What Chages would you make in the Tridentine Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stmaria said:
You didn’t address the first part that I posted on the symbolism of the TLM. Much of that is gone from the OF, right?
Click to expand...
What was the symbolism of the biretta? I’ve noticed that some priests wear them but others don’t. Even the SSPX videos of the TLM do not show the priests wearing birettas.
 
stmaria said:
You didn’t address the first part that I posted on the symbolism of the TLM. Much of that is gone from the OF, right?
Click to expand...
None of those things actually symbolize what you’re saying they symbolize now, did they? Meaning was attached to them **latter, **wasn’t it? Isn’t it a stretch to say that the Chalice symbolized Christ’s tomb? Wasn’t the Chalice simply something in which the Most Precious Blood was consecrated and from which it was drunk? When Our Lord instituted the Mass, was this part of the instruction received by the Apostles and then passed by them onto the rest of the Church? The girdle wasn’t simply a belt? And I’ve heard that the maniple was a symbol of the servanthood of the priest, along the lines of the towel Christ used to dry the Apostles’ feet. The chasuble, which has COME to symbolize charity, was originally simply the outer cold weather garb of a denizen of the Roman Empire.
 
lak611 said:
What was the symbolism of the biretta? I’ve noticed that some priests wear them but others don’t. Even the SSPX videos of the TLM do not show the priests wearing birettas.
Click to expand...
I’m not certain, but I think it started out as an academic hat. Not sure, though.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Offer the whole of it in the vernacular.

No birettas coming on or off.

The faithful make all of the responses, always.

One Confietor.

Use the new cycle of readings.

Sign of Peace fully implemented in a dignified way, after the Confietor.

Discourage some of the fussier stuff, such as the deacon and subdeacon lifting the hem of the celebrant’s robe for him, etc. I wish we could keep to the simplicity of the NO’s vestments, in terms of style and sheer volume, but retain the finer cloth normally associated with the TLM.
Click to expand...
Whoops, I meant to say that all of it would be audible, as well.
 
stmaria said:
You didn’t address the first part that I posted on the symbolism of the TLM. Much of that is gone from the OF, right?
Click to expand...
You posted:
There is an enormous amount of symbolism in the TLM that has been passed down over the centuries. The OF has removed much of this symbolism
Click to expand...
.

Followed by a list of about 27 or so items and what their symbolic meaning is. I assume you were showing how the EF is filled with rich symbolism as detailed in the list, correct?

I merely noted that except for 3 or 4 of the 27 items, all of them are still in use in the OF and retain the same symbolic meaning as before. SO, my point was that, from the list you posted, it would appear that the OF has actually retained a good deal of symbolism from the EF since, of course, 23 or 24 of the 27 items are all still a part of the OF Mass.

That was my point. Please let me know if there was some other post of yours that explained the list differently. Sorry for the confusion!
 
The Rubrics for a Solemn High make it difficult to have one sometimes…😦
 
Sure said:
You posted:

.

Followed by a list of about 27 or so items and what their symbolic meaning is. I assume you were showing how the EF is filled with rich symbolism as detailed in the list, correct?

I merely noted that except for 3 or 4 of the 27 items, all of them are still in use in the OF and retain the same symbolic meaning as before. SO, my point was that, from the list you posted, it would appear that the OF has actually retained a good deal of symbolism from the EF since, of course, 23 or 24 of the 27 items are all still a part of the OF Mass.

That was my point. Please let me know if there was some other post of yours that explained the list differently. Sorry for the confusion!
Click to expand...
Because of word limitations, I only listed some of the symbolism from the Douay Catechism. For example I didn’t include this one.
Q. 1013. Why then, uncovering the chalice, doth he sign it five times with the Host?
A. His uncovering the chalice is to signify, that at the death of Christ the veil of the temple was rent asunder. The three crosses made over the chalice, signify the three hours which Christ hung dead on the cross; the other two made at the brim of the chalice,
signifying the blood and water flowing from his side.

The most notable difference between the OF and the TLM are the prayers at the foot of the altar which represent the prostrating of Christ and his agony in the garden. This has been eliminated in the OF.
The Canon is silent in the TLM because it signifies the sadness of the passion. The silent canon is eliminated in the OF.

The moving of the Bible from the right side to the left side symbolizes that the devil was overthrown. That is not in the OF.

For the others I did not list you will have to read the Catechism.
 
stmaria said:
Q. 1013. Why then, uncovering the chalice, doth he sign it five times with the Host?
A. His uncovering the chalice is to signify, that at the death of Christ the veil of the temple was rent asunder. The three crosses made over the chalice, signify the three hours which Christ hung dead on the cross; the other two made at the brim of the chalice,
signifying the blood and water flowing from his side.
Click to expand...
But there are so many variations- none of this was inherent or conceived in the Traditional Mass.

Otherwise, we’d have the question of who’s right- Innocent III who declares that the priest acts as God the Father blessing the Divine Son, or St. Thomas who says that twofold cross represents the separation of the soul and the body or the Douay with the blood and water symbolism?
The most notable difference between the OF and the TLM are the prayers at the foot of the altar which represent the prostrating of Christ and his agony in the garden. This has been eliminated in the OF.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think that the priest might be bowing as a gesture of humility?
 
stmaria said:
]I doubt the Church just made it all up out of thin air. I am sure the symbolism was passed on via Tradition as the TLM organically grew over the centuries.
Click to expand...
If you are able, perhaps you could find the Epistle of Florus the deacon against Amalarius (9th century)?
 
AJV said:
If you are able, perhaps you could find the Epistle of Florus the deacon against Amalarius (9th century)?
Click to expand...
Wait- I found it (got to love the Internet! 😃 ) in Latin it’s here- page 269/70 onward. You’ll notice him referring (unfavourably) to the symbolism such as the chalice being the tomb. He’s a bit excitable in his polemics and criticism of such, though.
 
stmaria said:
Because of word limitations, I only listed some of the symbolism from the Douay Catechism. For example I didn’t include this one.
Q. 1013. Why then, uncovering the chalice, doth he sign it five times with the Host?
A. His uncovering the chalice is to signify, that at the death of Christ the veil of the temple was rent asunder. The three crosses made over the chalice, signify the three hours which Christ hung dead on the cross; the other two made at the brim of the chalice,
signifying the blood and water flowing from his side.

The most notable difference between the OF and the TLM are the prayers at the foot of the altar which represent the prostrating of Christ and his agony in the garden. This has been eliminated in the OF.
The Canon is silent in the TLM because it signifies the sadness of the passion. The silent canon is eliminated in the OF.

**The moving of the Bible from the right side to the left side symbolizes that the devil was overthrown. That is not in the OF. **

For the others I did not list you will have to read the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I’ll give you those. So, I guess symbolism was reduced by 5-10% maybe. That means the OF retained 90-95% of the symbolism from 1649…not too shabby.

When is the Bible moved from right to left? Just curious because I never heard that…Thanks!
 
Sure said:
Okay, so I’ll give you those. So, I guess symbolism was reduced by 5-10% maybe. That means the OF retained 90-95% of the symbolism from 1649…not too shabby.

When is the Bible moved from right to left? Just curious because I never heard that…Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the explanation for the Missal being moved from the right to the left as indicating the passing of the faith to the Gentiles. This happens after the Epistle and before the Gospel.
 
japhy said:
I’ve heard the explanation for the Missal being moved from the right to the left as indicating the passing of the faith to the Gentiles. This happens after the Epistle and before the Gospel.
Click to expand...
So, is the right to left movement, the movement from liturgical South to North?
 
estesbob said:
For starters have it said in English and have the Priest face the people.

BTW-I started this thread becuase of the excellent insight recieved from TM fans on another thread about what changes should be made in the N.O. Mass. I thoughr N.O. Fans could similarly help them out
Click to expand...
This thread is non-sensical. Was that not accomplished already by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo service?

Funny you use the term NO mass, since that can also mean no mass.👍
Well, no does mean no, you know?😉
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
This thread is non-sensical. Was that not accomplished already by the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo service?

Funny you use the term NO mass, since that can also mean no mass.👍
Well, no does mean no, you know?😉
Click to expand...
Are you implying that the Novus Ordo Mass is not a valid Mass?
 
Funny you use the term NO mass, since that can also mean no mass.👍
Well, no does mean no, you know?😉
Click to expand...
And, of course, I pointed this out to you people months ago. So I guess I get to give eveyone a big “See, I told you.” People should keep up with the radical traditionalist sites for their inside jokes! 😉
 
bear06 said:
The bell argument always cracks me up. I’m pretty sure I have this right. The bells are not rung at the moment of Consecration but after during the genuflection and then the elevation.
Click to expand...
It would be pretty silly to wait for the consecration bells before noticing what’s happening at the altar. Often when I attend the EF (in fact every time), the bells are rung starting at the Sanctus to alert people to start paying attention if they have been distracted up to that point. The congregation gets pretty quiet from that point onward. At least that’s what happens at the EF I attend. Perhaps things are done differently where you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top