D. of Davenport, Iowa on Summorum Pontificum

Let’s have a look at what is going on in the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, about Summorum Pontificum.

In what follows there is the cover note in the e-mail I received [edited] and then a letter of Bp. Amos to the priests of of the diocese.  I cut out some information about locations of Masses, schedules, etc.

My emphases and comments.

 

Thought you might be interesting in the following letter, sent by Bishop Martin Amos of the Diocese of Davenport yesterday to all his priests.  He also included a copy of the article by Fr. Michael Kerper in America magazine, "My Second First Mass," which you discussed some time ago.
 
I have also included the bishop’s previously released implementation policy on SP…
 
Thanks for your wonderful blog, which keeps our spirits up as we hope and pray for liturgical change in this area.
 
_______________________

TO: The Priests of the Diocese of Davenport
FROM: Bishop Martin Amos
DATE: January 2, 2008
RE: Implementing Summorum pontificum

As you know, on July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI published his Apostolic Letter, Summorum pontificum. In essence, this motu proprio removed the requirement of obtaining the permission of the diocesan bishop prior to celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. At the same time, the document did not absolve the bishop of any of his responsibilities regarding the liturgy in his diocese.

The Holy Father relaxed the restrictions on the use of the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy and other rites in order to foster reconciliation within the Church.  [It was for more than that reason alone.  The provisions also seek to foster reverence in sacred liturgy as well as continuity with the Church's Tradition.] It was in that same spirit of reconciliation that I promulgated interim policies for the implementation of the Pope’s directives for our diocese. Since the promulgation of the Holy Father’s Letter and our policies, we have received a number of calls and letters at the diocese seeking that reconciliation. [May God be praised!] We have been in contact with individuals and groups who deeply desire to celebrate the Mass and other sacraments according to the rites in place in 1962.

It is my firm belief that offering of the rites according to the 1962 usage must be placed in the context of overall pastoral planning for the Diocese. [That is reasonable.]  For example, it makes sense to me that we begin by offering a weekly Mass according to the 1962 Missal at one location in the Diocese. [The "we" here is perhaps a bit misplaced.  I am all for diocesan bishops getting involved.  However, Summorum Pontificum places the decision in the hands of the pastor, the parish priest, not the bishop, or chancery, or any group of priests in a deanery.  If efforts to coordinate are taken, fine!  However, pastor's are still the decision makers, according to the Motu Proprio.]  If we see sustained and significant interest, we can expand if necessary. [PASTORS can expand, according to interest and resources.] Therefore, we need to begin our planning [See what I mean?  I am all for coordination, as I said, so long as the impression is not given that the rights of the parish priests are being restricted.] by determining—to the extent possible—the number and locations of individuals in the Diocese who are attached to the prior usage.

We also need to determine if we have priests in the Diocese who are both willing and able to celebrate the extraordinary form of the liturgies of the Church or if any priests are interested in being formed to celebrate these rites. [At a certain point we need to open some discussion about the moral obigation all priests of the Latin Church have to learn their Rite.]  The rightful desire of some of the faithful to celebrate according to these rites must be balanced against the Holy Father’s insistence that the unity and normal pastoral care of parishes is not to be disturbed; [This is a bit vague.  All changes "disturb" the status quo.] the ordinary form of the Mass must continue to be made available. Clearly, with priests already spread thin in the diocese, [This is a major issue.] we must be very intentional in our decision-making.

Therefore, I am turning to you for your assistance.

First of all, attached you will find a survey that we developed in consultation with Una Voce, [I like this!   Colaboration with a lay group.  Excellent!  Well done Your Excellency!] a group in the Diocese that promotes the use of the extraordinary form. If you would please put the surveys out from January 5/6 (Epiphany) through February 6 (Ash Wednesday) and then mail them back to the Office of Liturgy at that time, it would be greatly appreciated. In addition, please place the following in your bulletins during that same time: [I would only caution that the situation as it is NOW, does not mean that it will always stay that way.  Nor do small groups of people have no rights, simply because their numbers are relatively small.]

Those who already regularly attend the Tridentine (Latin) Mass, or would do so if it were available, are asked to add their names to the survey form in the back of church. You may also e-mail the same information to the diocesan Office of Liturgy at: agnoli@davenportdiocese.org.
 
Secondly, if you are able and willing to celebrate according to the 1962 rites, or are interested in being formed to do so, please contact Deacon Frank Agnoli in the Office of Liturgy. I have asked him to provide me a list of those so interested in order to assist me in planning future assignments. [Interesting.  I can see that this could be useful in making assignments.  Match the priests to places where there is a lot of interest.  However, could this lead to isolating groups of people?  I don't know.  However, this is one approach which I find very interesting.]

In conclusion, I am aware that the promulgation of Summorum pontificum has engendered some strong feelings in the presbyterate. Regardless of your personal preferences, [!] this is a pastoral initiative that the Holy Father has asked us to undertake [!!] in order to reach out to our brothers and sisters who have become alienated from the Church as a result of changes in the liturgy or how those changes were implemented. [Oppps.... this is a stumble.  As I said before, Summorum Pontificum is NOT only about reconciliation.] It is in that spirit of reconciliation, and in following the example of the Good Shepherd, that I am asking all of us to undertake this initiative in the Diocese. I am sure that I can count on your assistance.

 

 

 In the balance this is very good.  I especially appreciate His Excellency’s comment at the end that this is not up for debate.  The Holy Father promulgated this, so it will be done.  However, I am a little disturbed at the narrow view of the motives behing the provisions of the Motu Proprio.  Summorum Pontificum has a far greater application than just reconciliation, as important as that is.  Speaking of the document only in those terms may color and filter, limit as it were, a priests understanding of what is really at stake.

 
Interim Policies for Implementing
Summorum Pontificum
in theDiocese of Davenport
 
These pages may be reproduced by parish and Diocesan staff for their use
 
Policy promulgated at the Pastoral Center of the Diocese of Davenport–effective September 14, 2007
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Most Reverend Martin Amos
Bishop of Davenport
 
§IV-249 POLICIES IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT
Introduction
In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II established a way to allow priests with special permission to celebrate Mass and the
other sacraments using the rites that were in use before Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, also called the Missal of John XXIII
or the Tridentine Mass). Effective September 14, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI loosened the restrictions on the use of the 1962
Missal, such that the special permission of the bishop is no longer required. This action was taken because, as universal
shepherd, His Holiness has a heart for the unity of the Church, and sees the option of allowing a more generous use of the
Mass of 1962 as a way to foster that unity and heal any breaches that may have occurred after Vatican II.
However, the Pope is also quite clear that the Mass of 1962 is not to replace the Mass we celebrate today, which remains
the ordinary and usual form of the liturgy. The 1962 Mass is seen as “extraordinary”—that is, an exceptional, form of the
Mass. This also means that any person or community that wishes to make use of the provisions in the Apostolic Letter
must accept the validity of the Vatican II Mass—since the issue foremost in the Pope’s mind is the communion of the
Church.
The Pope’s Apostolic Letter does not give priests blanket permission to celebrate Mass and the sacraments according to
the 1962 Missal. First, the priest must know how to celebrate the Mass using that Missal and must be able to speak the
Latin appropriately. Otherwise, he is “impeded” from celebrating according to the 1962 rite. Second, the Vatican II Mass
must remain the ordinary form of celebrating the liturgy in a parish. Therefore, the 1962 Mass can only be celebrated on
weekdays (and never so often that it becomes “ordinary” in the parish) and only once on Sundays and feast days. It
follows that if there is only one Sunday Mass, the Vatican II Missal must be used since it is the ordinary form.
There are other requirements as well. The liturgical calendar in use in 1962 must be used. The readings must come from
an approved Lectionary. All those who minister in the liturgy—deacon, reader, servers, choir, cantor—must be properly
trained. Also, a “stable” (in Latin, continenter, meaning continuous) community “of faithful who adhere to the earlier
liturgical tradition” must exist at the parish where Mass according to the 1962 Missal will be celebrated (Art. 5, § 1).
Most importantly, the Holy Father has made it clear that the bishop of the diocese remains the “moderator of the liturgy”
in his diocese, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the Apostolic Letter is appropriately implemented and that the
celebration of the Eucharist is made available to as many people as possible under the ordinary form (see 20Q #10).
The promulgation of the Pope’s Apostolic Letter raised numerous practical and canonical questions that have been
forwarded via the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to Rome for resolution. Therefore, these policies should
be considered “interim” until answers to those questions are received. At such time, this policy will be updated as
appropriate.
 
§IV-249.1 The Role of the Bishop
 
In his letter to the Bishops of the world accompanying Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict stated that “these norms do
not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your
faithful”(Letter, p.3). The Holy Father’s comments, echoing SC 22, are a reminder that the Bishop is charged with
overseeing and regulating all aspects of the liturgical life of the diocesan Church, and assigning ministries according to
need and to the well-being of the flock in his charge (RS 19, 160; CIC c.838.4).
 
Procedures
1. The priest may not celebrate the 1962 rites publicly on his own initiative; the use of the 1962 Missal must come at
the request of a continuously (stably; meaning that the group has had some history of adhering to the former
liturgical tradition and it is not a novelty for them) existing group of the faithful who adhere to the older usage.
[Here is a problem.  This is seems based on the inaccurate translation of the Motu Proprio.  Also, I think a lot more has to be said about the priest's own initiative.  I hope that the document from the PCED will clarify this.]
2. The faithful who are attached to the previous liturgical tradition are first to approach their pastor to request the
celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal.  [This does not mean that the priest himself cannot begin some initiative.]
3. If the pastor is unable to fulfill that request in a manner consistent with Summorum Pontificum and these policies,
the group is to inform the Bishop (SP Art. 7).
4. The Bishop judges what would be the best approach to fulfilling such a request (for example, naming specific
parishes for the use of the 1962 Missal), and retains the authority to determine whether or not the requirements set
out in Summorum Pontificum and in these policies have been fulfilled. 
[I wonder if this is really the case.]
 
IV-249.1 Policy
The Bishop of Davenport is responsible for the appropriate implementation of Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese,
including the promulgation of appropriate norms to be followed.
 
§IV-249.2 Faculties
Only priests who are capable of doing so may celebrate the Mass and other rites according to the 1962 Missal (SP Art. 5,
§ 4; 20Q #7). The following policies outline when such a celebration is allowed.
 
Procedures
1. The priest who celebrates the Mass must be “qualified to do so and not juridically impeded” (SP Art 5, § 4). In
other words, the priest must be able to competently celebrate the liturgy (be able to understand the Latin and the
rubrics of the rite being celebrated)
, [This is a little shaky.  Certainly the priest must know what to do.  However, when you get into the vagueries of "understanding" all sorts of problems can crop up.  Shall we ask priests who say only the Novus Ordo if they "understand" the texts?]  adhere to the Church and Church Teaching, and be free of any irregularity or
censure to exercise sacramental ministry. Competency will be ascertained by the use of a rubrical and Latin exam,
review of credentials, and/or interview. 
[Grrrr.... the exam thing again.  This opens up the risk of a terrible doub;e-standard and not a little intimidation, depending how it is handled.]
2. In order to ensure the proper implementation of Summorum Pontificum, prior to beginning the use of the 1962
Missal in a parish the pastor (or in the case of a religious community, the religious superior) is to complete
“Appendix A: Documentation Form” and submit it to the Director of Liturgy for review. 
[Good heavens.  Priests really want to do more paper-work.]
3. In beginning the use of the 1962 Missal, pastors are to ensure that the good of those faithful requesting the use of
the Missal “harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish” while “avoiding discord and favouring [Hmmm... British spelling? Is this a cut and paste job?] the
unity of the whole Church” (SP Art. 5, § 1).
4. The requirements detailed in § IV-249.3 through § IV-249.5 are followed.
 
IV-249.2.1 Policy
In Masses celebrated without the people (Masses that are not parish Masses; “private” Masses), any priest of the Latin
rite may use either the 1962 Missal or the 1970 Missal, on any day except during the Sacred Triduum (SP Art. 2).
Members of the faithful who spontaneously (“of their own free will”) request it may attend such Masses (SP Art. 4),
as long as the law is observed. That is, such Masses may not be advertised or persons invited. [I am not sure that is really the case.  In fact, that seems ridiculous to me.  ] It is expected that at
least one person is present as a server.
[How can you arrange for a server unless you let someone know?  This is overly restrictive, I think, and could lead to all sorts of problems.  Just relax.  This isn't subversion or a conspiracy, after all.  It is MASS.  How is it bad if people know it is being offered and then want to come?]
 
IV-249.2.2 Policy
Conventual (community) Masses in religious communities may also be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.
However, if such communities want to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal “often, habitually or permanently,” the
issue is to be referred to the Major Superiors (SP Art. 3).
 
IV-249.2.3 Policy
“In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere [BAD TRANSLATION.] to the earlier liturgical tradition” (SP Art 5, § 1), the
Mass may be celebrated according to the 1962 Missal as long as the following procedures are observed. [What follows is now based on a a BAD TRANSLATION:]
 
§IV-249.3 Requirements for the Celebration of Mass
The Mass according to the 1962 Missal has its own structure and logic. That Mass and the Mass according to the 1970
Missal
[Hmm... two different Masses?  Are they not the "same" Mass in two forms?  There is a subtle admission here.] are not to be combined in any way. At the same time, it is important to note that there is a distinction between the
rubrics of the 1962 Missal (and the 1965 Rites listed below intended for use with the 1962 Missal)
[This is a good point.] and liturgical laws that
govern matters of external discipline.
Many of the laws in this latter category that were in force in 1962 have since been
abrogated. The faithful may choose to observe the former, more rigorous disciplines, but cannot be required to do so.
  [EXACTLY!  THIS IS VERY GOOD.  For example, people cannot be refused Communion in the hand (though we hope no one would ever desire it at any Mass), nor must women be brow-beaten into using chapel veils (though I hope they would start using them if they don't already).  That said, this could lead to all sorts of oddities, as you will see below.  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THESE NORMS.  The Pontificial Commission Ecclesia Dei should be apprised and review this.]
 
IV-249.3 Policy
 
1. The 1962 Missal must be used. There is to be no combining of the rites and texts of the ordinary and
extraordinary forms
(Ecclesia Dei, 1991).  [Therefore, the Novus Ordo Lectionary cannot be used?  The PCED said years ago that it could be.  I am sure the new document to come from the PCED will make this clearer.]
2. Celebration according to this Missal may take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and feast days only one
such Mass may be celebrated (SP Art 5, § 2). At the same time, since this is the “extraordinary” form, it
cannot replace the ordinary celebration of the Mass for the wider community.  [The bishop could change this with the stroke of a pen by creating a personal parish or other structure, that even shares space.  It has been done elsewhere.]
3. Celebrations may take place in the afternoon; the current discipline of fasting for one hour before communion
(rather than the previous discipline of fasting for three hours) is to be observed.

4. Concelebration may take place [WHAT THE.....!??!] according to the rubrics of the 1965 Rite of Concelebration at Mass. [I bet this is wrong.  If the rubrics for 1962 Mass must be followed, and there are no rubrics for concelebration, then how are the rubrics to be followed.  Also, just above it was said that the 1962 rubrics apply, not the 1965 rubrics.  How then to 1965 provisions apply here?  This is a mess.] Current
discipline regarding concelebration is found chiefly in c.902 and GIRM §§199-203. Priests who do not know
how to pronounce the Latin should not concelebrate
[OR celebrate.... this is the real stipulation behind a priest being "idoneus" in Summorum Pontificum, not the level of "understanding" of the Latin!] (RS §113). If not concelebrating, clerics attend in choir
(wearing cassock, surplice, and biretta). 
[Is this not really the way it ought to be with the Novus Ordo as well?]
5. Communion may be distributed under both species according to the rubrics of the 1965 Rite of Communion
Under Both Kinds. Current discipline regarding distribution of Communion under both species is found in
c.925 and GIRM §§281-283. 
[No, I don't think so, for the reasons above.] Therefore, Communion may be distributed in the hand, the faithful may receive
Communion standing, [Yes.] and properly prepared and commissioned Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
may be utilized if necessary.
[No, I don't think so.  Again, there are no rubrics for how this would be handled.  I am not sure the argument about external disciplines applies here.]
6. A “permanent” deacon may exercise his liturgical ministry under the 1962 Missal, provided that, like the
priest, he is competent in the rubrics and language (see §IV-248.2 above). [Of course.  He is a deacon.]
a. There is no provision for a deacon at a low or high (sung) Mass in the 1962 Missal; it is not permitted
to fabricate a role for the deacon at these rites.
b. There is a role for a deacon (and subdeacon) at a solemn high Mass. A priest may serve in this role,
vested as a deacon. 
[Again, another inconsistency.  If the argument about "external laws" is being used, and present law is to be applied, then how can this be done?  I believe that present law says that priests do NOT vest as other than a priest.  I might be wrong, but I don't think so.  If I am right, this is another problem with these "norms".]
c. A priest or deacon, vested as a subdeacon, would serve in the ministry of subdeacon at a solemn high
Mass; an instituted acolyte may also serve in this capacity—but wears only an alb (and not the tunic).  [This of course, based on the logic of these norms, suggest that a FEMALE could substitute for the instituted acolyte, and dress in the tunic, with the biretta, etc., and take the role of "straw" subdeacon at Mass.]
7. Lay persons (male or female) may exercise the ministries of server and reader, if competent to do so.  [And what rubrics in the 1962 Missal provide for this?  This is absurd.]
8. The rubrics of the 1962 Missal assume the universal availability of numerous liturgical items. Those which
affect the conduct of the rite are required if the 1962 Missal is to be used.  [But let's make it up as we go when we want to blend the diffferent uses while saying they can't be blended.]
9. Most sanctuaries can be accommodated to meet the rubrical needs of the extraordinary form. When this is not
possible, a church better suited to this celebration should be chosen.  [This means nothing, really.  It is a "suggestion".  If there is a consecrated altar, Mass can be said on it in the roman Rite.]
10. The calendar and Lectionary of the 1962 Missal are to be followed, [So, we follow the 1962 discipline, except for those things which we want to change.] and the readings “may be given in the
vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See” (SP Art. 6; 20Q #12). That is, any vernacular
translation of the readings approved for liturgical use may be utilized.
11. In regards to the Paschal Triduum:
a. Since there is ordinarily one parish celebration of each of the Triduum liturgies, those celebrations are
to take place using the ordinary form.
b. If there is a community that celebrates the Triduum according to the extraordinary form (for example,
a personal parish), then the intercessions from the 1962 Missal ought to be substituted by the 1970
texts (in Latin) for Good Friday in order to best reflect official Catholic teaching regarding the status
of other Christians and of the Jewish People (as expressed in the conciliar documents Unitatis
redintegratio and Nostra aetate). 
[Another violation of this principle of not mixing the rites.  I don't believe this could stand up to a hearing in Rome.]
12. The full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful remains normative. [How do you legislate this?] Before the extraordinary form
is used, pastors should ensure that the faithful have been adequately prepared [How do you determine that?  Test them?] with this end in mind (e.g., the
faithful should be able to pray their parts in Latin and sing at least the more basic Gregorian chants).  [WOAH!  Let us remind all readers that the Church has already required that pastors make sure that people can both sing and speak all those parts of Mass pertaining to them in both Latin and their mother tongue.... for the NOVUS ORDO.  How as that been handled in Davenport lately?  Or everywhere else?  Again, a double-standard seems to be in evidence.]
 
Procedures
1. Those celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal should attempt insofar as is possible to meet the
liturgical requirement for celebrating the Mass according to that rite.
a. If any of the requirements cannot be followed, the priest, pastor or religious superior is to contact the
Director of Liturgy.
  [Huh?  And what good will that do?]
b. In consultation with the bishop, the Director will determine whether the omission of said requirements
could be tolerated “in accordance with sound principles including fidelity to tradition and openness to
sound development”
(The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, p. 20). While allowances may be
made for the less visible items, those items which are visible and the absence of which would be
distracting to the faithful (for example, candle sticks, altar crucifix, bells, proper vestments, etc.) must be
restored. Those items which do not affect the conduct of the rite (for example, the maniple and burse)
may be omitted out of necessity.
[Or they be be obtained.]
2. The use of the 1962 Missal in accord with Summorum Pontificum presumes that the community recognizes the
validity of the 1970 Missal and the authority of the Second Vatican Council. If this is not the case, the pastor or
priest celebrating according to the 1962 Missal must correct the error of those who claim otherwise.
3. A list of resources is available in Appendix C.
 
§IV-249.4 Requirements for the Celebration of the other Sacraments and Rites
In addition to allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, Pope Benedict XVI has granted pastors the
right to allow for the use of other rites according to the 1962 Missal if so requested by the faithful.
 
Procedures
1. As with the celebration of Mass, the full ecclesial communion of the individuals requesting the celebration of the
sacraments according to the prior usage is presumed by recourse to the provisions of the motu proprio. If such
communion is lacking, the rites should not be celebrated.  [I thought this was all about "reconciliation"?]
2. Normally the sacraments are to be celebrated in the parish of the individual or family. If the sacraments are to be
celebrated outside the parish of an individual, or by an individual other than the proper pastor, then the written
consent of the proper pastor of the individual or family must be obtained since the proper pastor has the right to
administer the sacraments to his parishioners (CIC c.530).
3. All requirements which the parish and diocese legitimately have in place regarding sacramental preparation for
the requested sacrament must be fulfilled.
4. All records of the sacramental celebration are to be entered and maintained in the parish where the sacrament was
celebrated.
5. The edition of the Collectio Rituum in force in 1962 should be used. [Please note that the provision of Summorum Pontificum speak of the Rituale Romanum, not the Collectio Rituum.] However, the 1961 edition of the Collectio
Rituum for the United States, which was in force in 1962, is no longer in print. Therefore, the 1964 edition (which
contains some minor adaptations added between 1960 and 1962) may be used if the 1961 edition is not available. 
[Oh really?]
 
§IV-249.5 Reporting Requirements  [!]
In his letter accompanying the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI requested that the bishops
send to the Holy See an account of their experiences implementing the motu proprio in three years—especially in regards
to difficulties encountered (Letter, p.3). Therefore, in order to assist the Holy Father in his request, the bishop is including
a reporting system as part of the implementation of this Apostolic Letter.
 
Procedures
1. Whenever the Mass or any rite is celebrated according to the 1962 Missal, the Reporting Form reproduced in
Appendix B is to be completed and returned to the diocesan Director of Liturgy. 
["the Mass"... so... public? Private?  Every Mass if it is scheduled?  How much paperwork might this create?]
2. The Director of Liturgy will provide the bishop with regular reports of the usage of the 1962 Missal and will
prepare a report to be sent to the Holy See in September 2010.
3. The Director of Liturgy will make available a list of parishes within the diocese offering the Mass using the 1962
Missal to pastors in order to facilitate proper referral.
 
IV-249.4 Policy
The pastor of a place may permit celebrations of the Sacraments of Matrimony, Baptism, Penance, and Anointing of
the Sick—and the celebration of funerals—using the 1962 Missal if requested to do so by the faithful, providing that
he (or the other cleric who will celebrate the rite) is competent to do so and the good of souls requires it (SP Art. 5, §
3; Art. 9, § 1).
If competent to do so, a bishop who is an ordinary may celebrate Confirmation according to the Roman Pontifical in
effect in 1962 as well (SP Art. 9, § 2).
 
IV-249.5 Policy
All priests who celebrate the Mass or any other rite according to the 1962 Missal are to report their usage and
experiences to the bishop of the diocese. 
[So, if Father Guido O'Reiily at St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle uses the Rituale Romanum, er um... Collectio Rituum... to bless Mrs. Ethel MacGuillicudy's rosary as a gift for her niece Courtney, the priest has to fill out a form and send it to the bishop.]
 
Appendix A: Documentation Form  [AH!  The paperwork!]
 
[The format is screwed up here, but you get the idea.] Name of Parish: City: Pastor: Phone: Rites proposed to be celebrated under the 1962 Missal: ???? Mass ???? Baptisms ???? Weddings ???? Funerals
The Ministers
In order to ensure that the rites are properly celebrated, please give the name of the priest(s) who will be
celebrating each of the rites checked above, and detail the specific formation each priest has had to celebrate
those rites. An examination in the rubrics and Latin and/or interview will be scheduled once this form is
received.
[Und zen your Ausweis vill be sent.]
Name: Name:
Formation: Formation:
 
The Community
In order to ensure that the requirements of Summorum Pontificum are met, please answer the following:
The request to use the 1962 Missal has come from the faithful, and is required for the good of souls. ???? Yes ???? No
The faithful making this request are a stable community at this parish who adhere to the older usage. ???? Yes ???? No
The faithful making this request do not consider the 1970 Missal invalid and are in full communion. ???? Yes ???? No
How many of the faithful are involved?
The use of the 1962 Missal has been discussed with the Parish Council ???? Yes ???? No
(please attach minutes documenting discussion and the consultative vote of the council)
The parish has been catechized concerning the reasons for the use of the 1962 Missal ???? Yes ???? No
(please attach any catechetical materials used)
The use of the 1962 Missal will remain “extraordinary” and will not interfere with the usual pastoral
care of the parish (please attach Mass schedule, specifying at which Masses the 1962 Missal will be used) ???? Yes ???? No
The parish has all the required liturgical items required to celebrate the liturgy
according to the 1962 Missal. ???? Yes ???? No
If not, what is lacking?
Signature: Date:

[But wait... there's more!]
 
Appendix B: Reporting Form
The following form is to be completed by the celebrating priest every time a liturgy is celebrated according to
the 1962 Missal. The completed form is to be sent to the diocesan Director of Liturgy. Please add other pages
as necessary.
Name of Parish: City: Priest: Phone: Rite(s) celebrated under the 1962 Missal: ???? Mass ???? Baptism ???? Wedding ???? Funeral ???? Anointing of the Sick
If necessary, was the permission of the proper pastor obtained (in writing)? ???? Yes ???? No ???? N/A
Date: Time: Other priests in attendance: Ministry in the liturgy (e.g., in choir, deacon, subdeacon, lector [Any females substituting for men?]):
Name: ???? Attendance in Choir ???? Specific Ministry:  [Have they been tested too?]
Name: ???? Attendance in Choir ???? Specific Ministry:  [Will they test the females?]
Name: ???? Attendance in Choir ???? Specific Ministry:  [And if they should fail?]
Number of the Faithful in Attendance:  [What about a dress code?]
Were any difficulties encountered during the celebration? ???? Yes ???? No If so, please detail:  [The paperwork.]
Please share any other comments regarding the celebration:  [Don't get me started.]
Signature: Date:
 
Appendix C: Resources
The May/June 2007 edition of the NewsLetter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on the
Liturgy includes the [mistranslated] text of Summorum Pontificum as well as a helpful “Question and Answer” section. The NewsLetter
may be accessed at: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf.
The standard guide for celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal is The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite
Described, by Adrian Fortescue, J.B. O’Connell, and Alcuin Reid, OSB (14th rev. ed., 2003). Another source is The
Celebration of Mass: A study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (3 vol) by John Berthram O’Connell, Bruce Publishing
Co., 1956.  [What about Trimeloni?]
The Missal, as well as Latin-English Sunday Missals for the faithful, are available in an imprint authorized by Cardinal
John O’Connor from Roman Catholic Books, PO Box 2286, Fort Collins, CO, 80522-2286;
http://www.booksforcatholics.com.  [Hang on!  That isn't the 1962 Missale Romanum!]
The 1964 edition of the Collectio Rituum is available from the Priestly Society of St. Peter Publication Service: Griffin
Road, PO Box 196, Elmhurst, PA 18416; http://store.fraternitypublications.com/. A simple English translation of the
rubrics of the 1962 Missal is also available to be ordered here, as is the liturgical calendar (ordo) for the year.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, in collaboration with Una Voce America, provides workshops for training priests in
the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite. The cost for each of these five day workshops is $300.00. To receive more
information or to make a reservation, interested priests should contact: Fr. Goodwin at (402) 797-7700 or email:
seminary@fsspolgs.org or write to: Attn: Mass Workshops, O.L.G. Seminary, P.O. Box 147, Denton, NE. 68339.
The website of the Latin Liturgy Association also contains helpful resources: http://www.latinliturgy.com/.
 

That was tiring.

There were some good points in the bishop’s recent letter.

The norms are on the excessive side and contain things that are simply wierd.  I am glad they are "provisional", since they should simply be swept aside…. and will be when the PCED get’s its document together and promulgates it.

 

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.

40 Responses to D. of Davenport, Iowa on Summorum Pontificum

  1. Bob says:

    I wonder if Fr Z might be able to answer a question:

    Is the three volume bi-lingual Roman Ritual for sale in many “traditional” bookshops (inc. FSSP website)allowed to be used in celebrations of the Sacraments in the 1962 usage? Are the Latin texts from that series alone allowed to be used in the actual liturgical celebration, or are there occasions for using the English?

    Help???

  2. Michael O'Connor says:

    Don’t get me started on the OF parishes that routinely have more than one celebration on the days of Holy Week (Spanish, children’s liturgy, etc). Somehow we still can’t have EF versions on those days.

  3. Matt Q says:

    Thank you, Father, for your all efforts. It’s always wonderful to be updated so quickly with such relevant and interesting news regarding something so dear to us all.

    Wishing you health and spiritual fortitude in the coming year,

    **Matt Q

  4. “So, if Father Guido O’Reiily at St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle uses the Rituale Romanum, er um… Collectio Rituum… to bless Mrs. Ethel MacGuillicudy’s rosary as a gift for her niece Courtney, the priest has to fill out a form and send it to the bishop.”

    Hey, wouldn’t Father O’Reilly have to be a Dominican to bless the rosary using the traditional rite? Hey, the good news is, if they’re buried in enough paperwork they just might get wise. I’m just saying…

  5. David: No, he wouldn’t have to be a Dominican.

  6. Jacob says:

    The policy statement and documentation information have been out for some time.

  7. Jacob: Not here, they haven’t been.

  8. SouthernCatholic says:

    I think some of us should be really careful at not undermining the legitimate authority of the ordinary in his diocese. As I read SP and as I see in the Bishop\’s letter, the local ordinary is the one finally responsible for the application of the norms of SP in his diocese. To constantly critique and characterize this good Bishop\’s very thorough procedures in the way you have done risks undermining his authority. The local Bishop is not simply the branch manager for the CEO in his local diocese. He is the fullness of the Church in communion with Rome. But he must apply these norms as he sees fit, not as anyone else, let alone some priest on the Internet, sees fit.

  9. Al says:

    Wow… I don’t know what to say, really. I know that in our dioceses, they’ve required us to provide a spanish
    mass even though, we have no priests available that understand and are fluent in spanish. I even bet that if
    they were tested, they’d have a problem with understanding exactly what they are saying.

    It’s unbelievable the amount of red tape being put in front of something that should be so simple.

    I’m going to offer another rosary for you all but most especially the Holy Father.

  10. techno_aesthete says:

    “But he must apply these norms as he the Pope sees fit,” There, fixed it.

  11. TNCath says:

    SouthernCatholic,

    Ummm, yes and no. Yes, the bishop is indeed responsible for the proper application of the norms, but, no, he himself cannot restrict or contravene the norms already issued by the Holy Father as many bishops in the U.S. have attempted to do. True, the legitimate authority of the ordinary of a diocese should not be undermined by a priest or layman. But, at the same time, the legitimate authority of the Holy Father over the Universal Church should not be undermined by a diocesan bishop, either. Imposing local norms restricting the celebration of the Extraordinary Form above and beyond the Holy Father’s expressed intentions does not sound like someone acting “the fullness of the Church in communion with Rome” to me.

    If I am wrong about this, Fr. Z., please correct me.

  12. dcs says:

    To constantly critique and characterize this good Bishop’s very thorough procedures in the way you have done risks undermining his authority.

    I don’t think Fr. Z. is interesting in undermining any bishop’s authority. What he is interested in is defending the authority of the Pope.

  13. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Ecclesiology 101 for Southerncatholic.

    Sycophancy is not the law of all laws. Thus:

    A bishop has NO more competency to undo any aspect of a MP than he does to undo the law of gravity, unless he is also given that competency over a particular aspect of a MP.

    Once YOU accord (as if you were a god) to bishops the same legislative capactity as is possessed by the Bishop of Rome, all are Popes, and, then, in effect, none are Popes.

    Oh, I get, you wanted to insult this bishop. Gotcha.

  14. mike says:

    How sophomoric – a grown man playing these ridiculous games. An alumnus of the Jim Crow School of Public Administration. Read the German/Vatican concordant from the 30s for similar goodwill rhetoric. Charity in my heart – But I ain’t stupid!

    m

  15. Different says:

    Fr. Z.,

    I think you are mistaken when you call the bishop’s remark in his last paragraph a “stumble.” When he says: “…reach out to our brothers and sisters who have become alienated from the Church as a result of changes in the liturgy or how those changes were implemented” he might not be referring to those who are in schism. He might just be referring to many of the faithful who have remained in union with Rome, but who feel alienated and isolated as members of a Church that seems to worship so differently. I think there are many posters here on this site that feel as though they don’t “belong” at their local parish. The bishop is asking his priests to reach out to those folks and help them by feeding them spiritually with the traditional Mass.

    My two cents anyway…It sounds like this bishop really intends to carry out Pope Benedict’s mission.

  16. Chironomo says:

    Southern Catholic;
    I agree wholly about not undermining Episcopal authority, and your comment that a Bishop is not a “branch manager” is also a very good image to illustrate how a Bishop functions in the Catholic Church. However… being the “moderator” of the liturgy in his Diocese, or being “responsible for” the implementation of SP is a very different thing from being the “arbiter” or “creator” of liturgy in his Diocese, and deciding whether or not to implement SP. The latter seems to be how some Bishops wish to interpret the passage in the letter to Bishops in which the Pope notes that Bishops maintain their role as “moderators” of the liturgy in their Diocese, and that they are responsible for overseeing the implmentation of SP. As has been pointed out above, the Bishop has such authority ONLY insofar as he upholds the provisions of said document. It would seem absurd to use the legal force of a document to give yourself the authority to negate the provisions of the same document that you are claiming gives you the authority to do so! While a Bishop surely has specific powers given to him, I don’t believe that one of those powers is the authority to create or negate official Church teaching. In addition, the actual text of SP lays out clearly what the Bishop’s specific role is as “moderator”… it is to provide for the satisfactory resolution of problems which arise when a group of faithful petitions for the TLM and are unable to be accomodated by their local Priest or Pastor. In other words, to act as a moderator in conflicts which may arise from the implementation of the Motu Proprio. Some seem to believe that their role is to act as interpreter of the document in their Diocese.

  17. Chironomo says:

    I thought I should give some documentation for my previous posting. From the Pope’s letter to the Bishops:

    “In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

    Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.”

    This is expanded in the actual MP text, but does it not say clearly enough that a) The Bishop is a “Moderator” b) His role is to intervene WHEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARISE c) That any intervention must be IN FULL HARMONY WITH ALL THAT IS LAID DOWN BY THE NEW NORMS OF THE MOTU PROPRIO.

    Sorry for the all-caps… I can’t figure out how to bold-type in the combox. I’m not angry about anything! I think the actions of a great many Bishops so far goes way beyond the type of “intervening” that is in “full harmony” with the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

  18. Different says:

    Oh, and Father, regarding your remark on whether priests have a moral obligation to learn the extraordinary form…I say Yes. It would seem that a priest of the latin rite should be able to say liturgies of the latin rite. Perhaps, the Pope will instruct the seminaries to begin preparing priests in both forms. Clearly, the Holy Father wants priests to be ready, willing, and able to say either form of the latin rite and not restrict themselves to whichever form they personally prefer.

  19. mike says:

    Hey gang – let’s remember that men drafted into the Vatican’s diplomatic corps DO NOT GET TO WRITE BLOGS.

    m

  20. TerryC says:

    Not wanting to go down a rabbit hole here but I just heard today from a friend at seminary in Virginia that Latin is indeed a required subject for him. I don’t know if both versions of the liturgy of the Latin Rite are also in his curriculum. He is a first year student, so I expect (hope) that by the time gets to those classes that instruction for the celebration, in Latin, of both forms of the rite will be the norm.

  21. Matt Q says:

    Mike wrote:

    “Hey gang – let’s remember that men drafted into the Vatican’s diplomatic corps DO NOT GET TO WRITE BLOGS.”

    ()

    Who told you that, and where is it written they can’t?

  22. John F. says:

    Fr. Z.:

    Regarding the issue of reporting all uses of the 1962 Missale and the 1961 Collectio the priest should report ALL uses of the 1970 Missale and all other Rites and blessings to the local ordinary. By doing this there would be the true reconciliation that the bishop seeks and no favoritism would be shown to either Missale or Collecttio by the priests. I would hate for those attached to the Ordinary form to feel that they were being slighted by shoddy record keeping on the part of the Diocese.

  23. Fr A says:

    Oh, my! What a colossal exercise in bureaucratic micromanagement!

  24. tradteach says:

    Fr. Z.,

    Even as an English teacher, I had to read the post several times to grasp the meaning of the bishop’s instruction. However, the following section was confusing due to the punctuation.

    “At the same time, it is important to note that there is a distinction between the
    rubrics of the 1962 Missal (and the 1965 Rites listed below intended for use with the 1962 Missal) and liturgical laws that
    govern matters of external discipline. Many of the laws in this latter category that were in force in 1962 have since been
    abrogated.”

    By using parenthesis around “and the 1965 Rites listed below intended for use with the 1962 Missal”, the bishops is clarifying what he perceives as the correct rubrics for use with the Missal, which includes the 1965 adaptations. Parenthesis are properly used to make an aside or clarification. The 1962/1965 rubrics are then contrasted against the liturgical laws that govern discipline.

    There are a number of other “syntax errors” that obfuscate the reader’s understanding throughout the instruction. However, that would require a significant amount of time and a nice big RED marker.

  25. Henry Edwards says:

    All doctrinal and ecclesiological issues aside — not to speak of correct English grammar — this steady flow of dense and pedantic diocesan documents makes it clear that too many chanceries are full of too many mediocre staffers with too little to do that’s worth doing. And makes me yearn for the time before Vatican II when the bishop of my diocese — since split into three dioceses each boasting an impressive (and stuffed) chancery building — had a total chancery staff consisting of his personal secretary and a priest who did the books. The bishop wrote all his own letters and episcopal statements in plain clear English that no one had any difficulty understanding. Every directive from the Vatican was (I believe) implemented immediately and fully with no obfuscatory gobbledygook about guidelines and interpretations, no interminable pastoral council discussions or any other delaying tactics. And I doubt anyone could point to something in the diocese that is done better or more efficiently now than then.

  26. Deborah says:

    Absolutely ridiculous. What a waste of time and paper.

    Any priest or laity residing in this diocese need to simply ignore this nonsense, file it under “G” and move forward.

    No comments sent to the bishop or liturgy offices, no complaining…know your rights as a member of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church, and start building the TLM communities on your own.

    We desperately need brave priests and lay faithful these days.

  27. Greg Smisek says:

    Appendices A and B give The Curt Jester some serious competition in the “funniest ecclesial documents” category.

    tradteach: I think you meant “parentheses”.

  28. tradteach says:

    Greg S.,

    Thanks for catching the typo! I saw this typo and one other shortly after hitting the “submit comment” button.

  29. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    The first ‘procedure’ of the Bishop is completely illegal. Section 1, Article 5, of S.P. is not restrictive. It does not say that some continuously-existing group must lodge a request in order to enable a parish priest to schedule a scheduled Mass in his parish. It merely says that, ***if*** such a group exists and lodges such a request, the parish priest should consider the request favourably. But no group is needed; no group need even exist. Article 1, combined with the parish priest’s celebret already granted by the bishop, read in the context of Canon 837.1, make it crystal clear that the priest may *entirely* proceed on his own initiative to schedule so-called ‘public’ parish Masses. Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has already made this crystal clear.

    The only real restriction faced by a parish priests are the reasonable rights of access of the faithful to the New Mass. What existed for adherents of the New Mass before scheduling of a 1962 Mass usually determines reasonable access. That is a matter of equity. The right to this access could, in some cases, prevent celebrations of the 1962 Mass in Latin if (1) the parish priest himself was already celebrating the maximum number of Masses allowed to him by law (cf. Canon 905) and (2) the parish priest could not enlist the help of other priests to celebrate the 1962 Mass in Latin. These other priests can include retired priests who are ‘untouchable’ by the bishop, although such priests may only celebrate once per day. In some cases, the parish priest may be unable to find other priests who are willing and/or able to help him to celebrate scheduled Masses under the restrictions of Article 5.

    Secondly, another contributer to this blog suggested that the Bishop has the final say over the liturgy in his Diocese. Normally, this is true. It is not true, however, insofar as the Bishop of Bishops makes exception to it. For, while the Bishop is the fullness of the Church in his Diocese, the Pope (cf. Vatican I: the better Vatican Council) has authority everywhere which is plenary, immediate, and supreme. In the case in hand, the local bishop is limited by Article 12 of S.P., which gives the authority of supervision and interpretation of the norms to an organ of the Holy See; namely, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The local bishop is the fullness of the Church in his Diocese *only* to the extent that he acts in communion with the Supreme Pontiff.

    The local bishop is still the moderator of the liturgy in his Diocese. But, in this case, this only means that he is to see to it that the norms of S.P. are respected. The function of supervising and interpreting the norms has been given to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, NOT to the local bishop.

    The bishop’s directives are full of errors and deceits. For example, they say that faithful may not be invited to ‘private’ Masses and yet, under the GIRM, if a priest does not have faithful to attend a private Mass, he is enjoined to seek them out. Where is Bishop Amos getting this? He does not say. That is because his chancery hacks are making it up. In law, anything that is not forbidden is allowed. Therefore, the priest could inform anyone of his private Masses (there is no law preventing it) and could then accept as attendants those who spontaneously ask to be present. There is no effective difference between this and issuing invitations to attend. There is no law against inviting people. Where does Bishop Amos find it? Nowhere, hence the lack of citation here in his directives.

    Then we have direct misquotations of the text. Here is an example:

    2. Celebration according to this Missal may take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and feast days only [sic] one
    such Mass may be celebrated (SP Art 5, § 2).

    Now, check the Latin text and the semi-official translations of it. *Nowhere* does “only” appear anywhere. It’s not there. It has been inserted by a chancery hack; it is an act of mendacity. This cannot be an error. You can err in leaving something out if the eye skips. But to insert something that was not there is a deliberate act of deceit. It is also plagiarism. The text does NOT say “only” and this insertion–this lie–reverses its meaning! The text says that one such Mass may be celebrated on Sundays and feastdays. This is a non-restrictive norm. It means that, should all the canonical hours available be already used for New Masses, the parish priest may still substitute the 1962 Mass for one and only one of them. However, if all the available canonical hours are not taken and there is time and opportunity for more than one, then he can scheudle more than one. We know that this is the correct meaning because other parts of the apostolic letter and other law (e.g. Protocol 1411-99) make it clear that faithful have rights of access to the New Mass, rights which restrict similar rights of access to the old Mass, since the former is almost always the normative liturgy.

    These regulations are entirely ultra vires (cf. Canon 30). They are null and void. A parish priest need not even inform his bishop that he intends to celebrate the 1962 Mass in Latin, publicly or privately. By the way, if he decides to proceed ‘privately’, the restrictions of Article 5 *CAN NOT* apply. In law, one section cannot apply to another unless it refers to another or others. Article 1 applies to the others because this is specified in its close. But the restrictions of Article 5 cannot refer back to Articles 2 and 4. If the Pope wanted to apply them to Articles 2 and 4, he would need to say so, or else he would need to *repeat* the restrictions of Article 5 in Article 2. For example, Section 2 of Article 5, which refers to competency of a priest to celebrate the Mass of 1962, cannot refer to the private Masses under Article 2.

    These regulations are so full of holes that it’s a pathetic joke.

    Peter Karl T. Perkins
    Victoria, Canada

  30. Different says:

    Can someone tell me what is the difference between a private mass and a public mass? Is it just a matter of it being published in a bulletin or posted somewhere? Thanks for the help!

  31. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo says:

    Very helpful, indeed. Thanks, Peter Karl T. Perkins!

  32. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Thank you for your comment, Fr. Di Lorenzo. “Different” also had a good question–good on its own merit and also good because it pertains to Bishop Amos’s illegal regulations. Before Vatican II, a private Mass was simply one that was celebrated by a priest and one server or, for a just or necessary cause, by a priest alone.

    Vatican II (specifically S.C.) ruled that Mass by its very nature is public. This is reflected in the 1983 Code of Canons (specifically Canons 837 and 899.2). This means that, in current law, there is no such thing as a private Mass: all Masses are public by definition. However, there is a new distinction between a regularly-scheduled Mass and one that is not. The latter roughly corresponds to the old ‘private’ Mass and the term ‘private Mass’ is still generally applied to it by people (but not in law). I find it ironic that it is thanks to Vatican II that priests are protected from their bishops under Article 2 of S.P. so as to celebrate the old Mass freely. God does indeed move in mysterious ways.

    If a Mass is ‘not regularly scheduled’, this means that it is not posted or announced or advertised in accordance with a *rule*. It most certainly can be advertised or posted, but only as a singular occurrence. For example, a parish bulletin could read ’1962 Mass in Latin at 11.00 a.m. next Sunday”–and the same bulletin could make exactly the same announcement every week for the next ten years–but the announcement could not read “every Sunday at 11.00 a.m.’; nor could it read ‘every other Sunday’ or ‘every second Sunday’, or ‘every fourth Friday’.

    Now, let us turn to Bishop Amos’s insane interpretation. His chancery hacks have written this of these Masses:

    “. . . such Masses may not be advertised or persons invited.” Wrong.

    Let’s now examine especially the part about persons being invited. Here is the text of Canon 837.2: “Since liturgical celebrations by their very nature call for a community celebration, they are, as far as possible, to be celebrated in the presence of Christ’s faithful and with their active participation”. Now, let us imagine that a certain priest has been unable to find an Altar server for his not-regularly scheulded Mass. Given this Canon, can he invite other faithful to attend to make the responses, for example? Not only is he invited to do so; it is enjoined. But, if he can invite one faithful to join him, can he invite others? The Canon is not restrictive; therefore, he can do so.

    Let us now turn to Canon 906: “A priest may not celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the faithful, unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.” Notice that this refers to ALL Masses, not only ‘public’ parish scheduled Masses. Notice that it does not say only “one” but “at least one”. And notice that, unlike Bishop Amos’s chancery hacks, I do not misquote the text, thereby committing plariarism and mendacity!

    Now let us turn to Canon 899.2: “In the Eucharistic assembly, the people of God [or, from the Latin, you could say God's people] are called together under the Presidency of the Bishop or of a Priest authorised by him, who acts in the person of Christ. . . .” This refers to all Masses. How could this apply if a priest were forbidden from inviting people to Mass in any case?

    Bishop Amos is also wrong when he says that a Mass under Article 2 cannot be advertised. It can be advertised as a single event but cannot be advertised or listed in accordance with a rule of recurrence. As long as the advertisement does not refer to more than one occasion, that Mass qualifies as ‘not-regularly-scheduled’.

    In reponse to one comment of Fr. Z., I would like to close by commenting that what he calls ‘British spellings’ really are ‘non-American’ spellings. They are Canadian spellings too!, and Canada is more important that the U.K. or, for that matter, any other country on earth! But his point is valid that the non-U.S. spellings in the document make it look like a cut-and-paste job by chancery hacks. I am willing to bet that it all comes from the offices of the infamous Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brigthon, England, who has now made a name for himself as an obstructor of S.P. He has issued guidelines that essentially require that celebrants of the old Mass have a doctorate in Latin and have won at least twelve gold medals in the Olympics.

    Peter Karl T. Perkins
    Victoria, B.C., Dominion of Canada

  33. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Another omission:

    I note that, according to Bishop Amos’s chancery hacks, the Bishop is “charged with overseeing [sic: cf. Article 12 of S.P.!] and regulating all aspects of the liturgical life of the diocesan Church, and assigning ministries according to need and to the well-being of the flock in his charge (RS 19, 160; CIC c.838.4). It is only the second citation here that carries the force of law. But what does this Canon really say? Not exactly what these liars claim.

    Here is the text of Canon 838.4. Note the opening restrictive phrase, which these hacks have conveniently omitted:

    “Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.”

    Note that this Canon is not restrictive. It does not stipulate that only the bishop is competent to do so; nor does it claim that his authority in the matter is supreme or primary. He may act within his competence to lay down liturgical regulations. But, of course, so may the Pope, and those of the Pope always take precedence. He has “supreme, plenary, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power” (Canon 331). Has he done so? Consdier Article 12 of S.P.: “This Commission [i.e. the P.C.E.D], apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See supervising the observance and application of these dispositions”. Now, one cannot supervise or apply what one cannot interpret. Moreover, since the authority of the Holy See is always superior to that of the local bishop, the authority of the P.C.E.D. in this matter is always and everywhere superior to that of the local bishop. It is therefore for the P.C.E.D. to interpret the meaning of S.P. in a way that binds the local bishops, not for the local bishops to interpret it so as to bind their parish priests. The only function of the local bishop is to assist it in seeing to it that the norms are observed. For example, the bishop would be acting within his competence if he disciplined a vicar-general who tried to restrict the meaning of th norms in order to hinder a parish priest.

    Oh, what fools these liberals be.

    P.K.T.P.

  34. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    4. The Bishop judges what would be the best approach to fulfilling such a request (for example, naming specific
    parishes for the use of the 1962 Missal), and retains the authority to determine whether or not the requirements set
    out in Summorum Pontificum and in these policies have been fulfilled. [I wonder if this is really the case.]

    It is not the case, Father. “Summorum Pontificum” entrusts to parish priests the right to determine if some of its conditions have been fulfilled. In other cases, the Bishop has legitimate jurisdiction to act but inferior to that of the P.C.E.D., which is granted the full, universal, immediate, and supreme power of the Holy See to ensure that the articles of S.P. are fulfilled.

    IV-249.1 Policy
    The Bishop of Davenport is responsible for the appropriate implementation of Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese,
    including the promulgation of appropriate norms to be followed.

    Comment: This is not untrue but it is not the full truth. Perhaps this Bishop has not yet had to face courts and to swear to tell the truth, the *whole* truth, and nothing but the truth. The P.C.E.D. has been entrusted with a superior power to supervise and apply the articles of the apostolic letter. Moreover, no norm issued by the local bishop can *EVER* override a law of the Pope. And the laws of the Pope include universal customary laws and the laws arising from interpretation of law by legitimate authority. For example, if it has become a norm of universal law that a group consists of as few as two or three people, Bishop Amos cannot make it consist of four people in the case of S.P.

    The same applies in the case of a continuously existing (not stable: this is not in S.P.) group. For how long must, say, three people exist continuously in a parish in order to make them a group there? I don’t know and hope that the P.C.E.D. will clarify this. It presumably depends on precedent and NOT on the whim of Bishop Amos in one Diocese and Bishop Sartain in another.

    These policies are attempts by Bishop Amos to wrest control of S.P. away from the Holy See and parish priests.

  35. Matt says:

    While I respect anyone in authority in the Church. I have to say what His Excellency has written is crap. No traditionalist wants a 1965 mass, even worse (in my opinion) a mix between a 1962 mass and a 1965 adaptation Mass. It would cause great scandal in the traditionalist community if there would be a Traditional Mass concelebrated, with 1965 adaptations, with altar girls. Summorum Pontificum allowed for the 1962 missal, there was no mention of the 1965 adaptation. Of course the 1965 mass is better than the Novus Ordo, but traditionalists want the Traditional Mass not a hybrid transition Mass wreck. Una Voce in the past has voiced its opposition to any adaptations to the 1962 missal and I agree with them. If I attend the TLM, it should be the same everywhere, not one church uses the 1965 adaptions with concelebration and altar girls, and the other faithfully according to the 1962 missal. His Excellency is over using his authority. My prayers are with him however, I do not think he intended to do any harm though. People would flee to the SSPX churches if this is how the TLM is going to be celebrated. The Holy See has not (and probably will never) authorize an alternative to the 1962 Good Friday Solemn Collects. Traditionalists don’t want it.

  36. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    ҤIV-249.2 Faculties
    Only priests who are capable of doing so may celebrate the Mass and other rites according to the 1962 Missal (SP Art. 5,
    § 4; 20Q #7).”

    Comment: Once again, since Section 4 of Article 5 does not refer back to Article 2, and since Article 2 does not repeat this restriction, it does not and it cannot apply or be made to apply to Article 2, regarding not-regularly scheduled Masses. Period. Bishop Amos has no authority to limit what the Supreme Legislator has not limited in regard to the rights of priests.

    “The following policies outline when such a celebration is allowed.

    Procedures
    1. The priest who celebrates the Mass must be ‘qualified to do so and not juridically impeded’ (S.P. Art. 5, § 4).”

    Comment: That is a mistranslation. Let’s see now. First, we have a misquoation in which the modifier “only” is surreptiously added to the Pope’s text. Who would dare to put words into the mouth of a reigning Pope? Only Pope Amos of Davenport. Now we have a mistranslation. Idoneus mean “capable”; it does not mean ‘qualified’. Buy a Lewis a Short! Notice again how this restriction does NOT apply to Article 2, on the celebration of not-regularly scheduled Masses. Given that fact, what does it likely mean? It means that the congregation that will normally be present at scheduled parish Masses has a right to hear a Mass in which the Latin is pronounced correctly, and it has a right to see a Mass in which the visible actions are performed correctly. In other words, the celebrant need only be able to pronouce the words and follow the rubrics accurately. Were this not the case, these restrictions would have been applied by the Pope to Article 2. On the contrary, in the case of the not-regularly scheduled Mass, the purpose of the priest is to fulfil an obligation or a spiritual need of his own.

    In any case, it is assumed of any priest that he generally understands the intent of each prayer. Once ordained and once granted a celebret to say Mass, he cannot be required to prove such things. That would an unreasonable infringement on his rights as a priest.

    “In
    other words, the priest must be able to competently [split infinitive from these subliterates] celebrate the liturgy (be able to understand the Latin and the
    rubrics of the rite being celebrated), [This is a little shaky. Certainly the priest must know what to do. However, when you get into the vagueries of "understanding" all sorts of problems can crop up. Shall we ask priests who say only the Novus Ordo if they "understand" the texts?] adhere to the Church and Church Teaching, and be free of any irregularity or
    censure to exercise sacramental ministry. Competency will be ascertained by the use of a rubrical and Latin exam,
    review of credentials, and/or interview. [Grrrr…. the exam thing again. This opens up the risk of a terrible doub;e-standard and not a little intimidation, depending how it is handled.]”

    Good grief, Fr. Z.! Grrr doen’t half do it! This is an outrage. This little Pope of Nonesuch has no such authority. He can set impossible Latin exams in seminary if he likes but, once ordained, every priest of the Latin Church has a fundamental right to celebrate in the lingua sacra of his individual sui juris Church. And that means Latin. Canon 928 guarantees this right. There can therefore be no Latin exams. If Bishop Amos and his predecessors did not train their priests in Laitn in seminary, those priests arguably have cause before a tribunal against those bishops for cheating them out of a priestly education. Once ordained, however, the right of the priest is fundamental and there can be absolutely no right of any bishop to set exams.

    By the way, this applied to the New Mass as well. Every priest of the Latin Church has the right to celebrate the New Mass in Latin and cannot be required to sit a Latin exam in order to retain this right. A right granted by the Pope in his Canon Law cannot be removed by a local bishop in his local bailiwick. No, sir!

    “2. In order to ensure the proper implementation of Summorum Pontificum, prior to beginning the use of the 1962
    Missal in a parish the pastor (or in the case of a religious community, the religious superior) is to complete
    “Appendix A: Documentation Form” and submit it to the Director of Liturgy for review. [Good heavens. Priests really want to do more paper-work.]”

    No, sorry, this regulation is ultra vires. It imposes a burden on priests in regard to a right granted them by their bishops. Let the priest simply ignore this and all these illegal regulations, and let the bishop then pursue that priest before the law. And let it all be appealed to Rome.

    “3. In beginning the use of the 1962 Missal, pastors are to ensure that the good of those faithful requesting the use of
    the Missal “harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish” while “avoiding discord and favouring [Hmmm… British spelling? Is this a cut and paste job?] the
    unity of the whole Church” (SP Art. 5, § 1).”

    No, invalid again. The Bishop has the right to ensure such harmonisation [the British spelling being the only correct one in the *English* language]. However, a priest does not have an obligation to do the Bishop’s work for him. Of course, he should do so to avoid trouble. It must be kept in mind that the only real restriction of the 1962 Mass comes not from the local busybody bishops but from those attached to the New Mass. The faithful have a right to a reasonable access to the New Mass because it is almost always the normative liturgy (the Campose jurisdiction is an exception). So, for example, a parish priest should not usually grant to the 1962 Mass a time formerly taken to celebrate the New Mass. The rights of NewMassers must be respected and even given precedence when it comes to assigning times for Mass.

    P.K.T.P.

  37. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    ҤIV-249.3 Requirements for the Celebration of Mass
    The Mass according to the 1962 Missal has its own structure and logic. That Mass and the Mass according to the 1970
    Missal [Hmm… two different Masses? Are they not the "same" Mass in two forms? There is a subtle admission here.] are not to be combined in any way. At the same time, it is important to note that there is a distinction between the
    rubrics of the 1962 Missal (and the 1965 Rites listed below intended for use with the 1962 Missal) [This is a good point.] and liturgical laws that
    govern matters of external discipline. Many of the laws in this latter category that were in force in 1962 have since been
    abrogated. The faithful may choose to observe the former, more rigorous disciplines, but cannot be required to do so. [EXACTLY! THIS IS VERY GOOD. For example, people cannot be refused Communion in the hand (though we hope no one would ever desire it at any Mass), nor must women be brow-beaten into using chapel veils (though I hope they would start using them if they don’t already). That said, this could lead to all sorts of oddities, as you will see below. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THESE NORMS. The Pontificial Commission Ecclesia Dei should be apprised and review this.]”

    This may follow, Fr. Z., or it may not. It is a complicated matter. It is true that the rubrics of the two Missals should not be confused with other liturgical laws. However, one must also take into account the intent of the legislator and the laws of custom. It is at least arguable that some post-1970 laws were intended by the legislator to apply only to the New Mass. It must also be noted that regulations in the GIRM for the 1970 Mass need not apply to the old Mass. Hence I wonder why this Bsp. Amos keeps quoting the GIRM.

    On the question of brow-beating, I certain do favour brow beating women into covering their heads. Men should also be enjoined, even lectured, to cover their arms down to the wrist and their legs. I would certainly never venture into a church on even the hottest days in a short-sleeved shirt. That would be completely unthinkable. But what we have today are men who dress like basketball coaches during summer. All they need is the whistle around the neck.

    If you take the view that only the rubrics of the old Mass apply to it, and customary laws cannot, you will be forced to admit Altar boyettes, Communion whilst standing, and Communion in the hand. I know of some people in the traditionalist community here who would walk out of the church if someone received in the hand. I would not go quite that far, but it would certainly disrupt the quietude of the Mass. The P.C.E.D. must decide these matters carefully. Let everything be done so as to achieve peace in our churches.

    There was a case of one elderly man at a S.S.P.X chapel who used to have a box of ties and veils. When he saw a gent without a tie, for example, he would hurl one at him. Many people complained about this. They have no sense of humour. I would love to have him at my parish. Why does nobody have any sense of humour anymore? It would be hilarious to see that before Mass, although I admit that it would be unbecoming, given the solemnity that is proper.

    P.K.T.P.

  38. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    “3. Celebrations may take place in the afternoon; the current discipline of fasting for one hour before communion
    (rather than the previous discipline of fasting for three hours) is to be observed.”

    Comment: Well, we can’t help having Masses in the afternoon for the time being. It’s done everywhere. As for fasting, I follow the pre-1950 custom of fasting from all food and drink INCLUDING all water, from the midnight previous. Granted, it maketh for a very dry tongue. I would follow this for all Masses scheduled to start at or before 1 p.m. For later Masses, I would follow the three hour rule as a minimum, and including nothing after the hour of noon. Note that we are free to follow the old rule but it is no longer required. But we can recommend it. We are free to do so. I get the impression from the tone of these chancery hacks’ document that they’d be prepared to force-feed traditionalists just prior to one hour before Mass. Come one and a half hours early to Mass so that the vicar-general can strap you down and force some pancakes down your throat. Those who clamp their teeth shut will receive food intravenously.

    “4. Concelebration may take place [WHAT THE…..] according to the rubrics of the 1965 Rite of Concelebration at Mass. [I bet this is wrong. If the rubrics for 1962 Mass must be followed, and there are no rubrics for concelebration, then how are the rubrics to be followed. Also, just above it was said that the 1962 rubrics apply, not the 1965 rubrics. How then to 1965 provisions apply here? This is a mess.] Current
    discipline regarding concelebration is found chiefly in c.902 and GIRM §§199-203.”

    Comment: the GIRM does not apply to the old Mass.

    “Priests who do not know
    how to pronounce the Latin should not concelebrate [OR celebrate…. this is the real stipulation behind a priest being "idoneus" in Summorum Pontificum, not the level of "understanding" of the Latin!] (RS §113). If not concelebrating, clerics attend in choir
    (wearing cassock, surplice, and biretta). [Is this not really the way it ought to be with the Novus Ordo as well?]”

    Comment: Bishop Amos is merely pointing to the fact that pre-1970 laws are valid if the old Mass was never abrogated in the first place, which is what S.P. claims. Fr. Z. is right that it is a mess.

    In regard to concelebration, while I do not, for now, dispute Bsp. Amos’s claims, I note that no priest may EVER be forced to concelebrate. That includes the Maundy Thursday Mass (cf. Canon 902). I note that the liberals, particularly those in Europe, have dreamed up the fiction that priests are required to concelebrate on Maundry Thursday. It’s a fantasy, like thinking you’re in an Age of Aquarius communist paradise beach, when you’re really just in some horrid place like New Jersey.

    “5. Communion may be distributed under both species according to the rubrics of the 1965 Rite of Communion
    Under Both Kinds. Current discipline regarding distribution of Communion under both species is found in
    c.925 and GIRM §§281-283. [No, I don’t think so, for the reasons above.]”

    Well, faithful are also free to refuse the Precious Blood and ignore the sanctuary hags distributing it.

    “Therefore, Communion may be distributed in the hand, the faithful may receive
    Communion standing, [Yes.]

    Why Father’s enthusiastic “yes”? What could be so disrespectful in the Western tradition than not kneeling before our Blessed Lord?

    “. . . and properly prepared and commissioned Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
    may be utilized if necessary. [No, I don’t think so. Again, there are no rubrics for how this would be handled. I am not sure the argument about external disciplines applies here.]”

    Why wouldn’t it? This is why Rome must take into account customary law and the intent of the legislator. In some cases, I think that a result in law that could be injurious should be changed by Rome. For example, people should be forbidden from receiving whilst standing unless they must stand for some medical reason.

    “6. A “permanent” deacon may exercise his liturgical ministry under the 1962 Missal, provided that, like the
    priest, he is competent in the rubrics and language (see §IV-248.2 above). [Of course. He is a deacon.]
    a. There is no provision for a deacon at a low or high (sung) Mass in the 1962 Missal; it is not permitted
    to fabricate a role for the deacon at these rites.
    b. There is a role for a deacon (and subdeacon) at a solemn high Mass. A priest may serve in this role,
    vested as a deacon. [Again, another inconsistency. If the argument about "external laws" is being used, and present law is to be applied, then how can this be done? I believe that present law says that priests do NOT vest as other than a priest. I might be wrong, but I don’t think so. If I am right, this is another problem with these "norms".]
    c. A priest or deacon, vested as a subdeacon, would serve in the ministry of subdeacon at a solemn high
    Mass; an instituted acolyte may also serve in this capacity—but wears only an alb (and not the tunic). [This of course, based on the logic of these norms, suggest that a FEMALE could substitute for the instituted acolyte, and dress in the tunic, with the biretta, etc., and take the role of "straw" subdeacon at Mass.]
    7. Lay persons (male or female) may exercise the ministries of server and reader, if competent to do so. [And what rubrics in the 1962 Missal provide for this? This is absurd.]

    Servers certainly exist in the 1962 Mass. The question is whether or not they can be female. Given the Code of 1983, which is the only Code that applies, the answer is apparently affirmative. Another reason for clarifications. I am sure that most traditionalists would walk out of a 1962 Mass with any woman in the sanctuary. This has already caused a problem in one parish in New Hampshire.

    Father is right, of course, in the case of lay readers. What the hell is Bishop Amos referring to? There can be no lay readers at 1962 Mass except in the case of Masses that call for a lector (formerly a cleric but no more). This would apply at the Easter Vigil Mass except that the rubrics stipulate that, where no ordained lector is present, the celebrant himself reads the lessons. Again, behold Bishop Amos the Pope of Davenport, legislating the Davenport Use of the Roman Missal.

    . . .

    “10. The calendar and Lectionary of the 1962 Missal are to be followed, [So, we follow the 1962 discipline, except for those things which we want to change.]”

    Look, Fr. Z., let’s not kick a gift horse in the mouth! The P.C.E.D., in a 1991 ruling, says that new lectionary in the lowbrow unliturgical English can be substituted. Bishop Amos disagrees. For once, I’m on his side! He may be a fool but thank the good Lord that he’s an ignorant fool.

    “. . . and the readings “may be given in the
    vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See” (SP Art. 6; 20Q #12). That is, any vernacular
    translation of the readings approved for liturgical use may be utilized.”

    Comment: no, that is not what S.P. says. It refers to translations recognised by the Apostolic See alone, not the Blue Jeans Bible translations recognised by the bishops.

    Best of all, of course, is not to have any readings in the vernacular. Our priest here said the readings ONLY in the Latin, with no vernacular to follow. That prevents the feminazis from getting their mentally-ill translations into our Masses. Better to read a good translation than to hear a bad one–or a profane one.

    11. In regards to the Paschal Triduum:
    a. Since there is ordinarily one parish celebration of each of the Triduum liturgies, those celebrations are
    to take place using the ordinary form.
    b. If there is a community that celebrates the Triduum according to the extraordinary form (for example,
    a personal parish), then the intercessions from the 1962 Missal ought to be substituted by the 1970
    texts (in Latin) for Good Friday . . .”

    Comment: No, this is completely illegal, and it is beyond the competence of Bishop Amos or any other local bishop to stipulate this. If a priest were to do this knowing it to be illicit, he would have to confess it in the Sacrament of Penance (note that there is no such thing as the Sacrament of ‘Reconciliation’).

    in order to best reflect official Catholic teaching regarding the status
    of other Christians and of the Jewish People (as expressed in the conciliar documents Unitatis
    redintegratio and Nostra aetate).”

    Comment: The official teaching of the Church in this matter has not changed and cannot change, just as the mind of God does not change. Bishop Amos might change his mind from time to time; God does not. It is an act of charity to pray for the conversion of those who live in heresy and error. Wouldn’t you want your Jewish neighbours to know that their Messias has come in all His glory if you truly loved them? As for Cardinal Kasper and his theories of convergence, they are private opinions at best and heresies at worst.

    The only conceivable objection to the 1962 text is the term (in English) of “even”: Let even the Jews be saved. It does tend to make it look as if the Jews are further from God than are the other infidels. Arguably, they are, though, because they were God’s chosen people who directly rejected Him Who came to save them, whereas Hindus have often not had the truth preached to them yet. Anyway, we needn’t get into that.

    “[Another violation of this principle of not mixing the rites. I don’t believe this could stand up to a hearing in Rome.]”

    No, obviously, it would not. The regulation is obviously ultra vires. Pope Amos of Davenport has no authority to alter the text of a Missal.

    “12. The full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful remains normative. [How do you legislate this?]”

    Not a problem, Bishop Amos. We shan’t fall asleep. After all, this is not the New Mass! Active participation is participatio actuosa, of course (vide Mediator Dei); the term used was not activus. Hence we can pray our rosaries throughout the Mass provided that we have a general intent that is apposite, for the participation called for can be a largely interior one.

    “Before the extraordinary form
    is used, pastors should ensure that the faithful have been adequately prepared [How do you determine that? Test them?] with this end in mind (e.g., the
    faithful should be able to pray their parts in Latin and sing at least the more basic Gregorian chants). [WOAH! Let us remind all readers that the Church has already required that pastors make sure that people can both sing and speak all those parts of Mass pertaining to them in both Latin and their mother tongue…. for the NOVUS ORDO. How as that been handled in Davenport lately? Or everywhere else? Again, a double-standard seems to be in evidence.]

    Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

    Don’t give this Bishop any ideas. He’ll have poor Mrs. Burnie who bakes cakes for parish banquets, poring over Wheelock’s Grammar in order to prepare for an impending Latin exam. Now, let’s see, what’s the plueperfect subjunctive passive for this deponent verb. I wonder, though, if one translated “pro multis” as ‘for many’, would Bsp. Amos mark you wrong? If even the I.C.E.L. translators can’t translate the Latin, how can he expect others to do it?

    I also note that the Low Mass of 1962 need not be a dialogue Mass: that is only one option. Faithful are free to have an unrecited Mass in which only the servers say the responses. Since this is allowed in the rubrics, how can Bishop Amos alter it? He hath not the competence. And, from what I’ve read here, he does’t have any competence at all, as in, ‘you’re incompetent, Amos, you’re fired’.

  39. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    First of all, I shall see if any of our esteemed members on this blog can see what is wrong with looking for a plueperfect subjunctive passive from for a deponent verb (see my last post). Would Mrs. Burnie find one? Now, this:

    “2. The use of the 1962 Missal in accord with Summorum Pontificum presumes that the community recognises [I've correct the uncivilsied U.S. spelling here] the validity of the 1970 Missal and the authority of the Second Vatican Council. If this is [sic] not the case, the pastor or
    priest celebrating according to the 1962 Missal must correct the error of those who claim otherwise.”

    Oh how ignorant our little chancery hacks are. This is a reference to No. (a) of the Instruction “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” of 3 October, 1984; that is, a reference to the old Indult which was supplemented by “Ecclesia Dei” four years later. Here is the text: “That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests [i.e. celebrants of the old Mass] and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal proumulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970″.

    I note that, of course, this has never been a postion required of those who attend the 1970 Mass. Presumably, some who attend the 1970 Mass could reject the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the very Mass they were attending. But no matter.

    No, let us see what “Summorum Pontificum” has to say about this:

    Article 1: “. . . The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents “Quattuor abhinc annos” and “Ecclesia Dei”, are *substituted* [emphasis added] as follows:”

    Now, let’s see, clause (a) of Q.A.A. must be repeated somewhere down here. Um. Nope! It’s not there? Therefore, the condition is rescinded.

    Can Bishop Amos restore it by his own authority? Not. Not unless he is elected Pope. There’s not much chance of that. First he’d have to acquire a thing or two. No need to be specific.

    P.K.T.P.