Second Confiteor

  • Thread starter Thread starter cowbell4484
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cowbell4484

Guest
I go to a Tridentine Mass in my area every Sunday, and they never have a second Confiteor said by the faithful right before communion. The only confiteors said are by the priest and altar servers in the Prayer at the Foot of the Altar. However, today I attended a daily Tridentine Mass in a different part of the diocese and they had the second Confiteor. The second Confiteor was included in the Latin-English missals they had available for the faithful. But my 1962 Missal (the one printed by Baronius Press) doesn’t include it in its ordinary of the Mass. Is one way correct and another not?
 
cowbell4484 said:
I go to a Tridentine Mass in my area every Sunday, and they never have a second Confiteor said by the faithful right before communion. The only confiteors said are by the priest and altar servers in the Prayer at the Foot of the Altar. However, today I attended a daily Tridentine Mass in a different part of the diocese and they had the second Confiteor. The second Confiteor was included in the Latin-English missals they had available for the faithful. But my 1962 Missal (the one printed by Baronius Press) doesn’t include it in its ordinary of the Mass. Is one way correct and another not?
Click to expand...
The Confiteor said just before Holy Communion is permissible, but not mandatory. My Angelus 1962 missal doesn’t have it either.
 
cowbell4484 said:
I go to a Tridentine Mass in my area every Sunday, and they never have a second Confiteor said by the faithful right before communion. The only confiteors said are by the priest and altar servers in the Prayer at the Foot of the Altar. However, today I attended a daily Tridentine Mass in a different part of the diocese and they had the second Confiteor. The second Confiteor was included in the Latin-English missals they had available for the faithful. But my 1962 Missal (the one printed by Baronius Press) doesn’t include it in its ordinary of the Mass. Is one way correct and another not?
Click to expand...
The 62 Missal does not contain the second confeitor among other things you will find in earlier editions… It along with quite a few other things were changed by Pope John XXIII, Some of the other changes were adding St. Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon, eliminating the second Confiteor before Communion suppressing 10 feasts, combining both feasts of St Peter’s Chair into one, suppressing 14 festal octaves and 9 vigils as well as modifying the rubrics for Solemn High Masses.

Dramatic Holy Week changes started in 1955 and were already in place by that time

Those changes incidentally are the one of the reasons that some with how shall we say, more sedevacantist leanings refuse to attend the Masses that use the 62 Missal. They see them as not being faitfhul to the earlier liturgies…
 
As others have said, it is not required, but is permitted where it is said by custom. For instance, at the used-to-be-indult FSSP Mass I go to we always say the second Confiteor.

palmas85: With all due respect, highlighting the differences between the '62 and other Missals in the context of this question, only serves to support a position of the 2nd Confiteor being wrong–which it is not.

I will point out that we do stick to the '62 Missal in all other things. Well…there was the longer Passion narrative on Palm Sunday (I think), but I didn’t have my hand missal in my hand, but I’m sure the Deacon was singing the ‘extra’ bit! ;-p
 
markadm said:
As others have said, it is not required, but is permitted where it is said by custom. For instance, at the used-to-be-indult FSSP Mass I go to we always say the second Confiteor.

palmas85: With all due respect, highlighting the differences between the '62 and other Missals in the context of this question, only serves to support a position of the 2nd Confiteor being wrong–which it is not.

I will point out that we do stick to the '62 Missal in all other things. Well…there was the longer Passion narrative on Palm Sunday (I think), but I didn’t have my hand missal in my hand, but I’m sure the Deacon was singing the ‘extra’ bit! ;-p
Click to expand...
I never intended to point out that it was wrong or why the changes were made in the first place. All those changes did in fact take place. As to why, who can really say? All we really can say is that the 62 Missal is substantially different in some respects to earlier versions.
 
palmas85 said:
I never intended to point out that it was wrong or why the changes were made in the first place. All those changes did in fact take place. As to why, who can really say? All we really can say is that the 62 Missal is substantially different in some respects to earlier versions.
Click to expand...
Sorry; I think we’re talking at cross-purposes.

I thought your intention was to infer that the 2nd Confiteor was something from before 1962 and therefore not allowed. Maybe I was wrong; sorry again!

God bless,
Mark
 
markadm said:
As others have said, it is not required, but is permitted where it is said by custom. For instance, at the used-to-be-indult FSSP Mass I go to we always say the second Confiteor.

palmas85: With all due respect, highlighting the differences between the '62 and other Missals in the context of this question, only serves to support a position of the 2nd Confiteor being wrong–which it is not.

I will point out that we do stick to the '62 Missal in all other things. Well…there was the longer Passion narrative on Palm Sunday (I think), but I didn’t have my hand missal in my hand, but I’m sure the Deacon was singing the ‘extra’ bit! ;-p
Click to expand...
I won’t be so hasty as to say the second Confiteor is wrong - but I’ve never seen anybody bring evidence that it may be retained by custom. I think a new grant would have had to be given for that since John XXIII revoked all things to the contrary. One can’t use it therefore, in virtue of it being custom from before 1962.

Of course, the PCED may have given permission for it since they seem to have been quite happy to allow things from earlier or later missals. Or it might just be the way the priests were taught in the seminary.

Wasn’t there a ferocious argument about this either at the NLM or WDTPRS?
 
Technically, the Second Confiteor has been discontinued in the 1962 Missal. But it is recited by the servers, not the priest, and does lead a little easier into the Misereatur, the Absolutionem, and Domine, Non Sum Dignus. (I don’t know if the Misereatur had been discontinued as well.)

In any case, I have not seen any protests where I attend Mass over it.
 
ProVobis said:
Technically, the Second Confiteor has been discontinued in the 1962 Missal. But it is recited by the servers, not the priest, and does lead a little easier into the Misereatur, the Absolutionem, and Domine, Non Sum Dignus. (I don’t know if the Misereatur had been discontinued as well.)

In any case, I have not seen any protests where I attend Mass over it.
Click to expand...
So it is ok to use a different missal than the one B16 said to use?
 
James0235 said:
No. And no one in this thread has suggested doing that.

James
Click to expand...
Hmm

At least one seems to think adding to it is ok (rather than following it as is) another says how no one has ‘protested’ (could be out of ignorance).

I am not seeing tremendous support for sticking with what is in the 1962 version of the TLM.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Hmm

At least one seems to think adding to it is ok (rather than following it as is) another says how no one has ‘protested’ (could be out of ignorance).
Click to expand...
Go back and actually read the thread. It is not a matter of adding it.

As has already been pointed out multiple times it is permissible to use the 2nd Confiteor but it is not required:
Magnum_V8 said:
The Confiteor said just before Holy Communion is permissible, but not mandatory.
Click to expand...
markadm said:
As others have said, it is not required, but is permitted where it is said by custom. For instance, at the used-to-be-indult FSSP Mass I go to we always say the second Confiteor.
Click to expand...
Eilish_Maura said:
I am not seeing tremendous support for sticking with what is in the 1962 version of the TLM.
Click to expand...
Choosing to use or not to use the 2nd Confiteor does not mean that one is not following the 1962 Missal. So, your claiming that those using the 2nd Confiteor are not sticking with the 1962 Missal is nothing more than a straw man argument.

James
 
AJV said:
I won’t be so hasty as to say the second Confiteor is wrong - but I’ve never seen anybody bring evidence that it may be retained by custom. I think a new grant would have had to be given for that since John XXIII revoked all things to the contrary. One can’t use it therefore, in virtue of it being custom from before 1962.

Of course, the PCED may have given permission for it since they seem to have been quite happy to allow things from earlier or later missals. Or it might just be the way the priests were taught in the seminary.

Wasn’t there a ferocious argument about this either at the NLM or WDTPRS?
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
Technically, the Second Confiteor has been discontinued in the 1962 Missal. But it is recited by the servers, not the priest, and does lead a little easier into the Misereatur, the Absolutionem, and Domine, Non Sum Dignus. (I don’t know if the Misereatur had been discontinued as well.)

In any case, I have not seen any protests where I attend Mass over it.
Click to expand...
Yes, AJV, there was quite a discussion over at WDTPRS, and within that there was provided conclusive proof that the '62 rubrics explicitly say the 2nd Confiteor (and its accompanying Misereatur, etc.) are to be omitted. So along those lines, no, the 2nd Confiteor is not allowed when using the '62 books.

However, where it is still practiced this is tolerated by force of custom - not a custom arising from the fact that it used to be mandated, since that is, canonically, no custom at all, but subsequent custom that grew up in places where it was never dropped (I’m not sure if I can say it was out of ignorance, but I know that the slight change in when people are supposed to stand after the offertory in the NO - from the Suscipiat to the Orate, fratres - suggests to me that small changes like this are just really hard to hit home).
 
cowbell4484 said:
I go to a Tridentine Mass in my area every Sunday, and they never have a second Confiteor said by the faithful right before communion. The only confiteors said are by the priest and altar servers in the Prayer at the Foot of the Altar. However, today I attended a daily Tridentine Mass in a different part of the diocese and they had the second Confiteor. The second Confiteor was included in the Latin-English missals they had available for the faithful. But my 1962 Missal (the one printed by Baronius Press) doesn’t include it in its ordinary of the Mass. Is one way correct and another not?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember a second Confiteor before Communion in the TLM, and I have a Missale Romanum dated 1962.

At the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Priest would say the Confiteor, and then the altar boy would say his, on behalf of the people. If there was no altar boy, the Priest would say one Confiteor, but change the wording to account for no altar boy.
 
ProVobis said:
:confused:

Is the extra prayer invalid?
Click to expand...
said privately - nope never

What was described seemed to be a pretend part of the mass as if another iteration of the missal was being used rather than the one B16 specified.
 
ProVobis said:
:confused:

Is the extra prayer invalid?
Click to expand...
No, of course not. But it should only be retained out of custom (that is, if it was already being done), and even that may be questionable

‘Nowhere in the priests 1962 altar missal does it say that the second Confiteor must be eliminated. [But equally the] communion of the people was not in the priest’s altar missal to begin with, but in the Rituale, wherein is the provision for communion of the people, which is thus inserted into the celebration of Mass. It was in the event that the people received Communion that the “second Confiteor” was used at all.’ (a commenter on WDTPRS)

A problem arises, however, in that Rubric 503 for the 1962 Missal says the second Confiteor “is omitted”.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
Yes, AJV, there was quite a discussion over at WDTPRS, and within that there was provided conclusive proof that the '62 rubrics explicitly say the 2nd Confiteor (and its accompanying Misereatur, etc.) are to be omitted. So along those lines, no, the 2nd Confiteor is not allowed when using the '62 books.

However, where it is still practiced this is tolerated by force of custom - not a custom arising from the fact that it used to be mandated, since that is, canonically, no custom at all, but subsequent custom that grew up in places where it was never dropped (I’m not sure if I can say it was out of ignorance, but I know that the slight change in when people are supposed to stand after the offertory in the NO - from the Suscipiat to the Orate, fratres - suggests to me that small changes like this are just really hard to hit home).
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it conclusive proof. What we know is that many years ago the Ecclesia Dei Commission was telling priests of the the FSSP and the ICR that is was permissible to use the 2nd Confiteor.

And earlier this year they told one priest (Fr. Z.) that it should not be used. But, nothing official has yet to come from PCED about this.

A personally love the 2nd Confiteor but if ever it is forbidden so be it.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top