I've had a brilliant idea - yet another one - about the Holy Father's brilliant decision to rename the Extraordinary Form the Vetus Ordo.
Could we take the formula Vetus Ordo to refer to any Mass of the Latin Rite celebrated according to the rubrics that existed at any time before the publication of the Novus Ordo? This would include several sub-varieties; one could multiply them endlessly, but practically speaking, these ...
(a) ("1965") the Mass celebrated by those who follow the use of 1965 (I believe there are communities which celebrate this by indult), according to the Ordo Missae which was promulgated that year (and ordered to be printed in future printings of the Missale Romanum: ...et in novis Missalis romani editionibus assumeretur ...). If Summorum Pontificum had not specifically mentioned 1962, this rite of 1965 would have been naturally, and logically, assumed to be the final form of the Old Mass before the introduction of the Novus Ordo*. It is the form used by Archbishop Lefebvre before he subsequently decided to revert to 1962. It omits the psalm Iudica me and the Last Gospel; simplifies the gestures at the Doxology of the Canon; introduces the Forma Ambrosiana ("Corpus Christi R Amen") at Communion. Then there is
(b) ("the Extraordinary Form") the rite of 1962. There are two forms of this. (bi) The form authorised as the Editio typica was authorised and published before the Council. It lacks S Joseph in the Communicantes. But (bii) dates from December, after the start of the Council, when B John XXIII added S Joseph to the Canon. Logically, (bi) fits the prescriptions of Summorum pontificum. But (bii) is, I think, most commonly although illegally used by those celebrating "1962". As for
(c), I must be discreet here. This is for your eyes only. Not to be mentioned outside these four walls. There are those, dangerous men, who use the rite as it was before Pius XII and his ally Bugnini got to work on it. (I shall not enable comments which disclose group or individual identities.)
"Vetus Ordo" suits as an umbrella to refer to all of these. And version (c) we could call ... what? Usus authenticior?
_______________________________________________________________________________
*I presume Pope Benedict XVI picked upon "1962" rather than 1965 in his motu proprio quite simply because His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had previously done so; an example of his gentle and ecumenical courtesy; his desire to make things as easy as he possibly could for the SSPX.
The alterations mandated in 1967 do not, in my fallible view, constitute another variety of the Vetus Ordo because they were never printed in the form of an Ordo Missae and were not ordered to be incorporated into editions of the Missale Romanum (indeed, the accompanying Instructio includes the words firmis manentibus actualibus liturgicis libris).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.
... once graced the high altar of the church of Sancta Maria in Ara Coeli on the Capitoline Hill.
Fr John Hunwicke
was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.
Archive
-
▼
2014
(202)
-
▼
January
(19)
- Narcissistic butterflies Episode the Third
- Check it
- Narcissistic butterflies Episode the Second
- Narcissistic butterflies Episode the First
- Reordination (4); Consummatio; Anglicans
- Reordination (3): Consummatio
- Reordination (2)
- Reordination: (1)
- (Crypto)Lefebvrianism (1)
- Mascall and Betjeman
- Advice?
- More advice??
- A deafening Silence???
- APPENDIX FRANCISCANA?
- The good news ... the bad news ...
- Un discorso da fare
- Monsignori
- Query
- VETUS again
-
▼
January
(19)
Popular Posts
-
More Update: Perhaps I should have been more explicit about the complete wrongheadedness of the sort of speculations which could be triggere...
-
There are wild rumours on the Internet about News due to break tomorrow, Sunday. They are, as far as I know, all wrong. Far too wild. Far to...
-
To refresh your memories, I reprint a piece I wrote when an earlier electronic edition of the Dictator Pope was published under a pseudonym:...
-
So a correspondent wrote on one of my threads. It set me thinking. I am convinced that PF is most certainly not the worst man ever to hav...
-
Perhaps a couple of years ago, in Western Ireland, I had the privilege to be in the company of a very great prelate just after he had offere...
-
"After this Magisterium, after this long journey, we can affirm with certainty and with Magisterial authority that the Liturgical Refor...
-
Lead us not into temptation. It is unlikely that the Greek and Latin words translated by temptation meant the sort of thing we mean by '...
-
Pope Francis breaks his silence! A "In authorising regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the 'extraordinary form'...
-
The heart of the Bergoglianist error is, in my fallible opinion, to be found in such texts as the letter Archbishop Nichols wrote last year ...
Followers
Links
Raffaello's Madonna di Foligno
... once graced the high altar of the church of Sancta Maria in Ara Coeli on the Capitoline Hill.
8 comments:
Are the so called "Gallican" prefaces published in bii technically legal? If not, are they permissible ad libitum as a "long-standing" custom?
Secondly, Fr., I would very much enjoy your analysis of the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon. Insofar as St. Joseph is now the patron of the universal church, would it not make more sense to add him to the embolism after the Lord's Prayer? For it is there that one typically finds the patron's of the area to which one belongs. For example, in the Stowe Missal, the LIbera Nos paragraph includes St. Patrick. The Ambrosian Rite has there St. Ambrose.
The compilers at Angelus Press seem to think the Gallican prefaces are allowed, although they leave out one or two in their handmissal.
I have heard some believe the Sarum and other medieval uses not suppressed in Quo Primum are allowed without indult, but that might be a stretch.
We should have Sarum prefaces included in missals from English speaking lands coz if the frogs can have their Gallican ones, them why shouldn't we have ours?
Very jolly Father.
In the American Colonies, editions of the Missal were published which incorporated the changes of 1967 etc.
Concerning the Gallican Prefaces, certain dioceses were permitted by Indult to use these, before the revisions of 1964-65. Occasionally a "1962" Missale can be found which includes them. I would have thought that this old indult could be applied more broadly now, but I realise that some devotees of the "Vetus Ordo" aren't sympathetic to such an approach.
I myself like the terms "Old Mass" and "New Mass", since it emphasises that what happened in 1969-70 was "new" and not continuity.
Recently, I heard a priest refer to the 1974 ICEL Missal as "The Old Mass". It's all relative, it seems.
The use of the '62 Liturgical books in Summorum Pontificum is in continuity with John Paul's 1988 Ecclesia Dei adflicta and the CDW's 1984 Quattuor abhinc annos. Yes, the CDW singles out the '62 books as a gesture to Msgr. Lefebvre, especially after the imposition of the '62 books across the SSPX a few years earlier resulting in a major row in the SSPX USA (then) Northeast District that resulted in a split and the creation of the uniquely American SSPV that uses your option c books.
W.C. Hoag,
Michael Davies was of the opinion that Quattuor abhinc annos was a result of negotiations in the early 1980s between Econe and Rome. The specification of 1962 in the 1984 indult, in contrast to 1967 in the 'Heenan'/'Agatha Christie' aka 1971 indult, as you rightly state links closely with the change in $$PX praxis imposed in 1982/1983. Davies' view was echoed, from the opposite end of the traditionalist spectrum, by Bishop Sanborn who had been rector of the USA $$PX seminary at the time.
W.C. Hoag,
Michael Davies was of the opinion that Quattuor abhinc annos was a result of negotiations in the early 1980s between Econe and Rome. The specification of 1962 in the 1984 indult, in contrast to 1967 in the 'Heenan'/'Agatha Christie' aka 1971 indult, as you rightly state links closely with the change in $$PX praxis imposed in 1982/1983. Davies' view was echoed, from the opposite end of the traditionalist spectrum, by Bishop Sanborn who had been rector of the USA $$PX seminary at the time.
The Heenan/Agatha Christie indult only allowed the 1965 plus the 1967 modifications found in Tres abhinc annos.
SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO CULTU DIVINO
E Civitate Vaticana, die 5 November 1971
Prot. N. 1897/71
Your Eminence,
His Holiness Pope Paul VI, by letter of 30 October 1971, has given
special faculties to the undersigned Secretary of this Sacred Congregation to
convey to Your Eminence, as Chairman of the Episcopal Conference of England
and Wales, the following points regarding the Order of the Mass:
1. Considering the pastoral needs referred to by Your Eminence, it is
permitted to the local Ordinaries of England and Wales to grant that certain
groups of the faithful may on special occasions be allowed to participate in
the Mass celebrated according to the Rites and texts of the former Roman
Missal. The edition of the Missal to be used on these occasions should be
that published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27
January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera
(4 May 1967).
This faculty may be granted provided that groups make the request
for reasons of genuine devotion, and provided that the permission does not
disturb or damage the general communion of the faithful. For this reason the
permission is limited to certain groups on special occasions; at all regular
parish and other community Masses, the Order of the Mass given in the new
Roman Missal should be used. Since the Eucharist is the sacrament of unity,
it is necessary that the use of the Order of Mass given in the former Missal
should not become a sign or cause of disunity in the Catholic community. For
this reason agreement among the Bishops of the Episcopal Conference as to how
this faculty is to be exercised will be a further guarantee of unity of
praxis in this area.
2. Priests who on occasion wish to celebrate Mass according to the above-
mentioned edition of the Roman Missal may do so by consent of their Ordinary
and in accordance with the norms given by the same. When these priests
celebrate Mass with the people and wish to use the rites and texts of the
former Missal, the conditions and limits mentioned above for celebration by
certain groups on special occasions are to be applied.
With my highest respects, I am
Yours sincerely in Christ,
(Signed:) A. Bugnini
Secretary
Sacra Congregatio
pro Cultu Divino
Post a Comment