Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[Deus_lo_vult]

I’m trying to transition to traditional Catholicism, but not because I feel the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate celebration. I just feel that most American bishops have taken liberties with the Novus Ordo to the point that in many dioceses it doesn’t even resemble the recommendations of Vatican II.

For instance, what happened to the priest facing the altar? That wasn’t set aside by Vatican II. Why do people hold up their hands during the Our Father? In the Latin Mass only the priest may use this posture because he alone acts in persona Christi. Silence is also strictly maintained in the Latin Mass; people truly feel as though they are in the presence of God. Conversely, during the Novus Ordo, why do people hold side conversations in the Narthex (even the ushers), while they’re standing within feet of me? I have to plug one of my ears because the talking gets so loud I can’t hear the Scripture readings or the homily.

Anyway, that concludes my rant. To get my feet wet, I decided I would try the Roman Breviary for the remainder of Lent, just to acclimate myself with praying and chanting in Latin. I use site called Divinum Officium because it’s so hard to get a hard copy of the Roman Breviary in the US, let alone at an affordable price.

My only problem is that I’d like to recite the Office as faithfully and authentically as possible but I don’t know the first thing about chanting or singing Latin hymns or Psalms. I have NO musical talent and NO background in music. Anyone who can give me some pointers on chanting the Psalms/hymns, or about the Roman Breviary in general, I would greatly appreciate it.

Secondly, my formal wear is rather modest and I can’t afford terribly nice clothing.

Thoughts?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

First, you’re making a good move. Your concerns about the liberties taken are absolutely right. Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes some points about this. There was an article in a post here on CAF somewhere in the Traditional Catholicism section if you want to look it up.

I can’t give much advice on using the breviary. The way I learned was just to attend the TLM and, well, immerse myself in it. Pay attention, listen closely, and so on. After that I started using a missal, too. But at the TLM you don’t need to be chanting or singing unless you’re in the choir, so it doesn’t really have to be a concern of yours on whether or not you know how to do so. In regards to learning, though, I find the best method for me (and I’m a musician) is to just listen while following notes (I don’t read chant notation well) and I can then pick it up.

As for clothing, wear what you can. There are stories of people being criticized for not dressing well, but I think those are actually quite rare. I would recommend, of course, trying to look nice at Mass whether it’s the TLM or not. I don’t wear suits though. Nice shirts and no jeans.

 

[MarkThompson]

My only problem is that I’d like to recite the Office as faithfully and authentically as possible but I don’t know the first thing about chanting or singing Latin hymns or Psalms. I have NO musical talent and NO background in music. Anyone who can give me some pointers on chanting the Psalms/hymns, or about the Roman Breviary in general, I would greatly appreciate it.

Don’t worry about all that, it is not really traditional for laymen to recite the Office in Latin, nor is it traditional for anybody, clergy or lay, to try to sing the Office by themselves. If you wanted to give it a try anyway, go here and download the books called Liber Usualis (1961) and Antiphonarium (1923). Read the introductions in the Liber Usualis and see if that gives you a start. I have to say, though, if you really have zero musical ability, it’s probably not possible to teach yourself just by reading online forums. Try and find a local group that recites the Office, or parts of it, and see if they will let you attend and answer some of your questions.

Secondly, my formal wear is rather modest and I can’t afford terribly nice clothing.

Thoughts?

Well, take some time and save up. It’s important to give God your best!

 

[TrueLight]

Check out this chanting of Compline by the Benedictines.

You can follow the Sunday Compline in Divinum Officium. There may be a couple of psalms different here or there or a couple of Saints, but it should be pretty similar to what you find in Divinum Officum.

I sometimes pray along with it.

 

[Exsilivm]

Don’t worry about all that, it is not really traditional for laymen to recite the Office in Latin …,

Would a suggestion to use a Latin version of the Little Office of the BVM be out of place? It has some nice anthems that can be sung solo, and is a traditional devotion of the laity.

 

[floresco]

Would a suggestion to use a Latin version of the Little Office of the BVM be out of place? It has some nice anthems that can be sung solo, and is a traditional devotion of the laity.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It is very easy to obtain the Baronius edition (parallel English/Latin) and it is quite affordable. Even if one later transitions to the Divine Office, this is a great way to ease into it.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

I’m trying to transition to traditional Catholicism, but not because I feel the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate celebration. I just feel that most American bishops have taken liberties with the Novus Ordo to the point that in many dioceses it doesn’t even resemble the recommendations of Vatican II.

You chastise most of the American bishops from Vatican II till now? I can only imagine how many bishops are subject to your scorn.

For instance, what happened to the priest facing the altar? That wasn’t set aside by Vatican II.

Celebrating vox populi is allowed, isn’t it?

Why do people hold up their hands during the Our Father? In the Latin Mass only the priest may use this posture because he alone acts in persona Christi.

You blame the bishops for this?

Silence is also strictly maintained in the Latin Mass; people truly feel as though they are in the presence of God. Conversely, during the Novus Ordo, why do people hold side conversations in the Narthex (even the ushers), while they’re standing within feet of me? I have to plug one of my ears because the talking gets so loud I can’t hear the Scripture readings or the homily.

How are the bishops responsible for this?

My only problem is that I’d like to recite the Office as faithfully and authentically as possible but I don’t know the first thing about chanting or singing Latin hymns or Psalms. I have NO musical talent and NO background in music. Anyone who can give me some pointers on chanting the Psalms/hymns, or about the Roman Breviary in general, I would greatly appreciate it.

As mentioned, you don’t need to chant the Office when alone. But you could chant it recto tono (which means to chant it on a single note). Or you could see if you have a schola cantorum at one of your nearby parishes. In your current situation, your best bet would be reciting it, which is still a faithful and authentic way to pray the Office.

 

[Tridentinum]

You chastise most of the American bishops from Vatican II till now? I can only imagine how many bishops are subject to your scorn.

You can’t deny the obvious. Countless novelties have been allowed by the Bishops.

Celebrating vox populi is allowed, isn’t it?

Does allowed necessarily mean it’s a good thing? It’s a novelty.

 

[Sirach2]

For instance, what happened to the priest facing the altar? That wasn’t set aside by Vatican II.

**

Celebrating vox populi

** is allowed, isn’t it?Does allowed necessarily mean it’s a good thing? It’s a novelty.

Misinformation creates a lot of undue consternation. We have good resources that correct our misgivings and put our minds at rest with regard to changes that seem to be out of sync with our concept of what is theologically sound. Let’s trust the Church and allow Her to lead us into ‘restful waters’ of acceptance.

The G.I.R.M. states in article 299,

“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.”

True, this was not set forth in Vatican II, but it is in the official Roman Missal rubrics for celebration of the liturgy. These are not innovations of our bishops. Nevertheless, the Vatican responded to a question as to whether or not this was “etched in stone” so to speak, and the reply is noted in this protocol. [Sorry to be so lengthly, but it helps to have all the data in one place, if anyone wishes to be solidly informed.]

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.
**(Cf. the editorial in *Notitiae ***29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.”

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community.

These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition.
Source: adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

The reference to the Notitiae has excellent information as well, especially these points:

1. The option for celebrations is coherent with the foundational theological idea discovered and proven by the liturgical movement: “Liturgical actions are celebrations of the Church. . .which is the holy people of God gathered and ordered under the bishops” (SC 26). The theology of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, “distinct in essence, and not in degree” (<essentia, non gradu>) and nevertheless ordered to each other (LG 10) is certainly better expressed with the arrangement of the . “
2. (4.) It is proper to explain clearly that the expression “celebrate facing the people” does not have a theological sense, but only a topographical-positional sense. Every celebration of the Eucharist is praise and glory of God, for our good and the good of all the Church …]

Theologically, therefore, the Mass is always facing towards God and facing the people. In the form of celebration it is necessary to take care not to switch theology and topography around, above all when the priest is at the altar. The priest speaks to the people only in the dialogue from the altar. All the rest is prayer to the Father, through the mediation of Christ in the Holy Spirit. **This theology must be visible. **

(5.) At last, a conjectural consideration that is not to be left in silence. [Forty] years have passed since the constitution . “Provisional arrangements” cannot be justified any longer. In the re-organization of the sanctuary, **if a provisional character is maintained which is either pedagogically or artistically badly resolved, then an element of distortion results for catechesis and for the very theology of the celebration. **Some criticisms of certain celebrations that are raised are well-founded and can only be taken with seriousness. The effort to improve celebrations is one of the basic elements to assure, in so far as it depends on us, an active and fruitful participation.

 

[Cat]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as the “Tridentine Rite.” I thought that it is the Latin Rite, and that there are two forms of this rite–the Extraordinary (Latin, pre-Vatican II) and the Ordinary (vernacular, post Vatican II).

Yes, I realize that it’s just semantics (language), but when it comes to our faith, it is important to have a proper understanding of the facts.

If indeed the OP is incorrect in the semantics, perhaps the OP should consider the possibility that they are mistaken about other things. Perhaps some deeper study and more inquiries would be appropriate.

 

[patrick457]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as the “Tridentine Rite.” I thought that it is the Latin Rite, and that there are two forms of this rite–the Extraordinary (Latin, pre-Vatican II) and the Ordinary (vernacular, post Vatican II).

To be more specific, it is the Roman Rite of the Latin (Western) Church.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Thanks, Sirach2 for the spot on information.

Oh, and I noticed that I typed vox populi!

 

[Sirach2]

I’m glad you found this helpful, Splagchnizomai. As for “vox populi,” I knew what you meant. These latin words can cause many of us to stumble on occasion.

I was going to add a footnote in that post, but when I finished editing, I had exceeded the allotted word count. Maybe it would be good to make the comment now.

We’ve all seen complaints such as, “But Vatican II didn’t say that. etc., etc.” True, but in their document, Constitution on the Liturgy, we find the 2600 councillors voting in agreement that,

Section III. 26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity”, namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.
.
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and actual participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

This was the direction of the Council, first and foremost to encourage active participation as the right of everyone gathered in community to worship God as His holy united people. Too many of us remember the olden days of the “God and me” private individual worship that some people are still loathe to relinquish. Catechesis takes time, and loving hearts that patiently try to correct misinformation.

To implement the desires of the Council, there was a firm directive given to form a Committee to begin the necessary task of renewal. Here is the resulting document.

Inter oecumenici
Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

In conclusion, we can agree with those who argue that Vatican II did not specifically mandate certain changes, per se, but they nevertheless authorized the work. Indirectly, their collaboration in Council set forth the movement to bring forth many of today’s changes in liturgy, for the reasons set forth above.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Sirach-
Thanks so much for the above link!!

 

[MarkThompson]

Would a suggestion to use a Latin version of the Little Office of the BVM be out of place? It has some nice anthems that can be sung solo, and is a traditional devotion of the laity.

I’ve never used the Little Office, but my understanding is that it’s substantially more accessible, yes.

 

[floresco]

The reference to the Notitiae has excellent information as well, especially these points:

Notitiae, subtitled Commentarii ad nuntia de re liturgica edenda, is the official monthly journal of the Vatican dicastery Congregatio de Cultu Divino. Beginning in 1965, It has published all of the Holy See’s official documents along with commentary, scholarship, new liturgical texts, reports of meetings, responses to dubia, and the speeches of the Pope on all matters having to do with the liturgy of the Roman rite

(from wikipedia)

The quote cited here seems to be from commentary on an official text rather than an official text. I do not think it is authoritative.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco,

I don’t understand why you seemingly object to the reference, which you claim is not authoritative. You may want to read my post a bit more closely, please. The authority is the Vatican who made reference to this particular Notitiae in their Protocol. I quote:
**(Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.”

Given the particular citation of the document number with its specific pages, I cannot agree with you. Did you realize that this was translated for our benefit by Fr. Zulsdorf from the Italian to English? If you read the editorial at his blog, it is identical to what EWTN’s website has printed. wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/praying-ad-orientem-versus/

Bottom line, do you disagree with the concept being presented?

 

[floresco]

Floresco,

I don’t understand why you seemingly object to the reference, which you claim is not authoritative. You may want to read my post a bit more closely, please. The authority is the Vatican who made reference to this particular Notitiae in their Protocol. I quote:
**(Cf. the editorial in *Notitiae ***29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.”

Given the particular citation of the document number with its specific pages, I cannot agree with you. Did you realize that this was translated for our benefit by Fr. Zulsdorf from the Italian to English? If you read the editorial at his blog, it is identical to what EWTN’s website has printed. wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/praying-ad-orientem-versus/

Bottom line, do you disagree with the concept being presented?

Your post could give its readers the wrong impression. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf has pointed out, GIRM 229 is translated into English in a misleading way that sounds like versus populum should be used whenever possible, when the Latin does not really say that.

By combining a quote of GIRM 229 with the non-authoritative editorial from Notitiae you may give the impression that the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred. If that is what you are trying to say then I disagree with your understanding of Church teaching.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

By combining a quote of GIRM 229 with the** non-authoritative editorial from Notitiae** you may give the impression that the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred.

Let’s try a third time. Please read my post again. Are you aware that the Protocol explaining #299 is from the Vatican, who in fact referenced the Notitiae in their official response? It was not my quote, friend. If you want to pick nits, you need to contact the author, Jorge Arturo Cardinal Medina Estévez, Cardinal Prefect. I merely presented this church teaching for the benefit of those who truly want to learn.

Are you aware that I am fully cognizant of the GIRM #299’s content? Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum? [As was stated in the *Notitiae the Cardinal specifically made reference to]

Bottom line, do you disagree with the concept as the Church presented it?

 

[floresco]

Let’s try a third time. Please read my post again. Are you aware that the Protocol explaining #299 is from the Vatican, who in fact referenced the Notitiae in their official response? It was not my quote, friend. If you want to pick nits, you need to contact the author, Jorge Arturo Cardinal Medina Estévez, Cardinal Prefect. I merely presented this church teaching for the benefit of those who truly want to learn.

Are you aware that I am fully cognizant of the GIRM #299’s content? Are you aware that, while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum? [As was stated in the *Notitiae

the Cardinal specifically made reference to]

Bottom line, do you disagree with the concept as the Church presented it?

I have read through your post several times. I think that you have not correctly understood what the Church is teaching about this. The material you quote does not show that the Church teaches that versus populum is the preferred orientation. I do accept what the Church actually teaches, of course. I am very willing to be corrected if I am mistaken in my understanding.