Let me first explain the
importance of the 1955 revisions in preparing the way for the extensive
liturgical changes that have followed the Second Vatican Council. The earlier rites were taken from the 1570
Missal of Pius V which was accompanied by a Papal Bull known as Quo Primum. Quo
Primum declared that
"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed
down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches,
and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of
this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and
forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world" Pius V went on to say: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid
henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to
Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever
be changed within it…. No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of
Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult,
declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene
it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the
Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." In other
words, Pius allegedly fixed the Roman Liturgy unchangeable for all time and in
all places. No liturgical changes. Or so it was held.
Despite Pius’ monitum to the contrary, over the
centuries from the Pius V to Pius XII various minor alterations had, in fact,
been made to the Liturgy. New propers
were composed and new feasts were added as saints were canonized. Prayers were appended to the end of the
recited or low Mass. The communion of
the faithful was re-introduced into the body of the Mass rather than more usually
being a separate rite before or after Mass.
But none of these changes were nearly as drastic as the revisions to the
Holy Week rites that Pius XII introduced in 1955 and yet there was no claim
that Pius lacked the authority to change the rites established by his
predecessor. The changes proceeded
smoothly but in many respects they were the Fort Sumter of our current Civil
War of Liturgical renewal. Neo-Trads are
beginning to identify the original villain of Liturgical Reform of Vatican II
as Pius XII and Holy Week as his Trojan Horse.
Mr. DiPippo goes into great
detail about both the pre and post 1955 rites and it would take me, as is did
him, a long series of turgid postings to go over them in detail. Let me just outline a few for you.
1. In the pre-1955 rites only
the priest received Holy Communion on Good Friday. At the Holy Thursday Mass the priest
consecrated two large hosts, one for Holy Thursday and one to be reserved in
the altar of repose for Good Friday.
The Good Friday host was placed in a chalice covered by an inverted
paten and pall and then veiled. The veil
was ties securely around the knob of the chalice and it was carried beneath a
humeral veil in solemn procession to the altar of repose where it remained until the Communion Rite of the
Good Friday “Mass of the Pre-sanctified.”
It was then carried in solemn procession back to the main altar of the
church where it was placed on the corporal.
Wine and water were poured into the chalice and the priest celebrant
communicated. The other ministers and
the laity did not communicate. In the
1955 revision, Pius XII mandated that sufficient hosts be consecrated for the
faithful to also receive on Good Friday
2. In the pre-1955 rites the
Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the Friday “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified,”
and the Saturday Easter Vigil were all celebrated about 9 a.m. The Vigil was a totally separate liturgy from
the First Mass of Easter, which was to be celebrated at, or about midnight of
Saturday into Sunday. This Saturday
morning vigil led to the perception that “Lent is over at noon on Holy
Saturday—pass the chocolate.” Similarly,
Tenebrae (the offices of Matins and Lauds) which should have been said in the
final hours of the night before dawn had shifted to early evening of the day
before.
3. The pre-1955 rites
required at least six sacred ministers in Holy Orders: a priest, four deacons,
and a subdeacon. (It was common for priests to take the liturgical roles of
deacon and subdeacon so you didn’t have to have four actual deacons or an
actual subdeacon, six priests would do.)
The unavailability of sufficient clergy in most churches led to a bit of
cheating where the priest/celebrant, the deacon, and the subdeacon of the Mass
of the Pre-sanctified removed their chasubles and assumed diaconal stoles to
stand in as deacons for the chanting of the Passion.
4. The deacons and
subdeacon(s) for the various ceremonies did not wear dalmatics and tunicles but
the planetae plicatae
or folded chasubles—a
chasuble—usually in the “fiddleback” style pinned up over the chest. (I remember seeing these as late as an
ordination in 1964 and they were pinned both front and back, but Mr. DiPippo
speaks only of them being pinned in front.
I suspect the ordination folded chasubles were of a different symbolism
than the ones in the Holy Week rites as this particular ordination was held a
good nine years after the folded chasubles of Holy Week had been abolished.) At certain times the deacon also wore the
chasuble folded over the left shoulder and caught at the right side below the
hip so as to give the impression of the “broad stole.” This was worn over the deacon’s proper
stole. The 1955 revisions did away with
all this and replaced the planetae
plicatae with tunicles and dalmatics.
5. The Blessing of Palms on
Palm Sunday was an especially curious custom as while it preceded the Mass of
the Palm Sunday it was a rite of its own that in many ways paralleled the
Mass. The congregation met ideally in a
church or chapel distinct from the sanctuary where the Mass was to be
offered. The rite is a bizarre parallel
to the Mass. The palms awaiting the
blessing were placed flat on the altar.
As the sacred ministers entered there was a sung introit followed by
collect, epistle, gradual and gospel.
This was followed by a prayer that corresponds to the “Prayer over the
Gifts at Mass,” and that, in turn was followed by a preface, Sanctus, and a
pseudo-canon consisting of five prayers over the palms. The palms were the distributed and a prayer,
corresponding to the post-communion prayer is said before the procession leaves
for the main church where the Mass was to be said. Violet vestments were used throughout both
the Blessing of Palms and the Mass. (In
the 1955 Rite, Red vestments are used for the Rite of Palms, Violet for the
Mass. Similarly the Good Friday Service
is done entirely in Black Vestments but in the 1955 revision, violet is
substituted for black during the communion rite. This required
more changes of vestments in the
1955 Rite than in the previous rites, especially for Palm Sunday, Good Friday,
and the Vigil of Easter.)
I could go into far more
detail about the pre-1955 rites but the point that strikes me most about both
the 1570 Rite and the 1955 Rite is how little it incorporates the
faithful. Other than for the Procession
of Palms, there is no point in a congregation gathering—they are entirely
irrelevant to the Sacred Action. It is,
at best, an elegant ballet carried out by the corps des prêtres; often it was more of a “Chinese Fire Drill” of confused clergy, obtuse
chierichetti, and unmarried men of a
certain age and a seminary background who just like to hang around inside the
altar rail fussing over burses, discarded copes, and the occasional humeral
veil. I have seen a lot of this crap
(carefully chosen word) lately on some neo-trad blogs about how one can have
“full, active, and conscious participation” in the Liturgy simply by being
present attentively. I understand
that. That is how I fully, actively, and
consciously participate in La Boehme
as I don’t think I can any longer hit the higher notes and besides I would lose
my season tickets if I even tried. But La Boehme is not the Mystery by which I
am saved. Popes going back to Pius X
have encouraged direct participation in the liturgy by the assembly. There have always been those liturgical
mandarins who have wanted to restrict the liturgy to their own private preserve. Some are priests. (You know the pathology: “It’s my
Mass!!! We will do it my way!!!) Others are choir
directors. And now we have “liturgists.” It can be Father’s “friend” who has his or
her hand in every pie. It can be any
combination of people but in the end we must remember that the Liturgy is the
work of the entire Church and it belongs equally to every member of the
Church.
So I was delighted to
participate in the simple and reverent rituals of my parish church with
beautiful music, devoid of pomp, prayerful and solemn but not stilted with our
women getting their feet washed alongside the guys, our altar girls and boys,
lectors and catechumens. The only drama
it encouraged was to walk the way of the Cross interiorly, in one own’s heart,
as we accompanied Christ from the Upper Room of Thursday to the Empty Tomb of
Easter Morn.
Thanks for responding to my request. This post has been interesting. it gives a good framework for considering the current rites.
ReplyDeleteThe way you describe It, the old Palm Sunday rites really would come off as a museum piece. Colonial Williamsburg is an apt analogy
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with Colonial Williamsburg ? Yeah, I had more fun at Busch Gardens when we visited in the 1970's (even if I got stuck babysitting my baby sister). It reminds us where we came from.
ReplyDeleteI never saw the ceremony described above -- but I can still say I miss it. Why ? Because when I see the lack of faith today among Catholics, I see the changes in the liturgy as being among the reasons for the fall-off. Not the only reason, but a big part of it.
And again, FWIW, I have never attended a TLM or the one you describe above.
There is nothing wrong with Colonial Williamsburg. I like Colonial Williamsburg. I go there sometimes two or three times a year. I eat at Josiah Chowning's Tavern--I like the Beef Trencher. But Colonial Williamsburg isn't real. It is a bit of participatory theater that gives us the feeling of Colonial Virginia on the even of the American Revolution. Fantasy and imagination are great things--especially in appropriating our history. But The Mass is not a historical tableau. We come in the fullness of our being a priestly people and stand in the Presence of God as Christ the High Priest presents the Eternal Sacrifice to the Father. The priests of the god Baal danced and carried on around his altar--we don't need some theatrical production but an honest, clear worship in Spirit and Truth.
ReplyDeleteas for the changes in the liturgy being the reason that there has been a "fall-off" that could be considered as a reason if
1. the same and even worse fall-off of Church participation are among the Protestant Churches (where there was no Vatican II)
2. and significant numbers of people, their faith challenged by the liturgical changes, turned to the old rites. But less than 1% of American Catholics attend the TLM
(1) Yes, but these are the liberal Protestants who basically secularized themselves to oblivion. All the great inventions that the liberal Catholics want -- birth control, abortion, SSM, homosexuality, divorce, non-judgementalism -- they got it all in spades. Their churches collapsed.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be 3 million Episcopalians in New York State alone. Today, they barely have that in the entire country.
Dean Kelly of the NCC wrote about this in the 1970's, "Why Conservative Church's Are Growing." I never forgot that name or the book though I never saw him or read the book. But it stuck with me for 30+ years.
(2) Yeah, but I think it would go up if more people knew about it, had access to it (my hand is up), etc. And that 1% is growing and whatever it tops out it is a hard-core that will defend the faith. I will take 5% TLM devotees over 25% nominal Catholics who don't attend Mass, support the Church sporadically, and basically don't care.
I remember my mother taking me to a guitar mass. I thought it was idiotic but a nice change-of-pace for me to get the stupid 50 minutes over with (hey, I never said I was serious 40 years ago about my faith. I went because Dad told me to. Or else.). But then you see stuff like Roger Mahony -- a Cardinal, for crissakes -- with girls like ballerinas dancing on stage. It looks like a Broadway play, for God's sake.
- Anony in NY
I think you are responding to a different posting but there are a few observations.
Delete1. you should read Dean Kelly's book--you can't judge a book by its cover (much less by its title) and his thesis is far more nuanced than your reply
2. I will concede that the Episcopal Church is in serious decline but there were never 3 million Episcopalians in New York State--nationwide they peaked at 5 million and that was back in the 50's. Many have gone to equally liberal denominations (George W Bush, for example, to the United Methodist Church), most others simply into non-practice. The growth of the Protestant mega-churches, self-styled evangelicals--is fed by converts from Catholicism more than by converts from liberal Protestantism and is due to a. more tolerant approach to divorce and remarriage, b. a greater emphasis on religious feelings rather than dogma, c.the upbeat tone of preaching and worship in these churches, d. a friendlier and more welcoming atmosphere among the congregation, e. clerical sex abuse crisis, f. unfriendly or autocratic priests, the Catholic Church's shift to focusing on the needs of the poor.
There are certainly no more than 1% of practicing American Catholics who choose the TLM, As for its growing, Monsignor Charles Pope, a leading advocate of the TLM recently wrote an article expressing his concern that it is in fact shrinking, a passing fancy as it were. A good example of where Catholics are in regard to the liturgy is that in the parish I attend on Sundays 93% of the communicants receive Holy Communion in the hand. Those are certainly not people who would be running of to a TLM were one available. There is little likelihood of the TLM making a serious comeback. It is more likely to develop into a separate Rite like the Byzantines or even the Anglican Usage that will have its own small congregations pretty much independent of the larger Church