The author of this series wishes to remain anonymous. He is an experienced master of ceremonies and chanter, intimately familiar with both the 1962 rubrics and the pre-1939 rubrics in ordinary parish contexts.
1) the simplification of the rubrics outlined in Cum nostra hac ætate;
2) the introduction of the new rite of Holy Week in Maxima redemptionis nostræ mysteria;
3) the changes made in the reforms of 1960 and 1962, to the breviary and missal respectively.
This was followed by the publication of Dr. Kwasniewski’s The Once and Future Roman Rite, where he articulates a fundamental position on the inherently traditional and continuous nature of apostolic liturgy, critiques twentieth-century ruptures, and advocates total restoration of the Roman Rite. Dr. Kwasniewski formally plots the way forward with a final chapter on the pre-1955 liturgy, which deserves our thanks and consideration.
 |
| A green Sunday at the ICRSP seminary; these Sundays are perhaps the days outside of Holy Week where the 1955 and 1960 rubrics have the most impact for an ordinary parishioner in the pews. |
Before proceeding, I should note that this essay takes for granted a reader’s knowledge of, or willingness to learn about the differences in the rubrics. This page is a good place to start.
I have a particular knowledge of the office, above all those which would be more routinely prayed in parishes, Vespers and Compline but also Lauds and the minor hours, as I have prayed the 1962 office with some regularity for nine years, and in private, I prayed a combination of Divino Afflatu, Tridentine Compline and festal offices, and a pre-1962 office with the 1962 precedence (Sunday Vespers, with semidoubled antiphons and all but the highest feasts reduced to commemorations); now my circumstances permit me to always use Divino Afflatu, so I do. [*Note]
It is also worth noting in passing that I have only rarely assisted at a Mass with no interpolations whatsoever from a previous edition of the missal; in my experience, a Mass exactly according to 1962 will be celebrated only by American diocesan priests ordained after 2007. I first discovered the traditional Mass via the FSSP, known for preserving the “extra” Confiteor before communion; then in the diocesan parish of my adolescence, the priest bowed to the cross as required. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, with which I am most familiar, is famous for “1962 in the hands of Frenchmen” and thus making popular a yet more traditional version of the “rite of Écône,” as described by the Rad Trad. In France, even priests who make their bows exclusively to the book are still incensed after the Gospel at sung Mass — J. B. O’Connell could not be clearer in indicating that this is abolished in the 1962 rubrics — and there is virtually always a Confiteor before the distribution of communion.
 |
| Altar cloths being put out on the altar on Good Friday as per the pre-1955 rubrics. |
Also, this essay would not necessarily have been welcomed three or four years ago when it was easier to make changes, yet now many priests will feel pressure to toe the 1962 line lest they lose the right even to use that missal, even though, by the same token, now is a favorable time to act. I share their grief and distress, but I hope that they and the members of the flock assisting, such as masters of ceremonies or choirmasters, will read this with ideas for the future, if not for their own strictly private usage away from cameras and the internet, no matter what choice they make in the parishes.
It is somewhat trivial to explain why the Roman rite as it existed in 1954 is the point to which one should return: all of the essential practices are there, albeit with the weekly psalter rearranged by order of Saint Pius X, the antiphons created to accompany this new psalter, and even the new Mass for the feast and octave day of the Assumption instituted by Pope Pius XII. But explaining the extent of the damage even of the 1940s and 1950s is a thirty-minute conversation, without taking into account questions from your inquirer. A priest of my acquaintance who belongs to a traditional community explained it thus to a group of young people: “I don’t really know the details of the changes.” “We pray the 1962 breviary because we’re told to do so.” These are both reasonable answers given the demands of his apostolic activity and his state in life.
For the curious or daring person with some free time, one could prudently pray according to the 1910 office, then 1911/1954, and finally 1955/1960, in order to see what’s up, though looking at a hand missal from the 1940s will be the best most of us can do to see what happened to the Mass in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Precocious laymen might suggest that groups such as the FSSP and especially the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest have failed by sticking to 1962 entirely or by following certain things (e.g., the pre-55 Holy Week, the proper doxology of the hymn at Compline, some of the pre-1962 rubrics of the Mass) while following the 1962 calendar and rubrics in everything else.
On the other hand, their priests are subject not only to the bishop but to their superiors, and these parishes would attract people who know the difference. On the other hand, a diocesan bishop probably does not know the difference off the top of his head, and while his priests would have more freedom to act, they do not necessarily have the time to do the research and to transition the TLM community towards a more traditional observance.
Or do they? Can this be done? I believe this is possible, with careful planning and consideration both of the higher-level stakes (Rome, the bishop…) and of lower-level ones (the needs of the faithful).
In a parish well-known to this author, the pastor arrived and continued to follow the 1962 calendar (especially the precedence of Sundays over virtually all feasts), although the prayers of the foot of the altar and Last Gospel were always recited. Vespers strictly followed the 1962 rubrics, with the commemorations made according to the same.
Slowly but surely, suppressed feasts, like those of the first week in May (suppressed in 1960 as duplicates), came back along with vigils, like that of All Saints said the day before the feast. The Credo was restored to the feasts which previously required it before 1955 and 1960. Holy Week and the Pentecost vigil came back immediately; there is simply no reason to stick with the reformed versions (especially that of Pius XII, but also the version of Paul VI) if you really believe that it is worth reviving the traditional form of the Roman Rite. The priest introduced proper Last Gospels said on Sundays where the feast impedes a Sunday Mass or on certain other occasions required by the rubrics, then seasonal commemorations at Mass (that is, the prayers said after the main oration), and those of feasts; one of the genius aspects of the reforms of Pius X is this legal fiction elevating Sundays over most, but not all, feasts. Finally, the suffrages (the antiphon, versicle, and collect said per the rubrics: one is of “All Saints” sung most of the year; the other said in Paschal Time is “of the Cross”), then sanctoral commemorations (most all of the saints on Saturday evening and on Sunday are just dropped under 1962), and now semidoubled antiphons (intoned to the asterisk, followed by the psalm, then sung in full after the psalm) along with the precedence of the Divino Afflatu rubrics have been restored at Vespers.
So that’s what happened in this parish: a pretty full restoration of the Roman Rite. How, then, does one get there?
In the next three parts, we will look at the Mass, the Office, and the question of Posture. I shall refrain from a detailed treatment of the pontifical ceremonies, since that depends on acquiring a suitable pontifical and a willing bishop (already difficult enough), and the scope is simply too grand for such a series.
Such a transition can sometimes be confusing, as much as for the priest as for the faithful, and one would do well to briefly instruct from the pulpit and in the bulletin or at other appropriate times, such as on Saturday mornings, where there is more time to consider the finer details. Priests should remember a few things: one, that while one must be “all things to all men,” one should never act as if the audience is unintelligent and cannot, through some work, come to learn and appreciate these details according to their capacities.
Note
By the way, the translated general rubrics of the 1920 missal are also available in a beautifully-prepared PDF, though the rubrics to the office appear to be lacking; one gets very far, but only so, with a copy of Learning the Breviary by Fr. Hausmann, S.J. (not to be confused with Learning the New Breviary for the 1960 rubrics), since the Additiones et Variationes to the rubrics of Saint Pius V (under the form known as the Jubilee Rubrics issued in 1900), are what make the Divino Afflatu rubrics so complex.
