Why should one prefer the Tridentine Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocks_91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rocks_91

Guest
Other than that it’s supposed to be traditional. By the way, when exactly did the Latin Mass come to be? Weren’t the original languages of the Church Greek and Hebrew? I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Latin came many centuries later? If so, the TLM, like the Novus Ordo is now, can’t always have been ‘traditional’. Whatever happened to the original rites, why weren’t they preserved? And if the Church adapted to the times and introduced a Latin Mass then, and had Jerome translate the Bible into the Vulgate (vulgar, common language), then why the aversion to using what the common language is at the moment? Does it really matter what language the Mass is spoken in or is the meaning behind what is said more important? I’m interested to know why people should support the TLM.

I wish I could attend a TLM to experience it first-hand but no parish where I am offers it currently… But I would love to know what people find so special about the TRIDENTINE mass!
 
Because this was my homily last week.

Searching for and Maintaining Peace and Holiness

For me, while the reverence is sanctifying, and the Gregorian chant is divine, and the liturgy is pious, the #1 reason that I moved parishes was because I was being fed every single week by my priests as they taught in the homily. I had no idea how hungry I was to learn about the glory of Christ and His church until I started being fed meaty homilies every week.

Another bonus - our priests are AMAZING in the confessional as well, and have changed my spiritual life through their guidance in those booths. Oh, and we have confessionals available for 1/2 hour before and after every mass, every day.

In other words, while I have grown to love the Latin mass, and now truly “pray” the mass instead of just attending the mass, I’m also very aware that my spiritual life has grown by leaps and bounds since attending a parish where both priests have an invested interest in making sure that my soul goes to Heaven.
 
Rocks_91 said:
Other than that it’s supposed to be traditional. By the way, when exactly did the Latin Mass come to be? Weren’t the original languages of the Church Greek and Hebrew? I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Latin came many centuries later? If so, the TLM, like the Novus Ordo is now, can’t always have been ‘traditional’. Whatever happened to the original rites, why weren’t they preserved? And if the Church adapted to the times and introduced a Latin Mass then, and had Jerome translate the Bible into the Vulgate (vulgar, common language), then why the aversion to using what the common language is at the moment? Does it really matter what language the Mass is spoken in or is the meaning behind what is said more important? I’m interested to know why people should support the TLM.

I wish I could attend a TLM to experience it first-hand but no parish where I am offers it currently… But I would love to know what people find so special about the TRIDENTINE mass!
Click to expand...
No reason at all except if you want it.
Ilove orthodox liturgy
 
Rocks_91 said:
Other than that it’s supposed to be traditional. By the way, when exactly did the Latin Mass come to be?
Click to expand...
It’s really hard to say since it was a centuries-long process, but the EF Mass as we know it today was finally standardized beginning from the 1570 publication of the Roman Missal, and subsequent (not-so-major) revisions thereof until 1962.
Weren’t the original languages of the Church Greek and Hebrew? I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Latin came many centuries later?
Click to expand...
Well, it is generally thought that Latin began to be used, at least in Rome, by the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, gradually supplanting Greek, so it’s not as late as you might think.
Whatever happened to the original rites, why weren’t they preserved?
Click to expand...
Because they eventually evolved, as all things in the world are wont to do (nope, not THAT evolution). 😛
And if the Church adapted to the times and introduced a Latin Mass then, and had Jerome translate the Bible into the Vulgate (vulgar, common language), then why the aversion to using what the common language is at the moment?
Click to expand...
Common mistake, that one. The versio vulgata is named so in the Middle Ages (before that, it never had an official name) because it had become the ‘common version’ used throughout Western Christendom, not because it was written in Vulgar Latin; after all, by the time the term ‘Vulgate’ came to be definitively applied to St. Jerome’s translations, nobody was speaking Latin as a native language any more. In fact, the phrase versio vulgata (which is a calque of Greek koine ekdosis) was originally applied in St. Augustine’s and St. Jerome’s time to the version of the Scriptures used by Christians: the Septuagint.

I may not look like your ordinary traditionalist (I identify myself as one, however): admittedly I’ve never personally been to an EF Mass, and are open to a few what some people might consider slightly more ‘liberal’ (as opposed to ‘radical’) ideas, at least in the area of Biblical studies. Other than that I think I’m on the hard right, especially in liturgical and doctrinal matters. I’m a very inconsistent, contradictory person, so sorry about that.

Now why is a person like me drawn to the EF liturgy? Aside of course from the more exalted, reverential atmosphere its supporters claim it has (something I’ve yet to experience but would love to) - something that many of us have to reclaim in this de-spiritualized world - I strongly believe that the Pian liturgy, being a heritage of many of us Catholics in the Latin Rite (it was after all the result of centuries of faith!), should be given the proper respect that it deserves and not be treated as something ‘backward’ that we have outgrown, something that no longer has a place in our life as Catholics, or worse, something that we must get rid of. Such is after all NOT the Catholic way.

Besides, as was mentioned, quite a good number of the saints grew up with and were nourished spiritually by this liturgy: hey, if it worked for them…😉 This is also the reason why I love and have an interest in ALL liturgies, not just the Roman: those are the ways our fathers and their fathers worshiped. They are heirlooms that should be cherished and preserved for generations to come. That does not mean we should attempt to somehow ‘freeze’ them - since changes are inevitable as time goes on - but we should at least keep things growing in an organic manner. Hey, the one who does not keep looking back at his place of origin can never arrive at his destination, as Filipinos would say.
 
Latin was used by Christians in Italy in the first century AD. We know this from remains found at Pompeii, preserved from the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. As far as in the Liturgy, I’m not sure.

Most people do not attend the Tridentine Mass because it is in Latin, that is actually the least of a reason most do. For some, they might even prefer it in the vernacular. Most people do because it more fully embodies the Catholic faith and is absent of innovations (approved or unapproved) that are suspect in light of tradition. Do some research, but watch out for sedevacantist propaganda.
 
PiousTemplar said:
Because it was the Mass that brought the Church generations of Saints, shows the utmost reverence to God, and assists people with the knowlege of the sacred. The Tridentine Mass is full of theology, you can simply look at it and say ‘Catholic’.

Have a look at Michael Voris’s videos about the Latin Mass. They are very good, 50 minutes each.

Part 1:
youtube.com/watch?v=9fpG2sQg_fg

Part 2:
youtube.com/watch?v=S8P0JcvsMgE&feature=related
Click to expand...
Sorry, Incorrect: The Tridentine Mass only Began with the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. Vast majority of Saints were Before then, and it is not Mass, But Christ/The Church that generate saints. [SIGN] It is a matter of Personal Choice whether one prefers the OLDER form (earliest Centuries) Novus Ordo or the Very Moving Tridentine Mass of the 1500’s. I Like Tridentine more also, but Each is very Powerful.[/SIGN]
 
Rocks_91 said:
Other than that it’s supposed to be traditional. By the way, when exactly did the Latin Mass come to be? Weren’t the original languages of the Church Greek and Hebrew? I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Latin came many centuries later?
Click to expand...
Archaelogists have found from the ruins of Pompeii that Latin was used in the liturgy in the first century. While Romans were not perhaps the first to be drawn to Christianity, nevertheless within 30 years after Christ’s death, there apparently were quite a few Roman followers.

The inscription on the cross was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin so I imagine this was one of the reasons the Latin Mass has included all three languages in its texts. “Kyrie eleison” is Greek, “Sabaoth, alleluia, hosanna” are Hebrew.

By the way, the Greek “Mass” was never suppressed afaik; the Latin Mass merely became the Mass of the West as Christianity spread there.

And technically there is no such thing as the “Tridentine Mass.” The Book of Common Prayer, an attempted translation of the old Sarum Rite before Trent, shows that the Latin Mass (albeit, in various forms) was very much the prevalent liturgy during that time. And was so from the early centuries.
 
Rocks_91 said:
Other than that it’s supposed to be traditional. By the way, when exactly did the Latin Mass come to be? Weren’t the original languages of the Church Greek and Hebrew? I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, that Latin came many centuries later? If so, the TLM, like the Novus Ordo is now, can’t always have been ‘traditional’. Whatever happened to the original rites, why weren’t they preserved? And if the Church adapted to the times and introduced a Latin Mass then, and had Jerome translate the Bible into the Vulgate (vulgar, common language), then why the aversion to using what the common language is at the moment? Does it really matter what language the Mass is spoken in or is the meaning behind what is said more important? I’m interested to know why people should support the TLM.

I wish I could attend a TLM to experience it first-hand but no parish where I am offers it currently… But I would love to know what people find so special about the TRIDENTINE mass!
Click to expand...
It is one of many forms of the mass in the Latin Church. It is the most widely used form. It is not true that it is the only form that gives to God the most perfect or sublime form of worship. Every mass is a sublime form of worship. When people tinker with any of the forms, they do them a great disservice.

As to whether it gave many saints to the Church, that is not how theology explains it. The mass does not make saints. Saints worship at mass. St. Benedict explains it well, “conversion of manners makes saints.”

Is it the mass of many saints? Yes. Again, because it was the most widely used form. There were and still are other forms of the mass used in the Latin Church, which the laity rarely sees, because they are used by those priests who belong to religious orders. If you don’t attend a parish run by one of these orders, you would not see them. Those forms are often based on the Tridentine Form, but are not the Tridentine Form. They are their own forms with many overlaps. For example, the Franciscans of a form that is very much like the Tridentine Form. That’s because the Tridentine Form came from the Franciscans.

Francis of Assisi gave his brothers a mass that was given to him by Pope Innocent III. It became very popular, because of the shear numbers of ordained friars celebrating it all over Europe. The Council of Trent tweaked it and later Pope Pous V, tweaked it even moreso. Hence, it got it’s name, The Tridentine Form. The Council and Pope Pius added Gregorian Chant, which was not in the original form, because Francis had banned it and it remains an exception among Franciscans, though there is an indult that allows them to use Gregorian chant. The Church allowed the Franciscans, to continue with their form.

Then there were other communities that developed their own rites, such as the Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians. Most people are not familiar with them. We know that they exist, but unless you are at one of their houses, you would not see it.

Augustinians and Benedictines also have their own forms of the Latin Rite mass. These forms look like the Tridentine, but are not the Tridentine mass.

In fairness to all of the forms and rites in the Latin Church, to say that the Tridentine is the only mass that has good theology, that makes saints, that is Catholic or is tradtional is over the top. It is the most commonly used form and one of the oldest forms, certainly not as old as other forms. I believe that also many people simply remember it, because until the hiatus during the second half of the 20th century, it was very present, unlike the others.

It is very beautiful. It is very rich in symbollism. And it is very old. No one really knows how far back it goes. As I said, the Franciscans made it popular, but they began with an old missal that was given to them. Where that missal came from is a topic of much speculation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Why prefer the Tridentine Mass?

Because there is something about the TLM that inspires reverence. The people attending enter in silence. They genuflect. They maintain their silence before, during, and after Mass and until they exit the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The ambience is conducive to profound prayer. The priest and altar servers (all boys) are attentive. They genuflect every time they cross in front of the Tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament. No bobbing of the head and no shallow bowing toward the Tabernacle substitutes for the bended knee. One knows beyond any doubt that Christ is present. Every movement, every gesture, of the priest and the servers points to Christ. And NO LAY MINISTERS OF COMMUNION. One knows that one is present at the Holy Sacrifice.

My :twocents:
 
Jim_Dandy said:
Why prefer the Tridentine Mass?

Because there is something about the TLM that inspires reverence. The people attending enter in silence. They genuflect. They maintain their silence before, during, and after Mass and until they exit the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The ambience is conducive to profound prayer. The priest and altar servers (all boys) are attentive. They genuflect every time they cross in front of the Tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament. No bobbing of the head and no shallow bowing toward the Tabernacle substitutes for the bended knee. One knows beyond any doubt that Christ is present. Every movement, every gesture, of the priest and the servers points to Christ. And NO LAY MINISTERS OF COMMUNION. One knows that one is present at the Holy Sacrifice.

My :twocents:
Click to expand...
I like this, because you’re sharing what works for you and what nurtures your liturgical life and you’re not telling everyone else what they have to do or what should or should not work for them. This is the way that the great saints worked. 👍

It you came to me and said, “Brother, I need this because it does this and this for me,” I’d be delighted to help you get it. You reminded me of a small group of five who came to me when I was superior. This is the way that they came. They told me what they wanted and why it worked for them. They did not tell me what was wrong with everyone else or what they wanted for everyone else, only what worked for them and what they needed. They asked if I would give one of our brothers permission to celebrate the EF for them. I only had two ordained brothers. One of them said that he would not do it. That’s fine. The law does not allow me to command him to do it. I moved on to the next one and he said that he would be happy to do it, if I could give him a hand in learning it. I tutored him and we did several dry runs and they were off and running. They started with about 8 people and they now have about 30 that come once a month.

Working with people who express themselves as you do is always a pleasure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
By the way, the Greek “Mass” was never suppressed afaik; the Latin Mass merely became the Mass of the West as Christianity spread there.
Click to expand...
Trivia: during the Carolingian period onwards, scholarly interest in the Greek language actually resulted in a fad wherein Greek was used in solemn liturgies instead of Latin. This phenomenon is known as the Missa Graeca.
 
I’ve been searching for the perfect description for a while now… and I think I’ve found it. For me, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a much more… mystical experience. To be honest, it’s something the Ordinary Form of the Mass simply lacks. Everything in the EF combines to make it what it is… the language gives it a distinctness from the normality of our day to day lives, the Penitential Rite actually screams what it is, the Scriptures are given the air of prayer, the canon introduces such majesty in its silence… as if the world has stopped breathing for this moment… the moment when Christ offers Himself on the Holy Cross for our redemption…

And that’s just Low Mass.
 
My main reason for prefering the Traditional Mass has always been because I believe it manifests a truly organic devolopment of the liturgy over the course of centuries. It is not entirely true to say that it only goes back to Pius V. He did not, after all, promulgate an entirely new form of the Mass, but principally sought to restore the Mass as it had come down to the Church in his day. Therefore, rather than calling it the Tridentine Rite (while it is a perfectly acceptable term), I generally prefer either “usus antiquior” (“Ancient Use”) or the Gregorian Mass.
Code: 
 In the case of the OF, we have lost much of that sense of historic continuity.  It's true that there are a number of elements with historical roots, but they were more or less cobbled together in order to produce something new, so that instead of simply receiving what tradition had bequeathed to us and conforming ourselves to it, a spirit of experimentation was fostered.

 I recommend a couple of books that talk about the history of the Roman Rite.  First, "The Mass: A study of the Roman Liturgy," by Adrian Fortescue.  It was first published in 1912, so I'm sure there have been advances in our knowledge on many points, but he goes into great deatail, and it is an excellent introduction to the history.  Second, Msgr. Klaus Gamber's "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background," for a critical but constructive take on what happened after the Council.  

 Then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a well-known (among traditionalists, anyway) preface to the French edition of this book, where he stated that, after the Council, "We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."
 
Just found this great quote from Fortescue’s book. “Essentially the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends of the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” (At the end of the chapter titled, The Mass since Gregory I)
 
Just to clarify: while the basic structure of the Mass and most of the prayers remained pretty much constant, the amalgamation of the original native Roman liturgy with local Gallican rites when the Roman Rite was introduced into Frankish domains produced changes in the ritual (the same may have also happened with chant, which of course resulted in ‘Gregorian’ Chant). The Roman liturgy was actually (in)famous for its straight simplicity compared to the more lavish and elaborate ceremony, say of the East or even some of its neighbors: the Gallican influence helped introduce some of the characteristics we recognize today such as the prolific use of incense.

Case in point: try to compare the Mass as described in Ordo Romanus I with the EF Mass. The basic elements are pretty much similar, but the ritual is different in many ways.
 
patrick457 said:
Just to clarify: while the basic structure of the Mass and most of the prayers remained pretty much constant, the amalgamation of the original native Roman liturgy with local Gallican rites when the Roman Rite was introduced into Frankish domains produced changes in the ritual (the same may have also happened with chant, which of course resulted in ‘Gregorian’ Chant). The Roman liturgy was actually (in)famous for its straight simplicity compared to the more lavish and elaborate ceremony, say of the East or even some of its neighbors: the Gallican influence helped introduce some of the characteristics we recognize today such as the prolific use of incense.

Case in point: try to compare the Mass as described in Ordo Romanus I with the EF Mass. The basic elements are pretty much similar, but the ritual is different in many ways.
Click to expand...
The basic elements have never changed. The ritual changes.

Going back to the original question, “Why should one prefer the Tridentine Mass?” The Church has not said that one should. The Church has said that the form should be available. That does not mean that one should prefer this over that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top