Is the Pre-1955 Holy Week celebrated anywhere?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Good point, Tim. It was a legitimate update and it had good parts and I’m sure NYC would acknowledge that. Rather than seeing the Mass frozen in 1954, most trads would like to see it progress from there to 2012 in a way that is more respectful of the rite than the near-complete revision it received in 1970.

But it did progress. It went to the changes in 1955 and then again in 1962. Why deny those changes?

What makes a change to the Mass pre-Vatican II legitimate?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Of course, but when misunderstood the older prayer sounds uncharitable and the newer prayer sound heretical. That’s a major difference.

Perhaps neither is ideal, and anyway it’s up to the Church.

Actually I would say when misunderstood the older prayer sounds hateful.

 

[Rich_C]

But it did progress. It went to the changes in 1955 and then again in 1962. Why deny those changes?

What makes a change to the Mass pre-Vatican II legitimate?

No one here is denying them, don’t exaggerate. I’m happy with the 1962 missal myself but I don’t want to see a “straw man” made of the well-reasoned positions of some of my friends.

A change to the Mass is legitimate when promulgated by the Church. Don’t bait.

 

[Rich_C]

Actually I would say when misunderstood the older prayer sounds hateful.

The ADL thinks so, but they draw the line at being prayed for so I think they ask too much.

I’m not sure whether “uncharitable” and “hateful” is a difference of kind or just degree. Care to elaborate?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No one here is denying them, don’t exaggerate. I’m happy with the 1962 missal myself but I don’t want to see a “straw man” made of the well-reasoned positions of some of my friends.

A change to the Mass is legitimate when promulgated by the Church. Don’t bait.

It was a legitimate question. When some one says that we should throw out all we have and go back to the pre-1955 Missal and then start there why do you see exaggeration or bating?

Why shouldn’t I ask why we should go back to there to start?

 

[malphono]

That the Holy Week rites were drastically altered with the 1955 revisions is fact. Now, whether those “revised” Holy Week rites were better or worse is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. In any case, an excellent series of articles on the subject appeared in the New Liturgical Movement several years ago.

 

[Big_Feet]

Big_Feet;9136277:

Third, what’s wrong with people liking the liturgy they have to attend each week?

I am sorry, but this last question sounds like the protestant, bible thumping “church” down the road that has people bring coffee and snacks in and eaten during the Sunday morning services.
Also, if you ask my kids, especially when they were really young, and when they were teens, they didnt “like” any of the liturgies we could have attended. Does that give them the “right” to not go?

 

[iohanne]

No personal preference myself but just a couple of comments:

1. People interested in the pre-1955 Holy Week and the pre-1910 Divine Office aren’t advocating for a complete rewind in terms of Catholic practice, approved Saints’ feasts, canon law, etc. I don’t think anyone wants to return to a time when we only had morning Mass or when we had an Easter Vigil in on Holy Saturday morning. What interests people are the revival of liturgical texts and rituals associated with these Holy Days that are edifying, noble and beautiful. As can be seen in this Compendium of 1955 Holy Week Revisions many of the textual and ritual changes concerned changes that were not problematic for the people, that were not ugly and illogical mediaeval accretions and some of which - like the order of incensing/sprinkling for blessing the psalms - were really small, absolutely imperceptible changes but which didn’t seem to have any practical or theoretical reason. All these make people wary of a sentiment towards liturgical change whereby its justification is simply that change can be done by proper authorities - there didn’t seem to be a consideration of why it should be done. A good reason for change includes things like timing of liturgies - to better reflect the timing of the events of Holy Week, allowing for evening Masses - to allow for more Catholics to attend communal prayer, etc. A bad reason for change is, “We can do it.” Basically, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?
2. The idea that laity shouldn’t know their liturgy and its history is problematic for me. Yes - the more obscure details should be relegated to the scholars of the Church, but the liturgy is the work of the people. There is almost nothing as important as worshiping God, knowing why we do what we do, what we’re doing and how we do it. The liturgy is not the work of the clergy alone, the mind-product of the hierarchs - it’s prayer and sacrifice and a turning of the heart and mind and body towards the Lord of the universe. It’s a work of the Mystical Body of Christ in co-operation with Christ’s worship of the Father. Look how important ritual laws and cultic laws were for the Israelites - the Torah expounds for chapters and chapters covering almost two entire books on God’s instructions concerning the building of the tabernacle, the sacrificial prescriptions, the materials to be used, the times to do them, etc. Generations of Jews have and still memorise all these obscure technical ritual laws - and there hasn’t been a Temple in Jerusalem for almost 2,000 years. The New Israel should have just as much respect for the traditions of their forefathers.

Yes, the Holy Fathers have, within their right, flexed their muscles and made significant changes in the liturgy. Even so, subsequent Holy Fathers aren’t forbidden from listening to the sensus fidelium and discerning whether or not we can borrow from the past and re-discover the rich traditions which we have set aside. There is nothing wrong with being curious about the textual variants of the past and the ceremonial used and supporting something and suggesting to the higher ups something which you believe can edify the people now and today. That’s what the liturgical revisionists among the hierarchs often do so why are the laity excluded from that? The Mystical Body of Christ develops that way. That’s how our liturgy has always grown and developed - personal and pious devotions and practices are found to be edifying and spread slowly through the march of history - sometimes they even spread like wildfire and become rubricised.

1. Everything we have in our Holy Religion is received from our Fathers. Obviously at some point we have to claim it and own it and make it effective in the circumstances of our time and place but organic unity and development cannot be disdained. The development of the Papacy is also a “mediaeval accretion” and the centralisation of power to the Roman Curia is also a slow and inexorable development in Catholic history. That is a fact. And yet we do not seek to abolish these things for the sake of the times. We are careful (and rightly so!) about what constitutes a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit breathing through the Church and what constitutes the work of men. All throughout our history we’ve had fights and tensions between groups within the Church - there were those in the high middle ages who dissented against the realistic theology of the Eucharist and there were those who championed it. St. Thomas Aquinas opposed the Immaculate Conception - Duns Scotus supported it. Even further back we have the infamous Christological controversies that shook Christendom down to its foundations. There has always been an historical dance between groups in the Church which have fueled her doctrinal development. Each era has its topic of dispute and it seems to me that the liturgy is this era’s concern.
2. There was genuine unrest concerning the liturgy all throughout the 20th century - everything from the 1910 Divine Office changes to the 1955 Holy Week changes to the 1970s. Yet, here we are in the pre-conciliar era and we all recognise - both the laity and the hierarchs - that problems still persist. Yes, we all have two approved forms of the Missal and we should remain obedient to the Roman Curia with regards to how we currently celebrate the liturgy but we shouldn’t quell any discussion among lay people who have the knowledge and time to suggest what can be done to beautify our common liturgy.

 

[Exsilivm]

I am sorry, but this last question sounds like the protestant, bible thumping “church” down the road that has people bring coffee and snacks in and eaten during the Sunday morning services.

We have to be careful. Many Catholic masses look and sound a lot like the bible thumping church down the road, especially when the pentacostal activity begins. Nothwithstanding the fact that such services look and sound nothing like any mass or DL celebrated in the Church at any time prior to the schism, Rome considers them to be “valid.”

Also, if you ask my kids, especially when they were really young, and when they were teens, they didnt “like” any of the liturgies we could have attended. Does that give them the “right” to not go?

Under this reasoning, the Church could require Christians to stand on burning coals during mass. The issue isn’t what they have a right to do, the issue is what will make people come to mass and join the Church. The Anglicans did not have a “right” to A.C-bus, the Eastern Catholics did not have a “right” to their Byzantine liturgies, at least under modern Catholic thinking. The accomodations were made to bring them into the fold.

Many mansions?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Thank you iohanne, you understood my point about pre-55.

We can always nitpick about different Missals and eras, but that’s not the point I want to make. I just want to make the point that some changes were organic, some were removals of accretions, some where probably very damaging (unintentionally I would assume), some were for no clear reason that anyone agrees on.

This is all worthy of debate.

I don’t think we need to go back to the 1570 Missal, but if someone wants to discuss that option, I am not going to put them down. That’s fine.

Now objectively, I think when the arguments are laid out, many of the changes from 1570 on are pretty easy to justify. Even when there is disagreement, both sides have very clear merit and the Popes did what they thought was best. I also think the changes in 1955 to the Holy Week were not with the same clear merit, and that history will hopefully show this to be the case and the Church will restore the old Holy Week.

Now those who disagree should be happy to discuss this with those who agree with me.

All I object to is the idea that we shouldn’t have this discussion because it’s disobedient (it’s not unless we use pre-55 without permission) or that allowing 1962 was too much (as was actually said in this thread) or that we can never question what the Church does (when even the Church changes her disciplines in an attempt to improve things and acknowledges some things were not good ideas).

About the Prayer for the Jews: I have no problem with the current one, and that’s what I’d expect to see since I go to the EF where priests out of obedience use the new one. However the last one or the traditional one (the last one was by John XXIII) are also fine.

I wouldn’t mind going back because I think the point of changing the prayer in the first place is problematic.

Why?

1. All prayers require catechesis to understand, including the original Good Friday prayer. The original prayer is a loving prayer. I want to see all the Jews I know and those I don’t know in Heaven, may God have mercy and keep my soul so that I myself can go there.
2. If part of the motivation was to please groups like the ADL – pointless. They have on record opposed, in principle, the Gospel of John, and statements like “His Blood be upon us and on our children” in the synoptic Gospels. We are not going to make those individuals happy who ultimately want us to say they don’t need to accept Christ at all. If you disagree, I’d suggest you show the three prayers to a devout Jew and ask him if he really finds any of them at all acceptable.

 

[Rich_C]

It was a legitimate question. When some one says that we should throw out all we have and go back to the pre-1955 Missal and then start there why do you see exaggeration or bating?

Why shouldn’t I ask why we should go back to there to start?

If you asked it like that in the first place I wouldn’t have taken issue.

Instead you used the word “denying” in refering to trad’s positions on post-1955 developments. Denying what? Denying the validity of them or the Church’s right to make them? What else could you mean? I don’t want to see a respectful discussion of liturgical change shut down because you start painting the other side as extremists with such inflammatory language.

In a conversation where everyone shows some depth of understanding of liturgy, your question as to what makes a change in the missal legit sound entirely rhetorical. No good Catholic can answer other than I did, so why ask? I feel it implies that you think I deny that the Church is the authority, and that you’re trying to make me say that outright. That’s baiting.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight (1954 vs 1962) but I empathize with people who are painted as being disobedient to the Church for being more traditional and I think its unfair, especially because I think that viewpoint should be represented on CAF and it won’t be if its proponents are marked as “deniers” and excluded.

 

[PhilOSophia]

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!!!

This is true. The Pope could liberate that mass tomorrow, if he so wished.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you asked it like that in the first place I wouldn’t have taken issue.

Okay. Correction taken.

I apologize.

So then what is the answer?

Why should we go back to pre-1955 to start?

 

[TrueLight]

And the 1910 Divine Office of Pius XII was the stepping stone for the Liturgy of the Hours as we now know it. Annibale Bugnini borrowed heavily on one major trend it started, dividing of psalms and composing new antiphons out of the blue, for which there was no traditional melodies to chant them. Your point is?

It’s really odd that secular Catholics in 1955 used a Divine Office that was used for less than 45 years of the Church’s history, when a 1400 y.o. traditional Office was still being used by the religious order whose founder designed it. It’s even odder that “traditional” Catholics are using a breviary that removed 15 of 18 Octaves, changed the rubrics substantially, changed the way the antiphon was chanted before and after the psalm, prohibited Vespers from being anticipated before noon during Lent, and I could go on. And it’s especially odd that we complain about the LOTH which has been around for 42 years now, when we don’t complain about the pre-1955 Divine Office (of which the Holy Week reforms significantly modified), which at that time was around for a comparable length of time and had similar innovations to the innovations of 1970.

They should then also be wary of Pius X. He was in fact the one that set several of the precedents that Mgr Bugnini adopted for the 1970 LOTH. Among other things, Pius X:

• Broke up the Laudate psalms after the OT canticle (ps. 148, 149, 150) every day, which Mgr Bugnini perpetuated
• Shortened Matins from 12 to 9 psalms or psalm parts; Mgr Bugnini reduced it further to 3 psalms or psalm parts and changed its name
• Broke up the psalms into more or less equal lengths, a practice that Mgr Bugnini also used liberally
• Composed new antiphons for the psalm sections, which required composing of new melodies, ditching a 1000 year musical tradition going back to the Carolingian era, which Mgr Bugnini also did, and which meant it took 40 years to be able to finally have proper Gregorian chant books for the LOTH.

Could it simply be that liturgy is a dynamic field? Even today the monks of Solesmes discover new things when interpreting ancient manuscripts, for example changing an antiphon’s melody slightly and making it into a mode VIIIc instead of VIIIg.

With the more important liturgical reforms, ISTM that “feature creep” set into the Liturgy over time. For example the anticipation of Vespers before noon had to do with the lenten fast and the fact that the main meal had to be after Vespers (cf. Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 41). But folks wanted to eat the main meal at mid-day (which sort of makes sense for busy diocesan clergy), so Vespers ended up being anticipated. Which makes no sense and is the result of a Pharisaical reading of the rules.

For that matter the timing of the Divine Office used to be set by the sun and the Rule of St. Benedict even shortened the night office to accommodate a shorter night. The invention of clocks changed all that and the Divine Office migrated to set times and there was no need to shorten the Offices, though the Monastic tradition of shortening the readings of Matins persists in some abbeys.

I really think your arguments about going back to the pre-'55 Holy Week is either some sort of nostalgia for a specific time and place, or simply trying to win an Internet debate. The Church’s hierarchy, in its wisdom, has found over time that the liturgy loses its relevance or meaning, or allows obscure practices to set in that make no sense, or is too heavy a load for diocesan clergy, or requires better translation (and not just into English, with Vatican II also came the Neo-Vulgate Bible that replaced the Vulgate) and decides to clean house a bit. It happened in 1570, 1910, 1955, 1969, 1970, in 2011, and probably at more obscure times in between. It will continue to happen, for better or for worse, irritating the heck out of the faithful everywhere but such is life, people resist change, even changes in place for 100+ years (because there is still resentment over the Pius X reforms…)…

Frankly, in life, one must pick one’s battles, and I think this one, a desire to go back to the pre-55 Holy Week, would result in lots of expended energy for little gain. It is best left to the study of historians, and those of the faithful who enjoy reading about Church history.

My goodness, how do you know so much about Breviaries? I am impressed quite frankly.

 

[OraLabora]

My goodness, how do you know so much about Breviaries? I am impressed quite frankly.

Gregorian chant. I’m a student of Gregorian chant. All these changes had a huge impact on the chant repertory in particular the 1910 and 1970 changes.

 

[Melchior_1]

And the 1910 Divine Office of Pius XII was the stepping stone for the Liturgy of the Hours as we now know it. Annibale Bugnini borrowed heavily on one major trend it started, dividing of psalms and composing new antiphons out of the blue, for which there was no traditional melodies to chant them. Your point is?

It’s really odd that secular Catholics in 1955 used a Divine Office that was used for less than 45 years of the Church’s history, when a 1400 y.o. traditional Office was still being used by the religious order whose founder designed it. It’s even odder that “traditional” Catholics are using a breviary that removed 15 of 18 Octaves, changed the rubrics substantially, changed the way the antiphon was chanted before and after the psalm, prohibited Vespers from being anticipated before noon during Lent, and I could go on. And it’s especially odd that we complain about the LOTH which has been around for 42 years now, when we don’t complain about the pre-1955 Divine Office (of which the Holy Week reforms significantly modified), which at that time was around for a comparable length of time and had similar innovations to the innovations of 1970.

They should then also be wary of Pius X. He was in fact the one that set several of the precedents that Mgr Bugnini adopted for the 1970 LOTH. Among other things, Pius X:

• Broke up the Laudate psalms after the OT canticle (ps. 148, 149, 150) every day, which Mgr Bugnini perpetuated
• Shortened Matins from 12 to 9 psalms or psalm parts; Mgr Bugnini reduced it further to 3 psalms or psalm parts and changed its name
• Broke up the psalms into more or less equal lengths, a practice that Mgr Bugnini also used liberally
• Composed new antiphons for the psalm sections, which required composing of new melodies, ditching a 1000 year musical tradition going back to the Carolingian era, which Mgr Bugnini also did, and which meant it took 40 years to be able to finally have proper Gregorian chant books for the LOTH.

Could it simply be that liturgy is a dynamic field? Even today the monks of Solesmes discover new things when interpreting ancient manuscripts, for example changing an antiphon’s melody slightly and making it into a mode VIIIc instead of VIIIg.

With the more important liturgical reforms, ISTM that “feature creep” set into the Liturgy over time. For example the anticipation of Vespers before noon had to do with the lenten fast and the fact that the main meal had to be after Vespers (cf. Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 41). But folks wanted to eat the main meal at mid-day (which sort of makes sense for busy diocesan clergy), so Vespers ended up being anticipated. Which makes no sense and is the result of a Pharisaical reading of the rules.

For that matter the timing of the Divine Office used to be set by the sun and the Rule of St. Benedict even shortened the night office to accommodate a shorter night. The invention of clocks changed all that and the Divine Office migrated to set times and there was no need to shorten the Offices, though the Monastic tradition of shortening the readings of Matins persists in some abbeys.

I really think your arguments about going back to the pre-'55 Holy Week is either some sort of nostalgia for a specific time and place, or simply trying to win an Internet debate. The Church’s hierarchy, in its wisdom, has found over time that the liturgy loses its relevance or meaning, or allows obscure practices to set in that make no sense, or is too heavy a load for diocesan clergy, or requires better translation (and not just into English, with Vatican II also came the Neo-Vulgate Bible that replaced the Vulgate) and decides to clean house a bit. It happened in 1570, 1910, 1955, 1969, 1970, in 2011, and probably at more obscure times in between. It will continue to happen, for better or for worse, irritating the heck out of the faithful everywhere but such is life, people resist change, even changes in place for 100+ years (because there is still resentment over the Pius X reforms…)…

Frankly, in life, one must pick one’s battles, and I think this one, a desire to go back to the pre-55 Holy Week, would result in lots of expended energy for little gain. It is best left to the study of historians, and those of the faithful who enjoy reading about Church history.

I’d really like some of the people who are in favor of pre-1955 items to comment on this.

 

[Rich_C]

Okay. Correction taken.

I apologize.

So then what is the answer?

Why should we go back to pre-1955 to start?

I’m not very learned on the 1955 changes, but most people who advocate this argue that they were the first changes that seem inorganic, compared to previous ones. i.e. a more radical break with tradition (lower-case t) and for reasons less tenable than previous changes. I’d have to leave it up to the more informed to actually make their case.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not very learned on the 1955 changes, but most people who advocate this argue that they were the first changes that seem inorganic, compared to previous ones. i.e. a more radical break with tradition (lower-case t) and for reasons less tenable than previous changes. I’d have to leave it up to the more informed to actually make their case.

In my mind there comes a time where inorganic changes need to be made to correct things that have occurred through organic changes.

For example. Having the Easter Vigil Mass during the morning on Holy Saturday. A correction needed to be made to return it to after dusk. Also anticipated vespers before noon so that they could eat their mid-day meal.

Both of those were organic changes in response to a perceived need in the community. Both of them were wrong in my mind and needed to be fixed. It was not going to be fixed organically.

 

[Rich_C]

In my mind there comes a time where inorganic changes need to be made to correct things that have occurred through organic changes.

For example. Having the Easter Vigil Mass during the morning on Holy Saturday. A correction needed to be made to return it to after dusk. Also anticipated vespers before noon so that they could eat their mid-day meal.

Both of those were organic changes in response to a perceived need in the community. Both of them were wrong in my mind and needed to be fixed. It was not going to be fixed organically.

I agree that both of those changes seem good. I’ve never heard a trad criticize them either so they probably agree with you there. I think their argument has something to do with changes in the texts rather than the disciplines.

Actually I use a 1954 missal even though I attend a 1962 liturgy so I had to pencil St. Joseph into the Canon, but otherwise I’m too new to the traditional Mass to know the difference.

 

[Rich_C]

Plus, they don’t want the pre-1955 missal per se, they want the Church to reset liturgical reform there, and move forward. I’ll bet they’d still like to see those change you mentioned made again after the reset.