Summorum allows substitution of Novus Ordo Masses with TLMs on priest’s own initiative

I have been having an internet nightmare for a few days, so I am pretty sure someone may have picked up on this already.

I have had many discussions with priest friends about the flexibility with the provisions of Summorum Pontificum so that priests are able to make the best pastoral applications within their own contexts.

For example, I have had good discussions with the great Fr. Tim Finigan about whether priests could, on their own initiative – that is, without requests from a group – add a TLM to the existing schedule or substitute a Novus Ordo Mass with a TLM.   We both agreed that, yes, Summorum Pontificum allows for such a thing, though that is not spelled out in the document itself.

Yah, I know.   But keep reading.

Now comes this from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.   The Commission’s Secretary, Msgr. Pozzo, replied to a letter sent from a priest in Poland about similar questions.

A kid reader did some transcription for us from the Polish site Nowy Ruch Liturgiczny, and another sent some images of the letters in question.

Let’s have a look with my usual emphases and comments.

From GERMAN:

Rev. Krzysztof Tyburowski
(Moderatore Diocesano dei Fedeli
Lefati alla Forma Straordinaria della Liturgia)
[postal address left out]

To:
Pontificia Commissione "Ecclesia Dei"
[postal address left out]

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

On behalf of many faithful in Poland, I would ask the Pontifical
Commission "Ecclesia Dei" for an answer to some important questions.
The questions relate to the celebration of the Holy Mass in the
extraordinary rite, and with no small difficulties that arise in this
context again and again.

1. In the case whe there is no other option, i.e. when no church is
available specifically for the extraordinary form, is it allowed to
celebrate the Holy Week Liturgy also (additionally) in the
extraordinary form
, in a church (parish church or a rectorate), in
which the Triduum sacrum is usually celebrated in the ordinary form
?
The difficulty relates specifically to the situation that in many
places the Holy Week liturgy is celebrated practically in all churches
in the new form. Is such celebration an obstacle for celebrating the
liturgy in the extraordinary form?  [The problem is that normally you should only have the Triduum ceremonies once.  An exception could be, I believe, an additional Good Friday service for pastoral reasons.  If you can have the Triduum only once, then in theory you could not have both Ordinary and Extraordinary Form.]

2. Can the holy Mass in the extraordinary form be scheduled for the
hour when until now holy Mass was celebrated in the ordinary form? The
question concerns a situation when Sunday Masses in the new form are
celerated non-stop until the afternoon. To meet the needs of the
faithful who ask for the celebration in the extraordinary form, one
has to schedule it on liturgicaly unassigned hours of the afternoon (1
to 3 PM), which presents a significant additional logistical burden
for the staff (sacristan and the like), and is difficult to make
compatible with the normal rhythm of a Christian Sundays, especially
for families.  [In other words, can you change one of the regularly scheduled Novus Ordo Masses to a TLM.]

3. Can a pastor or another priest celebrate publicly of his own accord
the extraordinary form
– apart from the usual regular use of the new
form – "so that all faithful – both young and old – become familiar
with the older rite and can benefit from its appreciable beauty and
transcendence"?  [That is the key: "on his own accord"... without a group having asked.   This is very important.]

4. Is it permissible to use calendar, readings or prefaces from the
Roman Missal of 1970 for a holy Mass in the extraordinary form instead
of the corresponding texts of the Roman Missal of 1962?  [I believe this was raised at other times.   I have in the past given a hesitant yes.  We shall see.]

5. Can an ordinary lay person, during a holy Mass in the extraordinary
form, recite the readings in the vernacular, after the priest (who
also comands that language) has read the texts in Latin?

Thank you in advance for the effort of consideration and answering the
presented questions.
Connected in Christ

x. Krzysztof Tyburowski

—————-
PCED answers: [My translation, without the usual florid curial embellishments.]
—————-

Dal Vaticano, 20 gennaio 2010
From the Vatican 20 January 2010
Pontificia Commissio
"Ecclesia Dei"

Prot. N. 13/2007

Most Reverend Father,

With your letter of 5 January, last, you posed some questions to this Pontifical Commission concerning the application of the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", to which I respond as follows:

ad 1: Celebration also in the Extraordinary Form is possible according to the judgment of the Ordinary of the place. [While this isn't freedom to make the decision at the parish level, now no bishop or other authority can say that Summorum Pontificum forbids the Triduum with the 1962MR even where the Ordinary Form is also observed.  That is important.  It is possible to have both.]

ad 2 and ad 3: The question is remanded to the prudent judgment of the parish priest [pastor, parochus] it being understood that the stable group of faithful have the right to assist at the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form.  [This is very significant.  YES, a parish priest can change one of the Novus Ordo Masses to a TLM.  He doesn't have to add one.  Why?  Because people have the right to have also the Extraordinary Form.  Moreover, the priest can decide to have a TLM even if there are not requests from the faithful because he thinks it is in the best interest to have one available.  The flip side is that the parish priest must also be sure that there is a Novus Ordo Mass remaining on the schedule, because people also have a right to attend Mass that way.]

ad 4: negative[Okay!  This surprises me a bit.  It seems to walk back the famous guidelines we wrote when Card. Mayer was President of the PCED lo those many years ago.  So, you cannot mix calendars or use readings, prefaces, etc.  Interesting.]

ad 5: The readings of the Epistle and Gospel of the Mass must be read by the same priest celebrant, or by a deacon, in the cases foreseen by the liturgy; after their reading, however, the translations can be read by a layman.  [What this does not resolve is whether the priest or deacon can read or sing the readings in the vernacular without having first done this in Latin.  But that was not the question posed to the Commission.]

[etc.]

Mons. Pozzo
Secretary

 

To #4: I would want to raise the following question.

Since saints such as St. Maximilian Kolbe was canonized after the implementation of the Novus Ordo

On 14 August would you be able to say, using the 1962MR, a Mass for St. Maximillian Kolbe using just the Common for Martyrs?   Would you be able to use the Common for Martyrs with the Latin Collect approved by the Congregation?

This is something which needs clarification.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

45 Responses to Summorum allows substitution of Novus Ordo Masses with TLMs on priest’s own initiative

  1. RichardT says:

    It is good to see point 3 clarified, and this fits in with my reading of SP:
    - any Latin Rite priest MAY say the TLM on his own initiative;
    - he SHOULD say the TLM if asked to by a stable group of parishioners.

  2. revs96 says:

    I would imagine in that case that one could have a votive celebration of St. Maximillian Kolbe using the common texts, unless the Vatican comes out with a supplement for post-VII canonizations.

  3. JohnMa says:

    Note to those in the Vatican who are (or should be) reading this. If Fr. Z thinks that a point needs to be clarified why not take a proactive approach and send him a clarification. This would greatly speed up the proper implementation of SP.

  4. Elly says:

    Practically speaking, how can the TLM be celebrated in Protestant-looking churches where the altar is in the center and there is no communion rail?

    Elly

  5. You can celebrate the EF on the hood of a WWII Jeep in the middle of an open field, with the congregation in army boots all around it in a circle. Garsh, no communion rail there. ;)

    Altars in the round aren’t new, and communion rails haven’t always been present. There are a great many quick modifications that can be made, however, if people feel that it would be fitting. Priedieus could be brought in for reception of Communion, or other creative accommodations made. We’ve seen all sorts of TLM folks with quick-change kits for altars. People can be very ingenious.

  6. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    August 14 = II Class Vigil of the Assumption, so Maximillian would be unlikely on that date.

    That said, the question really comes down to…which Martyrology?

    The 1962 rubrics allow for the festal celebrations of saints named in the Martyrology. But, obviously, one would like to use the older Martyrology if one is otherwise using older books. But…the fly in amber problem arises.

    But since saints are saints, I imagine one could use the Votive route on free ferias and use Common texts.

    All that said, #4 is definitely a change from previous PCED statements.

  7. JohnMa says:

    Elly,

    It’s obvious not ideal but doable. I would point you to St. John’s in Mclean, VA and Prince of Peace in Taylors, SC as two churches that do it.

    The no communion rail problem is the easiest to solve. Set aside the front pew for communion. The altar in the center is a pain but there is a great Youtube video of the FSSP turning one such altar into an altar suitable for the TLM. Even on a normal Sunday you just celebrate towards the Tabernacle and treat it as a normal church, even if there are some people that are facing you, instead of with you.

  8. wolfeken says:

    This is a very, very helpful document.

    Several pro-TLM pastors have claimed they cannot replace a novus ordo with a TLM without the permission of the bishop. #3 continues to ensure an anti-TLM bishop cannot use a technicality to only have the TLM at 1 p.m. or 6 a.m.

    #4 should simmer down all the folks who have been trying to merge the TLM with the novus ordo. Open the 1962 missal and say the black in Latin while doing the red.

    All in all, this is great news for those who want more traditional Latin Masses.

  9. TJerome says:

    On balance great news. It’s nice to see that priests can make these decisions
    without major episcopal interference. Hopefully pastors will exercise their prerogative prudently. Tom

  10. Tradster says:

    The affirmative to #5 is the justification to keep females in the sanctuary.

  11. ihom says:

    Could someone please make a clarification for me? Are these answers only for the Polish clergy or are they applicable everywhere? Thanks for your help.

  12. Tony from Oz says:

    These clarifications are a wonderful advance – and I agree with the comments above.

    However, apropos #5, one really wonders how ‘in touch’ some of these PCED clerical functionaries are with the sensibilities of TLM groups! Surely it’s precisely just such concepts of erroneous lay participation – which are intrinsically unTraditional – that Trads have rejected and fled from. The traditional distinction between participation in the Mass by the people and particpation in the CONDUCT of the liturgy (restricted to the clergy, and by extension to altar boys as ‘in potentia clericii’)- which was brazenly abandoned in 1972 – should obviously be maintained in relation to the Missal of 1962. Particularly when it is clear that the radical 1972 decision has led, logically on towards altar girls (aka ‘serviettes’).

    What’s going on here? Is there perhaps some kind of political balancing tit for tat act – one for the Trads, one for the Libs – going on in PCED? Sheesh!

  13. As to celebration of new saints with the old liturgy.

    If I am not mistaken, the rubric provided that a saint may be celebrated if in the Roman Martyrology or “any other” Martyrology. Note that this was important since religious orders (e.g. my own) had their own martyrologies with saints not found in the Roman, as did some dioceses.

    So, a fortiori, one can celebrate a saint in the new Roman Martyrology who was not in the old, obviously on the day there specified, unless impeded by a higher feast (which St. Maximilian is by the vigil).

    In his case, then, I would say celebrate a votive Mass (which may be done on any unimpeded day for any saint in any martyrology) on the closest unimpeded day. That would be Aug. 13, which in the O.P. calendar of 1961 at least, has only a memory.

  14. Joshua08 says:

    Tony, read it again. It is not saying that laity can make any liturgical proclamation of the texts. Merely that they can reread it in the vernacular, extra liturgicam. Perhaps it should be remembered that if the texts are reread (as opposed to being liturgically proclaimed in the vernacular) that it is not accompanied by any liturgical gestures.

    I had a man chew me out for not crossing my forehead, mouth, heart when the priest reread the Gospel at the homily. Next time I showed up, I showed him Fortescue who says not to (though I think, if the priest is rereading it, it is not a big deal if the laity show spontaneous gestures). A Dominican liturgical guide from the 19th century was even more forceful, reprobating the custom by which servers stood if the priest reread the Gospel at the pulpit…while again, if a priest/deacon is rereading I do not personally think it a big deal, but it might be a point if a lay person does it, to undercut that this is not liturgical

    Vis-a-vis extra saints. The FSSP Ordo has, inserted, propers for St. John Neumann and St. Elizabeth Anne Seton and the Baronius Missal also lists them in the appendix for the USA as “optional feasts”…an FSSP priest told me that they talked with the PCED about that and got a text approved for the old rite (presumably just the collects from the new, if they are not from the common, with the traditional endings?). I see no reason, as well, that on open days (not August 14th, but say for St. Maria Goretti) those saints cannot be celebrated who are on the new martyrology…they generally did not shift them (Ss. Cyril and Methodius are on the martyrology on February 14th in both the old and new editions, the difference is that the old notes that their feast is kept on the nones of July). So I do not think that would be a problem…or even commemorating them if the saint of the day is only 3rd class, or a commemoration anyways.

  15. Papabile says:

    It was very common in Europe prior to the Council for a layman to read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular during Mass. Usually it was a Priest, but laymen were allowed as far back as 1907.

  16. Tradster says:

    Re: #4 about the calendar. All of the comments appear to refer to the question of supplementing the ’62 with some ’70 exceptions. And they are understandable questions. However, my reading of the question was the legality of the 1970 Missal being used instead of the 1962 Missal as the rule, not the exception, to keep in sync with the NO Masses. In that regard I applaud the negative ruling.

  17. ihom says:

    Thanks Fr.Z. Just one other quick question: Do these clarifications have immediate effect?

  18. ssoldie says:

    Now that it is all very clear, will it help so that more TLM’s will be avaiable,like on every Sunday and also during the week for us Trads?

  19. wolfeken says:

    Joshua08 wrote: “The FSSP Ordo has, inserted, propers for St. John Neumann and St. Elizabeth Anne Seton and the Baronius Missal also lists them in the appendix for the USA as “optional feasts”…”

    There is an important distinction here. Those two saints were put in the liturgy between the 1962 and 1965 missals. This, however shaky in its logic, is the FSSP’s justification for including them in the Ordo.

    I say let the novus ordo calendar come to the traditional calendar first. Then we can worry about how to incorporate hundreds of post-1965 saints.

  20. Maltese says:

    Minutiae aside, gosh is this a sea-change from just recent memory when Trads were being whacked with big stick from certain slithery, creeping, askance-looking prelates; Great news!

  21. Ioannes Andreades says:

    A while back there was a pastor of two parishes trying to figure out how to deal with Easter Vigil. Do you bless two candles at one mass?

    I wonder whether anyone has thought to ask the powers that be whether it might be okay in this situation to celebrate the Easter Vigil at one parish on Holy Saturday morning using the pre-1955 rite. Seems like a sensible accomodation to a pastorally nettlesome issue. Wouldn’t hurt to ask.

  22. Fr. W says:

    What ever happened to the clarifying document the Holy Father has been sitting on, which was supposed to address all these and other questions?

    I am disappointed with the decision not to allow NO readings. The daily readings are fine in Latin as Mass readings, but they are very often the very same readings over and over. I love saying the EF, but for vernacular readings, the new lectionary is an improvement (though not perfect.)

  23. Supertradmom says:

    I am a bit confused as to number five. Are there different rules for the TLM and the NO regarding who can read the Epistle and Gospel? Please clarify. In Iowa, at two parishes, women read the Gospel as well as the first and second readings, because the priests do not know Spanish, and the ladies read the Gospel in Spanish. These are NO Masses, but I find this confusing.

  24. Hieronymus says:

    Father, I’m frankly a little surprised that you were telling people that they could use the NO readings at the traditional Mass. I have seen at least one clarification before stating that there was to be no mixing of rites. On top of that, the new cycle of readings is one of my least favorite things about the new mass (though I admit there are about 150 that tie for first on that list). I shudder at the thought of people out there trying to promote this practice.

    I am not opposed to some of the new Saints being incorporated to the missal at some point, but right now I think we need stability and the assurance that the traditional Mass is not going to be monkeyed with. I think it would also be good if the priests who are just beginning to say the traditional Mass find it the way it was in 1920, with very strict rubrics. If the Vatican starts throwing on options, these priests are going to approach it with the same attitude as the new mass (after all, that is the spirit with which they were formed).

  25. Hieronymus. Perhaps you were going by your preference. I was going by what the PCED wrote in its guidelines years ago, which was all we had to going to to figure out the ambiguous phrase in SP.

  26. Hieronymus says:

    Fr. W, I could not disagree with you more. See my post above. I would argue not only that the three year cycle is a bad idea (which argument has been advanced by many and for various fine reasons), but I would add that the readings themselves have had parts excised which are inconvenient/disagreeable to the spirit of vatican II.

    I just googled to see if I could find an analysis of this — I know that I have read several — and found one that reviews a book by a sedevacantist (I’m not sure if he was at the time he wrote it). The book details the changes to the propers between the old mass and new, and there are some very curious patterns.

    You can read it here: http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2000/features_mar00.html

    As Ash Wednesday is fast approaching (13 minutes to go), and I have given up blogging, this will be my last message for some time. God bless, and have a holy and fruitful lent.

  27. Maltese says:

    Hieronymus: your words are well-said, and true. I think, for now, it is wise for TLM Catholics to stick with the rubrics considering the devastation of the past half-century….

  28. Titus says:

    Since saints such as St. Maximilian Kolbe was canonized after the implementation of the Novus Ordo.

    Isn’t the real solution here, Father, that we will eventually need a revised EF missal and calendar? After several years, once S.P. has adequately percolated and the Benedictine reforms have become fully integrated into Church life under His Holiness’s successor (may he be long in ascending to the throne of Peter), won’t it be preferable to issue a single re-reformed calendar for the entire Church?

    It was very common in Europe prior to the Council for a layman to read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular during Mass. Usually it was a Priest, but laymen were allowed as far back as 1907.

    Farther back than that: one of the prerogatives of the Holy Roman Emperor was the privilege to sing the gospel on Christmas (and to do so while holding a drawn sword, actually).

  29. Jord says:

    It seems that “layman” must mean, in context, at least an officially mandated lector according to pre- or post-Ministeria quaedam. After all, text without context is just a pretext for ulterior motives depending on the extremely wide variety of those who will utilise this document one way or the other.

    I don’t think it is correct to say that this action of reading a translation would somehow be outside of the liturgy. If it is, it does not belong there in such a prominent position. I don’t think it is reactionary to simply note the reality that some parish priests will mandate a translation to be read by the feminazi of the parish who is most opposed to the TLM. If this sort of thing goes on, I would be in favour of the priest (for instance in a Low Mass) reading only the readings in translation, just to avoid the lack of pastoral sensitivity that may occur.

    Once a permission like that comes about, it becomes the law by way of browbeating.

    Or am I wrong about the dynamic we have all witnessed time and again in the past decades?

  30. Deo volente says:

    Thanks for your comments, Father Zuhlsdorf. This has been posted on the internet but without your invaluable commentary. You have clarified a great deal.

    D.v.

  31. Papabile says:

    Jord:

    The maniple (and in all honesty the chasuble) are supposed to be removed by the Priest before reading a translation of the Epistle and Gospel. It is done, precisely to indicate, that this reading is extra-liturgical.

    -chris

  32. Oneros says:

    Grr. More of the same view of texts that lead to such problems surrounding Vatican II.

    Summorum doesnt allow the substitution of NO Masses with TLMs at the priest’s own initiative. THIS document is what allows that.

    That it is portrayed as simply an “interpretation of” or “clarification of” an older document that actually said nothing on the issue…is disingenuous. Texts are dead. Interpretation of a text…is an additional, new text.

    The Vatican has allowed this. Period. In this new document. Trying to somehow connect it back to SP…or why they feel a need to…is beyond me. The Vatican has the authority to declare this whether or not SP allowed it, so why worry over spinning it as somehow flowing from SP, when clearly the whole problem is that SP said nothing on this matter.

    It is this document which allows the substitution. Not SP. That’s the whole point of the “clarification”. Why the need to invoke SP’s authority when the Vatican has its own authority over this issue independent of SP? I have no idea.

  33. Joshua08 says:

    wolfeken, St. John Neumann was canonized in 1977, though he was beatified in 1963. St. Elizabeth Anne Seton was canonized 1975, though beatified in 1963. As a general rule, only Saints go on the Calendar, though possibly we had permission in some areas for these two as blessed? My 1965 Missal lacks them though

  34. Tim Ferguson says:

    [Everyone should read this.]

    A bit late to the game, but…

    I think I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Fr. Z’s comment that the norms in this response are applicable everywhere (comment, 16 February 7:40 p.m.)

    As a response from a Vatican dicastery, without approval in forma specifica, this response remains an administrative act, not law, and since it is only addressed to the questioner, it remains a singular act (c. 42) The “person” in question being the “many faithful of Poland” on behalf of whom the questions were asked. It seems to have the form of a rescript (c. 59). Therefore, any norms in the response which restrict an option, should be considered only applicable to those faithful (e.g. response 4) (cf. c. 36, 2).

    Clearly, these response express the opinion of the dicastery, and a similar question coming from another place should expect a similar answer. However, if a parish or a priest (outside of Poland) were to continue utilizing the option of substituting the current lectionary or calendar, I don’t believe they would be in violation of the law.

    The use of the new prefaces, the lectionary and collects remains a big question, and the calendar issue is even larger, but I don’t think this singular response settles the issue for everyone everywhere.

  35. Oneros says:

    “were to continue utilizing the option of substituting the current lectionary or calendar, I don’t believe they would be in violation of the law.”

    But whence was such a thing EVER allowed in the first place? Nowhere.

  36. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    The PCED used to have a consistent view that one could substitute the 1970 Lectionary in 1962 Masses, and that one could always follow the 1970 Calendar.

    This letter represents a shift from that view. The inconsistency is lamentable.

  37. robtbrown says:

    The inconsistency is lamentable.
    Comment by Dr. Lee Fratantuono

    Agree, but it’s understandable. Rome is trying to give priests every opportunity to use the 1962 Missal, and there are bound to be inconsistencies.

  38. Oneros says:

    “The inconsistency is lamentable.”

    No it’s not. The old calendar and lectionary are intrinsic to the traditional Rite.

  39. Dr. Lee Fratantuono says:

    Actually, a largely forgotten and quite interesting liturgical book was the Lectionary for ferias that appeared c. 1967. It provided a Lesson or Epistle and Gospel for many ferias that otherwise would repeat the Sunday lections. It had a very short life span: it was never mandatory and was, of course, quickly superseded by the 1970 Lectionary, but it was not without merit.

  40. Oneros says:

    “Actually, a largely forgotten and quite interesting liturgical book was the Lectionary for ferias that appeared c. 1967. It provided a Lesson or Epistle and Gospel for many ferias that otherwise would repeat the Sunday lections.”

    In a One-Year cycle? Keyed to the old Sunday and Festal (and Lenten feria) pericopes?

    If so, I would LOVE to see this and to know the logic behind their choices.

    I think that is exactly the sort of thing that could be used to increase Scripture in the Old Liturgy and decrease repetition…WITHOUT touching the traditional cycle of readings for Sundays, Solemnities, Lenten Ferias, etc.

    A third reading each day (ie, re-add the prophecies during the year and the Epistles during Lent) wouldn’t be bad either.

    But the Three Year cycle (Two on Weekdays) is useless and totally untraditional.

  41. wolfeken says:

    Seriously, how many repeated ferias does one really hear? i.e. How many times do you attend a TLM where the priest uses the Mass of the preceding Sunday?

    On average, we’re talking about less than a handful of times per month, realistically. Most priests will use another option, such as a Saturday Marian or Requiem or votive Mass if permitted.

  42. Oneros says:

    Which are, nevertheless, repetitive. And of a technically “private” nature: the conventual Mass, at least, is supposed to the Mass of that liturgical day itself, not votives, etc.

  43. I see that Rorate has some good commentary.  They picked up on something I though was important about the shift in position away from the old guidelines for the application of Ecclesia Dei adflicta written at the time of the Presidency of my old chief Card. Mayer.

    While other commentators have focused on the importance of nos. 2 and 3 in this clarification, there seems to have been very little discussion of the importance of no. 4. Truth to tell, this particular ruling probably has greater importance than the others for it severely limits the importation of elements from the Missal of Paul VI into the Missal of Bl. John XXIII.

    To be precise, the fourth clarification has the following effects:

    1) It reverses several earlier rulings of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in particular:

    a) The decision of Augustin Cardinal Mayer OSB, the first President of the PCED, to permit the use of the Pauline Lectionary in the vernacular, in place of the readings in the 1962 Missal. This permission can be found in PCED’s Prot. 500/90, better known as the Letter of Cardinal Mayer to the Bishops of the United States. Although this provision was never popular, it was indeed practiced in a few locations, at the behest of the local bishops. (Cardinal Mayer’s letter mentions this permission only in passing, and the letter, as a whole, was one of the most important documents for the "re-legitimization" of the Traditional Roman Rite in the period 1984-2007.)

    b) The decision of Angelo Cardinal Felici, contained in Prot. 40/97 (March 26, 1997) to permit the use of the Prefaces of the Missal of 1970 for the “appropriate” Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. (I don’t know if anyone ever availed of this permission. However, one popular guide to the Ordo Missae according to the 1962 Missal has a selection of prefaces from the 1970 Missal, so I would guess that some priests and communities made use of this decision.)

    It would also be interesting to know if the newest clarification from the PCED constitutes a reversal of the same commission’s Prot. 107/97, dated October 20, 2008, (see this and this) which had granted permission for the Masses of the Holydays of Obligation that are celebrated according to the 1962 Missal to be offered on the Sundays to which these same Holydays had been transferred in the local calendars used for the Missal of Paul VI. Like the two innovations mentioned above, this permission — which grants External Solemnities to feasts that, under historic “Tridentine” practice (including the 1962 Missal itself), never actually had them (the Epiphany and the Ascension come to mind) — has been adopted only by a few communities, all the while causing much controversy and stoking fears of the further hybridization of the 1962 Missal.

    (Someone has expressed to me the opinion that the newest letter from the PCED, which is signed by a monsignor, could not possibly overturn permissions that had been signed by Cardinals. Perhaps some of our readers could charitably respond to this argument.)

    I also want you to go back and read canonist Tim Ferguson’s comment, above.

    It would be a good idea for priests in various places to write asking for clarifications on all these points for "the faithful in England" or "the faithful in the United States", etc.

  44. j says:

    no 1) certainly a good clarification, as SP had the confusing phrase about Holy Week liturgies. Allows the ADDITION of EF Liturgies, not substitution, and only with permission of the Bishop. A good decision, does not permit the alieneation of an OF congregation, but provides a path for EF worshipers.

    2)and 3) certainly good clarifications, but entirely expected. Pastors have control of Mass times, and can rearrange as is prudent, without canonical impediment. Have to guard against the implication some people are going to take that a Parish can “become” EF, displacing OF parishioners at the Pastor’s perogative. SP still has the wording allowing “one” Mass, this just allows that one to be at a good time.

    4) most important to note it only refers to “instead” of. Do not think it prohibits Celebration of new Saints’ Days, even may be possible to add (not substitute) a Collect to the Common (just a suggestion as to how). Mixing and matching never made sense for Sundays, as the EF Propers are a unified whole for all days (as are the OF, mostly)

    5) An interesting ruling in two ways. First, draws a bright distinction between Liturgical readings, and extra-liturgical readings. Good comments on whether liturgical gestures at the re-reading of the Gospel are appropriate. Also interesting is the bright distinction between WHO is appropriate; laymen (no liturgical distinction, no mention of lector, Acolyte etc.) for extra-liturgical readings, where; expressly NOT at the liturgical places (treated like the Parish announcements, which is OK if clear) VS the Liturgical readings which may ONLY be read by Priest or Deacon. It will be interesting to see if this further clarifies the allowances for the role of the now defunct Subdeacon, and seems to imply the Instituted Acolyte does not substitute.