The Text of the Motu Proprio (from Rorate Caeli).
__________________
APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF THE SUPREME NONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
__________________

[ONLY LEGAL ARTICLES OFFICIALLY TRANSLATED]

Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters We establish the following:

Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

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. 3 Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statutes.

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

Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so [in good standing] and not juridically impeded.

§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7 If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 8 A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9 § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§ 2 Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Art. 11 The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12 This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as “established and decreed”, and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

From Rome, at St. Peter’s, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.


The letter published to accompany the Motu Proprio:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... vi_en.html

Apparently the text of the Motu Proprio was released early by the journalist Rocco Palmo. A comment seems meet on his comment, "The logic of these texts speaks loudly and clearly of communion – a unity of rites, eras, of the faith and those who profess it, whatever their personal preferences."

Those are the words of a non-traditionalist. They could only be the words of a non-traditionalist. They express a view radically incompatible with the traditional Catholic stand, which is precisely that we will die before assisting at any of the rites of the New Church, because they do not express our Faith, and therefore they deny that Faith.

Let Joseph Ratzinger and all of his minions understand this: You will not succeed in truly dividing traditional Catholics from our Faith and worship; you will not succeed in dividing us from each other; and you will certainly never wring from our lips any consent to your impious and violent revolt against all that we hold dear, no matter how sweetly you present it, nor how many compromises you make in our direction. For we stand for the whole Faith, the whole Catholic Church, the whole Mystical Body of Christ, one in Faith, one in worship, one in the unity of communion, which is the charity of Christ. Return to these and you will return to us, for we stand upon the Rock, St. Peter, with all of his successors, and for that reason we are not moved, nor are we (by the grace of God) moveable.

I have been reading through the Latin text of the long-awaited motu proprio Summorum Pontificum which appeared this morning on the Vatican website. Please allow me heartily to endorse John Lane's remarks and to add the following detailed comments which may be helpful for those wanting to be aware of the contents of this treacherous junk decree emerging from enemy-occupied Rome.

The following main points strike me.

1. It is expressly stated that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal has never been abrogated. This statement is of course astonishing, not because it is untrue, but because it is a straightforward denial of what Paul VI explicitly claimed he had done. It is doubly astonishing in that, while greatly increasing the freedom to use the traditional rite in the Conciliar Church, Benedict himself nonetheless continues to impose various restrictions on this use. One is entitled to ask, if the 1962 Missal has never been abrogated, when and by what act of which Conciliar "pope" it became subject to restrictions. Hitherto the official Vatican position has been that the indults were needed because without them the use of this missal was forbidden. But you don't need an indult from anyone to use a missal that has never been abrogated. Benedict seems to be forthrightly contradicting his predecessors, but also to be in contradiction with himself...unless there is some subtlety intended such as that the Missal was not abrogated but only the right to use it, which would be an insult to the intelligence of his readers.

2. Previous indult conditions are replaced by this document which requires priests using the old rite or the new to be in good standing but makes no mention of any requirement to accept the orthodoxy of the new rite or to abstain from contact with those who call into doubt the legitimacy of Vatican II.

3. It is stated that any priest may choose to celebrate either in the NOM or in the traditional rite, with no need for authorisation from anyone - BUT for the traditional missal this right is subjected to two conditions: 1. it does not apply on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday or Holy Saturday; 2. It directly applies only to when he is celebrating Mass alone, without any assistants. However, faithful spontaneously seeking to do so may be admitted to these Masses.

4. There is a further grant of the right to use the traditional missal in parishes when there exists a group of faithful who want this, but on Sundays there may not be more than one such celebration and the good of other parishioners must be taken into account.

5. Parish priests are entitled to use the traditional rite for weddings, funerals and other occasions for which it may be requested.

6. In all traditional rite masses it is permitted (but not obligatory) to use the vernacular for the "lectiones" - which presumably means the Epistle and Gospel.

7. Parish priests are permitted, for the good of souls, to use the traditional ritual for Baptism, Matrimony, Penance and Extreme Unction and ordinaries may use it for Confirmations. There is no mention of the traditional rite being used for Ordinations or for episcopal Consecrations. It is noteworthy that these privileges are limited to "parochi" (= parish priests, or pastors) not to all priests. But all clerics are authorised to use the 1962 breviary.

8. Ordinaries can erect traditional rite parishes if needed.

9. Where the faithful ask for the traditional rite, the parish priest is asked to make it available, failing which the bishop is pressingly asked to help them out, failing which they may consult the Ecclesia Dei commission, which continues to funtion. But no right to the traditional liturgy on the part of the laity is stated to exist. In fact it is a very clericalist document.

10. The only conditions for priests wishing to use the traditional rite are that they must be suitable ("idonei") and not impeded by law. (At present the Vatican of course theoretically considers practically all priests of the SSPX as under suspension and therefore impeded by law, but this is not mentioned.)

11. The provisions of the motu proprio come into force on 14th September 2007.

12. It states that the 1962 missal and the 1970 (new) missal are two distinct uses (the latter extraordinary and the former ordinary) of the single Roman rite, both faithful reflections of Catholic doctrine.

Further observations.

1. Even before its official release the SSPX superior general Bishop Fellay had posted a document on the DICI site, which must have been prepared in advance, making clear his acceptance of this document as fulfilling his longstanding demand that all priests in the world should be free to celebrate according to the traditional missal. Which is strange as it doesn't really do this. During the sacred triduum, for instance, the right is apparently suspended, and a parish priest saying two masses on a Sunday cannot, by the terms of Summorum Pontificum, use the traditional rite both times.

2. The most extraordinary feature of the motu proprio for many will be the purported ban on the traditional missal during the sacred triduum. But for me, it comes as no surprise. The simple fact is that Benedict does prefer dignified and reverent Latin liturgy and has no objection to the bulk of the traditional missal. But he does not have the Catholic faith. In particular, he cannot abide the idea of praying for the conversion of the blinded Jews to the recognition of our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ. And even after the word "perfidious" was expunged, that is what the 1962 missal continues to do. That is the chief reason why Benedict's generosity ceases for the last three days of Holy Week. He is prepared to brave the disappointed bishops of France, Germany or the United States, who dislike reverent liturgy. But he is not going to upset the chief rabbi. He wants to be kind to everyone, but of course he makes special efforts for his special friends.

John Daly,

Yes, it is interesting and significant that Holy Week was excepted and it was Holy Week
that was targeted first back in the 1950's by Bugnini under Pope Pius XII.

I wonder how SSPX Bishop Fellay could accept changes that Archbishop Lefebvre did not
accept concerning the "perfidious jews"?

The fact there is no mention of the traditional rite being used for Ordinations or for episcopal Consecrations is not too surprising after all an SSPX priest Father Carl Purvermacher stated "the Novus Ordo will permit the return of the Tridentine Mass when there are no more valid priests to offer it."

I notice that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has publicly expressed dismay at the motu proprio. Apparently they are under the impression that Benedict has authorised the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Perhaps no one told them that Latin is read from left to right...

A gigantic "Amen!" from me! Thank you, John.

As I remember it, Good Friday is the only day of the year when a full Mass is NOT celebrated in the traditional rite.

I should probably check my missal for details, but I think it is called The Mass of the Presanctified and only the priest communicates using an host consecrated the previous day.

I suppose this minor detail was missed or forgotten by Benny and the Boys.

Pax Christi !




Pope Pius XIIth restoration of Holy Week kept the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the Jews, and for the conversion of Pagans. I cannot find my copy of a 1962 Missal, so I do not know if John 23rd had the conversion prayers removed in 1962, this seems unlikely since benedict will not allow the Sacrad Triduim from the 1962 missal to be used......

It is amazing even at this late hour, to be once again confronted with the power the jews have over the novus ordo religion. And to think, the CMRI just lost 12-15 sisters due to confusion regarding this new religion, we must pray for all traditional catholics to " run the race till the very end".

In Xto,
Vincent

Dear Vince,

John XXIII removed the word "perfidious". That is all. He made no other changes to the Holy Week liturgy. The prayer continued to pray for the conversion of the Jews and to mention the blindness of their hearts. That is what cannot be accepted since the Simon Wiesenthal Centre replaced the Holy Office.

In Dño et Dña,

John

My dear Wife and I find it particularly interesting that ONLY the Missal of 1962, promulgated by John XXIII, is allowed, even if it is "extraordinary".

Obviously, any traditionally minded Catholic who accepts that missal, must, perforce, accept John XXIII as a legitimate pope, since no one else would have the right and authority to make ANY changes, no matter how small.

We see this as a first, subtle, step to gain acceptance by ALL traditionally minded Catholics for the legitimacy of the present evil, false, unlawful hierarchy.

"Holy Week",sure: that's perhaps true. But, I thought he also added St. Joseph's name to the canon...

I think you inadvertantly reversed this. I believe the new document says that the 1962 missal (the former in your list) is the "extraordinary" Rite while the 1970 "missal" (the latter in your list) is the "ordinary" rite.

When I was beginning to learn of tradition, I found that I "liked" the Novus Ordo more than the traditional Mass. The Novus Ordo is easier to follow. It takes no work. I don't even have to think about the Mass--in fact, I frequently found my mind wondering. In purely human terms, I still like the Novus Ordo more than the traditional Mass. But I don't go to Mass to for entertainment which is why I will not attend the Novus Ordo nor will I attend any hybrid Mass that the document seems to say is in the works. The document speaks quite a bit of the good of the faithful--if only I could believe that any of the bishops (other than the sedevacantists) really cared about the good of the faithful.

Yes. You are correct.



Not me!! I thoroughly loath and despise it. It all appears so phoney to me. As I was growing up, after a bit, I had all the prayers of the Mass memorized in English. Because I wanted to follow the priest as closely as possible, and since he was using Latin, he could get way ahead of me, so I subsequently memorized all the unchangeable parts of the Mass in Latin. I loved all the prayers. They are so beautiful.

When the New Mass started in our town in Montana, I first thought that NOW, since it was going to be in English, I could exactly follow along with the priest and we could say them all together...but they weren't the same.

In fact, they were so much different from what I had memorized and KNEW by heart, that at first it puzzled me, then I became very angry about it.

Before I finally left NO for good, about 1978 or so, I would take my missal to Mass, wear ear-plugs so I couldn't hear the blasphemous "service" and would read from my missal, go to Communion, on the tongue, and go back to my place.

I finally came to the conclusion that since every time I left Mass I was so angry I couldn't think straight, I stopped going.

And if you don't think that wasn't difficult for me, you had better think again.

As I have said here before: watching what the satanic NO people did to my Church was identical to being forced to watch a gang of thugs beat my Mother to death, while being prevented from doing anything about it.

No. I have absolutely no love whatever for the NO "service". What I feel for it is complete, black, implacable hatred.



Most of them aren't bishops...

I grew up with the traditional Mass in the vernacular in the Seattle, Washington Archdiocese. The archdiocese took great pride in being very progressive even before Vatican II. I do remember the Mass changing from the vernacular all-English traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo though I didn't know it was a whole different rite. I confess that the only reason I like the English mass is because I'm lazy and don't want to have to put any effort into worship, which is why I know that it is a sacrilege to pretend to worship at the Novus Ordo. This is what I meant by "purely human terms". My salvation is very precarious and will be to my death bed--something that I could ignore as a happy-camper in the Novus Ordo.

Dear all,

Thank you for your comments. I love the candour of the members of this site. It is the liberty of sons that St. Paul speaks of.

The key, I think, to analysing any move by the enemy, including this present document, is to understand that the whole strength and success of the Conciliar revolt consists in its promulgation from Rome. This must be kept firmly in mind at all times. It is the enemy's trump card. Every previous crisis in the Church failed because, and in the precise degree, of energetic counter-action by Rome. In the present case there was no such action, but rather the contrary - it was a "Roman" revolution. The present document is yet another attempt to employ the (waning) influence of Rome to strong-arm Catholics into accepting the new religion.

The "conservatism" of JP2 and B16 is therefore understood largely as a strategic effort to preserve or partially rebuild the (waning) influence of Rome so as to ensure that the enemy's trump card is not lost. This present effort is both a credibility-restoring/preserving stratagem, and an attempt to employ the remaining credibility of Rome to draw the various traditional Catholic "types" back into the Conciliar mess. It is of course a stroke of genius, although to be just, the enemy has been practicing and analysing his results for several decades now.

This stratagem aims not just at a theoretical acceptance of the new church - it seems forcefully aimed at securing some statement of compromise accepting V2, or some act of compromise such as offering a Novus Ordo. This is not new. It was the case with the St. Peter fraternity and with Campos also to use the new relationship as a lever to obtain some degree of acceptance of the new religion. It is repulsively serpentine.




I found this amazing also. No doubt it will be noticed by the SSPX and Indult crowds as well and much hay will be made of it, in various ways. But it should backfire, for as you have pointed out, it is self-contradictory.




Yes, a new kind of effort, to be sure. We see the devil probing new points to see if they are weaker than those against which his earlier efforts (partially) failed.




It seems that the Conciliar Church cannot stomach the offering of public worship according to Catholic norms.



Well, they're not about to take any unnecessary risks, are they?

I hope our Dominican friends at Avrille are noting this distinction and pondering its implications...



I wonder if this is intended to be significant legally as it would be in a pre-conciliar document. Or whether perhaps it is just preserving "form" by declining to admit the legitimacy of non-pastors performing functions normally reserved to pastors?



This may well be one of the most controversial points about the entire document. The one thing which could have forced Novus Ordo clerics to use the old missal is absent. It leaves the faithful who still wish to be in "rome's" good graces entirely at the mercy of the Conciliar clerics.



This exception (for the sacred triduum) is a great grace. It explodes the entire document to those with eyes open, and it makes completely clear the real seat of power in the New Church.

[Edits: Spelling]