Every once in a while on this blog and elsewhere we have discussions about whether any traditionalist group out there, such as the FSSP or the ICK, have permission to use older versions of the Holy Week rites than those published in the 1962 Missale Romanum. Claims are made by some that they obtained special permission to use the pre-Pius XII reform of the Holy Week rites.
Today I went to visit my old haunts, the offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
I explicitly asked whether any permission has ever been given to any group to use any version of the Holy Week rites other than what is published in the 1962 Missale Romanum (now just revised in the Good Friday Prayers). The answer is "NO".
No permission has ever been given by the PCED to any group to use other than what is in the (now slightly revised) 1962 edition.
Any member of any group who says that they have such a permission is either misinformed or dissimulating.
Loading ...
Yesterday I heard that one trad community was claiming to have received permission to use the pre 55 Holy Week. My retort was something along the lines that this community’s superior had no doubt received permission to call himself a “monsignor’ at long last. I’m glad to see I was vindicated Fr Z.
Father,
If you were paling around the PCED, I’d be willing to bet you had a conversation about the “document on the document.”
Any word as to when and what?
I’ve heard that ICK has permition for using pre-1955 missal.
However, it is true – is it not? – that PCED has allowed such pre-1962 practices as the third Confiteor (which I must say I think makes a lot of sense, especially at sung Masses).
The TLM that I attend at present has a number of such pre-’62 features, such as “Benedicamus Domino” being sung in Lent, instead of “Ite missa est”. I could go on…
Similarly, I understand that the Campos priests (and at least one other I could think of) use a pre-1962 Breviary, which at least in regard of Sunday Matins makes much more sense (allowing the traditional nine rather than the abbreviated three, only done for the ’62 BR as an interim measure).
This is then a truly serious question – to what extent may a priest celebrate a Mass according to the pre-’62 MR, without sin? – and if he recites a pre-’62 BR, is he fulfilling his canonical obligation, or is he endangering his soul?
Finally, with Easter approaching, would it be licit to celebrate the Easter Vigil with the 12 traditional readings, as I have heard tell it is done elsewhere in Australia and perhaps elsewhere?
I have a Dessain breviary from 1956. It was published immediately after the reforms of March, 1956. It has a rather interesting practice: certain texts, cut after the 1956 reforms, are in small type and brackets. I have a similar Gottmer 1961 breviary, where the fuller Matins lessons are in small type and brackets.
The fuller Matins lessons weren’t suddenly deemed bad in 1960 (how could they be?); the concern was to lessen the “burden” of the Office. Indeed, John XXIII explicitly noted that he wanted the 1960 rubrics to require no new books. And, indeed, they did not.
I think the Holy Week question is a bit different from the Breviary question. The Holy Week services are always public liturgies. To use the pre-1962 books is difficult if impossible to defend, though it is true that in parts of Europe the 1956 Rite was not being universally implemented everywhere in, e.g., the late 50s.
On the other hand, re: the Breviary, to imagine that it’s somehow forbidden to read 2 extra lessons in a nocturn of Matins is, I think, overly scrupulous and also difficult if not impossible to defend.
As for use of the older Breviary, I would look at it two ways:
1. Use of the additional Lessons at Matins, Preces Feriales at most offices, erc. wwoulld of course not compromise the “integrity” of the 1962 Office. Yes, in fact, one would simply be adding to without deleting anything from the official text.
2. However, then there is the question of the calendar & ranking system which does have an impact of deleting and/or replacing whole texts and Offices on a given day. For example, you either have to choose to pray the Office of a Second Class feast on a Sunday which would have previously taken precedence or you pray the Office of the Sunday with Commemoration. Or I guess you would have to do both in order to not take away anything from the official text of the 1962 Office. For a layman, this is mostly a non-issue, but it raises a valid point to consider for those bound to the Office.
What was the purpose behind such changes as the suppression of the Second Confiteor, the Benedicamus Domino, and the gutting of the readings on Holy Saturday in the ’62 Missal?
There doesn’t seem to be any logic behind those; not that I’ve ever heard, anyway.
The reason there was a “Second Confiteor” was that originally the Missale did not have a rite for Communion of the Faithful. That rite was in the Rituale, and basically the rite from the Rituale (which had a Confiteor) was simply inserted into the Missale. So presto, the 1 Confiteor of the Rituale became the 2nd Confiteor of the Missale.
The Prophecies were reduced simply for the amount of time they take to recite. I note with bemused irony that even the crackpot “Pius XIII” in his “Liturgica Instauratio” pseudo-encyclical allows for optional omission of the Prophecies. I think it’s an impoverishment, to be sure, but especially if the Vigil is celebrated near midnight, the concern was burdensome length.
The Benedicamus Domino rubric suppression strikes me as impoverishment in the guise of simplicity.
Father Z: No permission has ever been given by the PCED to any group to use other than what is in the (now slightly revised) 1962 edition.
I wonder whether “the PCED” here might refer only to official written authorizations or general policy statements? With the statement still admitting the possibility that PCED officials have quietly, informally, unofficially, or perhaps verbally communicated the understanding to various traditional groups that certain pre-1962 usages that were “sacred then are sacred now”.
I’m simply wondering how Vatican bureaucrats typically use such language. Can such denials sometimes be misleading if interpreted too literally?
Then Father almost every single diocesan priest is, according to your report from Ecclesia Dei, not following the rules, since they almost all use a third Confiteor at Communion.
Also on Ash Wednesday I heard the Benedicamus Domino instead of the Ite Missa Est, at the dismissal.
All this from non traditional society priests.
God bless you
There doesn’t seem to be any logic behind those; not that I’ve ever heard, anyway.
Because there is no logic to it…
All of it was part of the same revolutionary process begun by the Modernists with the revision of Holy Week in 1955 and that ended with the NO.
As far as the 62 breviary goes, it was hack job…that’s why I pray the pre-62. Don’t like it? Sue me!
Thank you, Dr. Fratantuono, for your answers.
As far as burdensome length goes, perhaps we could look at the Orthodox, where in some jurisdictions the average Sunday liturgy is almost three hours in length.
Now, the Roman Rite is not endowed with quite the verbosity of much of the Byzantine Rite, but where it is (such as in the pre-1955 Easter Vigil), why rob it of such character? Aren’t we supposed to step outside of space and time when we enter into the liturgical services? Should the length of the time that has passed really matter to us?
Even if we were to have 6 hour Masses on Sundays, we would have only spent a quarter of the day worshipping our Lord!
This modern obsession with “fast as possible” and “simple as possible” has got to stop. I think it really injured man’s ability to connect with the Divine.
Father G,
Honest question – if you are saying the Mass from the 1962 Missal, and praying a pre-62 Breviary, how then do you “reconcile” that if the Office prescribed is of a different feast or Sunday than what the Missal prescribes? Suppose this is an honest question for anyone who’s saying the 1962 Mass and praying the 1970 Breviary. The Office and Mass arer so intertwined that it would seem to be very dissonant to pray the Office of oine feast and being saying the Mass of another (leaving aside the choice of Votive Masses, etc.)
See my previous post. The content is not so much the issue as is the question of the Calendar and order of precedence which differs from 1956 to 1962 to 1970.
danhunter: If the so-called Second Confiteor is being used, it shouldn’t be.
My approach to the Second Confiteor is this.
If I am a visitor somewhere and the server or sacred minister starts the Second Confiteor, then I will follow along and give the absolution, and not make a fuss.
However, I will never train any priest or server to do the Second Confiteor when they are not supposed to.
That’s an answer, but here is the question: Does the Pontifical Commission for Ecclesia Dei have to give permission for ANY Roman Rite Mass celebrated according to a usage that is previous to the changes to Holy Week and Pentecost (People forget that it too was changed in the same legislation) under Pius XII?
Nearly everyone once thought that it was forbidden to celebrate a Roman Rite Mass according to any Missal other than the one promulgated by Paul VI, without an indult, until recently.
The acknowledgement that a priest may celebrate Mass according to the Missal of 1962 without special permission, does not mean that he is forbidden to celebrate according an older custom in the memory of some still living, or does it? Does one right acknowledged limit other possiblities?
Interesting side note: The Bishop Francis Hong Yong-ho of P’yong yang S. Korea was ordained a Bishop in 1944 and was the Vicar Apostolic there before becoming it’s proper Bishop in 1962 according the Catholic-Hierarchy.org. He is STILL the Bishop of that See. He was Bishop before Pius XII’s New Psalter, before any changes to Holy Week, before the Pope was Ordained a Deacon.
What about when the “second Confiteor” would be the “first”, such as when the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted? They are always omitted at Clear Creek Monastary’s High Mass which follows terce, so there is never a confiteor. Then again it isn’t a Mass for the people who may attend, but for the monks.
Jrny,
I think you bring up a valid question regarding the Calendar and the precedence of feasts. This issue would not only be of interest for priests praying the 1970 Breviary with the 1962 Missal, but also for any priest praying the 1960/61 Breviary and predominately using the current Missal. If it is in fact dissonant, that would seem to mean that in fact it is not possible for the vast majority of diocesan priests (excepting perhaps those who pastor traditional personal parishes) to ever use the 1960/61 Breviary, since most/all of their Masses are according to the current Missal.
Any thoughts?
Jrny,
I think you bring up a valid question regarding the Calendar and the precedence of feasts. This issue would not only be of interest for priests praying the 1970 Breviary with the 1962 Missal, but also for any priest praying the 1960/61 Breviary and predominately using the current Missal. If it is in fact dissonant, that would seem to mean that in fact it is not possible for the vast majority of diocesan priests (excepting perhaps those who pastor traditional personal parishes) to ever use the 1960/61 Breviary, since most/all of their Masses are according to the current Missal.
Any thoughts?
Not a lawyer here, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems pretty obvious to me that initially the holy see granted the right to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary form under an indult. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law.”
So without an indult it was was a breach of Church common law to celebrate using the Missal of 1962.
Summorum Pontificum derestricted the use of the Mass of John XXIII. Prior to the moto proprio, as I understand it, only those who had received an indult could celebrate Mass using the Missal of 1962.
In any case no where do I see permission to use any missal prior to the 1962 missal. I know that in some cases canon law is to be interpreted loosely, i.e. things not prohibited are to be allowed. Is there any reason to believe that this is such a case?
If not where is the justification to do such a thing? How is this any different than liturgical abuse committed by not following the GIRM of the Mass in the Ordinary form?
Jrny,
An honest answer…I don’t try reconcile it.
The instances where and when those circumstances occur aren’t that often but it does happen. In the pre-62 rubrics,it would happen that sometimes the Sunday would give way to the feast,for example, say if the feast of St. John the Evangelist would fall on a Sunday, the feast would be said and the Sunday commemorated. The mass would be of the feast, the Sunday commemorated and the last Gospel would be that of the Sunday . I say the TLM and when those cases come up,I don’t try to resolve the difference…I remain faithful to the rubrics of the old breviary. I say the office of the feast and offer the mass of the Sunday as I am obliged to. In any case, I’m not that scrupulous about it.:)
Now there may be those who will criticize me( not speaking of you Jrny) for being disobedient or say I’m going to burn in hell because I’m not obeying the rubrics or the Pope or the PECD or whomever and so on bla, bla, bla…I say again so what, sue me!
TerryC: Summorum Pontificum derestricted the use of the Mass of John XXIII. Prior to the moto proprio, as I understand it, only those who had received an indult could celebrate Mass using the Missal of 1962.
The key, I believe, is to recongnize that the Pope stated that the Mass celebrated according to previous rubrics, was not abolished. If this is true for 1962, why is it not true for 1951? What is different? Just because the Pope says that you can celebrate according to the Missal of 1962, because that way of saying Mass was not abolished, does not mean by the fact thereof that previous rituals were abolished. That argument should be argued, not stated.
Interesting side note: The Bishop Francis Hong Yong-ho of P’yong yang S. Korea was ordained a Bishop in 1944 and was the Vicar Apostolic there before becoming it’s proper Bishop in 1962 according the Catholic-Hierarchy.org. He is STILL the Bishop of that See.
This information is not exactly correct. The Pyeongyang in question is the capital of North Korea, which also used to be the center of Korean Catholicism. Bishop Francis Hong Yong Ho has been “missing in action” for … a while.
TerryC: How is this any different than liturgical abuse committed by not following the GIRM of the Mass in the Ordinary form?
Are you perhaps asking what’s the difference between doing something once recognized to be sacred and holy, and doing something never recognized to be sacred and holy?
Scott: Bishop Francis Hong Yong-ho went “missing” under the North Korean Communist regieme. Whilst there is no evidence of his death, and let us pray that he is still alive bearing witness to Christ in North Korea, there must be some doubt over whether he actually survived the Communist persecutions. The Cardinal Archbishop of Soeul, who would know if anyone did, says that Bishop Hong Yong-ho’s inclusion in the Annuario is symbolic, reminiding us of the persceution of the Koream church.
To the Anon Sem… I am not a priest but I have been praying that 62 breviary and mostly attending the 1970 Mass. There is a bit of a dissonance. I just think that one has to decide which calendar he will follow in private devotion. For myself, I generally base my devotion (i.e. which saint I invoke thoughout the day, whether I do penance or not on an Ember Day etc.) around the traditional calander and breviay.
Nonetheless, I can go to the Holy Mass in the ordinary form and worship God just as well, there is no hinderance. Additionally where there is not dissonance (and sometimes where there is), there is usually complementarity. For instance, St. Agatha was given a great deal of attention in the 62 breviary with proper antiphons etc. This allowed me to enter into the 1970 Mass for this saint more deeply.
I believe that the traditional mass and breviary could enrich a priest with many good things to provide for the faithful in the ordinary form liturgy. It can also in some measure ease the dissonance that a traditionalist necessarily feels in being unable to attend the extraordinary form daily.
Finally, the breviary is a prayer that you pray all day long. The Mass is the most important, but after Mass is over you forget about the dissonance if there is any. I have even prayed the 62 breviary for some hours and then the Ordinary from for other hours on a given day (the dissonance is more noticable in doing this…especially with regard to psalms and length) and it is all prayer.
It is simply necessary to remember that we are praying with the Church. In the Novus Ordo we have to say Alleluia during Septuagesima…so you just have to remember that it is a distinct form of the rite and pray with the Church (just like attending a Byzantine liturgy in Lent and hearing the “A word” over and over.)
There actually is a logic to the suppression of the Benedicamus Domino. In the middle ages, all priests had a public choir obligation as to the Office. They sang it as they sang Mass. Said public Mass and privately read Office are late medieval. If people want more on this they can consult chapter six of my book _Cities of God_.
On ferials and minor feasts, Mass was said before Terce and ran immmediately into that office. So the Ite was not used. On major feasts, it was said after Terce and followed by no Office (until Sext later in the day). So the Ite was used.
This was the order of Office and Mass in the Dominican Order up to the later 1950s, when permission was given move Mass around. Once that happened the logic of Benedicamus when an Hour followed, and Ite when nothing followed ceased to make sense. We followed the Roman change in our rubrical revision of 1960 to clean this up. I explain this in a history of Dominican liturgy after 1945 that I posted at New Liturgical Movement some months ago.
By the way, I am not pleading for or against the Benedicamus, just giving information.
Fr. Thompson,
That’s an interesting point but,in fact,not all priests were bound to the choral office even in the Middle Ages. Certainly religious in their monasteries and regulars in their priories and Cathedral chapters but what about seculars not bound to sing the office. What you say certainly was true with respect to the office being carried out in the manner of which you speak in a priory or monastery, thus the reason for dropping the Benedicamus but I offer another reason. It was tied up with the character of the ferial and festal office itself. On days of a penitential character or days of fasting,eg. Lent, Ember days, Advent, the dismissal ” Ite Missa est” was not used because the faithful remained in Church, the were not dismissed until certain penitential prayers were said, so instead on these days the Benedicamus was said. This was noted by Durandus of Mende from about the 11th century. Thus it eventually became an indication of the penitential character of the office and mass. So the Te Deum, the Gloria and the “Ite” are linked because of the festal character of the day, ie. a feast day. Masses of a penitential character, the Te Deum is not said in the office, neither is the Gloria nor the Ite Missa est used, hence the Benedicamus Domino. This is a great example, outside of the calendar, of how the office and the mass are bound. So as I see it,in order to keep the distinction and continuity of ferial and festal, suppressing the Benedicamus didn’t seem to be a necessary change.
A few things
1. The Institute never claimed to use the pre-1955 Holy Week. The claim and actual practice is that they use elements of the older Holy Week in the 1962 form, hence 7 readings, not 4 or 12
2. I think we should actually heed what the Sacred Congregation of Rites said in 1961, and what the PCED communicated to the Society of St. John Cantius: the 2nd Confiteor may be used where is has remained customary. This same line is printed also by the FSSP in their Ordo, when they list the changes in the ’62 Missal for convenience of those using older ones. Not to mention that the 1962 Pontificale Romanum still has it. With all due respect Father, I think it can be well established that the SSPX, FSSP, SSJC are all correct about the 2nd (or 3rd if you prefer) Confiteor.
3.As for the Campos use of the Breviary…as Bishop Rifan put it, they were not using the pre-1962 BR but rather, at least for his own practice, he would say the omitted parts as private prayer.
Not to mention that the 1962 Pontificale Romanum still has it.
I\’m not sure precisely how the Pontificale Romanum \”meshes\” with the Missale Romanum, but I\’ve heard priests mention specifically the 1962 Pontificale regarding the 2nd/3rd Confiteor.
Father G,
I have little to add to the comments you made which seem to me to be full of good common sense. There is obviously a further question that will need to be resolved in regard to the traditional form of the Breviary and Mass, viz. the motives behind the changes made in the 1950’s and to what extent they are simply a kind of prelude to the changes made in both Missal and Breviary in the 1970’s. Personally, I think they are pretty clearly continuous with the “new liturgy.” I would agree as well that one shouldn’t be too scrupulous when deciding to what extent present-day indults, etc., are intended to address these same questions; after all, it is a unique and unprecedented situation that we all find ourselves in. So, for anyone to think that the Holy See is now attempting to resolve all these questions in the midst of a decidedly gradual approach to resolving the crisis (so to speak) in the sacred liturgy would be overreaching. Thank you, Fr. G., for your insights; they confirm what I have thought (and practiced) for some years now.
Fr. J.
Joshua, I have said this before and I’ll say it again. The ICK priest in our parish has used a pre-1962 missal for Good Friday for the past two years. After the first year we questioned the “Oremus et pro perifidis judaeis” and we were told that this was the decision of his superiors.
And he did it again last year. And many other parts of the Holy Week liturgy were not done according to the 1962 Missal both years. Whether they have permission or not, they have not been following the 1962 Missal. On Ash Wednesday, he inserted the prayers at the foot of the altar after the blessing of the ashes. Those prayers are specifically omitted on Ash Wednesday. So with or without permission, they have their own form of Mass.
Fr. J
Thanks for your comment…yes I agree and as Fr. Z said somewhere in one of his posts…”only time will tell”…
In Christo,
Father G
Officer Aspergil of the 62nd precinct:” Excuse me Father but I can’t help notice you said the second confiteor at your mass today…you know that’s been abolished, right? I’m afraid I’m going to have to write you up…you know the PCED…”
Father Innocent : “er …uh…sorry officer but you see the only missal I have is pre-62 and while I did have a 1962 missal ordered, you see, it’s like this, uh… the Holy father just modified one of the prayers for Holy Week and now I’ll have to wait until the new 2008 edition of the Missale comes out…you believe me…don’t you?
Officer Aspergil: ” Yeah sure…how many times have I heard that one…hands flat on the sacristy cabinet while I call for backup…
Officer Aspergil heard on radio to his Sargent…”Hey Sarge…got a live one here a real comedian…”
People lighten up…
As far as the Breviary is concerned, the reality is that in the 1962 (really 1961) version the gospel homilies on Sundays sometimes make no complete sense as is. All they did was go through every Sunday’s gospel homily and cut the last 2 parts.
Now there was some precedent for this. Pre-1961, sometimes you lost the last of the 3 parts because of a commemorated Office. Or, sometimes you read only the first part for a commemoration. But those are exceptions, not the weekly norm.
Tonight’s Matins homily for Dominica I in Quadragesima is incomplete if you don’t read the 2nd part.
Also, John XXIII urged that priests be sure to read their Fathers even if the Matins homilies were severely pruned. So those who read the full Matins would be fulfilling the spirit of John’s pastoral exhortation to know your Fathers.
Of course it could be argued it’s somewhat ironic to cut 2/3 of the Fathers from the Office and then urge priests to go read them elsewhere (Migne, I guess).
Fr. G.,
Yes, only priests with pastoral cures were obligated to public singing of the office. But that affected all parishes.
Durandus is arguing backwards, I think. In practice by the 1100s in many places the parochial clergy did not recite the little hours, so the origin is not obvious. He explanation does not explain the use of Benedicamus on non-penitential ferials and on minor saints days. Which was already the case much earlier–see Sicardo of Cremona and the 11th century Veronese Ordo. I deal with these and other mss ordos in my study of Italian synodalia and parochial worship in _Cities of God_.
Fr. Thompson
Father thanks for the sources and thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I’ll admit that I’m no expert but it is a very interesting question. I haven’t read your book, where can one purchase it? please let me know…
In Christo,
Father G
I should like to thank Father Z for bringing this very important matter to our attention. The Institute are a distateful lot and must be stopped at any cost. I don´t think that justice, charity nor prudence should be exercised when it comes to these people, and I´m happy to see that Father Z shares my view. In this modern world of ours, it is obvious, the Institute and planetae plicatae are THE key problem. Besides, I just love the Bugnini Holy Week and would never go for anything less modern and fabricated. I always felt the liturgy ought to be somewhat rationalistic, mechanical, sloppy and sort of poly-cottony. And that the proper colour for a dalmatica is black.
(Father Thompson speaks of logic. Very goog point. I never believed in all that mysterious, venerable liturgy nonsense. Logic is everything. So are expert committees. Talking of experts, I remember Father Congar pointing out that logic demands that the old offertory be destroyed. And all those endless repetitions of Jesus, the Trinity and the like. And all those crosses… And the Canon being whispered. And the last Gospel. And…)
I do think we need to keep a balanced perspective on this question — and it seems to me that Fr. Z’s approach is the healthy one that repects the “norms” without giving in to scrupulosity. The important thing, it seems to me, is to attempt to be faithful to the liturgical norms without giving into a mentality ruled by personal preference. Look, this is exactly what we expect from those who follow the New Mass (OF). If we expect them to abandon personal preference in favor of strictly following the norms then it would seem that we should do the same with the EF.
A question: Was the Rite for Distributing Communion ever printed in the Ordinary of the Mass in it’s proper place or must one find it in the Rituale? I have not had to opportunity to see pre 1962 Missals to check on this.
And a thought and questions: In thinking about it it seems that the repitition of the Confetior just before Communion is necessary since the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are for the preparation of the priest and ministers, no? Weren’t they originally said in the sacristy or in procession to the altar? Are they now considered something for priest and people, not just priest and ministers?
Thanks in advance.
Praying the extra Confiteor, praying the omitted readings at Matins, using the pre-1962 Liturgy at the Easter Vigil Mass, praying the ferial preces, and the Benedicamos Domino: liturgical abuses???
How can one equate the above with litugical dancers, clown masses, ad lib Eucharistic Prayers, etc.
“Off the path is off the path; an inch or a mile, it makes no difference.”– George Bernard Shaw
Luckily Bernard Shaw wasn’t an expert in Catholic liturgical scrupulosity or lack thereof.
Some of these rubrical cavils really do remind one of Fortescue’s wry observation that his cat was engaged in more profitable activities than he was during his years of liturgical research.
I tend to agree that requiring strict uniformity with the “1962 Missal” (as though it and its rubrics were singularly and exclusively used throughout Christendom during its original days) is rather overzealous.
But that’s not really the point, is it? Fr Z’s post debunks the oft-repeated claims of a certain institute (led by a certain “nonsignor”) that they have permission to use the older Holy Week liturgies. It’s really more an issue of deceitfulness than one of rubrical conformity, I think.
Dr L F–
Full disclosure, the GBS quote is from his play Getting Married, and the character is a hyper-scrupulous Anglican priest whose parents were atheists and whose rebellion took the form of a cassock and biretta. I don’t think Shaw was particularly sympathetic to the character’s point of view.
Literary digression over…
Hello this is a very interesting discussion . . I’ve wondered about this for a while. . .
great its come up . . but peple shouldn’t start calling priests ‘Nonsignor’s . ..the Monsignor(he was a vicar general before) in question has not worn the outfit of a Supernumery in nearly two years!!He uses his institutes choir dress no and Maybe he’s humbled himself . .so pray for him. ..
Any way I heard once a person say that most places dont use the 2002 Novus Ordo yet
still the 1970. . so whats the difference with the 1962 vs 1954 . ??
God Bless,
Kieran
Hello this is a very interesting discussion . . I\’ve wondered about this for a while. . .
great its come up . . but peple shouldn\’t start calling priests \’Nonsignor\’s . ..the Monsignor(he was a vicar general before) in question has not worn the outfit of a Supernumery in nearly two years!!He uses his institutes choir dress no and Maybe he\’s humbled himself . .so pray for him. ..
Any way I heard once a person say that most places dont use the 2002 Novus Ordo yet
still the 1970. . so whats the difference with the 1962 vs 1954 . ??
God Bless,
Kieran
Ah, I am overjoyed to see that hatred is flourishing. I was beginning to think I was the only one. Give it to´em, guys, just give it to´em real good! Jesus wants it.
Fr. G is right! At the time it came out, the 1962 missal was certainly seen as the beginning of the process of reform. Such things as cutting out the Confiteor at Communion (at Solemn Mass the only time the people heard it), eliminating the celebrant’s reading of the lessons when they were chanted by other ministers and other details mentioned above constituted changes to the rite of the Mass making the 1962 revisions different from provious revisions of the Missal which would merely add a few new feasts or cut back on the number of Collects required for certain days. Such previous new editions were merely routine updates.
I hate to seem critical or ungrateful to Pope Benedict, whom I greatly admire but it does seem a shame that the restoration of the Classical Rite wasn’t according to a missal untouched by Bugnini’s hack saw.
Do let us not forget that Buggerini not only removed 8 of the 12 prophecies, and butchered the Mass of the Presanctified and the Blessing of the Palms; he also hacked up the Passions of Matthew, Mark and Luke, removing everything before the Lord goes to pray in the garden. Since these chapters of the Gospels are read no where else in the liturgical year, he thereby deleted from the Roman Missal the Gospel account of the Lord’s Supper and the Institution of the Mass. (St. Paul’s account in 1 Cor. 11 was spared in the Masses of Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi.) Thus did the liturgical reformers begin to impart to us to a greater understanding of the Paschal Mystery!
The reason there was a “Second Confiteor” was that originally the Missale did not have a rite for Communion of the Faithful. That rite was in the Rituale, and basically the rite from the Rituale (which had a Confiteor) was simply inserted into the Missale. So presto, the 1 Confiteor of the Rituale became the 2nd Confiteor of the Missale.
Comment by Dr. Lee Fratantuono
We should also point out that the Ecce Agnus Dei and Domine non sum Dignus comes from the same extra-missam ritual. The Ecce Agnus was reminiscent of the Agnus Dei. According to Jungmann it was not uncommon in the middle ages that the Creed also be recited here.
IIRC the Dominican rite just did it the old fashion way, without an Ecce Agnus Dei or 2nd Confiteor until 1958.
And to Gregorius Minor- It is misleading to say that Bugnini just cut out 8 of the prophecies. The 4 prophecies in the ’62 Missal are just as traditional. In the middle ages two Roman traditions developedside by side, one with those 4 the other with the 12. The Dominican Rite, for instance, had used just those four readings. While the option for all 12 was restored in the NO, the NO has this disadvantage over the 4 prophecies… both Roman traditions always started with the Creation account, but the Novus Ordo only mandates two readings, and not the Creation account. Pity because it is very fitting.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that the Passion was shortened.
David O’ Rourke: I hate to seem critical or ungrateful to Pope Benedict, whom I greatly admire but it does seem a shame that the restoration of the Classical Rite wasn’t according to a missal untouched by Bugnini’s hack saw.
The only reason why Rome insists on the 1962 Missal being used is because Archbishop Lefebrve insisted on its use for the whole of the SSPX. It the SSPX that are seen as clamouring for the “older missal” the most. If the Archbishop has applied for an earlier Missal, I don’t think Rome would have cared too much.
I do believe it is incorrect to assert that the 1962 Missal is the “Tridentine” rite – a lot of changes (some good and bad) occurred between 1570 and 1962.
Now that the Good Friday prayer is changed is it still the 1962 Missal?
Or can we call it the 2008 Missal?
Now that the Good Friday prayer is changed is it still the 1962 Missal?
Or can we call it the 2008 Missal?
Having finally had an opportunity to look at the Holy Week Rites before the changes of Pius XII, I think they should be restored for the sake of beauty alone. So the Blessing of Palms is longer and the Easter Vigil is longer… it *is* Holy Week after all. The only things that need change, imho, are to celebrate the liturgies at their proper time, not in the morning as they came to be celebrated, and restore the Communion of the faithful at the Mass of the Presanctified. I had not realized how much had been lost in the pian changes, and not for the better.
“Ottaviani:The only reason why Rome insists on the 1962 Missal being used is because Archbishop Lefebrve insisted on its use for the whole of the SSPX. It the SSPX that are seen as clamouring for the “older missal” the most. If the Archbishop has applied for an earlier Missal, I don’t think Rome would have cared too much.”
I agree. . it seems Lefebvre said the ’62 because he wanted to show Rome he wasn’t
picking and choosing and would accept a Missal that had been ‘tampered with’ from
a valid Pope. . .
All of this though( well it helped) led to the split with SSPV. . .they say before
this they were allowed use the Missal of Pius X. . . .
the 2nd Confiteor may be used where is has remained customary.
It is preposterous to argue “customary” when:
1) the 1962 Rite was in suspended animation from ~1965-~1985; and/or
2) practitioners of the 1962 Rite actually DID what Rome SAID to do: delete the 2nd Confiteor.
Face it: some folks simply want it “their way,” which is better than “Rome’s way.”
A few random (and purely personal) thoughts regarding some of this thread\’s fatuous posts on the 2nd/3rd Confiteor:
(1) Whatever was sacred once is sacred now. (Just to coin an original aphorism.)
(2) We worship God, not rubrics. (Or is this the one that\’s original?)
(3) Some moral distinctions are easy, e.g., distinguishing between practices (whether rubrical or not) that heighten the worship of God and those that lessen it.
(4) Hence, people who posit moral equivalence between, for instance, liturgical dancers and extra confiteors are people not to waste time with.
(4) Do as I do — say the Confiteor immediately before communion at every Mass, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
Full disclosure, the GBS quote is from his play Getting Married, and the character is a hyper-scrupulous Anglican priest whose parents were atheists and whose rebellion took the form of a cassock and biretta. I don’t think Shaw was particularly sympathetic to the character’s point of view.
Literary digression over…
Comment by Antiquarian
Digressing from the digression, I am forced to mention Shaw’s Heartbreak House, with Capt Shotover, an Old Salt who is always in search of the Seventh Degree of Consciousness. Toward the end of the play we finally discover what this Seventh Degree of Consciousness truly is.
Rum.
Henry, with all due respect, we’ve had 40 years of nuclear war over the topic of liturgical regulation. There’s NO good reason that priests and Orders cannot follow directives from Rome.
None.
Whether Weakland or SSPX or ICK, or whatever: we are to obey. This is not a matter of ‘personal preference’ nor has it ever been so.
I once attended a Tridentine Mass in a locale I had never been to before; I was a visitor.
After Mass, I saw a rather earnest young man, Missal under his arm, hurry with eager alacrity to the priest. He breathlessly noted that the priest had said the “Second Confiteor”, and asked if the priest were aware that he had “broken” a 1962 rubric.
I think we need to get a collective grip. The 1962 rubrics didn’t specifically impugn or condemn the so-called “Second Confiteor”; rather, the Second Confiteor wasn’t mentioned…just as it wasn’t mentioned before, since the Missal didn’t have a Communion Rite for the faithful to begin with (the rite was borrowed from the Rituale).
This sort of thing invites scrupulosity and use of rubrics as a sort of badge of orthodoxy. It’s hard to appreciate the spirit of the liturgy when you’re obsessed over checking if Father violated the 1960 Codex Rubricarum.
Has anyone ever discussed the fact that the ICK last year began the practice of having the priest remove his chasuble before preaching the homily (in addition to removing the maniple) because they say the homily is not part of the Mass?
This sort of thing invites scrupulosity and use of rubrics as a sort of badge of orthodoxy.
Which reminds me of a TLM I attended. Afterwards a woman complimented the priest on a very reverent and beautiful Mass. “Thank you”, he said. “Too bad the consecration was invalid,” she said.
“Why?” “Because you weren’t wearing a maniple,” she replied.
Turns out the priest had traveled to the church from his home parish, where in his rush to grab the proper Roman vestments and leave on time, he’d not noticed the maniple slip to the floor on his way out of the sacristry.
Hmm … I wonder when we’ll hear one of these folks claim a consecration has been retroactively invalidated by an illicit 2nd/3rd confiteor.
Which reminds me of a TLM I attended. Afterwards a woman complimented the priest on a very reverent and beautiful Mass. “Thank you”, he said. “Too bad the consecration was invalid,” she said.
“Why?” “Because you weren’t wearing a maniple,” she replied.
Turns out the priest had traveled to the church from his home parish, where in his rush to grab the proper Roman vestments and leave on time, he’d not noticed the maniple slip to the floor on his way out of the sacristry.
Hmm … I wonder when we’ll hear one of these folks claim a consecration has been retroactively invalidated by an illicit 2nd/3rd confiteor.
Comment by Henry Edwards
Jacques Maritain said that those of the left don’t think there’s any such thing as substance, and those of the right don’t think there’s any such thing as accidents.
It seems to apply in this case.
I do believe you have it correct, RBrown.
Disobedience. Customs.
A custom that is contrary to the law can obtain the force of law.
A custom that is forbidden by the law cannot obtain the force of law.
Rome permits customs contrary to the law and makes this provision in the code.
The difference between the Novus Ordo abuses that upset so many traditionalists [abuses such as such as liturgical dance, the ordinary use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion at Mass, and the sundry instances of the personality of the priest preempting the texts of the Missal] and the so-called “abuses” of the traditionalists that upset the conservatives [“abuses” such as performing authentic liturgical rites as they had once been done less than 100 years ago according to the long time custom of Rome] is vast. Doing what had been done is completely different from innovating. Following a custom that has not been abolished specifically is not the same as disobedience.
Some would say that if priests were really obedient, they would have accepted the changes and we wouldn’t have the traditional Mass at all. Is this fair to say? There were arguments about the legality of the Traditional Mass for decades.
Pope Pius X knew clearly how to abolish what was and replace it with a new order, take a look at the Bull Divino Afflatu. It isn’t an apostolic letter, it is a Papal Bull and it clearly says what it intends to do and what force it has. It says quite frankly concerning January 1, 1913, “From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.” Why isn’t anyone stating clearly where all of these points that are being argued are decisively answered by Rome.
Where does Rome say that the say that the sanctuary lamp should have a red glass? It doesn’t. Someone must be violating a rubric! It probably shouldn’t be red, but that doesn’t mean that it being red is an abuse. Where does it say in the rubrics that the candles can have followers? It doesn’t. Does that mean that sacristans have to tolerate wax on the cloths or be in violation?
These examples are at one end of the debate and are important to keep in mind.
Why don’t we just leave it to the Commission to clarify and direct the various practices of the Traditional groups? If the Roman Rite can tolerate the co-existence of the Ordinary Form with the Extraordinary Form, surely within the Extraordinary Form can be tolerated the use of various customs that were once the very tradition of the Church of Rome, even if Rome has thrown them all into a closet, a closet that seems to have been found by His Holiness.
He who resurrected the ancient pallium after centuries of disuse, surely would not begrudge the Institute of Christ the King its fondness for the Roman Tradition, nor the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter it’s “second confiteor”.
“Dove:Has anyone ever discussed the fact that the ICK last year began the practice of having the priest remove his chasuble before preaching the homily (in addition to removing the maniple) because they say the homily is not part of the Mass?”
Yes I think these are just customs and ways to show that the actions of the priest
in the sermon are not part of the Mass.. .the biretta shows this as well. ..although in my Fortescue it says for the sermon “He does not take off his chasuble or maniple” so not sure why its done. I’m MC at my local ICRSS Mass and the priest has only ever removed his maniple thats it. . .
Godbless
“Custom”
Rome grants exceptions to “custom,” which noun is most often preceded by the adjective “local.”
The local custom in my Archdiocese was to follow Roman instruction regarding the liturgy; so, e.g., the ‘second Confiteor’ was dropped in (approximately)1961 per the regulation.
Now, suddenly, the second Confiteor IS a “local custom”?
Pishposh.
I think these are just customs and ways to show that the actions of the priest in the sermon are not part of the Mass
The pertinent 1962 rubric reads (in English translation) as follows:
“474. After the gospel, especially on Sundays and holy days of obligation, a short homily should be preached to the people if it is convenient. The homily, however, if it is preached by a priest other than the celebrant, must not be superimposed on the celebration of the Mass, preventing the participation of the faithful. In such case, therefore, the celebration of the Mass should be suspended, to be resumed only after the homily is completed.” (emphasis added)
Thus, the sermon is indeed an interruption in the Mass, rather than a part of it.
“I think we need to get a collective grip. The 1962 rubrics didn’t specifically impugn or condemn the so-called ‘Second Confiteor’; rather, the Second Confiteor wasn’t mentioned… just as it wasn’t mentioned before, since the Missal didn’t have a Communion Rite for the faithful to begin with (the rite was borrowed from the Rituale).”
And so, given the confusion, the matter was brought before the appropriate department in Rome (the PCED), and the matter was clarified. The answer is “No.” One word. One syllable. Two letters. Not too hard to “grip,” I should think. Perhaps we need it in writing, but I have a feeling that wouldn’t settle it for some of us.
“Where does Rome say that the say that the sanctuary lamp should have a red glass? It doesn’t. Someone must be violating a rubric!”
Actually, I’m pretty sure that red is not allowed for the sanctuary lamp, that the rubrics do call for clear glass. However, red has become ubiquitous in the US so that to use another color would cause definite confusion and therefor most likely custom has taken on the force of law.
Actually, my point remains about our collectively getting a grip. Some people speak of issues like the Second Confiteor as if they were tantamount to validation or invalidation of the Sacrament. There’s never any hierarchy of issues with such people; one abuse is as horrific as any other; one rubric is as non-negotiable as any other. It’s a scrupulous if not fascistic way to view liturgy.
The 1962 Missale says exceedingly little about Communion of the Faithful. It doesn’t mention patens at Communion, or cloths over the rail, or indeed an altar rail at all.
And no, private conversations do not rubrical clarifications make.
Dr. Lee Fratantuono: And no, private conversations do not rubrical clarifications make.
Exactly. I’ve always found your insights to be clear.
if it is preached by a priest other than the celebrant, must not be superimposed on the celebration of the Mass, preventing the participation of the faithful.
Henry, read ALL the words for meaning–especially those which I bolded just for you.
The reg you cite has nothing whatsoever to do with an ordinary sermon preached by the celebrant.
Hope that helped, Henry.
Just an observation from a Western Rite Orthodox (yes, we have them) reader of this very informative and well-done blog. Leaving aside for the moment our differences in theology/ecclesiology (we both know where the other stands) it strikes me as odd that people who despise the disasters of Bugnini would go to such effort to defend one of his first renovations (the “reform” of Holy Week) which led to others and eventually to the N.O. Liturgical change, up until the 20th century was almost always viewed in the West as in the East, that it should be “Organic” not fabricated or forced. Contrary to what many in the media believe Pope Pius V did not write or compose a new Rite. He “organized” or “compiled” or “standardized” the Rite used at Rome, and which had been used since time immemorial. If Pius XII had decided that such-and-such practice was contrary to the received practice of the Roman Rite then by all means fix it. If a practice from an earlier time had fallen into abeyance or become anachronistic, then omit it or “tweak” it to make it more meaningful ( For instance the lighting of the New Fire could have been restored to a later time in the early evening without disrupting the whole sequence of traditional services).
Well, there’s my two bits. I wish my Roman friends the best in their efforts to maintain and restore the traditional rites. As I have heard it said by a Russian Orthodox bishop “if Rome can recover her worship, then we will have common ground”.
In Christ,
Fr. David Cuthbert
Russian Orthodox Church
(ROCOR)