Rorate Caeli

Revisions of the 1962 Missal coming soon?
The International Federation Una Voce presents its objections

The International Federation Una Voce (FIUV) has learned that modifications of the 1962 Missale Romanum could be proposed by competent authority in the near future. It therefore presents its objections and concerns on a reform of the Traditional Missal to competent authority, also making its 2008 letter on the matter public.




The Revision of the Missal of 1962.


The Concerns of the International Federation Una Voce,


Preamble:
It is known that work has commenced in Rome on the revision of the Missal of 1962. As has been the norm in recent years, these matters are being conducted discreetly and only made public when the relevant document is promulgated, viz: Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The very narrow remit given by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his Letter to Accompany Summorum Pontificum [7 July, 2007] was that: “..new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.”  No other changes were sanctioned. Pope Benedict also stated that “The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the possibilities in this regard.”


Those who are “devoted to the usus antiquior” must continually and carefully ensure that this specific and narrow remit is not exceeded by those in Rome and elsewhere who desire to undermine the integrity of the Missal of 1962 by demanding the inclusion of some of the novelties which were introduced into the liturgy post-1962.  The International Federation Una Voce was founded in early 1965, even before the Second Vatican Council had ended, and is by far the oldest organisation, lay or clerical, which is devoted to the usus antiquior. While other organisations and societies, clerical and lay, may also be devoted to the ‘usus antiquior’, none can match the 46 year history of the Una Voce Federation in its unswerving devotion to this cause. The Federation has played a unique role in being the first, and the continuous voice of the lay faithful in seeking adherence to the expressed wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council as declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium n.4:
“Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

The members of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce, being ever mindful of this decree of the Council Fathers, have been faithfully obedient to tradition, have consistently upheld the equal right and dignity of the Mass of Antiquity, and have striven since 1965 to preserve and foster this lawfully recognised rite. In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, confirmed what the International Federation has always claimed, that the Missal of 1962 ‘was never juridically abrogated’. The Holy Father also confirmed in his letter that his decision was to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the church.”

Liturgical innovation and creativity is unwanted by the faithful and has consistently disturbed, angered and alienated them in the years following the Second Vatican Council. This must not happen again with the adulteration of the Missal of 1962. The International Federation accepts organic development but emphatically rejects liturgical innovation which is alien to the character, spirit, and integrity of the usus antiquior.  The inestimable treasure of the ancient liturgy must not be undermined by novelty, reductionism, and destructive modernisation. Nothing describes the attraction of the usus antiquior more powerfully than the growing number of young Catholics world-wide, including many seminarians and young priests, who are discovering this ancient and deeply spiritual liturgy and are being captivated by it.   

We are now entering a critical period in the life of the liturgy of Holy Mother Church. Decisions that are being taken in Rome today will have a lasting impact on the spiritual welfare of the faithful for generations. The need to implement the will of the Holy Father for a limited and organic change in harmony with the character of the Missal of 1962 must not be the excuse for the introduction into the traditional Roman liturgy of alien concepts that created so much disunity and disharmony in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council.

Following the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the President of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce presented a document to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in June 2008. Now that work on amending the Missal of 1962 has commenced, it may be timely to republish this document, in an updated form, to make clear, once again, the desires and aspirations of the members of the Una Voce Federation.



A Reflection on Summorum Pontificum and the Role of the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Prior to, and Post, September 2007.

Leo Darroch,
Executive President – International Federation Una Voce.

2 June 2008.

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in July 2007 there has been great rejoicing from those in the Catholic Church who wish to retain traditions, and protect Tradition. There is no doubt that the statement from Pope Benedict that the Missal of 1962 had never been abrogated, and the freedom he has granted to priests of the Roman Rite to celebrate this form of the Mass, has led to a great increase in the celebrations of the ancient and venerable rite. However, it is also clear that the promulgation of this Motu Proprio has led to many questions about the manner of celebration and the rubrics that apply to the Missal revised by Blessed John XXIII.  It seems that there are some, including many bishops, who deliberately wish to create confusion and dissent in an attempt to dissuade priests and faithful from benefiting from the Holy Father’s pastoral solicitude, and insist that post-1962 developments (such as Communion in the hand, and female altar servers) are perfectly valid in Masses celebrated according to the Missal of 1962. On the other hand, there are others who have genuine queries about what is allowed during the celebration of the Extraordinary form of the Mass. Questions are being raised more or less on a daily basis and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei [PCED] is being inundated with letters containing requests for clarification; to such an extent that a document has been prepared that seeks to clarify matters once and for all. We have been advised to wait patiently for the publication of this document.

As I made clear in my Report to the PCED on 29th April 2008, I believe that Summorum Pontificum (and Quattuor Abhinc Annos [1984] and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta [1988] before it) should be interpreted according to the mind of the Legislator in his desire to redress, among other things, what many traditional Catholics believe to have been abuses of their legitimate aspirations. I believe those who seek to modify the directives of Summorum Pontificum to incorporate the changes post-1962 should be informed that they may freely avail themselves of the Novus Ordo in Latin where most of the various adaptations are already available, or can be adopted without any difficulty. The 1965 Ordo and the 1967 Missa Normativa were, by their own nature, only transitory and temporary stages and lost any particular significance once the 1969 edition of the Roman Missal was published by Pope Paul VI.  There is, consequently, no sense in encouraging the adoption of elements of those ordos as somehow being natural and genuine evolutions of the 1962 Missal, which remains the only legitimate expression of the Extraordinary form of Roman Rite as defined by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Recently, there has been much publicity given to a letter that was issued by the PCED in 1997 and signed by the then President, Cardinal Felici, and by Monsignor Perl, the Secretary. This letter permits a number of modifications to celebrations of the Missal of 1962 concerning the Epistle, Gospel, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster, and Prefaces from the appendix of the 1965 Missale Romanum and from that of 1970.  They, therefore, are superseded by the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. For if the Supreme Pontiff wished prior liturgical provisions to be observed, he would have stated as much in his Motu Proprio of 7th July 2007.      

In the midst of all this confusion there is, perhaps, a single question to be posed, the answer to which may make the responses to all the many queries irrelevant. But first it is necessary to set the scene.

The Holy Father, in Summorum Pontificum, could not have been clearer in stating what he means and meaning what he stated. He constantly refers to the Missal of 1962 OR the Missal of 1970. There is no ambiguity; it is a straight choice between one or the other. There is no in-between.

With the full authority of Peter, the Supreme Legislator stated “We Decree”.   He then states that the Missal of Blessed John XXIII:
● “must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage” [Art.1];
● that the priest may use “the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 OR (my emphasis) the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970” [Art.2];
● In parishes a pastor may “celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962” [Art. 5].   

The only concession granted by Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio itself is in Article 6 when he states: “In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings MAY (my emphasis) be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.”

Thus, the mind of Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio is clear – it is either the Missal of 1970 OR the Missal of 1962.  His Holiness remains true to this theme in his Letter to Bishops which accompanied the Motu Proprio. He states that, “the last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council…..in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.”   He also states that, “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal”, thus indicating, once again, that, while there is no contradiction, there is a distinct difference between the two Missals.

And now I come to the crux of my argument. An indult is a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent ecclesiastical authority – the Holy See or the local ordinaries as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case. Both Quattuor Abhinc Annos of 1984, and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 1988, were granted on the widespread opinion that the Missal of 1962 had been abrogated – abolished - following the publication of the Missal of Pope Paul VI in 1970. The motives for Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta would have been very different. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (after the Commission of Cardinals had reported) may have been pro bono pacis, but this would not have applied to Quattuor Abhinc Annos.
[Note: A Commission of nine Cardinals was established Blessed Pope John Paul II in 1986 to determine whether the Missal of 1962 had been legally abrogated, or whether the bishops had the power to forbid the traditional Mass.  The unanimous answer was ‘No’.]

In his Letter to Bishops Pope Benedict states:
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal …I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

In Summorum Pontificum he repeats this with the full force of law and states:
“….It is therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated (my emphasis) …………The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documentsQuattuor abhinc annos’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei’ are substituted as follows:”[Art.1]

In the case of both these indults they were substituted as from midnight on 13th September 2007 and ceased to have any force of law.  They are redundant, obsolete.

The Pope has given us two clear statements: that the Missal of 1962 was never abrogated, and that the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum given Motu Proprio replaces the indults Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. All the various permissions and modifications granted by the PCED were granted during the periods of the indults. Logic dictates, therefore, that if the Missal of 1962 was never abolished and the Holy Father states that the conditions laid down in earlier documents [Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta] for the use of the Missal of 1962 are substituted with effect from midnight on 13th September 2007, then all permissions, interpretations, relaxations, modifications et al that flowed from Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta must also be ‘substituted’ with effect from midnight on 13th September 2007 and no longer apply. The Pope has clarified the situation that has existed since 1970 and has wiped the slate clean concerning the indults of 1984 and 1988.  The 14th September 2007 brought us a new beginning in the understanding of the law, one which is based on juridical principles and not on the granting of a privilege.

If it is accepted that all the concessions and privileges that were granted under Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta have been superseded by the new law, what, then, is the current position? Quite clearly we start with a clean slate. From 14th September 2007 we start once again with the Missal of 1962, untouched and without modification or adaptation. In his Letter to the Bishops, Pope Benedict recognises that some change will take place but he is very specific; and he speaks in the future tense only, not in the past. He says:
“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.”

In effect, no changes can be made to the Missal of 1962 until the Ecclesia Dei Commission implements the will of the Holy Father and consults with the “various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior”. One would imagine that the first action of the Pontifical Commission would be the establishment of a list of ‘bodies’ to be consulted. Only when the various bodies have been identified can the process begin of studying the practical possibilities of inserting new Saints and new Prefaces. We should be entering a period of quiet diplomacy and consultation during which the Missal of 1962 should remain untouched. Engaging in this properly-structured process will have a number of benefits. Those who fear that the Missal of 1962 will be adulterated bit by bit, as happened during the 1960s, should be reassured that nothing will change until serious debate has taken place between the PCED and those who are attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition, and the PCED will be able to address itself to the task entrusted to it by Pope Benedict XVI without being inundated on a daily basis with requests for clarifications on various matters, many of which are trivial and serve only to overwhelm the staff in the Commission and divert them from the important work they are there to do.


Addendum:
The long-awaited clarification document, Universae Ecclesiae, was published by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 30th April 2011 and was subject to much comment and detailed analysis in the media. The International Federation Una Voce welcomed the document.  

Although some have commented that Universae Ecclesiae still leaves some questions unclear, what is perfectly clear is that the Holy Father has fully restored to the universal Church the traditional Roman rite as enshrined in the liturgical books of 1962, that the rubrics in force in 1962 must be strictly observed, and that Latin and the Usus Antiquior must be taught in seminaries where there is a pastoral need. And this pastoral need must be determined by those who wish to benefit from Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, and not be decided by those many in authority whose natural desire is to prevent their implementation.  

The International Federation Una Voce has worked patiently and tirelessly for the restoration of the traditional liturgy for more than 45 years and is now witnessing a vindication of its fidelity to Holy Mother Church and the See of Peter. However, its members, the lay faithful of Holy Mother Church, are fully aware that many in the ranks of the clergy have a burning desire to thwart their legitimate aspirations to benefit spiritually from the pastoral solicitude of Pope Benedict XVI.  To this end, we who are beneficiaries of these documents, wish to state unequivocally that, while accepting the stated will of our Holy Father for the inclusion of new Saints and some new Prefaces into the Missal of 1962, we will respectfully and vigorously challenge any proposal that strays beyond these clearly defined limits and seeks to adulterate the integrity of that Missal.


Leo Darroch,
President – Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce.
30th January 2012.

62 comments:

New Catholic said...

We in Rorate would add at least one concern that is not irrelevant in many parts of the world only recently presented to the Traditional Mass: the financial costs of new books - please, do not bring the instability of the liturgical books to the Traditional Mass. The faithful do not want it and, in many cases, they may not be able to afford it.

Oremus said...

This situation comes as no surprise to anyone attached to the TLM. Kudos to Una Voce for their blunt, hard hitting letter. We all pray it will have the desired effect of cutting off the modernists before they can destroy that which they were unable to suppress.

This is all the more reason to pray the SSPX comes into full communion in the very near future. Along with the FSSP, the SSPX is the major guardian of the TLM. Once in full communion they will be far better positioned to have a legitimate voice in protecting it from modernist destruction.

Sunshine State said...

I think many of us Catholics are tired of the hierarchy making changes to the Mass, the Sacraments, etc. They seem to never learn. Please leave the 1962 missal alone.

bedwere said...

Too much time spent in changing books, not enough spent on praying with those books.

Gregorian Mass said...

From someone still learning the TLM and who discovered it in my later years after growing up with the NO,(not celebrated well), I would ask to please leave it alone. A new prayer was added in 2008 and the Saints and Prefaces to be added at some point in the future is enough for my lifetime. Perhaps on a subjective, personal level I might like to see a small change here and there but I would happily sacrifice that in order to support the full integrity of the 1962 Missal as is. It is I who has to adjust my bearings sometimes during Mass, not the Missal.

Steve said...

Traditional Catholics can take a lot of abuse. All they ask is to be able to attend a traditional Mass with its commensurate spirituality. I hope the good God will consider another change in the holy Mass as crossing the line in 2012 and do something about it.

Dave said...

I'd like to echo the venerable Cardinal Ottaviani in his letter to Pope Paul VI, "It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law."

Too much has been done to alienate many of the faithful, too much has been done to disregard the treasures of our Catholic Faith. Enough is enough. Too much is too much.

Confusius said...

Tamper,tamper,tamper,
Let's Tamper,tamper.....

Jon said...

NC,

Regarding your comment, I immediately thought about my costly (to me) but trusty Baronius as soon as I saw the heading of the post. However, something else also occurred to me.

In the Holy Father's effort to restore the Traditional Missal to the living heart of the Church, he evidently desires the insertion of new Prefaces and saints. Okay, fine. But what if he also wants to give us a tremendous gift, and cleanse the Missal of all Bugninisms? What if, perhaps, along with adding Padre Pio, he also wants to restore the pre-'55 Holy Week?

Now there's a thought. I think I could shell out another 70 bucks for that.

Jack B. said...

Let's restore the pre-Bugnini rites, especially Holy Week, not create new rites.

MJ said...

They could start by restoring the traditional Holy Week, the traditional classification of feast, all the abandoned historic octaves and by removing all the rubrical simplifications introduced in the John XXIII era. Then we can talk about enriching the rite with optional prefaces.

Veritas said...

Fix the one that's broken.

londonfrater said...

In the mid-90's the Bishops of England and Wales proposed to the Latin Mass Society and Una Voce that they were prepared to allow a wider celebration of the Tridentine rite with the mandatory use of the 1970 lectionary in English worked into the deal. The heads of the societies told them to their face and publicly that if they enforced that, both socieies were going lock, stock, and barrel to the SSPX. That is exactly what they should say this time, and slap this tinkering right in the face, helping the meddlesome curia to turn their other cheek. That will get their attention in a hurry. Enough of this tiresome meddling...UNLESS...the changes they proprose mean that Holy Week would be restored to its pre-1954 form, with perhaps the inclusion of a couple of prefaces from the lame-duck and unwanted New Order Mass of Paul VI. We must be prepared to accept that change can happen in a direction other than the one in which they happen to have been going. Restoration is possible, and perhaps that is what the Curia have in mind on this occasion. If it isn't, there are options.

londonfrater said...

It must be noted that the truncated, mal-formed, and ill-conceived hodge-podge of the 1962 Holy Week is completely unacceptable in its present form. One gets more prophetic readings in the Novus Ordo, and if done in Latin, ad Orientem, with Gregorian chant and Roman Vestments, it's frankly a more satisfying experience. At least it's not full of holes like its immediate predecessor. This is, I think, the main issue concerning any "changes" to the 1962 rite. The FSSP are already using the 2nd confetior, and all one has to say is "we do it here" and voila, an instant justification by "local custom" is born. FIX HOLY WEEK and the Easter Vigil, and then add some saints and a couple of prefaces if you must. I'll be able to live with it. But maul it further, and I'm out, along with quite a few, I suspect.

Francis said...

Do you guys really believe that Pope Benedict XVI is going to restore the traditional Holy week and get rid of the protestant Bugnini garbage?! I doubt it. I hope and pray that he does, but it would be a miracle for this Pope to do it considering his modernist ideology.

londonfrater said...

Jon: I hadn't seen your post...my thoughts as well. You are clearly a man of discernment and forsight! Let us pray.

Veritas: I maintain that, better than '69 though it is, '62 is very much a broken missal, not all over, but in its most important and most prominent part. It too needs fixing, but through restoration. Only then does any addition become desirable, and who wouldn't want to be able too celebrate St. Maximilian Kolbe's feast, for example, in the tradition of the Roman rite? Also, if the calander is harmonized properly with a fulsome restoration of saints to the Novus Ordo, that makes a truly huge contribution to a real heremenutic of continuity. Clearly, there are worthwhile possibilities. Let us pray unceasingly that things are rectified properly, or left alone!

MJ said...

"The heads of the societies told them to their face and publicly that if they enforced that, both socieies were going lock, stock, and barrel to the SSPX."

If this is true, it was entirely wrong. Threatening spiritual self-sabotage to get one's way with the Church.

JTLiuzza said...

Wasn't the '62 missal already "revised" by the council? How many times can you maul the same missal?

Amos Moses said...

I bet most 'reforms' will be minor (new saints) but half of me thinks that they will open it up to being said in the vulgar tongues. On which I am mixed. On the one hand, it would spread the traditional mass further and wider, because like it or not, the Latin is an obstacle for many priests who would like to say it. But on the other hand, it would spell the end of the Latin in the traditional Latin mass, as well as open up a new can of worms, translation. If I was asked, I would be against it, but if it happened, I could live with it.

Gratias said...

Perhaps a joint petition from Una Voce, Rorate and Messa in Latino may help. For UE the 12,000 signatures gathered may have made a difference.

We have some good prophets here, who could read these times accurately and predicted this.

Matt said...

Okay, first of all, any idea how soon is "in the near future?"

Look out, folks! Look out!

Several years ago when I first heard of this, even before Summorum Potificum, I had thought, well, sure. There have been a myriad of saints added to the Church since 1962. A wonderful and blessed fact, and that ALL of them were--and continue to be--from the Tridentine era. How awesome they should be added to the very Missal they used to help attain their holiness.

As time went on, I began to realize how nefarious various Vatican people were and then began to hope that any changes, any additions to the Missal would be delayed until truly wonderful people came along. With the Holy Father's accession, I thought finally the time had come and then did Summorum Pontificum. Great! When, however, all the sloth behind it began to show itself, I thought we are in a total "Twilight Zone" episode with no end in sight. The Holy Father changing the Good Friday intercession for the Jews in the Tridentine Missal said a whole lot more than merely changing the wording.

If the Holy Father made that change by his mere Prerogative, why then the all the agony and the fuss about chaning the Novus Ordo Missal? Just change it, right? Wrong. Once again, another TZ moment. This is why the 1962 Missal should not be tampered with by the present Magisterium.

1. Inserting all the saints since 1962, on its face, is a good thing, but not done correctly and with sincerity for Tradition and integrity for continuity(!), then the actual Calendar is screwed up forever. There are times of the year observed in the 1962 Missal which isn't at all in the Novus Missal. Are we going to lose that too?

2. Why change or add prefaces? A preface is an explanation of what is to follow or how to view it. Add progression to it, and don't anyone tell me this is not what they are trying to do, we then would have competing theologies, competing mindsets, in the Tridentine Missal. That, too, would screw it up. Why not develop an Ordo so that the saints and their feasts would observed independently, such as in the Divine Office, we have the Common of Pastors, or of Virgins, etc. The entire Breviary is not being rewritten to accomodate all the new Saints and Blesseds. Oh, but it's just so important for the Missal to be?

3. Look out! Once the 1962 Missal is tampered with, all the theology, all the embrace of Sacred Tradition is lost and then what does one have to refer to Sacred Tradition and the De Fidei points of our Religion contained in that Tridentine Missal? Nothing, that's what! Game over!! The fight for Tradition really is over because there is no single compendium, no single source to refer to but that Missal and the Liturgy it protects. As Father Z says, Save The Liturgy, Save The World (and our souls)!! I suppose we could also say, Lose The Liturgy, Lose The World!

Is Rome planning these changes while continuing her dialogue with the SSPX, or afterwards? I can just imagine Rome doing this after the Society comes back in. It's going to be, "HA-HA! Psyche! We showed you!" Yes, friends, we have to view this as quite a strategic move.

Does anyone not see the horror which is soon to rear its head against the Faithful?

Matt

JFM said...

They now want to revise the old missal? After their track record with the mess that is the NO? When the *only* people who use and guard the old missal are those who abhor change and don't want any? Yes, that makes tons of sense.

If they are so restless, how about insisting on a replacement for the über-awful New American Bible? Needed and would be welcome across the board, if they could find stylists who.... oh, never mind.

Rick DeLano said...

I congratulate Una Voce on a superb letter.

I expect it will allow the relevant dicasteries in Rome to gain what is the most important intelligence fort them to have:

the faithful attached to the usus antiquor are very restless just now.

It would be a supremely prudent pastoral gesture to reassure them that they need not fear an assault upon their hard-won vindication, as expressed in "Summorum Pontificum".

I shudder to think what would happen if a gesture of a very different kind should, instead, be forthcoming.

Joshua said...

The insertion of new Proper Masses for recently canonized saints would be a perfectly natural thing to expect as time wears on, just as was done in past years (several missals in my possession have just such inserts, for St Pius X himself for example).

Similarly, extending permissions for various already-existing Prefaces (such as for Advent, for the Blessed Sacrament, etc) to the whole Church, whereas in the past these were only permitted pro aliquibus locis, would be a reasonable act, certainly in tune with the insertion into the Missal of the Requiem Preface, the Preface of St Joseph, and several other such in the first part of the twentieth century.

However, if Prefaces from the Ordinary Form are to be inserted into the Extraordinary, care must be taken that the traditional closing formulæ (e.g. Et ideo, Per quem, etc.) are used, and not some of the new ones which avoid mention of angels and archangels, thrones and dominations.

Beyond these two augmentations of the '62 Missal, the above commenters are quite right in saying that pre-'62 texts and usages are what Traditionalists would prefer to have restored!

One extra desideratum would be to augment the '62 Missal with proper epistles and gospels for ferial Wednesdays and Fridays, as were found in mediæval and in Neo-gallican Missals (which copied the practice from the former - cf. the Paris Missal of 1738).

Such an addition would be entirely traditional, and allow for a sober and sensible increase in the number of passages of Holy Writ read at Mass - thus avoiding the unpleasantness of attending a ferial Mass and having to hear the Sunday readings all over again, as I recall from attending one priest's Low Mass during a strangely feastless week, not even enlivened by a Votive.

(One could argue that this, and not the wholly untraditional postconciliar Lectionary, is what the Council Fathers in their simplicity thought they were asking for in the relevant part of Sacrosanctum concilium, which refers to the desire for a more varied selection of Scriptural readings at Mass.)

Beyond this - a few extra Votive Masses (e.g. of Divine Mercy) would be a reasonable addition to the Missal.

But no alteration of the Ordinary of the Mass, let alone any modification of any of the rites and ceremonies in the direction of the Novus Ordo, ought be tolerated, as it could provoke schism and scandal, occasioning grave harm to souls.

Ben Vallejo said...

The Pope can have the 1962 Missal revised as the 2012 Missal as revised by Pope Benedict XVI.

However, to protect the Tridentine patrimony, I think the missal should be left as it is. I could think of innovations that can have a negative effect such as mandating the 3 year cycle of readings. It will make the old calendar ou of sync with the readings.

The major guardian of the Old Mass is nobody else but the Pope. The SSPX cannot be the guardian since it is not a church with its own rite within the Roman Church (more so that it remains schismatic) and it has to defer to the Papal authority at all times.

Loyalist said...

I thought we were loyal Roman Catholics? If the Holy Father wants to change the 1962 MR it is his right to do so.

Let us have some obedience to Peter through Benedict rather than stirring dissent.

GQRep said...

I think that if the Pope or others in he Vatican tried to "update" the Missal of 1962, or suppress parts of it or modify parts of it to bring it more in line with the Novus Ordo and all the innovations that came from it, then they would have a world-wide problem 10X worse than any issues involving the SSPX!!

There are already a dozen other Catholic traditionalist movements other than the SSPX in the world-of varying numbers and influence. But if any authorities in the Vatican would be stupid enough to try to tamper with the Tridentine Latin Mass, I think there would be such a traditionalist backlash against them, that the losses suffered by the Catholic Church since Vatican II would pale in comparison. Not to mention a walkout of traditionalist Catholics who have always tried at least to be loyal to the Papacy.
The forces of Catholic traditionalism against them would be so much greater that I don'tthink the Vatican want's to deal with that.

If Pope Benedict XVI would allow for such tampering, then I believe that traditional minded Catholics both on this website and others have been seriously misreading this man.

John Gerardi said...

In addition to a Missale Romanum 2013 (or whenever this new version of the Missale is published), I hope the Holy See would allow the publication of some sort of Addendum. I imagine a thin book that the priest can use at the altar which contains the Ordinary of the Mass, the prefaces (including the new ones), and the Mass formularies for all the new saints that are being added to the missal. That way, priests don't have to shill out 400 bucks for a brand new altar missal; they can just use the addendum in addition to their pre-existing 1962 Missal.

I don't mind the idea of new prefaces, so long as, for any given Mass, the priest doesn't have the option to use more than one preface. I go to the Novus Ordo 6 days a week and use a hand missal; it's so frustrating never being able to find the actual preface that the priest is using, simply because there are a ZILLION prefaces, and the priest seemingly has 6 options he can use at any given Mass.

Josemaria Paulo Jeromino Martin Carvalho-Von Verster said...

One Reform that Should be In New Edition of The 1962 Missal is The Inclusion of The Those Beatified/Canonized after 1962.

Mick said...

According to some posters here, with their utter distrust of any sort of change at all, the Roman Missal should be EXACTLY as it was in 1570.

During the Second Vatican Council, the 1962 Missal should have been completely abolished. That is to say, the 1970 Missal should have completely replaced it. What I mean is that during the Council, the 1962 Missal should have been sufficiently revised as to "update" the Roman Missal, as had occurred in the time between 1570 and 1962, according to that tradition.

What we have now is the "old" and the "new" "forms" of the Roman Rite of Mass, which is alien to the Church. We know the Council made a mistake when they published a brand new Mass, borrowing its body from the "old". I pray, soon we will see the return of the single "form" of the Roman Rite.

What should occur here, I believe, if the Church judges the 1962 MR needs to be 'updated' or 'revised', which it does, is for it to be revised in the manner in which the Council should have - that is, the organic, very minor, 'updates' which had occurred since 1570.

In addition, 'update' or 'revise' shouldn't necessarily mean 'remove' or 'cut and paste'. Perhaps some additional optional prefaces, and the updating of the Calendar, including the re-institution of the pre-55 Holy Week ceremonies and other lost Octaves, would do us well.

Brian said...

Was Bugnini condidered to be a "competent authority"?

C. said...

I agree, there ought to be a petition.

It's clear that Ecclesia Dei has not performed the necessary consultations, if they are planning on forcing any changes.

Sixupman said...

Vatican II and the OF Mass has been a financial bonanza for a multitude of vultures - architects, builders, self-styled liturgists, self-styled composers, publishers, printers, et al.

O Lord preserve us from the liturgical tinkerers!

Sixupman said...

The creation of the OF Lectionary at a stroke rendered the EF Missals redundant - as was clearly meant.

The excuse for the OF of the vernacular was risible, the EF Missal could have been used in the vernacular, ad orientem. As we know, language was not really the issue! the Protestantisation of Mother Church was!

What is remotely religious about terms like Year 3 or whatever, week whatever?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Assist at the Masses of the SSPX and you won't have to worry about this stuff.

Kathleen said...

Thank you, New Catholic and Rorate Caeli for bringing us news of this type. I wouldn't get it otherwise.

I'm going to have to add this defensive effort to my regular intentions.

If we weren't in the midst of this crisis and being forced to fend off wave after wave of attacks by Modernists bent on the destruction of tradition, a round of thoughtful revision may well be reasonable.

But, even granting good intent in some quarters, it's virtually guaranteed the effort will be hijacked. The modernists still have, by far, the upper hand.

I also agree with Oremus' observation that this situation greatly increases the need for normalization of the status of the SSPX.

I pray others will also step up in defense of essentially a moratorium on altering the Ancient Rite during this time of crisis.

Leo Darroch said...

In the comments box someone called londonfrater has said:
"In the mid-90's the Bishops of England and Wales proposed to the Latin Mass Society and Una Voce that they were prepared to allow a wider celebration of the Tridentine rite with the mandatory use of the 1970 lectionary in English worked into the deal. The heads of the societies told them to their face and publicly that if they enforced that, both socieies were going lock, stock, and barrel to the SSPX."

I have been a member of the LMS committee since 1986, and in the mid 1990s I was deputy chairman. I have no recollection whatsoever of any such event but I contacted the then chairman for his opinion. He, also, denied any such meeting took place.

londonfrater also mentions the FIUV. Michael Davies was president at the time and, although I had no official position, I was helping him in a number of ways. I have no recollection of the FIUV having such a meeting. In any event, it is not the place for the International Federation to intervene with bishops when there is a member association capable of doing so.

It is a serious allegation to state that recognised lay societies in the Church made threats to the hierarchy and that they would take their societies 'lock, stock and barrel to the SSPX'. If, as londonfrater has said, the LMS and the FIUV made this position public then perhaps he can supply the evidence for such an allegation?

The fact is that neither the LMS, nor the FIUV, could ever fulfil such a threat. In the case of the LMS the members would have to approve by ballot such a motion and it would never be passed. The FIUV is a federation of autonomous societies around the world and the president does not have the authority to utter such a threat.

I have gone into some detail because it is important to make clear that neither the LMS nor the FIUV would ever issue threats of any kind to hierarchies because it would be counter-productive, and even disastrous. We have aways pursued our aims patiently, diligently, respectfully, and sometimes confidentially, and often in difficult circumstances, and have made progress in doing so. Threats just close doors. If londonfrater can produce evidence to support his claim then I am willing to be proved wrong. If he cannot, then he should consider the damage that can be done by such irresponsible statements that many will believe to be true.

londonfrater said...

Mr Darroch, forgive me if I've overstated the occasion to which I was referring, but I was told that story by a senior member of the LMS at the time, and I recall the turn of events quite clearly, and the lasting impression it made on all concerned. In any event, the proposal was immediately dropped. However although I thought the event was common knowledge, I don't actually have any documentary proof at hand. It was certainly not my intention to libel anyone, I've always regarded the supposed action as quite purposeful and absolutely within the bounds of conscience on the part of those who have learned to stand up for the rights they are supposedly afforded within the church (cf. Ottoviani). In any event, I apologize if I scandalized you or anyone in the society. That was not my intention. For the time being, and pending any proof coming to hand, I withdraw the assertion that the Society or Una Voce threatened to go en masse to the SSPX if the English bishops imposed the 1979lectionary.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Folks,

A few comments:

First, the addition of new saints and blesseds also provides an opportunity for the restoration of feast suppressed in 1960, such as St. John at the Latin Gate, St. Peter's Chains, The Finding of the Cross, The Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, etc. Why not petition for the restoration of feasts as well as the inclusion of people such as Padre Pio and Maximillian Kolbe?

Second, any revision to the missal would bring about a revision to the Breviary. It would not be that hard to restore suppressed feasts and saints days to the 1960 breviary. Of course, New Catholic knows that I would want the missing readings restored to the Office of Matins.

Third, additional prefaces were added in 1962, the so called Gallican Prefaces. Also, not all of the new prefaces are as bad as people allege they are. Read them.

Fourth, it would be an opportunity to clarify the use of the 1964 Collectio Rituum and the Roman Ritual, as translated by Weller in 1964. This may mean less to traditionalists, but for many priests, the opportunity to have the unambiguous right to use these books instead of the Book of Blessing would be greatly appreciated.

Fifth, the insertion of saints post 1962, shows even more that the 62 missal is a living missal, relevant on its own terms to the contemporary world.

Sixth, the addition of new saints does not imply that the season of Septegesima, for example, would be suppressed. If any thing, this season should be restored in the OF missal.

James Ignatius McAuley

Henry said...

Six good reasons, Mr. McAuley, but the best one is #5 -- as a clear statement that the TLM is a permanently living liturgy of the Church, not a fossil from the past that was taken out of the collection to display for a time, but which could be locked away again at some future date.

Tradical said...

Hi Henry,

The question that begs to be asked is if they would stop the 'tinkering' at just adding feasts.

Or will we be subjected to a continual evolution of the Tridentine Mass until it resembles the Novus Ordo?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I've read that the 'good friday prayer' was changed by pope benedict XVI? I can't say I noticed any change between the missal I used and the SSPX service I attended, so was it actually or....?

Christopher said...

Goodness, I'm still trying to figure out how to get the celebration of the EF more widespread and more heavily attended, and now they're about to send the 1962 MR to the cutting board again. *sigh* Changes to revert, I agree with, but if people start attending EFs in large waves soon, and then get hit with changes when they've just gotten used to it might overwhelm them. Maybe not. Who knows. I just hope everything works out.

Charlie said...

It was only a matter of time.

Jeff said...

Can we presume, then, that the inclusion of new saints in the 1962 Missal is a novelty to be rejected? Is it a case that traditionalists do not accept that those beatified or canonised after 1962 are not saints at all and to include them is to introduce modernism into the sacred liturgy? If this is so, is this mot just another swipe at Vatican II and a statement that the acts of the Pontiffs post 1962 are null and void?

Louis E. said...

So if a Blessed like Chiara Luce Badano,whose entire life was in the time of the Novus Ordo,is canonized,should there be a usus antiquior feast service for her?

Fr. Sanchez said...

It would be a masterful plan to organically revise the Roman Missal of 1962 by restoring the 55 holy week ceremonies, adding the feasts for the new saints and blesseds, adding some new OT and epistles to the lessons, and even permitting the vernacular for the lessons (as is currently the case) and for the proper prayers, whereas firmly mandating the ordinary of the Mass to be prayed in Latin and emphasizing Gregorian Chant as proper to the Roman Rite. This would place the 62 Missal firmly back into the life of the Church and prevent the temptation of locking it away in a museum.

Johannes Faber said...

Whenever mutual enrichment comes up, things happen that I find both fascinating and disturbing. Reading blog comboxes is hazardous at the best of times, but it seems that whenever this happens, certain persons act as if they have been invited to lay down blueprints for a traditionalised Novus Ordo, or the ominous prospect of the 'one unified rite' (absit). They say things like, 'The prayers at the foot of the altar must be reinstated', 'The Last Gospel must be reinstated', 'We would keep the new lectionary as it gives more Scripture', 'It is important that the congregation answer the responses', 'The readings will be in English, facing the people', 'We must have one Kalendar, and it should be the Novus Ordo [or, as some others say] the 1962' etc. They are cobbling together a liturgy according to their own taste, rather than that which has been handed on. In what way is this any different to what ++Bugnini did with the Novus Ordo?

The Holy Father says that the Novus Ordo is a 'banal on-the-spot fabrication', manufactured by a committee full of 'good of ideas', and is cut off from its tradition. How then can a pick-and-mix of good ideas from the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo be the solution to that problem? How can a problem be solved by the same methodology that created it? I propose that this 'keyboard consilium' show an untraditional (if not anti-traditional) and unliturgical (if not anti-liturgical) utilitarianism and aestheticism. I do not know what the Holy Father's intentions are on this matter - though arguably, this is a matter to be resolved by Liturgical Darwinism rather than top-down legal fiats anyway.

I am very afraid by the hybrid missal. I am even more afraid by those who say 'I think it should contain x, y and z'.

servo said...

Please, just leave us alone!

P.K.T.P. said...

Henry, this argument that we must have change to prove that our Mass is not a fossil seems to me to be artificial in the extreme. From 1637 to 1885, there was not one single change to the T.L.M.--not a comma. But the Rite was alive and well.

It cannot be doubted that revisions to the calendar are normal and expected: this is how the Rite is deepened in the lives of the faithful. The question at hand is whether, in the aftermath of a liturgical and a cultural revolution, now would be the best time to make changes. I suggest that now would be a good time for pause instead. We need only a short time to catch our breath. I suggest a mere blip, a period of fifty more years.

Who knows? In fifty years' time, a need to celebrate John Paul II or Escriva might have quite dissolved into air, into thin air.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

"Universæ Ecclesiæ" was published in May of last year, nine months ago. So where is this baby now? Has its promise been delivered? Will it dead on arrival?

In the U.S.A., we have lost our every-Sunday T.L.M.s in the Dioceses of Sioux City, Victoria-in-Texas, Burlington, Biloxi (for a time: now restored) and Baker. There is a net loss in sees having the T.L.M. every Sunday. Nobody seems to have the nerve to face the Pope of Las Vegas as he systematically refused to co-operate.

In Canada, there is a gain at Winnipeg; in England, no change; in Wales, a gain for Menevia; in Ireland and Scotland, no change. No change for Australia or New Zealand. Gains in France for Tulle a, with the Pauline Bishop Browne of Hamilton holding fast against tradition to the last. In France gains for Tulle and Rodez and finally a resolution at Evreux but a loss at Angoulême. The main problem-the gang of six anti-trads in the north-east--remains a problem. The Pope dare not contradict the Patriarch of Rheims or the Primate of Cambrai. We've apparently lost our only T.L.M. in Peru. I could go on and on. I'll cut it short: the P.C.E.D. has not seen to it that faithful's petitions for Masses have been satisfied . In France, there are 500 such petitions. They are being ignored.

I suggest that, instead of trying to experiment with our liturgical treasure, the Traditional Latin Mass, the P.C.E.D. devote its energy to ensuring that these petitions be addressed and that the Pope's m.p. be respected. Why are they not doing their job at the P.C.E.D.? Is dear Cardinal Levada up to his tricks again? One forceful action at Zagreb, in Croatia, is hardly sufficient!

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Jeff:

I ask you not to jump to conclusions. Not all saints make it to the universal calendar. Moreover, a distinction needs to be made between recognising a saint and recognising that his canonisation was a good thing in itself. The purpose of canonisations is to propose models from among the saints to be emulated by the faithful, or to propose proven intercessors. St. Thomas More was obviously worthy from before he died but he was not canonised for 450 years.

We are able to say that 'Escriva was a saint' and yet also say that his canonisation was imprudent and unfortunate. I don't question the fact that he is a saint, but I trust that I shall never venerate him, and I don't want him in our calendar. The first thing that comes to mind in his regard is how much influence that horrible Opus Dei might have had in securing an instant canonisation for him. Other examples come to mind.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Mick:

Attend to Article 23 of S.C. (I apologise for quoting from a Vatican II text. I only do it because this is the pretext for more changes):

"There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."

Would someone here please explain to me why, after countless centuries of use, prefaces from the New Mass, prefaces from Bugnini and his Consilium, are certainly required? Are they needed to avoid a popular heresy? Are they needed to correct the misbehaviour of errant traditionalists? Or is the reason for introducing them to begin a process of forcing the Bugnini philosophy down the throats of traditional Catholics? By their inclusion, our Mass is touched by that man's modernist hand. Surely to God, this association alone can only be hurtful to those for whom the T.L.M. is celebrated. Yet again, liberal prelates live to cause pain to those with whom they disagree. They do this because they fell pain themselves, a pain coming from the total failure of their 1960s reforms. It makes them look incompetent and that hurts. So they want to take it out on traditionalists.

If this optional foot is allowed in at our traditional door, more will come. Liberals do not rest, and more tinkering will surely come, as it did after the first few and small and optional changes of Bugnini in 1950-51.

Let's just say no to change. I hate all change, even spare change.


P.K.T.P.

Ferdinand Gajewski said...

I'm seeing $ signs.

Fr. Sanchez said...

"Would someone here please explain to me why, after countless centuries of use, prefaces from the New Mass, prefaces from Bugnini and his Consilium, are certainly required?"

P.K.T.P.,

I agree with you. Bugnini's prefaces are not required. But, we have to admit that the number of prefaces were severely cut in the 16th century. Whereas, prior to the 16th century, more prefaces were traditionally used in the Roman Rite. It can be argued that we shouldn't use Bugnini's prefaces, but maybe we could use others taken from the great treasury of prefaces found in the ancient codices and adapted to fit the style of the prefaces found in the Missal of Pius V.

Joshua said...

An example of a Preface already allowed pro aliquibus locis, the use of which could reasonably be extended to the whole Church by Benedict XVI, if indeed any augmentation of the EF Missal is to be expected:

Præfatio de. SS. Sacramento

Vere dignum... Deus: per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Qui, remotis carnalium victimarum inanibus umbris, Corpus et Sanguinem suum nobis in sacrificium commendavit: ut in omni loco offeratur nomini tuo, quæ tibi sola complacuit, oblatio munda. In hoc igitur inscrutabilis sapientiæ, et immensæ caritatis mysterio, idipsum quod semel in Cruce prefecit, non cessat mirabiliter operari, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Et nos, unam secum hostiam effectos, ad sacrum invitat convivium, in quo ipse cibus noster sumitur, recolitur memoria Passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futuræ gloriæ nobis pignus datur.
Et ideo...


Let us not cry in paranoid manner, but rationally and cogently argue that (1) limited additions to the Missal, such as extra Prefaces and some Masses for recently canonized Saints, have happened in the past (e.g. the Requiem Preface, the Preface of St Joseph, the Mass of St Pius X) and may appropriately continue to be made; (2) if anything, the unfortunate truncations and innovations already present in the 1962 Missal would be best reversed - thus restoring the traditional order of Holy Week, and sundry Masses (as for instance for Vigils of Apostles) and octaves (such as those of the Ascension and Epiphany) - and, it may be argued, restoring the ancient ferial epistles and Gospels provided for Wednesdays and Fridays would be a sane and useful augmentation of the same traditional sort; but (3) no innovations in the direction of the OF ought be tolerated, as these could occasion grave scandal to souls and risk fostering schisms.

What the appropriate norm by which to measure any supplementation of the Missal? The Roman liturgy over its recorded history of organic development, including the glories of mediæval worship, but excluding manufactured, inorganic liturgy.

Have Prefaces and new Masses (with chants, orations and lessons) been drawn up over the centuries? Indubitably.

Have any venerable liturgical forms been lost in recent times? Certainly: the traditional order of Holy Week above all.

There would be, fundamentally, no sensible reason to once more attempt to turn the Roman Mass into the Novus Ordo: the latter already exists, let those who wish for it stick to it, and not deprive those who don't of their legitimate right to the traditional Liturgy.

What sensible cross-fertilization of OF and EF, a mutual enrichment desired by the Holy Father, could there be? Surely it is the modern Roman Rite that must humbly turn and learn from the classical form of the Mass: Latin, chant, worship ad orientem, piety and not profanity - for irreverence can scarce be separated from impiety, as Trent teaches us.

Johannes Faber said...

"But, we have to admit that the number of prefaces were severely cut in the 16th century. Whereas, prior to the 16th century, more prefaces were traditionally used in the Roman Rite. It can be argued that we shouldn't use Bugnini's prefaces, but maybe we could use others taken from the great treasury of prefaces found in the ancient codices and adapted to fit the style of the prefaces found in the Missal of Pius V."

Fr - I sympathise, but 'can' does not mean 'should'. If a branch falls off of a tree, must it duck-taped back on?

Why do we need more prefaces? V2's own criteria was that changes should only be made if they are 'certainly' necessary. Are they certainly necessary?

I am terrified by the keyboard consilium.

Sean said...

A simple question. How exactly is the transcendent and eternal better signified in such change?

Dick said...

The need for change requires the modernist to change things to his desire. The Church is filled with these apostates in prom dresses claiming the need to update our old fashion ways. We need to dismiss these fools and use what has been handed down. And for me and millions of others it is the fourteen century's old Mass of Tradition. Enough said....

Tramtrist said...

Dick,
I agree with you.
I fear there is a sense of inevitability and hopelessness in these comments though. I see the world growing and continuing to grow more and more secularist while also continuing to become prone to want to "advance" rather than stick to any traditionalist ideas.

If that is true than over time, we traditionalists will lose our traditions through the gradual weeding out of traditional thinkers.

Given that eventual decline, I think it does not hurt to give His Holiness the benefit of the doubt, and have him cement a strong "new" (and by new I mean restoring Holy Week, adding new saints, etc) and traditional TLM with all the updates which it may (or may not) need. This will move the chains so to speak and give us our latest (and best) shot at keeping TLM alive in the face of new modernist forces in the Church.
Benedict XVI has not failed us Trads as far as I know in the way of TLM. Why should we start to believe he will now? Perhaps he is thinking longer term.

servo said...

'Benedict XVI has not failed us Trads as far as I know in the way of TLM.'

The Good Friday prayer, sadly. I guess some still think of that mess as a 'masterstroke', though.

Sixupman said...

On the basis of never commenting upon that which one has no experience, I purchased a copy of the new N.O. Missal.

It could only have been created by a committee. It is most unwieldy and unusable under normal circumstances. It carries as much charism as "The Daily Worker" newspaper. It is not conducive to prayer at any level.


If a committee get their hands on the 1962 Missal, God help us!

When hearing Mass, I always pray the Antiphon beforehand, nothing to compare in the NOM. If one thought the NOM was fully Catholic, note that after the Communion Rite, there appear to be no Ablution prayers, nor, not surprisingly the "Placeat tibi, ---- " let alone the Last Gospel and Leonine Prayers.

Was my £45 wasted, no! I am now reinforced in the view that whatever they do, the NOM is psuedo-Catholic. As for the NOM in Latin - what would be the point, such would not eradicate the flaws.