Novus Ordo Gospel in TLM

[Magnum_V8]

I was at a parish that only recently started offering the TLM. They didn’t read the 1962 missal’s Gospel; the 1962 Epistle was read, though. The celebrant went to the ambo for the Gospel and read the Novus Ordo’s Gospel for the day in English.

This past Sunday, before Mass, the issue was addressed from the ambo by another priest of the parish. He said the bishop of the diocese wants the NO’s Gospel read instead of the 1962’s Gospel.

What authority does the bishop have to make this decree? I don’t remember seeing anything like this in Summorum Pontificum. This sounds illicit to me.

Thoughts?

 

[buffalo]

It’s the Novustridentine Mass the latest innovation.

 

[ProVobis]

I was at a parish that only recently started offering the TLM. They didn’t read the 1962 missal’s Gospel; the 1962 Epistle was read, though. The celebrant went to the ambo for the Gospel and read the Novus Ordo’s Gospel for the day in English.

This past Sunday, before Mass, the issue was addressed from the ambo by another priest of the parish. He said the bishop of the diocese wants the NO’s Gospel read instead of the 1962’s Gospel.

What authority does the bishop have to make this decree? I don’t remember seeing anything like this in Summorum Pontificum. This sounds illicit to me.

Thoughts?

I’m sure we’re headed in that direction (or perhaps the Novus Ordo’s calendar will be revised to that of the Tridentine calendar) but as far as I know the 1962 Missal should include the 1962 calendar, but the readings may be in vernacular.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

I was at a parish that only recently started offering the TLM. They didn’t read the 1962 missal’s Gospel; the 1962 Epistle was read, though. The celebrant went to the ambo for the Gospel and read the Novus Ordo’s Gospel for the day in English.

This past Sunday, before Mass, the issue was addressed from the ambo by another priest of the parish. He said the bishop of the diocese wants the NO’s Gospel read instead of the 1962’s Gospel.

What authority does the bishop have to make this decree? I don’t remember seeing anything like this in Summorum Pontificum. This sounds illicit to me.

Thoughts?

Seriously - THIS bishop - Do you really think he is asking for something illicit?

 

[ProVobis]

Seriously - THIS bishop - Do you really think he is asking for something illicit?

How can it be illicit if he’s in charge of setting the rules? The ED may tone him down a bit, but I’m sure his order will stand. It’s been that way ever since collegiality.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The motu proprio allows celebration of the extraordinary form according to the books in force in 1962. So when the '62 missal gives a Gospel to read, that is the one that must be read. The PCED has clarified that the readings can be done in the vernacular (without having been read first in Latin), but no one has yet given permission to substitute the readings with those from the 2000 missal.

 

[Magnum_V8]

How can it be illicit if he’s in charge of setting the rules? The ED may tone him down a bit, but I’m sure his order will stand. It’s been that way ever since collegiality.

What authority does he have to change anything concerning the 1962 Missal, Extraordinary Form? Summorum Pontificum doesn’t allow this. Like you said, this may end up happening in the future. But that ruling will come from the Vatican, and until that happens, we need to stick with what it calls for right now, which is the 1962 Gospel.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

We do not know for sure that he actually asked for this.

But assuming that he DID ask for this: I will stand by this bishop until the end. He is rock solid. He is a canon lawyer who impressed many when he was the diocessan administrator of Boston during what was probably the toughest time in the history of that diocese. Pope Benedict appointed him to be our bishop for many good reasons. And his pastoral side is not lacking either; he has shown himself to be a sensitive, pastoral shepherd while at the same time demanding adherrance to the law and good liturgical practice. He is just ROCK SOLID. He has no weak spots in his armor; any liturgical practices that many would have questioned have ended during his tenure.

I guarantee you that if he DID actually demand this, he has a GREAT reason for doing so and that he is in line with Rome.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

We do not know for sure that he actually asked for this.

But assuming that he DID ask for this: I will stand by this bishop until the end. He is rock solid. He is a canon lawyer who impressed many when he was the diocessan administrator of Boston during what was probably the toughest time in the history of that diocese. Pope Benedict appointed him to be our bishop for many good reasons. And his pastoral side is not lacking either; he has shown himself to be a sensitive, pastoral shepherd while at the same time demanding adherrance to the law and good liturgical practice. He is just ROCK SOLID. He has no weak spots in his armor; any liturgical practices that many would have questioned have ended during his tenure.

I guarantee you that if he DID actually demand this, he has a GREAT reason for doing so and that he is in line with Rome.

I’ll give you the point that if a bishop is otherwise completely solid it is probably good to simply trust him if you come upon an otherwise complicated question to which his answer seems fishy. But there is really nothing confusing about this. There’s not a bit of ambiguity in any of the documents about which missal we’re supposed to pull the pericopes from. The only way of giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt would be to presume some sort of “supersecret indult” he hasn’t bothered to tell anyone about.

If you really want to defer to the bishop’s judgment, I would still do so only temporarily while writing to him and asking: “I realize you’re a canonist, etc., but I just can’t see anywhere that would allow this practice. Could you please explain to me why you’re allowed to change what readings will be used with this missal?”

Even the best of bishops makes mistakes, and they don’t always sit down to look at all the documentation before they make their decisions.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

I’ll give you the point that if a bishop is otherwise completely solid it is probably good to simply trust him if you come upon an otherwise complicated question to which his answer seems fishy. But there is really nothing confusing about this. There’s not a bit of ambiguity in any of the documents about which missal we’re supposed to pull the pericopes from. The only way of giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt would be to presume some sort of “supersecret indult” he hasn’t bothered to tell anyone about.

If you really want to defer to the bishop’s judgment, I would still do so only temporarily while writing to him and asking: “I realize you’re a canonist, etc., but I just can’t see anywhere that would allow this practice. Could you please explain to me why you’re allowed to change what readings will be used with this missal?”

Even the best of bishops makes mistakes, and they don’t always sit down to look at all the documentation before they make their decisions.

Well, as you have said - there is one way to find out.

I guarantee that if Magnum were to write to the diocessan director of the office for liturgy, he would get a good answer complete with documentation.

The bishop has recently appointed this person as director of that office - and he re-defined the office and made her report directly to him so that he has direct influence on matters of music and liturgy. You can rest assured that when she speaks, she is speaking for him. Anytime I have posed questions to her, she has gotten back to me IMMEDIATELY with answers - and with all of her answers she has supplied LOADS of official documentation backing them up.

When we got our new bishop, I was neutral on my opinion of him. I didn’t know what to expect. I have grown quite fond of him and to be quite impressed with him.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please be careful in this discussion not to make personal judgments about any ordained person(s). Remember, denigrating the ordained is not allowed on CAF.

 

[m134e5]

IThis past Sunday, before Mass, the issue was addressed from the ambo by another priest of the parish. He said the bishop of the diocese wants the NO’s Gospel read instead of the 1962’s Gospel.

What authority does the bishop have to make this decree? I don’t remember seeing anything like this in Summorum Pontificum. This sounds illicit to me.

Thoughts?

The bishop has no authority to say that. The forms of the Mass should not be mixed.

 

[ProVobis]

I guarantee you that if he DID actually demand this, he has a GREAT reason for doing so and that he is in line with Rome.

I guess we could write to Rome and check to see if this is actually true.

 

[Cristiano]

I was at a parish that only recently started offering the TLM. They didn’t read the 1962 missal’s Gospel; the 1962 Epistle was read, though. The celebrant went to the ambo for the Gospel and read the Novus Ordo’s Gospel for the day in English.

This past Sunday, before Mass, the issue was addressed from the ambo by another priest of the parish. He said the bishop of the diocese wants the NO’s Gospel read instead of the 1962’s Gospel.

What authority does the bishop have to make this decree? I don’t remember seeing anything like this in Summorum Pontificum. This sounds illicit to me.

Thoughts?

That is impossible. There is no room for abuses in the TLM.

 

[Chatter163]

In 1991 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave permission for this to be done, so that an NO priest celebrating a TLM in addition to the NO would not need to write a separate homily. I think that most traditionalists would never avail themselves of this permission and would agree that it was ill-advised and went against the “no mixing of rites” maxim of the indult. However, permission to do this was permitted.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

In 1991 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave permission for this to be done, so that an NO priest celebrating a TLM in addition to the NO would not need to write a separate homily. I think that most traditionalists would never avail themselves of this permission and would agree that it was ill-advised and went against the “no mixing of rites” maxim of the indult. However, permission to do this was permitted.

Interesting… my “supersecret indult” scenario rears its head to prove me wrong!:tiphat:

I know that the PCED has indeed given permissions in the past that we wouldn’t really expect, so I would believe this. Of course, I would still ask for documentation before breaching the integrity of the missal.

BTW - My “bi-formal” priest was a fan of sermonizing on doctrinal subjects such that he could use the same sermon for both his EF and OF Masses.

 

[Freshman88]

That is impossible. There is no room for abuses in the TLM.

Amen!

 

[Magnum_V8]

In 1991 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave permission for this to be done, so that an NO priest celebrating a TLM in addition to the NO would not need to write a separate homily. I think that most traditionalists would never avail themselves of this permission and would agree that it was ill-advised and went against the “no mixing of rites” maxim of the indult. However, permission to do this was permitted.

Very interesting. Was it universal? Please provide some documentary proof.

 

[Digitonomy]

It appears to be universal.

From Guidelines for the Celebration of the “Tridentine” Mass

January 1, 1991

5.Following upon the “wide and generous application” of the principles laid down in Quattuor Abhinc Annos and the directives of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 51 and 54), 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 1962 missal. 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.

Cardinal Paul Augustine Mayer, President

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It appears to be universal.

From Guidelines for the Celebration of the “Tridentine” Mass

This tidbit got me thinking: we tend to scrounge around for whatever decisions we can find from the PCED over its two-decade history, but are all of these decisions still in force? After all, most all of what we work with from them comes in the form of private communications (always hard to know whether they are meant for everyone, and if never promulgated not actually having legal force), and Summorum Pontificum gives the impression that the pope is trying to implement new guidelines (by expressly abrogating, IIRC, the provisions of Ecclesia Dei adflicta). While I recognize that his main thrust is to be more generous in the provisions, he also emphasized the need to use the '62 books and not mix rites. I have a feeling we’re all going to be surprised when the first public clarifications come out and we find out precisely what the pope/curia are willing to allow, but I’m also beginning to think that all bets are off even concerning previous “decisions” of the PCED.

PS - I’m not trying to disparage the value of the clarification you’ve provided. It just got me thinking about the whole body of clarifications in general, including “the private Msgr. Perl letter heard round the world.”