Novus Ordo Gospel in TLM

[Cranch]

I wonder if this question is truly settled by the previously excerpted 1991 Guidelines. For one thing the permission therein comes with a caveat:5.…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.

How does that square with what we already know from the O.P.:

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.**

That at least hints at imposition.

Also I note that PCED introduced this permission with the words: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…

This would seem to associate the permission at least partly with what came before in *Quattuor Abhinc Annos. *However in Summorum Pontificum we find the following:It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. **The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ ****are substituted **as follows:

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. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be** attended by [the] faithful** who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

It seems to me that guidelines issued in reference to documents which have now been substituted with the provisions of Summorum Pontificum should be reevaluated in light of the Motu Proprio.

P.S. - Wrote this while Andreas was making his last post. Sorry for any replication of ideas!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

P.S. - Wrote this while Andreas was making his last post. Sorry for any replication of ideas!

No, thanks for making me feel a little less “rigid” for suggesting that the 1991 responsum might not settle the question after SP. Great minds think alike.

 

[lak611]

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 went to the TLM at Immaculate Conception when the previous bishop ran the Diocese of Cleveland and the TLM was still by indult only. The readings were from the 1962 calendar then. I have not been to Immaculate Conception recently, so I do not know what they are doing now.

 

[palmas85]

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.

I would bring up an interesting scenario for your consideration. Since the Holy Father has decreed that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated:

As for the use of the 1962 “missale” as a “forma extraordinaria” of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. Pope Benedict XVI

it could reasonably be argued that the indult was never needed in the first place. Therefore. the restrictions on using the 1962 Missal exclusively for its celebration would not necessarily still be in force. Modernizing the readings, feast days etc, could be viewed as a natural organic change. In fact more than a few Bishops and Priests apparently feel this is exactly what should happen.

Interesting scenario.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I would bring up an interesting scenario for your consideration. Since the Holy Father has decreed that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated:

As for the use of the 1962 “missale” as a “forma extraordinaria” of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. Pope Benedict XVI

it could reasonably be argued that the indult was never needed in the first place. Therefore. the restrictions on using the 1962 Missal exclusively for its celebration would not necessarily still be in force. Modernizing the readings, feast days etc, could be viewed as a natural organic change. In fact more than a few Bishops and Priests apparently feel this is exactly what should happen.

Interesting scenario.

Well, I think Summorum Pontificum told us not to mix rites while at the same time saying that within the old missal it could be profitable to bring in subsequently canonized saints and some of the new prefaces. There’s no doubt that Benedict eventually wants organic change to occur in both forms (one might say he wants the EF to progress organically and the OF to become an organic progression from the EF), but he most certainly doesn’t want it done quickly or by unsupervised experimentation. Like I said, I think we’re all going to be surprised when the clarifying letter comes out of Rome. He’s going to want real growth, but in tiny baby steps.

 

[palmas85]

Well, I think Summorum Pontificum told us not to mix rites while at the same time saying that within the old missal it could be profitable to bring in subsequently canonized saints and some of the new prefaces. There’s no doubt that Benedict eventually wants organic change to occur in both forms (one might say he wants the EF to progress organically and the OF to become an organic progression from the EF), but he most certainly doesn’t want it done quickly or by unsupervised experimentation. Like I said, I think we’re all going to be surprised when the clarifying letter comes out of Rome. He’s going to want real growth, but in tiny baby steps.

Oh I agree, I just thought it to be an interesting scenario.

 

[lak611]

Like I said, I think we’re all going to be surprised when the clarifying letter comes out of Rome.

When is this letter supposed to be released?

 

[Mattjolley]

could they not have read the gospel from the douay-rheims? thats the english version used in my 1962 english-latin missal from baronius press.

Matt

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

When is this letter supposed to be released?

Hopefully this side of the eschaton…

It’s kind of like waiting for the motu proprio itself. They kept telling us it was coming, but the pope never rushes anything and waited until he felt the time was right. Part of making the time right was announcing it would happen so that the kicking and screaming would get out of the way first. In this instance, I think part of making the time right is giving the motu proprio enough implementation time to get a good feel for all of the kinks that are going to arise; that way the letter will have a better shot of addressing everything at once. Lots of bishops have, I’m sure, sent in lots of questions, and the letter will probably wait until the pope and curia feel they’ve got a good idea of what confusions exist and can consult long and hard about how to resolve them.

 

[kleary]

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?

At the altar the priest reads the Gospel from the 1962 Missal and does it in Latin. Did you not hear him do that facing the altar? He is NOT allowed to skip reading the Gospel at the altar and simply just do it from the lectern facing the people in English. The rubrics for the TLM do not allow for that no matter what your Bishop says- even your Bishop lacks the authority to change the rubrics for this.

Now most recently the PCED issued a statement regarding the readings. The priest may do the 1962 Missal’s readings in English, using the ICEL versions in the Novus Ordo Missal but MAY NOT use readings different than the ones in the 1962 Missal. In other words, no cycle of readings different than those in the 1962 Missal. The readings for the day in the 1962 Missal must be those readings, not other readings such as the ones for the Novus Ordo for that day.

Did the priest skip doing the readings facing the altar? He is not allowed to do that. he may have done that and then read them in English during his sermon from the Novus Ordo Missal??? He can do that of course but most priests who say the TLM know better than read from the current Missal- I mean we traddies abhor the ICEL version because it is innacurately translated. Priests who say the TLM know this.

If I were you I would have this abuse in writing- write to the priest and get what he says on paper- then write to the Diocese and see what they respond with- then take it to the St. Joseph Foundation and then to the PCED yourself so that the situation can be corrected.

Ken