The SSPX now uses the liturgical books in use in 1962.  In 1961 a new edition of the second part of the Pontifical was publised, the part that contains the rites of dedication of churches, blessings of altars etc.

The revised rites were generally much shorter than those found in Clement VIII's pontifical.  There is a good article on NLM that describes both the revised rite and traditional form.

Dear Philip,
Thank you very much.  The next question is, why is Bishop Fellay "bound" to use it?  The negotiations between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger no longer necessitate a compromise choice of the 1962 Missal.  Why can't the FSSPX use the Missal, Pontifical of their patron, St. Pope Pius X?  And no, that is not a rhetorical question.

Aside from the sentimental attachment to "the missal +Lefebvre used," I'd say its because of the same reason they don't use the traditional Holy Week (even though Rome has conceded its use to the former PCED communities):

It would send the wrong message to Rome: For canonical approval (or to maintain a probationary approval already given "in pectore"), the SSPX needs to show Rome that they're heading towards the Council, not away from it.

To voluntarily abstain from the old Holy Week (or the old Pontifical, Breviary, Raccolta, Code of Canon Law, etc.) reinforces that "wink" to conciliar Rome.

Dear Philip,e ce
Thank you very much.  The next question is, why is Bishop Fellay "bound" to use it?  The negotiations between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger no longer necessitate a compromise choice of the 1962 Missal.  Why can't the FSSPX use the Missal, Pontifical of their patron, St. Pope Pius X?  And no, that is not a rhetorical question.

You are welcome, Texana.  I agree with your sentiment but also agree with Sean's analysis in this thread that the SSPX see 1962 as somehow being 'reasonable' and a way of getting their oldish-rite chapel in the 'Conciliar Cathedral'.

Arguably the worst revision in the 1961 Pontifical was for the blessing of bells.  Before they were actually anointed with chrism as the central part of an elaborate rite, sadly consigned to the bin in the revised version.

Aside from the sentimental attachment to "the missal +Lefebvre used," I'd say its because of the same reason they don't use the traditional Holy Week (even though Rome has conceded its use to the former PCED communities):

It would send the wrong message to Rome: For canonical approval (or to maintain a probationary approval already given "in pectore"), the SSPX needs to show Rome that they're heading towards the Council, not away from it.

To voluntarily abstain from the old Holy Week (or the old Pontifical, Breviary, Raccolta, Code of Canon Law, etc.) reinforces that "wink" to conciliar Rome.

That's always been the reason SSPX have stuck to the 1962 rites, and not just now with the neo-SSPX.  To use the earlier rites has become synonymous with that dirty word, "sedevacantism".

That's very interesting....I had no idea the rite for the Consecration of churches had been changed prior to Vatican II.

I assume that would explain then why the video of the Consecration of St. Mary's was under 6 hours, while the Consecration of the Chapel of St. Thomas Aquinas in Brooksville, Florida (done by Bishop Joseph Selway) was 8 hours long from ceremony start to ceremony finish.

I compared the booklets for both consecration ceremonies, and the order and essence looks similar, but Bp Selway wasn't as familiar (maybe because this is his first time consecrating a church), while that done by Bp Fellay was more smooth-flowing. I did notice a few differences though which I posted in another thread but didn't receive any answers. Why is it that in the convent chapel consecration were:

- the 12 candles lit before the crosses were anointed?
- there were only 3 crosses on the altar mensa and 3 mounds of lit incense as compared to 5 for the Immaculata
- the relics were carried in procession by priests in red chasubles rather than deacons in red dalmatics.