About mixing the rites

Vatican Radio interviewed my friend Mons. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pont. Comm. "Ecclesia Dei", in German, about the Motu Proprio.  

About the possibility of "mixing" elements of the two uses he said:

Kann man die Usus eigentlich auch mischen?
Das sollte man wohl nicht tun, es ist nicht ausdrücklich verboten. 

Can one actually also mix the uses?
One really shouldn’t do that, but isn’t expressly forbidden.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Monica says:

    Does anyone know how to say “gather us in” in Latin?

  2. Jamie Frater says:

    In that case I sincerely hope that it is forbidden before it is allowed to happen!

  3. John Spangler says:

    This is my great fear about the Holy Father’s approach in Summorum Pontificum, instead of creating a universal apostolic administration or multiple ones for different geographic areas in the way that the Campos diocese in Brazil has been handled. Most liturgists and some bishops will place as many roadblocks in the way of a dual-use Roman Rite as they can dream up, seeking incrementally to change the extraordinary use into a clone of the ordinary use. Already the staff of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy has opined on its website and on EWTN that the motu proprio allows the use of the 1970 Missal’s Lectionary being used in the vernacular for the 1962 Missal when it appears clear from the Latin (am I wrong, Father Z?) that what is contemplated is the option of a proclamation of the readings from the 1962 Missal in the vernacular after a version of these receives the Holy See’s recognitio. The BCL executive director indicated that the bishops will be disussing how to deal with the motu proprio at a committee meeting in August.

    Unenthusiastic bishops might impose, I suppose, unduly involved training requirements on priests who might wish to celebrate the extraordinary use publicly, or limit their ability to binate or trinate on Sundays, or impose additional Sunday assignments on them to prevent their being able to celebrate a Mass under the extraordinary use. Consider how the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles chose to “implement” the directives of the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum in his see. The creativity of some is not limited to the liturgy itself but extends to their application of church law.

    I hate to be a pessimist but we have seen the enthusiasm and generosity that many bishops evidenced in how they dealt with Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.

  4. danphunter1 says:

    We are in trouble if the rites get mixed.
    This is a deadly serious matter.
    Just think, everyone doing the hootenany and high fiving during the Mass of the Catechumens.
    Altar girls, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy
    Communion,Females, in the Sanctuary,lay readers…etcetera,etcetera…
    If the Rites are mixed.
    Please Holy Father,forbid this!

  5. L'Abbé Paul McDonald says:

    1.Does Msgr.
    Perle still work at PCED ?

    2. So, can I start using the Pian offertory prayers startoimg tomorrow?

    — Fr. Paul McDonald

  6. L'Abbé Paul McDonald says:

    1.Does Msgr.
    Perle still work at PCED ?

    2. So, can I start using the Pian offertory prayers startoimg tomorrow?

    — Fr. Paul McDonald

  7. MrStork says:

    Well, I’ve heard about incorporating old use into new, in particular the Offertorium, but I haven’t seen it, so it may ba a gossip. Anyway I hope that Apostolic See will explicitly forbid that…

  8. Nick says:

    If people would just use a little common sense, all such havoc could be easily avoided. The 1970 Lectionary, girl altar boys, and extraordinary ministers have no place in the extraordinary form. Indeed, the latter two are extraordinary elements of the ordinary form, and shouldn’t be making every day appearances in celebrations of the new mass to begin with.

    If the old rite becomes inundated with all kinds of modern nonsense, traditionalists will begin to flock to the SSPX in droves. I think Rome knows this, and will, in time, see to it that the integrity of the Tridentine form be preserved.

  9. RichR says:

    LOL!! Good one, Monica. God help us.

    Here’s a great song from Oregon Catholic Press:


  10. RichR says:

    Imagine that little number as the priest is doing teh Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

  11. Andrew, OP says:

    Ahh, you answered one of the questions I have on my blog. Thanks.

  12. Mary Ann McGrath says:

    This is a little off topic, but I had a question about the use of “uses” here. “Uses,” in the question, refers to the ordinary and extraordinary forms. Does that mean with in the Latin Rite we have the Anglican Use, the Extraordinaria Use, the Ordinaria Use, Mozambique, and Ambrosian Use?
    I guess the prior question is, what is the distinction between a use and a rite?
    Thanks, Fr. Z.

  13. Mary Ann McGrath says:

    This is a little off topic, but I had a question about the use of “uses” here. “Uses,” in the question, refers to the ordinary and extraordinary forms. Does that mean with in the Latin Rite we have the Anglican Use, the Extraordinaria Use, the Ordinaria Use, Mozambique, and Ambrosian Use?
    I guess the prior question is, what is the distinction between a use and a rite?
    Thanks, Fr. Z.

    ~Mary Ann

  14. Mary Ann McGrath says:

    I heard of a priest using the prayers at the foot of the altar as the “greeting” at the beginning of Mass.

  15. Bruce says:

    May I suggests that priests read the black and do the red? It is not safe to suggest the mixing of the forms. (What if some priest decides the traditional offertory is to long and wants to adopt the new?)
    Perhaps the Holy See will decide to enrich the Novus Ordo in three years. But for now, let us rejoice in the widespread restoration of our Catholic heritage.

  16. Chris says:

    Pardon my ignorance (I’ve never had the privilege of escaping the NO except through the rare Eastern Rite mass), but isn’t the whole point of the Holy Father’s approach that each form will eventually benefit and learn from one another until we don’t need two anymore? Expecting that the extraordinary form will stay completely unchanged forever seems to be wishful thinking. Even the 1962 missal was a relatively new version (although a very minor revision from the next previous).

  17. greg says:

    Chris just nailed it (IMHO). The Holy Father himself indicated that we need a “reform of the reform,” and that the two rites (or versions of the same rite, as he says) will “enrich” each other. To me, that means there will be an intermingling of some kind. How soon, no one knows.

    And yes, I believe people will flock to the SSPX and other traditional groups if this happens.

  18. dan: Just think, everyone doing the hootenany and high fiving during the Mass of the Catechumens.

    Always with the drama!     

    Just as I said of Sr. Chittister, dan. 

  19. Boniface says:

    Dear Fr,

    I was wondering if you would care to do a brief analysis of the statement by the diocese of Pittsburgh on the recent Motu Proprio, posted at http://www.diopitt.org/postingboard/gensec_latinmass.pdf
    I think it is one of the worst misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the Motu Proprio so far, and ought to be brought to the attention of the commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’.I don’t live in that diocese, but I was very tempted to send the officials responsible a polite e-mail.

    Many thanks, in Domino.

  20. Scott Arbuckle says:

    The Eastern Catholic’s Byzantine rite and Orthodoxy have three liturgies: St. James’, St. Basil’s and St. John Chrysostom. These have been used and kept separate for over 1600 years with very few changes.

  21. dad29 says:


    IIRC, the original Indult did NOT allow any inter-mixing of the Rites.

    The MP, in a change, seems to allow use of the current readings-cycle and foresees more Prefaces. Likely there will be more changes over time–such is the nature of a “reform”–which was mandated by Vat. II.

  22. Royce says:

    I think there’s a qualitative difference between one rite influencing the other and directly importing elements of one into another. I think Summorum Pontificum calls for the former rather than the latter.

  23. Jeff says:

    Dad 29:

    I don’t see your point.

    The old rite ALSO allowed the addition of saints days. And it ALSO allowed the addition of new Prefaces for major new Feasts.

    Addition of Prefaces and Saints Days wouldn’t change the rite.

    I understand the sensitivities of the Traditionalists and we should err on the side of respecting them. But in principle, we have to begin sometime treating the old use as if it is more than a museum piece frozen in time.

    Tell you what: Let’s restore the Confiteor at Communion and the Benedicamus Domino to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII and add a handful of feast days and Preface or two…in…say…about five years.

  24. Manuel R. says:

    I would really like this to be clarified. Because if they can be mixed, what we’ll get from the Motu Proprio is not the Mass according to the 1962 rubrics, but a hybrid Mass, to which every priest will add or subtract whatever he pleases. Wasn’t the whole idea of liberating the traditional Mass to give the faithful a refuge from the countless variations and abuses of the Pauline Mass?

  25. Thaliarch says:

    Monica: We can use CONDUCAS NOS for GATHER US IN if we are addressing God or one person.

  26. Zie Tonto says:

    Another name suggestion:


    What am I going to do with my useless novus ordo translations?

    I know, I’ll just mix both rites! Great Idea!

  27. Hopefully Msgr.Perle mispoke and all this commotion is for nought.What he probably meant is what has already been said ,that some prefaces and some collects (from recently canonized saints)and masses (such as the collection of Marian masses)from the new missal might be used.A true mixing of the rites would be a true horror.

  28. Legisperitus says:

    It always sounds like “gather a sin” to me. What the heck, gather three or four while you’re at it.

  29. greg says:


    In a word, I think the answer to your question is no. I believe the end goal is to “reform the reform.” The TLM will be a means to draw the NO back into greater orthodoxy. I suspect there will be some intermingling of the two rites (at least in terms of some external characteristics of rituals themselves).

    I’ve yet to hear anything that definitively proves otherwise.

  30. Manuel R. says:


    I’m willing to accept the decisions of the Church. If there is to be a Reform of the Reform, I’m all for it. I just wish the Pope could clarify this particular point about what can and cannot be imported into the usus antiquior of the Mass, because such ambiguity could spell disaster in the current climate of abuses.

  31. Chris says:

    I’m still somewhat confused. First, I heard that allowing a universal indult was what Traditionalists wanted, but now that it has been offered, some are suggesting it would have been better to keep it safe from the prying hands of those who might defile the old rite. We can’t have it both ways. Are we trying to improve the liturgy for the benefit for the Body of Christ as a whole, or are we trying to preserve an archaic version, intact, just for one hand instead of the pinky finger?

    I had thought that I was a prospective Traditionalist, patiently waiting in the wings to join your ranks, whereupon I might be saved from eternal NO strains of “Glory & Praise”. But now I’m hearing that any concession to change the extraordinary form – in the way Vatican II was supposed to do – is tantamount to heresy and will indeed exacerbate an (IMO irrational) schism.

    That sounds suspiciously like the doom & gloom predicted in the MSM organs, that I have been laughing at up to now. Were they wrong, or are they right?

  32. michigancatholic says:

    Remember when Cardinal Ratzinger, before he was Benedict XVI, used to say the church was going to be smaller but more fervent? I think we’re getting to that part.

    I think the pope realizes that you can’t *MAKE* people behave. What’s more, when people are prevented through no fault of their own from worshipping properly, someone is going to have to explain that to God, and it isn’t going to be the person who was prevented.

    The number of people who are actually on track (still Catholic), I have thought for quite a few years, is actually pretty small. I may be wrong, I hope I am. But I don’t think so. Our abortion rates are just about par. Our divorce rates, ditto. Our “Gramma wants to die with dignity” rates–that nasty little American secret–are also about par.

    What the pope has given us is a whole new ballgame. Some of the impediments to choice have been removed and some clarity should appear, I think. It’s no longer right or left. It’s in or out. People just haven’t caught onto it yet fully.

  33. dad29 says:

    Jeff, I would LOVE to have the new readings-cycle in the Old ‘use.’ And there are some other changes I would make too–for example, there’s no reason for the priest to recite what the choir sings…

    And I happen to think that B-16’s intention is precisely to “reform the reform” by integrating elements of the ‘uses’ over time.

    But that doesn’t mean that one can just do whatever-the-fooey they feel like today, Jeff.

    We have that. It’s called the Pauline Use.

  34. michigancatholic says:

    I also think the pope knows the first rule about truth: You tell the truth in the first place OR you suffer and then you tell it. The longer it takes, the more it hurts.

    We took 40 years, now we have to straighten out the lies that occurred around Vatican II. Ouch. But it has to be done or it will only get worse, according to the first rule of truth.

    Someday, it just may dawn on us as a group that there is a real joy in telling the truth about who we are and where we stand to start with. (The letter from the CDF yesterday, I think, is a good indicator of that recognition.) There really is no reason for obfuscation about the Church’s doctrines and beliefs IF one believes with the church. And since “lex orandi, lex credendi” that includes liturgical belief which underlies liturgical behavior.

  35. michigancatholic says:

    I think the readings ought to actually be read from a Vatican-approved bible. I really dislike the paraphrased, trendy, dumbed-down readings in the contemporary mass.

    I’m a convert, it’s true. But I can never believe how few Catholics can tell a) the regular translations from the paraphrased (& politicized) ones, and b) that whole sections of scripture are completely missing (and that there’s a pattern to it!). Many Catholics must not EVER actually sit down & thoughtfully read the bible. It’s the only conclusion I can come to. Otherwise, they would notice these things. I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve been told (wrongly)that we hear the entire bible in 3 years. Sigh.

    My second choice after the bible? The readings I’m told are already built into the Johnine mass in Latin and English.

    I’m not a hide-bound trad, but all I need is to go into what I think is a nice quiet Latin Mass where I can worship the Lord–only to be met by Sr. CrazyEyes ClickerLady with her pantsuit and Dick Jane Sally language–her entire being focused on making me conform to some cluster of cryptic psychologisms that really are liturgically meaningless. Please. “Itsy bitsy spider” was fun when I was four, but it got old a long time ago. I’m really repelled by the sheer rancid cheesiness of all that is *forced* on us–dramatic reading, handholding, greeting each other on command,etc, etc, etc. I’m serious.

    I really would love for Catholics to get some taste in music, literature & architecture to offer the Lord. We used to be the best of the best in those realms. St. Thomas Aquinas? Ours. Palestrina? Ours. Notre Dame Cathedral? Ours. St. Jerome? Ours. The Cathedral at Rheims? Ours. The best (& once upon a time, only!) translations of scripture? Ours. St. Augustine? Ours. Even Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) & St. Valentine? Both ours.

    That most excellent new symphony piece? Why isn’t it ours? That most erudite and thoughtful piece of new philosophy, poetry, prose? Why isn’t it ours? The loveliest building in town? Why isn’t it ours? Why? What happened? What awful thing happened??? Have we gone blind and deaf? I assure you God has not. Is it really the case that INSTEAD of building anything, we have spent this whole 40 years fighting with each other over each others’ dispositions that no one can see anyway? Why? Did it help?

    As you can see, I don’t want the two of Masses intermixed, especially not in the first few years. If the Pauline Missal (esp in English) is so tacky (and it is), do you really think we’d ought to drag the tackiness into the Johnine missal too? Can we not get a decent translation first? I ask you: Why spoil both of them?

  36. Sean says:

    Amazing. 40 years of change and people still think that is the answer for everything.

  37. Chris says:

    Amazing. 40 years of complaining that we should turn back the clock and ignore an ecumenical council and some snarky people still think that’s an answer for anything.

  38. michigancatholic says:

    Amazing. Sean, you have a pronoun with no antecedent. There is no way of discerning what you are saying because your grammar is incomplete.

    Chris, many people are dissatisfied with the contemporary liturgy and the post-V2 way of doing things. I believe that’s what you must mean when you refer to “complaining.” I can only agree with you. They are dissatisfied and they have grounds for their dissatisfaction. I believe the pope has recognized that in Summorum Pontificam.

  39. Sean says:

    Chris: Amazing. 40 years of complaining that we should turn back the clock and ignore an ecumenical council and some snarky people still think that’s an answer for anything.

    You seem to be addressing a traditionalist bogeyman of your own making. A year ago I was pretty much like yourself.

    The ink on Summorum Pontificum is barely dry and yet all you can think of is how to change the extraordinary form. Stuck in the same old rut of the last 40 years. Same old approach. Same old battles. Yawn.

  40. Robert says:

    To be honest, I am not quite sure how the NO readings could be inserted into the TLM. Like many, when I read that part about the 1970 Lectionary, I was horrified, just horrified. Any reforms to the 1962 Missal should be organic and slow to develop. Personally, I wouldn’t mind some of the organic developments that Bugnini removed from the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy restored as part of a possible future reform.

    Regarding the use of the 1970 Lectionary: I don’t think it would work, and I think the Vatican knows that it could be harmful to the sensitivities of the faithful to force something like this. Besides that, the two forms of the Roman liturgy have calendars that are vastly different from each other and the readings just aren’t interchangeable; at least, not in a way that would make sense.

    Rather than worry, we should let the Vatican clarify things. They are aware of the SSPX and they also know that if the integrity of the TLM were not respected or protected that more disaffected Catholics would turn to the SSPX. Remember, part of the reason for the MP’s release was to heal interiorly. Already, things are being issued by the Vatican that are supposed to clarify points of confusion. This will be a long process. It will take a while to get things settled. In the meantime, some Catholics, especially in the USA, may have to tolerate hybrid Masses.

  41. Robert says:

    Perhaps this explanatory note will help settle things about mixing the two forms. It is clear from this that the extraordinary form will be celebrated using books published Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. Or maybe I am reading things into it that are not truly there. Here is the link:

  42. Pail says:

    Exctract from that notorious pittsburgh statement:

    In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, pastors are exhorted to willingly allow public Masses for the people using the Roman Missal of Pope Blessed John XXIII but no more that one per Sunday and feast days. The celebration of baptism, penance, anointing of the sick, weddings and funerals in the older rite is permitted in these parishes. ********In our diocese, the only parish that qualifies under this norm is Holy Wisdom Parish (Saint Boniface Church) located on the Northside of Pittsburgh*****

    I think its for the pastors to decide that, not you mate!

  43. Fr K says:

    Why don’t we all just cool it, wait and see and take instruction from the competent authority established by the Holy Father, namely the Ecclesia Dei Commission? The MP does not come into effect until September 14, so we have the rest of the summer in the northern hemisphere [not much happens in the Curia during that time] and rest of the winter in the southern hemisphere, a nice time for hibernation. Until we start getting official, authentic instructions just do what we have been doing, if we go to the Paul VI Mass, do that, if we go to the 1962 Mass, just keep doing it the way it is supposed to be done. Easy.

  44. Legisperitus says:

    I agree with Fr K.

    [Incidentally, I thought Sean’s antecedent for “that” was “change” (in reference to the post from dad29).]

  45. Michael says:

    Dear Fr Z,
    No sour grapes, I assure you. But now that the effects of the Veuve are wearing off, and at the risk of boring you and others, I must say once more that the MP is seriously deficient in at least one respect: it mysteriously fails to address the question of calendar.

    This matter is far from being an esoteric problem for the liturgical specialist. It is fundamental and intensely practical for every day. It must be clarified by the appropriate authorities without equivocation or delay if the MP is to be implemented successfully at parish level, which is what we all want to see.

    Question: is the celebration of the “Extraordinary rite” of Holy Mass (and for that matter the recitation of the old Breviarium Romanum according to the Codex rubricarum of 1960 – for those who wish to satisfy their obligation in this way) to take place within the framework of the current General Roman Calendar or that of the Calendarium Universae Ecclesiae which applied to the 1962 Roman Missal and the reformed Breviary promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII?

    I am sure you understand perfectly all the nuances, including the “political” ones, (in the form of caveats likely to be utilised by those Ordinaries who want to jam the brakes on before the vehicle has even left the driveway).

    How do we go about getting an answer? Could you perhaps address it in the main body of your blog so that we might all learn something useful and important from the ensuing discussion?

    Thanks, and God Bless.

  46. danphunter1 says:

    No drama at all.Just the cold hard facts.What is to keep Father Cork-Maul from mixing and matching the two different rites?
    I have seen priests mix the Novus Ordo with their own Broadway stylings.
    I hope the Holy Father forbids any mixing of two rites that cannot be intermixed.
    God Bless Sister Chittister and God bless you.

  47. greg says:

    We can debate this “rite mixing” issue until the cows come home, but unless some here can predict the future, we’re all just speculating at this point.

    One thing I do know: the last 40 years have proven that many liberal priests and bishops (not to mention today’s powerful lay ministers) have no use for Tradition, and will do everything in their power to subvert, distort, reinterpret, etc. official Church documents to suit their own philosophy. For that reason, all of us who care about Orthodox Church doctrine, litury, sacraments, etc. have a valid reason to be concerned. That’s not paranoia, but rather good old Kentucky horse sense!

  48. Paul, South Midlands says:

    At risk of upsetting traditionalists. This is my view on the mixing of readings:

    1) Excellent idea in theory, readings in the new rite, are in my opinion the one unqualified way it is better than the old.

    2) Because of the calendars clashing care must in practice be taken

    3) It would be a good idea for ecclesia dei to revise the calender of the old. As the new missal is also in the process of being revised calendar changes need not be wholly to the old, and both rites can have their calendars aligned.

    4) I suspect the old rite with a synchronised calendar which enables new rite readings and gospel and proper prayers of the day in the vernacular would be a much more attractive proposition to the average novus ordo churchgoer.

    5) In time this would allow for the rites to eventually merge on the following basis:

    a) General prayers/structure and quotations from scripture of old rite throughout the mass
    b) New rite Readings/proper prayers on 3 year cycle – vernacular available for these where rest of mass in Latin
    c) Old/new rite offertory available as an options
    d) Incorporation of the other 3 eucharistic prayers with acclamation abolished.
    e) 1970s innovations (shaking hands communion in hand stand for communion, extraordinary ministers) abolished

  49. Paul, South Midlands says:

    …plus of course ad orientem!

  50. CDB says:

    Wherever there is the slightest possibility of freedom in applying rubrics there is the possibility of abuse. There is no getting around the need for holy priests who love the Church and I think Pope Benedict knows this.

  51. Andy S. says:

    Everyone keeps harping about mixing rites. But, as the Holy Father clearly said, we are not dealing with two distinct rites. Shouldn’t we be framing our discussion in terms of mixing usages?

  52. Kathy says:

    Does anyone besides me wonder whether the Holy Father is projecting, say, 20 years into the future and seeing the possibility of a revised rite that will take the best of both usages?

    Not to stir the pot or anything…

  53. Sean says:

    Kathy: Does anyone besides me wonder whether the Holy Father is projecting, say, 20 years into the future and seeing the possibility of a revised rite that will take the best of both usages?

    I think that is the way it will resolve, a proper implementation of Vatican 2 as with the recent clarification that we seek organisational union only with the Orthodox and Oriental churches and that everyone else walks in as an individual.

  54. Gavin says:

    I’d figure this would be common sense, but maybe not:

    Changes to the uses will come when the competent authorities make them.

    That means no Last Gospel at the ordinary use. It also means no vernacular prayers at the extraordinary use. You can still chant all you like at the ordinary use, just make sure you’re using the 3 year lectionary and not the ’62 one. And don’t think of singing “Table of Plenty” at Communion for the extraordinary use. These things may change, but wait for someone in Rome to announce it before you start butchering either use according to how you think things OUGHT to be.

    Also, someone mentioned bishops suppressing the extraordinary use by means of a ridiculously hard qualification exam for it. I had this fear as well, until it dawned on me that the bishops that would do such an act probably don’t KNOW as much about the extraordinary form as the priests who would celebrate it. Good luck to the bishops trying to stump those priests, they’ll need it!

  55. RBrown says:


    Isn’t it the usual strategy of liberals to say the problem is with someone else? For example, those who consider homosexuality wrong are now commonly referred to as “homophobes”–as if there is something wrong with them rather than the homosexual.

    This was also often the MO in seminaries in the 70’s. Anyone in favor of Catholic doctrine or, God forbid, with an affection for Latin liturgy was labeled (often by the formation team) neurotic and “encouraged” to leave.

  56. Andrew Lang says:

    RE: Mary Ann McGrath’s question

    Fr. Z; Please excuse me; I am aware this question was directed to you but, Miss McGrath is a personal friend (if she is the TAC class of ’05 grad, if not, um, sorry!), and you are a busier man than I am…I hope I am not “feeding the trolls.”

    Hi Mary Ann!

    You first ask “Does that mean with in the Latin Rite we have the Anglican Use, the Extraordinaria Use, the Ordinaria Use, Mozambique, and Ambrosian Use?”

    The short answer is ‘yes.’ You are also right in recognizing that there is there is a prior question, and I will first address that before I give the more complete answer to your first question.

    Rites historically have come about when, in the early church, different regions of the Catholics had prayers and ceremonies which came about to suit the customs of the people, and are yet fundamentally express the same truths (covering Christ, the Trinity, the Eucharist, etc. – not to the exclusion of others). Rome has never had difficulty with such various expressions of one Truth.

    Now within the oldest and most venerable rite, vis. The Roman Rite, for various reasons in various times in history, it has been sanctioned by the Church that certain minor customs that are regional or arise from a particular group (such as a religious order) be added and used by that group within the rite. Because the order of the whole and most particular arrangements, and all the important parts, were identical with the original Roman Rite, these modified versions of the Roman rite were called different ‘uses,’ and were still therefore recognized as remaining Roman in ritual. It is worth noting that the difference of such usages is manifested the fact that each usage has it’s own missal; check out art.1 of Summorum for an example: The extraordinary use employs St. Pius V’s missal, and the ordinary Paul VI’s. I suggest that you search the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent.com for further reading (it is also where I got much of my info using the keyword ‘rituals’).

    So to answer your first question, some of the examples you gave are different uses of the same Roman Rite. I will incompletely give an explaination the ones you mentioned, but my understanding of the cases mentioned is sketchy, so I could be wrong. The Extraordinary Use of St. Pius X and the Ordinary Use are obvious in explanation. Next, I believe the Dominican use was conformed to the Roman rite by Pope Pius V in his liturgical reforms of 1570. The Anglican use arose in early 1980s as the Church’s response to certain Anglicans seeking to come into communion with the Church. Received Anglican clergy could be ordained, and former Anglicans could, with the permission of their Bishop, continue to worship using rites based on the Anglican liturgy, adapted to conform fundamentally to the Roman Rite. I think the Ambrosian ‘use’ you mentioned is actually a different rite properly speaking (wiki it for more info). I have not hear of a ‘Mozambique usage’ but I could just be ignorant in this case.

    I hope this begins to answer your question Mary Ann. I’m sorry this was so long Fr. Z! God bless you both.

  57. Carl H. Horst says:

    That is an interesting observation by Msgr. Fr. Z your clarification would be helpful.

    As I recall, in the past the provisions of Quattour Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, when read together, were understood to expressly forbid the intermixing of the two forms. How is Summorum Pontificum to be understood?

    Does it entirely replace the provisions of the two previous letters? Or should SP be read in conjunction with the two earlier letters?

    If the latter is true, it would appear Msgr. Perl’s comment is substantially incorrect.

    As I further recall, it was Msgr Perl who spearheaded an effort to require use of the 1965 Missal in place of the 1962 Missal which efforts failed when Michael Davies quite vigorously objected.

    Fr. Z your thoughts in the light of these comments would be helpful.

    Carl H. Horst
    San Diego Tridentine Latin Mass Society

  58. CPKS says:

    I don’t think there’s such a thing as the “Mozambique use”. It’s more likely the Mozarabic use, also known as the Toledo use.

Comments are closed.