The "1962 line"

"The liturgical books of 1962". That is what Catholics of the Roman Rite are to use if they wish to worship according to the ancient liturgical forms. But, as we hear a little bit too often from some, these books contain the results of the various questionable reforms enacted under Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII in the previous decade or so.

Some of these reforms seem sensible though, such as restoring the time of the celebration of the Easter Vigil to the night before Easter Sunday rather than it being celebrated early on the Saturday morning. So too, directing that the priest listen to the Epistle and Gospel at Solemn Mass, and not read them audibly to himself, seems like the correction of an anomaly. But others are certainly questionable, most prominently the reform of Holy Week decreed in November 1955.

This is not the place to rehearse the details. Suffice to say that some maintain, and not without good reason, that the liturgical books of 1962 enshrine reforms that have jettisoned venerable elements of the liturgical Tradition of the Western Church.

So why "1962"? The fact is that it was a convenient line, hastily drawn in the sand during and after the failed negotiations of 1988 between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius  X. It was acceptable to Archbishop Lefebvre (who had already adopted a 1962 policy) and to Rome, without at least the latter thinking very much about it. It is a line which some have blindly idolised since.

But it is true and increasingly clear from the amount of material being published about the reforms that good and bad decisions were made on either side of that line. Few, however, know what to do about it. What are Catholics who love the traditional liturgy to do?

Should we mentally retreat to the liturgical books of a "satisfactory" year and hope that one day the Church will follow our private judgement? In reality, no such year exists, for there have been liturgical reforms throughought history (though none on the scale as took place after Vatican II, the forerunners of which one can find before), and one can always prefer that a given reform did not do something.

No. Our first response ought to be one of obdeience, a traditional hallmark of Catholics to the rulings of competent authority in all things but sin. We may like the third confiteor or folded chasubles and the broad stole, and even rightly argue that they are elements of the Tradition which should not be lost, but it is not a matter of sin not to use them.

For the Pope has liturgical jurisdiction in the Latin Rite. St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum had authority in its day, as does Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum today. So too does Paul VI's 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. We may regret the decisions they legally enshrine, but they are valid legal acts of the competent authority.

As the Pope has legislated in Summorum Pontificum that those who wish to make use of the older form of the Roman Rite are to use the Missal and Breviary in use in 1962, and may use the "earlier" Ritual, they are what we are to use. Unless we can successfully argue using classical moral theology that to do so is a matter of formal sin (certainly many did this in respect of the Missal of Paul VI, though very few if any did this in 1962/3, and it is somewhat churlish to try to do so now, based on hindsight), we are obliged in obedience to use the liturgical books of 1962. Otherwise we become 'DIY' liturgists, just as bad as those who do the same with the Missal of Paul VI. We may argue that our motivation is more noble, but we would be wise to recall the words placed by T.S. Eliot on St Thomas Becket's lips in Murder in the Cathedral; "The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."

So what are we to do? If we steadfastly refuse to have anything to do with the liturgy celebrated according to the books of 1962, and stand aloof, we risk our ecclesial position and our spiritual wellbeing.

But we may, and by all means should, present our case to the competent authority, for a widening or even a rescinding of this ruling, for legitimate deregulation, for a reexamination of the "1962 line", for a recuperation of some things and for the relinquishing of others, for permission to use the unreformed Holy Week, etc.

What better time or pontificate than this, for calm, clear, reasoned and scholarly petitions to be put by manifestly obedient sons to the Holy Father, asking that those unfortunate, even bad, decisions made between 1950-1962 be corrected, or at least as a first step that those communities who wished could use the pre-1962 liturgical books?

What a gift to the Church it would be for a new edition of the Missale Romanum to appear that left behind the dross, recovered the lost treasures, and which also included new saints, the 'Gallican' prefaces, and perhaps one or two other real advances. We may not end up with all that we would personally prefer. In 1570 there were probably those who lamented some of the things abolished in the Missal of St Pius V. But we are not our own pope, and we must accept the authority of the Pope in all things but in sin.

This will take patience and charity, and many of us are not at all good at practicing these virtues, nor nowadays that of obedience. But in reality, if we are to do more than whine and opine in our own insular circles, there is no other way that the path of obedience and patient work duly submitted to the competent authorities.

The "1962 line" is historically and liturgically artificial. But it is a juridical reality. The honourable course of action is to work with this reality as faithful Catholics and to persuade the competent authority that its amelioration is for the good of the Church. To arms!