Well, if one is following the 1962 Missal, would it be necessary to follow the 1917 Code? That is, is there anything in the 1917 Code that would impact the 1962 Missal (or better asked, would there be anything in the 1983 Code that would impact the 1962 Missal in a different way than the 1917 Code)?
Wow! That’s probably the most intelligent question that I have seen on CAF.
The answer is rather simple. We (religious and clergy) were told that we could use the 1962 missal, but we must use it according to the code of 1983. This acutally makes sense.
I’ll give you a simple example from my own religious life. Our rule was written in 1209. But anything in the rule that is in conflict with the code of 1983 has to be put to the Holy Father for an indult. In other words, the code supercedes the rule. The principle is that the last law is final.
However, there is another principle in the Catholic Church. That is the pirnciple of antiquity. Certain practices that have been in place for more than 100 may be allowed to continue, even if the law changes. It is up to the Holy See to decide which practices can coninue.
In this case, the Tridentine form was never abrogated and has obviously been in place for over 100 years. The pope has allowed it to remain in place, hence Summorum Pontificum to remind all of us.
However, the laws that govern the clergy and define how the sacraments are executed have changed and Summorum Pontificum did not say that for the purpose of celebrating the Tridentine Form the definitions of the roles: deacon, presbyter and bishop, should be those of the code that preceded. It only said that the form could be celebrated.
We have to preserve the form, but use the current definitions of the roles: deacon, priest and bishop. In other words, the Motu Proprio did not rewrite canon law. It clarified that canon law had never abrogated the Tridentine Form of 1962.
Pope Paul VI, who was the mastermind behind the code of 1983, was very clever in how he organized it. He separates the mass from the ministers. In one section the law speaks about the mass. The ministers are are spoken about at great length under the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They are mentioned only when absolutely necessary in the laws that govern the mass. The old law was written a little differently. There was a lot more about the ministers interwoven in the canons about the mass. The new law keeps referring you to look at the laws that govern Holy Orders.
One more thing . . . I realize that Pope Paul was dead when the code of 1983 was decreed. But it was he who ordered that it be rewritten and he that masterminded the whole architecture of it all. He was a Doctor of Canon Law and had a very clear vision of what he wanted it to say and how it should be said. He died before he was able to promulgate it. Pope John Paul II put it on the back burner for a few years. Some analysts think that he did not want to walk in the door and make monumental changes. I don’t know.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The second is far less pleasant, and concerns parishes where the congregations are extremely unwelcoming (one might even say “hostile”) to “permanent” deacons. So much so that, even though they are supporters of the EF, the deacons bow-out of assuming their liturgical role rather than listen to the negativity. Shame, but under those conditions, one can hardly blame the deacons.