Tridentine Latin Mass, Missing Responses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arimor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arimor

Guest
Hello everyone,

I’ve been attending the Solemn Traditional Tridentine Latin Mass of the Extraordinary Form for a few months now.

I initially bought one of those small “The Order of Mass in Latin & English” booklets to help me follow the mass, however I found it to be unsuitable for the Tridentine Mass.

I then bought another booklet “The Extraordinary Form of the Mass”, which I thought would do the trick, and it does, to an extent, however, there is no mention of two particular responses which are always said during Mass. I’ve scoured the internet to try an find out what these two responses are so I can add them to my book, but to no avail.

I therefore decided to record them during today’s Mass to see if I could decipher what was being sung/recited.

The 1st response is said during the consecration: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q4w7UBYEo8ndxiXT7WZ0wDBdQHWTgnR6

The 2nd response is said after the Our Father: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1g3zJ-Av23L_m6yp-31XG71_vQbeorrZk

If any kind soul could transcribe these two responses for me, I’d be extremely grateful.

Many thanks.
 
I’ve been going to the traditional Latin Mass for a while now, and none of the two seem familiar to the Tridentine Mass. Are you sure this is not a Latin Mass of Paul VI?
Because then my guesses would be that 1 is this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And that 2 is the doxology following the our father:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
But again, my Latin is not great and I’ve never made any of these responses for the extraordinary form.
 
Edit: Father has confirmed my suspicions, this, my second post is not relevant.
(Alternatively here are the corresponding points in the Tridentine Mass, but as you can see it’s the celebrants text, not that of the Altar Boy (who’s part you say in a responsory mass))
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I can confirm what @themortenbay says. These responses are to the Mysterium Fidei and the Pater Noster, and only occur in the Ordinary Form.

The former is:

V: Mysterium Fidei
R: Mortem tuam annuntiamus Domine, et tuam Resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.

The latter:

V: …adventum salvatorem nostrum Iesum Christum.
R: Quia tuum est Regnum, et Potestas, et Gloria in saecula.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
Those response are not in my 1962 Missal, and are not made in our Tridentine Latin Mass. I only know them from the Novus Ordo Mass.
 
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for going to the trouble of researching and answering my question, it’s very much appreciated.

I was under the impression the Mass I’ve been attending was the Tridentine Mass, however I’ve just checked and it’s described as a ‘Solemn Latin Mass’, although I would say the service is very Tridentine-like. I think this is where the confusion arose.

Thank you once again for all your help.

God bless.
 
I too respond in Latin, when I can, when I am assisting at an OF Mass.
I have been fortunate lately. For the last three Sundays in a row friends have been able to give me a ride to an EF Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
I have no idea about what celebrating Mass is like at Arimor’s Latin Mass, but I’m guessing it is more reverent than the OF Masses I usually have to assist at.
We lost so very much with the introduction of the new “manufactured” Mass as Pope Benedict XI called it.
Dominus vobiscum!
+JMJ
  • Reg
 
I couldn’t make it to the Tridentine Mass today. Muddled through the Protestant-ish hymns and the post-Mass chatter. At least the homily was interesting; the priest talked about the great Church councils.
Said the after-Mass prayers in my nice quiet car. 😂
 
Last edited:
Always saddens me that people denigrate a Mass because it wasn’t to their preference yet it was good enough for Jesus to show up to…
 
1 billion Catholics, including the Holy Father, disagree with that sentiment.
 
That’s okay. I’m not sure you’re right, but so long as you don’t see my statement as a lack of endorsement of the newer missal or a dissent from the teachings of the Holy Father, I’m fine 🤔😉
 
TheMortenBay said:
I can’t see any way the Mass was improved by Bugnini.
Click to expand...
I can. Vastly, IMHO. If done correctly, as at my abbey, any number of Benedictine communities, and a surprising number of parishes. One parish in particular, our Gregorian schola’s home base. Excellent orthodox priest who chanted his parts of the Mass. Alas, he was promoted to bishop! It’s still a very dynamic parish where even Saturday evening Mass is full. And the satellite church built 1988 in a new part of town, is vibrant and packed with young families even at Saturday evening Mass. It gives hope in a province that is otherwise a wasteland. Across town are huge beautiful old churches that struggle to round up 50 people for Mass.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
1 billion Catholics, including the Holy Father, disagree with that sentiment.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking someone should survey every single Catholic on earth and get their private honest opinion on the matter. I’m glad to see that you have already done that! Will you add me to your contact list for the next one though? I didn’t get my survey…

Why are so many people on this forum so hostile to any praise of the Extraordinary Form? He didn’t say the new mass wasn’t valid or licit. He said HE doesn’t see it as being better. That is called an opinion. Why is your opinion more valid than his?
 
CCHcolonel said:
It’s the dismissive, rude, condescending, and trash talking of the ordinary form people have a problem with.
Click to expand...
I think that goes both ways, honestly. Certainly feels that way to this trad…
OraLabora said:
I can. Vastly, IMHO. If done correctly
Click to expand...
I didn’t see anything about what you vastly prefer in your post. What works better for you in the Ordinary Form? I’m genuinely interested in your opinion, I don’t want to come off as rude. 😉🤔
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
I didn’t see anything about what you vastly prefer in your post. What works better for you in the Ordinary Form? I’m genuinely interested in your opinion, I don’t want to come off as rude.
Click to expand...
No problem! You aren’t being rude it’s a valid question.

Our abbot gave a good talk to us at an oblate meeting a few years ago, on why the reforms were needed. My memory is a bit rusty, but from the point of view of clergy, the point was that the celebrant got caught up in so much minutiae, that he would not actually be praying the Mass, but always worrying about the details.

I have a 1935 Ceremonial from Paris and it is easy to understand why when perusing it. The number of swings of incense was precisely prescribed in detail, as well as the pattern and over which part of the altar; how to hold fingers together in minute detail; the several degrees of bow for each situation (full, medium, mediocre…), just to name a few. The entire Mass was like that with a whole chapter dedicated to “common mistakes”, some things as minor as “during the Epistle, the hands must touch the book and not simply rest on the altar”, or “Prior to the Munda cor meum some priests forget to raise their eyes, only make a mediocre bow during this prayer, or sometimes place joined hands on the altar”.

In short, it was absolutely ridiculous and a total distraction from the notion of actually praying the Mass.

From the point of view of the laity, I much prefer being an active participant than a passive participant or spectator; I prefer the three year cycle of readings, I love the Gospel of Mark and the greater use OT readings; I think that greater use of the vernacular was necessary especially as the Church disperses out from Europe further and further towards the peripheries of evangelization (but I am not against some Latin in the Mass, such as at our abbey where the Propers and Ordinary are in Latin/Greek with the rest in French plainchant); the simpler liturgical year. Just to name a few.

And as it is also part of the Liturgy which, with the Mass forms the united prayer of the Church, the Liturgy of the Hours has been a huge gift to the faithful. A breviary available in the vernacular and which is digestible for the laity (and busy diocesan clergy); for those who want more there are ways to “monasticize” it, for example putting the Office of Readings onto a two-week cycle of psalmody and using it as monastic Vigils, using the Gradual psalms at the two other minor hours; using psalms 4, 90 and 133 at Compline every night. In other words it has built-in flexibility.

The goal of the reforms was to give the Mass (and entire liturgy) a noble simplicity and IMHO that has been an overwhelming success. Sometimes sloppiness or deviating from the rubrics too much reduces the “noble” part, but that also happened before the Council when the E in “EF” meant “exclusive”. It isn’t a fault of the reforms and nor was it the fault of the liturgy before the reforms.
 
And criticizing some of the music, or the irreverent behavior of some parishioners, is totally fine where the music is Protestant pop and the behavior is inappropriate.
 
Thank you for your post. That was actually very helpful and explains problems people have with the EF. The “it changed get over it” attitude and responses are certainly not helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top