It is used in the Eastern Liturgies (Oti sou estin he basileia kai he dynamis kai he doxa, etc.), but as far as I know, the Doxology is foreign to the Roman Rite (the Ordo Romanus I, which reflects the Roman Rite as celebrated in the 6th-8th centuries and is thus one of the earliest records of the Roman liturgy that we have, does not include it).
Technically the Sarum Rite (more properly the Use of Sarum), the Use of York, or the Use of Cologne (Germany) are Uses, that is, local adaptations of the Roman Rite, which explains their similarity with the Roman Rite, i.e. the Tridentine Mass.
For yor information, I posted this thread only 2 days ago because (1) very few Catholics kniw anything about the history of the Mass, (2) almost everyone, including Bishops call the 16th Century Tridentine Mass “traditional”. The Novus Ordo of 1970 has Far older elements of the Earliest Mass returned. Pls see Post 5, and others.
The name “Tridentine” is a misnomer. “Gregorian” is a far more appropriate title.
Not correct. The Gregorian Mass is the Name for the Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, 500’s. The Tridentine mass is universally used for the 1500’s Council of Trent era liturgical reforms of Mass, although it is correct to call Tridentine the Gregorian style or genre.
Vivat JesusYes I know what you are claiming. It has been claimed since the 70’s and is no more relevant now then it was then, Picking a choosing a few elements from scattered rites from antiquity and plugging them into a new rite does not in any way guarantee that the result will be anything at close to the original rites themselves.
For yor information, I posted this thread only 2 days ago because (1) very few Catholics kniw anything about the history of the Mass, (2) almost everyone, including Bishops call the 16th Century Tridentine Mass “traditional”. The Novus Ordo of 1970 has Far older elements of the Earliest Mass returned. Pls see Post 5, and others.
Vivat Jesus :ehh: Tony
Older elements do not make for an older Mass. It only means some elements are older. That is quite a different question than what you first posted.
Yes I know what you are claiming. It has been claimed since the 70’s and is no more relevant now then it was then, Picking a choosing a few elements from scattered rites from antiquity and plugging them into a new rite does not in any way guarantee that the result will be anything at close to the original rites themselves.
Which incidentally it is not. The traditional Mass aka Tridentine Mass was codified by the Council of Trent, not developed by it. It standardized what could and could not be done. It made allowances for valid ancient rites to exist alongside of it. In short the traditional Mass did exactly what the Council of Trent wanted and intended it to do. It did away with certain rites and practices that had sprung up, cleaned up and standardized numerous different things in the Mass and laid the groundwork for the Mass that still exists today.
The Pauline Rite, that is the official name for the Novus Ordo Rite as you call it, came about as a response to a belief that the traditional Mass needed to be modernized along with the rest of the Church to make it more relevent to modern man, Otherwise, the Church would become increasingly marginalized and less important to modern man.
Did it do that? I don’t know. Too much experimentation was allowed and even encouraged to think that the Mass as devised turned out exactly as intended. In fact, I’m not at all sure the framers knew exactly what was going to come out of their plans in the end result.
That being said the Pauline Rite , is the accepted normative Mass of the Church. I attend regularly, But it is not equivalent to the early liturgies, is not analogous to earlier rites, is not in any way more ancient than the traditional rite and unless we start having Mass in private homes, bringing loaves of bread to be consecrated and then taken home for consumption throughout the week, it never will be, It is what it is. Not ancient, not old, and in fact a product mainly of the theology popular in the mid 1900’s…
But it is the Mass.
(1) Why do you call the Tridentine Mass "traditional? It is/was only 500 years old. What about the Masses of the previous 1500 years? Not traditional at the time?
Yes I know what you are claiming. It has been claimed since the 70’s and is no more relevant now then it was then,
But it is the Mass.
Why do you not consider the Novus Ordo of Vatican 'relevant'????
Vivat Jesus
TonyAnd this CLEARLY includes you (and I’ll tell you why in a second). You then state:
As far as we’re concerned, all Masses have elements that go back to the same date and time…Holy Thursday, A.D. 33. You also said:
WRONG. It was ‘canonized’ 500 years ago. The ‘tridentine’ or ‘traditional’ latin Mass goes back to the 6th century, and even many/most of its individual parts were simply a continued development of the same Mass that first occurred in 1st century Palestine. Aside from natural growth, there was nothing really shockingly NEW that was just all of a sudden invented in the TLM the way it was for the Novus Ordo.
Any form older than 200 years was permitted to remain in use.
Let me answer that with another question: Why do you think that just because the Novus Ordo has incorporated a few things from antiquity, that the NO itself is ‘older’ than the TLM? As I stated before, every Mass ultimitely has its roots in Holy Thursday…the only difference is that the TLM was organic and the NO is 99% a modern fabrication, yet people like you like to claim that because it has a couple things from antiquity that didn’t remain in the TLM, therefore it’s ‘older’ etc…LAME
One thing that makes older Catholic uncomfortable about the NO mass is its resemblence to the Lutheran liturgy. That liturgy, of course, is a kind of stripped down version of the mass. My guess is that the reformers had the idea that such a reform would make the mass more comfortable to non-Catholics. My guess is that it turned off many older Catholics and was not especially apealing to the younger ones. In sum, it contributed to the Church’s loss of authority.Yes I know what you are claiming. It has been claimed since the 70’s and is no more relevant now then it was then, Picking a choosing a few elements from scattered rites from antiquity and plugging them into a new rite does not in any way guarantee that the result will be anything at close to the original rites themselves.
Which incidentally it is not. The traditional Mass aka Tridentine Mass was codified by the Council of Trent, not developed by it. It standardized what could and could not be done. It made allowances for valid ancient rites to exist alongside of it. In short the traditional Mass did exactly what the Council of Trent wanted and intended it to do. It did away with certain rites and practices that had sprung up, cleaned up and standardized numerous different things in the Mass and laid the groundwork for the Mass that still exists today.
The Pauline Rite, that is the official name for the Novus Ordo Rite as you call it, came about as a response to a belief that the traditional Mass needed to be modernized along with the rest of the Church to make it more relevent to modern man, Otherwise, the Church would become increasingly marginalized and less important to modern man.
Did it do that? I don’t know. Too much experimentation was allowed and even encouraged to think that the Mass as devised turned out exactly as intended. In fact, I’m not at all sure the framers knew exactly what was going to come out of their plans in the end result.
That being said the Pauline Rite , is the accepted normative Mass of the Church. I attend regularly, But it is not equivalent to the early liturgies, is not analogous to earlier rites, is not in any way more ancient than the traditional rite and unless we start having Mass in private homes, bringing loaves of bread to be consecrated and then taken home for consumption throughout the week, it never will be, It is what it is. Not ancient, not old, and in fact a product mainly of the theology popular in the mid 1900’s…
But it is the Mass.
The Mass is relevent.
Why do you not consider the Novus Ordo of Vatican ‘relevant’???
Code:Vivat Jesus Tony
I think you need to study a bit more on the making of the Pauline Rite and the general ideas towards the Church that were brought forth at Vatican II and led at least in some areas to the development of the Pauline Rite.
(2) Why did the Tridentine Mass do away totally with the Earliest rites that ‘sprang up’ with the Apostles (kiss of peace) and earliest centuries Intercession prayers, and many more?Code:(1) Why do you call the Tridentine Mass "traditional? It is/was only 500 years old. What about the Masses of the previous 1500 years? Not traditional at the time?
(3) The Novus Ordo of 1960’s research and liturgical modification was not centered on “modernizing”, but on making the Mass Understandable, few knowing Latin, and bring back earliest rites mentioned in (2).
(3) The Mass and Eucharist are the 2 greatest gifts of the Holy Spirit that Our Lord gave us, and Recognized such from the Last Supper itself. (4) Recognizing what is In the Novus Ordo and their histories makes the Very complex Tridentine Far more emotionally amnd spiritually enriching to me. Think of who, why the “Sign of Peace” was initiated. Helps.
Vivat Jesus
Tony
I think you need to study a bit more
Your insistence and almost morbid fascination with the Sign of Peace, which is still in the Traditional Mass, by the way and always was is a bit curious. Why do you find that one aspect to be of such great importance and overriding concern?. In actuality the way it is done in the Traditional Mass is probably a lot closer to the way it was done in the early Church by the way. The intercessionary prayers these days I would venture bear absolutely no resemblence to those of bygone eras.
As far as the Traditional Mass, you seem to have this view that it sprang forth fully grown after Trent, a new creation vastly different from those that preceded it…
Why is the alleged Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass a ‘lot closer’, in your opinion, to the way it was done in the early Church? Why nitpik, to avoid the generalities?Code:Thank you for doing my thinking for me, but I think far different than you Why do you feel that my great appreciation for the 1960 year old Apostolic sign of peace "morbid"? Where is the Sign of Peace in the Pre-1962 or 1962 Tridentine Mass?
Lol, Picking nits is not worth my time. Why do you find it so worthwhile? We all need to grow, learn from life.
:extrahappy: Tony
palmas85;4214608:
Well, you have proven that you have no knowledge or very limited knowledge of the Traditional Mass my friend. Trust me the Kiss of Peace is there, I promise you that.I think you need to study a bit more
Your insistence and almost morbid fascination with the Sign of Peace, which is still in the Traditional Mass, by the way and always was is a bit curious. Why do you find that one aspect to be of such great importance and overriding concern?. In actuality the way it is done in the Traditional Mass is probably a lot closer to the way it was done in the early Church by the way. The intercessionary prayers these days I would venture bear absolutely no resemblence to those of bygone eras.
As far as the Traditional Mass, you seem to have this view that it sprang forth fully grown after Trent, a new creation vastly different from those that preceded it…
Why is the alleged Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass a ‘lot closer’, in your opinion, to the way it was done in the early Church? Why nitpik, to avoid the generalities?Code:Thank you for doing my thinking for me, but I think far different than you Why do you feel that my great appreciation for the 1960 year old Apostolic sign of peace "morbid"? Where is the Sign of Peace in the Pre-1962 or 1962 Tridentine Mass?
Lol, Picking nits is not worth my time. Why do you find it so worthwhile? We all need to grow, learn from life.
Your fascination is pretty obvious. It is really the only drum that you have been banging in this whole debate.
I nitpick when people decide to enter these forums with a pretty obvious agenda and then prove that their knowledge of the subject that they are pursuing is limited at best and outright lacking at worst,
Why do you opine that the way the Sign of Peace as 'still done' in the Tridentine Mass probably a lot closer to the way it probably was done originally? Vivat Jesus.I really believe it did much more than to contribute to the Church’s loss of authority. We have lost the three hours Jesus hung from the Cross.
I really believe it did much more than to contribute to the Church’s loss of authority. We have lost the three hours Jesus hung from the Cross.
At the Mass of the Ages we are at the foot of the Cross on Calvary, shoulder to shoulder with the Priest, Mary, John…
At this new Mass we are sitting around a table…sharing our stories.
It’s quite sad, really.
QUOTE]
How was the Tridentine Mass of 500 years the Mass of the Ages? What about the previous 1500 years?Code:How have we lost the 3 hours Our Lord Hung on the Closs? Isn't the Mass the Last Supper Feast?
How are we shoulder to shoulder with the Priest in Tridentine? We only look at his back, non-participatingly, trying to find in English what he is praying so beautifully in Latin.
How are we sitting around the table sharing stories at the Novus Ordo? As Usher at all Masses, I would motion silence to anyone chatting, and If they continue, I would ask them to Leave.
Vivat Jesus.
Tony
