C
Cecil_Corn
Guest
I mean only by approved congregations or parishes in communion with their ordinary and the Pope. Thank you!
- Status
M
Mike30
Guest
I don’t think so since the 1962 Missal is the approved missal for groups such as the FSSP etc.
F
formeratl
Guest
It is in a good many diocesan parishes that celebrate the EF but most of them do not publicize it for obvious reasons! 
T
TrueLight
Guest
Just curious: why would some choose the 1955 over the 1962?It is in a good many diocesan parishes that celebrate the EF but most of them do not publicize it for obvious reasons!
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Ah, and there’s the rub.
The motivations behind that is the kind of thing that gives fodder to those who oppose our freedom to celebrate the EF, if you ask me.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Okay, let me ask it this way.
Why something different than the Mass offered by the Church, be it OF or EF.
The 1955 Missal is not the one that is offered by the Church any longer. For the EF it is the 1962 Missal.
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Yes, sir … and because the problem is with setting up one’s self as the arbiter of what is good, true and correct in terms of what the Church does - or, the essence of a schismatic mentality.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
The post-1955 is seen by many as a stepping stone to the NO. The pre-1955 Holy Week is more expressive of what the Church had done for centuries.
It’s really odd when you think about it that traditional parishes and traditional orders and EFs in diocesan parishes, during Holy Week, are actually using a liturgy that was used for less than 20 years of the Church’s history (1955-1969 or so).
The pre-1955 rites, although there was always minor changes, are very close to what has been used for hundreds of years since the Middle Ages.
Another reason: the post-1955 rites were changed largely under the direction of Annibale Bugnini, who also directed much of the change in the NO under Pope Paul VI. Many people are wary of anything with his hand in it.
To answer the original question: I have heard many say the ICKSP use the pre-1955 rites, though I’ve never seen it myself.
M
malphono
Guest
FWLIW, as I see it, the one positive thing about the “revised” Holy Week Rites of 1955 was the restoration of the timings. Beyond that, I can say that I’ve never been thrilled with what was done to either the Palm Sunday or Good Friday liturgies. The changes to Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday were far less draconian, but I’d still prefer the original usages.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I agree.
And it’s not just preference, as I alluded to.
If this was all about what is allowed by the church, there need be no discussion. Why allow 1962 at all?
Some things should be allowed, even promoted, because they are good. The EF is good. It was great that is was allowed under ED and better that it is more freely allowed under SP and UE.
If the Church allowed the pre-55 Holy Week, that would be a good thing. It doesn’t now, so the question isn’t “should we do it?” We shouldn’t.
But “should we ask for it to be allowed? Should we talk about it? Pray for it? Should we discuss it academically? Should we learn it so we can do it when it is allowed?” Yes!!!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sorry but it is all about preference. At least this is what the Church says.
The EF is good, so is the OF. Neither one is “more” good than the other.
I would remind you that pitting the EF against the OF goes against forum rules.
O
OraLabora
Guest
What is it about the 1955 reforms that are so bad? Moving the Mass of the Last supper to Thursday evening makes eminent sense. Same with moving the Easter Vigil from Saturday morning to Saturday night and keeping Holy Saturday as a day in the spiritual desert. I think the Easter Vigil being held on Saturday morning instead of in the ancient tradition of after sundown must be something that slowly crept in probably for convenience and had to. E corrected. Dom Prosper Gueranger noted this over 100 years ago. I mean really, singing the Exultet on Holy Saturday morning when Mary was crying over the death of her Son? Makes no sense!
Again it strikes me that some folks confuse nostalgia with tradition. Liturgical reform is nothing new in the Church albeit the pace has often been glacial. For example the Divine Office underwent fairly radical reform under Pius X in 1910 that decisively broke from its monastic roots. Annibale Bugnini wasn’t even born then though he did later make good use of some precedents set by Pius X. Yet many continue to refer to the Pius X Divine Office as the “traditional” one when the true traditional Divine Office is the Benedictine one which incidentally is still in current daily use.
ITSM that what many readily label as “tradition” really is rather nostalgia for a specific time and place. It certainly strikes me as odd to hear traditionalists criticize Pius XII especially for correcting some points in the liturgy that no longer made any sense.
Again it strikes me that some folks confuse nostalgia with tradition. Liturgical reform is nothing new in the Church albeit the pace has often been glacial. For example the Divine Office underwent fairly radical reform under Pius X in 1910 that decisively broke from its monastic roots. Annibale Bugnini wasn’t even born then though he did later make good use of some precedents set by Pius X. Yet many continue to refer to the Pius X Divine Office as the “traditional” one when the true traditional Divine Office is the Benedictine one which incidentally is still in current daily use.
ITSM that what many readily label as “tradition” really is rather nostalgia for a specific time and place. It certainly strikes me as odd to hear traditionalists criticize Pius XII especially for correcting some points in the liturgy that no longer made any sense.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Would you please be so kind to explain the reason why you are using the word “should”? It appears to me that you are using such word in an auxiliary function to indicate obligation. You are also using the presumption that it will be allowed, can you please explain when the Church said that it will be allowed?
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Many would say that the only good thing about the 1955 changes was moving the times - that really made sense.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I think as Catholics who care about liturgy we should be informed about the pre-55 Holy Week. And I hope the Church will allow this just as she has allowed the 1962 Missal.
C
Cristiano
Guest
My question still stands. Why should Catholics have an obligation to be informed about the pre-1955 Holy Week?
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Where does the Church say this?
Preference matters, but it’s not the whole story.
The Church asks me to accept that the OF is a valid Catholic rite, legitimately promulgated and celebrated. So I accept it.
I am not aware of the Church asking me to accept that it’s equal to the EF objectively. So I don’t accept that. I cannot explain my reasoning fully because of forum rules, so I won’t get into it further.
But let me use another example: COTT vs CITH. Both within the law. But if Bishop Athanasius Schneider is allowed to criticize one and support the other and if our Holy Father can exclusively give Communion one way and not the other, then I am within my rites also to hold one way is objectively better than another even if both are currently allowed.
Now if I’m wrong and the Church actually teaches a doctrine that the only difference between OF and EF is preference, please cite it. (I’m aware many believe this, but I don’t think this is a doctrine of the Church!)
B
Big_Feet
Guest
If we keep requesting older forms of the liturgies to be used, we will end up having too many options, and not be unified in our practices. I believe that Holy Mother Church has stretched quite a bit authorizing the valid use and participation in the EF of the 1962 missal.
You are now asking for the use of the 1955 missal. What if I and others were to then ask to use the version in use in 1776? And then the one in use right after the council of Trent? And so on…
What good and purpose would it be to have so many versions in use?
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I am not talking about some obligation under sin or a personal obligation.
But we should study our faith, we should care about history (so we don’t repeat it), we should be nice people, we should pay our taxes.
I meant it in that respect. It’s good to care about our traditions. Pre-1955 Holy Week seems like a small thing because it’s marginalized. But it’s how the Church has celebrated the most important feasts of our calendar for centuries. Even though the times of the liturgies in the day had changed, the rites go back very, very far.
I’m not trying to put obligations on people, just saying we should know our liturgy as we should know the Father of the Church. It’s a good thing.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Well I don’t think we should have so many versions. We should have one version, that is best for all (not preference, but for our edification). We should go back to pre-1955 because in the 1955 changes things were changed that were not for the better. If that statement is questionable, it should at least be examined.
Right now we have OF and EF and it’s confusing. I agree it’s not ideal.
Hopefully one day we’ll have just one missal (for the Roman Rite). Some will hope it’s more like the current OF, some will hope it’s more like something else. I pray we’ll get there with unity.
- Status