Serious discussion of the Roman liturgical reforms in traditionalist circles, at least until respectable scholars like Laurence Hemming questioned the 1911 breviary reforms, usually contrasted "pre-1955" with 1962 and highlighted glaring differences such as what Pius XII did to Holy Week as a test run for the reformed liturgy. Something less noticeable is what differs on a more regular basis.
Today, until 1955, would have been the feast of St. John the Evangelist, Our Lord's favorite Apostle. One correspondent, who has successfully implemented proper Last Gospels, public horae minores, and some pre-reform Holy Week days at his parish, lamented that his pastor would be observing Sunday within the octave of the Nativity rather than St. John. Offhandedly, I asked how many Apostles had the 1962 liturgy entirely disregarded in the last year; unexpectedly, he told me five. In another conversation a while back I was speaking with an ordo compiler who offhandedly remarked "Nothing for St Andrew this year. He was only the first Apostle."
I am unsure how strictly the Roman liturgy ranked the Apostles before St Pius V's revisions in 1568-1570. Most local European rites give the Apostles, even Peter & Paul, a semi-double rank. Pius V upgraded many feasts to double rank, which allowed them to outrank Sunday. This does not, however, put the pre-Pius V system on par with 1962. Although a semi-double did not outrank Sunday, it was not discarded. Semi-double feasts impeded by Sunday were transferred to the next ferial day. Under St Pius X's system Apostles' Double of the Second Class feasts continued to outrank Sundays, even though lesser feasts could not (they did, however, warrant commemorations at Mass and in the Office). Even under Pius XII's 1955 revisions there were provisions for commemorating the now lessened feasts of the Apostles. The simplification of commemorations in 1962 breaks with all tradition in completely and utterly doing nothing for Apostles not named Peter & Paul when their feasts fall on Sunday.
Wholesale liturgical restoration is not feasible at this point, even within traditionalist communities, which are quite happy just to get their Mass once a week and have a place at the local parish. We cannot begrudge Catholics gratitude for this. We can, however, push for some provision to be made for such boisterous flaws in a liturgy that purports to be the "Mass of all times." Would it be too much for Fr. Tradman to do a commemoration and proper ultimum evangelium for St. John tomorrow? He only wrote a Gospel.
St. John also only took care of the Blessed Virgin until her death!
ReplyDeleteActually, S. John would have been observed on Sunday through 1960. Doubles of the Second Class continued to outrank minor Sundays until the Novum Rubricarum of John XXIII.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be fair, Apostles' feast do continue to get some crumbs in 1962 - a commemoration at Lauds and again at Low Mass - when they occur on "Second Class" Sundays. Ss. Andrew and Thomas, though, so occurring on "First Class" Sundays of Advent last year, not only did not get a transfer but were completely ignored. So, last year - two Apostles completely ignored, and three others reduced to Simplex-rank style commemorations, assuming a given priest even remembers to commemorate anything on a Sunday in '62ville.
I have to say that I disagree with His Traddiness on this one. Celebrating the Sunday and having a commemoration of St. John is part of modern Roman liturgies, not traditional ones - adding a last Gospel of St. John does seem to be making it up as one goes along.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, at the SSPX Sung Mass I went to today, there was a commemoration of Saint John, albeit not with proper last Gospel. Perhaps they took their cue from Low Mass rubrics, since of course Low Mass is the ideal which ought to be followed ;)
ReplyDeleteNot related, but why was "Benedicamos Domino" done away with as and ending for penitential Masses?
ReplyDeleteA commemoration is nice, and is better than nothing (contra Rubricarius, with all respect). But it does leave me wonder what the answer is for those who advocate for more, at least in terms of opting for the pre-Pius XII/John XXIII Missal on such a point. With Holy Week, it's easily fixed through ad libitum, officially or unofficially. But the calendar is the calendar, and restoring the old feast rankings requires something more - something we are not likely to get for many years to come. It's one thing for a local rite or use to have its own calendar, but the idea of two or more calendars allowed to operate for the universal Traditional Roman Rite strikes me as problematic. I don't have an answer for this, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the solution is not to have a universal Traditional Roman Rite? Let the 62ers use '62, the 39ers use '39, the 48ers use '48, the 11ers use '11, and the 58ers use '58? The "idol of uniformity" (as Geoffrey Hull put it) has been irreparably shattered; maybe it should remain so.
DeleteA very similar situation exists in the Malabar church, where several different Missals have been promulgated as a result of three forces fighting over the direction of the Liturgy: those who wanted to restore the Ancient Assyrian parts of the Liturgy, those who wanted to imitate Rome and have a "Novus Ordo-ized" Mass, and the "Hinduizers". There seems to be an agreement that any parish can use the Missal of its choosing (1962, 1968, 1986, 1989).
Don't forget pre-1911.
DeleteDon't forget the 1st century calendar...
Delete@Marko
DeleteI don't think we're yet at the point of "Western Rite Orthodoxy" where we concoct made up "Gallican" liturgies ;)
"Maybe the solution is not to have a universal Traditional Roman Rite?"
DeleteI'm all for a certain amount of diversity - but as traditionally understood. This is low local uses emerged in the first place. But what we're talking about is the old universal Roman Rite. Local uses might develop modifications to the calendar, but typically in the form of special feasts - not an entirely different system of feast rankings (at least, not to the best of my knowledge).
I think I'd rather restore the old ranking system, but with provision for greater flexibility in how and whether certain feasts are celebrated locally within that ranking system.
"Don't forget the 1st century calendar..."
DeleteThere is a certain modernism in neglecting one's Temple duties on Saturday, but the fall of Jerusalem enabled the Bugninis of the 70s!
It would be good to go back to post-Tridentine rankings. Isn't it true that Trent only confirmed the four rankings of feasts, but afterward they found it to be insufficient, so they added more ranks?
Delete@TheRadTrad
DeleteEnough! Facetiousness is like alcohol. An overdose can lead to death! ;)
I agree with Athelstane. Establish a basic universal template and let local uses develop from the ashes. The Pauline, Old Rite, and Anglican Ordinariate Rites have assured that the future of the Western Rite will be far from homogenous. Given the Reform of the Reform crowd, that is undeniably a good thing.
Happily, at Sancta Maria Norwalkiensis, we had the Feast of Saint John with a commemoration of the Sunday, and even blessed wine at the end of Mass, which was served at the Coffee hour afterwards. There was even sherry, which must have been brought by one of the perfidii Episcopaliani we pray on Good Friday.
ReplyDeleteSeriously??? I love this Norwalk place more and more...
DeleteOne little point - the Sunday should not have been commemorated since its Office and Mass are moved entirely to December 30 this year in the pre-1960 calendars; only the Octave of Christmas would have been commemorated (and that of S. Stephen too before 1911). But wonderful news even with the minor glitch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Feast of Saint John the Evangelist was observed fully, in the Divine Office as well as at Holy Mass, at the Oratory of the Immaculata, where none of the lamentable revisions mentioned are implemented. It is to be noted, however, that the traditional calendar and usages of the Order of Saint Benedict have been adopted at the Oratory (being that of a monastic foundation), which are occasionally at variance with those of the "universal" Roman rite.
ReplyDeleteI was aware the Sunday wasn't formerly commemorated, but since it wasn't going to be moved in our parish, and since the rest of Tradistan would be celebrating it, and since some members of the parish would be expecting that Sunday, we thought it only practical to commemorate it, but under one conclusion with the collect of the octave. I think the future will require certain concessions like this, even I not technically required
ReplyDeleteThat parish seems to have come a long way for the better since I was last there in 2011, although I cannot say I care for whatever happened over the reredos. They do Tenebrae during Holy Week, have had pontifical functions, regular Solemn Mass on Sundays, Vespers, and now the old rite. Not bad.
DeleteIt certainly has. As far as the reredos, it looks more impressive in person than online, but it is neo-classical, as is Stroik's purview. Ah well, de gustibus and all that. Perhaps, if his schedule permits, the rad trad might consider spending Holy Week with us up here; it promises to be more than extraordinary.
DeleteSome of the pictures from the Midnight Mass at St. Mary's in Norwalk seems to have tunicled servers ... Since we are not in Spain (or a Hispanic country), it seems unusual to see that ... unless there are a lot of Hispanic servers there?
DeleteOr was that an English practice imported from somewhere? Anybody knows anything about it?
Both Frs. Montgommery-Wright and Russell used tunicled acolytes on greater days along with coped cantors. This praxis really does give a sense of lift to the celebration - as one of Fr. Russell's servers put it "Fr. Russell's Missa cantata looked much better than most High Masses."
DeleteQuite so, for a parish that celebrates solemn Mass with deacon and sub-deacon every Sunday and holy day, it can be difficult to express the solemnity of high feasts. Moreover, St. Mary's is blessed with a plethora of men who are either seminarians or instituted acolytes, so many of those in tunicles actually belong in them
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is a good example of a great contrast that has existed since the changes in the 60's. With the "traditional movement," the laity has risen to the defence of the Liturgy, while the majority of the clergy has remained silent or passive about it. Some priests, out of fear of punishment and banishment, have simply not fought publicly for the Liturgy, even if in secret they prefer the pre-1955 form.
ReplyDeleteNow that the laity has developed a great intellectual and pious interest in the Liturgy, it clashes with the level of interest and courage a parish priest might have ... or with how far he may want to go. Given that we are still Catholics and we only have Priests celebrate Mass (no women, unordained laymen, etc.), the laity can only suggest and push for some ideas, but if the parish priest is not on board or is too afraid to go too far or too quickly, then the unofficial restoration of the Roman Liturgy will still continue to move slowly -- as we all know and see around us.
But, as Athelstane points out, there's a danger in how far some people can go in getting rid of limitations. If you see a Mass or Office done according to the 1570 Calendar, and in another according to a Gallican Missal, and another parish not too far from those according to the 1962 calendar and ranking of Feats, etc., it does not seem that that would help the Roman Rite much. It would simply assuage the liturgical concerns of certain parishioners in a specific parish.
A more universal solution is best ... but we all know that we don't have people in authority willing or able to do that. So, we (laity) are simply left with the option of praying for a priest who will be knowledgeable and brave enough to allow for certain practices that would not shock people because they were always part of the Roman Rite before the 1940's & 1950's ...
But then, what do people do when that priest is moved or dies?
1. Some Pian Reforms seem easily addressed with some ad libitum permission, even in just the form of a simple decree from CDW and PCED - Holy Week, the second confiteor, and perhaps even optional restoration of suppressed octaves are easy, low hanging fruit for such an approach (indeed, both of the former are done anyway in some places). Attacking from another direction (if indeed legitimate diversity is desirable), a decree confirming the liberty of Latin Rite priests to celebrate any of the ancient Latin Rites and Uses permitted by Trent, at least as occasional celebrations, would be welcome as well. Anything more than that....may require something else.
Delete2. I think we must be careful to not lose sight of the fact that a sizable number of clergy *did* resist and question the 60's liturgical reforms on some level - and paid the price. While there's no question that a fair number embraced whatever dictums came down from the chancery readily enough, more than you might think resisted. A historian of my acquaintance discovered recently that Cdl. Sheehan of Baltimore felt compelled to "retire" up to 40 pastors and clergy in his archdiocese for such resistance in 1969-70, a move he could afford because clergy were still in abundance in Baltimore (unlike today!), and the young priests were overwhelmingly eager to embrace the changes.
But clergy suffer from the necessity of obedience to their ordinary even when he acts imprudently. Laity do not. Once the high ground of the hierarchy was seized by progressives, organized resistance by priests was considerably more difficult than it was for laity.
3. "But then, what do people do when that priest is moved or dies?" Judging by the experience of Our Saviour in Manhattan, they suck it up or they simply leave to find a more amenable parish. It helps when said pastor's new parish is located only six blocks away.
1. Right. Many people do these things already, but not in a uniform way. Some priests feel more inclined to commemorate St. So-and-so or Octave-so-and-so because he is devote to that Saint/Octave, but not others, etc. There should not be any difficulties with special permissions coming from Rome for some other Uses or Rites, given that the Neocatechumenal Way and some other groups have their own way of celebrating Mass. Also, most priests from religious Orders now celebrate according to the rubrics and options of the New Order (instead of their own ancient forms).
ReplyDelete2. I understand that some priests were brave enough, but once the hierarchy intervened to stop them, it was difficult for the clergy to continue such opposition without grave reprisals. Even now, there are so many priests in the New Order who would like to do the New Order ad orientem on a regular basis, but are very afraid of what that would look like to his brother priests and to his Bishop and his chancery ... let alone doing anything pre-1962 if they celebrate the traditional Mass!
3. Our Saviour had the traditional Mass on Sundays, but I believe that it was almost strictly 1962 - I do not think that the Pastor there had any interest in doing anything pre-1962. I never understood why that parish never added the traditional Mass during the week ... even the New Order there was not said ad orientem with some regularities, but for special occasions (I believe). Now that that Pastor is in another church, the traditional Mass did not survive the transfer, and the New Order ad orientem is still only done on occasions. So, the people who attended the traditional Mass at Our Saviour before (and prefer to attend only that), could not move to the new parish, even if it was 6 blocks away ... unfortunately! So, that still leaves the problem for traditionalists about what to do when the "perfect liturgical" pastor is gone ...
"So, that still leaves the problem for traditionalists about what to do when the "perfect liturgical" pastor is gone ..."
DeleteIt could be that they'd be out of luck for the time being.
My sense is that most Manhattan trads just ended up at Holy Innocents. Which seems like a fairly straightforward 1962 parish. And one could do far worse. But we may have to accept that getting anything pre-'62 beyond a second confiteor is going to be a steep uphill sled in the vast majority of places, even in canonical traditional parishes and oratories.
The laity can only do so much. And they've accomplished a surprising amount over the past 40 years, when you think about it. But the real breakthrough happens when we recapture enough of the presbyterate, including a large number of bishops. Until then, it's going to be a hard slog, I'm afraid. If you find a Mater Ecclesiae or Norwalk, hold onto them tight.
Has Holy Innocents given up its pre-62 restorations? E.g. a few years back, a picture there showed violet folded chasubles at Candlemas.
Delete