Timing of the Easter Vigil

[Roland Deschain2]

Good to hear, but you broke the quote! 

Stupid iPad......can't scroll in the text box 

[Kaesekopf]

The problem is between the iPad and the chair...   

(For buying an iPad...)

[Roland Deschain2]

The problem is between the iPad and the chair...   

(For buying an iPad...)

I know networks and PCs......Apple products can go......

[FatherCekada]

I'm familiar with Monti's commentary.

But it's not much of an argument for the authenticity of the blink-and-you-miss-it Pius XII vigil. Have everyone observe a brutal all day fast on Holy Saturday, institute 24 or 36 readings, chant each petition in the Litany seven times in Latin and seven in Greek, and make the congregation wait for Mass till the sun starts to rise on Easter morn, and then you might have an argument.

But what the Bugnini/Pius XII Vigil gains in the congruence between texts and light levels, it loses in conformity to liturgical tradition.

[The Harlequin King]

I'm familiar with Monti's commentary.

But it's not much of an argument for the authenticity of the blink-and-you-miss-it Pius XII vigil. Have everyone observe a brutal all day fast on Holy Saturday, institute 24 or 36 readings, chant each petition in the Litany seven times in Latin and seven in Greek, and make the congregation wait for Mass till the sun starts to rise on Easter morn, and then you might have an argument.

But what the Bugnini/Pius XII Vigil gains in the congruence between texts and light levels, it loses in conformity to liturgical tradition.

Sure, I guess. At least for catechumens about to be received into the Church, it wouldn't be unlike the squire's vigil on the eve of being knighted. In fact, when we put it that way, that sounds like an especially good idea for the "church militant" of the 21st century.

(Okay, realistically, let's say the Vigil would begin at around 2am for the catechumens and the hardcore chanters/servers/armchair liturgists, with the rest of the faithful trickling in throughout the vigil until morning.)

[m.PR]

Granting that Easter Vigil at night is better than Easter Vigil in the morning, does it necessarily follow that the timing had to be changed? If the morning Easter Vigil was beloved and had given rise to popular customs: should that not be taken into consideration? On this particular issue I don't feel strongly either way (though I rather like the idea that the service should end in the morning), but, I think one shouldn't confuse "practice B is better than practice A" with "we must force people to adopt practice B instead of the current practice A."

Changing the timing of the Holy Week services - the Vigil as well as Tenebrae and Maundy Thursday Mass - apparently messed with the customs that had developed around them. The liturgical reformers didn't care because they thought that such devotions were what the people recurred to only because they weren't allowed to participate in the liturgy (my mother heard a liberal priest say this about popular devotions, and it fits with what I've read). Popular piety probably didn't have a place in their vision of a more modern Church. . . but we do not share that same vision.

It occurs to me that some of the weirdness people see in the idea of a morning Easter Vigil arises from confusing a Vigil Mass with an anticipated Mass. Consider that the only other Mass that is customarily celebrated at night, the Christmas Midnight Mass, is not a Vigil Mass but a Mass of the day of Christmas proper. It is the Mass of the day before Christmas that is called "In Vigilia Nativitatis Domini." Christmas Eve. Also, the Mass of October 31st used to be the Vigil of All Saints, "In Vigilia Omnium Sanctorum." All Hallows' Eve. The Mass of January 5th used to be the Vigil of Epiphany, "In Vigilia Epiphaniae." Víspera de Reyes as we call it in my country. The point is that "vigil" refers to the day before something and so it makes sense that the Mass of the day before Easter would be Easter Vigil, and that it should be licit to celebrate this Mass at any time of day that it is licit to celebrate Mass.

As an aside:  Does anyone know the rationale for the suppression of many of the old Vigil Masses between 1955 and 1962? I imagine that allowing anticipated Masses played a role in it, yet, it downgraded many days of the year to Ferias, which is so uncool. . .

m.PR: I didn't know that permission had been given to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night in 1951. I'd like to see the exact document, if possible. a pre-1955 reform Easter Vigil on Saturday night is the ideal scenario.

Footnote 25 in this Una Voce Position Paper says:
The experimental Easter Vigil, in what was substantially the form approved in 1955, was allowed at the new, nocturnal, times from 1951 by the decree Dominicae Resurrectionis vigiliam, 9th February 1951, not long before Easter itself. Reid notes that the Ordo, necessary for the reformed service, was published less than a month before Easter, which fell that year on 25th March. (Reid Organic Development p172, note 80)

It kind of sounds like that the 1951 permission did not apply to the unreformed Easter Vigil Mass, but I'm not sure?

The impression I get is that it was not so much feasting that started at that point, but cooking, preparation, and so forth.

This is what I thought, as well. It makes sense.

But "On Eagles' Wings" will not still be sung 800 years from now. Time has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Songs like that will be forgotten before a few decades have gone past.

You're more of an optimist than I am.

That just describes the basic mechanics of tradition, though. If a junk song will not disappear in a matter of decades, surely 800 years will do the trick! This is why all sane societies give tradition a lot of weight - if something has withstood the test of time then that is a huge indication that it is valuable.

[The Harlequin King]

Granting that Easter Vigil at night is better than Easter Vigil in the morning, does it necessarily follow that the timing had to be changed? If the morning Easter Vigil was beloved and had given rise to popular customs: should that not be taken into consideration? On this particular issue I don't feel strongly either way (though I rather like the idea that the service should end in the morning), but, I think one shouldn't confuse "practice B is better than practice A" with "we must force people to adopt practice B instead of the current practice A."

"Had" is a strong word. No one is forced to attend the Easter Vigil, except perhaps catechumens. I suppose one could argue about whether or not it was worth upsetting the popular customs. But to draw a comparison to Gregorian chant vs. popular hymnody, I'd happily see the Schubert Ave Maria and all its ilk erased from history forever if that's what it took to see plainchant restored.

It occurs to me that some of the weirdness people see in the idea of a morning Easter Vigil arises from confusing a Vigil Mass with an anticipated Mass. Consider that the only other Mass that is customarily celebrated at night, the Christmas Midnight Mass, is not a Vigil Mass but a Mass of the day of Christmas proper. It is the Mass of the day before Christmas that is called "In Vigilia Nativitatis Domini." Christmas Eve. Also, the Mass of October 31st used to be the Vigil of All Saints, "In Vigilia Omnium Sanctorum." All Hallows' Eve. The Mass of January 5th used to be the Vigil of Epiphany, "In Vigilia Epiphaniae." Víspera de Reyes as we call it in my country. The point is that "vigil" refers to the day before something and so it makes sense that the Mass of the day before Easter would be Easter Vigil, and that it should be licit to celebrate this Mass at any time of day that it is licit to celebrate Mass.

The confusion is because in the earlier ages of the Church, the vigil referred to the night before the feast. In the second millennium, with the Easter Vigil being the prime example, they were apparently all pushed back to the day before. But again, the root of the word "vigil" means nothing other than to keep watch during the night. If I describe a squire's vigil on the eve of his knighthood, do we imagine him keeping watch in the church during the day? Of course not.

The Synod of Seligenstadt (1022) mentions vigils on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, the feast of the Apostles, the Assumption of Mary, St. Laurence, and All Saints, besides the fast of two weeks before the Nativity of St. John. After the eleventh century the fast, Office, and Mass of the nocturnal vigil were transferred to the day before the feast; and even now [1909] the liturgy of the Holy Saturday (vigil of Easter) shows, in all its parts, that originally it was not kept on the morning of Saturday, but during Easter Night. The day before the feast was henceforth called vigil. A similar celebration before the high feast exists also in the Orthodox (Greek) Church, and is called pannychis or hagrypnia. In the Occident only the older feasts have vigils; even the feasts of the first class introduced after the thirteenth century (Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart) have no vigils, except the Immaculate Conception, which Pope Leo XIII (30 Nov., 1879) singled out for this distinction. The number of vigils in the Roman Calendar besides Holy Saturday is seventeen, viz., the eves of Christmas, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the eight feasts of the Apostles, St. John the Baptist, St. Laurence, and All Saints.

As an aside:  Does anyone know the rationale for the suppression of many of the old Vigil Masses between 1955 and 1962? I imagine that allowing anticipated Masses played a role in it, yet, it downgraded many days of the year to Ferias, which is so uncool. . .

I don't know.

That just describes the basic mechanics of tradition, though. If a junk song will not disappear in a matter of decades, surely 800 years will do the trick! This is why all sane societies give tradition a lot of weight - if something has withstood the test of time then that is a huge indication that it is valuable.

And Islam has been going strong for well over 800 now....

Of course, that's not what you meant. But I fully expect the Novus Ordo (or worse) to be the norm in Catholic-dom for at least the next 200 years; well after everyone who could ever remember the old rite being practiced everywhere is long dead.

[FatherCekada]

Some excellent insights, m.PR, especially on the question of the development of popular customs and the reformers' contempt for them.

As an aside:  Does anyone know the rationale for the suppression of many of the old Vigil Masses between 1955 and 1962? I imagine that allowing anticipated Masses played a role in it, yet, it downgraded many days of the year to Ferias, which is so uncool.

The Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica (1948) that became the game plan for the Bugnini/Pius XII reforms in the '50s gives the rationale for the abolition of vigils:

"In sum, the institution of vigils gradually lost its authentic character, and became a type of lifeless liturgical formality." (¶117)

There's that modernist "authentic" buzzword again..

[m.PR]

"Had" is a strong word. No one is forced to attend the Easter Vigil, except perhaps catechumens. I suppose one could argue about whether or not it was worth upsetting the popular customs. But to draw a comparison to Gregorian chant vs. popular hymnody, I'd happily see the Schubert Ave Maria and all its ilk erased from history forever if that's what it took to see plainchant restored.

The nighttime Easter Vigil was not imposed on individuals per se, true: it was imposed on parishes - which in turn impacts the community and individuals.

Music from the Middle Ages vs. music from the Romantic period is ultimately a matter of taste; you may not like the one, but some people find it uplifting; and it's not heretical or harmful. It would be wrong to impose one over the other from the top. This sort of thing would create a perennial war, where one generation abolishes one thing and the next restores and then the next abolishes it, ad infinitum.  If one or the other disappears from history gradually, that is another matter altogether - that is just tradition at work; then, if a future generation would want to restore it, the work wouldn't be as bitter as in the case where it had been abolished from the top.

The confusion is because in the earlier ages of the Church, the vigil referred to the night before the feast. In the second millennium, with the Easter Vigil being the prime example, they were apparently all pushed back to the day before. But again, the root of the word "vigil" means nothing other than to keep watch during the night.

You are right about the origin of the word "vigil." And of course, the word "eve" itself points to the evening. I'll add that, from what I can tell, the Easter Vigil Mass is quite different from the other Vigil Masses.

But are we going to mess with venerable customs over mere etymological technicalities?

The reformers should have been content with adding the nighttime Easter Vigil as an option, then letting the wishes and needs of the faithful decide whether it was going to be taken as normative. But of course, there more changes down the pipe, changes that had to be obligatory.

I fully expect the Novus Ordo (or worse) to be the norm in Catholic-dom for at least the next 200 years; well after everyone who could ever remember the old rite being practiced everywhere is long dead.

Sadly I have to agree with you here - barring something catastrophic, but I do not wish for something catastrophic. Then when promoting the Traditional Mass we will be running against people's natural inclination towards doing what has always been done - we'd be going against people's traditionality! I guess this is the sort of tension that is created when the world at large abandons a tradition. The best we can do is ensure that the use of the Traditional Mass continues in an unbroken chain; through spreading it, teaching people to love it, and always celebrating it beautifully.

The Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica (1948) that became the game plan for the Bugnini/Pius XII reforms in the '50s gives the rationale for the abolition of vigils:

"In sum, the institution of vigils gradually lost its authentic character, and became a type of lifeless liturgical formality." (¶117)

Thank you.

I would almost think they had a point; yet, note that instead of adding the option to celebrate Vigil Masses at night, they completely scrapped them. The phrase "lifeless liturgical formality" just drips with arrogance and contempt (though not as bad as "useless repetitions" in Sacrosanctum Concilium).

[The Harlequin King]

Music from the Middle Ages vs. music from the Romantic period is ultimately a matter of taste; you may not like the one, but some people find it uplifting; and it's not heretical or harmful. It would be wrong to impose one over the other from the top. This sort of thing would create a perennial war, where one generation abolishes one thing and the next restores and then the next abolishes it, ad infinitum.  If one or the other disappears from history gradually, that is another matter altogether - that is just tradition at work; then, if a future generation would want to restore it, the work wouldn't be as bitter as in the case where it had been abolished from the top.

No way. Plainchant is an integral part of the liturgy. Romantic compositions are, more often than not, aberrations. In each and every case without exception, plainchant, by its very form, is superior to every romantic composition ever made.

Pope Pius X attempted to impose chant from the top in the motu proprio of 1903, Tra le sollecitudini. It at least succeeded (mostly) in abolishing in orchestral Masses. In publishing it, he used the words, "We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all."


With the Easter Vigil, though, I'll agree that the timing should probably have been left to the pastor's discretion.

[Chestertonian]

Pope Pius X attempted to impose chant from the top in the motu proprio of 1903, Tra le sollecitudini. It at least succeeded (mostly) in abolishing in orchestral Masses.

aw, darn... I was hoping to have Verdi's Dies Irae at my funeral

[The Harlequin King]

Pope Pius X attempted to impose chant from the top in the motu proprio of 1903, Tra le sollecitudini. It at least succeeded (mostly) in abolishing in orchestral Masses.

aw, darn... I was hoping to have Verdi's Dies Irae at my funeral

Verdi's Requiem was never even intended to be performed (yes, key word with post-chant works is "performed") in the liturgy.

[Chestertonian]

Pope Pius X attempted to impose chant from the top in the motu proprio of 1903, Tra le sollecitudini. It at least succeeded (mostly) in abolishing in orchestral Masses.

aw, darn... I was hoping to have Verdi's Dies Irae at my funeral

Verdi's Requiem was never even intended to be performed (yes, key word with post-chant works is "performed") in the liturgy.

yes, but OFFSTAGE TRUMPETS

[m.PR]

No way. Plainchant is an integral part of the liturgy. Romantic compositions are, more often than not, aberrations. In each and every case without exception, plainchant, by its very form, is superior to every romantic composition ever made.

Pope Pius X attempted to impose chant from the top in the motu proprio of 1903, Tra le sollecitudini. It at least succeeded (mostly) in abolishing in orchestral Masses. In publishing it, he used the words, "We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all."

All right. I wonder if this would apply to, say, Franz Liszt's version of Ave Maris Stella?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGB-ttfHI2w[/yt]

Though Palestrina's is so much more amazing. Or what about Silent Night? These are just hymns.

Probably a subject for another thread.

aw, darn... I was hoping to have Verdi's Dies Irae at my funeral

You couldn't have it as the actual Sequence, but maybe it could be performed as the Communion hymn? I saw that done with Mozart's Lacrimosa. I mean, why not:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO1pn6D-t4M[/yt]