ASK FATHER: 1965 Missal at Fontgombault

fontgombaultFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I read this over at Tradinews [in French… my trans]:

When the Abbey of Fontgombault and the communities that were founded from it took up again the celebration of the traditional liturgy, they obtained permission from the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to celebrate the conventual Mass according to a rite very close to the 1965 Missal (private Masses still being celebrated according to the 1962 Missal).

I have just learned of a letter sent by the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” on 26 March 1997 (No. 40/97) to an Australian bishop in which the Commission indicates that the indult granted to Fontgombault Abbey can also apply to the celebration of any Pontifical, Solemn or Sung Mass.

I’ll remind you that there are 8 modifications to the 1962 Missal that were granted to Fontgombault Abbey:

[…]

Since I have no natural talent for canon law, I always like to consult an expert before doing stupid things. [A sound practice.] The possibilities mentioned in the article for the most part don’t appeal to me anyway, apart from maybe inserting some short form of universal prayer in certain sung pilgrimage Masses at the shrine I’m caring for. Only, I wondered, since this indult dates back to 1995, does it still apply after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum? I know some of these rubrics are being used in the liturgy of Le Barroux abbey, would that maybe have to do anything with this?

I, too, consulted a canonist about this.

Since these were privileges granted to Fontgombault, they would only apply at Fontgombault.  These privileges retain their force even after Summorum Pontificum, unless there was a private revocation, or subsequent action on the part of the Abbey or the Holy See to alter them.

My canonist concluded:

In short, what was granted to Fontgombault, stays at Fontgombault.

Bottom line: If you are not at Fontgombault, you can’t use the 1965 Missal.

BTW… Fontgombault is truly beautiful.  If you ever get the opportunity to visit, I warmly urge you to do so.

Please share!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to ASK FATHER: 1965 Missal at Fontgombault

  1. robert hightower says:

    I’m somewhat familiar with the modifications made to the 1962 missal which is commonly referred to as a “1965 missal”, such as omitting the last gospel, but could someone enumerate the 8 changes mentioned and why an otherwise traditionally minded Abbey would see these changes as preferable to the 1962 missal in it’s fullness?

  2. Gripen says:

    I believe Clear Creek Abbey uses the 1965 Missal as well (it’s a Fontgombault community). Why did the 1965 omission omit the Last Gospel?

  3. Gripen says:

    *1965 REVISION, not omission.

  4. John UK says:

    Robert,
    Possibly preferred because it could be argued that the 1965 Missal (which went further than the modifications allowed to Fontgombault) was a natural, organic development as envisaged by the Council Fathers of Vatican II, rather than the newly-composed work of 1970. Note that the modifications allowed to Fontgombault by indult in 1995 and subsequently extended by the PCED letter of March 1997 to more general use were minor modifications to the 1962 Missal and not an authorisation of the 1965 Missal.
    http://www.the-latinmass.com/pced-1997-letter.pdf
    and
    http://saintbedestudio.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/more-decisions-of-ecclesia-dei.html

    For discussion of the status of these permissions following Summorum Pontificum
    see
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-recent-clarification-from-pontifical.html

  5. robtbrown says:

    could someone enumerate the 8 changes mentioned and why an otherwise traditionally minded Abbey would see these changes as preferable to the 1962 missal in it’s fullness?

    The changes were not concessions to the Novus Ordo. They were intended to adjust the liturgy to a Benedictine conventual mass

    1 – Quand la messe conventuelle suit le chant de l’Office Divin (tierce), le choeur entonne le chant de l’introit et les prières au bas de l’autel sont omises.

    2 – La liturgie de la Parole se célèbre au siège du célébrant.

    3 – Les lectures sont faites en direction des fidèles, soit en latin soit en langue vernaculaire ; le célébrant ne répète ni les lectures ni les chants du choeur ou des fidèles.

    4 – Après l’Oremus précédant l’offertoire, la Prière Universelle peut être ajoutée.

    5 – La secrète est chantée.

    6 – La doxologie “Per ipsum” est chantée par le célébrant.

    7 – Le Pater est chanté par les fidèles et le célébrant.

    8 – La bénédiction finale est chantée et le dernier évangile est omis.

    On peut avancer que ces modestes réformes constituent ce que la plupart des Pères conciliaires envisageaie

  6. Fr. Hugo says:

    Thank you, father Z, for your kind attention and efforts. What still puzzles me is what exactly the interest of the Australian bishop in this matter was if the indult only applied to Fontgombault abbey anyway. It isn’t exactly situated in New South Wales, now, is it? I still wonder if “…n’importe quelle…” wasn’t used here to convey exactly that, in the most litteral sense of the word(s), as in “any, it doesn’t matter where or when.” However, better be too careful than catch the “tinkeritis” (thank you for that word, by the way. It’s proven very useful over here already. We translated it in Dutch as “knutselitis,” and are quite fond of it (the word, not the disease.))

  7. Papabile says:

    Agathat Christi insult in Britain was for 65 with Tres abhinc annos 67 revisions, not for 62 rite. As it exists as indulge outside of Ecclesia Dei, should not have been revoked by Summorum and Universal Ecclesia, and still allowed in Britain by indult.

    [Interesting! I’ll indulge in the Christi insult.]

  8. Papabile says:

    I hate autocorrect. I am sorry about previous note….. INDULT, obviously NOT “insult”. Same with “indulge”.

  9. Dominicans have a similar situation. According to the provisions of the Rescript of 1969, when the Order adopted the new rite, friars could use of the Missal with the rubrics in force in 1969 with permission from the Master (for all friars) or from the Prior Provincial (for those subject to him). Since Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, of course, no permission is needed to use the Dominican Rite with the rubrics of 1962.

    However, since the Rescript was never revoked, a friar could request permission of his provincial to use the Rite was it was in 1969. We do have a 1962 Breviary, but no 1962 Missal. So a friar would use the 1933 or 1965 Missal and adjust the calendar and rubrics for those in force in 1962. I find it much easier to adjust the 1965 than the 1933.

  10. bombermac says:

    “The changes were not concessions to the Novus Ordo. They were intended to adjust the liturgy to a Benedictine conventual mass”

    robtbrown,

    I think it might be a little bit of both. I made a retreat to Clear Creek Abbey in June. Some of the other guests and I were chatting with “Fr. Guestmaster” after a meal (I believe), when one of the guests asked about the calendar the monks follow. We’d attended a beautiful Mass for Corpus Christi, but in the abbot’s sermon he’d referred to it as the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ. So this guest (who attends an FSSP-run parish in Florida) wondered if the monks followed the new calendar. The answer we got was that the new calendar was followed with exceptions like Sundays after Pentecost being used instead of Ordinary Time. The guest then asked if this included the transferring of the Feast of Christ the King to the date used by the Novus Ordo calendar (which changes its theological emphasis), and we were told yes.

    Slight paraphrasing ahead. Fr. Guestmaster, who by his own account had left the world 30-some years ago (which suggests to me that he must have been with the original crew that came over from Fontgombault to establish Clear Creek) said that the idea from the very beginning was to take the best of the new rite and of the old and integrate the two. He also mentioned that the monks (or at least he, can’t quite remember) were excited to see what Carinal Sarah would do with the reform of the reform.

    I loved my time at Clear Creek, and I’ll certainly be going back (living in Oklahoma myself, it’s not a difficult journey to make). However, while they’re certainly a traditional leaning group doing God’s work, I don’t share all their goals.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    The Ecclesia Dei document 40/97 referred to, of 26th March 1997 —

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A5W-t7caxb0/RihLERYTDqI/AAAAAAAAABU/wHkU6R56rQ0/s1600-h/EDS%232a.jpg

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_A5W-t7caxb0/RihK9xYTDpI/AAAAAAAAABM/m-5YC9fZ6zI/s1600-h/EDS%233.jpg

    … does not mention the 1965 Missal directly, though several characteristics of that Missal (notably the “active participation” of the Laity ones, which that Missal codified more sensibly than later seen in far, FAR too many Norvus Ordo Masses) are described as being applicable to Masses using the 1962 one.

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    Fr. Hugo :

    What still puzzles me is what exactly the interest of the Australian bishop in this matter was if the indult only applied to Fontgombault abbey anyway. It isn’t exactly situated in New South Wales, now, is it? I still wonder if “…n’importe quelle…” wasn’t used here to convey exactly that, in the most litteral sense of the word(s), as in “any, it doesn’t matter where or when.”

    Here is the official text of those provisions in Latin —

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_A5W-t7caxb0/RihK4xYTDoI/AAAAAAAAABE/_l-dsinQfaE/s1600-h/EDS%234.jpg

    According to this (which provides explanations and some English translation) – http://saintbedestudio.blogspot.in/2007/04/more-decisions-of-ecclesia-dei.html – “In addition to these Decisions, the Commission attached to the letter its permissions regarding the form of the Conventual Mass which may be celebrated by the Traditionalist Benedictines of France. By this was intended that the form of celebration described may be celebrated elsewhere.

  13. “The changes were not concessions to the Novus Ordo. They were intended to adjust the liturgy to a Benedictine conventual mass.”

    For English, press “1.”

    1 – When the Conventual Mass follows the singing of the Divine Office, the choir intones the chant of the introit and the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted.

    2 – The liturgy of the Word is celebrated at the celebrant’s seat.

    3 – The readings are made in the direction of the faithful, either in Latin or in the vernacular; The celebrant does not repeat the readings or the chants of the choir or the faithful.

    4 – After the Oremus preceding the Offertory, the Universal Prayer can be added.

    5 – The Secret is chanted.

    6 – The doxology “Per ipsum” is chanted by the celebrant.

    7 – The Pater [Noster] is chanted by the faithful and the celebrant.

    8 – The final blessing is sung and the last gospel is omitted.

    It may be argued that these modest reforms constitute what most of the Council Fathers envisage.

    (Personally, I could live with most of this at a regular TLM. I would be inclined to have the option of Epistle and Gospel chanted in the vernacular only. I fail to see any harm to the integrity of the rite. Those who claim that the readings are not intended to be didactic tend to ignore that such was part of their purpose to begin with. Since when is reading a teaching not didactic?)

  14. Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit