Skip to comments.An Excellent Resource for Promoting the Traditional Latin Mass
Posted on 07/12/2007 12:59:59 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Check out the pdf file at the link above!
The 200-year process involved changing the order and context of liturgy, as well as removal of elements of the old Latin Divine Liturgy based on the Eastern (Antiochan) tradition, and served in Rome for 500 years prior to the implementation of the "Mass of Ages" in the 7th century, which became the universal Mass of all Roman Rite after Trent.
Would it be more accurate to say that "parts of the Tridentine Mass [were] based oldest and most venerable..."?
What is the earliest complete Mass that we have, i.e., in surviving manuscript? I guess it’s probably not on the internet . . . ? :(
There’s also several petitions and polls out there.
I did these and found that there is a deacon from my town who has also signed up, there are only 2 in our town.
Novus Ordo Mass returned some of the more ancient elements to the Mass, such as the sign of peace (still practiced in Antiochan Orthodox Churches), and epiclesis, calling on the Holy Spirit, as is done in all Orthodox Churches.
I am sure, although I have no specific data on this. TLM was not a completely new creation, as it has elements recognizable to Orthodox church goers, so I would say it certainly has elements that are most ancient, but then so does the Novus Ordo Mass.
Well, it was there, if in somewhat truncated form (Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum).
Somehow I can't picture the Antiochan Orthodox going for the free-for-all bonhomie of the NO sign of peace! (If they do, please don't disillusion me!)
Thanks for the starting hints. I know the Sarum is the earliest surviving English liturgy, but the mss. only date to the 12th century, so that doesn't get me very far!
It’s always been my understanding that the Mass as established by Trent was more to impose uniformity on practices that had grown somewhat, well, lax. I imagine that then, as now, some dioceses were more “creative” than others!
Uniformity was necessary at Trent because of fear that Protestant influences would creep into local churches and not so much because there were too many creative changes made up to that point. There were also other rites with their own Mass and those were allowed to continue (such as in Spain), but the major aim of actually canonizing the TLM (as celebrated in Rome) was to counter Reformation, and not any existing innovations.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
It says "based on" it doesn't say that the traditional Mass was one of "the oldest and most venerable Western liturgical sources."
But that's the whole point, ELS. It is quite different from the previous, Antiochan liturgy. So, what other "oldest" resources are being considered here? If you know, please share. Is it the Divine Liturgy of St. James? That is the oldest resource we have and it is very much like the Eastern Orthodox liturgies of SS Basil and John Chrystostom.
bumpus ad summum
I don't know what the author has in mind and s/he doesn't elaborate. However, elsewhere in the document s/he says, "...it [traditional Latin Mass] can be traced back to Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century..." Do you find that to be a more acceptable statement?
FINALLY! Someone admits what we've ALWAYS known here at the Society of St. Pius I.
Seriously though, kosta it is not clear as far as I've read that the most ancient Roman Mass is based on the Antiochene as we know that rite today...everything I've read on the topic states that the base liturgy whence all rites sprang was probably one very similar if not identical to that mentioned by Justin Martyr and Apostolic Constitutions.
But you are right...there is a bit of a disconnect between the oldest Roman rite and what we have in the 62 missal. The Novus Ordo was an attempt to address some of that I think (at least, that's what it was billed as...the reality was something else entirely).
I have read it somewhere but don't have a reference handy. I would imagine that when St. Peter came to Rome he brought the Antiochene liturgy with him. In either case the Roman Mass was in Greek and Oriental in origin. In the second century Latin was only becoming a liturgical language. Looking at all oriental liturgies, they are very similar and recognizable, including the oldest one of St. James.
The liturgy of St. Basil (4th c.) , which precedes the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (5th c.) is believed to have be a shortened Liturgy of St. James, which some place in the 1st century AD because it references only OT (Psalms) and calls on OT righteous. The structure of all three is very similar, the first two being almost identical and differing only in length.
But we know that there were other liturgies in the East (Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) of similar makeup. The TLM is a radical departure from all until then existing liturgies. One thing is certain: the Church was not opposed to changes and even innovations when it came to liturgy. The uniformity demanded by Tridentine canon in the West is in response to Protestant de-formation, but in the East the "ordinary" liturgy from the 5th century onward was and still is that of St. John Chrysostom, and the "extraordinary" (14 times a year) that of St. Basil (which is essentially only longer than the other).
The middle-of-the-second-century account of St. Justin Martyr is valuable (it speaks of the Real Presence, i.e. the change or transubstantiation of the Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ) as a written proof of the unchanging nature of the Catholic Faith (the same can be said of Didache, of course), but it is not sufficiently detailed to be able to reconstruct the "type" of Mass celebrated in Rome in 156 AD.
Since it was still in Greek, it is doubtful that it was anything but something imported rather than being genuinely Roman. And, given St. Peter's Antiochene roots and his prominence in the Church, it seems reasonable that he would have celebrated Antiochene liturgy, or a version of it, and that others would have followed suit if for no other reason than out of respect for St. Peter.
That is a precise and historically factual statement, and as such absolutely acceptable. Pope Gregory the Great was the reformer of the Roman Mass. In fact, given the extent of changes introduced, we could say an architecht of the Traditional Latin Mass, whcih he practically built from the ground up.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, that would be accurate.
I like your formulation of the Byzantine ordinary/extraordinary (Chrysostom/Basil). Makes me wonder whether some of the variation we see right now in the Roman Missal might be (as I think it's always been in the East) standardized as to feast day:
Pope Gregory the Great, Pope Pius X = 62 Missal St Hippolytus = Novus Ordo (Novus Ordo, Eucharistic Anaphora #2)
I am not sure. Catholic sources seem to be opposed to such a thing because the two "expressions" of the one Roman Rite are like night and day, whereas the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom are but shades of each other.
It would be a unifying factor, however, to combine the two, in my opinion, reserving the TLM for major feasts (extraotrdinary events), and Novus Ordo at other time (i.e. ordinary ones).