What did we use before the Tridentine Mass?

Ok, folks. I’ve learned more about the Tridentine Mass, and have definitely found it to be very deep and wonderful. But all this talk about it has made me ask a question.

My understanding is that the Tridentine Mass was initially defined at the Council of Trent, and that it was modified up to 1962, which was the last Tridentine-style Mass. Then Vatican II reformed the Mass, giving us the Novus Ordo.

So when did the Tridentine Mass come into being, and what preceeded it?

Looking forward to your collective wisdom…

Philip

The “Tridentine” Mass was formalized under Pope St. Pius V as a result of the Council of Trent (the Council itself did not do this). In this process, historical documents were vigorously consulted in order to restore the Mass to its original practice; dating back to the Apostles. You can read his declaration here: papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

This was done because there was quite a lot of innovation going around the time of the Council and Catholics could not know what to expect if they went to a new region. Priests travelling to a different area would offer the Mass in a way in which the locals were unaccustomed. At the time that St. Pius V formalized the Mass, he suppressed all rites in the entire Catholic Church that had been used for less than 200 years (in other words, rites that had been developed after 1370 AD). Any rites that had been in use since before 1370 could still be used. This is why the rites for the Eastern Catholic Churches (which they trace back to the Apostles who founded their particular Churches) were (and are) still allowed.

Thanks so much. That’s very helpful.

Do you know if the “standard” Roman Rite (i.e. the Mass that was said at St. Peter’s in Rome) underwent under Pope St. Pius V at that time or was it just made the standard on a wide scale?

Sorry, your link answered my question. Thanks again!

Oh dear… let’s not start the “The Tridentine Mass is the closet to the Mass of the Apostles” thing again. The closest thing we have to that is the Liturgy of Saint James. I suggest that you go here to see how Western Christian liturgy evolved and grew from the Eastern liturgies liturgica.com/html/cover.jsp Go to the Liturgics section and read. The history of our liturgy as Catholics is quite fascinating and understanding it will help people to understand why movements like the SSPX and SSPV are so dangerous (and extremely misguided). The Tridentine Mass certainly is a beautiful and praiseworthy order of the Mass, but contrary to the opinion of the Tradlats, it is not the only one used by the Latin church. In fact in the Latin church today the Ambrosian Rite is still followed in Milan and pockets of the Gallican Rite can be found in France. So go, read, explore, learn about the history of our Catholic liturgy :slight_smile:

Prior to the Tridentine Mass, the Mass was said by local rite. The Council of Trent said those rites could be used, if they were in use for 200 years prior to the council of Trent.

These Rites included:
Saram
Lyon
Braga
Mozarabic
Monastic Rites of the Benedictines, Dominicans,Franciscans

The Tridentine mass was the rite that existed in Rome at the time in 1570, Pope St. Pius V decided to use this as the standard.

As for the other liturgical rites in the West, while they had their differences, they were mostly celebrated in Latin, facing the altar and a sanctuary either walled off by a rood iron screen or an altar rail, using only the Roman Canon. The Roman rite before it gained the its Gallacian(French) influences was somwhat more simple, and a case can be made that the Novus Ordo(granted using Latin, the Confetior, The Roman Canon/EP I, facing the altar) with the exception of the Offertory does resemble this somwhat, but only under those conditions in how it is celebrated.

[quote=CatholicNerd]Oh dear… let’s not start the “The Tridentine Mass is the closet to the Mass of the Apostles” thing again. The closest thing we have to that is the Liturgy of Saint James. I suggest that you go here to see how Western Christian liturgy evolved and grew from the Eastern liturgies liturgica.com/html/cover.jsp Go to the Liturgics section and read. The history of our liturgy as Catholics is quite fascinating and understanding it will help people to understand why movements like the SSPX and SSPV are so dangerous (and extremely misguided). The Tridentine Mass certainly is a beautiful and praiseworthy order of the Mass, but contrary to the opinion of the Tradlats, it is not the only one used by the Latin church. In fact in the Latin church today the Ambrosian Rite is still followed in Milan and pockets of the Gallican Rite can be found in France. So go, read, explore, learn about the history of our Catholic liturgy :slight_smile:
[/quote]

If you read my post carefully, you will find that I did not say any of the things you are claiming.

1: I did not say that the Tridentine mass is the closest to what was practiced by the Apostles. In fact, I acknowledged that the liturgies of the Eastern Rites also trace their origins back to the Apostles who founded their particular Churches. The Tridentine liturgy, likewise, traces its practices back to the time of the Apostles.

2: I did not say that the Tridentine mass was the only one used in the Latin Church. I stated specifically that all rites that had been in existence since before 1370 were not suppressed.

3: Although I am a “traditionalist” and feel that the Tridentine mass is far superior to the current rite (which is completely valid), I am not even close to being a sedevacantist. You can see this for yourself by reading the following threads:

“Would I be welcome here… IF?” (forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1240),

“sedevacantism” (forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4355), and "

Why do sedevacantists not believe the current Pope is true?" (forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=3760)

Being a “traditionalist” simply means that you believe the traditional practices were a better means of practicing and proclaiming the faith. It does not mean that you “reject” the changes that have come along and simply holding a traditionalist view does not give any support to SSPX or other sedevacantist group.

“It does not mean that you “reject” the changes that have come along and simply holding a traditionalist view does not give any support to SSPX or other sedevacantist group.”

Pardon me, but you say “other” indicating that you understand the SSPX to be sede-vacantist. They are not.

“Tridentine Mass” is a common misnomer. Another is, “the mass of Pius V” as if the Council of Trent and/or Pius V wrote and promulgated the Missal. This would put it on par with the Liturgy of Vatican II or the Mass of Paul VI, which did write and promulgate a new Missal, hence “Novus Ordo Missae” – the New Rite of Mass.

What the Council of Trent dealt with was abuse that was forcing it’s way in by the Lutheran “Reformists” a.k.a the Deformation that sought to remove the sacrificial act leaving only a “community meal” because the Real Presence was rejected. Trent clarified the teaching of the Church on the liturgy that was used in tact, and most experts agree, since the 500’s. Previous to that there were minor additions of prayers, psalms and adding martyr-saints to the Canon. Pope St. Pius V, the pope to close the council, issued the Bull “Quo Primum” which codified the Liturgical Rite as it was and anathematized anyone that would “reform” it, addressing the Lutheran issue.

Here is a link to Quo Primum. unavoce.org/quoprim.htm

[quote=Juxta Crucem]Pardon me, but you say “other” indicating that you understand the SSPX to be sede-vacantist. They are not.
[/quote]

I apologize if this is the case. It is my understanding that they do not view John Paul II as a valid pope. I will look closer into this as I don’t want to mischaracterize any group.

[quote=Juxta Crucem]“Tridentine Mass” is a common misnomer. Another is, “the mass of Pius V” as if the Council of Trent and/or Pius V wrote and promulgated the Missal.
[/quote]

While “Tridentine Mass” may be a misnomer (a point with which I do not entirely agree), it is the common term and is easily understood. Pius V did promulgate the missal of 1570 which was a restoration of the Mass to practices used going back to the Apostles and the holy Fathers. You yourself admit that the bull was issued as a result of the issues raised by the so-called Reformers and addressed by the Council of Trent; therefore, I maintain that “Tridentine” is not wholly inappropriate. I concede that the term can cause confusion as is evidenced by the post that started this thread.

However, I don’t think that you can successfully maintain that the bull only addressed liturgical changes brought about by the influence of the Protestants. After all, the bull suppressed ALL rites that were less than 200 years old and the Reformation had certainly not been going on for that long!

Thanks for the link but I already provided a link to Quo Primum in my original post.

Yes, the rite of the Roman Mass probably changed about 10 times from the Last Supper until 1562. In the pre-Vatican II Mass of Christmas Eve the Agnus Dei was not said because it was only introduced in the 3rd century, so as to indicate that the Mass has changed through the centuries.

[quote=Philip]Ok, folks. I’ve learned more about the Tridentine Mass, and have definitely found it to be very deep and wonderful. But all this talk about it has made me ask a question.

My understanding is that the Tridentine Mass was initially defined at the Council of Trent, and that it was modified up to 1962, which was the last Tridentine-style Mass. Then Vatican II reformed the Mass, giving us the Novus Ordo.

So when did the Tridentine Mass come into being, and what preceeded it?

Looking forward to your collective wisdom…

Philip
[/quote]

The Tridentine Mass substantially has been the same since St. Gregory the Great (c. AD 590). He also wrote most of the chants still used today. The TLM is closest to the Mass of the Apostles.

If you want to see the views of the SSPX
go to this site:

www.sspx.org

Note: I do not support the SSPX.

[quote=Trad_Catholic]The Tridentine Mass substantially has been the same since St. Gregory the Great (c. AD 590). He also wrote most of the chants still used today. The TLM is closest to the Mass of the Apostles.
[/quote]

The TLM is one of the oldest liturgy in use today I believe with the development of the Roman Canon going back even further.

That’s unfortunate. Why not?

Wouldn’t it be cool if the Catholic Church had a revival of the Sarum rite and Gallacian rites (i.e. Mozarabic/Bragan)? Why don’t they use some of these defunct liturgies to give us more diversity??

By the way, the Dominicans at Holy Rosary Parish in Portland OR celebrate the Domican Rite 1 a month. It’s older than the Tridentine rite. Has anyone been to a Latin rite liturgy other than the Novus Ordo or Tridentine?

I was reading a book by the late Louis Bouyer entitled the eucharist and I found it fascinating although a little too deep for me.

In it he covers the liturgical development of all of the major rites. He stated that the liturgy generally was structured from the Jewish Berekoth prayers as used in the Synagog plus the Berekoth prayers used in the home which directly form the eucharistic prayers.

The interesting thing to me about the Roman liturgy is that he maintains that it has successfully retained some discernable elements from the first two centuries in spite of all of the development in the intervening years. And do you know what liturgy he said was most like the early Roman liturgy? The early liturgy of Saint Mark from Alexandria!

It is not that one derived from the other, but that they had parallel development under similar influences. Certainly churchmen travelled from one community to another and they had an influence knitting the practices together. This was easy because they were all using Greek then, even in Rome!

Bouyer stated that there were two “families” of liturgies (at a minimum) at the outset within the Roman Empire proper, the Antiochian-based group and the Roman-Alexandrian axis. The primary influences that made the difference were what kind of Jews predominated in a locality. Syria and places north had some very old diaspora communities while Alexandria and Rome had that plus a great many conservative Palestinian Jews (presumably newer arrivals). The structure of how and in what order the prayers were said in the Synagogs influenced what order they were said in the Christian worship. These people were from Synagog communities and many continued to attend both until they were excommunicated by the Synagogs.

This is important because from the beginning people just did what they knew. When the first generation was passing away and conversions from Judaism slowed to a trickle, greater care was taken to train new presbyters, and the liturgies began to take on a rigidity that we think of as a ‘style’ or ‘tradition’.

Separately and not in the book: there is also the tradition that Saint Mark travelled with Peter, and was sent by Peter from Rome to establish the community in Alexandria. Both theories could in fact be true, or either one. In any case, the two liturgies were similar in the early years.

The early Ambrosian rite was similar to or derived from the Antiochian tradition, then it fell under the influence of the Roman rite.

Anyway, I know that there is a great deal of speculation in this telling, but I think a lot of this info has merit. I have focused on the first 300-400 years specifically, the subsequent years are much better documented and much has already been said.

In Christ,
Michael

I’m learning so much from this thread. Thanks to all the contributors!!

I think it would be very beneficial for the Church to have some sort of systematic preservation and indult for some of the other ancient liturgies. Not that they should all become options for normal parishes, but some sort of program in which they are said in a major cathedral periodically would be wonderful. If they were valid before, then the Holy Father could certainly give a limited indult for them to be said today for this specific purpose. It would be so interesting to see these old Masses being said, and to learn from the similarities and differences.

What an idea for a retreat center!! Can you imagine spending a retreat learning and living some of these ancient masses (including the Tridentine, of course)? I think that I would get a deeper understanding of the current-day liturgy. In this case, those who ignore history are NOT doomed to repeat it. Those who ignore history will lose a great treasure. We owe more than that to the long line of Catholics between us and Christ!!

Philip

[quote=Philip]I think it would be very beneficial for the Church to have some sort of systematic preservation and indult for some of the other ancient liturgies. …It would be so interesting to see these old Masses being said, and to learn from the similarities and differences.

What an idea for a retreat center!! Can you imagine spending a retreat learning and living some of these ancient masses (including the Tridentine, of course)?
[/quote]

I recall reading that this is done in Rome. Here’s evidence that it was done a century ago, but I seem to recall another article, either in the Catholic Encyclopedia, or elsewhere that went into more detail.

In Rome the various rites are kept alive for the purpose of educating the various national clergy who study there, and for demonstrating the unity of the Church

Digitonomy,

That’s really fascinating. Looks like Rome is one step ahead of me…

Does anyone know if this still goes on today? I’m going to try to find out. I’m also wondering if the old rites of the Latin Church are preserved, even if there is no national or Eastern Catholic church that uses them today. I know that many are still practiced today (like the Ambrosian Rite) in limited capacities.

Philip

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.