"INDULTS" FOR THE MODERNIZED VATICAN II MASS OF 1962 & RELATED DOCUMENTS TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Network E-mail: traditio@traditio.com, Web: www.traditio.com Copyright 1994-2009 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. Updated: 04/06/09 ACTION OF THE CARDINAL SECRETARY OF HIS HOLINESS Archbishop Hannibal Bugnini, whom Paul VI put in charge of the post- conciliar liturgical reform, wanted to obtain an explicit ruling to the effect that the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 abrogates the Traditional Latin Mass, so that the Traditional Latin Mass would be suppressed de jure, as well as de facto. To apply for such a ruling to the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Conciliar Documents, he needed permission from the Cardinal Secretary. The latter in 1974 refused to give the requested permission on the grounds that such an attempt would be seen as "an odious act in the face of liturgical tradition" (cf. Bugnini's memoirs, La Riforma Liturgica [Rome: Ed. Liturgiche], p. 298). In 1975 Archbishop Bugnini was dismissed in disgrace to Iran in the face of charges that he was a Mason, which, if true, would automatically excommunicate him. ======================================================================== EPISTULA * De usu Missalis Romani iuxta editionem typicam anni MCMLXII E.me Domine, Quattuor abhinc annos, iubente Summo Pontifice Ioanne Paulo II, universae Ecclesiae Episcopi invitati sunt ad relationem exhibendam: -- circa modum, quo sacerdotes et christifideles in suis dioecesibus Missale auctoritate Papae Pauli VI promulgatum recepissent, statutis Concilii Vaticani II rite obsequentes; -- circa difficultates in liturgica instauratione exsequenda evenientes; -- circa renisus forte superandos Exitus consultationis notus factus est omnibus Episcopis (cf. Notitiae} n. 185, decembris 1981). Eorum responsionibus attentis, fere in totum solutum visum est problema illorum sacerdotum atque christifidelium, qui ritui "Tridentino" nuncupato inhaerentes manserant. Cum autem problema idem perduret, ipse Summus Pontifex, coetibus istis obsecundare desiderans, Episcopis dioecesanis facultatem concedit utendi Indulto, quo sacerdotes et christifideles, qui in petitione proprio Episcopo exhibenda explicite indicabuntur, Missam celebrare;:, valeant Missale Romanum adhibendo iuxta editionem typicam annm 1962, servatis autem normis, quae sequuntur: a) Sine ambiguitate etiam publice constet talem sacerdotem,.et tales fideles nullam partem habere cum iis qui legitimam vim doctrinalemque rectitudinem Missalis Romani, anno 1970 a Paulo VI Romano Pontifice promulgati, in dubium vocant. b) Haec celebratio fiat tantummodo ad utilitatem illorum coetuum qui eam petunt; item in ecclesiis et oratoriis quae Episcopus dioecesanus deputaverit (non autem in templis paroecialibus, nisi Episcopus in casibus extraordinariis id concesserit); iisque diebus atque condicionibus ab ipso Episcopo, sive per modum consuetudinis, sive per actus, adprobatis. c) Huiusmodi celebratio secundum Missale anni l962 fiat et quidem lingua latina. d) Nulla habeatur commixtio inter ritus et textus alterutrius Missalis. e) Unusquisque Episcopus hanc Congregationem certiorem faciet de concessionibus ab ipso datis atque, expleto anno ab hoc Indulto tributo, de exitu quem eius applicatio obtinuerit. Concessio huiusmodi, sollicitudinis signum qua Pater communis omnes suos prosequitur filios, adhibenda erit sine ullo praeiudicio liturgiae instaurationis observandae in vita uniuscuiusque Communitatis ecclesialis. Iuvat me vero hac uti opportunitate me E.tiae Tuae Rev.mae ad dictissimum in Domino profitendi. Ex aedibus Congregationis pro Cultu Divino, die 3 Octobris 1984. A. MAYER, O.S.B., Archiep. tit. Satrianensis, Pro-Praefectus Vergiliuo Noe, Archiep. tit. Voncariensis, a Seeretis In S. Congr. pro Cultu Divino tab., n. 686/84. * Prasidibus conferentiarum Episcoporum missa ============ QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS October 3, 1984 LETTER Sent to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops On the Use of the Roman Missal According to the Typical Edition of the Year 1962 Most Rev. Excellency: Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the Bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report: -- concerning the way in which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by the authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council; -- concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform; -- concerning possible resistance that may have arisen. The results of the consultation were sent to all the bishops (Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies, it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so- called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved. Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions: a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrine exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in church and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually, or in individual cases. c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin. d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals. e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted to him, and at the end of the year from the granting of this indult, he must report the result of its application. This concession, indicative of the Holy Father's solicitude for his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities. I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem. From the Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship, October 3, 1984 + A. Mayer, O.S.B., Archbishop of Satriano, Pro-Prefect + Virgilio Noe, Titular Archbishop of Voncaria, Secretary * Sent to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences [Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale (LXXVI, 12) 12/01/84] ============================================================================ STATEMENT OF THE PAPAL COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRADITIONAL RITE OF MASS In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a Commissio Cardinalatia (cardinalatial commission) of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, sometimes inaccurately known as the "Tridentine Mass." The Commission of cardinals of the Roman Curia (Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Anfons Cardinal Stickler, and Jozef Cardinal Tomko) was instructed to examine two questions: 1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass? 2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of the bishop? The Commission unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass. Regarding the second question: the Commission stated that priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass, whether in public or in private. Newvatican does recognize the right of priests to celebrate the traditional Mass, and this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass against the will of their bishop, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Tridentine Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified. This is just one more proof that it is not the priests who are disobedient when they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but it is the bishops who are entirely outside the law when they unlawfully attempt to forbid the Traditional Mass. This fact is also clearly demonstrates that penalties inflicted on priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass are null and void, as is clearly stated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Derived from an article in the London Spectator (July 15, 1989), the Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 1995, p. 14), and The Fatima Crusader (June/July 1989, p. 45) ============ THE PROPOSED NORMS OF 1986 In the summer of 1986, a commission of eight curial Cardinals was established ad hoc to consider whether the Indult of 1984 was capable of functioning. It found that in practice the Indult had been shown to be "not very helpful" and it presented some detailed recommendations for a new regulation for the whole Church. The substance of these recommendations can be summarized as follows: 1. In the offices of the Roman Rite, the honor due [debita honor] to the Latin language should be accorded it. Bishops should ensure that on Sundays and ferial days at least one Latin Mass should be celebrated in each important locality of their diocese. However the readings could also be said in the vernacular. 2. For their private Masses all priests can, at all times, use the Latin language. 3. For every Mass celebrated in the Latin language - with or without the faithful present - the celebrant has the right freely to choose between the missal of Paul VI (1970) and that of John XXIII (1962). 4. If the celebrant chooses the missal of Paul VI, he should observe the rubrics of that missal. 5. If the celebrant chooses the missal of John XXIII, he must observe the rubrics of that missal, but he may also: * use either the Latin language or the vernacular for the readings * make use of the additional prefaces and prayers of the Proper of the Mass contained in the missal of Paul VI, and introduce "preces universales" (bidding prayers). 6. The liturgical calendar for feasts will be that of the missal chosen by the celebrant. ======================================================================== DOMINUS MARCELLUS LEFEBVRE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION [Roman canonists have subsequently judged the following decree as invalid under canon law because it contradicts canon 1323, sec 4, as implicitly confirmed by the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.] Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of last June 17th and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without Pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penality envisaged by Can. 1364 par. 1 and Can. 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galaretta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See. Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by Can. 1364 par. 1. The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre; otherwise, they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication. From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, July 1, 1988. Bernard Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops ======================================================================== LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE MOTU PROPRIO DATAE quibus Commissio quaedam ad plenam ecclesialem communionem Fra- tcrnitatis sacerdotalis a sancto Pio X sodalium vel eidem coniunctorum expediendam instituitur. 1. Ecclesia Dei adflicta illegitimam cognovit episcopalem ordinationem ab Archiepiscopo Marcello Lefebvre die tricesimo mensis Iunii collatam, unde ad nihilum sunt omnes conatus redacti horum superiorum annorum ut nempe in tuto collocaretur ipsa cum Ecclesia communio Fraternitatis Sacerdotalis a Sancto Pio Decimo quam idem condidit Reverendissimus Dominus Lefebvre. Nulli enim rei profuerunt eius modi conamina, quae prioribus mensibus fervidius usque fiebant qui- busque Apostolica Sedes patientiam adhibebat et indulgentiam, quantam quidem ullo modo fieri licebat [1]. 2. Maestitia vero haec praesertim a Sancti Petri Successore persentitur, ad quem videlicet primum unitatis Ecclesiae tutela pertinet [2], quantumvis parvus numerus eorum fuerit qui hisce recta via implicantur eventibus, quoniam unusquisque homo a Deo diligitur iam ex sese Christique sanguine est redemptus de Cruce in omnium hominum salutem profuso. Adiuncta peculiaria, tum objectiva tum etiam subiectiva, in quibus actus Archiepiscopi Lefebvre evenit, universis quidem opportunitatem praebent ut alte res ponderentur atque officium fidelitatis renovetur erga Christum eiusque Ecclesiam. 3. In semetipso talis actus fuit inoboedientia adversus Romanum Pontificem in causa quadam gravissima summique omnino ponderis pro Ecclesiae unitate, cuius generis est episcoporum ordinatio per quam nempe sacramentaliter sustinetur apostolica successio. Quam ob rem talis inoboedientia - secum quae infert veram repudiationem Primatus Romani - actum schismaticum [3] efficit. Atque eundem peragentes actum, quamquam publicum monitum ad illos deferendum curaverat Cardinalis Praefectus Congregationis pro Episcopis superiore die decimo septimo mensis Iunii, Reverendissimus Dominus Lefebre necnon sacerdotes Bernardus Fellay, Bernardus Tissier de Mallerais, Richardus Williamson et Alfonsus de Galarreta in gravem incurrerunt excommunicationis poenam iam ecciesiastica disciplina praestitutam [4]. 4. Huius autem schismatici actus radix dignosci potest in ipsa aliqua imperfecta et pugnanti sibi notione Traditionis: imperfecta, quandoquidem non satis respicit indolem vivan eiusdem Traditionis, quae - uti clarissime docet Concilium Vaticanum Secundum - "est ab Apostolis ... sub assistentia Spiritus Sancti in Ecclesia proficit: crescit enim tam rerum quam verborum traditorum perceptio, tum ex contemplatione et studio credentium, qui ea conferunt in corde suo, tum ex intima spiritualium rerum quam experiuntur intel1egentia, tum ex praeconio eorum qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum acceperunt [5]. Sed omnino discors est pugnans Traditionis notio quae universali Eccesiae Magisterio opponitur, quod quidem pertinet ad Romanum Episcopum Episcoporum coetum. Nemo profecto traditioni fidelis haberi potest qui ligamina nempe recidit ac vincula ab eo cui Christus ipsa in persona Apostoli Petri, ministerium commisit unitatis in Ecclesiam suam [6]. 5. Facinore modo patrato ante oculos obversante, nos debere intellegimus cunctos fideles consocios reddere quarundam rerum quas tristis eventus hic prae se omnino fert. a) Exitus reapse quem Episcopi Lefebvre motus nuper habuit omnibus fidelibus potest dare ansam debetque aperte ac penitus cogitandi de propria erga Traditionem Eeclesiae fidelitate, sincere a Magisterio sive ordinario, sive extraordinario, a Conciliis praesertim, in Nicaeno ad Vaticanum II. Ex hac quidem meditatione, omnibus persuadendum est reiterato efficacique modo, oportere sane adhuc dilatare et fidelitatem augere, amotis omnino falsis interpretationibus ac arbitrariis et non legitimis amplificationibus de rebus ad doctrinam. Liturgiam disciplinamque pertinentibus. Praesertim ad Episcopos, per munus quidem pastorale, officium grave pertinet perspicacem exercendi vigilantiam caritatis et fortitudinis plenam, ut eiusmodi fidelitas ubique servetur [7]. Necesse tamen est, ut omnes Pastores et reliqui Ohristifideles plane denuo agnoscant non modo auctoritatem, sed etiam Ecclesiae thesaurum, quae et in charismatum varietate et in rerum spiritalium necnon apostolatus traditionibus innituntur, quaeque et pu1chritudinem efficiunt unitatis in varietate: illius nempe "temperationis", quam Spiritus Sancti impulsu ad Caelum effert terrestris Ecclesia. b) Velimus praeterea, et theologos viros et alios scientiarum ecclesiasticarum peritos admonere, ut et eorum sententia hisce in adiunctis exquiratur. Amplitudo, enim, et altitudo praeceptorum Concilii Vaticani II renovatum postulant investigationis studium, quo Concilii perpetuitas una cum Traditione omnino illustretur, in iis potissimnm doctrinae partibus, quae, cum fortasse novae sint, nondum bene a quibusdam Ecclesiae portionibus intellectae sunt. c) Hisce in adiunctis ante omnia cupimus sollemnem et concitatam, paternam ac fraternalem provocationem ad eos omnes interponere, qui quoquo modo hucusque cum navitate Archiepiscopi Lefebvre coniuncti sunt, ut grave servent officium adhaerendi ad Christi Vicarium in unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae, neque velint ullo modo tam tam pravam usque sustinere agendi rationem. Omnes scire debent formalem schismati adhaesionem gravem esse in Deum iniuriam atque excommunicationem prae se ferre lege Ecclesiae rite statutam [8]. His omnibus fidelibus catholicis, qui se vinctos sentiunt quibusdam antecedentibus formis liturgicis et disciplinaribus traditionis Latinae, significare optamus etiam voluntatem Nostram - quacum petimus - ut consocientur voluntates Episcoporum eorumque omnium, qui in Ecclesia ministerium exercent pastorale - facilem iis reddendi communionem ecclesialem rationibus necessariis ad tuendam observantiam eorum ap- petitionum. 6. Consideratis momento et multiplicitate quaestionum in hoc documento memoratarum, haec quae sequuntur decernimus: a) instituitur Commissio cuius erit Episcopis cooperari, Dicasteriis Curiae Romanae et circulis quorum interest, ut plenam expediat communionem ecclesialem sacerdotum, seminariorum alumnorum, communitatum aut singulorum religiosorum coniunctorum Fraternitati conditae ab Archiepiscopo Lefebvre, qui cupiant Petri Sueeessori in Ecclesia Catholica cohaerere, suas servantes traditiones spiritales et liturgicas, iuxta Protocollum superiore die 5 mensis Maii obsignatum a Cardinali Ratzinger et ab Archiepiscopo Lefebvre; b) haec Commissio constat ex Cardinali Praeside et aliis membris Curiae Romanae, pro numero qui opportunus habebitur secundum rerum temporumque adiuncta; c) insuper, ubique observandus erit animus eorum qui se sentiunt traditioni Latinae liturgicae divinctos, idque per amplam ac liberalem applicationem normarum iamdiu ab Apostolica Sede editarum, quod attinet ad usum Missalis Romani iuxta editionem typicam anni 1962 [9]. 7. Iam exeunte hoc anno, peculiari modo Sanctissimae Virgini dicato, exoptamus adhortari omnes ut se adiungant continuae deprecationi quam Christi Vicarius, per intercessionem Matris Ecclesiae, Patri adhibet ipsis Filii verbis: Ut unum sint! Datum Romae, apud S. Petrum, die altero mensis lulii, anno MCMLXXXVIII, Pontificatus Nostri decimo. IOANNES PAULUS PP. II 1. Cf. Nota informativa diei 16 Iunii 19S5 in diurnario "L'Osservatore Romano" 07 Iunii 1985), pp. 1-2. 2. Cf. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum I, Const. Pastor aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. 3. Cf. Codex Juris Canonici can. 75l. 4. Cf. ibid., can. 1382 5. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Dei Verbum, 8. Cf Conc. Oec. Vagti. I Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020. 6. 7. Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 386; Paulus PP. VI, Adhort. Ap. Quinque ium anni 18 Decembris 1970: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 97-106. 8. 9. Cf. Congregatio pro Cultu Divino, Ep. Quattuor abhinc annos: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089. ============ ECCLESIA DEI APOSTOLIC LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II Given at His Own Initiative By which a particular Commission is instituted to facilitate full ecclesial communion of the members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X or those joined with it. 1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail (1). 2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor of Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church (2), even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all. The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to His Church. 3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience -- which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy -- constitutes a schismatic act (3). In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law (4). 4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth" (5). But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magesterium of the Church possessed by the Bishops of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church (6). 5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted. a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening till more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized application of doctrine, liturgy, and discipline. To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clearsighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded (7). However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirtuality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety; of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law (8). To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. 6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following: a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre; b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances; c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962 (9). 7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in the unceasing prayer which the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the Church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!" Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 2, 1988, in the tenth years of Our Pontificate. NOTES 1) Cf. "Informatory Note" of 16 June, 1988: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 27 June 1988, pp. 1-2. 2) Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. 3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751. 4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382. 5) Cf. Vatican Council II, Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020. 6) Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. 7) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI, Apostl. Exhort. Quinque iam anni, 8 Dec. 1970: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 97-106. 8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364. 9) Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089. [Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale (LXXX, 12) 15 November 1988. English translation from L'Osservatore Romano, English Edition, N. 28 (1047), 11 July 1988.] ============================================================================ LETTER FROM THE "ECCLESIA DEI" COMMISSION TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES [The following text is the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" undated letter No. 500/90, signed by Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Prefect, which was delivered to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and which was further disseminated by a memorandum dated 19 April 1991, from the Office of the General Secretary, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, to all the bishops in the United States.] Your Excellency: I write to you as a brother in the episcopal college charged by the Holy Father to carry out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988. My objective in addressing myself to you now is precisely to encourage you in the exercise of your pastoral mission to those who legitimately request the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal. Perhaps a review of developments which led to the issuance of Ecclesia Dei would be helpful in this regard. 1. On 3 October 1984, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued Quattour abhinc annos in which the Holy Father granted to diocesan bishops "the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful . . . may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition." The following conditions were stipulated: a) that those requesting permission do not "call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Pius VI in 1970"; b) that such celebrations take place only for groups requesting them, not in parish churches (except with the bishop's permission in extraordinary cases) and under conditions laid down by the bishop; c) that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin"; d) that there "be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals"; and e) that each bishop had to inform the Congregation "of the concessions granted by him, and, at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of the application." 2. A special "Commissio Cardinalitia ad hoc ipsum instituta" charged with reviewing the use made of the indult met in December of 1986. At that time the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the conditions laid down in Quattour abhinc annos were too restrictive and should be relaxed. 3. As you well know, in response to the illicit ordination of bishops at Econe on 30 June 1988 and wishing to uphold the principles which had been established in the previous and unfortunately unfruitful dialogue with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Holy Father issued Ecclesia Dei, motu proprio, on 2 July 1988. While insisting that the root of the schismatic act of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in an "incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition" which fails to "take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition" (no. 4), he also maintained with equal firmness that "it is necessary that all the pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality, and apostolate" (no. 5, a). Consequently, addressing himself "to all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition," and not just to the former adherents of Archbishop Lefebvre, he expressed his will "to guarantee respect for their aspirations" (no. 5, c). In order to provide for these legitimate desires of the faithful he established this Pontifical Commission and indicated his mind with regard to its primary task, stating: ". . . respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 typical edition (no. 6, c)." Consequently, Your Excellency, we wish to encourage you to facilitate the proper and reverent celebration of the liturgical rites according to the Roman Miss of 1962 wherever there is a genuine desire for this on the part of the priests and faithful. This should not be construed as a promotion of that Missal in prejudice to the one promulgated eight years later, but simply a pastoral provision to meet the "legitimate aspirations" [sic: the word "legitimate" does not occur in "Ecclesia Dei"] of those who wish to worship according to the Latin liturgical tradition as celebrated for centuries. In the light of the Holy Father's Motu Proprio, then, we offer the following guidelines and suggestions: 1. There is no reason now why the so-called "Tridentine" Mass cannot be celebrated in a parish church where this would be a genuine pastoral service to the faithful asking for it. Care should be taken, of course, for a harmonious integration into the already existing parish liturgical schedule. 2. The regularity and frequency of the celebration of this liturgy, whether to be celebrated on Sundays, Holydays, and/or weekdays, will depend on the needs of the faithful. Our recommendation is that, in places where the faithful have made a request for the regular celebration for the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, a weekly Sunday and Holyday Mass be scheduled in a central location and at a convenient time on a trial basis for a period of several months. Afterwards further evaluation and adjustment should be made. 3. Of course the celebrants of the "Tridentine" Mass should not fail in their preaching and contacts with the faithful attending such Masses to emphasize their own adherence to the legislation of the universal Church and their acknowledgment of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council. Under such conditions, it would seem unnecessary, even unduly painful, to impose further restrictions upon those who wish to attend such celebrations. 4. Although the Holy Father has given this Pontifical Commission the faculty to grant the use of the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal to all those who request it, while the Commission informs the appropriate Ordinary thereof, we would much prefer that such faculties be granted by the Ordinary himself for the sake of strengthening the bond of ecclesial communion between those priests and faithful and their local Pastors. 5. Following upon the "wide and generous application" of the principles laid down in Quattour abhinc annos and the directives of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 51 & 54), the new Lectionary in the vernacular could be used as a way of "providing a richer fare for the faithful at the table of God's Word" in Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. However, we believe that this usage should not be imposed on congregations who decidedly wish to maintain the former liturgical tradition in its integrity according to the provision of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Such an imposition might also be less likely to invite back to full communion with the Church at this time those who have lapsed into schismatic worship. 6. Since a number of older and retired priests who have a deep appreciation of the previous Latin liturgical tradition have approached their individual Ordinaries as well as this Pontifical Commission to obtain the celebret for the use of the 1962 Missal, it would seem particularly suitable to utilize the services of such priests where possible for the celebration of this Mass. It may well be discovered that even retired priests who have not requested this faculty would nonetheless be willing to provide this special form of pastoral care for those who request it. Finally, Your Excellency, it is my sincere desire that this fraternal letter will be for us who are members of the episcopal college an incentive to exercise that manus episcopale described so beautifully in Lumen Gentium 23: "Individual bishops, insofar as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches, nor the Church universal. But insofar as they are members of the episcopal college and legitimate successors of the apostles, by Christ's arrangement and decree, each is bound to have such care and solicitude for the whole Church which, though it not be exercised by an act of jurisdiction, does for all that redound in an eminent degree to the advantage of the universal Church. For all the bishops have the obligation of fostering and safeguarding the unity of faith and of upholding the discipline which is common to the whole Church." "I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my best wishes to you in your shepherding of the flock entrusted to your care and to assure you of my willing collaboration that, in all circumstances, God may be glorified in the worship of His Holy Church." Augustin Card. Mayer, Prefect ============================================================================ DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (THE "HONOLULU" DECISION) [Mrs. Morley and five other Traditional Catholics in the Diocese of Honolulu, known as "The Honolulu Six," were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu on the grounds that they: * established a traditional chapel in the diocese * impugned the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass for four years on a religious radio program * invited independent and SSPX priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel * invited an SSPX bishop to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel * disobeyed the bishop [Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of "schism" and declared that the bishop's action in "excommunicating" them was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by the Vatican on a morals charge. [In clear violation of the Vatican's decree, the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, later threatened with "excommunication" any Catholics in his diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any such illegal action.] LETTER On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991. His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morely excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in canon 1364.1 of the Code of Canon Law [1983]. This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu. Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect Alberto Bovone, Secretary Vatican City, June 4, 1993 =========================================================================== LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE MOTU PROPRIO DATAE BENEDICTUS XVI SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM De Uso Extraordinario Antiquae Formae Ritus Romani Summorum Pontificum cura ad hoc tempus usque semper fuit, ut Christi Ecclesia Divinae Maiestati cultum dignum offerret, "ad laudem et gloriam nominis Sui" et "ad utilitatem totius Ecclesiae Suae sanctae". Ab immemorabili tempore sicut etiam in futurum, principium servandum est "iuxta quod unaquaeque Ecclesia particularis concordare debet cum universali Ecclesia non solum quoad fidei doctrinam et signa sacramentalia, sed etiam quoad usus universaliter acceptos ab apostolica et continua traditione, qui servandi sunt non solum ut errores vitentur, verum etiam ad fidei integritatem tradendam, quia Ecclesiae lex orandi eius legi credendi respondet"[1]. Inter Pontífices qui talem debitam curam adhibuerunt, nomen excellit sancti Gregorii Magni, qui tam fidem catholicam quam thesauros cultus ac culturae a Romanis in saeculis praecedentibus cumulatos novis Europae populis transmittendos curavit. Sacrae Liturgiae tam Missae Sacrificii quam Officii Divini formam, uti in Urbe celebrabatur, definiri conservarique iussit. Monachos quoque et moniales maxime fovit, qui sub Regula sancti Benedicti militantes, ubique simul cum Evangelii annuntiatione illam quoque saluberrimam Regulae sententiam vita sua illustrarunt, "ut operi Dei nihil praeponatur" (cap. 43). Tali modo sacra liturgia secundum morem Romanum non solum fidem et pietatem sed et culturam multarum gentium fecundavit. Constat utique liturgiam latinam variis suis formis Ecclesiae in omnibus aetatis christianae saeculis permultos Sanctos in vita spirituali stimulasse atque tot populos in religionis virtute roborasse ac eorundem pietatem fecundasse. Ut autem Sacra Liturgia hoc munus efficacius expleret, plures alii Romani Pontifices decursu saeculorum peculiarem sollicitudinem impenderunt, inter quos eminet Sanctus Pius V, qui magno cum studio pastorali, Concilio Tridentino exhortante, totum Ecclesiae cultum innovavit, librorum liturgicorum emendatorum et "ad normam Patrum instauratorum" editionem curavit eosque Ecclesiae latinae usui dedit. Inter Ritus romani libros liturgicos patet eminere Missale Romanum, quod in romana urbe succrevit, atque succedentibus saeculis gradatim formas assumpsit, quae cum illa in generationibus recentioribus vigente magnam habent similitudinem. "Quod idem omnino propositum tempore progrediente Pontifices Romani sunt persecuti, cum novas ad aetates accommodaverunt aut ritus librosque liturgicos determinaverunt, ac deinde cum ineunte hoc nostro saeculo ampliorem iam complexi sunt redintegrationem"[2]. Sic vero egerunt Decessores nostri Clemens VIII, Urbanus VIII, sanctus Pius X[3], Benedictus XV, Pius XII et beatus Ioannes XXIII. Recentioribus autem temporibus, Concilium Vaticanum II desiderium expressit, ut debita observantia et reverentia erga cultum divinum denuo instauraretur ac necessitatibus nostrae aetatis aptaretur. Quo desiderio motus, Decessor noster Summus Pontifex Paulus VI libros liturgicos instauratos et partim innovatos anno 1970 Ecclesiae latinae pprobavit; qui ubique terrarum permultas in linguas vulgares conversi, ab Episcopis atque a sacerdotibus et fidelibus libenter recepti sunt. Ioannes Paulus II, tertiam editionem typicam Missalis Romani recognovit. Sic Romani Pontifices operati sunt ut "hoc quasi aedificium liturgicum [...] rursus, dignitate splendidum et concinnitate" appareret[4]. Aliquibus autem in regionibus haud pauci fideles antecedentibus formis liturgicis, quae eorum culturam et spiritum tam profunde imbuerant, tanto amore et affectu adhaeserunt et adhaerere pergunt, ut Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II, horum fidelium pastorali cura motus, anno 1984 speciali Indulto "Quattuor abhinc annos", a Congregatione pro Cultu Divino exarato, facultatem concessit utendi Missali Romano a Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito; anno autem 1988 Ioannes Paulus II iterum, litteris Apostolicis "Ecclesia Dei" Motu proprio datis, Episcopos exhortatus est ut talem facultatem late et generose in favorem omnium fidelium id petentium adhiberent. Instantibus precibus horum fidelium iam a Praedecessore Nostro Ioanne Paulo II diu perpensis, auditis etiam a Nobis Patribus Cardinalibus in Concistorio die XXIII mensis martii anni 2006 habito, omnibus mature perpensis, invocato Spiritu Sancto et Dei freti auxilio, praesentibus Litteris Apostolicis DECERNIMUS quae sequuntur: Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem "Legis orandi" Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones "legis orandi" Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem "legis credendi" Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani. Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Condiciones vero a documentis antecedentibus "Quattuor abhinc annos" et "Ecclesia Dei" pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur: Art. 2. In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato, et quidem qualibet die, excepto Triduo Sacro. Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui. Art. 3. Si communitates Institutorum vitae consecratae atque Societatum vitae apostolicae iuris sive pontificii sive dioecesani quae in celebratione conventuali seu "communitatis" in oratoriis propriis celebrationem sanctae Missae iuxta editionem Missalis Romani anno 1962 promulgatam habere cupiunt, id eis licet. Si singula communitas aut totum Institutum vel Societas tales celebrationes saepe vel habitualiter vel permanenter perficere vult, res a Superioribus maioribus ad normam iuris et secundum leges et statuta particularia decernatur. Art. 4. Ad celebrationes sanctae Missae de quibus supra in art. 2 admitti possunt, servatis de iure servandis, etiam christifideles qui sua sponte id petunt. Art. 5, Para. 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium stabiliter exsistit, parochus eorum petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi, libenter suscipiat. Ipse videat ut harmonice concordetur bonum horum fidelium cum ordinaria paroeciae pastorali cura, sub Episcopi regimine ad normam canonis 392, discordiam vitando et totius Ecclesiae unitatem fovendo. Para. 2. Celebratio secundum Missale B. Ioannis XXIII locum habere potest diebus ferialibus; dominicis autem et festis una etiam celebratio huiusmodi fieri potest. Para. 3. Fidelibus seu sacerdotibus id petentibus, parochus celebrationes, hac in forma extraordinaria, permittat etiam in adiunctis peculiaribus, uti sunt matrimonia, exsequiae aut celebrationes occasionales, verbi gratia peregrinationes. Para. 4. Sacerdotes Missali B. Ioannis XXIII utentes, idonei esse debent ac iure non impediti. Para. 5. In ecclesiis, quae non sunt nec paroeciales nec conventuales, Rectoris ecclesiae est concedere licentiam de qua supra. Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis. Art. 7. Ubi aliquis coetus fidelium laicorum, de quo in art. 5 Para. 1 petita a parocho non obtinuerit, de re certiorem faciat Episcopum dioecesanum. Episcopus enixe rogatur ut eorum optatum exaudiat. Si ille ad huiusmodi celebrationem providere non vult res ad Pontificiam Commissionem "Ecclesia Dei" referatur. Art. 8. Episcopus, qui vult providere huiusmodi petitionibus christifidelium laicorum, sed ob varias causas impeditur, rem Pontificiae Commissioni "Ecclesia Dei" committere potest, quae ei consilium et auxilium dabit. Art. 9, Para. 1. Parochus item, omnibus bene perpensis, licentiam concedere potest utendi rituali antiquiore in administrandis sacramentis Baptismatis, Matrimonii, Poenitentiae et Unctionis Infirmorum, bono animarum id suadente. Para. 2. Ordinariis autem facultas conceditur celebrandi Confirmationis sacramentum utendo Pontificali Romano antiquo, bono animarum id suadente. § 3. Fas est clericis in sacris constitutis uti etiam Breviario Romano a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgato. Art 10. Fas est Ordinario loci, si opportunum iudicaverit, paroeciam personalem ad normam canonis 518 pro celebrationibus iuxta formam antiquiorem ritus romani erigere aut rectorem vel cappellanum nominare, servatis de iure servandis. Art. 11. Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" a Ioanne Paulo II anno 1988 erecta[5], munus suum adimplere pergit. Quae Commissio formam, officia et normas agendi habeat, quae Romanus Pontifex ipsi attribuere voluerit. Art. 12. Eadem Commissio, ultra facultates quibus iam gaudet, auctoritatem Sanctae Sedis exercebit, vigilando de observantia et applicatione harum dispositionum. Quaecumque vero a Nobis hisce Litteris Apostolicis Motu Proprio datis decreta sunt, ea omnia firma ac rata esse et a die decima quarta Septembris huius anni, in festo Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis, servari iubemus, contrariis quibuslibet rebus non obstantibus. Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die septima mensis Iulii, anno Domini MMVII, Pontificatus Nostri tertio. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI [1] "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani," Editio tertia, 2002, 397. [2] Ioannes Paulus Pp. II, Litterae Apostolicae "Vicesimus quintus annus" (4 Decembris 1988), 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. [3] Ibid. [4] S. Pius Pp. X, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio Datae "Abhinc duos annos" (23 Octobris 1913): AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cfr. Ioannes Paulus II, Litterae Apostolicae "Quintus Annus" (4 Decembris 1988), 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. [5] Cfr. Ioannes Paulus Papa II, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio Datae "Ecclesia Dei" (2 iulii 1988), 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498. [Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale 09/07/07] ============ APOSTOLIC LETTER GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO BENEDICT XVI "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM" On the Extraordinary Use of the Ancient Form of the Roman Rite Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of Supreme Pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, "to the praise and glory of His name," and "to the benefit of all His Holy Church." Since time immemorial it has been necessary -- as it is also for the future - - to maintain the principle according to which "each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic Tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith."[1] Among the Pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel, illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their rule that "nothing should be placed before the work of God." In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety. Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and "renewed in accordance with the norms of the fathers," and provided them for the use of the Latin Church. One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times. "It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform."[2] Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X,[3] Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part. In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that "this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony."[4] But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given motu proprio, "Ecclesia Dei," exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired. Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after 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 Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same "Lex orandi," and must be given due honor 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 Blessed 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 Annos" 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 Blessed 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 statues. 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. Para. 1. In parishes, where there exists steadily a group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly receive their petitions to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church. Para. 2. Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may take place on ferial days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. Para. 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, i.e., pilgrimages. Para. 4. Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded. Para. 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 Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See. Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 Para. 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 does not want to 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. Para. 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. Para. 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. Para. 3. Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed 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 Canon 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[5], 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 this Apostolic Letter issued motu proprio be considered as "established and decreed," and to be observed from Sept. 14 of this year, feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary. From Rome, at St. Peter's, July 7, 2007, third year of Our Pontificate. Benedict XVI [1] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, No. 397. [2] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus Quintus Annus," Dec. 4, 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. [3] Ibid. [4] St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter issued "motu propio," "Abhinc Duos Annos," Oct. 23, 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Vicesimus Quintus Annus," No. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899. [5] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter issued motu proprio, "Ecclesia Dei," July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498. ============ LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "MOTU PROPRIO DATA" SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970 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" [sic: the word "legitimate" does not occur in "Ecclesia Dei"] 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 unable 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 [presbyters] 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 ============ EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE APOSTOLIC LETTER "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM" [The following explanatory note was issued by the Vatican Press Office on July 7, 2007, concerning the Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum."] 1. The Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" lays down new rules for the use of the Roman liturgy that preceded the reform of 1970. The reasons for such provisions are clearly explained in the Holy Father's Letter to Bishops, which accompanies the Motu Proprio (the two documents have been sent to all the presidents of episcopal conferences and to all nuncios, who have arranged to distribute them to all bishops). 2. The fundamental provision is as follows: the Roman liturgy will have two forms ("usus"): a) The ordinary form is the one that follows the liturgical reform undertaken by Pope Paul VI in the year 1970, as it appears in the liturgical books promulgated at that time. There is an official edition in Latin which may be used always and everywhere, and translations in divers languages published by the various episcopal conferences. b) The extraordinary form, which is that celebrated in accordance with the liturgical books published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. 3. The Motu Proprio allows the use of the prior liturgy for those who desire it; it does not intend, on the other hand, to impose the extraordinary form, that is, the prior liturgy, on those who are happy with the ordinary form. 4. The liturgy according to the 1962 books is celebrated in the Latin language but the readings contained in the Missal can be read to the people in the vernacular. To favor an active participation, the faithful who attend such celebrations are invited to recite together with the celebrant the diverse parts of the "Ordinarium Missae" (Ordinary of the Mass - Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) which, in sung Masses, may be sung and, if possible, even by the people. When there are faithful present, it is not suitable for the entire Mass to be celebrated in a low voice. It is recommended that the faithful follow the prayers of the Mass with a bilingual missal, such as those that already exist and which will certainly be re- edited. 5. In parishes, in practice, the liturgy being used will not change: instead, it will be possible for the pastor to add to the Masses celebrated in the ordinary form, a second Mass according to the extraordinary form. 6. The two forms of the liturgy follow two diverse calendars, different on the dates of several secondary feasts, and they have two diverse lectionaries. Such differences should not create great difficulties: for example, the Ambrosian rite, celebrated in the diocese of Milan, has its own calendar and lectionary. 7. The Motu Proprio foresees the possibility of using the earlier rite for the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. If such a reasonably-motivated demand exists, the pastor can decide to use the earlier missal; it is clear, however, that all prescriptions on the preparations for these sacraments, which have been set forth by the episcopal conferences, remain in force. The same possibility exists for funerals, both for the funeral Mass in church and for the funeral rite at the cemetery. 8. The bishop of a particular place may erect a personal parish, wherever there is to be found a very substantial number of faithful who wish to follow the earlier liturgy. It would be appropriate for the numbers of faithful to be substantial, even if not comparable to those of other parishes. 9. The liturgical books needed for the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy are: - The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) in the 1962 edition; previous editions differ in the rubrics on the status (level) of feasts. In the 1962 edition there is also the "Ordo Hebdomadæ Sanctae," (Order of Holy Week), previously renewed in 1955 by Pope Pius XII. Pope John XXIII reformulated the prayer "Pro Judaeis" (for the Jews) in the Good Friday liturgy and inserted it in this edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, it is not licit to use the Holy Week liturgy prior to the 1962 edition. - The Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual), for the Sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Anointing of the Sick and other Blessings and Prayers contained in the Ritual. - The Roman Pontifical for the case in which the bishop decides to confer Confirmation on a group of faithful who wish it in the earlier rite. The use of the 1962 Roman Pontifical was permitted in 1988 for those communities who followed the entire earlier rite of conferring the Sacrament of Orders. - The Breviarium Romanum (Roman Breviary), for priests who wish to recite the Divine Office in consonance with the 1962 Missal. All four of these liturgical books must be reprinted for practical use. Those publishing houses that specialize in such books must be charged with this, with the recognitio (recognition) of the competent Pontifical Commission. 10. The priests necessary for the celebration of the liturgy in the extraordinary form must be prepared for this task. 11. The Motu Proprio foresees that the jurisdiction for the application of the new dispositions belongs to the "Ecclesia Dei" Pontifical Commission which will take care of problems that could arise. 12. The Motu Proprio is scheduled to enter into force on September 14. The pope's Letter explicitly asks Bishops to give an accounting after three years, in such a way as to be able to find solutions if "serious difficulties" arise. The Explanatory Note also highlights some of the characteristics of the 1962 Missal: - It is a "complete" or "integral" Missal in the Latin language; that is, it also contains the readings for the celebrations (it is not distinct from the "Lectionary," as the later 1970 Missal is). - "It contains just one Eucharistic prayer, the "Roman Canon" (corresponding to the first Eucharist Prayer of the later Missal, which includes a choice of various Eucharistic Prayers). - Various prayers (including a large part of the Canon) are recited by the priest in a low voice inaudible to the people. - Other differences include the reading of the beginning of the Gospel of John at the end of Mass. - The 1962 Missal does not provide for concelebration. It says nothing concerning the direction of the altar or of the celebrant (whether facing the people or not). - The Pope's Letter envisages the possibility of future enrichment of the 1962 Missal (inclusion of new saints, new prefaces, etc.). =========================================================================== CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS DECREE REMITTING THE EXCOMMUNICATION "LATAE SENTENTIAE" OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that "we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering". His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration. This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division. It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity. On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009 Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re Prefect =========================================================================== NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE CONCERNING THE FOUR PRELATES OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X Protocol No. 126/2009 In the wake of reactions to the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops by which the excommunication of four prelates of the Society of Saint Pius X was remitted, and with regard to the negationist or reductionist statements made by Bishop Williamson concerning the Shoah, it seems opportune to clarify some aspects of the matter. 1. Remission of the Excommunication As has already been publicly stated, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated 21 January 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father responded benevolently to repeated requests from the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X. His Holiness desired to remove an impediment which was prejudicial to the opening of a door to dialogue. He now awaits a corresponding gesture from the four bishops expressing total adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. The very grave penalty of latae sententiae excommunication, which these bishops incurred on 30 June 1988, and which was formally declared on 1 July 1988, was a consequence of their having been illegitimately ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very serious canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical status of the Society of Saint Pius X, which presently does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. The four bishops, even though they have been released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and do not licitly exercise any ministry within it. 2. Tradition, Doctrine and the Second Vatican Council A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X. As already stated in the Decree of 21 January 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture. 3. Statements about the Shoah The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all". In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the remission of the excommunication. The Holy Father asks for the prayerful support of all the faithful, so that the Lord will enlighten the Church’s path. May the commitment of the Pastors and all the faithful grow in support of the difficult and onerous mission of the Successor of Peter the Apostle, who "watches over the unity" of the Church. From the Vatican, 4 February 2009 =========================================================================== LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry! The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church. An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist. Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision- making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects. Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical "Deus Caritas Est." So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them? Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter. With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain Yours in the Lord, BENEDICTUS PP. XVI From the Vatican, 10 March 2009