Second Confiteor

  • Thread starter Thread starter cowbell4484
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markadm said:
James:

A little more charity; It seemed to me Eilish Maura was confused rather than trying to be trite!
Click to expand...
Mark,

Noting I wrote was uncharitable. I wish that you were correct but I don’t think so.

Eilish Maura is gaining quite a reputation here as a troll. Actually a troll on at least her 2nd username to distance herself from previous trolling.

James
 
James0235 said:
Noting I wrote was uncharitable. I wish that you were correct but I don’t think so.

Eilish Maura is gaining quite a reputation here as a troll. Actually a troll on at least her 2nd username to distance herself from previous trolling.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, James. It appears I’ve been gullible. My apologies.

God bless,
Mark
 
James0235 said:
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
Click to expand...
Is it or is it not in the 1962 missal and shouldn’t the missal be THE guide for how to say the TLM?
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Is it or is it not in the 1962 missal and shouldn’t the missal be THE guide for how to say the TLM?
Click to expand...
It is not in the 1962 Missal. But it has been said that it may be retained by custom.

Go an ask a canonist about “custom”; I’m not good at explaining it.
 
markadm said:
It is not in the 1962 Missal. But it has been said that it may be retained by custom.

Go an ask a canonist about “custom”; I’m not good at explaining it.
Click to expand...
Interesting – after all the years since Vat II is there truly a ‘custom’ for something not in the official missal to be used for the EF per the Pope?
 
markadm said:
AJV / Andreas Hofer:

Discussions over at WDTPRS: this one, this one, and this one.
Click to expand...
Thanks markadm. :tiphat:
James0235 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is conclusive proof. The 1962 missal calls for the omission fo the Confiteor. This doesn’t mean I’m doubting the accuracy of your statement. The PCED was not against mixing and matching various missals and might have given permission. Only thing is that it seems that the permission is a bit vague - as in, nobody has produced a concrete document or at least the number of the communication from the PCED. Then again, it isn’t as if not producing it means it doesn’t exist. The great majority of the PCED’s pronouncements have been private and we don’t even know what even half of them were about. (at least, I don’t)
40.png
markadm:
Go an ask a canonist about “custom”; I’m not good at explaining it.
Click to expand...
I wish you could…I would like to know whether custom holds true here. I get confused by reading about all the small laws. In any case, doesn’t a custom have to be around for 30 years or so to gain force of law? If we’re dealing with post-62 customs that have arisen, then 30 years means most will have to wait a bit longer, no?

Maybe this whole issue will be cleared up in the future.
 
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...
I think it would be really wise for us Traditional Catholics to NOT nit-pick the missal of 1962. (and I know you aren’t doing this.)I am so happy that Pope Benedict is working hard to give us the TLM that the issue of the servers saying second Confiteor really doesn’t matter. I guess that I’m afraid someone is going to take this away from me at any moment. 😦

One of the things that so pleases me is the recitation of the Roman Canon. I have regained some of my heritage, I’d almost forgotten that I am a part of something bigger by the very fact that I am Catholic. I have a community that is 2,000 years old & filled with people who have stuggled & overcome & became Saints while doing so:

. Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genitricis Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi: sed et beati Joseph ejusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum** Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Jacobi, Joannis, Thomae, Jacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis, et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Joannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani, et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. **Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Oramus te. Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic sunt, et omnium Sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen.

(. We beseech You, O Lord, **by the merits of Your Saints whose relics lie here, and of all the Saints, deign in your mercy to **pardon me all my sins. Amen.

I hadn’t thought of Pope St. Sixtus in YEARS, martyred in the earliest days of the Church because he defended the faith that I might have it today. Cyprian, Cornelius, Clement…those who built & suffered & died in order to protect Christ’s fledgling Church, they are all part of the same Community of Saints that I, a lowly sinner, belong to. It boggles the mind.
 
QUOTE=Eilish Maura;3444826]Hmm
Click to expand...
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...
I haven’t seen that. Please post a link to the message that says what you claim.
I am not seeing tremendous support for sticking with what is in the 1962 version of the TLM.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. All I’ve seen is scholarly discussions on the Mass of 1962 & the Mass of Trent. Perhaps you’ve seen more.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
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.
Click to expand...
A “pretend part”?? Another iteration (duplicate) of the missal of 1962?? What are you talking about?? :confused:
 
AJV said:
It is conclusive proof. The 1962 missal calls for the omission fo the Confiteor. This doesn’t mean I’m doubting the accuracy of your statement. The PCED was not against mixing and matching various missals and might have given permission. Only thing is that it seems that the permission is a bit vague - as in, nobody has produced a concrete document or at least the number of the communication from the PCED. Then again, it isn’t as if not producing it means it doesn’t exist. The great majority of the PCED’s pronouncements have been private and we don’t even know what even half of them were about. (at least, I don’t)
Click to expand...
I don’t think that a private conversation with a priest in which PCED says that they take back what they said in private conversations with others can really be said to qualify as conclusive proof.

There may be some ambiguity as to whether the 2nd Confiteor is permitted. But, until they are willing to put it into writing (which I suspect may actually happen before too long) that doesn’t change the fact that they told priests of the FSSP and the ICR many years ago they could continue using the 2nd Confiteor. And it is those FSSP priests who have trained countless other priests to say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal with the addition of the 2nd Confiteor (with the permission of the PCED).

Any confusion on the matter can most likely be blamed on PCED themselves. They are more than willing to answer any questions and clarify things. But, they only seem to do so “off the record”. If they want to change their minds and retract previous permissions that is fine. But, they need to do so in an official capacity. Telling one priest privately just isn’t good enough.

(Note: I am in no way questioning what Fr. Z said he was told. If he says it then I believe him.)

James
 
Eilish_Maura said:
Acting as if (pretending) the 2nd confiteor is in the 1962 missal when it is not.
Click to expand...
No one has even suggested that the 2nd Confiteor is in the 1962 Missal. What has been said is that the PCED has given priests the option to use it anyway.

James
 
James0235 said:
I don’t think that a private conversation with a priest in which PCED says that they take back what they said in private conversations with others can really be said to qualify as conclusive proof.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t speaking about the PCED talking to Father Z but rather the rubrics of the missal as conclusive proof that the 1962 rubrics preclude the Confiteor (which statement does not take into account the PCED or custom) Apologies for the confusion.
 
AJV said:
I wasn’t speaking about the PCED talking to Father Z but rather the rubrics of the missal as conclusive proof that the 1962 rubrics preclude the Confiteor (which statement does not take into account the PCED or custom) Apologies for the confusion.
Click to expand...
No need for apologies.

But, even with that rubric, the PCED granted permission to use the 2nd Confiteor. And that is why I don’t believe it is conclusive proof.

It seems they may regret granting that permission (and the permission they granted to some for use of the pre-1955 Holy Week ceremonies) but one way or the other they are going to need to make it all official. And soon.

James
 
James0235 said:
Are you denying that this is at least your second user name on these forums?

You were quite the troll on the other one before you abandoned it, Just 1 hr a wk.

James
Click to expand...
Yes that was a name I used briefly – but it is the ONLY other name I have used and dropped it because folks got very spastic over what the name said.
 
James0235 said:
No one has even suggested that the 2nd Confiteor is in the 1962 Missal. What has been said is that the PCED has given priests the option to use it anyway.

James
Click to expand...
As other posters noted it is said permission was given BUT documentation had not been shown that this was true.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
As other posters noted it is said permission was given BUT documentation had not been shown that this was true.
Click to expand...
BUT then again, its not as if we see regular documentation from the PCED. Not even 95%.

Since such things are binding on the priests’ consciences, perhaps we’d just better leave them to it.
 
This discussion is not making sense.

Mods: can this thread be closed? There is no resolution here pro tem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top