Talk:Pre-Tridentine Mass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Comparison table 2 Deletion of comparison 3 "Critique" 4 Rome 5 Did Pius V revise the Missal?

[edit] Comparison table

The table uses the terms from the Hoppin book, which is a well-respected history of medieval music, a topic which necessitates a lot of discussion of the development of the mass. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the date of coinage of the world "mass" as mid-4th century, and initially only with the idea of dismissal; before that names varied; we could use Eucharist or Liturgy if you prefer. The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly discusses a reduction of the number of readings and that two or three were typical somewhat after 400. If you have a source that disputes any of this, then you can mention that in the article (i.e. "so-and-so disputes that there were ever three readings in the Mass"), but please do not delete the table entirely. Rigadoun 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Would that everyone editing Wikipedia were as careful as Rigadoun in checking sources, instead of giving their personal notions. Lima 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Three readings in the Mass was the norm in the Gallican rite; however, it simply didn't exist in the Roman rite until 1969. --FidesetRatio 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think FidesetRatio is speaking about the Tridentine form of the Roman Rite. On that point he is quite right (apart from a very few exceptions, such as Ember Saturdays). However, both Hoppin and Jungmann indicate that in the very early centuries there were usually three readings. Lima 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of comparison

Please provide another liturgical scholar for the liturgy comparison. The one by this musician or music historian is not correct. Are there no other options to insert? I suggest Pius Parsch or other scholars? Smith2006 14:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that there was a lot of diversity in how the mass was conducted around the year 400, and so any table like this is bound to have generalities that surely didn't apply sometimes. I thought that that was fairly clear from what it said beforehand in the article, but maybe it needs to be said again at the table. That said, I think it is really helpful to have such a table for the purpose of seeing how these things developed at a glance. I know Hoppin is a music scholar, but since the known music in this period is almost exclusively from church liturgy, he should be a respectable source. In the bibliography, he cites Fortiscue 1913, so he is at least familiar with his scholarship. For reference, the other works listed for that section are:

• Pierre Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, London/New York 1912.
• L.M.O. Dupont, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London, 1931.
• Adrian Fortescue, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, Loondon 1948.
• Josef A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, 2 vols., New York 1951-1955.
• Josef A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1959.

Perhaps one of these explains some discrepancies. Also, perhaps it is explained better in the text that accompanies the chart. Here is what he says next to the chart that accompanies the chart of the mass c. 400, and the original form of the chart itself:

As Christian groups grew in size, the connection with meals began to disappear, until Communion was finally celebrated only at special religious services. In this process, the leaders of the young religion naturally continued to use the ritual practices of the Jewish faith with which they were familiar. The consecration and prayers associated with Communion adapted Jewish formulas and responses to Christian needs. The "Amen" response (So be it) even remained untranslated. From the Sabbath service of the synagogue came the practice of Biblical readings from the Law and the Prophets, with singing in between. These readings formed the nucleus of the fore-Mass that preceded the Communion ceremony itself. Thus, the outlines of the later Mass liturgy began to take shape.

The fore-Mass usually consisted of three readings from the Bible, but now the emphasis fell on the New Testament, especially the Epistles and Gospels. Although the various liturgies differed widely in their choice of texts, the final lesson was invariably from a Gospel, after which came a homily (sermon) and prayer. Each of the first two readings was followed by the responsorial singing of a psalm. The function of the fore-Mass was twofold: to prepare the minds of the faithful for Communion, and the provide instruction in the rudiments of the Christianity. Those receiving such instruction were known as catechumens, and hence the fore-Mass is sometimes called the Mass of the Catechumens. After the closing prayer, the catechumens were dismissed, for only the faithful might partake of the Communion.

The Communion ceremony itself was celebrated to the accompaniment of special prayers that gradually developed into the invariable form known as the Canon of the Mass. Its beginning, however, remained changeable and became what is now called the Preface. From a very early date it included the threefold Sanctus from the vision of Isaiah. Here we have another element of the Jewish Sabbath service that was taken over with its text adapted and expanded to meet Christian needs. Behind this chant and the prayers of the praise lay the idea that the bread and wine of the Communion service was a sacrifice to the Lord, which, in turn, led to the offering of gifts -- originally animals and fruits of the field -- before the Eucharistic prayers. We find accounts of such offerings by the faithful from the beginning of the third century, and the practice developed into an important part of the early Mass: the offertory procession. Thus began the process of growth and elaboration in the Mass that was to continue for many centuries. In order to make that growth more easily understood, here is an outline of the Mass structure that evolved during the first three centuries:

Fore-Mass or Mass of the Catechumens

Introductory greeting, Lesson 1: The Prophets, Responsorial psalm, Lesson 2: Epistle, Responsorial psalm, Lesson 3: Gospel, Sermon, Prayer, Dismissal of catechumens [these are each on separate lines]

Sacrifice-Mass or Communion (Eucharist) of the Faithful

The offering of gifts (Offertory)

Prayer over the offerings (Secret)

Eucharistic prayers of praise and consecration (Preface, Sanctus, Canon)

Communion rites

Paslm accompanying communion of faithful (Communion)

Prayer (Postcommunion)

Dismissal of the faithful (Ite, missa est)

(from Hoppin, Medieval Music, New York, 1978, pp. 118-119)

The items in parentheses at the end obviously make the connections that you were saying, but I like showing how they develop from the prayers. Maybe if we add more text (paraphrased from above, or from a liturgical scholar) that would make the connection clearer. The idea of the table is not that these new forms replaced earlier forms, but that they developed from codification or elaboration of earlier forms. Rigadoun (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Critique"

Instead of making personal attacks and attributing actions to motives ("hate-filled") that some might think indicate a log in his own eye, would Smith2006 kindly provide citations to support at least some of the unverified statements in this section. Not all the section's questionable statements have been marked as requiring verification: take the reference to "Eucharistic Prayers" (in the plural): I thought only one was in use in Rome in 400 (the year in question).

Lima 11:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would Smith2006 at least indicate where he claims to have found the alleged quotations he gives. To take one, would he say what is supposed to be the source (book and page) of: "Incense was used widely since the 2nd century, though only for the altar as sign of Christ"? This statement, whether made by someone else or by Smith2006 himself, is contradicted not only by Father Adrian Fortescue, quoted, with indication of verifiable source, in the section "Middle Ages" of the article, but also by Father Josef A. Jungmann, S.J. (cf. this site), in his classic work, The Mass of the Roman Rite. While incense was definitely used in the Roman-Rite liturgy by the ninth century (processions), Jungmann speaks of the eleventh century as surprisingly early for the first appearance of incensation of the altar: "A formal incensation of the altar is mentioned as early as the eleventh century." (p. 213).

Of course, if Smith2006 does not provide the necessary verification, his paragraph of unsubstantiated statements will, by Wikipedia rules, have to be deleted.

Lima 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Would Smith2006 kindly check again his source and see whether it is speaking about the year 400 or really only about the time of Gregory I, a century later. Fortescue states in his easily verifiable Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Liturgy of the Mass that in the early centuries Rome's "Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast"; and, instead of stating that this change and recasting was completed by the year 400, seems to imply the opposite. In his article on Liturgy, Fortescue indicates that knowledge of the early forms of the Roman Rite of Mass (as distinct from the Mass in Rome as described by Justin Martyr and other early writers) has to be deduced from documents later than 400: "... may be in part deduced from references to it as early as the fifth century."

Meanwhile, Smith2006 must be thanked for the advances he has made towards verifiability.

Lima 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is nine days since I made the above request, and Smith 2006 still has not given assurance that the 1912 book he says he quotes from about the Mass in Rome in the year 400 really does make the statements that he attributes to it.

It would not do for me to question Smith2006's good faith, but it would ease an ache in my mind if someone would please assure me that the quotations in question really exist in the book he mentions. In the country where I am, it cannot be found.

It is indeed strange that, according Smith2006's account, in the 1912 book Fortescue several times contradicts what he wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia at just about the same time.

I have already pointed out the contradiction about incensing the altar, which, in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, Fortescue says came into use far later than 400.

Smith2006's statement that "the full Confiteor of the Mass dated back to the 3rd century" is contradicted head on by the article Confiteor in the Catholic Encyclopedia, saying it is

in Micrologus (Bernold of Constance, d. 1100) that we first find the Confiteor quoted as part of the introduction of the Mass. The form here is: "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, istis Sanctis et omnibus Sanctis et tibi frater, quia peccavi in cogitatione, in lucutione, in opere, in pollutione mentis et corporis. Ideo precor te, ora pro me." The Misereatur and Indulgentiam follow, the former slightly different, but the latter exactly as we have it now (De eccl. observ., xxiii, in P.L., CLI, 992). In the "Ordo Romanus XIV" (by Cardinal James Cajetan in the fourteenth century, Mabillon, op. cit., II, 246-443) we find our Confiteor exactly, but for the slight modification: "Quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, delectatione, consensu, verbo et opere" (ib., p. 329)."

Smith2006 says the term "Mass" was not yet used in 400 for what was later called the Liturgy of the Fathful or of the Eucharist. In his article on the Liturgy of the Mass, Fortescue says that the first certain use of the word "Missa" (Mass) was in 397 and comments: "It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known." Another head-on contradiction.

When Smith2006 says: "The 'Eucharistic Prayers' in Rome" - where did he get the idea that there were several? - "were composed of the same prayers, be it in a different sequence, as the present day Roman Canon", he is going against not only the Fortescue we can check on but also renowned liturgical scholars who half a century later had even more information at their disposal than Fortescue had. In his two-volume work Missarum Sollemnia - Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe (Herder, Vienna 1949), Josef Andreas Jungmann, S.J., speaking of the Canon of the Mass, says that in 400 ("at the start of the fifth century") the Roman Canon did not have the Communicantes, the Hanc igitur, nor the post-consecration Memento etiam and Nobis quoque ("Fehlen würde also von unserem heutigem Kanon zu Beginn des 5. Jahrhunderts nur Communicantes, Hanc igitur sowie nach der Wandlung Memento etiam und Nobis quoque" - volume I, page 71). Hermannus A. P. Schmidt, in his Introductio in Liturgiam Occidentalem (Herder, Rome-Freiburg-Barcelona 1960) is less clear-cut, saying only that these and certain other parts of the Canon (which Jungmann, who is more precise, dates to before the year 400) appeared in the fourth and fifth centuries, namely the period (after the legalization of Christianity) of what Schmidt called the "Basilica Mass" (page 352). These two liturgical scholars therefore agree with each other and with the Fortescue that I can check, but disagree with Smith2006 and with what Smith2006 attributes to a Fortescue that I cannot check. I trust the three liturgical scholars whom I can check. I must regretfully say that I find it extremely difficult to have any trust in Smith2006, who clearly is no liturgical scholar.

Lima 16:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rome

There wasn't a uniform pre-Tridentine rite. The Sarum, York, Hereford, Rouen, Cologne rites were all variants of the Roman rite, as was the Use of the Papal Curia that evolved into the Tridentine rite. Joseph Jungmann wrote in his "Mass of the Roman Rite" that the rite of Mass used in the parishes of the Diocese of Rome even differed slightly from that used in the papal household.

Every diocese had its own variant of the Mass. The scope of the article is broader than just what happened in Rome because the Roman rite, as used in Rome didn't exist outside its gates.--68.45.161.241 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Pius V revise the Missal?

"We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published" (Pope Pius V, Bull Quo primum).[1] Lima 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that our friend examine the 1474 Missale Romanum. It has significant divergences from the 1570 Missal, such as its addition of Psalm 42 to the ordinary of the Mass and the elimination of certain feasts, etc.

--Pravknight 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)