My dear Brother Bishops,
With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text
of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman
liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much
reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
News reports and
judgments made without sufficient information have created no little
confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful
acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in
reality unknown.
This document was most directly opposed on
account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more
closely in this letter.
In the first place, there is the fear
that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican
Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is
being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. In this
regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and
then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously
is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the
Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to
the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII
in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a
Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not
appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if
they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one
and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal 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. At the time of
the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue
specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it
was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which
would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards,
however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained
strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been
familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in
countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a
notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the
earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the
movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became
an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over
this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted
the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful
to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the
form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above
all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the
prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood
as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to
deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from
experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes
and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the
liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of
the Church.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in
his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of
the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed
prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of
Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the
faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the
Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover
full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound
experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has
not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have
gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio.
On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962
Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical
norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared
that the authority of the Council would be called into question.
Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that
requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older
generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has
clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this
liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter
with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to
them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which
had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present
Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate
anew how they are to respond to various situations.
In the second
place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu
Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would
lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear
also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal
presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge
of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already
from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new
Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not
only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual
situation of the communities of the faithful.
It is true that
there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked
to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical
tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and
guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage
of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the
new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The
“Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the
usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.
The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be
able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto,
the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most
sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities
and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great
reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out
the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue
this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an
interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over
the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have
rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at
critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done
by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity.
One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had
their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to
harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to
make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to
remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the
Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open
to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us,
but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your
hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another
context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on
this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for
everything that the faith itself allows.
There is no
contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the
history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us
too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even
considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which
have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their
proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion,
the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a
matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with
the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear
Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any
way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy
or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is
the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum
Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate
unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris,
apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the
authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that
all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the
parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to
intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by
the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
Furthermore, I invite you,
dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences,
three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious
difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as
Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be
mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of
Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the
Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which
he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28).
I
entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the
Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear
Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the
priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.
Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
