Author Topic: The Holy week reform of 1955 (Read 4842 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2016, 10:51:22 AM »

I know Trads are always supposed to prefer the "former" rather than the "latter", but I actually prefer the new Holy Week.

I don't have 5 hours on Holy Saturday to sit through that many lessons. I have a family and lots of little kids. I think it would be better for me to be able to attend, then to have to sit at home because it's too long.

Maybe that's what the Pope thought...

And maybe it's providential. Here in 2016 we have a handful of Traditional priests serving the whole United States with Holy Week. Imagine if they had to do the OLD Holy Week! They'd be run even more ragged, with all the travel and whatnot.

And most chapels they are headed to are not parish churches, but rather independent chapels (or worse, a rented facility) where 1-3 laymen (again, with a family, kids, etc.) has to PREPARE for each of the ceremonies. That already takes a bunch of his time on Holy Week.

I realize the Liturgy is in a class by itself, but we're talking about a ton of readings. I'd rather have SOME time to explain the season (and the Liturgy) to my children, read Scripture, color some Easter eggs with the children, prepare for Easter, cook food for the Easter potlucks and/or family gatherings, etc.

Like I said: I'm a layman. I have to divide my time. I can't live for the liturgy anymore, as much as I'd like to. I *have to* help with the mundane Easter preparations. I *have to* raise and educate my children, especially during Holy Week when there's so much to teach them.

So I think it's providential. Maybe after the Crisis, the Church can restore the old Holy Week and everyone will be happy.

Fidelis servus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2016, 11:32:29 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

. The fact that the SSPX (and the current neo-SSPX) uses it already equates to "most Traditional chapels", but the SSPX is not alone in this regard. The Resistance also uses it, as well as any groups "to the left" of the neo-SSPX, such as FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.

That having been said, certain priests will keep certain "important" elements of the old Holy Week, such as the prayer for the Jews on Good Friday.

At Stella Maris Chapel a few days ago, Fr. Zendejas used the older "Perfidious Jews" form of the prayer for the Jєωιѕн people, and didn't do the genuflection ("flectamus genua") after that prayer either.

Just like the SSPX (and the Resistance) keeps the 2nd Confiteor, although it was technically removed from the 1962 Missale Romanum.

it s not exact to say : as well as any groups "to the left" of the neo-SSPX, such as FSSP, ICK, Indult
for example, I saw a few days ago pictures taken this year at Palm sunday in the roman church of the FSSP: it was pre 1955 rite... and it s absolutely not the only place... even in the ssp0x, some priests use the pre1955 holy week (in south america)
in 1959 John XXIII used it also...

this is not a matter of sedevacantism: i know a sede priest (or at least extemely close to sedevacantism) who celebrqtes the 1955 holy week

and for the persons who prefer the night ceremonies: i said 1955 not pre 1951: the night celebration is authorized since 1951

BJ5 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2016, 12:18:36 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I know Trads are always supposed to prefer the "former" rather than the "latter", but I actually prefer the new Holy Week.

I don't have 5 hours on Holy Saturday to sit through that many lessons. I have a family and lots of little kids. I think it would be better for me to be able to attend, then to have to sit at home because it's too long.

Maybe that's what the Pope thought...

And maybe it's providential. Here in 2016 we have a handful of Traditional priests serving the whole United States with Holy Week. Imagine if they had to do the OLD Holy Week! They'd be run even more ragged, with all the travel and whatnot.

And most chapels they are headed to are not parish churches, but rather independent chapels (or worse, a rented facility) where 1-3 laymen (again, with a family, kids, etc.) has to PREPARE for each of the ceremonies. That already takes a bunch of his time on Holy Week.

I realize the Liturgy is in a class by itself, but we're talking about a ton of readings. I'd rather have SOME time to explain the season (and the Liturgy) to my children, read Scripture, color some Easter eggs with the children, prepare for Easter, cook food for the Easter potlucks and/or family gatherings, etc.

Like I said: I'm a layman. I have to divide my time. I can't live for the liturgy anymore, as much as I'd like to. I *have to* help with the mundane Easter preparations. I *have to* raise and educate my children, especially during Holy Week when there's so much to teach them.

So I think it's providential. Maybe after the Crisis, the Church can restore the old Holy Week and everyone will be happy.

You can say that again. As a former sacristan, it is typical to spend the entire Holy Saturday at church. Our chapel always had a Solemn Vigil ceremony. So after Tenebrae ended around 9AM. Then there was a 1.5 hour altar boy practice. It then takes the rest of the afternoon to pre-dress the altar in white, covered in violet and make sure that everything that is needed for the ceremony is available candles, pascal incense, bread, lemons, new oils, drum of water, and everything needed for the outside fire. Once it begins, the sacristy becomes a madhouse of coming and going vestments, liturgical articles, violet veils, a greenhouse of lilies that appear on the altar at the Great Gloria. And then when the midnight Mass is over at around 1:30 AM (after Vespers), there are a half dozen baskets of food to be blessed by the priest and of course each item in the basket has a different blessing. Not sure how a Solemn 5 hour vigil could be done without an army of sacristans and helpers.

magdalena · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2016, 04:07:51 PM »

It can't be stated enough that one needs to read the article to understand the concern. To be certain, the ceremony for Holy Saturday was probably not instituted with children in mind. But why should it be?

Cantarella · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2016, 05:23:15 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

They weren't insignificant changes. I attended Holy Mass on Easter morning, but caught a pre-Bugnini Holy Saturday via the Internet live. Indeed, it was long. 5 hours. But it was well worth it. Once again, one needs to read the article to understand what was lost and the reasoning, and un-reasoning, behind the changes beginning with Palm Sunday.

From that article:

Quote

In conclusion, as already affirmed, the changes were not limited to questions of the horarium, which legitimately and sensibly could have been modified for the good of the faithful; rather, they overturned the age-old rites of Holy Week. Beginning with Palm Sunday, a ritual of “versus populum” is created, so that the back is turned towards the altar and the cross. On Holy Thursday, the laity are made to enter the sanctuary. On Good Friday, the honors rendered to the Most Blessed Sacrament are reduced as is the veneration of the Cross. On Holy Saturday, not only is the reforming imagination of the experts allowed to run wild, but the symbolism relating to Original Sin and to Baptism as the doorway into the Church is demolished. In an era that claims it desires to rediscover the Scriptures, the passages read on this most important of days are reduced, and the Gospel passages on the institution of the Holy Eucharist in Matthew, Luke, and Mark are edited out. Traditionally, every time that the institution of the Eucharist was read during these days, it was placed in relation to the account of the Passion, to indicate how completely the Last Supper was an anticipation of the death on the Cross the following day, and thus to indicate how much the Last Supper is of a sacrificial nature. Three days were dedicated to the reading of these passages: Palm Sunday, Holy Tuesday, and Holy Wednesday. Thanks to the reform, the institution of the Holy Eucharist disappears completely from the liturgical cycle!

OHCA · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:21:03 PM »

Quote from: Matto

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

I have never been to a traditional Holy Week, either the traditional one before 1955 or the Bugnini 1955 one, but I would prefer the older one because even though I am not an expert and don't know about all of the changes I believe that the traditional one must be better than the one by Bugnini. But I go to an SSPX chapel and I guess that the priests who say Mass at my chapel say the Bugnini Holy Week. I take offense to you saying it is hypocritical for me to go to a chapel that uses the Bugnini Holy Week as if one has to agree with all the decisions mady by the priests at your chapel no matter what or else you are hypocritical. I think it is not only offensive to me and others like me, but also just plain wrong.

I concur that it is offensive. To say that that is hypocritical promotes red-lighting and home alonism, Matthew, which you rightly denounce. I think the 1955 version is acceptable because a valid Pope "stamped" it. But I think pre-1955 is preferable because much more came to light about the character and objectives of the architect after said valid Pope died.

So my options are drive 25 mins to a 1955 version with a valid priest, 3 1/2 hours to a pre-1955 version with a valid priest, or stay home.

Raphaela · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:24:24 PM »

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.

OHCA · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:27:15 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Well, see my thread in the Crisis subforum about how there was no resistance to the 1962 Missal in 1962. None at all. Zero.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sedevacantism-before-1970

There was also zero "resistance" to the new Holy Week from anyone -- good, bad, or ugly -- in 1955. Did anyone start Trad chapels offering the "old Holy Week" before the Novus Ordo Mass was a thing?

Or was a "retro Holy Week" a bonus of sorts only offered AFTER Trad chapels had to be set up anyway to react to the Novus Ordo Mass?

That was by design--freemason Bugnini for sure, and probable freemason Ronalli probably, intended to gradually change things while the faithful were "asleep"--and that is exactly how the NO was imposed upon the Church. The fact that the obedient faithful didn't complain or reject the early gradual changes is not a defense to the changes whatsoever--rather it makes all the more dastardly the perpetrators. Bugnini even wrote a book spelling out how he plotted the "gradual" changes. I'll try to find he title.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:27:30 PM »

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.

OHCA · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2016, 06:32:50 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I know Trads are always supposed to prefer the "former" rather than the "latter", but I actually prefer the new Holy Week.

I don't have 5 hours on Holy Saturday to sit through that many lessons. I have a family and lots of little kids. I think it would be better for me to be able to attend, then to have to sit at home because it's too long.

Maybe that's what the Pope thought...

And maybe it's providential. Here in 2016 we have a handful of Traditional priests serving the whole United States with Holy Week. Imagine if they had to do the OLD Holy Week! They'd be run even more ragged, with all the travel and whatnot.

And most chapels they are headed to are not parish churches, but rather independent chapels (or worse, a rented facility) where 1-3 laymen (again, with a family, kids, etc.) has to PREPARE for each of the ceremonies. That already takes a bunch of his time on Holy Week.

I realize the Liturgy is in a class by itself, but we're talking about a ton of readings. I'd rather have SOME time to explain the season (and the Liturgy) to my children, read Scripture, color some Easter eggs with the children, prepare for Easter, cook food for the Easter potlucks and/or family gatherings, etc.

Like I said: I'm a layman. I have to divide my time. I can't live for the liturgy anymore, as much as I'd like to. I *have to* help with the mundane Easter preparations. I *have to* raise and educate my children, especially during Holy Week when there's so much to teach them.

So I think it's providential. Maybe after the Crisis, the Church can restore the old Holy Week and everyone will be happy.

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??

Matthew, I don't intend to put you down and you're a much better man and Catholic than I--but re-think this.

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...