Diane Montagna Leaked Latin Mass Report: Full Text

Translation by Diane Montagna

CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDE

CONSULTATION OF BISHOPS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE MOTU PROPRIO SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

(April 2020)

1. What is the situation in your diocese with respect to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?

2. If the extraordinary form is practiced there, does it respond to a true pastoral need or is it promoted by a single priest?

3. In your opinion, are there positive or negative aspects of the use of the extraordinary form?

4. Are the norms and conditions established by Summorum Pontificum respected?

5. Does it occur to you that, in your diocese, the ordinary form as adopted elements of the extraordinary form?

6. For the celebration of the Mass, do you use the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962?

7. Besides the celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form, are there other celebrations (for example Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Penance, Unction of the sick, Ordination, Divine Office, Easter Triduum, funeral rites) according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II?

8. Has the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum had an influence on the life of seminaries (the seminary of diocese) and other formation houses?

9. Thirteen years after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, what is your advice about the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?

Overall Assessment

The considerable body of documents submitted and examined shows that the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum currently plays a significant, albeit relatively modest, role in the life of the Church. Conceived by Pope Benedict XVI after years of sometimes bitter clashes between the supporters of the reformed liturgy of 1970 and those of the Missale Romanum in its 1962 edition, the MP Summorum Pontificum succeeded in affirming the equal dignity of the two forms of the same Roman Rite, thereby fostering the conditions for genuine liturgical peace, with a view also to a possible future unity of the two forms.

The mutual enrichment and updating of the Missale Romanum of 1962, desired by the same Pope (cf. Letter of 7 July 2007), have also been achieved through the publication of the implementing instruction of the aforementioned Motu Proprio: Universae Ecclesiae of 30 April 2011, as well as the two decrees confirmed by Pope Francis on 5 December 2019, following the unanimous favorable opinion of the Members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Decree Quo Magis, concerning the addition of seven new prefaces, and Decree Cum Sanctissima, concerning the inclusion of new saints).

The spread of the older form of the Roman Rite following the MP Summorum Pontificum stands at around 20% of the Latin dioceses worldwide, and its implementation today is certainly more serene and peaceful, though not everywhere; some residual cases remain unresolved. Unfortunately, in certain dioceses, the Forma extraordinaria has not been considered a richness for the life of the Church, but rather as an inappropriate, disturbing, and useless element for ordinary pastoral life, and even as “dangerous” and therefore something not to be granted, or to be suppressed, or at least strictly controlled so that it does not spread, in the hope of its eventual disappearance or abrogation.

The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire, and who have generously and intelligently implemented the MP Summorum Pontificum, ultimately express satisfaction with it—especially those who have also had the possibility to establish a personal parish where all the sacraments are celebrated in the Forma extraordinaria and where a stable, celebrating, and pastorally active community is formed. In places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.

A constant observation made by the bishops is that it is young people who are discovering and choosing this older form of the liturgy. The majority of the stable groups present in the Catholic world are composed of young people, often converts to the Catholic faith or those returning after a time away from the Church and the sacraments. They are drawn by the sacredness, seriousness, and solemnity of the liturgy. What strikes them most, also amid a society that is excessively noisy and verbose, is the rediscovery of silence within sacred actions, the restrained and essential words, preaching that is faithful to the Church’s doctrine, the beauty of liturgical chant, and the dignity of the celebration: a seamless whole that is deeply attractive. It is Benedict XVI himself who wrote in his letter to the bishops accompanying the MP Summorum Pontificum that this group of people are the privileged recipients of his legislative measure—alongside, of course, all those who for decades had been requesting the liberalization and legitimization, in liturgical and pastoral practice, of the venerable Latin-Gregorian liturgy.

The establishment of stable groups, as envisaged by the MP Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, has enabled the Holy See to accompany the path of reconciliation and ecclesial integration of these faithful—initially through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and now through the Fourth Section of the CDF. For this, the bishops express satisfaction and gratitude. It is necessary to have an institutional body and a competent interlocutor who oversees the path of these groups and of the clerical institutes dependent on it, and who can assist the ministry of the bishops, to prevent arbitrary forms of self-management and anarchy within the groups, as well as abuses of power by some local bishops. The Holy See and its bond with the Pope are a guarantee for all, both the faithful and their pastors. Promoting ecclesial communion between the diocesan bishop and the members of the stable groups or institutes, and between them and the Pope, is fundamental for a serene and apostolically fruitful journey. These faithful desire to be regarded on an equal footing with the other faithful who attend the liturgy in the FO [Forma ordinaria], and they ask that pastors care for them pastorally without prejudice.

After a complex initial phase, and with some situations still pending, thanks to the MP Summorum Pontificum these groups of faithful—and indeed the bishops and priests themselves—have found stability and serenity, having in the former PCED and now the Fourth Section a calm, stable, and authoritative point of reference that guarantees their rights as well as their duties. Indeed, some bishops note that it is necessary to protect the stable groups to prevent departures from the Church toward schismatic communities or the SSPX [Society of St Pius X]. In all places where the stable groups are accompanied and supported by the diocesan bishop or by a delegated priest, there are virtually no more problems, and the faithful are content to be guided, respected, and treated as children by their father bishop.

The MP Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter speak of the Pope’s desire to work for an internal liturgical reconciliation within the Church. In light of his 22 December 2005 address to the Roman Curia, Benedict XVI, recognizing the need—also with regard to the sacred liturgy—to proceed not according to a hermeneutic of rupture but rather by renewal in continuity with tradition, writes: “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” (Benedict XVI, Letter of Accompaniment to the MP Summorum Pontificum). This ecclesiological dimension of the hermeneutic of continuity with tradition and with a coherent renewal and development has not yet been fully embraced by some bishops; however, where it has been received and implemented, it is already bearing fruit, the most visible of which is in the liturgy. Indeed, other bishops have noted the benefits brought by the MP Summorum Pontificum also for the Forma ordinaria of the liturgy, fostering a renewed sense of sacredness in liturgical action and contributing to a process of intra-ecclesial reconciliation.

Some bishops state that the MP Summorum Pontificum has failed in its aim of fostering reconciliation and therefore request its suppression—either because internal reconciliation within the Church has not yet been fully achieved, or because the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Church. A general and detailed analysis of these responses reveals that the opportunity provided by this inquiry has allowed certain bishops to read and begin to understand more deeply the document under discussion [i.e., Summorum Pontificum]. In response to the first objection, it should be noted that such processes of reconciliation within the Church are necessarily slow and gradual; the MP Summorum Pontificum has laid the groundwork for this reconciliation. Regarding the second objection, it should be recalled that the MP Summorum Pontificum was not intended for the SSPX; they already had access to what was granted by the MP Summorum Pontificum and therefore did not need it.1

Rather, the MP Summorum Pontificum stands in unity and completion, as an organic and coherent development, to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of John Paul II, by which the Polish Pontiff sought to save many Catholics who were lost and confused and at risk of schism following the episcopal ordinations carried out by Archbishop Lefebvre. Benedict XVI also affirmed that the MP Summorum Pontificum was issued as an instrument to address the Church’s need for reconciliation with itself (Op. cit.); for this reason, he also promulgated the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, incorporating the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This process reached a felicitous conclusion with Pope Francis’s Motu Proprio of January 2019, by which, in suppressing the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and establishing a special Section within the CDF, and affirming that the institutes and communities in question have today found proper stability of number and of life, the Pope directs these groups and ecclesial entities toward an ordinary and regular dimension of ecclesial life. In his Motu Proprio, Pope Francis entrusted the new section of the CDF with the task of “continu[ing] the work of supervision, promotion and protection conducted thus far by the decommissioned PCED.”

The bishops most attuned to this matter observe that the older form of the liturgy is a treasure of the Church to be safeguarded and preserved: it constitutes a good to find unity with the past, to know how to advance along a path of coherent development and progress, and to meet, as far as possible, the needs of these faithful. When a state of peace is established at the diocesan level, the risk of a division into two churches, which some prelates fear, is obviated; these prelates, in turn, note that what distinguishes some groups of faithful who follow the Forma extraordinaria is their rejection of the Second Vatican Council. This is partly true, but it cannot be generalized. In these cases, too, it is noted that the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of certain members of the stable groups.

The bishops also note the growth of vocations within the former Ecclesia Dei institutes, especially in the English and French-speaking areas, but also in the Spanish and Portuguesespeaking regions. Many young men are choosing to enter the Ecclesia Dei institutes for their priestly or religious formation rather than diocesan seminaries, to the manifest regret of some bishops. Indeed, in recent years the Fourth Section has recorded a significant increase in vocations within the institutes under its purview, along with a greater commitment by these institutes to the spiritual and intellectual formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life—obviously in due proportion as these communities are smaller, though not insignificant, compared to the rest of the Church.

The Bishops in Spanish-speaking regions, in general, seem to show little interest in the MP Summorum Pontificum—though there are, nonetheless, faithful in these areas who request the older form of the liturgy. Similarly, the responses from Italian bishops suggest that, overall, they do not hold the Forma extraordinaria and its related provisions in high regard, with a few exceptions. The faithful, however, express deep gratitude to Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, because thanks to the MP Summorum Pontificum, they have emerged from an ecclesial life marked by clandestinity, rejection, ridicule, and abuses of power by certain bishops—abuses that were sometimes directed even at their priests. As for the requests of the faithful, in recent years several stable groups have been established, many of which have organized themselves into associations seeking the celebration of Holy Mass in the Latin-Gregorian liturgical form.

Some bishops would prefer a return to the previous indult situation in order to have greater control and management of the situation. However, the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire state that making legislative changes to the MP Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good. Any change—whether by suppressing or weakening the MP Summorum Pontificum—would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve. As the Archbishop of Milan puts it: “I have the impression that any explicit intervention could cause more harm than good: if the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is further confirmed, it will provoke new waves of perplexity among the clergy (and not only them). If the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is denied, it will provoke new waves of dissent and resentment among the supporters of the old rite.” Therefore, it is better to continue along the path already undertaken, without causing further upheaval.

Others think that with a potential change, the Holy See would, among other things, foster the departure of disappointed faithful from the Church toward the Society of St. Pius X or to other schismatic groups. This would strengthen the arguments of those who claim that “Rome gives with one hand and takes with the other,” and therefore should never be trusted. A change in the regulations would thus give rise to a resurgence of the liturgical wars. It could even foster the emergence of a new schism. Moreover, it would delegitimize two Pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who had committed themselves to not abandoning these faithful (cf. Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 1988; MP Summorum Pontificum of 2007).

An idea that emerges from some of the responses, and that could serve as the conclusion of this synthesis, is the following: while reaffirming the indisputable character of the reform that arose after the Second Vatican Council, it would be appropriate to introduce in seminaries and in the various ecclesiastical faculties sessions dedicated to the study of both forms of the one Roman Rite, in order to make known its immense richness at the service of the celebration of the entire and unique Christian mystery throughout the Church, and to foster peaceful conditions for the celebration of this liturgy in local churches, with priests suitably formed for its celebration. In conclusion, a bishop from the Philippines stated in his final response to the questionnaire: “Let the people be free to choose.” And Benedict XVI, in his meeting with the French Episcopal Conference during his apostolic journey to France in 2008, stated regarding the MP Summorum Pontificum: “I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honor and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity.” Pope Francis has taken up this expression of Benedict XVI, making it his own and reaffirming it against every form of division and exclusion in the Church. Ultimately, these words could serve as a criterion of evaluation, judgment, and guidance for us today.

1 It suffices to say that the documents in question make no reference to the SSPX. Moreover, one must consider the authentic interpretation given by the Legislator himself in the book-length interview on his life. Responding to Peter Seewald in Last Testament on page 202 [Ultime Conversazioni, pag. 189], he states: “It is absolutely false to claim” that he intended the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum for the SSPX.

__

Collection of quotations drawn from the responses received from the dioceses 

(Where abbreviated: EF=Extraordinary Form; OF=Ordinary Form)

Negative assessments about the attitude of certain faithful

“In a negative sense, [the EF] can foster a sense of superiority among the faithful, but since this rite has become more widely available, that feeling has diminished” (Archdiocese of Westminster, England, response to question 3).

“For some, this Mass is a form of protest against the general direction taken by the Church, and for others it also comes with political agendas. That said, I prefer to keep such people close to the Church, asking the priests involved to correct these mistaken views” (Archdiocese of Baltimore, USA, response to question 3).

“I see no negative aspects in the use of the EF as such. When there are negative aspects, they are due to the negative attitudes of those who hold strong opinions one way or the other regarding this form of celebration. When ideology, rather than the pastoral good of the Church, guides the discernment about the use of the EF, then conflict and division arise. I repeat: this is something extrinsic to the use of the Mass itself” (Archdiocese of San Francisco, USA, response to question 3).

“There can be a tendency among some faithful to see [the EF] as the only ‘true’ Mass, but I believe this comes from the fact that these people have been regarded as ‘strange’ or pushed to the margins. If efforts are made to ‘regularize’ the situation as much as possible, then these individuals feel cared for and pastorally guided, and they can become very faithful and loyal” (Diocese of Plymouth, England, response to question 3).

“I believe that the priests who minister [to these faithful] do not have the freedom of a parish pastor, and are often under the authority of the faithful they serve. There is a close monitoring of their doctrine, their fidelity to the rubrics, and their pastoral initiatives” (Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes France, response to question 3)

“Some people who support the EF do so with ideological assumptions. This is true of certain members of any group; however, they are not representative of the broader communities of faithful who attend the EF” (Diocese of Steubenville, response to question 3)

“The aspects [of the EF] in themselves are only positive: it is a great gift for everyone to be able to know and attend the celebration in the extraordinary form. The negative aspects are present only insofar as these celebrations are conducted and/or attended by unbalanced or ideologically driven individuals” (Diocese of Livorno, Italy, response to question 3).

“Division and discord do not arise from the use of the EF, but rather from the perception people have of those who attend it. Motivations and tendencies are attributed to people that are not true at all” (Diocese of Savannah, USA, response to question 3).

On the isolation of communities

“In practice, the intended effect [maintaining the bond with the parish] has not occurred, because each person limits themselves to the circle of faithful who share the same liturgical sensibility. But perhaps this limitation is due to a still cautious too implementation of the Motu Proprio” (Archdiocese of Sens-Auxerre, France, response to question 3)

“The use of the Extraordinary Form highlights even more the liturgical abuses that still exist in many parishes, and this leads to people abandoning them in favor of places where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated—particularly by young families who wish to give their children a solid religious formation. In the end, this risks weakening the parish ‘fabric’ through the use of ‘chosen’ parishes, where parishioners attend the liturgy but without true communal and social involvement in the places where they practice their faith, and without a visible social presence in the places where they live” (Diocese of Vannes, France, response to question 3).

“There is little interaction between the group of faithful and the nearby parish and the Diocese” (Archdiocese of Digione, response to question 3)

“These communities do not integrate into parish and diocesan life. This may be their own fault, when they are distrustful of the pastoral direction of the Diocese or the Parish and prefer to live in isolation. But it may also be due to those who are attached to the Ordinary Form, who struggle to understand the specific characteristics and expectations of these faithful, as well as the way they live their faith” (Diocese of Vannes, France, response to question 3)

On the irrelevance of the EF for the people

“The question of the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form is irrelevant to our people. The people simply wish to receive the Body of the Lord and are not interested in the rites in which they participate” (Diocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines, response to question 3)

“At times, the form has been applied not for the good of souls, but to cater to the personal preferences of the priest” (Archdiocese of Messina-Lipari-S. Lucia della Mela, Italy, response to question 4).

On the pastoral necessity and/or appropriateness of the EF

“The current offering of Masses and celebrations in the Extraordinary Form meets the pastoral needs of the faithful. The initial conflicts regarding the establishment of Masses in the Extraordinary Form have been peacefully resolved in recent years” (Joint Report of the German Bishops’ Conference, response to question 1).

“The Extraordinary Form offers those faithful a context in which to grow in holiness through a Eucharistic celebration that deepens their communion with Christ and with others, in a manner that corresponds to their sensibilities. A similar statement can be made about other people who grow spiritually and ecclesially through more contemporary forms of celebration” (Diocese of Des Moines, USA, response to question 3).

“[In the Diocese] there is no experience of the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Rite of Mass, which could never respond to a true pastoral need of the Church today” (Archdiocese of Brindisi-Ostuni, Italy).

“The attraction exercised by the Extraordinary Form is as much a reaction to a less-than-satisfactory celebration of the Ordinary Form as it is a specific desire for a liturgy in Latin.” (Diocese of Lake Charles, USA, response to question 9).

On those whom the EF attracts

“This movement attracts many young families who feel at home with this liturgy and with the activities offered around it. I believe such diversity is good in the Church, and that the decline in the number of practicing faithful should not necessarily lead to a uniformity of offerings. This liturgical form is nourishing for many. There is a sense of the sacred that appeals and orients people toward God” (Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes, France, response to question 3).

“The Church should be able to acknowledge [to the institutes attached to the Extraordinary Form] what they bring to her: vocations, the preservation of a liturgical tradition rich in meaning, and a form of stability in the face of changes within the Church and in the culture” (Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes, France, response to question 9)

“We have observed that these families participate in many of the diocesan youth and vocational events in a proportion far greater than any other group” (Diocese of Rockville Center, USA, response to question 9).

“The Masses in the Extraordinary Form in our diocese attract quite a few devoted families. While some of the parents homeschool their children, others enroll their children in local Catholic schools. These families embrace many of the principles promoted by Vatican II, including the need to cultivate the domestic Church and the universal call to holiness” (Diocese of Brooklyn, USA, response to question 3).

“There is a significant number of Catholics who have always remained in communion but strongly aspire to more traditional liturgical forms, and who have been greatly comforted and helped in their faith through participation in Masses in the Extraordinary Form. Many young families and younger Catholics have found in the Extraordinary Form a treasure that has helped them grow in faith… even if they did not grow up with the Extraordinary Form, they find it enriching for the practice of their faith” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, USA, response to question 2)

“A significant number of fervent young people feel nourished—not exclusively—by the Extraordinary Form. The peaceful presence of the Extraordinary Form allows some young people (typical of their generation, moreover) who feel a call to the priesthood to have confidence in the Diocese” (Diocese of Nanterre, France, response to question 8).

On the value of the EF for the peace and unity of the Church

“Many of the people who attend are troubled and quite suffering pilgrims, and I believe that the ‘normalization’ of their liturgical experience within the life of the Church strengthens its unity” (Diocese of Plymouth, England, response to question 9)

“The Extraordinary Form, under the prudent guidance of the local Ordinary, has allowed more Catholics to pray according to their desires and has resolved the earlier conflicts. Its peaceful presence should not be disturbed” (Archdiocese of Westminster, England, response to question 9).

“The Motu Proprio has allowed for a genuine pacification of the liturgical issue” (Diocesi di SaintDié, France, response to question 3)

“The most positive aspect of the use of the Extraordinary Form is that there is no longer any ‘clan’ claiming the ‘true Mass.’ The Eucharistic mystery has been freed from a very harmful ideological division. This has greatly benefited the perception of the unity of the Church realized around the Eucharist” (Archdiocese of Aix & Arles, France, response to question 3).

“Some faithful of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, who were previously uninterested in diocesan life, have changed their behavior: they contribute to the ‘denier de l’Église’ [the annual offering for dioceses in France] and express their joy in other ways at being able to pray in their own Diocese” (Diocese of La Rochelle, France, response to question 9)

“It has not been my experience, for example, that the Extraordinary Form creates division; rather, the opposite. It can promote and foster a sense of communion and inclusion when it is rightly handled in a pastoral way” (Diocese of Albany, USA, response to question 9)

“I would see it as a benefit for the whole Church if the Holy See continued to support the Catholic faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Even more generally, fostering authentic differences of thought and expression is an advantage for the universal Church. Having a dedicated section for this within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is helpful when liturgical developments or clarifications are needed. In accordance with universal norms, our Archdiocese has also undertaken to establish a dialogue with the local and national leaders of the FSSPX. I believe this positive step has been facilitated by the existence of Summorum Pontificum and the communities it has encouraged” (Archdiocese of New Orleans, USA, response to question 9).

“In an area of great ethnic diversity like Miami, a diversity of liturgical forms is generally helpful” (Archdiocese of Miami, USA, response to question 3).

“I believe that many of those who had felt separated from the Church and had gone toward extra-ecclesial communities have felt welcomed again within the structure of the Church thanks to Summorum Pontificum” (Diocese of Dallas, USA, response to question 3).

On the liturgical, theological, and catechetical value of the Extraordinary Form

“Undoubtedly, the Extraordinary Form has challenged members of the clergy regarding the place of ritual in Christian life and the dignity of the celebrations” (Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, response to question 5).

“Maintaining the Extraordinary Form is the right choice, not because it is better or more suitable than the Ordinary Form, but because the Extraordinary Form possesses its own richness both liturgically and theologically. Likewise, the Extraordinary Form provides a stimulating counterpoint to the Ordinary Form” (Diocese of Cambrai, France, response to question 9).

“I myself have celebrated priestly ordinations in the Extraordinary Form, even though it is not my usual form, and I was able to appreciate its richness, beauty, and liturgical depth” (Bishop of Perpignan-Elne, France, response to question 3).

“Many families do not participate exclusively in the Extraordinary Form but enjoy attending both the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Forms. I encourage this as a richer experience of liturgical history and development” (Diocese of Tyler, USA, response to question 3)

“It would not be difficult to assert that if surveyed, nearly 100% of those who attend the Extraordinary Form believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas drastically lower figures have been shown among Catholics who predominantly attend the Ordinary Form” (Diocese of Knoxville, USA, response to question 3).

“A good number of Catholics have come to a more fervent life of faith; many men have become more active in spiritually leading their families, and many have gained a deep knowledge of the Church’s traditions, which has helped them to appreciate more deeply the reforms of Vatican II and the Ordinary Form of the Mass” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, USA response to question 3).

“The Extraordinary Form has become a treasure for the Diocese, from which to draw inspiration and concrete perspectives on how to renew the liturgical life of the Church” (Diocese of Maasin, Philippines, response to question 5).

On the historical value of the Extraordinary Form

“To cease practicing the Extraordinary Form would be like cutting oneself off from the sources of the faith” (Diocese of Liège, Belgium, response to question 9).

“As Pope Benedict said, we cannot abandon the rite of the Mass that has been used for centuries and say that it is no longer relevant” (Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, England, response to question 9).

On the influence of the EF on the OF

“Even though the Extraordinary Form is not widely followed, it influences the Ordinary Form in a very healthy direction, which I would summarize as ‘towards greater reverence’” (Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, USA, response to question 9).

“The Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form represent two different understandings of the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, the baptismal priesthood, and the sacrament of Orders (to mention only the most evident theological differences). Attempting to adopt elements of the Extraordinary Form would only send inconsistent signals to the faithful” (Archdiocese of Tokyo, Japan, response to question 5).

“Some elements usually identified with the Extraordinary Form are used by some priests in the Ordinary Form (for example, the ad orientem celebration or Gregorian chant), but these are not so much a mixture of rites as the choice of legitimate options permitted within the Ordinary Form. There is mutual enrichment, but the rubrics of each form are respected” (Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, response to question 5)

“It has sometimes been suggested that elements of the Extraordinary Form were incorporated into the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I have been able to verify that this is not the case, but rather that it was simply a lack of knowledge about what is already permitted by the GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal)” (Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, response to question 5)

“Two pastors who have learned the Extraordinary Form subsequently introduced the ad orientem celebration for some or all of their Masses, which was well received by their faithful, who had been well catechized beforehand. Furthermore, for some of our priests, there has been greater care of the consecrated host, both through the reintroduction and habitual use of the communion paten and through increased reverence by the priest himself at the altar” (Diocese of St. Thomas–Virgin Islands, Caribbean, response to question 5). 

On the influence of the Extraordinary Form on seminaries and/or houses of formation

“When a seminarian expresses to the diocesan Bishop or the seminary Rector the desire to be trained in the Extraordinary Form, they are assisted in attending a workshop organized by one of the institutes offering such formation, with the agreement of the diocesan Bishop. This practice is in accordance with what is established in Universae Ecclesiae no. 21” (Diocese of Brooklyn, USA, response to question 8)

Proposals and/or perspectives for the future

“The practice [of the MP Summorum Pontificum] followed so far has proven effective, and for pastoral reasons, it should not be changed” (Joint Report of the German Bishops’ Conference, response to question 9).

“I fear that without the Extraordinary Form, many souls would leave the Church” (Diocese of Pittsburgh, USA, response to question 3).

“I suggest that the Extraordinary Form be allowed as it is, and that the principle of Gamaliel be applied” (Diocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines, response to question 9).

“I think it is possible for the two uses, Ordinary and Extraordinary, to coexist. This could be a strength within the Catholic Church. Although we hear much from the LMS [Latin Mass Society] and its crusade to change the face of the Church and turn back the clock, my impression in the Diocese is that the strident appeals for the Extraordinary Form have now diminished, and that it will find, so to speak, its own level (probably quite small) (…) I would say that formation in the fullness of the tradition of liturgical forms, practices, and symbols is necessary, and that these should be open to all in full freedom, and even encouraged, so as to show that the Extraordinary Form is not something to be feared, and that the Ordinary Form is not to be despised, because it is rooted in tradition” (Diocese of East Anglia, England, response to question 9)

“If we continue to tolerate sad examples of liturgical abnormalities, experiments, abuses, and simply poor-quality liturgies, why should we single out those attached to the ancient rites of the Church for special scrutiny? It doesn’t seem right” (Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, USA, response to question 9).

“Ecclesial movements [such as those attached to the Extraordinary Form] have great potential to renew the Church (…). At the same time, ecclesial movements can also stray and go off on their own, creating almost a parallel Church and falling into an elitist attitude that sees only themselves as the ‘true Catholics.’ This happens when they are left alone. In other words, they can renew the Church only if the hierarchy engages with them, allowing them to develop according to the Spirit while also maintaining communion with the Church. When members of these movements feel opposed or ignored by their pastors, they withdraw and become resentful; but when they feel that their pastors are among them and guiding them, they become valuable instruments of evangelization” (Archdiocese of San Francisco, USA, response to question 9).

“I think this is the best approach to take regarding the use of the Extraordinary Form: the Gamaliel principle: ‘If this activity is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overcome it; you might even be found opposing God!’” (Acts 5:38-39) (idem, San Francisco).

“The possibility of celebrating the Extraordinary Form must be maintained. It corresponds to a real demand from rather young people. Parishes must develop connections with the priest who celebrates the Extraordinary Form. Some thought this form would disappear, but that has not happened. Therefore, it must be practiced and offered to the faithful in full truth. A parish connection is indispensable” (Diocese of Montauban, France, response to question 9).

“If the use of the Extraordinary Form were to be suspended, I believe that such a measure should rightfully be accompanied by a careful review of the liturgical reform to correct certain weaknesses, as well as by a strong intervention to censor the abuses that demean and distort the Liturgy of the Catholic Church” (Diocese of Aosta, Italy, response to question 9).

“Ask the priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form to learn how to celebrate the Ordinary Form and to do so at major gatherings around the Bishop, as well as to be able to serve in the parishes” (Diocese of Tarbes-Lourdes, France, response to question 9).

“The Holy See should provide resources for formation, catechesis, and celebration, so that there is an authoritative and unifying source both for information and ministry. First, while the Diocese tries to offer formation and catechetical resources, clergy and laity often turn to communities not in full communion with the Holy See to obtain information. Second, having access to the necessary liturgical books is not always easy, and here too, people frequently turn to communities not in full communion to obtain these books. Third, it is difficult at the diocesan level to find true expertise in the Extraordinary Form in all its theological, historical, juridical, and pastoral dimensions (both in identifying experts and sources), and the offices of the Holy See would be of great help to the universal Church as well as to individual Dioceses” (Diocese of Arlington, USA, response to question 9).

“Nor will the Bishop report to the Pontifical Commission as he is required to do, because of more urgent matters that he must attend to in the diocese” (Diocese of Novaliches, Philippines, response to question 3).

“I must state, in good conscience, that a rethinking of the choices made is more necessary and urgent than ever” (Diocese of Cremona, Italy, response to question 9).

“I have the impression that any explicit intervention could cause more harm than good: if the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is further confirmed, it will provoke new waves of perplexity among the clergy (and not only them). If the line of the MP Summorum Pontificum is denied, it will provoke new waves of dissent and resentment among the supporters of the Old Rite” (Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, answer to question 9).

“I certainly believe that Summorum Pontificum cannot simply be revoked. Doing so would create more problems than we want to solve” (Diocese of Pitigliano-Sovana-Orbetello, Italy, response to question 9).

“I do not think it is appropriate to abrogate or restrict it with new regulations, so as to avoid creating tensions and further conflicts, which would give the impression of a lack of respect for “minorities and their sensitivities” (Diocese of Pescia Italy, response to question 9).

The Episcopal Conference of Mexico believes that authentic liturgical formation is indispensable at all levels” (CEM general report)