Matthew in the Pre-Vatican II Lectionary
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Council of Trent: Session 22, Canon 9

    "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    The rubrics of the "new" rite of the Roman Church forbid the silent canon, and the books themselves presume an entirely vernacular liturgy. (Two strikes against them, there.)
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    Trent called for the use of Latin and I find nowhere that it actually forbade the use of the vernacular. Interesting that Vatican II called for the use of Latin, and it was universally ignored.

    I do find that ironic.
    Thanked by 2Salieri CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    That silent canon was condemned as far back as the reign of Justinian. It was an aberration from the earliest times.

    "Vernacular tongue only..." But it didn't say the mass could never be celebrated in the vernacular. Water with wine? I hadn't heard of that being disputed.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    Jungmann also says
    "the exact rules about the choice and arrangement of each Mass formula and for the directions regarding the ritualistic aspect of the Mass, the Rubricae Generalis Missalis and the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae...were taken almost bodily from the Ordo Missae of the papal master of ceremonies, John Burchard."
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    One of the things with the Tridentine Reforms is that is didn't relegate ALL Latin usages to the dustbin of Liturgical history, as did the Novus Ordo Missae. What it did do is abolish local accretions without completely changing the Order of Mass: the order of Mass was still the same. That's the issue with the Novus Ordo: it was not a slight revision of the Traditional Missal to remove accretions less than 200 years old, it was a completely NEW ORDER OF MASS, which wiped away, intentionally, a complete family of Rites that had existed at least since around the year AD 800.

    That silent canon was condemned as far back as the reign of Justinian. It was an aberration from the earliest times.

    Which, conversely, means that the silent canon was by 1562 a hollowed custom of the Latin Rite. The silent canon could be discussed during the reign of Justinian; after Trent solemnly spoke, it was a moot point: anathema sit.

    I could say the same thing: but the Immaculate Conception was denied as far back as the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, and before. But it doesn't matter, the Church has spoken, if today, in 2015, I deny the Immaculate Conception, I am a heretic; if I condemn the silent today, in 2015, I am anathematized.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    The silent Canon (which I prefer) wasn't admitted in Rome until the mid-to-late eighth century. Ordo Romanus primus (OR I) mentions the Pontiff alone entering into the Canon, yet lists the feasts when the clergy say the Canon with the Pontiff to aid the hearing of the faithful. Now that's concelebration! OR II, however, specifies the Pontiff saying alone the Canon silently. Just FYI.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    ClemensRomnus: what is the exact context of that quotation form Jungmann? Did the Bugnini-committee simply adopt a draft proposal of an 'Ordo Missae' from the Papal MC?
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    No, it's referring to rubrics in the 1570 Missal.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    It should be noted that Trent's anathema re the canon is very limited, and current practice doesn't run afoul of it.

    Trent not only didn't anathematize the use of the vernacular in the Roman rite (it only anathematized those who condemned the use of Latin) actually allowed Rome to permit the use of the vernacular, and it was allowed for a while in the Roman rite in central Europe in the wake of Trent.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Priestly classes in most religions attempt to give themselves greater status by restricting sacred mysteries to themselves. Therefore, the silent canon. It is no more than clericalism.

    Which, conversely, means that the silent canon was by 1562 a hollowed custom of the Latin Rite.


    Hollowed indeed! LOL. I knew you meant hallowed. Aberrations do not become hallowed by the passage of time, or by sheer ignorance of early Church practices.

    after Trent solemnly spoke...


    You know we in the east don't consider Trent to be anything other than a Latin Church council, binding on no one else.

    All this time I thought "anathema sit," was a traditionalist's command to his dog. LOL.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    All of these comments about the 'superiority' ... of Latin over English just sound like so much sour grapes to me. After Vatican II, the Mass was changed. Deal with it.
    - @bhcordova


    Oh yeah, I forgot about those changes that Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for in No. 36.1.

    Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.


    Oh wait, it didn't say that Latin should be abandoned. My bad. Continue on.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    You know we in the east don't consider Trent to be anything other than a Latin Church council, binding on no one else.


    Interesting that something is only infallible for half of Church. I sure hope that we aren't forcing the members of the Anglican Ordinariate to accept Vatican II since they were outside the Church when that council took place.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    CharlesW

    Sequences, tropes, rites not at least 200 years old - yes there were changes. How drastic is up to one's own point of view. Also, strict regulation of texts, books, and every liturgical detail, most likely, to keep Protestant influences out of the liturgy. The aim of Trent was standardization in the face of that Protestant influence.


    I have seen your comments on the Trent reforms, a few questions,
    Can you name the Rites suppressed by Trent? (I have never seen a list)
    How many Sequences were suppressed by Trent? N.B. The Trent reforms did not apply to the following Rites, Dominican, Sarum, Ancient Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozabaric etc. I note that the sequences used by the Benedictine use remained.
    Having seen the vast number of Sequences listed in the Analecta Hymnica would it not be fair for some of these to be suppressed if they had not already fallen out of use?
    The Sarum Rite would have continued using its Tropes, I presume the Rites / uses in Germany would also have continued. Do you have a list of places that Tropes were suddenly suppressed.
    How long did it take for the Trent Missal to work its way across Europe?

    I am told that the Rite in use in Rome before Trent only used the Sequences as found in the Trent Missal. I presume this Rite also did not use Tropes.

    While I will agree that the Trent Missal should have contained more Sequences although from my research local Propers add around another 20 Sequences! I am not that sad to see Tropes disappear. I also think having Universal or Standard texts to be a good thing. I will also suggest that the Trent Missal has served the Church well.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I believe Sarum was suppressed after the breakaway by Henry VIII. It was Henry and Elizabeth who banned it. The Jesuits who continued to work in secret used the Tridentine Rite, so Sarum effectively died out in practice. I have read that some of the local rites were sometimes tainted with a bit of Protestantism. The largest territorial rites of the day seem to still be with us, as you mentioned in your listing.

    The replaced rites were local usages with local missals. I don't know if anyone has compiled a list of them. I understand those local dioceses had their own local saints, feasts and calendars, too, some of them quite ancient.

    The sequences apparently developed between the time of Charlemagne and Trent. I understand they were very popular. Tropes were usually from local usage, and were geographical, not universal in the Roman Rite. Apparently tropes and sequences developed from spontaneous evolution in certain areas. I don't think anyone had much interest in cataloging them at the time.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Interesting that something is only infallible for half of Church


    Every time the Latins have a council, they think it is ecumenical and infallible. They can't be ecumenical since the entire church is not present. I suspect they may be infallible for the Latin church. If they address nothing pertaining to the east, then they can't be infallible for anyone but themselves. Referring to Trent specifically, Trent addressed Protestantism and its effects on the Latin church. The east was trying to survive Islam and didn't care what the Protestants were doing. Protestants were the west's battle.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    The religious orders have kept quite a few sequences.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    From the bit of research I did, it seems that the Eastern Churches didn't begin to reunite with the Holy See until the mid-eighteenth century. Unless I'm much mistaken, schismatics are not part of the Church, and they therefore have no right in an ecumenical council. There was no need for Orthodox Bishops to be present at Trent since they weren't part of the Catholic Church.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Interestingly, the Antiochenes didn't *sever* communion with Rome until the 18th century.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Actually, it was the late 16th century for some of the Russian and Ukrainian churches to reunite with Rome.

    Paul VI and Athenagoras mutually lifted all the anathemas of 1054, both east and west. You say schism, Paul VI and Athenagoras said both are the church of Jesus Christ, but not yet in full communion. There's that Latin superiority showing again. You folks sure are full of yourselves. LOL.

    Not even all the western bishops were present at Trent. Vatican II came closer than Trent to being ecumenical.

    I have often thought it could have changed the course of history if the empire and churches had stayed together. I believe together they could have handled both Protestantism and Islam successfully.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Charles,

    Well, consider that the Russians don't necessarily recognize Roman baptisms.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    The Russians don't always even recognize the Greeks. LOL. They are genuinely an entity unto themselves.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    An infallible teaching isn't true or false depending on your church membership. But the consequences for withholding assent could vary. At any rate, there are very few doctrines at issue. What most people seem to be talking about here aren't infallible teachings. A council can condemn practices without invoking its infallibility.

    As for the silent Canon, I propose three options:
    1. Silent Canon.
    2. Audible Canon but must be done ad orientem.
    3. Audible Canon but must be in Latin.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    4. Follow the GIRM - don't we wish everyone did?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,956
    Sarum was actually made mandatory for all of England under Henry VIII and again under Mary. It was never suppressed by a Catholic authority. Pius V mandated the use of older rites unless the chapter voted unanimously to adopt the Roman usage. That never happened. The college at Douai used Sarum until 1577, and we know it was used in England until at least 1573. Tallis’s “Spem in alium” was written for the Duke of Norfolk’s chapel in that year, and it is from Sarum Matins. Quo primum is still in effect, so it could be revived any day (there is a longer answer as to the difficulties of that but I will not give it here).

    The Tridentine reforms were firstly made possible by the Franciscan usage of the curial missal and office. I also think printing made them possible. Pews were eventually introduced, and rood screens were replaced with altar rails. Choir stalls were minimized or abolished. The reforms strongly changed devotional life. Much of this is only observable in light of Vatican II and the recent calamity...It forced people to assess what was lost, and it is encouraging a true ressourcement without becoming bad scholars, antiquarians, and indeed, poor Catholics as far as passing down the received liturgy goes. I recommend the Rad Trad blog. It featured an excellent series on St. Joseph, and the reformers were intense in promoting him and the Holy Family and not St. John the Baptism. There was also an interesting piece about pews. (Ignore the name: he is not polemical, but he has interesting views and contributes greatly to discussions about the liturgy.)

    I think the post-Tridentine changes to the non-Roman Latin rites are not good. It violates their distinct characters. The revised Carthusian offertory comes to mind as a particularly egregious offense... And I think it is mistaken to think that it was necessary to enforce the Roman Rite as a check on heresy. The Protestants were giving up the Mass by that point; Henry VIII was the only one to try a slow Reformation. Sneaking in heresy into the Mass was not on anybody’s mind, it seems.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I had picked up my Sarum info from Fr. Joseph R. Valentine, FSSP. He said:

    When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he brought his own Norman bishops with him, including St. Osmund who was established as Archbishop of Salisbury. It was he who combined the French Gallican style of worship with the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic traditions to form the Sarum Rite; the unique Mass of English Catholics.
    The Sarum Rite was very similar to the Roman (some scholars claim that it should not be called a separate “rite” at all, but merely a local variation of the Roman Mass) with the addition of elaborate ceremonies and long poetic prayers borrowed from the French Church.
    In the 16th Century when Henry VIII and Elizabeth I banned the Catholic religion, they naturally banned the Sarum Liturgy too. During the centuries of persecution, the underground English Catholic Church was kept alive by the work and sacrifices of the Jesuits and, since the Jesuits always used the Tridentine Missal exclusively, the Sarum Rite disappeared entirely (although, ironically, some of the unique Sarum prayers were preserved in the Protestant Anglican service books). In recent years, the Rite has been revived by a Western-Rite Orthodox monastery in Texas(!)
    One unusual feature of the Sarum Mass is the Liturgical colors; The priests wore red vestments most of the Sundays of the year, dark blue during Advent, White during Lent, and yellow for feast days of Confessor saints.


    The link for the article on non-Roman rites is here.

    http://www.jolietlatin.org/Texts/Latin Rites.html

    My understanding is that the English church was thoroughly infected with Protestantism by the time England pulled away from Rome.

    I think the post-Tridentine changes to the non-Roman Latin rites are not good. It violates their distinct characters.


    Agreed. I think some of that is being corrected which is a good thing.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,956
    Of course, the Dominicans decided to abandon their rite rather than further revise it...and the Carthusians were forced in the 1970s to make their rite into a form of the Novus Ordo.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The priests wore red vestments most of the Sundays of the year, dark blue during Advent, White during Lent, and yellow for feast days of Confessor saints.


    Wow. Fascinating (please note lack of purple). Do we know the significance of each of these colors?

    Here's my guess:

    Red is the color of Pentecost in the Roman Rite, so could the Sarum use it as a reminder of the missionary nature of the Church and her liturgy in particular?

    Dark Blue might be related to Our Lady, I suppose. It would depend on the hue.

    White --- for purity, since Lent is a season of purification.

    Yellow -- this color is a mystery to me. Is it, perhaps, a nearly-perfect white, as if to suggest that confessors were undergoing a kind of purification (see Lent) but that it was a lesser one than that endured by martyrs?


    Remembering that at that time there was not merely a symbolic, but also a practical reason for many matters liturgical, what was the practical reason for each color? White was hard to create -- or, at least, pure white was. Dark Blue might be a form of purple?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Dark blue was alternative for black or purple, as those latter colors were historically luxury dyes (at least the good versions thereof - the cheaper versions of black often ended up looking dark blue over time).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    It would be interesting to know - and I don't know - when the western liturgical colors came into widespread use. Also, when did the seasonal designations for colors come into existence.

    In the east, vestments are designated as either bright or dark, with no set or forbidden colors.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Sometimes a have to ask myself: "What's the point of all this?" It amounts to so much "Catholic gobbledygook".
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,956
    The blue thing is widely misunderstood thanks to Anglicans. It was definitely not Marian...

    Green is the color of the Spirit in the East (even if there are no strict regulations). So too at Sarum for Pentecost (I am 90% sure of this), and it is for the Roman Rite less directly, given its usage after Pentecost and Epiphany. You wore either the prescribed color or your best set on the high feasts which could have been blue, which was more expensive than gold.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    And violet and purple and good reds were even more expensive than blue.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    Books have been written about the Liturgical Colours, I think NLM has had articles as well, but a quick search finds the following,

    http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/articles-on-the-mass/liturgical_colours

    http://ordorecitandi.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/hooray-array.html

    I will dig further, and / or go through my library for more information if needed.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    The Lenten white of Sarum is not the festive white of Easter and Christmas; instead the Lenten array was made from unbleached linen, sometimes decorated with red embroidery. And red as colour for Sundays per annum was not that rare at all; Milan has it until today, many French dioceses had it (side note: many French dioceses used green for Confessor Bishops, Cathedra Petri, episcopal consecration and its anniversary, so it was seen as a colour of bishops). And it was also sometimes the case that violet was specified for certain feast days, eg Mary Magdalen, holy monks, widows and holy abbotts.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
Add a Comment