• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Re: The “Restoration” of the Easter Vigil

Jeff Ostrowski · April 7, 2025

N THE YEARS leading up to the Second Vatican Council, Pope Pius XII had already appointed a secret cadre—known as the Commissio Piana—to begin liturgical reforms. Perhaps its most significant reform was something they called the “restoration” of Holy Week. I have written extensively about the 73 changes made to Holy Week by the Commissio Piana, and I won’t be repeating all that here.1 Suffice it to say that the Easter Vigil was “restored” (their term) in 1951.

Mixed Messages • To put it charitably, the goals of the Commissio Piana were somewhat muddled. For instance, it constantly spoke of restoring the Easter Vigil. But when people demanded to know what the big fuss was all about, the reformers constantly pointed to the RENEWAL OF BAPTISMAL PROMISES at the Easter Vigil. For instance, on 13 February 1952, Cardinal Antonelli said: “Nobody can deny the importance of this public and solemn renewal.” Or consider one of the reactions sent to Rome in 1952 in an effort corroborate the success of the modified Easter Vigil:

“It was a real triumph of faith and devotion. The Cathedral and the churches were unbelievably full of very devout people. […] The people are especially grateful to the Holy Father, who—inspired by the Lord—has given back to the faithful one of the greatest of liturgical consolations and has allowed them to re-live one of the most beautiful moments of the primitive Church.”

Notice how Archbishop Hannibal Bugnini calls it a “restoration” in his statement:

“The first fruit of the commission’s work was the restoration of the Easter Vigil (1951), which elicited an explosion of joy throughout the Church.”

(1 of 2) Not A Restoration • The problem, of course, is that the RENEWAL OF BAPTISMAL PROMISES is a complete innovation. It was invented for the first time in the 1950s. A 1953 publication from Westminster, Maryland—which hopped on the bandwagon vis-à-vis the reforms—unwittingly admitted this contradiction, stating:

“The renewal of baptismal vows in the vernacular
is a startling innovation, calculated to stir us
to make of Easter a great new beginning
of our Christian life.”

(2 of 2) Not A Restoration • It’s a strange type of “restoration from the primitive church” that rejoices over innovations which never existed before. I believe Cardinal Antonelli was a holy man. That being said, he seems a bit confused when he wrote in his MEMORIA SULLA RIFORMA LITURGICA (1948):

“Courageous men must be found, who are […] able to create a rite in harmony with both the ancient liturgy and with the spirit of modern life.”

The Catechumenate • In the years leading up to Vatican II, those who desired liturgical reform often cited as a major desideratum “the restoration of the Catechumenate.” They wanted a clear separation between the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” However, I’ve noticed something bizarre: the catechumens aren’t sent away in the 1970 Missal. (Although I’m told sending them away is a valid option.) Wasn’t that the whole point? In the primitive church—e.g. in the time of Justin Martyr—the deacon would dismiss the catechumens at the conclusion of the LITURGY OF THE WORD. This was known as the “Dismissal of the Catechumens.” Over many centuries, the Mass developed. Eventually, we were only left with the final dismissal (“Ite, missa est”).

Conclusion • I don’t want to sound pessimistic, but many of these “restorations” seem fake. It reminds me of “restoring” the Sequence in the 1970 Missal by allowing it to come before (!) the ALLELUIA (the traditional arrangement is still an option, but nobody realizes that)—even though its very name reminds one it belongs after the ALLELUIA. Furthermore, the reformers had no interest in restoring certain items. For instance, they never pushed for long vigils containing hours of penance and fasting. Nor did they push for public confession of sins. It seems like the reformers thought they knew better than all the Catholics who lived before them—but now we’re finding out they weren’t as clever as they thought. Nor was the mediæval church as “unenlightened” and “backwards” as the reformers believed. Someday, all this must be set right. Úsquequo Dómine?

1 Much more could be said about this subject, and more research needs to be done. For instance, it would be wonderful to obtain an English translation of the MEMORIA SULLA RIFORMA LITURGICA (1948). Something I’ve noticed again and again—which I find quite frustrating—is that some “Catholic influencers” who vociferously defend the 1950 Holy Week struggle mightily when it comes to listing specific differences between the 1950 Holy Week and the 1956 “reformed” Holy Week. In my view, one who ardently advocates for something should know (at a minimum) what it actually is. In the 3rd edition of the Campion Missal, both versions are printed in full, while detailed footnotes list the similarities and differences.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Archbishop Hannibal Bugnini, Commissio Piana, Dismissal of the Catechumens, Mass of the Catechumens, Memoria Sulla Riforma Liturgica, Memoria Sulla Riforma Liturgica ANTONELLI Last Updated: April 16, 2025

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

In the Orthodox Churches they have kept that pristine liturgy, so beautiful. We have lost a bit the sense of adoration. They keep, they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time doesn’t count. God is the center, and this is a richness …

— Pope Francis (8/2/2013)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up