Wednesday 5 January 2011

Custom, and the 1962 books...


Whilst looking for something entirely unrelated, I stumbled upon this. I can add nothing more than to observe that like Summorum Pontificum, the now-almost-forgotten (since 2007) Trad argument for '62 from ''immemorial custom'' is a damned lie which comes from the Devil. This article demonstrates that, from the point of view of Canon Law, an argument for the '62 books from a ''custom'' perspective is futile, since custom derives from the worshipping community, not from on high, from whence liturgical law comes. Since the liturgical books of 1962 were imposed by Rome, and were never meant to be anything but a temporary stage in a well-planned and thorough revision of the Roman Rite (to conveniently incorporate the changes of Rubricarum Instructum, inter alia), they cannot be said to have arisen from a legitimate custom, to which all members of Christ's Church have an inherent right. Also how can you argue from immemorial custom by citing Quo Primum, which, contrary to custom, was the imposition of the Tridentine Rite upon the whole Latin Church, even where it was wholly alien? That's like arguing for the establishment of democracy by autocratic means (poor analogy perhaps but I have just realised that I published this post without thinking of one!)I t is therefore doubly wrong to say that all priests have a right to celebrate according to the '62 books, since not only were they juridically abrogated by successive revisions during the 1960s (and the Roman Rite as it was in 1962 was NEVER allowed as an option), but the '62 books are distinct from other approved Uses within the Roman Rite because they arose not from the worshipping community as customs do, but from the source of liturgical law - Rome - and according to Canon Law the Supreme Pontiff, as legislator for the whole Church, has the right to suppress customs as he sees fit anyway!

Apropos. 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.

As the Grinch would say; wrongo! The question of abrogation seems to have been conveniently passed over by Traditionalists, who desire '62 (or at least some impoverished expression of the Old Rite, vis the abundance of lace, or mixing it up a bit by having the Old Rite but at an inappropriate time). I am still waiting for a response from any prominent Traddie as to whether they honestly believe '62 was never juridically abrogated, and if so to provide me with evidence in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis or some other source bearing the force of liturgical law supporting this spurious claim. I could provide a plethora of liturgical legislation supporting my position, though I think that the abrogatory clause in Missale Romanum (1969) suffices:

''In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal…. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church…. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, ‘for legitimate variations and adaptations,’(SC 38-40) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. … Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit…. We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent…. We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.''



Far from presenting the liturgical books of 1962 as an option it seems quite clear that the revised New Missal is to be normative, and the one expression of the ecclesial Lex Orandi - that is, of course, if you accept any liturgical ruling which comes from Rome. I don't for the record. Since, however, the most recent liturgical legislation in the Roman Church is the more authoritative (in stark contrast to the traditional understanding of the Sacred Canons - that is that the older a particular law could be proved to be, the more force it has), one might well question the worth of previous legislation in the Roman Church. When the next Holy Father revises, or annuls, Summorum Pontificum with the next liturgical constitution (imposing, I have no doubt, the modern Roman lectionary, kalendar, and the rite of the Mass as it was in either 1965 or 1967), I wonder if Traddies will question the present legislation then? Or come to think like me perhaps? Lord only knows.

What would be the best for the Roman Church in matters liturgical? The implementation of Summorum Pontificum? I think not. I personally think a ''grass roots'' endeavour would work better, without ratification (or even knowledge, if you can get away with it) from Rome, where an argument from ''immemorial custom'' would actually make sense.

12 comments:

  1. Well, we need priests trained in the older rubrics and the older books, or rather we need priests who are good liturgists as well as good theologians and good canonists. But, predictably, with the decay of classical learning and the idea of learning for learning sake(the idea of a catholic university) or for the glory of God, and the disappearance of the polymath, such priests will be difficult to find. It is weird,isn't it, in a world where printing and all that is a pretty easy affair, that the older books are not printed. But, indeed, its up to us to free the Liturgy from the secular constraints of demand and supply, nihil operi dei praeponatur.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I t is therefore doubly wrong to say that all priests have a right to celebrate according to the '62 books, since not only were they juridically abrogated by successive revisions during the 1960s (and the Roman Rite as it was in 1962 was NEVER allowed as an option), but the '62 books are distinct from other approved Uses within the Roman Rite because they arose not from the worshipping community as customs do, but from the source of liturgical law - Rome (...)"

    Not quite. I do not think you can argue that Inter Oecumenici and Tres abhinc annos abrogated the 1962MR, they derogated its use to the new forms imposed in those years. However, you are quite right to remind people that the 1962MR was no longer used in its entirety after either Advent 1964 (in England and Wales and some other countries) or Lent 1965. After that priests in good standing had to follow the '1965' rite, ignoring the changes was not an option. The same applied with Tres abhinc annos.

    However, 'disobedient' clergy had been ignoring the changes from the mid-1950s. There were clusters of them in NW England (where Catholicism had been very strong) and other isolated men. After the NOM came in things hotted up somewhat. The famous case of Fr. Oswald Baker springs to mind. Alone of all clergy in England and Wales Fr. Baker absolutely refused the NOM and its promulgation. He was forced out of his church and took refuse in the sacristy and eventually developed a chapel. He was once asked how much support he had from other clergy "Much support but none would enter the ring" was his reply.

    Less confrontationally other clergy kept their heads down and carried on with the Old Rite. A visit to the Brompton Oratory in the early 1970s would give a choice of several pre-1955 Masses and Fr. Leicester who accepted the 1955 changes but rejected those of John XXIII.

    There is no doubt that Paul VI's Missale Romanum abrogated the 1962MR. Traditionalists used to argue their right to celebrate the 'Old Rite' - without defining what they meant - on the basis of immemorial and centennial custom. To abolish either of those requires specific abrogation, so the Traddies had a very good argument.

    Rome has, of course, been very clever. After Quattuor abhinc annos it played the fault lines between good, obedient, Traddies and nasty, horrible, schismatic ones. Before then, as one illicitly consecrated Bishop said to me once, "We all hated Paul VI cordially together." So now the post-1984 'in communion with Rome' Traddieland moves closer to formal development of the 1962MR - which few use in its entirety anyway - with much discussion about what changes are likely from Rome. When those changes happen, and my prediction is they will be largely a repeat of 1964/5 and 1967 and a move towards a common calendar, it will be interesting to see what the 'good' Traddies do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obviously the promulgation of the1969/70 Missal by Paul VI did not make it clear to all that the Old Rite had been superseded. It wasn't until 1976 that Paul VI expressly forbade celebrating the Old Rite and priests who dared to keep on celebrating the old Mass were suspended a divinis. I was a seminarian from 1970 onwards and remember these events. In the seminary in Roma in which i eventually would spend eight years, the Rector, under influence of Mons. LeFebvre who had lived with us for a year in 1969, refused to make andy changes. And thus the Altars stayed against the wall, the Mass, Laudes, Completorium, Benediction, even the Rosary and prayers at table all remained in Latin. Most of the priests (all of whom were old) kept on celebrating the Old Mass in spite of Paul VI. Some had acquired indults, but after 1976 the Mass had to be celebrated in solitude, without any faithful present. The offiical Vatican story has recently been changed - like Newspeach - to fit the recent Vatican line that the Old Mass had never been abrogated, restricted or persecuted by the Vatican itself, but only by local Ordinaries who had misunderstood the Popes' (Paul VI and JOhn Paul II) directives. Which is a blatant untruth...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obviously the promulgation of the1969/70 Missal by Paul VI did not make it clear to all that the Old Rite had been superseded. It wasn't until 1976 that Paul VI expressly forbade celebrating the Old Rite and priests who dared to keep on celebrating the old Mass were suspended a divinis. I was a seminarian from 1970 onwards and remember these events. In the seminary in Roma in which i eventually would spend eight years, the Rector, under influence of Mons. LeFebvre who had lived with us for a year in 1969, refused to make andy changes. And thus the Altars stayed against the wall, the Mass, Laudes, Completorium, Benediction, even the Rosary and prayers at table all remained in Latin. Most of the priests (all of whom were old) kept on celebrating the Old Mass in spite of Paul VI. Some had acquired indults, but after 1976 the Mass had to be celebrated in solitude, without any faithful present. The offiical Vatican story has recently been changed - like Newspeach - to fit the recent Vatican line that the Old Mass had never been abrogated, restricted or persecuted by the Vatican itself, but only by local Ordinaries who had misunderstood the Popes' (Paul VI and JOhn Paul II) directives. Which is a blatant untruth... What is true, is, what cardinal Ratzinger more than once explained in his several books before becoming Pope, that NO POPE is Lord over the Liturgy, but rather its servant, and no Pope has the authority to abrogate an ancient apporved Rite of the Church. Hence, the Old Rite Mass was indeed never truly abrogated, although Paul VI certainly believed that he had done so. And so did John Paul II. Otherwise he wouldn't have granted indults (the first one in 1984 very restrictive) to celebrate a Rite which he should have known was still valid and needed no permission to be celebrated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "When those changes happen, and my prediction is they will be largely a repeat of 1964/5 and 1967 and a move towards a common calendar..."

    Yes, Rubricarius. Things are going in that direction. Bishop Rifan, for one, is lobbying for the use of the '65 Missal and calendar reforms...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fr. Albertus,

    I must respectfully disagree with you as I believe the intention of the legislator was clear in Missale Romanum.

    Even admitting a doubt that would leave the 1967 Ritus in place along with the three new anaphorae whose use was promulgated in 1968. The 1971 'Agatha Christie' indult to the Bishops of England and Wales specified the 1967 rite, which was really a widening of the extension granted by the Instruction Constitutione Apostolica (AAS 61 (1969) pp.749-753), #19 which allowed Ordinaries to grant the right of elderly priest to celebrate the 1967 rite without a congregation. Until the indult Quattuor abhinc annos no priest could legally celebrate the 1962 rite. It is worth bearing in mind that the Latin Mass Society at the time was quite dismissive of the indult and maintained the right of celebrants to celebrate on the basis of immemorial custom - somethign which obviously cannot apply to a rite four years old (1967), seven years old (1964) or even just a decade old at the time (1960/2).

    However, the rest of what you say I fully share your views on: what has happened by papal fiat to the liturgy in the twentieth century was outrageous - I have been criticised elsewhere by someone of the genus Anagallis for suggesting ownership of liturgical praxis has to belong to a wider franchise than the pope of the moment, but I maintain that view.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rubricarius,
    Our divergence seems based upon different use of terminology.You seem to consider the changes to MR 1962 to constitute new ''Rites''; those 64/65 and 67 changes to MR 1962 were rubrical, and, as harmful to tradition and as damnable as they were for their intention (which, as it later turned out - was to lead to NOM) did not constitute any new Ritus, not even a new Missal. Nor did MR 1962 constitute a new Ritus: i had never heard of this viewpoint until now nor do I myself consider a new Ritus to have appeared until the Novus Ordo, introduced, where i lived, on Palm Sunday 1970. I served Mass in a parish and at school until 1970, and remember the 1965 rubrical changes (to which the turning around of the altar and the sole use of the vernacular did not pertain; these were not mandated by the Missal, nor were they ever universally mandated). I don't recall any new ''canons' úntil the Novus Ordo first appeared. The NO is indeed a new Ritus, having little in common with the Roman Rite. In 1970 i entered seminary where the Old Rite remained celebrated all the years i was there, and it was celebrated according to the Missals at hand, pre-1962, without any post-1962 rubrical changes. After the introducton of the NOM, it became clear to all that the rubrical changes of 65 and 67 had been fulfilled in the NOM to which they had led up to, did not belong to the traditional Rite, and were not - as we had been misled to believe - the very last changes, THE Mass of Vatican II. Thus, priests revereted to, or continued to celebrate, the Old Rite without those alterations, and only two ‘’Roman Rites’’ remained everafter: 1) according to the MR 1962 without further changes, or according to any older MIssal at hand, and 2) in opposition thereto, the Missal of Paul VI. If you are right, (and you probably are), that the individually granted Indults were for celebrating the Mass according to MR 1962 WITH later 65 and 67 rub. changes, then until 1984 all the Indult Masses of the elderly priests in Rome were - according to the mentality of the Vatican at that time - illegal. But i am sure that the priests concerned were totally unaware of their illegal situation! (which a few years ago was declared by the present Pontiff in SP not to have been illegal afterall...) I served their Masses and learnt to celebrate Mass from them, and I was not aware of what you write. In 1978 i was ordained, and celebrated Mass according to a pre-1962 Missale Romanum and I never considered making use of any post-1962 rubrical changes when celebrating at the seminary my first two years of priesthood, as those changes were by then forgotten, they had never been written into the Missal, and they were by 1970 considered as not belonging to the traditional RIte, but rather to the new Rite (I was ordained at age 22 - with the necessary dispensations, and had to finish my studies, hence my first two years of Masses were celebrated at a side altar within the seminary). That is the situation as i remember having lived it. I have no recollection of the three new ''canons'' until their first public appearance in the NOM 1970. These products of Bugnini's Consilium were never used in the public celebration of Mass before the NOM; i only first heard them in 1970, in the few months between the introduction of the NOM and my entrance in to the seminary. 1962 is no new Ritus, but it is, admittedly, a somewhat watered-down and manipulated version of the Roman Rite, the endpoint of a process begun by Pius IX with the reordering of the Pslams in the Officium Divinum, stretching back to Urbanus VIII's rewritten hymns..
    PS. Rubricarius, I cannot find you amongst the acknowledgements in Hull's book. Under waht name are you there? If that is not too indiscreet a question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Albertus,

    I am wrestling with a gammon at the moment and cannot give you the reply your comment deserves.

    However, briefly for now, a new Ordo Missae - it was called just that - was promulgated on 27th January 1965, Paul VI commanding it to be followed and to be inserted into existing Missals. This even appeared in AAS, which of course the 1962MR does not.

    As to Hull's book see page XIV, I am half-way down the paragraph that begins on that page.

    ReplyDelete
  9. May I say this is one of the most interesting discussions I have seen on this question, Pater Albertus and Rubricarius.

    May I suggest that perhaps priests in England adopted the changes as they came from Rome and perhaps other, the French mainly, did not.

    I am thinking here about Opus Sacerdotale, a group of priests who held to the Old Rite were encouraged by N-D de Fontgombault and helped to bring about the Inst. of Christ the King - about whom there was an article in the Australian magazine AD2000 a small quote gives the flavour of Opus Sac.

    "....But what is truly remarkable about these priests is their ability to stand their ground. Typical is the case of Father Pierre Lourdelet, the present Director of the association and author of a successful new catechism. Father Lourdelet is pastor of three parishes near Paris, and has been celebrating the old Mass without let or hindrance since 1960. "How did you get away with it?" I asked him. I simply explained to my Bishop that until the bull Quo Primum was abrogated I had every right to use the Missal it promulgated, a fact he had to concede." "

    France and the revival of traditional Catholicism by Dr Geoffrey Hull
    Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 4 No 9 (October 1991), p. 12

    **

    There was no English version of Opus Sac. I assume..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry the link to that article is here:

    http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1991/oct1991p12_711.html --

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fr. Albertus,

    Forgive my delay in responding, the festive season can be demanding in the kitchen and with guests I fear.

    The ‘1965’ rite was called a ‘Ritus Servandus’: its promulgation appearing on page 408 of the AAS.
    Liturgical commentators at the time referred to it as a new order of Mass, e.g. J. B. O’ Connell ‘The Order to be Observed in the Celebration of Mass: A Translation of the New Ordo Missae’, Burns & Oates, London, 1965. The new Ordo Missae was the official implementation of Inter Oecumenici although various Episcopal Conferences had brought in changes before then. In England and Wales these were observed from Advent Sunday 1964 (c.f. ‘The Sacred Liturgy’ – From the Hierarchy of England and Wales to the Clergy, Secular and Religious, throughout those countries, Rome, 20th October 1964, F. Mildners and Sons, London). The new Ordo Missae, Ritus Servandus and De defectibus was ordered to be published in all newly printed editions of the Roman Missal. The changes introduced were not optional: priests were bound to follow the changes, e.g. the suppression of Ps. 42, reduction in the Signs of the Cross in the Canon, suppression of the last Gospel etc. The mandatory changes to the Ritus should not be confused with permissions such as the increasing use of the vernacular from 1964. Tres abhinc annos in 1967 brought about more changes to the Ordo Missae, suppressing most genuflections, inversing the order of the Blessing and dismissal etc. Again, these changes were not optional, they were mandatory and no celebrant could legally choose to use the 1962MR in its entirety after the vacatio legis for the ‘1965’. Likewise after the 1967 changes no celebrant could continue to use the 1965 Ordo or the 1962 one legally.

    Versus populum celebrations were not mandated by the 1965 changes, they had been increasing since the late 1940s in ‘fashionable’ centres of the Liturgical Movement and had become relatively common in parts of America and Europe by the late 1950s.

    The three new Anaphorae were promulgated by a decree, Prece Eucharistica, of the SCR/Consilium on 23 May 1968 (vide: Notitiae 4, 1968, p. 156 seq). They could be used, in Latin, from August 15th that year – Episcopal Conferences were given the task of arranging their translation.

    I cannot comment on what you actually witnessed in your experience. I suspect that what you observed is what happened here in that many priests – now mostly, sadly, forgotten – quietly refused the changes as they came and carried on with the ‘Old Rite’. In England, to my knowledge, the general consensus was that ‘Old Rite’ meant ‘pre-Pius XII’ until some time in the late 1970s / early 1980s. I had been told, as I mentioned earlier, of clusters of clergy in NW England who quietly refused the 1956 changes taking the view this was an horrific ‘blip’ which would be reversed. A Jesuit friend who was ordained on Holy Saturday 1956 celebrated his first Missa Cantata on the Sunday following and found an irate female religious who was berating the PP for spilling wax on ‘her’ floor with ‘his triple candle’. The late Mgr. Tickel as Rector of the English College celebrated the Old Holy Week in Rome in 1956 and 1957 and later, as Bishop to HM Armed Forces, carried on the same. My friend the late, and much lamented, Mgr. Alfred Gilbey, celebrated a pre-Pius Mass in St. Wilfrid’s chapel in the London Oratory until the day before he died in 1998. In Jerusalem, for different reasons, old Holy Week continued until the mid-1990s.
    The indults and permissions prior to 1984 specified 1967 so, yes from a legal perspective, there were lots of ‘disobedient’ clergy - good for them!

    [continues]

    ReplyDelete
  12. [continued]

    Bryan,
    Thank you for the link - I am glad to be of interest!

    Of course the situation varied. I mentioned Fr. Baker, a friend of mine (the author of 'The Living Flame') visited France with Fr. Peter Morgan in the late 1970s and received munificent hospitality from a suspended Canon (sorry, I cannot remember the details I will try and find his name). This Canon who was the Dean of his Cathedral was forbidden to say the 'Old Mass' by the bishop so continued to do so in 'Mass centres'.

    Traditionalists in the 1970s argued that Paul VI's Missale Romanum did not abrogate immemorial or centennial custom according to the accepted norms of Canon Law. Abbe Raymond DuLac's commentary being a typical example. Other canon lawyers such as Dr. Thomas Glover, sometime Professor of Canon Law at Econe (and a good friend of mine) argued the same, i.e. that immemorial or centennial custom was not abrogated by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution.

    On a tangent Fr. Anthony Cekada, to me at least, has demonstrated that the language used in the promulgation of Missale Romanum by Paul VI and that used by Pius V with Quo primum is identical from a legislative point of view. Quo primum however respected established rites.

    What the French Traddies did, and I confess to failing to understand their thinking process, was to equate the 1570 Missal with that of 1962. Something from 1962 could not claim exemption by way of either immemorial or centennial custom - that surely has to be rather obvious.

    Of course, there is an additional argument about praeter legem custom, essential that if a custom is established then it takes precedence, or at least modifies the law. As there has been worldwide, sporadic, continued celebration of the pre-Pius XII liturgy does that constitute a praeter legem custom - I do not know the answer - other than morally to that one.

    ReplyDelete