Tridentine Mass.

[FrancisB]

I think you should read this and read it very carefully lest you continue to believe and propagate false information. ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm

I have read it. Reading it, even accepting the discipline of it doesn’t actually change the past. Looking back at the use of the older missal, from the time of Bl. John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei and before makes it clear that Pope Benedict was rewriting history to a certain extent. He changed the force of the 1970 missal through Summorum Pontificum. If the previous missal had not been abrogated in 1970, Ecclesia Dei would make no sense, since it was a pastoral response to the disobedience of some groups that refused to stop using the older Roman Rite. I won’t deny the fact that Benedict had the right to do this, but don’t tell me that during the period between 1970 and 2007 that the 1963 missal wasn’t first abrogated and then later restored under special conditions set forth by Bl. John Paul II.

I understand the need for our Holy Father to do what he did and to make it seem like this had always been the case. He is trying to heal the rifts within the church that were caused to some extent by the 1970 missal. If the entire ordinary/extraordinary form doesn’t strike you as a bit of logical gymnastics, though, I don’t think you understand how this has worked in the past: the idea was that there was one Roman Rite. When the rite was updated, as it was every decade or so with the inclusion of new saints, and so forth, the new version replaced the old. That is why the 1963 missal is the one that was approved for use: it was the last one before Vatican II. If the 1963 missal hadn’t replaced the missals before it, then there would be no need to call the 1963 missal the “Extraordinary Form”. There would just be an understanding that any previous version of the Roman Rite could be used. This is not what happened. In effect, by treating the missal of 1970 differently than those that had come before it, Benedict XVI acknowledged that the 1970 missal was of a different substance as those things that had come before it.

Looking at this from an historical perspective, the 1970 missal did abrogate the 1963 missal. It is just that the Holy Father un-abrogated the 1963 missal later on. I’m quite certain, however, that from 1970-1988, using the 1963 missal was just a sign of disobedience, and from 1988-2007 doing so without proper approval was equally a sign of disobedience. At least that is how the people doing so were treated.

You do understand that while the Holy Father can change the view of the church regarding the use of previous missals, he cannot actually change the past, right?

 

[ProVobis]

The reason for this is obvious: it was–at least in name–the same mass. There should never have been two missals for the same mass. The entire idea is ludicrous.

The solution seems too simple: If you’re just looking at the Latin texts, add enough options and make enough adjustments in both forms and you’ll have one missal. Don’t cut anything out; just make certain things optional. The order is pretty much the same the way in both forms now: Confiteor, Introit, Kyrie, Collect, Readings, Gospel, Creed, Offertory, etc. It’s not like options would be a new thing in the Mass. For example, if a parish wants to use Psalm 42 at the beginning of Mass, let them I say.

But the Church has many rites and missals, some which have a different order. Why pick on the Latin Rite?

 

[TrueLight]

I have read it. Reading it, even accepting the discipline of it doesn’t actually change the past. Looking back at the use of the older missal, from the time of Bl. John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei and before makes it clear that Pope Benedict was rewriting history to a certain extent. He changed the force of the 1970 missal through Summorum Pontificum. If the previous missal had not been abrogated in 1970, Ecclesia Dei would make no sense, since it was a pastoral response to the disobedience of some groups that refused to stop using the older Roman Rite. I won’t deny the fact that Benedict had the right to do this, but don’t tell me that during the period between 1970 and 2007 that the 1963 missal wasn’t first abrogated and then later restored under special conditions set forth by Bl. John Paul II.

I understand the need for our Holy Father to do what he did and to make it seem like this had always been the case. He is trying to heal the rifts within the church that were caused to some extent by the 1970 missal. If the entire ordinary/extraordinary form doesn’t strike you as a bit of logical gymnastics, though, I don’t think you understand how this has worked in the past: the idea was that there was one Roman Rite. When the rite was updated, as it was every decade or so with the inclusion of new saints, and so forth, the new version replaced the old. That is why the 1963 missal is the one that was approved for use: it was the last one before Vatican II. If the 1963 missal hadn’t replaced the missals before it, then there would be no need to call the 1963 missal the “Extraordinary Form”. There would just be an understanding that any previous version of the Roman Rite could be used. This is not what happened. In effect, by treating the missal of 1970 differently than those that had come before it, Benedict XVI acknowledged that the 1970 missal was of a different substance as those things that had come before it.

Looking at this from an historical perspective, the 1970 missal did abrogate the 1963 missal. It is just that the Holy Father un-abrogated the 1963 missal later on. I’m quite certain, however, that from 1970-1988, using the 1963 missal was just a sign of disobedience, and from 1988-2007 doing so without proper approval was equally a sign of disobedience. At least that is how the people doing so were treated.

You do understand that while the Holy Father can change the view of the church regarding the use of previous missals, he cannot actually change the past, right?

You mean the 1962 missal?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I have read it. Reading it, even accepting the discipline of it doesn’t actually change the past. Looking back at the use of the older missal, from the time of Bl. John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei and before makes it clear that Pope Benedict was rewriting history to a certain extent. He changed the force of the 1970 missal through Summorum Pontificum. If the previous missal had not been abrogated in 1970, Ecclesia Dei would make no sense, since it was a pastoral response to the disobedience of some groups that refused to stop using the older Roman Rite. I won’t deny the fact that Benedict had the right to do this, but don’t tell me that during the period between 1970 and 2007 that the 1963 missal wasn’t first abrogated and then later restored under special conditions set forth by Bl. John Paul II.

I understand the need for our Holy Father to do what he did and to make it seem like this had always been the case. He is trying to heal the rifts within the church that were caused to some extent by the 1970 missal. If the entire ordinary/extraordinary form doesn’t strike you as a bit of logical gymnastics, though, I don’t think you understand how this has worked in the past: the idea was that there was one Roman Rite. When the rite was updated, as it was every decade or so with the inclusion of new saints, and so forth, the new version replaced the old. That is why the 1963 missal is the one that was approved for use: it was the last one before Vatican II. If the 1963 missal hadn’t replaced the missals before it, then there would be no need to call the 1963 missal the “Extraordinary Form”. There would just be an understanding that any previous version of the Roman Rite could be used. This is not what happened. In effect, by treating the missal of 1970 differently than those that had come before it, Benedict XVI acknowledged that the 1970 missal was of a different substance as those things that had come before it.

Looking at this from an historical perspective, the 1970 missal did abrogate the 1963 missal. It is just that the Holy Father un-abrogated the 1963 missal later on. I’m quite certain, however, that from 1970-1988, using the 1963 missal was just a sign of disobedience, and from 1988-2007 doing so without proper approval was equally a sign of disobedience. At least that is how the people doing so were treated.

You do understand that while the Holy Father can change the view of the church regarding the use of previous missals, he cannot actually change the past, right?

I guess the Pope should have consulted you first! When the Holy Father says the 1963 Missal was never abrogated he means exactly that, he is not is error nor does he misunderstand the Liturgical history of his Church.

 

[TrueLight]

I guess the Pope should have consulted you first! When the Holy Father says the 1963 Missal was never abrogated he means exactly that, he is not is error nor does he misunderstand the Liturgical history of his Church.

It might not have been technically abrogated, but wouldn’t you way it was just a wee bit difficult to have a traditional Latin mass? The point is people acted like it was.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It might not have been technically abrogated, but wouldn’t you way it was just a wee bit difficult to have a traditional Latin mass? The point is people acted like it was.

And not only that, but commonly said it. “NO MORE LATIN MASS! It’s forbidden!”

 

[TheMc]

It might not have been technically abrogated, but wouldn’t you way it was just a wee bit difficult to have a traditional Latin mass? The point is people acted like it was.

Indeed. I guess you could say it was a misunderstanding, because if you would have used the '62 missal in the 70s, you would have been thought of as a heretic or something.

 

[TimothyH]

To my knowledge nowhere in the scriptures says that Christ was facing his disciples.

It was a passover meal. They drank wine and ate bread and herbs and roasted lamb. They would have reclined around a table as one would ordinarily done at any communal meal.

Though the rituals of the passover meal have changed with time and place since God commanded Moses to keep the custom, the basics have staayed the same. There were hymns, questions, responses and dialogs, all indicating a communal setting. It makes no sense that Christ would have said “Take this, all of you, and eat it” with his back turned to the disciples.

To address the larger issue, the fact is that the celebration of Mass around a large, freestanding altar predates the Tridentine mass by many centuries. The Tridentine Mass was introduced in 1570 while St. Augustine wrote his rule for monastic life in the late fourth century and St. Benedict wrote his rule for monastic life in the mid sixth century. These monastic communties have traditionally celebrated Mass around the large, freestanding altar with the commuity of brothers gathered around the priest.

I have eperienced this Mass myself, when at a Cistercian monastery I was invited to join the brother’s up on the sanctuary as they gathered around the altar. It is ancient, and organically Catholic.



-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

It might not have been technically abrogated, but wouldn’t you way it was just a wee bit difficult to have a traditional Latin mass? The point is people acted like it was.

It’s still difficult even to get an OF Latin Mass.

 

[TheMc]

It was a passover meal. They drank wine and ate bread and herbs and roasted lamb. They would have reclined around a table as one would ordinarily done at any communal meal.

This statement is about as accurate as saying that our Mass is just a meal where we sit around and drink wine and eat bread. First, as Jews, they would have all sat on one side of the table, due to customs of the time not allowing them to have been served their food from behind. They would have been all facing the direction, as we do when we celebrate Mass ad orientem. And second, it was not merely a “communal meal.” The Passover meal was a sacred ritual.

Though the rituals of the passover meal have changed with time and place since God commanded Moses to keep the custom, the basics have stayed the same. There were hymns, questions, responses and dialogs, all indicating a communal setting.

Yes, a communal ritual setting. It was not people singing and having a good time over dinner. It was a sacred meal.

It makes no sense that Christ would have said “Take this, all of you, and eat it” with his back turned to the disciples.

Nor does it make sense for any man to pick up a piece of bread during dinner and tell those around him “This is my body.” But yet, both of these supposedly nonsensical things did indeed happen, and were indeed the way God had planned things.

The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s still difficult even to get an OF Latin Mass.

Those are less common than EF masses. Probably less common than EF pontifical masses.

 

[TimothyH]

This statement is about as accurate as saying that our Mass is just a meal where we sit around and drink wine and eat bread. First, as Jews, they would have all sat on one side of the table, due to customs of the time not allowing them to have been served their food from behind. They would have been all facing the direction, as we do when we celebrate Mass ad orientem. And second, it was not merely a “communal meal.” The Passover meal was a sacred ritual.

Yes, a communal ritual setting. It was not people singing and having a good time over dinner. It was a sacred meal.

Nor does it make sense for any man to pick up a piece of bread during dinner and tell those around him “This is my body.” But yet, both of these supposedly nonsensical things did indeed happen, and were indeed the way God had planned things.

The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.

Wonderful. Thank you.

-Tim-

 

[TheMc]

You’re welcome?

 

[FrancisB]

I guess the Pope should have consulted you first! When the Holy Father says the 1962 Missal was never abrogated he means exactly that, he is not is error nor does he misunderstand the Liturgical history of his Church.

Bob, I swear you are trying to misunderstand me. Everyone else seems to understand what I’m saying, judging from their responses. First of all, stop acting like I am trying to tell the pope what to do; I’m not. I’m just stating the facts of the situation as it was when I was young. We weren’t allowed to have the “Extraordinary Form” because it wasn’t the current rite. Second of all, stop acting like Summorum Pontificum is an infallible statement. It isn’t.The Holy Father can say that it was not abrogated because there was no formal abrogation (although one was not necessary, as there wasn’t always one in the past). Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI and Pope Bl. John Paul II acted like it was abrogated, which is the reason that Bl. John Paul II issued Ecclesia Dei. If two of the three previous posts (John Paul I not having enough time in office to make a difference on this) acted as though it was abrogated, how can the Holy Father say it was not? He has the right to restore the missal; I’m glad he did. I’m not fighting the Holy Father here. I’m just not willing to put logic aside.

I think, Bob, that you do not understand the reasoning behind the whole “the missal was not abrogated” thing. The Holy Father’s statement follows the statements of several different traditionalist groups that claimed that the missal could not be abrogated because the traditional mass could not be abrogated in favour of a modern construction. The claim was essentially that the missal of 1970 (the “Novus Ordo”) was not really the Roman Rite of the mass any more. By saying that the 1962 missal was not abrogated, the Holy Father was not trying to change the history of what happened in the 70’s and 80’s to pretend that the old rite had been allowed everywhere at all times back then; he was tacitly agreeing with the traditionalists and leaving the door open for the future extension of this logic: if the 1962 missal was not abrogated by the 1970 missal, then they are essentially different rites. The Holy Father calls them different “forms” of the same rite, but there is no history of different forms of the same rite existing at the same time, only particular local “uses”, which is clearly not the same thing. There have already been informal statements from Vatican officials that the two forms are going to be reconciled into one. I think that’s the point of these logical gymnastics.

It doesn’t actually change how things were treated in the 70’s and 80’s, though.

 

[Warrenton]

I have eperienced this Mass myself, when at a Cistercian monastery I was invited to join the brother’s up on the sanctuary as they gathered around the altar. It is ancient, and organically Catholic.

If that photo is what you experienced, then it was neither ancient nor organically Catholic.

The photograph depicts a large table.

A table is not an altar, though it can be pressed to serve as an altar.

Medieval altars, even pre medieval altars, may be freestanding, but they are invariably solid.

 

[jimrob]

Mediaeval practice was to separate clergy and nobility from the common people. In may places - particularly in England, there was a screen keeping the peasantry at bay. Ordinary folk were obliged to hear Mass, but they weren’t allowed to get too close or even see what was going on.

The Council of Trent unified practice in the Latin rite and modernised the layout of churches. The screens were replaced by altar rails with lockable gates to keep the rabble at bay. In response to the Protestant reformers, the common people were allowed to see what was going on and Mass included a sermon - preached in their own language from a high pulpit (it was believed that the plague couldn’t spread upwards).

The Second Vatican Council looked at the Mass and tried to sweep away all the abuses that had grown up because of class prejudice and medical superstition. The altar was brought closer to the congregation and the priest stood behind it so that we now gather around God’s altar. As a general rule, altar rails went and pulpits were replaced by lecterns. (Why we decided to call them ambos is beyond me - that used to be the word for a tall pulpit with two staircases)

More variation was introduced into the prayers of the Mass to allow for local preferences and sensibilities. Some of the prayers in the modern Mass - especially Eucharistic Prayer II - are much older than the Tridentine Mass. Some of the prayers introduced by the Council of Trent were omitted.

I was at University (at an Anglican Institution) when the new rite was introduced. I preferred it and it was probably an important part of my decision to stick with Catholicism and not join the Church of England. Who knows - if it had been delayed for a few years, I might now be a married Catholic priest.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Second Vatican Council looked at the Mass and tried to sweep away all the abuses that had grown up because of class prejudice and medical superstition. The altar was brought closer to the congregation and the priest stood behind it so that we now gather around God’s altar. As a general rule, altar rails went and pulpits were replaced by lecterns. (Why we decided to call them ambos is beyond me - that used to be the word for a tall pulpit with two staircases)

More variation was introduced into the prayers of the Mass to allow for local preferences and sensibilities. Some of the prayers in the modern Mass - especially Eucharistic Prayer II - are much older than the Tridentine Mass. Some of the prayers introduced by the Council of Trent were omitted.

I was at University (at an Anglican Institution) when the new rite was introduced. I preferred it and it was probably an important part of my decision to stick with Catholicism and not join the Church of England. Who knows - if it had been delayed for a few years, I might now be a married Catholic priest.

The altar was, in fact, not brought closer to the congregation by anything in any Vatican II document. There was no general rule, nor was there eve a suggestion, or any statement supporting the ripping of our altars and removal of altar rails from the Vatican or any pope. Cardinal Arinze himself (former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) condemned that in a video; it’s his opinion, of course, that altar rails should have stayed, but it’s fact that the Vatican never said a word of its approval or that it should be done at all.

I personally believe the loss of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel in the Ordinary Form is a thing to be mourned with extreme sorrow, but that’s just my opinion.

Perhaps it would have served the Church good if you were a priest.

 

[FrancisB]

Mediaeval practice was to separate clergy and nobility from the common people. In may places - particularly in England, there was a screen keeping the peasantry at bay. Ordinary folk were obliged to hear Mass, but they weren’t allowed to get too close or even see what was going on.

This is exactly what was going on when the brothers were “gathered around” the priest at the altar; they were in choir, which is to say they were in front of the rood where the laity were not allowed, but they were not holding hands in a circle around a table. They would have been sitting in the stalls in the chancel between the rood and the altar. Of course if you haven’t been in a mediaeval church, I think it is difficult to understand how this would have been done.

The Second Vatican Council looked at the Mass and tried to sweep away all the abuses that had grown up because of class prejudice and medical superstition. The altar was brought closer to the congregation and the priest stood behind it so that we now gather around God’s altar. As a general rule, altar rails went and pulpits were replaced by lecterns. (Why we decided to call them ambos is beyond me - that used to be the word for a tall pulpit with two staircases)

More variation was introduced into the prayers of the Mass to allow for local preferences and sensibilities. Some of the prayers in the modern Mass - especially Eucharistic Prayer II - are much older than the Tridentine Mass. Some of the prayers introduced by the Council of Trent were omitted.

This is not exactly true, and I’m not sure to which abuses you are referring, but I am not aware of any that grew up “because of class prejudice and… superstition”. (I assume that word should be mediaeval and not medical?) The altar was not brought closer to the congregation initially, and the priests were not told to stand on the other side and face the people. The Missal of 1970 (and even the current missal) talks about the priest turning around to face the people at the “Orate, Fratres” (“Pray, Brethren”). This would only be possible if the priest were facing east as he had traditionally done. No where was there an official statement that altar rails were out or that the beautiful stone pulpits should be replaced by tacky wooden lecterns. This just happened.

Variations were introduced into the prayers of the mass. Why, I’m not certain, as it was a breach of tradition, a modern novelty. The only Eucharistic Prayer that pre-dates Vatican II, let alone Trent, is Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon), which was traditional anaphora (“Eucharistic Prayer”) of the Latin Rite. Eucharistic Prayer II was based on an ancient anaphora, but is not itself that anaphora. [The text of the original is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_of_the_Apostolic_Tradition”]here]. Similarly, Eucharistic Prayers III and IV are based on Eastern anaphora models of ancient vintage, but they are not themselves the actual Eastern formulae.

Prayers were not added at the Council of Trent. In fact some were deleted. There had been prayers added to the mass throughout the middle ages, and these appear in the Tridentine Mass, but they were not added at Trent, merely codified.

 

[ProVobis]

I was at University (at an Anglican Institution) when the new rite was introduced. I preferred it and it was probably an important part of my decision to stick with Catholicism and not join the Church of England. Who knows - if it had been delayed for a few years, I might now be a married Catholic priest.

Didn’t the Anglican Church adopt much of the new rite ICEL text? I understand there were some Anglicans acting as consultants on the committee.

 

[MarkThompson]

A table is not an altar, though it can be pressed to serve as an altar.

Medieval altars, even pre medieval altars, may be freestanding, but they are invariably solid.

This is quite untrue. It would be profitable to read the entire article on “Altar (in Liturgy)” from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but here are a few portions which will make clear that that has never been the case:
In the primitive times there were two kinds of altars: . . . The altar detached from the wall in the cubicula:] This second kind of altar consisted of a square or oblong slab of stone or marble which rested on columns, one to six in number, or on a structure of masonry in which were enclosed the relics of martyrs.

. . .

The support may be either a solid mass or it may consist of four or more columns. These must be of natural stone, firmly joined to the table. The substructure need not, however, consist of one piece, but should in every case be built on a solid foundation so as to make the structure permanent. The support may have any of the following forms:

• at each corner a column of natural stone, and the spaces between the columns may be filled with any kind of stone, brick, or cement;
• the space between the two columns in front may be left open, so as to place beneath the table (exposed) a reliquary containing the body (or a portion of the body) of a saint;
• besides the four columns, one at each corner, a fifth column may be placed in the centre at the front. In this case the back, and if desired the sides also, may be filled with stone, brick, or cement;
• if the table is small (it should in every case be larger than the stone of a portable altar), four columns are placed under it, one at each corner and, to make up the full length required, frames of stone or other material may be added to each side. These added portions are not consecrated, and hence may be constructed after the ceremony of consecration;
• if the table is deficient in width, four columns are placed under it, one at each corner, and a frame of stone or other material is added to the back. This addition is not consecrated, and may be constructed after the consecration of the altar.

In the last two cases the spaces between the columns may be filled with stone brick, or cement, or they may be left open.
Or if you would like an illustration, here is a good one (Dictionnaire Raisonné de l’Architecture Française du XIe au XVIe Siècle, vol. 2, Paris 1860).

I’m well aware that one of the shibboleths of (a certain brand of) traditionalism (to which you are alluding, though I don’t claim you hold) is to allege an absolute distinction between altars and tables, so that one can then say that the New Church no longer offers a sacrifice on an altar but a meal on a table. But if the definition of a table is a flat surface (known as the mensa, Latin for . . . well, “table”) supported by four legs, then one will find that this in fact has always been an accepted construction for Catholic altars.