Tridentine Mass had many abuses also

In the unending rhetorical wars twixt fans of the the Pauline Rite (aka as the Normative Mass, or the N.O.) and the Old New Rite - and Quo Primum refers to the old Mass" as a “New Rite” - it is frequently asserted the Old Rite was not susceptible to corruption or abuse.

Who among the soi disant “traditionalists” can point to Magisterial texts affirming the “Immemorial Mass” was a source of scandal, errors, superstitions ect?

BTW, I am a Catholic whose heart is anchored in the Old Liturgy - 1962 Missal - but I am also one who recognises we Catholics have always had only one Mass. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. We Catholics have many Rites, Liturguries, but we have always had only one Mass.

Catholicguy,

Abuses in the “old Mass”? Of course there were abuses. The Council of Trent listed abuses present at the time of the it ordered the Mass to be reformed. Following the Council of Trent there were no magisterial documents addressing abuses directly – that was generall handled between the priest and his bishop, although certain of those abuses were noted by Pope Paul VI when he wrote of the abuse of praying the rosary (a private devotion) during the Mass (a communal celebrfation).

Other abuses that we who are old enough remember include the priest racing through the Mass, no one going to communion except the priest (Pope Leo XIV wrote about this, as did others), and a failure to participate in the Mass (Pope Pius XII wrote about this).

Deacon Ed

No rite can be immune from abuses. As long as some people think that they can do it better than how the Church has instructed them there will be abuses.

The reason traditionalists trumpet abuses as the reason that everyone should be attending the Tridentine liturgy is because abuses are more prevalent and manifest in the Novus Ordo. This is not surprising since the Novus Ordo is, as has been said, the normative rite.

Of course there have been abuses of the old Mass but they have not been as bad as the new Mass.

Even though the new Mass is licit and valid it is more easier to abuse the new Mass here are the reasons, lets analyse them carefully and don’t spout ad hominems:

-Too many options make it easier to introduce abuse without people knowing it. The old Mass had less options and rigid rubrics so rigid that the position of the priest’s fingers mattered.

To be fair, the last two have to do with more human activity than the missal itself:
-In the name of incluration, people add things like clowns, banjo, rock and roll.

-people keep on getting away with bloody murder, no discipline, anyone remember Inaestable Dominum? and instead seem to get promotion and if they continue the abuse long enough it may become legal(altar girls, Communion-in-hand)

Here are the abuses of the Old Mass I have heard of:
-six candles lit for a low Mass
-for Commmunion the priest says “Corpus Domini Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen” with a big sign of the cross to 3 people then giving them communion seperately.

I have seen the Novus Ordo Missae celebrated like the Traditional Latin Mass, not many people can tell the difference and it is wonderful.

[quote=Deacon Ed]Other abuses that we who are old enough remember include the priest racing through the Mass, no one going to communion except the priest (Pope Leo XIV wrote about this, as did others), and a failure to participate in the Mass (Pope Pius XII wrote about this).
[/quote]

Well, golly, I see I invented a new pope. I guess I shouldn’t reply first thing in the morning. Of course, I was referring to Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Mirae Caritas.

Deacon Ed

As some of you have mentioned, there will always be liturgical abuse. The only way to erradicate such abuse would be if every single priest was completely perfect. Since, priests are the one’s who conduct the liturgy, they are the one’s who abuse it. Until they are all perfect (never), there will always be liturgical abuse.

[quote=Iohannes]Of course there have been abuses of the old Mass but they have not been as bad as the new Mass.


Here are the abuses of the Old Mass I have heard of:
-six candles lit for a low Mass
-for Commmunion the priest says “Corpus Domini Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen” with a big sign of the cross to 3 people then giving them communion seperately.

I have seen the Novus Ordo Missae celebrated like the Traditional Latin Mass, not many people can tell the difference and it is wonderful.
[/quote]

I would hazard the guess, along with the information provided by Deacon Ed, that there are many liturgical abuses in the Tridentine liturgy that you have not heard about, and could quite possibly be worse than anything that has been attempted in the Novus Ordo. The Tridentine rite has been in use for hundreds of years. I am sure that many more abuses have occurred than you have listed.

It is harder to see abuses in the Tridentine liturgy in the present day, since the Tridentine liturgy in no longer the norm.

[quote=Deacon Ed]Well, golly, I see I invented a new pope. I guess I shouldn’t reply first thing in the morning. Of course, I was referring to Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Mirae Caritas.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

You’re not alone, Reverend Mr. Ed! The following is attributed to John Kerry:
“I’m not a church spokesman. I’m a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that.”

When reading these threads {and somtimes arguments} I find that we frequently, and unfairly, scream ABUSE when what we are actually witnessing is an error.

I agree that both are grave matters, but lets try to keep the two seperate. Changing words of the Creed is an abuse, forgetting words in the Creed is an error.

[quote=spetreopn]I would hazard the guess, along with the information provided by Deacon Ed, that there are many liturgical abuses in the Tridentine liturgy that you have not heard about, and could quite possibly be worse than anything that has been attempted in the Novus Ordo.

You would be correct on that one. Since the earliest days of the Church, catechetical writings have given permanence to the doctrines that were being taught orally. Problems arose of course. People would choose what they wanted to hear as opposed to what the church taught.

The Protestant Reformation brought into sharp focus how poorly people had been educated in the faith. Several popes had tried to reform the Church from its erring ways, but to no avail. The mind set of so many years of poor catechesis had taken root. From Trent came the Roman Catechism of 1566. It was written to teach the clergy how to accurately explain the faith to the laity.

During the founding days of the United States, priests adapted European sources (local to European culture catechisms) for the US. In the late 1700s, A Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine, Newly Revised for the Use of the Catholic Church in the United States of America was printed. Its various editions contained only the most basic essentials of the faith. In 1821, the first Bishop of Charleston published a larger American catechism. Others followed across the country but with poor results.

In 1829, the bishops came together for the First Provincial Council of Baltimore. There they decreed: “A catechism shall be written which is better adapted to the circumstances of this Province…”

In 1885, a committee of six bishops produced A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore, known as The Baltimore Catechism. It was a question-and-answer summary of the Roman Catechism for the American culture. As good as it was and is, people continued to hang onto their own little foibles and not practice what the Catechism taught. And all of this when the Mass was still in Latin so it was not a fix and became a big part of the problem.

Pope Leo XIII and many others have tried to address the problem over the last century and more. Latin Mass or New Order of the Mass, the abuses continue to this day. They may be varied and different but they are the same mindset with a different twist is all.

Vatican Council II, produced a complete, universal catechism in order to provide uniformity throughout the whole, global Church. Of course Vatican II is maligned on every side just as Trent was in it’s day. Some things never change.
[/quote]

I agree that the rite of Pope St. Pius V did suffer from a certain amount of abuse, at least from altar boys. I’m not proud to admit it, but I may not have always articulated every Latin word of the Confiteor. Many times at the 6:30 a.m. Mass, sleepiness may have contributed to my carelessness, but that’s certainly no excuse. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Dominus vobiscum!

______________

It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey. (Kierkegaard)

In my experience the chief “abuse” in the old Mass was that people were simply not paying attention.

Sure, there were a lot of folks who had a Missal, and marked it out ahead of time with the proper readings, and we always took pride in being able to follow along with the priest. (In some respects, because it was in Latin and I had to use a Missal, I was often less distracted then than I am now.)

But a lot of people didn’t use a missal; and a lot of priests went too fast to follow along.

The prayer in giving communion quoted above (Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen)* was truly beautiful, but NO priest ever said the entire prayer for each communicant!

(*May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life.)

All in all, I have seen the revised rite celebrated with just as much reverence as the old rite, and with more people paying attention. I just wish the First Eucharistic Prayer would be used more often.

JimG

Was this something that got easier with practice? I’ve only attended the Tridentine Mass a couple of times, and I’d be following along ok for a while, and then suddenly the priest is on something three pages ahead, and I’m thinking there’s no way he did all that in one minute! But maybe there was.

Was it customary for the readings to be read only in Latin? Was the Last Gospel always the same selection each day? And was the homily or sermon optional [as it is now at daily mass]?

Bobby Jim,

At the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest says many of the prayers inaudibly, so one does not always hear them. Many of the prayers are Proper, so they may not be as long as in a “min-missal”. Instead of down-playing the TLM, why not mention some of the abuses of the New Mass-seriously, the TLM is as good as it gets, while the Novus Ordo staggers far behind.

Semper Fi,

  • Marines

[quote=Marines]Bobby Jim,

At the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest says many of the prayers inaudibly, so one does not always hear them. Many of the prayers are Proper, so they may not be as long as in a “min-missal”. Instead of down-playing the TLM, why not mention some of the abuses of the New Mass-seriously, the TLM is as good as it gets, while the Novus Ordo staggers far behind.

Semper Fi,

  • Marines
    [/quote]

It could be Bobby Jim is staying on topic. The topic is…The TLM has many abuses too. He asked a question quite charitably and on topic so I think he expects a civil answer.

At all the TLMs I’ve been to, I am yet to notice any “abuse”. Our priest is very reverant, doesn’t rush, and does say the entire Communion prayer before giving the Host to the Communicant. Our congregation and choir both are quite reverant also. In reply to an earier post,

I have seen the Novus Ordo Missae celebrated like the Traditional Latin Mass, not many people can tell the difference and it is wonderful

I can!! There is a Latin N.O. parish I am familiar with, but even that is still “Novus Ordo” and is notably different than the Old Rite.

Fr. Scott Archer writes:

“To worship at the Tridentine Mass is to worship in the same rite as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernadette, St. Thérèse and a countless number of other holy men and women…”

Semper Fi,

  • Marines

The TLM was coded during the council of Trent (I believe) in order to solidify catholic doctrine so that no one could tamper with it. Latin was chosen because it is a dead language–not subject to slang or other changes that occur in living languages. No matter what country you went to, the mass would always be the same everywhere and of sound doctrine.

The TLM was coded during the council of Trent (I believe) in order to solidify catholic doctrine so that no one could tamper with it. Latin was chosen because it is a dead language–not subject to slang or other changes that occur in living languages. No matter what country you went to, the mass would always be the same everywhere and of sound doctrine

LIturgy is not Doctrine. Check out this apologetic thread. I will post a new thread quoting Trent that detalis just how superstition, filithy lucre, errors etc had crept into the Immemorial Mass.

[quote=Bobby Jim]Was this something that got easier with practice? I’ve only attended the Tridentine Mass a couple of times, and I’d be following along ok for a while, and then suddenly the priest is on something three pages ahead, and I’m thinking there’s no way he did all that in one minute! But maybe there was.

Was it customary for the readings to be read only in Latin? Was the Last Gospel always the same selection each day? And was the homily or sermon optional [as it is now at daily mass]?
[/quote]

First, I’m talking about the Latin Mass as celebrated some decades ago in my youth. I haven’t attended an indult Tridentine Mass lately, so can’t comment on those.

Yes, a lot of us were pretty good with the Latin/English missal, and could follow along pretty easily. BUT, there were a lot more different readings to be selected, so it required more than two ribbons to mark your place. And, as Marines mentioned, many of the prayers were said inaudibly by the priest, making it difficult to keep up. The “last gospel” at every Mass was always the beginning of the Gospel of John. There was always a homily on Sundays. Even as a child I loved to hear the choir sing the Credo in Gregorian chant. The Mass helped me to learn to love beauty.

Still, I’ve been in many places where the new Mass is celebrated with equal reverence, and I can give it my full attention without flipping through a missal. And the First Eucharistic Prayer is exactly the same as the old Roman Canon.

JimG

[quote=Marines]At all the TLMs I’ve been to, I am yet to notice any “abuse”. Our priest is very reverant, doesn’t rush, and does say the entire Communion prayer before giving the Host to the Communicant. Our congregation and choir both are quite reverant also. In reply to an earier post,

I can!! There is a Latin N.O. parish I am familiar with, but even that is still “Novus Ordo” and is notably different than the Old Rite.

Fr. Scott Archer writes:

“To worship at the Tridentine Mass is to worship in the same rite as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernadette, St. Thérèse and a countless number of other holy men and women…”

Semper Fi,

  • Marines
    [/quote]

I can too but people are just too ignorant these days to bother.

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.