Pre-1955 Holy Week Permission Granted

  • Thread starter Thread starter FontgombaultMonks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bugnini this and Bugnini that.

To my point that the “objections” to the 1955 revisions are more from a dislike of Abp Bugnini more than any meritorious reason.
 
Bugnini was responsible for what happened. That’s not my fault. And he was proven wrong on any number of historical points. The most embarrassing being that Eucharistic Prayer II was an ancient canon.
 
KMG said:
Bugnini was responsible for what happened. That’s not my fault. And he was proven wrong on any number of historical points. The most embarrassing being that Eucharistic Prayer II was an ancient canon.
Click to expand...
Yes he was. And the resulting 1955 revisions were not objectionable. On that ground i call prejudice more than anything.
 
They were objectionable. In fact, most of the changes of 1955 were rolled back in 1970…when even the Bugninists had to admit they were highly problematic. I’d take 1970 over 1955 any day for the Vigil. 1955 is a disaster on several liturgical grounds.
 
KMG said:
…
What happened in the Middle Ages was the gradual anticipation of the time of the Vesperal Liturgy, from late afternoon to, eventually, morning.
…
Click to expand...
AFTER it had already been moved earlier, from the night-time to the evening.

You’re still ignoring the practice of the early centuries.

While some details are unclear, there’s no doubt that the historical record shows that the vigil services were in the hours of “vigil” the night-time.
 
No and no again! The all-night vigil consisted of MULTIPLE services, with people remaining in church for them all night. The Vesperal liturgy was AFTER NONE. Not commencing at night.
 
We are not going to agree on this. The good news is, the pre-Bugnini Holy Week is now an increasingly common phenomenon in traditional parishes. And that is marvelous news.
 
KMG said:
No and no again! The all-night vigil consisted of MULTIPLE services, with people remaining in church for them all night. The Vesperal liturgy was AFTER NONE. Not commencing at night.
Click to expand...
You’re mixing and confusing the time-periods.

The VIGIL services originated as night-time services in the ancient Church (before the Eucharist at dawn).

What you insist on calling the “vesperal liturgy” did not exist until the middle ages. It was the Vigil moved to an earlier hour.

You keep trying to apply the practice of the middle ages to the earlier Church practice.

You are ignoring the fact that these services did not originate in the middle ages. You’re pointing to a time-period in which those services had already been moved to earlier hours-of-day.

I do not dispute your account of what services were celebrated at what times in the middle ages. I do dispute your apparent claim that the middle ages represents some kind of “original” usage.
 
And if anyone wants “proof” of how the Bugnini 1955 changes were ahistorical, in order for them to “work” (i.e., Vigil starts at 9 or 10, Mass at 12)…Matins was CUT.

The most important Matins of the year was cut.

Again, this was because Bugnini mistakenly thought the lessons of the primitive vigil = Matins. Which they didn’t.

And no Father David, the Vesperal liturgy was NOT invented in the Middle Ages.
 
I’m not arguing about this anymore. It’s pointless to argue the obvious over and over.
 
KMG said:
I’m not arguing about this anymore. It’s pointless to argue the obvious over and over.
Click to expand...
If you’re going to engage in a conversation like this, you need to get your time-periods straight.

You are trying to argue that the practice of the late middle ages was somehow the “original” practice of the Church. That’s simply not true. By that time, the services had already been moved to earlier hours.
 
I did get my time periods straight. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the Vesperal liturgy never started after dark.
 
Again, there are two relevant facts here. 1) Primitive Christians stayed in Church all night, from the Lucernarium before the Vesperal Liturgy, through dawn. They attended MULTIPLE SERVICES in that all-night period. 2) The Vesperal liturgy never started at night, but rather after None.
 
Last edited:
The Vesperal liturgy ended with one Mass…a Mass of ANTICIPATION of the full joy of the Resurrection, celebrated before the abbreviated Vespers of Saturday…and then, AFTER Paschal Matins and Lauds, there was ANOTHER Mass, that of Easter Day.
 
KMG said:
I did get my time periods straight. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the Vesperal liturgy never started after dark.
Click to expand...
You’re going around in circles.

What you call the “vesperal liturgy” is/was the vigil services moved to an earlier time.

As I said, I accept your account of how things were done in the middle ages. Yes, the vesperal liturgy was done at the time of vespers—and they were the VIGIL services moved to an earlier time.

You still ignore the fact that the practice of the middle ages was not the original practice of the Church.
 
KMG said:
The Vesperal liturgy ended with one Mass…a Mass of ANTICIPATION of the full joy of the Resurrection, celebrated before the abbreviated Vespers of Saturday…and then, AFTER Paschal Matins and Lauds, there was ANOTHER Mass, that of Easter Day.
Click to expand...
In the middle ages.

You’re still ignoring the practice of the early Church.
 
They had 2 Masses, a vesperal one in the evening, and a dawn one.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
The early Church did NOT have a Mass at midnight on Easter.
Click to expand...
Correct.

The Mass was at dawn on Sunday morning, following the VIGIL services which were done during the hours of VIGIL which are the night-time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top