Some Things in Life are too Beautiful to be Forgotten
To the utter dismay of the members of the International Una Voce Federation, of many traditional priestly and religious orders and a great many parish priests, there appears to be a movement afoot among certain officials in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) in Rome to compromise the integrity of the 1962 Missal and replace it with something akin to the 'Missal of 1965', a hybrid mid-1960s concoction of different missals, adaptations, languages, misplaced ideas, and rubrics, in an attempt to bring traditionalists closer to the Missal of 1970. A 'hybrid' is precisely what it will be - something composed of incongruous elements. It is a movement without any shred of support. These criticisms of the PCED officials specifically exclude the new President of the Commission Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. The cardinal has publicly expressed his support for the Missal of St. Pius V which he considered "a great treasure of the Church" and assured delegates from the Una Voce Federation in Rome in September 2000 that he could see no reason why we should not be granted the use of all the liturgical books in use in 1962. Let us hope and pray that he will instruct his officials to desist from their undermining of the Missal of 1962 and restrict themselves to the task they were appointed to carry out: i.e. "to preserve their spiritual and liturgical traditions [the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962] in the light of the Protocol signed on 5th May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre" (Ecc. Dei, 6.a).A Hybrid Concoction
The Missal of 1962 has its own particular integrity as does the Missal of 1970, albeit greatly different. They each stand alone as monuments to the liturgical expressions of their day. In between 1962 and 1969 there were so many and varied adaptations introduced that so seriously attacked the structure and rubrics of the Missal of 1962, that by the time the new order of Mass was introduced in 1970 the hybrid concoction that had evolved by the late 1960s had absolutely no integrity remaining. It had become acceptable to no one, and was loved by no-one except those who created it - the consilium appointed to implement the new, revised, liturgy.
Anyone who has seen a Roman missal from 1962 that has had all the 'adaptations' incorporated will see graphically the extent of the attack on the traditional liturgy. Page after page containing the Proper of the Mass showing manuscript deletions, scrawled insertions, signs of the Cross with X after X deletions bearing clear and public testimony to the deliberate and enforced dilution of the sacred and of those aspects particularly Catholic. And the abolition of the many references in the rubrics to genuflections during and after the Consecration with the obvious intention to diminish respect for the Real Presence. By 1967, the vandalised Missal of 1962 that was still being used as the basis for the celebration of Holy Mass, provided stark testimony on page after page, of the deliberate and sustained attack on the missal of every pope from John XXIII, going back through St. Pius X to St. Pius V in 1570 who promulgated it after the historic Council of Trent. A 400 year-old treasure, with a pedigree of nearly 2000 years being reduced to a hybrid of incongruous elements. Was there not something in the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II about Holy Mother Church holding "all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way", (n4); and "that any new forms adopted in some way grow organically from forms already existing" (n23).
What is the "Missal of 1965"?
Notwithstanding the fact that most Catholics, and probably most priests, have never heard of a 'Missal of 1965' the question must be asked why certain members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission are forcing this issue, and at such a sensitive time of negotiations with the Society of St Pius X? What, in fact, is the "Missal of 1965"? Did Paul VI actually authorise two missals during his pontificate? People speak of the Missal of Paul VI - meaning that of 1970. There were certain changes introduced in 1965 and these are listed in the Acts of the Apostolic See, 1964, and in the Instruction on putting into effect the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Inter Oecumenici) 26th September 1964. The prayers at the foot of the altar (psalm 42 - Judica me..) were suppressed; the prayer at the reception of Holy Communion "Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen," was abolished and replaced with the simple formula "Corpus Christi", to which the communicant responded "Amen"; the Last Gospel and the prayers for the conversion of Russia were abolished; silent prayers were to be recited aloud; many signs of the Cross were abolished; the Pater Noster could be said by the congregation in the vernacular; in Masses with a congregation the Epistle and Gospel were to be read facing the people and the vernacular allowed and, excluding the Gospel, could be read by a lay person. The vernacular could also be used for the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Offertory prayers, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, any chants between lessons, in all acclamations, greetings, and dialogue formulas such as Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine non sum dignus, and Corpus Christi during Communion. By 1965 the practice of celebrating Mass facing the people was already becoming the norm. By 1967 permission was given for the Canon to be said aloud and in the vernacular. In October 1974, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, under the signatures of Cardinal Knox (Prefect) and A. Bugnini (Secretary), published a document entitled Conferentiarum Episcopalium to Episcopal conferences on the obligation to use the new Roman Missal. It mentions "..the Roman Missal promulgated by authority of Paul VI on 3rd April 1969". In the second paragraph, when referring to old or infirm priests it states: "...it is clear that the Ordinary may permit them to use the 1962 editio typica of the Roman Missal, adapted by the decrees of 1965 and 1967". The document goes on to state that these priests cannot say the old Mass [adapted by the decrees of 1965 and 1967] in front of a congregation. Note that the Congregation for Divine Worship does not talk specifically about a Missal of 1965 but the 1962 editio typica adapted by the decrees of 1965 and 1967. If the congregation appointed specifically to oversee the Divine Worship of the Church clearly does not give credence to a 'Missal of 1965' then how can the PCED do so? And if the PCED wishes to grant some legitimacy to the 'Missal of 1965' then why does it not grant equal legitimacy to the 'Missal of 1967'? If the decrees of 1965 adapt the 1962 Missal then surely the decrees of 1967 adapt and supersede the so-called Missal of 1965? If the international Una Voce movement were to accept the adaptations of 1965 then it would leave us open to the next PCED tactic of accepting the decrees of 1967. Before anyone would know what was happening we would find ourselves being asked to accept the Missal of 1970 in Latin. It would be a creeping death for the integrity of the 1962 Missal and the traditional liturgy.
In an address to a general audience on the new rite of Mass (19th November 1969) Paul VI stated: "The [new] Mass will be celebrated in a form which is somewhat different from the one we have been accustomed to celebrating these past four centuries, that is, from the days of St Pius V after the Council of Trent."
Logic dictates that Paul VI was talking specifically about the Missal of 1962 as being the last editio typica that could be linked directly to Pius V. The adaptations of 1965 (and 1967?), introducing, as they did, such novelties as allowing Communion in the hand and reception under both kinds would have been absolutely anathema to the Fathers of Trent in 1562. The adaptations of 1965 broke that 400 year-old continuity at a stroke.
In October 1984, the Congregation for Divine Worship under the signatures of Augustin Mayer (ProPrefect) and Virgilio Noe (Secretary), published the document entitled Quattuor Abhinc Annos. This document dealt with the ongoing 'problem' of priests and faithful holding to the so-called Tridentine rite. It states that the Supreme Pontiff granted an indult to priests and faithful for the celebration of Mass "according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" and that "such celebrations must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it" and that "there must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two missals (i.e. 1962 and 1970)." Note, again, that there is no mention of a 'Missal of 1965' or of any adaptations.
In 1986, an ad hoc commission of curial cardinals appointed by Pope John Paul II recommended - among other things - that for every Mass celebrated in Latin the priest should have the right freely to choose between the Missal of Paul VI (1970) and that of John XXIII (1962). This is quite unequivocal. The commission also recommended that if the celebrant chooses the Missal of John XXIII then he may also use the vernacular for the readings, make use of additional prefaces and prayers contained in the Missal of Paul VI and introduce bidding prayers. The option is there that he MAY use some material of Paul VI but the primary concession is that of the Missal of 1962. The option put forward by a commission of 8 curial cardinals (as opposed to relatively minor officials in the PCED) is not the between the 'Missal of 1965' and 1970, or the 'Missal of 1967' and 1970, but the Missal of 1962 and 1970. This cannot be emphasised enough. 1962, once again, is the benchmark. This is not being pedantic or rigid but simply stating the facts.
Ecclesia Dei adflicta
In 1988, Pope John Paul II issued his now famous motu proprio (by my hand) Ecclesia Dei adflicta. This document is equally clear-cut in its recommendations and authority. The Holy Father himself "guarantees respect for (our) rightful aspirations." These rightful aspirations are "for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." In this he asks for the support of ... "all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church" - including and especially, one presumes, his own personal foundation, the PCED.
In 1990, Cardinal Mayer, by now the first President of the PCED, wrote to the bishops of the United States. He began by saying: "I write to you as a brother in the Episcopal college charged by the Holy Father to carry out the provisions of his apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988. My objective in addressing myself to you now is precisely to encourage you in the exercise of your pastoral mission to those who legitimately request the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal." He then goes on to "review the developments which led to the issuance of Ecclesia Dei." In item 1 he mentions Quattuor abhinc annos and refers specifically to "the celebration of Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition". He mentions the stipulations that the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Missal of 1970 must not be called into question. He also emphasises that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" and that there must "be no interchanging of the texts and rites of the two missals".
He goes on to refer to the document Ecclesia Dei adflicta and states: "In order to provide for these legitimate desires of the faithful he [the Pope] established this Pontifical Commission and indicated his mind with regard to its primary task, stating: ...respect must everywhere be shown........for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 typical edition." Thus, the first president of the PCED (and formerly Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship), who, presumably, was briefed personally by the Pope when "he indicated his mind", saw the primary task of the PCED as being to facilitate the Mass of 1962. This is the whole thrust of his letter to the American bishops.
Later in the letter he states: "Consequently, Your Excellency, we wish to encourage you to facilitate the proper and reverent celebration of the liturgical rites according to the Roman Missal of 1962..." "This should not be construed as a promotion of that Missal in prejudice to the one promulgated eight years later...." Once again, a clear reference to 1962. Also, in referring to "the one promulgated eight years later" he obviously dismisses as irrelevant in this debate (it probably never entered his mind) any adaptations in the meantime i.e. 1965 or 1967. Anything between 1962 and 1970 is quite obviously not considered a 'missal' in its own right. It is a straight comparison between 1962 and 1970.
There is a very pertinent sentence later in the letter. In the light of the Holy Father's motu proprio he offers certain "guidelines" on the celebrations of "Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal" and these are numbered 1 to 6. Under No. 3 he states: "Under such conditions, it would seem unnecessary, even unduly painful, to impose further restrictions upon those who wish to attend such celebrations." There can be nothing more "painful" for anyone wishing to attend Mass according to the Missal of 1962 to be told that adaptations are to be introduced that no one wants, and would be so "painful" as to drive people away from the celebration they wish desperately to attend.
Under guideline No. 6, Cardinal Mayer states that the new lectionary in the vernacular could be used as a way of providing a richer fare for the faithful at the table of God's Word in Masses celebrated according to the Missal of 1962. But he goes on to say: "However, we believe that this usage should not be imposed on congregations who decidedly wish to maintain the former liturgical tradition in its integrity according to the provision of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Such an imposition might also be less likely to invite back to full communion with the Church at this time those who have lapsed into schismatic worship."
Perhaps the suggestion about the new lectionary was a sop to the bishops, but Cardinal Mayer realises this would be completely unacceptable to 99.99% of those who prefer the Church's traditional liturgy and states that "we" (i.e. the PCED) believe it should not be imposed on congregations because of the difficulties it would create. Do certain officials in the PCED have a different agenda now?
Questions to the PCED
In 1995 certain correspondence passed between John Gresser (Australia) and Mgr Perl of the PCED. In his letter of 19 September 1995, John Gresser asked the PCED the following question: "Is it true that the permission under Ecclesia Dei for celebrating the liturgy according to the 1962 books is only a temporary measure and will be revoked in the next ten years?" Mgr Perl, in reply states: "Our Holy Father is the supreme legislator of the Church. He has not put any time limit [on] the ability to benefit from his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei." John Gresser then asks: "Does the Holy See wish that societies of apostolic life set up under the Ecclesia Dei provision continue and expand or not?" Mgr Perl replies: "The Holy See does not establish institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life with the hope that they will not prosper."
When replying to the question about the continuity of the 1962 liturgical books it is interesting (reassuring?) to see that the PCED acknowledges that the Holy Father is the supreme legislator of the Church - and not the PCED. This is my point entirely, that the officials in the PCED appear to be acting ultra vires, outside their authority, in proposing adaptations to the Missal of 1962 when the Holy Father himself has GUARANTEED respect for the 1962 Missal. Also, if the Holy See wishes to see newly-established institutes prosper then why is the PCED acting in such a way to undermine this intention of the Holy See. The PCED has been told by all and sundry in the traditional movement that any interference in the Missal of 1962 will cause rift, division, and defection. Also, its treatment of the Fraternity of St. Peter last year when its Superior General was summarily dismissed was hardly designed to help that Fraternity prosper or reassure the faithful.
The Missal of 1962 is a missal in its own right (and rite?). It should not be subject to adaptations. If the PCED wishes to introduce some adaptations then it should follow established practice and present its recommendations to the Congregation for Divine Worship for scrutiny and approval and let them stand or fall on their own merits. On the subject of rubrics The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states:
"Rubrics - The word is sometimes used to indicate the general laws, sometimes to mark a particular indication, but always to furnish an explanation of the use of the text, hence the saying: "Lege rubrum si vis intelligere nigrum (read the red to understand the black). The rubrics bear on the essential rite.
Finally, the Roman Ritual, edited in 1614 under Paul V, was compiled, with the aid of the Ritual of Cardinal Guilio Antonio Santaro, from which most of the rubrics are derived. Thus various collections of the rubrics compiled by individuals have received the approval of the sovereign pontiffs, and since Pius V, instead of being published as separate treatises, they have been inserted in the liturgical books with which they dealt. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, instituted by Sixtus V in 1587, is commissioned to approve new rites, to suppress abuses in liturgical matters, issue authentic editions of liturgical books, to interpret the rubrics, and to solve difficulties connected therewith.
Writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are approved by the sovereign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine - human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. Rubrics are the prescriptions of good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority - the sovereign pontiff." (F. Cabrol, O.S.B. Abbot of St. Michael's, Farnborough)
Compare what is published above with the cavalier attitude of the PCED in proposing adaptations to the Missal of 1962. Our Holy Father has entrusted the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei with the supervision of the celebration of Holy Mass and the sacraments according to the liturgical books in force in 1962. It has been "entrusted" by the Holy Father "...with the supervision of...Holy Mass....according to the liturgical books in force in 1962." In proposing any changes outside this remit the PCED would seem to be breaking that trust and would need to go back to the Holy Father for a new mandate. Is there any precedent in Church history of a missal being amended retrospectively (and by officials in a minor Commission) while not changing the editio typica date of publication? I realise that we are living in times where anything goes but is this not attacking the essential integrity of a missal promulgated by a previous pope? Surely the only lawful way of amending or adapting a previous missal is to issue a new one under the authority of the pope of the day - has this not been the practice of centuries?
Clarity and Honesty
I am no theologian or canon lawyer but I can read documents and I subscribe to the school of thought that words should say what they mean and mean what they say. Also, if people in authority make certain statements they should be held accountable for those statements and should be able to provide the supporting evidence for a course of action they choose to follow. It is crystal clear that the Holy Father himself guarantees respect for the 1962 Missal. Quattuor abhinc annos in 1984 dealt only with the Missal of 1962. The commission of curial cardinals in 1986 dealt only with the Missal of 1962. Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 1988 concerns itself only with the Missal of 1962. Cardinal Mayer in his letter to the American bishops in 1990 dealt only with the Missal of 1962. All permissions for the old rite of Mass around the world are granted by the bishops for the Missal of 1962. The FSSP was established to celebrate the Mass of 1962. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest trains priests for the 1962 liturgical books. The Society of St. Pius X, to which the Vatican is currently making overtures, would not dream of celebrating anything later than the Missal of 1962 and would probably prefer an earlier one. In the face of all this overwhelming evidence for the support of the 1962 Missal why are officials in the PCED, who are charged by the Holy Father to carry out his will, driving forward with developments that appear to be contrary to the expressed will of the Holy Father and know will destabilise probably the most law-abiding and faithful sons and daughters of the Church? This question needs to be put in the most forthright manner and the PCED should be required to clarify its position publicly. The very last thing that would be countenanced by those who value the traditional liturgy of the Church would be any attempt by the PCED to rehash the Missal of 1962 into a composite Missal of '62, '63. '64, '65, '66, '67, 68, and '69.
The most beautiful thing this side of heaven
The Mass of the old Roman Missal was described by Father William Faber as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven". Bishop Fulton Sheen, when describing that same Mass said "Some things in life are too beautiful to be forgotten." In considering the integrity of a particular Missal perhaps one of the most perceptive comments comes from Henri Daniel-Rops in his book This is the Mass. After describing the promulgation of the Missal by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 he states:
"Therefore was it declared in the Catechism of the Council of Trent that no part of that Missal ought to be considered vain or superfluous; that not even the least of its phrases is to be thought wanting or insignificant. The shortest of its formularies, phrases even which take no more than a few seconds to pronounce, form integral parts of a whole wherein are drawn together and set forth God's gift, Christ's sacrifice, and the grace which is dowered upon us. This whole conception has in view a sort of spiritual symphony in which all themes are taken as being expressed, developed, and unified under the guidance of one purpose."
The Missal of 1962 is essentially that of 1570 in which the Fathers of the Council of Trent declared that no part be considered vain or superfluous. And yet this is what the members of the consilium in 1965 repudiated, and certain officials in the PCED appear to agree with them in their misguided attempts to force those who love the traditional liturgy to use an 'adapted' missal. Imagine the outcry should someone propose that a Mozart symphony be adapted piecemeal to suit modern times, or the Sistine Chapel be repainted in household gloss - a little dab here and there to make it more relevant perhaps, or obliterate the bits the modernists didn't particularly like. The world would rise up in protest, and rightly so. The greatest symphony of all - the spiritual symphony of the Mass - composed over centuries by the greatest minds of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is in danger of being reduced to the status of a pop tune to suit the popularity charts of each generation. The integrity of the Missal of 1962 cannot be adapted some 39 years later on the personal initiative of officials in a relatively junior Vatican Commission. It is not some railway timetable or tourist guide that can be cobbled together with bits from here and some bits from there as the mood or current fancy takes one. How on earth, and why in heaven, has the liturgy of the Catholic Church been allowed to descend to such a level?
Too much secrecy
Too much is going on in secret behind the scenes without consultation with anyone who loves, or represents those who love, the liturgical traditions of the Church. It has become more and more apparent in recent years that the permanent officials in the PCED have no empathy with the people they are meant to be assisting (clergy, religious and lay), and no real understanding of their fears and aspirations. It has also become clear that they no longer see their role as facilitating access to the 1962 Missal - their raison d'être. It is for these reasons that they, perhaps, should re-assess their value to those whom they are there to help. If they were to do this honestly then they must surely feel the only course open to them is to make way for others who will do their utmost to interpret Ecclesia Dei faithfully and for the benefit of those for whom it is intended. We agree wholeheartedly with Father Faber that the traditional Mass, whether Low, Sung, or Solemn, is "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven". We also agree with Bishop Fulton Sheen's description, "Some things in life are too beautiful to be forgotten". But perhaps the most telling phrases that sum up the awe and wonder we experience with the traditional liturgy were written by John Keats: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever; its loveliness increases; it will never pass into nothingness" Endymion,1
It is terribly sad that many in authority have lost sight of the beauty of the traditional liturgy of the Church. What is even more sad and bewildering is the determination and abuse of authority being exercised in trying to eliminate all trace of this liturgy for others. I was under the impression that Christ's instruction to his shepherds was to feed his sheep and lambs - not starve them into submission!
Leo Darroch
[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's August 2001 Newsletter.]