* bump *

It is my understanding that the Confiteor immediately preceeding Holy Communion was because this rite was imported from the Roman Ritual (Holy Communion outside of Mass).

Since this question was posted in the music forum, I assume you are referring to the Sung Confiteor before Communion at Solemn Masses, which was never suppressed.

"Since this question was posted in the music forum, I assume you are referring to the Sung Confiteor before Communion at Solemn Masses, which was never suppressed."

It does not appear in the 1962 Missal, so I assume it makes no difference whether Solemn Mass or Low Mass, correct?

The Sung Confiteor is retained in the Caeremoniale.

The EF was quashed for well over 30 years, remember?

Except that it wasn't. This is one of the central legal points of Universae Ecclesiae. But even leaving that aside, the revised missal wasn't issued until 1970 and even at the time there was an indult for elderly priests. The Quattuor abhinc annos indult was promulgated in 1984 and the broader Ecclesia Dei adflicta indult in 1988. Some of the former "indult communities" are themselves now approaching 30 years old.

"Music in most American parishes before Vatican II... was about as deplorable as it is now. "

If not worse. I still assert things have only improved since the 1960s - though there's still a long way to go!

Thank you, Aga. I have been told that Ecc. Dei also issued a contradictory statement, but I am searching for the documentation.

One has to be careful about taking each personal letter from the PCED as if it resolves a question across the board. If the reasoning is expressed in a way that is universally valid, then it is fair to assume that the PCED would consistently give the same answer to the same query. The letter shared by Aga is exactly such a case: this does not speak about customs or permissions, but simply points out the obvious fact that the 1962 rubrics omitted the Confiteor before communion (as was quite reasonable to do -- Bruce is entirely right), and we have been given permission to use THIS Missal, not some other that more chimes with our fancy.

If those who love tradition cannot be obedient to simple rubrics, what kind of restoration and example are we really providing?

My point about being careful with PCED letters, though, can be illustrated by the fact that there is also a PCED letter somewhere out there that gives permission for the Pater Noster to be chanted in full by the congregation. Yet this is in conflict with the 1962 missal's rubrics, and begins to express a mentality that is arguably foreign to the usus antiquior, where the priest chants the Pater Noster as the representative of Christ the Head of the Church who taught us this prayer.

Anyway... Say the Black, Do the Red!

ProfKwasniewski: My understanding has always been that when a letter like this one is given a protocol number it gets printed in Notitiae and is intended to be more than a purely private response. (Though since I've never so much as seen a physical copy of Notitiae, maybe I'm completely off base.)

Anyway, if one were really to say the black and do the red, then the second confiteor would necessarily be omitted, since no. 503 of the Rubricae generales of the 1962 Missale expressly declares:

Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distribuitur, celebrans, sumpto sacratisso Sanguine, omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Domine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distributionem sanctae Eucharistiae procedit.

Whenever holy Communion is distributed within the Mass, the celebrant, having received the most sacred Blood, the confession and absolution having been omitted, the Ecce Agnus Dei and triple Domine, non sum dignus however being said, immediately proceeds to the distribution of the holy Eucharist.

Being old enough to have been there, music could be as deplorable before Vatican II as it is now. It could also be very good. Music was, as it is still, dependent on place. Some parishes had good music before, during, and after the Council. I am fortunate enough to be in one of those parishes. On the other hand, I know of some parishes that have never had decent music, and likely never will.

As to reforming the pre-1962 mass, the council fathers believed it needed reforms, and had the legitimate authority to reform it - and they did. It's a done deal, and all the carping is after the fact by people who have no authority.

P.S. I'd second Mrs. Wilson's suggestion that those of us who have never experienced the EF personally, attend several Masses in that form. Having only known it through the criticisms of my elders, I was surprised by how fitting and relevant it seemed to remain. The celebration ad orientem and in Latin, in particular, did not strike me at all as I expected they would. My judgment of the silent canon (and, on occasion, the divided Sanctus/Benedictus) is still under consideration.

Jeffrey, is it sung or recited at St. Stephen's?

It is spoken at St. Anne's. Again, I'm not desirous of questioning out loud save for discussing it with my pastor and mentioning it on this forum.

As I experience it spoken, with no singing responses or choir parts covering the action, it seems like a moment of low mass inserted into a sung mass. I simply find it odd. But again, it's new to our parish. And, for 1-2 solemn masses, it has been sung. So I'm thinking perhaps it is intended to be sung at sung masses and our servers haven't gotten around to it yet?

Thanks, Jeffrey. I should have asked Fr. G why it wasn't sung; it just hasn't been high on my priorities what with Holy Week and all.
I am glad to know why it's not being sung at sung mass/ missa cantata, why it has been at the few recent solemn masses we've had,and I think this info will help with my attitude about it. Mille grazie.

That is more permissive than the previous reply, which was to permit it where it was the custom. The ICRSS always uses it. The FSSP uses it sometimes. It is used less often in Europe, I gather, even at Pontifical Mass, the reason being that the remaining rubric of the Pontifical (of obligation also at Solemn High Mass) is an oversight on the part of the editors of the 1962 edition of the rubrics.

Diocesan TLMs that I have attended always omit it, but my pastor does bows at the Trinity and Holy Name to the cross.

There was a reply even before that. I assume the FSSP sent it, upon inheriting places which did or did not use it, rather like the FSSP itself, whereas the ICRSS defaults to using it. (I admit I haven’t read the links yet because I am on my phone.)

I also don’t really care what the 1962 law is insofar as what is omitted goes, so long as we don’t go past what is permitted, and even then, I don’t tell priests everything, because it will anger the people and me, the MC, and the quality of the celebration suffers. For example. did you know the readings can be read at Sung Mass per a 1960 indult? I did, and I never tell clergy that. Clergy, forget you just saw that! So, that’s my stake in this.

Our priests figured that out on their own.
That, and that they can read them in the vernacular, if they decide to.

Some minor quibbles with the article on CCW:

-While the rite for distributing Holy Communion was not found within the Ordo Missae, the description was/is in the Ritus Servandus. The 1962 Ritus clearly omits the sections calling for the absolution before Holy Communion.

- Of the 6 suggestions, I think only (2) is really tenable. Custom is widely misunderstood and explicitly suppressed rubrics often cannot be revived due to custom (which also has to begin from the moment of suppression, and has all other kinds of conditions attached to it). Also, causing rubrics to fall into desuetude and reviving those suppressed are two different things. The priest is not allowed to add things in the Traditional rites (one thinks of the famous denial of silently saying "My Lord and my God" at the elevation to gain the indulgence). The absolution was indeed forbidden as the rubric wording indicates (if omitting something cannot be said to forbid it, then that would overturn the very idea of rubrics). The Confiteor - contrary to widespread Traditionalist custom - was also omitted during Solemn High Masses in 1962. If you look at old videos created during that time, you will notice this. The Confiteor could be used at other times in Pontifical rites as well - for example, before the bishop granted an indulgence after preaching. (That is the pontifical rite in the Ceremoniale for which the tone is printed)

That the Confiteor was also considered supressed is evident from further decrees of the Congregation of Rites deciding on its recitation in certain specific rites (such as Good Friday).

Really speaking, the reasons people often give as often ex post facto in order to retain something that they want to. It is like Traditional Tenebrae - I know of no place that does it that observes the changes of 1957 and 1961.

Wow, Ostrowski has yet to “attend a single EF Mass omitting the Pre-Communion Confiteor.” I don’t remember attending one where it was used. (I suspect some of the ones I attended in the early 2000s may have had it, and I’m quite certain the ones I’ve attended post 2007 have not included it). Masses said by the FFI do not include them. Neither do the young recently ordained diocesan priests here include it.

I think the desire to include it is largely fueled by the belief that excluding it was an innovation. My understanding is that it entered the Mass under Pius X, hardly immemorial tradition. This seems to me something rather minor with all the other things we need to be working on.

Here is another article on the subject- https://athanasiuscm.org/2014/07/28/what-is-the-2nd-confiteor/