If the Tridentine Mass was brought back...

[Cam42]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/camilam42/altarflr-1024.jpg[/img]

Just one more, for the sake of proving a point. That is my mentor.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 07:38 PM'][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v672/camilam42/altarflr-1024.jpg[/img]

Just one more, for the sake of proving a point.
[right][snapback]893252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I wish we had a church like that here.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Ya know, honestly, I have seen tons of abuses with the Tridentine Mass. I have also seen some pretty ugly Tridentine Masses too. [/quote]

I pray, oh Lord and Master of Orthodoxy, that you share with we, thy subjects, these abuses which thou hast witnessed.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:36 PM']I do know.  I have been at table with him and we have had this discussion before....several times.  No need to ponder.  You are getting it straight.

And the SSPX thinks wrong.....they have no authority to make that fallacious assumption.
[right][snapback]893247[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you mean that by favoring the properly-offered Novus Ordo i'm starting to accquire a correct understanding of the liturgy?

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:39 PM']I pray, oh Lord and Master of Orthodoxy, that you share with we, thy subjects, these abuses which thou hast witnessed.
[right][snapback]893254[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, let's see......

1. skipping the Asperges.
2. skipping the readings in Latin.
3. tripping over the words of the Roman Canon. (Not allowed)
4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.
5. the inaudible prayers prayed over a microphone
6. priest not wearing a biretta
7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory
8. priest not repeating the double prayers
9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day
10. priest not doing abultions after Holy Communion, but rather after Mass, in the sacristy.

There are 10. There are many more, but that should suffice. They are various in severity, but they are all abuses.

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:40 PM']Do you mean that by favoring the properly-offered Novus Ordo i'm starting to accquire a correct understanding of the liturgy?
[right][snapback]893256[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I mean that you don't need to wonder if Fr. Altier would think that you need to reconcile. I know what he thinks, I have asked him, point blank, if SSPX attendees need to go to confession and renounce the schism of the SSPX before receiving Holy Communion in the Church.

He said......












































Yes, they need to regularize first.

[brendan1104]

1. skipping the Asperges.
- only done at the principal Mass on Sundays, if you were at an Indult at a bi-ritual church, as you well know, it was not the principal Mass.

4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.- i handle them with gloves or a linen cloth or veil.

7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory- this varies at different places, can you point out an exact rubric?

8. priest not repeating the double prayers
9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day-

i believe these were abolished in the 62 missal.

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:53 PM']1.  skipping the Asperges.
- only done at the principal Mass on Sundays, if you were at an Indult at a bi-ritual church, as you well know, it was not the principal Mass.

4.  altar boys handling the sacred vessels.- i handle them with gloves or a linen cloth or veil.

7.  not ringing of the bells at the offertory- this varies at different places, can you point out an exact rubric?

8.  priest not repeating the double prayers
9.  priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day-

i believe these were abolished in the 62 missal.
[right][snapback]893266[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, didn't I just say that I knew what I was talking about? I know what I am talking about. Don't try and tell me what is right and wrong when it comes to the Tridentine Mass.

1. It was the prinicple Sunday Mass.
4. If there are a deacon and subdeacon, the altar boys should not touch the sacred vessels
7. ringing the bells part of the rubics
8. double prayers were not abbrogated with the 1962 Missal
9. double feasts were not abbrogated either

[Cam42]

Brendan,

By number 7, you are not saying that there is "innovation" in the Tridentine Mass are you?

Oh the shock and horror of it all.

But no, the bells are part of the rubrics.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:27 PM']Brendan,

By number 7, you are not saying that there is "innovation" in the Tridentine Mass are you?

Oh the shock and horror of it all. 

But no, the bells are part of the rubrics.
[right][snapback]893292[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There were many illicit innovations.

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:29 PM']There were many illicit innovations.
[right][snapback]893294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Don't be "a pot" then.

And there still are many illicit innovations. You know, like celebrating Mass without jurisdiction or a valid celebrit.

[Amator Veritatis]

I had intended to pose a few questions, but it appears that Brendan has already made a few points.


1. skipping the Asperges.
It should be noted that the [i]Asperges[/i] are only sung at the principal Mass on Sundays, if the Mass be sung. If the principal Mass be a Low Mass, there would still be no [i]Asperges[/i]. Perhaps, if the [i]Asperges[/i] are omitted, it is because there is no sung Mass at the parish where you assist at Mass. I should say that I have never witnessed this either in my travels throughout Europe or in the Americas, though I have never been to an Indult, properly speaking, in Europe, but always a Mass under the care of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King.

2. skipping the readings in Latin.
Sadly, the second abuse is rather common in France, but I have never witnessed it, even at Indult parishes in the United States.

3. tripping over the words of the Roman Canon. (Not allowed)
While this is a true shame, indeed, it is nearly always--if not always--a result of a priest's frailty or incompetency in the Latin language as opposed to a calculated or intentional error. It should be noted, of course, that the Canon of the Mass is recited with a secret voice.

4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.
This point is a curious one. While it is rather common and certainly an abuse according to the old norms, is this actually considered a sacrilege as far as the new norms for the Mass are concerned? I do not advocate looser requirements, but I find it interesting that you mention this point. I am simply curious as to whether this is actually the case according to the new norms. Of course, those who serve the altar are permitted to handle such items without touching them directly, as Brendan indicated.

5. the inaudible prayers prayed over a microphone
I have actually been unfortunate enough to hear this--at least to some extent--at Saint John Cantius in Chicago and at an Indult parish as well. This is certainly a travesty from an aesthetic perspective as well as an infringement upon the rubrics.

6. priest not wearing a biretta
This error is extremely rampant in France and even in some places in the United States. In fact, at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at Wigratzbad, Germany, this is the normative use, which is completely contrary to the rubrics the custom of which has never been recognised.

7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory
This is actually not a rubrical error, as it is not found in the rubrics of the Mass nor in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], i.e., the rubrics for the serving of the Mass found in the preliminary part of the missal. I have been unable to find such a rubric in any of my five missals. Two of the missals are from the nineteenth century, thus pre-dating St. Pius X and any possible reforms from his pontificate. The other three are after St. Pius X. None of these missals mentions such a rubric in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], much less in the actual rubrics of the Mass themselves. I also have an [i]Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus[/i] with the revisions of Pius XII which makes no mention of it, as would be expected. The ringing of the bell at the Offertory is a matter of custom much the same way the ringing of the bell at the minor elevation is dependent upon local custom.

8. priest not repeating the double prayers
I am not quite sure what is meant by "double prayers", but even in the changes made in 1955, 1960 and 1962, the priest is the only person who recites a prayer. There would be no need for the prayers to be doubled silently, for they are not chanted aloud by anyone else. Perhaps I could shed some light on the matter if you would be so kind as to clarify a bit. If you are including the epistle, Gospel and various other parts of the Mass during Holy Week, Brendan was correct in stating that this was changed under Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on which part specifically is not being doubled. For the revised Holy Week, especially the Easter Vigil, the changes made under Pius XII indicate that the priest is to "sit and listen" rather than reading the lessons. Subsequently, other changes were made both under Pius XII and John XXIII regarding the doubling of the epistle and Gospel. Happily, there are some who do not observe these revisions, e.g., the Institute of Christ the King.

9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day
In this case, I am a bit confused by "doubles", as this is a traditional title used in the naming of a Feast, not a part of the Mass. In any event, I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the fact that the orations for the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion have been reduced. Along with the doubling of the epistle and Gospel, these additional orations were suppressed in the 1962 Missal. While there are individual priests who attempt to retain the multiple orations, rarely do they recite the prayers according to the proper manner designated under the older norms, e.g., some priests will add a second oration for the Pope without observing the other relevant rubrics, namely reciting the oration to Our Lady based on the season first.

10. priest not doing abultions [sic] after Holy Communion, but rather after Mass, in the sacristy.
I have never witnessed this in any of my travels, though it is certainly a terrible abuse, perhaps the most grave of those listed, as it would almost necessary entail sacrilege unless the priest processed out without putting on his biretta or taking the chalice and walked with his index finger and thumb still joined.


I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

I should add my response to the question at hand. If the traditional Mass were made the standard use again throughout the Latin rite and the[i] Novus Ordo Missae[/i] suppressed, I would be delighted but also aware of the grave need for reform in the manners of the clergy in general as well as the necessity of instructing them in the traditional rite. Though this would by no means solve all the problems in the Church, it would be an important step towards solving many of the liturgical problems.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:48 PM']I had intended to pose a few questions, but it appears that Brendan has already made a few points.
1. skipping the Asperges.
It should be noted that the [i]Asperges[/i] are only sung at the principal Mass on Sundays, if the Mass be sung. If the principal Mass be a Low Mass, there would still be no [i]Asperges[/i]. Perhaps, if the [i]Asperges[/i] are omitted, it is because there is no sung Mass at the parish where you assist at Mass. I should say that I have never witnessed this either in my travels throughout Europe or in the Americas, though I have never been to an Indult, properly speaking, in Europe, but always a Mass under the care of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King.

2. skipping the readings in Latin.
Sadly, the second abuse is rather common in France, but I have never witnessed it, even at Indult parishes in the United States.

3. tripping over the words of the Roman Canon. (Not allowed)
While this is a true shame, indeed, it is nearly always--if not always--a result of a priest's frailty or incompetency in the Latin language as opposed to a calculated or intentional error. It should be noted, of course, that the Canon of the Mass is recited with a secret voice.

4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.
This point is a curious one. While it is rather common and certainly an abuse according to the old norms, is this actually considered a sacrilege as far as the new norms for the Mass are concerned? I do not advocate looser requirements, but I find it interesting that you mention this point. I am simply curious as to whether this is actually the case according to the new norms. Of course, those who serve the altar are permitted to handle such items without touching them directly, as Brendan indicated.

5. the inaudible prayers prayed over a microphone
I have actually been unfortunate enough to hear this--at least to some extent--at Saint John Cantius in Chicago and at an Indult parish as well. This is certainly a travesty from an aesthetic perspective as well as an infringement upon the rubrics.

6. priest not wearing a biretta
This error is extremely rampant in France and even in some places in the United States. In fact, at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at Wigratzbad, Germany, this is the normative use, which is completely contrary to the rubrics the custom of which has never been recognised.

7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory
This is actually not a rubrical error, as it is not found in the rubrics of the Mass nor in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], i.e., the rubrics for the serving of the Mass found in the preliminary part of the missal. I have been unable to find such a rubric in any of my five missals. Two of the missals are from the nineteenth century, thus pre-dating St. Pius X and any possible reforms from his pontificate. The other three are after St. Pius X. None of these missals mentions such a rubric in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], much less in the actual rubrics of the Mass themselves. I also have an [i]Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus[/i] with the revisions of Pius XII which makes no mention of it, as would be expected. The ringing of the bell at the Offertory is a matter of custom much the same way the ringing of the bell at the minor elevation is dependent upon local custom.

8. priest not repeating the double prayers
I am not quite sure what is meant by "double prayers", but even in the changes made in 1955, 1960 and 1962, the priest is the only person who recites a prayer. There would be no need for the prayers to be doubled silently, for they are not chanted aloud by anyone else. Perhaps I could shed some light on the matter if you would be so kind as to clarify a bit. If you are including the epistle, Gospel and various other parts of the Mass during Holy Week, Brendan was correct in stating that this was changed under Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on which part specifically is not being doubled. For the revised Holy Week, especially the Easter Vigil, the changes made under Pius XII indicate that the priest is to "sit and listen" rather than reading the lessons. Subsequently, other changes were made both under Pius XII and John XXIII regarding the doubling of the epistle and Gospel. Happily, there are some who do not observe these revisions, e.g., the Institute of Christ the King.

9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day
In this case, I am a bit confused by "doubles", as this is a traditional title used in the naming of a Feast, not a part of the Mass. In any event, I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the fact that the orations for the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion have been reduced. Along with the doubling of the epistle and Gospel, these additional orations were suppressed in the 1962 Missal. While there are individual priests who attempt to retain the multiple orations, rarely do they recite the prayers according to the proper manner designated under the older norms, e.g., some priests will add a second oration for the Pope without observing the other relevant rubrics, namely reciting the oration to Our Lady based on the season first.

10. priest not doing abultions [sic] after Holy Communion, but rather after Mass, in the sacristy.
I have never witnessed this in any of my travels, though it is certainly a terrible abuse, perhaps the most grave of those listed, as it would almost necessary entail sacrilege unless the priest processed out without putting on his biretta or taking the chalice and walked with his index finger and thumb still joined.
I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.
[right][snapback]893305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

First of all, are you trolling me for some reason? You seem bent on questioning most of my postings as of late. If you have an issue take it up in private. I have a PM box. Don't waste public space with this....

1. Nope. Solemn High Mass. This would make it the prinicple.

2. Rampant everywhere, not just France.

3. When you are serving and only two feet or so from the celebrant, it is audible enough. My understanding of Latin is more than acceptable, so I can decipher mistakes. Also, when emceeing a Mass, one is standing next to the priest, much like an archpriest would, so hearing the prayers is quite easy. Yes, this one is a first hand experience, as are all of these.

4. This point is not curious. Altar boys should not be handling sacred vessels. This is not acceptable when a deacon and sub deacon are present.

5. Point.

6. Point.

7. Innovation, is another word for custom. However, it is rubrical.

8. Double prayers, the double confetior, the double domine non sum dignus, etc.......they are often omitted.

9. Yes, I am speaking of the double feasts.

10. Point.

[quote] I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.[/quote]

You are new here, but honestly you really need to back off me. I have formally studied the Liturgies of the Catholic Church pre and post-Vatican II. They were my graduate emphasis. I also am an installed acolyte, as mentioned earlier.

Before you come on here claiming scandal, etc....you need to read up. I am not speaking of these things in any other way than that of a meaning of clarification or as a matter of catechesis. I am degreed in Theology, Philosophy, and Catholic Studies. My undergraduate empahsis was the Cappadocian Fathers and I have just mentioned my graduate emphasis.

As it is, most people are not scandalized by my postings. If you are, perhaps this is not the place for you. At any rate, I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about.

Again, if you have issues with me, personally, don't troll me. If you don't, don't assume that everything that I post is a potential scandal. You have a total of 18 posts (and counting) and you have accused me of possible scandal twice. Please stop. You have no basis.

Have a nice day.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:09 PM']Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]893326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Heh heh, the hour and a half that's left of it E.S.T.

Don't worry Cam, I'm with you!

(Can I not be phishy anymore? : Please?