« Jeff, you’re too much | Home | The Imminent Motu Proprio »
Ritual confusion
Posted July 5, 2007 , By Joshua LeBlanc
Recently I went on my rant about the correct title of the Tridentine liturgy should be "The Mass of Pope Pius V". While this is true, I think many are confusing this with the Mass that Pope John XXIII revised in 1962, the Mass that Pope Benedict XVI is expected to expand use of in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Technically this missal is not the same as the one that what has been historically referred to as the Tridentine liturgy, although most people use it that way. While it is true that the reform by John XXIII is considered a tridentine missal in that the same form of the Mass was simply modified and not completely codified, I have personally found that when many refer to "Tridentine" they refer to the Missal prior to 1962. Because of this fact, we should be very specific in what we are referring to and not simply say "Tridentine"
Another confusing issue seems to be the term "Tridentine Rite." Those who have studied ritual churches and the particular different rites know there is no such thing as the Tridentine rite. In the Latin Church there are a few different rites such as Ambrosian, Dominican, and the predominantly used Roman rite. With the promulgation of the "Novus Ordo" Mass by Pope Paul VI, the old Roman Rite (the erroneously referred to Tridentine Rite) was replaced by the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I have seen some make statements such as "The Tridentine Rite was never abolished." This is true because there is no such thing. The former liturgy was simply surpressed with the promulgation of the new missal.
Now that we’ve gotten that straight, The current Mass that most western Catholics used is the modern form of the Roman Rite. To be proper, the Mass of Pope Paul VI. The former form of the Roman Rite that Pope Benedict is expected to liberalize could be called the Mass of Pope John XXIII because it is John XXIII who revised the Missal. The real term Tridentine should be applied to the Mass that Pope Pius V instituted up until the time of John XXIII’s reform.
Now that that’s been said…stop calling it the Tridentine rite. That just bugs the heck out of me!
Topics: Church Life |
July 7th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Jeff:
Could you please clarify your distinction between the Tridentine Liturgy and the one promulgated by John XXIII. There were other revisions to the Missal of St. Pius V besides that instituted by Pope John, but as far as I understand all of this they all represented a more or less organic line of development of the Classical Roman-Gregorian tradition. For that matter, so did that of John XXIII. The only changes he made to it were miniscule - namely, the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass, and the elimination of the reference to the “perfidious Jews” in the Good Friday service. Apart from these two alterations it was still the “Tridentine” Mass just as were the several other revisions (one of which I believe was instituted by St. Pius X). Why then is it incorrect to refer to the Missal promulgated by John XXIII as “Tridentine”. Hoping you can enlighten me on this. Thanks and God bless.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Thomas, you’re correct. I have modified my post to make more clear my intent. My intent was not to sat that it isn’t correct to call the Mass promulgated by John XXIII because indeed all of the changes were mostly organic. My intent was to show that we need to be careful in our usage. I know many who kept hearing “The Tridentine lass would be permitted” and they were all thinking that it would be the Mass prior to John XXIII’s reforms. This was my purpose, that we should make very clear out terms. As a philosopher and theologian I have experieced the whole problem with most things that happen within the Church are due to not making adequate distintions and therefore communication breaks down. If from the beginning everyone had simply said “the 1962 missal” most people who associate “Tridentine” with the previous revisions wouldn’t be disappointed with the Summorum Pontificum.