UPDATE: Archd. of Manila’s “guidelines” on Summorum Pontificum

From a reader:

Just to let you know that the Archdiocese of Manila has apparently pulled out the "guidelines" from H.E. Card. Rosales on Summorum Pontificum.

The link is gone from the main page, and from the page of the Cardinal’s homilies (where it was before), and from the Ministry of Liturgy’s info…

If one runs a search of the site (say "summorum"), one can only find the original 2007 clarifying notes, effective on September of 2007…
The link to these is here.

However, you can still google the guidelines, and it will bring the original document up… so it seems the page administrators removed all links, but the actual page of the document is still active at this link.

In other words, they haven’t been retracted.  They have been buried.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. John Enright says:

    I read the “guideline” and I was shocked because they were so stringent and restrictive. They certainly do no comply with Holy Father’s intentions as referenced by H.E. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos in this article : “http://www.zenit.org/article-20492?l=english” (Sorry, can’t seem to hotlink the article. Just cut and paste into the address bar on your browser.)

  2. Daniel Latinus says:

    Well, one can hope that if the guidelines are buried, no one will try to enforce them.

  3. Tzard says:

    It’s hard to know what the existence of a web page really means. Certainly taking it off a website indicates something, but it remaining could be that the website staff is not diligent in keeping the site up-to-date.

    For instance, on the same web site,it has a “top news” section with undated news not updated since 2005.

    Since it was written by His Eminence, I would assume it still holds that force until retracted, I would assume. But in reality, unless it remains published, how can it be enforced?

  4. Choirmaster says:

    I read the original clarifications; the author(s) betray their meager understanding of the whole issue.

    “It is also a reaction to what is perceived as “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass after Vatican II.”

    Perceived abuses? I would say demonstrable, documentable abuses.

    “In parishes, where a stable group of the faithful adheres to the 1962 Missal, the parish priest should willingly accept their request.”

    Any stable group of faithful adhering to the 1962 missal has been actively shunned by the mainstream parish.

    “The hermeneutics of continuity means that the 1970 Missal is a Vatican II revision of the Tridentine, while the hermeneutics of legitimate progress could justify the inclusion of inculturated liturgies as other extraordinary forms of the same Roman Rite.”

    I have never heard of such a thing. I would suggest that the hermeneutic of continuity means that the Missal of Paul VI should be interpreted and implemented as a derivative of the Missal of Bl. John XXIII.

    “While the liturgical reform of the Vatican II aims principally to promote active participation, the Tridentine Missal encourages prayerful meditation during the Eucharistic celebration.”

    This is misleading; I just hope that it was not so on purpose.

  5. Corleone says:

    Suggestion: go to the link and leave a message to the Bishop’s office, respectfully reminding him of Article 5 of Summorum Pontificum, and that it is NOT the sole privelege of the Bishop to determine the use of the EF mass anymore.

    Show him the world is watching.

  6. I removed a few needlessly inflammatory comments.

  7. Kim Poletto says:

    Interesting issue, i.e being buried.

    Recently I going through the Archdiocese of Denver’s Pastoral Handbook and found the following:
    “5.1.9 Forms of the Latin Rite
    According to the documents Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984, Ecclesia Dei of 1998 and Summorum pontificum of 2007 the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 editio typical of the Roman Missal of Bl. John XXIII. . . can be offered on a regular basis under certain conditions. The Archbishop has allowed the Extadordinary
    For[m] to be celebrated in designated parishes. Only where an established stable community of the faithful exists, i.e. a community, who is strongly attached to this form AND has SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANGUAGE AND RUBRICS (my emphasis), the Mass can have the Extraordinary Form celebrated outside of those designated parishes. This is granted in accord with the wishes of the Holy Father to allow those who have a strong affinity to the Extraordinary Form and accept the Ordinary Form of the Mass: that is the Novus Ordo. – Only a priest who is properly formed in Latin and the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is allowed to celebrate it privately without prior approval and even with some of the faithful, if they ask of their own accord to assist.
    Notification is to be given to the Office of the Liturgy prior to the celebration of any other forms of the Latin Rite.”

    So I guess that if I am not part of a “designated parish” and belong to a “stable” group that would like the EF celebrated, I would first have to learn not only the EF rubrics, but also Latin.

    I also wonder why Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei are cited.

    Maybe not quite as friendly to the EF as a lot of people think.

  8. Franzjosf says:

    If you go over to Rorate Caeli, you’ll see that Una Voce has responded to Cardinal Castrillon, but even they get it wrong about the Triduum.

  9. paul says:

    This in my opinion is not enough. The archdiocese needs to formally state that summorum pontificum will be enforced according to the guidelines of Rome. Any priest who knows how to say the EF can and should say it if he wants to. End of story.

Comments are closed.