This is not the first paper of the series, which I introduced here, but a general introduction and disclaimer. Readers should refer to this when reading our papers; in particular it gives an explanation for the tone we have adopted, which may appear puzzling to Rorate Caeli's traditionalist readers.
The papers will in due course be available from the FIUV website on this page. (And here afterwards.)
--------------------------
Introduction to the series: the FIUV Position Papers on the 1962 Missal
These papers are offered to stimulate and inform debate about the 1962 Missal among Catholics ‘attached to the former liturgical traditions’, and others interested in the liturgical renewal of the Church. The positions taken in these papers are not considered binding on the Una Voce Federation or its members associations; they are simply presented as useful contributions to the debate. Nor are they to be taken to imply personal or moral criticism of those today or in the past who have adopted practices or advocated reforms which are subjected to criticism. In composing these papers we adopt the working assumption that our fellow Catholics act in good will, but that nevertheless a vigorous and well-informed debate is absolutely necessary if those who act in good will are to do so in light of a proper understanding of the issues.
It is not our concern in these papers to comment directly on the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated in 1970. In articulating what it is, about the ‘former liturgical traditions’, which makes them a ‘treasure for the Church’ (as Pope Benedict has expressed it), we do not believe we are acting in any way disloyally to the Holy Father or to the authority of the Holy See. It is for others to expound considerations in favour of the 1970 Missal, which will for the foreseeable future exist alongside the older Missal, the two Missals being two Forms of the Roman Rite.
The authors of the papers are not named, as the papers are not the product of any one person, and also because we prefer them to be judged on the basis of their content, not their authorship.
We have no interest in engaging in polemic on any of the subjects covered by these papers; thoughtful contributions to the debate are welcomed, however, and will be systematically considered in an on-going process of revision.
We take as our starting point Canon 212 §3 of the 1983 Code, which states of the laity:
They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
To avoid possible misunderstandings of these papers, we would like to make three further points.
1) These papers are to be understood as pertaining to the Roman Rite and to the ecclesiastical history and culture that has grown up around it, and should not be read as passing judgment—whether directly or indirectly—upon the different traditions of the Eastern Rites. What we say may be applicable to a large extent to the non-Roman Rites of the Latin Church, but these are not the focus of our concern.
2) In using terms such as ‘Extraordinary’ and ‘Ordinary’ Form, it is not our intention to pass judgment either way on the debates that have arisen regarding the propriety or fitness of these or alternative terms to denote the liturgies represented by the 1962 and 1970 Missals respectively.
3) We refer in these papers to the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and to the major documents that comprise the Magisterium of the Popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI, because these documents represent in the eyes of the Holy See and the episcopate of the Catholic Church the most recent and current standard by which the faith of the Catholic Church is transmitted. In referring to these documents we are mindful of the reservations that some Catholics aligned with the cause of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite have regarding the compatibility of these documents with the doctrinal tradition represented by the pre-Conciliar Magisterium. It is far from our intention, in quoting these documents, to imply any final judgement regarding the relationship between the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Magisterium, especially as this question has been elaborated in the works of theologians such as Gherardini and Amerio, and discussed in the doctrinal talks between the SSPX and the Holy See. At any rate we believe that there is no contradiction between the passages of the more modern Magisterium that we have quoted, and the earlier Magisterium, notwithstanding some differences of style and terminology.
The International Federation Una Voce humbly submits the opinions contained in these papers to the judgement of the Church.
Leo Darroch, President, Fœderatio Internationalis Una Voce
Dr Joseph Shaw, Moderator of the Liturgy and Spirituality Subcommittee
