Those who are familiar with the traditional liturgy will know, to a greater or lesser degree, that there were many changes introduced to the Liturgy before 1962 and particularly during the course of the twentieth century. Particularly during the 1950s and in 1961, major excisions were made in the breviary, Holy Week was radically revised and the calendar saw many changes.
The flagship of the Saint Lawrence Press is the Ordo Recitandi, following the calendar and the Roman Missal of the late 1930s. There is now also a St Lawrence Press blog which is a goldmine for details of pre-conciliar revisions to the calendar.
17 comments:
I read somewhere (should have bookmarked it) that the 12 readings of the Easter Vigil had a pattern to them (perhaps focusing on 'priest', then 'prophet', then 'king'?).
I'm confused as to why the readings were reduced to 4 only to be increased to 7.
I am certainly in favor of the moving of the Easter Vigil celebration to the EVENING rather than the MORNING.
Dear Fr Tim
A bit off topic, but...
I have nominated you for a Superior Scribbler award: details at http://ccfather.blogspot.com/
Best wishes
BT
If the ancient Octaves had not been abolished in 1955, then the ancient Feast of the Ephiphany would still be observed in the Latin rite as a Double of the first class with privileged Octave.
Today, 13 January, would still be celebrated as the Octave day of the Epiphany (just as 1 January is the Octave day of the Nativity).
I do regret the suppression of the ancient Octaves, and I cannot really understand why this was done.
Of course, the novus ordo calendar seems very confused. Last Sunday, 11 January, the Sunday within the Octave, was celebrated not as The Feast of The Holy Family (as prescribed in the 1962 calendar), but as The Baptism of The Lord.
Terrible, chaotic confusion ! The temporal cycle of the novus ordo calendar urgently needs to be revised.
Many thanks to Fr. Tim for this link, and to Rubricarius for keeping the pre 1955 calendar in our consciousness. Ordo Rectitandi keeps things in proper perspective.
Thank you for this link Father - it is very good to see such a positive and practical attempt to promote our tradition. Truly, for anyone coming to the Old Rite in order to re-connect our present experience of Catholicism with its historic reality (as will a majority in the coming years), 1962 is a strange choice indeed. It was, after all, one of a number of drafts (progressively introducing more radical changes) by Bugnini and his collaborators, which led to the situation we know so well. As an intentional 'work-in-progess', it is unsurprising that it is riddled with inconsistencies.
Having said that, 1930's liturgy is perhaps not the ideal place to look for a better alternative - while the Missal was nearly intact, several of the most ancient features of the Calendar and Breviary were lost in the modernising reforms of St Pius X. The dates suggested by Lawrence Hemming in his recent book seem much preferable, although I would have to add the caveat that here in northern Europe we should arguably be more interested in Sarum and our other local rites rather than in the Tridentine books, which while authoritative and doctrinally reliable were more suited to the convenience of the papal curia than to the circumstances of cathedral and parish worship.
For those new to the topic, I suggest reading "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Alcuin Reid.
One issue with the ancient Octaves, especially during Christmas, was that they tended to overlap each other. They also tended to obscure saint days, important temporal ferias, etc.
The 1969 calendar revision on this went too far (now we only have Easter and Christmas Octaves), but do you really want to bring back the 10-15 that existed prior to Pius XII? A proper balance might be Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost. The beginning and the end of the two major liturgical seasons of celebration.
I've said it before but we all know 1962 was famous for being the year that Jackie was born!
Is it disrespectful to the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" to use versions of the Missal older than that of 1962?
Christopher,
I do agree with your comments about the desirability of using the 'modern' arrangement of the Psalter.
However, whilst there is no doubt that the Old Roman Psalterium should be restored to use it at the current time is fraught with practicial problems. As the pre-Pius X breviary had a very lengthy Mattins (18 psalms) on Sundays there was an artificial creation of double ranking feasts with the much shorter Office as these used to displace 'green' Sundays. Battifol demonstrates the massive increase in doubles in his classic work.
What was really needed was the restriction of doubles to important feasts. Reducing the semi-doubles to simples in 1955 was rather a mistake IMHO as many were older than the doubles. Such a re-classiifacation of feasts and the Calendar is more complex than just going back to a given editio typicam. A pre-1911 Ordo would be very complex as it would be filled with doubles taking precedence of Sundays and others being transferred all over the place.
There is no doubt that the old Roman rite had the practice of sequentially reading the psalter at Mattins and Vespers with fixed psalms for the other Hours. Hopefully one day...
I guess it's still way too early to hope for a reversal of the reforms made in the 30's, 40's and 50's (or St. Pius X's reform of the Breviary Psalter). But maybe one day that might become a reality. Certainly the reform of the Breviary Psalter set a poor precedent, being a complete break from liturgical tradition.
I agree with LTRBTB concerning Dr. Alcuin Reid's 'The Organic Development of the Liturgy'. I would describe it as essential reading.
Christopher:
It's the opinion you espouse that has me worried. At some point, it descends into antiquarianism, which was a main criticism of the Bugnini "reforms." 1970 isn't good, so let's do 1962. But that had bad changes to Holy Week, etc., so let's go to 1954. But that had the Pius X reforms, so let's go to 1911. But that had the Clementine breviary hymns, so let's go back to Trent. But that suppressed too many of the Gallic rites, so let's go to Sarum for the Brits.
And on. And on. And on. All the way back to the "primal Church" argument of the Bugninists.
The fact is, the Missal of 1962 is the most developed version of the Pius V missal. It was later adapted in 1965 to drop out the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel, but this didn't require a new Missal issuance.
The best way to distinguish here is that the 1970 Missal created new Eucharistic Prayers (which is the key signal of a change in rite, historically). This is the qualitative difference that caused Summorum Pontificum to choose the immediate, prior full-fledged missal (1962).
I can't wait for Reid to come out with his "sequel" to "Organic Development." One thing urgently needed on the liturgical right is a ballast--what is organic, and what is rupturous. Otherwise, we're fumbling around in the dark, arguing about Second Confiteors and the fact that Pius V was a Dominican.
1962 is a strange choice indeed. It was, after all, one of a number of drafts (progressively introducing more radical changes) by Bugnini and his collaborators, which led to the situation we know so well. As an intentional 'work-in-progess', it is unsurprising that it is riddled with inconsistencies.
It was because Archbishop Lefebrve choose 1962 as the cut-off point (in terms of liturgy) for his seminary. It was the only version of the missal that Rome was prepared to accept and also something that would effectively get rid of the sedevacantists that were in the SSPX until their expulsion in 1983.
This doesn't stop the SSPX however from adopting pre-1962 accretions such as the second confiteor before Holy Communion and bows to the tabernacle at the Holy Name.
Regarding the question of the use of pre-1962 Missals and whether this is disrespectful to "Summorum Pontificum" might the following extract be relevant?
"Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII..." (from article 1 of "Summorum Pontificum").
The word “reissued” seems significant. Furthermore in the same sentence this very Missal is described as having enjoyed a "venerable and ancient usage". Could this really then be referring to a usage extending only from about 1962-1965?
PeterHWright said:
Of course, the novus ordo calendar seems very confused. Last Sunday, 11 January, the Sunday within the Octave, was celebrated not as The Feast of The Holy Family (as prescribed in the 1962 calendar), but as The Baptism of The Lord.
Terrible, chaotic confusion ! The temporal cycle of the novus ordo calendar urgently needs to be revised.
I'm afraid the sacred liturgy has been "confused" about the Baptism of our Lord for a very, very long time.
You'll note that the Benedictus and II Vespers Magnificat antiphons for Epiphany (older and newer forms of the Roman Rite) reference the three classic epiphanies/theophanies of our Lord: the star revealing Him to the Magi and their adoration of Him, His Baptism by John in the Jordan, and His first public miracle at the Cana wedding.
The Byzantine focus of the Theophany (their name for Jan. 6) is exclusively on the Baptism of the Lord.
In the Roman Rite, there was no celebration of the Baptism of our Lord on its own until 1955, when the Epiphany octave was suppressed and Jan. 13 was made the Commemoration of the Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ (S.R.C., Cum Nostra).
So when do the Byzantines commemorate the coming of the Magi? On Dec. 25, of course. I just had the pleasure of singing with a Russian Orthodox choir for their celebration of the Nativity of our Lord (Julian calendar -- more calendrical confusion), and the keynote of the celebration is sounded in the tropar: "Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, has shone to the world the light of wisdom, for by it those who worshiped the stars, were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Orient from on high. O Lord, glory be to Thee!" (You'll note that the Last Gospel for the Third Mass of Christmas is that of the adoration of the Magi, the only special Last Gospel to survive in the 1962 Missal.)
Oh, and the feast of the Holy Family only came into the Roman Calendar in 1921.
This process of going further and further back in time in search of a liturgy that hasn't been "ruined" by reform, reminds me of a remark made by Iain Macleod of Enoch Powell:
"I am a fellow-traveller, but I prefer to get out of the train a few stops before the end of the line, where the train will crash into the buffers through excess of logic".
It would be a little provocative to say "scratch a trad and you find an antiquarian", but, as LTRBTB points out, there is a risk of finding yourself in bed with the Bugninists.
By the way, Alcuin Reed is not infallible. I thought his criticism of the 1911 breviary reform was ridiculously overstated.
Greg,
There is no proper last Gospel for the Nativity in 1962. (Rubric end of the third Mass: In fine hujus Missae non dicitur ultimum Evangelium). There was in 1956 but in 1962 the only possible one is on Palm Sunday (or the Second Sunday of the Passion).
As Christmas and Theophany were almost certainly once celebrated together, on the 6th January, it is really not surprising that texts have been split between them. The Octave Day of the Epiphany has mattins lessons that refer to the baptism of Christ. When it was re-sprayed in 1955 as 'The Bapism of the Lord' the texts were not changed.
Some Eastern Churches such as the Armenians have never developed separate feasts so have Theophany-Nativity still on January 6th, or if they are using the Julan Calendar on January 19th.
Thanks, Rubricarius. That was the one bit I didn't get around to double-checking. I knew there was one special Last Gospel that made the 1962 cut, and I thought it was Christmas.
For those interested in the 1962 question, Laurence Paul Hemming's "Worship as a Revelation" is a very interesting read.
Post a Comment