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 "missale" 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. Afterward, 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" (July 2, 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 toward the "legitimate aspirations" 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 St. 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 ...