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.
