Question about the Confiteor at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolySpirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@semper_catholicus. He does it in a way that doesn’t violate the GIRM I believe. He’s very careful about that stuff.

I’m not sure if he celebrates the EF as well - next time I see him I’ll ask if he celebrates the Mass or the Office in the EF at all.

But here’s the thing - I feel like with more traditional celebrations of the NO in this way, combined with more widespread use of the EF, plus the new generation of Priests and seminarians as well as young laity all being very orthodox and tradition minded, this will all eventually result in the OF being reformed with more traditional Tridentine elements reincorporated into it. But it takes time my friend - whatever you do, don’t abandon ship or become schismatic. Stay in the Church and work on changing her from the inside!
 
semper_catholicus said:
!! That’s awesome!! I wish I went there!
Click to expand...
But see now, that’s also a point I’m trying to make.

You don’t necessarily oppose the NO Rite itself - sure, there are things about it which could be reformed - so much as you oppose the way it was and has been both implemented in Churches and celebrated by Priests.

Which IS a problem. The fact that you can have two different Priests in two different Churches celebrating the same exact Rite, and have one look like a traditional, orthodox Catholic Liturgy, and the other one look like some modernist Protestant abomination, and both technically be celebrated faithfully - that’s problematic.
 
At the abbey where I attend Mass, everything is chanted. Latin/Greek Gregorian chant for the Propers and Ordinary, French plainchant for everything else, including the readings. Everything is done very reverently. Being Solesmes Congregation and 100% faithful to the Holy Father and the Church’s liturgy, they rotate through the 4 main EPs in a seasonally-appropriate way. Yesterday for instance, on an ordinary Wednesday, was the Roman Canon. They also use all penitential options, though the troped one and the Confiteor are rare. Remember though, that the monks say the Confiteor every night at Compline; the Mass is a conventual Mass and is thus for their needs, not the laity’s.

There are long silences of about a minute after each reading and the homily (when there is one). After the Offertory antiphon, the Offertory is in silence except on Sundays and feasts when there is organ.

Mass is towards the people and is concelebrated. Ad orientem would not work with their altar configuration with approx, 15-20 priests concelebrating.
Spyridon said:
You don’t necessarily oppose the NO Rite itself - sure, there are things about it which could be reformed - so much as you oppose the way it was and has been both implemented in Churches and celebrated by Priests.
Click to expand...
I’m sure if the EF became normative, there would also be priests “breaking the rules”. There would simply be more rules to break. Obedience is not something inherent to a rite, it’s inherent to an attitude. I look at it this way, when I go to a railway museum I see shiny old steam locomotives in pristine condition. But looking at actual photos of them in action, they were never so pristine in real life, except when pulling premier passenger expresses. Local trains usually had some tired and grimy old wheezer.

People celebrating the EF today are enthusiasts in the care of specialists like the FSSP or ICK rather like the curators of the railway museum. But I have heard plenty of horror stories about priests accepting to offer the EF only to have the “liturgy police” corner them after Mass pointing out this or that picayune mistake. Don Ruggero could expand on this. Priests are human too.
 
See @OraLabora, here’s what I think.

I think if @semper_catholicus had access to the Church’s Liturgy the way we do at my Cathedral or at your Abbey, I think he would be in love with the NO and defending it exactly the way we are.

I feel sorry for him, because it’s obvious that he’s been spiritually abused and neglected and not had access to the Church’s Liturgy in the way he should have access to her Liturgy, and this in turn has left him dejected with regard to the NO Liturgy.

It actually angers me quite a bit seeing a young, faithful Catholic who has clearly been starved of what is rightfully his - reverent, traditional, pious, orthodox Catholic Liturgy.

If the only Catholic Churches and Liturgies I had access to looked like this: (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I think I’d probably reject the NO and only attend the EF as well if I was forced to choose between nothing but this and a pious EF parish.
 
Last edited:
I have to confess that the banality of the local parish liturgy is one reason I go to the Abbey. The other is of course because I’m an oblate of that abbey. I don’t see, in the parish, any egregious liturgical abuses or errors. Just so-so music and “read 'em, feed 'em and speed 'em” expediency.

I get to see quite a number of parishes in the neighbouring diocese where my schola sings (I live on the border of two dioceses). Once in a while we get a priest that chants and it really adds to the liturgy. But even non-chanting priests can be offer a beautiful liturgy.

At one parish where we often sang and where the pastor had a very laissez-faire attitude towards the liturgy but also liked to be the center of it, a visiting priest from a missionary order (I forget which one; he was temporarily back from Africa at his mother house) replaced him one Sunday. The priest didn’t chant, but you could tell right away that he was from an order in the way he offered Mass. There was deep reverence, and he effaced into the liturgy so he became a mere instrument of God’s grace through the Eucharist. It was clear that the Eucharist was front-and-center with him, not himself. We had a chat with him after Mass and his attitude was one of great humility and great courtesy. It was a revealing experience.

I don’t know why things are as they are, but the expediency issue is not something new to the post-Conciliar era. There are plenty of stories about 15-minute Masses in the pre-Conciliar era.
 
Done away with?
I attend the OF and we have that. Weekly. The Sprinkling Rite is Easter Season, and the other during the rest of the year.
 
Spyridon said:
He does it in a way that doesn’t violate the GIRM I believe.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but the GIRM doesn’t instruct priests to hold their fingers together. It does say this:

“Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction
or after the Communion of the faithful, the Priest should wipe his fingers over the paten
or, if necessary, wash them. Likewise, he should also gather any fragments that may have
fallen outside the paten.” - paragraph 278 from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
Spyridon said:
But here’s the thing - I feel like with more traditional celebrations of the NO in this way, combined with more widespread use of the EF, plus the new generation of Priests and seminarians as well as young laity all being very orthodox and tradition minded, this will all eventually result in the OF being reformed with more traditional Tridentine elements reincorporated into it. But it takes time my friend - whatever you do, don’t abandon ship or become schismatic. Stay in the Church and work on changing her from the inside!
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more!
Spyridon said:
You don’t necessarily oppose the NO Rite itself - sure, there are things about it which could be reformed - so much as you oppose the way it was and has been both implemented in Churches and celebrated by Priests
Click to expand...
For the most part, yes. But, like I said, I don’t necessarily agree with certain rubrics as well as other things such as multiple Eucharistic prayers.
Spyridon said:
Which IS a problem. The fact that you can have two different Priests in two different Churches celebrating the same exact Rite, and have one look like a traditional, orthodox Catholic Liturgy, and the other one look like some modernist Protestant abomination, and both technically be celebrated faithfully - that’s problematic.
Click to expand...
Again, I couldn’t agree more!
 
Last edited:
My wife told me that when her mother was a girl they had a Priest who wasted no time and had a very quick Latin Mass. Also, since most Latin Masses that are performed now are the Extraordinary Form, attended by usually very devout, traditionalist Catholics, you are much more likely to attend a more elaborate High Mass, whereas not every Latin Mass was as nearly as elaborate when it was the norm in every Parish.
 
Andy235 said:
My wife told me that when her mother was a girl they had a Priest who wasted no time and had a very quick Latin Mass. Also, since most Latin Masses that are performed now are the Extraordinary Form, attended by usually very devout, traditionalist Catholics, you are much more likely to attend a more elaborate High Mass, whereas not every Latin Mass was as nearly as elaborate when it was the norm in every Parish.
Click to expand...
No doubt. I think TLM is the first time many young people see devout behavior on a large scale and falsely equate the Mass itself for creating that devotion.
 
The Novus Ordo by design permits the priest tremendous latitude to ad lib. That was deliberate, as Bugnini notes in his book. And that probably more than anything else accounts for the liturgical disaster that many find Sunday after Sunday.
 
Andy235 said:
My wife told me that when her mother was a girl they had a Priest who wasted no time and had a very quick Latin Mass. Also, since most Latin Masses that are performed now are the Extraordinary Form, attended by usually very devout, traditionalist Catholics, you are much more likely to attend a more elaborate High Mass, whereas not every Latin Mass was as nearly as elaborate when it was the norm in every Parish.
Click to expand...
This is true… the priests who are today guilty of liturgical abuse would have been guilty of liturgical abuse with the 1962 missal too.

The priests who try to rush the mass today by picking all of the shortest options would have most likely the ones to rush though the Latin mass.

But I do think this is why people love the Latin Mass, but when it’s performed today, it’s done so every beautifully. If you are someone who loves classical beauty, you can’t help but be taken in by the beauty of a well done Solemn High Mass.
 
KMG said:
The Novus Ordo by design permits the priest tremendous latitude to ad lib. That was deliberate, as Bugnini notes in his book. And that probably more than anything else accounts for the liturgical disaster that many find Sunday after Sunday.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The priest has no option, in the OF, to deviate from the prescribed texts. He may choose an alternate text where one is provided, but not ad lib. Those that do are disobeying the rubrics.

The goal of the new Mass was unity without rigid uniformity. It makes sense to allow for some cultural expression in the Mass, particularly with music, as the Church reaches out from its Western roots to all parts of the Globe. Musical selections are to be approved by the local conference of bishops.

I don’t say for a minute that priests never ad lib Mass texts; I’ve seen it all too often myself, but it is most certainly not allowed by the rubrics, though there is some room in the rubrics for priests to offer explanations or make announcements. But certainly no room to change collects, prayers, etc.
 
From Sacroscanctum Concillium: Paragraph 21: "21. “In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”

Paragraph[h 34: "“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”

Paragraph 50: "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.”

The document in full is available on the internet.
 
Neither of your pictures shows anything indicating in any way that each priest is not saying the Mass very reverently. The only things showing are a church which is rather spartan; but that has absolutely nothing to do with reverence, and more than a military priest saying Mass on the hood of a jeep.

In fact, they show what appear to be two parishes. We know noting of them - where they are, whether or not they are parishes in areas of low income (and so doing the best they can with what little they have).
 
Well, you seem to hold forth as if you are a liturgical expert, as you have waded in about how poorly constructed the liturgy is. That, and you clearly have used hyperbole in your comments.

Most people have opinions, just as most people have halitosis. Having an opinion about matters which Rome has decided, when one has nothing more than the opinion with which to attack Rome’s decisions carries no weight. In another topic, an individual who clearly indicates they either support the SSPX, or are aligned with the same has waded in with comments that the documents coming out of Rome are “non-magisterial”… As if they had any authority to make such claims, let alone any background with which to do so.

And no, I am not saying you are SSPX in any way. But you use hyperbole to attack the OF; if you prefer the EF, that is fine. but that is not grounds to attack the OF.
 
I’m intimately familiar with Sacrosanctum Concilium, thanks. Not sure why you posted that.

And my point was some Churches were wreckovated after the Council because in the decades after VII, there was a heavy current of iconoclasm that swept through the Church. Many beautiful Churches were destroyed as part of “renovation” - hence the term wreckovation.

Praise God, the pendulum is swinging back the other way now.
 
I never “attacked” anything. I merely stated why I didn’t like it. You don’t have to be a liturgical expert to know when a priest isn’t saying mass according to the rubrics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top