www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Liturgy to be freed?

Dear Logos Teen,

I hate to pop your bubble on the comment regarding suppression of rites, but what about the Sarum and Gallican Rites that could be traced back to seventh century? Both of these are not heard of in any fashion after Trent. Yet both of these were local usages up to at least the fourteenth century in their respective areas, i.e. England and France. In fact, most of the books pertaining to these rites were destroyed, and only parts of it can be found today.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father, bless!

You're not popping my bubble because I know what I said to be true.

I can't answer your questions about the Gallican and Sarum Rites. Maybe Trent singled them out, but what I think happened was that the people and/or clergy voluntarily adopted the Roman Rite.

What I do know is that it spoke of the abolition of rites younger than 200 years, so my bubble isn't even deflated.

Logos Teen

The Sarum usage wasn't a different rite, it was a variation of the Roman Rite brought to England by the normans. It was a Romany liturgy though it did have some variations (such as Blue and yellow vestements).

The Sarum Use is neither dead nor extinct. So far as I am aware, there is no parish where it is the exclusive liturgy in possession, so to speak, but there are regularly scheduled celebrations of Mass and other services according to the Sarum Use in Catholic circles in England - usually well sung and well attended. The Society of Saint Osmund is reprinting the Sarum service-books.

Nobody ever suppressed the Sarum Use; Queen Mary Tudor of holy memory had the service-books reprinted and brought back into use when she restored the Faith in England. After Trent the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V gradually became wide-spread, but celebrations according to the Sarum Use continued. Now there is the odd situation that special permission is required for the Roman Mass, but not for the Sarum Mass!

Those who organize the occasional celebrations stress that they are not trying to stage a perfect reproduction of the Liturgy as it was in, say, 1554, but are simply offering public worship according to the medieval Liturgy as it was in England before the Reformation, since this is a part of England's Catholic heritage.

Also, of course, one can find Anglicans who use the Sarum Use (normally in English; at least for now Catholic celebrations seem to be done always in Latin).

Incognitus

They were still trying in the 19th century to get the Tredentine Rite into France in the 19th Century as some places were still hanging on to their own particular Galican Rites. The Sarum as with the rites of Hereford and other rites used in England died out with the Reformation. Priests trained on the Continent brought in the Tredentine Rite. The Cardinal in about 1850 did request the Sarum Rite be restored in England but the Pope of the Day would not permit it. I am pleased that there are groups who have prevented the rite from going all together. I have never ahd the oportunity of attending such a mass and it is great to know I still can.

ICXC
NIKA

Agreed!

I understand that there were translations of this Liturgy in the vernacular prior to the creation of the Pauline Ordo.

My recommendation is that - in the authentic "spirit" of the council - they permit the use of the translated Tridentine Liturgy as well. I'm sure among "traditionalists" I'm in a minority here, but I've never favored the exclusive return to Latin in the worship. Some seem to regard a restoration of Latin as the essence of a full restoration of the tradition. I think if the Pope wants to help "re-evangelize" his Church, he should also permit the vernacular, with some of the sung responses in Latin. That may help mitigate some of the initial negative reaction of those who were not raised with Latin in the Mass, while educating them in the beautiful worship traditions of the Latin Church.

Just a thought...

Gordo

The Benedictines did not have their own rite of Mass but have always had their own rite of the Divine Office. The current usage approved for them has a number of uses of the psalmody. The traditional usage is for the whole psalms to be said in 1 week. The other usage approved was for the psalmody over 2 weeks. The Antiphonale Monasticum has been reprinted although due to the costs many monasteries still use the old ones.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear LT:

I think it is important we differentiate between what Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said and what HH Pope Benedict XVI says; as a cardinal HH was able to express personal views or theological opininons which he has shown he would not do so as Pope.

While I fully subscribe to the criticism of the way the Eucharist is celebrated in many a passage, I really also have an issue with saying these masses are "theologically deficient" (not your quote). The Church has judged there to be liturgical abuses, but still valid masses and it is not for us to quibble with that. The problem is that I see a very thin line betwwen theologically deficeint and invalid, which goes agianst the teachings of the Church we purport to belong to or wish to belong to.

As for the argument that "why should the Eastern rites have their traditonal liturgy" the point is that the Eastern liturgies have always had an emphasis on lay involvement in the liturgy and church governance which the Roman rite did not have post-Trent if not earlier. The Eastern liturgies and tradition did not need to be reformed; and that is the crux of it. VII specifically said that the Tridentine rite was in need of reform. TO dispute that is to dispute the insights of the council. Whether the reforms were carried out in an acceptable way is not my point. My point is that to return to the Tridentine Mass flies in the face of the council. The point could also be made that the Tridentine rite ass celebrated today is nothing like the rite as celebrated in the vast majority of parishes prior to VII (the days of the 14 minute Low Mass). At any rate, it was never envisaged as continuing to be the main missal used after the council; whether the one we got is the one intended is a seperate matter.

In God,

N

I like to add something. Although I'm not against Tridentine Mass, but we must also remember that in some part of the world, Tridentine Mass is not something that the faithful think need to return.

Pauline Mass, while highly critized here and there and reading from this and that forum because plenty of abuses, it may be celebrated differently in other places of the world.

I can testify that in my city, Jakarta in Indonesia, current Mass is always celebrated properly. Except for rare cases, all part of the Mass that can be chanted, from the sign of the cross, opening prayer to the final blessings are chanted by the priest and the faithful.

And to be honest, I thought that was always be the case, until I went to other part of the world and see that it is not the case.

People love the new Liturgy, especially in small vilages. It talks with language people can understand. In those places, you can't expect any choirs since those people probably can't even read. But they are actively involved in the Liturgy and not just as a spectator.

Now, my concern is this.
That some people or groups will start to expand their agenda and try to make this Liturgy 'more Catholic' since they think our current Liturgy is 'less Catholic.'

This will do more harm than good, and I don't like to see that to happen.

In my opinion, current norm to ask for Bishop permision is ideal. In some part of the world probably it is best to have more Tridentine Liturgy, but always with the Bishop consent.

Dear McNabb "Son of the Abbot!"

(I believe that "MacNabb" means "Son of the Abbot" no? And it refers to the time among Celtic Christians when even Abbots were allowed to have wives, and thus, "son of the abbot.")

The Eastern Churches would simply never consider changing their liturgies to suit the "modern world" or "modern times."

That is the one great criticism of the Novus Ordo and reform of the Breviary in the West that I believe can be levelled.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I read about one Latin Catholic professor of liturgy in Spain who has REFUSED to celebrate the Mozarabic Liturgy as he says it cannot be "Novus Ordonized."

The imposition of the Tridentine Liturgy way back when did indeed, as DIAK said, push out other liturgical usages to bring about a ritual conformity throughout the RC Church, even though areas maintained their usages.

The problem with today's issue of Novus Ordo vs Tridentine is what the Tridentine style brought on itself - the Tridentine liturigcal monolith did not allow for other usages and tried to keep everyone the "same." One could argue that this attitude is ultimately at the root of Latinization policy with respecto to EC Churches where the Byzantine and other Rites were seen to be as "Catholic" as far as they approached the praxis of the Latin Tridentine one.

I believe that what is needed in the Latin Church is a liturgical praxis that will allow for the Tridentine AND other liturgical traditions to exist and prosper including the Sarum, Gallican, Mozarabic, Trondheim, and other usages, as the various Local Churches wish. Yes, lip service is paid to this ideal, but practically, many RC bishops would prefer ONE liturgy only.

The difference between the Novus Ordo and ALL other liturgies, East and West, is, if we can be forthright, a large one.

The Novus Ordo is, for all intents and purposes, a true "Protestant Rite" that was created to aid the "bringing back" of the Protestants to the Latin Catholic Church.

It was also created as a way of "aggiornamento" of the Church's liturgy and "modernizing" it (as opposed to "modernism" and I'm not suggesting the latter, please!).

The Tridentine and other Western LIturgical usages could have been translated into national languages, without getting rid of Latin. Somehow, the ritualism was seen as "anti-modern."

This and other issues, from a sociological point of view alone, are really nonsensical and even socially naive.

Again, the laity are never asked what they want or need, they are simply told and are expected to follow. That is also not exactly "modern" is it?

There is no reason why BOTH Latin rites cannot exist side by side in parishes in the form of "biritual" parish units. Such biritualism existed and exists in the Russian Orthodox Church with Old Rite parishes (although there were many more of them prior to the revolution). The ROC has recently affirmed that both the Nikonian and Old Rites are the "two Rites of the one Russian Orthodox Church."

Perhaps the RC Church can take a few pages out of the ROC's history with the Old Believers?

Or perhaps the RC Church can reassess today whether the reasons for the Novus Ordo can stil bear the same sort of scrutiny from new cultural/religious perspectives.

Personally, I think the RC Church, in moving away from the Tridentine Liturgy, made a BIG mistake.

If it truly wanted to update itself, it could have translated, as I said, the liturgy into national languages, without disparaging Latin, it could have decentralized the Roman authority, and done some other things without ripping its liturgical heart out of itself.

My view only . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

I was watching the consecration of a Tridentine cathedral - in communion with Rome - on EWTN the other week.

Just a question on rubrics . . .

There was a priest who was blessing others who had a beautiful stole-like thing draped over his left arm as he blessed the people.

What is that thing and what is its function in the Tridentine tradition?

Alex

It would have been a maniple.

"A maniple is a liturgical vestment formerly common in the Roman Catholic Church and occasionally used in some Anglican churches. Its use, in the Roman Catholic Church, was discontinued after the Second Vatican Council. It is still seen occasionally in those who practice the Tridentine Rite and in some Anglo-Catholic circles.

A maniple is an embroidered band of silk, about 110 cm long, 8 cm wide and with ends about 12 cm wide. In the same liturgical colours as the other vestments, it is worn upon the left arm of the priest. It is only used during the Mass itself, and not during the administration of other sacraments, Benediction, the sermon or Gospel reading (in a Low Mass). Originally it was only a piece of linen with which the people used to wipe their face and hands�in a word, a handkerchief. It does not seem to have been used in the Roman liturgy before the sixth century. Symbolically the maniple refers to the rope whereby Jesus Christ was led, and the chains which bound His sacred hands. It also became known as an emblem of the tears of penance, the fatigue of the priestly office and its joyful reward in heaven. In the Anglican church the maniple is also a symbol of servanthood.

The maniple is conferred at the ordination of a subdeacon, and is also worn by deacons, priests, and bishops. It is the common garment of the major orders."

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel - I beg to differ a bit on your statement about the Benedictines. The Benedictines do indeed have their own rescension of the Mass adapted to the monastic community, whether in the Tridentine or the New Rite. There are particular rubrics specially appointed for the monastic community that do not appear in the parochial missals. The Carthusians also have their own particular monastic rescension, as do some other monastic orders.

Are these "rites"? Well, if you use the term as in the Byzantine sense, Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite, Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite, Byzantine-Romanian Rite, yes, it would be a different "rite" as in these senses the term describes different rescensions of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

If you go to a traditional Latin Mass at some place like Fontgamboult or Le Barroux, or even here in the US in Oklahoma, and are present for the communal Mass, you will see distinct differences in the way the Mass is offered than a parochial Tridentine Mass (either 1962 or Pius X Missal).

Obivously when a Benedictine offers Mass for a parish or outside of the community, he follows the standard parochial missal. You are quite right that they do pray the monastic rather than the Roman breviary.
FDD

Dear Pavel,

Thank you!

Alex