A Pastoral Provision (not promotion) of the 1962 Missal

Rev. Deogratias Ekisa, S.T.D

July 19, 2021

“The Holy Father has asked us to provide, not to promote the Extraordinary Form.”  That sentiment, uttered by a wise Archbishop Alfred Hughes many years ago, is what helped me understand the purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s liberal expansion of the use of the 1962 Missal, in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (SP).  I would like to propose that the same sentiment could help us understand Pope Francis’ reversal of that license in his recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC).

What do you call this Mass?

To understand the motivations of both papal documents, we must use correct terminology.  While both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis speak of the 1962 Missal and its liturgy, colloquial use has come up with shortcuts to describe this reality.  The most common phrases used are, Latin Mass, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), Tridentine Mass, and Extraordinary Form.  However, this less technical but convenient terminology can also be misleading.

Latin Mass:  While this phrase is partially correct since the 1962 Missal could only be celebrated in Latin, while the revised Missal is often celebrated in the vernacular, it is incorrect because even the newer form of the Mass promulgated after Vatican II can be celebrated in Latin.  I know that because I often celebrate it in Latin.  That is probably why some qualify the term and speak of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Traditional Latin Mass:  But again that term is also misleading because all forms of the Mass, right from the beginning are just as traditional, because they encompass Tradition.  In fact, as Pope Francis argues, the current Mass is just as traditional.  Writing to the bishops to explain the motu proprio he says:

It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[SC 3] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

Tridentine Mass:  This phrase, like its parallel “Vatican II Mass”, has some truth since the 1570 Missal on which the 1962 Missal is based was the fruit of the Council of Trent, just like the 1970 Missal is the fruit of the Second Vatican Council.  But it is also incorrect since the 1962 Missal is not an exact replica of the 1570 Missal that arose from the Tridentine Council, but had some significant changes made to it, first by Pope Pius XII and then by John XXIII.  That is probably why traditionalist groups reject even the 1962 Missal.

Extraordinary Form: This phrase has papal authority behind it.  In Summorum Pontificum, after indicating that the current Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Church’s liturgy, Pope Benedict rightly calls the 1962 Missal the “extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.”  Unfortunately, the technical meaning of the Latin term “extraordinarius” was lost in translation.  While in Latin it means “secondary” or “the exception”, in everyday English it is understood as meaning “special” or even “outstanding.”  (The original meaning of the term is reflected in its use in Roman Pontifical Universities where ordinary professors are senior to extraordinary professors, the latter being the US equivalent of “Associate Professors” and the former being the equivalent of “Full Professors.”)

And so, while these terms are helpful shortcuts, they carry with them the inherent danger of misrepresenting the Church’s mind on the liturgy.  For example the 1962 Missal does not have a monopoly on use of the Latin language, nor is it the exclusive reservoir of the Roman liturgical Tradition, and is extraordinary, not in the sense of being outstanding, but only in the sense of being an exception to the normative liturgy.  Therefore, in this essay, I will refer to the 1962 Missal or older usage rather than any of these terms. 

Inch to mile: Benedict’s well-intentioned experiment exploited

To understand what Pope Francis has done, we must first return to the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI in granting a greater license in using the 1962 Missal, expanding on what his predecessors had granted in a limited way.  Contrary to some commentators, and as his use of the term “extraordinary” indicates, Pope Benedict did not intend to promote the older form of the liturgy as an alternative to the reformed liturgy.  As he unequivocally indicated, “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite” (SP Art. 1).  Instead he wanted to provide the older usage for those who sincerely needed it, to preserve the unity of the Church.  In his Letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum he indicated that the reason for his magnanimity was “to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.  . . . [to] generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”

Pope Benedict himself had asked that after three years the bishops would send to the Holy See their experiences of the experiment.  Thirteen years later, perhaps when with more data a more mature evaluation could be made, Pope Francis formalized that request by surveying the college of bishops.  This is what he found.

The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[SP] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

My own anecdotal experiences are consistent with these more formal findings.  For example some of the communities attached to the older usage present themselves as normative rather than the exception, in doctrine, in liturgy and discipline.  Some of them vehemently rejected the bishops’ legitimate liturgical restrictions and certain other directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Also, there is a tendency among some seminarians and young priests attached to the older liturgy, to primarily celebrate the liturgy of the 1962 books rather than the normative one, sometimes even substituting the older breviary for the newer one in its entirety.  And when they must learn and celebrate the newer liturgy, this is often done through the lens of the older liturgy, rather than through the principles of the liturgy promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.  They see the newer liturgy not just as being imperfect, since all liturgies on this side of heaven are inherently imperfect.  They see it as also being defective and needing to be fixed by additions from the 1962 rubrics, even those that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II chose not to include in the liturgical reforms, in what might be called a “Trentification” of the normative liturgy.

A doctrinal crisis beyond and behind liturgical choices

But a far more serious problem that prompted the Holy Father’s intervention is doctrinal rather than liturgical.  While Pope Francis decries all liturgical abuses in all forms of the liturgy, there is something more fundamental in the abuses associated with the 1962 Missal.

. . . the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[LG 23] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

While this rejection of conciliar and papal authority by no means applies to every adherent of the older usage, it is still widespread enough to raise alarm bells.

Even when not overtly articulated, this rejection is inherently contained in the very choice of the older form over the newer one.  Put simply, such a choice sets aside the authority in the Church, that it is the bishops of the Church in an ecumenical council that decide what should be normative in teaching or discipline.  An expanded use of an older form on par with the newer form (rather than as an exception serving a specific need as Pope Benedict intended) implicitly questions the wisdom or even the validity of the conciliar change.  And while individual members of the faithful may not explicitly articulate that rejection of the conciliar changes, it seems to come with the territory, being ipso facto contained in their choice.

Time for reset: provide, not promote

And so, that is why the Holy Father has imposed restrictions on the usage of the older liturgy, so that even the unintended confusion of the exception for the norm, the privilege for the right, may not be promoted.  Most of these restrictions affect the priests and not the faithful.  In line with the principle of providing and not promoting the older liturgy, the Holy Father has ensured that the older liturgy is provided for those who are attached to it and need it for their spiritual benefit.  What he has done is, as it were, removed it from the main menu, and put it on the specials menu.  Priests are ordained primarily to provide the normative liturgy for the faithful (main menu), and not their particular predilections (specials menu).  That is why it is now the bishop, whose place it is to regulate the liturgy in his diocese (not the individual priest), who will oversee the provision of this exception to the norm.

The bishop will grant permission to priests who want to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, in the same way that the bishop grants other liturgical permissions that respond to the spiritual needs of his flock.  The bishop will see to the spiritual welfare of individuals and groups attached to the 1962 Missal, providing priests and places for them to be served.  In addition, the readings in particular will now be proclaimed in the vernacular language, and not in Latin as previously done, so that the people can understand the Word of God being proclaimed to them.  And the bishops will make this provision on condition that those served “do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs,” just as Pope Benedict had hoped.

Despite the fact that the short notice of Pope Francis’ document has not allowed them ample time to study the document, the initial reactions of many bishops, excepting the usual suspects, have been quite positive.  They have indicated that, after studying the instructions with the help of experts, they will do exactly what the Holy Father has asked of them.  They will both see to the spiritual welfare of that small portion of the flock that is still attached to the 1962 Missal, as well regulate the celebration of Mass according to that Missal, as is their responsibility.

Would I celebrate with the 1962 Missal?

One of my students once suggested that I take the trouble to learn and celebrate the “Extraordinary Form” Mass. He noted that my command of Latin was superb, my liturgical demeanour reverent, and my penchant for observing rubrics obsessive (in a healthy manner), these being the minimum requirements for any priest who wishes to celebrate the 1962 liturgy.  “When hell freezes over” was perhaps the answer he expected.  But I gave him a different answer.

After simultaneously appreciating his kind words about my liturgical style and also suppressing my surprise at this blatant attempt at promoting rather than providing the older liturgy by recruiting me, I told him that I did not have any particular predilection towards the 1962 Missal, and was quite happy with the normative liturgy.  And since Pope Benedict had offered the concession of using the 1962 Missal for those who were attached to it, my celebrating it simply because I could, would be treating the this sacred mystery as if it was lagniappe or a hobby.

I told him, however, that as a priest, I am ordained to serve God’s people.  And so, I could foresee myself learning and celebrating the 1962 Mass in these three situations of service to God’s people.

1. If the bishop asked me to do so (after all I am an obedient son of the Church), for example, to serve a community in need of this Mass.
2. If I discerned a need for such a ministry, for example, in a nursing home with people whose only experience of the Mass is the older form and who would find the normative Mass impossible to pray; I would of course need the bishop’s permission to proceed with said initiative.
3. If the Holy Father made the 1962 Missal or suchlike Missal the normative liturgy of the Church.

In reaching these conclusions I am operating out of the same principle, that the Mass of the 1962 Missal should be provided when needed, not promoted as a parallel experience of the Mass.

What is the end game?  A unified normative liturgy

A point that is often overlooked and not spoken of enough is that all these provisions have as their end goal, a unified liturgy, the liturgy arising from the Second Vatican Council.  In summarizing how the bishops are to implement the motu proprio, Pope Francis said the following:

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.”

Clearly, the Holy Father intends “to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite” “the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition.”

Perhaps unintentionally, some commentators about these things give the impression that nothing significant happened at the Second Vatican Council or that if something happened it is about to be reversed and we can go back to the good old days of the pre-conciliar liturgy.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  And when theologians and clergy do this, they sell the faithful a pipe dream.  In the pithy words of Monsignor Eric Barr: "The TLM is not going to be a parallel rite with the ordinary form of the Mass.  There will still be times when it is celebrated, but it will never be the hinge upon which the Catholicity of the Church swings.”

The continuation of the usage of the 1962 Missal is a concession to a perceived pastoral need.  How long that need will exist will be seen down the road.  Because provision rather than promotion is the principle to be followed, the 1962 Missal probably will eventually go the way of the Mozarabic Rite that still continues to be used, but just in the Cathedral of Toledo in Spain.  It might go the way of the Gallican Rite or even some of the Rites of the religious communities that are preserved and only occasionally used by them.  Especially given the radical change in the understanding of liturgy arising from the teaching of the Council, it is a vain hope to think that the 1962 Missal will now or in the future become part of the main liturgical fare, on par with the normative liturgy of the Church.

The universality of the Catholic Church means that it will always have diversity, including diversity of liturgical expressions.  But this diversity is not the selfish kind witnessed at the Tower of Babel, but the Pentecost kind that is guided by the Holy Spirit who inspires the Holy Father and the college of bishops.  They are the ones who indicate what diversity is allowed and how it is allowed.  It is they who indicate what is to be merely provided and what is to be promoted as normative.

A good example of this principle is the Pastoral Provision in the USA that allowed former Anglican married priests to be ordained Catholics priests while remaining married.  As the name of the program indicates, this is a provision, not a promotion of the idea of married priests.  By allowing these married men to be ordained priests, nothing was changed about the discipline of priestly celibacy, which remained normative and intact.

Therefore, what we have in both Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes is a pastoral provision, not a liturgical promotion of the 1962 Missal.