z!
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 July 2007 @ 5:34 amExcellent analysis and advice, as ever, Father.
What a day!
Comment by Treat — 7 July 2007 @ 5:44 amFr.,
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?????
Comment by Central Valley Catholic — 7 July 2007 @ 5:45 amFrom 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?
Comment by Breier — 7 July 2007 @ 5:46 amFather,
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?
Comment by Breier — 7 July 2007 @ 5:47 am=) 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.
Comment by swmichigancatholic — 7 July 2007 @ 5:49 amSurge shall correct the Unable to “Enable” in the paragraph with the Corinthians quote.
Comment by surge — 7 July 2007 @ 5:52 amThis 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?
Comment by Michael — 7 July 2007 @ 5:53 amDeo 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 !
Comment by Sean White — 7 July 2007 @ 5:59 amWhile 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?
Comment by Al — 7 July 2007 @ 6:02 amA 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?
Comment by John — 7 July 2007 @ 6:03 amThank you so much for the translation. This is a happy day for the entire Church.
Comment by Graeme — 7 July 2007 @ 6:04 amLet’s hope the celebration of the Mass of Paul VI is enriched by this gift of our Holy Father too.
Fr. Z,
Comment by Ernie Bragiel — 7 July 2007 @ 6:19 amI see the USCCB has the following on their website this morning.
www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjuneo7.pdf
Any comments?
God Bless and Praise God for giving us many blessings beyond our understanding.
Ernie B.
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.”
Comment by Breier — 7 July 2007 @ 6:19 amFather,
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.
Comment by techno_aesthete — 7 July 2007 @ 6:19 amGLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO
Comment by Niels — 7 July 2007 @ 6:25 amI’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.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 7 July 2007 @ 6:30 amFather:
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.
Comment by Claud — 7 July 2007 @ 6:31 amTim:
“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?
Comment by Breier — 7 July 2007 @ 6:41 amThe 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 Deiâ€.
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 — 7 July 2007 @ 6:43 amClaud,
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.
Comment by Breier — 7 July 2007 @ 6:45 amFather, 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.
Comment by Dana Cole — 7 July 2007 @ 6:47 amThis 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!
Comment by John Giglio — 7 July 2007 @ 6:49 amOne 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
Non nobis, Domine, sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!
Comment by prof. Basto — 7 July 2007 @ 6:59 amLaudetur 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!
Comment by Christopher — 7 July 2007 @ 6:59 am“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.â€
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.
Comment by Francis — 7 July 2007 @ 7:00 amWhat exactly does the term ‘personal parish’ mean? Can you give me an example of an existing one? Thank you.
Comment by Anamaria — 7 July 2007 @ 7:05 amArt. 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?
Comment by Cantor — 7 July 2007 @ 7:21 amBreier,
“referatur” is the verbal form here. It is imperative. Shall be reffered.
Comment by prof. Basto — 7 July 2007 @ 7:22 amCongrats 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.
Comment by Samuel J. Howard — 7 July 2007 @ 7:31 amOverall, 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.
Comment by Robert Linz — 7 July 2007 @ 7:34 amWhat 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.
Comment by dcs — 7 July 2007 @ 7:34 amMater Ecclesiae (technically a mission, not a parish, but whatever) in Berlin, NJ.
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
Comment by prof. Basto — 7 July 2007 @ 7:36 ammeant 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
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.
Comment by Michael J. Houser — 7 July 2007 @ 7:38 amPlease 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.
Comment by Tim Ferguson — 7 July 2007 @ 7:44 amSee canons 18 and 36 of the Latin Code.
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 Deiâ€.
However, I note that the USCCB site, in their answers to questions about the
MP, has “may be referredâ€
(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.
Comment by RBrown — 7 July 2007 @ 7:46 amAdveniat 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.
Comment by Michael J. Houser — 7 July 2007 @ 7:55 amThe 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?
Comment by Michael — 7 July 2007 @ 7:56 amThe 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).
Comment by Samuel J. Howard — 7 July 2007 @ 8:05 amDear 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,
Comment by RJC — 7 July 2007 @ 8:16 amRJC
Surge is further expecting (Article 3) Institutes &c to follow their own particular statues!
Comment by surge — 7 July 2007 @ 8:22 amOne 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.
Comment by Zadok the Roman — 7 July 2007 @ 8:48 amThe 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.
Comment by swmichigancatholic — 7 July 2007 @ 8:58 amRE 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.
Comment by swmichigancatholic — 7 July 2007 @ 9:05 amMy 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.
Comment by John — 7 July 2007 @ 9:10 amI 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 deconstructionâ€. 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) whimsâ€.
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 “lovingâ€, “concernâ€, “welcomingâ€, “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 Churchâ€.
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.
Comment by Sid Cundiff — 7 July 2007 @ 9:10 amI’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
Comment by Gordo the Byzantine — 7 July 2007 @ 9:12 amOne 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
Comment by Cantor — 7 July 2007 @ 9:16 amthe 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?
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
Comment by PNP, OP — 7 July 2007 @ 9:22 amTwo 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