PPROXIMATELY ten years ago, I worked closely with several priests who were pushing the Vatican (in a somewhat clandestine way, for obvious reasons) to grant permission to celebrate the 1950 Holy Week. More specifically, a group of us—working with a certain member of the Ecclesia Dei pontifical commission—successfully obtained this concession from Rome. The initial permission was supposed to be for several years, followed by an evaluation. Possibly due to Covid-19, the evaluation was delayed indefinitely.1
Holy Week Changes • It is indisputable that the reform of HOLY WEEK under Pius XII is poorly understood, often by the very people who claim to be ‘experts’ in this matter. I will have more to say to about this below. First, I will release a rare book from 1946 (kindly scanned by Chris T.) which has never been placed online before today. The book is noteworthy for two reasons: (a) It has an interesting version of the Christus Vincit chant; (b) it has the clearest instructions I’ve ever seen regarding doubling invocations in the 1950 litany.
* PDF Download • STANDARD GREGORIAN CHANTS—123 pages
—IMPRIMATUR by Richard Cardinal Cushing (1 July 1946).
(1 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • The 1962 Holy Week isn’t identical to the 1950 Holy Week. That’s because during those 12 years, a number of changes were made—in a piecemeal way—to the sacred liturgy. Some changes modified only HEBDOMADA MAJOR, while other changes had an impact on the entire liturgy: e.g. the priest no longer ‘duplicating’ the Gospel & Epistle sotto voce at the altar, reception of Holy Communion by the faithful during High Mass, permission for incense without Deacon & Subdeacon, elimination of the ‘Proper’ Last Gospel, and so forth. People who mean well sometimes pretend we can ‘go back’ to what they call the “pre-1954” but those who have studied the matter in a serious way realize there’s no going back. That’s because it isn’t just a question of wearing folded chasubles or washing the feet of thirteen men on Holy Thursday instead of twelve. There were many items that must be taken into consideration (“collateral damage”): changes to the Eucharistic fast, permission for evening Masses, and changes to the Divine Office.
(2 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • When it came to efforts to restore the 1950 Holy Week, I mentioned how the differences are frequently misunderstood, especially by those who claim to be ‘experts’ in this matter. Some have created ‘podcasts’ lasting 2-3 hours yet aren’t able to (correctly) pinpoint any difference between the 1962 version and the 1950 version. But he who professes to “prefer” THING A to THING B should be able to differentiate between them. Over these last 10 years, I’ve met so many people who trash the 1962 version while claiming to “prefer greatly” the 1950 version. But when I ask why they prefer the 1950, they have no answer. Indeed, one example took place just a few weeks ago. I was speaking with someone who’s quite involved with the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. This gentleman was insisting the 1962 Holy Week is total “garbage” (his word) compared to the 1950. I asked him: “What specifically do you prefer?” He responded: “Oh, well the 1950 version is just so much better.” I pressed him further: “But what makes you say that?” He replied: “It’s just so much better.” We went round in exasperating circles for quite a while before I realized he couldn’t name a single difference between the two versions. I can’t tell you how frequently I’ve had this same conversation with people! I’ve come to suspect that certain folks hear a priest say the 1950 is better then mindlessly mimic that opinion. But it’s fooolish to say that one “prefers” THING A to THING B while unable to tell the difference between them. These instances remind me of those who passionately insist the major (!) difference between the Catholic Faith and Anglicanism is that “Anglicans wear surplices with a round top whereas Catholic surplices have a square top.” As a matter of fact, throughout history Catholics have worn both types.
(3 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • The book above—as I mentioned earlier—explains in a very clear way the ‘duplication’ of the litany sung during the 1950 Holy Week. This brings up some rather unpleasant memories. When I was involved with various priests working with the Vatican to gain permission for the 1950 Holy Week, I explained that each invocation in the litany was doubled before the 1950s. (I knew this because Father Valentine Young had once mentioned how, growing up in the 1930s, they always doubled each invocation in the litany.) When I explained this matter to people who should know better, they scoffed. They refused to believe it.
(4 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • The sad fact is, some priests and seminarians who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’ are not really traditional. When they’re told certain things by priests ordained before Vatican II, they dismiss them. Some misguided people even dismiss the testimony of ‘pre-conciliar’ priests, preferring to mimic whatever the SSPX does because—according to them—the SSPX is the authentic tradition. (The same thing sometimes happens in Europe, according to my friends in France and Germany.) These ‘Neo-Traditionalists’ refuse to believe assurances given to them by people who were actually there! [Needless to say, not all TLM priests embrace such a view.]
Many years ago, an FSSP priest who had studied at the Wigratzbad seminary made the following statement:
There’s a problem with some of
the priests in my order. Things
which they enjoy they consider
“traditional.” But things they
don’t like are declared to be
Novus Ordo.
When he initially said that, I had no idea what he was talking about. All these years later, I realize his statement contains much truth. I find that attitude troubling, however because it dismisses (in an arrogant way) the testimony of priests who were actually there, basically looking upon them as a bunch of senile fools who can be ignored. I respect a priest who says: “We will do such-and-such a thing, because that’s how I want it.” I lose respect when a priest—having been shown documentation in a book—says: “No, that’s not traditional.”
(1 of 3) Conclusions • Regarding the resurrection of the 1950 Holy Week: was it worth it? That’s an interesting question and someday I’d like to write an entire article in answer. On one hand, the diehard supporters of the 1950 version often massively exaggerate the scope of the changes made. (Incidentally, many of these folks, in spite of their passionate zeal, struggle when they try enumerate specific changes.) For instance, the music for both versions is virtually identical. Moreover, some of the music eliminated in 1962—such as the Vexilla Regis—can easily be inserted. On the other hand, the mere fact that rubrics for the Mass were changed in the 1950s was in and of itself something significant. With the exception of minor changes (like the addition of CTK in 1925 and the PREFACE FOR SAINT JOSEPH added in 1919), such changes had not been made for centuries.
(2 of 3) Conclusions • I feel that resurrecting the 1950 version was without question worth it. One of the most important things we learned had to do with the sloppy genesis of 1950s modifications. It was done in a haphazard way, and the secret group of priests appointed by Pope Pius XII to make the changes make careless errors. For instance, they spoke constantly about the fact the blessing on Holy Saturday is for the water, not the font. But if you examine the reformed books, there are places where they accidentally left in the word “font” through sheer negligence.
(3 of 3) Conclusions • One of the negative results of resurrecting the 1950 Holy Week has been a series of false claims made by people who should know better. For instance, reprehensible lies are routinely told about the reception of Holy Communion on Good Friday. Indeed, Don Stefano Carusi (a priest of the Institute of the Good Shepherd) wrote an article clumsily attacking the reforms made by Pius XII. Father Carusi made elementary mistakes. For instance, he denies that the paschal candle is carried during the 1950 Easter Vigil, but the rubrics undeniably demand this during the procession to the baptistery (while the Sicut cervus is being sung). Moreover, what Father Carusi says about the splitting of the litany is patently false; and this is known to anyone who’s taken time to examine the medieval manuscripts. Such egregious blunders are embarrassing, with the result that Father Carusi hurts the movement he wishes to promote.
1 I won’t discuss here whether permission is currently needed to celebrate the 1950 Holy Week. I have received information from (perhaps) the highest authority on this matter, but lack permission to share his words publicly. Suffice it to say, a “diversity of opinion” exists regarding whether permission is still needed. At the end of the day, such a discussion is only appropriate for priests, not laymen. Tragically, certain Catholic ‘influencers’ who pontificate on this matter are way out of their depths.
For the record, it would be difficult to argue (in these post-conciliar days) that certain minor elements of the 1950 Hebdomada Major require explicit permission. Furthermore, I’m baffled to see certain “1962 folks” argue passionately over rubrical minutiae (citing Martinucci, Stercky, Fortescue, O’Connell, Wapelhorst, etc.) yet totally ignore official legislation vis-à-vis the rhythm of Gregorian Chant. I’ll go to my grave not understanding why those who passionately insist on the ‘correct’ rubrics exclaim in the same breath: “Oh, who cares about the legislation of Pius X and Pius XII on Gregorian Chant?”
