Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[floresco]

The theology is rather beautiful for either form of posture, but if you read the Constitution on the Liturgy, the Council wished to renew the liturgy using the form of the Eucharistic Supper of the Lord, and that required facing the congregation.

I have been going over this document trying to find something that could possibly have given you this impression and I am baffled.

I did find a passage that mentions the paschal banquet but it is within a context in which at least as much stress is on the Sacrifice:

1. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37].

1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

If we associate versus populum with supper/banquet imagery and ad orientem with the concept of sacrifice, this passage is consistent with the Church teaching that both positions are allowed. However, if anything, the concept of sacrifice is given greater emphasis. This is not indicating a preference for versus populum

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

With respect, you have misunderstood the focus of Mass. We are not there to offer prayers to Christ, we are there to offer Christ to the Father. The Tabernacle is not where we are directing our prayers. It doesn’t have to be present for a Mass to be offered, which would be the logical extension of what you say in your post.

I never stated that the tabernacle would have to be there, but rather since it is there why wouldn’t we want to face Christ; especially since we are making our petitions to the Father and offering Christ to the Father.

Also thank you for the correction. During Mass, I always looked at it as if we are petitioning God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Either way I do not see the point in having the priest face the congregation. Maybe you could explain the theological significance for it.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Sirach2]

Lk. 16:31:

If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets [or in our case, the Church], neither will they be persuaded even if someone should rise from the dead.

Floresco,

I have left the discussion, since you are programmed to resist everything I present, sweeping it under the rug, disputing the authority quoted, challenging the Notitiae source, confronting and diminishing the truth of everything I shared. One with simple faith easily believes what the Church teaches through her bishops, without demanding higher and higher authorities and proofs. How strange that you readily accept the statements of Fr. Z, but fail to listen to Cardinal Estevez speaking in the name of the Church. How easy it is to read your soul. Not even if I were to rise from the dead will you believe my words.

 

[Simpleton]

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.

I found this on EWTN and thought it was a great read.

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/TURNTABL.TXT

It would seem that versus pupulum has neither historical, traditional, or theological significance.

 

[Tridentinum]

There has been so much novelty in the history of the Church which we accept today as normal, and even celebrate as traditional.

The Franciscans were novel, as were the Dominicans. Religious orders which were not cloisterd monks were completely new at one time and there was a deep distrust of them by some, to the point where some bishops forbade them from entering their diocese.

The introduction of aristotelian philosopy and the application of reason and logic to theology was a huge innovation. Prior to the rise of the great universites in the 1100,'s, theology was monastic, based on lectio divina and beditation on scripture. Abelard introduced philosophy to theology and it was so radical that he was condemned by most of his contemporaries, but ultimately it led to the work of St. Thomas.

Charlemagne forced gregorian chant on the clerics in Europe under penalty of death.

St. Louid de Montfort’s teaching on Marian devotion was novel to the point that he was thrown out of at least one diocese.

Even Blessed Pope John Paul II’s catechesis “Theology of the Body” is novel. It is completely new. He has expanded the Church’s understanding of the human body and human sexuality in ways that the Church has not thought of.

Half of what we take for granted today was once a novelty. Many were against the novelty of personal ownership of Bibles and personal reading of scripture at one time.

-Tim-

At times throughout the Church’s history there have been novel ideas that have appeared, and slowly developed as a part of the Church’s tradition. You are correct that some things were once novelties, but the Church’s attitude towards novelty has changed. In the past the Church viewed novelty with great mistrust and suspicion, so it was very slowly that they came to be accepted and slowly became part of the Church’s tradition. After Vatican II novelties were welcomed and celebrated, which is a direct result of modernism.

 

[TrueLight]

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.

Oh I don’t know. It may not be technically correct, but it has been used a lot and most people know what it means.

Interestingly, I heard a Priest of the Institute of Christ the King use “tridentine” to refer to the TLM today.

 

[floresco]

Floresco,

I have left the discussion, since you are programmed to resist everything I present, sweeping it under the rug, disputing the authority quoted, challenging the Notitiae source, confronting and diminishing the truth of everything I shared. One with simple faith easily believes what the Church teaches through her bishops, without demanding higher and higher authorities and proofs. How strange that you readily accept the statements of Fr. Z, but fail to listen to Cardinal Estevez speaking in the name of the Church. How easy it is to read your soul. Not even if I were to rise from the dead will you believe my words.

I believe what the Church teaches. When someone claims that the Church teaches something that she does not, I have an obligation to point out the truth.

If I correctly understand the nature of what Cardinal Estevez was writing, he was not speaking in the name of the Church. None of the evidence you have presented stands up to scrutiny, None shows the Church teaching a preference for versus populum. (By the way, I quoted Fr. Z because you had earlier in the discussion, so I thought this meant you recognize his expertise.)

Throughout this discussion you have attempted to portray me as rebellious and disobedient to the Church, simply because I think you are mistaken in your understanding of her teaching. This is unjust. I obey the Church and submit with obsequium religiosum to her teaching to the extent that I understand it. While I am capable of misunderstanding, it would be inadvertent. I do my best to understand. If I do not understand Church teaching, I am eager to be corrected.

 

[floresco]

I found this on EWTN and thought it was a great read.

ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/TURNTABL.TXT

This article confirms what I said about the quote from Notitiae being non-authoritative.

While some of the things in
Notitiae have an official character, such as a decree or
clarification, an editorial has no authority other than that derived
from the strength of its arguments and ability to persuade. People
often mistake opinion for authority, especially in the liturgy

 

[TrueLight]

Incidentally, I attended an OF mass at a Carmelite monastery today which was celebrated mostly in Latin, Ad Orientem and communion was on the tongue.

It was quite nice actually.

I believe the bulk of the issues that some parishes have would disappear if the mass was celebrated mostly in Latin.

 

[submariner9]

I’m trying to transition to traditional Catholicism, but not because I feel the Novus Ordo​

1. The Original Language of The Church at Rome was Greek Not Latin -

 

[TimothyH]

At times throughout the Church’s history there have been novel ideas that have appeared, and slowly developed as a part of the Church’s tradition. You are correct that some things were once novelties, but the Church’s attitude towards novelty has changed. In the past the Church viewed novelty with great mistrust and suspicion, so it was very slowly that they came to be accepted and slowly became part of the Church’s tradition. After Vatican II novelties were welcomed and celebrated, which is a direct result of modernism.

The instroduction of the Franciscans took only 22 years.

St. Francis stripped off his clothes and walked off alone to minister to the poor in 1206. Francis wrote his rule three years later in 1209 and Pope Innocent III approved it in 1210. St. Francis died sixteen years later in 1226 with thousands of friars all over Europe including many clergy and university faculty. St. Francis was cannonized a saint less than two years after his death.

That’s 22 years total, from stripping off his clothes to being made a saint and from consecrated religious only in cloistered monasteries to active religious living and working with the laity.

22 years is light speed for the Church. Many thought it was some form of modernism, but now there are 1.7 million Franciscans.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Incidentally, I attended an OF mass at a Carmelite monastery today which was celebrated mostly in Latin, Ad Orientem and communion was on the tongue.

It was quite nice actually.

I believe the bulk of the issues that some parishes have would disappear if the mass was celebrated mostly in Latin.

What issues?

And how would these issues be addressed by Latin in a way that they are not addressed by English?

I have to be honest, I’m struggling righ now with near rage at my daughter, and am trying not to come off as too argumentitive, but fear that it is impossible for me not to do so at this moment.

I am sincerely curious however, and hope you don’t read anything into my tone.

What issues you have in mind and how would they dissapear if the Mass were changed from English to mostly Latin?

-Tim-

 

[Tridentinum]

Oh I don’t know. It may not be technically correct, but it has been used a lot and most people know what it means.

Interestingly, I heard a Priest of the Institute of Christ the King use “tridentine” to refer to the TLM today.

No trads or trad priests that I know call it the ‘Extra-ordinary Form’… a lot of them poke fun at the name as sounding eccentric.

Pom accent Oh yes my dear, I went to the Extra-ORDINARY form of Mass this morning. Now how’s that tea coming along?

 

[TrueLight]

No trads or trad priests that I know call it the ‘Extra-ordinary Form’… a lot of them poke fun at the name as sounding eccentric.

Pom accent Oh yes my dear, I went to the Extra-ORDINARY form of Mass this morning. Now how’s that tea coming along?

Yes.

 

[Hypnotoad]

The instroduction of the Franciscans took only 22 years.

St. Francis stripped off his clothes and walked off alone to minister to the poor in 1206. Francis wrote his rule three years later in 1209 and Pope Innocent III approved it in 1210. St. Francis died sixteen years later in 1226 with thousands of friars all over Europe including many clergy and university faculty. St. Francis was cannonized a saint less than two years after his death.

That’s 22 years total, from stripping off his clothes to being made a saint and from consecrated religious only in cloistered monasteries to active religious living and working with the laity.

22 years is light speed for the Church. Many thought it was some form of modernism, but now there are 1.7 million Franciscans.

-Tim-

I don’t think this example helps your argument since Saint Francis wasn’t trying to reform the entire liturgy and set norms for the entire Latin Rite. I’m sure if his purpose was to reform the liturgy for the entire Latin Rite it would take more than 22 years.

 

[TrueLight]

What issues?

And how would these issues be addressed by Latin in a way that they are not addressed by English?

I have to be honest, I’m struggling righ now with near rage at my daughter, and am trying not to come off as too argumentitive, but fear that it is impossible for me not to do so at this moment.

I am sincerely curious however, and hope you don’t read anything into my tone.

What issues you have in mind and how would they dissapear if the Mass were changed from English to mostly Latin?

-Tim-

I know this is not a fair answer, but I’d rather leave it at that for now – for certain reasons.

 

[Hypnotoad]

What issues?

And how would these issues be addressed by Latin in a way that they are not addressed by English?
-Tim-

I personally never thought the language of the Liturgy should be changed to the venacular. I believe it takes away from the beauty of the Latin Rite and the unity it held. Plus lets not forget the Liturgy also had Greek and Hebrew and when we have all three languages in the Liturgy it calls our minds to Calvary where on the Cross above Christ Pilate put a sign written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew that said: Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think this example helps your argument since Saint Francis wasn’t trying to reform the entire liturgy and set norms for the entire Latin Rite. I’m sure if his purpose was to reform the liturgy for the entire Latin Rite it would take more than 22 years.

Many liturgies and norms have been instituted virtually overnight by a stroke of the Holy Father’s pen. Summorum Pontificum itself is exactly one of those changes.

The Tridentine Mass itself was imposed on the whole Roman rite almost overnight. Pope St. Pius V signed the Papal bull Quo Primum on 14 July 1570 and it was done.

The Liturgy of the Hours was totally revamped many times, including a major overhaul in 1910 by decree of Pope Pius X.

This idea that development in the church was always slow and methodical, meditated upon for many decades and centuries, and guided by the Holy Spirit at the speed of continental drift simply isn’t correct. There have been many changes in the Church to many aspects of the way the Church functions and worships and studies God which were rapid, and even violent.

Traditionalists generally didn’t complain when restoration of the Ordinary Form was imposed upon the entire english speaking world at the stroke of midnight last advent, and they celebrated when the Tridentine Mass was restored with the stroke of a pen on July 7, 2007.

I don’t see many people complaining about the restoration of the permanent diaconate. It has been only 45 years since its restoration after ten centures of disuse and now there are close to 40,000 deacons in the Church. That’s a pretty rapid change. Nobody complains that the Church needs to slow down when they want their baby baptized or need a rosary blessed

Again, I don’t know where this idea came from that rapid change is automatically bad because it is rapid. The argument seems to me to be used selectively.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I know this is not a fair answer, but I’d rather leave it at that for now – for certain reasons.

No, that really isn’t fair. Its not at all.

I’ll ask it again, what issues would be corrected by changing from English to Latin.

And now I’ll push you… what power does Latin have that English does not?

-Tim-

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Many liturgies and norms have been instituted virtually overnight by a stroke of the Holy Father’s pen. Summorum Pontificum itself is exactly one of those changes.

The Tridentine Mass itself was imposed on the whole Roman rite almost overnight. Pope St. Pius V signed the Papal bull Quo Primum on 14 July 1570 and it was done.

The Liturgy of the Hours was totally revamped many times, including a major overhaul in 1910 by decree of Pope Pius X.

This idea that development in the church was always slow and methodical, meditated upon for many decades and centuries, and guided by the Holy Spirit at the speed of continental drift simply isn’t correct. There have been many changes in the Church to many aspects of the way the Church functions and worships and studies God which were rapid, and even violent.

Traditionalists generally didn’t complain when restoration of the Ordinary Form was imposed upon the entire english speaking world at the stroke of midnight last advent, and they celebrated when the Tridentine Mass was restored with the stroke of a pen on July 7, 2007.

I don’t see many people complaining about the restoration of the permanent diaconate. It has been only 45 years since its restoration after ten centures of disuse and now there are close to 40,000 deacons in the Church. That’s a pretty rapid change. Nobody complains that the Church needs to slow down when they want their baby baptized or need a rosary blessed

Again, I don’t know where this idea came from that rapid change is automatically bad because it is rapid. The argument seems to me to be used selectively.

-Tim-

I don’t think anyone could deny changes are made to the Liturgy; however, you have not shown where in the history of the Church there is been such a rapid reform and revamp of the entire Liturgy, like there was after VCII. Furthermore the stroke of the Papal pen on July 7th wasn’t to restore the 1962 Mass but rather to tell the faithful that it was never supposed to be done away with in the first place and that its practice then and now, was and is completely legitimate.