Church liturgy pre-Tridentine and before the schism

[rosejmj]

What was the liturgy or Mass like before the Tridentine Mass was made obligatory in most of the West? Was it much different? Also, why do traditional Catholics love the Tridentine mass when it’s been around for less than 400 years and isn’t the most traditional or earliest form of the liturgy out there?

I also am curious as to what the Church was like before the Great Schism between the East and the West. Did each place have its own liturgy according to its own culture? How did the East view the pope, considering he was from the West and their different cultures and traditions and even theology? I also read that the authority of the pope as it is today was not what was intended or even accepted before the schism happened and that after the schism the pope became the absolute authority. If that were true it would be a compelling reason to not accept the popes authority as it is today

Any historically reliable sources on similar topics?

 

[Bithynian]

Fr Adrian Fortescue, the English priest and liturgist, wrote an excellent study ‘The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy’. While it is an older text, it has endured remarkably well. It can be read freely here.

 

[MarkRome]

Wouldn’t the most traditional Mass actually be Greek? Or Aramaic?

 

[Fauken]

Also, why do traditional Catholics love the Tridentine mass when it’s been around for less than 400 years and isn’t the most traditional or earliest form of the liturgy out there?

Wouldn’t the most traditional Mass actually be Greek? Or Aramaic?

Traditional Catholicism isn’t simply about age. That’s antiquarian. Traditional Catholics acknowledge the need for and are fine with development in the Mass. As a few examples, most traditional Catholics I know, myself included, would be happy if the TLM:

• Was able to use blue vestments for Marian feast days.
• The readings were in the vernacular.
• Adding a second reading.
• Celebrating the feast days added into the OF (which can now be done).
• This isn’t really an EF only change, but a unified calendar between the OF and EF would be absolutely wonderful. It is very annoying to go between the two.

To be brief at the risk of oversimplifying things, the problems that traditional Catholics have with the OF aren’t simply that the changes are changes, it’s that a lot of things were changed very quickly, the reasons for which they were changed, and are viewed as net losses in benefits vs. consequences. Yes, internal disposition is important, and holy Mass is holy Mass, but we are a Faith that believes in the cooperation between faith and actions. It is excellent to promote the necessity of interior disposition of what’s in one’s heart, but our exterior actions can and ought to be a reflection of this too. Traditional Catholics would argue that the OF tried to encourage the former (interior disposition) at the expense of the latter (actions).

Those are my two cents at least.

 

[BartholomewB]

A post from another thread, earlier today, gives at least a partial answer to your question.

Non-Christian observing Mass: is Latin Mass gone? Traditional Catholicism

What we now call the Extraordinary form of the Latin mass was made universal during the council at Trent in the 16th century (therefore we can also call it the Tridentine mass). Before that every diocease had its own ritual of the mass, and the Tridentine mass is based on the Roman mass, which originally developed in the diocease of Rome but had become more widespread during the late middle ages.

 

[rosejmj]

What about different rites? Why did the Church basically get rid of all other Western rites? Isn’t the only reason the Eastern rites survived because they split from the Western Church and therefore did not have to adopt the Latin rite in the 1500s?

 

[Fauken]

What about different rites? Why did the Church basically get rid of all other Western rites?

They wanted to consolidate the Masses because the rites were different even between cities: Paris, for example, had its own. The Church was trying to unify in a time when the Protestantism heresy had began. And even then not all of them vanished. My Order, the Dominicans, for example, have a rite that is older than the Tridentine Mass that survived. All rites older than 200 years by the time of Trent were not abrogated. To this day, you can still attend a Dominican Mass where it is celebrated. And it too has gone through changes throughout the centuries.

Isn’t the only reason the Eastern rites survived because they split from the Western Church and therefore did not have to adopt the Latin rite in the 1500s?

The Great Schism happened centuries before the 1500’s. And I can’t say they could because they split. There were more problems on the table between the East and West than Greek and Latin. Either way, while there are certainly some traditional Catholics interested in latinizing the Eastern Catholics, not all are. I’d say most are content to leave the Eastern rite in Eastern hands and tradition.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Did each place have its own liturgy according to its own culture?

Well… yes and no. It wasn’t that every place had entirely their own Liturgy, but there were local variations. There were Rites (different in West and East) but along those lines, Liturgies were similar. Local variations could be as small as singing different hymn at different time or so.

How did the East view the pope, considering he was from the West and their different cultures and traditions and even theology?

That’s tricky. East and West weren’t really about different traditions… if something was codified in the East as dogmatic it was also in the West. There were no regards for tradition or so in that way… one could use Eastern Father in Western Council of vice-versa. In reality, Rites are quite further away today than they were before the Schism. Some canons were different, that much is true (and even Creeds were different in different parts of the World [West with Filioque, Armenians with their own Creed, Greeks with original NC Creed]).

I also read that the authority of the pope as it is today was not what was intended or even accepted before the schism happened and that after the schism the pope became the absolute authority.

It is true… but be careful about where this is heading. Popes were recognized as infallible, and they were always able to intervene. Council of Chalcedon implicitly says Popes have already had ability to re-judge anything judged anywhere. Council of Sardica (and IIRC Sardica was under Byzantine Rite but I might be wrong there) says that Pope has ability to re-judge every case even from Constantinople. Pope St. Gregory the Great says that if there is fault among Bishops, then they are all subject to Rome… but if there is no fault “let them be equal”.

Centralization did not exist, no. Cardinals were never from the East, East did not need approval of Pope to select Bishops like in Middle Ages etc. Church is on quite correct path to minimize that but we should also be mindful that this came with advancement in communication. Church can now communicate easily, it is very well united thanks to that and now issues don’t take as long to solve. It is quite a blessing too.

And lastly and most importantly, Rome was recognized as inerrant. Faith of Rome could not err. Georgian Monk and Saint in Eastern Orthodoxy, St. George Hagiorite lived during Great Schism. He embarked on a journey to Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople to ask them for rights of Georgian Church. When he came into the city he heard that Great Schism happened and he told Emperor and Patriarch to repent from that error and professed that Rome was inerrant. He still got rights for Georgian Church. There are many more Saints who profess that, but this Georgian Monk is clear example that even as far as during the Schism, East still held this to be true without Western influence.

 

[Symphorian]

There are some complete enactment videos with supporting documentation of late Medieval English liturgies mostly following Sarum Use here:

http://www.experienceofworship.org.uk/resources/videos/