Posted on 06/14/2007 11:25:30 AM PDT by NYer
But it is, kosta. Pope Pius V only standardized the Mass after the Council of Trent (hence the adjective Tridentine), he didn't create a new Mass out of whole cloth. Plus, he stated that any liturgies that were older than 200 years could remain. That accounts for different rites like the Sarum rite, the rite of Braga, the Ambrosian rite, etc.
Here is a very brief account of the history of the TLM from the Web site of St. Joseph's Church mentioned in this thread.
"The beginnings of the Roman Mass are found in the writings of St. Justin (150 A.D.) and St. Hippolytus (215 A.D.) By 250 A.D. the Mass was being said in Latin throughout most of the Roman world, and the Latin Canon as we know it was completed by 399 A.D. While the Mass has remained essentially the same from the days of the Apostles, it was codified in its present form by Pope Pius V in the sixteenth century."
I have pinged vlad because he can probably give better citations than I have.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but there are a number of brands of Presbyterians these days - perhaps you should shop around. Or look at high church Anglican, Missouri or Wisconsin Lutherans, or even Eastern Right.
-A8
Where in scripture does it say for the mass to be celebrated in Latin?
Or, better yet, start your own brand of presbyterianism! There’s room for every man to have his own denomination!
Joke?
oh yeah...
Though some Aramaic in the mass would be nice.
-A8
No doubt. The traditional Mass is fundamentally beautiful. When it is celebrated in a beautiful cathedral as well, well, words just can't describe the experience.
The cathedral basilica of the archdiocese where I am is a beautiful neo-Gothic structure that was completed in 1954. The Mass of its consecration was a traditional Mass. I look forward to the day that the traditional Mass once again occurs upon its altar.
I am looking forward to Vlad's input. In the meantime, let me reiterate that the article says the Tridentine Mass is 1,600 years old:
"The real mission of the group, called the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, is the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass. The 1,600-year-old Mass isn't used much today, but it's making a comeback"
ELS, 1,600 years back is the 5th century. The Tridentine Mass may have elements that go back as far and even farther, but the Tridentine Mass itself is not 1,600 years old. After all, I am told that the post-Vatican II Mass (I am avoiding the term "novus ordo") has 3rd century liturgical elements of St. Hippolytus, which doesn't make the post-Vatican II Mass 1,792 years old.
It is safe to say that no Latin Rite Catholic priest celebrated TLM prior to 1570 and that the TLM is actually 400 years old (1570 to 1970 Missal to Missal). The elements that make up that Mass go back more than 1,600 years (the kiss of peace was described by +Justin Martyr c. 150 AD), but to say that the Tridentine Mass is 1,600 year, old, or that it existed in the first millennium is just plain misleading.
Pope St. Gregory I (end of 6th, beginning of 7th century) radically revised Latin liturgy, adding some, removing some, and rearranging the order of some.Further changes were made in the 11th century.
The aim of the TLM was to standardize and make mandatory Roman Latin Rite liturgy so as to prevent Protestant influence from creeping in. The Council of Trent was the Council of Counter-Reformation which sought to standardize and make uniform not only the scriptural but the liturgical life of the Church, a major make-over of the Church, based on its traditional treasure and patristic exegeses.
The elements that make up Tridentine Mass were present in earlier liturgical practices, but the Tridentine Mass as such did not exist prior to 1570. It is also noteworthy to mention that the TLM of 1570 is not what is being celebrated in some parishes as TLM today. The Traditional Latin Mass underwent several modifications since it was introduced and mandated by the 1570 Missal. I am sure Vlad can clue us in on the details of these changes and their significance.
What beauty! One just doesn't see such churches any more. Thank God someone was given enough wisdom to preserve it.
How so? Trent codified the existing Roman usage and promulgated it as the expected standard for the entire Western church. It didn't invent something out of whole cloth.
From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
Some of the prayers of the present Roman Canon can be traced to the Eastern Liturgy of St. James. Several of the prayers were in use before 400 in almost exactly their present form. Others (the Communicantes, the Hanc igitur, and the post-consecration Memento etiam and Nobis quoque) were added during the following century (see Jungmann, page 71, and Hermanus A. P. Schmidt, Introduction in Liturgiam Occidentalem, page 352).So the anaphora at the heart of the Roman Mass is unchanged (but for a detail here and there) since the beginning of the 7th century. That looks like the first millenium to me!After the time of Pope Gregory I (590-604), who made at least one change in the text, the Canon remained largely unchanged in Rome. Not so elsewhere. The 11th-century Missal of Robert of Jumièges, [1] Archbishop of Canterbury, interpolates the names of Saint Gertrude, Saint Gregory, Saint Ethraelda and other English saints in the Communicantes. The Missale Drummondiense inserts the names of Saint Patrick and Saint Gregory the Great. And in several Medieval French Missals the Canon contained the names of Saint Martin and Saint Hilary.
Pope Pius V's imposition of the Roman Missal in 1570 restrained any tendency to vary the text of the Canon. Pope Clement VIII altered the Canon slightly in 1604,[2] but from then on, although other parts of the Missal were modified from time to time, the Canon remained quite unchanged until Pope John XXIII's insertion of a mention of Saint Joseph immediately after that of the Virgin Mary.
Well if that is so than all he had to do is say the Roman Mass was obligatory and be done with it. No new Missal would have been needed.
Again, you are mixing elements with the whole. The divine litrugy is unchanged, of course, because in any form it celebrates the Eucharist, but to say that all liturgies are the same is not true.
Pope +Gregory I changed exactly the Anaphora among other things. The Mass of the 7th century was a Latin Mass but it was not the 1570 Tridentine Mass.
It is safe to say that the litrugical tradition of the Church remains unchanged for 2,00 years (the Eucharist) but the mode of celebrating it changes. And the TLM is a mode of celebrating it which is 400 years old.
The post-Vatican II Mass has elements going back just as far as those in the TLM. Are you oging to tell me now that the post-Vatican II Mass is also 1,600 years old? Or are you going to say that some of its elements are?
Secondly, your argument is precisely why many traditional Catholics do not like to use the term "Tridentine" to describe the Mass of the Ages. As others have said, Pius V codified the rite in use in Rome at the time. He did not create a brand new liturgy. That rite had developed organically with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
the article says the Tridentine Mass is 1,600 years old:
No, it doesn't. Notice that the article doesn't use the word "Tridentine" to modify a 1,600-year-old Mass. The only time the word "Tridentine" appears in the article is as an alternative to "traditional Latin Mass." It is you who are trying to say that "the Tridentine Mass is 1,600 years old."
no Latin Rite Catholic priest celebrated TLM prior to 1570
the [Tridentine] Mass as such did not exist prior to 1570
The traditional Latin Mass (TLM) before 1570 was the same as the TLM after 1570. St. Pius V did not change the Mass. He merely codified it. Even the rites that existed at the time which were less than 200 years old were not significantly different than the Roman rite that was codified.
the TLM of 1570 is not what is being celebrated in some parishes as TLM today
That is true. There were organic changes made to the Mass. I might add that those changes were not made lightly. In fact, with some of them there was quite a bit of controversy. Having said that, the Roman Missal of 1962 is much closer to the Roman Missal of 1570 than it is to the Roman Missal of 1969.
Mea culpa. I should rephrase that. You are trying to create a convenient strawman to knock down.
I am not able to find any documentation that there was a single Latin-Rite Mass celebrated for 1,600 years ("Mass of the Ages?"); nor that a single Latin Mass remained unchanged for 1,600 years. The pre-Tridentine Missal Mass existed in many variants, and at different times, all containing some elements of ancient liturgy, even Eastern Greek elements. But is is clear that the mode of celebrating the Mass has been changed many times in its 2,000 year-old-history, and quite radically at times.
If Pope +Pious V only codified the Mass that was celebrated in Rome at that time, then this by itself shows that "at that time" doesn't mean always. If the Mass at that time was no different than the Mass celebrated all along from the 5th century onward, why was there a need for a Missal in 1570?
As is, the impression I have is that you claim the Mass of +Pious V is the same Mass of +Gregory I a thousand years earlier! Or that the Mass predating +Gregory I is no different than his. There is no comparison to a 1,600 year-old Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostom, which—while not without minor changes—was never called by any other name.
In other words, you are stating that there was a "traditional" (i.e. unchanged) Latin Mass somewhere in the 5th century (was it officially called the "Mass of the Ages" all along?), which is the same Mass +Pious V in celebrated in his time in 1570.
Your claim does not address various forms of the Latin-Rite Mass that at one point changed from that celebrated by the Greeks (and in Greek) to Latin, that at one point decided to ignore the First Ecumenical Council's prohibition on kneeling on Sundays, or that at one point introduced unleavened bread, etc.
Again, I am no expert on Latin-Rite liturgy, I am merely trying to learn more about it, but it seems that the claim made by this newspaper, which you are defending, is not what the history of Latin liturgy suggests.
Again, I am only saying that there is no single Latin-Rite Mass that I can find which existed more or less unchanged for 1,600 years as far as I could research. Documentation to the contrary will be most welcome. :)
EL, I am not creating anything to knock down. I am searching for answers. One should not condemn curiosity and scrutiny as something sinister. I have no sinister motives in this. Show me where I can find evidence of the same "Mass of the Ages" pre and post 1570. That's all.
Ha. I think we already have quite enough of that!
Of course if did such a thing I'd call it "The Church Of The Individual Soul. Every man his own temple!" :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.