Holy Week reforms of 1955?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
I’ve read a bit about the liturgical reforms and shifts made to Holy Week traditions in 1955 and I’m hoping someone can answer the following questions, since I’m getting lost in liturgical jargon (and perhaps spin):
  1. What, specifically, changed in terms of Palm Sunday? Why were these specific changes made?
  2. The following provides a portion of the changes to Good Friday followed by a priest’s commentary on it (I’ll provide a specific link if no one thinks this is problematic – but given the commentary, I think it might be?). What here is accurate?
  1. (OHS 1956): The change of times for the service, which could have been accomplished in harmony with popular customs, ended up creating notable pastoral and liturgical problems.
Click to expand...
Commentary: In the past, pious customs and practices were developed in a way that was consonant with the liturgy. A common example in very many places: from noon, even today, a great crucifix is set up, in front of which the Tre Ore “Three Hours”] of Christ’s suffering is preached (from noon until three o’clock). As a consequence of the change in time for the service, one is confronted with the paradox of a sermon delivered before the crucifix at a time when the crucifix ought to remain veiled, because the Good Friday service is to be held in the afternoon. (108) Some dioceses even today are constrained to hold the “Liturgical Action” [of the Passion of the Lord] in one church, while in another the ancient pious practices are conducted, in order to avoid a too obvious visual incongruity. Numerous similar examples could be adduced. It is clear, though, that the “pastoral” reform par excellence was not “pastoral,” because it was born of experts who had no real contact with a parish nor with the devotions and piety of the people—which they often enough disdained.
Click to expand...
According to the reformers, during the hours of the afternoon a “liturgical void” had been created, and an attempt to remedy this was sought “by introducing paraliturgical elements, such as the Tre Ore, the Way of the Cross, and the Sorrowful Mother.” (109) The Commission decided, therefore, to remedy this scandal using the worst “pastoral” method: namely writing off popular customs and paying them no mind. The disdain in this type of “pastoral” method forgets that inculturation is a Catholic phenomenon of long standing. It consists of a reconciliation, one as generous as possible, of piety to dogma, and not of a unilateral imposition of provisions by “experts.”
Click to expand...
 
Thanks so much! Very informative reading.

I can’t help but wonder if something was lost when these changes were made. I’m not denying their validity but instead wondering if the older traditions marked Holy Week as more unique than current traditions allow.
 
gracepoole said:
Thanks so much! Very informative reading.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. I remember that series when it was first released. It was very well done, and I still refer to it regularly. It’s both historically and liturgically accurate.
gracepoole said:
I can’t help but wonder if something was lost when these changes were made. I’m not denying their validity but instead wondering if the older traditions marked Holy Week as more unique than current traditions allow.
Click to expand...
Here I think one has to make up one’s own mind. There is, as I’ve said before in this forum, one thing I liked about the “reform” and that was the restoration of the timings.
 
malphono said:
Yes, indeed. I remember that series when it was first released. It was very well done, and I still refer to it regularly. It’s both historically and liturgically accurate.

Here I think one has to make up one’s own mind. There is, as I’ve said before in this forum, one thing I liked about the “reform” and that was the restoration of the timings.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. Anticipating Lauds the previous evening, lighting the Paschal fire in and celebrating the Easter Vigil in the morning, are to say the least incongruous and not in keeping with the verity of those celebrations. Even if in monasteries, Lauds was attached to the end of Vigils, Vigils was still usually set up under the Rule of St. Benedict to be celebrated at dawn.

The reforms are what they are. Rome has spoken and all that…

Interestingly at our abbey, for the Triduum, they have retained the practice of eliminating the invitatory, opening verse, hymns and doxologies of the Divine Office.
 
Correction, I mean to say: “Vigils was still usually set up under the Rule of St. Benedict so that it would end with Lauds celebrated at dawn.”
 
gracepoole said:
Thanks so much! Very informative reading.

I can’t help but wonder if something was lost when these changes were made. I’m not denying their validity but instead wondering if the older traditions marked Holy Week as more unique than current traditions allow.
Click to expand...
There’s a paper analyzing the changes here: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

If you scroll past the introduction, the author Fr. Johnson goes over every major change while providing commentary on them. Suffice to say, he is pretty critical of the changes, so much that comments section pretty much naturally diverged into a debate over sedevacantism.
 
Holy week in 1955 (post 55 is when the changes went into effect) was much more extensive in liturgical activity and in continuity with history than even the 1962 EF we have today. The current EF was actually lacking so many gospels that the NO reformers added many of them back in.

Many of the prayers in the 1962 Holy Week Masses have references to liturgical praxis that no longer exist in the 1962 Missal. Some of the changes seem arbitrary, to me anyway, they don’t make any sense. Many of these “changes” were again undone in the NO missal.

Keep in mind that Bugnini’s changes to the Mass started with Holy Week in 1955. It was the litmus test to see what the pushback would be to wider and more sweeping reforms. It is interested to compare Candlemass to Palm Sunday concerning processions. Candlemass in the 1962 EF is virtually unchanged from 1955. If you experience this, you really see how much Holy Week changes.

If you read through the whole commentary on what has changed and how the older 1955 missal tied all of Holy Week together in a much more harmonious way, it is disheartening to know what has been lost. Unfortunately, I don’t think we will ever see Holy Week according to the Pius V again, except maybe on a film somewhere.
 
I’m hopeful that an indult will eventually allow one to celebrate using the Missal and Breviary of the era immediately prior to the Bugnini reforms, but I don’t see that happening any time soon sadly.
 
EphelDuath said:
I’m hopeful that an indult will eventually allow one to celebrate using the Missal and Breviary of the era immediately prior to the Bugnini reforms, but I don’t see that happening any time soon sadly.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the Institute of Christ the King offers the pre-55 holy week at times.
 
EphelDuath said:
I’m hopeful that an indult will eventually allow one to celebrate using the Missal and Breviary of the era immediately prior to the Bugnini reforms, but I don’t see that happening any time soon sadly.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but it still might be possible (not easy, but possible) to experience some of it. The Ambrosian rito tradizzionale remains, as does the Bragan Rite. So, too, the Dominican and Carmelite Rites. None are exactly the same as the pre-1955 Roman, but all are similar, and were, AFAIK, unaffected by the so-called “revision” of that year except, perhaps, for the timings. The hard part is finding a place where any of them are offered. AFAIK, the “old” (ie, traditional) Ambrosian is available in precisely two churches in the Archdiocese of Milan, the Bragan only on occasion at the discretion of the priest, the Dominican occasionally (depending on the Province) and the Carmelite in few places still.
 
Esrb99 said:
As I understand it, the Institute of Christ the King offers the pre-55 holy week at times.
Click to expand...
They USED to in many places until the '62 police started complaining. This was mostly when they were operating under the Ecclesia Dei indult. There was less formal definition of which books they needed to use. When SP came out and specified the '62 books, that put an end to many of the '55 missal options.

Our wedding was in 1999 and we had the 55 missal at an ICRSS parish. It was nice having the extra collects for the commemoration of the saint on the calendar. Sort of became the patron saint of our marriage. Alas things like that were suppressed in the '62 books because it was thought the commemorations extended the Mass too much. In reality it was a minute or two more for most Priests unless you had a really slow reader.
 
moon1234 said:
They USED to in many places until the '62 police started complaining. This was mostly when they were operating under the Ecclesia Dei indult. There was less formal definition of which books they needed to use. When SP came out and specified the '62 books, that put an end to many of the '55 missal options.

Our wedding was in 1999 and we had the 55 missal at an ICRSS parish. It was nice having the extra collects for the commemoration of the saint on the calendar. Sort of became the patron saint of our marriage. Alas things like that were suppressed in the '62 books because it was thought the commemorations extended the Mass too much. In reality it was a minute or two more for most Priests unless you had a really slow reader.
Click to expand...
In those parishes where they only have EF on a Sunday and the priest has the option of using the Sunday collect or a major feast during the week, it is possible never to hear certain Sunday collects, secrets, and post-communion prayers. Goes without saying, I guess.
 
moon1234 said:
They USED to in many places until the '62 police started complaining. This was mostly when they were operating under the Ecclesia Dei indult. There was less formal definition of which books they needed to use. When SP came out and specified the '62 books, that put an end to many of the '55 missal options.

Our wedding was in 1999 and we had the 55 missal at an ICRSS parish. It was nice having the extra collects for the commemoration of the saint on the calendar. Sort of became the patron saint of our marriage. Alas things like that were suppressed in the '62 books because it was thought the commemorations extended the Mass too much. In reality it was a minute or two more for most Priests unless you had a really slow reader.
Click to expand...
I think officially, the institute has the '62 books. However here in STL, They seem to use the Pre-55 liturgy during Holy Week since SP. This past Palm Sunday there was the knocking on the door, and they retained all the Holy Week tones for chants here as well. I always it was analogous to all SP/Indult Diocesan’s who use the '62 books including the second Confiteor before Communion…that it was just what was done-the whole, ‘immemorial customs’ thing.
 
moon1234 said:
They USED to in many places until the '62 police started complaining. This was mostly when they were operating under the Ecclesia Dei indult. There was less formal definition of which books they needed to use. When SP came out and specified the '62 books, that put an end to many of the '55 missal options.
Click to expand...
You are in error. From 1984 on, and again in 1988, when the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was formed and the FSSP established, the indult always specified that only the 1962 liturgical books were to be used. There were one or two isolated special cases where ED allowed earlier books to be used for specific occasions in specific venues, but the 1962 books were always specified as the standard for the indult. Check it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top