Talk:Tridentine Mass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Tridentine Mass as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Varieties of religious experience.", Savannah Morning News, July 29, 2004.

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

Contents

[edit] Are you certain the "sermon" section is not mislabeled?

I've never heard tell of a "sermon" in a Roman Catholic church before. In my experience this has always been and still is called the "homily", which was traditionally when the priest explained the gospel (which had been read in Latin) to the lay people, who typically did not speak Latin. (Anonymous contribution from User:24.222.81.14 who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia)

[edit] Tridentine Mass is the TRUE Mass

The catechism of the council of Trent says what the words for the consectration of the chalice should be. The Novus Ordo mass says which shall be shed for ALL. It should be For Many. The latin words are Pro Multis Pro=for and Multis=MANY. Thus without a valid consecration the Mass is not valid. So the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid, while the traditional Latin Mass is valid and is always to be allowed for all priests to say; Pope Pius V in Quo Prium said that not even a POPE could take that right away from a priest. We must pray and fight for the restoration of the true Mass. (Anonymous contribution from User:170.224.224.70 whose only other contribution was to redirect Creation myth to the "Creation" disambiguation page at the entry Cosmology)

I wonder what makes 170.224.224.70 feel that he or she is worthy to judge whether or not the Trdientine Mass or any other form of Mass is true or not.
JesseG 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


The Novus Ordo Mass uses the Latin words "pro multis" in the consecration - same as the Tridentine Mass. The English translation (and some others) renders this "for all," when the literal translation is "for many." This is a translation issue and is (sometimes hotly) debated, but it is not a reason to declare the Novus Ordo Mass invalid.
Darryn 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stay with the Tridentine Mass

The reason why the New Mass fails to be truly representative of the Roman Catholic religion is not just because it is a break from Quo Primum. What makes the New Mass not representative of the Catholic Faith is the fact that it contains modernist ideas and omissions which are in direct contradiction with the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent. (Anonymous contribution from User:66.245.76.58 whose revealing record may be checked at the History of the entry, 21-31 August 2004)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Status???

This article seems to be edited by a bunch of people with a lot of axes to grind, supporters and opponents of the TM. As someone who USES an encyclopaedia, the all-important introductory text as it was before I changed it left me completely in the dark regarding which version is actually used. I can't tell if it is used universally, used by anybody who wants to, used but frowned upon, used semi-clandestinely, or whatever. The section on Present status of the "Tridentine" Mass is not much better; it is written (a) so carefully as not to be be accused of POV AND (b) by so many people with POVs to semi-disguise, that it looks like a politician's answer to a direct question.

I have reverted a previous addition I made which was edited out, not because I think it is right, but because I would like my simple and clear (but probably wrong) statement to be replaced by a simple, clear, and right statement.

Things that people who aren't embroiled in this want to know from a general encyclopaedia, and near the top of the article: - what is the "official" or "approved" or "de facto approved" version of the Mass? - in roughly which percentages are the Roman and the Tridentine Masses celebrated? - in what language(s) is Mass celebrated?

Pol098 00:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "fraternity" to "society" in two instances in the last paragraph of the section titled "Present status of the Tridentine Mass" in order to avoid confusion between the *Society* of Pius X, which is referenced in that paragraph, and the Priestly *Fraternity* of Saint Peter.

  • Yeah, I completely agree. There is not diffinitive status mentioned. Even the paragraph "Present status of TM..." is vague.... I understand that POV is a concern, but I really cant figure out what it is. The beggining makes it sound like TM is still the standard, but the Present status of... kindof indicates that it is only used in special cases when permission is granted?? This is confusing... - QuintusMaximus 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Off-site links

Boy, there are a lot of them. The ones that serve as references, couldn't they be put at the bottom in footnotes? (I'm not sure how to do this, but many of the featured articles are organized like this.) Most of the others could probably be reduced, since there are plenty listed at the bottom and throughout that show the entire liturgy. It's very distracting as it is.Rigadoun 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but at the same time I think it should be easy for people to find the text of the mass within the article, and to use a non-polemical site like sacred-texts.com for the link.
JesseG 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] When did the term "Tridentine Mass" first come into common usage?

It would seem to be that prior to 1970 nobody would have used the term "Tridentine Mass" (nor Traditional Mass, etc., for that matter). So does anyone know when people starting using the term "Tridentine" to distinguish it from the New Mass? LotR 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Mass vs. Solemn High Mass

The article inaccurately amalgamates simple High Masses with Solemn High Masses. They aren't the same thing because only a priest and lay servers typically serve at a simple High Mass.--68.45.161.241 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This user should read Solemn Mass. Lima 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/i/Talk%7ETridentine_Mass_45a4.html"