The traditional latin Mass is from 1570

[Lisa44]

Hi,
I was listening to EWTN radio and they said that the TLM began in 1570. And the NO Mass in 1969. They said that the TLM “continues even today”.

That is 439 years until the present. Or, 399 years until 1969.

Does anyone know why they abandoned a 399 year old tradition?

Does Vat II speak to the reasons or motivations behind it?

 

[Blessed_Karl]

If I am not mistaken the Roman Use, what we call the TLM, began with Gregory the Great who gave the mass it’s canon. Since that it has organically evolved, with slow and steady changes, throughout 1500 years. I do not think it was merely created Ad Hoc by the Pius V in 1570.

 The second thing I would like to point out is that Vatican II certainly did not ban the TLM. VII did not call for the removal of the numerous prayers in the TLM, ad populum (priest facing people), communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, banning of chant, or anything else. This is the main controversey. 

  I would recommend going to fisheaters.com and going to "for Catholics" section. There you should look at writings like the "Ottiavani Intervention" as well as reading up on the Vatican II document on the liturgy sacerdotum concillium.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Hi,
I was listening to EWTN radio and they said that the TLM began in 1570. And the NO Mass in 1969. They said that the TLM “continues even today”.

That is 439 years until the present. Or, 399 years until 1969.

Does anyone know why they abandoned a 399 year old tradition?

Does Vat II speak to the reasons or motivations behind it?

The “TLM” or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, was officially assembled at the Council of Trent. It was not “begun” in 1570, it was merely officially organized then.

Vatican II didn’t “abandon” the tradition. The Novus Ordo (or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) is essentially a simplified version of the Extraordinary Form, though that’s a simple way of putting it.

Yes, I prefer the Extraordinary Form, but we must remember that the Ordinary Form was meant to be celebrated ad orientum (priest facing the altar) and in Latin. The current Ordinary Form as it is celebrated in American church is NOT NOT NOT the way it was designed to be celebrated.

There are many traditions Vatican II sought to maintain, but the American church’s interpretation abandoned.

 

[MattB99]

I am 23 years old and did not attend mass regularly from 18 until recently. I, by mistake, attended a TLM and it IS the reason I began attending church again. Traditional Latin Masses should be easily assessable to any Catholic, but I have found it EXTREMELY difficult to locate churches within a reasonable distance that offer a TLM. I enjoy this style of mass so much more than the Vatican II style and will always search for a TLM over V2. If anyone has not attended a TLM I strongly suggest attending. It was a huge factor in sparking my interest to attend mass regularly. It is difficult to understand at first if you are not familiar with Latin, but it is very inspirational and it just might save a dying language. The homily however is in English so this makes it a little more friendly. If you do decide to attend, I would quickly brush up on Traditional masses…For example, bring a Latin mass translation pocketbook, women must wear a vale, and don’t make the mistake I did and reach for Communion!! The priest must lay it on your tongue. I received a few looks for that mistake.

 

[I_Believe]

I am 23 years old and did not attend mass regularly from 18 until recently. I, by mistake, attended a TLM and it IS the reason I began attending church again. Traditional Latin Masses should be easily assessable to any Catholic, but I have found it EXTREMELY difficult to locate churches within a reasonable distance that offer a TLM. I enjoy this style of mass so much more than the Vatican II style and will always search for a TLM over V2. If anyone has not attended a TLM I strongly suggest attending. It was a huge factor in sparking my interest to attend mass regularly. It is difficult to understand at first if you are not familiar with Latin, but it is very inspirational and it just might save a dying language. The homily however is in English so this makes it a little more friendly. If you do decide to attend, I would quickly brush up on Traditional masses…For example, bring a Latin mass translation pocketbook, women must wear a vale, and don’t make the mistake I did and reach for Communion!! The priest must lay it on your tongue. I received a few looks for that mistake.

Great feeling isn’t it Matt

Here are two sites you may like…
sanctamissa.org/en/
newliturgicalmovement.org/

 

[bpbasilphx]

While the basic Roman form of the mass had spread throughout Europe by the time of the Reformation, there were countless local uses of it–and I’m not talking about the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, or Bragan Rites here, which are something entirely different.

Among the different uses of the Roman rite were the Sarum, Bangor, and Hereford liturgies in England, and the Cologne Missal in Germany.

I mention these few because they can be found in English on-line. Of course, there were many others.

What Trent did was to suppress all of these Western uses that could not show continuous use for 200 years.

Obviously, the different Protestant, especially Lutheran, rites were based on whatever the local traditional rite was.

 

[Lisa44]

If I am not mistaken the Roman Use, what we call the TLM, began with Gregory the Great who gave the mass it’s canon. Since that it has organically evolved, with slow and steady changes, throughout 1500 years. I do not think it was merely created Ad Hoc by the Pius V in 1570.

 The second thing I would like to point out is that Vatican II certainly did not ban the TLM. VII did not call for the removal of the numerous prayers in the TLM, ad populum (priest facing people), communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, banning of chant, or anything else. This is the main controversey. 

  I would recommend going to fisheaters.com and going to "for Catholics" section. There you should look at writings like the "Ottiavani Intervention" as well as reading up on the Vatican II document on the liturgy sacerdotum concillium.

Hi BlessedKarl,
Thank you. I am reading what you suggested except the website fisheaters which I won’t visit. As regards the Vat II document. I haven’t finished it but it does say repeatedly that the changes to the liturgy were “binding”.

If they were in fact “binding” as they say they are, then how could they not be binding? Ie: After the Consilium was ratified, how could they not adopt the changes?

 

[Lisa44]

The “TLM” or Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, was officially assembled at the Council of Trent. It was not “begun” in 1570, it was merely officially organized then.

Vatican II didn’t “abandon” the tradition. The Novus Ordo (or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) is essentially a simplified version of the Extraordinary Form, though that’s a simple way of putting it.

Yes, I prefer the Extraordinary Form, but we must remember that the Ordinary Form was meant to be celebrated ad orientum (priest facing the altar) and in Latin. The current Ordinary Form as it is celebrated in American church is NOT NOT NOT the way it was designed to be celebrated.

There are many traditions Vatican II sought to maintain, but the American church’s interpretation abandoned.

Hi Sancto Spiritu,
Are you sure about that? That it is a “simplified version”? That’s not what Vat II says. It says it is a “Reform”.

 

[malphono]

Hi Sancto Spiritu,
Are you sure about that? That it is a “simplified version”? That’s not what Vat II says. It says it is a “Reform”.

It wasn’t possible for Vatican II to say that what is now called the OF was a “reform” of anything: what is now called the OF did not exist until 1969, whereas the Council closed 4 years earlier.

As for the Novus Ordo being a “simplified version,” Sancto Spiritu qualifies that assessment (and rightly so) by saying:

The Novus Ordo (or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) is essentially a simplified version of the Extraordinary Form, though that’s a simple way of putting it.

Indeed, it’s a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Lisa44]

It wasn’t possible for Vatican II to say that what is now called the OF was a “reform” of anything: what is now called the OF did not exist until 1969, whereas the Council closed 4 years earlier.

As for the Novus Ordo being a “simplified version,” Sancto Spiritu qualifies that assessment (and rightly so) by saying:

Indeed, it’s a lot more complicated than that.

Hi Malphono,
I don’t really understand. Vatican II, or in this case, motu proprio on the sacred liturgy, calls for a “reform” of the liturgy. What do you mean they couldn’t call it a reform?

And what do you mean the council closed 4 years earlier?

And, what do you mean when you consider it, simply put, a “simplified version?”

 

[malphono]

I don’t really understand. Vatican II, or in this case, motu proprio on the sacred liturgy, calls for a “reform” of the liturgy. What do you mean they couldn’t call it a reform?

And what do you mean the council closed 4 years earlier?

And, what do you mean when you consider it, simply put, a “simplified version?”

I’m sorry but now it is I who do not understand. The sequence of events is quite clear, and I meant just what I said: the Council closed 4 years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated.

By “motu proprio” do you mean “Sacram Liturgiam?” If so, that one is quite non-specific. If you mean something else, I don’t know what it is.

The words “simplified version” were a quote from Sancto Spiritu. I merely highlighted the last few words in the quote and added a comment. One of the “complications” that I alluded to is that the Council mentioned “reform” while the Novus Ordo turned out to be really more of a re-write.

 

[Lisa44]

I’m sorry but now it is I who do not understand. The sequence of events is quite clear, and I meant just what I said: the Council closed 4 years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated.

By “motu proprio” do you mean “Sacram Liturgiam?” If so, that one is quite non-specific. If you mean something else, I don’t know what it is.

The words “simplified version” were a quote from Sancto Spiritu. I merely highlighted the last few words in the quote and added a comment. One of the “complications” that I alluded to is that the Council mentioned “reform” while the Novus Ordo turned out to be really more of a re-write.

No one understands.

From:

Vat II Vol I, Ch 2 Motu Proprio On The Sacred Liturgy. 'Paul VI, Sacram Liturgiam, 25 January, 1964 -

" There is abundant evidence of the constant solicitude of Our predecessors and Ourselves, and of the bishops of the Church, for the preservation, the improvement and - where needful - the reform of the sacred liturgy."

Then over the next few pages it uses the word reform over and over again.

So then my question was - what do you mean its not a reform?

 

[malphono]

No one understands.

From:

Vat II Vol I, Ch 2 Motu Proprio On The Sacred Liturgy. 'Paul VI, Sacram Liturgiam, 25 January, 1964 -

" There is abundant evidence of the constant solicitude of Our predecessors and Ourselves, and of the bishops of the Church, for the preservation, the improvement and - where needful - the reform of the sacred liturgy."

Then over the next few pages it uses the word reform over and over again.

So then my question was - what do you mean its not a reform?

Please reread my last:

malphono:

The words “simplified version” were a quote from Sancto Spiritu. I merely highlighted the last few words in the quote and added a comment. One of the “complications” that I alluded to is that the Council mentioned “reform” while the Novus Ordo turned out to be really more of a re-write.

Looks like we’re on the merry-go-round and I’m getting dizzy. So I’m getting off.

 

[TMC]

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is based on the Missal published in 1962. That Missal evolved and developed from the Mass approved by Pope Pius V in 1570. The 1570 Mass was based in part on the established forms of the liturgy in use at that time, with some changes made based on scholarly opinions on what the earliest forms of the liturgy were like, and included other changes and amendments that the liturgists of that time thought appropriate. This is how Pius V described it:

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

QUO PRIMUM

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is also a development of the same liturgy. Like Pius V’s Mass, it was developed based on the study of the liturgies that have come before, with the changes that liturgical scholars find appopriate. It is “new” only in the sense that the 1962 Missal was “new” or the liturgy used in 1570 was “new.” All are based on the long liturgical history of the Church. As Pope Benedict puts it:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

 

[bpbasilphx]

Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.

---

**That might have been Pope St. Pius V’s intention, but it’s debatable whether he actually accomplished this.

Any attempts at scholary reconstruction of the Liturgy are bound to fail, as it’s always been fluid: in some ages much more so than others.

My words are NOT to be construed as an attack on the Pian Missal or Extraordinary Form.**

 

[TMC]

Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.

---

**That might have been Pope St. Pius V’s intention, but it’s debatable whether he actually accomplished this.

Any attempts at scholary reconstruction of the Liturgy are bound to fail, as it’s always been fluid: in some ages much more so than others.

My words are NOT to be construed as an attack on the Pian Missal or Extraordinary Form.**

I agree completely. My point is that Pope St. Pius V set out to restore and regularize the liturgy, and to make it the best he could based on the opinions of the liturgical scholars of his day. I think they did a pretty good job, but even they didn’t think they had exactly recreated the “original rite.” Even they did, Quo Primum tells us that after they had restored the Mass to the best of their abilities, it was “further emended, after serious study and reflection.”

The current form of the Roman missal is the result of a similar undertaking. The 1570 Mass was not a new Mass, and neither was the 1969 Mass. Both are continuations of the 2000 year tradition of the Church.

 

[Lisa44]

Is “active participation” part of the 2,000 year tradition?

Also, one distinction that is curious to me is that Pius V sought to preserve the tradition from local parishes adapting a liturgy to suit their own ideas. Hence, the corruption of the traditions by unregulated innovation.
No doubt, the missal achieved this goal.
He also allowed liturgies that had a solid tradition (200 years of habit) to be maintained. Further showing that it was real solid traditions that he sought to protect. Not to corrupt.

However, what is unclear to me is why a then, solid tradition, a Mass of 399 years, would be altered to then ALLOW the innovation and changes that Pius V sought to protect the Mass from.

 

[TMC]

Is “active participation” part of the 2,000 year tradition?

Yes, it is.

Also, one distinction that is curious to me is that Pius V sought to preserve the tradition from local parishes adapting a liturgy to suit their own ideas. Hence, the corruption of the traditions by unregulated innovation.
No doubt, the missal achieved this goal.
He also allowed liturgies that had a solid tradition (200 years of habit) to be maintained. Further showing that it was real solid traditions that he sought to protect. Not to corrupt.

However, what is unclear to me is why a then, solid tradition, a Mass of 399 years, would be altered to then ALLOW the innovation and changes that Pius V sought to protect the Mass from.

There are several points here. First, Pius V was more concerned with uniformity and legitimacy than with preventing innovation. In the 16th century there were dozens of liturgies in use, and the Pope wanted to make the Mass more uniform, as his Papal Bull explains. Even so, he allowed much more variation than the current Church does. We don’t know exactly how many liturgies were 200 years old at the time, but we know of five or six that have survived to today.

Second, it isn’t correct to suggest that Pius V sought to prevent future Popes or Councils from approving changes to the Mass. Changes to the 1570 Mass were made while Pius V was still Pope. The point is that local bishops and priests can’t make their own liturgies, as they had been doing before 1570.

Finally, the current form of the Roman Rite does not allow corrupting innovations and changes. Why do you suggest it does?

 

[Lisa44]

Yes, it is.

There are several points here. First, Pius V was more concerned with uniformity and legitimacy than with preventing innovation. In the 16th century there were dozens of liturgies in use, and the Pope wanted to make the Mass more uniform, as his Papal Bull explains. Even so, he allowed much more variation than the current Church does. We don’t know exactly how many liturgies were 200 years old at the time, but we know of five or six that have survived to today.

Second, it isn’t correct to suggest that Pius V sought to prevent future Popes or Councils from approving changes to the Mass. Changes to the 1570 Mass were made while Pius V was still Pope. The point is that local bishops and priests can’t make their own liturgies, as they had been doing before 1570.

Finally, the current form of the Roman Rite does not allow corrupting innovations and changes. Why do you suggest it does?

Hi TMC,
What do you mean by “he allowed more variation than the current Church does”?

True. Popes can change the liturgy. Or change the missal as they see fit. But Pius V’s goal in changing the missal was to have it conform more to the ancient traditions.

Do we know that Vat II changes to the liturgy conform more to ancient traditions than the TLM did?

I only suggested that it does allow innovations because every Catholic Mass I’ve been to has been different. The areas of difference include - music, participation, language, communion, prayers used, lay ministers or not, building differences like kneelers or not, etc…
So are you saying that these areas where there are divergent practices, have traditionally always been open to interpretation? And therefore, have never been uniform?

Or, was there a time when the Mass was uniform from place to place. Ie: - same languague used, same type of music, partipation was same and to be expected, communion was the same, physical assets like kneelers always the same, lay involvement…the same…etc…

I’m trying to get a sense of the traditional and universal church from all these different Masses I have been to and its not easy.

 

[TMC]

Hi TMC,
What do you mean by “he allowed more variation than the current Church does”?

True. Popes can change the liturgy. Or change the missal as they see fit. But Pius V’s goal in changing the missal was to have it conform more to the ancient traditions.

Do we know that Vat II changes to the liturgy conform more to ancient traditions than the TLM did?

I only suggested that it does allow innovations because every Catholic Mass I’ve been to has been different. The areas of difference include - music, participation, language, communion, prayers used, lay ministers or not, building differences like kneelers or not, etc…
So are you saying that these areas where there are divergent practices, have traditionally always been open to interpretation? And therefore, have never been uniform?

Or, was there a time when the Mass was uniform from place to place. Ie: - same languague used, same type of music, partipation was same and to be expected, communion was the same, physical assets like kneelers always the same, lay involvement…the same…etc…

I’m trying to get a sense of the traditional and universal church from all these different Masses I have been to and its not easy.

What I mean by allowing more variation is that Pope Pius V did not outlaw all local liturgies, he allowed many cities, regions, religious orders and other groups to keep their own liturgies. Most were abandoned in favor of the Pius V’s Mass, or just gradually died out. Currently Roman Catholics have only a few approved liturgies - the two forms of the Roman Rite, and the limited approval of certain remaining local liturgies (of which only two come to mind, the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic.)

There was one language used for most of the Mass for nearly 400 years, and today the Mass is generally said mostly in the local language. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a topic of some debate. The current liturgy does allow some variance in small things like choice of music. I don’t know how much variance was allowed in other times, but I find it hard to believe that the liturgy was more uniform in a time before modern communication and travel. Some claim that the current form of Mass is more subject to errors or abuse. While its true that some priests, few I believe, deviate from what is allowed by the liturgy, I am sure that has been true always and everywhere.