Mass Prior to Council of Trent

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJB328
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AJB328

Guest
After seeing it mentioned in a few other threads I’ve started to wonder what the Mass was like prior to the Council of Trent. Is it true that there wasn’t a unified Mass celebrated by the Church? Are there any missals that show the order of Mass at this time?

Any links or reading suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

AJ
 
The printing press was only introduced to Europe a few centuries before Trent. Following its introduction, numerous local variations of the mass were published. Before its introduction, standardization would have been all but impossible. Each dioceses would have its own preferred texts or collection of rituals.

Trent suppressed all variations newer than two hundred years old, and called for a more standardized liturgy. This liturgy then had only a few minor revisions over the next 400 years.
 
In the Western Church there was no strictly enforced uniformity prior to St Pius V’s Quo Primum. There were many local variants of the mass rites in Western Christendom, some with histories almost as ancient as the Roman rite itself. For a good history, I would recommend “The Mass: A study of the Roman Liturgy” by Adrian Fortescue. Joseph Jungmann’s " The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its origins and development" is also quite good. Both can be found on Amazon.
 
AJB328 said:
After seeing it mentioned in a few other threads I’ve started to wonder what the Mass was like prior to the Council of Trent. Is it true that there wasn’t a unified Mass celebrated by the Church? Are there any missals that show the order of Mass at this time?

Any links or reading suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

AJ
Click to expand...
Originally there were different liturgical rites in various places. By around the beginning of the 2nd millenium the Roman rite (or more properly, the Gallo-Roman rite) had become the standard for much of western Europe - most other rites either becoming extinct (say, the Gallican rites used in what is now modern France) or increasingly marginalized (at this time, the Mozarabic rite in Spain and the Ambrosian rite in Milan suffered due to the pressure to adopt the Roman liturgy, but adherents held their ground). But even in those areas where the Roman rite was used there was some variation: the structure (and much of the text) of the Mass is the same, but there were differences mainly in the rubrics and in the calendar. These local variations are called ‘Uses.’
 
=AJB328;10905445]After seeing it mentioned in a few other threads I’ve started to wonder what the Mass was like prior to the Council of Trent. Is it true that there wasn’t a unified Mass celebrated by the Church? Are there any missals that show the order of Mass at this time?
Click to expand...
Any links or reading suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
AJ
Click to expand...
From the Catholic catechism
1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. **St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did: **

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
 
Landelinus said:
In the Western Church there was no strictly enforced uniformity prior to St Pius V’s Quo Primum.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. The Dominican Order has had, since about 1250, a single, unified form throughout the order. Likewise, the various Archbishops often enforced a standard, and dictated it by sending out copies they had paid for. The level at which unity of form was enforced was lower down, however.
 
Aramis said:
Not entirely true. The Dominican Order has had, since about 1250, a single, unified form throughout the order. Likewise, the various Archbishops often enforced a standard, and dictated it by sending out copies they had paid for. The level at which unity of form was enforced was lower down, however.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Use of Sarum (Salisbury) was so popular that a number of English dioceses adopted it as the standard, in fact it even influenced some liturgies in the continent.
 
patrick457 said:
Originally there were different liturgical rites in various places. By around the beginning of the 2nd millenium the Roman rite (or more properly, the Gallo-Roman rite) had become the standard for much of western Europe - most other rites either becoming extinct (say, the Gallican rites used in what is now modern France) or increasingly marginalized (at this time, the Mozarabic rite in Spain and the Ambrosian rite in Milan suffered due to the pressure to adopt the Roman liturgy, but adherents held their ground). But even in those areas where the Roman rite was used there was some variation: the structure (and much of the text) of the Mass is the same, but there were differences mainly in the rubrics and in the calendar. These local variations are called ‘Uses.’
Click to expand...
The Ambrosian rite is extant.
 
From what I understand, there were a least a few variations of Mass extant that were > 200 years old at the time of the Council of Trent, what they were like, I have no idea.
 
Gidge said:
From what I understand, there were a least a few variations of Mass extant that were > 200 years old at the time of the Council of Trent, what they were like, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
The variations fall into two broad camps: Roman and Gallo-Roman.

The Gallo-Roman include the Ambrosian† and Mozarabic. Some differences in the prayers and overall order of mass, but unless one looks carefully, they still look much like the TLM.

The Roman variants are almost indistinguishable - the most notable is the Dominican Rite, which differs in the rubrics and in that the prayers of preparation of the gifts are said before the liturgy, rather than at the start of the canon.

For comparison, the following (copied from wikipedia) is an outline of the differences of the Ambrosian Rite:

The main differences in the Mass are:* The principal celebrant blesses all the readers, not only the deacon.
  • The Gospel is followed by a short antiphon.
  • The General Intercessions or “Prayers of the Faithful” immediately follow the homily
  • The Rite of Peace comes at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, before the Offertory (Presentation of the Gifts)
  • The Creed follows the Offertory, before the Prayer over the Gifts
  • There are some differences between the First Eucharistic Prayer of the Ambrosian Missal and the Roman Canon, the first in the Roman Missal; but its Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV are the same as in the Roman Rite. In addition, the Ambrosian Rite has two proper Eucharistic Prayers, used mainly on Easter and Holy Thursday.
  • The priest breaks the Host and places a piece in the main chalice before the Lord’s Prayer, while an antiphon (the Confractorium) is sung or recited.
  • The Agnus Dei is not said.
  • Before the final blessing, the people say three times Kyrie, eleison (Lord have mercy)
  • The Ambrosian Rite has its own cycle of readings at Mass
  • Many of the prayers said by the priest during Mass are peculiar to the Ambrosian Rite, which has a particularly rich variety of prefaces.
The main differences in the liturgical year are:* Advent has six weeks, not four.
  • Lent starts four days later than in the Roman Rite, so that there is no Ash Wednesday, and Carnival continues until “sabato grasso” (“Fat Saturday” in Italian), corresponding to Shrove Tuesday (called “mardi gras”, i.e. “Fat Tuesday”, in French) in areas where the Roman Rite is used.
  • On Fridays in Lent, Mass is not celebrated and, with a few exceptions, Communion is not distributed.
  • Red, not the Roman-Rite green, is the standard colour of vestments from Pentecost to the third Sunday of October, and there are other differences in liturgical colours throughout the year.
Other differences are:* The Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office or Breviary) is different in structure and in various features.
  • The liturgical rites of the Holy Week are quite different.
  • The rite of funerals is different.
  • Baptism of infants is done by triple immersion of the head.
  • The thurible has no top cover, and is swung clockwise before the censing of a person or object.
  • Ambrosian deacons wear the stole over the dalmatic and not under it.
  • The Ambrosian cassock, buttoned with only five buttons below the neck, is held with a fascia at the waist, and is worn with a round white collar.
  • Ambrosian chant is distinct from Gregorian chant.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but I’ve seen documentation of much of this list.

The Dominican is MUCH closer - differing mostly in the use of a prothesis for preparation of the chalice, and a shorter confiteor, and a couple of the priest’s prayers that were added after 1200 to the Roman missal are absent. The chant is very similar, but there are differences (but to notice them, one would need to be looking at the notation side by side, or be excruciatingly familiar with one and confronted with the other).

-----=====-----
† There is argument that the Ambrosian may not be Gallican in origin; it’s pretty clear that it’s got Gallican features, so whether it’s Roman-influenced Gallican or Gallican influenced Roman, it’s still a mixture of both influences.
 
The traditional rite of mass is superior to the Novus Ordo on many levels. By saying this I do not deny the authority on which the Novus Ordo was promulgated. Nor do I deny the validity of the Novus Ordo. I think it is obvious however, to anyone who looks at the issues, that the Novus Ordo liturgy, contains practices - though not invalid or illicit - actually can be harmful to the faith. Many of the reforms such as Mass facing the people, communion in the hand, Lay persons distributing communion, Mass in the vernacular, for example - were initiated by Archbishop Cramner - in Protestant England - with the express purpose of undermining belief in the REAL Presence and the Magisterial Priesthood.
Seems clear that these changes have had a similar effect in the Catholic World today. So even though they are valid - it doesn’t mean they were good. Certainly they were not mandated by the council. Having observed the effects of the Novus Ordo on the Catholic world over the past 50 years - it seems that a spirit of indifference has inculcated the common Catholic.
Because of this I will not attend a Novus Ordo liturgy - unless I have no other choice. For me - it undermines many Central Catholic doctrines. I commonly attend Eastern Catholic liturgies or Tridentine liturgies - which are now more easily accessible. Incidentally You will find many western Catholics at the Eastern Catholic liturgies who have been at these liturgies since the Novus Ordo was initiated. These are faithful Catholics who essentially hold that legitimate authority - acted in an illegitimate (though not invalid) manner.

In a sense the Church hierarchy acknowledges problems when they correct translations. The “for you and for all” translation in the Eucharistic Canon now has been corrected to reflect the actual words of Christ. The previous translation enjoyed no protection of the Holy Spirit - as there is no guarantee that translations by Committees enjoy such protection. I do not write these things to throw stones or to be disrespectful to those who are attached to the Novus Ordo form of the liturgy. Simply to point out that legitimate authority does not always act prudentially. Pope Benedict has been clear that the Tridentine rite has never been Abrogated and every priest has a right to celebrate the mass using this rite. The common practice however, in many diocese was to NOT ALLOW priests to use this venerable ancient rite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top