Prompt, tell, whatever. The commands are in the imperative, regardless. The deacon is actually the MC of the Liturgy, a role assumed when the bishop was the ordinary minister, and the Liturgy was much more elaborate and extensive. Just as the imperial court had protocol officers who attended upon the emperor, the bishops had deacons who served the same function. He probably also functioned as "nomenclator", whispering the names and positions of supplicants who came to ask his blessing or a favor.

Unfortunately, these concepts expressed in SC are quite foreign to "traditional" RC thinking, and since those in the RCC who favor the EF tend to favor this "traditonal" theological expression over that found in the V2 documents, they also tend to favor the "traditional" practice.



I agree wholeheartedly. However, the problem is that unlike us who do not see V2 as being in conflict with tradition, most RCs, whether they favor one or the other, definitely see the two as being completely irreconcilable. Pastoral care would be great here, but it's the presbyters (and bishops) themselves who need it. Pope Benedict seems to be one of the very few who can see beyond this supposed "conflict."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

But why do they call it "the Traditional Latin Mass", when it isn't "traditional" at all, not even in the sense of "that with which we are familiar", since the most vocal supporters of the Tridentine rite (a perfectly good name, no need to bend over backwards with tongue twisting euphemisms like "the extraordinary form") aren't old enough to remember when it was the only game in town. Or the abuses that went along with it. Nostalgia is not the right sentiment with which to approach liturgy.

Stuart,

It's not clear what you're actually saying here. I have heard it argued that the OF is really more "traditional" than the EF, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

I think Protodeacon David and I were both in agreement that the EF should be celebrated IAW the norms laid out by V2, which are based on a correct understanding of the place of Liturgy in the life of the Church. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the celebration of either the OF or the EF would be enhanced by a clear understanding of these norms on the part of the celebrant.

However, to make a blanket statement that the EF isn't "traditional" at all leaves a big void--just what then is the traditional liturgy of the RCC?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I'm saying that neither has much to do with "The Traditional Latin Mass", which ceased to exist some time around the turn of the first millennium, and that people who prefer the Tridentine Form do so for the wrong reasons entirely. But there is no way that the Trindentine Form can be made consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium unless it ceases to be the Tridentine Form. By the time of Trent, the Latin liturgical tradition was hopelessly corrupted by a host of medieval innovations that the Tridentine Missal gave dogmatic sanction. There is a gaping 800 year hole in the Latin liturgical tradition, and nobody has managed to fill it yet. To do so would mean recovering not only what the Roman Church was doing in the 8th century, but also what the other Western Churches--the Churches of Gaul, Britain, Ireland, Spain and Northern Italy were also doing. I don't see anyone rushing forward to do that.

Stuart seems to be pointing out the oddities of roman praxis in a quizzical mode... "Why is it that..."

Those old enough to remember the Trent Missal (it's not a separate Rite) as the ordinary missal generally don't have much desire for it. The exceptions being exceedingly vocal.

The majority of those who are calling for the TLM/EF celebrations are too young to actually remember it.

The Traditionalist movement has a higher ratio of vocations to the priesthood than the bulk of the Roman Church, but those vocations are often seeking to not say the OF mass.

The Traditionalist movement ignores the actual history of the Missal. (Some claiming it has been unchanged since 800...)

I've actually heard some people claim, in all seriousness, that "St. Peter said the Mass in Rome". The mind boggles.

The other reason I've heard that makes me cringe is what Father Serge calls the Argumentum ad tourismus--"When the Mass was in Latin, a Catholic could go into any church anywhere and hear the same thing"--which is false on so many levels it isn't funny. Yet people who oppose Mass in the vernacular keep putting up the same argument.

Since the term tradition means "that which has been handed down," and the Latin Rite of the first millennium has not been handed down except in the Tridentine form, it appears you're affirming the RCC has no tradition (or perhaps we could say no valid tradition), which is equivalent to saying that it has ceased to be part of the Church.



Stuart, one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that people don't always do things for the reasons they think they're doing them for. WRT the EF, people are drawn to the obvious sense of the sacred and of somthing ancient, mysterious and timeless--all sorely lacking in the OF. Having been thus drawn, they naturally pick up a lot of the rhetoric and pseudo-history that has accompanied this movement. However, the latter is seldom--if ever--their real reason.



That depends entirely on how many changes you have to make before it "ceases to be the Tridentine Form." Certainly, using real deacons to perform the deacon's role could not cause it to cease being the Tridentine Form.



This sounds like an interesting discussion, but I think it would have to be in a new thread ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Sorry Father Deacon, but quite wrong. The Dominican Latin Mass is handed down from the 12th C Roman Mass, the Carmelite and carthusian predate Trent by at least 2 C as well. The Mozarabic is a latin but non-roman Gallo-iberian, as is the Bragan. The Sarum Missal is 14th C and was retained as an extraordinary form for English dioceses. The Ambrosian Rite is a Roman variant, also handed down, and of some age more than 2 C prior to Trent.

All of these are, to this date, still in at least limited use. Admittedly, the Sarum is mostly used by the Anglicans now, but still, it's allowed as an EF for UK dioceses. And it's descendent, the Anglican Use Missal, is a Catholic Mass approved by Rome.

So the Trent is FAR from the only mass handed on within the Roman Church.

Brother Aramis,

Sorry not to have been clearer in making my point. I was referring to the "mainstream" Roman rite, and I believe Brother Stuart was referring specifically to a first-millennium form of the Roman rite that had fallen into disuse some centuries before Trent.

In any case, to try and maintain that one of these "limited use" rites embodied the "true RCC tradition" wouldn't make much sense, either.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The True tradition of the Roman Rite is the sum of these!

Any one of them is NOT the tradition of the Roman Church... it is only when one looks at the whole.

For some of the greatest theologians have been Dominicans, and except in the US, the Dominicans have retained their unique ritual. And it shapes their approach to liturgistics and theology.

And as we begin the third millennium, the Roman Church is restoring the Sarum Rite, albeit in a cadet form, in the Anglican Use Liturgy... for the BCP is derived from the Sarum, and the AUM from the BCP.

"and except in the US, the Dominicans have retained their unique ritual."

That's not true. The Dominicans adopted the Roman Missal on a world-wide basis in 1969. In fact, the Dominicans in the U.S. have been leaders in celebrating the traditional Dominican use more widely. See here for an article on the canonical status of the Dominican liturgy:

http://dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/search/label/Canonical%20Status%20of%20the%20Dominican%20Rite

Changes necessary to bring the Tridentine Mass into compliance with Sacrosanctum concilium would include suppression of the Low Mass (and most especially, "private Mass"), restoration of the responses of the people (presently, only the words uttered by the priest are efficacious, according to the rubrics), suppression of extraneous hymns and composed "Mass suites", and the restoration of a fully sung liturgy using one or more of the ancient Western chant traditions.

Aside from the Mass itself, a reform of the Tridentine liturgy would also require restoration of the Liturgy of the Hours in a real liturgical format consistent with the Office as known in the 16th century.

I think if you did this, it would cease utterly to be the Tridentine Mass as most people understand it.

"only the words uttered by the priest are efficacious, according to the rubrics"

Yeah, I've read the rubrics. I don't think they say that. Care to provide a citation?

I don't think you understand what "private Masses" are if you think Sacrosanctum concilium required their suppression. They are by the way, entirely licit today in the Novus Ordo and the 1983 Code of Canon Law made the practice of celebrating without a both a congregation and without a server (which in the old days required a papal indult) more common and less legally difficult, not less common.

The daily Mass today in your average Roman parish has no singing... just like the Low Mass of the 1962 Missal.

The restoration of the responses of the people (practical difficulties aside) had already been authorized before S.C.

Extraneous hymns, have of course been introduced all over the place as a consequence of the post-Vatican II reforms, which allowed hymns to replace the propers ad libitum. Etc., etc.

I don't really understand your hostility, StuartK. The Pope has allowed it (and before he became the Pope, he celebrated it himself.) The people who prefer it are within the bounds of permitted opinion in the Church.

If you don't like it, you're free to support and encourage other forms of the liturgy. But to attack those who support and practice the older form as ignorant, etc. doesn't seem to build up the Church.

What makes you think that there are no "responses of the people" in the Tridentine Mass?