www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Liturgy to be freed?

I'm not holding my breath...with our luck in Los Angeles they will add the 1st Wednesday of the month to the existing 1st Sunday indult...

How do you chant Kumbaya in Latin...?

james

Dear Jakub,

You mean "Kumbaya" isn't already Latin?

"Kumbaya, mei Domine, kumbaya!"

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

I agree that the Liturgy of St Peter didn't begin with Trent.

That's why the TLM shouldn't have the Filioque in the Nicene Creed . . . it didn't have it for centuries . . .

That was the "trouble" from the beginning . . .

I suppose the next thing you'll say is that "kumbaya" really predates Trent as well!

Alex

Alex,

I'm for letting the Filioque go as well! That heresy with which the Filioque dealt is over, and we have much bigger fish to fry nowadays than people misunderstanding the procession of the Holy Spirit in Spain!

Logos Teen

P.S. I'm a fan of Kum Ba Ya and lots of other Southern and Afro-American gospel songs. I would have a coniption if I ever heard it in a Catholic church (please, I'm not asking for horror stories of those who have), partially because Catholics can't sing to save their lives and they'd probably do irrepairable harm to these songs from my childhood!

It's times like these I get emotional and nostalgic for those Sunday morning services at the UMC with my family. I'll be there Easter Sunday though (after fulfilling my obligation at the Easter Vigil Mass at the Catholic church). I very well might go my whole life without attending an Easter Sunday Mass.

Ok. I will ask you he question I have asked many people, and not yet recived a satisfactory answer.

1. If the "Tridentine mass" is acknowledged as a reform of the Roman Rite(s) in use prior to Trent, how is it different than the reform of the Roman Rite(s) put in place by an equally legitimate council at VII?

2. Surely even if there are issues with this Mass, there should be better reasons for widening the use of the "Tridentine rite" than the placation of those who have either removed themselves from Communion or deny the legitimay of a Church Council or Pontificate (I don't ascribe those views to all who prefer the "Tridentine Mass", but they are held by a percentage). I don't belive that any post VII bishop has said the Trad mass is invaid, while I have heard trad mass priests say that of the "NO Mass" (and those priests weren't lefebrists). ?

3. A Pope or a Council should not be either dismissed or embraced because of ones personal view of what they choose to do regarding a Liturgy or anything else. In the Catholic tradition, faith demands that we attempt to conform ourselves to their decisons rather than follow our own preferences. Of corse the issue is clouded, but can anybody calim there are not elements of personal liturgical preference creeping into the Trad Mass denbate?

For the record, though I dislike intensely the way the Roman rite can be celebrated in many Australian dioceses, I will still attend such masses and regard them as valid, as I will also on occasion attend a Tridentine Mass if neccesary and view it in the same way. I also view the Byz rite (my primary one) positively regardless of the language of celebration and my preferences regarding it.

NW

There are many confusing titles out there...Tridentine vs Novus Ordo etc...actually its the liturgy performed according to The Missal of Pope Pius V(1962) and The Missal of Pope Paul VI...rumor is the reformed rite will have the title The Missal of Pope Benedict XVI...

Brother Shawn Tribe's blog has a lot of info for East & West liturgies...

http://www.thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/

I was baptized, received 1st Holy Communion, confirmed and served as a altar boy according to the old rite, and it will always be part of me...

james

Ned, yes, as Jakub has described, the "Tridentine Rite" is not as static as one might believe. Even after Quo Primum there were variations in Latin liturgical practice.

During the turmoil with the Jansenists some of the liturgical practices were quite variable, to say the least, and not only by the Jansenists but by parish priests who thought they had to "keep up with the Joneses".

Certain monastic orders (Benedictines, Carthusians, etc.) have always enjoyed their own particular monastic rescensions of both the Tridentine and the New Rite.
FDD

To address your first statement, the Roman Mass before Trent was identical to post Trent, the major difference was that instead of French people using a Gallican liturgy, and spainish using Mozarabic, and Milianese using the Ambrosian Liturgy, all the parishes in the West uniformily adopted the Roman Rite.

Point 2, I actualy read an article from a New Enlgand diocese that said that they were debating on the validity of it.

3, though I am sure some might just have a personal preference, the vast majority simply view the new Mass as theologically deficient compared to the old. Ambiguous(sp?) langauge such as "spiritual drink" and so many various abuses that have stemed from it(Pauline rite) that nobody dreamed of occuring in the Roman Rite. Also the Vatican II council did not create the New Mass, one could easily interpurt the documents of the council to mean more active participation of the laity by more interior prayer during the liturgy or even allowing the laity to say the responses that the Altar boys had. There was no need for such a radical "protestantinization" of the Western liturgy.

The Gallican, Mozarabic and Ambrosian were particular ritual usages of the Latin Rite, and were not at all the Tridentine Mass or Mass of Pius V. In fact they are (were in the case of the Gallican Rite) quite different. The latter two still exist, the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan.

To say the "Tridentine Rite" was "identical" before or after is simply not accurate. I don't know of any Latin liturgical historian who has credibly proposed that. Bouyer, Gamber, Gueranger, Daneilou, Jungmann, and many others clearly point out the fact that indeed the "Tridentine Rite" was itself quite fluid and prone to development.

Here is one example. The 1962 Latin Ordo removed the second Confiteor. The Mass of Pius V did not have a second confiteor, but by the 1950s this was an almost universal practice, except by certain monastic communities. That is only one example, and there are many more - but to say the Roman Rite was "identical" before and after Trent is a stretch at best.
FDD

Yes Diak, but can anyone name an indult that doesn't use the second confiteor? If one can believe what is printed on the internet... then after Trent the liturgy again changed rather quickly. The story goes something like post Trent the priest had to say so many prayers, kneel, etc.. before processing into church. That's what I can remember from the reading. This particular custom changed in a short manner. This of course is if what I read was true.
And talk about calender reform. Would you consider the gradual simplification of the Roman calender a Liturgical change as well? Liturgy is fluid and does change. It is important however to maintain the Deposit of Faith.
I can't imagine a Liturgy of St. John 100 years ago praying for those that, "travel by sea, air.."
Oh and everyone has liturgical reform. Look at the pre-Nikonian practices in the Russian recension.
Back on the original point in my post..
The so-called "tridentine mass" is technically the Latin Rite Liturgy celebrated in the 1962ish Missal (depending on if they follow omitting the confiteor and absolution).
And it wouldn't be fair to say that the parishes that used other forms of Liturgy "adopted" the Liturgy that came out of the Latin church council of Trent. I would imagine they had no choice but to switch to what was at the time the new missal..
I know people may say, Pyrohy, you have no business meddling in the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I am making observations and I guess I'm allowed to.
Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term "novus ordo."
The current 1970 Roman Missal is not the "novus ordo." It is what it is, the Roman Missal. It is the current Liturgical formulation to be carried out in Latin Rite parishes. I cringe when I hear the term "novus ordo" or the "tridentine mass." They are incorrect terms at best.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I have in my library a copy of the Maryknoll Missal from 1965, so, exactly where does the Latin liturgy in that text fall? it has the latin as well as the English, by the way.
Much Love,
Jonn

The Gallican Liturgy is not dead. It can still be found by those who know where to look.

Incognitus

When I said Identical I did not mean exactly the same, I ment the same structure. The Roman Rite codified at Trent was the same liturgy used in Rome and had been used in Rome, organically evolving over the years of its existince.
I did not say the Gallican liturgy was a Roman rite, it is a different liturgy that is a little more eastern in its form then the Roman rite to my understanding.

I simply do not understand easterners sometimes, you all wish to perserve your liturgical heritage and Traditions yet the West has lost this heiritage and replaced it with a fabricated Liturgy. SO is going back to traditional liturgical heritage only for easterners and latins are supposed to get the short end of a stick liturgically?

I think the plural needs to be used in reference to the Gallic church and it's various rites.

Dont forget that in little England alone they used about 1/2 dozen local rites up until the Reformation.

ICXC
NIKA

The "Tridentine" Mass was not changed at Trent, it's use was widened as the normative Rite of Mass for Latin Catholics, excepting those rites which were older than 200 years. That's why the Spanish got to keep their Mozarabic Mass and why the Milanese got to keep their Ambrosian Mass, why the Dominicans kept theirs, etc. Rites under 200 years old were extinguished and the TLM became the norm for Western Catholics.

The Novus Ordo wasn't put in place at Vatican II. If one were looking for that Mass, I'd probably say get yourself a version of the 1965 Mass. The NO was compiled years later, and was not organically developed over decades or centuries but rather written by those who wishes to further, as His Holiness Pope Benedict says, "the hermeneutics of rupture."

There are other reasons, though I don't know if they're "better." Why should we need more reasons to lift the restriction on the TLM than to normalize a very successful Society which is operating outside of its canonical bounds as viewed by the Holy See? In any case, the Mass is being "freed" not just for the SSPX, but for the entire Church. It may or may not affect the SSPX, as the Society demands more than just the freeing of the TLM.

And certainly the TLM was never static, and shouldn't be. Organic development is fine in liturgy. It's expected and welcomed. Non-organic, farced development is not what liturgy is about.

And for everyone's edification, let's see what our Supreme Pontiff says about the the "hermeneutics of rupture" that took place because of the misimplementation of Vatican II:

Logos Teen