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 return to what they call the “pre-1954,” but those who have studied the matter carefully know better. There’s no going back, 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, changes to the Divine Office, and so forth.
(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. Certain influencers 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 a mature person realizes that one should not “prefer” THING A to THING B if one cannot differentiate between them. Over these last decades, I’ve met so many people who trash the 1962 version while claiming to “greatly prefer” the 1950 version. But when I ask why specifically they prefer the 1950, they have no answer. Consider a conversation that took place not many weeks ago. A gentleman quite involved with the INSTITUTE OF CHRIST THE KING SOVEREIGN PRIEST 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 nicer.” We went in exasperating circles for quite a while before I realized he couldn’t name a single difference between the two versions. This was not an isolated incident. I’ve frequently had similar conversations, which I find puzzling and disheartening.
(3 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • The book above explains the ‘duplication’ of the litany sung during the 1950 Holy Week. This brings up some rather unpleasant memories. When I was helping to ‘revive’ the older HEBDOMADA MAJOR—the Vatican having given its permission—I explained that each invocation in the litany must be doubled. (I knew this because Father Valentine Young had once mentioned how, growing up in the 1930s, they always doubled each invocation in the litany.) But when I explained this to people who should know better, they scoffed. And they refused to believe it.
(4 of 4) 1950 Holy Week • The sad fact is, some priests and seminarians who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’ aren’t really traditional. When they’re told certain things by priests ordained before Vatican II, they dismiss them. Some misguided people even prefer to mimic the SSPX rather than listen to the testimony of pre-conciliar priests. (The same thing sometimes happens in Europe, according to my friends in France and Germany.) In my humble opinion, it’s absurd to disregard the testimony of priests who were actually there!
Needless to say, not all TLM priests embrace such a view. But many years ago, an FSSP priest who’d studied at the Wigratzbad seminary made the following statement:
There’s a problem with some of
the priests in my order. Things
which they like they consider
“traditional.” But things they
don’t like are dismissively
declared to be Novus Ordo.
When he first said that, I didn’t understand. But all these years later, I realize his statement contains truth. Such an attitude, in my opinion, is troubling because it dismisses (in a rather arrogant way) the testimony of priests who were actually there, basically looking upon them as senile fools who can safely be ignored. I respect a priest who says: “We will do such-and-such a thing because that’s how I want it.” I don’t respect a priest who—having been shown documentation—says: “No, that’s not traditional.”
To make things a bit more personal, I oppose orchestral Masses. I find them distracting, secular, and theatrical. But I would never deem them “untraditional” because (in spite of my own sensibilities) they have an established tradition going back hundreds of years.
Further Explanation • To help readers understand what I’m trying to express, let me give another example. There are TLM priests who refuse to offer an ‘anticipated’ Mass on Saturday night “because that’s Novus Ordo”—although they offer evening Masses on every other afternoon and night of the week (which isn’t traditional at all). While I wholeheartedly support not having folks ‘anticipate’ Sunday Mass the night before—since Sunday is DOMINICA (“The Lord’s Day”)—these same TLM priests celebrate an anticipated Mass for Holy Days of Obligation. In other words, those same TLM priests offer the “Mass of the day” on the eve of the Holy Day of Obligation. I believe readers will see the contradiction. There are also TLM priests who claim to be celebrating the “old Holy Week,” yet do so using the 1956 times—which isn’t traditional.
Let me be very clear: I’m more than happy to obey priests in whatever they want to do. I’ve done that my whole life, and I do it gladly. What I find difficult is when priests pretend things are ‘untraditional’ which aren’t—and vice versa.
I should probably add: sometimes there are legitimate questions about whether something is traditional. An example would be the ‘extra’ verses for the OFFERTORY; are those really traditional? Intelligent people argue about that, and I can’t pretend to give a definitive answer.
(1 of 4) Conclusions • Regarding the rehabilitation 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 the one hand, the diehard supporters of the 1950 version often massively exaggerate the scope of the changes made. 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 reinstated without violating the 1962 rubrics. On the other hand, the mere fact that the sacred liturgy was changed in the 1950s was in and of itself something significant. With the exception of minor changes (like the 1925 addition of the FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING and the 1919 addition of the PREFACE FOR SAINT JOSEPH), such changes had not been made for centuries.
(2 of 4) Conclusions • I feel that bringing back the 1950 version was certainly 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 (Commissio Piana) appointed by Pope Pius XII to make the changes were guilty of careless errors. For instance, they constantly insisted that the blessing on Holy Saturday was for the water not the font. Yet they sometimes left the word “font” in the reformed books through sheer negligence. The changes to the beginning of Palm Sunday leave a huge period of awkward silence as the priest walks back and forth through the church sprinkling and incensing. They moved the MANDATUM without thinking things through, with the result that an antiphon assigned—the exact antiphon—is repeated verbatim a few moments later (something foreign to the rite).
(3 of 4) Conclusions • One of the negative results of resuscitating 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. Furthermore, Don Stefano Carusi (a priest of the Institute of the Good Shepherd) wrote an article clumsily attacking the reforms made by Pius XII, in which he 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, Father Carusi’s emphatic attack on the ‘split’ litany is patently false, and this is known to anyone who’s examined medieval manuscripts. Such egregious blunders are embarrassing, with the result that Father Carusi hurts the very movement he wishes to promote.
(4 of 4) Conclusions • I ardently love the old Holy Week, and it’s undeniable some changes by the Commissio Piana were ill-considered, grotesque, and indefensible. Nevertheless, it hurts me when people ‘defend’ the 1950 version without even bothering to learn how it differs from the 1962 version.
When it comes to why I get so ‘wound up’ and passionate about this subject…I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for that.
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. Even if one feels they do, a sensible bishop would surely grant permission to wear folded chasubles once he was informed of their great antiquity. Along these same lines, I’m always 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?”
