Which Mass do you hear?

[cmotherofpirl]

I am please to go to Mass and participate by singing and saying the responses. He who sings prays twice

[qfnol31]

I cannot sing anymore.

Asthma and a virus are stopping me.

[Resurrexi]

oh, its great to sing, just dont say the responses.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:01 PM']I perfer the word "hear," though assist is a great word to use. I say "hear" because I do not participate by saying the responses at any Mass I go to, [b]that is the job for the Altar BOYS [/b](ie not girls). Assist is a good word when you mean praying the Mass with the priest by adoring Christ and following along in your missal with the priest.
[right][snapback]886614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
not anymore it's not.

[qfnol31]

Oh, I actually agree with him. I know quite a few girls who think it's only for boys...

[Jaime]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']oh, its great to sing, just dont say the responses.
[right][snapback]886623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think some little guy is up past his bed time

[Resurrexi]

[quote]not anymore it's not.[/quote]

oh, um, i see.

Edited February 14, 2006 by StThomasMore

[homeschoolmom]

I didn't mean that it was only for boys. What I meant that saying the responses was not solely the job of the altar boys.

Not to self: don't type so fast...

Edited February 14, 2006 by homeschoolmom

[qfnol31]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:07 PM']I didn't mean that it was only for boys. What I meant that saying the responses was not sole the job of the altar boys.
[right][snapback]886628[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ahh!

[Jaime]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:07 PM']heretic.
[right][snapback]886627[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yup

Someone's up past his bedtime

[qfnol31]

Please don't be bullies in here...

Too many these days.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']oh, its great to sing, just dont say the responses.
[right][snapback]886623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Mass is not a spectator sport, of course I am going to say [or sing] the responses.
Its a dialogue.

[jezic]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 09:07 PM']oh, um, i see.
[right][snapback]886627[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

use this word when you mean it.

Hsmom is not a heretic.

it was edited out.

[MilesChristi]

I attend an indult "Tridentine" Mass on Sundays and the "Novus Ordo" Mass during the week.

For the edification of our brother STM and anyone who hasn't read it before, I'm going to post Cam's awesome analysis of the two Masses. All that follows is his work:

[b]Novus Ordo Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Entrance Antiphons.
Tridentine Introductory Prayers: Sign of the Cross, Psalm 42.[/b]

--The only difference is that Psalm 42 was elimnated and the Introit was moved to replace it.
--In reality they are about the same length if you take into account that (i) in the Pauline liturgy, the priest after the greeting usually takes about thirty seconds to explain the significance of the mass that day - usually a theme from one of the readings or if it is a feast day something pertaining to the feast - and (ii) in the Tridentine liturgy the priest and server usually alternate Psalm verses at low volume and quickly in a manner whereby if they said them aloud it would sound rambling. (I have served at many a Tridentine mass and in every case the priest recited Psalm 42 as if he was in a hurry.)
--As far as the usage of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass, it was added at around the eleventh century. Therefore, it cannot be considered an "essential" part of the rite as if going without it somehow made the Pauline rite in any way deficient. That is the primary point to be made here, not whether it is better to have retained it or not. (Such views are purely subjective though subjectively the author if a choice was to be made would prefer the older sequence.)

[b]Novus Ordo: Confietor
Tridentine: Confietor[/b]

--Slight change to the wording
--the Confiteor is one of three optional introductory rites, the experience of this writer is that it is used about 90% of the time and therefore can be considered the "normal usage" of the Pauline Missal by default. The second Confiteor was deleted because it gives the illusion of vastly greater length when in reality the priest and server say the Confiteor so quickly that it is practically a ramble. By contrast the Pauline liturgy has one Confiteor recited in the plural and is done slower with much better enunciation. (This is not to be condescending but to state the truth.) Since many 'traditionalists' gripe about the "necessity" of two Confiteors as if to keep some kind of separation between the priest and the people, it should be pointed out once again that a 'traditionalist' making such claims has a very myopic understanding of liturgical history.

[b]Novus Ordo: Kyrie and Gloria
Tridentine: Introit, Kyrie, and Gloria[/b]

--Introit moved to the Introductory Prayers in the Novus Ordo
--So this argument against duplicate prayers that the 'traditionalists' espouses has no historical foundation to stand on and the Pauline practice of prayers in the plural has a much earlier pedigree then the Tridentine practice which started at around the ninth century. Both are valid but if any deserves a special mention as being more faithful to the authentic liturgical tradition, it is the Pauline restoration of the plural form of the prayers.

[b]Novus Ordo: Liturgy of the Word
Tridentine: Liturgy of the Word[/b]

--Inclusion of OT readings. Replacement of Gradual, Tract, or Sequence (in some instances) with Responsorial Psalm. However, this is a misnomer, because there are Graduals for the Novus Ordo. They are simply deferred in favor of the Responsorial Psalm.
--The extra length of the Tridentine liturgy is somewhat deceptive since the priest-server dialogue parts are done in about thirty seconds total. (Almost as a mumble actually.) While an argument could be made that the elimination of the Introit Prayer preceding the Gloria was not a good idea, it can also be argued that the Entrance Antiphon in essence takes the place of the Introit albeit being recited earlier in the Mass than the Introit was. The Pauline Rite Kyrie and Gloria maintain the substance of both prayers intact. Remember, brevity in spots for the sake of maintaining focus on the object (worshipping God) cannot be said to be a bad (or "invalid") feature anymore than repetition of a prayer is necessarily "vain" or an exercise in Pharisaical "external" emphasis with a lack of proper internal intention. Claiming that either method is "wrong" or "objectively inferior" is demonstrating an arbitrary exercise in personal private judgment. (Though there is merit to the assertion that using two responses makes liturgical dialogue more fluid, the author still feels that the Kyrie should have retained the three repetitions in part because it better affords for singing this part in the non-vernacular with the ancient hymnology.) The Pauline prayer after the Confiteor does not mimic the priest’s prayer of absolution from the confessional which is important because the priest is not absolving people of sin during the Mass; however it can appear that way in the Tridentine Mass since the wording is the same as that used in the confessional. This is another important part of the liturgy that the Pauline Mass restoration corrected.
--In essence the Pauline "Opening Prayer" and the Tridentine "Prayer" are synonymous. There is perhaps a bit more outward reverence in the Tridentine approach but this may be deceiving because of the Latin language which has a certain quality to it that the English language does not have. There are Pauline Rite Masses which display a similar aura as the Tridentine - where Latin is used in the common prayers as Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned (cf. SC §54). One of the areas where the Pauline Rite definitely has it over the Tridentine Rite is in the allotment of Scripture readings. There is more Scripture read and the readings are alternated so much more of the Bible is covered in a liturgical year including the Old Testament which is not often read in a Tridentine Mass during Sundays and Feast Days in accordance with the pre-1962 Liturgical rubrics. This was a good improvement over the Tridentine Rite and should definitely be noted as a positive change for the better.

[b]Novus Ordo: Nicene Creed
Tridentine: Nicene Creed[/b]

--The only major change is in posture. A profound bow replaces a genuflection.
--The Tridentine Creed has the genuflection whereas the Pauline Creed replaces it with an reverent bow. (Arguments about the latter or former being more "proper" are purely subjective.) The Tridentine Rite has just the priest saying the Nicene Creed while the Pauline Rite version of the Credo is verbally smoother for the most part and is said or sung by both the priest and the people simultaneously. As was shown earlier, the plural prayer form is far more ancient then the Tridentine practice of segregating the main liturgical parts. (With the exception of course for certain parts of the Canon which only the priest is allowed to pray.) Thus this aspect of the Pauline Rite Mass is a good addition and an example of correction from within the liturgical tradition.

[b]Novus Ordo: Offertory Rite
Tridentine: Offertory Rite[/b]

--Offertory, offering of the Host and Chalice, the Lavabo, and the Orate Fratres remain the same. The Secret is replaced with the Prayer over Gifts.
--A good argument could be made here that the Pauline Rite may have simplified this portion of the Mass too much but that view is irrelevant in examining the Mass differences in terms of looking for characteristics that render the Mass’ licitness as questionable. (Or even changes that could be termed "invalidating", "illicit", "doubtfully valid", "sacrilegeously valid", or even "objectively inferior".) Considering that "[a]ll the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century...before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers" (Fr. Adrian Fortescue: "Liturgy of the Mass"), the addition of these prayers to the Tridentine liturgy was a very late addition indeed. There is also the problem of the older Offertory prayers appearing to offer the unconsecrated elements as sacrifice. (This writer replaced the word "host" with "victim" above because the Latin hostiam is a derivative of hostia which means "victim" in Latin.) So the text of the prayer at this point could easily be misunderstood as an offering being made at that point in time. Whatever one wants to say about the Offertory Prayers of the Pauline Missal, at the very least they do not have this difficulty but instead indicate that at the time of the Offertory that they are bread and wine. The language is indisputably more "directly anticipating" of the consecration then the Tridentine liturgy Offertory is.
--With regards to essentials, nothing in the changes made to the Mass in the Revised Missal effects the essence of the Mass itself. Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with 'tradition' but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity. (This was due to the type of bread being used in earlier days getting on the fingers of the priest.) The addition of the Psalm at this time was to give the priest something to say when he was washing his fingers and Psalm 25 was of course very fitting. Eventually the action became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to thoroughly wash fingers was no longer there (and it no longer is). The "Secret" is synonymous with the "Prayer Over the Gifts."

[b]Novus Ordo: Canon Preface and Sanctus
Tridentine: Canon Preface and Sanctus[/b]

--The only major change is that the preface now changes with the Given Mass (ie. Mass of Ordinary time, Mass of Easter, etc....), whereas in the Tridentine there is only the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity.
--The Pauline Rite version is slimmer but is lacking no noticeable differences substantially from the Tridentine Rite and certainly nothing that would at all render it defective or illicit, etc. There is a greater variety of Preface prayers which helps keep the liturgy more "vibrant" to some extent as well as introducing different themes from salvation history into the mix. This is a necessary quality much as the diversity of Eucharistic Prayers (which we will get to shortly) accomplishes the same purpose. Considering that there were 267 Preface prayers in the Leonine Sacramentary from the mid fifth century, the self-styled 'traditionalist' who gripes about a variety of Preface prayers as "against tradition" demonstrates by this example a poor grasp of these issues.

[b]Novus Ordo: Canon of the Mass
Tridentine: Canon of the Mass[/b]

--The only major change is that three more canons were composed for the Novus Ordo. However, in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) there is no difference whatsoever.
--the Tridentine Canon is still used in substantial form as Anaphora 1 of the Pauline Rite. In this prayer, the offering made is referred to as a sacrifice four times explicitly and arguably two more times implicitly.
--Speaking to Anaphora 3, It is a new prayer based on the old Spanish Mozarbic anaphoras. It mentions the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering explicitly twice, implicitly as a "perfect offering" twice, and Our Lord as the "victim" being offered once: NO sacrificial overtones there right???

[b]Novus Ordo: Pater Noster to the Dismissal
Tridentine: Pater Noster to the Dismissal[/b]

--In the Pater Noster, there is no change. The Kiss of Peace is now extended to the faithful, whereas in the Tridentine it is for those in the Sanctuary only. Agnus Dei is the same. At the Communion, the priest now shows the consecrated Host to the faithful and implores a response. This was not done in the Tridentine Rite. Priestly Communion, Communion of the Faithful. The Novus Ordo has a Post Communion Prayer whereas the Tridentine did not. The final Blessing is the same and the Dismissal is the same.


The two rites have a number of similarities to them primarily in structure. There are areas where the Pauline Mass is more truncated than the Tridentine Rite but there are also areas where the Tridentine Rite could be said to be redundant where the Pauline Rite is not. What was not included in this comparison the prayers after Mass in the Tridentine Rite because they were added by Pope Leo XIII and were not a part of the original 1570 Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Also, the parts of the Pauline Rite that emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass were highlighted to show explicitly that the claims that the Mass is "Protestatized" or that the Mass is not viewed as a sacrifice (the standard 'traditionalist' claims about the Pauline Rite) are from a macro standpoint at least - demonstrably false.

Ok, that was long and involved. I have had to pull out notes from school, yet again, however, it is good for me to start looking at this stuff again. (See, hot stuff, I did get pretty deep in this stuff at the Mount.)

I need to give some props, first to Fr. Gross and Fr. Echert they were liturgy professors (Gross from the Mount and Echert from UST), Also to Msgr. Schuler from St. Agnes, Fr. Zushlsdorf (also the webmaster for CatholicOnline) from the diocese of Velletri-Segni (Roma), and my friend Allen, who is the Sacristan at St. Agnes. These are the main instructors both formal and informal that I had on the subject. Ok, now I can breathe.

[Resurrexi]

no its not. Saying the responses is the altar boys' job.