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.

On the Insertion of St Joseph’s Name into the Roman Canon

Traditional Catholics place a strong emphasis on the Roman Canon as an essential quality of the Roman Rite, something that enters into its very definition. Where you have the Roman Canon as the singular and necessary anaphora, you are dealing for sure with one of the Western or Latin Rites of the Church; certainly where you have the Roman Rite, you always have the Roman Canon. If this Canon is not present or if it is merely optional, you may have a valid Mass (provided all conditions are met), but you do not have the Roman Rite in any but a 30,000-foot sense of the term.

Given this premise, people like to ask about John XXIII’s insertion, in 1962, of the name of St Joseph into the first list of saints in the Roman Canon. The background story is told well enough by Fr Joseph Komonchak in this article at Commonweal, in which a quotation from Yves Congar’s diary certainly clues one in to the mentality of the progressives. In his Council daybook, Xavier Rynne relates more about the behind-the-scenes cause of Pope John’s unexpected and unilateral decision. A picture of the Latin decree may be found here. The insertion into the text is highlighted in bold:

Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis gloriosæ semper Virginis Mariæ, Genetricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreæ, Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomæ, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomæi, Matthæi, Simonis et Thaddæi: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ioannis et Pauli, Cosmæ et Damiani et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuæ muniamur auxilio. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

It is hard, at this point, to dispute that Joseph’s name should not have been inserted into the Canon. It was seen at the time by liturgical progressives as a mighty breach with the fabric of tradition and a sign that “hey, anything can be changed, as long as the pope says so!” In short: it played into the same growing hyperpapalism that enabled Pius X, Pius XII, and Paul VI to make deep and radical changes to inherited liturgical forms of 500, 1,000, or even 1,500 years’ duration, and encouraged the future members of the Consilium to stop at nothing in the magnitude and detail of their reformatory projects. [1]

Let no one misunderstand what I am claiming. I love St Joseph and pray to him daily. Not only is there nothing wrong with venerating him publicly, there would be something wrong if we did not venerate him publicly. The problem consists, rather, in making the Canon conform to momentary enthusiasms. Joseph had never been mentioned in this most solemn of prayers for 1,400 years, and we can’t say that the Holy Spirit, by willing or at least permitting this “lacuna,” intended him any disrespect, or caused any lack of the honor due to him as the foster-father of Jesus. If anything, it seems more in keeping with Joseph’s hidden sanctity that he be a light that shines out gradually from behind the constellation of the more famous saints. When we parachute him into the Canon, we are letting our devotional preferences shape the core prayers of the inherited liturgy. (John XXIII was well-known for his strong personal devotion to Joseph, which was his middle name, and is still one of the most popular names in Italy. [2])

Consider these incisive words of liturgist Bernard Botte in the 1950s:

We should be grateful to the people of the Middle Ages for having preserved the Canon in its purity and for not having allowed their personal effusions or theological ideas to pass into it. One can imagine the complete mess we would have today if each generation had been permitted to remake the canon to the measure of their theological controversies or novel forms of piety. We can only hope for a continuing imitation of the good sense of these people, who had their own theological ideas but who understood that the Canon was not their playground. In their eyes, it was the expression of a venerable tradition, and they felt that it could not be touched without opening the door to every sort of abuse. [3]

For those who wish to read more about this subject, I recommend (although without a blanket endorsement) Carol Byrne’s article “St Joseph in the Canon: An Innovation to Break Tradition.” [4] The late Fr. Carota observed:

Although different readings and saints feasts were added in the Roman Missal, the exact words of the Roman Canon were never changed since the slight change Pope St. Gregory the Great made in 600 AD, when he added a few words to it. The Roman Canon was unchanged for 1362 years. It was not altered at all until 1962 when Pope John XXIII permitted the name of St. Joseph to be inserted. Although St. Joseph is such a wonderful powerful saint for the Catholic Church, the Church carefully guarded the integrity of the Roman Canon from any alteration. In 1815, hundreds of thousands of signatures of clergy and laity were gathered to have his name inserted in the Canon. But the Church would not dare change it.

Fr Carota here steps beyond what is strictly true historically. We do not know with certainty that the final redaction of the Canon was the work of St Gregory, although a good case can be made for that view; we do know that minor variants were introduced here and there after his time, e.g., variable Hanc igiturs. Particular local saints were occasionally introduced into the lists of saints. [5] But a local devotional practice is one thing, a universal imposition from the pope is another.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, moreover, one may ask where in the Canon the name St Joseph best belongs, if his name is to be included in it. The Communicantes is not an ideal place to put him, seeing as the 24 names (12 Apostles and 12 Martyrs) were obviously chosen in reminiscence of the 24 elders in chapter 4 of the Book of Revelation. On the other hand, the Nobis quoque has 15 names (8 men and 7 women), which has no obvious symbolic value. If Joseph had been added after John the Baptist, nothing important would be disturbed, and the last Patriarch of the old covenant would be put next to the last Prophet, which is a very sensible arrangement.

When Fr. Carota says “the Church would not dare change it [the Canon],” he is alluding to a popular legend, the source of which I have not yet been able to track down (I would not be surprised if, as is often the case with legend, it rests on a true story). When Pope Pius IX was presented with support for inserting the name of Joseph, he is said to have responded: “I cannot do that; I am only the Pope.” Would that all of the successors of St Gregory the Great, even to our time, had maintained this attitude of sober humility and religious veneration!

Today, with the ongoing reevaluation of so many foolish changes in the 20th century, some raise the question of whether or not it may be worthwhile to seek the omission of Joseph’s name, so that the Canon may be restored to its perfect form (since, as just mentioned, the introduction of the extra name throws off the Canon’s careful design). Given the magnitude of other decisions facing the traditional movement, such as the restoration of the pre-1955 Holy Week, and given the ecclesiastical climate, it would seem that now is not the time to revisit this question. The addition of St Joseph’s name is a fait accompli we may regret, but we are not obliged to attribute to it the sinister meaning that the progressives of the 1960s and certain rad trads today are wont to do; we may simply accept it as one of those things we cannot change at the moment. It would be an ideal candidate to add to the raft of restorative changes yet to be made under a future pontificate, with a view to purifying the Roman Rite of the damage caused by post-World War II tinkeritis.

We can learn a lesson in this regard from the PCED’s flip-flop on the Confiteor before Communion. At first, they said: “No, this is not in the rubrics of the 1962 missal, so it shouldn’t be done.” Then later, they winked at it and said: “Well, wherever this is a custom, it can be preserved.” Rapidly, the somewhat Jesuitical argument spread: “This Confiteor had been a universal custom everywhere, and now that we are starting up the Latin Mass again in continuity with how it was being celebrated before the silly season of the 1960s, we will also retain this longstanding custom. Besides, only the legalistic sticklers at this point care about whether there’s a second Confiteor. We’ve moved past that phase for the most part.”

There we are — and I like to think that the intercession of St. Joseph, a wonderworking carpenter, might have something to do with this healthy spirit of rebuilding.

NOTES

[1] The Roman psalter supplanted by Pius X was about 1,500 years old; some of the aspects of Holy Week modified by Pius XII were 1,000 years old; the prayers at the foot of the altar were in the Roman Missal for about 500 years when Paul VI removed them. Of course many other examples can be given.

[2] There is another story, possibly apocryphal, that Roncalli wanted to call himself Pope Joseph, but was dissuaded from doing so by the cardinals, since the name was not a traditional one. It seems that cardinals of such mettle were not on hand in March 2013.

[3] “Histoire des prières de l’ordinaire de la messe,” in B. Botte/C. Mohrmann, eds., L’ordinaire de la messe. Texte critique, traduction et études (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf/Louvain: Éditions de Abbaye du Mont César, 1953), 27.

[4] In contrast, Fr David Friel takes a relaxed, irenic approach in his article “Adding Joseph to the Eucharistic Prayers.”

[5] Here, for example, is folio 144r of the Gellone Sacramentary, a sacramentary of the Gelasian type, and one of the oldest in existence (later 8th century). The names of Ss Hilary, Martin, Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, and Benedict are added to the Communicantes. You can also see that the words pro quibus tibi offerimus, which are a later addition, are missing from the Memento; Pope Benedict XIV already noted in the 18th century that these words were missing from all of the oldest manuscripts of the Canon that they had at the time.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website for articles, sacred music, and classics reprinted by Os Justi Press, his SoundCloud page for lectures, interviews, and readings, and YouTube for lectures and sacred music.

The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the FSSP

We all know about the recent decision to suppress the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In reaction, the SSPX issued this snubbing statement:

One conclusion is evident: as the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities have preserved “their spiritual and liturgical traditions,” they clearly do not count in this discussion. If they remain attached to a section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is incidental. They can have the Mass, the “spiritual and liturgical traditions,” but not the whole doctrine that goes along with them. That has always been the Society of St. Pius X’s great reproach against Dom Gérard [Calvet] and all those who thought they should break the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement. The crisis of the Church cannot be reduced to a spiritual or liturgical question alone. It is deeper, for it touches the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation, Christ the King’s right to reign here below over men and over societies.

This statement is curious, to say the least. If the liturgy really is the primary theology of the Church and we truly believe the axiom lex orandi, lex credendi, then maintaining the usus antiquior and the ascetical-mystical spirituality that sustain it is, in practice, already to maintain “the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation,” which, incidentally, includes a primacy of honor and jurisdiction on the part of the supreme pontiff. In fact, everything Catholics believe — including “Christ the King’s right to reign here below over men and over societies,” which is not at all clear in the reformed liturgy [1] — can be directly deduced from the preconciliar Roman liturgy that all “Ecclesia Dei communities” treasure.

We might, in fact, turn the tables by noting that it is the “so-called Ecclesia Dei communities” that are recovering the ancient liturgical tradition found in the pre-1955 Holy Week ceremonies and other aspects of the Roman Rite’s earlier traditional practice (e.g., octaves, additional collects, doubling the readings, folded chasubles, proper last Gospels), while the SSPX, as far as I know, continues merrily on with the suppressions and distortions of Pius XII and John XXIII. Whatever his other magnificent qualities, Archbishop Lefebvre was somewhat naïve about the extent of the damage that had already been done to the liturgy prior to 1962. If he held on to this “last missal” in order to stem the tide of incipient sedevacantism, it sounds a lot to me like a different version of “breaking the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement.” [2 and Addendum]

On the other hand, members of the FSSP have not hesitated to fire shots over the years at the wayward parents from whom the children have departed. One of its founders stated rather bluntly: “I pray very much for my old, good friends [in the SSPX] to join the Church” (!) and to “come in without any conditions,” but to “accept the authority of the living magisterium.”

I do not and would not criticize the judgments of conscience that led to the founding of the FSSP in July 1988; good-willed Catholics have disagreed and will continue to disagree in their interpretations of Archbishop Lefebvre’s dramatic step, but there is no question that he freely acted against the provisions of canon law and a solemn papal injunction to desist. If one is given the option, one should attend an usus antiquior Mass offered by a priest in “good standing” with the Church — while recognizing that, in the current crisis, “good standing” often doesn’t mean very much in practice.

It is disturbing to see the one priestly Fraternity attacking, or speaking dismissively of, the other. I understand why this happens, as there are serious issues at stake; but it still leaves me wondering if they realize the direness of an ecclesial situation in which “all hands on deck” should be the prevailing motto. Laity, in my experience, have a stronger sense of the importance of being flexible and “tradumenical” in this cancer phase of the postconciliar disease.

We might ponder a divine irony in the Fraternities’ very names, which suggest two faces, like that of the ancient Roman god Janus.

First, the Priestly Society named after St. Pius X. Every Catholic admires Pius X for his authoritative condemnation of Modernism, that “synthesis of all heresies,” and his vigorous (although unfortunately unsuccessful) efforts to suppress the Modernists; for his unequivocal condemnation of the principle of the separation of Church and State in his encyclical Vehementer Nos; for his promotion of Gregorian chant in Tra le Sollecitudini and his condemnation of the use of pianos in church, which is still in effect, although often ignored; for his encouragement of a lower age for first communion and of the practice of frequent communion for the well-disposed.

However, there is one blotch on his papal escutcheon: the violence he did to the Roman Breviary with his radical reforms of 1911. Many popes have added this or that small feature to the liturgy — a new feast, a new preface, a new octave, the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel; many have modified the rubrics; very occasionally they have pruned elements deemed overgrowths, such as Pius V’s removal of certain obviously legendary saints from the calendar of the 1570 Missale Romanum.[3] But never had a pope dared to alter in such a radical and thoroughgoing way any of the Latin Church’s ancient liturgical offices. When Pius X had the Breviarium Romanum dismantled and reconfigured in the early 20th century, he was not merely setting aside something that had been constructed in the 16th century, as liturgists can be found to assert; he was altering a rule of prayer so old its origins cannot be discerned. Indeed, there is strong reason to think that the daily recitation of the Laudate psalms (148–150), from which the very hour of Lauds derives its name, is traceable to the Jews of the time of Christ and therefore, with great likelihood, was practiced by Our Lord Himself in His prayers on earth.

There were problems with the breviary at the turn of the 20th century; no one disputes this point. But Pius X’s solution was not to retain the office as it stood while modifying its rubrics so that (e.g.) the weekly cursus of 150 psalms would be prioritized over the festal psalms, or perhaps some hours, such as Matins, would become optional for secular clergy, in order to conserve the integrity and harmony of the breviary as a whole. Instead, Pius X became the first pope in the history of the Latin Church who, freely spending the abundant capital of ultramontanism, threw the weight of his office behind the construction of a new Divine Office. [4] In this way he provided the very premise of papal contructivism that offered Pius XII the precedent for revamping Holy Week in similar fashion from 1948 to 1955, and Paul VI for transmogrifying everything from 1963 to the mid-1970s. Paradoxically, the pope who fought valiantly against doctrinal modernism exemplified liturgical modernism by rupturing the principle of the inviolability of longstanding tradition in the name of easing up pastoral burdens. If this sounds eerily familiar, it should. [5]

Thus, the very saint to whom the SSPX is dedicated shows us two sides in tension: the zealous promoter of Catholic dogma, and the larger-than-life pontiff who treated part of the liturgy as if it were a mechanism to be rebuilt rather than a living organism to be nurtured or an inheritance of the saints to be treasured.

An icon of ultramontanism: Batoni's painting of Benedict XIV
handing down a bull inspired by the Holy Spirit and SS. Peter & Paul

The heavenly patron of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter also offers us two sides in tension: the Peter who confessed Christ as the Son of God and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and the Peter who tried to remonstrate with Christ’s folly and received His rebuke: “Get behind me, Satan.” We see in the New Testament the Peter who preached the first homily on the first Pentecost and won over thousands of souls to the Church; we also see the Peter who, from human respect, denied his Master in the Passion, and later declined to associate with Gentile converts, for which he merited the sharp rebuke of his fellow apostle Paul. As Joseph Ratzinger pointed out in his book Called to Communion, the long course of Church history has displayed both faces of Peter, when his successors have acted as a stable rock of doctrinal orthodoxy and sure-handed governance, or as men acting on their own fallible initiative, ambitious, worldly, profligate, compromising.

Leaving aside this pervasive duality between office and incumbent, we may say that the patronage of St. Peter is likely to take one of two forms in the Catholic Church of the Tridentine and especially post-Vatican I period. The saint can symbolize either adherence to authentic apostolic tradition, which will pit him against Protestantism and its offspring in matters of dogma, ethics, and worship; or he can symbolize the spirit of ultramontanism — a false exaltation of the pope, a papal personality cult, which some have named hyperpapalism or papolatry.

Manifestations of contemporary ultramontanism can be obvious or subtle. For obvious manifestations we need only look to the circle of sycophants who applaud a pope’s every word and gesture. For a subtle manifestation, consider the defeaning silence on the part of many traditionalists to the pope’s most appalling statements and actions; the desire to project an image of “toeing the line” in public, while rejecting it in private. One understands why, in a time of persecution, members of traditional religious communities would keep their lips sealed, for fear of reprisal; but one would think that, out of self-respect, members of such communities would then refrain from speaking against Catholics who do raise their voices to protest open deviations from dominical, apostolic, and ecclesiastical tradition.

The irony, then, is that one community, which has fallen out of favor with the popes on account of its outspoken battle against modernism, is dedicated to a pope who was himself both an anti-modernist and, in a way, a proto-modernist; while another community, which has always retained papal favor on account of their willingness to refrain from explicit criticism of any pope, is dedicated to the first pope, who was himself a rock of faith and a stumbling block, and has become, in our times, a symbol claimed for the permanent charism of truth as well as for the pseudo-charism of fiat voluntas mea.

These sobering reflections, it seems to me, should prompt in everyone — whether persevering quietly under the patronage of the Church and the tiara of Peter, or fighting manfully on the open field while bleeding from the wounds of irregularity — a deep humility in thanking God for any and all of the gifts He has given to tradition-loving Catholics in this time of ever-intensifying spiritual warfare. It is a time for making alliances on behalf of perennial doctrine, sound morals, and authentic liturgy, not for waging battle on two fronts.

NOTES

[1] See this article and this article for a further explanation of how the new (post-Paul VI) version of the feast of Christ the King differs notably from the preconciliar one of Pius XI.

[2] Thus, we are not surprised in the least to find certain original members of the FSSP, who were once under the wing of Archbishop Lefebvre, praising him for his “pastoral approach” to liturgy. They use this to justify aberrations like reciting the readings in the vernacular facing the people instead of chanting them in Latin facing eastwards or northwards at a Missa cantata or even a Missa solemnis. “Pastoral,” indeed — so reminiscent of the aspirations of Jungmann, Parsch, Bouyer, Bugnini, and countless others whose cumulative “pastoral wisdom” birthed the Novus Ordo Missae in all its celebrated pastorality. See Addendum below, added February 5, 2019.

[3] The claim that Pope Pius V “removed lots of sequences” is something of an urban legend. With classically Roman conservatism, the Missal of the Roman Curia, the medieval predecessor of the Missal of St Pius V, simply had not received many sequences to begin with. After 1570, as churches passed over from their own local uses to that of Rome, they dropped the sequences because they were not in the Roman book. The same thing happened with some who, though retaining their proper uses, like the Premonstratensians, recast them in imitation of the Roman Missal.

[4] By “papal constructivism” I mean a Cartesian attitude of technē whereby the pope sees himself as the “master and possessor” of the liturgical rites, losing the attitude of profound piety towards the family inheritance.

[5] Bishop Athanasius Schneider had the courage to address this issue in an interview, which is worth quoting from at length for readers who have not yet seen it:

The reform of the breviary under Pius X, in 1911, was unfortunately also a revolutionary reform. It is for me an enigma how he could do this, Pope Pius X, because he changed completely the entire structure of the psalm distribution, which the Roman Church kept almost inviolably since the times—even before—of Pope Gregory I. So, already from the 6th century, maybe even earlier, the Roman Church had from this time, substantially, through at least 1,300 years, always kept the order of the distribution of psalms in the breviary during the week. The order of psalms was called the cursus romanus—cursus, meaning the course or sequence: the psalms are running through the week, from Sunday to Saturday. It was very harmonious, very logical, when you observe it. And Pius X completely, radically, changed the entire distribution of psalms. It never happened thus in the Roman Church. This is for me an enigma. How could he make such a revolution?
          Of course, he had some pastoral motives about unburdening the secular priests, to lighten their burden. But this could be done in a way not touching, substantially, the order of psalms, which the Roman Church always kept. The problem was Matins, because it had 12 psalms in the weekly office, and for some diocesan priests it was too much. The pope could have avoided touching the cursus romanus psalmorum and allowed the diocesan priests to pray maybe only half of them, six for example. So Matins would already be lightened. But the religious priests and the nuns who have to pray as their first duty, they would pray all of it. Unfortunately, the pope changed everything, even for the nuns and for all religious, maybe with the Benedictines as the only exception, who were allowed to keep their traditional psalmody. So I repeat: it would be sufficient to make a provision specifically for the clergy who are in pastoral work to lighten the burden of praying the amount of psalms, without changing substantially the order or structure of the millennium-old Roman liturgy of the Divine Office.
          I hope that in the future, the Church will return to the traditional Holy Week, pre-‘55, substantially, maybe with some slight modifications that will not touch the substance. And the same with the breviary—to return to the pre-Pius X breviary, which I call “The Breviary of All Ages,” with maybe some modifications that would be reasonable. But I repeat: not touching the substance of it. I shall repeat: the Church has to do all these things very carefully, and she had always done this wisely in the past. The popes have to be conscious that they are not the owners of the liturgy and the rites, but the keepers and the guardians of them.

ADDENDUM

Several have written to me to say that +Lefebvre decided to make the 1962 books binding simply because they were the last editio typica promulgated by lawful authority, prior to the devastations unleashed by the Council. The Instructions of 1964 and 1967 were not to be followed because they expressly referred to Sacrosanctum Concilium, of which Lefebvre had become skeptical (although a signatory in 1963), and especially because they implemented the program of the Consilium. It is possible that +Lefebvre -- like Pope John XXXIII himself, who still celebrated the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts even after his predecessor had abolished it -- would have preferred the pre-1962 rites, but he saw that he, as bishop or superior, would not have the right make such a momentous choice on his own, and that it would have obscured his position on the papacy.

Again there is a certain irony here: the very proximity of the “Ecclesia Dei” communities to their Roman contacts (which is considered “selling out” by their critics) has permitted them to acquire the right to use the older (pre-Pius XII) form of Holy Week, whereas the SSPX, standing at a greater distance, is canonically helpless in this regard. They could at some point formally request the right to revert to an earlier edition of the missal, but given the sensitive nature of the doctrinal dialogue, this issue would naturally tend to be lower down on the list.

As Fr Hunwicke recently pointed out, our liturgical hindsight is 20/20. In the 1950s and even through the 1960s, the trajectory from Pius X’s breviary to Pius XII’s Holy Week to Paul VI’s Novus Ordo was not clear to most observers. At the time, +Lefebvre and others may have considered all of Pius X’s actions mantled in his sanctity, and all of Pius XII’s reforms to have been moderate and worthy of acceptance. It was only subsequently, when the full horror of the constructivism, presentism, utilitarianism, rationalism, and papal voluntarism of Paul VI’s “reform” became apparent, that a more comprehensive critique of the 20th-century reformist program began to emerge. Today, this critique is increasingly widespread, but in 1965, 1970, or 1975 one would have looked for it largely in vain.

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.

Suppression of PCED Confirmed

Something which has been rumored for a few weeks, that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has been abolished as a separate entity, and its duties subsumed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has now been officially confirmed by the publication on the Vatican’s daily Bolletino of a motu proprio to this effect, dated two days ago. It is currently available only in Italian.

I would strongly urge our readers to read what Edward Pentin (here) and Fr Zuhlsdorf (here and especially here) have written about this.

UPDATE: An article about this has now been published on the website of Vatican News: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-01/pope-francis-suppresses-ecclesia-dei-commission.html

PCED Ordo for 2019 Now Available

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei informs us that the “Order for Reciting the Divine Office and Celebration of the Mass According to the Ancient or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite for the Year of the Lord 2019”, edited by the Commission and published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, is now available. Copies of this publication can be bought directly from Libreria Editrice Vaticana at the ecclesiastical booksellers in Rome and elsewhere.

PCED Ordo for 2018 Now Available

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei informs us that the “Order for Reciting the Divine Office and Celebration of the Mass According to the Ancient or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite for the Year of the Lord 2018”, edited by the Commission and published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, is now available. Copies of this publication can be bought directly from Libreria Editrice Vaticana at the ecclesiastical booksellers in Rome and elsewhere.

Bishop Elliott on the Recent PCED Clarification

Our thanks to Bishop Peter Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, Australia, for these observations on the different forms of Pontifical Mass. His Excellency is of course well-known to our readers for his many writings on liturgical matters, and his books The Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite and Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year.

But Were There Exceptions to the Rule?

A comment on the clarification of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

The clarification of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is to be welcomed, so as to ensure that the distinctions between the three forms of a Pontifical Mass are maintained in the Extraordinary Form. (editor’s note: the solemn high Pontifical, the Missa praelatia, and the Mass in the Presence of a bishop.) But let us not imagine it has always been as simple as that. In mission territories, which came under the Sacred Congregation Propaganda Fidei, I wonder what privileges and modifications were available to bishops in celebrating Mass in their own territory. Some research would be welcome. Until 1978 my own country, Australia, came under Propaganda Fidei and was deemed to be a “mission territory”. One thus has some historical intimations of a certain flexibility.

In 19th-century rural Australia, newspaper reports of the blessing and opening of new churches describe the bishop celebrating a “High Mass”, with an assistant priest, deacon and subdeacon, local clergy who are always named. There is no mention of deacons of honour. Unless this was Solemn Pontifical Mass at the faldstool, these reports suggest that Ordinaries celebrated a modified form of Solemn Mass at the Throne.

As was normal in 19th-century colonial society, the music was of a high standard, Masses by Haydn, etc. with a local orchestra or band, and often soloists were imported from the bigger cities. The music was an ecumenical effort, as was the collection taken up to build the new church, that is, up to the later years of the century, when rising Irish nationalism smothered nascent ecumenism.

In 19th-century Melbourne, when our immense Gothic cathedral of St Patrick rose on the Eastern Hill, Pontifical Mass at the Faldstool was favoured for major events, with Bishop Corbett of Sale as celebrant, and the Metropolitan and other Ordinaries assisting in choir. Bishop Corbett had a legendary voice; the other prelates admitted that they were not good singers, nor could they project the voice as well as he could, in an era before microphones.

Photographic evidence is also interesting. When Bishop Phelan of Sale consecrated his modest cathedral in 1915, he celebrated Mass with a deacon and subdeacon, who had no doubt acted as the assisting deacons during the long and complex rites that preceded the Mass. He did not wear dalmatic and tunicle, but they are fully vested. The Metropolitan was represented by the then-Coadjutor Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Daniel Mannix, in choir dress. Was this a Pontifical Mass in a modified form?

However, before the several interesting reforms of the rites for the dedication of church, the long ceremonies were very tiring for aging prelates, also expected to fast for the occasion. Therefore, the Mass at the Consecration of a church was often only a Pontifical Low Mass, as happened when Auxiliary Bishop Jerome Sebastian of Baltimore consecrated the new cathedral of Mary Our Queen on October 13th, 1959.

Returning to Australia, in 1966 a later Bishop of Sale, Dr Patrick Lyons, celebrated the centenary Mass of the Sisters of St Joseph, founded by St Mary of the Cross McKillop. Here, during the post-conciliar transition, we see the first blurring of the three pontifical forms of Mass. The deacons of honour are replaced by a deacon and subdeacon at the throne, with the assistant priest in cope making perhaps his final appearance. Bishop Lyons was punctilious and traditional.

After Vatican II, a major factor that broke down the classical distinction was the arrival of ritual Masses for the Sacraments, in particular, Confirmation. I celebrate these Masses every week in the Winter-Spring Confirmation season in Melbourne (May to November). The variations in the Ordinary Form are wide, ranging from a solemn form with fine music to a minimalist affair with no servers and the parish priest juggling with my chrismatory and crozier. The music at these latter events is best forgotten.

It should also be remembered that Mass for the Ordination to the Priesthood before Vatican II was often a Pontifical Low Mass. The ordaining prelate was bound to wear pontifical vestments; he used the crozier and two miters, and, in accord with the rubrics, he was assisted by two chaplains in surplice. The common and proper were sung, apparently even before the wider provision granted in 1958 for singing at Low Mass. It was thus a much more modest liturgy than our post-conciliar ordinations with hordes of concelebrants, wandering deacons and tumbling MCs.

But those two chaplains in the old rite had a specific role. They strictly supervised the word and action of the bishop to ensure validity and liceity. One famed bishop had a penchant for reaching out and turning two pages of the Pontificale at once. Now that could be a problem, particularly before Pope Pius XII defined the matter and form in 1947. Two beady-eyed Redemptorists kept him under control.

Our post-conciliar episcopal ordinations should be easier, with matter and form clearly indicated in the rite, thanks to Dom Botte. However, recently I watched an elaborate episcopal ordination in Italy. As far as I could see, the chief consecrator alone said the form, and, although they had laid hands on the candidate, the twenty aging co-consecrators seemed unaware that they were also meant to articulate the form! But not long ago during a rather prominent episcopal ordination in the US, the ancient practice of deacons imposing the Book of the Gospels just did not happen. An MC forgot? Not good. Bring back those strict chaplains.

On the Bishop’s Sung Mass and the Recent PCED Decree

We recently published notice of a clarification issued by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to the effect that the so-called Pontifical Sung Mass, i.e., Mass sung by a bishop without the full ceremonies of the Pontifical Solemn Mass, and without assistant priest, deacon and subdeacon, does not exist according to the liturgical books of the Extraordinary Form currently in use. This was met with some negative reactions in the Disqus combox and on our Facebook page, and so I make bold to offer some thoughts on what this clarification really means and entails.

The Pontifical Sung Mass was created by the decree Inter Oecumenici, which was issued on September 26, 1964, and became legally active on March 7 of the following year. The decree simply states that “It is allowed, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.” It says nothing at all as to whether the bishop should retain any of the ceremonies of the Pontifical or Prelatitial Mass, and if so, which ones. Ad litteram, since none are stated, they should all be omitted. This is a change without precedent in the history of the Roman Rite; it has never been licit for a prelate to celebrate Mass with no indication of his rank.

This rubrical gap was the first sign of an emerging carelessness and chaos in regard to the liturgy which was also hitherto unknown. The Church had previously been extremely prudent and precise in guaranteeing that the rites of the Holy Mass properly reflect Her theological understanding of the Mass and the priesthood, and all the more so in regard to the Mass of a bishop. It is completely inappropriate for a bishop to simply pretend to not be a bishop when exercising the fullness of the priesthood vested in him as a successor of the Apostles. This was recognized by the post-Conciliar reform itself, in which this change was walked back.

I recall someone telling me once that different forms of the Pontifical Mass existed in the Middle Ages, and that they were often simpler than the Roman Pontifical Mass of the Tridentine liturgical books. I see no problem with someone doing a serious study of how they were done, if indeed sufficient documentation exists to make such a study possible, and reviving them for cases where it is genuinely impossible to put together a proper solemn Pontifical. We may make the analogy with something which was done by the Cistercians in the 1930s, when they successfully revived a medieval form of solemn Mass without a subdeacon, sometimes known as a Missa diaconalis. (This practice was also permitted by Inter oecumenici.)

For reference, here is a link to a set of rubrics put together by the SSPX for a bishop’s sung Mass, importing into it the use of the miter, crozier, pectoral cross and skull cap, the ewer and basin, and a variety of the ceremonies of the Solemn Pontifical Mass, e.g. putting the maniple on before saying “Indulgentiam.” For the most part, these provisions seem to me fairly reasonable, regardless of their liceity, and certainly more appropriate than a bishop celebrating “in the manner of a priest.”

http://acss.sspxusa.org/rubrics/highmass/HighMass-Offered-by-Bishop.pdf

(I cannot help but note in passing that these rubrics begin by saying that a bishop’s Missa cantata “is allowed”, without citing who allowed it or when. As one of my Latin teachers was fond of pointing out, the word or words immediately after the opening words of a Papal document are often extremely significant, as in “Gaudium et spes, luctus et angor - The joy and hope, the mourning and anguish.” In this case, the significant third word, after “Inter” and “Ecumenici”, is “Concilii”, as in “Among the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s primary achievements must be counted the Constitution on the Liturgy…”)

The problem, as I see it, therefore lies not in the concept of the Pontifical Sung Mass per se, but in the specific formulation of it, or rather, the completely lack thereof, given by Inter oecumenici.

Some readers have commented that their local bishops had been celebrating a Missa cantata for their communities, which they will now perhaps either cancel or reduce to a low Mass. This is certainly to be regretted, as the preferable option would be to arrange for a Pontifical Solemn Mass. (For example, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, has celebrated quite a number of Solemn Pontifical Masses in recent years.) However, the alternative is at the very least problematic, namely, the celebration of Mass according to a form which does not exist, and therefore can only take place in a rubrical vacuum.

PCED Issues Clarification on Bishop’s Missa Cantata

In response to a query from the Cappella Gregoriana Sanctae Cæciliae, a traditional rite choir based in the Philippines, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has issued a clarification on the subject of the so-called Pontifical Sung Mass. The historical custom of the Church has been that a bishop may celebrate either a Low Mass of the type known as a missa praelatitia, or a full solemn High Pontifical Mass, attended by an assistant priest, deacon, subdeacon, the requisite minor ministers, and of course a choir; there was no provision for a bishop to sing Mass without the major ministers, analogous to the priest’s Missa cantata.

The first permission for a bishop’s sung Mass was given by the decree Inter oecumenici, which was issued on September 26, 1964, and became legally active on March 7 of the following year. This decree states simply that “It is allowed, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.” Wholly in keeping with that era’s nascent liturgical chaos, it says nothing about which, if any, ceremonies of the Pontifical Mass are to be retained, or whether the bishop is to simply pretend to not be a bishop when exercising the fullness of the priesthood vested in him as a successor of the Apostles.

The PCED has now formally clarified that, since this provision was not in force in 1962, according to the terms of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and the instruction Universae Ecclesiae, is not licit to celebrate a Pontifical Sung Mass. (Click image to enlarge. Thanks to the Capella Gregoriana Sanctae Caeciliae for making this available to us.)

Ecclesia Dei Commission Decree on Fatima Centenary

This year the Church will mark on May 13th the centenary of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fátima, and see the canonization of Blessed Jacinta and Francisco Marto, two of the children to whom Our Lady appeared and spoke. In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima is on the general Calendar, and may be celebrated as an optional memorial on that day, but in the Extraordinary Form, it is the feast of St Robert Bellarmine. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has just published the following decree concerning the celebration of a Votive Mass of Our Lady on the day of the centenary.

“Since many of the Christian faithful who are attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite have a particular and fervent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, as the centenary of Her first apparition approaches, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, having considered the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal published in 1962 (and especially no. 341), and wishing to encourage the devotion of the faithful to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, by the force of the ordinary power which it enjoys in this regard (see Universae Ecclesiae no. 9), grants and permits that on May 13th, 2017, a votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary (as on August 22nd) may be licitly and freely celebrated as a Votive Mass of the Second Class (which is explained in numbers 341 and 343 of the General Rubrics), by any priest of the Latin Rite, whether secular or regular, in accord with the other General Rubrics that pertain to Votive Masses of the Second Class and to commemorations. All things to the contrary notwithstanding. Given at Rome from the offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, April 5th, 2017. ” (Signed by Card. Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful, and Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Commission.)

Since section 343a of the General Rubrics states that Votive Masses of the Second Class admit one commemoration, the commemoration of St Robert should not to be omitted by those who do avail themselves of the permission granted hereby.

Pontifical Mass at the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter's: Definitve Programme

A while ago we mentioned that after the conferences of 2008 and 2009, the Italian Association Giovani e Tradizione (Youth and Tradition) and the Sodality Amicizia Sacerdotale Summorum Pontificum (Priestly Friends of Summorum Pontificum), are organising another convention on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in Rome at the Angelicum in May 2011, which will conclude with another Pontifical Mass according to the usus antiquior in St. Peter's, this time celebrated by H.Em. Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, at the Altar of the Cathedra, on Sunday 15 May 2011. Giovani e Tradizione has now released the definitive programme for the convention: see here and here. Assistant Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon of the Mass will be officials of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The remaining liturgical service will be provided by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, while one of the two choirs will be directed by Cardinal Domenico Bartolucci himself.

Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary - Full Text

Wednesday I had mentioned an interview with Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, on the occasion of three years of Summorum Pontificum, and summarised a few salient points, inviting readers to help with a full translation. One of our readers was kind enough to provide just that. Here then is the full text of the interview:

The Old Mass, the SSPX and Tradition: A Conversation in the CDF

Translation by Daniel Lloyd

What is the status of the Old Mass today? More than three years have passed since the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum came into force, with which Pope Benedict XVI once again permitted the celebration of the Liturgy according to the old books. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith watches over the implementation of the motu proprio – or, more accurately, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. It is also responsible for the conversations with the traditionalists of SSPX. We discussed both themes – the old Mass and the SSPX – with the secretary of the Commission, Mgr Guido Pozzo. Last summer, Ecclesia Dei broached the subject in the dioceses of the worldwide church of whether it is now possible in every single one to take part in a mass in the EF of the Roman Rite. We began by asking Mgr Pozzo how the situation is now.

“Three years after the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the PCED has asked all the bishops, via the nunciatures, to report on their experiences in these past three years, in accordance with what the Holy Father had written in his accompanying letter. A good third of the world’s bishops have sent us such a consideration. I must add that the majority of these answers came from those dioceses in which a desire for the mass in the Extraordinary Form exists. Thus, this return is very satisfactory.”

Concretly put, in which countries is there the greatest interest in the so-called old Mass?

“At the moment, the greatest interest and the most requests are found in Europe, in the United States of America, and also in Australia. Much less in Latin America, Africa and Asia.”

Pope Benedict asked for “charity and pastoral care” for traditionalist believers. And so the PCED are now watchmen of a sort for those cases in which that does not happen. Where have you found resistance?

“The expression “watch” translates the ancient Greek “episcopein”. The primary task of a bishop is to watch. In this sense the PCED exercises the office of oversight and watching over the application of the motu proprio. Certainly, there is still prejudice and resistance against the Mass in the old rite, whether it be on ideological grounds, or because the demand for mass in the old form is seen partly an expression of an antithesis – of an opposition even – to the reform of the liturgy as the Second Vatican Council wanted it. Clearly, these prejudices – still widespread – are to be taken on and overcome. Above all, we have to restore the unity of liturgical history, the unity of the lex orandi as an expression of the unity of the lex credendi, within the unique character of the liturgical forms of the one Roman Rite.”

To clarify, what barriers are erected by parish priests or bishops who do not esteem the old mass, in order to stonewall the demand for it?

“There are bishops and priest who see in the demand for the old rite above all the risk of a nostalgia for the aesthetic, the purely ornamental, the formalistic. I do not rule out that this is true in some cases, but, generally speaking, that shows a kind of prejudice. For the old rite of Mass has a deep richness, which must not only be respected, but also rediscovered, even to the advantage of the liturgy as it is celebrated today. This prejudice and resistance must be overcome through a change in the forma mentis, the disposition. There needs to be a commensurate liturgical education.”

How do you see the interest in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite: as growing, waning, or constant?

“I would say: growing, and that because we have observed that there is a particular interest in, and recourse to, the old form of the mass among the younger generation. And that is surprising news.”

Could you give an estimate of how many believers there are in Europe, for example, who are consistently interest in the old mass?

“The commission does not have really reliable figures, because the situation presents itself as very diverse, and as having many branches. We can say, though, that, in France, the number of believers attached to the old form of the Roman Rite is significantly higher than in Germany, Italy or Spain. It is also clear that a judgement about the worth of the Extraordinary Form of the Rite has nothing to do with numbers. Both Forms are equal in worth and honour. The Ordinary Form is that which is normal, usual, more widely spread; the Extraordinary Form is that which is special and different.”

The motu proprio says nothing about education for priests who wish to learn to celebrate the Mass according to the old books. Many regard this as a gap, insofar as the celebration of the old liturgy requires rigorous preparation. How would you advise interested priests?

“The problem of priests apt to celebrate the old rite is certainly important and urgent. I have to say that the reason why the bishops often have difficulty in fulfilling the desire for a Mass in the old form is, in fact, the lack of qualified priests who can properly celebrate this mass. Here, then, those faithful affected must have understanding and much patience. I am of the opinion that seminarians in the priestly seminaries should be offered the opportunity appropriately to learn to celebrate in the Extraordinary Form – not as a duty, but rather as a possibility. Where it is possible, one could call on those institutes who come under the jurisdiction of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and who follow the traditional liturgical discipline to assist in the training of priests. In any case, what is essential is a liturgical and theological education which decisively does away with the idea that there is a preconciliar liturgy in opposition to a postconcilar one, or that there is a preconciliar ecclesiology in opposition to a postconciliar one. Rather, there is a growth and a deepening in the history of the faith and liturgy of the Church, but always in continuity, and in essential unity, which can and may never be lost or narrowed.”

Pope Benedict wishes that both forms of the Roman Rite should enrich each other, but without mixing. What can the old liturgy “learn” from the new?

“Firstly, in the motu proprio’s accompanying letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict mentions on the one hand the necessity of updating the calendar of saints: that is, incorporating those saints canonised after 1962; and on the other the inclusion of certain prefaces from the missal of Paul VI., in order to enrich the collection of prefaces in the missal of 1962. The Commission Ecclesia Dei has initiated a programme of studies in order to fulfil the will of the Holy Father. We will soon come, I think, to a suggestion which will shortly be laid before the Holy Father for approval. I believe that one must also recognise that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite offers more extensive readings from the Holy Scriptures than the missal of 1962. Nevertheless, a change in this direction in the missal of 1962 is not easy, because one must always have in view the relationship between the individual scriptural readings and the antiphons or responsories in the Roman Breviary for the relevant day. We must also recall, though, that under Pope Pius XII a range of complementary readings for the commons of saints was added. Thus, one cannot exclude an eventual expansion even in the readings for Mass. That does not mean that, as the celebrating priest or the bishop, one can subjectively and arbitrarily change the order of the lectionary, or mix the two forms, such that the distinctiveness in each is lost.”

The Old Mass in St Peter’s: can it be celebrated with no strings attached?

“With the coming into force of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Extraordinary Form of the mass is no longer under indult, as before; rather, it is governed by the norms of the motu proprio. Therefore, in St Peters, as in all other churches, the norms of the motu proprio are in force.”

That means that even in the sacristy of St Peter’s, everything is set up for a celebration according to the Old Rite?

“Yes, as far as I know. In fact, each morning, many priests celebrate the Mass in the old rite, even with servers.”

Will Pope Benedict celebrate a High Mass in the Extraordinary Form one day?

“I think you’re asking the wrong person!”

On the subject of the conversations of the Holy See with the Lefebvrists, that is, with the FSSPX: can you say whether there has been any progress to date?

“Confidentiality is the ruling principle for the success of the conversations taking place between the specialists from the CDF and the SSPX, and I will not depart from this principle. But I can say that the climate of these conversations is positive, constructive, and characterised by mutual respect. Until now, the discussions have focussed on making the reasoning and arguments of each side known to the other, in order to clarify the basis or roots of the existing difficulties with the Magisterium. To get to the bottom of these roots, and the ultimate grounds for the difficulties with clarity is, in my view, progress.”

Since the motu proprio, the use of the old Mass is no longer a bone of contention between the Holy See and the SSPX. There remain, however, manyMmagisterial differences, on the lines of religious freedom, ecumenism, of the notion of tradition. Which is the really contentious issue?

“The disputed points are precisely those addressed in the question. It has nothing to do with a rejection of the authority of the Second Vatican Council per se, or the subsequent papal teaching office. Rather, it has to do with certain statements or teachings in the conciliar documents about religious freedom, ecumenism, relationships with non-Christian religions, the concept of the liturgical reforms, the unity of the Magisterium vis-à-vis tradition. In general, the SSPX’s difficulties have to do with the continuity or consistent development of certain of the Council’s teachings, and of the subsequent papal teaching office in view of the unchanging Magisterium of the Church and of tradition. It does not seem to me that the SSPX rejects in principle that it is possible or legitimate for there to be a development in, or a consistent, coherent deepening of, Catholic doctrine. What divides the SSPX from the position of the Holy See is the judgement made about the continuity or coherence between certain teachings of the Second Vatican Council and previous statements of the Magisterium. I think that Pope Benedict’s most recent statements on the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity with the tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church provide a basic principle for the solution of the conflict. It revolves around applying this principle both in particular cases and in its whole scope – more than has hitherto been the case.”

Pope Benedict wrote that even priests in those communities which are attached to the old form of the Roman Rite cannot in principle exclude celebrating according to the new books. How does the SSPX see that?

“You would have to ask the SSPX. I think, as I said before, that the question of the liturgical books of Paul VI’s reform has to be addressed as part of the proper understanding of liturgical reform and of its consequent correct application. The basic question which the SSPX has to answer is whether the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which Paul VI promulgated, is in and of itself valid and legitimate. There can be no doubt and no hesitation on this point. The answer must be an indubitable ‘yes’. Elsewhere, we have the ambiguities, shortcomings and also doctrinal errors which have spread in the period following the Council, be they in theological understanding, or be they in the application of liturgical reform. The then Cardinal Ratzinger, today Pope Benedict, spoke of a “disintegration” in the liturgy. From this viewpoint, one cannot say that many of those criticisms which were aired were wrong.”

If we put to one side for a moment the question of liturgical abuses in the ordinary rite, the ordinary form of the Mass, as it is celebrated for example by Pope Benedict himself, must be accepted by all those who wish to belong to the Catholic Church. So, also by the Lefebvrists. Is this the case?

“I do not think we are there yet. Even if, as has been said, the understanding of liturgical form as it is found in many renderings of the liturgical reforms, in liturgical theology, and in very many applications which prove to be abuses or to be in some way lacking, presents an objective problem. We have to rediscover the true sense and the true meaning of liturgical reform. The Pope celebrates according to the missal of Paul VI: that is an absolutely normative benchmark. We know, though, that there are many celebrations of the Mass which do not conform to the true teachings and the true spirit of the liturgical reforms and of the missal of Paul VI. Why has that happened? Why has there been this abusive application, these shortcomings, this false understanding? We have to answer this question.”

Bernard Fellay, the Superior of the SSPX, recently threatened Richard Williamson with expulsion from the Fraternity if he continued to allow himself to be represented in his German court proceedings by a lawyer with far-right connections. Is the SSPX on the brink of a split?

“Bishop Willamson’s case is an isolated incident, and it rests with the Superior of the SSPX to deal with him within the Fraternity, even with discipliniary measures, as circumstances dictate. The Holy See has already expressed itself with absolute clarity on the subject of Bishop Williamson’s views. In the book Light of the World, which has just been published, the Holy Father confirmed that the Williamson case, insofar as it has to do with his erroneous pronouncements with regard to the Holocaust, is a separate matter. It must be completely separated from the question of the relationship between the SSPX and the Holy See, which has to do with problems of doctrine and canon law.”

Where do you see the Lefebvrists’ real handicap: in doctrine or in politics?

“I am convinced that the questions which hinder the full reconciliation of the SSPX with the Holy See have to do with doctrine. Potential ideological-political implications which might reflect that could result from it, but they are not an overriding or decisive element of the discussions.”

Can the PCED advise the faithful to attend Mass celebrated by the priests of the SSPX or to receive the sacraments there, or would they advise against it?

“In his letter to the bishops after the lifting of the excommunications from the four bishops illegally consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Pope clarifies that the lifting of the excommunications – that is, of heavy disciplinary punishment – does not mean that the SSPX is immediately canonically recognised; nor, as a consequence of it, do the priests of the SSPX legitimately exercise their priestly ministry. In light of these pronouncements it is clear that the Catholic faithful are urged to avoid participating in the Mass of a priest of SSPX, and receiving the sacraments from him, because they are canonically irregular. The same goes for every other priest who finds himself in an irregular canonical situation, or who is without a bishop.”

Can you estimate how long it will take for the Lefebvrists to return to the Catholic Church?

“We have no fixed date in mind. We are praying, working, and acting so that the re-integration of the SSPX into full ecclesial communion does not take too long.”

Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary on Three Years of Summorum Pontificum

The German Service of Vatican Radio today carries an interview with Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, on the occasion of three years of Summorum Pontificum. NLM will try to provide a full translation (if any of our readers would be willing to help, that would be greatly appreciated - email addressed can be found at the top of the left side bar). In the meantime, here are a few salient points:

1. (When asked about resistence to the usus antiquior:) The old Rite of the Mass has a deep richness that needs not only to be respected, but also to be rediscovered, for the benefit of the liturgy, also as it is celebrated today. These prejudices and resistance have to be overcome by a change in the forma mentis, the disposition. A more adequate liturgical formation is needed.

2. (When asked whether interest in the usus antiquior is growing:) I would say growing. Also, because we observe that especially in the younger generations there is interest in and popularity of the old form of the Mass. And this is surprising news.

3. (When asked about numbers of faithful interested in the Extraordinary Form:) It is certainly clear, too, that the value of the Extraordinary Form of the Rite has nothing to do with numbers. Both forms are equal in value and dignity.

4. I am of the opinion that one should offer seminarians in the seminaries the opportunity to learn the celebration in the Extraordinary Form properly - not as an obligation, but as a possibility. Where possible, one could make use for the formation of the priests of those institutions which are under the jurisdiction of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and follow the traditional liturgical discipline.

5. In the letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio, Pope Benedict mentioned on the one hand the need to update the calendar of Saints, i.e. to insert the Saints proclaimed after 1962, and on the other hand that certain prefaces from the Missal of Paul VI should be incorporated in order to enrich the collection of the prefaces of the Missal of 1962. The Commission Ecclesia Dei has set up a study process to comply with the will of the Holy Father. Here one will soon, I think, arrive at a proposal, which will shortly be submitted to the Holy Father for approbation.

6. I think we must also recognize that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite offers a more extensive reading of Scripture than the Missal of 1962. Nevertheless, an amendment of the Missal of 1962 in this regard is not easy, because one has to keep in mind the relation between the biblical readings and the antiphons or responsories of the Roman breviary for that day. It bears recalling, too, however, that under Pope Pius XII a number of additional readings for the commons of Saints has been added. Therefore, one can not rule out a possible extension for the readings of the Mass. That does not mean, however, that one may as a bishop or priest celebrant subjectively and arbitrarily change the sequence of the Lectionary or mix the two forms, so that the character of both is lost.

7. In light of these explanations (sc. in the letter to the bishops), it is clear that the Catholic faithful are urged to avoid participation in the Mass or the reception of the sacraments from a priest of the FSSPX, because they are canonically irregular.