Good Friday E.F. Liturgy name

[R_C]

According to the 1962 Missale…is it proper to refer to it as Mass of the Presanctified??? I read someplace that this should not be done after the 1956 reforms to Holy Week liturgy…

Thanks!

 

[L_Marshall]

According to the 1962 Missale…is it proper to refer to it as Mass of the Presanctified??? I read someplace that this should not be done after the 1956 reforms to Holy Week liturgy…

Thanks!

I’m not sure of the precise theology and canon behind it, but I don’t see this name as problematic, although it’s certainly foreign from a Western point of view. “Presanticified” refers to the fact the the Blessed Sacrament that is distributed was consecrated at a previous Mass: No Eucharist is confected within this Good Friday Liturgy. I believe the problematic term is “Mass,” since in our imagination, this generally refers to an ordinary celebration where the Eucharist is confected. However, the word “Mass” comes from the dismissal “Ite Missa Est.” If the Extraordinary Form liturgy still used this dismissal on Good Friday, then it would still be reasonable to call it a “Mass,” although it wouldn’t be our modern usage of the term.

That having been said, you mentioned that the name was changed in the 1956 changes to Holy Week liturgies. Could it be possible the publisher of the book just didn’t change it, or are you reading the Latin text?

 

[malphono]

I’m not sure of the precise theology and canon behind it, but I don’t see this name as problematic, although it’s certainly foreign from a Western point of view. “Presanticified” refers to the fact the the Blessed Sacrament that is distributed was consecrated at a previous Mass: No Eucharist is confected within this Good Friday Liturgy. I believe the problematic term is “Mass,” since in our imagination, this generally refers to an ordinary celebration where the Eucharist is confected. However, the word “Mass” comes from the dismissal “Ite Missa Est.” If the Extraordinary Form liturgy still used this dismissal on Good Friday, then it would still be reasonable to call it a “Mass,” although it wouldn’t be our modern usage of the term.

That having been said, you mentioned that the name was changed in the 1956 changes to Holy Week liturgies. Could it be possible the publisher of the book just didn’t change it, or are you reading the Latin text?

Unless I’m misreading it, the editio typica of 1920 doesn’t say anything about “Mass” either. Nor does it have a dismissal.

The 1962 (incorporating the so-called “reforms” of 1955) breaks the service into 4 distinct parts, the last of which is the “communion” and even there, there’s no dismissal.

 

[AlexV]

No problem calling it a Mass of the Presanctified…that’s what it is.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

No problem calling it a Mass of the Presanctified…that’s what it is.

But it’s not a Mass at all – there’s no Eucharistic Prayer or Consecration. Even in the EF the liturgy seems closer to an extended Communion Service. and there’s no dismissal because Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil are a single continuing liturgy.

 

[AlexV]

It’s called the Mass of the Presanctified because the gifts have already been consecrated. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[R_C]

you mentioned that the name was changed in the 1956 changes to Holy Week liturgies

It is possible that I recall this one incorrectly Someone mentioned to me that it was changed around the pontificate of Pius XII and that year sounded in my mind about right when I posted…the change may be earlier, and it may even be a previous Pontiff…but I do recall someone telling me that the major change came with Pius XII in terms of Holy Week.

I know the term “Mass” is a bit vague but I was wondering if it could still be used in the traditional sense. I mean, the Requiem Mass is a Mass but does not have Ite, Missa Est, and even the actual Mass of the Presanctified was not a Mass per se, of course. Catholic Encyclopedia mentions on the older liturgy: <<This is not a Mass in the strict sense of the word, as there is no consecration of the sacred species.>> But it was still called Mass of the presanctified. I wonder if the changes justify removing the name. I could (will) do more research on the topic, I was wondering if someone already knew the answer

 

[Charles12]

How about the Good Friday Liturgy in plain old terms?

 

[Chatter163]

Before 1955, the name was Mass of the Presanctified. The 1955 reforms renamed it the Liturgy of the Passion and Death of the Lord. The format was the same; it was simply the name change. It was explained in the accompanying documents that Mass of the Presanctified was a misnomer that had originated in the middle ages. The revised name was supposesdly an attempt to reach back to earlier centuries.

 

[malphono]

Before 1955, the name was Mass of the Presanctified. The 1955 reforms renamed it the Liturgy of the Passion and Death of the Lord.

As I inferred earlier, I find no such reference in the 1920 editio typica, unless I missed it. What I find for Good Friday is simply Feria VI i8n Paracheve. Can you give a reference? I mean to the editio typica. What it may have been or may be called in translation is immaterial to me.

The format was the same; it was simply the name change. It was explained in the accompanying documents that Mass of the Presanctified was a misnomer that had originated in the middle ages. The revised name was supposesdly an attempt to reach back to earlier centuries.

I agree with the allusion to antiquarianism, but I wouldn’t say that the format was the same. Among other things, before the so-called “reform” of 1955, a chalice was prepared.