How would the TLM have "evolved" if the NO hadn't come first?

Iam not “bashing” anything. only stating the TLM has not evolved, and why would it need to or why would it anyway?
has not happened at all, and it wont happen.

The TLM has most certainly evoloved- before and from 1570. In this century there have been new prefaces, new rubrics and revision of the calendar. Some would say that some of these changes are necessary e.g. to preserve the penitential Lent and also things like the September Ember days which don’t get mention because of the saint’s days. The same goes for a revision of certain rubrics in the Ritus servandus partialy done by Bl. John XXIII. Pius XII had in mind an evolution of the TLM, the liturgy conferences of the 50’s had in mind an evolution of the TLM, there is no reason why it should not have happened.

Not to bash the TLM here, but changes did happen.

For example, Pope John XXIII removed the word ‘perfidis’ (faithless) that describes the Jews from the Good Friday Prayers since it is sometimes translated in English by Anti-Catholics as ‘perfidious’, which has a more negative connotation than in the Latin.

He also included the name of Saint Joseph in the Roman Canon, eliminated the Second Confiteor after Communion, suppressed 10 feasts (such as the feast of Saint’s Peter’s Chair in Rome, though it would be more accurately described that he merged the two feasts of the Chair of Saint Peter into one [formerly, there was the feast of Saint Peter’s Chair in Antioch and this one]), that of Saint Philomena (though he authorized that it be kept in certain places), 14 festal octaves and 9 vigils of feasts, modifying rubrics especially for Solemn High Masses.

Also, originally, the congregation kneels during the prayers for the Jews (unlike in the others where the congregation is told to ‘Let us Pray. Let us Kneel. Arise’. Here, the congregation is never told these words.) to avoid imitating those who mocked our Lord during the Crucifixion by kneeling and reviling Him.

Pope Pius XII in 1955 during his Major revision of the Holy Week Liturgy revised this by having the Congregation kneel like in the other prayers. He directed that the Holy Thursday Mass which was formerly celebrated in the morning be moved to evening, the Good Friday liturgy was moved to the afternoon, Communion was not reserved for the priest alone, the priest does not receive a part of the Host with the unconsecrated wine, the Holy Saturday vigil was moved from morning to night leading up to Easter Sunday and many changes were made in its contents.

Now, to quote from Wikipedia (I know many of you don’t trust wikipedia, but hey, at least it tries to be accurate when no one is misediting it)

Also, after Pope Pius V, the ‘Typical edition’ of the Tridentine Mass was released. It abolished some prayers that in Pius V’s Tridentine Mass the priest said on entering the church, and it shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor. It removed from the Canon the mention of the king, and directed that the words “Whenever you do this, you will do it in memory of me” should be said before, not while showing the chalice to the people. It also suppressed Pius V’s rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross, one at the Epistle corner, one at the middle, and one at the Gospel corner of the altar. And it rewrote the rubrics, introducing matters such as ringing a bell…(more)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

It is interesting to see that there is a "must"for evolution/novelty…one of the major problems within the Church today. Modernism is novelty, the Church and the Mass are about God who is outside of our concept of time. Modernism is heresy

I love this answer…it is filled with hope and joy of the Mass.

I find it unsettling when people point at a Mass …and blame it for anything…instead of at themselves, which is human nature.

I would love to see a TLM, but i grew up NO, and they are beautiful as well. …i guess cause im focused on the Word, and the Eucharist…and not focused on why God doesn’t run thing according to my agenda. … yes that was a jab at all the complainers :wink: ] …

peace of the Lord be with you all

I don’t know that much would be different. I attend the TLM exclusivley and give thanks that the NO became the norm. Remember, the same “authorities” that ignored the clear instructions from Vatican II would have been in charge of the TLM liturgy. Instead of working with the new canvas of the NO, they would have been defacing the old canvas of the TLM. Because the TLM had been supressed, it was frozen in time (1962). Had it not been frozen, the liturgists of the 1960’s would have little by little chipped away at the Mass until it would look much like the NO looks today in too many parishes.

Many, including me, have criticized the NO for having too many options. I was looking through an old hand missal from 1961 and they had four levels of replies in the dialog Mass. Depending on the priest, he could say the Mass using any of the options. The replies in the missal were labeled with numbers from 1 to 4 so you would know which parts to reply to. Options had already started to occur in the TLM and I would bet the house that if the NO had not occurred, the TLM today would resemble the Mass of 2006 more than the Mass in 1962.

just goes to show you how much i know :rolleyes:

You’ve guessed right.:slight_smile:

Quite the opposite, there are several problems with the Novus Ordo that you most likely cannot see yet I can, so can many others and so can the present Pope. An example here is the direction the priest faces when offering the Holy Sacrifice. This is a posture that teaches something-

He is facing the direction of Christ’s return- East - WITH US ALL. He is leading us to Jesus. In the Gospel he faces “North” toward the “pagans”

When addressing the people he turns to face them (however he never looks directly at them, his eyes are directed to the floor [as instructed in the 1962 Missal]) [With the exception of at the offertory where all attention is on the altar)

As a MC for the TLM, kleary, you are probably aware that the priest may indeed celebrate Mass ad populum. That is how the avant garde of the Liturgical Movement managed it without contravening the rubrics.

The whole “priest facing north” for thr barbarians is only a mystical explanation. Ordo Rom. 1 doesn’t mention direction at all, Ordo Rom II mentions it as south. The earlier manuscripts give the explanation for the shift as due to the position of the throne of the bishop and imitation of the low Mass and change in the structure of churches

There is also the issue of the Catholic Doctrines taught in the TLM of the difference between a priest and a lay person. In the TLM the priest does much seperate from the people- such as praying a seperate confiteor and other prayers prayed by the people such as the Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei- the priest prays those parts inaudibly which the people sing them in a sung Mass.

The reason for the silent Gloria, Credo, etc. is NOT to show the difference between the priest and people but rather as a result of historical circumstances and the imposition of low Mass over High Mass. Ordo Rom I-VI contain no double recitation at all.

At the Reformation the “reformers” had the people and minister recite the confiteor together to show the priest was no different than the lay person. They brought back communion in the hand to show that the bread remains bread and again the Catholic Ministerial Priesthood does not exist.

No, the Protestants did away with the Confiteor completely. The only ones who retained a semblance to it officially were the Anglicans: and how?

Before they began their remnant of the Eucharistic Prayer in the 1559 book, the ‘Priest’ (terminology given in the BCP) may say a exhortation to communion. Then, a Confession of Sin (“Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…….) was made: but only “by one of the ministers” (i.e. the assistant curate or the clerk) OR if they were absent by the Priest himself “in the name of all those minded to receive communion”- they could not say it. As you can see this approximates somewhat to the old Confiteor said before communion by the deacon and subdeacon . This was the case even in the 1552 book, the most Calvinist and Protestant of the books, issued under Edward VI- it was aid on behalf of the people.

It was only in 1662 that the people were allowed to say it with “one of the ministers” but then the reference to the “Priest himself” saying it was expunged- only the assistant curate and the people could say it NOT the “Priest” or “bishop” who is directed only after that to pronounce the absolution and say the Comfortable Words.

It is a completely modern-post 1975 developement in most Protestant churches to have a “confession” recited together.
[/quote]

They removed the offertory prayers, the Novus Ordo does the same- changing the offertory to what resembles a Jewish blessing before meals.

What they did was remove the Offertory COMPLETELY- no “In spiritu humilitatis”, no lavabo, no “Orate Fratres”-these were all pushed aside and condemned. The NO has them. The Secret prayer also received great condemnation for “its manifold wickedness” but that is retained in the NO.
They also got rid of the prayer Suscipe Sancta Trinitatis which was the Offertory prayer, (the ones in the current TLM missal in addition to that only existing in the curial missal at the time.).
The prayer Suscipe Sancta Trinitatis and the ones found in the TLM Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi anticipate the oblation. The tendency for the NO is not to anticipate or extend the oblation but leave it to the Eucharistic Prayer. It is not a wholly unjustified tendency though I feel it is mistaken.
It goes also toward the difference of the liturgies. These prayers are Frankish /Mozarabic/Gallician additions to the Roman Mass. At Rome, only the Secret was the Offertory prayer and it pointed to the Canon. Within the Canon was made the oblation, the intercession for the living and dead, the commemoration fo Our Lady and the martyrs etc.
However, to take the Mozarabic as an example- it does not make an oblation within its Eucharistic Prayer parts of which vary in the manner of Rome. The variable Post Pridie coming after the Consecration is extremely short. The bulk of the oblation there, together with the diptychs for the living and the dead, and the commemoration of Our Lady, the apostles and the martyrs all happen at the Offertory. These oblation prayers become anticipatory when put in the Roman liturgy which already has its own oblation in the Canon.
Mind you, I’m not supporting the abolition but I’m merely pointing out how a case is not Protestant and how indeed it can depend on differing views and a restoring mentality.
Till date, no Protestant liturgy has any of the suppressed Offertory to their liturgies (officially). No In spritu himuliatatis, no washing of hands, and secreta/super obalta.

They allowed communion under both kinds- in the TLM Communion under one kind teaches a Catholic Doctrine- that a lay person receives the entire Jesus under what appears to be bread.

Trent differed the consideration of the extension of communion in both kinds to the Pope- the Pope allowed in many parts like Bohemia and parts of Germany. It was even offered to England. There is nothing instrinsically wrong with communion either under both kinds or one.

Sorry…parts of which vary unlike in Rome.

I didn’t mean to post and run as the OP. It was probably crazy on my part to start this thread before Christmas since I’ve had little time to follow the conversations.

My own thinking (for whatever it’s worth) is that most of what many consider to be the absolute horrors of the Church today are more directly a result of the 60’s and not the NO - and that the NO is more a result of the 60’s mindset.

Perhaps a new thread (post holidays, of course) might be warranted also which is “how would the Church have ‘evolved’ had the TLM remained in place”?

Kris

I agree with Ken that the '65 missal is a viable candidate for an example of implementing what SC decreed.

AJV: You are such an antidote to the very, VERY bad liturgical scholarship and uncritical acceptance of questionable sources so often exhibited on these forums. Keep it up!

Actually, the Lutherans retained Confession and Absolution in their services as well. In the old Red Hymnal (aka The Lutheran Hymnal), the prayer is thus:

“O almighty God, merciful Father, I a poor, miserable sinner confess unto Thee all my sins and iniquities with which I have ever offended Thee and have justly deserved Thy temporal and eternal punishment. But I am heartily sorry for them and sincerely repent of them and I pray Thee of Thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent and bitter sufferings of Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to be gracious and merciful to me, a poor, sinful being.”

In the Blue Hymnal (Lutheran Worship), the prayer is thus:

“Most merciful Father,
we confess that we are, by nature, sinful and unclean,
we have sinned against you in thought word and deed.
For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ,
Have mercy on us and forgive us,
So that we may walk in your will and delight in your ways,
To the glory of Your holy name. Amen.”

Personally, I prefer the first one as it really points out how low and how terrible our sins truly are. Now that I’m a Catholic, I know the value of the Confiteor in the Mass as well as proper Sacramental confession! :slight_smile:

My apologies for not been clearer. I was refering specifically to the time of Luther. From his “Formula missis et communions” to his description of the German Mass he gives no confession-in fact, if I’m not mistaken, in the former he prefers that people say private prayers of petitence-he recommended some psalms elsewhere.

This remained Lutheran practise for some time, and I believe one can still have a Lutheran service omitting the Confession of ins. though I know that especially when dealing with the earlier centuries it is difficult to make such statements since Lutherans have tended to uniformity as rooted in the various Confessions and not in the order of service-but the above was generally true until around the 19th century.

Here are some of the earliest Lutheran confessions:

Minister. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
People. Who made heaven and earth.

M. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord.
P. And Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.

M. Almighty God, our Maker and Redeemer, we poor sinners confess unto Thee, that we are by nature sinful and unclean, and that we have sinned against Thee by thought, word, and deed. Wherefore we flee for refuge to Thine infinite mercy, eeking and imploring Thy grace, for the sake of our
Lord Jesus Christ.

The people may say this or the minister alone proceeds:

O most merciful God, who hast given Thine Only-begotten Son to die for us, have mercy upon us, and for His sake grant us remission of all our sins : and by Thy Holy Spirit increase in us true knowledge of Thee, and of Thy will, and true obedience to Thy Word, to the end that by Thy grace we may come to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

P. Amen.

M. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, hath had mercy upon us, and given His Only Son to die for us, and for His sake forgiveth us all our sins. To them that believe on His Name, He also giveth power to become the sons of God, and bestoweth upon them His Holy Spirit. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Grant this, O Lord, unto us all.

Amen.

As you can see the first prayer corresponds to the Confiteor, th second to the Misereatur and the last to the Indulgentiam in the TLM!

Some of the books from this time alsoshow variations contrary to Luther’s prescriptions-not that he would have cared because he considered variations in practise minor-for example, in the placing of the Sanctus and in the communion.

Minister. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
People. Who made heaven and earth.

M. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord.
P. And Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.

M. Almighty God, our Maker and Redeemer, we poor sinners confess unto Thee, that we are by nature sinful and unclean, and that we have sinned against Thee by thought, word, and deed. Wherefore we flee for refuge to Thine infinite mercy, eeking and imploring Thy grace, for the sake of our
Lord Jesus Christ.

The people may say this or the minister alone proceeds:

O most merciful God, who hast given Thine Only-begotten Son to die for us, have mercy upon us, and for His sake grant us remission of all our sins : and by Thy Holy Spirit increase in us true knowledge of Thee, and of Thy will, and true obedience to Thy Word, to the end that by Thy grace we may come to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

P. Amen.

M. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, hath had mercy upon us, and given His Only Son to die for us, and for His sake forgiveth us all our sins. To them that believe on His Name, He also giveth power to become the sons of God, and bestoweth upon them His Holy Spirit. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Grant this, O Lord, unto us all.

Amen.

Interestingly, that is from the Page 5 (The Order of the Morning Service Without Communion) liturgy of the The Red Hymnal. The “I, a poor miserable sinner” prayer comes from the Page 15 (The Service for Holy Communion) liturgy. I actually have fond memories of both those liturgies. Just too bad they weren’t the Mass with an effecacious Sacrament attached thereto.

Yes, somewhat strangely, many Protestants (including the Zwinglians and Calvinists and for some time their descendants) retained forms of a general confession for Morning and Evenign Prayer(or whatever non-Eucharistic forms of worship they had) while excluding it at the Eucharist itself.
A version of this is found in the newest LCMS publication the LSB (DS3).

Not to drag this too far off…some Lutheran actually do have private auricular confession and absolution (some LCMS folk consider it the half-sacrament, yeah, I know, don’t ask :)) I availed myself of it on more than one occasion. Of course, when I joined the Church, I made as complete a confession as I possibly could, including those things confessed to my Lutheran pastor before. Lutherans also believe in a sacramental eucharist (including the Real Presence) but don’t have the fullness of it because they lack valid orders. I remember my first communion as a Lutheran as well as my first Holy Communion as a Catholic. One of these things is not like the other, believe me!

Thanks for sharing this insight. I had never considered this, but I can see that, barring Vatican II and the NO, some more drastic change to the Latin Mass might have been effected besides the actual evolution that others here have already pointed out. Without the context of Vatican II, and what many took (rightly or wrongly) to be a modernizing call to arms, however, I wonder if incremental changes would have gone as far as you hint.

Even so, your idea has me fearing what “reformers” might turn to if the Latin Mass is given a wider place in the Church.

That just goes on to show that Protestants are extremely varied in their beliefs.

Never had an idea that Luther retained these things…That was an eye-opener for me. :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.