Tridentine Mass.

[Leon_Bloy]

Let’s keep in mind that in these discussions it is really important to be precise and scholarly, referring to documentation wherever possible. With respect, I find one poster’s suggestion that high pulpits were to protect the preacher from plague highly fantastical. Again, and I say this with respect to that poster, it reminds me of some of the things you overhear tourguides-for-hire allege in their walks through famous churches in Rome, etc. In fact, elevated pulpits exist in churches built long before any of the great plagues (like St. Lawrence Outside the Walls in Rome, etc. - that one even has two).

We can’t talk about what the ancient Jewish passover meal was like unless we refer to some kind of evidence. What I read (I cited my source earlier) is that Jesus and the apostles were most likely all sitting alongside one another on the same side of the table (The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist - written by a trained scholar on the subject).

:curtsey:

 

[patrick457]

We can’t talk about what the ancient Jewish passover meal was like unless we refer to some kind of evidence. What I read (I cited my source earlier) is that Jesus and the apostles were most likely all sitting alongside one another on the same side of the table (The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist - written by a trained scholar on the subject).

:curtsey:

At the time of Jesus, the most common postures for eating are either crouching or sitting - either on the floor covered with rugs or on low stools - or reclining on couches and cushions (the Arabs still dine in this way today). The table used for this would obviously have been low-legged, and probably not too long - unlike what Leonardo and a lot of medieval and Renaissance artists portray. In a Roman triclinium, for example, you have three couches (or a long, U-shaped couch) set on three sides of a low table (or three tables in arranged like the couches in a U-formation), enough to accommodate three diners or more.



http://www.bib-arch.org/images/e-features/triclinium_lg.jpg

http://www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/JESUS_LIFE_PIX/lastSupperArrangement.jpg

So instead of something like:

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7458/davinci2527sthelastsupp.jpg

Perhaps it was kind of something like:





http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8751/johnsupper.jpg

 

[patrick457]

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).

Actually, Trent did not say anything explicit about rood screens; it just said that that the celebration of the Mass should be made much more accessible to lay worshippers. As a result, a number of enthusiastic people interpreted this injunction to mean that we no longer need rood screens: in 1565, Duke Cosimo de Medici the tramezzi from the Florentine friary churches of Sante Croce and Santa Maria Novella removed, ostensibly in accordance with the principles of the Council. In 1577 St. Charles Borromeo published Instructionum Fabricae et Sellectilis Ecclesiasticae libri duo, making no mention of the screen and emphasizing the importance of making the high altar visible to all worshippers; and in 1584 the Church of the Gesu in Rome was built as a demonstration the new principles of Tridentine worship, having an altar rail but conspicuously lacking either a central rood or screen. (Hmm, I notice a pattern here…)

 

[Warrenton]

This is quite untrue.

It is not. I have seen ancient altars. The lengthy essay you posted makes my point. If you are unable to discern the difference between the altar depicted in the article and the “ancient looking” table in the photograph from the monastery, then you cannot and we may as well let the matter rest, agreeing to disagree.

 

[Warrenton]

But if the definition of a table is a flat surface (known as the mensa, Latin for . . . well, “table”)

Itaque. But there is another word: altare. Different words imply a distinction.

one will find that this in fact has always been an accepted construction for Catholic altars

I believe I conceded this in my earlier post.

 

[Warrenton]

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 had meant to tell you that I thought this was a observation to re-emphasize.

 

[MarkThompson]

It is not. I have seen ancient altars. The lengthy essay you posted makes my point. If you are unable to discern the difference between the altar depicted in the article and the “ancient looking” table in the photograph from the monastery, then you cannot and we may as well let the matter rest, agreeing to disagree.

You said:
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.
Well, look again at the altar above. Forgive me, when it said it was not “solid” I assumed that you were referring to the fact that the mensa rested on discrete supports rather than a filled-in base forming a box. But as we’ve seen, it is entirely traditional for altars to be supported on one or more columns, with open space underneath. You say you know that, so that can’t be what you were referring to. Then what isn’t “solid” about this altar, in your estimation, that would be solid about the one in this illustration? The one in this photo looks like it must weigh a ton, so it can’t be that, either.

Obviously the design is different – this one isn’t on little corinthian columns and there’s no dinky gradine or reredos behind it – but that doesn’t go to its solidity. I’m genuinely curious what your reasoning is here.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I am just wondering one thing:
Why as the novus ordo missae (Missale Romanum) implemented in 1969 by paul VI without the intervention of a ecumenical council such as the council of trent where the Tridentine Mass was formed?
It also seems to directly go against Veterum Sapientia in which John XXIII explicitly states the liturgical language should remain Latin.
Also to my knowledge the holy father does not have the authority to change the liturgy without the intervention of an ecumenical council.
I could be wrong of course but i sincerely doubt it
Greetings:
Joeri(yuri).

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am just wondering one thing:
Why as the novus ordo missae (Missale Romanum) implemented in 1969 by paul VI without the intervention of a ecumenical council such as the council of trent where the Tridentine Mass was formed?
It also seems to directly go against Veterum Sapientia in which John XXIII explicitly states the liturgical language should remain Latin.
Also to my knowledge the holy father does not have the authority to change the liturgy without the intervention of an ecumenical council.
I could be wrong of course but i sincerely doubt it
Gtreetings:
Joeri(yuri).

It was implemented due to the intervention of an Ecumenical Council, that of the Second Vatican. The Council itself, true, did not write the missal nor did it have anything to do with the revision of the missal, but it did lay some very basic rules down on that the liturgy should be “reformed” or something to that effect, which is what necessitated the changing of the liturgy. The Council itself did not publish or decree or write or even suggest the contents of the new missal. It simply expressed desire that the liturgy should change in its declaration Sacrosanctum Concilium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI. His Holiness promulgated the new missal in his Apostolic Constitution (in the form of Papal Bull) Missale Romanum, which also happens to be the name of the missal in Latin.

The Council of Trent did not implement the Tridentine missal, in the same way the Second Vatican Council did not implement the Pauline missal as I noted above, nor did the Council Fathers of Trent write it as a document of the Council. The Council simply expressed a wish that a codified Rite of the Latin Church come in to being. The document mandating the use of the Tridentine missal was Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Consitution (in the form of Papal Bull) Quo Primum.

In both cases, no council promulgated, or brought into being, a new missal. Both Councils individually expressed desire that new missals come in to being, and then the reigning popes issued Apostolic Constitutions promulgating them after the new missals were compiled after whatever process compiled them.

It goes without saying that there have been countless documents of the Church, both of popes and of councils, stating that the liturgical and political (as far as documents and whatnot are concerned) language of the Church is and should remain Latin. Even Vatican II said this. But Vatican II also said that the vernacular “may” be extended for use in the liturgy, a statement the Council Fathers had full rights to make. I don’t particularly like it, but that’s the truth.

The Holy Father does have the power to change practically any part of the liturgy he wants except for the consecration, with or without the help of, recommendation of, or request of any council. If he wanted to do it by himself with no one’s interaction or collaboration and reduce mass to a page long missal, he could do so at any time.

 

[MarkThompson]

I am just wondering one thing:
Why as the novus ordo missae (Missale Romanum) implemented in 1969 by paul VI without the intervention of a ecumenical council such as the council of trent where the Tridentine Mass was formed?

The so-called Tridentine missal was not actually produced by the Council of Trent (which ended in 1563), but afterwards (issued 1570), by a consilium of prelates and liturgical experts appointed by the Pope. Many of the changes in the 1570 missal, such as the elimination of hundreds of sequences from the Mass, were never called for by the Council itself.

It also seems to directly go against Veterum Sapientia in which John XXIII explicitly states the liturgical language should remain Latin.

Right, that was overruled by subsequent authority.

Also to my knowledge the holy father does not have the authority to change the liturgy without the intervention of an ecumenical council.
I could be wrong of course but i sincerely doubt it

You are definitely wrong! The Pope is free to act unilaterally, as, in a minor instance, John XXIII did in adding St. Joseph’s name to the Canon of the Mass. Vatican II itself confirmed this, saying in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

So the Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII was simply ignored?
Ps: Acording to all the books i have rerad the council of trent inspired the tridentine mass where it was inspired by saint Charles Borromeo

 

[MarkThompson]

So the Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII was simply ignored?

No, it was overruled.

Ps: Acording to all the books i have rerad the council of trent inspired the tridentine mass where it was inspired by saint Charles Borromeo

I’m not familiar with any portion of the documents of Trent that called for a revision of the missal, abolition of other rites, and the proclamation of a new typical edition to be kept in perpetuity.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No, it was overruled.

I’m not familiar with any portion of the documents of Trent that called for a revision of the missal, abolition of other rites, and the proclamation of a new typical edition to be kept in perpetuity.

Well the book could be wrong.
Well ok i will be open here:
Is it wrong for me to be opposed the Missale Romanum and the Novus Ordo Missae?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well the book could be wrong.
Well ok i will be open here:
Is it wrong for me to be opposed the Missale Romanum and the Novus Ordo Missae?

Yes, it is wrong. It is a sin, as it is disobedience to authority (the Pope himself). You must accept the Novus Ordo mass as completely valid, although that doesn’t mean you have to particularly like it or go to it. You can go to Extraordinary Form masses all you want and never attend a Novus Ordo again if you like, but you must regard the Novus Ordo as a valid mass.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No, it was overruled.

I’m not familiar with any portion of the documents of Trent that called for a revision of the missal, abolition of other rites, and the proclamation of a new typical edition to be kept in perpetuity.

Yes, it is wrong. It is a sin, as it is disobedience to authority (the Pope himself). You must accept the Novus Ordo mass as completely valid, although that doesn’t mean you have to particularly like it or go to it. You can go to Extraordinary Form masses all you want and never attend a Novus Ordo again if you like, but you must regard the Novus Ordo as a valid mass.

Does the Society of Saint Pius X not reject it as a valid mass?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Does the Society of Saint Pius X not reject it as a valid mass?

The Society of Saint Pius X is a canonically irregular group of priests who celebrate mass illicitly.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

The Society of Saint Pius X is a canonically irregular group of priests who celebrate mass illicitly.

Where they not rehabilitated with the church a few years ago?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Where they not rehabilitated with the church a few years ago?

No. They are still canonically irregular. Several of their priests left and petitioned the Holy Father in 1988 and formed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which regards the Novus Ordo as valid, although they do not celebrate it, and Vatican II as legitimate. They have their own seminaries and they are completely dedicated to the Missal of 1962, but they do so in a lawful manner.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

No. They are still canonically irregular. Several of their priests left and petitioned the Holy Father in 1988 and formed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which regards the Novus Ordo as valid, although they do not celebrate it, and Vatican II as legitimate. They have their own seminaries and they are completely dedicated to the Missal of 1962, but they do so in a lawful manner.

I do not say this a lot but i really did not know that.
Thank you.
Personally i think the Novus Ordo was a big mistake, but to call it invalid would be heretical i believe.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well the book could be wrong.
Well ok i will be open here:
Is it wrong for me to be opposed the Missale Romanum and the Novus Ordo Missae?

Well, you are fully entitled to say “If it had been up to me, I wouldn’t have changed anything or issued a new missal” and “I do not like some of the changes that were made; I think they have turned out to be harmful and we would be better off undoing them.” I feel that way about some of the changes (e.g., elimination of the Dies Irae from the Mass of the Dead), though, of course, not about others (e.g., readings proclaimed in the vernacular while facing the congregation). What goes against the Church, however, would be to claim that the new missal is illegal, or invalidly promulgated, or that Mass said according to it is not actually a Mass at all but a blasphemy, and so on. Similarly, you cannot refuse to attend Mass if the only Mass available is according to the modern form.

The SSPX does not officially hold any of those positions, although some of their statements clearly verge in that direction.