Talk:Tridentine Mass/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tridentine Mass. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mozarabic Rite

If I am not wrong the Church still allows the mass in the Mozarab rite in a certain chapel of the cathedral of Toledo, Spain. Doesn't it? -- Error

It's called the Mozarabic Rite Caisson 06 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Trc, Lima

Please guys, stop the fighting. This is getting ridiculous. You both know a lot. Give the benefit of your information to wikipedians, not your attacks on each other. FearÉIREANN 18:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that, a fhir Éireann. So will someone else please intervene. Surely some fair-minded person can judge whether the statements Trc insists on keeping have a foundation in truth or not.

07:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) In case the five tildes that I have typed do not work, I sign as Lima.

Trc's memory must be inaccurate. Would Trc please look up the text of the pre-1970 Roman Missal, or even just a hand missal used by the faithful in the pews. He will find that no part of the Mass was/is said on step 1 or step 2, or even on step 3 in the narrow sense. Most of the Mass was/is said on the platform reached by the steps, with the initial prayers (sign of the cross, psalm Judica, Confiteor etc.) said in front of the lowest step, not on it.

This is indeed just one example of Trc's "facts" that are not really facts.

–Lima 18:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trc implicitly claims, I think, to attend the “Tridentine Mass”. The next time he does, hopefully next Sunday, would he please ask the priest to translate from the Missal for him – since Trc seems not to know Latin – Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, III, 1 and 4, where it says the celebrating priest is to say the initial prayers of the Mass “below” (1) or “in front of” (4) the bottom step of the altar, and Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, IV, 1, where it says the priest then “goes up to the middle of the altar” and kisses it. There is no further mention of moving from any step to another until section XII, 6, where it says that at the conclusion of the Mass the priest “goes down in front of the bottom step of the altar”, bows to the altar or genuflects, and returns to the sacristy.

Or rather, let Trc just watch how the Mass is in fact celebrated, if he really does attend the “Tridentine Mass”.

–Lima 03:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added a link to the Text of the Mass

I added the link to the 1962 edition of the Mass from www.sacred-texts.com, and placed it right up at the top so that it would be easy to find for people wanting to see the actual text of the Mass. The reason I chose sacred-texts.com is because it has what I consider a netural point of view when it comes to the text, it is presented factually with none of the politics that can accompany the text of the Mass on other sites.
–JesseG 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Asperges

Some info has been added to the asperges section. I think some of the info is good (change during easter time), some unnecessary (about holy water being blessed previously), and some wrong. In particular, I am fairly confident that the asperges could occur before a "missa cantata", and even before a low mass though I suspect that was rare. (I also doubt a solemn Mass required 4 priests.) This is only an outline, it doesn't have to state everything. How about just the following? Gimmetrow 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Asperges (Sprinkling with holy water, Psalm 51:9, 3). To the accompaniment of chanted verses from Psalm 50/51 (or during Eastertide, from the Book of Ezekiel and Psalm 117/118) the priest, wearing a cope, sprinkled the altar and all in the church with holy water. This rite was only permitted at the main Mass on Sundays, and was optional even then.

The mention of the blessing in the sacristy and of the sprinkling of the altar (three times in fact) was inserted only to point to these contrasts with the same rite as described in the present Roman Missal. A Solemn Mass could be celebrated without four priests only if a genuine deacon and subdeacon were available, rather than priests doing their parts, and that was almost impossible outside a seminary. (See the explanation of Solemn Mass later in this article.) If you look up the rite in a Tridentine-period Roman Missal (you will find the rite towards the end of the book, under the heading Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam), you will find that it mentions the deacon. I am old enough to have participated many times in the Solemn Mass of Tridentine times, but at that time I never saw the Asperges ceremony outside a seminary or monastery. I would have no objection to shortening even further, omitting facts, but including no false statements. How about just the following?

Asperges (Sprinkling with holy water, Psalm 51:9, 3). To the accompaniment of chanted verses from Psalm 50/51 (or during Eastertide, from the Book of Ezekiel and Psalm 117/118) the priest, wearing a cope, sprinkled the altar and all in the church with holy water. This optional rite was only permitted on Sundays. Lima 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it was only done once in a church on Sunday even if there were other Masses. Assuming that was true I thought the mention of "main Mass" would help suggest the rarity/infrequency. Regarding "4 priests required", I mostly wondered if the "master of ceremonies" is actually required to be a priest? (Obviously the other roles could be taken by deacon seminarians, if available.) Gimmetrow 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing in the Roman Missal to suggest that the Asperges ceremony was allowed at only one (the main) Mass: The text of the rite begins simply with: "Die Dominica, in Sacristia praeparato sale et aqua benedicenda, Sacerdos celebraturus Missam, vel alius ad id deputatus, Alba vel Superpelliceo indutus cum Stola circa collum, primo dicit ..." What is not verifiable should not be inserted. On the other hand, it is almost unimaginable that a church would have more than one Solemn Mass on the same day; but you do not wish "Solemn Mass" to be mentioned. If you wish, you could add at the end: "and was rarely used."

Yes, someone not a priest could act as master of ceremonies, but in the situation that I think is envisaged, a parish, not a seminary or monastery, only a priest was expected to know what instructions to give. Whether priest or (in a seminary) a seminarian, the master of ceremonies always wore cassock and cotta/surplice and, even if a priest, did not wear a stole, since, among other reasons, there was no concelebration.

Lima 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed. Gimmetrow

Forthcoming General Indult/ Change in Status of Tridentine Mass within the Church

What is being reported in the Times of London (Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church (Oct. 11, 2007)) would seem to provide enough information that someone familiar & knowledgeable with these issues could now start drafting some appropriate new text for this article. Wareh 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pending the final word on this, I agree that the text will need updating. Nice job bringing this news item to light -- looks like the change is forthcoming. LotR 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I say unless it comes out we should tread lightly. Since BXVI has been pope there have been now fewer than two other times when similar stories have been published, and it has turned out to be a false alarm.--64.93.1.67 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems now to be officially sanctioned by Pope Benedict XVI:

Pope elevates Latin Mass. Benedict authorizes wider use. Traditionalists are pleased, but others see erosion of Vatican II reforms. 'Los Angeles Times', 8 July 2007 An official English translation of the letter from the Pope to Roman Catholic bishops is also online: Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio Data" Summorum Pontificum on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970

Objectivesea 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Need for a More Appropriate Word Choice

In the section "Variations of the Tridentine Mass" of the main article, the first sentence of the third paragraph reads "The 1920 typical edition of the Missal did require insertion of Pope Pius X's bull[11] on the basis of which significant changes were made in the rubrics of Mass." Could someone please provide a word choice more appropriate than the word "bull", which is clearly not the word choice that the original author of that section had intended. Thanks in Advance, (Nickel2859 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Lima, for the edifying restructuring of the third paragraph of the section “Variations of the Tridentine Mass” in the main article. It is now quit clear to even the most casual reader–such as myself–that no editorial commentary was implied by the use of the word "bull". (Nickel2859 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Rearrangement of photos

I took the liberty of rearranging 3 existing photos to sections where they are far more appropriate. Hopefully the rearrangements are self-explanatory:

Moved "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" (a nostalgic image found in children's missals ca. early-to-mid-20th Century) from "Present status of the Tridentine Mass" to "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar"
Moved "Pre-Vatican II Latin Rite Altar" from to "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar/Sign of the Cross" to "The Priest at the Altar"
Finally, I moved the recent "Pontifical High Mass" photo (ca. 2006) from last slot in the "Gallery" to "Present status of the Tridentine Mass"

–LotR 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete List of Tridentine Masses in North America

Does this section really belong in this article? Why have a section devoted to one of the many publications about the Tridentine Mass? This article is about the Tridentine Mass, not about publications about the Tridentine Mass. The rest of the article maintains NPOV; however, the section on this publication seems to have a very strong POV, and I'm affraid the strong POV in this section of the article would undermine the rest of the article's credibility. I'm going to suggest that we remove this section, which is after all about a publication and not about the Tridentine Mass itself. Dgf32 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the article I have moved the reference to "External links". It could be argued that, even there, it is just linkspam. The same editor has inserted information about that website and publication in Traditionalist Catholic and Summorum Pontificum, as well as here. –Lima (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time it takes to say the Tridentine Mass

St. Alphonsus:

"We come now to inquire how much time is requisite for the saying of Mass in a proper manner. F. Molina says (Instruct, de Sacr. tract. 3. c. 14.) that an hour ought not to be considered too long. Nevertheless Cardinal Lambertini, (Notif. 29. n. 30.) agreeably to the general opinion of other authors, maintains that Mass ought not to exceed half an hour, nor to be less than a third of an hour; because, as he says, it cannot be celebrated with suitable reverence in less than a third; and if prolonged beyond half an hour, it becomes tedious to those who assist at it. ... "Father Gobato (tract. 3. cap. 23. §. 3. n. 814.) speaking of the shortest time required by the learned for the celebration of Mass, says, it is generally understood to be about half an hour.[1]

St. Vincent de Paul pronounced the words of the Mass in a gentle voice, not very low nor very high, and in a manner at once unconstrained and devout. He recited them neither very slowly nor very rapidly, but as was suitable to the sanctity of the action, so that his Mass did not ordinarily exceed half an hour in length. But the interior spirit which accompanied his words and actions was singular, on account of its unusual tenderness. He said the Confiteor, In spiritu humilitatis, Nobis quoque peccatoribus, Domine, non sum dignus and similar prayers with great contrition and humility. His devotion rose especially while reading the Holy Gospel. When he came to any word spoken by Christ, he uttered it in a more tender and more loving voice; and when he met with the words Amen dico vobis, he gave marked attention to what followed. In fine, he did everything with such modesty, gravity and tenderness, as moved all present to devotion; and so, persons who did not know him were often heard to exclaim: "Ah! here is a priest who says Mass well! He must surely be a Saint!"

In saying Mass, he [St. Philip Neri] uttered the words with so much devotion that he often made those weep who listened to him. When he had finished he withdrew immediately to his room, but with such abstraction that he often passed close to persons without perceiving them, and his face was so pale that he seemed rather dead than alive. His Mass, when said in public, was rather short than long, that he might not weary the people, so that those who were in haste were glad to see him come out of the sacristy; but when it was in his private oratory, it lasted not less than four hours. [2]

He [St. John Vianney] was speaking one day with deep sadness of the difficulty of corresponding with the sanctity of a priest's vocation, when the young ecclesiastic with whom he was conversing said to him, "But still, M. le Cure, there are many good men among the clergy." "What do you say, my friend ?" replied M. Vianney. "Assuredly there are many good men among us! Where should they be found, if not among us ?" "But," continued he, with increasing animation, "to say Mass, one ought to be a seraph," and he began to weep bitterly.

My friend, the cause of all the misery and relaxation of the priesthood is the want of due attention to the Mass. My God, how pitiable is the state of that priest who does this as an ordinary thing! There are some who have begun well, who have said Mass so devoutly for some months; and afterwards—again his voice was choked with tears. "Oh, when we consider what it is that our great God has intrusted to us, miserable creatures that we are! What does the mischief is, all this worldly news, this worldly conversation, these politics, these newspapers. We fill our heads with them; then we go and say our Mass, or our Office. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thac075 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A user by the name of Lima deleted this section, saying that weekday Mass took less than 15 min. I'm thinking every priest probably says the Mass at some different speed; would it be acceptable if I just put the opinion of St. Alphonsus? Also change the section name to "Reverence to be shown by the priest?" Akj150 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What St Alphonsus said

is not about "the amount of time it takes to say Mass", but about how long it ought to take;
holds true not only for the Tridentine Mass but also for the present form of the Roman Rite. Lima (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking there's some difference; the Novus Ordo Mass has Gospel Readings for one.--Akj150 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So can I put back this section with the name "Reverence to be shown by the priest in celebrating Mass?"Akj150 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tridentine Mass also had Gospel Readings. Much of the Tridentine Mass was said silently, and since what was said aloud was in Latin and quite unintelligible to most people in English-speaking countries, priests tended just to mumble the words, and the Tridentine form was in practice quicker than the present form. I am more than old enough to remember. Just think, for instance, of how words were jumbled and mumbled so as to get through the long phrase "Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen" (not just "Corpus Christi", as now) again and again when giving Communion to one person after another lined up at the altar rails, without any pause between them. On the other hand, when the Tridentine Mass is used nowadays by priests no longer accustomed to reading Latin throughout the day at Mass and in the breviaries, and with the people by now accustomed to hear priests speak in a way that indicates understanding, the Tridentine Mass in Latin may usually take longer than the later form of Mass in English.

The name would have to be "Reverence to be shown in celebrating Mass, whether Tridentine, pre-Tridentine, post-Tridentine, Ambrosian, Carthusian, ...." It would not be specifically about Tridentine Mass and so would be out of place in this particular article. Lima (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, mostly at Holy Rosary Indianapolis, IN, but also all over the U.S., it takes 1 hour 15 minutes to 1 1/2 hours to properly celebrate a High Mass, and 30-45 for a Low Mass.Caisson 06 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PapalMass1.JPG

The image Image:PapalMass1.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

St. Cecilia

It is not possible that the picture that the picture of St. Cecilia shows the manner in which the altar of that church was arranged in 1700, since there would have necessarily been a crucifix on any such altar in 1700, as prescribed by liturgical law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.198.191 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is put on or taken off the altar, the altar is still oriented as it was in 1700. See, for instance, this account. Lima (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of honesty it should be added that not only did the priest orient himself eastward but so did the people. This would put the people with their back to the priest. Also the phrase "one of many churches in Rome" is is vague and tries to give the impression that this was common. It would be more believable to cite some sort of historical record or authority for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.250.4 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, Lima, for such a wonderful article page on the traditional Mass. I'v added to the external lists the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. I a member!

Regarding the list of saints, sometimes we come across "Confessor". This usually means that the saint witnessed by word or deed to Christ and again is historical. Often meant to be in contrast to martyr, and nothing more.

It often means that The Mass for Confessor (White Vesments) is used. If the Saint is a Martyr (Red). If it is a lady a different Mass is used: Virgin or Morther.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Latin Traditional Mass:

The Missal is divided into sections.

1st. The Ordinary of The Mass.

2nd. Common of Saints.

3rd. The Seasons.

4th. Proper of Saints.

Before Mass the priest will consult The Ordo in The Sacrasty for the correct Mass to Offer. It will tell him if the day is of the season or if it is of a saint. Then he will go to the Missal and arrange the ribbons to mark the sections accordingly. If for instance; there is a special devotion to Saint Philomena in the diocese then in the Ordo it will tell him that that Mass is to be said. It will tell him which common of saints to follow. I.E. Mass "Cognovi..." (refering to the Mass of a holy woman not a martyr). He will mark this in the Missal. He will mark the feast day in the proper. He will mark the Ordinary of the Mass, and place the Missal closed with the ribbons facing the centre of the altar, the Missal placed at the Epistle side. He will be directed to choose White Vesments.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)MacOfJesus (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro Multis / Pro Omnia

At the Last Supper, Jesus consecrated the Chalice only after Judas had left, a significant point in this discussion. –MacOfJesus (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)