Category: Liturgy

Changes to Holy Saturday 1952 -56

4/19/2014

HOLY SATURDAY

1. (OHS 1956): A blessing of the Paschal candle is introduced using a candle that has to be carried by the deacon during the entire ceremony.

Commentary: When this reform came into effect all the Paschal candlesticks in Christendom were rendered useless for Holy Saturday itself, even though some dated back to the dawn of Christianity. Under the pretext of returning to the sources, such liturgical masterpieces from antiquity became unusable museum pieces. The three-fold chanting of “lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”] no longer has a liturgical reason to exist.

(MR 1952): The new fire and the grains of incense are blessed outside the church, but not the candle; the fire is passed to a reed, a kind of pole with three candles at the top, which are lit during the procession, successively with each invocation of “lumen Christi”; hence the three-fold invocation, one for each candle as it is lit. With one of these candles was lit the Paschal candle, which remained from the beginning of the ceremony on the Paschal candlestick. (In many early Christian churches, the height of the candlestick required the ambo to be built to the same height so that the candle could be reached.) [See the picture below. CAP.] The fire (the light of the Resurrection) was brought in on the reed with its triple candle (the Holy Trinity) to the great Easter candle (the Risen Christ), in order to symbolize the Resurrection as the work of the Most Holy Trinity.

Ambo and Paschal candelabrum
2. (OHS 1956): The fabrication of placing the Easter candle in the center of the sanctuary after a procession with it in a church that is progressively lit up at every invocation of “Lumen Christi” [“The light of Christ”]; and at every invocation all genuflect toward the candle [sic!]; at the third invocation, the lights in the entire church are lit.

Commentary: After the fabrication of a procession with the candle, it was decided to have it placed in the center of the sanctuary, where it becomes the reference point of the prayers, just as it was during the procession; it becomes more important than the altar and the cross, a strange novelty that shifts the orientation of prayer in successive stages.

(MR 1952): The candle remains unlit on its candelabrum, often (according to a rubricist I consulted, this should be "always". CAP) at the Gospel side; the deacon and subdeacon go up to it with the reed to light it during the singing of the praeconium [i.e., “Exsultet”]; until the singing of the “Exsultet,” the only candles lit from the “fire of the Resurrection” are those on the reed.

The singing of the Exultet
3. (OHS 1956): A twisting of the symbolism of the “Exsultet” and of its nature as a diaconal blessing.

Commentary: Some reformers wished to do away with this ceremony, but the love which the singing of the “Exsultet” was always enjoyed resulted in others opposing any change in the text: “the Commission, however, considers it opportune to preserve the traditional text, given that the passages to be eliminated are few and of little importance.” The result was the nth pastiche of a traditional chant wedded to a rite now totally altered. Thus it happened that one of the most significant moments of the liturgical cycle became a theater-piece of astonishing incoherence.

In effect, the actions spoken of during the singing of the “Exsultet” have already been performed about a half-hour before in the narthex. For the grains of incense there is sung: “Suscipe, Pater, incensi hujus sacrificium vespertinum” [“Accept, Father, the evening sacrifice of this incense”], but they have already been inserted into the candle for a good while. The lighting of the candle with the light of the Resurrection is elaborated with the words: “Sed jam columnae hujus praeconia novimus quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit” [“But now we know the tidings of this column which the flickering fire lights to the honor of God”], but the candle has long been lit by then and a goodly amount of wax consumed. There is no longer any logic. The symbolism of the light is twisted even further when the order of lighting all the lights—the symbol of the Resurrection—is triumphantly chanted: “Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosae hujus lampadis apis mater eduxit” [“For it is nourished by the flowing wax which the Mother bee has drawn out unto the substance of this precious Light”], but it is sung in a church which for quite some time has been totally illuminated by the candles lit from the new fire.

This reformed symbolism is incomprehensible for the simple reason that it is not symbolic: the words being proclaimed have no relation to the reality of the rite. Furthermore, the singing of the Easter proclamation, in union with the actions that accompany it, constitutes the diaconal blessing par excellence. After the reform, the candle is blessed outside the church with holy water, but it was desired to retain a part of the ancient blessing since it had great esthetic beauty; unfortunately, this approach reduces the liturgy to theater.

(MR 1952): The singing of the “Exsultet” begins with the candle unlit; the grains of incense are fixed in it when the chant speaks of the incense; the candle is lit by the deacon and the lights in the church are lit when the chant makes mention of these actions. These actions, in union with the chant, make up the blessing.

4. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the unbelievable practice of dividing the litanies in two, in the midst of which the baptismal water is blessed.

Commentary: This decision is simply extravagant and incoherent. Never was it known that an impetratory prayer was split into two parts. The introduction of the baptismal rites in the middle is of an even greater incoherence.

(MR 1952): After the blessing of the baptismal font is finished, the litanies are sung before the beginning of Mass.

5. (OHS 1956): Introduction of placing the baptismal water in a basin in the middle of the sanctuary, with the celebrant turned towards the faithful, his back to the altar.

Commentary: Basically, it was decided to substitute the baptismal font with a pot placed in the middle of the sanctuary. This choice was dictated, once again, by the obsession that all the rites should be carried out with the “sacred ministers facing the people,” but with their back towards God; the faithful, by this logic, become the “true actors of the celebration …. The Commission was receptive to the aspirations poured out by the people of God …. The Church was open to the ferment of renovation.” These reckless decisions, founded on a pastoral populism that the people never requested, ended by destroying the entire sacred edifice, from its origins until the present.

At one time, the baptismal font was outside the church or, in succeeding ages, inside the walls of the edifice but close to the main door, since, according to Catholic theology, Baptism is the door, the “janua Sacramentorum” [“the door to the Sacraments”]. It is the Sacrament that makes those still outside the Church members of the Church. As such, it was symbolized in these liturgical customs. The catechumen receives [in Baptism] the character that makes him a member of the Church; therefore, he is to be received at the entrance, washed in the baptismal water, and thus acquire the right to enter into the nave as a new member of the Church, as one of the faithful. But, as a member of the faithful, he enters only the nave and not the sanctuary, wherein are the clergy, who are composed of those with the ministerial priesthood or who stand in relation to it. This traditional distinction was insisted on because the so-called “common” priesthood of the baptized is distinct from the ministerial priesthood and is distinct essentially, not superficially. They are two different things, not degrees of one single essence.

With the mandated changes, however, not only the baptized (as was already done on Holy Thursday) but even the non-baptized are summoned into the sanctuary, a place set aside for the clergy. One who is still “prey to the demon,” because still with Original Sin, is treated just like one who has received Holy Orders and enters into the sanctuary even though still a catechumen. The traditional symbolism, consequently, is completely massacred.

(MR 1952): The blessing of the baptismal water is given at the baptismal font, outside the church or near the entrance. Any catechumens are received at the entrance of the church, given Baptism, and then bid enter the nave, but not the sanctuary, as is logical, neither before nor after their Baptism.

6. (OHS 1956): Alteration of the symbolism of the chant “Sicut cervus” [“Like the hart that yearns”] of Psalm 41.

Commentary: After the creation of a baptistery inside the sanctuary, one is confronted with the problem of carrying away the baptismal water to some other location. It was decided, accordingly, to contrive a ceremony for carrying the water to the font after blessing it in front of the faithful and especially after conferring any baptisms as there might be. The transport of the baptismal water is accomplished while “Sicut cervus” is sung, i.e. that part of Psalm 41 which speaks of the thirst of the deer after it has fled from the bite of the serpent and which can only be slaked by drinking the water of salvation. At any rate, insufficient attention was paid to the fact that the deer’s thirst is sated by the waters of Baptism after the bite of the infernal serpent; for if Baptism has already been conferred, then the deer no longer thirsts, since, figuratively speaking, it has already drunk! The symbolism is changed and thus turned on its head.

(MR 1952): At the end of the singing of the prophecies, the celebrant goes to the baptismal font, to continue with the blessing of the water and to the conferral of Baptism as necessary; meanwhile, the “Sicut cervus” is sung. (127) The chant precedes, as is logical, the conferral of Baptism.

7. (OHS 1956): Creation ex nihilo of the “Renewal of Baptismal Promises.”

Commentary: One is, in a certain sense, proceeding blind when devising pastoral creations that have no true foundation in the history of the liturgy. Pursuing the notion that the Sacraments ought to be re-enlivened in the conscience, the reformers thought up the renewal of the baptismal promises. This became a kind of “examination of conscience” concerning the Sacrament received in the past. A similar tendency was observed in the twenties of the last century. In a veiled polemic with the provision of St. Pius X concerning the communion of children, the singular practice of a “solemn communion” or “profession of faith” was introduced; children of around thirteen years had to “remake” their first communion, in a kind of examination of conscience on the Sacrament already received several years before. This practice—although without calling into question the Catholic doctrine of “ex opere operato” [“from the work performed”]—emphasized the subjective element of the Sacrament over the objective. The new practice eventually ended up obscuring and overshadowing the Sacrament of Confirmation. A similar approach will be encountered in 1969 with the introduction on Holy Thursday of the “renewal of priestly promises.” With this latter practice is introduced a linkage between sacramental Holy Orders and a sentimental, emotional order, between the efficacy of the Sacrament and an examination of conscience, something rarely encountered in tradition.

The substrate of these innovations—which have no foundation either in Scripture or in the practice of the Church—seems to be a weakened conviction of the efficacy of the Sacraments. Although not in itself a plainly erroneous innovation, it appears nonetheless to lean towards theories of Lutheran provenance, which, while denying that “ex opere operato” has any role to play, hold that the sacramental rites serve more to “reawaken faith” than to confer grace.

It is difficult, moreover, to understand what was actually being sought with these reforms, since in fact edits were made to shorten the length of the celebrations, but tedious passages were introduced which burden the ceremonies unduly.

(MR 1952): The renewal of baptismal promises does not exist, just as, in this form, it has never existed in the traditional history of the liturgy of either East or West.

8. (OHS 1956): Creation of an admonition during the renewal of promises, which can be recited in the vernacular.

Commentary: The tone of this moralizing admonition betrays all too well the era in which it was composed (the mid-fifties). Today it already sounds dated, besides being a rather tedious adjunct. There is also the typical a-liturgical manner of turning to the faithful during this rite, a hybrid between homily and ceremony (which will enjoy great success in the years to follow).

(MR 1952): Does not exist.

9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the Our Father recited by everyone present, and possibly in the vernacular.

Commentary: The Our Father is preceded by a sentimental-sounding exhortation.

(MR 1952): Does not exist.

10. (OHS 1956): With no liturgical sense whatsoever, there is introduced here the second part of the litany, broken off at the half-way point prior to the blessing of the baptismal water.

Commentary: Before the blessing of the baptismal water, the litany is recited kneeling; afterwards, a great number of ceremonies are performed, along with movements in the sanctuary; then there is the joy following the blessing of the baptismal water and any Baptisms that follow; and then the same impetratory prayer of the litany is resumed at the precise point where it was broken off a half-hour before and left hanging. (It would be difficult to determine if the faithful remember when they left this prayer half-finished.) This innovation is incoherent and incomprehensible.

(MR 1952): The litany, recited integrally and without interruption, is chanted after the blessing of the baptismal font and before Mass.

11. (OHS 1956): Suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Psalm “Judica me” (Ps. 42), and the Confiteor at the beginning of Mass.

Commentary: It was decided that Mass should begin without the recitation of the Confiteor or the penitential psalm. Psalm 42, which recalls the unworthiness of the priest to ascend to the altar, was not appreciated, perhaps because it has to be recited at the foot of the altar before one can go up to it. When one understands the underlying liturgical logic here relative to the altar viewed as the “ara crucis” [“altar of the Cross”], a place sacred and terrible, where the redemptive Passion of Christ is made present, a prayer expressing the unworthiness of anyone to ascend those steps makes sense. The disappearance of Psalm 42 (which in the following years would be eliminated from every Mass) seems, instead, to be a wish for a preparation ritual having to do with an altar that is, symbolically, a common table rather than Calvary. As a consequence, the holy fear and sense of unworthiness affirmed by the psalm are no longer inculcated.

(MR 1952): Mass begins with the prayers at the foot of the altar, Psalm 42 (“Judica me, Deus”), and the Confiteor.

12. (OHS 1956): In the same decree, all the rites of the Vigil of Pentecost are abolished, except the Mass.

Commentary: This hasty abolition has all the marks of being tacked on at the last moment. Pentecost always had a vigil similar in its ceremonies to that of Easter. The reform, however, was not able to deal with Pentecost. But then again, the reformers could not leave untouched two rites which, fifty days apart, would have been, in the one case, a reformed version and, in the other, a traditional version. In their haste they decided to suppress the one they did not have time to reform; the ax fell on the Vigil of Pentecost. Such improvident haste resulted in rapid editing of the rites of the Vigil of Pentecost, so that the texts of the Mass which traditionally followed those rites no longer harmonized with them. Consequently, in the rite thus violently mutilated phrases remain which are rendered incongruous with the words of the celebrant during the Canon. The Canon presumes that the Mass is preceded by the rites of Baptism, which have been, however, suppressed. As a result, thanks to this reform, the celebrant recites during the special “Hanc igitur” words related to the sacrament of Baptism during the Vigil, whether the blessing of the font or the conferral of the Sacrament: “Pro his quoque, quos regenerare dignatus es ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, tribuens eis remissionem peccatorum” [“For these, too, whom Thou hast deigned to regenerate with water and the Holy Spirit, granting them remission of their sins”]. (136) But there is not a trace of this rite anymore. The Commission, in its haste to suppress, perhaps did not notice.

(MR 1952): The Vigil of Pentecost has rites which are baptismal in character, of which the “Hanc igitur” of the Mass makes mention.

GOOD FRIDAY Changes

Good Friday Changes 1952-56

4/18/2014

GOOD FRIDAY

1. (OHS 1956): The name “Solemn Liturgical Action” is devised, (73) thus eliminating the very ancient names “Mass of the Presanctified” and “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.”

Commentary: The terminology of “Presanctified” underlined the fact that the sacred Species had been consecrated at an earlier ceremony and showed the connection with the return of the Eucharist, an important and ancient part of the rite. But the Commission despised this concept and decided to reform the name along with the rite itself: “[We need] to trim back the medieval extravagances, so little noted, of the so-called Mass of the Presanctified to the severe and original lines of a great, general communion service.” (74) The usage “in Parasceve” [i.e., Friday “in Preparation”] was no longer in favor, even though its Hebraic overtones indicate its great antiquity.

(MR 1952): The name is “Mass of the Presanctified” or “Feria Sexta in Parasceve.”

2. (OHS 1956): The altar no longer has the veiled cross (and candlesticks -- CAP) on it

Commentary: The cross, especially the one on the altar, has been veiled since the first Sunday of the Passion, so that it should remain where it naturally ought to stand, namely at the center of the altar, later to be unveiled solemnly and publicly on Good Friday, the day of the triumph of the redemptive Passion. The authors of the reform apparently did not like the altar cross and decided to have it removed to the sacristy on the evening of Holy Thursday, and not in a solemn way but in the containers used to carry away the altar cloths after the stripping of the altars, or perhaps during the night in some unknown way, about which the rubrics for Holy Thursday are silent. On the very day of greatest importance for the Cross, when it ought to tower over the altar even though veiled at the beginning of the ceremony, it is absent. The fact that it remained present for nearly fifteen days on the altar, though publicly veiled, makes for the logic of its corresponding public unveiling, instead of an a-liturgical return of the cross from the sacristy as though someone hid it there in a closet during the night.

(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled at its usual place, i.e. on the altar, stripped of its cloths, and flanked by the usual candlesticks.

3. (OHS 1956): The reading of the Gospel is no longer distinct from that of the Passion.

Commentary: The entire passage is given a more narrative title: “The History of the Passion.” The motive behind this change is not clear, given that the Commission seemed to oppose such a change in the analogous case of Palm Sunday. (78) Perhaps the intention was, as elsewhere, to do away with everything that made reference to the Mass, such as the reading of the Gospel, and consequently to justify the suppression of the name “Mass of the Presanctified.”

(MR 1952): The Gospel is sung in a way distinct from the singing of the Passion, but on this day of mourning, without incense or torches.

4. (OHS 1956): The altar cloths are no longer placed on the altar from the beginning of the ceremony; at the same time, it is decided that the priest is not to wear the chasuble from the start, but only the alb and stole.

Commentary: The fact that the celebrant wears the chasuble even for a rite that is not, strictly speaking, the Mass witnesses to the extreme antiquity of these ceremonies, which the members of the Commission recognized as well. On the one hand, they maintained that the ceremonies of Good Friday were composed of "elements that (since ancient times) remained substantially untouched," but on the other hand they desired to introduce a change that would separate the Eucharistic liturgy from the "first part of the liturgy, the liturgy of the word." This distinction, in embryonic form at the time, was to be marked--according to Father Braga--by the fact that the celebrant wore the stole only and not the chasuble: "For the liturgy of the word [the celebrant] was left only the stole."

(MR 1952): The priest wears the black chasuble, prostrates himself before the altar, while the servers, meanwhile, spread a single cloth on the bare altar.

The question of the prayer for the Jews, though completely pertinent to the study of Holy Week, cannot be addressed except by a study that gives clarity to the philological misunderstanding relative to the erroneously interpreted words "perfidi" and "perfidia."

5. (OHS 1956): For the seventh prayer, the name "Pro unitate Ecclesiae" ["For the unity of the Church"] is introduced.

Commentary: With this expressive ambiguity the idea is brought in of a Church in search of its own social unity, hitherto not possessed. The Church, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, solemnly defined, does not lack social unity in the earthly realm, since the said unity is an essential property of the true Church of Christ. This unity is not a characteristic that is yet to be found through ecumenical dialogue; it is already metaphysically present. In effect, the words of Christ, "Ut unum sint" ["That they may be one"], is an efficacious prayer of Our Lord, and as such is already realized. Those who are outside the Church must return to her, must return to the unity that already exists; they do not need to unite themselves to Catholics in order to bring about a unity that already exists. The aim of the reformers, however, was to eliminate from this prayer, says Father Braga, some inconvenient words that spoke of souls deceived by the demon and ensnared by the wickedness of heresy: "animas diabolica fraude deceptas" and "haeretica pravitate." By the same logic, they desired to do away with the conclusion, which expressed hope for a return of those straying from the unity of Christ's truth back into His Church: "Errantium corda resipiscant et ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem." At any rate, it was not possible to reform the text of the prayer but only the title, since at the time—laments Father Braga again—“unity was conceived in terms of the preconciliar ecumenism." In other words, in 1956 the unity of the Church was conceived of as already existing, and God was being beseeched to bring back into this already existing unity those who were separated or far off from this unity. In the Commission there were members with traditional ideas who opposed the work of doctrinal erosion, though powerless to stop the creation of theological hybrids, such as the choice to leave the traditional text but to give it a new title. Annibale Bugnini himself, about ten years later, acknowledged that to pray for the future unity of the Church constitutes a heresy, and he mentions this in an article for L'Osservatore Romano that found fault with the title of the prayer "For the unity of the Church" introduced ten years prior by the Commission of which he was a member. Praising the prayers recently introduced in 1965, he writes that the prayer's name was changed from "For the unity of the Church" to "For the unity of Christians," because "the Church has always been one," but with the passage of time they were successful in eliminating the words "heretics" and "schismatics." It is sad to note that these shifting maneuvers were employed with the liturgy in order to bring in theological novelties.

(MR 1952): The text is the same as that of 1956, wherein it is prayed that heretics and schismatics would return to the unity of His truth: "ad veritatis tuae redeant unitatem," but without the ambiguous title of the 1956 version: "Pro unitate Ecclesiae."

6. (OHS 1956): At this point, there is the creation of a return procession of the cross from the sacristy.

Commentary: This time, the cross returns in a liturgical manner, i.e. publicly rather than placed into the hampers used to collect the candlesticks and flowers from the previous evening [the Mass of Holy Thursday]. In the liturgy, when there is a solemn procession of departure, there is a solemn return; this innovation makes for a solemn return of a symbol that, the evening before, was carried away together with other objects in a private form, placing it—in the best-case scenario—in a wicker basket. There seems to be, in fact, no liturgical significance for introducing this procession of the return of the hidden cross. Perhaps we are confronted with a maladroit attempt to restore the rite carried out at Jerusalem in the fourth and fifth centuries and made known to us by Egeria: "In Jerusalem the adoration took place on Golgotha. Egeria recalls that the community assembled early in the morning in the presence of the bishop ... and then the silver reliquary [theca] containing the relics of the true Cross were brought in." The restoration of this procession of the return of the cross took place in a context that was not that of Mount Calvary of the early centuries but in the context of the Roman liturgy, which over time had wisely elaborated and incorporated such influences from Jerusalem into a rite handed down over many centuries.

(MR 1952): The cross remains veiled on the altar beginning with Passion Sunday; it was unveiled publicly in the precincts of the altar, that is in the place where it remained publicly veiled until that point.

7. (OHS 1956): The importance of the Eucharistic procession is downplayed.

Commentary: The procession with the cross is a new creation, but the reform decides to downgrade the return procession with the Body of Christ to an almost private form in an inexplicable inversion of perspective. The Most Holy Sacrament was carried out the day before in a solemn manner to the altar of the Sepulcher. (We deliberately use the name "Sepulcher" because all of Christian tradition calls it thus, including the Memoriale Rituum and the Congregation of Rites, even if the Commission members barely tolerated this term (95); it appears to us profoundly theological and suffused with that sensus fidei [sense of the Faith] that is lacking in certain theologians.) It seems logical and "liturgical" that there should be for a solemn procession like that of Holy Thursday an equally dignified return on Good Friday. After all, here there is a particle of the same Blessed Sacrament from the previous day, the Body of Christ. With this innovation the honors to be paid to the Blessed Sacrament are reduced, and, in the case of Solemn Mass [of the Presanctified], it is the deacon who is instructed to go to the altar of the Sepulcher to bring back the Sacrament, while the priest sits tranquilly resting on the sedilia. The celebrant graciously arises when Our Lord, in the form of the sacred Species, is brought in by a subaltern, and then goes to the high altar. Perhaps it was for this reason that John XXIII did not want to follow this rubric at the Mass celebrated at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and desired to go himself, as Pope and as celebrant, to bring back the Most Holy Sacrament.

(MR 1952): The Most Blessed Sacrament returns in a procession equal in solemnity to that of the preceding day. It is the celebrant who goes to bring It back, as is natural. Since one is dealing with Our Lord Himself, present in the Host, one does not send a subordinate to bring Him to the altar.

8. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the incensing due to the consecrated Host.

Commentary: There is no apparent reason why the honors rendered to God on Good Friday should be inferior to those rendered on other days.
(MR 1952): The consecrated Host is incensed as usual, although the celebrant is not incensed. (98) The signs of mourning are evident here, but they do not extend to the Real Presence.

9. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the people reciting the Our Father.

Commentary: "The pastoral preoccupation with a conscious and active participation on the part of the Christian community" is dominant. The faithful must become "true actors in the celebration .... This was demanded by the faithful, especially those more attuned to the new spirituality.... The Commission was receptive to the aspirations of the people of God." (100) It remains to be proven whether these aspirations belonged to the faithful or to a group of avant-garde liturgists. It remains as well to specify theologically what this above-mentioned "new spirituality" and its "aspirations" were.

(MR 1952): The Pater [Our Father] is recited by the priest.

10. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the prayers that make reference to sacrifice while the Host is consumed.

Commentary: It is true that on this day, in the strict sense, there is no Eucharistic sacrifice with the separation of the sacred Species, but it is also true that the consuming the Victim, immolated the preceding day, is a part, though not an essential one, of the sacrifice. This is, in a certain sense, the sacramental continuation of the sacrifice, because the Body, when consumed, is nevertheless always the Body as immolated and sacrificed. Accordingly, tradition always speaks of the sacrifice in the prayers connected with the consuming of the Host. Some members of the Commission held that after so many years of tradition the time had come to correct errors and to declare that words such as "meum ac vestrum sacrificium" ["my sacrifice and yours"] were "completely out of place in this instance, since one is not dealing with a sacrifice but only with communion." (103) The decision was then taken to abolish these age-old prayers.

(MR 1952): The prayer, "Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium, etc." is recited, but, given the unique context, it is not followed by the usual response.

11. (OHS 1956): Placing a part of the consecrated Host into the wine in the chalice is abolished.

Commentary: Placing a particle of the consecrated Host (a rite also known in the Byzantine rite) into the unconsecrated wine obviously does not consecrate the wine, nor was that ever believed by the Church. Simply put, this union manifests symbolically, though not really, the reuniting of the fragment of the Body of Christ with the Blood, to symbolize the unity of the Mystical Body in eternal life, the final cause of the entire work of redemption, which is not unworthy of being recalled on Good Friday.
The “Memoire” preserved in the archives of the Commission affirm that this part of the rite absolutely had to be suppressed, because “the existence of a belief in the Middle Ages that the commingling of the consecrated bread [sic!] alone in the wine was sufficient to consecrate even the wine itself also brought about this rite; once the Eucharist was studied more profoundly, the lack of foundation for this belief was understood. But the rite remained.” This affirmation is rendered scandalous by the absence of any historical foundation and by the scientific method; and it implies quite profound theological consequences. In addition, it remains to be proven historically that during the Middle Ages the belief under discussion was in currency. Some theologians may have held erroneous opinions, but this does not prove that in fact the Roman Church fell into error to the point that she made it part of the liturgy with this precise theological view in mind. (The belief that the wine is consecrated by mere commingling with the Bread of Angels was not unknown among medieval Catholics, and is still held by the Greek Orthodox, as shown by the rubrics of the Liturgy of the Presanctified as observed by the Greeks and by some Slavs. However, it was never officially accepted by Rome as a legitimate belief, and it is interesting to note that by and large the Russian Orthodox share the Roman stand. CAP.) In this context, one would be affirming that the Roman Church, conscious of the serious error, did not wish to correct it; one would be maintaining [in effect] that the Roman Church could change her view over the course of the centuries on a point that is so fundamental; and one would also be affirming that the she could err in relation to a dogmatic fact (such as the universal liturgy), and that for several centuries. Perhaps justification was sought for the work of reform already undertaken, which sought to correct all the errors that entire generations of Popes failed to detect but that the keen eye of the Commission had finally unmasked.
It is not pleasant to note that these affirmations are imbued with a pseudo-rationalism of a positivist stamp, the kind in vogue during the fifties. Often it relied on summary and less than scientific studies in order to demolish those deplorable “medieval traditions” and introduce useful “developments.”

(MR 1952): A part of the consecrated Host is placed in the wine, but, with great theological coherence, the prayer before consuming the Precious Blood is omitted.

12. (OHS 1956): The change of times for the service, which could have been accomplished in harmony with popular customs, ended up creating notable pastoral and liturgical problems.

Commentary: In the past, pious customs and practices were developed in a way that was consonant with the liturgy. A common example in very many places: from noon, even today, a great crucifix is set up, in front of which the Tre Ore [“Three Hours”] of Christ’s suffering is preached (from noon until three o’clock). As a consequence of the change in time for the service, one is confronted with the paradox of a sermon delivered before the crucifix at a time when the crucifix ought to remain veiled, because the Good Friday service is to be held in the afternoon. (108) Some dioceses even today are constrained to hold the “Liturgical Action” [of the Passion of the Lord] in one church, while in another the ancient pious practices are conducted, in order to avoid a too obvious visual incongruity. Numerous similar examples could be adduced. It is clear, though, that the “pastoral” reform par excellence was not “pastoral,” because it was born of experts who had no real contact with a parish nor with the devotions and piety of the people—which they often enough disdained.
According to the reformers, during the hours of the afternoon a “liturgical void” had been created, and an attempt to remedy this was sought “by introducing paraliturgical elements, such as the Tre Ore, the Way of the Cross, and the Sorrowful Mother.” (109) The Commission decided, therefore, to remedy this scandal using the worst “pastoral” method: namely writing off popular customs and paying them no mind. The disdain in this type of “pastoral” method forgets that inculturation is a Catholic phenomenon of long standing. It consists of a reconciliation, one as generous as possible, of piety to dogma, and not of a unilateral imposition of provisions by “experts.”

(MR 1952): The problem is not a question of times: liturgy and piety have developed over the centuries in a fusion of one with the other, without, however, coming into conflict in an antagonism as pointless as it is imaginary.

HOLY SATURDAY Changes

Holy Thursday Changes 1952-56

4/17/2014

HOLY THURSDAY

1. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the stole as part of the choir dress of priests.

Commentary: This is the beginning of the myth of concelebration on Holy Thursday. The bolder among the reformers wished to introduce it along with this reform, but resistance—especially from members of the Commission such as Cardinal Cicognani and Msgr. Dante—blocked this novelty. Father Braga writes: “As to the ‘participation’ of the priests, sacramental concelebration did not seem attainable (the mind-set, even of certain members of the Commission, was not yet prepared for it).” In effect, there was a strongly hostile feeling against concelebration on Holy Thursday because it was not traditional: “Concelebration, whether sacramental or purely ceremonial, was to be excluded.” To introduce the idea of concelebration, its proponents had to be content with the creation of the practice of having every priest present don a stole, (60) not at the moment of communion only but beginning with the start of the Mass.

(MR 1952): The priests and deacons wear the usual choir dress, without the stole, and put on the stole at the time of communion only, as is the usual custom.

2. (OHS 1956): The practice is introduced of giving communion with only those hosts consecrated on this day.

Commentary: It is incomprehensible why those present cannot communicate with hosts already consecrated previously. The Roman practice of the “Fermentum”—which is historically documented—was to communicate, in general, from a particle of the Eucharist from the Sunday prior, to show the communion of the Church throughout time and space, within the reality of the Body of Christ. This presence, being “real and substantial,” continues when the assembly departs and at the same time, with even greater logical coherence, precedes the reuniting of the assembly. With this [new] rubric, the idea is introduced of the Real Presence being tied to the day of the celebration, as well as the idea that one is obliged to communicate from hosts consecrated on the same day. It is as much as to say that those hosts are in some way different from those consecrated earlier. One should note that this obligation relates not merely to the symbolism of the tabernacle being empty before the Mass of Holy Thursday—which, at most, might have had some significance, albeit a novel one—since the text affirms that those who receive communion must receive only hosts consecrated on this day. The underlying theology does not seem very solid, while the symbolism is debatable.

(MR 1952): There is no mention of this practice of giving communion with hosts consecrated on Holy Thursday.

3. (OHS 1956): The washing of feet is no longer at the end of Mass but in the middle of Mass.

Commentary: The reform appealed to a restoration of the “veritas horarum” [i.e., observance of the “true times” of the services], an argument used in season and out, like a veritable hobby horse. In this case, however, the chronological sequence given in the Gospel is abandoned. Rivers of ink flowed in order to convince others of the scandal of an horarium that was not in full accord with that of the Gospels, but in this case not only was a rite anticipated, or postponed, for practical reasons, but the chronological order of the Gospel narrative was inverted within a single ceremony. St. John writes that Our Lord washed the feet of the Apostles after the supper: “et cena facta” [“the supper having been finished”] (John 13: 2). It escapes understanding why the reformers, for whatever obscure motive, chose, arbitrarily, to put the washing of the feet directly in the middle of Mass. While Mass is being celebrated, consequently, some of the laity are allowed to enter the sanctuary and take off their shoes and socks. Apparently there was a desire to re-think the sacredness of the sanctuary and the prohibition of the laity from entering it during divine services. The washing of feet, therefore, is spliced into the offertory, an abuse whereby the celebration of Mass is interrupted with other rites, a practice founded on the dubious distinction of Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

(MR 1952): The rite known as the Mandatum, or washing of the feet, is carried out after Mass and not in the sanctuary, after the stripping of the altars and without interrupting Mass or allowing the laity to enter the sanctuary during the service, and withal respecting the chronological sequence given in the Gospel.

4. (OHS 1956): Omission of the Confiteor recited by the deacon before Holy Communion.

Commentary: The third, despised Confiteor is done away with, without recognition of the fact that the confession made by the deacon, or the server, although borrowed from the rite for communion extra missam [outside of Mass], is a confession of the unworthiness of the communicants to receive the sacred Species. It is not a “duplication” of the confession made by the priest and ministers at the beginning of Mass, since at that point they have simply recited their own unworthiness to approach the altar and to celebrate the sacred mysteries. (Hence, at a sung Mass it is recited sotto voce.) This is distinct from one’s unworthiness to approach Holy Communion.

(MR 1952): The Confiteor is recited before communion.

5. (OHS 1956): At the end of Mass, during the stripping of the altars, it is mandated that even the cross and candlesticks are to be removed.

Commentary: It was decided that everything should be stripped from the altar, even the cross. The rubrics of the reformed Holy Thursday do not explain, however, what to do with the altar cross, but one learns this by accident, as it were, from the rubrics of the following day. In effect, the rubrics of Good Friday speak of an altar without a cross, which one can deduce from the fact that it was taken away during the stripping of the altars, or perhaps in a more private manner during the night. (This and other problems arise when one changes a liturgy which has benefited from layers of tradition and which is all but intolerant of hasty alterations.) Perhaps, on the basis of a certain liturgical archeologism, the reformers wished to prepare souls for the spectacle of a bare table in the middle of the sanctuary—something which makes little sense theologically.

(MR 1952): The cross remains on the altar, veiled and accompanied by the candlesticks, enthroned there in expectation of being unveiled the following day.

GOOD FRIDAY CHANGES

Holy Week Changes

6/8/2013

HOLY MONDAY

(OHS 1956): The prayer “Contra persecutores Ecclesiae [Against the Church’s persecutors]” is prohibited, as is the prayer for the Pope.

Commentary: This move abetted the elimination of all references to the fact that the Church has enemies. The reformers’ “reason” desired to obscure, with euphemisms and the suppression of entire passages, the reality of the Church’s persecution at the hands of enemies both earthly and infernal, who struggle against the Church with both violence and the insinuation of heresy among the faithful. (So one reads in the suppressed prayer.) This same irenic attitude is encountered again on Good Friday, as Fr. Braga frankly admits. In the same context, the concurrent suppression of the prayer for the Pope is decreed; and so begins the practice of reducing the presence of the name of the Roman Pontiff in the liturgy.

(MR 1952): The prayer “Against the Church’s persecutors” and the prayer for the Pope are recited.

HOLY TUESDAY

(OHS 1956): Suppression of Mark 14: 1-31, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Mark.

Commentary: Here is the second, disturbing elimination of the Gospel passage on the institution of the Holy Eucharist as placed in relation to the sacrifice of the Passion. The suppression of approximately thirty verses does not seem to have been solely for reasons of time, considering, once again, the importance of these verses.

(MR 1952): Mark 14: 1-31, the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist, begins the reading of the Passion.

HOLY WEDNESDAY

(OHS 1956): Suppression of Luke 22: 1-39, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Luke.

Commentary: This is the third time one is struck by the elimination of the Gospel passage on the institution of the Eucharist in its natural connection with the sacrifice of the Cross. In this instance, as in the preceding, it is difficult to believe that for simple motives of saving time these thirty important verses were eliminated.

(MR 1952): The account of the Passion is preceded by the institution of the Holy Eucharist with which it is related by its nature.

Changes to Prayers for Palm Sunday

6/7/2013

1952

1956

1969

After the usual Asperges before the beginning of mass, the officiating priest, wearing a cope of purple colour over his alb and stole, and attended by deacon sub-deacon, and other ministers, stands at the epistle corner of the altar, with the palms that are to be blessed near him, while the choir sings the following antiphon

Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! O King of Israel! Hosanna in the highest!

V. The Lord be with you
R. And with thy spirit

Let us pray

O God whom to hold dear and to love is Righteousness, multiply in us the gifts of Thine ineffable grace; and do Thou, Who hast made us, by the death of Thy Son, to hope for the things we believe, make us by His resurrection to attain to the end for which we strive Who with Thee. Amen

Lesson

Exodus 15, 27; 16,7
In those days the children of Israel came to Elim, where they found twelve springs of water and seventy palm-trees, and pitched their tents beside the water. Then, leaving Elim, the Israelite people marched to the desert of Sin, between Elim and Sinai. It was now the fifteenth day of the second month since they had left Egypt, and the Israelites, one and all, there in the desert, were loud in their complaints against Moses and Aaron. It would have been better, they told them, if the Lord had struck us dead in the land of Egypt, where we sat down to bowls of meat, and had more bread than we needed to content us. Was it well done to bring us out into this desert, and starve our whole company to death? But the Lord said to Moses, I mean to rain down bread upon you from heaven. It will be for the people to go out and gather enough for their needs day by day; and so I shall have a test, whether they are ready to follow my orders or not. Only when the sixth day comes must they lay in a store twice as large as they gathered on any of the others. So Moses and Aaron told all the people of Israel, This night shall bring proof it was the Lord that rescued you from Egypt, and to-morrow you shall witness his glory.

The responsories are then chanted

1. John, 11, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53. The chief priests and pharisees gathered a council and said: What do we; for this man doth many miracles? If we let Him alone so, all men will believe in Him: * And the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. V. But one of them named Caiphas, being the high-priest that year, prophesied, saying: It is expedient for you, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. From that day therefore they devised to put Him to death, saying: * And the Romans will come, etc.

2. Matt. 26, 39, 41. On Mount Olivet He prayed to His Father; Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me. * The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh Is weak: Thy will be done. y. Watch, and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.* The spirit indeed, etc.

With all the customary ceremonies at high Mass, the Gospel is now sung by the deacon.

Gospel. Matt. 21,1-9
Continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. Matthew
At that time, when Jesus drew nigh to Jerusalem, and was come to Bethphage, unto Mount Olivet; He sent two disciples, saying to them, Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to Me. And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye that the Lord hath need of them, and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them: and they brought the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and made Him sit thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; and others cut boughs from the trees, and strewed them in the way: and the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The priest now proceeds to bless the palms.
The Lord be with you.
And with thy spirit.
Let us pray.

Increase the faith of them that hope in Thee, O God, and give ear to our humble petitions; let Thy manifold mercy come upon us; let these branches, whether of palm or of olive, be blessed + and, as, in the antetype of the Church, Thou didst multiply Noe, when he went forth from the ark, and Moses, when he went out of Egypt with the children of Israel, so may we, who bear palms and olive branches, go forth with good works to meet Christ, and, through Him, may we enter into everlasting joy. Who, with Thee, liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God.

After the words "in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God" (In unitate Spiritus sancti Deus), the priest intones the Preface as at high Mass.

For ever and ever.
Amen.

V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.
V. Lift up your hearts.
R. We have them lifted up unto the Lord.
V. Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.
R. It is fitting and right.

Preface

It is truly meet and just,right and profitable for us,at all times and in all places to give thanks to Thee, holy Lord, almighty Father, eternal God, Who dost glory in the wisdom of Thy saints. For Thee do Thy creatures serve, because they know Thee, their only author and God: and all the things that Thou hast made join in praising Thee; and Thy saints bless Thee, in that they confess with unfaltering voice before kings and powers of this world that great name, the name of Thine only-begotten Son. Before Whom stand angels and archangels, thrones and dominations, and, with all the array of the heavenly host, sing together the hymn of Thy glory, and unceasingly repeat:

The choir sings the Sanctus, the priest pausing till it is terminated.

HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts. The heavens and the earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

He resumes:
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

HOLY Lord, almighty Father, eternal God, this olive branch, a created thing, which Thou hast commanded to issue forth from the substance of the wood, and which the dove, returning to the ark, carried in its own beak, we ask that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless + and sanctify + it, so that all who shall receive any of it may receive to themselves protection of soul and body; and let it become, O Lord, a saving remedy to us and a sacred sign of Thy grace.
Through our Lord. Amen.

Let us pray.

O God, Who dost gather dispersed things and preserve what Thou hast gathered, Who didst bless the people bearing branches to meet Jesus, bless + also these branches of palm and of olive which Thy servants take up in the spirit of faith, that, into whatsoever place they shall be brought, the dwellers in that place may obtain Thy blessing, and that, putting to flight all evil, Thy right hand may protect those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who with Thee liveth and reigneth. Amen.

Let us pray.

O God, Who in the marvellous order of Thy providence hast been pleased to show forth the manner of our salvation even by means of material things, grant, we beseech Thee, that the devout hearts of Thy faithful may understand, to their profit, the mystical signification of the fact that on this day the populace, filled with heavenly enlightenment, went out to meet the Redeemer, and strewed under His feet branches of olive and of palm. The palm branches, therefore, look to His triumph over the prince of death, but the sprigs of olive proclaim that in a certain manner the spiritual unction is already come. For that favored throng even then understood that our Redeemer, condoling with the sorrows of mankind, was to battle with the prince of death for the life of the whole world, and was to triumph by dying. And for this they waited upon Him with such observance as should declare both the triumph of His victory and the richness of His mercy. Remembering which fact and its signification with full faith, we, too, beseech and supplicate Thee, O holy Lord, almighty Father, eternal God, through the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, that in Him, and through Him, Whose members Thou hast willed us to be, we may be worthy to gain the victory over the empire of death and to partake in His glorious resurrection. Who with thee liveth and reigneth. Amen.

Let us pray.

O God, Who didst appoint a dove to bring its message of peace to the earth by means of an olive branch, grant, we beseech Thee, that Thou mayest sanctify with heavenly benediction + these branches of olive and of other trees, so that they may profit all Thy people unto salvation. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Let us pray.

Bless + we beseech Thee, O Lord, these branches, whether olive or palm, and gr ant that what Thy people this day doeth in the flesh in Thy honor it may do in spirit with uttermost devotion, winning the victory over the enemy,and loving with all its heart the exercise of mercy. Through our Lord. Amen.

The Lord be with you.
And With Thy spirit.

Let us pray.

O God, Who didst send Thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, into this world for our salvation, that He might humble Himself to our level and recall us to Thee; for Whom, also, as He came to Jerusalem, to fulfil the Scriptures, the throng of believing people, with the most heartfelt devotion, strewed their garments in His way, together with palm branches; grant, we beseech Thee, that we may prepare for Him the way of faith, upon which the stone of offense and the rock of scandal being removed,our works of justice may put forth leaves upon their branches before Thee, so that we may be worthy to follow His footsteps. Who with Thee liveth. Amen.

If another priest is present the officiant goes to the middle of the altar, where, facing the people, he receives the palm from the priest. Both stand during the ceremony and kiss the palm. If no other priest assists at the ceremony the server places the palm intended for the officiant upon the altar immediately after the palms have been blessed; the officiant proceeds to the middle, kneels on both knees, takes his palm from the altar, kisses it, and returns it to the server. If the ceremony is carried on without chant the officiant then goes to the Missal at the Epistle corner, reads the two antiphons, found below, returns to the middle of the altar, hands the palms to the servers, and then distributes them to the people.

At the solemn blessing the officiant now gives each of the clergy and laity present a palm or olive branch, or a twig of whatever tree or shrub was blessed in place of these. Each one on receiving his palm reverently kisses it and the hand of the officiating priest. Meanwhile the choir sings the following antiphons:

The Hebrews, bearing olive branches, went to meet the Lord, crying aloud and saying, Hosanna in the highest.

The children of the Hebrews strewed their garments in the way, and cried aloud, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord

Returning to the altar the celebrant chants:

The Lord be with you.
And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

Almighty, eternal God, Who didst cause Our Lord Jesus Christ to sit upon an ass's foal, and didst teach the crowds of the people to strew branches of trees in His way and sing Hosanna in His praise, grant, we beseech Thee, that we may be able to imitate their innocence and worthily to acquire their merit. Through the same Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

Omitting the usual Asperges before the beginning of mass, the officiating priest, wearing a cope of red colour over his alb and stole, and attended by deacon sub-deacon, and other ministers, stands where he can be seen by the faithful, with the palms that are to be blessed near him He reverences the altar and stands facing the people while the choir sings the following antiphon
Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! O King of Israel! Hosanna in the highest!

Here is said only one blessing below

Omitted

Omitted

Omitted

Omitted

Retained but said after the Blessing
Gospel. Matt. 21,1-9
Continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. Matthew
At that time, when Jesus drew nigh to Jerusalem, and was come to Bethphage, unto Mount Olivet; He sent two disciples, saying to them, Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to Me. And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye that the Lord hath need of them, and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them: and they brought the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and made Him sit thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; and others cut boughs from the trees, and strewed them in the way: and the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Omitted

Omitted

Omitted

Omitted

Omitted

Moved to end of procession and reworded
O Lord Jesus Christ, Our King and Redeemer, in Whose honour we have bourne these palms and gone on praising Thee with song and solemnity; merciful grant that whithersoever these palms are taken, there the grace of Thy blessing may descend, and may every demonic iniquity and trickery be frustrated; and may Thy right hand protect those it hath redeemed. Who lives and reigns.

Omitted

Omitted

Said before the Gospel
Let us pray.

Bless + we beseech Thee, O Lord, these branches, whether olive or palm, and gr ant that what Thy people this day doeth in the flesh in Thy honor it may do in spirit with uttermost devotion, winning the victory over the enemy,and loving with all its heart the exercise of mercy. Through our Lord. Amen.

Omitted

Retained with the addition of Psalm 46

Omitted

No Asperges, priest in red cope

Retained in Paul VI Liturgy
Hosanna to the son...

Said before Gospel
Let us pray.

Almighty everliving God, sanctify + these branches with your blessing, that we, who follow Christ the King in exultation,may reach the eternal Jer- usalem through him. Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
R. Amen.

Changes to the Traditional Mass from 1959 - 1969

6/5/2013

The above Table is a summary of the Changes to the Traditional Mass from 1959 to 1969.

A TICK indicates that this prayer or action still remains. If there is a X this indicates that either the rubrics do not allow it or the rubrics no longer require this as either omitted in the Missal or changed in the instructions.
Where there is a TICK/X, this indicates it was optional, so the priest could do either.

So, e.g. The Canon is said silently, being the sole prayer of the priest as intercessory for the faithful, thus said in silent reverence. This is up until 1964, when it could be said in a loud voice. Then in 1967 was said aloud.

As another example Solemn Mass with deacon only was NOT permitted up till 1964 then was permitted from 1964 onwards

This list is not complete. There are more like for example where it require the server to ring a bell if there are communicants instead of the long standing Confiteor.

Communion of the faithful during Mass is a separate action and rite, not essential to the Mass in itself. Please note that the Confiteor (I confess) was omitted from the 1960 changes, even though the Ritual Romanum of 1960 still has the Confiteor as part of the rite of Communion outside of Mass, and for Communion of the Sick and Viaticum.