Tridentine Elements in the Ordinary Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicknight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicknight

Guest
Can elements from the old Tridentine mass, such as the “prayers at the foot of the alter,” and the “last gospel,” be added to the Ordinary mass? According to one blogger, the answer is “YES.” The Ordinary Form of the mass (Novus Ordo) can be tweaked to look more Extraordinary (Tridentine) by simply adding some elements not prohibited by the G.I.R.M… You’ve got to read it for yourself HERE.
 
From Redepmtionis Sacramentum (2004):

[58.] All of Christ’s faithful likewise have the right to a celebration of the Eucharist that has been so carefully prepared in all its parts that the word of God is properly and efficaciously proclaimed and explained in it; that the faculty for selecting the liturgical texts and rites is carried out with care according to the norms; and that their faith is duly safeguarded and nourished by the words that are sung in the celebration of the Liturgy.

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
…]
[79.]** Finally, it is strictly to be considered an abuse to introduce into the celebration of Holy Mass elements that are contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books** and taken from the rites of other religions.
 
we have church documents, not blogs, that govern the conduct of the Mass, and no the Mass cannot be “tweaked”.
 
At that same time, there’s nothing preventing the priest from doing his personal preparation at the foot of the altar before the entrance procession, nor preventing parish devotions after Mass (such as the proclamation of the Last Gospel).

I hear a lot of people, in defending the pruning of the E.F. in the 1960’s, that those parts of the Mass were originally done BEFORE and AFTER the Mass and weren’t parts of the actual Mass until much more recently. Well then, there’s nothing wrong with doing them BEFORE and AFTER the Mass now!
 
Aramis said:
From Redepmtionis Sacramentum (2004):

[58.] All of Christ’s faithful likewise have the right to a celebration of the Eucharist that has been so carefully prepared in all its parts that the word of God is properly and efficaciously proclaimed and explained in it; that the faculty for selecting the liturgical texts and rites is carried out with care according to the norms; and that their faith is duly safeguarded and nourished by the words that are sung in the celebration of the Liturgy.

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
…]
[79.]** Finally, it is strictly to be considered an abuse to introduce into the celebration of Holy Mass elements that are contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books** and taken from the rites of other religions.
Click to expand...
Nothing in this contradicts what I have written above.
 
puzzleannie said:
we have church documents, not blogs, that govern the conduct of the Mass, and no the Mass cannot be “tweaked”.
Click to expand...
In use of the word “tweaked” I certainly wasn’t implying that anything be changed in the OF mass. Rather, what is done before and after the mass. Nothing in what I have written above is against canon law, or could ever be considered “liturgical abuse.” Unless of course, you consider the Tridentine mass itself, along with the historic traditions of the Church, a form of “liturgical abuse.”
 
japhy said:
I hear a lot of people, in defending the pruning of the E.F. in the 1960’s, that those parts of the Mass were originally done BEFORE and AFTER the Mass and weren’t parts of the actual Mass until much more recently. Well then, there’s nothing wrong with doing them BEFORE and AFTER the Mass now!
Click to expand...
Thank you! My point exactly.
 
The prayers at the foot are specifically part of the '62 missal and thus part of the Mass under the 62 missal. Likewise the Last Gospel is in the missal as part of the mass. Therefore its absence is by design; adding it IS an abuse of the OF. If you want those, go to the EF mass.
 
As has been stated, however, those were originally private devotions of the priest for before and after Mass. It would not be inappropriate to make them such again, as long as they were not seen as part of the Mass itself.
 
I go to a parish where there are some traditional elements found in the NO. For example, the cantor often chants in Latin before an anthem is sung, bells are rung during the consecration of the Host, and the Mass propers, such as the Sanctus, are sometimes sung in Latin. Are these things ok? What is permitted in the NO, and what is not?
 
TBolt1000T said:
I go to a parish where there are some traditional elements found in the NO. For example, the cantor often chants in Latin before an anthem is sung, bells are rung during the consecration of the Host, and the Mass propers, such as the Sanctus, are sometimes sung in Latin. Are these things ok? What is permitted in the NO, and what is not?
Click to expand...
All of the things you list are completely permissible in the Novus Ordo, which was originally written in Latin. A priest may even use a high altar and “face east” if he chooses. I believe that the OP is referring to the introduction of Extraordinary Form liturgical practices, such as the Last Gospel, the alteration of prayers, Leonine prayers, and so forth. These things are not permitted, as was posted above. The same is true for priests introducing Eastern Rite practices into the Novus Ordo. However, if the Leonine prayers are prayed after Mass has ended, that would be permitted as a form of private devotion.
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
All of the things you list are completely permissible in the Novus Ordo, which was originally written in Latin. A priest may even use a high altar and “face east” if he chooses. I believe that the OP is referring to the introduction of Extraordinary Form liturgical practices, such as the Last Gospel, the alteration of prayers, Leonine prayers, and so forth. These things are not permitted, as was posted above. The same is true for priests introducing Eastern Rite practices into the Novus Ordo. However, if the Leonine prayers are prayed after Mass has ended, that would be permitted as a form of private devotion.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’m glad to hear that what my parish is doing is permitted, because I really like the way the NO is celebrated there.
 
The Ordinary Form of the mass begins with the entrance procession and ends with the dismissal. To insert the prayers at the foot of the altar during the Ordinary Form of the mass is a change from the form. That is not the order of the Ordinary Form. The reading of the last Gospel is not part of the order of the form either. Once the priest or deacon dismisses the congregation, they are to leave the sanctuary. The Roman Missal is very explicit about this. To stay for a reading of the last Gospel is a change in the order.

There is nothing wrong with the elements found in the Extraordinary Form. These particular elements are not part of the order of the Ordinary Form. That’s why it would be incorrect to introduce them, just as it would be incorrect to introduce elements from the Eastern Rite into either form of the Latin Rite.

These are not interchangeable pieces of a puzzle. Each exists in its form for a specific reason and to add or delete what is not authorized throws the celebration of any form of the liturgy off balance.

There are reports that the Congregation on the Liturgy is working on modifications to both the EF and the OF. But we’ll have to wait and see. This may take several years or several months. Rome moves on its own schedule.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂

JR 🙂
 
catholicknight said:
Can elements from the old Tridentine mass, such as the “prayers at the foot of the alter,” and the “last gospel,” be added to the Ordinary mass? According to one blogger, the answer is “YES.” The Ordinary Form of the mass (Novus Ordo) can be tweaked to look more Extraordinary (Tridentine) by simply adding some elements not prohibited by the G.I.R.M… You’ve got to read it for yourself HERE.
Click to expand...
catholicknight,
Here are my thoughts on the matter: I don’t think there’s a simple yes or no answer to the question. I think it depends on exactly what’s being done. I can think of some examples of “borrowing” from the Traditional form which would be perfectly licit–as long as they are done in a way that one is sincerely interpreting and applying the current Novus Ordo rubrics, and not going against them. To put it another way, follow the rubrics, but look to the traditional form for the precise method of doing what the current rubrics say.

As for the prayers after Mass, I believe those are fine, so long as they are done after the dismissal. I think the Last Gospel however is different because this is more of a liturgical rite than a simple prayer. Can the parish pray a decade of the Rosary after Mass? I don’t see why not, and therefore I don’t see a problem with saying the prayers after Mass either.

I see the entrance prayers as a “rite” more than a “prayer” and in my opinion, I don’t think they should be done. However, I don’t see a problem with the priest and altar boys saying these prayers privately in the sacristy before beginning the Mass, as a form of preparation. The article you referenced somewhat suggested this–but I have to take issue with it being done over the PA system.

I think that the whole issue can become very tricky, and comes down to a matter of sublety.

My personal thoughts are these:
  1. If one is following the rubrics of the Novus Ordo Mass but looking to the Traditional form for the method, that’s fine, and even to be encouraged.
  2. Prayers (personal or corporate) before and after Mass are fine, and likewise encouraged, but anything resembling a “liturgical rite” is not. *
  3. Although no one else has yet brought this up, I think that for the most part, the best option in the Novus Ordo Mass when several are given, is to use the one that most closely resembles the Traditional form (like the Penitential Rite). But don’t take that to mean that I think the other forms are illicit or even to be discouraged (although I admit that personally, I think some of the new forms should be eliminated).
  • There is certainly the possibility of other prayers or rites being done after Mass; Liturgy of the Hours, Benediction (esp. on First Fridays or Corups Christi), etc. But I think that when these are done at every parish Mass, and in such a way as to imply that they are “part of” the Mass, then that crosses the line.
Just my own thoughts.
 
FrDavid96 said:
catholicknight,
Here are my thoughts on the matter: I don’t think there’s a simple yes or no answer to the question. I think it depends on exactly what’s being done. I can think of some examples of “borrowing” from the Traditional form which would be perfectly licit–as long as they are done in a way that one is sincerely interpreting and applying the current Novus Ordo rubrics, and not going against them. To put it another way, follow the rubrics, but look to the traditional form for the precise method of doing what the current rubrics say.

As for the prayers after Mass, I believe those are fine, so long as they are done after the dismissal. I think the Last Gospel however is different because this is more of a liturgical rite than a simple prayer. Can the parish pray a decade of the Rosary after Mass? I don’t see why not, and therefore I don’t see a problem with saying the prayers after Mass either.

I see the entrance prayers as a “rite” more than a “prayer” and in my opinion, I don’t think they should be done. However, I don’t see a problem with the priest and altar boys saying these prayers privately in the sacristy before beginning the Mass, as a form of preparation. The article you referenced somewhat suggested this–but I have to take issue with it being done over the PA system.

I think that the whole issue can become very tricky, and comes down to a matter of sublety.

My personal thoughts are these:
  1. If one is following the rubrics of the Novus Ordo Mass but looking to the Traditional form for the method, that’s fine, and even to be encouraged.
  2. Prayers (personal or corporate) before and after Mass are fine, and likewise encouraged, but anything resembling a “liturgical rite” is not. *
  3. Although no one else has yet brought this up, I think that for the most part, the best option in the Novus Ordo Mass when several are given, is to use the one that most closely resembles the Traditional form (like the Penitential Rite). But don’t take that to mean that I think the other forms are illicit or even to be discouraged (although I admit that personally, I think some of the new forms should be eliminated).
  • There is certainly the possibility of other prayers or rites being done after Mass; Liturgy of the Hours, Benediction (esp. on First Fridays or Corups Christi), etc. But I think that when these are done at every parish Mass, and in such a way as to imply that they are “part of” the Mass, then that crosses the line.
Just my own thoughts.
Click to expand...
What you are saying Father, is something that I have held to for a long time and taught my students. You cannot add to the order of the mass, but you can look at the different forms for examples of precision and fidelity to the intention of the liturgical actions. In addition, there is not prescript against private or public prayer before or after the liturgy.

An example that comes to mind is from my own fraternity. We we celebrate community liturgy in the morning, we often celebrate Morning Prayer before mass. Then there is a silent period of a few minutes and the mass begins. But there is a conscious effort to ensure that the Liturgy of the Hours is not presented as part of the Liturgy of the Word at the beginning of mass. We usually follow the mass with silence, before the Office of Readings. Each event is separate and retains its identity.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
What you are saying Father, is something that I have held to for a long time and taught my students. You cannot add to the order of the mass, but you can look at the different forms for examples of precision and fidelity to the intention of the liturgical actions. In addition, there is not prescript against private or public prayer before or after the liturgy.

An example that comes to mind is from my own fraternity. We we celebrate community liturgy in the morning, we often celebrate Morning Prayer before mass. Then there is a silent period of a few minutes and the mass begins. But there is a conscious effort to ensure that the Liturgy of the Hours is not presented as part of the Liturgy of the Word at the beginning of mass. We usually follow the mass with silence, before the Office of Readings. Each event is separate and retains its identity.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
That particular one is an interresting exception. The option exists that if one of the Hours immediately preceeds the Mass, the Penitential Rite is omitted (and the Kyrie may be omitted). That’s a licit option, but I don’t quite like it (personal opinion mind you). I prefer what you described–two separate liturgical services.
 
FrDavid96 said:
That particular one is an interresting exception. The option exists that if one of the Hours immediately preceeds the Mass, the Penitential Rite is omitted (and the Kyrie may be omitted). That’s a licit option, but I don’t quite like it (personal opinion mind you). I prefer what you described–two separate liturgical services.
Click to expand...
I know that the option is there to integrate the Liturgy of the Hours into the Liturgy of the Word, prior to the readings, but our Minister does not like that option.

I agree with him for two reasons. I too prefer to show the spender of the liturgies standing alone side by side. My second reaason is that the average lay person sees these as innovation, since the average person in the pews is usually unamiliar with the Liturgy of the Hours. It can be awkward for them to follow, because as you know, you also have to drop off the reading and the prayers of petition from the Office and put the Gospel canticle in there.

I think it is awkward. It is better to keep them separate, even if they follow each other. I very much like the idea of beginning the day with the Morning Prayer to prepare us to adore the Lord throughout the day.

JR 🙂
 
catholicknight said:
Can elements from the old Tridentine mass, such as the “prayers at the foot of the alter,” and the “last gospel,” be added to the Ordinary mass? According to one blogger, the answer is “YES.” The Ordinary Form of the mass (Novus Ordo) can be tweaked to look more Extraordinary (Tridentine) by simply adding some elements not prohibited by the G.I.R.M… You’ve got to read it for yourself HERE.
Click to expand...
Adding the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to the OF would generally be redundant, as the Penitential Rite is basically the evolution of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. You’d result with the same purpose (the remission of VENIAL sins) doubled, and for no reason other than appearance.

I think that we need to be careful about playing around with either form of the Mass. It is not up to us as individuals to pick and choose anything more than what we are entitled to (such as the priest’s option of Penitential Rite, and on some days, choice of Mass, readings, etc.). Sometimes we think to ourselves that we would like things done a specific way in the OF or EF, but the Mass doesn’t belong to any one individual, and one of the reasons that it’s important not to play around with individual accretions is because it detracts from the fact that we are celebrating the Sacrifice of the Cross in union with everyone in the world, by taking away that unity.

This being said does in no way imply that one form of the Mass, Divine Liturgy, Qurbono, etc. is preferable to any other, but that these are the expressions of the Liturgy that Holy Mother Church has given us, instituted by Christ, and we do not have the authority to change any of them individually without the approval of the proper Ecclesial authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top