Holy Week Destroyed: Good Friday’s “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified” Suppressed

 

Behold the suppressed “Mass of the Pre-Sanctified” in all its traditional glory!

These (and all videos I will be posting) have been recorded by SGG’s expert MC, Mr. Richard Vande Ryt, and are (or will be) viewable on his YouTube Channel here.

Please also note that all the ceremonies of the fully traditional Holy Week are streamed live from St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church here.

 

As numerous as Fr. Carusi’s excellent critiques are below, they are far from complete, as he does not mention:

  1. The genuflection for the Jews is omitted from the Solemn Prayers (Could it be that, as an indult priest, Fr. Carusi wants to steer clear of a touchy matter?  How else to explain the omission of such a conspicuous element of the traditional liturgy in an otherwise extremely thorough study?);
  2. The triple genuflection at the veneration of the Cross is reduced to a single genuflection;
  3. Holy Communion is not distributed to the faithful at the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified;

 

The genuflection for the Jews is omitted:

The explanation of Dom Gueranger is as follows:

“Here [at this prayer] the deacon does not invite the faithful to kneel. The Church has no hesitation in offering up a prayer for the descendants of Jesus’ executioners; but in doing so she refrains from genuflecting, because this mark of adoration was turned by the Jews into an insult against our Lord during the Passion. She prays for His scoffers; but she shrinks from repeating the act wherewith they scoffed at Him.” (The Liturgical Year, Vol. VI, p. 485).

Yet, as others have observed, it was the Romans (and not the Jews), who mocked our Lord with the genuflection.  So Gueranger’s explanation does not hold, unless one wishes to interpret it as meaning the Jews were the remote (but direct) cause of Christ having been subjected to Roman mockery, and the genuflections.

A more persuasive explanation seems, therefore, to be this one (found here):

“Here the flectamus genua is omitted , to remind us that on this day Christ was outraged by the Jews with blows, as they shouted ‘prophetiza nobis.’”

Reduction of the Triple Genuflection:

On the most sorrowful day of the liturgical year, when our attention to, and reverence for, the Cross ought to be greater than on any other day, the the reformers officially diminished it.  Christ on the Cross was receiving too much reverence, it would seem.

Nevertheless, many at my chapel had retained the practice of the triple genuflection, but several years ago the pastor sought to eliminate the custom, and now every year we receive notices in the bulletin on this subject, such as the one below:

 

Holy Communion is not Distributed to the Faithful During the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified: 

But Communion is distributed in the modernist rite of Pius XII/Bugnini.

Why the difference?

Here is one explanation:

“The practice of the Church regarding the reception of Holy Communion on Good Friday has varied considerably with time and place.  It seems that no one celebrates Mass on that day [the author is referring to the same custom prevailing in the Eastern Churches -SP].  The traditional Roman practice for many centuries has been for the priest alone to receive Communion in a “Pre-Sanctified” Liturgy which completes the Mass of Holy Thursday…With hindsight, it is not difficult to see that two of the major thrusts of that revolution were against the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and against the  concept of an hierarchical priesthood.  To the Modernist, the Mass is but a meal, and all men and women are priests on par with the ordained minister who is no more than a “presider” over the assembly and “narrator” of the words of institution.  One can see the beginnings of the shift towards Modernism in the revisions of 1955 [Actually, one sees these beginnings in the early 1900’s, with the invention and sanctioning of the Dialogue Mass. -SP]…

The priest’s reception of the previously consecrated host on Friday afternoon, the (perhaps symbolic) completion of the Sacrifice of the Mass of the previous day, corresponds to our Lord’s death on the Cross.  For any other purpose (apart from the danger of imminent death) the reception of Holy Communion seems out of place, by reason of being too joyous for this solemn day…

Modernism tries to diminish the difference between the sacrificing priest and the lay members of the congregation.  Thus is assumed that everyone should communicate at every Mass… Not wishing to make the distinction between priest and people, the new rite has everyone communicate regardless of whether or not it is appropriate…

A half dozen years later the same logic brought the revisers to the omission of the Confiteor before the Communion of the people.  According to Modernism, they are just as much the celebrants of the Mass as the priest, so there is no need for them to receive Communion with a separate rite. (Citation)

For more information about why and how the modernist liturgical reformers had targeted the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified for elimination, see these excerpts from Dr. Carol Byrne’s study here and here.

On another serious note, we invite our readers to reflect deeply on Fr. Carusi’s comments at #5 (below) regarding the insertion of an heretical prayer title into the liturgy (The novel prayer “for the unity of the Church”); see especially the parts I have highlighted in red.

 

[From the exceptional study of Fr. Stefano Carusi:]

“THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL

We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the “head of the battering-ram” in the heart of the Roman liturgy and “the most important act since St. Pius V until now.”

For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on […] what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.
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.” (75)2. (OHS 1956): The altar no longer has the veiled cross (and candlesticks — CAP) on it (76)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. (77)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. (79)

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. (80)

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,” (81) 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.” (82) 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.” (83)

(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. (84)

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.” (85)

5. (OHS 1956): For the seventh prayer, the name “Pro unitate Ecclesiae” [“For the unity of the Church”] is introduced. (86)

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, (87) 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.” (88) 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.” (89) 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,” (90) 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. (91)

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.” (92) 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. (93)

7. (OHS 1956): The importance of the Eucharistic procession is downplayed. (94)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. (96)8. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the incensing due to the consecrated Host. (97)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. (99)

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. (101)

10. (OHS 1956): Elimination of the prayers that make reference to sacrifice while the Host is consumed. (102)

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. (104)

11. (OHS 1956): Placing a part of the consecrated Host into the wine in the chalice is abolished. (105)

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.” (106) 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.
Advertisements

Holy Week Destroyed: Good Friday Tenebrae (Anticipated on Maundy Thursday) Suppressed

 

Behold the suppressed beauty of the Office of Tenebrae for Good Friday (Anticipated late afternoon on Maundy Thursday) courtesy of St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church in Cincinnati, Ohio.

These (and all videos I will be posting) have been recorded by SGG’s expert MC, Mr. Richard Vande Ryt, and are (or will be) viewable on his YouTube Channel here.

Please also note that all the ceremonies of the fully traditional Holy Week are streamed live from St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church here.

 

 

 

 

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/holy-week-destroyed-good-friday-tenebrae-anticipated-on-maundy-thursday/


Holy Week Destroyed: Maundy Thursday (and the Mandatum?)

 

[Once the recording for Maundy Thursday is uploaded onto YouTube, it will be placed here with full attribution.  At this time, I do not know whether the Mandatum will be included; I was told an attempt would be made.  As with the previous recordings, there may be some delay before the recordings can be posted.  However, all the ceremonies of the fully traditional Holy Week are streamed live from St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church, and can be viewed at their respective times/days here.]

The focus of Maundy Thursday is obviously centered upon our Lord’s institution of the Eucharist (something the reformers have almost completely excised from the traditional/pre-1956 rite until now) and following from this, the priesthood.

Prior to Pius XII’s Novus Ordo of Holy Week, the Mass of Maundy Thursday marked the last time Holy Communion would be distributed to the faithful until the Resurrection has been celebrated in the liturgy on Easter.

As regards the mandatum (i.e., washing of feet), Dr. Carol Byrne states:

“As part of the liturgy of Holy Thursday, the Mandatum was, according to longstanding tradition, a ritual performed among priests, based on Christ’s example of washing the feet of the 12 Apostles at the Last Supper. It is not to be confused with the so-called “Mandatum of the Poor,” an entirely separate ceremony that existed alongside its clerical counterpart…(see here).

Fr. Lasance, in his introductory comments to the Mass of Maundy Thursday (The New Roman Missal, p. 447),  corroborates this statement, with a slight twist:

“In Rome, the Pope washes the feet of thirteen poor persons, all of them priests.”

Does this suggest there was only one mandatum, and not two?  Or does he choose only to refer to this clerical mandatum (i.e., the other being irrelevant)?

Meanwhile, the St. Andrew Missal (p. 548) states:

“After the stripping of the altars, the clergy at a convenient hour meet to perform the ceremony known as the mandatum…The officiating priest then…begins the washing of the feet of thirteen clerics or thirteen poor people chosen for the ceremony…”

One rite or two?  Clerical or lay?  I will dig into that when I have more time.

In any case, what is clear, is that in the fully traditional pre-1956 rite, the mandatum took place after Mass, and certainly did not permit laymen to enter the sanctuary.

The reformers, building upon earlier victories for “active participation” (e.g., as contained in the Dialogue Mass), are now emboldened to take another step forward, interjecting laymen into the sanctuary during Mass (giving them a semi-liturgical function in the Pian rite).

The dullest minds can see where they are heading.

 

[From the exceptional study of Fr. Stefano Carusi:]

“THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL

We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the “head of the battering-ram” in the heart of the Roman liturgy and “the most important act since St. Pius V until now.”

For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on […] what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.

HOLY THURSDAY

1. (OHS 1956): Introduction of the stole as part of the choir dress of priests. (57)

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).” (58) 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.” (59) 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. (61)

2. (OHS 1956): The practice is introduced of giving communion with only those hosts consecrated on this day. (62)

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. (63) 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. (64)

3. (OHS 1956): The washing of feet is no longer at the end of Mass but in the middle of Mass. (65)

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 ofthe 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. (67)

4. (OHS 1956): Omission of the Confiteor recited by the deacon before Holy Communion. (68)

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. (69)

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. (70)

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, (71) 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. (72)

 

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/holy-week-destroyed-maundy-thursday-and-the-mandatum/

Holy Week Destroyed: Tenebrae of Holy Thursday (Anticipated on Wednesday) Suppressed

Behold the suppressed beauty of the Office of Tenebrae for Holy Thursday (Anticipated late afternoon on Spy Wednesday) courtesy of St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church in Cincinnati, Ohio.

These (and all videos I will be posting) have been recorded by SGG’s expert MC, Mr. Richard Vande Ryt, and are (or will be) viewable on his YouTube Channel here.

Note that Part II of this three-part upload is missing, but I am informed that Mr. Vande Ryt is recording Tenebrae live again this year (as with all the Holy Week ceremonies, and these will be available on his channel -and this blog- in due course).

Please also note that all the ceremonies of the fully traditional Holy Week are streamed live from St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church here.

 

 

Note that it was for the suppressed office of Tenebrae that Allegri composed in the 1630’s arguably the most beautiful piece of liturgical music ever written, in his magnificent Miserere (which the SGG choir nails, beginning at the 13:35 mark of Part III).  However, since the suppression of Tenebrae, this wonderful composition has since become a liturgical anachronism, with no outlet for expression in the Church’s Holy Week rites, and subsequently relegated to concert halls.

Some more information about the suppression of Tenebrae:

From Wikipedia:

“In the Roman Catholic Church, “Tenebrae” is the name given to the celebration, with special ceremonies, of Matins and Lauds, the first two hours of the Divine Office, of the last three days of Holy Week. The traditions regarding this service go back at least to the ninth century. Originally celebrated after midnight, by the late Middle Ages their celebration was anticipated on the afternoon or evening of the preceding day.

The celebration of Matins and Lauds of these days in the form referred to as Tenebrae in churches with a sufficient number of clergy was universal in the Roman Rite until the reform of the Holy Week ceremonies by Pope Pius XII in 1955. At that time, the Easter Vigil was restored as a night office, moving that Easter liturgy from Holy Saturday morning to the following night; the principal liturgies of Holy Thursday and Good Friday were likewise moved from morning to afternoon or evening, and thus Matins and Lauds were no longer allowed to be anticipated on the preceding evening, except for the Matins and Lauds of Holy Thursday in the case of cathedral churches in which the Chrism Mass was held on Holy Thursday morning.”

Dr. Carol Byrne explains the pretext upon which Bugnini/Pius XII suppressed Tenebrae, and the gravity of having done so, in her excellent study (here):

“Before the 1955 reforms, Tenebrae was widely celebrated in the Church and was well attended by lay people in cathedrals, abbeys and large churches where there was an ample supply of clergy. Nevertheless, the reformers arranged for its demise by an astonishingly simple strategy: changing its time of celebration. The Decree Maxima Redemptionis prohibited anticipating Matins and Lauds on the previous evenings of the Triduum, (1) switching the time to the morning hours. (2)

This effectively threw the proverbial spanner into the work of centuries, for Tenebrae performed in the morning not only destroys its coherence as a nocturnal Office, but also the “atmospherics” of darkness on which its powerful symbolism relies in order to create the right mood. Daylight Tenebrae is, of course, a misnomer and has never been approved by the Church before the Bugnini reform.

The self-contradictory nature of this reform is also evident in the same Decree, which, in criticism of the traditional Triduum, stated that “all these liturgical solemnities were pushed back to the morning hours; certainly with detriment to the liturgy’s meaning.” How could the reformers complain when that is exactly what they did to the Office of Tenebrae?

False rivalry between the Mass & the Divine Office:

The ostensible reason for displacing Tenebrae was that the Holy Thursday Mass should be celebrated in the evening to correspond with the time of the Last Supper. Yet, for many centuries prior to 1955, this Mass had been said in the morning – the progressivists scoffed that it was the “Mass of the Lord’s Breakfast” – and the Decree accused the traditional Holy Week schedule of creating “confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them.

This was the first time in the History of the Church that an official document of the Holy See stood in judgement against its own approved tradition that had been hallowed by centuries of usage and condemned it as detrimental to a right understanding of the Holy Week liturgy. It was a barely concealed rallying cry for a liturgical revolution to usher in a “new understanding” of the Faith.”

 

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/holy-week-destroyed-tenebrae-of-holy-thursday-anticipated-on-wednesday/

Holy Week Destroyed: Spy Wednesday

 

[Once the recording for Spy Wednesday is uploaded onto YouTube, it will be placed here with full attribution.  As with Palm Sunday, this may take a day or two.]

In the traditional pre-1956 rite, this day’s Gospel account is taken from St. Luke, which begins with Satan entering into Judas, who from that time sought to betray our Lord.  Hence the term “Spy Wednesday,”  referring to Judas’ seeking his opportunity.

In Pius XII/Bugnini’s Novus Ordo of Holy Week, this reference has been excised from the day’s Gospel readings, making the term “Spy Wednesday” incomprehensible, and the term has consequently vanished into obscurity.

A minor tradition has been eradicated.

More significantly, Fr. Carusi observes that for the third time, the liturgical deformers have excised the day’s Gospel account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist which, following the reference to Judas in the traditional rite, preceded the Passion in St. Luke’s account.

This trifecta of perfidy leaves absolutely no room for doubt, even among the most naive, as to the intentions of the reformers:

They are consciously steering Catholic worship away from recognition of all the doctrines bound up with the institution of the Eucharist, for ecumenical gain: Transubstantiation, sacrificial priesthood, the Real Presence, etc.  It was all preparatory for what would come later (just as the “dialogue Mass” was preparation for the mutilation of Holy Week).

Interestingly, others have observed the proximity of Judas Iscariot’s name to the Latin word for “assassin” (“Sicarius, sicarii”).

 

[From the exceptional study of Fr. Stefano Carusi:]

“THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL

We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the “head of the battering-ram” in the heart of the Roman liturgy and “the most important act since St. Pius V until now.”

For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on […] what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.

HOLY WEDNESDAY

(OHS 1956): Suppression of Luke 22: 1-39, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Luke. (55)

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. (56)

Holy Week Destroyed: Tuesday

[Once the recording for Tuesday in Holy Week is uploaded onto YouTube, it will be placed here with full attribution.  As with Palm Sunday, this may take a day or two.]

 

Always, the reformers’ revisions, excisions, and additions under Pius XII sought to make the Catholic Mass more amenable to Protestantism:

Where the 1956 Novus Ordo of Palm Sunday interspersed the new rite with the versus populum posture of the priest (at the blessing of palms, and after the procession, alongside many other disturbing innovations), and Holy Monday eliminated prayers referencing the Pope and the persecution of the Church by Her enemies, Holy Wednesday continues the trend by cleaving the Passion account of St. Mark in today’s gospel, eliminating dozens of verses regarding the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

 

 

[From the exceptional study of Fr. Stefano Carusi:]

 

 

“THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL

We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the “head of the battering-ram” in the heart of the Roman liturgy and “the most important act since St. Pius V until now.”

For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on […] what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.

HOLY TUESDAY

(OHS 1956): Suppression of Mark 14: 1-31, thus shortening the Passion according to St. Mark. (53)

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. (54)

Holy Week Destroyed: Monday

[Once the recording for Monday in Holy Week is uploaded onto YouTube, it will be placed here with full attribution.  As with Palm Sunday, this may take a day or two.]

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/holy-week-destroyed-monday-in-holy-week/

 

The prayers of the fully (pre-1951-1955/6) traditional Monday in Holy Week focus on the persecution of the Church and Her members:

The Introit: “Overthrow them that fight against me…rise up to help me…shut up the way against those who persecute me…”

The Prayer: “Grant…that we may take heart anew…”

The Lesson: “I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spit upon me…”

The Gradual: “Bring out thy sword, and shut up the way against those who persecute me.”

The Gospel: “Then…Judas Iscariot…he who was about to betray Him…”

The Offertory: “Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord: To Thee have I fled…”

2nd Secret (For God’s Holy Church): “Protect us, o Lord…”

Communion: “Let them be clothed with shame and fear who speak malignant things against me.”

2nd Postcommunion (For the Church): “Suffer [us] not to succumb to human hazards…”

As Fr. Carusi will explain below, the Bugnini/Pius XII “reforms” sought to avoid drawing attention to this theme of the Church being persecuted by her enemies, and it becomes evident in today’s revised 1956 Mass, in light of what has been excised from it (below).

[From the exceptional study of Fr. Stefano Carusi:]

“THE INNOVATIONS EXAMINED IN DETAIL

We now arrive at a detailed analysis which will cast in relief some of the more obvious changes brought about by the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” [“The Restored Order of Holy Week”] of 1955-1956 and which will explain why this reform became the “head of the battering-ram” in the heart of the Roman liturgy and “the most important act since St. Pius V until now.”

For each of the innovations cited there is given as well a commentary which relies as much as possible on […] what the actual authors of the texts later stated; then there is also a brief sketch of the traditional practice.

HOLY MONDAY

(OHS 1956): The prayer “Contra persecutores Ecclesiae [Against the Church’s persecutors]” is prohibited, as is the prayer for the Pope. (50)

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. (51) 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. (52)