Pope broadens access to 1962 Mass (news/analysis)

by Phil Lawler

Vatican, Jul. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - With a motu proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum, made public on July 7, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has provided for a much broader use of the Roman Missal of 1962, explaining that he hopes to encourage "interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

The long-awaited motu proprio, which had been the subject of intensive speculation within the Church for more than a year, gives every priest the right to celebrate the Mass using the 1962 Missal, and instructs pastors to "willingly accept" requests from the faithful for access to the older liturgical form.

The motu proprio sets forth new norms for the Roman liturgy, superseding the norms previously established by Pope John Paul II (bio - news) in his own motu proprio of 1988, Ecclesia Dei. The new canonical norms established by Pope Benedict will take effect on September 14.

Pope Benedict emphasizes that there are not two different rites, but two different forms of the Roman rite: the ordinary form, according to the current Roman Missal, and the extraordinary form, which uses the Missal that was in universal use prior to the liturgical changes that followed the Second Vatican Council.

The full text of Summorum Pontificum can be found in the original Latin on the Vatican web site. An unofficial English translation is also available.

Pope Benedict issued this motu proprio-- the 5th such document of his pontificate-- along with a letter to the world's bishops explaining the move. The text of the Pope's letter is also available on the Vatican web site.

In his explanatory letter the Holy Father acknowledges that some bishops expressed strong opposition to the release of the motu proprio. Their opposition, he writes in his explanatory letter, was based on fears that the wider use of the pre-conciliar liturgy could appear to undermine the authority of Vatican II, and/or cause divisions with the Catholic Church. These fears will prove unfounded, Pope Benedict says, if the faithful recognize the two forms of the Roman rite as equally valid forms of the same universal liturgy.

The Pope also acknowledges that some Catholics find a greater sense of reverence in the older liturgy-- in what will now be known as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. He voices the hope that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching," suggesting that the simultaneous existence of the two different forms will encourage an organic development of new liturgical practices, stimulating "the reform of the reform."

Why it was needed

From the first days of his pontificate, Benedict XVI has emphasized the continuity of the Catholic tradition, insisting that the teachings of Vatican II must be interpreted in light of the constant teachings of the Church in the preceding centuries. With Summorum Pontificum he applies that same rule to the Roman liturgy-- and provides new norms of canon law to carry out that rule.

Even before he became Pope Benedict XVI, in his many written works on the liturgy, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger remarked that the Novus Ordo liturgy was not the organic reform that had been recommended by Vatican II, but a break in continuity-- a new form that had been imposed upon the faithful, while the old order of the Mass was abruptly discarded. In the opening passage of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict indirectly refers to that complaint when he says that the universal Church must uphold "the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition."

These traditions, the Pope continues, "are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).” Because the old Latin liturgy nourished the faithful for centuries, he reasons, it is incumbent upon the Church today to ensure that "this liturgical edifice, so to speak, might once again appear splendid in its dignity and harmony.”

While recognizing the glory of the older liturgical forms, Pope Benedict also frankly alludes to the chaos that has followed the liturgical changes of Vatican II. In his letter to the world's bishops the Pontiff reminds them that he has lived through the era of change-- indeed he was one of the champions of liturgical reform as envisioned by the Council-- and seen the uneven and sometimes appalling results. He remarks, "I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

With his motu proprio the Holy Father hopes to restore reverence through a wider use of the "extraordinary form" of the liturgy-- the Mass of the 1962 Missal. At the same time, it is clear, he hopes that the wider use of the old form, with its scrupulous attention to rubrics, will encourage a more faithful and reverent approach to the ordinary form in the Novus Ordo Muss.

What is new?

Summorum Pontificum states flatly that the old form of the Mass, the 1962 Missal, was never abrogated. Implicitly the Pope is recognizing that many faithful Catholics have suffered a grave injustice, since they were told that the old form of the liturgy was now forbidden.

At present-- until the new norms established in the motu proprio take effect on September 14-- Catholics who seek access to the old Mass must petition their diocesan bishop, who may grant permission of the use of the 1962 Missal, under the terms of Pope John Paul's Ecclesia Dei-- or he may choose not to allow it.

With his new norms Pope Benedict recognizes that many bishops have not allowed the "wide and generous" access to the old form that his predecessor had encouraged. Citing St. Paul's words to the Corinthians (2 Cor 6), the Pope now exhorts all bishops: "Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

But Pope Benedict goes beyond exhortation, and establishes the rights of the faithful in terms of canon law. Every priest has the right to use the "extraordinary form," and needs no further permission. Wherever a "stable group" of parishioners asks for the old Mass, their pastor should "willingly accept" their request, the Pope adds.

In short, whereas Ecclesia Dei treated the celebration of old Mass as an unusual concession that the diocesan bishop could grant, Summorum Pontificum establishes the "extraordinary form" as a normal usage of the Roman rite. For the past two decades the presumption has been that the 1962 Missal could not be used, and the bishop has had the authority to make exceptions to that norm. Now the presumption is that the 1962 Missal can be used, and bishops have the burden of explaining why it should not be available-- as, for instance, when no priest is adequately qualified to celebrate the old Mass.

If the faithful do not have access to the "extraordinary form," because of particular circumstances in their parishes, Pope Benedict says that they should approach the bishop. And if their bishop does not satisfy their request, he invites them to bring their problem to the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission-- where, one assumes, they will find a sympathetic hearing.

Pope Benedict does insist that priests who use the extraordinary form of the Mass should recognize the validity of the new liturgy. He writes that "priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." However, he allows for the celebration of the other sacraments-- confirmation, ordination, weddings and funerals-- according to the old rubrics.

The Pope stipulates that the "extraordinary form" of the Mass should be celebrated using the Roman Missal of 1962-- that is, in accordance with the old liturgical calendar. He does suggest that the readings from Scripture could be done in the vernacular. Otherwise he makes no change in the old liturgy.

The Pope allows for the possibility that some "personal parishes" will be created in which the old liturgy is the regular usage. He allows religious institutes to choose the old liturgy for their own communities. In ordinary parishes he envisions the use of the "extraordinary form" for one Sunday Mass. He stipulates that the 1962 Missal should not be used for the Easter Triduum in parishes, since during the Triduum the entire parish is drawn together for the celebration in the ordinary form.

What the motu proprio is not

Because much coverage of the motu proprio has been misleading-- especially in the secular media-- it is important to be clear about several things that Summorum Pontificum does not do, and several effects that the Holy Father obviously does not intend:

1. The motu proprio does not restore the use of Latin to the liturgy. Priests have always had the right to use Latin in celebrating the Novus Ordo liturgy-- the "ordinary" form of the Roman rite. Indeed the use of Latin has always been strongly encouraged by the Vatican, even if few pastors have responded.
2. The motu proprio does not require priests to use the older liturgy. Pope Benedict is not imposing any new liturgical forms; he is allowing the faithful to make use of an old form-- which, as he carefully points out, was never banned. Those lay Catholics who prefer the post-conciliar liturgy have no cause for concern; the new liturgy will remain the commonplace experience in most parishes.
3. The Pope is not aiming this document solely at reconciliation of the alienated traditionalists in groups such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)-- although he recognizes that the revival of the old liturgy will be viewed by traditionalists as a positive sign. Summorum Pontificum is intended for the entire Catholic Church, not for a small, disaffected minority. The restoration of the Latin Mass has been only one of several demands consistently made by SSPX leaders, and the motu proprio will not bridge the gap that separates them from the Holy See. Pope Benedict recognizes this fact in the letter that accompanies the document. He writes: "We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level." And in the first formal response to the motu proprio from the SSPX leadership, Bishop Bernard Fellay, while welcoming the document, confirmed that it was not enough to bring about reconciliation. Bishop Fellay told his followers that the Pope's explanatory letter "does not conceal that difficulties still remain." The SSPX leader voiced his hope that the new policies "would allow for a calmer approach to the doctrinal questions that are at issue-- after the removal of the decree of excommunications that still affects the SSPX bishops."
4. The motu proprio does not prescribe policies for a 3-year trial period. Although the Pope encourages bishops to report on their experiences with the new norms after 3 years, he gives no indication that the policies will be subject to change after that interval.
5. The document does not restore the use of language that Jewish leaders have found offensive. Stories that spread quickly through the secular press, based on confused reporting, predicted that Jewish people would be shocked by the liturgical changes. Those stories were wholly inaccurate; the language in question was never a factor in the Pope's decision.

Future tests

Pope Benedict is not the first Pontiff to authorize wider use of the 1962 Missal. Pope John Paul II called for a "wide and generous" application of the indult he provided in Ecclesia Dei in 1988. But that "wide and generous" application was not forthcoming from the world's bishops. In all too many cases the bishops discourage the use of the old liturgy, and offer permission only under very limited circumstances-- in some cases clearly hoping to make it inconvenient for the faithful to attend the Latin Mass.

During the last year many bishops-- especially in France, Germany, the US, and Great Britain-- actively opposed the Pope's plan to release Summorum Pontificum. Will their resistance now manifest itself within their own dioceses, despite the Pope's extra efforts to answer their concerns?

The motu proprio gives diocesan bishops far less discretion in enforcing the liturgical norms, since the Pope emphasizes that priests have the right to celebrate the older form of the Mass without any special permission. The practical test of the motu proprio, then, may be whether bishops put pressure on their priests to discourage the extraordinary form.

Informed sources believe that the Pope plans to augment the authority of the Ecclesia Dei commission, enabling that Vatican bureau to answer complaints about resistance to the motu proprio as well as to help with its implementation. No doubt the powers of that pontifical commission will be tested soon after the September 14 date when the new norms go into effect.

In America, the liturgy committee of the US bishops' conference has already released a special newsletter dedicated to Summorum Pontificum, including both the papal documents themselves and a series of questions and answers about the new norms and the extraordinary form of the liturgy. Particularly in light of the hostility that the US bishops' committee has sometimes exhibited toward liturgical norms from Rome, the newsletter offers a remarkably even-handed and sympathetic perspective on the motu proprio.

In particular it is gratifying to read that the US bishops' liturgy committee recognizes the many Catholics have been troubled by the Novus Ordo liturgy because of "the false sense of creativity unfortunately practiced by some in the celebration of the post-conciliar liturgical rites." Citing the words of Pope Benedict, the newsletter notes that this "creative" approach has led to "deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear." Insofar as the US bishops are now officially recognizing that experimentation has deformed the liturgy, Summorum Pontificum is already yielding rich fruit.

To be fair one must acknowledge that although many bishops have shown themselves unfriendly toward tradition-minded Catholics-- despite the pleas of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei-- some traditionalists have been every bit as unfriendly in their attitude toward their bishops. Some traditionalists pounce on any opportunity to criticize the new liturgy, and a few-- a minority, certainly, but a very outspoken and divisive minority-- question whether the Novus Ordo liturgy is valid. The response to Summorum Pontificum in traditionalist circles will be another key test. If the motu proprio is warmly welcomed, that positive response might encourage bishops toward a generous implementation; if traditionalists fall into a pattern of carping criticism, bishops will feel that their hostility is justified.

In his explanatory letter, Pope Benedict is writing to bishops, not to lay traditionalists. So he can only urge the bishops to make an extra effort to accommodate reasonable requests. "It is true," he concedes, that there have been and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these."

The "reform of the reform"

Perhaps the most intriguing line in the Pope's explanatory letter accompanying the motu proprio comes immediately after he notes that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching." The Pope says that new Prefaces, and celebrations for some new saints, should be added to the 1962 Missal. Then he adds: "The Ecclesia Dei ommission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

That passage confirms that Pope Benedict sees Summorum Pontificum as one necessary step in a long-term reform of the liturgy. He apparently hopes that some elements of the new Novus Ordo liturgy will be integrated into the old Mass, while as some aspects of the extraordinary form will enrich the ordinary. In the long term, one suspects, the Pope sees a convergence of the two forms, bringing about the true organic reform of the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned.

"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture," the Pope writes. "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

Juventutem Rection to Summorum Pontificum

[Taken from Federatio Internationalis Juventutem]

The Juventutem International Federation expresses all its gratitude to the Common Father Pope Benedict XVI for the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. In the cover letter to the bishops we read with emotion the following quote where the impact of the Gregorian Mass on "young persons" is described as the element having played a decisive part in improving the answer to the need for a clearer juridical regulation on the traditional Roman liturgy. Juventutem gives thanks to God for having been able to bear witness to the permanent value and power of sanctification of the Gregorian liturgy among today's youths:

"Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio."

We haven't forgotten that already in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI prayed for Juventutem:

"From protocol N. 11.234, from the Secretary of State dated July 22, 2005, addressed to Juventutem General Delegate:"The Holy Father has been informed that the Juventutem delegation will attend World Youth Day 2005 in Cologne. Please be assured that His Holiness is praying for all the groups who will gather for this significant occasion. With every good wish (...)".

Juventutem feels all the more encouraged to continue helping with the sanctification of youth worldwide through the Roman traditions of the Catholic Church.

Reactions by Cardinal Richard

[Taken from WDTPRS]
An APCOM story has Card. Ricard of Bordeaux saying that Summorum Pontificum produces "neither winners nor losers".

Sound familiar?

Other highlights of the interview with Card. Ricard in the French weekly Famille Chretienne. With my interlinear comments.

1. The Pope knew that some people would worry about this.
And he did it anyway. Let us remember that in ancient times, the doctor didn’t stop cutting just because the patient was screaming and begging him to stop. This is for our own good.

2. Not all priests are adequately prepared for this. They lack formation.
Priests are smart. We can learn. I will teach any priest how to say the older Mass and help him with Latin. This is not astrophysics.

3. Books are lacking.
Print new ones? We have the resources of entire conferences of bishops to back this initiative if the spirit of this MP is embraced.

4. Priests will have to prepare two homilies.
How ‘bout… make ‘em a little shorter?

5. The Cardinal is worried that people in general and priests won’t understand why this was done.
Hmmm… tough one. If only someone in a position of authority could speak to people from, say, a pulpit, publish bulletins and articles, speak with the media, hold conferencs and classes. Hmmm… who could do such a thing.

6. The Pope’s motive was reconciliation.
I hope that means also that the opponents of the MP are now reconciled to the idea that it is reality. Seriously, this is not just a matter of arguing and proposing laws. This is a matter of opening hearts. We must work now to open hearts on all sides. This is everyone’s job.

7. The Cardinal is not worried about the authority of bishops being diminished.
I think we all know that this was the real problem in most cases of opposition.

8. Parish priests will bear the brunt of the new work this creates.
What’s new? I hope and pray that lay people will not put their priests in impossible situations. That they will treat the priests well and keep the kvetching to a minimum.

9. This document will create difficulites for the followers of the SSPX
Nothing new there. But the door is open. People of good will will step to the threshold.

Interview with Bishop Rifan

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
In January 2002, Pope John Paul II established the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, a Particular Church for the clergy and the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite with the same area as that of the Diocese of Campos, in Brazil. For the past five years, as Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos declared in his address to the Bishops of Latin America in Aparecida, Brazil, the Campos experiment has allowed the Holy See to display to the world the possibility of a full peaceful cohabitation of the Catholic faithful attached to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Diocese of Campos) and those attached to the "Forma Extraordinaria" of the Rite, the names used by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, published today.

The Apostolic Administrator of the Campos Apostolic Administration, Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan, granted RORATE CÆLI an exclusive interview which will be published in two installments. Today, a day of celebration, we present the first part, which deals with his general impressions regarding Summorum Pontificum and lessons from Campos, as well as with the SSPX.

RORATE CÆLI: Bishop Fernando Rifan, thank you for accepting our invitation. Summorum Pontificum has finally been published. How long have you waited for it?

Bishop Fernando Rifan: We have been waiting for this document since the creation of our Personal Apostolic Administration Saint John Mary Vianney. That is, we hoped that the immense benefit which had been granted to us could spread throughout the world and that all could profit from this great treasure which is the ancient form of the Roman Rite.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said in Aparecida that the Campos experience was an example of peaceful coexistence for the Catholic world. Could you tell us what the relationship between both communities is like, in some detail?

Cardinal Castrillon said in his pronouncement before the CELAM that "The Holy Father's project has been partly proved in Campos, where the peaceful coexistence of the two forms of the only Roman Rite in the Church is a beautiful reality. We hope that this example will also bear fruit in other places of the Church where Catholic faithful with diverse liturgical sensibilities live together." There is a good communal and cordial relationship between both bishops, the one of the Apostolic Administration and the diocesan Bishop, Dom Roberto Gomes Guimarães. Mutual consultations, frequent visits. For important ceremonies in the Cathedral, Dom Roberto invites me, and I attend. Last year, I gave the inaugural philosophy class at the diocesan seminary. One of the priests of the Administration is a Latin professor in the diocesan seminary. At the last priestly ordination in the diocesan Cathedral, it was the choir of the seminarians of the Apostolic Administration which sang the musical parts of the mass in Gregorian chant, at the request of the diocesan seminarians. There is an exchange of apostolates between the priests of the Administration and the Diocese: our priests are invited to aid in hearing confessions in diocesan parishes at certain events. And there is, in general, a good friendly relationship between both clergies, though safeguarding our liturgical identity and our independence.

It has been rumored that you were consulted in the preparatory phases of the creation of what would become the Institut du Bon Pasteur. Is this true? Were you ever consulted in during the preparatory phases of Summorum Pontificum?

In the creation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, I attempted to give all my support. The priests who had left the Fraternity of Saint Pius X wished to regularize their situation. They asked for our support. I went to France, presented them to Cardinal Ricard, of Bordeaux, who received them very well knowing that relations were shaken before. I introduced them to the Nuncio in Paris, to the Bishop of Chartres, in whose diocese they have their seminary, and I visited the Archbishop of Paris to speak of the matter. I believe that I thus attempted to open the doors for the establishment of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. As for our contribution to the motu proprio, our very existence and our good relations spoke in favor of it.

Are you concerned that the kind of liturgical abuse so prevalent in the celebrations according to the Missal of Paul VI may affect the Traditional Mass? How is it possible to avoid this from happening?

No. Precisely, one of the reasons for which we prefer and adopt the Traditional Mass is because its structure and form of celebration exempts it from such abuses. The best way to avoid them is the preservation of the Traditional Mass in all its purity, sobriety, respect, sacredness, and solemnity. The rubrics of the Traditional Mass are very rigorous and do not allow for creativity and inventiveness.

From your past experience, and considering your knowledge of your fellow Bishops in the Brazilian Episcopal Conference, what do you believe will be the reception of the papal document in Brazil? Will Bishops establish obstacles to those priests and groups of faithful who wish to see the new papal directive implemented? Do you believe there will be an increase in the interest and demand for the Traditional Mass in Brazil? On a practical side, is the Apostolic Administration planning any formal effort to train priests to say the Traditional Mass?

As Cardinal Castrillon said in his talk to the CELAM, due to the influence of our Apostolic Administration, "some Brazilian dioceses have contacted the Campos Apostolic Administration, which has allowed some of their priests to give pastoral care to the traditionalist faithful in their local churches." We have 13 dioceses offering the Traditional Mass in Brazil already. There will be hardships. But it will be much easier [with the motu proprio]. I am aware of Bishops who are waiting only for the Motu Proprio to liberate the Mass in their dioceses. And I believe that many groups will achieve it. We receive visits from many priests wishing to learn how to celebrate the Traditional Mass. We have even made a didactic DVD to teach priests how to celebrate Mass the Traditional way.

How is the construction of your new seminary coming along? Do you have seminarians from other Brazilian dioceses and from foreign countries?

The building of our new Seminary is coming along. We expect to move there next year, even though it will be only half done. We need help. We have some seminarians from other dioceses, but the majority are from here [Campos]. At this time we have 30 seminarians. The new seminary will have room for 80 students.

You have visited and traveled across the United States: do you believe that there is a potential for growth of the Mass in the U.S. or do you believe that there is a low interest for the Mass in America?

The United States is maybe, next to France, the country with the greatest interest in the Traditional Mass. In the United States and Canada there are about 600 places where the Traditional Mass is celebrated. There is a great interest [in the Traditional Mass].

Do you still have friends inside the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX)? If so, what do they tell you about a future reconciliation with the Holy See? Do you believe there is at least a chance for a intermediary stage, something less than a full agreement, particularly after the liberalization of the Traditional Mass?

Yes, some. Some are of the opinion that the reconciliation should be done in groups, each in its own diocese. But, we fear that the hard line will fall away into schism. Maybe the freedom of the Traditional Mass will bring us closer. What is bad is the spirit of criticism, that sees only the negative side of things, and makes everything more difficult. They are not yet conscious of the irregularity of their situation and of the theological necessity of a canonical regularization and the recovery of a perfect communion with the Church.

On a personal note, since you were Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's secretary for a long time, and particularly looking back at the dramatic events of 1988, what would a motu proprio like Summorum Pontificum have meant to Bishop de Castro Mayer?

I sincerely believe that he would very happy. Dom Castro Mayer was always a man of the Church, very faithful to its Magisterium. One must only see the body of his written work to arrive at that conclusion. And, on the day of my Episcopal Ordination, I said, in the presence of Cardinal Castrillon and of all the bishops who were there, that our regularization signified, also, the reestablishment of Dom Castro de Mayer, upon which I was applauded, including by them [the bishops].

Brief Summary of Pre & Post Motu Proprio Scenarios

[Taken from NLM]
With such an important development in the Church, it would seem appropriate to "count our blessings" by quickly summarizing the PRE and POST Motu Proprio scenarios as we can now see them.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum generally thought of as abolished/abrogated -- even though debated by some in small circles.

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum clarified to have never been abrogated.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum an "indult" or special exemption to normative law.

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum a 'normal' liturgical use of the one Roman rite.

PRE-MP: All public or private celebrations of the 1962 Missale Romanum required the approval of the Ordinary. Ditto for other sacraments.

POST-MP: All public or private celebrations of the 1962 Missale Romanum (and associated sacraments) are left to the determination of the priest; the faithful are empowered to approach the priest for it and use the Bishop or Ecclesia Dei commission for appeal if need be to have their request fulfilled; priests and bishops are effectively asked to comply or to bring in any resources necessary to help do so.

PRE-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum "frozen" in its development, "as-is".

POST-MP: The 1962 Missale Romanum "unfrozen" allowing, through the direction of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, organic liturgical development to resume. Possible addition of new prefaces. Allowance for option of direct usage of vernacular for Epistle and Gospel readings.

PRE-MP: Personal parishes may be setup by the bishop for the concentrated use of the classical use of the Roman rite. Clergy from such groups may also be brought in to offer said use.

POST-MP: Ditto. That remains the same -- though again, not in replacement of its use at any or all other parishes it should be reminded. It is not a matter of "we have a parish for that, we don't need it elsewhere."

The above are what we might consider the juridical issues of a pre and post MP Church.

But there are also issues of catechesis to be found here. Issues that weren't juridically or formally so, but what we might call issues of confusion or 'perception' with regard to the classical use.

This MP contributes to a clear clarification on the following misperceptions:

PRE-MP: 'Popular' perception of the classical use as being outside of normal parish activity. Often limited to Sundays and sometimes Holy days. Faithful often told to go to "their parishes" for other sacraments.

POST-MP: Affirmation of the use of the classical use for weekdays, Sundays, solemnities, special-event or 'one-off' liturgies, as well as the ability of the priest to use any of the previous sacramental forms. Further affirmation of the use of the classical liturgy is also fine for public parish liturgy, while keeping sensitive to pastoral considerations. It need not be "special" or merely private in that regard.

PRE-MP: 'Popular' perception that the classical use of the Roman rite was either, "not encouraged" or seen as pseudo-disobedient, or anti-Conciliar.

POST-MP: It should be clear now that adherence to such is not anti-Conciliar as the Pope has pointed out. Moreover, it cannot be understood as "not encouraged." It is a normal, extraordinary expression of the Roman rite.

Overall, the significant, general shift in the post-MP Church is of course the de-marginalization of the Roman liturgical tradition and a re-assertion of a hermeneutic of continuity.

Clearly, the document is an important development for both those attached to the classical use and pursuing the reform of the reform.

ICRSS Press Release

[Taken from NLM]
Te Deum in Thanksgiving for the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Cura at the Solemn High Mass this Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 10:am!

Dear faithful and friends of St. Francis de Sales Oratory,

It is with profound gratitude and spiritual joy that we learned today about the publication of Pope Benedict XVI's Apostolic Letter Summorum Ponitficum. This Apostolic Letter given on the Holy Father's own initiative (motu proprio) expresses the great pastoral care, love and understanding of our beloved Pope not only for the faithful attached to the classic form of the Latin Liturgy, but to the unbroken tradition of Holy Mother Church. In his document the Holy Father underlines the importance and the normality of the presence of the traditional liturgy in the Church for its vitality: "...The sacred liturgy according to the Roman manner made fertile not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. Moreover it is evident that the Latin Liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many Saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety."

We are particularly blessed in St. Louis because our beloved Archbishop has shared this intention of the Holy Father already for a long time and in a certain way also anticipated it by the foundation of St. Francis de Sales Oratory, which he entrusted to the pastoral care of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Most recently the Archbishop expressed again his esteem for the traditional forms of liturgy when he ordained two new priests for our Institute three weeks ago at the Cathedral Basilica.

Therefore, the publication of the Motu Proprio is a great occasion of thanksgiving for the generosity of our shepherds and for the fact that the richness of the Church's tradition has been brought back to the daily life of the Church. This Sunday, July 8, at the end of the 10 am Solemn High Mass we will sing the Te Deum, the great thanksgiving hymn of the Church. We invite you to join us on this occasion. Your presence would be a strong sign of esteem for the Holy Father and our Archbishop, but also to the work of our institute and its superiors who have shared the intentions of the Holy Father when they were not as common in the church as they are today.

It is a particular joy, that the Holy Father quotes in his Motu Proprio several times St. Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 390-455), patron of Catholic writers and journalists, whose relics are venerated at St. Francis de Sales Oratory . The Motu Proprio quotes several times one of St. Prosper’s most famous aphorisms: Lex orandi - lex credendi, the order of prayer is the order of faith, which reflects the inner and reciprocal unity between the liturgy as the prayer of the whole Church and the identity of the Church in its faith: "As from time immemorial so in the future the principle shall be respected “according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi).”"

Benedict XVI Liberalizes the Ancient Rite of the Mass – And Explains Why

[Taken from Chiesa]
ROMA, July 7, 2007 – The highly anticipated papal “motu proprio” on the rite of the Mass prior to the reform of 1970 was made public today, together with a letter of explanation from Benedict XVI to the bishops.

The two documents were sent a few days earlier, in secret, to all the presidents of the episcopal conferences and to all the nuncios, who saw to sending them along to all the bishops of the world.

The “motu proprio” is in Latin. It will come into effect on September 14, 2007.

The new rules fixed by Benedict XVI widen the permission to celebrate the Mass according to the liturgical books published by John XXIII in 1962, while leaving in place as the “ordinary” form of celebration in the Catholic churches the one established by Paul VI in 1970.

The Mass according to the liturgical books of 1962 is celebrated in Latin, but with the option of reading the Gospel and the other readings in modern languages. Nothing is said in the 1962 missal about the orientation of the altar and the celebrant, whether these should face the people or not.

The two forms of the Mass, the “ordinary” one of 1970 and the “extraordinary” one of 1962 follow slightly different calendars. The selections from the Gospel and the other readings also do not coincide. But such differences are not unusual in the Catholic liturgy. The Ambrosian rite used in the archdiocese of Milan also has a its own calendar, lectionary, and ritual. For example, Advent begins six Sundays before Christmas, instead of four, as in the Roman rite. The sign of peace is placed before the offertory, instead of before communion.

The missal of 1962, the only one authorized for those who wish to celebrate the Mass according to the ancient rite, does not contain the prayer “pro perfidis Judaeis” – which properly means: “for the Jews who do not believe [in Jesus Christ]” – nor other formulas that have today become objects of criticism, these having been modified already by John XXIII. Nor do these formulas exist in the baptismal ritual preceding Vatican Council II: this ritual, too, is authorized by the “motu proprio.”

In the accompanying letter, Benedict XVI asks the bishops to provide an evaluation after three years, in order to seek out solutions if “serious difficulties” surface.

Summorum Pontificum Commentary & Analysis

[Taken from NLM]
Here is a non-official English translation provided off the Vatican website. Comments throughout the text in bold. When the official translation comes, we shall re-analyze for any substantive changes in wording.

Following this commentary, I will be creating an overall summary of the before and after situation. This will likely come later today or this evening.

MOTU PROPRIO "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"


"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms [NLM: a reference to the liturgical rites and uses in the Latin rite], in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times. [NLM: reference to organic development of course.]

"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)

"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following: [NLM: here we go...]

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. [NLM: Private masses. See article 4 for further context. As regards the Paschal Triduum, this is evidently intended to protect the integrity of that season. It isn't suggesting that the classical liturgical books cannot themselves be (publically) used during the Triduum, or that the modern one's must. What would dictate that are the normal pastoral considerations mentioned within this document.]

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues. [NLM: This would apply to groups like the ICRSS, FSSP, etc. of course.]

"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted. [NLM: One might think of this as the "associate pastor" clause. In short, the faithful can attend the private masses of a priest, which the priest can pursue at his own discretion without any need for permission. This would be particularly effectual where we are dealing with an associate pastor who cannot make formal decisions about the public masses of a parish.]

"Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful [NLM: note that is undefined and therefore at the discretion of the pastor] who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests [NLM: Take note of that...] to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop [NLM: This is a very important point. It might be possible to misinterpret that as meaning the bishop's permission is required. However, given what is said in para. 5, and also given that it is noted that "the pastor should... accept" and particularly given article 7 (see below) that is clearly not the case. It rather simply refers to to the bishop as having a role to generally ensure harmony with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish. This is consistent with what is said of the bishop's role in the explanatory letter.] in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. [NLM: this is also important. Presently in practice, such Masses have often been reduced to one on Sundays alone. This is making it clear that celebrating this Missal on weekdays is more than acceptable, and moreover, it is also acceptable that on Sundays and other days of obligation, such as feasts and solemnities, it is not inappropriate for one of the Masses of that schedule to be in the classical use.]

õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages. [NLM: see the comment above. This is likewise making clear that one must not be limited to the modern use for special-event liturgical occasions like weddings, funerals, etc. In other words, simply because the Pauline missal is the ordinary use of the Roman rite does not mean that in instances where there is a single liturgy occuring, that therefore it must default to the modern use of the Roman rite. Not at all.]

õ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. [NLM: This is trying to safeguard the quality of celebrations in the classical use. A very good thing. A priest must be able to competently celebrate from those liturgical books. It appears to possibly be left open to the priests discretion to determine if he is so.]

õ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See. [NLM: It is very good to have this clarification. While not mandated, it is now clearly allowable to have the readings sung or chanted directly from the altar -- or otherwise -- in the vernacular (rather than being read again separately) using an approved liturgical edition. The reports that preceeded the public release of this Motu Proprio that suggested this also applied to the optional use of the new lectionary seem off-base. Nothing against the new lectionary of course, but such would clearly present difficulties given differences in the calendars of the liturgical year, and also the fact that, structurally, the classical use is basd upon an Epistle and Gospel with no additional reading. Therefore, so far as I can see, 'editions' intends to refer to vernacular translations approved by the Holy See, based upon the cycle of readings found in the 1962 Missale Romanum, and not rather the new lectionary.]

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor [NLM: this clarifies absolutely that the permission of the bishop is not required for use of the 1962 Missale Romanum in a public celebration in the parish. See aforementioned article and paragraph.], they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei". [NLM: in other words, if there aren't local diocesan clergy available or competent.]

"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.

"Art. 9. õ 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. [NLM: All previous ritual forms of the sacaments may be used at the priests discretion, though the modern forms of the ritual are yet still normative of course.]

õ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

õ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law. [NLM: so again, the likes of a Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ may also be established, or an FSSP or ICRSS parish and so forth. Of course, this does not come at the expense of less concentrated celebrations in other parishes of a diocese, which are left to the priest's discretion or the request of the faithful. It is not, either-or in that particular sense, though it is not both-and in the sense that the bishop does not have to erect such personal parishes either of course. Such a matter is up to the bishop, unlike the other matter.]

"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions. [NLM: So that commission now has a new role as caretaking that these norms are followed through faithfully.]

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate." (1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397. (2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

(3) Ibid. (4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. (5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.
BXVI-MP/.../SUMMORUM PONTIFICUMVIS 070707 (1900)

NLM General Summary and Conclusions

The classical form of the Roman rite is freed!

a. The use of the 1962 Missale Romanum is no longer an indult or exemption from the law. It was never abrogated and therefore, never needed an exemption in point of fact.

b. The classical missal may be used by any priest privately, including with the faithful present, at his own discretion. No permission is required.

c. The classical Roman missal may be used for public parish Masses at the discretion of the parish priest without permission of the bishop (though always with a pastoral sense of course).

d. It may likewise be used for special event liturgies, during weekdays and on Sundays and Solemnities.

e. The bishop's role changes now to one who simply takes a pastoral role as with any other issue in a diocese, but he is also bound by these norms as explained in the explanatory letter.

f. The Ecclesia Dei commission now also takes a role of helping to resolve disputes.

g. Apostolic societies and personal parishes continue to operate as normal, established by the bishop, and priest of the aforesaid can, as usual, be brought in to help celebrate such liturgies where there is not one available or competent to do so locally.

Official FSSP Reaction

[Taken from De Fide Catholica]
FSSP International Headquarters Communiqué (on 7.VII.2007)

We rejoice at the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. In reaffirming the essential place of the liturgy itself in the transmission of the faith, in stating that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may be used by all priests, and especially in encouraging the use of all four liturgical books in force in 1962, the text opens to the whole Church the treasures of these rites.

We unite our prayers with all the Church that, the document having been received with generous and pastoral hearts, those who prefer this usage might have access to the full Catholic life according to this ‘extraordinary form’ of the Roman Rite.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter will continue to look to serve the needs of the Church, and hopes that the success of the chapels and parishes already erected in the last 19 years in so many dioceses will provide encouraging examples for the document’s implementation.

Our deepest gratitude to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum.

Initial Thoughts on the Explanatory Letter

[Taken from NLM]
I. The Council

The Pope of course begins by addressing the fear, even claim, of some that this represents a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, this is something that some of our more radical traditionalist adherents might call a hope. However, as the Pope says, "this is unfounded."

Anyone with familiarity of Benedict's thought of course knows that he is not about the rejection of the Council, but rather about its proper implementation in a hermeneutic of continuity.

II. The Pre and Post-Conciliar Missals and a clarification upon how we are to think of them

Three points come out here. One is the confirmation of the idea of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Roman rite. This has been discussed for some time of course.

Perhaps the most significant point in this section in this statement however: "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

In this regard then, however we personally refer to the 1962 Missale Romanum and the Pauline, we should probably change our terminology from that of "rite" (e.g. classical Roman rite/modern Roman rite/Tridentine rite etc.) to speak rather of a "use" - 'classical Roman use' or 'classical use of the Roman rite' and so forth.

III. The Status of the 1962 Missale Romanum

In another very important clarification, the Holy Father has confirmed and closed the debate on the issue of the abrogation of the 1962 Missale Romanum:

"...the 1962 Missal... was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

(Defintion: Abrogation = the total abolition of a law)

"...the Missal published by Paul VI... is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy."

"The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration."

IV. The SSPX and Other Groups Attached to the Classical Use of the Roman Rite

"Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

The Pope is here distinguishing, of course, between the SSPX, who broke full communion and other groups who remain in full communion. But it should be noted that he is making a distiction first off.

Two reasons are presented for this attachment, and I think this is worth noting, even though it is a small point.

One is critique of the way in which much post-conciliar liturgy has been characterized, which the Pope speaks of "from experience" as "arbitrary deformations". This reasoning pertains very much to a need for a reform of the reform.

The other reason, however, is tha there are those attached to the classical use, not simply because of the way in which the post-conciliar liturgy manifested itself in practice, but because "...the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration."

I see this as important because it is recognizing two important streams. On the one hand, the necessity of a reform of the reform and the harm that has been caused by the post-conciliar implementation of the liturgical reform in parish practice.

The second, however is that this is not the sole reason for attachment and value to be assigned to the classical use of the Roman rite. Indeed, with "notable liturgical formation" that traditional expression is valued in its own right by many people. In other words, it is not simply a "negative" attachment limited to the problem of abuses.

V. The Previous Motu Proprio: Ecclesia Dei adflicta

"...the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations."

VI. The Question of Division

"In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded."

VII. The Missal of 1962 Unfrozen

"...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

First, we gain another new term: usus antiquior for the classical or ancient use.

Some traditionalists will be very wary, or even oppose this, but it must be said that this is a very desireable development and perhaps more than anything is what helps ensure that the 1962 Missale Romanum is not thought of, or indeed in fact to be, a simple liturgical museum piece that remains without organic developments since 1962.

That such will now be studied more than anything ensures its future as a point of significant influence for a reform of the reform.

Immediately following that statement comes this one:

"The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."

The Holy Father again touches upon co-existence and how that co-existence can see the reform of the reform aided and advanced. What is clear in this statement, and what the Holy Father continues to drive home, is the need to pursue a hermeneutic of continuity with regard to the celebration of the liturgy of Paul VI; one faithful to its rubrics.

VIII. Organic Development and Co-existence

It must be said that there is something of a challenge to all parties in this document, to pursue a path of co-existence.

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. [In short, the Pope refers to the fact that there should not be rupture, but rather continuity, organic development and so on.] What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. [Many will recognize this sentiment from his writings as a Cardinal. It is an important point. The liturgical tradition is not to be marginalized. Rupture is not our hermeneutic. We do not simply devalue or throw away our received tradtion.]

This next point is important as well.

"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

Evidently, this paragraph will gain some strong reaction from some traditionalists, however, let's look at what is being said. The Pope is not suggesting that groups like the ICRSS and FSSP cannot be primarily dedicated to the classical use of the Roman rite. What he is stating is, as others have wrongly "leper-ized" the 1962 liturgical books, it is also wrong to do likewise in the inverse direction.

A key statement, as I see it in this statement is the issue of "a matter of principle". The FSSP and ICRSS will indeed continue on primarily celebrating the classical use, but the Holy Father is clearly saying that no one should, whatever they do in fact, take an attitude or principle of absolute rejection of the new rite -- to the point that they won't even celebrate it!

This seems to tie in as well to the issue that came up in the famed "protocol 1411" affair, and would certainly tie into events like Chrism masses and so forth. There's nothing wrong with being primarily dedicated to the classical use, and indeed, the reasoned critiques of the liturgical reform are not also excluded from this. The issue is simply about an absolute principle of rejection as though the modern Roman use wasn't a Catholic missal.

IX. The Role of the Bishop

The following is very important and serves to clarify the role of the Bishop. Too often, the idea of the Bishop as Chief liturgist is employed in a way which would make him able to exercise that authority in an arbitrary way; or one that might suggest he is master of the liturgy -- which even the Pope is not.

"Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio."

In short, the bishop's role as chief liturgist in his diocese does not give him the ability to absolve himself from these norms. His role is that of a caretaker and of ensuring that the norms are respected and followed in a peaceable way.

One cannot underestimate the importance of this clarification.

X. The 3 Year Period

We've heard of a three year period. However, this clarifies what that means:

"Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought."

"Ways to remedy" suggests that the norms are not possibly going to be revoked, but rather that workarounds might be sought and found. "Tweaks" if you will.

Concluding Thought

Themes strong in this letter upon my initial reading:

a. Co-existence as important and non-divisive
b. The hermeneutic of continuity to be respected and that of rupture avoided.
c. The liturgical tradition is to be respected, but the new is not be rejected as a point of principle; the good to be recognized.
d. Need for a reform of the reform

Important clarifications/developments:

a. These are not separate rites, but uses of the one Roman rite.
b. After study by the Ecclesia Dei commission, the 1962 Missale Romanum can now be unfrozen; organic development can now continue.
c. Confirmation that the Pope sees this as also helping toward a reform of the reform and a more proper celebration of the modern books in parish life.
d. The 1962 Missal is not abrogated and thus, always permitted.
e. The role of the bishop as chief liturgist is as a servant and caretaker, not a master, and cannot exempt from these regulations.

Summorum Pontificum Summary

[Taken from WDTPRS]

What this Motu Proprio does

Effectively it levels the playing field for people who want to use the older liturgical forms.

Remember: the MP applies to all the sacraments as they were before the Council, not just Holy Mass. It concerns the liturgy, not just Holy Mass. Thus clerics (bishops, priests, deacons), who are obliged to recite the Liturgy of the Hours can use the older Breviarium Romanum as it was in 1962. Benedict is establishing the older form of liturgy, as in was in 1962, as an extraordinary form (forma extraordinaria). The Novus Ordo of the Roman Missal and all other liturgical books remain the ordinary way of celebrating the liturgy.

“Extraordinary”, here, does NOT mean “rare” or “unusual” or “special”. It simply means “out of the common order”. If we turn to how the Church uses Latin in, for example, a pretty good Latinist, St. Jerome, the adverb extraordinarie means “with excessive frequency” (cf. On Ephesians 1 ad. 2, 13). It cannot be argued legitimately from the word “extraordinary” that use of the older forms must necessarily be “rare”. It can be quite regular, depending on the circumstances, while in the larger scheme of things the Novus Ordo remains now the usual way things are done.

The Motu Proprio responds to THREE GROUPS of people:

1) Followers of the SSPX, for whom this form of Mass is a “mark of identity”, even though there are also deeper theological reasons for that break.

2) There are many lay people who also remember the older form of Mass from before the changes. And you don’t have to be to 80 to remember those days. There are people in the 40’s and 50’s who remember living with the old Mass. They have always remained attached to the old Mass or have regained a longing for it.

3) There are those who were neither in a separated group nor remember the pre-Conciliar Mass. These are younger people who have discovered the older form.

As a result, it is unacceptable to suggest that these provisions were made merely to accomodate a bunch of nostalgic old foggies who can’t get with the program. The provisions were made with anyone in mind who wants older forms, for any decent reason. People who want to avail of this extraordinary use are not second rate citizens.

They may not be treated any longer like the nutty aunt in the attic.

There are a few things to dispell.

1. In the explanatory letter the Pope invites bishops, “I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.” This does NOT impose an expiration date. What it does is ask for information about what is going on. If, in light of experience, the provisions need to be changed, they can be changed based on experience. However, I hasten to point out to the whiners who will say this weakens the Motu Proprio, that this invitation is NOT in the Motu Proprio itself. I will remind those who see the glass always as half empty that if the experiences are POSITIVE, the provisions could be adjusted positively. So, in a way, it is up to you. Open hearts. Work together. Save the Liturgy – Save the World, as we say around this blog.


2. The bishops retain authority in their dioceses. Can it be any other way? This is entirely normal, good and proper. However, the Pope has with this Motu Proprio made many things that were once rather vague far more concrete and clear. Remember, bishops can be allies. You must approach them properly, which is only common sense. It may be that Fr. Guido O’Brien at St. Ipsydipsy doesn’t want to or in incapable of celebrating Mass in the old way. In that case, the bishop could be helpful in resolving the dilemma.


3. Private Masses/liturgies in the old form can’t be celebrated in private in the Triduum. That is normal and reasonable. that is the way it is in the Novus Ordo. In places where the older form is established in a parish for the older use, the Triduum CAN be celebrated with the older books. However, in parishes where the newer forms are the usual fare, and there is a regularly scheduled Mass with the older form, when the Triduum arrives, the older, extraordinary liturgy must give way to the ordinary. That is logical. In the Novus Ordo, as in the older days, there cannot be two Masses of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, two Good Friday liturgies, or two Vigils. So, in this case, the ordinary takes precedence.


4. The issue the Triduum and this reasonable restriction has nothing to do with the prayer about the Jews on Good Friday. This is simply a matter of what the Church’s logical practice is based on the sacred nature of those Triduum liturgies. The Jews were not part of the equation. Remember also that the 1962 Missale Romanum is used for the Triduum in those places where it will be permitted to use the older form at that time. The 1962 edition and not some earlier edition before the changes to those Good Friday petitions.


5. As stated above, the 1962 Missale, the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is to be used, and NOT some earlier edition. Priests who are not adhering to the 1962 rubrics should be now ready and willing to adjust what they are doing. Lay people must be ready and willing to adjust their expectations.


6. The Motu Proprio does NOT set a minimum number of people who must ask for the older form of Mass before it can be conceded. It does talk about stable groups for regularly scheduled Masses.

Official SSPX Reaction to Motu Proprio

[http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=US]

By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated the Tridentine Mass in its rights, and clearly affirmed that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had never been abrogated. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejoices to see the Church thus regain her liturgical Tradition, and give the possibility of a free access to the treasure of the Traditional Mass for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, to the priests and faithful who had so far been deprived of it. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit.

The letter which accompanies the Motu Proprio does not hide however the difficulties that still remain. The Society of Saint Pius X wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible – after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn – to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues.

Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of the liturgy is that of the faith. In the fidelity to the spirit of our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the attachment of the Society of Saint Pius X to the traditional liturgy is inseparably united to the faith which has been professed "always, everywhere and by all."

Menzingen, July 7, 2007

Bishop Bernard Fellay

Motu Proprio Released! (Unoffficial English Translation)

VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is a non-official English-language translation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" of Pope Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum," concerning the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The original text is written in Latin.

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

"Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that 'nothing should be placed before the work of God.' In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

"Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers,' and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

"One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"'It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.' (2) Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

"In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.' (4)

"But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

"Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

"Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.
§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.
§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.
§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

"Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" to obtain counsel and assistance.

"Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

"Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

"Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", erected by John Paul II in 1988 (5), continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

"Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate."

(1) General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, no. 397.
(2) John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," 4 December 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
(3) Ibid.
(4) St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Motu propio data, "Abhinc duos annos," 23 October 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus quintus annus," no. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
(5) Cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu proprio data "Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

BXVI-MP/.../SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM VIS 070707 (1900)

Cover Letter to Motu Proprio

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/20559.php?index=20559〈=en#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

My dear Brother Bishops,

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

Towards Motu Proprio!

[Taken from Rorate Caeli]
This article, written by one who was actively involved with the development of the text, Father Nicola Bux, in one of his weekly columns for Fides, the news agency of Propaganda Fide, provides important keys for the interpretation and reception of the text, to be made available to the public in a couple of hours:

WORDS OF DOCTRINE: Towards the Motu proprio Rev. Nicola Bux and Rev. Salvatore Vitiello

Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) - The recent announcement of the imminent publication of a Motu proprio on the celebration of the Eucharist according to the rite of what is known as the Saint Pius V Missal approved in the latest edition by Blessed John XXIII, gave rise to keen interest among the media and among the ordinary faithful. Pending its publication very soon, it would seem opportune to illustrate two fundamental aspects of a similar procedure.

A recent text by Nicola Bux and Adriano Garuti bears the title, “Peter loves and unites. The personal responsibility of the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church”. It is precisely from this point of view that the Motu proprio to be shortly made public must be read: a free and sovereign act of a Pontiff who, by right and by the Church's faith in the primacy of Peter, has a personal responsibility which cannot be delegated to others, in the guidance of the universal Church.

Accepting the exercise of this responsibility is an integral part of the acceptance of faith due to the dogma of the primacy of Peter and in this sense calls all Catholics to love, to pray for and to obey the one who is called to be Bishop of Rome, the universal Shepherd of Church.

The Motu proprio should be welcomed by all since it is not a restrictive measure, but rather an 'extension' of options, in keeping with the now familiar Ratzinger line to "extend reason".

No one will be impeded in any way, at the most he will be 'prevented from impeding' celebrations according to the old rite. Down through the centuries the Church has never feared liturgical-ritual differences, as long as they do not signify differences in faith, and she has always tolerated legitimate linguistic, geographical and ritual distinctions, on the simple condition that these expresses the truth faith of the Church.

It is difficult to see why some people, often champions of the most libertarian theories in many other fields, today fear greater freedom in the choice of rite in which to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. A founded impression, that precisely they are the promoters of the pernicious liturgical creativity which too often distorts our rites preventing them from speaking to the People of God.

Who is afraid of freedom? No one, let us hope. The Motu proprio is an act of the personal responsibility of the Pope who is extending the freedom of the Church. [Source]