RELEASED: Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae” – the text and my initial observations

Today the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (UE) has been released.  I reformatted the documents I received and make them available in English HERE, or Latin HERE.

Here are some rapid points to help you read the document on your own.   The document is not so hard that it needs a great deal of interpretation.  But some points will need some extra light.

The structure is:

I. Introduction
II. The Responsibilities of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
III. Specific Norms

  • The Competence of Diocesan Bishops
  • The coetus fidelium (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 1)
  • Sacerdos idoneus (“Qualified Priest”) (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art 5 § 4)
  • Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline
  • Confirmation and Holy Orders
  • Breviarium Romanum
  • The Sacred Triduum
  • The Rites of Religious Orders
  • Pontificale Romanum and the Rituale Romanum

The most important point to carry away is that UE reveals something more of the mind, the mens, of the lawgiver, Pope Benedict XVI.

Questions will remain, but after the 3 year period following Summorum Pontificum (and the subsequent months which followed) the more pressing questions are addressed in this Instruction.  Some of us could have wished for a bit more strength, but this is a document from an office of the Roman Curia, not from the Pope himself.  It is not a Motu Proprio of the Pope.

I was initially worried that there would be some gassy rambling in the introduction upon which liberals could latch.  The introduction is rather more helpful than harmful.

The Instruction clarifies that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum were for all the faithful, not just followers of the SSPX, or old people who are nostalgic, etc.

The Instruction could have said that the Extraordinary Form is not to be used as often as the Ordinary Form.  It doesn’t.  It says that the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are “one alongside the other” and that the Extraordinary Form is to be maintained with “appropriate honor”.

The fact that the older form was never abrogated is found in some subtle language which says that, after the Novus Ordo of Paul VI was released, legislation about the use of the older books didn’t seem necessary.  That left a hole or “lacuna” that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum resolved.

It restates with a direct quote what Pope Benedict wrote in 2007: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

Summorum Pontificum is an “important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff”.  It is not merely disciplinary.  It is doctrinal.  That is probably because liturgy and doctrine cannot be separated.

About bishops.  The Instruction says:

14. It is the task of the Diocesan Bishop to undertake all necessary measures to ensure respect for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Furthermore… bishops are to do everything “always in agreement with the mens of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.”.  par. 13.  Moreover, local ordinaries cannot issue administrative provisions which contradict the Motu Proprio. par. 10. § 2.

A “group” or coetus of the faithful identified in art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum is given no minimum number. Also, the members of that group don’t have to belong to the parish, chapel or oratory.  They can even be from another diocese.  They don’t have to have been interested in the older forms before Summorum Pontificum.  Basically, this means any collection of people who frequently attend a church as part of an identifiable group who ask for the old Mass are a coetus.

The priest is considered idoneus or “qualified” when he can pronounce the Latin and understand what it means. What level of understanding isn’t specified.  He must know how to say the Mass, but he is assumed to be qualified if  he “present(s himself) spontaneously to celebrate … and [has] celebrated it previously”.  In other words, if he has been to a workshop or has learned to say it on his own and has actually done it, he is idoneus.  Also, priests in charge of churches must allow priests to say the old Mass within the bounds of the schedule.  No more of this, “We don’t do that here!” rubbish.

Training and Seminaries.  This is a weak point.

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin  and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

There are weasel words here.  First, ordinaries are “asked”, not required.  Seminarians “should be” is stronger, but not iron clad.  “Where pastoral needs suggest” has been an obstacle used by those who don’t like the mens of the Roman Pontiff for decades.  And “opportunity” falls short of “it must be part of the curriculum.

The mention of Latin, above, has a footnote referencing can. 249, SC 36 and OT 13.  Can. 249 says that seminarians are to be be “very well-trained” (bene calleant) in Latin.  That has not be obeyed even slightly in most seminaries, and yet during ordinations someone stands in front of the ordaining bishop and attests that the men were well-trained.  Also, given the mens of the Supreme Pontiff, and the statement that the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary are side by side, can they really attest that the ordinands are well-trained if they don’t know half their Rite?  The older half?  The one with the actual history and track record?

New saints and new prefaces can be integrated and provisions will be issued about that.

A great paragraph says that, YES, groups can have the observance of the Triduum in a parish church or chapel or oratory, as long as there is a priest who can do it, even if there is also an observance of the Triduum in the Ordinary Form.

33. If there is a qualified priest, a coetus fidelium (“group of faithful”), which follows the older liturgical tradition, can also celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the forma extraordinaria. When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations, the parish priest or Ordinary, in agreement with the qualified priest, should find some arrangement favourable to the good of souls, not excluding the possibility of a repetition of the celebration of the Sacred Triduum in the same church.

The only thing about this that gives me pause is that statement about “When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations…”.  Does that mean that, if in the diocese there is – for example – a church entrusted to the FSSP – there can’t be the Triduum over in, say, Black Duck where a diocesan priest has gotten the older form going?  I doubt it.  The parishes could be each self-sustaining, etc.

Religious who have their own Rites can use their own Rites (e.g., Dominicans) but the Instruction is silent about the Ambrosian Rite (of Milan).  I assume that another instruction will come eventually.

Another important point is that the Instruction calls the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” the “hierarchical Superior” in these matters.  In other words, the PCED says what goes, not local bishops in cases of dispute that the Commission judges.  If bishops don’t like the decision of the Commission, they can have recourse to the Apostolic Signatura, which is the Church’s high court.  That didn’t need to be stated, but it is now clear what the line of authority is in this sphere.  Pope and then PCED.  Priests make determinations in parishes.  If there is a problem bishops are to help, not hinder.  If something goes wrong, the PCED judges the matter.

The use of the Pontificale Romanum, the Rituale Romanum, the Breviarium Romanum, the Caeremoniale Episcoporum are all confirmed.  However, bishops cannot ordain with the older books except for members of special groups who have use of the older books and only men in those special groups can receive minor orders.

It is reaffirmed that the clerical state begins with ordination to the diaconate, not before, with tonsure.

Par. 28 is very important:

28 – Praeterea, cum sane de lege speciali agitur, quoad materiam propriam, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum derogant omnibus legibus liturgicis, sacrorum rituum propriis, exinde ab anno 1962 promulgatis, et cum rubricis librorum liturgicorum anni 1962 non congruentibus.  … Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside.  So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.

Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls….  As I read this, and I checked this with canonists, since the employment of females substituting for Instituted Acolytes came with an interpretation of the 1983 Code, you cannot have altar girls for the Extraordinary Form which was, in 1962, carried out by all male ministers and servers.  This would probably apply to other issues, such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.

The Instruction was signed on 30 April, identified as the memorial of Pope St. Pius V.  That is his feast in the new calendar.  But the choice was certainly significant.  That suggests that the choice of releasing the document on 13 May was always significant.  What it means, I don’t know.

The Instruction was not issued in forma specifica, as was Redemptionis Sacramentum.  I am guessing that this is for two reasons.  First, since it is not given additional weight, we see it as a normal part of the Church’s business.  The fact is, Summorum Pontificum is part of the normal life of the Church now and, in the normal course of things, clarifications are made.  This work doesn’t need forma specifica.  However, Redemptionis Sacramentum actually had to deal with abuses, some of which were graviora delicta and some of which were reprobated, a very forceful way to correct something.  Universae Ecclesiae didn’t need to do that.  Instead, it aims to pry open hearts… and brains… and read Summorum Pontificum as it was intended: according to the mens of the lawgiver.

As far as the juridical force of the Instruction is concerned: I had thought originally that, since there is no precise date indicated for it going it force (Summorum Pontificum explicitly stated 14 September) it had to be in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and it would go into effect in 3 months, the usual vacatio, after promulgation.  However, since this is an Instruction, it falls under the norms of canon 34.  As such, this Instruction requires no promulgation, or vacatio legis – it binds immediately, from the moment of its notification, according to the norms of canons 54-56, and specifically, canon 54, 2: “for a singular decree to be enforceable, it must be made known by a lawful document in accordance with the law” – this Instruction has already been sent, in written form, to the Bishops of the Latin Church, this it is in force NOW.

Notable too, is the notion that the audience for this instruction is the Bishops, whose task it is to carry out the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. This Instruction is intended to inform them how they should be carrying out those provisions.

Ut brevis, I’ll start to wind this up.

As I have written elsewhere, this document isn’t as strong as many of the traditional view would like it to be.  But it is very good.  It is not nearly as weak as those of the liberal, progressivist, discontinuity camp wanted. For them, it is not good at all.

Given the inexorable fact of the “biological solution” and the fact that younger men coming up in the ranks can more readily accept the mens of the Roman Pontiff, Universae Ecclesiae strengthens Summorum Pontificum and confirms it as part of the increasingly normal part of the Church’s life.

Yes,  had wished for more concerning seminarians.

But consider this.  The average length of major seminary is four years.  In September 2011, around the time a new seminary year begins, four years will have passed since the provisions of Summorum Pontificum went into effect.  The men in seminary won’t have known – in seminary – a time Summorum Pontificum wasn’t in effect.  If seminary faculties are smart, they will get ahead of the wave and train them in the older rite.

One thing about seminarians: tell them they can’t have the old rite, the more they will want to learn it on their own and the more important it will become in their minds.

Besides, it is the right thing to do according to the mind of the Pope in Summorum Pontificum as clarified now by Universae Ecclesiae.

Another thing.  Pope Benedict has continued to support the identity of priests and laypeople in the work of the PCED.  Summorum Pontificum was a great gift to priests, who – according to the principle of subsidiarity (acting at the lowest level reasonable) can do among God’s people what they see needs to be done.

As I read UE, since the older forms are identified as “treasures” intended for all the faithful, priests can of their own according and even without previous requests, introduce their flocks to the older forms specified in Summorum Pontificum.  They don’t have to twiddle their thumbs waiting for a request from some large group made up only of parishioners.  There is great flexibility in the who and when and where.  After all, the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are “alongside” each other.

If Universae Eccleisae doesn’t cover everything, or perhaps isn’t super-forceful on every point, which would not be the style or mens of a man such as Benedict XVI, it is nevertheless very good and quite clear.

Finally, now that this long-expected document is out, now that the situation has been brought to greater clarity, now that it is hardly to be doubted that the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” and the provisions of Summorum Pontificum really are part of the Church’s life, the same Commission is going to have to act decisively when they are called upon.

The PCED must act decisively when put to the test.   Many out in the world will think they know how the Commission ought to act, but, over time it will become clear whether the provisions of Summorum Pontificum are being implemented or defended or not.

So, be thankful for this new Instruction, which isn’t nearly as weak and watery as some feared, and as it truly could have been.  Say also a prayer for the Holy Father and the members of the PCED and the workers in the offices.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

116 Responses to RELEASED: Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae” – the text and my initial observations

  1. Paul says:

    Thanks be to God for the Holy Father and Universae Ecclesia! Oh, and for the alarm clock that woke me go check this blog at 6AM, sharp. :-)

  2. DEO GRATIAS! LOL…I’m sure there are quite a few of us that did the whole “alarm thing” to get this ASAP. God Bless our Pope!

  3. Central Valley says:

    Deo Gratias!!! Thank you Holy Father. Now, will the American bishops obey??????

  4. MissOH says:

    Thank your for your over view.

    “The PCED must act decisively when put to the test. Many will out in the world will think they know how the Commission ought to act, but, over time it will become clear whether the provisions of Summorum Pontificum are being implemented or defended or not.”

    I pray that you are correct. I am off to mass now but I will definitely pray for our Holy Father , the members of PCED and offer thanksgiving for the instruction and prayers that it will be like a boulder going down a hill- momentum that cannot be stopped.

  5. Manrique Zabala de Arizona says:

    Benedicamus Domino!! Thank you Holy Father :)

  6. notredame1208 says:

    Am I reading the Instruction incorrectly by saying that Paragraph 16 allows the priest to celebrate a Mass in the Extraordinary Form in addition to the already-scheduled Masses?

  7. wchoag says:

    Wow…the implications for Christian Initiation are stupendous! #35 would seem to indicate that RCIA seems no longer the sole means of initiation into the Church for the Latin Church sui juris.

    …And minor orders…They exist…they have only spiritual effect rather than canonical, but they exist!

  8. tonyballioni says:

    11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

    Is it just me, or does this foresee new editions of the extraordinary form? That would be a bit odd, but could also be a sign of the “mutual enrichment” that Summorum Pontificum called for.

  9. Anonymous Seminarian says:

    Deo Gratias! And as far as those things we’d like to see a bit stronger, like seminary training, UE definitely leaves the door open to future instructions. Perhaps in another 4 years we may get something stronger; but not weaker. There’s no going back now!

  10. southern orders says:

    A great summary and very much appreciated!

  11. southern orders says:

    Evidently there is no clarification on the use of the vernacular only for the Scriptures or using the newer lectionary? What about the vernacular for the introit, offertory and communion antiphons? Or even the changing parts of the Mass, collect, secret, prayer after Holy Communion and Preface? Would that be possible?

  12. chironomo says:

    Yes, a very good document. It doesn’t seem like quite the FINAL word though… a lot is left to future legislation still, which tells me that this will be kept in the forefront by constantly adding to it.

    There are some great things here… the role of the Bishop (or lack of a role as it might be) is made clear. And it is clear that Bishops cannot make additional regulations to add to this… everything has to go through PCED. And I have to agree… there could have been better news regarding seminary formation. We are once again faced with an “ought to-should” document rather than a “must-will” document. But I think that the “seminary marketplace” may sort out that issue as more YOUNGER seminarians tend towards those seminaries that offer solid training.

    All in all, this document seems to facilitate the further expansion of the EF out of a liturgical ghetto and into the mainstream of liturgical life. Not as boldly as some might like, but definitely going the right way.

  13. BobP says:

    If I read it correctly, only the Low Mass allows vernacular in the “readings,” which are assumed to be the Epistle and Gospel per previous instructions.

  14. kallman says:

    Thank you Fr Z
    Let’s hope for the best
    But expect the worst
    The smoke of Satan people will dissect the document for the worst intentions
    We are at the mercy of PCED as to what happens in the broader Church outside of FSSP, CRJC, and the other trad groups, quite apart from SSPX.
    We can only hope and pray,
    It is too weak for my liking

    KA

  15. BaedaBenedictus says:

    Okay, so the Low Mass I go to on Sundays has the official approval to do the readings only in the vernacular. However, is a lay reader allowed? We have one for the epistle (always a man). And it doesn’t mention translations. I suppose the NAB in the USA would be the official. But my church uses the translation found in the Baronius 1962 Missal—not that I’m complaining at all!

  16. MichaelJ says:

    but could also be a sign of the “mutual enrichment” that Summorum Pontificum called for.

    At the risk of being thought of as a “one trick pony”, this desire for mutual enrichment is found nowhere in Summorum Pontificum. It may very well be a natural byproduct, and is likely the Holy Father’s heartfelt desire, but is never actually called for.
    After 40 or so years, I would think that we should be able to see the inherent danger in citing a document as justification for a particular course of action when that document does not actually call for the action we are proposing.

  17. sekman says:

    Father Z,
    Would you care to comment any further on the brief statement made regarding the Breviarium Romanum? I find it very interesting that it “must be prayed in Latin” I believe there are some clerics who have been using an old 1964 all English translation of the BR. I am quite grateful that this document clears up any sort of question regarding a hybrid use of the LH and BR, by saying that the BR should be prayed entirely. I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

  18. Imrahil says:

    While I never understood what this “Communion in the hand in the TLM” was all about – a fictitious case of canon law? I cannot even think of somebody not actively provoking who wanted to do this after being told “this is not appropriate in this form of the rite” – there does appear a much more relevant question.

    It is the question of somebody who attends Mass and has fasted for in between one and three hours. Is he to abstain from Holy Communion, or isn’t he?

    It is no question that other things being equal, the longer fast is generally better; but then it is also better to attend Mass without either fast or Communion, and once one’s there, I’d believe only suspicion of grave sin or a clear point of canon law (or perhaps a special way of personal spirituality that needn’t be discussed here) should make one abstain, and then the question will still be there.

  19. Imrahil says:

    I wanted to say, of course: “without either fast or Communion” *than not*.

  20. Rob Cartusciello says:

    [B]y virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

    Did I really just read that? Wow!

    This would then probably apply to other issues such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.

    Questions arise, therefore, as to how would this apply to such things as: the one hour Eucharistic fast and head coverings for women? Furthermore, what would it do with regard to Minor Orders, especially the canonical role of instituted Lectors & Acolytes who up to this point were “deemed” to have received the Minor Order of Subdeacon? (A perpetual questions of mine, I know.)

  21. BaedaBenedictus says:

    “Only in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria, is the use of the Pontificale Romanum of 1962 for the conferral of minor and major orders permitted.”

    This is interesting, Father, since it seems to extend permission not only to groups under the Ecclesia Dei commission, but to any community which exclusively worships according to the extraordinary form. For example, the Trappist abbey of Mariawald in Germany chose to return to the 1961-62 Roman Mass and Office in 2008; it seems that they should be able to ordain their priest-monks according to the traditional books.

    I think the mens of the Pope here is to ensure the integrity of each form of the rite as a whole. For groups whose only experience of worship is the extraordinary form, the traditional ordination rites are naturally included in this.

    But it seems sensible to settle on only one form of the ordination rites—the ordinary (modern) form, for dioceses, because 1) pastorally these prospective priests will not be exclusively celebrating the extraordinary form, and 2) it is not advisable for reasons of unity to have one group of seminarians ordained the old way and another group the new way.

  22. Alan Aversa says:

    I’ve put a bilingual version up online that even allows defining Latin words. Enjoy.

  23. Bryan Boyle says:

    I sensed a little of the Roman “iron fist in a velvet glove” touch in here, thankfully. It is a blessing, since it does clear up and codify (based on fighting this particular liturgy war as a layman since the days of arguing about it on various BBSes, Usenet (who can for get bit.listserv.catholic…), etc) just where the rights reside (at the lowest level…) to foster this traditional form of the Mass. My own opinion…very clear that the priests (as Father says) are given the faculties directly (although, it has to be stated, what priest, unless he is quite sure of himself….is willing to fight the ‘local branch office’) , the artificial strictures of ‘you have to have 25 people that want it before ‘we’ll consider it’ are pretty much removed…and other roadblocks are pretty well pushed aside.

    I think it still remains to be seen, though we have to take the long view, how deep the passive aggression on the part of many will continue to run. This is a welcome, in my mind, clarification of the 2007 Motu Proprio, one of many that will have to be issued, until Father’s ‘biological solution’ is fully implemented and some sanity and peace can be enjoyed.

    Pray for our Holy Father. It’s clear that, despite the slings, arrrow, and subtle attacks arrayed against him, he is resolute in his desire to keep the barque moving in the proper direction and restoring what many had cast aside in their frenetic rush to refashion our faith to mirror society rather than refashion our society to mirror the True Faith…

  24. Alan Aversa says:

    I agree that §8, which affirms that Summorum Pontificum is for all the faithful (omnibus fidelibus), is the best part of Universæ Ecclesiæ. Grazie, Papa Benedetto!

  25. Andy Milam says:

    This is certainly good news. I agree with Fr. Z that more could have been done to support and promote within the seminaries, but I think that the seminarians will make enough noise that seminaries will move that way eventually. Especially since younger generations of priests are becoming instructors.

    I also think that while this is a little “soft” in places, it certainly is the next step. This pope is not one to drop the hammer hard, he simply nails things into place and this is an example of him nailing another board over the doorway of the libby-dibbys.

    If the SSPX uses this document properly, it can help to clean up one fourth of their issue, along with Summorum Pontificum. If the issues boil down to 1) The Mass, 2) Eccelisology, 3) Religious Tolerance, 4) The Magisterium of Vatican II, then the issues should become simply three-fold. As Fr. Z said, this is a doctrinal statement. The SSPX would be smart to recognize this and see it as a move forward and see that the Vatican is trying to come to meet them. I realize this document isn’t about the SSPX, specifically, but if they are part of the Church and trying to regularize, then they should use the documents just as those who are regular should and take advantage. That is what the documents are there for.

    As a traddy, I see this as a good move forward. I see this as a way for the EF to become more closely tied to the OF. Now we just need our priests to embrace it. We just need our bishops to embrace it. We need for the Church Militant to embrace it. Once that happens, I believe the EF will become the Missa Normativa again and the OF will slip into the realm of the forma extraordinaria….

  26. Scott W. says:

    Love it, now it only needs some tangible enforcement.

  27. triceps says:

    I personally do not see how this “clarification” will have any effect in increasing, to any significant number offerings of the Traditional Latin Mass in most dioceses.
    There is nothing mandated of priests.
    I am thinking of dioceses, of which there are many of, where the Ordinary does not put obstacles in the way of priests that desire to offer the TLM but there are very few priests who desire to learn or offer the Mass.
    Also on a personal level, I was hoping for this clarification to establish an administration of some sort for the FSSPX which operate in many diocese’s in which the TLM is not offered by the diocese or Ecclesia Dei group.
    Many who are attached to the TLM have no recourse but to assist at FSSPX masses and their confessions need to be validated since many go to FSSPX confessions.
    Maybe this clarification will go a long way to making this happen.

  28. dcs says:

    I suspect that the seminary issue is a weak point as — while the PCED has authority over the 1962 Missal and promoting its use among the faithful — it does not have any authority over seminaries.

  29. brianvzn says:

    Overall, I am happy with this document. I have 2 points that I would love to get feedback on.

    19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (Does this refer only to sedevacantists or is it also a reference to the SSPX who do have grave reservations concerning the Novus Ordo?)

    Also, from before…..Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. (This statement disturbs my conscience. I love and pray for the Holy Father. But hasn’t he also called the Novus Ordo “artificial” in the past? Isn’t it a fact that the Novus Ordo eliminated many of the references to sin, punishment, penance, sacrifice, etc. and also many of the genuflections?)

    Would love feedback from Fr. Z and other readers. God bless us all, especially Pope Benedict XVI, who has the weight of the world on his shoulders.

  30. Banjo pickin girl says:

    wchoag, RCIA was not intended to be for everybody, according to the National Statutes for the Catechumenate (statutes sound like laws, don’t they, but they have been universally ignored). According to the statutes, practicing Christians are to be interviewed by a priest to determine how much catechesis will be required. This is a sore point with me as I was kept from coming into the Church because my health problems prevented me from going to regularly scheduled evening programs. It took a long search to find a priest who realized that my soul was at stake. One priest insisted RCIA is necessary because “you have to become involved in the parish community” which is definitely the Protestant model. I will shut up now.

  31. Titus says:

    Evidently there is no clarification on the use of the vernacular only for the Scriptures or using the newer lectionary? What about the vernacular for the introit, offertory and communion antiphons? Or even the changing parts of the Mass, collect, secret, prayer after Holy Communion and Preface? Would that be possible?

    The Instruction answers these: you can do the readings in just English (low Mass only), Latin only, or both. The 1962 MR doesn’t allow you to do any of those other things in English, so you can’t.

    Questions arise, therefore, as to how would this apply to such things as: the one hour Eucharistic fast and head coverings for women?

    The fast and head coverings were not matters controlled by the liturgical books: they were matters of canon law found in the CIC. Nothing in the document suggests that the 1917 Code has been resurrected. We’re just getting the legal mandates of the 1962 MR back. The fairest interpretation is that, e.g., the fast, as a universal rule of discipline and not strictly a liturgical law (for instance, the fast applies regardless of the context in which one receives, viaticum excepted), is not altered.

    The only thing about this that gives me pause is that statement about “When there is no church or oratory designated exclusively for such celebrations…”.

    I’m not sure about paragraph 33. I thought at first glance it gave permission to have a second, EF, Triduum regardless and only encouraged it where there was no other parish. On second reading it is not so clear. But unless your diocese is quite huge, that shouldn’t be a huge problem.

  32. dcs says:

    Questions arise, therefore, as to how would this apply to such things as: the one hour Eucharistic fast and head coverings for women?

    The one-hour fast is not incompatible with the rubrics of the Mass. Nor, I would guess, are bare-headed women. On the other hand, it would seem that altar girls and Communion in the hand are incompatible. And to that I say, Deo gratias.

  33. Jaceczko says:

    This is really exciting. As a teacher whose best students have often been seminarians, I sincerely hope that seminaries will take advantage of more professors of Latin. I would love to teach at a seminary.

    I wonder, though, does this mean that my parish will offer EF Mass? Somehow it seems to me that at my particular parish, in the Archdiocese of Washington, we are not likely to see an EF Mass being offered any time soon.

  34. triceps says:

    “19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. ”

    Yes,
    And how does one “show” this?

  35. Amerikaner says:

    If the clerical state is only conferred at the time of diaconate, then it sounds like Ecclesia Dei community seminarians are not to be seated in the sanctuary area until then? Is that correct?

  36. Corinne says:

    brianvzn.
    I think paragraph 19 means ANY group that “shows themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria…” and that would include the SSPX. For anyone who has been around the SSPX for any period of time, gone to their chapels, read their publications, etc., knows they speak against the Novus Ordo and the Sacraments celebrated in the newer form. That is why they “conditionally” re-confirm and/or re-baptize. Their US website “warns” against going to the Novus Ordo. So I would think paragraph 19 is a subtle way of telling the faithful to stop supporting these groups who speak against the Novus Ordo whoever these groups may be.

  37. Tina in Ashburn says:

    YAY!!!! Thank God for this new document! This is fantastic.

    I agree with Fr Z that the ambiguities are a little disappointing.
    Haven’t we suffered enough from abuses protected by ambiguity?

    The statement that post-1962 rulings don’t apply to the EF is very helpful. Wonder how it applies to the laity too like, uhm, when did the 3-hour fast rules change? And are head-coverings expected? Aren’t there certain former indulgences for private prayers during the EF? I’m guessing that EVERYTHING goes back to pre-1962. I need a refresher course on what that means.

    @notredame1208
    “Am I reading the Instruction incorrectly by saying that Paragraph 16 allows the priest to celebrate a Mass in the Extraordinary Form in addition to the already-scheduled Masses?”

    Nah, I read that to say the parish is in charge of their schedule – it seemed to me to be a simple observation about fitting the EF in as the pastor can adjust the schedule. For instance, if a pastor has the two Forms said concurrently in two different rooms, the EF is an added Mass, or the EF replaces a previously scheduled Mass, it is up to the pastor.

  38. Tom Smith says:

    English Bishops

    The ink on UE is barely dry, yet the head of the Church in England and Wales reveals his true colours:

    Please appoint some good new bishops soon HF!

    From Twitter feed from Catholic Herald

    @AnnaArcoAnnaArco

    UK seminaries unlikely to teach EF says +Nichols because there is no pastoral need

  39. Andrew says:

    Training and Seminaries. This is a weak point.
    21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
    There are weasel words here.

    Father Z:

    “Ordinaries are asked …” The Latin is a bit stronger: “Ordinarii enixe rogantur” – they are earnestly being asked.
    “This applies also to Seminaries …” The Latin has: “quod potissimum pro Seminariis valet” – which applies above all to Seminaries”.
    “Should be given formation” The Latin reads: “providebitur ut instituantur” – their institution will be provided.
    “Where pastoral needs suggest” the Latin gives us: “adiunctis id postulantibus” – as circumstances stipulate.

    In each case the Latin is a bit stronger than the translation.

  40. Ezra says:

    Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. (This statement disturbs my conscience. I love and pray for the Holy Father. But hasn’t he also called the Novus Ordo “artificial” in the past? Isn’t it a fact that the Novus Ordo eliminated many of the references to sin, punishment, penance, sacrifice, etc. and also many of the genuflections?)

    The Novus Ordo doesn’t contradict those elements; it simply omits them.

  41. dans0622 says:

    I never heard that Redemptionis sacramentum was approved “in forma specifica.” Because of this and the fact that it made new, legal requirements, it is regarded as a sort of canonical anomoly. The 1997 Instruction Ecclesia de mysterio was approved in forma specifica. That’s the only Instruction I know of that was approved in such a manner. This is a minor canonical issue which is probably not interesting to anyone….

  42. jrotond2 says:

    Corrine,

    I was affiliated with the SSPX for 9 years before returning to canonical regularity, and having matriculated through one of their most well known schools, I can verify that, on paper, the SSPX accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo per se. However, it is equally true that they speak every ill against it without ever directly saying it is invalid which I suppose would constitute questioning the legitimacy of the NO rather than the validity. Perhaps individual SSPX priests would say such directly, but as an organization, the SSPX does not say so directly.

    I have also never known a case of their conferring conditional Baptism. Confirmation, perhaps. I do, however, know of some cases wherein children had a “ceremony” wherein the Exorcism prayers were said over them to make up for what was lacking in the newer rite of Baptism when they received it at birth. The matter and form of the sacrament were completely lacking in such a “ceremony”.

    When I read paragraph 19 of UE, my first interpretation of it was an admonition against individuals with such opinions about the Novus Ordo, and which individuals can be frequently found in nearly every Trad parish, even in the FSSP and ICK parishes. Such individuals have been known to cause trouble or, at best, make noise to disturb the peace of the majority of us Trads who appreciate having our liturgical patrimony without needing to resort to polemics. We can all legitimately question the prudence of the Novus Ordo without questioning its validity of legitimacy; we simply choose not to patronize it or to have much of a favorable opinion toward it.

    I look forward to seeing further clarification on the incorporation of new saints and prefaces. How many new saints? What rank will they warrant (3rd class, Commemoration, etc.)? I find this section to be a positive because it shows that the 1962 Missale can be a living Missal again as it was prior to 1962, not an artifact stuck 50 years in the past.

  43. Athelstan says:

    I see this as more of a quality start than a no-hitter, but I recognize that Fr. Z was working from a more constrained set of expectations…

    The language on seminary instruction is quite weak – I would like to have seen a “strongly urged” with more concrete requirements. But it is better than nothing. Much will depend on enforcement and the kinds of bishops (and rectors) appointed. And obviously, the trends are with us.

    Section 31 restriction ordination to Ecclesia Dei entities is a disappointment, even as I recognize the difficulties that the suppression of minor orders has created. The obvious solution is to restore the minor orders; but perhaps we must wait until that day comes, which I think it will.

    Section 34 will make a few Dominicans I know quite happy – even as the struggle carries on between generations in the order.

    At the end of the day much will depend less on the letter of the text than on the kinds of men appointed as bishop, and the willingness of Ecclesia Dei to enforce these provisions. Terna candidates ought to be vetted for their openness and generosity to the EF. Even many seemingly “conservative” recent episcopal appointments (such as mine) have a mindset that minimize and marginalizes the traditional rite out of fear that its rise will create “two churches,” and thus great division.

  44. dcs says:

    @brianvzn,

    My guess is that #19 is a reference to sedevacantist groups as well as groups that are practically sedevacantist and those who support them. It is true that some SSPX priests and adherents regard the Novus ordo as illegitimate, but can one say that of the entire group? Also, cannot one distinguish between regarding the Novus ordo as illegitimate, and believing that it was illegitimately imposed upon the Church?

  45. 3D says:

    So we have confirmation that minor orders can indeed be conferred.

  46. chironomo says:

    I just got the accompanying letter from the Vatican Press Office on my VIS wire…. has anybody else read this yet? Although it just summarizes the document, and I have to assume this is an English translation of an Italian original, there are some comments that seem to be “walking back” on some parts of the document, probably to keep the progressives from having a fit. For example…

    It clarifies the concept of coetus fidelium stabiliter existens (“where there exists a stable group of faithful”), whose desire to attend the celebration in the forma extraordinaria is to be willingly accepted by pastors. While leaving an evaluation of the number of persons necessary to constitute such a group to the prudent assessment of the pastors, it specifies that it not be necessarily constituted by persons belonging to a single parish, but can be composed of persons coming from different parishes or even different dioceses. Always keeping in mind respect for the widest pastoral needs, the Instruction proposes a spirit of “generous welcome” toward the groups of faithful who request the forma extraordinaria and the priests who occasionally ask to celebrate that form with some faithful

    None of this, of course, is false, but the press release seems to be emphasizing things like “pastoral need” and “occasional celebrations” and even “some faithful”, again giving the impression that this is supposed to remain a marginalized form that is to be viewed as being “accomodated” rather than promoted. And yet, the primary reason for the Motu Proprio (as stated in the Motu Proprio and the Instruction) is ” [to offer] to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved”. I don’t exactly see how this offers the EF to all Catholics.

  47. Prof. Basto says:

    The Motu Proprio, although stating that one only becomes canonically a cleric at the reception of the diaconate, still authorizes the use of the older Pontificale for the conferral of “minor and major orders”. The reference to the minor orders means that, although one ordained to them (or to the major order of the subdiaconate) is not yet a cleric, those orders can continue within the Institutes and Societies that are subject to the PCED or that use the forma extraordinaria.

    So the minor orders and the subdiaconate live on in those Institutes and Societies, in spite of those ordained to those Orders not being clerics until receiving the diaconate!

  48. Supertradmum says:

    Good, but needs teeth. Where
    I am living in Kent, there are no EFs in eight churces in driving distance

  49. BaedaBenedictus says:

    LOL! Well, it looks like the mainstream media hasn’t informed itself at all in the last 4 years. Hoary cliches and myths abound! Sounds, in fact, like they basically copied and pasted their reports on SP from 2007:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-pope-latin-idUSTRE74C29120110513

  50. Today is in the 1962 Calendar, we celebrated St. Robert Bellarmine’s feast day.

    I think this is significant, as well.

  51. Father, I have a question – and to be clear, this is not at all in reference to anything I’ve experienced, just a question for future reference. I know that the MP and this instruction means that a bishop cannot prevent a priest from celebrating in the EF, but as for religious priests, can their major superior under obedience prevent them from celebrating this form? I know that certainly this would violate the intention of the Holy Father, but in terms of what the MP allows, would it be permissible for a superior to inhibit a religious priest in this way?

  52. brianvzn says:

    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think it is a veiled reference to the SSPX as well considering the fact that to apply to their Third Order you have to sign an application which contains the following statement. “I understand that the New Mass of Paul VI is a danger for my Catholic Faith and I will attend exclusively the Mass celebrated in the traditional rite”

    Would love Fr. Z’s opinion on point 19 as well ; )

  53. Jerry says:

    It appears the underlings at the Vatican are either not thinking, clueless, or already starting to undermine UE. The following is quoted from Catholic News Service:

    The instruction said use of the Tridentine rite would also require exceptions from liturgical norms currently in use that are “incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.” It did not spell out those exceptions.

    Asked if altar girls are allowed to serve at a celebration of the Tridentine rite, Father Lombardi said the question was not specifically addressed in the new instruction.
    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101897.htm

  54. The instruction says that the MP says that religious don’t have to get any permission from any superior to say Mass in the extraordinary form, and that the PCED is the “ordinary” in anything of this nature and should be appealed to if there’s any problem, and that if the person’s superior doesn’t like it they can take it up with the Apostolic Signatura.

    All this said, of course a bishop or a religious superior can command all sorts of things, or make commands that make it difficult or impossible to follow SP and the instruction. That’s part of the Cross we carry. But the Pope and the PCED seem to be making it pretty clear that they don’t want anybody playing reindeer games about this.

  55. St. Louis IX says:

    brianvzn says:
    13 May 2011 at 8:10 am
    Overall, I am happy with this document. I have 2 points that I would love to get feedback on.

    19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (Does this refer only to sedevacantists or is it also a reference to the SSPX who do have grave reservations concerning the Novus Ordo?)

    I think this might be meant to give the Bishops a tool to prevent those that just desire to stirr up %#*%$# ,from causing trouble. I hope those Bishops that resist the Holy Father do not use 19 as a tool to deprive the faithful of the TLM..A litmus test: I can just see the modernists having a field day with that.
    I have never attended an SSPX Chapel, and to those that can`t stop going after them..(the SSPX).
    I don`t think this should apply to them.For goodness sakes Rome allows them to celebrate Mass at St Peters in Rome(Put down that axe already)I was raised on the N.O. I fell in love with the TLM about 15 years ago….They are not the same Mass…The N.O.
    is valid, but they are not the same……..I think thats like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
    Maybe in theory, but not in practice. Worship how you believe.Communion in the hand, Altar girls,Guitars, Communion under both species etc etc
    I am happy for any document from our Holy Father that protects the Holy Rite of the Mass. Article 19 seems to force unity with an obvious falsehood, and that just feels wrong.
    Need for unity in the Church YES! forcing a square peg in a round hole NO.
    I wish the document was stronger, in favor of Protecting, promoting, and providing the TLM

  56. Alan Aversa says:

    Although §8, which affirms that Summorum Pontificum is for all the faithful (omnibus fidelibus), is very good, §21, the only section to mention seminaries, is fairly weak, although it does cite Canon 249 on how “future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin.” It also says they should have “the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite” “where pastoral need suggests it.” It should’ve explicitly said that “pastoral need” is suggesting it, as, e.g., this Italian poll shows: 9 million Italians would go to the EF every week!

    This section is probably the most interesting:

    28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

    “[W]ithin its own area” (“quoad materiam propriam“) could mean two things: within the whole Church (as §1 and §8 imply) or within only EF parishes. I could see some people interpreting this as a sort of “creeping abrogation” of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms.

  57. That said, I expect that if any folks have any weird or “experimental” indults and such, lying around from pre-1962, they will be pulling them out of the diocesan attics. (And don’t be surprised if there’s some “altar girl” or “Communion in the hand” permissions mixed in there. There was a lot of weird “experimental” stuff going on back as far as the thirties, forties, and fifties, and there may have been weird stuff going on during WWI or the influenza epidemic.)

  58. franruizg says:

    In Buenos Aires the Instruction is read as follows: ” The Vatican determines that no lefebvrists groups can ask for the TLM”. This is the piece of news for Buenos Aires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can figure out what is the Buenos Aires diocese going to tell the people who ask for the TLM. You are all lefebvrists!! Go home!!
    I hope Ecclessia Dei Commission grows with lots of employees if not they won´t be able to attend all the claims from all over the world.

  59. jfm says:

    Best analogies I have heard about the relationship to the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

    1. OF : EF :: Apostles Creed : Nicene Creed (i.e., OF has the basics, including a valid consecration, while the EF has the basics + nuance.)
    2. The OF is the child you love who got a bad haircut: your child is still the same (consecration), you still love your child, but you are not happy with how he appears.

    I was bapitzed in and grew up with the OF, but I have become enamored with the EF over the past year.
    My other hope is that perhaps with the acceptance of the Anglican rite in the UK through the personal ordinariate, we might have a linguistically and liturgically beautiful version of what the OF might have looked like if Vatican II went in a more traditional direction.

  60. Corinne says:

    “[such] individuals can be frequently found in nearly every Trad parish, even in the FSSP and ICK parishes. Such individuals have been known to cause trouble or, at best, make noise to disturb the peace of the majority.”

    I agree with this statement. I have encountered such individuals at other “trad parishes” and that is precisely why I do not frequent these parishes. I go to the Latin Mass very infrequently because of this “separatist mentality” that is prevalent among more than a few of it’s “regulars.”

    I still contend that paragraph 19 is about “groups” such as sedevacantists, SSPX, and others who disparage the Novus Ordo and not merely individuals. What brianvzn has just posted about the Third Order “requirement” gives even more proof of the SSPX “schismatic mind set” Statements such as these, that “the New Mass of Paul VI is a danger for my Catholic Faith…” absolutely blows my mind and irritates the living daylights out of me. The only “danger” to ones Catholic Faith is allowing one to be manipulated out of “thinking, feeling, and judging with the Church” as St. Ignatius taught in his Spiritual Exercises.

    The First Rule. With all judgment of our own put aside, we ought to keep our minds disposed and ready to be obedient in everything to the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church.

    The Thirteenth Rule. To keep ourselves right in all things, we ought to hold fast to this principle: What I see as white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it. For we believe that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, his Spouse, there is the one same Spirit who governs and guides us for the salvation of our souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord of ours who gave the ten commandments that our holy Mother Church is guided and governed.

  61. Henry Edwards says:

    Maybe later a few liturgy-wonk reservations from below, but first the view from above.

    The release of Summorum Pontificum was a glorious and exhilarating moment. What for most of us had seemed—from 1970 to 1988, at least—dead forever, was still alive! However, we did not know immediately how the motu proprio would be received, nor how long the joy would last, how full and complete it would grow to be.

    While the present moment may not seem so momentous, our uncertain anticipation can now turn to confidence. There will be more instructions, but no more three-year reports or trial periods. The promise inherent in SP is now firm as a universal law of the Church.

    With the sense of permanence that this instruction gives—plainly setting the ancient and newer usages of the Roman rite together, “one alongside the other”, both being “expressions of the same lex orandi of the Church”, with administrative provision for implementation—a long dark night is at an end. Of course, the dawn that ends a forty-year night takes some time to bring full light and banish all the darksome things of the recent past.

    It may even take another biblical forty-year period for full restoration of proper liturgy everywhere. But does not this instruction insure that a couple of new generations of priests, with some encouragement from the kind of bishops now being appointed, will have the opportunity to accomplish it? And, indeed, that a “biological solution” is now inevitable.

    The future will be better for everyone. But for the more fortunate of us, those fine new priests are already in sight, and the future is now. They may still face passive and even aggressive opposition, but with our support they have the tools to do the job. Deo gratias.

  62. I didn’t want to scare anybody by noting the indults and such floating around. Probably a lot of ‘em got abrogated at some point anyway, as I’m sure the canon-law types will be telling us. And they weren’t all bad or scary, just odd; many of them probably won’t be unearthed, or will only be fun and amusing. But you might get some use of stuff like permitting at least parts of Mass to be said in the vernacular in small languages like Gaelic (up in the Hebrides) or Breton, as was done as early as Victorian times. Those Transalpine monk guys will probably find out all about it, whether or not they want to do anything about it. :)

    Of course, bringing back old holidays for everybody, is the real advantage of this. Dragon banners for everybody this summer!

  63. Giambattista says:

    I was pleased to read a lot of good things in this document. In the end, however, the document is only as good as the fruits it produces – and that remains to be seen.

    After SP came out I tried to organize a group to have the TLM in my city. We were shut down on the grounds that only pre-existing “stable groups” were qualified to have the TLM. This document does seem remove this particular obstacle.

    I’m also relieved by #28 which seems to eliminate the possibility of altar girls and Eucharistic ministers because I would never attend a TLM under those conditions.

    I sure hope this changes the landscape so that we can get a local TLM!

  64. To clarify my question about religious priests, I’m referring only to public celebrations. The instruction makes clear that superiors have no authority to prohibit a religious priest from celebrating the EF sine populo.

    As for par. 19, I don’t know SSPX’s current stance regarding the validity of the Novus Ordo, but if they deny its validity, then par. 19 clearly indicates that any coetus fidelium requesting the EF may not include persons who support SSPX. Support is a rather vague term, and I would suggest includes even moral support for their mission-as-stated. Of course, if their current stance recognizes the validity of the NO and the Sacraments celebrated under that form, then there is no problem, it seems, with their supporters forming such a coetus fidelium.

  65. jrotond2 says:

    “I go to the Latin Mass very infrequently because of this “separatist mentality” that is prevalent among more than a few of it’s (sic) “regulars.” ”

    Corrine, it would good to distinguish between thriving in a Traditional Mass parish which, in addition to providing the TLM, presents an entire liturgical ethos (e.g. the Liturgical Calendar, shared customs. a sense that every fellow parishioner agrees with 100% of the Faith, etc.) vs. a polemical, anti-Novus Ordo enclave. What may seem to be a separatist mentality could very well be the former; it is a good thing that we Trads have our own parishes to build up the entire liturgical ethos of the TLM rather than simply have a once-a-week Mass. I hope you would find such a place to offer you a different impression than the ones you’ve seen already.

    Mater Ecclesiae Mission in Berlin, NJ is one such parish, of which I am a member, where this kind of (what I call) Positive Traditionalism is alive – i.e. living the liturgical life without Novus Ordo bashing. We’ve had a few (and I mean very few) trouble-makers, who failing to see what a great gift our parish is, have left because we weren’t “traditional” enough. On the other end of the spectrum, many may still think of us as being separatist. However, our parish is a mixture of life-long Trads who have left the SSPX or other such groups and life-long Catholics and converts from the NO who have only recently discovered the TLM; we all now have a place for us and our children to practice and live the full palate of the Church’s Traditional Liturgical life and customs.

  66. Prof. Basto says:

    Fater, regarding approval in forma specifica, it is not correct that the CDWDS Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued in forma specifica. It was rather issued in common form

    (“This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned”).

    Approval with the clause “in forma specifica” is very rare, it means that the curial document ranks not as a curial document but is assumed by the Pope with the weight of a document written by the Pope himself (it takes on the level of a papal document). Usually, approval “in forma specifica” only takes place when a curial document changes a directly papal document.

    For instance, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI empowered the Congregation for Catholic Education to actually change the curriculum contained in the norms of the Apostolic Constitution Sapientia christiana, issued by bl. John Paul II. The decrees of the said Congregation actually changing the text of the Papal Constitution are approved in forma specifica.

    In the case of Universae Ecclesiae, it came not to change, or to replace, the norms of Summorum Pontificum, but to convey implementing norms to facilitate its application and correct enforcement.
    Thus, since it does not change the primary papal document, but is purely secondary to it, it does not need approval with the clause “in forma specifica”. Approval in common form suffices.

    Universae Ecclesiae is not a papal document, but a curial document for the right execution of a papal document, the Congregation is empowered by the primary papal document to enforce its provisions; within that competence the Congregation prepared an enforcing instruction, and the Instruction was approved by the Pope.

  67. amicus1962 says:

    Paragraphs 27 and 28 need further clarification as they seem to contradictory. Par. 28 says “…incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.” But communion on the tongue, male servers only, fasting before communion, head coverings for women, ad orientem worship, etc. are not strictly rubrics found in the liturgical books in effect in 1962. Some are found in the 1917 code; others are traditional practices. As for fasting, paragraphs 27 and 28 seem to contradict themselves. Par. 27 clearly says the 1983 code applies, which means only a one hour fast. But the practice until Nov. 1964 was to fast for three hours. How do you reconcile the two? I think what the PCED wanted to say is that the liturgical rubrics, norms and practices in effect in 1962 should be respected and followed in the celebration of the rites and Mass notwithstanding subsequent contradictory norms and church laws, but the the PCED failed to word this properly.

  68. irishgirl says:

    I’m happy in a quiet way about it-thank you, Father Z, for your reading of the Instruction, BTW.
    Now, as Central Valley stated above, ‘will the American Bishops obey?’
    That’s the big question here!

  69. jcr says:

    In seminaries, unfortunately, there is a great deal that should be taught and relatively little time to teach it. I think it was two years ago that I heard a talk by the secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education. He said that while there were many things that ought to be taught in seminaries, given the candidates that the Church is getting, we need to concentrate on the basics: we need to teach them the fundamentals of the faith. Some candidates come to the seminary without having learned the catechism, or having learned it incorrectly. So even if the seminary has a good rector, he still has trouble teaching them all the things that are already mandated, because he has to waste time teaching what they should have learned as children. He was speaking in a worldwide perspective, and may have been thinking of Latin America, where catechesis is difficult simply because of the vast disproportion between priests and faithful, not to mention the scourge of liberation theology.

    In this perspective, you can understand why Universae Ecclesiae does not mandate training in the extraordinary form. It would be a dead letter, because there are already other things that are mandated and not done. Instead, it strongly recommends it, hoping it will be done where circumstances permit.

    That being said, a seminarian recently told me that his seminary (Mundelein) had offered an elective on the extraordinary form (see p. 29 of their academic bulletin (3MB)). Nearly all the seminarians signed up.

    What we really need, besides good catechesis in parishes, is minor seminaries. This is especially true if you want priests to know Latin, which normally takes years of study, like any language.

  70. pjsandstrom says:

    This is a very interesting document and I am sure it will be much commented upon both pro and con. However, there is at least a small quibble concerning the Latin title –”Universae ecclesiae” — of this document. Since when is the Latin/Roman Church the ‘universal Church’, excluding the other Churches? I do think our Eastern Brethren, both Catholic and Orthodox, would be correct to raise some objection, at least raising an ‘eyebrow’ at such a bit of ‘Roman triumphal imperialism’!

  71. Brooklyn says:

    Thank you so much for posting this, Father, and for your invaluable comments. This is something I want to look at more in depth, but one comment I wanted to make is I am amazed that the following statement needed to be in both the Summorum Pontificum and the current document:

    “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

    There should never be a reason to have such a statement in any Church document, and yet it was vitally necessary that this statement be included. This makes it so obvious that there are many people don’t believe the TLM is sacred and desperately want to destroy this wonderful Mass. It would seem to be the reason for tearing down the beautiful high altars, tearing out the altar rails, etc. There are people who were doing everything they could to make sure we never “go back.” I hate to even think about what their true agenda might be. This saddens me more than I can say.

  72. Nathan says:

    Henry Edwards: well said, sir! You get it exactly right–UE regularizes many of the hopes we realized when the Holy Father issued Summorum Pontificum. Huzzah!

    In Christ,

  73. Thank you Father for this work of yours. Regarding UE 31 (on the conferral of holy orders according to the 1962 Pontificale Romanum), clearly we all hope and pray that the Holy Father may change his mind on this point some time soon – such wonderful things had just begun to happen in places such as France.

    Do you perhaps have a friendly bishop willing to submit a dubium? I am wondering if members of the ancient Orders with their own Rites (eg Carmelite, Dominican) would qualify as “institutes/societies…which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria”. I don’t think men such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate are under PCED, yet they clearly use the FE throughout their liturgical life and ask such eminences as +Burke to confer their orders in the ancient manner.

  74. Centristian says:

    This document clarifies (apparently clarifies; to me it sounds redundant) a document that pretty much said to those attached to the Tridentine Mass, “yes, if you want it, you can have it, and all the rest of the pre-Conciliar Sacraments, too, sure, provided you can find a priest who is able to offer it.”

    It essentially suggests that bishops and priests should make an effort to accomodate those Catholics who desire the extraordinary form of Mass (and the Sacraments), and to do what they can do to allow environments to manifest more easily wherein such Catholics are at liberty to worship as they desire.

    I believe, like Summorum Pontificum, itself, this instruction on Summorum Pontificum calls for greater liberty of availability of the pre-Conciliar rites for Catholics who actually want to assist at the extraordinary form of Mass (and for clergy who desire to celebrate it). Just as with Summorum Pontificum, this instruction reads to me like a concession, however, and not like a call to arms in favor of the “forma extraordinaria”. Words like “can” and “may” characterize this document (just as they do Summorum Pontificum), not words like “must” and “will”.

    While I certainly read in SP (and in this “SP jr.”) the Holy See asking the bishops of the world to essentially grow up and to just give the extraordinary form to people in their care who want it and not to be jerks about it anymore, I don’t infer any sort of an expectation from the Holy See that the pre-Conciliar forms of worship be embraced by the whole Church once again.

    I see in all of this the Holy See speaking to Catholics who want the extraordinary forms of the Mass and the Sacraments, but I don’t see the Holy See speaking to the rest of the Catholic world, saying to it: renew your aquaintance with the pre-Conciliar liturgy and get out there and request it of your pastors…it’s something you’re missing out on. Yes, it gives the pre-Conciliar option to those who want it, but it doesn’t in any way admonish the vast majority of Catholics who aren’t interested in it to change their minds about it.

    I’m stating the obvious, I realize, but I only do so because so much of the reaction I see to this instruction and to Summorum Pontificum, itself, seems to suggest that some Catholics are baffled and consternated by these documents: why aren’t they more forceful and more proactive in re-establishing the “TLM”? But a concession will not be forceful in tone, of course, neither a clarification of a concession, which is what this new document is.

    Summorum Pontificum is great. It confirms for Catholics who prefer the pre-Conciliar forms of worship that their preferences are wholly justified, that the pre-Conciliar forms are venerable and worthy of indefinite preservation, and that the pre-Conciliar forms will not be denied such Catholics when it is just as easy to provide them.

    But I think traditionalists who want “SP” and “SP Jr” to mean something like “all bishops and priests must provide the extraordinary form along side the ordinary form in every case” are going risk having the wind knocked out of them in the long run if they do not readjust their expectations and their understanding of these documents according to what is actually written in them.

    Perhaps this document somehow makes it more clear that the faithful who want the extraordinary form must be accomodated more readily, but my concern is that, as such people observe that the Tridentine Mass is not springing up here, there, and everywhere, now that this document has been released, it will be the fault of “the bishops” again, in their never-ending conspiracy to thwart the Pope and traditionalists, just as it was the fault of “the bishops” when the Tridentine Mass didn’t everywhere appear after Summorum Pontificum was published. “Why won’t those bishops obey Summorum Pontificum??? Those dastardly bishops!!!”

    The bishops aren’t obliged by either of these documents–and I read nothing to suggest that they are even actively encouraged by them–to give the Tridentine Mass to the faithful who don’t want it (or at least aren’t interested in it). They aren’t being called to promote it, in other words (at least not as far as I can see). The Church, as a whole, isn’t demanding the extraordinary forms of the Liturgy; the culture of the Church does not gravitate in that direction. That’s why the Tridentine Mass isn’t popping up left and right, not because these documents have no teeth or because our bishops are all diabolical.

    In my own diocese, neither Summorum Pontificum nor Universae Ecclesiae will have any effect, because this diocese, long before SP was ever heard of, offered a regularly scheduled Sunday morning Tridentine Mass at several venues (once as many as four venues at once) because the diocese was happy to accomodate those Catholics who wanted it, as long as there were priests able and willing to offer it at their parishes. Happily, local traditionalists have been blessed in that regard.

    Today, there are only two venues, not because the bishop has suddenly become stingy, but because Tridentine Mass-goers have. The numbers have dropped to the point where only two venues are necessary to accomodate all of them. The diocese could offer a third and a fourth venue tomorrow, and the effect would be to divide the existing congregations, making them all even smaller. You can legislate all the concessions you want for those Catholics who request the extraordinary form, but you can’t legislate a demand for it from Catholics who just aren’t interested.

    The extraordinary form of Mass is wonderful, but I don’t think it’s ever going to have a strong comeback to the point where it will one day be celebrated as ubiquitously as the ordinary form. Moreover, I personally don’t imagine that these documents express any such aspiration. The long term solution for those Catholics who value our sacred traditions is not to bring back the 1962 Mass as ordinary, but to work to traditionalize celebrations of the prevailing ordinary form of Mass with the aim of arriving at a renewed Rite for the Latin Church that is better-reformed from the perspective of tradition. Merely returning to the Missal of 1962 cannot be the long-term and universal solution for the development of the liturgy of the Roman Rite as time and generations pass by. That is no development at all.

  75. “19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”

    Just askin’– since we’re all equal now in Rome’s eyes, is Rome going to insist that Ordinary Form adherents demonstrate that they do not question the validity or legitimacy of the traditional rite, nor question the “validity or legitimacy” of the Roman Pontiff? Might be interesting to see what such a requirement would do to attendance at the OF.

  76. Michael J. says:

    I feel horrible for Seminarians, like those in the Diocese of Philadelphia, and other Diocesan seminarians who were going to be permitted to be ordained in the Traditional Rite. I guess that work and hope is now over. Also, they had to comment on no Tonsure, no Minor Orders, and No Subdeacons unless basically a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter or the I.C.K. S.P. By the way, the Motu Proprio that changed all of that did not occur until after 1962, so I don’t know why it is banned for most. Also, much of this, once again, depends on ones local Bishop. We know that if the local Bishop is opposed, there will be so many obstacles and difficulties it is still basically up to them to permit. But to me, the biggest dissapointment is the banning of Tonsure, the Minor Orders, and the Subdiaconate, given in a Motu Proprio by Pope Paul VI well after 1962. Nothing in this forces the Bishops to do anything. We would have been better off with just Summorum Pontificum and no explanitory letter. This is not a no hitter, its a wiffing srike-out. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI and Long May He Reign!

  77. MichaelJ says:

    Corrine,
    In all fairness and Charity, can you honestly find fault with Traditional Catholics who have what you perceive to be a “seperatist metality”?

    All of my adult Catholic life, prior to 2007 I have been told repeatedly that what I hold precious – The Traditional Mass – was so much rubbish that the Church “wisely” discarded on the trash heap. It was a thing worthy of scorn and offensive to modern sesibilities. Any desire for it was seen as disobedient, schismatic and a sign of deep seated spiritual sickness.

    Now, along comes 2007 and Summorum Pontificum and what is the first thing that happens? You (and no, I do not mean you personally) who for so long accused me of being spiritually dead and ridiculed my beliefs, jump on the bandwagon and immediately start clamoring for changes.

    Can we have Altar Girls? Communion on the Hand? Can we change the calendar, insert new “modern” prefaces and say the whole thing in the vernacular? What about “new” Saints? The “old” ones, after all hold no particular meaning for “modern” man.

    You have all of those things and more, to your hearts desire. Why do you insist that I desire them as well? Then, when I, as politely as I am capable, say “no thank you”, you have the temerity to accuse me of being schismatic?

  78. Michael J. says:

    I feel horrible for those Seminarians, like those in Philadelphia, who were going to have the option of being Ordained in the Extraordinary Form, that that hope is now over. And no Tonsure, Minor Orders, or Subdeacons? These were all changes from a Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI after 1962, yet they will remain? This is a major disappointment. And there is nothing that will force any Bishop who is opposed to the Extraordinary Form that will make them change. It is not a no-hitter, it is a rain out. We would have been better off with just Summorum Pontificum and no added letter. Very disappointed! Long Live Pope Benedict XVI And Long May He Reign!

  79. As a point of information. The Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, which is the Studium of the Western Dominican Province (USA), has already begun offering a for credit class “Dominican Rite Practicum” for Dominican friar students to learn the Dominican Rite as it was celebrated in 1962. This class will be offered every year from now on.

  80. MichaelJ says:

    There now appears to be two “Michael J”‘s commenting on this blog. I will get with Father so see about changing my user name to avoid any future confusion. In the meantime, my posts are usually the ones that contain several typos.

  81. franruizg says:

    The official episcopate agency of Buenos Aires says that people who “extraordinarily” want the TLM should go to the Bishop. Unbelievable.

    La Comisión Pontificia “Ecclesia Dei” publicó hoy la Instrucción sobre la aplicación de la carta apostólica Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” de Benedicto XVI. El documento, aprobado por el papa Benedicto XVI, lleva la fecha del 30 de abril de 2011, memoria de san Pío V. Está firmado por el cardenal William Levada y monseñor Guido Pozzo, presidente y secretario de la Pontificia Comisión “Ecclesia Dei”, respectivamente. En el texto se recuerda que el sacerdote que quiera celebrarla debe conocer el idioma y los fieles que las soliciten, en carácter extraordinario, tienen que hacerlo ante su obispo. Asimismo, se recuerda que los solicitantes “no deben sostener o pertenecer de ninguna manera a grupos que se manifiesten contrarios a la validez o legitimidad de la santa misa o de los sacramentos celebrados en la forma ordinaria o al Romano Pontífice como Pastor Supremo de la Iglesia universal”.

  82. SimonDodd says:

    Fr. Z says: “The Instruction was not issued in forma specifica, as was Redemptionis Sacramentum”

    I didn’t think RS was issued IFP. Beal, Coriden, & Green’s commentary on canon law says that the formula in forma specifica must be expressly used, and RS doesn’t use it. Compare Redemptionis Sacramentum, 96 A.A.S. 549, 601 (2004) (“Hanc Instructionem, a Congregatione de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum de mandato Summi Pontificis Ioannis Pauli II collatis cum Congregatione pro Doctrina Fidei consiliis exaratam, idem Pontifex die 19 mensis martii … eandem edi ac statim ab universis, ad quos pertinet, observari iussit”) with, e.g., Ecclesiae de Mysterio, 89 A.A.S. 852, 876 (1997) (“Summus Pontifex in forma specifica hanc Instructionem approbavit atque promulgari publice iussit die xm mensis Augusti, anno mcmxcvh”).

  83. robtbrown says:

    Michael J. says:

    I feel horrible for those Seminarians, like those in Philadelphia, who were going to have the option of being Ordained in the Extraordinary Form, that that hope is now over.

    Although I am in sympathy with seminarians who wanted that, it is nonetheless true that they are being ordained to say the Novus Ordo with the possibility of using the 1962 Missal.

    And no Tonsure, Minor Orders, or Subdeacons? These were all changes from a Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI after 1962, yet they will remain?

    Those will still be used by the likes of the FSSP, but restoring them for the Latin Church is beyond the scope of UE and the PCED. That will take another Motu Proprio.

    This is a major disappointment. And there is nothing that will force any Bishop who is opposed to the Extraordinary Form that will make them change. It is not a no-hitter, it is a rain out. .

    Those comments indicate that you haven’t read either the document or Fr Z’s commentary.

  84. Corinne says:

    MichaelJ
    Any Catholic individual or group who maintains a separatist mentality I can and do find fault with and that includes both camps…traditional and liberal. By remaining apart physically and/or mentally, both camps are tearing at the fabric of “Universal Church” trying consciously or unconsciously to unravel Her just from opposite ends. That is how I see it.

    Pax et bonum

  85. pablo says:

    This is great.

    The Bishops need to have their hands tied more strongly when it comes to Tradition.

    I would like to see an Instruction come about concerning Freeemasons in position of high authority in local Dioceses.

    In Phoenix, Arizona, where I reside, the Hispanic representative is an avowed Freemason.

    We as a group are going to Hell fast, due the disconnect Freemasons in charge bring about.

    We can have the True Mass, but if our people are de-catechized and catechized incorrectly, where is our salvation?

    Where are our good Sheppards?

    *

  86. MichaelJ says:

    Corinne,
    The problem is how you are defining a “separatist mentality”. Do Eastern Catholics, who desire to hold onto their ancient and venerable traditions and resist (sometimes quite vocally) “imposition” of Latin practices, also have a “separatist metality”?

    By definition, a desire for one thing necessarily excludes other possibilities. It is unfortunate that you see this as “separatist”

  87. leon says:

    I think Universae Ecclesiae it is little too much Cardinal Levada and not enough Pope Benedict XVI. Why okay the teaching of Latin and then say the Low Mass readings can be in any language? Why the rebuke of the traditionalist for not liking the Novus Ordo while remaining silent on the NO not liking the Tridentines? Are we now the Usus Antiquior ready to be put on the shelf and admired as antiques? And why is The Commission/Ecclesia Dei now hierarchial Superior? Is the Pope retiring?

  88. Doubtful Thomas says:

    tonyballioni
    11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
    Is it just me, or does this foresee new editions of the extraordinary form? That would be a bit odd, but could also be a sign of the “mutual enrichment” that Summorum Pontificum called for.

    Tony: I noticed that, too, but I am wondering if this might possibly be a way to allow for the Extraordinary Use to develop “organically” on a parallel track to the NO, guiding the EF back into wider use within the church while preserving the larger, ancient and living tradition.

    I also note that in 4 and at the beginning of 5, there seems to be some emphasis upon the 1962 Missal as containing the ancient tradition that did develop “organically” up to that time by having been kept “up to date” over the centuries. Is there a suggestion or admission here that perhaps the 1970 Missal was, well, not quite that? And if so, what are the ramifications?

    Could this be a possible alternative to the EF enriching the NO, that is, allowing for the possibility of a real organic development within the ancient tradition? As farther Z likes to say, just askin’.

  89. Henry Edwards says:

    Centristian,

    Your well-written posts are quite interesting and mostly agreeable (to me), but lengthy. I couldn’t help wondering if the one above could be summarized succinctly by saying that “The EF is a pearl, but the Church is full of swine.”

  90. Corinne says:

    Michael J,

    I have been to many Eastern Divine Liturgy and I would not characterize them as a “separatist mentality” by any means. For one thing the Easterners have a very different theology not just a different liturgy and that is a whole other discussion .

    Perhaps I should use the “P” word when describing what I have encountered at traditional parishes…i.e. Pharisee mentality, but of course the Pharisees were “separatists.” As for the mentality of the other camp…the liberal progressives….I don’t have a word to describe them….yet. :-)

    Please understand I don’t mean to quibble with you. I am sure you are earnest in your desires for the older traditions. I mean no offence to you or anyone else here. It is these constant divisions in the Church that trouble me.

    Pax et bonum

  91. Centristian says:

    Henry Edwards:

    “Centristian,

    Your well-written posts are quite interesting and mostly agreeable (to me), but lengthy.”

    LOL. I think my post is actually longer than “Universae Ecclesiae”. I do tend to be windy, agreed. Even so, I only wrote about half of everything I would have liked to have said!

    “The EF is a pearl, but the Church is full of swine.”

    I would say that the EF is a pearl, and that the OF can and should be a pearl, too, but one day we’re going to have to trade in both pearls for a diamond.

  92. dans0622 says:

    pjsandstrom says:
    “However, there is at least a small quibble concerning the Latin title –”Universae ecclesiae” — of this document. Since when is the Latin/Roman Church the ‘universal Church’, excluding the other Churches?”

    I don’t see how there is any exlcusion of anything. The document’s first line notes that Summorum pontificum “has made the richness of the Roman Liturgy more accessible to the Universal Church.” Such a statement is more accurate than to have said “…to the Latin Church” since anyone, from any Church, can benefit from celebrations in the extraordinary form.
    –Dan

  93. q7swallows says:

    Christ is Risen!

    In the gentle, one-step-removed-from-the-source dissemination of the UE, I see a commander’s sifting of his ranks:

    WHO has heard (and internalized) the mind (mens) of the Rule Behind the Rules and doesn’t have to hear it from the top and who will step forward and volunteer for the more difficult mission WITHOUT HAVING to be ordered to it?!

    Deo Gratias, Holy Father, on so many levels!!!

  94. q7swallows says:

    Christ is Risen!

    In the gentle, one-step-removed-from-the-source dissemination of the UE, I see a commander’s sifting of his ranks:

    WHO has heard (and internalized) the mind (mens) of the Rule Behind the Rules and doesn’t have to hear it from the top and who will step forward and volunteer for the more difficult mission WITHOUT HAVING to be ordered to it?!

    Deo Gratias, Holy Father, on so many levels!

  95. q7swallows says:

    Christ is Risen!

    In the gentle, one-step-removed-from-the-source dissemination of the UE, I see a commander’s sifting of his ranks:

    WHO has heard (and internalized) the mind (mens) of the Rule Behind the Rules and doesn’t have to hear it from the top and who will step forward and volunteer for the more difficult mission WITHOUT HAVING to be ordered to it?

    Deo Gratias, Holy Father, on so many levels!

  96. MichaelJ says:

    It is these constant divisions in the Church that trouble me.

    Then perhaps you should refrain from using a document – on the day it was released – to level accusations at a broad group of Catholics of which you have only superficial knowledge.

  97. Corinne says:

    MichaelJ,

    Pax et bonum

  98. Henry Edwards says:

    Centristian: “I would say that the EF is a pearl, and that the OF can and should be a pearl, too, but one day we’re going to have to trade in both pearls for a diamond.”

    Seriously (based on your previous posts) I would be interesting in knowing how you would describe that “diamond”.

  99. dcs says:

    I feel horrible for those Seminarians, like those in Philadelphia, who were going to have the option of being Ordained in the Extraordinary Form, that that hope is now over.

    Who was going to ordain those seminarians from Philadelphia? I hadn’t heard anything about their being ordained in the traditional rite (not that I am an insider with respect to the Archdiocese, but I do live there).

    Philadelphia, by the way, is one of the dioceses that is in violation of Universae Ecclesiae as it imposes burdens on priests who want to celebrate the traditional Mass over and above those imposed by Summorum Pontificum:
    http://archphila.org/evangelization/worship/guidelines/summpont.pdf

  100. Why the rebuke of the traditionalist for not liking the Novus Ordo while remaining silent on the NO not liking the Tridentines?

    Traditionalists who don’t like the Novus Ordo are not being rebuked. The rebuke is aimed at those who hold, contrary to the Church’s teaching, that the Novus Ordo is invalid.

  101. dcs says:

    The rebuke is aimed at those who hold, contrary to the Church’s teaching, that the Novus Ordo is invalid.

    I think the original poster was wondering why the double standard? If Summorum Pontificum is doctrinal, as Fr. Z postulates above, then holding that the traditional Mass is “sacred and great” is a matter of doctrine. So those who hold that it is not “sacred and great” are holding something that is contrary to the Church’s teaching, just as those who hold that the Novus ordo is invalid are holding something that is contrary to the Church’s teaching.

  102. Centristian says:

    “Seriously (based on your previous posts) I would be interesting in knowing how you would describe that ‘diamond’.”

    Well, despite the sports references pervading this discussion, the diamond wouldn’t have anything to do with baseball!

    I won’t get too detailed as I am not a liturgical scholar and as this is not my blog. I only hope for a single Latin Rite liturgy one day that replaces both the “EF” and the “OF”, incorporating the best of both. I imagine a Mass with a Latin canon celebrated ad orientem in which the traditional ars celebrandi is restored, but one which also incorporates some of the flexibility of the ordinary form. I envision vernacular readings, for example, a provision for laymen to serve as lectors when it makes sense for them to do so, an offertory procession, and the general intercessions retained (but possibly re-imagined).

    To go on any further would be to require my own blog, and would be a fruitless exercise in any case since liturgical reform it isn’t about what I, personally, would like to see. But, basically, if you took the disruptions out of the liturgical reform movement of the 2oth century and just let that reform go as it might have, I think you would arrive at a liturgy that I would regard as that “diamond”.

  103. Rich says:

    I have a question about no. 34 to throw out there. I have heard that many rites – which may have been associated with certain religious orders – were suppressed with the promulgation of the New Missal. Some, like the Dominican Rite, were not, for reasons I do not know. My question, though, is whether no. 34 of Instruction – “The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted” – means to clarify that some other rites which were suppressed with the New Missal, as was the forma extraordinaria, are not so any longer.

  104. kgurries says:

    Not sure why some have expressed concern over para 19. Let’s face it, this is to protect everyone from individuals that would sow division and discord within a Parish that otherwise seeks to maintain the peaceful coexistence of both forms. The whole thrust of SP and this instruction is to prevent ideological bias against the EF. Paragraph 19 simply addresses the opposite bias. Division and discord can come from both sides. I think it is reasonable and just.

  105. Rich says:

    Here is a hypothetical situation addressing why no. 19 may exist. A bunch of SSPX members drive anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half to go to Mass at their SSPX chapel every Sunday. A few of them in a general geographical area find a priest willing to say the forma extraordinaria for them at a church whose location would require much less commute time on Sunday. Upon presenting their request to have the forma extraordinaria said for them by the sacerdos idoneus, they begin sensing some reluctance or push-back from a pastor or Ordinary. These people then begin trying to hold the pastor or Ordinary up to the norms of SP and EU, all the while never really renouncing their ties to SSPX. No. 19 means to prevent such a scenario, in which such people would be trying to have it both ways – to have their cake and eat it, too.

  106. MichaelJ says:

    Or, an alternate explanation is that the Holy father did not write paragraph 19 and only begrudgingly allowed its inclusion as a concession to those curial members who had the audacity (as we learned on this very blog) to completely re-write the instruction so that it was contrary to the Holy father’s wishes.

    Lets face it, in simple terms it states that only Catholics may request a particular Mass.

    On the other hand, it may in fact be directly aimed at “SSPX members” in the hopes of forcing them to present themselves to the Temple Priest, proving that they are clean, before allowing them to enter the Sanctuary.

  107. dcs says:

    @Rich,

    I’m not sure I understand why what you outline above is a problem. Isn’t it a good thing if SSPX adherents ask for the traditional Mass from the legitimate authorities?

  108. Phil_NL says:

    @dcs

    It’s a good thing if they do so because they want a valid and legitimate Catholic Mass. If, God forbid, they would do so in order to insert a schismatic message into the church, let them stay out. I suspect that is laregly a hypothetical danger, but still.

    More to the point, I think this paragraph nicely sums up the choice the SSPX and similar groups have: they can – as far as the EF is concerned – have just about anything they want, but they will have to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and his predecessors. And afterall, that boils down to the question : “are you in, or are you out?” Where Peter is, there is the church.

    Those who wish to see themselves as part of the Church will be strengthened by it (but of course, we can ask too, we may support the SSPX but we are in the Church, and yes, that means recognition of the Pope’s proper place in it), those who are on the fence or outside are encouraged, even admonished to do some soul-searching, and warned that being a Catholic does impose some requirements.

    I find it one of the most subtle and brilliant clauses, frankly.

  109. Michael J. says:

    @robtbrown. Read both. It is a disappointment because promises were made to those seminarians and how do you know they are ordained to say only the O.F.? Perhaps they planned on praying the E.F. And it would not take another Motu Proprio to eliminate the changes made to the Tonsure, Minor Orders, and the Subdiaconate. However, assuming it did, the Motu Proprio that created was issued well after 1962 and should have no effect on any seminarian who is given an opportunity to be Ordained according to the Rite of 1962. However, I guess that is now, out of the question, and it didn’t take a Motu Proprio to do it. And I am not outside of the Church. I am a loyal Catholic who only attends Mass as approved by both Bishop and Pope.

  110. Rich says:

    @dcs
    I drew the scenario out a bit further than their simply asking for it. The crux of the matter would be when SSPXers begin trying to hold a pastor or Ordinary up to the norms of the Church when they themselves don’t follow so fully the norms of the Church, thus trying to have it both ways.

  111. moon1234 says:

    Many of the comments here seem to suggest that most in the SSPX reject the NO as invalid. I doubt you will find ANY OFFICIAL statement like this from the SSPX. The DO SAY that the NO is OFFENSIVE to GOD. It does not offer the reverence that is due our Lord. Invalid? I don’t think so.

    Technically ALL that is required to confect the Eucharist is four words and proper intention. That is ALL. The SSPX knows this. They will never say it is INVALID.

    To try and lump SSPX and ALL of us tradies who have severe misgivings with the NO as somehow now banned unless we never criticize the NO is deluding themselves.

    My son is 10. He has said he wants to be a priest when he grows up. I am very happy. He wants to spend time with an order of men in our diocese who say both the NO and the TLM. I am okay with this for now, but if he wants any kind of support from my family as he matures he will NEED to join an order such as FSSP, ICRSS, etc. I would break down and cry if my son was not ordained in the traditional manner. NO ordinations are a pale shadow of what the rite of ordination should be.

    I was devastated when I read that traditional ordinations, tonsure, minor orders are ALL limited to societies who ONLY say the TLM. What difference does it make what form a Priest is ordained in if the EF and NO are supposed to be one in the same? If all sacraments are supposed to be available in the EF why is ordination excluded unless you meet a precondition of being in a specific society.

    This clause seems to be a direct attempt to pigeon hole those young men would like to be diocesan priests, but have a traditional ordination.

    I have to agree with a few commenters above that UE actually takes away some of the freedom that SP had granted. I am happy for the clarification, but am now very sad that if my son wants a traditional ordination he is now limited to ONLY those societies who say ONLY the EF.

  112. 3D says:

    I think the issue of the clerical status of minor orders needs to be addressed immediately.

    Are the men who received these orders not clerics? Can an ordained Lectors read an Epistle at Mass since they are not clerics? Can we use the title “Abbe” (cleric) with those who have received the minor orders? Are all sub-deacons actually “straw sub-deacons” now?

    This also raises a deeper, more interesting question. Does the Liturgy of the Church trump Canon Law or vice versa? “J Brown” made an excellent comment on NLM:

    Either the Pontificale is incorrect, or otherwise has been virtually suppressed (i.e., no longer has efficacy) with regard to tonsure and minor orders, or this Instruction is simply in error and is directly contradicted by both Summorum Pontificum and the Pontificale, both of which have higher authority. I am stupefied by this ambiguity.

    What an absolute mess this document just created.

  113. Emilio III says:

    Only slightly off topic: Does anybody know of a good recording of Long Live the Pope?

    Long live the Pope!
    His praises sound
    Again and yet again:
    His rule is over space and time:
    His throne the hearts of men:
    All hail! The Shepherd Pope of Rome,
    The theme of loving song:
    Let all the earth his glory sing
    And heaven the strain prolong.

    Beleaguered by
    By the foes of earth,
    Beset by hosts of hell,
    He guards the loyal flock of Christ,
    A watchful sentinel:
    And yet, amid the din and strife,
    The clash of mace and sword,
    He bears alone the Shepherd Staff,
    The champion of the Lord.

    Then raise the chant,
    With heart and voice,
    In Church & school & home:
    “Long live the Shepherd of the Flock!
    Long live the Pope of Rome!”
    Almighty Father bless his work,
    Protect him in his ways,
    Receive his prayer, fulfill his hopes,
    And grant him length of days!

  114. Jan B. says:

    I think I am one of those troublemakers. Every time I have tried to attend an indult site for mass, there are so many things that hurt. The thing I cannot bear is talking in the body of the church after mass, as if Our Lord were not still there (and as if there were not people still at prayer). This is the practice at every single indult TLM I’ve ever gone to, even those at really gorgeous sites with the most wonderful lace and vestments and choirs that are world-renowned (even though the singers at some are not even Catholic, or lead openly scandalous life styles). I have asked people to be quiet. I know that’s ‘trouble.’ I have cried. I suppose observers added, ‘trouble–and crazy.’ It’s true. I can’t help but think of Our Lord, and then the blow to rationality is almost as painful! Bow down in lace offering incense one minute, lounge on a pew and talk about your Christmas presents the next. Sure you think Somebody’s in that tabernacle. (You’re sure it’s not just that you like to play dress-up?)

    But this jarring inconsistency is just one small thing, and it stems from this: the problems in our Church don’t flow just from liturgy starvation. There are, besides the liturgy–and I mean the novus ordo, which is the problem, which is why we are so happy to have the TLM more and more freed– three doctrinal problems in Vatican II (I am quoting Bishop Bernard Fellay from memory): collegiality, ecumenism, and religious freedom. Belief in the Real Presence was sacrificed to item number two. All the other problems can be traced to one or the other of them.

    And SP and now mini SP don’t address these items at all. In that context, the failure to address those doctrinal items (Bishop Fellay said, I hope you already know this so I don’t have to stop and get the link, that the now concluded talks between SSPX and Rome went exactly nowhere) this attempt to almost drum up business for indult traditional masses seems–like taking it hostage! It is almost as if Rome had learned, like many traditionalists, that it wasn’t all about the liturgy all along, but much broader–so they could afford to have the old mass, in fact the old mass is like –a perfect cover! Most traditionalists just want the mass, after all, and they don’t care if the people who go to those other masses think the strangest things, and they don’t care if those people stand about and talk in the sanctuary itself after mass. Small price to pay, evidently.

    To be called separatist for merely wanting authentic teaching to go with the authentic liturgy is difficult to bear. I can only stand it because I trust Our Lord someday will make it right.

  115. Jan B. says:

    SSPX questions the validity of the novus ordo on several counts, and in its own commentary on Universae Ecclesiae, questioned again its legitimacy: ‘Indeed, it is because of the serious failings and omissions of the Novus Ordo Missae and of the reforms introduced under Paul VI that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X seriously questions, if not the validity in principle, then at least the “legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (n. 19), since it is so difficult, as Cardinal Ottaviani had already noted in 1969, to consider the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI to be in the same “apostolic and unbroken tradition” (no. 3).’

    Cardinal Ottaviani was not SSPX; he was a member of the Roman curia during the Council.

    You may find this and the entire commentary at
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/released-instruction-universae-ecclesiae-the-text-and-my-initial-observations/#comment-277000