Abstract
This article discusses ‘immemorial custom’ and the celebration of the Missale Romanum (1962), now known as the usus antiquior of the Roman Rite. The central aspect of this relates to an immemorial custom de iure that becomes a true law, and the question of whether it retains the bond of custom, to which the bond of law is added (an opinion held by Suarez). On this pretext, before the appearance of the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983 and Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI (2007), some proponents of the Missale Romanum (1962) argued that it may be used by priests, despite the appearance of a new missal and Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (1969), because the latter left the immemorial custom of celebrating the previous liturgy intact. This opinion is examined in the light of Count Neri Capponi’s study, written in the 1970s, wherein he defends it. It is shown, in the light of the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 and the opinions of notable canonists of customary law, particularly Gommarus Michiels and Alphonse Van Hove, that this viewpoint cannot be sustained, and should not be proposed today.
Notes
1 I am most grateful to Rt. Rev. Jos Wouters, O. Praem., S.T.D., J.C.L., and Rev. Leo Van Dyck, O. Praem., J.C.D., Palaeographus et Archivarius laureatus in Schola Vaticana, for examining the original essay which formed the basis of this article, and for their comments and suggestions.
2 The Second Vatican Council, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), Acta Apostolicae Sedis (hereafter AAS), 56 (1964), pp. 97–134 (p. 107, no. 25). ‘Libri liturgici quam primum recognoscantur’; Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 217–22. Changes to the Ordo Missae and rubrics began as early as 1965: Ephemerides Liturgicae, 79 (1965), pp. 117–43.
3 Cf. Thomas M. Kocik, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003).
4 Pope St Pius V, Bull Quo Primum (14 July 1570), in Missale Romanum, editio typica (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962), pp. v–vi; J. B. O’Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, 4th edn (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1964), pp. 10–13.
5 We should not forget those religious orders with their own ‘use’ of the Roman Rite.
6 Michael Davies, The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass (Texas: Angelus Press, 1990); Udalric Beste, Introductio in Codicem, 5th edn (Naples: M. D’Auria, 1961), pp. 90–91; Codex Iuris Canonici (hereafter CIC), 1917, c. 22 (CIC, 1983, c. 20).
7 Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic letter given ‘motu proprio’ De Usu Extraordinaria Antiquae Formae Ritus Romani, Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007), AAS, 99 (2007), pp. 777–81; Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio Data’ (7 July 2007), in Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (London: Catholic Truth Society, 2007), p. 21; Nicola Bux and Salvatore Vitiello, The Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI Summorum Pontificum cura, Fides Service Dossier, 1 August 2007 (Agenzia Fides: Agenzia della Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli) <http://www.fides.org/eng/documents/dossier_motu_proprio_eng.doc> [accessed 18 August 2011]; Gero P. Weishaupt, Päpstliche Weichen- stellungen: Das Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum Papst Benedikts XVI. und der Begleitbrief an die Bischöfe: Ein kirchenrechtlicher Kommentar und Überlegungen zu einer, Reform der Reform (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2010), pp. 28–35.
8 ‘Centennial’ custom, which is at least one hundred years old, and treated in the same manner in CIC as immemorial, could also be referred to here. I shall focus exclusively on the ‘custom’ of the Roman Rite as immemorial. I omit discussion of a ‘privilege’ in Quo Primum, which I think is unlikely.
9 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the presidents of the episcopal conferences Quattuor Abhinc Annos (3 October 1984), AAS, 76 (1984), pp. 1088–89; Blessed Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given ‘motu proprio’ Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), AAS, 80 (1988), pp. 1495–98. One could also mention indults here, and the constitutions of certain institutes of consecrated life and religious houses, for instance, which also indicate the use of the usus antiquior.
10 CIC, 1917, c. 6 § 2–4; CIC, 1983, c. 6 § 2.
11 Neri Capponi, ‘Alcune considerazioni giuridiche in materia di riforma liturgica’, Archivio giuridico ‘Filippo Serafini’, 190/2 (1976), pp. 147–73; I will use the English translation, Some Juridical Considerations on the Reform of the Liturgy (Edinburgh: David MacDonald, n.d.) (p. 7).
12 The word ‘law’ in English is used to translate ius and lex. Lex means ‘law as legislation’, referring to norms enacted by a legislative authority. Ius has a more general meaning, and refers to any kind of normative law, such as divine law (ius divinum), ecclesiastical law, and norms issued by executive authorities. Generally, ‘law’ should be interpreted here as lex. See Amaleto J. Cicognani, Ius Canonicum, 2 vols (Rome: ex Schola Typographica Pio X, 1925), II, p. 32; John M. Huels, ‘General Norms: Introduction’, in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (hereafter NCCCL), ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green (New York, NY and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000), pp. 47–48.
13 E.g. Davies, The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass.
14 Peter Vere and Michael Brown, ‘Custom and the 1962 Roman Missal’ <http://jloughnan.tripod.com/custom. htm> [accessed 18 August 2011]. ‘Immemorial custom’ is automatically presumed, without discussion, in Bux and Vitiello, p. 2.
15 For this section see CIC, 1917, cc. 5, 25–30 and CIC, 1983, cc. 5, 23–28; Alphonse Van Hove, DE CONSUETU- DINE — DE TEMPORIS SUPPUTATIONE, in COMMENTARIUM LOVANIENSE IN CODICEM IURIS CANONICI, vol. 1, in five books (Malines and Rome: Dessain, 1928–39), bk. 3 (1933); Alphonse Van Hove, ‘De Legibus Ecclesiasticis’, in COMMENTARIUM LOVANIENSE IN CODICEM IURIS CANONICI, vol. 1, in five books (Malines and Rome: Dessain, 1928–39), bk. 2 (1930), pp. 58–65; Gommarus Michiels, NORMAE GENERALES IURIS CANONICI: COMMENTARIUS LIBRI I CODICIS IURIS CANONICI, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Paris, Tournai and Rome: Desclée, 1949), II (1949), pp. 1–220; Joseph Sirna, ‘Consuetudo’, in DICTIONARIUM MORALE ET CANONICUM, ed. by Peter Palazzini, 4 vols (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1962–68), I (1962), pp. 938–41; Stanislaus Woywod, A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CANON LAW, rev. ed. by Callistus Smith (New York and London: Wagner and Herder, 1952), pp. 3–4, 17–19; Beste, pp. 59–60, 94–101; John M. Huels, ‘Custom [cc. 23–28]’, in NCCCL, pp. 86–96; R. G. W. Huysmans, ALGEMENE NORMEN VAN HET WETBOEK VAN CANONIEK RECHT, in NOVUM COMMENTARIUM LOVANIENSE IN CODICEM IURIS CANONICI, 5 vols to date (Louvain: Peeters, 1993–), I (1993), pp. 57–58, 117–28.
16 Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 4–5. ‘Definitur in iure canonico consuetudo iuris ‘ius legale populi moribus accedente legislatoris consensu introductum’’; Michiels, II (1949), pp. 6, 8–10. ‘ius obiectivum seu legale non scriptum accedente legislatoris ecclesiastici consensu diuturnis populi christiani moribus introductum’.
17 Cf. CIC, 1917, c. 25 and CIC, 1983, c. 23.
18 Pace Vere and Brown. ‘Furthermore, one needs to consider the majority opinion of canonical authors, namely, when a legislator revokes a previous law he also revokes any custom that this law governed’ (my emphasis).
19 The canons which concerns us here are CIC, 1917, c. 5; 27 § 1; 28; 30: cf. CIC, 1983, cc. 5 § 1; 26, 28.
20 Cicognani, I, pp. 156–57; Van Hove, ‘De Legibus’, p. 60; Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 16–17; Sirna, ‘Consuetudo’, p. 939; Michiels, II (1949), p. 15.
21 On ‘ordinaries’ in CIC, 1917 — e.g. the Pope, diocesan bishops — and their classification, see Beste, pp. 224–31, 293, 334–35, 349–76.
22 Van Hove, ‘De Legibus’, pp. 60–61.
23 Capponi, Some Juridical Considerations, p. 21, n. 52.
24 Capponi, Some Juridical Considerations, pp. 21–22 (with Capponi’s emphasis).
25 Amaleto J. Cicognani and Dino Staffa, Commentarium ad Librum Primum Codicis Iuris Canonici, 2 vols (Rome: Buona Stampa and the Pontifical Institute of Law, 1939–42), II (1942), pp. 19–20, no. 4, where the original Latin text may be found. For convenience I shall utilize the English translation, with the Latin text in Michiels, II (1949), p. 9 (and no. 1).
26 Capponi, Some Juridical Considerations, pp. 24–25.
27 Capponi, Some Juridical Considerations, p. 24, no. 61.
28 Confusingly, in 1996, Capponi described the immemorial custom as ‘immemorial and universal custom’ (my emphasis) and that the constitution Missale Romanum ‘abrogated’ Quo Primum, while not abrogating the immemorial custom: Neri Capponi, ‘Bishops Against the Pope: The Motu Proprio ‘Ecclesia Dei’ and the Extension of the Indult’, The Latin Mass Society, Winter (1996) <http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/BISHPOPE.TXT> [accessed 18 August 2011]. Here we shall take for granted Capponi’s ‘obrogation’ theory, in light of his earlier work and Summorum Pontificum. I shall return to the point of ‘immemorial and universal’ custom later.
29 M. Noirot, ‘Liturgique (Droit)’, in Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, 7 vols, ed. by R. Naz (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1935–65), VI (1957), cols 535–94.
30 See O’Connell, p. 9; Anselm J. Gribbin, ‘Le missel de l’abbé Auger de Lagrasse’, in Auger de Gogenx (1279–1309), in Les cahiers de Lagrasse 1 (Sète: Nouvelles Presses du Languedoc, 2010), pp. 68–89; David M. Hope, ‘The Medieval Western Rites’, in The Study of the Liturgy, ed. by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold, 1st edn (London: SPCK, 1978), pp. 220–40 (p. 237); Clifford Howell, ‘From Trent to Vatican II’, in The Study of the Liturgy, ed. by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold, 1st edn (London: SPCK, 1978), pp. 241–48 (pp. 241–42).
31 Further clauses may be read in Pope St Pius V, bull Quo Primum, pp. v–vi.
32 Concerning this, ‘Gallicanism’ and the ‘uses’ which remained, see O’Connell, p. 10; Noirot, col. 541.
33 Pope St Pius V, Quo Primum, p. v. ‘ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus’.
34 Noirot, cols 543–45; Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 34–35.
35 One should also note the following clauses of the bull: ‘notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription — except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing’; Pope St Pius V, Quo Primum, pp. v–vi. ‘Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducentos annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.’
36 See note 25 above.
37 Gommarus Michiels, Normae Generales Iuris Canonici: Commentarius Libri I Codicis Iuris Canonici, 1st edn, 2 vols (Lublin: Catholic University, 1929), II, p. 8.
38 Michiels, II (1949), pp. 8–10.
39 Michiels, II (1949), p. 8. ‘Non scriptum’, non hoc sensu quod consuetudo, postquam inducta fuit, in scripturam redigi non valeat, sed ‘quod in primo sui exordio, non ex scripto, vel praecepto alicuius legislatoris, sed ex usu et moribus utentium descenderit, neque postea tamquam nova lex per aliquem legislatorem fuerit praescripta’’, citing Reiffensteul, 1.I, tit. 4, n. 19.
40 Michiels, II (1949), pp. 8–9 (p. 9). ‘disputatur vero inter Auctores, quando norma iam a communitate ut consuetudinaria servari solita a Superiore competente simpliciter promulgatur per modum verae legis, nulla mentione facta consuetudinis iuridicae iam existentis (ut factum est in Codice Iuris Canonici, in quo plures continentur leges quae iam ante Codicis promulgationem hinc inde vigebant ut normae consuetudinariae)’.
41 Michiels, II (1949), p. 9, citing Suarez, as referred to by Cicognani and Staffa, pp. 19–20, no. 4: ‘Iuxta Suarez tali promulgatione consuetudini iuridicae superadditur vis nova verae legis, quin tamen destruatur eius vis consuetudinaria; ‘Et ratio est, iuxta ipsum [i.e. Suarez] quia non repugnat, illa duo vincula simul permanere, scilicet consuetudinis et legis scriptae, sicut possunt esse simul duae leges scriptae de eadem re, simulque obli- gare. Et ita ipsamet iura scripta saepe allegant consuetudinem et ius scriptum, tamquam simul corroborantia rei honestatem vel obligationem […] Neque est inutilis perseverantia consuetudinis et obligationis eius, non obstante lege scripta, quia, si consuetudo sit specialis [i.e. particular], et lex superveniens scripta sit ius commune et contingat per privilegium derogari talem legem, nihilominus ubi antiquior viguit consuetudo, non censetur per illud privilegium derogata, nisi expresse etiam consuetudini deroget. Et ideo non est quaestio de solo modo loquendi, sed de re, quia ad morales effectus multum referre potest quod consuetudo, quae incipit sine lege, currat cum lege, et suam vim retineat, secundum quam semper erit non scriptum ius’’. For the original and much longer text, see Francisco Suarez, Opera Omnia, 26 vols, ed. by Michel André and Charles Berton (Paris: Louis Vivès, 1856–61), V and VI; Tractatus de Legibus, ed. by Charles Berton, VI (1856), p. 140 (L. VII, c. 2, n. 4). Cicognani and Staffa — rather cryptically — give other citations to Suarez, De Legibus, but the citation already given suffices in indicating Suarez’s opinion.
42 Michiels, II (1949), p. 9, n. 3. ‘Notetur permanentiam consuetudinis in casu a Suarezio et Cicognani-Staffa solummodo affirmari relate ad consuetudinem specialem seu particularem; ‘si (enim) agatur de consuetudine universali cui accedit lex scripta, abrogata lege videtur abrogata etiam consuetudo, quia iam patet voluntas legislatoris novam ubique inducendi disciplinam, secus abrogatio legis vim ac sensum non haberet’ (Cicognani- Staffa, II, p. 19–20, nota 4)’.
43 See CIC, 1917, c. 5. ‘Vigentes in praesens contra horum statuta canonum consuetudines sive universales sive particulares, si quidem ipsis canonibus expresse reprobentur, tanquam iuris corruptelae corrigantur, licet sint immemorabiles, neve sinantur in posterum reviviscere; aliae, quae quidem centenariae sint et immemorabiles, tolerari poterunt, si Ordinarii pro locorum ac personarum adiunctis existiment eas prudenter submoveri non posse; ceterae suppressae habeantur nisi expresse Codex aliud caveat’ (‘Customs presently in force, whether universal or particular, but against the prescriptions of these canons, if they are indeed expressly reprobated, are to be corrected as a corruption of the law, even if they are immemorial, nor are they permitted to revive in the future; other customs, clearly centenary or immemorial, can be tolerated if Ordinaries determine that, due to circumstances of person or place, they cannot be prudently removed; other customs are considered suppressed, unless the Code expressly provides otherwise’).
44 Michiels, II (1949), p. 9 and n. 4. ‘Iuxta sententiam communiorem, e contra, norma consuetudinaria eo ipso formaliter transmutatur in legem et amittit indolem consuetudinis’.
45 Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 5–6 (p. 5). ‘Lex enim incipit ab ordinatione legislatoris eiusque actu expresso et publico promulgatur, dum consuetudo originatur ab actibus qui a communitate frequentantur ita ut, in iure canonico et iuxta disciplinam hodiernam, legislator, attendens ad actus communitatis, consensu suo valorem et firmitatem iuris tribuat normae agendi quae de facto iam in communitate praevaluerit. Ius traditum statutum est a legislatore, non est de moribus communitatis introductum, sed transmissum est posteris traditione; obser- vantia et moribus populi eius exsistentia probatur […] Quod si tenor consuetudinis scribatur, animo memo- riae commendandi ius ut consuetudinarium, scriptura non mutat indolem consuetudinis. Si autem scribatur animo edendi veram legem, lex est, iam non consuetudo’.
46 Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 5–6. ‘Haec doctrina est derelinquenda, quia legislator, condendo ius ut veram legem scriptam, retrahit consensum suum a iure ut consuetudinario et eius indolem mutat, licet, condendo ius scriptum, obsecundet consuetudini. Ceterum huiusmodi innovationem facere tantum potest legislator in materiis, quae ab eius assensu pendeant’.
47 Michiels, II (1929), pp. 8–9. ‘Opinamur tamen consuetudinem vim propriam amittere et formaliter evadere legem, quotiescumque consuetudo fuit a legislatore tamquam propria sua lex formaliter promulgata, ut indu- bianter factum est quoad multa statuta, antea ut consuetudinaria vigentia, nunc autem in Codice qua verae leges promulgata’.
48 Michiels, II (1949), p. 10. ‘Quamvis theoretice non repugnet ut norma originarie consuetudinaria postea per modum verae legis firmata et promulgata retineat vim consuetudini propriam, ita ut, in casu quo postea abrogatur lex ista, vigere pergat qua consuetudo iuridica, in praxi tamen norma ista ad mentem legislatoris probabilius consideranda est ut norma mere legalis, ita ut, quod attinet ad eius cessationem in futuro, atten- denda sint sola principia pro cessatione legis in iure vigentia; si enim legislator intendisset eam simul retinere ut consuetudinariam, eam non simpliciter promulgasset per modum legis, sed per modum merae approbationis’.
49 The three documents cited here are too long for inclusion in this article.
50 Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, ed. by Pietro Gasparri and Justinian Serédi, 9 vols (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1923–49), II (1948), pp. 193–99.
51 The Sacred Roman Rota, Mediolanen. Iuris Funerandi (18 July 1914), AAS, 6 (1914), pp. 554–60.
52 The Sacred Roman Rota, Bergomen. Iuris Funerandi (Pezzoli-Fojadelli) (25 February 1919), AAS, 12 (1920), pp. 129–39.
53 Michiels, II (1949), p. 9, n. 2. ‘Statim autem animadvertere iuvat in locis istis explicite agi de antiqua consuetudine legibus approbata’.
54 See note 24 above.
55 CIC, 1917, c. 30. ‘Firmo praescripto can. 5, consuetudo contra legem vel praeter legem per contrariam consue- tudinem aut legem revocatur; sed, nisi expressam de iisdem mentionem fecerit, lex non revocat consuetudines centenarias aut immemorabiles, nec lex generalis consuetudines particulares’; CIC, 1917, c. 5 (see note 43 above). For the English translations, see The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law in English Translation, ed. by Edward N. Peters (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001), pp. 30–31, 38.
56 Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 215–26; Michiels, II (1949), pp. 198–220.
57 Capponi, Some Juridical Considerations, pp. 15–17, 19, 24–25.
58 CIC, 1917, cc. 17–18; Michiels, I (1949), pp. 469–580; Beste, pp. 77–85 (especially pp. 80–81).
59 Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), p. 222. ‘Nostra haec autem statuta et praescripta nunc et in posterum firma et efficacia esse et fore volumus, non obstantibus, quatenus opus sit, Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus Apostolicis a Decessoribus Nostris editis, ceterisque praescriptionibus etiam peculiari mentione et derogatione dignis’.
60 Vere and Brown (my emphasis).
61 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Instruction De Constitutione Apostolica ‘Missale Romanum’ Grada- tim ad Effectum Deducenda (20 October 1969), AAS, 61 (1969), pp. 749–753 (p. 753). ‘Praesentem Instructionem Summus Pontifex Paulus Pp. VI die 18 mensis Octobris 1969 approbavit, et publici iuris fieri iussit, ut ab omnibus ad quos spectat accurate servetur. Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus’.
62 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Decree Celebrationis eucharisticae (26 March 1970), AAS, 62 (1970), p. 554. ‘Celebrationis eucharisticae Ordine statuto, atque approbatis textibus ad Missale Romanum pertinenti- bus per Constitutionem Apostolicam Missale Romanum a Summo Pontifice PAULO VI die 3 aprilis 1969 datam, haec Sacra Congregatio […] de mandato eiusdem Summi Pontificis, novam hanc editionem Missalis Romani ad normam decretorum Concilii Vaticani II confectam promulgat et uti typicam declarat […] Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus’; cf. Notitiae 5 (1969), p. 147.
63 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Instruction Liturgicae Instaurationes (5 September 1970), AAS, 62 (1970), pp. 692–704 (p. 704). ‘Alii enim veteris servandae traditionis causa, huiusmodi reformationes aegere acceperunt […] Hanc Instructionem, quae de mandato Summi Pontificis a Sacra Congregatione pro Cultu Divino composita est, ipse Summus Pontifex PAULUS VI, die 3 mensis septembris huiusce anni approbavit et auctoritate Sua confirmavit, mandans ut in vulgus emitteretur, atque ab omnibus, ad quos spectat, servaretur’ (‘This Instruction prepared, by the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, was approved by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI and by his authority confirmed on 3 September of this year [i.e. 1970], ordering that it be sent forth among the people, and to be observed by all to whom it concerns’).
64 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Notification De Missali Romano, Liturgia Horarum et Calendario (14 June 1971), AAS, 63 (1971) pp. 712–15. The notification ends: ‘Ex aedibus Sacrae Congregationis pro Cultu Divino, die 14 iunii 1971’ (p. 715). Note 4 of this notification refers to other relevant documentation, and one could also mention indults, such as that granted to England and Wales.
65 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Notification Conferentiarum Episcopalium, Notitiae, 10 (1974), p. 353. ‘Latina lingua sive lingua vernacula Missam celebrare licet tantummodo iuxta ritum Missalis Romani auctoritate Pauli VI promulgati, die 3 mensis aprilis 1969’; the emphasis appeared in the notification.
66 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Notification Conferentiarum Episcopalium, 353. ‘Nequeunt tamen Ordinarii huiusmodi facultatem tribuere pro celebratione Missae cum populo’.
67 Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Notification Conferentiarum Episcopalium, p. 353. ‘Invigilent potius iidem Ordinarii, tum locorum tum religiosorum, ut, salvis ritibus liturgicis non Romanis, ab Ecclesia legitime agnitis, et nonobstante praetextu cuiusvis consuetudinis etiam immemorabilis’.
68 See liturgical examples in O’Connell, pp. 30–32.
69 This is discussed in greater detail in Van Hove, De Consuetudine, pp. 199–202; Michiels, II (1949), pp. 187–89; Beste, p. 101; O’Connell, pp. 26–32; cf. CIC, 1917, cc. 733, 818, 1148.
70 Beste, p. 90; Weishaupt, pp. 32 (no. 30), 34; CIC, 1983, c. 20; however, cf. CIC, 1983, c. 1739; John M. Huels, ‘Ecclesiastical Laws [cc. 7–72]’, in NCCCL, pp. 55–86 (pp. 80–81); Huels, ‘Ecclesiastical Laws [cc. 7–22]’, in NCCCL, pp. 55–86 (pp. 82–83); Thomas J. Paprocki, ‘Recourse Against Administrative Decrees’, in NCCCL, pp. 1820–37 (pp. 1833–34).
71 Compare, for instance, Van Hove, De Consuetudine and Huels, ‘Custom [cc. 23–28]’, in NCCCL, pp. 86–94.
72 Gratian, ‘The Treatise on Laws with the Ordinary Gloss’, trans. by Augustine Thompson and James Gordley, in Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993).
73 Catechism of the Catholic Church, rev. edn (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1999), nos 1124–25, which cites The Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (18 November 1965), AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 817–35 (pp. 820–21, no. 8). For distinctions made between traditionibus divinis and traditionibus humanis, see Francis Xavier Wernz and Peter Vidal, Ius Canonicum, 7 vols (Rome: apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1928–38), I (1938), pp. 342–47.
74 Tracy Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 127–28. It is worth comparing this with Pope Paul VI’s speech to the members of the consilium for the implementation of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy (29 October 1964) in AAS, 56 (1964), pp. 993–96.
75 Bux and Vitiello, p. 2, citing Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990), pp. 300–01.
76 Bux and Vitiello, p. 3; Christophe Geffroy, Benoît XVI et la Paix liturgique (Paris: Les Éditions du CERF, 2008), p. 151, no.2; Weishaupt, pp. 31–32.
77 Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007), p. 779. ‘ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore’.
78 See note 72 above. Previously Blessed Pope John Paul II asked that ‘Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition’; Blessed Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), p. 1498, no. 6. c. ‘Insuper, ubique observandus erit animus eorum qui se sentiunt traditioni Latinae liturgicae divinctos’.
79 Felice M. Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici, 2 vols (Rome: apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1928–30), I (1928), pp. 90–91; Wernz and Vidal, I, p. 343; Van Hove, De Consuetudine, p. 23.