The Novus Ordo Rite of Marriage—Revisiting the Eldest Child of the Reform (Part 2)

Couples approaching the sacrament should carefully reflect on the choice before them: which rite is more in harmony with the substance of marriage and will best dispose them to receive its grace?

Part 1 may be found here.

Why, Then, Was it Changed?

As we saw in Part 1, the accidental features of a sacramental rite play an important role in disposing us to receive sanctifying grace. However, the postconciliar reformers made several changes to the rite of marriage that deemphasize, among other things, the legal reality of the sacrament and its primary procreative purpose.

We posed the decisive question: If the accidental features of the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage are in greater harmony with the substance of the sacrament, why did the members of the Consilium insist on its transformation?

Thankfully, they left behind a detailed account of their discussions, which begins to shed light on the matter.

Whereas Sacrosanctum Concilium had proclaimed that “the rites [of the Mass] . . . should become simpler” and “duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions,”¹ its directives for changing the rite of marriage were almost the opposite. As noted at the beginning of part 1, the marriage rite was to be “revised, and made richer,” revealing a desire for expansion rather than simplification. The Consilium shared this desire and acknowledged the contrast between their approach to different rites:

There certainly are parts of the Roman liturgy in which greater simplicity, brevity—I do not say “impoverishment”—may be desired. On the other hand, many people consider today’s Roman liturgy of matrimony too sober, undernourished. A “richer” result as to meaning and perhaps even as to an expansion of rites will better sanctify human life and turn it toward God.²

These words—written by Pierre-Marie Gy, the relator of group 23—offer a brief critique of the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage based on the opinions of “many people.” As St. John Henry Newman wrote in response to a similar critique within Anglicanism before his conversion to Catholicism, “It may be said that ‘we must conciliate an outcry which is made; that some alteration is demanded.’ By whom? No one can tell who cries, or who can be conciliated.”³ Neither does Gy indicate who his claim refers to, but one may reasonably wonder if it extended beyond modern liturgists. Were the laity clamoring for a revision of the rite of marriage prior to Vatican II? I have not seen any evidence suggesting they were, which is not surprising given the inherent flexibility of the rite to integrate and preserve local customs—a built-in capacity for organic enrichment.⁴

One thing is certain: the Consilium’s members were determined to change the rite of marriage, and their notion of change was broad. Although Sacrosanctum Concilium called for the rite to be revised and enriched, it did not call for the deletion of any texts, like it had in relation to the Mass. Nevertheless, the Consilium eliminated several texts and prayers, as can be seen in a side-by-side comparison of the Vetus and Novus Ordo rites and in the examples discussed below.

What inspired these deletions? In a session devoted to changes proposed for the rite, the Consilium criticized the Vetus Ordo for putting too much emphasis on the legal character of marriage during the questioning, which we examined earlier. While they were insistent that the priest must always receive the consent of the spouses, they believed “the liturgical act, or rather the sacramental act of Marriage, should not have a purely juridical form.”⁵

The implied critique is that the formula of consent in the old Roman rite of marriage is purely juridical and fails to convey anything aside from legal meaning. That formula directs the bridegroom and bride to respond “I do” to a simple and direct question, and they thought this insufficient. According to the reformers,

The words of consent, and also the words of the priest which receive the consent, should indicate not only those things that are necessary for the juridical value, but also, and soberly indeed, the spiritual meaning of the rite.⁶

The group was apparently irked that this spiritual meaning was only implied in the simple and direct question posed to each person at the start of the rite, and that it would not be explicitly stated until a few moments later, during the exchange of vows, blessing and exchange of rings, and blessing of spouses that immediately follow the questioning.

If a lover of the old rite had been in the room, he might have explained that under the New Law, inaugurated by Christ and administered by his Church, spiritual meaning is inseparable from juridical value—the latter contains the former and establishes stable pathways for us to experience it. Thus, consenting to a juridical reality encompasses consent to its spiritual meaning; consenting to a lawful marriage according to the rite of the Church encompasses consent to the children, fidelity, and sacrament that constitute the goods of marriage.

Alas, such a lover of tradition was not to be found, at least not in the official record of the proceedings. Thus, the critique mounted by the Consilium explains why the Novus Ordo rite of marriage has additional questions not present in the Vetus Ordo rite, as we saw before.

Msgr. Joseph Pascher of the University of Munich, however, put forth a critique of this critique—not because he thought the rest of the Consilium had overlooked the integrity of the old rite or the noble simplicity of the traditional questioning, but because their complaint did not go far enough. In other words, his concern was not that the juridical reality of marriage was being diminished but that it was mentioned at all. With reference to the phrase “juridical value,” Pascher asked, “Why is it not called sacramental’?”⁷ Even the slightest reference to the sacrament’s solemn legal character was thereby rendered suspect, and although another member of the group shut him down, his anti-juridical attitude seems to have influenced the final transformation of the questioning rite. As we saw earlier, the Novus Ordo version of the questioning removed mention of “lawful wife/husband” and “according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church.”

A glance at Church history offers at least one clue as to why law was undervalued in the mid-twentieth century. In his insightful essay titled “The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law,” Dr. John Lamont describes the critical difference between a Thomistic conception of law as a rational plan inherently ordered toward the good, and the more modern conception of law as an arbitrary set of commands.⁸ Over the past several centuries, many Catholic theologians and philosophers gradually shifted their view of law away from the first conception and adopted something closer to the second, which detached law from the good it was meant to serve and make manifest. This transition was not monolithic, but it may help explain the origin of the false dichotomy the Consilium (especially Pascher) insinuated between the juridical and spiritual meaning of the rite of marriage.

However, as Vatican II made clear in Gaudium et Spes (its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), law is not an arbitrary set of commands to be deemphasized, least of all the law governing marriage. As though to settle the debate before it could begin, God infused marriage with its juridical value from its inception: marriage was “instituted by the creator and regulated by God’s laws. . . . It is God who is the author of marriage and its endowment with various values and purposes.”⁹

The legal character of marriage is therefore a gift of God and essential to what marriage is. Rather than downplaying it, as the Consilium sought to do, the rite of marriage should allow this juridical reality to shine forth with confidence in its goodness, to the glory of God and the sanctification of the spouses and all those present. While many factors have contributed to our divorce-ridden culture, surely greater clarity on the solemn legal character of marriage could only help the Church’s effort to defend the indissolubility of the sacrament. Thankfully, the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage, cultivated over centuries and used by so many of our Catholic ancestors, is at the ready for just such an effort.

Studying the motivations of the Consilium is valuable insofar as it helps us ground our historical understanding of the reform in objective facts, sympathize with the zeal (albeit often misplaced¹⁰) of some of its members to recover ancient liturgical traditions, and more precisely identify how many of the Roman rite’s most longstanding and venerable traditions came to be despised and displaced. However, such an exploration also has its limits. At the end of the day, even the most reverent Novus Ordo rite of marriage, wherein the couple chooses the alternative texts and prayers closest to the Vetus Ordo, is bereft of certain elements that were longstanding fixtures of the Roman marriage rite. Every marriage in the Novus Ordo is thus inescapably affected by the Consilium’s decisions about its accidental features, regardless of their harmony (or dissonance) with the substance of the sacrament. This should inspire all of us—especially couples approaching marriage—to reflect on how entering the sacrament though the Vetus Ordo rite or the Novus Ordo rite might affect not only our perception of the sacrament, but our capacity to draw from its well of sanctifying grace.

The Marriage of the Lamb (1255–1260), artist unknown (source)

The Felicitous Reception of Grace

To understand how the harmony between substance and accidents, present to a greater degree in the Vetus Ordo rite, plays out in the facilitation of the particular graces conferred by the sacrament of marriage, the Church’s tradition must be further consulted. As St. Thomas writes in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the principal effect of the sacrament is the binding of husband and wife in a perpetual and exclusive covenant, and the grace to be received by means of the sacrament is “the grace to take part in the union of Christ with his Church on those who are joined in wedlock.”¹¹ Furthermore, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent informs us,

by the grace of this sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one toward the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their “marriage honorable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.”¹²

The same catechism assures us that “the same effects [which they operate interiorly in the soul], although far removed from the senses, are always inwardly produced.”¹³

While this statement sounds absolute, Baltimore Catechism No. 3 helpfully qualifies it:

The sacraments always give grace if we receive them with the right dispositions. . . . The right dispositions do not produce the grace; they merely remove the obstacles which would prevent the reception of grace. . . . It is important to prepare fervently for the reception of the sacraments, because ordinarily they confer grace in proportion to our dispositions.¹⁴

The need to remove obstacles for the full reception of grace follows from the nature of grace as a free gift (gratia). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.”¹⁵

Therefore, although the accidental ceremonies surrounding the form and matter of the sacrament “do not pertain to its essence,”¹⁶ they can have a significant effect on bringing the disposition of the soul to greater perfection, thereby enabling it to receive more grace from the sacrament than it otherwise would. This effect is not necessarily confined to the precise moment the sacrament first occurs, since prayerful recollection of the ceremonies of a sacrament after the fact help maintain one’s soul in its favorable disposition and potentially perfect it even more, allowing it to receive more grace as time goes on. In the words of Dietrich von Hildebrand,

Christian marriage also represents for both consorts a way to attain an ever-increasing union with Jesus. As the bond has been concluded in Jesus and toward Jesus, the increase of conjugal love also means a growth in the love of Jesus.¹⁷

A proper conception of the mystery of the sacrament, then, not only enables the faithful to approach the institution “worthily and with salutary effect,”¹⁸ but going forward “they will find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace.”¹⁹

Liturgical Considerations

It is important to note that the Novus Ordo rite of marriage does not entirely eliminate mention of the sacrament’s legal dimension, but as we have seen, it reduces it in some places and relegates it to optional alternative texts in others. The relegation of ancient prayers to optional alternatives is only slightly better than deletion for two reasons.

First, the non-traditional default versions of texts and prayers presented in The Order of Celebrating Matrimony is likely to be what the vast majority of couples (including those most in need of a reminder of the legal reality of marriage) experience. If they do choose the alternative options most reflective of the Vetus Ordo rite, it is not because the couple has humbly submitted to the rite as it was passed down through the tradition of the Church and local custom—as liturgy is meant to be experienced—but because they have exerted their individual wills upon an array of options, to construct a version that suits their preferences. As Dr. Kwasniewski summarizes in his book Close the Workshop, “When anything traditional but optional in the Novus Ordo is done, it thereby becomes a personal accomplishment posited by the pastoral discretion, intellectual conviction, and good taste of the celebrant”²⁰ (in the case of a Roman rite marriage, the celebrants are the bride and bridegroom).

The plethora of liturgical texts for the couple to choose from within the Novus Ordo rite of marriage makes it quite possible that no one will attend two liturgically identical marriage rites in their lifetime, even at the same parish. Not counting any improvisations, there are two preamble options, two questioning options, four options for the words of consent, at least three options for the blessing of rings, two ring exchange options, four blessing options, and four nuptial blessing options. Hence, the total number of possible options for the rite of marriage is 2×2×4×3×2×4×4=1,536. This does not include the 11,340 possible combinations resulting from the options the couple can choose from for the readings at the Novus Ordo Nuptial Mass, which combines with the options for the marriage rite to result in 17,418,240 possible versions of a marriage.²¹ Furthermore, there are many optional Collects, Offertory prayers, Prefaces, or Postcommunion prayers that the priest can choose to use during the Nuptial Mass.

This optionality is foreign to the Vetus Ordo, which is based in a stable set of texts that offers countless generations of Catholics an identical formative experience, uniting them more closely in a common understanding of the sacrament and across time with one another’s experiences. Even where the Vetus Ordo allows cultural adaptation, as mentioned earlier in quotations from the Rituale and the canons of Trent, it is only according to the accepted rite of each province or to retain customs and ceremonies already in use within a province—far from how the Novus Ordo rite’s options for liturgical texts are left susceptible to the arbitrary whim of the bride and bridegroom.²²

In all its rites, the Vetus Ordo humbly stands as a bulwark of consistency and humility against the modern barrage of instant gratification and exaltation of individual will, which incline us toward spiritual pride. We should respond to this danger by immersing ourselves, as Ratzinger articulated, in

forms of the apostolic tradition and of its unfolding in the great places of the tradition. . . . In these rites, I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation.²³

Although the Roman rite of marriage rite was codified in 1614, it had providentially developed to maturity over the course of more than a millennium. Like all ancient rites (East and West), the Roman rite, as Dr. Kwasniewski beautifully expresses,

in its broad lines and beloved details, grows from strength to strength, from glory to glory, until it reaches a stature that may be considered its mature form, like that of a thirty-three-year-old man. The archetype of liturgical development, as of all other realities, is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.²⁴

This same Christ is the archetype of the sacrament of marriage! How supremely fitting, then, to enter into it by means of a liturgy that was organically developed in a manner that reflects and participates in the gradual development of Christ’s own body, the same body of which marriage is a figure (Eph 5:32).

The “care cloth” in use (for more, see this and this)

Where to Go from Here

In the era of Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad Dubia that followed,²⁵ engaged couples may have difficulty securing a Vetus Ordo rite of marriage, even if they sincerely desire it. I can testify to this firsthand.

My wife and I were able to have our fantastic diocesan parish priest witness our Vetus Ordo rite of marriage only after flying him to a different state (partially because our bishop absolutely prohibited him from using the rite within the bounds of his own diocese; thankfully, my wife’s family was willing to host us in theirs), obtaining permission from the bishop of each diocese, and securing a non-parish location where the rite would occur.

Although this process entailed many hours of research, emailing, letter-writing, and prayer, it was completely worth it, and I am so grateful we persevered and that God eventually granted us our heart’s desire: the fullness of our liturgical heritage. A Protestant couple that attended had never witnessed a Vetus Ordo Mass or rite of marriage before (which was true for most of our guests). We later learned that the magnificence of these rites played a major role in their conversion to Catholicism soon after. What a powerful reminder that God wants to use the old rite of marriage to bless not just the spouses but their friends and family as well, in unpredictable ways!

If you are desirous of a Vetus Ordo rite of marriage to inaugurate your own nuptials, there is a good chance you will have fewer hoops to jump through than we did. If you live near a personal parish (such as those run by the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Institute of Christ the King), the process should be much smoother. If not, charitably ask your diocesan priest and (if necessary) bishop to permit the rite, remaining hopeful and persistent if obstacles arise (Lk 11:5–10; 18: 1–8).

If you encounter obstacles of a canonical nature, feel free to consult and share the resources found at this hyperlink, which I compiled from the public guidance of canon lawyers. To learn more about the history of the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage or for help planning your wedding according to this rite, visit Sharon Kabel’s comprehensive website, LatinMassWedding.com. To download a printable wedding booklet for attendees, click here. To purchase pre-printed Latin/English booklets, see here.

If you are ultimately unable to wed using the old rite, or if you are already married, I encourage you nonetheless to meditate on the texts of the Vetus Ordo marriage rite and Nuptial Mass. Regardless of whether the old or new rite was used on your wedding day, it is never too late to grow in understanding of the sacrament, even as you live it out.²⁶ Indeed, periodically praying through the ancient nuptial texts can reinvigorate your commitment to the good of your spouse. It is also likely to inspire deeper reverence for the institution that God established, Christ elevated to a sacramental level, and the Church further hallowed by the venerable Roman rite.

As this essay has sought to demonstrate, the ceremonies surrounding the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage are markedly better at conveying marriage as a legally binding reality primarily ordered toward the generation and education of children. In other words, this rite is more in harmony with the essence of the sacrament than its postconciliar counterpart, which means it can better dispose the soul of bridegroom and bride to receive the graces God wants to impart through the sacrament.

In the famous words of Pope Benedict XVI, “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.”²⁷ God willing, that place will include the wedding day of more and more Catholics. Thereby restored to its proper place in the Roman rite, it will help foster a culture that appreciates the full meaning of marriage, a sign of the eternal union between Christ and His Church.

1. Ritus . . . simpliciores fiant. . . . Omittantur quae temporum decursu duplicate fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita (Sacrosanctum Concilium 50, in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 [Georgetown University Press, 1990], 831).

2. Sunt certe partes Liturgiae romanae in quibus maior simplicitas, brevitas, non dico paupertas exoptatur. Econtra liturgia romana hodierna Matrimonii a multis nimis sobria, ieiuna aestimatur. Ditior effecta quoad significationem et forsitan etiam quoad amplitudinem rituum, vitam hominis melius sanctificabit et ad Deum vertet. (Consilium, Coetus a Studiis 22–23, Schemata 157, 6). English translation from Turner, Inseparable Love, xvii [only applies to this quotation].

3. John Henry Newman, “Thoughts Respectfully Addressed to the Clergy on Alterations in the Liturgy” (London, 1836), 3. In referring to the Anglicans who wanted to change the rite of marriage, he uses similarly vague language, but also warns against acquiescing to their desires:

Attempts are making to get the Liturgy altered. My dear Brethren, I beseech you, consider with me whether you ought not at this moment to resist the alteration of even one jot or tittle of it. . . . There are persons who wish the Marriage Service emended; there are others who would be indignant at the changes proposed. . . . But once begin altering, and there will be no reason or justice in stopping, till the criticisms of all parties are satisfied. Thus will not the Liturgy be in the evil case described in the well-known story, of the picture subjected by the artist to the observations of passers-by? (Newman, “Thoughts Respectfully Addressed,” 1)

4. Even if some laity did want the rite of marriage changed in the early 1960s, Newman again provided a response nearly 130 years in advance:

Now consider this carefully. Who are these lay persons? Are they serious men, and are their consciences involuntarily hurt by the things they wish altered? Are they not rather the men you meet in company, worldly men, with little personal religion, of lax conversation, and lax professed principles, who sometimes perhaps come to Church, and then are wearied and disgusted? Is it not so? You have been dining perhaps with a wealthy neighbour, or fall in with this great Statesman, or that noble Land-holder, who considers the Church two centuries behind the world, and expresses to you wonder that its enlightened members do nothing to improve it. And then you get ashamed, and are betrayed into admissions which sober reason disapproves. You consider too that it is a great pity so estimable or so influential a man should be disaffected to the Church ; and you go away with a vague notion that something must be done to conciliate such persons. Is this to bear about you the solemn office of a GUIDE and TEACHER in Israel, or to follow a lead! But consider what are the concessions which would conciliate such men. Would immaterial alterations? Do you really think they care one jot about the verbal or other changes which some recommend, and others are disposed to grant? . . . No; they dislike the doctrine of the Liturgy. (Newman, “Thoughts Respectfully Addressed,” 3)

5. Actus liturgicus, imo sacramentalis Matrimonii formam mere iuridicam habere non debet (Consilium, Coetus a Studiis 22–23, Schemata 157, 4). Special thanks to Matthew Hazell for directing me to the relevant schemata.

6. Verba consensus et etiam verba sacerdotis quae consensum excipiunt, indicent, non solum ea quae sunt necessaria ad valorem iuridicum, sed etiam, et sobrie quidem, spiritualem ritus significationem (Consilium, Coetus a Studiis 22–23, Schemata 157, 8).

7. Cur non dicitur “sacramentalem”? (Consilium, Coetus a Studiis 22–23, Schemata 157 adnexum, 4).

8. John Lamont, “The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law,” in Peter Kwasniewski, ed., Ultramontanism & Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith (Os Justi Press, 2024), 78–106. It is also worth noting that by 1939, Fr. Max Kassiepe was lamenting the excessively romantic, lyrical, and spiritual image of marriage that certain theologians were promoting in various forms of pastoral counseling (Irrwege und Umwege im Frömmigkeitsleben der Gegenwart [“Dead Ends and Deviations in the Piety of the Present Day”], Second Edition [Echter-Verlag, 1940], 90–97; see also Stuart Chessman, “Roots of Vatican II: The Liturgical Movement,” The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, May 3, 2025, https://sthughofcluny.org/2025/05/roots-of-vatican-ii-the-liturgical-movement.html). When the objective and practical legal reality of marriage is deemphasized, the spiritual depth of the sacrament is prone to being misunderstood and distorted.

9. . . . a creatore condita suisque legibus instructa. . . . Ipse vero Deus est auctor matrimonii, variis bonis ac finibus praediti (Gaudium et Spes 48, in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1100).

10. See Pius XII, Mediator Dei 61–64, as well as a commentary on those passages by Peter Kwasniewski in “The Problem of False Antiquarianism,” in idem, Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius & Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico Press, 2020), 149–60.

11. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 4, C. 78.

12. “Marriage Considered as a Sacrament,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, 369.

13. “Effects of the Sacraments,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, 187.

14. The New Confraternity Revised Baltimore Catechism and Mass: No. 3, ed. Francis J. Connell (Seton Press, 2001), no. 309.

15. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2002.f[1`

16. “Ceremonies Used in the Administration of the Sacraments,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, 181.

17. Dietrich von Hildebrand, Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love (Sophia Institute Press, 1991), 75.

18. “Importance Of Instruction On The Sacraments,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, 171.

19. “The Recipient of Matrimony,” in Tradivox, vol. 7: Council of Trent, 378.

20. Kwasniewski, Close the Workshop, 151. See also “Why the Reform of the Reform is Doomed,” in idem, 123–44.

21. See Graham, Lex Orandi, 127–30.

22. See “Indeterminacy and Optionitis” and “The Minor Options of the Old Rite and How They Avoid Optionitis,” in Kwasniewski, Close the Workshop, 69–84, 329–40; “Why We Follow Inherited Rituals and Strict Rubrics,” idem, Turned Around: Replying to Common Objections Against the Traditional Latin Mass (TAN Books, 2024), 79–108; idem, “The New Lectionary and the Catholic Wedding.”

23. Joseph Ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (Ignatius Press, 2000), 163.

24. Kwasniewski, Once and Future Roman Rite, 38.

25. The Responsa ad Dubia is a 2021 document that expresses the thinking and practice of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in response to proposed questions, but it has no legislative force per se. However, it attempted to issue restrictions that went beyond the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes from five months earlier, including a general prohibition of the traditional Rituale Romanum (which contains the Vetus Ordo rite of marriage) everywhere except canonically erected personal parishes (Q. 2). Faced with the legal irregularity of the Dicastery’s orders, some bishops and priests have acquiesced, while many others recognize their invalidity and continue celebrating sacraments according to the Rituale. See the resource hyperlinked later in the main body of this essay for a compilation of statements from canon lawyers who defend the latter approach.

26. I also recommend the following books for anyone seeking to enrich their understanding of marriage, in either a theological or practical sense: George A. Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual (Random House, 1958) [available to read online for free here]; John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, trans. Catharine P. Roth and David Anderson (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986); Sebastian Walshe, Understanding Marriage & Family: A Catholic Perspective (Arouca Press, 2020); Peter Kwasniewski, Treasuring the Goods of Marriage in a Throwaway Society (Sophia Institute Press, 2023); Thomas G. Morrow, Marriage for God’s Sake: A Guide for Catholics (Angelico Press, 2025).

27. Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops Con Grande Fiducia, accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007).