Roundup on the CDF Decrees on New Saints and New Prefaces for the TLM

St Andrew Kim Tae-gŏn (martyred 1845); St Charles Lwanga (martyred 1886)

The decrees from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cum Sanctissima and Quo Magis — the former opening up the possibility of celebrating saints canonized post-1960 with the traditional Roman Missal, the latter introducing into that missal seven prefaces, of varying degrees of authenticity — have generated a fair amount of discussion.

For the convenience of NLM readers, here is a roundup of all of the articles I have noticed, with an attempt to categorize them across the spectrum of opinion. If I have missed anything at other blogs, please let me know in the comments.

Decrees and Official Commentaries

Decree Cum Sanctissima [Latin] (February 22, 2020; released March 25)
Decree Quo Magis [Latin] (February 22, 2020; released March 25)
Vatican Presentation of Cum Sanctissima [English]
Vatican Presentation of Quo Magis [English]
(Curiously, there seems to be no English translation yet of either decree.)

Texts of the New Prefaces

These may be found in various places; Rorate’s post is probably the most useful.

(Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the Prefaces set to chant notation. If there is an enterprising Gregorio programmer out there who has mastery of how the Preface tones work, it would be immensely helpful to produce sheets with at least the common and solemn tones, in a format that would allow their ready insertion into altar missals. Please send PDF and JPG to Gregory DiPippo or me, and we will post them at NLM.)

News

Christopher Wells, “Recent Saints and new Prefaces added to 1962 Roman Missal”
Hannah Brockhaus, “CDF issues new Eucharistic prefaces, optional saint feasts for extraordinary form of Roman rite”

(There are other news reports, but they all say basically the same things.)

Canonical Commentary

Fr. Albert P. Marcello, III, “Canonical Commentary on the New Pontifical Decrees On Saints’ Days and New Prefaces in the Traditional Missal”

Enthusiasm for the Decrees

Fr. John Hunwicke, “‘New’ Saints in the Old Calendar”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: Prefaces (1)”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: Prefaces (2)”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: (3) The Calendar”

Acceptance with “let’s wait and see”

Peter Kwasniewski, “Vatican Issues Two Decrees: More Prefaces and Recent Saints in the TLM”
Dom Alcuin Reid, “The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well”
Anonymous (FSSP), “Bede, Augustine, and Gregory on 21st Century Liturgy”

Concern / skepticism

The International Federation “Una Voce” Press Release

Hostility

Brian McCall, “Vatican’s New Attack on the Old Mass: Take Your Hands Off Our Liturgical Lifeboat”
Andrea Grillo, “Open Letter on the ‘State of Liturgical Exception’”
Concerning Grillo: Peter Kwasniewski, “‘Cancel the Decrees!’: High Dudgeon from Progressive Liturgists”; idem, “Limericks on Liberal Liturgists”

Analysis of Seven Prefaces

NLM’s editor Gregory DiPippo has recently completed a series of in-depth analyses of the seven new prefaces:

“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 1: The Preface of the Angels”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 2: The Preface of St John the Baptist”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 3: The Preface of the Martyrs”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 4: The Preface of the Nuptial Mass”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 5: The Preface of the Blessed Sacrament”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 6: The Preface of All Saints and Patron Saints”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 7: The Preface of the Dedication of a Church”

See also Sharon Kabel, “How New Is the New Traditional Wedding Preface?”

Tentative Judgments

I think it is fair to say that the decree allowing the celebration of saints canonized after 1960 has been widely accepted in the traditional world as rectifying a truly strange situation where it was not possible to celebrate Mass in honor of many saints who spent their entire lives worshiping with the old Roman rite or some analogous traditional use or rite, and, if priests, celebrated it themselves — and I include in this category not just saints who lived more recently, such as Padre Pio, but also those from centuries ago whose canonizations were not completed until recently.

There is, needless to say, anxiety that either a well-intentioned but clueless celebrant or a clever and subversive cleric might try to use this provision as a “Trojan Horse” by which to force upon traditional congregations the veneration of putatively canonized individuals whose sanctity is surrounded by controversy and scandal. Only time will tell whether or not this is a real threat and how it will be dealt with “in the wild.”

Reception of the decree allowing seven more prefaces has been decidedly more ambivalent. While no one questions the legitimacy of adding a preface from time to time, in practice the Roman rite has been characterized for many centuries by a limited number of prefaces and an extremely conservative mind when it comes to expanding the repertoire. Adding seven at once is an upward bump with no historical parallel. Moreover, the sources of the texts have been tampered with, as compared with their actual ancient precedents — some more so than others, as Gregory DiPippo demonstrates in his article series.

It seems to me that the use of the prefaces will have to be a matter of ongoing theological and pastoral discernment. In any case, the utmost caution may be recommended: it would not do to take all of the prefaces on board at once, and whenever any such preface is to be used, it seems advisable to make the Latin text with a translation available as a handout, incorporate it into a worship aid, or print it in the bulletin.

A more refined objection to the two decrees concerns their “ad libitum” status. It is often said, and indeed I have said it frequently, that the old Mass is characterized by a stability, fixity, and objectivity that leaves no room for sacerdotal arbitrariness or subjectivism. This is quite true, but we should not forget that there is a tightly-defined sphere within which choices are allowed and indeed required. The old liturgy is a foe to creativity or spontaneity, but not a foe to ordered liberty. As this matter is of some importance, I will be dedicating next Monday’s article to it.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

Dom Alcuin Reid on the New Additions to the EF Missal

Yesterday, Dom Alcuin Reid, the well-known liturgical scholar and prior of the Monastère Saint Benoît in La Garde-Freinet, France (diocese of Fréjus-Toulon), published in the Catholic World Report his assessment of the CDF’s recent decrees on additions to the Missal of the Extraordinary Form: “The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well.” As always, the full article is well worth your time, but I found his concluding paragraphs to be especially useful.

“These voices, which are also those who decry any possibility of the reform of the liturgical reform, seem to be oblivious to the reality in the life of the Church at the beginning of the twenty-first century that usus antiquior is a living liturgical rite in which people—indeed significant and growing numbers of young people—participate fully, actually, consciously and fruitfully in a manner that would have brought great satisfaction to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and to the pioneers of the twentieth century liturgical movement which preceded it. They are oblivious to the fact that because the older form of the Roman rite is alive and well and bearing good fruit in the life of the Church, and because participation in it is growing numerically, it is more than appropriate that the Holy See—with the explicit approval of the Holy Father, Pope Francis—has made provision for the use of newly canonized saints and more prefaces (the reservations expressed above notwithstanding).

There is another element of this reform, alluded to earlier, that is not without significance. As already mentioned, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it apposite to permit the celebration of the Mass of Saints whose feasts fall in Lent with the commemoration of the Lenten Mass, reversing the relevant provision of the 1960 code of rubrics published in the missal of 1962. Hitherto the Holy See has not derogated from the liturgical books in force in 1962 in a manner that ‘corrects’ previous reforms. But through this small provision it has happily shown that it is possible to recognize that not everything in the liturgical books in force in 1962 is set in stone: the correction of unfortunate elements present in them is possible. The permissions given in recent years for the use of the pre-1955 Holy Week rites (to be sure, at the correct times) show a similar, healthy openness, for which the Holy See must be praised.

‘In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture,’ Pope Benedict wrote in 2007. ‘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,’ he insisted.

The possibility of the celebration of new saints and of the use of more prefaces in the usus antiquior of the Roman rite is, overall, an example of such growth and progress. That their use is facultative means that they will find their proper place in worship according to the older rites, or not, according to the pastoral judgement of those responsible, avoiding any rupture with the past. Regardless of some of the particulars, the authoritative recognition these measures bring to the fact that the older form of the Roman rite is alive and well and has its rightful and proper place in a healthy diversity in the liturgical life of the Church of our times is something for which we may be very thankful indeed.”

New Prefaces and New Saints: Press Release from the FIUV

NLM was asked to post this press release from the International Federation Una Voce. We share this as an item potentially of interest to our readers, not as an endorsement of everything it says.

A PDF version may be found here.

PRESS RELEASE
CDF DECREES ON NEW PREFACES AND SAINTS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM
From the President and Officers of the FIUV
26th March 2020

Yesterday the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), now exercising the functions of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has issued two decrees, one on Prefaces to be added to the 1962 Missal (Quo Magis), and the other on the possibility of saints, canonised since 1962 to have Masses celebrated in their honour (Cum Sanctissima). (English translation here.)

The Federation was consulted on both issues, and we would like to thank the CDF for taking the views of our members into account in developing these decrees.

The Federation welcomes in particular the possibility of making a liturgical commemoration of saints canonised since 1962, without excessive disruption to the Sanctoral Calendar as it has come down to us. We wish, however, to issue some notes of caution.

On Prefaces, we note that the Note presenting the decree explains that while three of the seven newly permitted Prefaces are of the ‘Neo-Gallican’ tradition (of 18th century French origin), the other four are Prefaces used in the Ordinary Form, though not composed from scratch for the reformed Mass: ‘their central section(s), known as the “embolism”, appear in ancient liturgical sources’.

This implies that these ancient Prefaces have been adapted for use in the Ordinary Form, a process which makes them conform less, rather than more, with the spirit of the Extraordinary Form. If the value of these Prefaces lies in their antiquity, it is not clear what is to be gained by their being used in the Extraordinary Form in a redaction designed to make them conform to the themes and preferences of the Ordinary Form.

Further, we would like to appeal to priests celebrating the Extraordinary Form to bear in mind the great antiquity, theological importance, and centrality to the ancient Roman liturgical tradition, of the Preface of Trinity Sunday, and the Common Preface, whose use would become less frequent if the newly optional Prefaces were systematically employed. These two Prefaces have been of such centrality to the celebration of ancient Mass up to this point, that to downgrade them to mere options among others would be to make a fundamental change in the balance of texts and theological ideas which the Missal presents to the Faithful over the course of the year.

On the Saints, we note the list of saints celebrated as 3rd Class feasts, whose celebration remains obligatory. We recognise that in order to make possible the celebration of the new saints room must somehow be made for them, and we endorse the method proposed. We have reservations, however, about the composition of this list.

We note with particular dismay that the only male lay saints on the list are SS Cosmas and Damian: this seems an omission in need of correction, particularly as the excluded category include men central to the development of their countries: St Louis of France, St Stephen of Hungary, St Henry the Emperor of Germany, St Edward the Confessor of England, and St Wenceslas of Bohemia, outstanding examples of the vocation of the laity to ‘to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel’.

Also completely absent are female founders of religious orders, such as St Angela Merici, St Juliana of Falconieri, and St Jane Francis de Chantal.

Although we are pleased to see two widows on the list—St Monica and St Francis of Rome—it would seem in general that non-clerical vocations, of the active or the religious life, which are richly represented in the ancient sanctoral calendar, have been set aside as of marginal importance.

Another category poorly represented on the list are Doctors of the Church. Some of the highest importance have been excluded: St Isidore, St John Damascene, St Bede, and St Irenaeus.

The imbalance represented by the list of obligatory saints appears to have been inherited from the list of non-optional Memorials found in the sanctoral cycle of the Ordinary Form, which it closely resembles. The lack of interest in the lay vocation and in the Doctors of the Church shown by the reformers of the 1960s should not be allowed to distort the presentation of the Church’s great patrimony of saints in celebrations of the Extraordinary Form today.

In choosing when to avail themselves of the option to celebrate newly ordained saints, we would like to appeal to priests celebrating the Extraordinary Form to consider carefully the balance of the categories of the saints, the importance of maintaining the connection to the distant past represented by the most ancient saints, and the value of the Marian devotional feasts also now rendered optional, such as Our Lady of Lourdes and the Presentation of Mary.

As an indication of feasts which we regard as particularly worthy of continued celebration, we give the following, non-exhaustive, list.

14/01   St Hilary
10/02   St Scholastica
11/02   Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary (of Lourdes)
17/03   St Patrick
18/03   St Cyril of Jerusalem
27/03   St John Damascene
04/04   St Isidore
27/05   St Bede
03/07   St Irenaeus
15/07   St Henry, Emperor
25/08   St Louis, King
30/08   St Rose of Lima
02/09   St Stephen, King
28/09   St Wenceslas, Duke and Martyr
08/10   St Bridget, Widow
13/10   St Edward, King
24/10   St Rafael the Archangel
15/11   St Albert the Great
21/11   Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
25/11   St Catherine of Alexandria
-----------------------------

[1] Second Vatican Council Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam actuositatem 5.

What Does the Suppression of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Mean?

I agree with many who have written that, materially, this motu proprio (full translation here) delivers no gigantic shocks. It does not abolish the functions of the PCED but transfers them internally to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It does not suggest any limitation on Summorum Pontificum or on any of the religious orders and communities that make use of the usus antiquior. It does not hint at any further steps of limitation or ghettoizing of traditionalists. Above all, it does not transfer any of the former competencies of the PCED to other Roman dicasteries that would surely have made mincemeat of them. In that sense, the bullet some were fearing has been dodged.

Nevertheless, one might have some concerns about the implications of the step the Pope has taken.

When Pope Francis summarizes his conception of the function of the PCED, he uses terms that are more limited than the scope Pope Benedict XVI assigned to PCED in the wake of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. Francis speaks as if PCED existed to reconcile the SSPX and to regulate the life of other communities and orders that have chosen the usus antiquior. But as we all know, the Commission has spent a great deal of its time working patiently with bishops and clergy around the world who obstruct or deny the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. In this sense it is not quite true to say that the questions dealt with by the Commission “were of a primarily doctrinal nature.”

If the folding of the Commission into the CDF causes it to enjoy less independence and maneuverability for dealing with the refractory, this would be a narrowing of Pope Benedict XVI’s pastoral program. We may hope that this does not occur; time will tell.

The motu proprio claims that “today the conditions which led the Holy Pontiff John Paul II to institute the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei have changed.” In many ways, this is true; but in other respects, the situation is still similar: there are many parishes desirous of the usus antiquior that have been denied it contra legem; there are groups of men and women religious who desire to incorporate it into their life and have faced stonewalling; and there are communities that have been suppressed because they too eagerly adopted the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

Admittedly, it is an advantage for the dialogue with the SSPX that they will be dealing solely with the CDF, since it is a higher and more authoritative body. One wonders, however, if this administrative restructuring might be to the disadvantage of Catholic clergy, religious, and laity who, already in full communion with the Church, are facing difficulties that were handled by the Commission under its own head, Archbishop Pozzo, who has now been dismissed. The CDF has, of course, authority of a much higher standing, but it must choose to bring that authority to bear on those who stubbornly oppose the rights of the clergy and the faithful attached to the usus antiquior.

Then one may inquire about the unwritten message this change may transmit. Until now, the matter of implementing Summorum Pontificum has been deemed important enough to require a Pontifical Commission headed by an Archbishop. Could the new motu proprio be meant to insinuate that the urgency of this issue has passed? Sometimes reorganization, especially in this pontificate, seems to mean downgrading. Does it telegraph that dialogue with the SSPX is a priority, while fielding other issues is not, or considerably less so?

An anonymous Vatican commentator cited by Chris Altieri at the (US) Catholic Herald says: “It makes sense to ‘fold’ Ecclesia Dei — its duties and competencies — into CDF.” It surely makes sense for the SSPX doctrinal talks to be conducted by the CDF; but why would the handling of traditional religious orders and communities, or rubrical and calendrical issues, or cases of pastoral non-compliance on the part of ordinaries and superiors, be confided to a congregation that monitors orthodoxy of faith and morals? As a counterpoint, though, we might recall that all aspects of the Anglican Ordinariates are already handled by the CDF, including questions of clerical discipline and liturgy. One may also point out the sober truth that the preponderance of work now confided to the CDF concerns clerical abuse. The Congregation, in other words, is a multi-disciplinary body, wielding a great deal of authority, and amply furbished with Consultors.

Some have optimistically read into the decision a recognition that the real issues at the heart of the traditionalist/mainstream divide are doctrinal in nature, rather than liturgical or canonical. Now, it is quite true that the real issues are doctrinal. But this motu proprio limits doctrinal difficulties to the SSPX and kindred groups. I am happy to be proved wrong, and to see the new arrangement as an upgrade for all adherents of liturgical and doctrinal tradition.

It is possible that the CDF will prove entirely friendly to the new special section and will see to it that the work already admirably done by the Commission over the past 30 years will continue energetically, albeit in a different setting. Perhaps the change will add up to little more than having a different letterhead for correspondence. In a best case scenario, the CDF may throw its muscle behind the issues with which PCED has dealt in the past, and make better headway. For this we must pray.

In the end, one thing is absolutely clear. It is not administrative structures or even their governing documents that make decisions or protect rights; people do. The ultimate effects of this change depend entirely on the officials who are in charge of the section and of the CDF itself. As Pope Leo XIII explains in his encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes:

In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of government most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation. … Legislation is the work of men invested with power, and who, in fact, govern the nation; therefore it follows that, practically, the quality of the laws depends more upon the quality of these men than upon the power. The laws will be good or bad accordingly as the minds of the legislators are imbued with good or bad principles, and as they allow themselves to be guided by political prudence or by passion.

Whether we have a Commission or a Section; whether the substance of concern be portrayed as doctrinal or disciplinary and pastoral; whether separateness is better than incorporation, or vice versa — everything now hinges on the leadership of the CDF, the staffing decisions, and the marching orders that are officially or unofficially conveyed to the CDF by the Holy Father.