The Archbishop of Milwaukee, His Excellency Most Rev. Timothy Dolan published norms for the Archdiocese for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
My emphases and comments.
Archbishop promulgates guidelines for Extraordinary Form celebrations
In order to ensure an orderly implementation of the norms of Summorum Pontificum, Archbishop Dolan has promulgated diocesan guidelines for liturgical celebrations with the use of the 1962 Missal. These norms are effective immediately.
GUIDELINES FOR CELEBRATION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM LITURGY AT PARISHES IN THE
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE
The motu proprio issued by Pope Benedict XVI entitled Summorum Pontificum allows for the exercise of discretion [A curious phrase. Does the MP talk about "discretion"? The MP says that pastors of parishes are to receive willingly requests from the faithful. I suppose at that point he uses discretion, the power or right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment.] in the use of the 1962 Missal at parishes. The applicable text reads as follows:
Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful [The Latin says "where there is stably present a group…"] 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 harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring 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.
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 recognized by the Apostolic See.
[Now we get to the meat…] To ensure an orderly application of these norms the following guidelines are to be observed:
• The request for celebrations in the extraordinary form arises from a stable group [Remember: that is not quite what the MP says] who have adhered to this usage over time. The use of the extraordinary form is not used with groups that reject the validity of the ordinary form. The extra-ordinary form is not to be used only at the discretion or personal preference of the pastor/priest without a request from the people. [There is a lot of debate about this point around the world. Some strongly argue that the priest can, in fact, implement the older form of Mass even without requests. I believe Card. Castrillon holds this view.]
• The use of the extraordinary form is not to be used if it will create a divisive or elitist spirit in the parish. [This "elitist" label is an unfortunate addition to these "norms". But let’s try to put a good spin on it. It is likely that this is aimed at the people who prefer the TLM. But, we can also take this to mean that there shouldn’t be a bunch of snooty supporters of the Novus Ordo who take on an elitist attitude! I am not convinced that is what the author intended, but the language bears this interpretation as well.] Prior catechesis for the whole parish, not just to those who are making the request, is required. [Should be going on anyway, actually! This is a good idea.] The extraordinary form is not to be used as a “novelty” or “teaching tool.” [RIGHT! Holy Mass is not a "didactic moment". Sure, people can learn many things from Mass at many levels. Attending a TLM could open eyes about certain aspects of the Novus Ordo. But Mass is first and foremost to be an encounter with MYSTERY.]
• Since the norms require that the priest celebrating in the extraordinary form be qualified to do so, there needs to be an assessment of readiness for such celebrations. Priests who were not trained in the 1962 Missal, or who have lost touch with the rituals therein, are to demonstrate their qualifications prior to such a celebration. The priests of the Institute of Christ the King (St. Stanislaus Parish) will be delegated to make such assessments and provide assistance as needed. [This seems on the surface to be reasonable, since we don’t want some priest running off half-cocked who will make a mess of things. But again there is a possibility of a double standard. Who is overseeing the competence of priests who use the Novus Ordo?]
Okay… well. Not so bad, really.
I am pleased that this seems to concern mainly public celebrations of Holy Mass.
The only thing that causes concern is the suggestion of a double standard in some of the language here.
First, there was the "elistist" comment. Yes. This is a problem. There are some who prefer the TLM who get pretty snooty about it. It is possible to argue that the TLM is superior to the NO without getting snooty. However, there are an equal, nay rather, greater number of people who sneer at the TLM, preferring the NO. They take an an equally "elitist" attitude. Furthermore, some elitist supporters of the Novus Ordo actually have been in positions of influence in the Church for a long time. Their treatment of supporters of the TLM has been somewhat less than just or kind over the years. So, to my mind this word "elitist" should have been left out.
Also, the "assessment of readiness" is troubling. I repeat: it is not unreasonable to require that a priest be competent to celebrate Holy Mass in his Rite. I am glad that the document did not mention competence in the Latin language.
In fairness we must therefore ask two questions.
What vigilance will be exercised for celebrations of the Novus Ordo? Will there be an equal oversight concerning competence?
Still, that leads to the other question. Since priests of the Latin Church now have faculties to use the 1962MR, will the ordinary also make sure that his new priests and his seminarians know the older form? In fact, it is necessary and proper that oversight of competence of priests to say Holy Mass in their Rite should include both uses and not just one. Otherwise, would that not be a confirmation that there in fact is a double standard? That an elitist attitude does in fact exist, but in favor of the Novus Ordo? "You don’t have to learn that Mass."
And yet the thoughts of the faithful about whether the Novus Ordo is valid need to be assessed before they may be allowed to have a TLM. Troubling. I will write more on that elsewhere.
Is this not all a subtle admission that the TLM is of greater weight and substance in some way? That it is harder? More demanding?
In any even, consider the contrast between these norms and those recently issued in on the other side of the world in Manila.
You folks in Milwaukee have it pretty good.