Author Topic: The Holy week reform of 1955 (Read 6315 times)

OHCA · « **Reply #25 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:34:24 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Matthew
A) Many members here would PREFER the old Holy Week, but (borderline hypocritically? compromisingly?) go to a chapel with the revised Holy Week anyhow

Well, I truly believe the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, so I will refrain from staying home alone on Sundays. I do not think I am an hypocrite, I just have no other choice. However, that does not mean I like the 1955 Holy Week reform either. It just does not make any sense for Traditional Catholics to resist the Novus Ordo Missale while accepting the radical liturgical changes starting in 1955 during the reign of Pius XII and the 1962 Missale, considering that all these changes were master-minded by freemasons (Bugnini). After all, we are resisting infiltrated Jew-Masonry within the Church, so why not go all the way?. This is just a simple personal opinion, of course.

I have agreed with you more in this thread than I have in quite some time--your points are crisp and dead on.

Matthew · « **Reply #26 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:09:01 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Wow! You should slowly read through what you just wrote. Don't get me wrong--I don't claim to be a bit better than you and fall far short of you in practically every category I humbly admit. But think about the priorities that you are expressing here. You can't make time with the modern conveniences that folks 100 - 500 years ago were able to make with horse and buggy, manual implements and "appliances" and probably even more children??

1. I don't really have a choice. I'm making a virtue out of necessity, really. As I've said, virtually every group including the SSPX does the "revised" Holy Week. So I'm being a bit of an optimist here and giving in to a little Stockholm Syndrome.

2. I'm not talking about just myself -- apparently a lot of Trads don't have time for Holy Week at all, based on the turnout I've seen. So it would seem that it's already a stretch for a modern family to make it.

3. The primary difference between the "olden days" and today is the Crisis in the Church. We have far fewer priests (who have to do MORE traveling), far fewer sacristans, servers, seminarians in minor orders, etc. And today in the Resistance some places start from a blank rented conference room, so *everything* has to be set up from scratch for every liturgical function.

Also, the economy is that much more out of whack, so whereas a man used to be able to support his family with (1) full time job which gave regular vacation time and days off, now he has to juggle multiple part time jobs, and maybe his wife has to work as well. The degrading of the Dollar has caused everything to be more expensive and the cost of living to rise in general.

I spent 3 1/2 years in a Trad seminary, and our Liturgy there was deluxe! Easter Vigil and the subsequent High Mass took a while, since every responsary and gradual was full chant -- no Psalm toning for us. And immediately after Mass we had solemn Lauds with servers in gold copes and everything! Obviously the Seminarians were full-time clerics and they could handle it. But that doesn't usually work in most parishes, for practical and pastoral reasons. Kids don't usually have the patience for it, etc.
There has to be some reason why I've never seen such a deluxe Holy Week since.

Most Trad parishes don't even have Vespers, Compline, or Tenebrae, which was always chanted in common at the Seminary.

Raphaela · « **Reply #27 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:20:19 PM »

Quote from: Patricius

I agree that a Paschal Fire and a Lumen Christi procession at 11AM on Holy Saturday is completely ridiculous.

Not at all. It's what the Church did for 600 or 700 years, if not for longer. It's a twentieth-century luxury (and depends on having a car) for people to be travelling around after dark, especially women on their own, families, people in big cities.

We saw this at the SSPX church in London when the priests had to change to the 1955 rite in 1984. (Before then the 1976 Chapter at Econe had decided that English-speaking priests - in England, America, Australia - should use the pre-1951 rites and times.) As the church in London is in an area where walking about after dark is an invitation to be mugged, and the nearest station is a mile away, people without cars could no longer go to the Maundy Thursday or Holy Saturday ceremonies. Holy Week consisted of Good Friday at 3pm.

This must have been replicated in many places after 1951. Evelyn Waugh complains bitterly about it in his diary and says he'll no longer be making a Holy Week retreat. The ceremonies were early in the morning and late in the evening and the priests were unable to fill the day with talks. In fact, he predicts the end of Holy Week retreats for the laity because of this.

magdalena · « **Reply #28 on:** March 30, 2016, 07:53:54 PM »

Quote from: Raphaela

The Easter Vigil needn't be 5 hours. Perhaps this one was sung with very full ceremonial. I went to a pre-1951 Vigil at a Resistance chapel last year (without singing) and it lasted about 2 1/2 hours. It was in the morning, there were lots of children, some very young, and it all went very well.

True, it was sung and with "full ceremonial". Add to that, the Litany of the Saints was in its entirety and double chanted.

Fidelis servus · « **Reply #29 on:** March 31, 2016, 11:58:40 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Legally, the 1962 missal is in effect, which includes the 1955 changes. Unless you are a sedevecantist, who doesn't recognize the popes who promulgated the changes, you have to accept the new law of 55 and 62. I don't like it, but it's the law.

This doesn't apply to Paul VI's missal because it is legally ambiguous.

By this kind of reasoning, we should also accept the 1965 changes...

In reality, I think that NO ONE follow strictly the 1962 rubrics: incense during Soly sacrament procession, 2nd confiteor before communion...