F
Feanor
Guest
When I watch the TLM- what’s the deal with the priest during the prayers before the Mass bowing and pivoting his body back and forth horizontally?
Just curious. . . .
Just curious. . . .
Which prayers before the Mass? Are you referring to the prayers the priest recites while vesting? Or could you possibly be talking about the prayers at the foot of the altar (which is actually part of the Mass)?…what’s the deal with the priest during the prayers before the Mass…
That tape is a Solemn High Mass where the deacon and subdeacon act as the servers. During the confiteors (one said by the celebrant and one by the servers), there is an “et vobis fratres,” an “et vos frates,” an “et tibi pater,” and an “et te pater,” ( “and you, brethren” and “and you, father”) at which points the celebrant bows toward the servers and the servers acknowledge that bow or the servers bow toward the priest and the priest acknowledges that bow.Thanks,
Well I know what a bow is- yes the priest is bowing but at the same time as he is bowing he moves his body back and forth horizontally- what is the significance of this pivoting of the body? I saw this specifically on the Easter Mass from 1941 featuring Bishop Sheen.
Good questions. I’m not intending to provide a snappy answer to your question, but I would look at the TLM as a product from God, since there is much Catholic Theology built into it. That’s what makes it beautiful. That it comes from this or that period only adds superficial element to the ageless rite but they were all done for the greater glory of God. Every rubric has a purpose and it is either to help us pray better or focus on God better.Hello again,
I can certainly appreciate the TLM, especially when I read the translations from the Latin- very powerful and clear in terms of doctrine, although I believe I prefer a reverent NO (don’t some theologians and liturgists say that the term Novus Ordo is kind of a negative/unclear/incorrect term for todays mass?)
In any case it is my, very possibly misunderstood notion, that the Tridentine Mass is really more of a product of the Rennessaince and not the Middle Ages (1000-1300) and even less so the period 300-1000AD). I’m not sure if any of us can say what mass looked like before 300AD. I am very interested in the middle ages and this relates to a hobby of mine. I guess my question is in a nutshell- isn’t the Tridentine Mass very much of the Rennessaince style- didn’t it get a bit “cluttered” in some ways?
I really am not trying to be derogatory- I am curious. I have a profound respect of the mass in all it’s forms whether Latin, Maronite, Greek, Geez, even Orthodox.
now THAT is my idea of liturgical danceIt flows so nicely in almost a militaristic way (I am thinking something like the USMC Silent Drill Team). Each man/boy has his own responsibilities and when executed properly is beautiful to watch. It’s all focused on God and service to the priest to the smallest detail.
Your theory on the Old Rite Mass’ history is not correct at all.Hello again,
I can certainly appreciate the TLM, especially when I read the translations from the Latin- very powerful and clear in terms of doctrine, although I believe I prefer a reverent NO (don’t some theologians and liturgists say that the term Novus Ordo is kind of a negative/unclear/incorrect term for todays mass?)
In any case it is my, very possibly misunderstood notion, that the Tridentine Mass is really more of a product of the Rennessaince and not the Middle Ages (1000-1300) and even less so the period 300-1000AD). I’m not sure if any of us can say what mass looked like before 300AD. I am very interested in the middle ages and this relates to a hobby of mine. I guess my question is in a nutshell- isn’t the Tridentine Mass very much of the Rennessaince style- didn’t it get a bit “cluttered” in some ways?
I really am not trying to be derogatory- I am curious. I have a profound respect of the mass in all it’s forms whether Latin, Maronite, Greek, Geez, even Orthodox.
The way I read it was that Bugnini was assigned to make changes to the then-existing rite according to the principles issued at Vatican II. When it came back for the Pope to sign into law (wishing and hoping and all that stuff) Bugnini wanted it to be just another revision (to prevent going back to a previous version), to which Pope Paul answered, no, it was a Novus Ordo liturgy.Tridentine is an inaccurate term for the Old Mass, it implies it was fabricated at Trent, much like the Novus Ordo was fabricated in the 60’s. The ‘Tridentine’ Mass has organically developed right from the early Church, and has its roots firmly in the early Church, not the renaissance.
Also, Novus Ordo is a perfectly legitimate term for the New Mass, as Archbishop Bugnini referred to the Mass as that when he stamped Novus Ordo Missae on the front of the Missal in the late 60’s I believe.
The only question is when does the New become the Old.I did not mean to strongly suggest that I believe the term Novus Ordo to be derogatory- I was simply ignorant of the matter. I remember reading a book called “Catholic Answers” by a priest who stated that the term NO was a negative term. So O.K. NO is a fine term. And knowing is half the battle.
Why not Bugnini? Was he not a primary architect of the New Order Mass?Although there was already a thread on use of the term “Novus Ordo,” I would point not to Abp. Bugnini but to the current secretary of the CDW, Abp. Ranjith, who as recently as this month referred to the two rites as “Tridentine” and “Novus Ordo.”
catholicexchange.com/node/59628
You can argue that his terms are inaccurate, but if Novus Ordo is meant to be derogatory than we can at least be comforted that the newly-appointed #2 at CDW means to be derogatory toward the new rite.![]()