Second Confiteor

[CradleCath]

BUT then again, its not as if we see regular documentation from the PCED. Not even 95%.

The same can be said of Eilish Maura!!! :extrahappy:

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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?

Custom attains the force of law after thirty years so long as it has not been, for lack of a better term (I don’t remember the official canonical one) “condemned” by the legislator. However, if the custom receives some sort of approval before thirty years have passed, then it attains force of law at that time. So, say a community is trying to enforce a custom (which is differently from just wanting to be disobedient or not knowing you’re doing it wrong). If the bishop attends Mass there and doesn’t do anything to fix the practice, he is giving tacit approval to the custom. Other sorts of explicit approval might come into play, like if the bishop or superior writes a letter and therein mentions that he just loved how the community used, for our purposes, the 2nd Confiteor. So the short answer is, “No, it doesn’t always take 30 years.”

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

The PCED granting permission doesn’t necessarily say anything about the law and therefore what is correct according to the law. For instance, many bishops dispense the faithful from abstinence when Patrick falls on a Friday in Lent. That doesn’t tell us that there is some ambiguity as to whether one may eat meat on a Lenten Friday, rather it means that despite the law being clear, other practices are being tolerated that run contrary to that law. So we’re speaking on different levels. 1) Does the missal allow the 2nd Confiteor? Clearly no. 2) Is the Holy See, through the PCED, tolerating a custom contrary to the law in this regard? Yes.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

Sounds like ‘permission’ amounts to a wink and a nod - and no one wanted to take responsibility for ‘giving’ it.

 

[CradleCath]

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

Ah…that clears up a lot. Thanks for the link to the definition of “internet troll”. I’ve seen it used & knew that it defined a person who went from forum to forum seeking arguments, but your link helped me truly understand what the word means:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Troll - someone who does not join in the backslapping ‘oh yes you are so right’ flow on some forums.

BTW - questioning the addition (as reported by another poster) of something not in the 1962 missal not related to the topic of the thread?

 

[MrS]

Ah…that clears up a lot. Thanks for the link to the definition of “internet troll”. I’ve seen it used & knew that it defined a person who went from forum to forum seeking arguments, but your link helped me truly understand what the word means:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

I think the definition should be expanded to include

a person who refuses to answer questions that only need simple replies, and not “… I don’t think I need to answer that, it is not relevant…”

and

a person who, when you look at the history of the posts, as been able to get a number of threads closed by the watchful mods who see the topic derailed, ignored, or “trolled” by a particular poster.

Some of the threads could have remained open for good serious discussion, and I had my own thoughts as to why they were closed. I see that I am not alone.

perhaps that poster(s) will reconsider his/her agenda and make a constructive change.

Thank God that God is God

Thank God that the mods are the mods… Happy Easter.

.

 

[markadm]

Troll - someone who does not join in the backslapping ‘oh yes you are so right’ flow on some forums.

No. A Troll is someone who deliberately obfuscates discussions or ask topically irrelevant or tangential questions with a view to derailing said discussions.

I do not know whether you are a Troll or not, but you might be. “Will the real Troll please stand up?”!

BTW - questioning the addition (as reported by another poster) of something not in the 1962 missal not related to the topic of the thread?

Since you ask, let me explain what I understand.

It is not an “addition” per se. The second Confiteor was in the older Missals. So, just as it is sometimes customary to “add” extra prayers to the Divine Office (e.g. the kyrie in the Benedictine Office), so too have things customarily been added to the Missal. But I still maintain it’s not an addition; it was there already and then not in the 1962 one.

This ordinarily would not be a problem, since, as Andreas Hoffer has explained, things can attain the weight of “custom” and thus overrule certain provisions. However a problem is that the Rubrics quoted above (number 503? I forget) say the second Confiteor is to be omitted. I am sure the FSSP is well aware of this rubric, yet some of their Priests continue to say it (and they are Priests I would not tar with the brush of “disobedience”). Hence I am content to believe they likely know something I do not.

Until PCED brings out official clarification on the subject, as I said, I am content to do what my Priest asks and recite the second Confiteor. Any deficiencies in the Mass are, after all, on his head, not mine. (That’s not meant to sound like I blame it on the Priest, but it’s his responsibility ultimately… not that I think he has anything to worry about.)

Hope this explains things. This is also why I said this Thread no longer serves any point. We’ve thrased out the whys and wherefores but still don’t have the final, definitive proof. That must come from PCED which is competent in these matters.

 

[keepitreal]

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?

The FSSP uses the 2nd Confiteor and Rome has never told them to stop, or even brought it up.
The Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter, " Summorum Pontificum One Year Later: An Interview with Fr. John Berg, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter", clears this matter up in an interview with The Remnant. A must read: remnantnewspaper.com/