We are pleased to present this article on the Use of Ezstergom (Ritus Strigoniensis) by Miklos Istvan Foldvary, whose paper summarizes the work of his colleague, Fr. Atilla, a priest of Galanta, Slovakia. Fr. Atilla is an expert on the Use of Ezstergom, having obtained his PhD doing studies on the Ritus Strigoniensis. He currently offers the Mass according to the Use of Ezstergom with permission of his Ordinary. The Latin liturgy lived in many variants in the Middle Ages. With respect to their character and history of development, we may distinguish two major periods, and accordingly two principal types of ritual variants. The first group comprises the ritual variants dating to the period prior to the process of Romanisation at first supported and later commanded by the Carolingian rulers, the second includes the post-Carolingian variants which were later discontinued in the wake of the Council of Trent.
The Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord's Supper is distinctive for two unique features: the foot washing ceremony known as the Mandatum, and the Eucharistic procession to the Repository, which sets the stage for the services of Good Friday. Both features are well attested in the history of the East and the West and serve to highlight the Mass of the Lord's Supper as the opening of the Triduum, the "Still Days" preceding the celebration of our Blessed Lord's Resurrection on Easter. The washing of the feet has its origin in the actions of our Lord after the Last Supper, as narrated in the Gospel of St. John; it later became a sign of service in the early Christian community and eventually found its way into the liturgies of Holy Thursday. In this article, we will hypothesize about the origin of the foot-washing ritual, trace the history of the Mandatum in the Latin rite and examine the different forms it has taken over the centuries.
It is no surprise that liberal Catholics have traditionally placed a low value on the quality of liturgical celebrations; not on liturgy itself, because progressives think liturgy is extremely important - that is, so long as it is an anthropocentric, horizontal affair. It is not liturgy per se they disparage, but liturgy done well - that is, liturgy that is transcendent and God-centered. "Why be so finicky about the liturgy?" they say. "There are more important issues to get upset about! Issues like poverty, war, abortion and social justice!" Unfortunately, it is also common for conservative Catholics to hold dismissive attitudes towards the liturgy as well, adopting a minimalist approach that the externals of liturgical action are dispensable, can be discarded or changed without consequence, that all that matters is having a valid Eucharist, etc. Similarly, the charismatic movement tends to foster an attitude of undue casualness in the presence of the Lord. All of these are deficient approaches to the Sacred Liturgy.
The most distinguishing feature of the Palm Sunday liturgy, whether modern or ancient, is of course the blessing, distribution and procession with palms, from whence the common name of the feast is derived. However, this is not the only distinctive feature of this Mass; it is also noteworthy for the reading of the Passion narrative in multiple voices. This is recalled in the Roman Rite, where the current official name for this feast is Palm Sunday of the Passion of Our Lord. The ancient Gelasian Sacramentary (c. 750) makes no mention of a procession with palms but simply calls the feast Dominica in palmis, De passione Domini; many other names, ancient and modern, make reference to Jesus' passion. The reading of the Passion narrative on this day is very ancient. In this article we will trace the history of this practice, focusing in on the use of different lectors to represent the different voices in the Gospel narrative.
The Kyrie Eleison offers an interesting distinction between old Mass and New, but its history also provides an interesting challenge to contemporary myths about liturgical development. It is often supposed today that the Kyrie is a remnant of a time when the Mass was said in Greek, and thus a sign for us that just as the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin, it should be changed to the vernacular of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Kyrie was a later addition, unknown in the sub-apostolic era. Modern approaches to the Kyrie actually introduce foreign elements into the liturgy, as demonstrated in classic article by Ryan Grant.
One of the most formative books in the development of my own thought on Catholic liturgy and tradition was The Heresy of Formlessness by German author Martin Mosebach (Ignatius Press, 2006). Though relatively unknown in America, Mosebach is a well-known voice for Catholic Tradition in the German speaking world. Heresy of Formlessness is truly an illuminating book that puts the liturgical rupture of the past four decades in perspective from the point of view of the layman in the pew. Particularly fascinating is Mosebach's notion that the liturgical problems since the 60's have caused us all to lose what he calls our "liturgical innocence." What does it mean to lose our liturgical innocence?
There are many practices that certain laity and priests, of their own authority, have introduced into the Catholic liturgy that find no precedent in two thousand years of Christian Tradition. Yet, if questioned on the justification for these practices, their adherents will often cite examples out of the Bible. A common example is David dancing before the Ark as justification for liturgical dancing; a new one I encountered recently is the practice in charismatic parishes of people taking their shoes off and going about barefoot in the sanctuary, even in the immediate presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The argument in favor of this behavior is that it calls to mind the intimacy God wishes to have with us, as well as the example of Moses, who when coming into God's presence, was told to remove his sandals. Based on these considerations, this practice of going about in the sanctuary barefoot is considered praiseworthy and not irreverent in the least. Yet, as we shall see, the practice is based on an errant approach to the Bible and liturgy that wrongly assumes that it is acceptable to lift liturgical practices directly from things we read in the Bible without reference to the Church's Tradition.
What is wrong with contemporary Catholic liturgical music, and why should we prefer a return to the Church's traditional forms of liturgical music? Let us begin by recalling that the Church’s liturgy is her official public prayer. As such, it is the common patrimony of all Catholics (not the private property of one parish, priest or bishop). In the Church's liturgy, we necessarily find an expression of the faith. The Liturgical arts, like all arts, are modes of communication, in this case, meant to communicate important truths about God and how He is to be worshiped. This article and subsequent follow-ups will deal with restoring to use, one of these arts, the native musical form of the Latin Church.
One of the most reoccurring and stinging accusations made against Traditional Catholics is the charge of “Pharisaism” or “legalism.” This is a very serious claim: after all, the Pharisees were the human agents responsible for the crucifixion of Christ and were referred to as a “brood of vipers” by Our Lord Himself (Matt. 22:33). It was of the Pharisees that Jesus asked the terrifying question, “How can any of you escape damnation?” Therefore, Traditionalists ought to respond to this charge with utmost seriousness and not just take it when liberal Catholics, Protestants or conservative Catholics start hurling the “P” word around.
In honor of the Feast of Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian, (September 16th), let us look at Cyprian's excellent Treatise on the Lord's Prayer, where he speaks of a topic that is very relevant today vis-a-vis the discussions between traditionalist and charismatic Catholics on the proper posture for prayer. Rather than preface the saint, I will just let him speak for himself:
The Holy Father recently gave an improvised talk to the members of the Choir of the Pontifical Chapel. In this talk he made some truly extraordinary statements regarding the function that papal liturgies play in setting the liturgical tone for the universal Church. Benedict said:
One of the changes made by the post-Vatican II reformers to the Mass was the elimination of many of the signs of the cross, which were seen as superfluous and repetitive.
Now, it is the case that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass contains abundantly more signs of the cross than does the Novus Ordo - forty-eight, I have heard (I've also heard 40). But does the fact that this sacred gesture is repeated so often mean that it is superfluous? Is it a medieval "encrustation" that has been uselessly repeated and multiplied until it has lost all meaning?
Read more: Signum Crucis in the Mass