Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pius XII: True Reform?

source: sgg.org
Our post on Byran Houghton generated some passing discussion on the liturgical reforms of Pius XII and the curious tendency of some traditionalists not only to accept their legality, but to embrace the Pacellian wisdom, glorifying the Black Nobleman's work as "true reform." Bryan Houghton, Michael Davies, Brunero Gherardini and countless others accepted part or all of Pius XII's liturgical novelties—particularly Holy Week. While most of the emerging traditionalist movement used pre-Pius XII (not necessarily "pre-1955"), a strange Gallican tendency preferred early Paul VI and eventually settled on 1962. The Fraternity of St. Pius X's preference for 1962 compelled its descendants in the FSSP, ICRSS, IBP, monastic communities and "indult" Masses to follow suit. The general consensus is that something was wrong with the liturgy before Pius XII and something had to be changed, but not everything; Pius XII changed just enough, Paul VI changed too much. Why?

Sadly, the reasoning is likely laced in the politics of the time. Pius XII, the first pope of the media age, filled every seminarian and priest's newspaper and television, always wearing the tiara and uttering the pontifical blessing from his lips. Papa Pacelli embodied the outward immutability of the baroque Church, if, of course, one ignores what he actually did. Pope John's Council and Pope Paul's New Mass, as Michael Davies entitled both of those phenomena, broke the baroque statue of the Church and left those reared in the eccentric obedience of the time grasping for a means of understanding what had just happened. They latched on to Pius XII as a contrast to the changes of Paul VI, true change versus false change, true renewal versus false renewal.

On closer inspection, these aspirations are quite facile. Giovanni Battista Montini, not Siri of Genoa, was Pius XII's protege and handpicked successor (one does not get rid of a priest with an under-secretary job by making him archbishop of the prior pope's see and instantly papabile). The same people who accomplished Paul VI's reforms also accomplished Pius XII's and were in fact hired by Pius XII (he personally found Bugnini). At a time when the pope was too sick to hold a consistory or meet with bishops, he was well enough to get regular reports on the progress of liturgical changes. All this will be familiar to regular readers, but to newer ones this may be a surprise.

There stands another possibility, however, that early proponents of the post-War Liturgical Movement, disappointed with the Pauline liturgy, projected their hopes onto the liturgy of Papa Pacelli. Louis Bouyer, whose arrant disillusionment with the reform would startled modern day conservatives, recounts that in the 1940s, before it was legal he celebrated the Holy Saturday Vesperal Mass after nightfall. The Paschal vigil Mass obsessed liturgists, who, far from acknowledging that its daytime celebration was a pastoral accommodation, saw the morning or noontime vigil as a great corruption, a departure from the ancient practice. They welcomed Pius XII's experimental vigil in 1951, and the next one in 1952, and the third one in 1955 (four Masses for one day in four years!). In reality, the "vigil," as it existed as a distinct ceremony from the all-night Paschal celebration of the first millennium, never took place at night; its creation separated it from the Resurrectional liturgy and put them both in the daytime. However, those who wanted to return to the ancient praxis as best they knew it may have seen in Pius XII's Holy Saturday a nod toward the primitive practice devoid of Paul VI's textual deviations.

Rather than asking "What is true reform?" Catholics would better use their time by asking "What is true tradition?"

17 comments:

  1. Papa Pacelli was Teflon coated - nothing ever sticks on him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Papa Pacelli was Teflon coated - nothing ever sticks on him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From minute 9 on:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQ4JicUs1A

      Delete
    2. That... was as creepy as anything in 'The Exorcist'

      Delete
    3. Also, it appears the Institute of Christ the King makes an appearance at the 4 minute mark.

      All hail the lace!

      Delete
    4. Those suplices look not so much like lace as giant overstuffed origami.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. It is a scene from Fellini's film Roma 1972. Of course it is a mocking scene, but the final reaction of all Roman noblemen, churchladies and clerks when seeing someone looking like Pacelli is probably the best description ever made of some Trad and non-Trad attachment to him.

      Delete
  3. They latched on to Pius XII as a contrast to the changes of Paul VI, true change versus false change, true renewal versus false renewal.

    And these "1958 Men," as I have heard them called, were the tone setters for so many of the early traditionalist communities, indult or otherwise. Not the case with the ICRSS, of course, though even they have had to make their peace (albeit an uneasy one) with the Pacelli Holy Week, with its most ancient 60 year old provenance.

    But I sense that generational turnover is starting to crack the facade of this consensus, though I emphasize "starting to." We have discussed this before, but it bears repeating: If you prefer the pre-Pacelli Holy Week, why not just celebrate it? Priests in Ecclesia Dei societies might be awkwardly placed, since their superiors usually *do* care which version they are celebrating (though one hears of a few holdouts), but as for any other priests, no one else is going to care - certainly not local bishops. Who will report you? Just do it.

    As for Pius XII, a true and just appraisal of the man and his pontificate, including its numerous liturgical innovations, may not be possible until we are at the point where we can have such an appraisal of what happened in the decade after he passed. The two are too intertwined in one way or another for too many observers across the theological spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have the feeling that any other priest would be conscious to the reaction of the influential church ladies' coalition.

      Delete
    2. Athelstane, as a 25-year veteran of "Tradistan" (SSPX for the first nine) my thesis to my fellow Trads is this: if you, rightly, criticize the Novus Ordo for its defects, then you must logically apply that same criticism to the Pacelli Holy Week (and the rest of the 1955 landmines). Or to put another way, if you concede the changes of the 1950's because they were authorized by the pope, then you just conceded the whole argument about the NO to the neo-conservatives.

      "but as for any other priests, no one else is going to care - certainly not local bishops. Who will report you? Just do it."

      As we've already been doing piecemeal in my diocesan TLM parish since last year. 2016 will feature the whole package, Palm Sunday through Holy Saturday. As former Gov. Tom Kean of NJ said, come to NJ for a perfect...Liturgy.

      Delete
    3. Hello Joaquin,

      In some places, no doubt. And that is important, since for the pastors in question, their bishop usually doesn't care until parishioners start to complain. A pastor has to have a good sense of his flock.

      But I know a few diocesan priests who might venture it, to the extent that they can do so without impinging on Novus Ordo Holy Week obligations.

      Hello John R,

      I agree entirely with your first paragraph. And frankly - in my 14 year experience in Tradistan, most would just as soon have the pre-1955 Holy Week if they could get it. At worst, hardly anyone would object. An an intact "tradition," after all, it lasted only nine years!

      Great news on your upcoming Holy Week.

      Delete
    4. Congrats to John R for the great news of the liberation of the Old Holy Week for his parish. Sadly for many of us who are with the FSSP and/or ICKSP, we are going to be with 1962 for a looooong time. Two cheers for the awkward Pacellian Holy Week!

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Latin Mass community in my city has done the Pre-Pacellian Holy Week since 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The FSSP parish I was at used the Pre-1955 Holy Week (except that the time of the Vigil was changed due to scheduling conflicts). The 1962 Missal was not used.

    Also the ICKSP parish I used to assist at used the 1954 Missal, but I never attended Holy Week there, so I don't know what they did.

    ReplyDelete