TLM Goers: Does Your Parish Have a Second Confiteor before Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paxvobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The TLM i attend is celebrated by priests of the FSSP; and there`s no second Confiteor.
 
It lists it in the Missalette I get before Mass but I have not heard it said unless it is done silently. I have only gone to diocesan TLMs / EF Masses.
 
My local diocesan TLM has the second confiteor.

I remember I had asked a question about that on CAF because I could not, for the life of me, find it in my 1962 missal.

I think some folks chimed in that it was not supposed to be included or something like that. I’m sure someone will clarify.

For some reason I can’t remember whether the new FSSP parish I have been attending on Sundays has it or not. I want to say yes, because I remembered being surprised. I’ll have to see on Sunday.
 
All TLM’s have two Confiteors, one said by the server and one said by the priest. The “third” confiteor right before the communion is said by the servers sometimes or it isn’t said. The second absolution is sometimes given whether the “third” confiteor is said or not.

Okay we got that out of the way. At my parish, the servers don’t say “their” second confiteor but the priest gives his second absolution. So I didn’t mark either one of the choices.
 
TrueLight said:
My local diocesan TLM has the second confiteor.

I remember I had asked a question about that on CAF because I could not, for the life of me, find it in my 1962 missal.

I think some folks chimed in that it was not supposed to be included or something like that. I’m sure someone will clarify.

For some reason I can’t remember whether the new FSSP parish I have been attending on Sundays has it or not. I want to say yes, because I remembered being surprised. I’ll have to see on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Yes, the “Second Confiteor” was suppressed in the 1962 Missal. (Actually, it was suppressed with the new rubrics, promulgated by PP Bl John XXIII in Rubricarum instructum in 1960, and was then incorporated into the Missal with the 1962 edition.)

Personally, I never saw the logic of the “second Confiteor” and was not at all sorry to see it suppressed. One priest I know uses it, and I had a chat with him about it after Mass one day. His take was that, where it was customary" to use it (apparently some parishes never changed their practice after the 1962 Missal was promulgated) it could still be done. I’m not so sure I buy that, but since it is (a) relatively harmless, and (b) the entire communion rite of the faithful was a plug-in in the first place, I tend to ignore it when it is used.

It’s interesting that this topic seems to engender a lot of comments. I did a quick search on Fr Z’s blog and the number of hits was amazing.
 
malphono said:
Yes, the “Second Confiteor” was suppressed in the 1962 Missal. (Actually, it was suppressed with the new rubrics, promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in Rubricarum instructum in 1960, and was then incorporated into the Missal with the 1962 edition.)

Personally, I never saw the logic of the “second Confiteor” and was not at all sorry to see it suppressed. One priest I know uses it, and I had a chat with him about it after Mass one day. His take was that, where it was customary" to use it (apparently some parishes never changed their practice after the 1962 Missal was promulgated) it could still be done. I’m not so sure I buy that, but since it is (a) relatively harmless, and (b) the entire communion rite of the faithful is was a plug-in in the first place, I tend to ignore it when it is used.

It’s interesting that this topic seems to engender a lot of comments. I did a quick search on Fr Z’s blog and the number of hits was amazing.
Click to expand...
I actually like it and I love the absolution at the end. 🙂
 
In my FSSP parish we have three: The P, the S, and then the S again For a total of 3 before we communicate. I love it since in the begining of Mass I do a little heart and soul cleaning and then right before I receive our Lord’s Body and Blood I do a little heart and soul cleaning. Not to mention I like the fact that we pray it 3 times because I feel it honors the Trinity.

Grant, O Lord, that what we have taken with our mouth, we may receive with a pure mind; and that from a temporal gift it may become for us an everlasting remedy.

May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my inmost parts, and grant that no stain of sin remain in me; whom these pure and holy Sacraments have refreshed. Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.
 
I voted yes - although I attend an SSPX Mass and not an indult one. I am curious as to the reason why others insert the second confiteor before communion. Archbishop Lefebvre and many other traditional clergy, bishops and priests would have preferred the pre- 1955 Missal, but when the SSPX was founded he sought permission to use the last traditional edition - the 1962. Thus, the SSPX use the 1962 Missal which supressed the second confiteor, but the Priests of the SSPX under the guidance of Archbishop Lefebvre kept the second confiteor before communion. I can understand why Priests of the FSSP would also insert this, given that they were trained by the Archbishop and trained other priests, however I would like to know why others insert the confiteor before communion when they follow the '62 Missal which supressed it. I am not looking for reasons for/against the supression - I have made up my mind and I like the confiteor to immediately preceed communion, but I would like to know why others who follow the '62 Missal alter it this way.
 
Iotaunum said:
I voted yes - although I attend an SSPX Mass and not an indult one. I am curious as to the reason why others insert the second confiteor before communion. Archbishop Lefebvre and many other traditional clergy, bishops and priests would have preferred the pre- 1955 Missal, but when the SSPX was founded he sought permission to use the last traditional edition - the 1962. Thus, the SSPX use the 1962 Missal which supressed the second confiteor, but the Priests of the SSPX under the guidance of Archbishop Lefebvre kept the second confiteor before communion. I can understand why Priests of the FSSP would also insert this, given that they were trained by the Archbishop and trained other priests, however I would like to know why others insert the confiteor before communion when they follow the '62 Missal which supressed it. I am not looking for reasons for/against the supression - I have made up my mind and I like the confiteor to immediately preceed communion, but I would like to know why others who follow the '62 Missal alter it this way.
Click to expand...
Well one thing I can think of is that some of the dicoesan priests who celebrate the FSSP were trained by the FSSP as you mentioned, but the training is a service they continue to provide.

So hypothetically, the FSSP trains priests who then train other priests, and so on.

Now by “suppressed”, does that mean those who follow the 1962 missal SHOULD NOT have the second confiteor?
 
TrueLight said:
Well one thing I can think of is that some of the dicoesan priests who celebrate the FSSP were trained by the FSSP as you mentioned, but the training is a service they continue to provide.

So hypothetically, the FSSP trains priests who then train other priests, and so on.

Now by “suppressed”, does that mean those who follow the 1962 missal SHOULD NOT have the second confiteor?
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought, but could it be the case that those who say the indult learn from FSSP priests or seminars/dvds etc?

Suppressed means it is no longer in the Missal - it was removed. If one were to follow this Missal and rubrics to the letter, they would omit it. The addition of the confiteor in this Missal is simply doing that part like the older Missal, thus adding what is not there in the 1962 Missal.
 
Iotaunum said:
That’s what I thought, but could it be the case that those who say the indult learn from FSSP priests or seminars/dvds etc?
Click to expand...
That’s what I figure.

By the way, I noticed a lot of SSPXers use the term “indult”. The first time someone said tha to me, I was like “What?”.

Is that now antiquated because of Universae Ecclesiae or are TLMs still considered indults?
 
Actually, the Second Confiteor is more than just left out in the 1962 Missale, it is expressly quashed. If you look at no. 503 of the Rubricae generales, you will see:
Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distribuitur, celebrans, sumpto sacratisso Sanguine, omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Domine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distributionem sanctae Eucharistiae procedit.

Whenever holy Communion is distributed within the Mass, the celebrant, having taken the most sacred Blood, the confession and absolution having been omitted, the Ecce Agnus Dei and triple Domine, non sum dignus however being said, immediately proceeds to the distribution of the holy Eucharist. (My translation.)
Of course, the real risk is because this is called an “absolution” people will mistakenly think that it absolves anything. It is actually a prayer to God that he might grant absolution and indulgence, not an action of the priest’s, in persona Christi, in which any absolution or indulgence is actually imparted. The all-too-common heretical view that a prayer like this actually operates to forgive sins through the binding and loosing power of the Church is as good a reason as any to abolish it, for the safety of souls.

And although some people think that the Second Confiteor is beneficial because “this is the one the people get to say,” in reality there was never any sort of rubric directing the people to say the this Confiteor at all in the Mass. Quite to the contrary, the pre-1962 rubric prescribed explicitly that at this point “minister . . . pro eis facit Confessionem, dicens Confiteor Deo etc.” (the minister makes the confession for them, saying Confiteor Deo etc."). Once upon a time, when this Confiteor was part of the rite of giving Communion to the sick outside of Mass – where there were no altar servers – it would of course have been said by the communicant itself, but regrettably even that connection has been lost over time.
 
MarkThompson said:
Actually, the Second Confiteor is more than just left out in the 1962 Missale, it is expressly quashed. If you look at no. 503 of the Rubricae generales, you will see:
Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distribuitur, celebrans, sumpto sacratisso Sanguine, omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Domine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distributionem sanctae Eucharistiae procedit.

Whenever holy Communion is distributed within the Mass, the celebrant, having taken the most sacred Blood, the confession and absolution having been omitted, the Ecce Agnus Dei and triple Domine, non sum dignus however being said, immediately proceeds to the distribution of the holy Eucharist. (My translation.)
Of course, the real risk is because this is called an “absolution” people will mistakenly think that it absolves anything. It is actually a prayer to God that he might grant absolution and indulgence, not an action of the priest’s, in persona Christi, in which any absolution or indulgence is actually imparted. The all-too-common heretical view that a prayer like this actually operates to forgive sins through the binding and loosing power of the Church is as good a reason as any to abolish it, for the safety of souls.
Click to expand...
How interesting/horrifying!
 
MarkThompson said:
Of course, the real risk is because this is called an “absolution” people will mistakenly think that it absolves anything. It is actually a prayer to God that he might grant absolution and indulgence, not an action of the priest’s, in persona Christi, in which any absolution or indulgence is actually imparted. The all-too-common heretical view that a prayer like this actually operates to forgive sins through the binding and loosing power of the Church is as good a reason as any to abolish it, for the safety of souls.
Click to expand...
Adding on to what Mark said, the confiteor can only be benefical to those who recite it with the proper dispostions need for the remission of venial sins.
Taken from: “The Holy Ssacrifice of The Mass Dogmatically, Liturgically And Ascetically Explained” by Rev. Dr. Nichoias Gihr
Click to expand...
  1. The Confiteor with the tunsio pectoris may not in a real, but only in a more general sense be called a Sacramental, having power to cancel venial sins. While the devout use of the real Sacramentals (for example, holy water) impetrates, in virtue of the prayer and blessing of the Church, the dispostions required for the forgiveness of venial sins (for example, sentiments of compunction, affections of love and sorrow), the confessio generalis and tunsio pectoris contribute towards the freeing from venial sins, only in as far as they include the acts of penance, sorrow, love and humility by which the just obtain remission of venial sins.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I think there are three at the Masses I attend which is FSSP. 1 by the priest and 1 by the servers in the Mass of the Catechumens, and then 1 by the servers in the Mass of the Faithful before the Absolution and the “Ecce Agnus Dei” .
 
I just realized that I started this thread and never answered my own question. :o

My TLM Parish - FSSP - has the Second Confiteor (actually as has been pointed out, the Third Confiteor). I like the practice as it, along with the Dominie, non sum dignus, reminds us of our unworthiness to receive Christ in the Eucharist apart from his grace.
 
I have been to FSSP parishes where the Confiteor (3rd) is not said and I have been to FSSP parishes where the 3rd one was said.

We just returned from Canada, Vancouver, BC where the 3rd Confiteor was said by the Deacon in a Solemn High Mass for the Assumption.

Peronally, I like it. And almost always say it quietly with whomever says the 3rd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top