Originally published on March 29, 2015
We begin today with the beautiful solemn celebrations of Holy Week. Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ enters today the Holy City on a donkey to the glad shouts of "Hosanna" which in a few days would turn into "Crucify Him!"
Oh, how our liturgical masters have betrayed Him and us.
It is not enough to see the impoverishment of the Holy Week liturgies in the new liturgy as structured, but in most places, as celebrated.
If you want a vernacular Ordinary Form liturgy did you have a full procession with Gregorian chant antiphons? Will Holy Thursday include the antiphons during the "optional" Washing of the Feet (of men only "viri selecti," notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's personal dispensation of the need to follow the Law)? Will Good Friday include the sung Reproaches? Was it really necessary for the foot washing rite to be inserted in Mass?
Yet, not even the traditional liturgy has been left alone to be celebrated in its majestic history and biblical symbolism. In 1955 a liturgist named Annibale Bugnini convinced a tired and ill holy Pope to make unprecedented changes to the Holy Week rites. For the first time, there would be prayers facing the people and an insertion of a para-liturgy within the Holy Mass. The change of hours was positive so that the faithful could attend, pray, worship and benefit from these venerable rites. Changing the hours would have meant removing Vespers from the Holy Saturday Mass and replacing it with Lauds of Easter Sunday which was done regardless.
The rest was and remains an impoverishment. To imagine that the ancient office of Matins now called the Office of Readings with its three nocturnes and twelve prophesies was jettisoned from the Vigil for an illogical four is still regretted every Holy Saturday by anyone who has examined the two or chants these glorious rituals to commemorate our Blessed Lord's passion, death and resurrection.
Gregory DiPippo at the New Liturgical Movement wrote a copyrighted Compendium of the 1955 Holy Week Revisions of Pius XII. They are worth studying and are linked below.
Part 1: The Palm Sunday Blessing and the Procession of Palms
Part 2: The Masses of Palm Sunday, Holy Tuesday and Spy Wednesday
Part 3: The Mass of Holy Thursday and the Mandatum
Part 4.1: Mass of the Presanctified, Good Friday, Mass of the Catechumens and the Solemn Prayers
Part 4.2: Good Friday, The Adoration of the Cross and the Rite of the Presanctified
Part 5: Tenebrae and the Divine Office of the Triduum
Part 6.1: Holy Saturday and the Blessing of the New Fire, Procession, Exultet, Prophesies
Part 6.2: Holy Saturday and the Blessing of the Font, Litany of the Saints, Mass and Vespers
Part 7: The Vigil of Pentecost and the Readings from Sacred Scripture in Holy Week
Part 8: The Hours of the Celebration of the Holy Week Liturgies
Part 9: The Reform of the 1955 and Post-Conciliar Holy Week
The
Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956
Rorate
Caeli first presented the following translation of Fr. Stefano Carusi's work on
the reform of Holy Week under Pope Pius XII five years ago. As our readership
has grown dramatically over that time we are compelled to bring it back and
share with new readers. This translation is the work of Fr. Charles W. Johnson,
a U.S. military chaplain, and one of the first priests in the Rorate Caeli
Purgatorial Society:
http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP14_Part1_HolyWeekReformFinal.pdf
http://www.unavoce.ru/pdf/FIUV_PP/FIUV_PP14_Part2_HolyWeekLiturgiesFinal.pdf
THE "RESTORED" HOLY WEEK
Msgr Léon Gromier, Papal Master of Ceremonies of Pius XII
a conference given in Paris in July 1960 (original in French)
Translated by Fr Anthony Chadwick
Reprinted below from this link:
http://civitas-dei.eu/gromier.htm
The links below are presented for academic and research purposes and are not an endorsement of Father Cekada's position on the papacy being vacant. Vox.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/05/holy-week-palm-sunday-old-vs-1955-rite/
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/07/the-office-of-tenebrae-old-vs-5562-rite/
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/08/maundy-thursday-old-vs-5562-rite/
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/09/good-friday-old-vs-5562-rite/
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/10/bugninis-51-easter-vigil-first-step-to-the-novus-ordo/
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/03/31/short-critique-of-article-regarding-the-restored-order-of-holy-week/
THE
"RESTORED" HOLY WEEK
Msgr
Léon Gromier, Papal Master of Ceremonies of Pius XII
a
conference given in Paris in July 1960 (original in French)
Translated
by Fr Anthony Chadwick
Translator's
note: Msgr Gromier uses the term pastoral in the substantive, or pastorals in
the plural, meaning a person with pastoral ideals. In the context of this
conference, the term denotes someone who wishes to modify the liturgy on a
pastoral pretext. One may also speak of pastoralism, the notion according to
which the liturgy is absolutely irrelevant to modern man and must therefore be
reformed. It is a fact that a rite extremely similar to the Novus Ordo was
already being discussed and marketed in 1948, the very year Bugnini was
appointed to the Congregation of Rites. We can conclude that the reforms of
Pius XII and John XXIII are a part of the Novus Ordo. Msgr Gromier immediately
saw through the charade.
The
"restored" Holy Week was to begin with a question of timetable. It
was a question of restoring the use of the Paschal Vigil, based on the pastoral
dogma of the Resurrection at precisely midnight. This dogma is not easily
defended, for why insist on this when evening Masses, in practice, admit celebration
at any time of the day or night, even after the singing of Vespers, when
Conventual Mass is celebrated indifferently after Terce, Sext or None? Another
problem, the rules of worship are governed not only by the movement of the
earth, but also by the discipline of fasting that has been considerably
slackened. It results from this that the restored edifice looks like a house of
cards. Pastoral zeal extends from Saturday, the culminating point, to the whole
Week from Palm Sunday.
The
progressive anticipation of the three last days, then their relegation to the
original evening opens for us a debate. The introductory general decree affirms
that, towards the end of the Middle Ages, the above mentioned solemnities had
been anticipated in the morning. Now, the bull of St Pius V, Ad cuius notitiam,
of 29th March 1566, therefore 113 years after the end of the Middle Ages,
prohibited what was still done, by permission or custom, in cathedral,
collegial, conventual and other churches - to celebrate, the evening or towards
the time of sunset, Holy Saturday and other solemnities. The goal is obvious:
the Church's pastoral office must restore, repair damage; the more they were
serious, the more the restoration would be welcome; God alone knows if the
restoration to be done, before any other, was not to abolish the bull of St
Pius V leaving to Bishops the longed-for freedom, to choose the most
advantageous afternoon time for the offices of Holy Week: also allowing, for
those who desired it, to make their communion; something that had been
abolished for fear that the fast was not kept during the hours of the afternoon
- when the celebrant was still fasting.
Its
terminology deserves attention; for an apologist maintains us in ignorance. Up
to now we knew the Passion Sunday, Palm Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
of Holy Week, Maundy Thursday In Cæna Domini in Latin, Good Friday In Parasceve
in Latin and Holy Saturday. Since we want to amplify the solemnity of the
Procession of the Palms, why place this Sunday under the dependence of the
Passion, instead of leaving its old name of Palm Sunday, that everyone
understands, and that deceives no-one? If Holy Saturday is so-called, Good
Friday can be called in just the same way [Vendredi Saint in French], by all
the Christians of the world. We have called it in Parasceve (Preparation) for
nearly two thousand years; the name alone shows the antiquity of this rite. So,
why replace it by Passion and Death of the Lord; a useless renaming,
non-traditional, unknown in the Canon of the Mass? In ecclesiastical style,
passion means suffering until death inclusively. If the substantive death was
so necessary, common sense would demand that it should be added to the word
passion in the title of the Gospel: Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, now
called history of the Passion.
The
occasion presents itself to examine the juridical capacities of the pastorals.
It is not enough to speak about a thing to create it. Office in choro means a
liturgical place where ecclesiastics act according to liturgical rules. Office
in communi designates neither a place nor a person. It is a group of people
reunited without any mandate, without legal entity and who has the pleasure of
saying the private Office collectively. The Breviary distinguishes in choro and
extra chorum, there is no third term.
To
omit Vespers of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday - that is the height of the
arbitrary, above all when the reason is given: Mass takes the place of Vespers,
taking first place! Now, between Mass and Vespers, there is no rivality:
Vespers enjoy equal dignity with other liturgical services. According to times
and places, Vespers have disappeared after the Mass of Holy Saturday, as after
the Masses of Thursday and Friday. They were never intended to be abolished.
The hour fixed by the pastorals fully agrees with the historical fact - fasting
until Vespers, preceded by Mass and communion. Vespers of Holy Saturday are in
the afternoon, before the nocturnal Mass - but there is no reason to abolish Vespers
of Thursday and Friday, after the Mass that is nocturnal by definition. Holy
Saturday without Compline is inexplicable. Maundy Thursday and Good Friday with
Compline and without Vespers defy reason, for even if we go to bed late, we
still go to bed and need to say our prayers.
To
qualify the Procession of Palms, the Good Friday service and the Paschal Vigil,
the pastorals use the adjective solemn, whilst they do not for all the rest.
Now, the solemnity of liturgical services is not an optional decoration; it is
of the nature of the service - resulting from all these constitutive elements,
not only from some of them. All the manuals explain which functions are solemn
or not solemn. Outside of this, so-called solemnity is not an amplifying
enticement, to impress and score the goal. It informs us that, by a recent
habit, we made a prodigious use of the word solemn even for necessarily or
intrinsically solemn acts. We use words, believing we can put more solemnity
into the Procession of Palms than into that of Candlemas (Purification), more
solemnity into the Procession of Maundy Thursday than that of Good Friday
(abolished as we shall see). Always on the same slippery slope, we learn that
the Passion of Good Friday is sung solemnly, as if it could be sung in another
fashion.
Worthy
of admiration and power, pastorals manifest themselves by the abolition of the
sad and unfortunate canon 1252 §4, on the fasting of Holy Saturday.
On
this day, it is said that, under the symbol of the Paschal Candle, representation
is made of our Redeemer, light of the world, who by the grace of His light,
chased away the darkness of our sins, etc. This was surrounded by a measure of
mystery, without risk for teaching. Now, one insists on crossing all our t's,
causing no small incertitude. The various times and places gives us a
kaleidoscope of rites, where we have to discern what they have in common. Like
in primitive times, fire produces - whether hidden in a place where it is
conserved, lit by rays of the sun and a magnifying glass or by a flint - a
means of light for the Paschal night. This is the Paschal Candle, accompanied
by the proclamation of the Paschal Mystery. The simultaneous and historical
presence of two paschal candles does not go at all well with the thesis of the
pastorals. The lighting of the Candle is the act of first necessity against
darkness, and must evoke the living Christ - but excessively anticipates the
announcement of the Resurrection. The amplification the Candle receives from
the pastorals makes it resemble an end more than a means. Formerly incensed
after its blessing, and even consecrated according to some authors, to-day
simply blessed, the Paschal Candle becomes an object that occupies a place
between a cross, a gospel book and a relic. All this will become clearer when
we get to the day of Holy Saturday.
oOo
During
the whole Holy Week, all the texts sung by the deacon, sub-deacon or singers
are omitted by the celebrant, who has not to read them. It is of little
importance how the celebrants sing (often badly), if they get themselves heard
and understood through their loud-speakers. People must listen. What a victory!
They revel in this as a return to antiquity, a pledge for the future, a
foretaste of reforms to come. This can be of interest to faithful accustomed to
using a book, who - with their faces buried in their missals - are isolated
from the community, sic! Distinction is made between reading with the eyes or
with the lips. It is not admissible, they say, to read with the lips something that
someone else is singing. But, reading with the eye can be defended; it has a
respectable age, began by necessity, continues by utility, is esteemed; it is
part of the pontifical assistance of the Pope and the Bishop.
To
forget nothing, we are told that the altar of repose of Maundy Thursday has a
solemn character - something the Missal has never said, better written than
certain rubrics. These express two prescriptions and one prohibition: the
clergy holds lighted candles, to begin with during the singing of the Exsultet,
then during a dialogue between the celebrant and the faithful before Mass. It
is forbidden to hold the palms during the singing of the Passion. Overall, they
pretend to create two obligations for two novelties; they abolish an ancient practice,
that finds its explanation explication in Saint Augustine (homily at matins of
Saturday before Palm Sunday) : "The leaves of palms are praises meaning
victory; for the Lord was at the point of conquering death by dying, and
triumphing over the devil by the trophy of His cross".
The
vigil of Pentecost is stripped of its baptismal character, and has become a day
like any other, and makes the Missal tell a lie in the canon. This vigil was an
annoying neighbour, a formidable rival! Instructed posterity will certainly be
more severe than is opinion in regard to the pastorals.
Whether
we like it or not, the communion of the clergy, desired at the Mass of Maundy
Thursday, will always be in conflict with permissions given to celebrate Mass
in private.
The
pastorals call on Christ the King to give a strong meaning to their solemn
procession of Palms; as if this was needed to perfect a situation to which the
author of the Gloria, laus et honor wrote sufficiently, but not in the new
fashion. Certain modifications of tradition, so well-known, are just as
dishonest as they are daring.
The
sprinkling of holy water is a paschal rite that is done every Sunday. Palm
Sunday is no less a Sunday than any other. When Candlemas [ed. Feast of the
Purification] falls on a Sunday, it does not impede the Asperges me. This has
never involved sprinkling water onto a table placed somewhere with palms or
other objects on it. It is a matter of sprinkling the altar, the clergy, the
church and the faithful. Except for the Bishop, unless impossible, the proper
place for blessings - as for consecrations - is the altar, or yet within a
short distance, the credence table for example.
For
centuries, the consecration of the oils is done at the altar, before it was
done on a table as to-day, and not in conspectu populi. What have the pastorals
to show the people here, those who have stripped the blessing of palms to the
bone? A collect, sign of the cross, sprinkling of holy water and incensing; an
uninteresting show. Those who abolish the Sunday Asperges, a real liturgical
mistake, willingly admit that the celebrant should wander around the church to
sprinkle the palms held by the faithful, then makes the same journey to incense
them.
A
pastoral, professor of a Swiss seminary, announced one day that red is the
colour of triumph. He should have been answered by saying: you are very much
mistaken, whilst white is the colour of Easter, Ascension, Corpus-Christi. But
no, as soon as it is said, it is done; the colour of Palm Sunday will be red,
violet remaining for Mass. Not everyone thinks like the professor. The Roman
Rite has used violet since it appeared. The Parisian rite, et the uses of so
many dioceses, used black until the middle of the 19th century. A few rites
used red, for the blessing of Palms and Mass. Some insisted on mourning, others
on the bloody sacrifice. Each kept the same colour: no-one had the idea of
changing it. The whole office of Palm Sunday is a mixture of triumphal and
passion hymns. From Matins to Vespers inclusive, including Mass, we find that
the number of passion hymns goes beyond that of triumphal pieces. When these
two things are thus mixed, no separation should be brought to bear. The Swiss
professor thought he could take example from the reasonable change of colour
for Candlemas; but its pastiche is a mere imitation of the modern feast of
Christ the King.
The
distribution of the Palms, as we read, is done according to custom. Whatever
the pastorals think, there are rules to observe before custom. As the
celebrant, if he is not the only priest, received the ashes and his candle at
the hands of the highest cleric, he is to receive his palm in the same way. If
he does not receive it, he will be without his palm at the procession. About
this, rubricists have asked whether the pastorals wanted the celebrant not to
carry a palm at the procession, because he would have represented Christ who
did not carry one. Logically, the hypothesis would have the celebrant on the
back of a donkey. Happily, the pastorals stopped there, allowing him to carry a
palm.
The
pastorals, who reduced the blessing of palms to its simplest expression, did
not pass up the chance of extending the distribution, given the superabundance
of chants intended for this action. Whilst the length of the blessing seems
enormous, this added plethora seems not to satisfy needs.
The
subdeacon normally carries the processional cross, each time the celebrant does
not need him, carrying the Blessed Sacrament or for the Baptismal Font. An
additional subdeacon for carrying the cross is necessary only when the
subdeacon has something else to do, as above.
For
two weeks, the altar cross remains veiled. Even veiled, it is incensed and
revered by genuflection or profound bow. It is forbidden to unveil it for any
reason. On the other hand, the processional cross - unlike the altar cross - is
carried unveiled at the procession; from departure to return. Two crosses are seen,
one veiled and the other unveiled. What do we gather from this?
The
disorder augments from the end of the procession. Going before an important
personality, accompanying him to the closed doors of the town, stopping to
compliment and acclaim him, finally opening the doors with great pomp in his
honour - all this has always been one of the greatest possible forms of homage;
but it is not good enough for the creative genius of the pastorals.
We
can only qualify as vandalism the fact of tearing the Gloria, laus et honor
away from its place at the church door, to mix it up with the baggage of
processional music that has nearly tripled in length. Stinginess and waste of
time go hand in hand. Therefore, no stopping in front of the door, closed then
open; the processional cross unveiled to magnify it, it is cheapened by
refusing it the virtue of opening the door. All that despite ancient and modern
ceremonial, and for what good? The pastoral rubrics make much ado of the
expression, nothing impedes, nihil impedit quominus. Here they are used to
unleash the faithful who can sing the hymn Christus vincit or something else in
honour of Christ the King. This tolerance has naturally its consequences; the
faithful make pawns of the clergy, they have a whole choice of chants à la
carte. If they are for Christ the King, they like to sing to his Mother who is
Queen. So many desires and eminently pastoral wishes.
The
Roman rubric said: when the procession enters the church, Ingrediente Domino is
sung; the pastoral rubric says: when the procession enters the church, when the
celebrant goes through the door, Ingrediente Domino is sung. The door is
ignored during the return from the procession - now we watch for the celebrant
coming through the door, who seems to be identified with Christ entering
Jerusalem.
Between
the procession and Mass, they give us a final and recapitulary collect, with
defectuous modalities; the celebrant has no need to go up to the altar, above
all turning his back to it, just to sing a collect and come back down just
after. Have we ever seen that apres Rogation processions? Finally, holding the
book in front of the celebrant is proper to the deacon and subdeacon, not to a
simple cleric.
Previously,
we called the singing of the Gospel Passion the Passion, and the Gospel at the
end of the sung Passion was sung in the usual manner of the Gospel. To-day,
both parts put together are called the history of the Passion, or yet the
Gospel of the Passion and death. Such pastoral progress is worth it! Folded chasubles
are one of the oldest characteristics of the Roman Rite; they go back to the
time when all the clergy wore chasubles, and were the expression of austere
penance. Their abolition makes nonsense of the painting in the Catacombs - an
immense loss and an outrage to history. The pastorals simply say the folded
chasubles are not easy to find. To the contrary, violet chasubles are found
everywhere - and can be folded - whilst violet dalmatics are not as widespread
[ed. Violet dalmatics are used during the time of Septuagesima before the
beginning of Lent]. It has always been allowed to serve in alb.
oOo
The
pastorals like cutting something off the beginning or end of Mass. Their being
cut off, apart from the few moments of time saved, are insignificant. What is
more important is that they are used as "spring boards" for more
important reforms. Thus, neither the psalm Judica me nor the confession are
said before the Palm Sunday and Holy Saturday Masses, because some other
ceremony takes place. The same goes for the Masses of Candlemas, Ash Wednesday,
weddings, funerals and Masses preceded by Communion. On Palm Sunday, Maundy
Thursday and Holy Saturday, the undesirable Last Gospel is omitted; perfect,
but in the name of what principle? On Maundy Thursday, the Blessing is omitted,
because the ceremony is not finished - the same goes for Corpus-Christi and any
Mass followed by a procession of the Blessed Sacrament.
When
the usage of three extra deacons singing the Passion is introduced, in the form
of a lesson rather than that of a Gospel, the end of the Passion is reserved
for singing in Gospel form by the celebrant's deacon - to avoid falling into
the absurdity of the deacon not singing the Gospel. The three deacons begin and
finish the Passion without ceremony, as for lessons; only the deacon does the
habitual ceremonies for the Gospel. This was logical, coming from the Papal
Chapel. Thus the deacon is eclipsed by the three of the Passion. He then
recites the Munda cor meum and received the blessing before singing the Gospel,
incensing of the book, kissing of the book and incensing of the celebrant.
These three gestures succumb to the pastoral mentality; for the Passion is no
longer the Gospel but only a history, history of the Passion. Lacking the
Gospel, there is no Gospel book. Consequently, the book of history is not
incensed or kissed - what is not kissed is not incensed.
To
continue, the passion-gospel books are carried around in any old fashion; they
are mentioned only on Good Friday. The pastorals have forgotten how to carry a
Gospel book; why there must be three acolytes accompanying it instead of two,
that the deacon kneeling to say Munda cor meum has not to bow. They repeat
again and again that the passion-gospel is sung or read. Their rubrics are written
to make us think that we can read at a sung office and sing in a read office as
we like. Half the office can be read and the other half sung, mixing both. This
is one of the scourges of the liturgy, as is the vernacular language. This is
not new, and was recently encouraged [by Pius XII] in sung ordinations where
the ordaining bishop interrupts the singing of the preface to say the essential
words. It seems that singing harms the required attention!
The
Passion according to the four Evangelists included the institution of the
Eucharist, for it introduces the Gospel and takes its place in the Mass. The
pastorals, in a hurry when they want, think differently - abolishing the
institution of the Eucharist narrative. This is consequently excluded from the
liturgy in the Roman Church, without doubt to give a better instruction to the
faithful.
The
omission of the Psalm Miserere at the end of the Hours relieves the poor clergy
and unhappy faithful. This psalm could remain only after Lauds and Vespers or
only in choir, or even optional. The pastorals would benefit by reading what
Cardinal Wiseman, first Archbishop of Westminster, said about the singing of
this psalm at the Office of Tenebræ in the Papal Chapel.
oOo
The
Missa Chrismatis, a Pontifical Mass celebrated with 26 priests in chasuble
remind us of concelebration, celebrated without any relation with fasting, in
which is it forbidden to give Communion, forms a curious problem that is
difficult to solve. Its proper preface, in the ferial tone, is found among
other curiosities.
In
the Roman Rite, the use of the stole is limited by rules; no-one can wear it
without a reason. It is put on at the required moment, not before and not
after. It is a sacred vestment, and has nothing to do with choir dress, either
for individuals or the body of the clergy. Priests have no more the right to
wear the stole during Mass where they will communicate than during an
ordination Mass where they will impose hands. Saying the contrary, the
pastorals abuse their unmerited latitude.
At
the Maundy Thursday Mass, the celebrant solemnly begins the Gloria in excelsis.
How would he do it differently? Here we find a transposition, perhaps not of
great importance, but at least of great pastoral significance. Until now, after
the singing of the Good Friday Passion, the liturgy allowed a sermon on the
Passion. We had compassion for Christ who died on the Cross, before adoring
both. Now, there is no longer any question of this, and it is no longer
mentioned. On the other hand, after the Maundy Thursday Gospel, a homily is
strongly recommended for us to marvel at Christ washing feet.
Ancient
documents show that Mass was never the place or the time for the Mandatum. The
washing of the feet was separated from Mass, generally followed by a clergy
get-together. The king or emperor participated in the Mandatum, not at Mass.
The Cæremoniale Episcoporum situates the Mandatum in a suitable place, in the
chapter house or in church, but not in choir. The Missal specifies no place,
supposing neither the choir nor the altar. From the moment of the
reconciliation of penitents being done in the nave, common sense could not
admit laymen into choir. The pastorals want the Mandatum within Mass, only
tolerating it out of Mass. They hardly notice that we can wash the feet of
clerics - real or considered as such.
A
remark is necessary about the distribution of roles. The deacon and subdeacon
are charged with introducing the twelve chosen men (no longer thirteen) into
the choir, then to lead them back to their previous places. This job is that of
a verger or sacristan. It expresses very well the pastoral mentality
impregnated with a populist attitude, unfavourable to the clergy. There was a
time when each candidate for having his feet washed was carried by force by
worthy men before the sitting Pope to have his feet washed. The pastorals, not
daring to push "fraternal charity" to this point, are content to use
the deacon and subdeacon for introducing lay candidates into choir, then to
lead them back afterwards. Some miss the ancient usage mentioned, for not only
sport but also the social and pastoral activity of the clergy would have drawn
benefit.
We
find a big obstacle without any possible dissimulation. By decree of 4th
December 1952 the Holy Congregation of Rites censured the incongruity of the
fact that the Bishop puts on his shoes and takes them off in the church.
Following this, it forbids such a use of liturgical shoes. This had always to
be done outside the church, despite the former rules in force. This decree is
excessively disputable, for it is based on ambiguity, attributing things that
have never been said to the Cæremoniale Episcoporum. Let us not discuss them
and be content with forbidding them. The Bishop, outside Mass, receives his
shoes and buskins on legs and feet that are not bare, since they are covered
with socks. These shoes are sacred vestments, just as much as the mitre and
gloves, blessed, received with the episcopate, accompanied by a prayer and
reverence. This practice has existed for centuries. On the other hand, 12 men
in choir, during Mass, take their shoes off, strip their right feet bare, and
put their shoes back on before going back to their places. In summary, twelve
bare feet are less incongruous than the two of the Bishop with his shoes on,
without counting other differences.
The
concern for eliminating the word pax from the Maundy Thursday Mass, since the
kiss of peace is not given, extends to a collect, to the Confiteor, etc., to
the kissing of the Bishop's hand, to the Ite missa est, the blessing and the
Last Gospel. But we do not know if they tolerate other kisses, of the hand and
the object; for they could not proscribe them as mechanically. The knowledge of
the pastorals is still at the point of confusing the kissing of the hand and
the kissing of the ring.
The
sparing of the Confiteor at Communion of Maundy Thursday, an exchange that
takes the unnoticed Confiteor said in private by the celebrant at the beginning
of Mass, so that it takes the place of a collective Confiteor, sung by the
deacon before Communion, is, we can say, far-fetched. The subtlety of bartering
does not suffice to hide the enormous difference between the two uses of the
Confiteor. Too much finesse can be harmful.
Setting
out on the procession to the altar of repose and the return give patent proof
of the ceremonial dexterity of the pastorals. At the beginning, the celebrant
takes the ciborium helped by the deacon, and clumsily; arriving he puts it down
with or without the deacon's help, and just as badly. The reforms require from
those who do it to be trained, and many are not. From Palm Sunday, we know
nothing about the processional cross or the altar. Are they bare or veiled, and
in which colour? No-one knows anything.
oOo
The
Good Friday service takes the form of Mass in its main lines. This service
received its early inspiration from the Orientals. The Mass of the
Presanctified took its rightful place, above all if we observe that the Roman
Rite had the "dry mass" for many centuries. Despite all, a cry of
alarm broke out among the pastorals - it was the death warrant. The alarm was
given by a Belgian Benedictine abbot crying out: "The Good Friday ceremony
has taken on terrible appearances of a Mass". No more was needed by the
pastorals. With an effort worthy of a better goal, they have fulfilled this
programme: get rid of the fundamentally Roman elements, adopt foreign elements,
restore inferior and obsolete Roman elements, exclude everything that can in
any way remind us of a Mass. On this point, their fixed idea was to sing the
refrain Delenda est Carthago. The Mass of the Presanctified succumbed under
misunderstanding, victim of a kabbal. The liturgical dictionary, in the Migne
edition, said in 1844: "The Roman Rite seems to us, as for the adoration
of the cross, more grave and edifying than the rite of various dioceses of
France". Advice to the pastorals for their entire construction, become a
simple exercise of piety, under the name of "Singular and solemn
liturgical action for the passion of death of the Lord", an action which,
despite its qualification, gives no nobility to its subject.
The
Roman Pontifical teaches us that we do not greet a new altar before having
placed its cross. The altar itself is not the object of veneration, but the
cross that dominates it, and to which all prayers are addressed. There was a
time when the cross and candles were brought to the altar on entering the
sanctuary, and they were carried away after Mass. This leaving the altar always
uncovered is not permitted to-day. This is why I address the pastorals:
"On Palm Sunday, you have uncovered the processional cross by pretext of
emphasising it. On Good Friday when it is covered, you take the cross from the
altar, send it to the sacristy and then have it brought back. How do you
explain such a contradiction?" No creative or organisational genius here!
We finally note that the cross on the altar brings to mind a Mass.
The
pastorals divide the solemn action into four sub-titled parts, of which the
second and third are solemn, but not the first and fourth. These doses are just
as intelligent and admirable as their authors.
Chasubles
- no question of them; they smack of the Mass. Then the poor celebrant has to
be happy to be in an alb, as in a country church, despite the ultra-proclaimed
solemnity - a contradiction the Roman Rite spared him.
The
altar without a cross, if it is worthy of being kissed, has no right to a bow
or genuflection, and even less to be prayed to - for an altar is not invoked.
In the Roman Rite, when we kneel or make a double genuflection, or a bow, the
bow must be slight and not profound. This ancient rule has been confirmed about
a half century ago. It is scary to see the liturgy caught between two powers
mutually ignoring each other.
The
pastorals enrich Good Friday with an introductory collect and three concluding
prayers. They abolish with one hand and lengthen with the other. They fall
between two stools and are caught in their own net. The celebrant sings the
introductory collect at the foot of the altar, for he will go up to the altar
only for the great prayers. At the altar, the celebrant does not spread his
hands unless he is in a chasuble at Mass and that Delenda est Carthago, hands
spread gives place to joined hands. The second lesson takes the place of an
epistle sung by the subdeacon, since the name of Mass is rejected and the deacon
does not sing the Gospel.
The
pastorals have the three deacons say the Munda cor meum and bidding the
blessing on Palm Sunday. On Good Friday, the three do not say Munda cor meum
and do not bid the blessing, but they go before the celebrant who addresses
them a wish in a clear voice. Until now, the Munda cor meum has always come
before the Gospel, at all the four Passions. Even the pastorals kept it before
their gospel-history of the Passion - but they have excluded it on Good Friday.
Why? Perhaps on this day the Passion is less of a Gospel than a history. With
the loss of Munda cor meum, the Gospel is not announced. As he gives the
blessing, the celebrant speaks media voce, but saying the formula he speaks
clara voce. The new formula is without doubt better than the old. Finally the
three deacons of the Passion who kneel to bid and receive the blessing do not
have a reason to bow to hear the celebrant - we do not bow to respond to
Dominus vobiscum.
Now
begins the second period with a change of vestments, followed by two others,
four in all. This is the punishment by the puritans who blame the Roman Rite
for changing vestments too often. The pastorals, mitigating their anti-Mass
prejudice, have the celebrant vest to go up to the altar. But, they have him in
a cope, at the middle of the altar instead of the epistle corner, with the
ministers each side of him, not behind. They have the priest with hands apart
despite being in a cope.
They
are more concerned with the dimensions of the cross than with its characteristics
- a reliquary cross, the wood of the cross is of no interest to them, despite
the origin of the rite. They have little knowledge or understanding of the
Roman Rite. They transfer the cross from the sacristy to the altar where it was
missing, where it should have its fixed place whether or not Mass is
celebrated. Keeping the cross veiled does not mean hiding it, relegating it to
the sacristy, depriving the altar of it - where it should more than ever be in
a place of honour on this Friday. The pastorals should know that the veil
should cover the whole cross, not just the crucifix, for it is the cross that
is shown.
Other
novelties await us. The notion of the pastorals about processions: the deacon
between two acolytes brings the exiled cross from the sacristy - a procession.
The faithful queue up to adore the cross - a procession. The deacon brings the
Blessed Sacrament from the altar of repose - this is not a procession. We are
now completely confused. We did not use lighted candles before transporting the
Blessed Sacrament, of which the cross is not jealous. Now the pastorals use
lighted candles for the cross. It results, among other things, that the
celebrant uncovering the cross finds himself among four persons, a lot of
people for little space! The cross, brought by the deacon then uncovered by the
celebrant, now remains delivered to the hands of two acolytes who should not
have this role, above all at the altar - which is not their place.
For
centuries and rightly, Catholics have adored not only the cross but also the
crucified body of Christ on the floor of the church. This is why we spread a
carpet, a cushion, a white and violet veil for a shroud. This goes beyond the
ideas of the pastorals, who have the Crucified standing upright. They have thus
discarded the showing-adoration of the cross - not an exaltation but bringing
it to adorers who prostrate themselves. The adoration of the cross is no less
misunderstood - it was done as for the Pope, three genuflections spaced out
before kissing the cross or the Pope's foot. But this Friday, the three
genuflections are changed into three double genuflections of adoration. It is
through this reverence to the Pope that the genuflection became part of the
Roman Rite.
At
the uncovering of the cross, after each of the Ecce lignum crucis, the action
was together with the invitation - we kneeled and adored, responding Venite
adoremus. The adoration in silence took place during the three double
genuflections before the kissing. The pastorals move the silent adoration of
the three destroyed double genuflections, they are associated with each Venite
adoremus. In this way it wastes time rather than saving it - again, the
pastorals have the adorers go one by one instead of two by two. They probably
believe that singing is not good for adoration, attention and recollection.
The
problem with the collective adoration of the cross was for a long time solved
by the use of several crosses, presented to the faithful for kissing or exposed
for adoration in several places. After the adoration, the altar cross is put in
its normal place, from where it was taken to the sacristy. Its return gives
place to a strange rubric.
Then
they change colour. White and black are the original colours of the Roman Rite,
but the pastorals prefer violet to black, the most recent colour. They
reinforce the mourning of Good Friday by calling it the day of the Lord's
death, but reject the black colour of death. They, who exterminate the Mass of
the Presanctified, who until now had the celebrant in a black cope, have him
wear a violet chasuble. But not for the ministers - they are disguised in
dalmatics. Can there be more of a contradiction? If the pastorals saw a clash
between communion and black, they should have considered that the Requiem Mass
is said in black, and communion is given there even with previously consecrated
hosts given as communion just before or after the Mass in black.
I
ask the pastorals: what need, what opportunity do you feel to put a chasuble on
the celebrant just to give communion? The distribution of communion has never
required a chasuble outside Mass. You exterminate the Mass of the
Presanctified, you obstinately eliminate the least detail that smacks of this,
then you dare to put a chasuble on the celebrant - that you refuse for the
ministers. Nothing warrants the celebrant to be vested for Act IV of your
production, for you leave him simply in alb for Act I. Your discretionary
powers are vast, as are the abuses.
oOo
The
procession of Maundy Thursday, definitively instituted by Sixtus IV (+ 1484),
and that of Good Friday, instituted by John XXII (+1334), therefore by the same
authority, have the same object, same purpose, same solemnity, except the
festive character of the first and the mourning of the second. Why abolish one
and keep the other? The arrival of the Blessed Sacrament is accompanied by
singing of the three antiphons in honour of the cross, in the place of Vexilla
Regis having the same purpose, but without doubt un-pastoral.
In
the Roman Rite, the celebrant sings the Pater noster alone, entirely or at the
beginning and end saying the middle part in a quiet voice. The best proof is
that the congregation, having said nothing, responds sed libera nos. All the same,
the pastorals had to reform this, and here is the result of their prowess: the
Pater noster said and not sung, said by all, said in a sung service, a sad
mixture of Latin and Oriental rites, recited solemnly (sic), but stripped of
the solemnity of singing, said with joined hands, whilst the Libera nos is said
with hands apart. The pitiful explanation given is that the Pater, since it is
a prayer for communion, has to be recited by everyone. Two questions: is the
Pater more for communion than the other days of the year? Is the Pater more for
communion than the other prayers before communion?
The
writing of the rubrics is naturally at the same level. Thus we read that the
celebrant takes a host with the right hand - so does he strike his breast with
the left hand? We don't know if the left hand rests on the corporal or on the
ciborium. We read that as he strikes his breast, instead of a medium bow, parum
incinatus, the celebrant makes a profound bow - a posture impeded by the height
of the altar.
It
is disrespectful to the liturgy and the celebrant to abolish the chalice and
the large host. A small people's host is ridiculous. The chalice once served as
a ciborium, and this could continue. There was a time and place when the Good
Friday communion was taken in both kinds, having been reserved, therefore with
the chalice. Of this we should be aware. The chalice served for the
purification of the celebrant, and opened the way for the clergy. One did not
eat without drinking. All this imitated the Mass, did not deceive anyone, did
not even oppose general communion - but this is of little importance.
The
pastorals introduced three postcommunions, sung by the celebrant with joined
hands, at the middle of the altar, between his ministers, and during which all
stand. Another curiosity: during Compline the candles are snuffed out.
Therefore the cross, now uncovered, can do without light. Now, why were lighted
candles needed before its uncovering and during the adoration? A game of
compensation: they give the cross light it had not had, and they take away the
incensing from the Blessed Sacrament, the cross and the altar.
The
Church mourns and weeps during the three days during which the Lord remains in
the Sepulchre. During this time of the obsequies of the dead Christ, all the
Hours of the Office end with the collect Respice quæsumus, which is exactly the
prayer super populum at the Mass of Holy Wednesday. The pastorals break this
continuity and unity by a replacement - at the end of the Hours of Saturday
they insert a prayer that gives the aspect of a banal vigil, clashing with the
rest, above all with the ancient Christus factus est. If the pastorals were
logical with themselves, they would see that this prayer, not being in the tone
of the three days, had no longer to be said kneeling and with a silent
conclusion. This was of finishing Vespers is no less strange.
As
for Mass, finishing in the late evening, was the cause of doing away with
Vespers, at another time Mass, finishing late into the night, did away with Matins
of Easter. The three Nocturnes were reduced to a single one, and this for the
whole Octave. With less cause, the pastorals went further by abolishing Easter
Matins, but did not dare to extend this to the rest of the Octave. As for the
Vigil of Pentecost, massacred, its Octave continues to enjoy a single nocturne.
oOo
As
already seen, the pastorals continue the burial of folded chasubles with that
of Christ. On the other hand, and with the same deftness, they resurrect some
minimal ceremony that is less ancient and abandoned. Also, they answer a
question that has never been resolved. The celebrant blessed the new fire to
obtain blessed light, with which the deacon lit the paschal candle before which
he sang the Præconium. This lighting and singing passed for the blessing of the
Paschal Candle. Now there is no doubt, everything is clear - the deacon has
only to carry it and sing. The candle brought from I don't know where, under
the watchful eyes of the congregation, is subjected to incisions and inscriptions,
with explaining formulas, as well as pushing the five grains of incense into
the five holes in the candle, which would represent the five wounds of Christ.
This brings us back to the symbolism of William Durandus, whose ideas were once
in fashion then fell into desuetude. The grains of incense are explained by the
relation between fire and the resin of incense. The inscriptions had
degenerated into a large tablet suspended on the candle and its candlestick,
perhaps imitating the sign INRI of the cross, since the candle had to symbolise
Christ.
Here,
the Paschal Candle lit and blessed, the pastorals have the lights of the church
put out. The Breviary had already done this at the end of Lauds of Maundy
Thursday, but this concerned the lamps, electric lights, extinguished until
Saturday. They probably want, without saying it clearly, to extinguish all the
lights, have the church in darkness, which will be dissipated by the candles of
the clergy and people. This brings out the Paschal Candle, something oriental,
reminding us of a Candlemas around a big candle.
Whilst
the light was given to light the candle already in place, now they carry the
lighted candle to put it into place. One of the promoters of the Paschal Vigil
was enthusiastic about the imposing proportions of the massive candle, and the
majesty of paschal candlesticks. They did not suspect that their sectaries
would have reduced everything to the proportions of a village church. When
candle and candlestick took on a monumental development, and the candle was no
longer transportable, it disappeared from the procession. Light had to be
brought to it with the triple candle. Thus it happened that the hero of the
triumphal cortege was not carried. We note that with the triple candle and
reed, the light of Christ was no less adored.
In
the hands of the pastorals, their solemn procession for the carrying of the
candle became the negation of reasons principles, a liturgical monster. Their
whim of having the deacon and the celebrant walk directly behind the subdeacon
and the cross, at the head of the clergy, is the same thing as putting the cart
before the horse. One of them excuses this with two stupidities. Firstly, in
the proper order the clergy would turn their backs to the candle. Answer - in
any procession where a relic or the Blessed Sacrament is carried, backs are
turned as praises are sung. The contrary has never been done. The second: in
the proper order, the clergy would sing the Lumen Christi turning their backs
to the candle. Answer: there is no evil in this, for the genuflection is not
made to the candle carried behind, but to Christ who is everywhere. We need to
distinguish Christ as light and the light of Christ. Lumen Christi means that
the light of Christ is in the lighted candle, not that Christ-light be there.
Reading
the pastoral rubrics, we are led to believe that everybody - clergy and people
- makes for the candle to light his own candle, which he holds during the
singing of the Exultet. We remind ourselves with amazement of not being allowed
to hold our palms during the singing of the Passion.
The
right place for singing the Exultet and situating the Paschal Candle has always
been where the Gospel is sung, the customary place in choir, or on the ambo or
choir screen where the paschal candlestick is situated. The position of the
candle in the middle of the choir, on a small support, is purely arbitrary.
This give rise to fleeting and false interpretations, and does away with the
majestic paschal candlestick.
The
deacon, holding the book, bids the blessing, then incenses the book as for the
Gospel. Why this? The reason is that the Exultet has always been in the Gospel
book. Another reason is that the deacon incenses the book containing the praise
of the candle that he is going to sing. The direct purpose is not to incense
the candle, of less worth than the Gospel book. By incensing the book, the
deacon incenses, per modum unius, the candle places against the reading desk.
The pastorals could dispense with a new incensing, above all made by turning
one's back to the candle.
The
pastorals have officiated before an altar without a cross on Friday, but on
Saturday, the altar and its cross no longer suffice for them. They want a
centre towards which they turn - the Paschal Candle - rivalling the altar. The
place for the singing of the Gospel has its symbolism, once disputable. Their
place for the Paschal Candle, at the centre of the choir, entirely lacks
symbolism. The way the desk is turned, and the deacon singing the Exultet, the
reader singing the lessons, with the altar to his right and the nave to his
left, shows the charm of the profile position unlike that of the pastorals.
According
to the pastorals, the celebrant vests in four ways on Friday, but on Saturday,
he is spared from vesting. He remains in a cope instead of putting on a
chasuble. Is eludes them that the Prophecies, Tracts and Collects are part of
the Mass, and that the Pope once baptised in chasuble.
oOo
The
baptistery was an edifice annexed to the church, a kind of hallway, neutral
territory, where a person entered as a pagan and emerged as a Christian. Used
in a particular way, it was not made to contain the whole congregation. The
baptistery has been succeeded by the baptismal font, often badly situated and
just as badly constructed, but by whose fault? These faults should never be a
reason to abandon them. Baptismal fonts, baptismal water and Baptism go
together as one. A spectacular innovation that deliberately separates them,
installing substitutes for the font in the choir and baptising in them, then
using this recipient for transferring the baptismal water to the font - is an
insult to history, to discipline, to the liturgy and common sense. Thus people
are baptised in the choir, the place for the clergy, a pagan with those
accompanying him. Thus the baptismal water resembles the person brought in pomp
to it, from where he was expelled. It was to preserve the baptismal water over
the whole year that sumptuous baptisteries were constructed with artistic and
majestic fonts. To-day, the pastorals make baptismal water and baptise in a
basin, and in this container they carry it to the font, singing the song of a
thirsty deer, which has already drunk, and which is going towards a dry font.
The
Litany, once repeated so often, is an supplication for the catechumens, before
or after their baptism. It is normally sung on the way to the font and coming
back from it. As the pastorals introduced a substitute for the baptismal font
into the choir, they have the first half of the Litany sung, then the blessing
of the water, always under the protection of the Paschal Candle. This time the
celebrant faces the people, no longer his profile. What subtlety! Not the
return, but the transport of the water to his home raises a thorny question.
Whose role is it to play the walking reservoir - the deacon, acolytes, and how
many of them? Our task that can arouse jealousies, above all during the
obsolete singing of Sicut cervus. Suppose our church has a separate baptistery,
the pastorals still dare to give the choice between the liturgical method and
their sad invention.
The
renewal of baptismal vows, taken from the First Communion for children, is a
massive para-liturgy, a purely pastoral creation and un-liturgical, an occasion
to insert the vernacular into the liturgy. It is a boring repetition of what
has just been done if there has been a baptism. They could go on to renew
marriage vows for people at a wedding. Finally it causes an empty space between
the transport of the water and the second half of the Litany, therefore a waste
of time by returning in silence.
The
Paschal Candle finishes by being taken off its little temporary support and put
on its candlestick on the Gospel side, ignored until now. Flowers have never been
prescribed for the altar. Now the pastorals need them to make it more pleasant.
Monsignor
GROMIER
