Question about the Confiteor at mass

[otjm]

We are not talking about “doing stuff that isn’t in the missal”, so I don’t know why you insist in dragging that in. It has nothing to do with following the permitted options.

And one thing the permitted options do is that it is a bit different; so you and others are not locked into something that you have done so often that you go into automatic pilot.

The Confiteor didn’t even exist in its current form for several centuries. And the Church did quite well before that.

It is nice that you read all the rules; it is even nicer if instead of being conscious of the rules, you pray the Mass.

 

[Vico]

I am confused as to why the Confiteor is not required at every mass. There is probably a simple explanation.

I view the Confiteor as an opportunity to review my life, find sin, acknowledge my sinfulness, and recommit to doing better in the future. I feel that this increases my worthiness for the Eucharist that I will receive shortly. (In my mind’s eye, it is like Isiah 6 and using the coal to burn my lips to make me worthy to approach God.)

Why is this not a part of every mass?

In the Latin Church, Ordinary Form, the rite of blessing and sprinkling of holy water can be used instead of then penitential act, but when the penitential act is chosen it has three possible versions:

My brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves for this celebration. …
1. I confess to almighty God
2. Have mercy on us, O Lord. … (invitation - response). …
3. Lord Jesus, you came to reconcile us to one another and to the Father: Lord, have mercy. …

 

[semper_catholicus]

I find it difficult to pray at the Novus Ordo mass, because there’s hardly any room for silence. That’s why I like the Latin Mass so much better than the Novus Ordo.

Even with a mass with several different options, I still find that I’m locked in, as you described earlier.

 

[KMG]

The Novus Ordo Missae was deliberately designed with a very large number of options (you can read all about this in Archbishop Bugnini’s 900-page tome on the work of the committee he chaired). The Confiteor was a problem for some because it explicitly invokes saints; this was seen of course as problematic by those who were obsessed with making the Mass as Protestant-friendly as possible. Solution? They edited the Confiteor, and made it optional. A typical decision of the Bugnini committee.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I find it difficult to pray at the Novus Ordo mass, because there’s hardly any room for silence. That’s why I like the Latin Mass so much better than the Novus Ordo.

Even with a mass with several different options, I still find that I’m locked in, as you described earlier.

This thread is about a person’s question about the Confiteor.

I’m not sure how it’s become all about yourself and your complaints about Novus Ordo Mass. Off topic for the thread.

 

[Maxwell03]

Yup sometimes the priest here OF just says kyrie eleison then the response Christe eleison then the response…

But if the mass is sung by the priest to my observation he says the confiteor and sings the lord have mercy instead of the choir

 

[JRS_831]

I’ve seen priests make changes to the liturgy on their own initiative. Having a mass with 76 different options for every part, it’s much easier to get away with certain things that aren’t even options.

Ok, I get it, you have a lot of problems with the OF. Enough already. I don’t even attend a Latin rite Mass and I’m tired of this attitude. I’m out.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Irishmom2:

I am pretty sure they aren’t trying to “get away with things” as you say.

No, I have in fact witnessed priests doing stuff that isn’t in the missal, on their own initiative, because I take the time to read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as well as the Rubrics of the Missal and other liturgical books.

Wait, so is this really an issue of priests following the rules or simply one of it being easier for you and others to catch them not following the rules?

Because your first argument implied that it was about mistakes. This implies willful disobedience.

 

[semper_catholicus]

What I’m tired of is priests changing things that cannot be changed on their own initiatives.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I wasn’t referring to mistakes. If I did, or it seemed like I did, I retract that, because that’s not typically what I mean. I’m not fond of priests making to changes or adding things the the liturgy which cannot be made. That’s what my point is.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I wasn’t referring to mistakes. If I did, or it seemed like I did, I retract that, because that’s not typically what I mean. I’m not fond of priests making to changes or adding things the the liturgy which cannot be made. That’s what my point is.

Your point is lost in the implication.

Errors are no more a part of the Ordinary Form than they are the Extrodinary form. Just ask people who lived through it. However, in the Ordinary Form the many options make it much harder for the ordinary parishioner to realize.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I’m not referring to “errors” as in accidents. I’m referring to priests deliberately doing things in the mass that are not prescribed. Things which aren’t allowed by the rubrics or the GIRM or any other liturgical books.

 

[Tulitas]

There are not.
Your disdain for the OF is palpable, and misguided.

 

[Tulitas]

You’re still a teen, right? How many of these alleged “changes”: have you possibly witnessed? Or are you reading misleading sites on the internet?

 

[OldCAFMember]

I think technically, the Confiteor said at the beginning of the EF is not part of the Mass. It is part of the preparation. So, since it is not part of the Mass, the priest saying the OF could start saying it before Mass starts if he wanted to. The priest saying the OF could also technically do the “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” before every Mass because it’s not part of the Mass.

The Confiteor–said first by the priest, and then again by the ministers and servers around him–are absolutely part of the EF Mass. The Mass begins with the prayers at the foot of the altar, as shown in any EF missal.

I am guessing that you come from a broad church Anglican background. Sometimes in those circles, the prayers at the foot of the altar are called the Preparation, and are said in the sacristy. That is not the case with the EF, where these prayers form the beginning of the Order of Mass.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I wouldn’t say “disdain.” I just don’t believe it was the best thing to have happened.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I’m not referring to “errors” as in accidents. I’m referring to priests deliberately doing things in the mass that are not prescribed. Things which aren’t allowed by the rubrics or the GIRM or any other liturgical books.

Again, when the EF was normative priests deliberately did things that were not prescribed. The reason TLM is often error free now is that you have a very tiny, very devout group of people who are saying said Mass.

The only thing regarding error in which the EF varies from the OF is that the OF has many more options so there are many more things that someone would have to be aware of before they could state that the priest acted in error, either deliberately or not. There’s nothing inherent to the OF that makes it OK for a priest to do what he wants.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Again, when the EF was normative priests deliberately did things that were not prescribed.

Just curious, is this an observation or an assumption?

There’s nothing inherent to the OF that makes it OK for a priest to do what he wants.

I’m not suggesting that there is.

the OF has many more options so there are many more things that someone would have to be aware of before they could state that the priest acted in error, either deliberately or not.

That is exactly why it can be easier to get away with things that aren’t prescribed or that shouldn’t be done.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Again, when the EF was normative priests deliberately did things that were not prescribed.

Just curious, is this an observation or an assumption?

There’s nothing inherent to the OF that makes it OK for a priest to do what he wants.

I’m not suggesting that there is.

the OF has many more options so there are many more things that someone would have to be aware of before they could state that the priest acted in error, either deliberately or not.

That is exactly why it can be easier to get away with things that aren’t prescribed or that shouldn’t be done.

1. This is based on information from people who lived when TLM was the only option but mainly on priests who lived when TLM was the only option and ordained before VII there was a culture that one could play fast and loose with the rules so long as the parishioners went along and you didn’t do it in front of the Bishop or complainers. What VII changed, in their estimation, was that VII let those sort of priests license to do it regardless of who was there.
2. yes you did insinuate
3. now you’re just contradicting yourself.

 

[semper_catholicus]

yes you did insinuate

I didn’t say that it was OKAY. I said it was made easier.