With permission, could a non-1962 Missale be used to celebrate Holy Mass?

[EphelDuath]

I know that before Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, a priest needed an indult to permissibly celebrate Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. This was first allowed by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 1984.

What if somebody wanted to celebrate Mass according to an older Missale? Suppose a priest wanted to celebrate Holy Week according to the pre-Pius XII alterations, and so wanted to use the 1920 typical edition of the Missale Romanum. What authority could he contact? His diocesan bishop? What about their country’s Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship* (this is their official title for the United States, but I don’t know if the Conference of Bishops’ liturgical regulators are called this in every territory). What about the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Holy See, or the Holy Father himself?

Would the same still hold true for the 1570 Missale Romanum, if – say – this priest was celebrating a Mass in honor of Pope St. Pius V for a congregation of university scholars that study the Council of Trent? What about a pre-Tridentine 1474 Missale Romanum?

What if this priest was an American, but was born and raised in Milan and wanted to celebrate Mass according to the Missale Ambrosianum?

 

[malphono]

…

What if somebody wanted to celebrate Mass according to an older Missale? Suppose a priest wanted to celebrate Holy Week according to the pre-Pius XII alterations, and so wanted to use the 1920 typical edition of the Missale Romanum. What authority could he contact? His diocesan bishop? What about their country’s Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship* (this is their official title for the United States, but I don’t know if the Conference of Bishops’ liturgical regulators are called this in every territory). What about the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Holy See, or the Holy Father himself?

Summorum Pontificum is very clear that the Missale Romanum editio typica of 1962 s the only one to be used. This is actually quite consistent with tradition, in that each edition of the Missale superceded that which came before. With one exception (that being the addition of St Joseph to the Canon), the main differences between the 1962 edition and the 1920 edition were in the calendar and in the rubrics. Sure, for a period of time immediately after an editio typica was promulgated, the previous edition was tolerated, but only for so long as it would take for copies of the current edition to be distributed.

The Holy Week revisions of 1955 are another matter entirely. Yes, they were included in the 1962 Missal, but had been mandated by Pius XII. A special book (I think it was titled “Ordo Hebdomadum Sanctam Instauratum” but if not exactly that, it was close) containing the Holy Week rites was issued and distributed prior to when it became mandatory for general use.

All of that said, however, I suppose it might be possible for ad-hoc permission to be granted, (this happens from time-to-time with the formally suppressed Sarum Rite) but it would have to be in the form of a Papal indult.

Would the same still hold true for the 1570 Missale Romanum, if – say – this priest was celebrating a Mass in honor of Pope St. Pius V for a congregation of university scholars that study the Council of Trent? What about a pre-Tridentine 1474 Missale Romanum?

Yes.

What if this priest was an American, but was born and raised in Milan and wanted to celebrate Mass according to the Missale Ambrosianum?

If the priest was ordained for, and is incardinated in, the Archdiocese of Milan, he has personal faculties for the Ambrosian Rite, irrespective of where he might be from or, for that matter, where he might be residing at any particular time, provided he has valid faculties in the diocese where he is located. This would be true even if he is “on loan” to another diocese, and he may still use the Missale Ambrosianum. There is, for example, a Canon from Milan (his name escapes me at the moment) who regularly offers Mass in the Rito Ambrosiano Tradizionale in Venice (he has ad-hoc faculties from the local Ordinary to celebrate in that diocese). Another example is that there is a priest in Rhode Island or Massachusetts who is American-born but was ordained for, and is incardinated in, the Archdiocese of Braga. He is officially “on loan” in the US, has valid local faculties, and periodically uses the Missale Bracarense.

However, if the priest was ordained for Milan but transfers and is then formally incardinated in another diocese, his connection to Milan is broken, even if he had been born and raised in Milan, and he automatically loses his faculties for the Ambrosian Rite.

 

[EphelDuath]

Thank you for the answer.

I am very curious about how the “chain of command” (for lack of a better term) really works here. What authority for regulating the celebration of Holy Mass is granted to a singular bishop, to the Conference of Bishops, to the Congregation for Divine Worship, and to the Holy Father? And is the Holy Father’s authority essentially unlimited in this regard (assuming, of course, that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from contradicting any infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church)?

 

[ServusMariae90]

Summorum Pontificum does mention the use of the books in use in 1962 (i.e. the 1962 Missale Romanum, the General Roman Calendar, etc.). However, there are some institutes and individual priests who use the previous calendar and rubrics. In fact, most Masses that are celebrated in the Extraordinary Form are not 100% celebrated according to the 1962 rubrics (e.g. the confiteor before the communion of the faithful). Therefore, there seems to be some leway. If you google various places that celebrate the Extraordinary Form (in union with the Church), you’ll find parish bulletins listing octaves abolished during Pope Pius XII reforms and you’ll find them observing feasts abolished in the '62 missal, such as the Vigil of the Epiphany. If you look at the pictures for the FSSP parish in Rome, you will find them using the pre-Pius XII Palm Sunday (folded chasubles and all).

While disobedience should be avoided, perhaps there is a toleration for prior uses. The priests that I know of who use pre-62 rubrics and calendar are faithful Catholics and faithful priests, and it would be hard for me to imagine that they would do something that seriously violates the wishes of the Holy See.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You’d need an indult from the Pope or the PCED.

 

[ServusMariae90]

You’d need an indult from the Pope or the PCED.

It would seem that the Holy See has tolerated deviations from the 1962 Missal, otherwise very faithful priests wouldn’t celebrate according to prior books. For example, this is a short clip of a Palm Sunday at the FSSP parish in Rome clearly using pre-55 rubrics for Palm Sunday. There are other examples. FWIW, Pope John XXIII used the pre-55 books for Good Friday.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It would seem that the Holy See has tolerated deviations from the 1962 Missal, otherwise very faithful priests wouldn’t celebrate according to prior books. For example, this is a short clip of a Palm Sunday at the FSSP parish in Rome clearly using pre-55 rubrics for Palm Sunday. There are other examples. FWIW, Pope John XXIII used the pre-55 books for Good Friday.

I don’t mean little sprinkling of pre 62 rites, I mean a wholesale use of a pre 62 book.

 

[ServusMariae90]

I don’t mean little sprinkling of pre 62 rites, I mean a wholesale use of a pre 62 book.

True, a lot of places do some “sprinkling.” I don’t see how “sprinkling” would be any more licit than using a pre-62 missal in toto. However, I know a priest who modifies his breviary to conform to pre-55 usages. Which is quite a task by the way, considering that there are entire feasts that are omitted in the '61 breviary. But he belongs to a society of apostolic life devoted to the Extraordinary Form, and I doubt he would modify his breviary in such a way that would prevent him from fulfilling his obligation to recite it. On my part, I’m just happy to be able to go a Mass in the Extraordinary Form, regardless of what missal edition is used (even though I have my preference)

 

[dans0622]

… I am very curious about how the “chain of command” (for lack of a better term) really works here. What authority for regulating the celebration of Holy Mass is granted to a singular bishop, to the Conference of Bishops, to the Congregation for Divine Worship, and to the Holy Father? And is the Holy Father’s authority essentially unlimited in this regard (assuming, of course, that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from contradicting any infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church)?

Hello,

I am of the opinion that a diocesan bishop could allow the usage of any Missal of the Latin Rite (I don’t know about other Rites…maybe there is some greater restriction). I say this based on canon 87 §1: “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.” The limitations on which Missal can be used is a matter of universal, disciplinary law. That is why I think c. 87 applies.

Canon 90 §1 should be kept in mind: “One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.”

Dan

 

[ServusMariae90]

Hello,

I am of the opinion that a diocesan bishop could allow the usage of any Missal of the Latin Rite (I don’t know about other Rites…maybe there is some greater restriction). I say this based on canon 87 §1: “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.” The limitations on which Missal can be used is a matter of universal, disciplinary law. That is why I think c. 87 applies.

Canon 90 §1 should be kept in mind: “One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.”

Dan

I would agree. My background is in theology, not canon law, so I don’t know all of the “ins and outs” of it, so to speak. But I would say custom can play a role in introducing and maintaining pracitices, that are contra legem, in regards to using older missals. Canon 24 §2 says:

A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable

A case could be made that the use of the prior missal is “reasonable,” and therefore may legitimately be introduced. Also, in regards to Summorum Pontificum and its perceived requirement of using only the 1962 missal, Canon 27 says:

Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

So it seems to me that it should be read in light of reasonable customs.