There are several important considerations that have to be addressed here. Let’s look at Sumorum Pontificum (Motu Proprio) of P. Benedict XVI.
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
- The Novus Ordo is the Ordinary Form of the mass. Benedict XVI does not question it or suggest that this is going to change with time.
- The Gregorian from is the Extraordinary Form and deserving of respect and support because its ancient usage.
- He does not want these to be seen as two separate masses, but two forms of the same Roman Rite.
Also observe in the following paragraph of the Motu Proprio that Benedict authorizes the use of the EF for any day of the year, any priest, except the most important celebration of the liturgical year, the Easter Triduum. The Ordinary Form is used on this the most important liturgical time of the year.
**Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. **
Then there is the case of religious priests for those who attend mass at chapels and oratories run by religious, such as colleges, universities, hospitals, schools or any other institution that belongs to the order and not the diocese. Religious priests may celebrate the EF. However, the Holy Father makes it clear that the Major Superior and the rules of the religious order have the final word on the matter, not the bishop nor we the laity.
At Franciscan University many lay people got into an argument with the Franciscan Friars because the Friars would not celebrate the EF on campus. The Friars explained that their community had decided that it was not necessary for the life of the friars and therefore they were not bound to celebrate it. But the laity at the university did not understand this. They took it to the local bishop who explained that he had no authority over the Major Superior of the Friars, but they thought that they were being lied to or deceived.
Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm
Finally we need to look at a paragraph in Benedict’s letter to the bishops regarding the sanctity of both forms.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
To maintain communion with the Church and with each other, priests cannot stop celebrating the OF nor can we deny its value and holiness.
As to the SSPX claims the accopanying letter says the following.
**We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. **
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm
Our Holy Father does not support that the break of the SSPX with the Pope and the Bishops was just the mass, but deeper issues involving fidelity, since others also wanted the return of the Gregorian form, but remained faithful to the Holy Father, the Bishops and the Council.
It is time that we think in terms of practicine the mother of all virtues, which is humility. Without humility, all other virtues are like sand in our hands during a windstorm.
JR
