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. The citation is in:

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] Thanksgiving after Mass

Is it certain that the Trium puerorum and the Canticle Benedicite were not required? The Ritus Servandus seems to indicate that it is. I am aware of the opinion of certain rubricists (e.g. Quarti) that it may be replaced with the "Te Deum" without incurring sin but that indicates that thanksgiving is still required. The 1962 Ritus Servandus does allow the option of other prayers of devotion at the celebrant's choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WannabeRubrician (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[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)

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)

[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))

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))

[edit] Lay Participation.

The simile regarding lay participation: "They thus acted much as foreign visitors who do not understand the local language can act today" is too subjective for an informative article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.85.134 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The idea that the congregation cannot participate verbally is just not true. In practice, the lay faithful recite nearly all the responses set for the servers. JNF Tveit (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

  1. 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"
  2. 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"
  3. 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)

[edit] Yebbut why NOT?

I came to this article wondering why the Mass would be disallowed in the first place, and couldn't figure it out from the article as it stands now. Can someone in-the-know please put this information in the appropriate place? Thanks. --P3d0 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of responses?

Anyone reading the text of the Mass and having never been to an actual Mass would be surprised--as I was--that the people do not actually respond. What is the history of this? I would bet money that at the time of Trent the responses were actually made by all the faithful. When did it go out of practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.28.158 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] gender segregation during Mass

I don't know where to put the fact that although gender segregation was traditionally practiced, it is not practiced in American Tridentine Mass anymore, although the practice survives in Europe(correct me if i'm wrong)Akj150 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima, do you happen to know since when the gender segregation was dropped in America?--Akj150 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume such separation was even less universal in America than in Europe, where it was the practice in some parishes, but not all - in spite of being recommended in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In any case, it was not prescribed in the Missal and so is, I think, off-topic.Lima (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)