Tridentine Mass

[akascottb]

what is the Tridentine Mass?

thank you in advance

daniel

 

[jukesk9]

It is the Latin Mass that was said for hundreds of years in the Catholic Church.

http://www.latinmass.org/faq.html

 

[Paul S]

The most beautiful thing this side of heaven.

 

[PeterPaul]

Heaven on Earth.

 

[NDIrish]

For pictures: www.UnaVoceNashville.com

 

[TexasCatholic]

I'd love for someone to provide evidence that the Tridentine Mass used in the 20th-21st century is "the same" as the mass from even 400 years ago..... Let alone from 1000AD or 500AD, etc.

According to Justin Martyr's description, the current mass is closer than the pre-VII mass to how Christians celebrated the mass in the early church.

a) they used the vernacular... though when Latin was established as the language of the mass it WAS THE VERNACULAR... this would be on par to now saying that ALL mass must be in English (or whatever language is the most populous among Catholic faithful.. perhaps Spanish?) and then refusing to change the language as the language of the people changed over the centuries.

b) the order of the mass is closer in similarity to the John IV mass than it is to the Tridentine mass.

c) LOCAL traditions are kept intact (e.g. "the kiss"), as local traditions find their way into John IV masses... some places kiss, some shake hands.... while Tridentines refuse to acknowledge the other mass attendees

d) In the mass described by Martyr, people PARTICIPATE in mass... not just observe it

While I appreciate the reverence of the typical Tridentine mass, this reverence is not eliminated in the Novus Ordo. Although, there are many abuses that reduce reverence. Those ABUSES should be dealt with, not the order and procedures of mass itself.

If the mass was said only in Latin, I can almost guarantee I would not have even considered converting to Catholicism. I speak English and so should my church when I attend in my native country.

-Michael

 

[PeterPaul]

I'd love for someone to provide evidence that the Tridentine Mass used in the 20th-21st century is "the same" as the mass from even 400 years ago..... Let alone from 1000AD or 500AD, etc.

According to Justin Martyr's description, the current mass is closer than the pre-VII mass to how Christians celebrated the mass in the early church.

a) they used the vernacular... though when Latin was established as the language of the mass it WAS THE VERNACULAR... this would be on par to now saying that ALL mass must be in English (or whatever language is the most populous among Catholic faithful.. perhaps Spanish?) and then refusing to change the language as the language of the people changed over the centuries.

b) the order of the mass is closer in similarity to the John IV mass than it is to the Tridentine mass.

c) LOCAL traditions are kept intact (e.g. "the kiss"), as local traditions find their way into John IV masses... some places kiss, some shake hands.... while Tridentines refuse to acknowledge the other mass attendees

d) In the mass described by Martyr, people PARTICIPATE in mass... not just observe it

While I appreciate the reverence of the typical Tridentine mass, this reverence is not eliminated in the Novus Ordo. Although, there are many abuses that reduce reverence. Those ABUSES should be dealt with, not the order and procedures of mass itself.

If the mass was said only in Latin, I can almost guarantee I would not have even considered converting to Catholicism. I speak English and so should my church when I attend in my native country.

-Michael

The Tridentine Mass is Heaven on Earth.

 

[NDIrish]

I'd love for someone to provide evidence that the Tridentine Mass used in the 20th-21st century is "the same" as the mass from even 400 years ago..... Let alone from 1000AD or 500AD, etc.

This is easy enough to do, just pick up a Missal and compare it from one 400 years ago. I believe Paul S had done this recently, and posted the differences, which were incredibly minor.

Before you dismiss it, you might want to take some time to understand it and how it presented Catholic theology in a much clearer light.

 

[Paul S]

I'd love for someone to provide evidence that the Tridentine Mass used in the 20th-21st century is "the same" as the mass from even 400 years ago..... Let alone from 1000AD or 500AD, etc.

I have a reprint of the 1570 Missal, the one issued by the Council of Trent. This subject came up a couple weeks or so ago, and I took a look through it and found that the Ordinary of the Mass (the parts that are the same every week) are identical to the 1962 rite I attend every Sunday, with the exception of an incensing near the beginning of Mass which has been dropped.

I haven't gone through the propers, but I did look at about 5 days from my 1568 Breviary, and those prayers and readings are the same as my 1911 Breviary.

The only real difference in the Breviary is the Psalms - the 1911 revision was a big change to the Psalter, but everything else is almost identical to 1568 (and, in the 1961 Breviary, the readings at Matins are greatly shortened, but I almost consider this part of the overall reform leading to the Liturgy of the Hours).

At Mass, the 1962 rite has some changed rubrics, especially regarding the rank of feasts and when they take precedence over ferias in Lent and Sundays, and over the centuries propers for new saints have been added, but after looking through my 1570 Missal, I think a priest from 1570 could be handed a 1962 Missal, given a few instructions, and he'd have no problems saying Mass. If he were given a 1970 Missal, it would probably take him at least a few weeks to learn it.

The 1570 Missal is the oldest I've seen. I have heard that the previous Roman Missal of 1470 is almost identical, but I can't personally confirm this. I'd be interested in finding this out, too.

According to Justin Martyr's description, the current mass is closer than the pre-VII mass to how Christians celebrated the mass in the early church.

That may be, but we're not the early Church. Most of us aren't being persecuted and forced to celebrate Mass in the catacombs. If we truly wanted to return to the early Mass, the first things to go are the Gloria and the Credo. Various prayers have been added over the centuries - it's called organic growth, and it's how liturgy develops.

I'm not opposed to all change to the TLM. I like the addition of an Old Testament reading, and I wouldn't mind this added to the TLM. But when changing the liturgy, it needs to be done for a good reason - never change for the sake of change. I also think change should be done a little bit at a time (over decades, not months or years), not huge changes over five years to end up with a Mass written by a committee.

a) they used the vernacular... though when Latin was established as the language of the mass it WAS THE VERNACULAR... this would be on par to now saying that ALL mass must be in English (or whatever language is the most populous among Catholic faithful.. perhaps Spanish?) and then refusing to change the language as the language of the people changed over the centuries.

The only disadvantage of Latin is that not everyone understands it. With the use of a bilingual missal, which are widely available and were before Vatican II anyone can follow along. It takes very little skill in Latin to learn the parts of the Mass the priest says out loud.

The advantages of Latin are several. The same words are said throughout the world, giving a unity to the faith and preserving expression of doctrine throughout all places and all times. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem means the exact same thing, no matter how politically correct the world becomes - "Who for us men and for our salvation". Homines means "men" in the sense of "humans", not viros, which is "men" in the sense of "males".

Given the horribleness of the current English translation, we'd be much better off with the Mass in Latin. It's much easier to update an unofficial missal than to get the approval of all the English-speaking bishops to change the official text.

In addition, Mass, including the Scripture readings, is not between the priest and us but between the priest and God. God understands Latin just fine.

b) the order of the mass is closer in similarity to the John IV mass than it is to the Tridentine mass.

What's the John IV Mass?

c) LOCAL traditions are kept intact (e.g. "the kiss"), as local traditions find their way into John IV masses... some places kiss, some shake hands.... while Tridentines refuse to acknowledge the other mass attendees

I don't go to Mass to socialise. That's why we have doughnuts and coffee in the parish hall. Our full attention should be on the priest, the altar, the Sacrifice, and God. When I attend the new Mass, I feel distracted by all the interaction.

The problem with options is that they leave too much up to the priest, and there are, sadly, those priests who treat Mass more like a picnic than teh Sacrifice of Calvary. If you take away the options, you take away much of the opportunity for liturgical abuse.

d) In the mass described by Martyr, people PARTICIPATE in mass... not just observe it

We can participate just as much by silence as by responding. The Mass is offered by the Son through His priest to the Father. We are not priests.

While I appreciate the reverence of the typical Tridentine mass, this reverence is not eliminated in the Novus Ordo. Although, there are many abuses that reduce reverence. Those ABUSES should be dealt with, not the order and procedures of mass itself.

The Novus Ordo can be reverent, but the whole focus of the Mass is different. Read what Cardinal Ottaviani had to say about the differences.

If the mass was said only in Latin, I can almost guarantee I would not have even considered converting to Catholicism. I speak English and so should my church when I attend in my native country.

What's wrong with a sacred language? It sets prayer apart from ordinary speech and helps preserve it through the centuries. All the major religions of the world see the value in a sacred language - the Jews have Hebrew, the Muslims have Arabic, the Hindus have Sanskrit, and Catholics have Latin.

When the Anglicans broke from the Church, one of the first things to go was Latin.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Breathes in..... Breathes out..... and goes to eat a taco.....

 

[TexasCatholic]

Typos... or bad memory. Heh. I meant Paul VI, not John IV.... Hadn't had any food yet

-Michael

 

[TexasCatholic]

I have a reprint of the 1570 Missal, the one issued by the Council of Trent.

Basically then, there are a few (granted, minor) differences between the mass of 400 years ago and today.... How about my other questions? 1000AD? 500AD?... While I DO REALIZE that the Novus Ordo Mass is a significant change from the Tridentine, I am very tired of hearing people refer to the Tridentine as an "ancient rite" that has gone "unchanged since the time of Christ"... It's just not true. At the MOST you could somewhat accurately say "the Tridentine Mass is the mass that has gone without significant changes since the Council of Trent"...

That may be, but we're not the early Church. Most of us aren't being persecuted and forced to celebrate Mass in the catacombs. If we truly wanted to return to the early Mass, the first things to go are the Gloria and the Credo. Various prayers have been added over the centuries - it's called organic growth, and it's how liturgy develops.

What does persecution (or non-persecution) have to do with the order of worship?

Further, I agree that ORGANIC GROWTH is desirable, but what had happened since the Council of Trent was a virtual lack of any kind of growth for any reason whatsoever. Including and (IMO especially) language.

I'm not opposed to all change to the TLM. I like the addition of an Old Testament reading, and I wouldn't mind this added to the TLM. But when changing the liturgy, it needs to be done for a good reason - never change for the sake of change.

Is it the Tridentine's opinion that the changes made were "for the sake of change" and not because there was a real feeling for a NEED for it? The way I am picturing it, there had been an intrinsic "ban" on change (whether stated or not) since the proliferation of printed masses following the Council of Trent. Even the changes you describe were extremely minor. They did not, however, account in any fashion for the RAPID growth of Christianity following the 1500's to other parts of the world (not just Europe)...

...and MORE IMPORTANTLY, for the 20th century. As anyone with any perspective at all knows, the 20th century represents the most widespread growth in population and CHANGES in the world in the entire history of the Planet Earth. How, then, is it inappropriate in the 20th century to make the most significant changes to the style of worship, in accordance with the real changes in society, culture, traditions, etc, of the world that the CHURCH is a part of. We, the Body of Christ, are the Church. We have changed more in the past 150 years than in all of human history. It seems pretty ridiculous that the LEAST amount of changes in our Christian worship had occurred... Up until Vatican II, which sought to make those changes accordingly.

I also think change should be done a little bit at a time (over decades, not months or years), not huge changes over five years to end up with a Mass written by a committee.

I agree! It would be ideal to make these changes over time. However, before Vatican II, the legalistic post-Trent stance of the Church prevented anyone from making any changes WHATSOEVER.... How, then, could they be made slowly? They were playing "catch-up" with changes that should have most definitely occurred over time, but did not.

The only disadvantage of Latin is that not everyone understands it.

When Latin was made the language of the mass, it was the VERNACULAR of the time. Why is it that Tridentine's refuse to recognize this fact and continue to (as you just did) glaze over this fact?.... Trent mandated Latin simply because the very idea that someone could say mass in another language was "too protestant" for them. Many Tridentine's continue to hold this type of counterproductive attitude. Note: Just because Luther or the Church of England made a change DOESN'T mean that that particular change might not, in fact, be a GOOD change... a change for the BETTER... the RIGHT thing to do. It doesn't mean it is... but it doesn't mean it isn't. Trent was vehemently opposed to any idea that "protestants" might have had, simply for mere purpose OF being against it. I hope I'm wording that thought properly.

The advantages of Latin are several. The same words are said throughout the world, giving a unity to the faith and preserving expression of doctrine throughout all places and all times.

As you said, God doesn't hear prayers in just one language. On that note, God didn't speak Latin when he was on earth, either. If we were to standardize on a language, would we not standardize on Aramaic? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just pointing out how silly it is that people think that Latin is the "language of God"... while I'm not saying YOU believe that, you and I both know that there are people who do.... misguided as they may be)

Given the horribleness of the current English translation, we'd be much better off with the Mass in Latin. It's much easier to update an unofficial missal than to get the approval of all the English-speaking bishops to change the official text.

So, because the English translation was, in your opinion, horrible.... that should negate the possibility of ever speaking English (or any other vernacular) in the mass?... I am sure that is not what you're saying, but you do realize how preposterous it is... and you do realize that there are people who think that way...

In addition, Mass, including the Scripture readings, is not between the priest and us but between the priest and God. God understands Latin just fine.

I'm going to have to just disagree with you entirely here. A) God doesn't need us to read The Word of God to him. The readings are for us to HEAR THE WORD OF GOD PROCLAIMED. If you really, truly, believe that this is not the purpose, then our entire discussion here is going to be fruitless, because we disagree on a basic premise of worship. God doesn't NEED us to worship him. He sure wants us to, and we submit to God's desire. But, either way, he doesn't need us reading his Word to Him.... That's for us to learn how to better SERVE GOD and to hear the immortal words of Christ. and B) You're right, God does understand Latin just fine. But I don't. Nor do I have any desire to learn Latin or to sit with my head buried in a bi-lingual Missal for the entire Mass trying to figure out what's being said. Furthermore, although the Liturgy of the Eucharist is God presented to us, and the prayers are to God, we are indeed proclaiming those prayers (silently) to God along with the priest. It sure does make more sense for us to be praying them in our own language. Though, I imagine some will disagree with the very notion that we are praying them together with the priest. I don't have to agree with those people on that....

What's the John IV Mass?

Brain fart. I meant Paul VI.

I don't go to Mass to socialise. That's why we have doughnuts and coffee in the parish hall. Our full attention should be on the priest, the altar, the Sacrifice, and God. When I attend the new Mass, I feel distracted by all the interaction.

You believe the Sign of Peace is intended as a socialization time?... Then, you don't even understand the Mass. The Sign of Peace is given as a part of the Ancient Ritual of the Mass (as described by Martyr) to show our Brethren in Christ that we are there in Peace, with the Peace of God, to celebrate the Mass. This is why we say "Peace Be With You" or some similar phrase.... and why we don't say "Hey Jim, how's the ol' Chevy dealership treatin' ya? Good? Awesome man, well, tell your cousin Bill I'll be buy to pick up that set of heads for the Mustang on Tuesday.".... No, we say "May the Peace of Christ Be With You" or similar phrase, expressing what our ancient Christian brothers and sisters did in the very same celebration and for the very same reason.

The problem with options is that they leave too much up to the priest, and there are, sadly, those priests who treat Mass more like a picnic than teh Sacrifice of Calvary. If you take away the options, you take away much of the opportunity for liturgical abuse.

I wholeheartedly agree. Even as one who has yet to enter the faith (I enter this Easter), I strongly agree that the Liturgy should be standard and very non-flexible at the "local level"... At the same time, I think it should naturally change over time in its logistics, but NOT in its basics. The liturgy had become stagnant because of fear and legalism. I think we can all agree that Pre-Vatican II the Church had become a bit big-headed in legalistic language (mostly post-Trent), and that it was in need of reform of this to some extent.... While Vatican II chose to use words other than reform, John XXIII did use similar wording. The man opened up the Second Vatican Council as his last act and with words that ring true even today. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit brought about his actions. As to whether the results were all perfect? Obviously not... But change was necessary. Perhaps a Third Vatican Council could make the necessary "firming-ups" that need to be made with regard to certain elements. However, I pray we never see a return to Latin-only mass or a mass in which the people are not participating. We are a Body of Christ. Our worship is not just between ourselves and God.... We worship as a Body, as a Community. Those who don't like that idea just don't like Truth.

God Bless,

Michael

 

[TexasCatholic]

duplicate

 

[Paul S]

Basically then, there are a few (granted, minor) differences between the mass of 400 years ago and today.... How about my other questions? 1000AD? 500AD?... While I DO REALIZE that the Novus Ordo Mass is a significant change from the Tridentine, I am very tired of hearing people refer to the Tridentine as an "ancient rite" that has gone "unchanged since the time of Christ"... It's just not true. At the MOST you could somewhat accurately say "the Tridentine Mass is the mass that has gone without significant changes since the Council of Trent"...

I've never heard of the Tridentine Mass referred to as unchanged from the time of Christ. The 1570 Missal, however, was not new, but the Roman rite as it existed at the time.

I do know that the Roman Canon was unchanged from around the 7th century until 1962, when the name of St. Joseph was added.

What does persecution (or non-persecution) have to do with the order of worship?

It wasn't until Christianity could be practiced openly that the form of worship and the worship space could really develop. You couldn't really bring everything needed for Mass to your neighbour's house or to the catacombs, so the Mass had to be kept more simple.

Further, I agree that ORGANIC GROWTH is desirable, but what had happened since the Council of Trent was a virtual lack of any kind of growth for any reason whatsoever. Including and (IMO especially) language.

And, other than language, why is this bad?

Is it the Tridentine's opinion that the changes made were "for the sake of change" and not because there was a real feeling for a NEED for it? The way I am picturing it, there had been an intrinsic "ban" on change (whether stated or not) since the proliferation of printed masses following the Council of Trent. Even the changes you describe were extremely minor. They did not, however, account in any fashion for the RAPID growth of Christianity following the 1500's to other parts of the world (not just Europe)...

I wasn't around before Vatican II, but I have heard that there was no real cry from the people for a new Mass. Having seen the opinions of Bugnini and others involved with the Council, I think many of the changes were made to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants, watering down Catholic doctrine.

...and MORE IMPORTANTLY, for the 20th century. As anyone with any perspective at all knows, the 20th century represents the most widespread growth in population and CHANGES in the world in the entire history of the Planet Earth. How, then, is it inappropriate in the 20th century to make the most significant changes to the style of worship, in accordance with the real changes in society, culture, traditions, etc, of the world that the CHURCH is a part of. We, the Body of Christ, are the Church. We have changed more in the past 150 years than in all of human history. It seems pretty ridiculous that the LEAST amount of changes in our Christian worship had occurred... Up until Vatican II, which sought to make those changes accordingly.

Do we really want the culture of the 1960s and 1970s in the Mass?

I agree! It would be ideal to make these changes over time. However, before Vatican II, the legalistic post-Trent stance of the Church prevented anyone from making any changes WHATSOEVER.... How, then, could they be made slowly? They were playing "catch-up" with changes that should have most definitely occurred over time, but did not.

And why does the Mass need to change? God does not.

Perhaps more vocal participation by the people was desired - this was done before Vatican II, with the dialogue Mass from the 1930s. The people would say the responses along with the servers.

Everything Sacrosanctum Concilium called for, except the revised Lectionary, was done with the 1965 Missal. This Missal is still the Tridentine rite, not the Novus Ordo. There was no need for another Missal five years later. This Missal could even be used in the vernacular.

When Latin was made the language of the mass, it was the VERNACULAR of the time. Why is it that Tridentine's refuse to recognize this fact and continue to (as you just did) glaze over this fact?....

Latin was not the vernacular of the 1500s - English and French and Spanish and Italian and German and Polish were.

As you said, God doesn't hear prayers in just one language. On that note, God didn't speak Latin when he was on earth, either. If we were to standardize on a language, would we not standardize on Aramaic? (I'm not saying we should, I'm just pointing out how silly it is that people think that Latin is the "language of God"... while I'm not saying YOU believe that, you and I both know that there are people who do.... misguided as they may be)

Latin may not be God's language, but it is the language of His Church for almost 1800 years. Vatican II called for Latin to stay, but perhaps to do the
readings in the vernacular.

So, because the English translation was, in your opinion, horrible.... that should negate the possibility of ever speaking English (or any other vernacular) in the mass?... I am sure that is not what you're saying, but you do realize how preposterous it is... and you do realize that there are people who think that way...

I strongly prefer Latin in the liturgy. However, if my choices were the 1962 Missal in English or the 1970 Missal in Latin, I'd pick the 1962 Missal. In whatever language, it's a much better expression of the Catholic faith.

I'm going to have to just disagree with you entirely here. A) God doesn't need us to read The Word of God to him. The readings are for us to HEAR THE WORD OF GOD PROCLAIMED. If you really, truly, believe that this is not the purpose, then our entire discussion here is going to be fruitless, because we disagree on a basic premise of worship. God doesn't NEED us to worship him. He sure wants us to, and we submit to God's desire. But, either way, he doesn't need us reading his Word to Him..

You're right, God doesn't need His Word proclaimed to him. But neither does He need our worship at all. The readings are read primarily to God, although they are for the secondary effect of the people hearing them. If the readings were truly for us, then having them in Latin for centuries makes absolutely no sense, yet this is what the Church chose to do. If she was wrong about this, then she could be wrong about the new Mass, too.

Nor do I have any desire to learn Latin or to sit with my head buried in a bi-lingual Missal for the entire Mass trying to figure out what's being said.

When I attend Mass, I use my missal mainly for the readings and other proper prayers, and for the Offertory and Canon, which is silent. You don't spend the entire Mass trying to figure it out, especially after you've attended the TLM for a few weeks.

Furthermore, although the Liturgy of the Eucharist is God presented to us, and the prayers are to God, we are indeed proclaiming those prayers (silently) to God along with the priest. It sure does make more sense for us to be praying them in our own language. Though, I imagine some will disagree with the very notion that we are praying them together with the priest. I don't have to agree with those people on that.

And that's what the missals are for - we're free to pray them silently in English while the priest says them in Latin.

You believe the Sign of Peace is intended as a socialization time?... Then, you don't even understand the Mass. The Sign of Peace is given as a part of the Ancient Ritual of the Mass (as described by Martyr) to show our Brethren in Christ that we are there in Peace, with the Peace of God, to celebrate the Mass. This is why we say "Peace Be With You" or some similar phrase.... and why we don't say "Hey Jim, how's the ol' Chevy dealership treatin' ya? Good? Awesome man, well, tell your cousin Bill I'll be buy to pick up that set of heads for the Mustang on Tuesday.".... No, we say "May the Peace of Christ Be With You" or similar phrase, expressing what our ancient Christian brothers and sisters did in the very same celebration and for the very same reason.

In the TLM, the kiss of peace is given by the priest to the deacon, symbolising Christ giving it to the apostles. Maybe adding it was well-intentioned, but if I had just watched Christ die on the cross, I'm not going to be shaking hands with the people around me.

I wholeheartedly agree. Even as one who has yet to enter the faith (I enter this Easter), I strongly agree that the Liturgy should be standard and very non-flexible at the "local level"... At the same time, I think it should naturally change over time in its logistics, but NOT in its basics. The liturgy had become stagnant because of fear and legalism.

The liturgy was standardised as a reaction against the Protestants, who are still here today. I don't think we can relax five centuries later and trust that the threat of Protestantism will just go away and won't affect the faith, especially on the individual level.

However, I pray we never see a return to Latin-only mass or a mass in which the people are not participating. We are a Body of Christ. Our worship is not just between ourselves and God.... We worship as a Body, as a Community. Those who don't like that idea just don't like Truth.

And maybe that's why God allowed the Novus Ordo - so when the Mass returns to something more like the 1962 Missal, the people will participate and appreciate the beauty of the Mass in a way they didn't before the Council.

We do worship as a community, but the Mass is primarily offered by the priest, not by us. Too much "community" can blur this and hurt the priesthood.