16 October 2010


Both in the text of Second Vespers of Blessed John Henry, as done on the evening of the Beatification, and in the video of the Toronto Oratory's High Mass, we had the EF but with the Collect (etc.) from the newly authorised OF propers. I know it is the obvious combination to make, but is it strictly legal? Or should Fr Zed equip all the Oratories with his red and black mugs?


Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

Fr. Z. posted a PCED document on this, which was a response to a Polish priest, back in February. The PCED said that there was to be no mix-and-match between the rites and that the calendar of 1962 must be used with the EF. However, the document also stated that this reply should only be taken as a response to this particular dubia.

Here's the link to the post with images of the documents:


Mgr Andrew Wadsworth said...

For Saints and Beati created since 1962, the Congregation for Divine Worship issues a collect in each case. I think it is reasonable to use these collects with the relevant commons from the 1962 Missal when celebrating these Masses.

This should not be construed as mixing rites as there is but one Roman Rite in two forms. Furthermore, when there is eventually either a supplement to the 1962 Missal or a new edition which includes more recently named saints, I don't imagine that new collects will be created for the purpose. The approved supplement created for the Apostolic Adminstration of Campos, which includes saints like Padre Pio, was made on this basis.

Unknown said...

On a related topic, I noticed that at Cofton Park the propers were of the beatus but the lections of the Sunday. I presume that this is normal for beatifications and canonisations. Is that so? And isn't there here a mechanism for restoring Sunday feasts (which have become invisible to the faithful)? It would be good to see some resolution of the problem of exalting the OF paschal nature of a green Sunday over feasts and perhaps allowing the propers without interrupting the lectio continua would be a way forward. I hasten to say that I am not advocating individual creativity or lawlessness, merely a future possible evolution.
Andrew Ebbsfleet

Anonymous said...

What is strictly legal here, i do not know. Strict legality, however, is not always the only consideration, nor always the overriding one. However, i do know for certain, as an example, that, on a free liturgical day, a priest following the Old Rite may celebrate a votive Mass in honour of any Saint inscribed into the Martyrologium Romanum. In that case, he would be within the strictest of legality were he to take everything from the Commune. But he would probably be true to the Spirit of the Liturgy also, were he to use the Collect of a newly canonised Saint, presuming, in lack of contrary evidence - or until explicitly ruled otherwise, that the Collect is meant also for the Extraordinary form, given that the Rite is living, and not dead. Also, by this same reasoning, I shold think that a priest might legitimately add such a collect to the other collects found on a given day in the Old Missal, as a commemoration, if the day is not liturgically free to celebrate a Votive Mass. Mind you, i have myself not yet done any of the above, though would fully justify another priest doing it (unless the Supreme lawgiver should ever rule otherwise). For the scrupulous, there always remains the Commune's Collect, to be added as a commemoration on the proper day, or to be sung/recited in a Votive Mass.

Anonymous said...

In 1993, PCED issued the following decision (Prot. 24/92, 7th June 1993): "With regard to the celebration of the Masses of saints canonized since 1962, the Latin orations published in the Missal of Pope Paul VI and those subsequently published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments should be used, taking the remaining parts from the Common."

What the current status of this ruling is, I am not qualified to say, but it is worth remarking that while the Rubricae generales of 1961 require the feasts already inscribed in calendars to continue to be observed on the days on which they are already inscribed (RG n.59), they do anticipate that canonisations will continue to occur and provide for additions to the calendar (RG, nn.60-61).

The ruling referred to above appears to be in conformity with the 1961 rubrics, and both appear to support the correctness of the position proposed by Msgr Wadsworth.