www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Universal Tridentine Mass

I am posting this here because all the other fora are strictly Byzantine. However, this affects the Universal Church, Byzantine, Roman, and otherwise. Plus... (and most importantly) ...I just want to post it.

Now, this would have its pluses and minuses, but I think it has the possibility of being something truly great for the Catholic Church (not just the RCC), as well as with Orthodox-Catholic relations.

Christos Voskrese!

Logos Teen

Why should wider use of the Tridentine Mass affect Orthodox-Catholic relations??
Surely, greater Byzantinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches (of the Byzantine tradition) would surely have a greater effect with Orthodoxy in a positive way.

Brian,

Not so. The Orthodox although not concerning themselves with the affairs of the Latin church are strongly against the "reforms" of VII. I have spoken to many Orthodox priest on this subject even Orientals and they say the same thing.

Of course they welcome the "Ecumenism" of Post-VII and Pope JPII. They even welcome the De-Latization of the Eastern Church as a result of VII but besides those things everything else is rejected.

I recall that last week, many newspapers anounced a reconcilliation between the Society of St. Pius and Rome and it did not happen. This is why I am still a little bit scheptical but if this happens I think that the effects it would have in Ortthodox Catholic relations, even it those won't be so visible and are of little importance in Eastern countries, will be possitive.

One of the most important values of the Orthodox Church is its sacred liturgy, the liturgy is an esencial part of the Orthodox dignity. Roman Catholicism after the 1970's thought it was important to become more a Biblical Church closer to the people, and in many cases the importance of the sacred liturgy as the law of faith was minimized. Since the most important moment in which the Church gathers its faithful is through the services (and not through cathechism, meetings, etc), the liturgy must reflect unequivocaly the faith of the Church and its doctrine.

Another thing, the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and the other Byzantine liturgies, as well as other rites of the Universal Church (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac) have a lot in common with the Tridentine Liturgy in their beautiful prayers, full of meaningful symbols because they all come from the Apostles and the Saints and they've all sanctified a lot of people throughout the history. By this I do not mean that the Novus Ordo Liturgy is bad or nothing like that, I would say that the Novus Ordo liturgy would have worked very well as a Low Mass because it is not so long and it's far better than a spoken mass in Latin that nobody understood. I just think it represented a rupture with the old liturgy and what it had in common with the Orthodox liturgy and that it would be possitive it it was mantained in the High Masses and the most solemn moments of the Roman Church.

I don't think the Tridentine Mass had as much in common with the Eastern Byzantine LIturgy as might be thought at first. The ethos of the Eastern Liturgy is much more participatory and less static then the Tridentine Mass (not that the Tridentine Liturgy isn't beautiful)
I remember in my old Byzantine parish. there were some Roman-rite Caths ( angry at the changes in the Liturgy in the West) who came to Byzantine Cath Churches hoping to find a kind of Tridentine LIturgy in the East (often just because the priest faces East) but after a little bit of time found that the ethos in the East is different and they would leave to join an Indult Tridentine community. The liturgical mentality is just so different.

I agree with Brian. Some prominent Orthodox theologians, such as the late Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory, and who was an official observer at Vatican II, praised some aspects of the liturgical reforms such as vernacular liturgy, Communion with both species and a more participational approach.

Schmemann and other Orthodox theologians have written about their difficulty with "private masses" and "low masses" and the inherint theological and liturgical difficulties these present to Orthodoxy. A "private mass" is simply a non sequitor to Byzantine thinking.

The Roman Mass has never come up at any official dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox as an item for discussion by the Orthodox. The Orthodox, while they may have private opinions, are willing to allow the Roman Church to police its own liturgical issues rather than interfering.

Yea that's right, but I think it's much an aspect of culture. I agree with you about the individualistic and clerical character of thre low said latin masses which would be the antithesis of the community-sense of the Byzantine liturgy. The Novus Ordo is very participatory and has a clear epiclesis, and some Eucharistic prayers have points of contact with the East, plus, communion under boith kinds is now encouraged.

I believe that if the Tridentine Mass is restored, it won't be as individualistic as before, I think a new hybrid mass will be born, because some aspects of the new liturgy will probably be preserved, such as the universal prayer, the litanies, lay readers, which existed before Vatican II.

Vesting will probably be a big issue too. Those things are expensive! Most priests that want to persue this would need two sets of everything.

If this story is true, it will initially be good news. I have a lot of questions about how it would all be implimented but that's not to say I oppose the idea. I think it would be good for those of us who appreciate the reverence of the traditional liturgy.

But I wouldn't expect most parishes to opt-in. I wonder how the church could police the proper celebration of the mass.

It could degenerate into a free-for-all as parishes try to fit the practices into their sanctuaries and start experimenting and complaints would start flying into the chanceries.
Practices like retaining lay Eucharistic ministers, altar girls or the "stripped-down" vestments currently in use. The celebrant facing the congregation should not be a problem since it was always done at Saint Peters basilica "in the round" so to speak, but I doubt that most people would want or expect that.

Would the mass be in Latin or the vernacular? Technically, I think we might expect them to be in Latin but what if these priests want to use English, Spanish, Polish or Old Church Slavonic?

And will they follow the current lectionary or the old one? I think some purists will be critical of everything that is attempted.

Of course, the Vatican probably has contemplated this for years even if it has been resisted all this time. My poor questions probably have been anticipated.

Michael

I don't think that an easternization of the RC Holy Mass is acceptable; no more acceptable than westernization of the Divine Liturgy. The RC liturgy should be loyal to its Western heritage.

Logos Teen

Michael, admixture should not be a problem because a priest will either offer the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum, or the Paul VI Missal.

If he follows 1962 he will be required to follow the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, including vestment styles and colors, etc. Similarly if he uses the Paul VI he will be required to use whatever is appropriate according to the diocesan norms.

If someone is looking for the traditional Mass in the vernacular the Anglican Usage granted by Pope John Paul II is the best in that regard.

My private conversations have been to the contrary. But, turning to official dialogue, I cannot recall a single statement in all of the Catholic-Orthodox official dialogue in whicht he Orthodox object to the Counciliar reforms.

Axios

More information on the wider use of the Tridentine mass.

From everything I can piece together, it seems to be an absolute fact that the Vatican is doing this, as Cardinal +Arinze makes clear.

Logos Teen

I welcome the return of the Traditional Latin Liturgy,there is room for the Modern & Traditional to co-exist, just as the Eastern Liturgy co-exists with the Western.


In Christ,
James

If it is OK of the Byzantine Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. James, then the Latins should be able to celebrated the older Mass on feastdays et al. It works in our church.

Will this mean that our own clergy will see a signal to renew the Byzantine High Mass, however odd that may sound? Will a pre-Vatican style of Byzantine Liturgy become in vogue again?

Just wondering.

Maybe it would be a good idea for the Latins to have the Novus Ordo Mass as a Low Mass (it's much better than the low tridentine one) and to have the Traditional mass as high mass in important services and fests.

Just as the hierarchy of the Ukrainian and Russian Byzantine Catholic Churches did, establishing the pre-nikonian ritual as well as the "modern one", the Pope would probabyl allow the use of the modern and old rites but forbiding priests to mix them.

I think that there is an underlying Leitmotiv in the postings that would clarify the various perspectives.

There seems to be a desire among some for the return of the "Tridentine" Mass form as opposed to the so-called "Novus Ordo". In reality, the strutures of the two liturgies are essentially identical and even many of the components are identical in text. The contrast seems to lie in the "ceremonial" aspects of the celebration rather than in the liturgies themselves. For those of us who have lived with the Tridentine form (especially in the "low Mass" and "private" celebration), there was nothing intrinsically beautiful about it (especially at 6:00 a.m.). But when celebrated with all the pomp and circumstance, it could certainly be a work of art (if the clergy could sing AND if there was a trained choir or schola cantorum).

The same can be said of our Byzantine liturgies. Some can be perfunctory or poorly sung (or, for a REAL treat, go to a recited Chrysostom; I stood with my mouth open at St. Michael's in Baltimore about a dozen years back.)

I suspect strongly that if an ordinary Catholic went to a Latin Tridentine and also to a Latin "Novus Ordo", that person would be hard pressed to distinguish between them. It's in the performance of the liturgy that the "Art" (and therefore the "beauty" becomes present.

The need to use the liturgy to catechize the people was certainly apparent to the Fathers of the Council, and by rendering the liturgy in the vernacular they hoped to achieve what we in the East already possessed. (At a gathering of Byzantine faithful, just intone: "It is truly proper..." in the appropriate language and listen to the folks join in.)

I also note that the musical renderings we use in the East are NOT really "old", as in Medieval, but are eminently singable (by and large - except for the Ruthenian "In you, o Woman, full of grace.." Unsingable.). Think of the Russian tones, especially 1, 7 and 8. Good music.

Gregorian chant? Difficult. The meter is not measured as we know it today. In the festal chants there are countless melismata and varying ictus points (marked in the 4 line staff). Not generally something you could hum on the bus going to work in the morning.

So, I would suggest that we focus more on the artful celebration of the liturgy and the ability to have all of God's people fully participate and be catechized, and not need a graduate degree in arcane languages to do so!

It's the prayerful nature that counts.

Christ is Risen from the dead!! (Hum along in the appropriate melody!!!)

And hopefully, they would know more than Samohlasen Tone 6 when singing it.

What's wrong with Tone 6 Samohlasni?

Also, some of the Znamenny melodies and Bulgarian tones in use in Slavic churches are of medieval age, but these are not used very often in most places.

Dr John,

I strongly disagree on everyone of your points. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are dead wrong. But, hey we all have our opinions and opinions are cheap because everyone has one.

There were groups of Old Believers who came under the omophorion of St. Andrey Sheptytsky and were allowed and even encouraged to keep the Russian Old Rite and all of its accessory traditions. The Russian Catholic Synod of 1917 presided over by Sts. Andrey and Leonid Federov officially allowed either the Old or Nikonian usage (but no admixture), and is still in effect.

I am very happy the Holy Father is allowing the Latins to have their Old Rite with much freer usage as there are definitely faithful who are attached to it.

I would agree with Fr. Robert Taft when he distinguishes between the Reading-Eucharist service and the "soft spots" that make up most of the differences between the rites. The "soft spots" are: (1) the entrance rites, (2) the transfer of the gifts, and (3) the communion and dismissal rites. If we theoretically removed the "soft spots" from all liturgical traditions, how close in format would the diverse rites be?

I personally think we get too hung up on the "soft spots" - those highly elastic parts of the Liturgy - that we fail to appreciate those parts where there IS unity, namely the Readings and Eucharist liturgies. Both of these have precedents: the Synagogue Service and the Last Supper. Both help tie us in with the Old Testament and the New Testament. Isn't this wonderful?

Not only can we appreciate the INTER-ritual differences (between the Latin and Byzantine rites), but we can also appreciate the INTRA-ritual differences (between Chrysostom and Basil or between the Novus Ordo and Tridentine).

Isn't all this just simply beautiful?

Joe Thur

I agree, Joe. And I think your point about the synagogue service is truly validating. Things evolve over time to suit the graces given to the community in its pilgrimage home to God.

If things didn't evolve, we'd be opening the liturgy with "Baruch atah Adonai Elohenu...."

Christ is Risen!!

The Liturgy in Jerusalem began with processions into the Church, hence the promimence of antiphons. The Byzantine liturgy looked considerably different than it does today even 1,000 years ago and especially 1,500 years ago. Taft is absolutely correct about the soft spots in comparitive liturgical studies.

But all academics aside, the soft spots are a part of liturgical development and thus become part of the liturgical identitity of the people. Often only the academics are considered when applying liturgical changes without considering the liturgical identity or sensitivities of the people.

I for one love the mercy and charity the Church shows by praying for God's mercy on His church at the extenias. I understand that these are a much latter accretion and the starting point of the Liturgy was antiphons of procession and the Gospel. But according to some liturgists, these are fluff, get rid of them, back to basics, etc.

There is a modern tendency to reduce all analysis into a dissectional mode. Liturgy has not been spared this modern scientific approach. Unfortunately when one dissects, the organism is not the same or as whole as when the process was started.

One never disects a living organism, only a dead one.

I pray that our Liturgical tradition is alive, and not subject to such ministrations.

Amin!

This is where I loose patience with Schmemann on the Eucharist. He ignores litugical devlopment within the context of a changing and evolving Church, trying to scrape away the 'accretions' of centuries and ignoring our litugical identity, mentality and expressions of piety.

Spasi Khristos-
Mark, monk and sinner.

It is truly important to begin "where we are" in terms of our faith-lives as well as our liturgy. The business of moving currently-traditional evening services to mornings, for example, flies in the face of where we, the people, currently are. But there are also valid reasons to make changes that might benefit the people. In Boston, a few years back, Christmas midnight Mass was moved to 6 p.m. because there was an epidemic of shootings late at night and there was genuine concern about peoples' safety.

I think that the dissection image may be a good one, but its counterpart is surgery. There are many elements of the liturgy that have been added over the centuries, especially as noted elsewhere as "soft spots". I don't think that we should feel obligated to retain everything unquestioningly. But, that said, I also don't think that a mandated excision based solely upon academic research is the right way to go either. Why? Because it upsets the people.

If we are going to make emendations to liturgical celebrations, we should do it very, very, very, very slowly and absolutely in conjunction with a lot of education and explanation. (This Pascha, in a Greek Orthodox parish in Florida, the priest blessed and distributed both palms and pussy-willows. Many Greek eyebrows were arched when the willows were brought to the front. But the priest explained that northern Orthodox don't have palms and use willows. He emphasized that people "make do" with the resources available to them. The people were quite content once things were explained. Eduction. Education. Eduation.)

Christ is Risen!

I believe my reference to Taft has been taken in the wrong way, judging by the following posts.

My point was to answer for the nature of the liturgical differences, not a rejection of them, and how these later soft spot developments often become the battleground between those who want change and those who don't. None of the arguments deal with hearing the Word of the Lord better or loving God in Communion better.

There are some who don't want to think of doing autopsies on living things (such as the liturgy) but watch out if you move the lectern from the side of the temple to the middle - as was noted on another thread - or if you happen to change the tone of a hymn. Usually, those who DON'T love or want to internalize the Word of God are the first to fight or flight. Ignorance of our love relationship with God and how it grew and developed over the years can be a mighty deadly force in a faith community. In our past we have a number of blemishes and sour spots. Any development is not gradual or smooth. I would say that our liturgical development is similar in fashion to a periodic pruning rather than a progressive growth without trimming. Things develop, and some things get chopped off. Things get added, and things wither. Take, for instance, the period of our liturgical history when a 'symbolic' interpretation reached its zenith. Every little liturgical action became a part of a passion play. We still see residuals of this on our antimension ("The noble Joseph ..."), at the preparation table (the icon of the Nativity and/or the Star under the asterix), and on the orarion of the deacon (the angelic "Holy, Holy, Holy"). But, we no longer teach our liturgy as a Passion Play. Because like some living things, some parts die off or are chopped off.

What am I trying to say? I am trying to say that everything liturgical becomes equal. How the server carries the candle becomes as important, if not more so, than whether there is Eucharist and Communion. Moving a lectern will prompt some souls to protest to the Metropolitan, but if the same pastor didn't pray the Anaphora it probably wouldn't phase them nor would they probably care. Our failure to sense a hierarchy of liturgical importance is akin to our failure to sense a hierarchy of truths in dogma (where changing a tone for a hymn is just as important, or more so, than changing the definition of the Trinity).

We DO study living things. We DO study life, no? Should we only study dead things in order to understand living things? Dating between two lovers is a time of study. We share and learn about each other's personal histories to help make better decisions. When I dated my wife, I didn't study her dead gandparents. We learned to ask questions and consider hypothetical cases to see how each other would react. In the meantime, we learned to love each other greater and better. And I will celebrating twelve years this year. And guess what? We still ask questions!

No. I didn't imply that we scholastically break down our liturgical life into pieces and parts to better understand it. But I do believe that to appreciate something better, such as liturgy or even the Scriptures, one has to balance fairly both diachronic and synchronic approaches.

Our Christian Tradition is not only that, a "tradition" or handing down, but also a rejection of the pieces and parts of the past for obvious reasons.

Joe Thur

Dear Joe, your points are insightful and well taken. There is no liturgical scholar worthy of the name today equal to Archimandrite Robert who is one of the few scholars whose books I not only had to read but love to read.

I was simply mentioning the trend in modern "comparative liturgy" of partitioning the Liturgy academically and the occasional tendency of liturgists to say we need to go back to this or that "snapshot" of an earlier interpretation of the shape of the Liturgy.

It is hard to hit a moving target when trying to "freeze" the liturgy into this or that model that should be held as an ideal or goal for revision. As Hieromonk Elias wisely pointed out, it is a living, breathing thing. And it is the heart of the identity and life of the Christian community, "source and summit of Christian life" as the Second Vatican Council stated.

It is wonderful in this case (going back to the topic) that if a community has its liturgical identity in an older variation of its rite that it feel free, supported and blessed to worship according to that rite and become a visible and welcome part of the Church and not be treated like museum pieces or scoffed for holding to "old-fashioned" things such as its liturgical tradition as handed down, its own particular witness to Christ and expressions of His truth, etc.

Has everyone on this forum lost sight to the fact that the N.O. mass of the Latins changes the words of consecration? "I do this many" into "I do this for all."

That point along with many others has caused the degradation of the liturgy to the low point of Polka Masses, Jazz Masses, Cardinal Mahoney Masses, Clown Masses, and countless other illicit activities the Latin church has experimented with (even the Popes WYD had liturgical dancing).

Combine this with the sex scandals etc... and I can only see this as a sign from God that He is not pleased with the Church.

I think the Pope knows all this and is getting ready to meet his maker and does not want to leave the Church in it's present state.

I expect the many liberals to start bashing my comments. Ok let the bashing begin...

I really don't think that there are many "liberals" on this site. What exactly do you constitute as "libetal" comments and ideas.....that's one thing that the East can't be accused of is a liberal attitude......

Johan,

While I agree with your post in general, I have to disagree that the "pro multis" or "for many/all" question isn't really an issue except to those schismatics who wish to make it so.

This site explains a lot: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html

Logos Teen

No again, Johan

The Latin form of the N.O. form of Mass contains still "pro multis". The translation in English is "for all" The Trads especially SSPXers presume that this invalidates the Liturgy mistakenly.

Actually it was the Jansenist heretics who considered "pro multis" as being for the "many" in the sense of the elect similarly to Calvinism

The Novus Ordo Mass cannot be blamed for the changes in the words of the connsacration and other mistranslations, which were never part of the Latin text, and were added much later to the vernacular versions.

In theory there is not a problem when they say "For All" or "For Many", because Christ shed his blood for all men, as it was his intention to save all men, and many will be saved.

The problem, if I am not mistaken, is the intention of those who added "For All", and it appears in almost all the vernacular translations. If the change was deliberated, then the traditionalists' claims would be legitimate.

I have noticed that the modern Roman mass is very participatory and has lots of possitive elements that have a lot in common with the Eastern liturgy (specialy the Slavic liturgy). If the abuses are destroyed and eliminated, and the altars, correct translations and the images return, things would probably work better for the Latin Church.

By the way, I think that the Missal of 1965 (the "middle way" between the Old Mass and the modern one) was an excellent option. I have read the Missal and it had lots of things in common with the Eastern liturgy (and i don't mean the East is better than the West or anything like that), it was still a Tridentine Mass with the prayers, but in vernacular, and with the litany.

Joe, how profound! It is beautiful.

Of course its the soft spots that make us uniquely___________(fill in here). But we must never forget our connectedness to all other true Christians in our worship. It's those "firm" components of the liturgy that Jesus gifted us with!

Michael

As far as "pro multis" goes will anyone here actually say publically that Jesus did not die FOR ALL? Hello? His Blood shed for some but not others?

Now, granted, all will not accept, believe in or acknowledge Him. But I defy anyone to say Jesus only died for some and not all. While it is usually not a great idea to tamper with core parts of liturgy such as the Canon (Latin liturgy) or Anaphora (Eastern), this change to "shed...for all" I don't think can sensibly be considered a change which would completely invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Latin rite.

I was a Society of St. Pius X seminarian for the past two years. Every day for that time, I lived, breathed, and prayed the Roman liturgy as it was done before Vatican II, and am very much of the opinion that for the Western Church, this liurgy can be its only means of sanctification.
The Church has two lungs, East and West. I have chosen to side with the East, but do not reject the other lung, in spite of its problems even in its best form. However, there is no use in having two lungs if one does not function properly. Both East and West cannot function properly unless they truly live the Apostolic Faith that has been passed down to them, flaws and all. Yes, low Masses, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and the Stations of the Cross can seem strange to the Orthodox. But they have to realize that these decadent "Baroque" devotions inspired great saints and lovers of Christ. The primary heart of all this was the ancient Roman Mass, that had developed gradually from the time of St. Gregory the Great until the Roman Missal of 1962. It should be a great hope of all of us, East and West, that Christians can once again drink from that great fountain of holiness that produced a Padre Pio, a St. Francis Xavier, and a Cure d'Ars.
Sicut cervus desiderat ad fontes aquarum...

Indeed He has risen!

Arturo

Johan,

Do you think is God who is not pleased with the Church? I think it is the people who are not pleased.

Joe

My understand is that "pro multis" might best be translated as "for the masses", except that has a Marxist sound to it. It does seem to straddle the Calvinistic "for many" and the standard "for all".

Axios

It seems that Rome is still the same. The Traditional Mass will be celebrated in a side chapel in St Peters, but not in st. Peters, as a "secret" event. It seems it won't be celebrated in St. Peter's cause it would bother the spirits of the architects of the liturgical reform.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20030522.htm

The Tridentine Mass is beautiful. I think 90% of the people in the pews at any RC church don't really miss it. I think if it returns to more general usage, it will become a devotional activity--I know if it were offered at my RC parish back home it would probably draw about 50 people, and could be held in the chapel.

Of course, I'd still drive an hour to go join the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I have no problems with the validity of the Novo Ordo or the Tridentine Mass--but the Byzantine Liturgies leave me walking six inches off the ground all week.

Neil

Neil, thanks for posting. You express my thoughts as well.

Michael