How is the 1962 liturgy different than what preceded it? For
one, Pius XII “renewed” Holy Week by tossing it asunder and concocting
something else. There are also fewer commemorations than the one to six one
could feasibly observe on most days in the old rite. Is that it? A few less
prayers and one week of the year a bit wonky? What if I were to tell you every day of the year is different in
1962 from what came before it. While some days, like the Sunday of Our Lord’s
Resurrection, only vary minutely, large swatches of the year are quite
different from the traditional Roman liturgy.
Enter exhibit A, the days preceding Palm Sunday during
Passiontide. The most obvious difference is that the 1962 liturgy admits no
such thing as Palm Sunday other than as an alternative name, curiously calling
the day the “Second Sunday in Passion Time.” What about the days before the
Second Sunday in Passion Time? Wednesday calls for Saint Benedict’s three
nocturne Office and a Mass with a commemoration and proper Last Gospel of the
feria. Friday anticipates the suffering of Christ in one week by contemplating
the suffering of His Immaculate Mother now, again commemorating the feria. And
Saturday is the feast of Saint Gabriel the Archangel. Both of these feasts
would treat the season just like Saint Benedict’s feast, a full liturgy with
proper and thorough commemoration of the season, so as not to omit it.
Why, surely the 1962 liturgy, which—unlike the big, bad “Novus
Ordo”—has feasts of saints plentifully and commemorations, does this right? No.
In fact it disregards most of it out of hand. You see, Carissime, the old rite does not permit saints to replace Sundays
of penitential seasons, but it will permit them to replace weekdays under
certain conditions. Perhaps saints ought not make such a splash during a time
of fasting and prayers. Or perhaps Saint Benedict is not a minor saint, but the
father of Western monasticism and the man whose legacy saved Europe for Christ’s
sake. Perhaps the feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin is not a lollipop
Marian devotion, but a preparation for the Passion of Christ and the antecedent
to the surviving September feast, which is centuries newer. And perhaps Saint
Gabriel is celebrated on the 24th of March because the following day
is ordinarily the Annunciation, when God firmly entered into the fullness of
time for our salvation by the fiat of
the Virgin and the words of the same archangel.
These differences, sometimes subtle and sometimes broad, are
exactly why every traditionalist, cleric or lay liturgy-ophile, should be armed
with the 2018 edition of the St. Lawrence Press Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Sacrique Peragendi. This Ordo, unlike those of Ecclesia Dei, the British Latin Mass
Society, the FSSPX, or FSSP, follows the liturgy as it existed before the gears
of change that brought about the liturgical revolution began to churn. It is
the last Office, Missal, Gradual, and Ritual that Montini, Pacelli, Braga, and
Bugnini did not touch, and is consequently the last calendar that a saint from
1900 and 900 would recognize, especially during major liturgical seasons. Ought
it be used to its full extent?—i.e. the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the “extraordinary
form”? It is really not much of a moral dilemma. One should follow the
tradition of the Church and her mens
of worship, which, come to think of it, precluded committee fabrications until
quite recently. There really is not much dilemma as to what one should do on
May 1st, when one can either follow the 7th/8th
century feast of Ss. Philip & James or celebrate the [rather dated]
political outreach to communists called Joe the Worker, which includes texts
about construction workers joyously listening to Pius XII talk in St. Peter’s
square.
Not only is the St. Lawrence Press Ordo valuable to a full-on traditionalist parish, but also to those
who are searching for enough bottle to take the final plunge; it is good for
those getting a feel for tradition and looking to filter good practices, like
commemorations or Monday Requiem Masses during Lent, into the current extraordinary
form of the Pauline Mass, the 1962 Missal. One could, for instance, celebrate a
votive Mass of the Holy Name of Mary on the Sunday after her September Nativity
or that of St. Joachim on the Sunday after her Assumption. One can introduce
the proper Last Gospel, as we recently had at the third Mass of Christmas day.
Lastly, the St. Lawrence Press Ordo is worth buying because of the increasing popularity of the
old rites of Holy Week and the traditional rubrics (both ritual and textual)
for Sunday Masses. Not only does the Ordo
help with such work, but it made these modern efforts possible in the first
place by preserving and promoting liturgical orthopraxis after Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre acquiesced to the Vatican’s 1983 request that he switch to 1962
precisely because it was published during Vatican II. Without preserving
knowledge of the rubrics and keeping the old rite as a real, living tradition
it is doubtful we would be seeing the resurgence of the genuine old rite that
we do today. If anyone has doubts, look at the Holy Week pictures on New
Liturgical Movement. I never thought I’d see a Presanctified Mass at Holy
Innocents in New York, but I have.
"after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acquiesced to the Vatican’s 1983 request that he switch to 1962 precisely because it was published during Vatican II."
ReplyDeleteWow! Where did you get this information? Instead, the usually told story goes that "1962" is the Lefebvres own choice resulting from his conflict with sedevacantists within FSSPX.
@Pulex,
DeleteThe two reasons are not mutually exclusive. Lefebvre was trying to get a canonical successor to his work and having a Vatican II era Missal would be both acceptable to the Vatican and unacceptable to the sedevacantists.
If he wishes to make himself known, I know one commentator on this blog has written verification from Michael Davies that the FSSPX took on the '62 rite at Rome's behest.
The claim that Lefebvre switched to 1962 at the Vatican's behest seems dubious--at best. Prior to the switch to 1962 Lefebvre was using 1965, as he did for 9 years. I'm quite sure that the Vatican would have preferred that he continue with 1965.
DeleteThat's what I understand, that +Lefebvre used a post V2 'transitional' Missal, but for a time tolerated those priests who wished the Society to keep from 1950s liturgical archaeologism, or who rejected Conciliar Popes. A request from Rome makes some sense, but it seems more as a way to triangulate reconciliation with Conciliar Rome, rejecting Sedevacantism yet keeping sufficiently traditional. A 'transitional missal' which would be 'Ex Decreto Sacrosanti Concilii' might have made Rome happy, would be clear rejection of Sede-ism, but the 'transitional missal' was too radical a break. Providing someone is not a priest or Regular saying the Office, a 1940s St Andrew's Missal is fine for almost all the year. I still think 1962 was a choice made earlier than 1983, a happy medium that Rome decided to support and endorse in some way.
DeleteI hope I can add two small addenda to my post. Firstly, to clarify the last two sentences, that I only have the option of hearing either a diocesan or SSPX Mass according the 1962 Missal, but a St Andrew's Missal with a 1940/44 Imprimatur (former at the start, latter at the end) is applicable for nearly all the year, except for Holy Week and some calendar changes. Given the mounting liturgical mess after V2, culminating in the "big, bad 'Novus Ordo," a Catholic might be very wary of '62, but for the layman, the changes are not too drastic, Holy Week obviously excepted (a very notable exception though). And the second is I too bought the 2018 St Lawrence Ordo, having already bought the 2017 Ordo. The abbreviations and signs in the entries for each day can seem unintelligible at first glance, but on page 16, there's a brief explanation for each. It is also a good thing to get something traditionally Catholic without having to pay US postal or shipping rates.
ReplyDeleteLet me preface that I deeply prefer the old old rite in essentially every respect, and this blog was instrumental in leading me to that belief. The topic of Lenten ferial days is the one area where I struggle to see the wisdom.
ReplyDeleteI understand giving precedence to duplex maius and even some duplex saints over the Lenten ferial days--St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel all deserve it. I don't get passing over the Lenten ferial days--which are extremely ancient, and each of which has its own own unique set of propers rather than being a Sunday repeat--in favor of many of the duplex and semiduplex saints of February and March. I immediately think of St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows or St. Francesca Romana--people far holier than I'll ever be, but people of limited historical import, and both relatively recent. I don't want to be an archaeologizer, and I don't want to poo-poo the popular piety that led to those saints being included in the general calendar, but the antiquity and individual uniqueness of those Lenten ferias, with their roots in the Roman stational liturgies, has to count for something, doesn't it? I understand sacrificing those Masses for great saints and feast days, but I don't see the wisdom in pitching those ancient and unique formularies for someone whose propers are drawn almost entirely from the Common.