Rorate Caeli

FIUV Position Paper: the 1955 Holy Week Reform, Part II

Today I can publish Part II of the FIUV Position Paper on the 1955 Reform of the Holy Week services. Part I is here; the second part has been delayed by the Conclave and Holy Week itself. It is not a bad time to be thinking about these issues, however, as the ceremonies will be fresh in our minds.

I reiterate my disclaimer on the first part of this two-part paper: this is an extraordinarily difficult subject to tackle in a short paper. There is a fair amount of scholarship on the subject available (for a thorough appraisal of the history of the rites, I again recommend Philip Goddard's Festa Paschalia); the purpose of the position papers is to produce something which is short enough, and comprehensible enough, to reach and inform the debate, which already takes place, among non-specialists. We do not aspire to turn readers into specialists: on the contrary, the promise that an interested member of the Faithful can read this paper in a short time and without being completely baffled still, I hope, holds good, as it does for all the papers in the series.

IMG_2247
Ecce lignum crucis! Good Friday with the Fraternity of St Peter in Reading, England.

There are no easy answers to the question of the 1955 Holy Week reform--should it be unpicked, redone, accepted or rejected?-- and the paper does not propose any. Rather, it simply proposes extending the general principle of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum to the pre-1955 ceremonies of Holy Week: that something which has informed the spiritual lives of generations of Catholics, something venerated and approved by doctors and popes over many centuries, and something which is not forgotten in past centuries but is still desired by many, should not be forbidden. How widespread it becomes, when (clearly) allowed and used, will depend on how useful it proves to be in the life of the Church.

I have put some more commentary on my own blog here.

It can be downloaded as a pdf here. The whole series can be seen on the FIUV website here. The collected set of papers 1-13, printed as a short book, is available from Lulu here.

Comments can be sent to
positio AT fiuv.org

On 1st May I will publish the next paper in the series, on the Lectionary.

------------------------------------------



FIUV Position Paper 14: The Holy Week Reform of 1955. Part II: The Liturgies
  
1.      The history of the Holy Week ceremonies is extremely complex, and is characterized by the mutual influence of Roman and Gallican customs, and indeed Oriental liturgies. The Missal of 1570, however, ushered in a period of stability which ended only in the 1950s, and thus deserves to be regarded as ‘classical’, in the sense of a natural point of reference in the history of the ceremonies. It was experienced by the saints and doctors of this long period of time, and to a greater or lesser extent at earlier periods, and fed their understanding of the mysteries of Holy Week. Having addressed the general principles of the 1955 reform in Part I, Part II will examine in a little more detail some notable features of the 1570 ceremonies, which were suppressed or changed in 1955.


2.      Palm Sunday: The blessing of the palms in the 1570 rite was preceded by a missa sicca, the only surviving example in the Roman Missal of a rite commonly celebrated in the Middle Ages;[1] this was suppressed in 1955. The eight lengthy prayers of blessing, one of them in the form of a Preface, complete with Sanctus, which are of great beauty and create a deeply impressive whole, were greatly reduced in 1955. The palms are blessed in the 1955 service on a temporary free-standing table to increase the visibility of the ceremony; this reflects the priorities of the time, of visibility over solemnity.[2] The popular late-medieval ritual, at the solemn entrance of the procession into the church, of banging the door with the foot of the processional cross, was also abolished in 1955.[3]

3.      The reading of St. Matthew’s Passion at Mass was shortened by omitting the accounts of the supper in the house of Simon the Leper and of the Last Supper, a change which was also applied to the readings of St. Mark’s and St. Luke’s Passion on the Tuesday and Wednesday (respectively) of Holy Week. This had the effect of depriving the Holy Week liturgy—and indeed the 1962 Missal as a whole—of all the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. This was widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, and was partially reversed in the 1970 reform.

4.      Maundy Thursday: although it does not affect parish celebrations, it should be noted that the creation of a separate service for the blessing of oils in 1955 was an ‘archaeological’ attempt to recreate a service which had not been celebrated for many centuries. To accomplish this, a number of new liturgical texts had to be composed.[4]

5.      The Mandatum (washing of feet), had taken place after the end of the Mass, after the Stripping of the Altars, since the earliest time of its incorporation into the Maundy Thursday Mass;[5] its recommended transfer in 1955 to after the sermon has no precedent.[6] The specification of the choir as the location of the ceremony raises a problem for the use of lay men.[7]

6.      Good Friday: The impressive, late medieval ceremonial surrounding the procession from the Altar of Repose to the main altar and the Mass of the Presanctified,[8] was suppressed in 1955; following the reform the procession takes place in silence, and the Communion Rite itself comprises little more than the recital of the Pater Noster and its embolism. The recitation of the Pater Noster with the Faithful has no precedent, and becomes an anomoly in relation to the the way it is said the rest of the year (see the Appendix).

7.      Part of the motivation for the suppression of many prayers in the Mass of the Presanctified was that their references to ‘sacrifice’ seemed, to the reformers, to be inappropriate, since there was no Eucharistic Sacrifice. However, Blessed Ildefonso Schuster notes, in his discussion of the Mass of the Presanctified:
Today, as a sign of mourning, the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice is omitted. Instead we offer to God the merit of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary, with which we associate ourselves through humiliation and contrition of heart. Turning towards the people [the priest] says: “Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty.”[9]
This is, indeed, a kind of sacrifice present in every Mass. We may speak of a distinct sacrifice offered by the Faithful in the Orate fratres,[10] and also the ‘sacrifice of praise’ referred to in the Memento of the Roman Canon.[11]

8.      The reformers’ suspicion of this feature of the Mass of the Presanctified raises a general problem with their methodology. While it is true that the Orate fratres and similar prayers from the Mass were not in the oldest versions of the Good Friday liturgy, dating instead from the 12th century,[12] it seems remarkable that the reformers should say that public prayers of the Church, said continuously for eight centuries (even if not universally), and included in the Missal published following the Council of Trent, should be theologically defective, particularly since, as Schuster illustrates, they are patient of a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Such an attitude seems incompatible with Pope Pius XII’s words in his encyclical Mediator Dei:
Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.[13]
9.      The Easter Vigil: The three prayers of blessing of the new fire were replaced by a single blessing, and the ceremonies surrounding the Paschal Candle were entirely remodelled, using freshly composed texts and ceremonies. Neither the claim by the reformers that the carrying of the Paschal Candle only ceased because of the increase in its size, nor that the triple reed (the trikirion) originated in the threefold Lumen Christi, is historically correct.[14] The disappearance of the reed itself is regrettable, since it is a striking example of the influence of Oriental liturgies.[15]

10.  The 1955 revision rendered impossible the Exsultet’s historical role of blessing of the candle. Instead, the prayer Veniat ergo quaesumus, which for many centuries had functioned as a blessing of the grains of incense, was made a blessing of the candle by inserting the word ‘cereum’ (‘wax’).[16] The Exsultet’s reference to the ‘sacrifice of incense’ had been linked to the insertion of the grains of incense since the 12th century;[17] the similar association of the following words, with the lighting of the candle itself and the lighting of the other lamps, was also lost.[18]

11.  The extremely ancient set of twelve Old Testament readings in the older liturgy was replaced with a set of four,[19] changing the balance of elements in the service considerably: they no longer function as a vigil in the strict sense, a time of watching and waiting. The reformers themselves expressed some regret about the change; as Adrian Fortescue says, the full twelve readings ‘form a wonderful account of God’s dealings with his people before Christ came’.[20] The 1970 Missal restored a much fuller set of readings, at least as an option.

12.  The Blessing of the Font was moved, in 1955, from the Baptistery to the Sanctuary,[21] where it could be seen by the people, though this has often necessitated the use of a common bucket for the holy water. The 1970 Missal restored the blessing to the font.

13.  Paschal Matins and Lauds, which was celebrated on the evening of Holy Saturday after Compline (the Vigil having been celebrated in the morning), a service dating from the 8th century and having considerable historical importance,[22] was abolished in 1955. These were significant as the first services of Easter Sunday, marking the end of Lent. Much of the contents of these servives have been re-used for Matins of Easter Monday in the 1970 Liturgy of the Hours, and Easter Sunday Lauds in the 2005 Antiphonale Monasticum.

14.  The Vigil of Pentecost: the parallel of this day with the Easter Vigil was abolished. This seems an important loss of liturgical richness with no clear compensating good.


Conclusion

15.  With the perspective of more than half a century, the nature of the reform as conditioned by the concerns of the day is very striking. These concerns had already, to a large extent, been overtaken by others only a decade later, when the 1970 Missal began to be prepared, and far from standing the test of time, the 1955 Holy Week was, for the most part, swept away. Indeed, as noted above, in some cases the 1970 Missal made concessions to criticisms levelled against the 1955 reform. It is not surprising that many attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition do not wish to view it through the lens of the first half of the 1950s: while every era may have a legitimate influence on the organic development of the liturgy, the 1955 reform of Holy Week includes a series of radical changes of what had been unchanged for four centuries.

16.  Given the historical importance of the ceremonies of the 1570 Missal, it is hard to see, in the context of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, why they should not be permitted for the edification of the Faithful, in continuity with so many generations of their predecessors.
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 behoves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.[23]


-------------------------------

Appendix: The 1955 Reforms and the 1962 Missal

Although in many ways the liturgies of Holy Week are sui generis, they nevertheless conform to certain general liturgical principles found in the rest of the Missal. One of the effects of the 1955 Reform was to make services in Holy Week an exception to a number of these principles; in a number of cases it appears that there was an expectation that the rest of the Missal would be brought into line with these. Thus, the Confiteor and Absolution immediately before Communion was abolished on Maundy Thursday in 1955, and throughout the year in 1961. In other cases, however, corresponding adjustments to the rest of the Missal had not been made by 1962, but were made in the later 1960s, or are found in the 1970 Missal. Accordingly, the 1962 Missal contains tensions and inconsistencies which were not intended by the Reform, but derive from the contingencies of liturgical history.

It is also worth noting that, even when consistency was achieved in certain respects under the reforms of the later 1960s, this state of affairs was never intended as permanent. As Abhinc tres annos (1967) explains, it promulgated changes when
pastoral considerations commend them and they seem to offer no hindrance to the definitive reform of the liturgy yet to come. Further, they seem advantageous for the gradual introduction of that reform and are feasible simply by altering rubrics, not the existing liturgical books.[24]

Some such changes are as follows.


Palm Sunday:

Maniples are abolished for the Blessing of the Palms and procession, as they are for the Good Friday Liturgical Action. This was applied to the whole liturgical year after 1962.[25]

The Asperges is suppressed; it is made an option, in place of the Penitential Rite, in the 1970 Missal (when used it replaces the Penitential Rite).

The palms are blessed in the hands of the Faithful, or on a table away from the Altar, and versus populum. While this is part of a consistent attempt to make liturgical actions more visible, it contrasts with the blessings of Candles on the Feast of the Purification (Candlemas), and on the Feast of St Blaise, and the blessing of ashes on Ash Wednesday.

The Faithful’s kissing of the blessed palm, and the hand of the celebrant, is abolished; this is part of a consistent deprecation of osculations in the Holy Week reform, but it contrasts with the norms at the blessing of candles on the Feast of the Purification.[26]
The Preparatory Prayers, at Mass, are suppressed, as they are at the Easter Vigil. The principle that the Preparatory Prayers are omitted when Mass is preceded by another ceremony is extended to some other cases in the 1962 Missal, such as Ash Wednesday, but not to others, such as a Nuptial Mass following the Rite of Marriage, or indeed to Sunday Mass preceded by the Asperges. Since at Sung Masses the Introit and Kyrie still have to be sung, abolishing the Preparatory Prayers simply lengthens the time the celebrant must sit on the sedilia waiting for the chants to finish before intoning the Gloria, contrary to the principles of Pope St Pius X’s Instruction on sacred music, Tra la sollicudine.[27] Later reforms, in any case, followed a different principle, shortening the Preparatory Prayers by the omission of the Psalm Iudica.[28]

The Orate Fratres is to be said in a loud voice, and the Faithful are to respond; this happens again at the Easter Vigil. This is clearly related to the spread of the practice of the Dialogue Mass at the time, but it is not consistent with the norms for this laid down in De musica sacra (1958), which speaks only about Low Mass, where it assumes that the Faithful will make all of the servers’ responses.

The repetition of texts by the celebrant, when they are sung by other ministers or the schola, is abolished throughout Holy Week. The general principle that texts should not be duplicated was not applied consistently to the rest of the Missal by 1962.[29]

The Last Gospel is suppressed, unless the blessing of palms does not take place it is suppressed also on Maundy Thursday and at the Easter Vigil. Again, a general argument against the Last Gospel was made by some advocates of reform, but it was not applied to the Missal as whole by 1962.[30]


Maundy Thursday

Psalm 21, recited during the Stripping of the Altars, is taken from the revised Pian Psalter. This was used for newly composed liturgical texts, following the publication of this Psalter in 1945, but it never replaced existing texts. This means that the chants and other texts using the Psalms found in the reformed liturgy of Maundy Thursday still use the ancient Latin Psalters, while the ceremony of the Stripping of the Altars switches to the Pian Psalter. In later reforms the liturgical use of the Pian Psalter was discontinued in favour of the Neo Vulgate Psalter, published in 1969. The difficulties represented by the use of Pian Psalter and Canticles are discussed in Positio 5: the Use of the Vulgate and the Ancient Latin Psalters.
The placing of the Mandatum after the Gospel anticipates the use of this time for additional ceremonies, previously done either before or after Mass, in later reforms: examples include the Rite of Marriage, in a Nuptial Mass, and the blessing and distribution of ashes on Ash Wednesday.[31]
The Blessing at the end of Mass is omitted, on the basis that further ceremonies followed.  This principle is not consistently applied in the 1962 Missal, however; a notable exception being Corpus Christi.


Good Friday

The Faithful are to say the Pater Noster with the celebrant. As with other changes noted under Palm Sunday, this is related to practice in the Dialogue Mass, but again its use at a Sung Mass is anomalous.

Maniples are not worn, as for the Blessing Palms on Palm Sunday: see above.


Easter Vigil:

Water is blessed in the sight of the people, as are the palms on Palm Sunday: see above.

The vernacular is used, and the Faithful are involved in a dialogue with the celebrant, in the ‘Renewal of Baptismal Promises’. To the anomaly of switching between sung and spoken dialogue noted above, it adds the innovation of the use of the vernacular, which was generalised throughout the year after 1962.[32]

In the Lauds which follows the Vigil, the Benedictus is the revised version published with the Pian Psalter, just as the Pian Psalter is used on Maundy Thursday (see above).


[1] Philip Goddard Festa Paschalia: A history of the Holy Week liturgy in the Roman Rite (Leominster: Gracewing, 2011) p266
[2] See Positio 4: Liturgical Orientation
[3] Goddard op. cit. p268
[4] The surviving texts were found in the Old Gelasian Sacramentary, dating from the 8th century.
[5] In the 12th century Pontifical: see Goddard op. cit. p153.
[6] In its origins in the setting of monastic or cathedral communities, it took place in another building, such as the chapter house.
[7] Before 1955 the Missal did not specify the location, and the use of the nave would be appropriate when the feet of lay men are washed, necessitating the removal and replacement of shoes and socks. It is interesting to note that the putting on and taking off of liturgical slippers by bishops in the sanctuary was forbidden by the Sacred Congregation for Rites, in a decree of 4th December 1952: they were to be put on only in the sacristy.
[8] The elaboration of the ceremony took place largely in the 12th century: see Goddard op. cit.. pp184-9
[9] Schuster, Volume II, p221
[10] ‘Orate fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem.’ (‘Pray brethren, that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty.’)
[11] The Commemoration of the Living: ‘qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis’ (‘who offer up to thee this sacrifice of praise’). As with many liturgical texts, other interpretations may be possible, and need not be mutually exclusive.
[12] To be exact, the prayer In spiritu humilitatis, with its reference to sacrifice, appeared in the Good Friday liturgy in the 12th century, and the Orate fratres and Dirigatur Domine in the 13th: see Goddard op. cit. pp186-7.
[13] Pope Pius XII Encyclical Mediator Dei 63: ‘Quemadmodum enim e catholicis cordatus nemo, eo consilio ductus ut ad veteres revertat formulas, a prioribus Conciliis adhibitas, illas respuere potest de christiana doctrina sententias quas Ecclesia, adspirante moderanteque divino Spiritu, recentiore aetate, ubere cum fructu, composuit retinendasque decrevi itemque quemodmodum e catholicis cordatus nemo vigent leges repudiare potest, ut ad praescripta regrediatur, quae antiquissimis hauriantur canonici iuris fontibus; ita pari modo, cum de sacra Liturgia agitur, qui ad antiquos redire ritus consuetudinesque velit, novas repudiando normas, quae ex providentis Dei consilio ob mutatas rerum condiciones fuere inducte non is procul dubio, ut facile cernere est, sapienti rectoque movetur studio.’
[14] There are historical precedents for the carrying of the candle, but in no case was it both lit and blessed before being placed in the sanctuary; more usually it was in the sanctuary from the start: see Goddard op. cit. pp221-223, p281; in more detail see A. J. MacGregor Fire and Light in the Western Triduum (Alcuin Club Collection, 1992), pp327-338 and 390-396.
[15] On the origin of the reed see Goddard op. cit. p221, and MacGregor op. cit. pp266-276.
[16] As an alternative to the Exsultet, the Old Gelasian Sacramentary (c.740) contains a prayer of blessing for the Paschal Candle beginning Deus mundi conditor. The final paragraph of this prayer, Veniat ergo quaesumus, survived in later Roman Pontificals as a blessing of the incense alone; the Exsultet being included under the heading ‘Benedictio cerei’. See also László Dobszay ‘The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite’ ) (London: T&T Clark, 2010) p255 and note 54.
[17] In Rome, from the 12th century until the reform of 1955, the incense was embedded in the candle during the singing of the Exsultet, at the words ‘Suscipe sancte pater incensi huius sacrificium’ (‘receive, O holy Father, the evening sacrifice of this incense’): see Goddard ibid. p219. This break in the singing of the Exsultet was also useful for the deacon singing what is otherwise an exceptionally demanding piece.
[18] The words ‘quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit’ (‘[the candle] which the bright fire lights for the Glory of God’) were linked to the lighting of the candle; the words ‘Qui licet sit divisus in partes’ (‘Which [light] though now divided’) to the lighting of the other lamps.
[19] The origins and development of rival, but mutually influential, systems of readings for the Easter Vigil is a complex one. The twelve reading arrangement was adopted in Rome around the year 1000, from the 8th century Gallican ‘Gelasian Sacramentary’, which itself corresponds to the system used in 5th century Jerusalem, half of the readings being in fact the same passages of Scripture. This Gelasian system was used in Gaul, but had originated as the presbyteral rite of Rome. By contrast, the ‘Gregorian’ system, which originated as the Papal rite used at the Lateran in Rome, had only four readings. See Goddard op. cit. pp224-231. It is worth noting that the equivalent service in the Byzantine liturgy has fifteen prophecies, with a large overlap in content with the 1570 Easter Vigil.
[20] Adrian Fortescue ‘Holy Week’ (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne: 1951) p. xxviii
[21] Except for churches which had a separate Baptistery.
[22] They contain the exchange between the Angels and the Women, ‘Quem quaeritis’ (‘Whom do you seek?’) which formed the basis of the great tradition of Medieval Easter plays.
[23] Pope Benedict XVI: Letter to Bishops accompanying the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
[24] Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Abhinc tres annos (1967)
[25] The maniple was made optional by the Instruction Tres hinc annos (1967) 25, and is not listed as among the vestments in the 1970 Missal.
[26] The kissing of the hand of the priest and the object to be given to or taken from him was suppressed throughout the year by the Instruction of the Consilium, Inter Oecumenici (1964) 36 (d). The provisions of this Instruction took effect in 1965.
[27] Chant renditions of the Introit and Kyrie, begun at or just before the start of the Preparatory Prayers, will sometimes conclude in time for the Gloria (or, where this is no Gloria, the Collect) to be started by the celebrant without his having to pause. Longer settings, including most polyphonic Kyries, make it necessary for the priest to sit on the sedilia until it finishes. Such a wait will be created or lengthened by the abolition of the Preparatory Prayers.  Pope St Pius X, in his Motu Proprio Tra le sollicitudini (1903) 22-23, wrote: ‘It is not lawful to keep the priest at the altar waiting on account of the chant or the music for a length of time not allowed by the liturgy. ... In general it must be considered a very grave abuse when the liturgy in ecclesiastical functions is made to appear secondary to and in a manner at the service of the music, for the music is merely a part of the liturgy and its humble handmaid.’ The general issue is discussed in Positio 9: Silence and Inaudibility in the Extraordinary Form, 4.
[28] This was done by Inter Oecumenici (1964) 48 (c).
[29] The principle was applied to the whole Missal by Inter Oecumenici (1964) 48 (a). This creates the same problem as discussed in note 27 with the Preparatory Prayers, reducing the time available for singing, or increasing the time spent by the priest sitting on the sedilia or waiting at the Altar.
[30] It was abolished throughout the year by Inter Oecumenici 48 (j).
[31] Both the Rite of Marriage and the blessing and distribution of ashes takes place before the start of Mass in the 1962 Missal, but after the Gospel (and homily) in the 1970 Missal. The former was moved after the Gospel by Inter Oecumenici 70. The same document places a ‘renewal of baptismal promises’ by confirmands after the Gospel, when confirmations take place at Mass (65).
[32] The use of the vernacular for ‘dialogue formularies’ and many other parts of the Mass, was made possible throughout the year by Inter Oecumenici 57 (c).

27 comments:

gonzalo said...

Most of those who love the pre-'55 Holy Week rites, being "those who are on the fringes" of the post-conciliar Church and rarely constituting "refined experts of liturgical rules", would doubtless appreciate a more generous use of said rites by their pastors. Perhaps as a "simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy" more traditionally-minded priests will see fit to use them next year.

Yes, there will be objections from the usual crowd, who prefer "legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions", but their voices should not be allowed to "detract our attention from the essence" of Holy Week.

New Catholic said...

I just wish to declare, for what it may be worth, that I have no problem whatsoever with the Pian Holy Week reforms.

NC

John R said...

During my years in the SSPX, I was a staunch defender of the Pian Holy Week and the 1962 Missale in general. This was mostly due to making a stand against anything pre-1962 as it was (apparently) associated with sedevacantism. Ironically, or not so ironically, after I left them and found my way into what was then the Indult, being "freer" to explore liturgical changes on their own merit or lack thereof, I began to study these changes more, and now I am convinced of the merits of the old Holy Week, and wish for their return, along with the Vigil of Pentecost, and the entire 1954 Missale. I say this without any reservation concerning the 1962 Missale in which I am currently nourished. It is just that we would be better off with the older Missale.

Unfortunately, it seems our window of opportunity to get a "1954 Indult" is currently closed, and, I could be wrong, but pushing this in even the slightest way now seems that it could come across as "ingratitude" from the Ecclesia Dei commission et al.

Ricola said...

In 1570, the Church stood at the summit of the "steep mountain" of the Third Secret of Fatima. The mountain is the Catholic faith. Reaching the top of the mountain is to possess the fullness of the Catholic faith, doctrinally and liturgically.

Malta said...

Trent allowed Missals of "Venerable Usage", such as the Ancient Ambrosian rite (which was suppressed after VII).

Why are Modernists so intent on suppression?

Ironically, they think they are liberal, in the classical sense, but are really modernist-fascists. It's their way or the highway!

James1990 said...

The Holy Week liturgies celebrated where I am were all according to the pre-1955 books. Hopefully these papers will cause this practice to spread.

Joseph Shaw said...

John R: you may be right about the possibility of getting formal permission for the pre-55 rites. However we need to develop our thinking about these issues, even if the time is not ripe for any practical changes.

It would not be healthy if the only people thinking and writing about these sorts of things were the sede vacantists.

Romanitas Press said...

So will the FIUV also be publishing a paper justifying the use of the 1570 Missale Romanum as opposed to the 1962 edition?

After all, one could apply their same principles to the missal, etc., etc., etc.

The Holy Week Reform of 1955 was a legitimate reform, so it needs to be accepted - what was past, is now past and the Church continues pushing forth new buds from the same branch.

Patrick said...

@Romanitas Press:

Unlike some who advocate for the "pre-1955 Missal," Dr shaw is simply suggesting that we revive a particularly important element of the Roman rite. No one is searching for a magical Missal, although 1570 would be much better than 1954.

Last week a comment on one post linked to some old(ish) pictures of the pre-1955 Holy Week.

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/03/holy-saturday-anticipation.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-friday-mass-of-pre-sanctified.html

http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/03/palm-sunday-exercise-in-ignorance.html

Seeing these ceremonies certainly gives us reason to pause and consider their importance to the roman rite.

Joseph Shaw said...

Romanitas Press: The point of these papers is to get beyond the playground chants of 'earlier is better' and 'later supersedes earlier', and look at some of the liturgical issues involved. It was on the basis of a legitimate discussion, over decades or even centuries, about liturgical issues, that changes have been made by legitimate authority in the Church: for example, allowing the use of the 1962 Missal in 1984, restoring 8th century chant texts and melodies in 1908, and undoing the 17th century revisions made to the medieval Office hymns in 1970.

Let us accept that these were 'legitimate changes', and take part in the legitimate discussion which will inform the legitimate changes of the future.

Don M said...

Building on what John R said:
I have never known any TLM other than the 1962 Missal. about 20 years now. I have however watched with great interest the restoration of the TLM 1962.
I am in New England and what I have seen with respect to the growth of the TLM has been heartbreaking. With all due respect to the great minds, and faithful Catholics that are presenting this paper.
Is this not a Most Futile exercise?
Even considering the growth of the TLM of 1962, we are still very much a minority in the church. Is it even wise to throw doubt on the 1962 missal in this uncertain atmosphere ?
Just saying

Albertus said...

Romanitas writes: ''The Holy Week Reform of 1955 was a legitimate reform, so it needs to be accepted - what was past, is now past and the Church continues pushing forth new buds from the same branch.'' I presume from these words that Romanitas is in favour of using only Missale Romanum 1970. That is the logical conclusion. The fact is that reform is nearly always bad, as opposed to organic development. Which is why so many ''reforms'' later have to be undone. Such as the Pian Psalter (undone by John XXIII), the Hymns of Urbanus VIII (undone by Paul VI), much of the novelties of the 1955/56 Pian Holy Week (undone in 1970). After having studied the 1955/56 holy week novelties for quite a few years now, i am definitely in favour of the Traditional Holy Week ceremonies of before 1955/56. They are far superor to Bugnini's creativity as manifested in the 1955/56 Holy Week.

Patrick Sheridan said...

Why do people say pre-1955? The decree Maxima Redemptionis didn't come into force until 1956 and so it is more correct to say pre-1956.

Romanitas Press said...

Shaw: Obviously an important distinction must be made between a wholesome and legitimate academic interest (historical and rubrical) in the pre-1955 rites, versus those who erroneously sow disdain and derision for the Pian Holy Week Reform (and likewise the 1962 missal, etc.), thus unnecessarily causing confusion amongst the clergy and faithful.

So my opposition is not with studying the reforms or the *actual* reasons behind them (as opposed to what some speculate; e.g., the non-existent "Bugnini effect") but to the notion that the pre-1955 Holy Week rites are somehow "better" than the Pian Reform.

And when we boil things down, the "it's better" factor is in reality the only justification or basis for wishing to see their optional use alongside the official traditional form of the Holy Week Rites (OHS) particularly in lieu that the Church superseded these older rites through a legitimate reform.

Such a notion contains the danger of reducing the sacred liturgy to merely a matter of personal preference rather than a set of rites organically developed by the Church and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and thus codified as the official worship of God - for our time and place.

Even more odious are the attempt to smear the Pian Reform as "modernist" and the "beginning of the end" that led to the liturgical revolution of the Novus Ordo Missae - which it certainly did not.

Patrick said...

Romanitas Press: It certainly was an enormous step in paving the way for the new rite. Read some of the journals and correspondence of the reformers, they took their 1951 Easter vigil as the prototype for further reforms. This on its own is not a sufficient reason to reject the rite out of hand, as some do, but to say that there was not a trend in motion is off mark. The Roman liturgy was in a state of transition, little of it good, throughout the 20th century. 1911, 1965, 1962, 1965 etc are just the most dramatic moments.

Mr Sheridan: I think a lot of people see "pre-1955" as the organic Roman rite. Even though Holy Week changed in 1956, there was the dramatic compression of semi-doubles and simples in 1955, as well as the suppression of all octaves, save three. In short, they conflate two years of dramatic change into one.

John R said...

Joseph Shaw said, "However we need to develop our thinking about these issues, even if the time is not ripe for any practical changes." I couldn't agree more.

And, "It would not be healthy if the only people thinking and writing about these sorts of things were the sede vacantists". I think there has been a growing number of non-sedes who acknowledge the veracity of the "Nine's" (et al.) arguments for sticking with the 1954 Missale against +Lefebvre's order to adopt the 1962, independent of and irrelevant to sedevacantism. The fact that many Trads who have only heard Mass per the 1984/1988 Indult or SP are the ones making the case for the old Holy Week and not so much from the SSPX speaks volumes for how being in favor of the older rites does not equal nor lead to sedevacantism.

It would seem, anecdotally from contacts of mine, that certain FSSP parishes, among others, have already been incorporating pre-1956 elements such as Tenebrae in the evening (when no Chrism Mass follows on Thursday, the strepitus at Tenebrae (this is widespread), and the knocking on the door with the Cross by the Subdeacon on Palm Sunday. Could it be argued that because these were long held practices previously and that the rubrics pertaining to them are simply omitted, rather than proscribed explicitly post-1955, that these can be legitimately restored/continued?

TuesPetrus225 said...

Personally, I felt wanting after I read the paper. I was expecting them to go into a little more detail. They didnt cover every change and what was done in particular. It was a few examples to accomplish a thesis. I loved the paper but at the same time was kind of disappointed. I am in much favor for the pre-55 Holy Week Rites. They make way more sense. Especially when it comes to the times of the ceremonies in connection with the Divine Office. I think clergy got the worst blow with the reform. They're left super drained afterwards. And, as PP14 part 1 sates, priests would find themselves hearing confessions all day long on Holy Saturday until the Vigil at night. Whereas in pre-55 Holy Saturday the Vigil would take place in the morning, when a vigil liturgy should take place. And then the clergy had time for their Breviary. It just makes more sense time wise. And a lot of theological depth was lost in general during the ceremonies with complete deletion of certain parts and adding innovative parts which have no historical precedence, and of course with returning to history and reviving older elements of the ancient liturgy which Mediator Dei advised strongly against.

LeonG said...

Thank you for this post.

The reforms of the 1950s were part and parcel of the liberal modernist Bugninian agenda whose objectives were the eventual abrogation of Latin only liturgical praxis for ecumenical vernacular protestantisation.

Therefore, it is only just and proper that the pre-1955 books are restored and made available to those of us who prefer them.

If we had accepted the spurious argument that The Holy Mass in Latin had been legitimately abrogated and part of the past giving way to the NO, then we have been in a terrible fix now accepting what is thoroughly unacceptable.

LeonG said...

We need to restore the Ambrosian Rite too.

Romanitas Press said...

Patrick: there is one insurmountable and crucial difference between the Pian-John XXIII reforms and those of the Novus Ordo Consilium: the former were not theologically-defective or founded on false ecumenism whereas the latter were.

This makes all the difference and thus why cannot make the same comparisons concerning legitimate reforms and an outright revolution.

Sheen3 said...

+1 for the traditional Holy Week!

We as "traditionalists" in the Church may still be a minority, but I think the majority of us want a restoration of (at least) Holy Week (at least among those even aware of the changes that took place in the 1950's) .

Now would be a good time to review Father Carusi's great article on this blog from several years ago: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

Let's remember (quoting the article):

"Father Carlo Braga, the right arm of Annibale Bugnini and for years at the helm of the authoritative review Ephemerides Liturgicae, defined the reform of Holy Saturday in bold terms, calling it 'the head of the battering-ram which pierced the fortress of our hitherto static liturgy.'"

ben ingledew said...


"Father Carlo Braga, the right arm of Annibale Bugnini and for years at the helm of the authoritative review Ephemerides Liturgicae, defined the reform of Holy Saturday in bold terms, calling it 'the head of the battering-ram which pierced the fortress of our hitherto static liturgy.'"

reminds me of grond from the Lord of the Rings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGXN5POBbow

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120629002231/lotr/images/f/f2/Grond.jpeg

Demeitrius said...

Up to my mind the compromise between pre-1955 and after-1955 rites is possible. Generally could be used the pre-1955 rites (the Palm Sunday, the Maundy Tuesday, the Good Friday), but prayer for the Roman Emperor at the Good Friday (practically omitted because of the vacancy of the throne since 1805) could be replaced by the new prayer for heads of States. As for the Easter Vigil, two variants are possible: a) the moving of the Vigil ceremonies to the evening was before the reform of ceremonies – such compromise is acceptable; b) the Vigil ceremonies could be according the variant approved in 1955, but the reading of the 12 prophecies, as it was before 1955, should be permitted ad libitum.
P. S. Sorry for the bad English, it’s not my Native language.

LeonG said...

sheen3

Precisely!

The difference all the way through the entire alleged "liturgical reform" period is Bugnini, the constant factor, who together with his committed colleagues was bent on forging a new fabricated liturgical form and the strategy was gradualism with a toning up of the rhythm of change after the councils when he was back in favour with his influential papal supporter and one time cardinal Montini of Milan.

There is no argument against the restoration of the pre-1955 liturgical norms when one considers that process hitherto was mostly controlled by liberalising elements determined to take the liturgy beyond all traditional boundaries.

Patrick Sheridan said...

ben ingledew,

You mention Grond from The Lord of the Rings. Would you be surprised to learn that J.R.R Tolkien wrote disparagingly of the Pacelli Holy Week on Spy Wednesday of 1956 in an unpublished letter? Clearly another prominent literary Catholic who, like Evelyn Waugh, found the reforms of Pius XII distasteful.

LeonG said...

Patrick and Ben

Tolkein became quickly disenchanted with the post-conciliar changes and always responded in latin at the new mass which he disliked.

I did read some years ago (but it needs corroboration) that although he translated the Book of Jonah for the Jerusalem Bible edition, he was not entirely convinced about the final results of the translations of the whole.

He believed that truth resounded out of myths and legends and hence we find in his poetry gems reflecting his perspectives on modernity......

"I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends...." (Mythopoeia 1931 by Tolkein)

Mike said...


I wrote this article for Crisis Magazine last month that some may find interesting:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/benedicts-enduring-legacy-his-love-for-beauty

I am not a liturgist, but I tried to write for those who read CRISIS and might be prompted to go to a TLM. Alas, the Conclave thought differently!

We should pray a lot for Pope Francis!