Practical Steps for Transitioning from the 1962 to the Pre-1955 Roman Rite — Part 4: Postures and the Guise of a Conclusion

Click the following links to see the earlier parts in this series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

American traditionalists like to sound off about how there are no strict rubrics for the lay faithful. This is true as far as it goes, but virtually all authorities (such as editors of hand missals and of ceremonials) agreed that if the people did anything, they should follow the rubrics for the clerics. In other words, rubrics are normative, if not strictly binding. Of course, one cannot do the impossible and is excused from the difficult, but we self-selecting traditional Catholics can do better for the greater glory of God and for the edification of other faithful.

It would be especially good to work on the posture of the acolytes, which goes hand-in-hand with that of the choir at key moments like the Canon or the orations on certain days of the year, most often at the Requiem Mass, since this is sung more often in parishes than the ferial Masses. This in turn will influence the people’s gestures such that they correspond better to the liturgical action, better drawing the distinction between festal or dominical and penitential.

But there is one rubric that does demand attention. The liturgical books could not be clearer that, on Good Friday, the priest, the ministers, and servers take off their shoes and proceed to the back. They genuflect on both knees three times before kissing the cross. The faithful do exactly the same. This is something that was detested by Thomas Cranmer at the English Reformation; we would do well to carry out perhaps the most elaborate form of adoration in the Roman rite, which is not known (unlike the Byzantine liturgy) for its full-body prostrations.

As to the last elements, the pontifical ceremonies and the ritual, the former is out of pastors’ hands unless they find a willing bishop, although the pontifical Mass itself has very few changes except for those made in the entire 1962 liturgy, e.g. the omission of the Judica me, etc. on certain days. The Pontificale Romanum and the Cæremoniale Episcoporum govern that form of the Mass, to which no changes were made, apparently due to error or oversight on the part of Rome. Thus, one is unquestionably free to celebrate using these older books. Plus, you either do a pontifical ceremony, or you do nothing. There is no middle ground of transition.

Archbishop Sample celebrating Candlemas in Rome with the traditional ceremonies; it is worthwhile to invite a friendly bishop to rediscover the riches of his heritage.

The Ritual presents particular challenges, since the vernacular editions were sometimes substantially different in the 1950s and in 1962, and the permissions granted to all priests (versus bishops or religious of an order or congregation) did not exist before; however, if one acquiesces to using the Latin alone, then one can use virtually any edition for the ordinary prayers and blessings; those seriously interested should follow the Hand Missal History project, which promises to detail the history of the vernacular in the rituals over the last several centuries.

It bears repeating that there is no one pace to match, one calendar to follow, although I personally think that the order outlined in this four-part series is sound and can be adapted most easily to the needs of parishes, religious communities, and seminaries of societies of apostolic life, for private usage if not public usage in these difficult times. It’s not my neck on the block, so moving glacially would not especially disturb me, although I hope that the actual experience of celebrating the traditional Holy Week, or even watching it online, and reading articles and books on the pre-55 Roman Rite, has by now convinced even the most reluctant traditional or trad-adjacent priest of the supremacy of the majestic traditional Roman Rite celebrated without the ever-accelerating and ever-burgeoning changes of the twentieth century.

I should address some final concerns. I advocate for celebrating the pre-Pius XII liturgy because it is the fullest approved expression of the Roman rite following the reforms of Saint Pius X; this is important, because the John XXIII breviary has at its heart the Pius X psalter. This is the familiar office for traditionally-minded clergy, and there are many beloved things in these liturgical books, particularly the 1927 Mass and Office of the Sacred Heart.

In addressing arguments from both progressives and conservatives, we acknowledge that the 1960 rubrics have the flaws which we already criticize in the Novus Ordo. These flaws prompt us to take up the non-deformed books, yet without being in a situation where we are, as it were, making things up on the fly, as we go along; for that would be just a different version of tinkeritis or optionitis.

Integrity is important; we should not try to make up a new calendar, a new system of precedence, or a new breviary with the Jubilee rubrics of 1900 (and so, with the historical cursus psalmorum)—on our own authority. We should not follow some hybrid forever out of mere convenience, or flip-flop between rubrics. Those who are serious should restore the ceremonies and follow the rubrics of a definite edition such as the 1939 missal, and then stick to it.

In case this was not clear, I reiterate that the times are strange, if not dangerous. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? This is an evergreen question, but with certain technological developments, both bishops and Roman curial officials can, and do, micromanage, with ease. Nor should people do things which gravely offend them or which require disobedience in a sort of slimy way. I encourage people—the clergy above all—to do these things quietly and with great love for the Lord and for their people, but without dissimulation or other troublesome behaviors that cannot bring victory.

I pray that one day, every community that currently uses or has previously used the usus antiquior will be able one day to do so according to the integral editions when the right moment comes. Until then, we take it step by step, brick by brick.

Practical Steps for Transitioning from the 1962 to the Pre-1955 Roman Rite—Part 3: The Divine Office

Click the following links for the earlier parts of this ongoing series: Part 1 | Part 2

I staked the claim that we must return to the 1939 office rather than the simple 1954 form, which happens to have a memorable rhyming slogan in English (“restore the ’54”). But I shall defend that claim, going into the weeds a little bit at the start of this article.

The Canticle of Canticles is primarily read at Matins of the Assumption octave, in an orderly manner over the eight days. (Some chapters are omitted due to the introduction of double feasts, but those could be omitted or the rubrics amended to require the readings of the octave, instead of the occurring Scripture.) In any case, under the 1950 office, chapter 1 of Canticles is no longer read; chapter 2 is still read, but on the Visitation, a less important feast added much later (although it is a feast commemorating a Scriptural event); chapter 3 is omitted if Saint Mary Magdalene is impeded (and 1960 omits even that), and chapter 8 is now omitted in the office of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Chapter 4 is read as the day is unimpeded on the general calendar, and the rest are omitted due to feasts as mentioned above. There is also no reason to read something written by the reigning pope in the office of one of the greatest Marian feasts. But let us move on to the transition, of which this series is supposed to be a guide.

The challenge of making changes in an entire community remains, and these are felt most acutely with the choir office, particularly if some of the office is sung in choir and the rest said privately. Thankfully, that is above my pay grade. Some suggestions for the reform of the office, and to an extent the Mass, are also applicable to priests belonging to a diocese and should be noted; in his own breviary, the diocesan priest might simply take up the whole old office, at least for the minor hours, working up to the full Lauds and Vespers, then Matins.

The simplest place to begin would be by praying the suppressed silent prayers before and after the Hours, which are either in the 1962 breviary as it is, can be put on a card, or are easily memorized; the Marian antiphon could then be added to the end of Lauds or the final day hour when said in a bunch following Lauds, not only Compline, or when Vespers is separated from Compline (and when no other pious exercise, sermon, or Benediction follows). Surely no cleric would decline the opportunity to invoke his Mother’s protection more often?

The feast of Saint Matthias is transferred to Monday if it conflicts with a Sunday of Lent; under Divino Afflatu, the I Vespers are still prayed in full, with a commemoration of Sunday.

Clerics in major orders (from the diaconate, if transitional, or according to the community’s constitutions, from the subdiaconate) who are obliged to pray the entire office could add the first psalm omitted at Lauds of penitential days to Prime, at least in private, though this may pose some difficulties for clerics who pray Prime with community members who are not so bound. That psalm is still in the breviary, and so are the suppressed verses of psalm 88 cut from Christmas, the Transfiguration, or Christ the King, whereas the canticle of Deuteronomy at Saturday Lauds is mutilated such that one could not pray the full text from a 1962 breviary.

From there, the clergy praying the full office could semidouble the antiphons of the minor hours and of Compline, including those sung with members who are not yet subdeacons (typically Prime, Terce, or Sext and Compline); the ferial preces could be prayed anytime the penitential Lauds are said or Vespers are of the feria of Advent of Lent. This change does not even affect the entire year, nor even every day within the seasons.

For those lucky enough to use older, original versions of the Liber Usualis in choir, praying the doxologies as printed for Compline is easy to implement without much thought, as the book is written that way! This would also apply to the other minor hours, of course, although the doxologies are rarely printed for offices other than festal Compline; for example, one has to learn that it changes during the season of Easter or on feasts (an asterisk printed in the breviary reminds the cleric of this).

Semidoubling the hours on Sundays (perhaps surprisingly, all Sundays are privileged but of semidouble rite, except for Low Sunday, which is double major, and the Sundays that are feasts, i.e. Easter and Pentecost, where there is no other Sunday, as well as Trinity, Christ the King, etc. fixed on Sunday) and at daily Compline (sometimes prayed with the faithful) is another easy step to take at public offices. Saint-Eugène-Sainte-Cécile in Paris already does this for most Sundays, and frankly it is easier anyway if you are introducing Vespers, since the psalm matches what is printed for the antiphon, particularly with Psalm 109; the priest intones the antiphon, which is the first words of the psalm, so the cantors continue with the psalm. At first, you could still follow the 1962 observance in omitting the commemorations and suffrages. Adding commemorations and suffrages according to the rubrics and the occurrences or concurrences of the calendar (including the Incarnation doxology for the commemoration of a lesser Marian feast) would be the last step.

That said, the commemorations can be somewhat complicated, particularly when octaves get involved, and figuring out the order is not always intuitive; one simply has to trust the Ordo while trying to learn the rubrics on the fly. For example, the order of commemorations for June 19, 2022 (Sunday within the octave of Corpus Christi) were complicated by the commemoration of the octave, and this is a point of the rubrics that was changed in 1911 to be more complicated than before, leaving it to be blown up in 1955 and in 1960.

For priests belonging to a traditional community, it would be better to work commemorations out privately and to mutually agree on them—say, starting at the community’s seminary—than to introduce them independently, with disagreements arising in different churches; the commemorations can be easy to forget or to execute incorrectly as well, as the rubrics for “Oremus” and the conclusions are not the same as at Mass. At the office, the celebrant sings “Oremus” before each collect, but this is not the case at Mass: it is sung before the first collect and then before the second, but not before subsequent collects. (I recommend a sticky note or an index card.)

In lieu of worrying about that first, restoring I Vespers where there is no conflict seems to be a more prudent choice; to pick at low-hanging fruit, Vespers of the vigil of Saint Lawrence is an anomaly easily fixed by saying I Vespers of the feast provided in the 1960 breviary. I would also suggest singing the traditional hymns of Vespers and Lauds of the Assumption, even with the 1950 collect and chapter for expediency, before moving on to the traditional prayers down the road.

Next, psalms for the feast should replace the ferial psalms of the minor hours on II class feasts. One would already have the necessary texts since the antiphons are from the Lauds already prayed, from the common or proper. Then one can celebrate I Vespers of all II class feasts, especially the feasts of Apostles, and add the commemorations of lower feasts (in occurrence at Lauds and, at first, in concurrence at Vespers, and going from there).

After this begins the a different kind of challenge: restoring texts that simply do not exist in a 1962 breviary or which would constitute a greater burden. The preces at the minor hours and the dominical preces of Prime and Compline are very short, but they were either removed or would require substantial pencil markings in a 1962 breviary if you wish to say them. The same is true for the suffrages. Praying Vespers of the Dead after canonical Vespers of All Saints on November 1 is trivial in the sense that the text is in the breviary, but praying two Vespers is an utterly foreign concept, and when Vespers of the dead is prayed on certain occasions, psalms are added towards the end which are found in the breviary, just not in the 1960 office of the dead. In other words, get a pencil.

Changing the chapter and the verse at Prime when called for by the older rubrics is simple enough and adds virtually no time to the office, but the texts would not necessarily be in a 1962 breviary (in fact, they mostly are not). Also, commemorating a lesser Marian feast commemorated at Saturday Vespers or at those of Sunday, requires memorizing the doxology if using a breviary (easy enough, admittedly); at least in all cases, one needs to create the chant score if using a Liber Usualis. (The omission of the doxology for all tones of the hymns where this happens on green Sundays, from Saturday evening to that of Sunday is a strange lacuna.)

Vespers sung by the seminarians of the FSSP

Unfortunately, Matins is probably the last significant change, because the readings, especially on Sundays, cannot be reconstituted from a 1962 breviary; you have to have an earlier edition, or, less ideally, your phone or a document created with the missing portions, but the thing is that the readings are not that long. Efficiently praying Matins with Lauds on a feast of nine lessons takes less than an hour; even taking into consideration apostolic demands, does one not have an hour to watch and pray? If not, we should fix this, and the faithful should support priests doing this according to their own abilities. (Both are easier said than done.)

Praying Matins is all the more easy considering the compromise psalter, of which the flaws are evident after only a few days of praying the Roman office of 1911/1954 (such as on July 9 and 10, 2022, with Our Lady on Saturday followed by a green Sunday with no doubles commemorated on either day). Nevertheless, the secular clergy would consider this office the most burdensome, not entirely without reason.

In contrast, praying the Athanasian Creed is, in theory, not especially burdensome for those who must pray Prime, but it does require paying attention to the commemorations of octaves and double feasts (these suppress the recitation of this creed) such that its reintroduction could come before adding commemorations at Mass or at the same time, depending on whether one is in a community that should try to pray in the same way or if one is alone (or with other diocesan priests) is in a parish. In other words, one could accelerate the restoration of one’s office at the same pace as, or a faster pace than, that of the public Mass. Mutatis mutandis for the suffrages already mentioned in the context of Vespers, which also occur, even more often, at Lauds.

Practical Steps for Transitioning from the 1962 to the Pre-1955 Roman Rite — Part 2: The Mass

See here for Part 1: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2025/06/practical-steps-for-transitioning-from.html

Before any kind of work can begin in earnest, one must have an ordo alongside the old books of liturgy and try to learn the rubrics. The well-established Saint Lawrence Press Ordo is slightly different from the web-based Ordo of Restore the ‘54, which has the new Assumption and Immaculate Heart offices, the Common of Holy Popes, and some changes to the calendar, like the feast of the Queenship of Mary on May 31, which bumps Saint Angela Merici to the next day. This is not a terribly important feast, but the problem is now that a new double of the II class interrupts a week routinely filled with some feasts: the Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity, etc. routinely fall on or around this day, and as a double of the II class, it eventually is transferred to a free day.

One could also simply ignore all but the changes to the Assumption and its octave and call it a day, as the Immaculate Heart Mass has become beloved among Catholics attached to not just the liturgy but to the devotional culture of the immediate pre-conciliar era. But having claimed that “1939” is the recension to which we ought to return, then we ought to explore why this is so, and while honoring Our Lady’s request to honor her Immaculate Heart on five first Saturdays is not something which I treat frivolously, nevertheless, she did not say that it must be with the votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart.

Attention must also be called to the rubrics of votive Masses, somewhat different than the 1962 rubrics, though not challenging as the SLP Ordo has a handy chart. The trouble is that a Requiem Mass or a votive Mass said on more solemn occasions (so, something more complex than the replacement of the ferial Mass per annum when votive Masses are permitted) have special rubrics for the orations, the Gloria, the Credo, and the precedence, all of which are vastly different from the 1962 rubrics, which are not necessarily straightforward or simple as it is.

If one has a sufficient command of French, then referencing the Manuel de liturgie et cérémonial selon le rit romain of Stercky (taking over for LeVavasseur) is indispensable in addition to the original Fortescue. (Vol. II of Stercky is found here.) These volumes are far more comprehensive than Fortescue(-O’Connell) and O’Connell combined, and the work should have been entirely translated a long time ago; they merit republication in French as well. Note that an excerpt in translation entitled Sacrificare, Ceremonies of Low Mass was published in 1946 and is currently available as an on-demand print, though it deserves a proper reprint from a reputable publishing house.

The Last Gospel is a unique, beloved feature of the traditional Mass; why would we not wish for this text to be said at the Mass of the Easter Vigil?

In all cases, it is perfectly wise to begin with the little details: the name of Saint Joseph is not in the canon. One can immediately begin bowing to the cross as required at the epistle corner; using the three tones of voice and two kinds of head bows and bows of the body respectively; always reciting the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel—mostly the ordinary one from Saint John; praying the Confiteor before communion; finally, incensing the celebrant of a sung Mass after the Gospel. [Note 1]

Additionally, the priest should simply not sit down, and he should rise a little earlier, in order to read the epistle and gospel at solemn Mass, which essentially no one will mind; the faithful are listening to the chants. Finally, the priest should follow the traditional rubrics for the tones of the preface and Pater Noster, which happen to neatly correspond to the new categories of the 1962 office (in particular, simples are commemorations, simple votive Masses are IV class, and nothing else changes). 

These small changes get us to the situation immediately before 1960, as seen at this Mass of the XXIV Sunday after Pentecost from Ushaw College in England, now closed.

The pastor should also strive to say Mass pro populo on the required days, a table of which would be found in the various books covering the subject. Treating holy days, even suppressed ones, as something special is almost entirely lost, and this will have to be recovered as well. “Why can’t I have Mass said for Grandma Anne and Grandpa Lawrence on their name days?” Well, because the church considers saying Mass for the people under the pastor’s care one of his most important duties.

One can add the Credo for Apostles, Doctors, Saint Mary Magdalene, and the Holy Angels without touching the calendar or precedence and without making any other commemorations. Since there is already a preface of the Blessed Sacrament, the preface of the Nativity on Corpus Christi celebrated on Thursday or as an external solemnity can be used without difficulty, as there is already the possibility of avoiding the common preface or, on Sunday, that of the Trinity, and virtually no one would blink if the same preface was used on the Transfiguration.

As far as more significant changes go, I would of course start with Holy Week and the vigil of Pentecost. A wealth of material exists such that the rite can be celebrated correctly and with dignity; I am no fan of broadcasting all liturgies, but 2020 provided proof that you can celebrate the traditional rite in a parish church with a skeleton crew. It is also true that the most reformatory changes occurred with these days of the liturgical year, meaning it’s impossible to mix-and-match old and new (i.e., pre-55 and 1955-1969) in a satisfactory way.

Nevertheless, if one must be incrementalist, then the easiest place to begin is on Holy Thursday, where the rubrics of Mass would deviate only for the ministers, not for the schola (aside from the Agnus Dei, where the change from the ordinary way is in the Pian rite, not that which came before or after) or for the faithful, and at Tenebræ, usually anticipated as it is. Psalm 50 is still right there in the books, and the strepitus (the fun part, the noise at the end) is essentially never omitted. Good Friday is perhaps the next change, given that the day is unique no matter what, followed by the two more complex and very notably different days, Palm Sunday and Holy Saturday.

Further, if you have folded chasubles for Holy Week, then you can then use them the rest of the year, starting with Candlemas, to which minimal changes were made and which only apply after Septuagesima, which means that only the vestments change (except once every few years).

Replacing “Ite, missa est” with “Benedicamus Domino” in Advent and Lent or on the Ember Days of September, then adding proper Last Gospels on penitential weekdays where the festal Mass is said instead (even without touching the 1962 rubrics of the Lenten calendar precedence!—one thinks of Saint Joseph, the Annunciation, the privileged votive Masses, proper first-class feasts, and the Masses now permitted by the decree Cum sanctissima), would be easy steps to take next, followed by the reintroduction of proper Last Gospels whenever they occur, including when a feast falls on an ordinary Sunday. One might wish to begin earlier with Christmas day, given that its Gospel is already Saint John’s prologue and would otherwise have no Last Gospel. Can anyone protest too much? In fact, the Ordinariate has this privilege!

By the way, there is virtually no reason to ever justify the short form of Ember Saturday’s liturgy, no matter what rubrics one uses otherwise.

The commemorations of the Mass should be added progressively according to the difficulty for the celebrant and the people. These are straightforward on double feasts or when a double feast is simplified due to the Sunday: pray the collects of the (other) saints, then move to the epistle, unless there is an oratio imperata to be prayed by the order of the bishop or other authority (rare if not nonexistent outside of certain traditional communities).

It can become much more complicated at a votive Mass, including the “daily” Requiem Mass which has three orations; when a semidouble or simplex feast is commemorated; or during octaves or other occasions which have different prayers than those of the season (e.g. a day within the octave of All Saints has different prayers than the ones assigned for the time after Pentecost, and so on and so forth).

More will be said about these with respect to the office, but suffice it to say that one could start on the rare occasions when one makes only the commemorations of the season, gradually moving to commemorate feasts, both of which can already be done, at least in a limited way, at a 1962-compliant low Mass. It is probably unwise to start with Sundays or feasts with four collects, e.g., on June 26, 2022, the Sunday within the octave of the Sacred Heart, when, in pre-55 land, collects would be sung of the Third Sunday after Pentecost, of several martyrs, of the Octave of the Lord, and of the Octave of Saint John the Baptist.

That leaves the calendar itself and the other rubrics. Start with the “votive” Mass of the suppressed feasts, all found in the section for various places of the 1962 missal; the feast of Saint Joseph in Paschaltide is the votive Mass of Saint Joseph, so one could usually say this Mass on the third Wednesday of Eastertide without fuss.

If a feast of an Apostle or another II class feast falls on a Sunday and would have taken its place before 1962, one should follow that precedence, commemorating Sunday appropriately. Also, move the Apostles to Monday if there is a conflict, as is the case when October 28 falls on the Sunday which is the feast of Christ the King or when Saint Matthias falls on a Sunday of Lent.

The full vigils, including that of the Epiphany, will have to be last, if one does not already possess a pre-1955 missal. The same holds for the octaves which have proper texts for all or some of the days (in particular, the days within the octave of Saints Peter and Paul), but the Second and Third Sundays after Pentecost have no textual changes not found in a 1962 missal and can be restored quickly as the Sundays within the respective octaves of the Lord.

The pre-1939 recension is imperfect. It would perhaps be better, at conventual Mass, to celebrate ancient vigils instead of later feasts (on June 28, the vigil of Saints Peter and Paul and variously the feast of Saint Irenaeus or of Pope Saint Leo II) and on August 9 (the vigil of Saint Lawrence and the feast of the Curé d’Ars). Instituting the vigil and suppressing or moving around, again, feasts, or removing the vigil in the 1960 liturgy came at the cost of everything else, and a change to permit the vigil at conventual Mass (without having to duplicate the festal Mass) would have mirrored the rubrics for private Masses (I take the meaning of “private” to be the Mass said outside of the parish schedule, not as the “parochial Mass” in lieu of a conventual Mass, where there is no community, the sort of Mass that priests say right after Lauds in the monastery). Those allowed priests to choose the Mass ad libitum when a vigil or ferial day of Lent, or the Ember Days, was to be said, although public Masses, including the main Mass, really ought to be of the feast. [Note 2]

One final change: the Mass of the Rogation days has a unique Alleluia in the pre-1962 missal; the Alleluia with the verse Laudate Dominum is sung, but the form is not responsorial. Two Alleluias are sung as on other days of Paschal Time in the 1962 missal, for consistency.

Surveying the many differences listed above, we should bear in mind that there is no one order that must be followed in implementing them, nor a prescribed pace at which to move. The changes to be implemented in parallel with one’s breviary (to be described in the next post) can be mixed and matched. The order I have suggested, however, seems to be a good general order that makes logical sense. At a minimum, I have tried to lay out each element that will need to be restored to the traditional Roman Mass.

Notes

[1] This one is more controversial, as not every place received an indult for incense at sung Mass before the 1962 rubrics made it universal. But it is the expectation the world over, and further detaching sung Mass from solemn Mass was a step in the wrong direction.

[2] As an aside, though, the term “private Mass” is nebulous, having at least eight definitions and has consequences if the priest is saying a community Mass for his community, conventual or otherwise, or as the main parochial Mass. As noted earlier, a pastor would have had to say Mass pro populo on many feast days according to the former law.

The Minor Options of the Old Rite and How They Avoid “Optionitis”

The most frequently repeated criticism of the new CDF decrees that allow priests ad libitum use (albeit under clear conditions) of new prefaces and the feasts of saints canonized after 1960 has been that the decrees introduce or risk introducing into the celebration of the usus antiquior an unwelcome and indeed uncharacteristic spirit of “optionitis.” Critics will say that the classical Roman rite is known and loved for its objectivity, stability, and fixity — these being the qualities of any perfected liturgical tradition — and that the clergy should not have options at their disposal.

While I agree that the classical rite has these desirable qualities, I think we should be careful not to exaggerate our case by speaking as if options do not have a longstanding place within it — a highly circumscribed place, to be sure, and one that does not threaten the integrity and “predictability” of the rite, but still, at the end of the day, options.

I will look at several examples: alternative readings; votive Masses and Masses pro aliquibus locis; multiple orations; some minor matters; and, paraliturgically, the style of vestments.

Alternative Readings

Unlike the new lectionary, the old lectionary, built into the missal, almost never gives an option as to what reading is to be used on any given day or for any given Mass formulary. However, there are a few instances in the Commons of “alternative readings.” For example:

• in the Mass Me exspectaverunt for Virgin Martyrs, the Gospel is Mt 13:44–52 or Mt 19:3–12;
• in the Mass In medio ecclesiae for Doctors, the Epistle is 2 Tm 4:1–8 or Ecc 39:6–14;
• in the Mass Salus autem for several martyrs, the Gospel is Lk 12:1–8 or Mt 24:3–13.

It gets really interesting with the Mass Laetabitur justus for a martyr not a bishop, where three epistles are listed: 2 Tim 2:8–10 and 3:10–12; Jas 1:2–12; and 1 Pet 4:13–19, as well as two Gospels: Mt 10:26–32 and Jn 12:24–26.

There is a rubric in the Commons section of the Missal — first appearing, I think, in the 1920 edition — that states that the Epistles and Gospels printed within one of the Commons can be used ad libitum for the Mass of a Saint, unless the Mass formulary directs otherwise. In the Sanctorale, there is either the minimal instruction to follow the Common or, more rarely, additional directions to use a specific Gospel. A rubrical expert I consulted had never seen diocesan ordines specifying these in any way; he has a collection of about 50 which, though differing greatly in style and content, make no reference to the choice of pericopes where several are given. We should see this as a small example of liberty within the otherwise (blessedly) monolithic old missal.

In my admittedly limited experience over the past few decades, priests rarely avail themselves of these alternative readings. It seems they follow the principle articulated by a friend of mine: “Whatever text will be the least trouble to read is the one that is likely to be read.” (He initially came up with this principle to explain why, with the new lectionary, priests so rarely break out of the mold of the lectio continua that plods along from day to day, even though for almost any of the saints they could choose a more appropriate reading if they wished.) Yet hand missals always print these alternative readings right alongside the other readings for the Common, so it is hard to see why they should not be used, at least occasionally. This is a case where admirable Scripture readings already given in the old missal are being neglected.

Votive Masses and Missae pro aliquibus locis

We take it for granted that any time there is a feria, when the Mass of the preceding Sunday could be said again, a priest is also free to make a choice of any of the Votive Masses contained in the Missal. There is a longstanding custom to use the Mass of the Most Holy Trinity on Monday; that of the Holy Angels on Tuesday; that of St. Joseph, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, or All Holy Apostles on Wednesday; that of the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Sacrament, or Jesus Christ Eternal High Priest on Thursday; that of the Holy Cross or of the Passion of Our Lord on Friday; and that of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Saturday — but this is merely a custom and does not have any obliging force.

Beyond these popular Votive Masses are a host of others that some priests use quite regularly and others seem strangely unfamiliar with or uninterested in: Mass for the Sick (I have never actually been present when this formulary has been used!); Mass for the Propagation of the Faith (interestingly, this one has an alternative Epistle, 1 Tim 2:1–7; the Epistle listed first is Ecclus 36:1–10, 17–19); Mass Against the Heathen; Mass for the Removal of Schism; Mass in Time of War; Mass for Peace; Mass for Deliverance from Mortality or in Time of Pestilence; Mass of Thanksgiving; Mass for the Forgiveness of Sins; Mass for Pilgrims and Travellers; Mass for Any Necessity; Mass for a Happy Death. (I would add that when a priest is going to celebrate with one of these formularies, he should somehow announce it to the people, either in the bulletin if he has decided it in advance, or on a sheet posted near the inside church door, or in a brief mention after emerging from the sacristy and before starting the prayers at the foot of the altar.)

Moreover, altar missals usually feature a section towards the back called Missae pro aliquibus locis, Masses for certain places. Like Votive Masses, these too may be chosen under certain conditions. My 1947 Benziger altar missal, with a commendatory letter signed by Cardinal Spellman, has quite a substantive “M.P.A.L.” section: page (131) to page (196). It includes such worthy feasts as The Translation of the Holy House of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 10, the Expectation of Our Lady on December 18, the Espousal of the Blessed Virgin and St Joseph on January 23, the Flight of Our Lord Jesus Christ into Egypt on February 17, the Feast of the Prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Tuesday after Septuagesima, and many others.

All of these feasts share in common the trait that they are not normally prescribed but allowed to be used when there is no other impediment. Therefore, they must be chosen; they are, in that sense, options.

Multiple Orations

One of the worst casualties of the 1960 rubrical revisions was the loss of multiple orations (collects, secrets, and postcommunions) at Mass and the Divine Office. This runs contrary to the Roman tradition in the second millennium, when multiple orations were a universal feature.

The history of the question of how many orations were allowed is quite complex and I intend to write more about it another time. Here it suffices to speak of the period after 1570, when it was normal for the priest to say the oration of the day, followed sometimes by a commemoration of a saint, other times by a required seasonal oration or required prayer (oratio imperata), and concluding with a third oration at his choice (ad libitum eligenda). There is a magnificent corpus of orations printed in the Tridentine Missal for precisely this reason, so few of which have remained in use after the draconian limitations imposed by the Roncallian rubrical reform.

We can see here, once again, that Holy Mother Church recognized a certain “ordered liberty” on the part of the celebrant, who was thus able to pray liturgically for his own needs, for those of the local community, or for those of the larger world.

Minor Matters

Five other areas in which a choice is required are:

1. Whether to precede the Sunday High Mass with the Asperges, or to start with the entrance procession accompanied by the Introit antiphon;

2. Whether to remain standing or to sit down during the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Credo;

3. Which tone to use for the orations, readings, and Preface;

4. Whether or not to use incense at a Missa cantata;

5. Whether to observe an “external solemnity” for Corpus Christi and/or the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to enable the maximum number of faithful to participate in the Procession for the one, and devotions for the other. It is important to recognize that here we are looking not as an obligatory transferral, where the feast is simply packed up and moved — an aberration possible only in the Novus Ordo — but at a separate additional celebration of some feast, which has already been celebrated on the correct day.

It is true that the foregoing choices are limited and the things being chosen are entirely defined (no room for creativity or extemporization). Nevertheless, they constitute options.

Gothic vestments

“Roman” vestments

Style of Vestments

While this final example does not concern something in the liturgical rite as such but only something associated with it, it is (oddly) one of the most controversial among traditionalists: I refer to the simple fact that the celebrant has, in theory, the option of wearing either Gothic vestments or Roman vestments. (I say “in theory” because not every sacristy is equipped with both kinds.)

As far as I know, while Eastern Christian vestments vary a great deal in quality of material and ornamentation, they do not vary as regards the fundamental design: there are not radically different “styles.” In the Western tradition, on the other hand, the original vestments received their aesthetic perfection in the so-called Gothic period, but, over the course of the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation, a strikingly different style emerged, known (more or less accurately) as the Roman style. The difference between a Gothic conical chasuble and a Roman “fiddleback” chasuble could not be more pronounced.

Some, especially in the Liturgical Movement which first sipped the chalice of medieval romanticism before drowning in the cup of modern rationalism, insisted that the Roman style was an outrageous corruption; for others of a reactionary bent, it has become a shibboleth of Tridentine identity. One still occasionally hears enthusiasts explaining to their neighbors at the coffee hour (at least back when such things existed) that “at the Novus Ordo the priest wears this full draping kind of chasuble, but at the Latin Mass he wears the old-fashioned Roman fiddleback.” If I overhear something like that, I share with them photographs of glorious traditional Masses from Australia, where Gothic is practically the only thing in existence, whether architecturally or vesturally.

Personally I think there is room for both styles. Noble vestments have been created along the entire spectrum; aesthetic preferences are not only allowed but inevitable. Again, to my knowledge, the Church has never specified that one or another style of vestments must be used, as long as every essential piece is present (including the amice and maniple); she allows an ordered liberty of choice.

St Thomas Aquinas: fittingly honored on March 7, even in Lent

Concluding Thoughts

The decree Cum Sanctissima permits, among other things, the observance of saints during Lent whose feasts were always impeded and reduced to commemorations by the 1960 code of rubrics’ insistence on privileging every feria of Lent. No one disputes that the Lenten ferias are absolutely wonderful, and they deserve their prominence. But it was poor thinking that allowed for no flexibility with regard to celebrating, even during Lent, feasts of saints who enjoy a particular prominence in this or that community. Surely for Catholic schools, St. Thomas Aquinas may get his full due on March 7; surely for seminaries and religious communities, St. Gregory the Great on March 12; surely for the Irish, St. Patrick on March 17. The CDF decree restores a reasonable flexibility, with the feria always commemorated. (The Novus Ordo runs into intractable difficulties because it has abandoned the wisdom of commemorations: when two things conflict, both should somehow be liturgically present, rather than one of them simply being dumped. The same problem, it must be admitted, already affects the 1962 missal to some extent — yet another reason to return to the 1920 editio typica.)

In regard to the foregoing examples, I would say that clergy and laity are so accustomed to the choices involved that perhaps they do not even notice that a choice is involved. What I mean is that we expect a priest to have the freedom to choose a Votive Mass on a feria, and everything else about the Mass is so predictable that it all seems inevitable, but a major choice was made beforehand to do the Votive instead of repeating the prior Sunday.

Not every choice need be construed as, or need have the psychological and pastoral effect of, the deservedly decried optionitis of the Novus Ordo. In the Tridentine rite, all options are safely folded within the dominating unity of its architecture and the exacting prescriptions of its rubrics, and therefore acquire the same rituality. In the Novus Ordo, in stark contrast, the options are so numerous, and concern such basic elements of the liturgy — its opening rite and penitential rite, the readings of the day vs. those of the Commons, whether the offertory is said aloud or silently, which Eucharistic prayer to use (!), what and when to sing, etc. etc. — that the rite itself can barely hold on to its rituality and becomes, in a sense, a giant Worship Option. This, it seems to me, is the fundamental difference between the usus antiquior, even with the new options placed at its disposal, and the usus recentior.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

A Child Singing with the Angels: The Non-Funerary Funeral

Louis Janmot (1814-1892), Souvenir du ciel

In my old St. Andrew’s Daily Missal — or rather, my reprint of the 1945 edition, which I love both because of its superb commentaries, and because its calendar and Holy Week match up with the customs of an increasing number of traditional parishes nowadays — we find the following heading on p. 1821: “The Burial of Little Children.” The commentary reads:

When a baptized child dies before reaching the age of reason, it goes at once to heaven to praise God and enjoy Him with the angels. Wherefore the Gloria Patri of the Psalms is not replaced by the Requiem aeternam, and the Mass is the Votive Mass of the Angels, with white vestments and Gloria in excelsis, unless the rubrics prescribe the Mass of the day. If in the afternoon, Votive Vespers of the Angels may be sung.

I can’t remember when I first heard about this beautiful custom of not celebrating a Mass for the Dead or funeral Mass for such a little child, but rather a Mass of the Angels; it was probably a couple of decades ago by now. But since I had long been attending only university chapels and did not live near a traditional parish, no occasion like this had ever occurred. It remained theoretical knowledge.

Recently, however, a little child died in our local community, and the rector of the nearby oratory of the Institute of Christ the King offered the Mass just as described above. I had the privilege of singing in the Choir. I found the entire thing extremely striking, and wish to share some thoughts on it, since this old custom has barely survived into the post-Montinian era.

The first thing that must be said is that the old custom bespeaks a resolutely and audaciously supernatural perspective: when all are mourning the loss of a citizen of earth, the Church rejoices in the gaining of a saint in heaven. The Introit of the Requiem Mass pleads: “Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them.” The Introit of the Mass of the Angels exults: “Bless the Lord all ye His angels: you that are mighty in strength, and execute His word, listening to the voice of His orders.” Then the verse challenges us with an imperative: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and let all that is within me bless His holy name.” We are told to do the very thing the departed child is now doing, whose soul, with all that is within it, blesses the Lord.

Holy Mother Church bids us sing with and honor the angels, among whom is found the soul of this little child, a soul already mature in Christ through baptism, adorned with the full complement of infused virtues. The Epistle in the words of the Apocalypse brings before us the hosts of heaven, spirits and souls of the just, saying: “To Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honor, and glory and power, for ever and ever.” There is no danger of hell for the baptized child, nor any deportation to the fires of purgatory; the gates of heaven are immediately flung open to receive this sinless, guiltless adopted son of God. This is why the interlectional chants proclaim: “Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the high places. … Alleluia, alleluia. I will sing praise to Thee in the sight of the angels: I will worship towards Thy holy temple, and I will give glory to Thy name. Alleluia.”

Just as, with apparently wild-eyed fanaticism (though in truth it is but the most sober right judgment) the Church, according to John Henry Newman, can say it were better for the entire universe to perish than that one sin be wilfully committed, [1] so too, with a queenly confidence born of the mercies of the King, the Church, says the usus antiquior, deems it better, more truthful, more grateful, to don white vestments and sing alleluia for a Christian who dies before the age of reason than to put on black and utter the aweful words of the Dies Irae. [2]

The liturgical reform, monstrous in its rationalist leveling of every irregularity, [3] could not tolerate this sharp distinction between the lightsome angelic Mass for the child saint and the dark Requiem Mass for the adult sinner; in its baffling dullness of heart, the reform was blind both to supernatural realities and natural ones. [4] The sable grief that follows the dead man weighed down with years, the urgent reminder to pray for the repose of his soul, the supernatural glory that surrounds a babe of days snatched from this world and thus preserved from the scourge of sin, temptation, vice, anguish, and all the ills that cling to fallen human life—such horizons of life and faith were closed off to utilitarian brains.

The Montinian reform turned everything upside-down. It converted Requiems into informal beatifications, draped in the white of an Easter triumph presumed to be already gained, while suppressing the only instance where white vestments ought to be worn and alleluias and doxologies chanted, where heavenly glory may be joyfully, through a veil of tears, acknowledged as accomplished. The reform took away from the small child the Mass of the Angels that befitted it, and bestowed the honors of the altar on the old man to whom it was foreign, and who needs earnest suffrages for pardon and salvation. Salva me, fons pietatis! It took away this magnificent testimony of faith in a victory known to be won by a few, and substituted a pseudo-victory vainly extended to all.

And why does the old liturgy exhort us, in the very presence of the child’s dead body, to praise the Lord — a sentiment that might seem out of place, to say the least? Here is where the eye of faith is more necessary than ever, to see what should be seen, and not to be clouded over by our frail flesh.

The one and only ultimate end of man is the beatific vision. If someone attains this, he has attained the purpose for which he was created and redeemed. If someone fails to attain this, he has failed as a human being and as a Christian. Our final condition is either total victory or total failure: we have gained all, or lost all. There is nothing in between. The only “happy ending” is heaven, and the only “tragedy” is hell. The rest is relative. The baptized child who dies, although not granted by Divine Providence the relative good of life in this world, has been granted the absolute good of eternal life in the world to come.

This is what all Christians say they desire: eternal life in God. This is the goal of our pilgrimage. And that is why Holy Mother Church, with her lofty and utterly realistic wisdom, clothes herself in white and sings the Mass of the Angels for the little baptized child who flies from this world, and sings with no less fervor the Requiem Mass, clad in black. Alleluia is the song of the lover and the visionary; the Dies Irae is the sequence of the worldly and battleweary. That such customs as these ever had to be swept away is part of the “mystery of iniquity” that surrounds the 20th-century Church. That such customs are beginning to come back is part of the mystery of Providence that surprises the Church of the 21st-century.

NOTES

[1] The text is found in Difficulties of Anglicans, and is quoted in my article “The Denial of the Law of God and His Rights.”

[2] The traditional difference between the funeral of the child who dies before the age of reason and the funeral of everyone else extends beyond the Mass to the obsequies afterwards. In the typical burial, the psalms, verses, and prayers are penitential and pleading for mercy; the child’s burial, on the contrary, can draw from Psalm 118 (“Blessed are the undefiled in the way”) and Psalms 148–150 (“Praise ye the Lord from the heavens”); Psalm 23 (“The earth is the Lord’s”) is recited, followed by this beautiful collect: “O almighty and most merciful God, who dost immediately grant eternal life to every little child who goeth forth from this world after being born again in the baptismal font, without any merit of his own, even as we believe Thou hast done this day for the soul of this little child; grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord, through the intercession of blessed Mary, ever Virgin, and of all the saints, that we may serve Thee here with clean hearts and be united with these blessed children for ever in heaven.”

[3] See my article “In Praise of Irregularity.”

[4] See my article “The Scandal of the Modern Catholic Funeral.”

Visit www.peterkwasniewski.com for information, articles, sacred music, and Os Justi Press.

Official English Texts for the Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest

Readers of NLM, and particularly those in England and Wales, will be interested to learn that the Liturgy Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has recently announced that the official English-language texts for the Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest (Thursday after Pentecost) are now available. The full Lectionary, Missal and Office texts for insertion into the Ordinary Form Missal, along with the relevant decrees of promulgation and publication, can be found at this link. The insertion of this Feast into the proper calendar of England and Wales takes effect on Pentecost Sunday this year, so it will be celebrated for the first time on Thursday 24th May, 2018, and on the Thursday after Pentecost in every subsequent year.

It was announced by the CDWDS back in 2012 that the formularies for this feast had been prepared for those episcopal conferences that requested use of them, and the Latin texts were printed in Notitiae 551-552 (2012), pp. 335-368.

In the 2008 Missale Romanum, there is already a Votive Mass of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest. However, and perhaps somewhat confusingly, the Latin texts for the Feast and the Votive Mass are different. The Collect, super oblata and Postcommunion for the Feast are actually nearly identical to those found in the 1962 Missale Romanum for the Votive Mass de D. N. Iesu Christo summo et aeterno Sacerdote, with the only minor difference being a brief insertion in the Collect. For those interested in the differences, here is a side-by-side comparison of the two sets of Mass propers:

Collect

Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2008 MR/2011 RM)	Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (1962 MR); Feast of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2012 Latin, 2018 English) [phrase in square brackets not in 1962 MR]
Deus, qui ad gloriam tuam et generis humani salutem Christum voluisti, summum aeternumque constituere sacerdotem, praesta, ut populus, quem sanguine suo tibi acquisvit, ex eius memorialis participatione, virtutem crucis ipsius capiat et resurrectionis.	Deus, qui ad maiestatis tuae gloriam et generis humani salutem, Unigenitum tuum Summum atque Aeternum constituísti Sacerdotem, praesta, ut, [Spiritu Sancto largiente,] quos ministros et mysteriorum suorum dispensatores elegit, in accepto ministerio adimplendo fideles inveniantur.
O God, who for your glory and the salvation of the human race willed to establish Christ as the eternal High Priest, grant that the people he has gained for you by his Blood may, through their participation in his memorial, experience the power of his Cross and Resurrection.	O God, who for the glory of your majesty and the salvation of the human race, made your Only Begotten Son the Eternal High Priest, grant that, [through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,] those whom he has chosen as ministers and stewards of his mysteries may be found faithful in carrying out the ministry they have received.

Super oblata

Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2008 MR/2011 RM)	Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (1962 MR); Feast of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2012 Latin, 2018 English)
Concede nobis, quaesumus, Domine, haec digne frequentare mysteria, quia, quoties huius hostiae commemoratio celebratur, opus nostrae redemptionis exercetur.	Haec munera, Domine, Mediator noster Iesus Christus tibi reddat accepta et nos, una secum, hostias tibi gratas exhibeat.
Grant us, O Lord, we pray, that we may participate worthily in these mysteries, for, whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is accomplished.	Lord, may our Mediator Jesus Christ render these gifts acceptable to you, and may he present us as sacrifices pleasing to you in union with him.

Postcommunion

Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2008 MR/2011 RM)	Votive Mass of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (1962 MR); Feast of OLJC, Eternal High Priest (2012 Latin, 2018 English)
Quaesumus, Domine, ut, huius participatione sacrificii, quod in sui commemorationem Filius tuus praecepit offerri, nosmetipsos cum illo oblationem facias tibi sempiternam.	Vivificet nos, quaesumus, Domine, divine quam obtulimus et sumpsimus hostia, ut, perpetua tibi caritate coniuncti, fructum, qui semper maneat, afferamus.
We pray, O Lord, that through our partaking in this sacrifice, which your Son commanded to be offered in his memory, you may make us together with him an everlasting oblation to you.	May this divine sacrifice we have offered and received fill us with life, O Lord, we pray, so that, bound to you in lasting charity, we may bear fruit that lasts for ever.

I am sure that readers will have their own, well-considered opinions on the quality of the ICEL translations, which set of Mass propers better expresses the celebration of Our Lord as Eternal High Priest, etc.

Solemn High Mass of Thanksgiving at the Monastery of Norcia

Today, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the issuance of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Benedictine Monks of Norcia celebrated a solemn High Votive Mass of St. Benedict, with prayers of thanksgiving added as a second set. The participants of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies’ Summer Theology Program were present (that’s how I happened to be there) and one of them, a seminarian, took some photographs that he shared with me for NLM. The liturgy began with the office of Terce, as indicated by the use of the cope.

The photos permit us a glimpse of the new chapel that the monks have built with the help of many neighbors and visitors from Italy and abroad. This new chapel will serve the monastery’s needs until, at a future date, it becomes possible for the community to proceed with a new and much larger Italian Gothic church akin to the basilica in town that now lies in ruins.

Spending these days in an agriturismo right below the monastery has given me a new appreciation for the spirit of zealous determination that characterizes these faithful sons of St. Benedict, who truly embody the motto succisa virescit (cut down, it grows back again).

 

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Ecclesia Dei Commission Decree on Fatima Centenary

This year the Church will mark on May 13th the centenary of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fátima, and see the canonization of Blessed Jacinta and Francisco Marto, two of the children to whom Our Lady appeared and spoke. In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima is on the general Calendar, and may be celebrated as an optional memorial on that day, but in the Extraordinary Form, it is the feast of St Robert Bellarmine. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has just published the following decree concerning the celebration of a Votive Mass of Our Lady on the day of the centenary.

“Since many of the Christian faithful who are attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite have a particular and fervent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, as the centenary of Her first apparition approaches, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, having considered the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal published in 1962 (and especially no. 341), and wishing to encourage the devotion of the faithful to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, by the force of the ordinary power which it enjoys in this regard (see Universae Ecclesiae no. 9), grants and permits that on May 13th, 2017, a votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary (as on August 22nd) may be licitly and freely celebrated as a Votive Mass of the Second Class (which is explained in numbers 341 and 343 of the General Rubrics), by any priest of the Latin Rite, whether secular or regular, in accord with the other General Rubrics that pertain to Votive Masses of the Second Class and to commemorations. All things to the contrary notwithstanding. Given at Rome from the offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, April 5th, 2017. ” (Signed by Card. Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful, and Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Commission.)

Since section 343a of the General Rubrics states that Votive Masses of the Second Class admit one commemoration, the commemoration of St Robert should not to be omitted by those who do avail themselves of the permission granted hereby.

New Recording of a Medieval Votive Mass of the Sacrament

The Netherlands-based Early Music ensemble Cantores Sancti Gregorii, lead by Mr Ján Janovčík, have recently made available a new recording of the complete Votive Mass of the Blessed Sacrament; unlike many such recordings, the clergy’s part of the Mass (Collect, Epistle etc.) are included, giving a better sense of how this music would have been heard in the liturgical context for which it was written. The propers of the Mass are sung in plainchant, while the Ordinary is Josquin des Prez’s Missa Pange lingua; the recording also includes the O Salutaris Hostia and Tantum Ergo from an early sixteenth-century choirbook, the Occo Codex, which is described as follows on the website of the CMME Project (Computerized Mensural Music Editing.)

“Among the best-known music manuscripts produced at the Habsburg-Burgundian court of the Netherlands, the ‘Occo Codex’ was created under the supervision of the celebrated scribe Alamire for the Amsterdam banker Pompeius Occo. A deluxe, decorated item on a large scale, this choirbook brings together major works of composers such as Isaac, Mouton, and Josquin, in addition to anonymous and lesser-known compositions, notably a collection of polyphony in honor of the Blessed Sacrament (Corpus Christi). On the basis of paleographical and historical evidence, the book can be newly dated to c. 1515-17 and associated with use in the Amsterdam chapel of the Sacrament known as the Heilige Stede (Holy Place), where Occo served as churchwarden at the same time. The combination of liturgical focus, careful craftsmanship, and early transmission of a number of masterworks makes this one of the most valuable witnesses to the musical life of the Early Modern Netherlands.”

An engraving of the year 1664, showing the Heilige Stede, which was converted to Protestant worship in the later 16th-century, and destroyed by order of the city of Amsterdam in 1908.

The chapel of the “Holy Place” referred to here was the site of a Eucharistic miracle that took place in Amsterdam in March of 1345, which was celebrated for over two hundred years with a special procession until the city passed over to the reformed faith, and the public celebration of Catholic devotions was prohibited. An account of the Miracle can be read here. The Cantores Sancti Gregorii have a complete description of the project of their recording on their website.

Announcement: A Votive Mass for Persecuted Christians

This announcement has come in recently from The Latin Mass Society of Winnipeg:

On Wednesday, May 6th, at 7:30 pm, a Votive Mass on behalf of persecuted Christians will be celebrated at St. Ann's Parish, 271 Hampton Street, Winnipeg. 

For more information, see this link.

This is a good opportunity to suggest to NLM readers that it would be highly appropriate, in these times of violent persecution, to consider offering or organizing the celebration of the Missa votiva pro Ecclesiae defensione (In Defense of the Church) with the Commemoration Pro Ecclesiae libertate on behalf of persecuted Christians, which may be used on 4th class ferial days.