More on the Second Confiteor issue

Subsequent to the explosive entry about the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei confirming to me that the so-called Second Confiteor is not permitting in celebrations of Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum, I have gotten some interesting e-mail.

I closed the comments on the above mentioned thread and invited e-mail instead.

Here is something that caught my attention and I share with you now.  It is somewhat edited and with my emphases and comments.

Fr. Z,
 
Your blog is very interesting indeed!
 
I have enjoyed posting comments and reading the comments of others, for the most part.
 
There has been quite a discussion on the issue of the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, and in particular the "second Confiteor".
 
Though the PCED does not respond officially via email, I was able to get certain yet unofficial clarifications in accordance with the praxis of the Pontificial Commission from that office regarding a particular upcoming celebration of the Extraordinary Form in my parish.  Among the clarifications were the Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful.
 
The response stated the following points:
 
1. The 1962 Roman Missal does not prescribe a second Confiteor before Holy Communion.  [Right.  This was removed from the rubrics for the 1962 edition.]
 
2. It does seem that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter insists on this [a confiteor before Holy Communion]  [That sounds right.  I am not sure, but I think the ICK does also.]
 
3. The 1962 Missal already took into consideration that the first Confiteor and the Pater Noster constitute an appropriate preparation for Holy Communion, rendering the repetition of the Confiteor redundant[Also, the Second Confiteor had been introduced because rites for distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass were plugged into Mass, and therefore there was Confiteor included.]
 
4. It is the 1962 code of rubrics which is to be followed, not an earlier one.  [That is really the point, isn't it?  We have permission to use the 1962 Missal, not another.]
 
While, personally, I prefer the idea of the second confiteor [Understandable.] and am not scandalized by its use in the EF, I would not be scandalized by its omission either.  There are some that would be and for yourself, you have pointed out that you would follow the practice of the place, though you would never train a priest to do it regularly, though hopefully you would make him aware of it.  [Right.  I would not train a priest that he should do it, but I would teach him what to do if the servers started a Second Confiteor.  My practice is simply to give the absolutions in the traditional way without making a silly fuss about it during Mass nd causing wonder.]
 
It does seem to me that there is an important point about Church Discipline that is being missed when people are looking for it in obedience to red words.
 
Saying the Black and Doing the Red does not always work, especially if there is a typo as there was in the 2002 Missal and as there have been in Traditional Missals.  Sometimes the black should be red and vice versa.  One needs to know enough to know when the book should not be followed.  [I think this part of the argument is a red herring.  Rubrics can be reasonably clarified.]  Knowledge of Tradition makes up for typos.  This is because Tradition is the Discipline of the Church.  When the Church changes her discipline does Tradition change too? Necessarily it would seem! 
 
Before the authoritative statement given by Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, was it not the official position of the Church that the Traditional Mass could not be celebrated without express permission from Rome granted through the Ordinary under specific conditions?  [No, not quite.  Rome didn't have to give permission.  The PCED preferred that local bishops and superiors do so.  Also, if memory stirs in the right direction, there was great latitude about this for strictly private Masses, but that is another issue.]  Thus for decades informed priests were bound in conscience to seek this permission, a permission that now, Benedict says was not really required since it was not abrogated.  [Do not forget that priests always need permission to say Mass at all!  They must have faculties from the proper authority.  Now, however, when priests have faculties to say the Roman Rite Mass at all, they automatically have the faculties to say the older Mass too.]
 
But does that mean that the Traditional Mass was not degrogated by the promulgation of the New Order of Mass?  Surely no priest has an obligation to celebrate according the the now: extraordinary form.  [There might be some sort of obligation depending on the true pastoral needs of the faithful and, I think, an obligation to know how to celebrate your Rite, but I will stipulate.] Thus one does not have to follow those rubrics when saying Mass in the Roman Rite, one may instead choose to use the rubrics of 2002, exclusively.
 
If the Traditional Mass was not abograted, but remains as an option, does it do so because of the will of the current Pope, because Paul VI failed to abrogate it canonically, or because that which once was sacred cannot cease to be for us and such things cannot be equitably anulled? If the latter then it would seem that it is Justice that prevents its lawful abrogation.
 
How do you understand the ecclesiastical principle of equity in law as applying to this situation? It seems to me that this principle and the idea of Discipline are connected.  For the purpose of Discipline is Justice under the ideas of Order and Equity.  The idea of following the rubrics of the 1962 Missal falls under the idea of Order.  The idea of following the practice of the place when they are not following the rubrics of 1962 seems to fall under the idea of Equity if scandal were an issue. 
 
Also, it would seem that only the Roman use of the Roman Rite is safeguarded by the Motu Proprio and not the Dominican, Fransican, or Carmelite uses of the Roman Rite.  Is this correct?  [The writer is now going all over the place.  We are talking about the 1962 Missale Romanum.]
 
Obedience is certainly important, even in small details. This is granted.  At the same time I do hate to see fellow trads arguing about who is more or less obedient to the rubrics of 1962 Missal.  [The solution is easy: everyone should follow the rubrics.]
 
Even in the unofficial clarification, it says that the second confiteor is not proscribed, it does not say that it is forbidden.  [This is slick, but I don't know that it is right.  It is food for thought, however.  We might even be able to apply this to use of the older prayers for Jews on Good Friday with this argument.]  The clarification says that the rubrics of the 1962 are to be followed not an earlier one.  But this touches on more than omitting the confiteor at communion. It also would seem to abolish the bows to the crucifix at the Oremus and at the Name of Jesus, and who knows what else.  If there is doubt, and there seems to be, as the clarification points out regarding the FSSP, then it would seem that in equity, there is no obligation for priests to treat those minor details as having been abolished if for a good reason, they continue to observe the previous rubrics.
 
Thank you and be assured of many prayers,
 
Scott Smith

If the popularization of this issue helps the PCED develop a list of questions to issue clarifications about in the future after the more general clarifying guidelines have been issued.

BTW… the document we are waiting for, which I was was told by two independent sources is now on the Holy Father’s desk, and which will be issued in forma specifica, will not deal with these sorts of questions.   Specifics will need other responses.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to More on the Second Confiteor issue

  1. Prof. Basto says:

    Great to know that the approval will be granted in forma specifica . I wonder if this clause will apply to the whole of the norms, or just to some of them.

    It will mean that the document, or the parts of it, issued in forma specifica, have the same standing as if they were issued not by the Curial Dicastery, but by the Pope himself.

    As such, the Curial document approved by the Pope in forma specifica can do more then just provide regulations for the faithful execution of Papal legislation; it can change or reppeal a provision of Papal legislation, for the document approved in forma specifica counts as if it were not Curial, but Papal. And it is rare for the approval of Curial documents to be granted with that clause. Usually, it is only used when there is a canonical need for it.

  2. Without some sort of concrete clarification on these issues, the ceremonial of the Mass is travelling down a slippery slope toward chaos. I already have found it difficult serving Mass under different priests who do different things. With allowance for legitimate local custom, of course, there needs to be a bit more uniformity.

  3. Mark M says:

    Father, I do not understand. Can you explain what this document will actually deal with then?

  4. fr.franklyn mcafee says:

    I believe the problem lies in the fact that the 62 missal was not used everywhere for any great peiod of time.There came the 65 missal with its real ceremonial changes then the 67.The rubrics of the 62 missal had no time to take hold.When Pope Paul allowed on a very limited basis and in England alone the traditional mass it was to be done accordingto the 65 missal with the 67 changes.Pope JPII in his two motu proprio authorized the 62 missal as the traditional mass.Thus the lack of clarity in regards to the second confiteor and the bows to the crucifix.The 62 missal was not in effect for any sufficient period of time by which the priests could forget the old rules and learn the new.

  5. BK says:

    Comment by Fr. Z: “Now, however, when priests have faculties to say the Roman Rite Mass at all, they automatically have the faculties to say the older Mass too.”

    Is it safe to assume that this will be part of the PCED clarification of Summorum Pontificum?

    And what does that imply about local diocesan guidelines mandating Latin exams and rubrical exams?

  6. Garrett says:

    Bowing to the crucifix and at the Holy Name are not prescribed in the 1962 rubrics? What an impoverishment! What could POSSIBLY be the reasoning behind that?

    Doesn’t Tradition trump rubrics like these, or is Tradition merely a slave to innovation?

  7. Brian Mershon says:

    Garrett, Little known to many people, Bugnini’s destruction carved a wide swath from Pius XII even all the way to Pope Paul VI, and with our current pontificate with the former Marini, as we all know.

    Shrapnel all around thanks to the master innovator himself, and to Pope’s who perhaps gave too much trust and power to a lone ranger.

  8. totustuusmaria says:

    Garrett:
    I think that you’re right. If you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to Alcuin Reid’s book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, he says that the Pope’s power over the liturgy isn’t absolute. It is a power to guard what’s been handed down. The implication of that is that the authority of tradition is prior to the liturgical authority of the Pope since the authority of the Pope pre-supposes an authoritative tradition. One can extend this idea by offering the possibility that, where rubrics are silent, the Mass may be enriched by continuing the use of long-standing custom. One should also note this this formulation of Papal authority would pit, in the case of mandating liturgical novelties, the Pope’s authority against the authority of tradition.

  9. AJdiocese says:

    Garret: By the 1950′s and early ’60′s the liturgical reformers were in positions of influence and changes were being made simplifying the rubrics.

  10. Flambeaux says:

    So what’s the solution, Brian Mershon?

    What version of the Missale is acceptably free of innovation?

  11. Brian Mershon says:

    Flambeaux, that is above my pay grade. I’m just an armchair QB who got to be deprived of the truths of our faith and the liturgy of our forefathers in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and ’90s into the 2000s.

    All they had to do was hand on what they were given. But it appears many of the Council Fathers and subsequent bishops and priest thought their personal ideas and intelligence was greater than the collective wisdom of Tradition, our Fathers in the Faith, and the Church.

    Bottom line. They refused to hand on what they were given. Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly right on about many, many things, whether one likes he consecrated bishops or not.

  12. Henry Edwards says:

    Flambeaux: What version of the Missale is acceptably free of innovation?

    I have nothing against the 1962 Missale Romanum, and indeed am almost indescribably grateful for the privilege of using it at Sunday Mass. However, as a factual matter, I understand that the 1962 edition is innovative to a far greater extent than any previous edition of the Missale Romanum. It appears to me that, aside from the 1955 Holy Week changes, the innovations in the calendar are the most pervasive.

  13. Michael says:

    In the last thread, it was mentioned that the third confiteor is still retained in Pontifical Masses according to the 1962 Missal. Why?

  14. Cacciaguida says:

    Last spring our FSSP priests used the Good Friday prayer for the Jews as it stood even before the changes introduced by Bl. John XXIII. Who would bet a red cent they will implement the change recently ordered by Benedict XVI?

    I love these FSSP priests, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying.

    And yes, of course we use the Second Confiteor. And kneeling during the Lesson and Gradual, which I’m told was abrogated by Pius XII. (?)

  15. Brian Mershon says:

    “And kneeling during the Lesson and Gradual, which I’m told was abrogated by Pius XII. (?)”

    Are you talking about the altar boys or the laity?

    Again, I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. In the Traditional Latin Mass, there are NO RUBRICS FOR THE LAITY. We are free to pray/worship as best suits us to put us into touch with God–even if it is in complete silence and adoration the entire Mass–just as Mary did at the Cross at Calvary.

    And she wasn’t “participating,” huh?

  16. Tony says:

    Garrett and Brian,

    I am with you all the way in chanting: Tradition trumps rubrics!

    I was involved in a previous discussion before Xmas – either here or at New Liturgical Movement – on the question of celebration of the pre-1955 Easter Vigil of 12 readings, which Bugnini butchered as a run-up to his shenanigans in the Consilium post-Vatican II. My view was – given Pope Benedict’s profoundly insightful comment that what once was sacred cannot suddenly become unsacred, and my own view that, even if the TLM had been abrogated, then, on the opinion of the eminent canonist, Count Neri Capponi, it could be argued strongly that it was an ‘immemorial custom’ and as such, always trumped legislation. What is forgotten is that until Pius V, immemorial custom was the sole arbiter of liturgical rubrical praxis; ironically, Quo Primum has ultimately led to a legally positivist mindset which sets little store in the ‘Tradere’ – what has been passed down to us from the Fathers.

    The fact that Fr Z and others get their proverbials into a twist over an issue concerning a venerable rubric goes to demonstrate how deeply this western rationalist midset has permeated even within traditionist circles. My rule? Liturgical rubrics that precede the 1962 Missal ought to be permitted, and indeed are permitted, because they are of ancient and customary usage. End of story. I will not be disturbed by an omitted second confiteor – but will be if it is self-consciously suppressed by some ultramontane, legally positivist priest who is devoid of that most distinguishing mark of Catholicism: a veneration and a clinging to customary usage.

    So – in a nutshell – rubrics may simplify and omit, but never abrogate customary usage. Tradition is like a coral reef; it grows, layer by layer and we are all enriched by it. The urge to prune and sneer at ‘late mediaeval accretions’ so as to abolish them – such as Bugnini’s boys did with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel etc – should be resisted as fundamentally un-Catholic in sensibility.

  17. Tony: The fact that Fr Z and others get their proverbials into a twist over an issue concerning a venerable rubric goes to demonstrate how deeply this western rationalist midset has permeated even within traditionist circles.

    You haven’t understood in the least what I have been talking about.

  18. Daniel Latinus says:

    Although the rules ought to be obeyed, I would argue that they ought to be changed so that the confiteor before Communion is retained at sung Masses, since the laity are (ideally, anyway) supposed to be chanting the introit during the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

  19. prof. basto says:

    Please, everyone. As I see it, we enter this site to read this blog because we are
    Catholic, because we love the Church, and want to see due worship given to
    Our Saviour in Liturgy, because we understand that Liturgy is key to solving
    the present crisis facing the Church and the world. We admire the Traditional
    Latin Mass, the Mass of our Fathers, we want to see it ever more widely
    celebrated, to the greater glory of God’s name and also for the sake of
    our spirituality. We want to promote the reform of the reform, and, because
    we painfully understand about the problems caused by liturgical abuses,
    we want to know the liturgical rules, to promote the concept of adherence
    to the code of rubrics.

    And here we are being ungrateful for the gift we received. We spent 40 years
    in the wilderness of the liturgical desert called “vernacular-Eucharistic-
    Prayer-II-Novus-Ordo-celebrated-by-liberal-priest-with-creative-abuses”, and
    now that our great Pope has granted us, against powerful opposition by hordes
    of Bishops, the celebration of Mass according to the Missal of 1962, there are
    some of us still complaining because they would like an even earlier Missal,
    because they despise every change, to the point of criticizing Pius XII,
    St. Pius X, etc, and they will not rest until they have the editio princeps
    and nothing else! Well, instead of complaining, we should be grateful for
    being granted use of a great Missal, one deeply rooted in the
    Gregorian-Tridentine tradition of the Western Church. This Missal does not
    have a second confiteor. Live with it. It has a confiteor, that we say every
    Mass. It provides sufficient preparation. At least this Missal has one
    mandadory confiteor for every Mass, unlike the Novus Ordo.

    So, we should be grateful and rejoice in the Lord for the Missal we were given.
    We should be faithful to the rubrics, instead of triying to invoke different
    reasons to change the code of rubrics according to our individual preferences.
    We should show Rome that we do not commit abuses, that we are not do-it-your-
    own-way-liturgists, unlike the liberals that abound in ordinary form Masses.

    In a nutshell: Fr. Z is right. As for the attacks, let us all try to remember
    that this is Lent, of all times.

    Btw: So far, I haven’t been able to go to one single TLM, because my
    archbishop is against it and is sabotaging the execution of the Motu Proprio.
    Rio de Janeiro is the seventh largest metropolis on Earth, and the only places
    with the TLM are dangerous neighbouhoods hidden from the tourists,
    that are miles away from my home (and I already make a 30 minute drive to go
    to the Abbey downtown where I attend a reverently celebrated gregorian chant
    Novus Ordo every Sunday). I have already spoken to several priests, including
    in that abbey and in other churches in Rio’s Southern Zone (a huge area), and,
    while there are TLM-admirers, no one is ready to displease the Ordinary (and
    that is the real problem, as one priest confessed to me). So, you guys,
    rejoice that you out there have at least one confiteor every Mass.

    Because I am singing the praises of Summorum Pontificum, but so far, it is
    dead letter down here. And that means that sometimes, there is just no
    confiteor at all.

    Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites,
    et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.

  20. John Hudson says:

    From the letter Fr Z posted: “2. It does seem that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter insists on this [a confiteor before Holy Communion]”

    I don’t understand what is implied by this: it seems to suggest that the FSSP insist on the second confiteor, but I know this not to be the case, at least not universally. The second confiteor had been in local practice at the indult Mass in Vancouver prior to the establishment of the personal parish of Divine Mercy and the invitation to the FSSP to send a priest to be rector of the parish. After Fr Ryan (now moved on to head of the North American seminary in Nebraska) arrived in Vancouver, the second confiteor was still said for some time, but then Fr Ryan decided that it should be dropped since it was not part of the rubrics of the 1962 liturgy that permission was given to celebrate. I suspect FSSP practice in this area may vary and wonder if there is, in fact, an official policy of the Fraternity in this regard.

    Fr Z wrote in his comments on the letter: “Also, the Second Confiteor had been introduced because rites for distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass were plugged into Mass, and therefore there was Confiteor included.”

    When was the second confiteor introduced? It sounds to me like a pesky innovation in the face of tradition. :)

  21. Norman Lee says:

    I attended an FSSP mass recently and there was no Confiteor before communion.

  22. mike says:

    Mr Smith

    Your note seems well reasoned – thank you for the time and effort that went into its composition. I’m quick with a smart-aleck remark but humbled and grateful for Catholics like you.

    m

  23. Bugnini’s influence over the Holy Week reforms of the mid-1950s, while not completely absent, is often overstated. He was a parish priest until after WW2, and only then taught liturgy for a few years, before coming to Rome. By the time he got there, the influence of Dom Casal and Maria Laach, among many others, was far greater, the resultjust step into the middle of such a process, and completely orchestrate much of anything at that time (the mid-1950s), would have been tantamount to standing in front of a speeding train and making it stop on a dime.

    Bugnini would have more to do with the changes that took place after Vatican II, particularly with the Missal of Paul VI.

  24. “I already have found it difficult serving Mass under different priests who do different things.”

    You are not alone. When I serve for a visiting priest, I ask them in advance their preferences. It is especially critical for a master of ceremonies, who must also make sure the others who serve are on the same page. When that priest is confident in your abilities, he comes to rely on you for direction as much as you do on him, particularly when he is from out of town.

    With time and experience, it is possible to have a mental checklist at the ready. Having a standard point of reference (in this case, the 1962 Missal) is very helpful, and avoids any confusion over whether one is going to “out-traditional” the other guy.

  25. danphunter1 says:

    Nowhere in the priests 1962 altar missal does it say that the second Confiteor must be eliminated.
    Nowhere

  26. Jordan Potter says:

    Tony said: My rule? Liturgical rubrics that precede the 1962 Missal ought to be permitted, and indeed are permitted, because they are of ancient and customary usage. End of story. I will not be disturbed by an omitted second confiteor – but will be if it is self-consciously suppressed by some ultramontane, legally positivist priest who is devoid of that most distinguishing mark of Catholicism: a veneration and a clinging to customary usage.

    If that’s the rule we should follow, I guess there’s really no point in having rubrics at all. Everyone should just do what they’ve always done or what their personally favorite edition of the Missal calls for, regardless of what the liturgical rules call for or what the Missal actually says.

    Praying Mass according to what the Missal says and in conformity with liturgical law is a most ancient and venerable tradition.

    Dan said: Nowhere in the priests 1962 altar missal does it say that the second Confiteor must be eliminated.

    Yes, it doesn’t say it must be eliminated, because it’s not in the 1962 altar missal at all, because it was eliminated from the 1962 Missal by Blessed John XXIII. No one needs an instruction to eliminate something that isn’t there.

  27. C.M. says:

    If the popularization of this issue helps the PCED develop a list of questions to issue clarifications about in the future after the more general clarifying guidelines have been issued.

    The people detest the issue insofar as it is both an infringement on the ancient Roman tradition of Confiteor before Communion and a chilling reenactment of the first stages of the Liturgical Crisis of the last 50+ years. If the PCED’s proposed “general clarifying guidelines” include a mandate to force strict adherence to a particular edition of rubrics, then they ought not to be issued at this time.

    The rubrics as they would have been applied by the average faithful, obedient and blissfully unprecognitive rubrician on some particular day in 1962 are a woefully out-of-date standard given all that has happened since their promulgation. Applying a particular set of 1962 rubrics blindly as if they were issued yesterday would ignore the different intent of the current authorizing legislation, and thus be disobedient.

    If such an inopportune instrument were proposed to the Holy Father, one would have to wonder about the quality of advice he might receive from the same sources.

  28. schoolman says:

    Fr. Fortesque provides some history on this topic:

    The little group of prayers at the Communion of the people (Confiteor, Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine non sum dignus) are an interesting example of the way additions find their way into the missal. At first they were used for Communion given out of Mass (to the sick and so on). In this way they are most intelligible. The Confiteor with its answers is said instead of at the beginning of Mass. “Ecce Agnus Dei” echoes the Agnus Dei, “Dominum non sum dignus” is taken from the Mass. So also (out of Mass) the last blessing is given after Communion. In this way we have a selection of the Mass-prayers most relevant to Communion. Then people became accustomed to these prayers at Communion and the whole group (except the blessing) began to be used at Mass too. This seems to have happened about the XIII century.

    Fortesque, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Loreto, pp. 384-385

    In this light, the following from Sacrosanctum Concilium (#50) becomes more intelligible:

    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

  29. Different says:

    What are some of you missing in what Fr. Z is saying here???

    This is crystal clear.

    The liturgy is given to us by the Church and is not to be added to or subtracted from even though that might be the way that you like it.

    It seems that a bit of this attitude that has come forth with the Good Friday Prayer and now the 2nd confiteor is a bit of a hangover from Arch. Lefevbre. After all, some of you follow an ingrained precedent that tells you that sometimes it’s justified to disobey.

    Need a bishop? Ordain one…or four.

    Don’t like the Good Friday Prayer? Say the old one.

    Wish there was still a 2nd confiteor? No problem, just put one in.

    Oh, and no one can argue against it because it’s all justified by “tradition.” There is a disturbing trend among some that seems to set “tradition” above all, above canon law, and above the Holy Father himself.

  30. danphunter1 says:

    Jordan Potter,
    Show me the official resource that says that Pope John XXIII supressed the second Cofiteor.

  31. “Nowhere in the priests 1962 altar missal does it say that the second Confiteor must be eliminated.”

    As was stated in the previous thread on this subject, that the communion of the people is not in the priest’s altar missal to begin with, but in the Rituale, wherein is the provision for communion of the people, which is thus inserted into the celebration of Mass. It was in the event that the people received Communion that the “second Confiteor” was used at all.

    Also in that previous thread, a rubric (#503, if memory serves) states that the “second Confiteor” is omitted.

  32. C.M. says:

    In this way we have a selection of the Mass-prayers most relevant to Communion. Then people became accustomed to these prayers at Communion and the whole group (except the blessing) began to be used at Mass too. This seems to have happened about the XIII century.

    Schoolman, that is a beautiful selection. Thank you for posting. The Confiteor before Communion is shown to be a wonderful development of the same century that brought us Eucharistic processions, the monstrance, and the great hymns of the Angelic Doctor (e.g. Tantum Ergo).

    As far as Sacrosanctum Concilium, it did not apply to the Indult Masses and does not apply to the extraordinary form of Mass.

  33. schoolman says:

    Different, you are touching on a sore point. I think the problem of “private judgement” has migrated from scripture to now include “Tradition”. Tradition is why *I* deem is “traditional”, etc. Something we need to keep in check, for sure.

  34. C.M. says:

    the 2nd confiteor is a bit of a hangover from Arch. Lefevbre

    So is the 1962 Missal. He chose the date.

  35. I went back and found the rubric which someone requested. Sorry I only have the Latin. It is for Number 503 of the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal of 1962:

    503. Quoties sancta Communio infra Missam distribuitur, celebrans, sumpto sacratissimo Sanguine, omissis confessione et absolutione, dictis tamen Ecce Agnus Dei et ter Domine, non sum dignus, immediate ad distributionem sanctae Eucharistiae procedit.

  36. Ryan says:

    Different is 100% correct. These traddies on here sounds like a bunch of Martin Luthers.

  37. “Again, I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. In the Traditional Latin Mass, there are NO RUBRICS FOR THE LAITY. We are free to pray/worship as best suits us to put us into touch with God—even if it is in complete silence and adoration the entire Mass—just as Mary did at the Cross at Calvary.”

    True. Though according to most pre-VC II rubricists, the laity should be doing what the clergy “in choir” are doing cf. J.B. O’Connell’s The Celebration of Mass.

  38. C.M. says:

    Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

    §2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated…

    §3 On the other hand, an interpretation by way of a court judgement or of an administrative act in a particular case, does not have the force of law. It binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

    Can. 1752 …the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law.

  39. Sounds to me like the forma specifica thing is needed to protect the rights of priests against undue interference.

    Discipline (the Do the Red thing) aids our assent to and the living of Sacred Tradition, Faith. Equating the two, as has been done with some comments, makes them cancel each other out. Calling rubrics “traditional” because of age and quality can be helpful, but only if everyone understands the terminology. Not many do.

    In the end, rubrics can and are and have been and will be tweaked as a way to aid our assent to and the living of Sacred Tradition. Someone else, analogously, spoke of the development of (our understanding of) doctrine. This is not an evil thing.

    But if everyone follows their own relativistic standard of age, experience, preference, mood, etc., does this not effectively remove the Holy Father from governance? Whatever happened to sentire in et cum ecclesia?

    I offer the TLM where a number of priests do this as well. There are few who follow the rubrics, with some doing what they want in varying degrees for any number of rubrics, causing chaos among the faithful.

    I’ve seen a bishop cancel TLMs for this reason. It is disobedience of the preists which is at fault. The faithful, invited to the TLM for a time, are then turned away. Where do they go? People are really good at rationalising anything, but the consequences can be very grave.

    We priests need prayer: http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-01/25-13/Adoration.pdf

    God bless you.

  40. danphunter1 says:

    The second Confiteor is a perfect reminder to the laity to pray it as an act of contrition.
    It is such a wonderful gift of the Almighty to that part of the Mass that affects the faithful so deeply.
    It is the pastoral moment at its best.
    God bless you.

  41. Thomas says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts

    See this link for information of the Society of St. Pius I. To be any more traditional, you’d have to be Jewish!

    Unfortunately, the original link is now gone, but it’s an amusing bit of satire. Enjoy some levity!

    “FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!”

  42. Mark M says:

    Thomas: If you are looking for that, then just google for “Against the Huns”.

    I was speaking to someone at my Parish about the second Confiteor — we have an FSSP Priest and do say it. The person said to me that although this wasn’t in the ’62 Rubrics, it was done for two reasons: one, it was in the red misallette that the Coalition “Ecclesia Dei” put out [not a very clever reason]; but two, because it was traditional for that group [now that's an interesting reason]. Anyone want to comment on the second reason?

  43. Tony says:

    CM,

    I’m on the same page as you here. Surely Sacrosanctum Concilium refers to what it gave birth to – with all its attendant disorder and impoverishment: the Ordinary Form, and not the Extraordinary Form which preceded it and which now has been officially reinstated,

    This is not to say that ‘organic development’ will never occur in relation to the EF, but it certainly ought not to occur in the fast forward mode imagined by some people on this blog. Such development should be scarcely imperceptible, glacial in pace, so that betwixt child and grandparent generations, little ought to change. Over and against this, it is clear that the EF of yesteryear had many, many venerable local customs and usages: a true unity in diversity. I read somewhere once that the great pioneer of the liturgical movement himself, Dom Guerranger, erred in the extent to which he urged suppression of many local customs (not just those associated with Mass) on the basis that they were ‘not done in Rome’ and actively sought their suppression. Geoffrey Hull in his book ‘The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church’, argues that there was an increasing inflexibility and ossification of liturgy after Pius V’s Qup Primum – and, perhaps, Dom Gueranger’s over-zealous promotion of Roman usages reflects this unfortunate trend. Many peasants in 19th century France were alienated from the Church through these suppressive actions. But Hull’s point is that customary usage – and not legislative changes mandated artificially by liturgical authorities – had always been the rule up until the Council of Trent (the first time that liturgy, or at least the Mass, had been legislated for).

    Returning to the main point under discussion, I have no particular hang-up about Masses at which the 2nd confiteor is omitted – and there is considerable doubt that it was ever suppressed, more like the case of the maniple in the OF where it was simply no longer mentioned – I just can’t see that a rubric of the Mass which was venerable can be definitively abolished. Surely, the Roman authority may recommend a simplification, but abolition of something handed down to us?

    Moreover, I don’t think there is any comparison in the views I have expressed with the DIY approach of the OF Liturgy Committee ilk, because we are talking here about pre-existing customary liturgical usage as opposed to novelties imposed ex nihilo.

  44. FrMichael says:

    What a disheartening pair of threads this has been. As mentioned earlier by another priest commentator, could you imagine being a conservative young parish priest, interested in serving the people including taking the time to learn the EF, then running upon these series of comments? Tell you what, my definition of a “stable group of the faithful” for which I was willing to offer the EF (in the unlikely event the pastor agreed) just shot up from a handful to about 200 parishioners so as to form a near-insuperable bar to its celebration in this modest-sized parish. What parish priest would be motivated to enter a spiritual realm where minutiae such as this bring out the daggers?

    What has happened that the Mass which formed saints for over a thousand years brings out this vitriol at the present time?

    Another reason for the priest facing ad orientam: so that he wouldn’t know who stabbed him in the back.

  45. Fr Michael Brown says:

    MarkM you raise an interesting point. Including the pre-communion confiteor can become legal if it acquires the force of custom through being included by a community which is capable of receiving a law for a period of thirty years without that custom being explicitly reprobated by the legislator. It seems to me the SSPX have already got their 30 years under their belt and so could claim the force of immemorial custom. Not so yet for the Ecclesia Dei communities. So if people want this confiteor the best thing to do is to carry on until thre is an explicit condemnation. A chat between Fr Z and a Vatican official does not count for this purpose.

  46. FrMichael,

    I’d agree with you about the daggers in the back thing, except it is not the laity, in my experience, who make a big deal about any of this. They are happy with a priest who tries to say the black and do the red.

    The one’s with the daggers in their hands are the self-proclaimed liturgical experts, who think they have more authority than the Pope (sede-vacantists?), and who are most likely rejects from the modernist diocesan liturgical commissions of the Novus Ordo (for the reason that they are even more relativistic than they are).

    Not to be disheartened about the daggers, since, well, it is our Lord’s Heart which was first pierced open during the consummation of the first Holy Mass.

    God bless.

  47. “So if people want this confiteor the best thing to do is to carry on until thre is an explicit condemnation. A chat between Fr Z and a Vatican official does not count for this purpose.”

    No, but perhaps this does. Click here.

  48. Jordan Potter says:

    Dan said: Show me the official resource that says that Pope John XXIII suppressed the second Cofiteor.

    You were already shown no. 503 of the general rubrics of the 1962 Missalin the previous thread, and now David Alexander has quoted it again. They fact thatthe second Confiteor is not in the 1962 Missal, and there is an instruction that it is to be omitted except in pontifical Masses, shows that it was suppressed in the missal promulgated in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII, which means he suppressed it.

    Speaking of the customs and traditions of the Church:

    I Cor. 11:16

  49. anonymous says:

    Regarding CMs comment on the applicability of Sancrosanctum Concilium to the traditional Form of the Roman Mass, the Holy Father, back when he was called Ratzinger, said, “Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34 – 36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! It is in the light of these criteria that liturgical celebrations must be evaluated, whether they be according to the old books or the new.” http://www.unavoce.org/tenyears.htm

  50. danphunter1 says:

    It is a shame that there are people out there who are distressed at the second Confiteor being used.
    You all must be more more orthodox than the ICKSP, Society of St. John Vianney and Insttute of the Good Shepherd as well as the FSSP priests.
    It is good to see that you have more priestly training and holiness than these good societies that have recieved papal permission to say the second Cofiteor.
    What is your religion called, other than Catholicism, anyway?
    Ut Prosim.

  51. RosieC says:

    [Also, the Second Confiteor had been introduced because rites for distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass were plugged into Mass, and therefore there was Confiteor included.]

    FINALLY! The answer to the one question I had about this…

  52. Cacciaguida says:

    Tony says the “most distinguishing mark of Catholicism” is “a veneration and a clinging to customary usage.” Hmmmm. Did Jesus Christ know that?

    Hey, I L-O-O-O-O-V-E customary usage (well, pre 1965, anyway). As ever, I’m just saying.

  53. Prof. Basto says:

    Danphunter,

    Please provide evidence of the alleged papal approval of the second confiteor’s use.

    Because, so far, several people have – knowingly or unknowingly – said things that were false, such as, for instance, claiming that the rubrics were silent, when they are not.

    Item 503 of the General Rubrics promulgated in 1960, explicitly forbids the second confiteor, directing expressly that it be ommitted, and the Motu Proprio Rubricarum instructum (item 3), explicitly reppealed every custom, even from times immemorial, if they clashed with the said rubrics.

  54. Antiquarian says:

    danphunter1 said, in response to citations being offered to support a position other than his preference–

    “What is your religion called, other than Catholicism, anyway?”

    And there you have in a nutshell the Original Sin of reactionary traditionalism. Pope John Paul II says something SSPX Bishop Williamson doesn’t approve? Williamson questions the Holy Father’s Catholicism. Someone points out a citation in support of some change we don’t like? They must not be REAL Catholics.

    Because the highest authority is Tradition that I like, isn’t it? Tradition that I don’t like is not binding, not on me anyway.

    Is hypocrisy of this sort going to fare better in the long run than the mentality that led to abuses in the OF? I doubt it.

  55. Fr Michael Brown says:

    David Alexander, that is the whole point of a custom contra legem. Something that is against the law can be come a custom until it is offically reprobated. The 2nd confiteor as you show is against the law of the 1962 rubrics. It has been wdiely introduced however by many communities. It will become an immemorial custom unless it is reprobated by the appropriate authority. Up to now this has not happened.

  56. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    I’d just like to make a general comment about the P.C.E.D., meaning Msgr. Perl, its Secretary. A few years ago, it issued a statement to an individual saying that attendance at S.S.P.X chapels fulfilled the Sunday obligation as long as the attender had no schismatic intent. Since then, canonists commenting on the canonical meaning of the term “Catholic” in Canon 1248.1, have said that the P.C.E.D. was entirely wrong and, in any event, lacked the competence to decide the matter. The result of this débâcle is that, now, nobody knows whether Society Masses fulfil the obligation or not.

    The P.C.E.D. is not really a legal authority with much competence to interpret the law. I suggest that the good Fr. Zuhlsdorf has been paying visits to the wrong office. If he wants firm answers to questions about the Second Confiteor, it might be more useful to visit the offices of the Pontificial Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. When approaching them, it might be useful to have written questions in very exacting wording. For example, is it forbidden to include x at this point in the this Mass? Could x acquire the force of law as a custom under conditions y, and so on.

    P.K.T.P.

  57. danphunter1 says:

    You all make a man want to become Catholic with all of this garbage.
    Laus tibi Christi.