… I had another visit to my old offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei today and asked, again, about the use of the so-called "Second Confiteor".
It is NOT to be done in the older Mass now. There is no permission (except I believe pontifical Masses, as the rubrics indicate) to do a Second Confiteor at Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
on ROME 24/4– Day 40 (-1): Final restaurant review… for now: “acard: Considering what I had last night, Culver’s would be the better choice. No Culver’s here, however.”
on ROME 24/4– Day 40 (-1): Final restaurant review… for now: “I think I’ll stick with Culver’s beer battered cod.”
on ROME 24/4– Day 40 (-1): Final restaurant review… for now: “FR. Z asks: Can you identity these? Medals. 2nd from left: Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem,…”
on ROME 24/4– Day 40 (-1): Final restaurant review… for now: “re: Shop window Is that for your final Knight in Rome, Father? [HAR! I see what you did there.]”
on ROME 24/4– Day 39 & 40 (-2 & -1): An ACTION ITEM!: “Sorry, I hope that wasn’t a rabbit hole. My comment is not necessarily about Masons. Just creepy stuff.” on Wherein Fr. Z is amused.: ““No contest” for sure! In fact, “Nolo contendere!” When you look at some of the other people in the poll,…” on ROME 24/4– Day 39 & 40 (-2 & -1): An ACTION ITEM!: “My (liberal Catholic) uncle recently gave a present to my son who will be ordained soon and my daughter who…”
on Your Sunday Sermon Notes: 4th Sunday after Easter (N.O. 5th of Easter) 2024: “Attending Holy Ghost FSSP church in Bethlehem PA again, Father gave an interesting homily on faith vs works, brought about…” on ROME 24/4– Day 39 & 40 (-2 & -1): An ACTION ITEM!: “Hmm this masonic thing is something I should look into. My stepfathers father was very involved, a 32nd degree and…”
on ROME 24/4– Day 39 & 40 (-2 & -1): An ACTION ITEM!: “Q to H7 B to any diagonal Q to E4+ K to B8 Q to B7#”
on Wherein Fr. Z is amused.: “This is a conundrum for me. Fr. Z. has deepened my faith, and his encouragements gotten me to confession more…”
on Wherein Fr. Z is amused.: “After your recent excellent post, suddenly, playoffs remind me of chiasmus… maybe one should nickname X ‘Chiasmus’, or, thinking of…”
on ROME 24/4– Day 39 & 40 (-2 & -1): An ACTION ITEM!: “How providential you would decided to make that renunciation a day before one of the second highest “occult ritual” days…”
Loading ...
A Daily Prayer for Priests
Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.
WDTPRS
020 8133 4535
651-447-6265
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Loading ...If you travel internationally, this is a super useful gizmo for your mobile internet data. I use one. If you get one through my link, I get data rewards.
Loading ...
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Use my code for a discount
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
Fr. Zuhlsdorf,
Would you be willing to put side by side the differences in celebrating the ’62 Missal properly, compared to things like the Second Confiteor?
Father Z
Thank you so much for asking THE QUESTION. Now a great burden has been lifted from my conscience.
m
A great burden would be lifted off of me if their were more Extra Ordinary Form Masses in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. But I doubt it will ever happen, considering the lack of interest in the Diocese as a whole. Thanks Vatican 2!!. I guess I will start looking to my Eastern (Orthodox) Brethren for my spiritual needs.
It seems to me that fussing over whether the PCED has granted permission for this or that element of the pre-1962 liturgical books to be used in the usus antiquior is to adopt the very same mentality that suppressed the usus antiquior when the novus ordo was promulgated. In the past, the elements of the older liturgical uses were never forbidden even when they were dropped from the liturgical books. For example, even after the Servant of God Pope Pius XII made changes to Holy Week, it was not considered abusive to continue using elements of the older liturgy. So it seems irrelevant whether the PCED has granted permission for the second confiteor, especially in the instance that this custom was never abandoned when the 1962 books were received in that location. If people are now adopting the 1962 books then they should probably adopt them as they are printed, not adding “salt or pepper” as Cardinal Arinze has said about the newer form, but I think it would be overly legalistic even in such cases to quibble about the use of the second confiteor.
Finally, with all due respect to Fr Z, I believe it’s quite imprudent to be fanning the flames over questions like this. The usus antiquior is a living liturgy, which means that when the Pope decrees that prayers be replaced, they are dutifully replaced; but it also means that we cannot supplant what was once held sacred simply on the grounds of silence. That, need I remind anyone, is the non sequitur in that infamous argument from Notitiae 14 (1978) 301-302, no. 2: Numquam obliviscendum est Missale Pauli Papae VI, inde ab anno 1970, successisse in locum illius, qui improprie “Missale S. Pii V” nuncupatur(1), idque ex integro, sive pro textibus, sive pro rubricis. Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum. Proinde, non sunt iterandi gestus multiplices atque implexi turificationis iuxta praescripta Missalis prioris (cf. Missale Romanum, T. P. Vaticanis, 1962: Ritus servandus VII et Ordo Incesandi, pp. LXXX-LXXXIII).
When you say “Second Confiteor,” do you mean that said by the servers at the foot of the altar after the priest says his? Or the one formerly said before reception of Holy Communion?
Someone: yes it’s the one before Holy Communion.
Another episode in Father Z’s battle against the Second Confiteor … It seems that it really unsettles you.
J.M.J.
I could be wrong, but didn’t Pope St. Pius X prohibit the use of the traditional Roman Breviary following the introduction of his reform? I am of the understanding that he was much more restrictive than Pius XII was with his new psalter or Holy Week rites.
Father Z,
This is all so confusing…I’ve been at an FSSP celebrated Usus Antiquior and SSPX and both use the second or “third” Confiteor before Holy Communion. What of this, particularly with the FSSP?
Two things:
1. Immemorial custom
2. Someone better tell all the priests of the FSSP, ICR and SSPX.
But something tells me the PCED has many more things on their plate than to worry about whether or not this specific aspect of the liturgy is done exactly as the 1962 missal, and ONLY the 1962 missal, dictates.
My question is why was the second confiteor dropped to begin with? My understanding is that all Masses were assumed to be done for the sake of the priest offering the sacrifice; IF laymen attended and MIGHT receive Holy Communion, then the second confiteor was done to show the distinction between the parts of the Mass (the Priest)and the lay faithful.
In other words, the original Missal was written for the priest–He alone must be present for Mass to take place. The other confiteor was later added for WHEN/IF laymen attended Mass and MIGHT approach for Holy Communion.
It seems to me that to re-emphasize the need for proper preparation to receive our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist, esp. with those raised in the Novus Ordo where EVERYONE goes to Communion–even the non-Catholics–that this is an argument for keeping the second Confiteor.
Arguments from authority only–without specific reasonings given for the change–are not very effective with today’s Catholic who wants to know “Why” things are done as they are done.
Let’s just leave things alone for about 100 years. My generation, and especially ME, have seen enough liturgical changes for about a millenium. All in 40 years.
And now we’ve started to change the TLM too.
The pride of our current generation baby boomer Catholic laymen, priests and bishops, is mind boggling.
Leave the liturgy alone.
There had better be an official document from the Holy Father out soon, explaining what can and cannot be done in the Tridentine Mass, because if the second Confiteor is not allowed then almost all parish’s are offering the Tridentine Mass incorrectly.
And Father, why is the second Confiteor not permitted? It seems like an excellent prayer of contrition right before the reception of our most Blessed Lord.]
Help!
Dan, because the general rubrics in the front of the Missal specifically say that the _Confiteor_ is to be omitted and the priest is to say the _Ecce Agnus Dei_, followed by the _Domine non sum dingus_ three times. It seems pretty clear. I’ve been celebrating the Tridentine Mass regularly for ten years and have never used the _Confiteor_ right before Communion. Why? Because the “do the red” tells me directly not to.
Sounds like we are heading for a:
Novos Latin Extraoridnary Right of the Mass!
Jim Dorchak
This is interesting news. I called the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius about this a few months ago, after I offered the Mass using the 1962 missal for the first time and had a group of people ask me why I didn’t do the second Confiteor. The rubrics don’t mention it but the Canons Regular tutorial includes the second Confiteor. The priest I spoke with told me that, although it was omitted in the rubrics of 1962, that the Ecclesia Dei commission had said it could be done if the good of the faithful required it. Now, it’s clear to me that the Ecclesia Dei commission did not give any kind of formal permission for its use but does it make sense that they would have said it could be done if the good of the faithful required it?
Since I began offering the Mass using the 1962 missal, a group of Catholics that frequented a SSPX chapel where Mass was celebrated once a month, have begun to participate every Sunday and Holy Day at our parish. They were concerned about the lack of the second confiteor and based on my phone conversation I concluded that the good of the faithful required I do the second confiteor.
Am I doing something wrong?
It is my understanding that when the servers pray the Confiteor, they are doing so “for us,” and if we are truly paying attention to what is going on, then the prayer suffices.
O Rome, when will thou provide CLARITY!
Father A.
We realize that the “Ecce Agnus Dei” and the “Domine non sum dignus” is said right before the Communion of the faithful, but the second Confiteor is said right before that.
My question again is, if the second Confiteor has been abrogated, what is the actual reason for this?
Is it not a case of either or, but rather both and?
There must be a valid reason why the FSSP and ICKSP, as well as the majority of diocesan priests have the altar boys pray the second Confiteor.
Ut Prosim.
*yawn* anyone who thinks obeying immemorial custom ever makes a Mass illicit doesn’t realize that obedience to the custom of the Church is just as much obedience as obedience to the Supreme Pontiff. This isn’t a question of disobedience. The Pope’s authority is also bound by what he’s received.
Not to deny in any way the supreme authority of the Pope, of course. Just to say that it’s alright to have a more relaxed attitude to the place of custom in the liturgy when we’re dealing with traditional custom.
The 1962 Missal incorporated the mainly rubrical changes contained in the General Decree Novum Rubricarum of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of July 26, 1960. This rubrical reform had been ordered by Pope Pius XII, and few of the changes would have been noticed by the layman using a pre-1962 Missal apart from the omission of the second Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful. In pre-1962 Missals in the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6, this Confiteor is stipulated. In the same section in the 1962 Missal it is not mentioned, but nowhere in the rubrics is it forbidden.
— But something tells me the PCED has many more things on their plate than to worry about whether or not this specific aspect of the liturgy is done exactly as the 1962 missal, and ONLY the 1962 missal, dictates.—
BINGO!
Sure wish the PCED would be more prominent and focused on Bishops denying the rightful aspirations of the
faithful and of the priests to whom Summorum Pontificum is directed most precisely. Wayword and obstinate
local ordinary is the primary problem that PCED should be dealing with from an authoritative aspect since
there is no Magisterial authority with PCED
I began training to be an altar boy in the fall of 1961. We were trained w/ the second confiteor but the ’62 missal was issued before our first Mass and I never heard or said the second confiteor in the old rite thereafter as became the norm( that is until the deformation of the old rite in the late 60’s)
quin: Another episode in Father Z’s battle against the Second Confiteor … It seems that it really unsettles you.
A silly thing to say.
I like clarity. I know that some folks out there think they can do anything they want to with traditional liturgy. They like certain things, so they do them, whether or not they have permission to.
In this they are little better than liturgical progressivist liberals.
I think people who want the older forms should demonstrate the ability to stick to the APPROVED books.
At the same, if I am saying Mass and the servers or sacred ministers start the Second Confiteor, I don’t make a fuss about it. I just do the absolution.
But I won’t train people to do it or approve of it.
We should be faithful in the small things.
I imagine some who WANT to do this, despite the fact that there is no permission, might try to brush this off as unimportant. They may call the things they like “customs” and claim they can do what they want. That is what liberals do: they try to establish contra legem customs.
I think we should be faithful in small things as best we may.
A huge deal, the Second Confiteor? Not compared to some other issues. But why not be faithful in this, when it is so easy to be faithful.
We need the Holy Fathers clarification on this.
My question: did Ecclesia Dei authorise Fr Z. to communicate this ‘decision’? That is, is this an official communication? If not, then what is it? An indiscretion?
If Fr Z. had the opportunity to ask questions of an Ecclesia Dei official, why did he not ask some more important questions? Or, if he did, why is he not similarly indiscrete about them?!
Furthermore, is one right in thinking that few, if any, of the officials of Ecclesia Dei celebrate the usus antiquior habitually? What competence have they to judge a question like this? Surely they will have to rely heavily on advice from FSSP, SSPX, etc.; and perhaps even from the many excellent comments on this blog, which are overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the second confiteor where it is the custom.
“In this they are little better than liturgical progressive liberals.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on Father. First of all, laymen do not say the Mass; only priests do. Secondly, the vast majority of priests saying the Mass use the second confiteor.
So, according to your statement, the FSSP, ICR and SSPX priests are all “liturgical progressive liberals.”
If the PCED issued a response to a layman or priest inquiring about the second confiteor as a personal correspondence and authorized its use for pastoral reasons, then I am quite certain no one is being “disobedient” nor “liberal” by using it.
Again, what was the theological justification for the change.
Immemorial custom holds a large part of the liturgy, Father Z, and you most certainly know that.
Interesting, Fr. Z. This morning I said the old rite Dominican Mass and we used the Communion Confiteor (in Dominican form). I will drop it on Thursday when I celebrate again. I could have sworn that someone on this blog or elsewhere had posted a reply to a dubium sent to Ecc. Dei in which they permitted use of the Communion Confiteor.
As the proper canonical approach is for our rite to mimic the discipline of the parent Roman rite, I had considered myself free to do this by analogy. What I would really like to drop is Domine non sum dignus–a Romanization imposed on our rite in 1961, and something borrowed from the *Roman* priest’s Communion. That was when we lost the Communion Confiteor in our rite too.
Does anyone know where the reply to this dubium is available on the web? I was certain I had seen such.
Dan, we HAVE a clarification. Again, in the general rubrics in the front of the 1962 Missal, it says specifically that the _Confiteor_ is not to be said. So, no, it is not said before the _Ecce Agnus Dei_. I simply have to “Say the Black and Do the Red.” I’m not going to be putting things into the Mass that aren’t there.
I think this issue has a lot to do with local custom. I would not condemn the use of such things as the Second Confiteor and elements of the pre-1955 Holy Week if it was part of the established custom of the place. This is one of those issues that I do not think can be judged universally.
I recall reading something by Cardinal Ratzinger (perhaps it was the Ratzinger Report?), and even Fr. Zuhlsdorf touched on it when he was discussing the revised Good Friday Prayer, that there is nothing wrong with a certain amount of liturgical plurality. Even after the Council of Trent when most of the Church used the Roman Rite there still existed various local liturgical traditions that remained, even if they did not fit perfectly with the rubrics of the Missal, simply because it was the established custom of the place.
I am not in any way supporting in any way what seems to be the modern-day practice of constant tinkering with the rubrics or even making them up as we go, but to say that in the traditional Mass that the Mass would be EXACTLY the same anywhere on the globe, on any day of the liturgical calendar, would be wrong. In small ways there has always been some liturgical plurality due to local custom, and I see nothing wrong with that.
In an earlier comment the Psalter of Pius XII was mentioned. Some may find it interesting to know that Bl. John XXIII himself would not use the new Pian Psalter and reverted back to the Clementine.
Maybe Ecclesia Dei or His Holiness can officially inform all priests of exactly what is allowed and what is not in the Tridentine Mass.
Are the faithful allowed to recite the second Confiteor or are we not allowed to do this now?
One example of those baseless changes, the abolition of the Confiteor
Just as one example, let us consider the already-mentioned elimination of the Second Confiteor, as it is commonly referred to. This was done with the excuse that the Confiteor had already been said at the beginning of Mass, so to recite it again in the middle of Mass would qualify as a ?useless repetition?. Not so, however. You see, the Communion of the Faithful is neither necessary, nor, properly speaking, a part of the Mass at all. When there are faithful who are to communicate at a Mass, this is accomplished by the insertion of a Communion rite, if you will, into the Mass, similar to that which one would use when bringing Holy Communion to the sick. This rite of receiving Holy Communion necessarily begins with a Confiteor. Such is the proper order of things. The priest doesn?t just go in and just jump straight to giving the person or people the Eucharist without some sort of penitential rite preceding it.
The recitation of the Confiteor during the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar is only for the priest and the other sacred ministers, or altar boys as the case may be. To eliminate the ?Second Confiteor? would imply either that the faithful had no need of it, or that the Communion of the faithful were actually a part of Mass rather than being what it is, something outside of Mass but done within the context of Mass, as are the readings in the vernacular and the sermon. There were other changes made during this period, but I believe that these examples suffice to illustrate my point.
I think Brian’s mention of immemorial custom is pretty decisive as to the gravity of this issue. Although not completely related, I believe that certain prayers in the Canon that are not found in the ancient sacramentaries (Gelasian type, Gregorian type, etc) were originally private “secret” prayers that through immemorial custom made there way into the printed text. I’m not saying that this extremely viable species of hypothesis automatically vindicates the second confiteor, but it does suggest to me that the principle of immemorial custom is pretty significant.
Fr. A,
Then you can officially tell the majority of priests who offer the Tridentine Mass using the second Confiteor, who have read all the rubrics in the 1962 Missal and still use the Confiteor, that they are progressive liberals and stand outside the Church on this matter, because no one else is telling them that.
I have an unrelated question and Father can admonish me if he wants but I would like an explanation.
Is a priest permitted to offer the Tridentine Mass without an altar boy?
Sorry if this sounds ignorant. I have seen this done recently in a diocesan Cathedral and was wondering…
If it is the venerable local custom I don’t think it would be accurate to describe the priests as progressive liberals who stand outside the Church. Of course if it was done in direct defiance of the local ordinary the priest would be doing evil.
“Maybe Ecclesia Dei or His Holiness can officially inform all priests of exactly what is allowed and what is not in the Tridentine Mass.
Are the faithful allowed to recite the second Confiteor or are we not allowed to do this now?”
There are no rubrics for the laymen for the Traditional Latin Mass. Pray to God as you wish in the manner most suiting to Him and you.
I should note that my immediate previous post was taken from another source and was not written by me.
Hmm… in terms of “say the black do the red”, having the 2nd Confiteor omitted is not equal to abrogating it.
jack burton,
The priests that allow the second Confiteor are not progressive liberals. I was writing that with my lingua planted fimly in my cheek.
God bless you
If the final Confiteor is dropped, then so too should the Prayers After Low Mass. After all, both were not included in the 1962 missal (but the Confiteor was tolerated where it was already custom, according to the red Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei missals).
What’s fair is fair, no?
Here is another thought.
Perhaps Msgr. Perl told Fr. Z one thing and Msgr. Schmitz and Msgr. Wach another thing. And Fr. Berg and others who have asked.
Perhaps this is an issue about Msgr. Perl telling people different things? Gasp!!! Surely, that never happens, does it?
Cardinal Castrillon says the SSPX priests and bishops are not in schism, then someone writes the PCED for clarification and Msgr. Perl says they are “schismatic,” contradicting what Cardinal Castrillon has declared numerous times in public interviews. Maybe ALL the reporters got it wrong.
No “Romanitas” going on there at all, is there? Msgr. Perl says in an interview there is no basis for a change in the prayer for the Jews and voila, Cardinal Bertone announces a week after there will indeed be a change.
Hmmm… “Romanitas” indeed.
Besides, Fr. Z’s private meeting is not an official communique of the PCED anyway. I’m not doubting the truth of what he was told, but that doesn’t mean that the FSSP, ICR and others have been told something different.
Folks, why not just be faithful to the *norms* as they exist in the 1962 Missal? We expect no less from Catholics who attend the New Mass or OF. The liturgy is first and foremost a *public* prayer of the Church — our personal preferences should really take second place relative to established norms.
The “Prayers after the Low Mass” are also “omitted” in the 1962 Missal, but (mercifully) such an omission is NOT seen to be a *prohibition* of the Priest’s leading the faithful in said prayers.
Granting there is no “permission” for either the Communion Confiteor or the Prayers after Low Mass, there seems to be an equivocation on the word “permission”: does the lack of so-called “permission” indicate the VIOLATION of liturgical law if one were to engage in one or the other?? Was such a VIOLATION *explicitly* indicated (in the case of the Communion Confiteor) by Ecclesia Dei? And if some sort of violation of liturgical law is indicated in the one case, why is there no such violation in the case of the other?
I absolutely agree schoolman. I wasn’t trying to advocate DIY liturgy; I just found myself momentarily interested in the subject of immemorial custom. ;-)
I’m no expert on the finer details of rubrics and such so in general my opinion on such things boils down to “say the black, do the red.”
“Well I won’t go to Father B.’s parish any more because he doesn’t use the second Confiteor, I can’t go to Father C.’s chapel because he’s considering using that new Good Friday prayer, and Father D. is a real modernist, he’s been known to omit the Leonine Prayers under certain circumstances just because the rubrics permit that!”
“Well, you can always go to Father E.’s Mass, right?”
“Oh, no, he’s the worst of all. They use the dialogue Mass at his place!”
“Yeah, I see. Well, you and the family could get up really early and make the drive out to Tradville, I hear Father F. has a Solemn High Mass twice a month”
“I wouldn’t touch that place with a ten-foot crozier, he uses married permanent deacons for the deacon and subdeacon!”
“Wow. Hey, y’know, you were right about that motu proprio; all it did was let a bunch of creepy Novus Ordo people into OUR Mass.”
“Yeah, I know. I liked it much better when we all used to drive two hours at the crack of dawn to that Mass in Fr. G.’s garage. He’d never have anything to do with all of these Conciliar Church innovations!”
“Yeah, and he was ordained before the Council”
“Yeah!”
“Yeah!”
I was actually told by an archbishop of a major city in the United States, a year ago when I asked him this very question, “is the second Confiteor permitted in ’62 Missal, that yes it is He responded in the affirmative.
I should inform His Excellency that Ecclesia Dei has told Father Zuhlsdorf something else, when I work up the cajones to do it.
I view the Prayers after Low Mass as optional since they are not included in the ’62 rubrics. To me they come under the personal piety of the priest and people.
… I had another visit to my old offices of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei today and asked, again, about the use of the so-called “Second Confiteor”.
While you’re over there, maybe you could go to Rites and Sacraments and ask about the 2d sign of peace (hand shaking) during mass.
Funny how people reject directives from the Holy See in regards to BOTH the Ordinary AND the Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. Will we never have obedience and peace?!
AJdiocese: \”I view the Prayers after Low Mass as optional since they are not included in the ‘62 rubrics. To me they come under the personal piety of the priest and people.\”
I agree, but cannot the same point arguably be made with regard to the Communion Confiteor?
Geoffrey,
The suppresion of the second Confiteor has not been released as an official directive.
Geoffrey,
The “supression” of the second Confiteor in the 1962 Missal has not been made official by the Holy See.
Otherwise we would not have great prelates like Bishop Rifan and other’s in the Epicopate using it in their offering of the Sacrifice in the older missal.
Brian Meshon wrote:
“Two things:
1. Immemorial custom
2. Someone better tell all the priests of the FSSP, ICR and SSPX.
But something tells me the PCED has many more things on their plate than to worry about whether or not this specific aspect of the liturgy is done exactly as the 1962 missal, and ONLY the 1962 missal, dictates.
My question is why was the second confiteor dropped to begin with? My understanding is that all Masses were assumed to be done for the sake of the priest offering the sacrifice; IF laymen attended and MIGHT receive Holy Communion, then the second confiteor was done to show the distinction between the parts of the Mass (the Priest)and the lay faithful.
In other words, the original Missal was written for the priest—He alone must be present for Mass to take place. The other confiteor was later added for WHEN/IF laymen attended Mass and MIGHT approach for Holy Communion.
It seems to me that to re-emphasize the need for proper preparation to receive our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist, esp. with those raised in the Novus Ordo where EVERYONE goes to Communion—even the non-Catholics—that this is an argument for keeping the second Confiteor.
Arguments from authority only—without specific reasonings given for the change—are not very effective with today’s Catholic who wants to know “Why” things are done as they are done.
Let’s just leave things alone for about 100 years. My generation, and especially ME, have seen enough liturgical changes for about a millenium. All in 40 years.
And now we’ve started to change the TLM too.
The pride of our current generation baby boomer Catholic laymen, priests and bishops, is mind boggling.”
()
Brian, I agree with you totally on your points. The Faithful have been fighting all this time to get the Tridentine Mass officially back in church, and now to begin tinkering with it is beyond reason. I thought the indult granted full use of the 1962 Missal as it is. What’s with the “changing this” and “restricting that” all of a sudden? Yes, mind-boggling, and seemingly not in good faith with the Faithful.
Thank you, Fr. Z., for posting this on the blog. It has bothered me that people continue to say the 2nd Confiteor in clear violation of the rubric.
Also, I have a question that I’m hoping someone can help with. Can it be said that there are more graces at a Mass said in Latin as opposed to English or another vernacular language?
-Kevin Symonds
Geoffrey wrote:
“Will we never have obedience and peace?!”
()
No.
Progs to the left of me,
Trads to the right…
Here I am,
Stuck in the middle with Papa.
Kevin,
I have encountered statements to the effect that Latin can increase the efficacy of prayers (Fr. Amorth for example), but I suppose the popular concept of liturgy today would infer the exact opposite since extrinsic participation and the mundane understanding of the congregation is virtually equated with the efficacy of the Mass (I don’t think such a mentality really conceives of the Mass in terms of objective spiritual efficacy anyway, it is all about subjective criteria).
My own personal opinion is that liturgical Latin may have a certain sacramental quality, but I would avoid the idea that Latin liturgy automatically equals more efficacious liturgy.
I never thought I’d say this, but Rome really just needs to leave us alone and let us do what the Church has always done.
Let Rome pronounce on faith and morals; we shall obey.
Let Rome correct improper novelties; we shall obey.
But let Rome not remove our customs.
Given the infinite plenitude of graces in every Mass I would say that the subjective dimension is more constructive in this case assuming it is framed in an orthodox theological context. Ultimately I refuse to speculate and I don’t think it is a good approach if one is seeking to highlight the value of Latin in the liturgy.
Immemorial custom holds a large part of the liturgy, Father Z, and you most certainly know that
Someday, Brian, you should trouble yourself to read the Canon Law regarding liturgy.
That way you wouldn’t come off as…insouciant…
I would not condemn the use of such things as the Second Confiteor and elements of the pre-1955 Holy Week if it was part of the established custom of the place
There is no such “local custom” in ANY Diocese which obeyed the 1960 revisions (which would be all of them).
And if you are arguing that “local custom” dating from 1985 is “immemorial,” you are kidding, no?
The liturgical hotshots of the 1960’s were often fond of ridiculing “centrism” and the like, so why are all the rubrics of the Roman rite still so heavily micromanaged? I would speculate that it is the fault of those who would seek to promote liturgical anarchy and do-it-yourself Masses, but this is sad since legitimate local customs are in keeping with tradition and in my opinion healthy for the liturgy.
I find it interesting that within the TLM, there is so much confusion and disagreement. Contention seems to permeate what should not be so complicated. Say the black, do the red. How many missals does the TLM have anyway?
Really, it is most imprudent to bring up disputed questions of rubrics in the 1962 missal right now! We have just had a new Good Friday prayer implemented, Summorum Pontificum has barely been in force for 4 months and there is still much great opposition to overcome. Let alone the fact that if things are pushed too far it will only impede any chance of reconciliation with the SSPX. We can’t afford to rock the boat any further! Let us wait a little longer to deal with these issues: priority must be given to the 1962 missal settling down. Liturgical abuses in the 1962 rite pale into insignificance compared with what happens in the Novus Ordo..
Martin: I would say no since the second Confiteor is inside of Mass while the Prayers after Low Mass are outside of Mass. You should not insert things into the Mass on the basis of personal piety but after Mass prayers can be said based on such piety.
Dad29 — does your hard-line stance against the final Confiteor also apply to the Prayers After Low Mass? If not, why?
The posted photos on this website of Candlemas Day Mass showed a violet cope. The 1962 (i.e., 1961) color is white.
There are far better things to get worked up about…
AJdiocese — that argument breaks down when one looks at the regulations concerning the use of organ before and after Mass during Lent (not permitted).
In my view, the final Confiteor and the Prayers After Low Mass are a package deal; and it’s very interesting that one is a lightning rod and the other is not.
Dr. Fratantuono:
I do not think that people are jumping off buildings because of the second Confiteor per se, but rather because this all represents the slippery slope into the possibility of too much and unneeded change in the Ordinary prayers of the Tridentine Mass.
If the second Confiteor prayer worked for St Charles Borromeo, St John Vianney and St Therese of the Little Flower, why mess around with it?
God bless you.
It seems that any pronouncements on something which carries such emotional weight as the Second Confiteor would be best left for much, much later. It is an unsettled time and we shouldn’t be unsettling people with something which had at least the acceptance of custom in so many places. This is NOT worth the wrangling, not now, not this. There are good and holy customs out there that have been part of the “environment” of the Roman Rite for a long time (think of the Sanctus Candle at Low Mass). It is that environment which should not be disturbed unnecessarily. I don’t mind that Father Z raises the question. He simply does us a service in this. And his clarity is appreciated. But we need to tread lightly for fear we may be treading on souls.
Mr. Hunter, I’m not positive that the Second Confiteor was a factor in the Lyonnaise Use offered by St. John Vianney or in the Ambrosian Rite offered by St. Charles Borromeo. However, one could equally say, if obedience to the prescribed liturgical books was good enough for St. John Vianney, St. Charles Borromeo and St. Therese of Liseux, it should be good enough for us.
Mr Ferguson:
All three of those saints that I mentioned worshipped and offered Sacrifice in a Mass that used the second Confiteor.
God bless you
Thanks for that bit of information, Mr. Hunter, but I would still maintain that the graces they obtained by being obedient to legitimate authority and respecting the liturgical books in force was a considerable factor in their sanctity. Would that all of us develop the same spirit of humility and docility to Holy Mother Church.
Canonists and rubricians everywhere, but not a theologian to be found…
{sigh}
I have yet to hear an answer yet as to “WHY” it is a good idea to remove the confiteor before the rite of the people’s communion? Why?
And again, does this mean that the FSSP, ICR and all other priestly orders that use the second confiteor are the same as modernist, liberal liturgists? Does it?
Or PERHAPS. Just PERHAPS, the PCED previous to Msgr. Perl, PERHAPS authorized the orders to do as they are doing.
Or PERHAPS. Just PERHAPS, just like Msgr. Perl in personal correspondence, continues to call the SSPX “schismatic” that Msgr. Perl tells different people different things OR is unaware of what the previous PCED authorized people to do?
Canonists and rubricians everywhere, but not a theologian to be found…
{sigh}
I have yet to hear an answer yet as to “WHY” it is a good idea to remove the confiteor before the rite of the people’s communion? Why?
And again, does this mean that the FSSP, ICR and all other priestly orders that use the second confiteor are the same as modernist, liberal liturgists? Does it?
Or PERHAPS. Just PERHAPS, the PCED previous to Msgr. Perl, PERHAPS authorized the orders to do as they are doing.
Or PERHAPS. Just PERHAPS, just like Msgr. Perl in personal correspondence, continues to call the SSPX “schismatic” that Msgr. Perl tells different people different things OR is unaware of what the previous PCED authorized people to do?
Mr. Ferguson,
While I agree with much of what you write and enjoy your posts tremendously, I highly doubt that the saints we mentioned were too concerned with liturgical anarchy in their day and age. For one, their overall formation as Catholics was much better than ANY priests, bishops or laity today.
Second, I doubt they were sanctified because of minor rubrical variations that were authorized in the past and are unclear whether they are still authorized now.
Of course we have no document from the PCED officially declaring this–only a conversation from a priest on a website.
Not doubting it occurred as the good Father described, but again, there is no one being disobedient to anyone or anything by going to Mass, or offering Mass, using the second confiteor.
Maynard writes:
“Well I won’t go to Father B.’s parish any more because he doesn’t use the second Confiteor, I can’t go to Father C.’s chapel because he’s considering using that new Good Friday prayer, and Father D. is a real modernist, he’s been known to omit the Leonine Prayers under certain circumstances just because the rubrics permit that!”
“Well, you can always go to Father E.’s Mass, right?”
“Oh, no, he’s the worst of all. They use the dialogue Mass at his place!”
“Yeah, I see. Well, you and the family could get up really early and make the drive out to Tradville, I hear Father F. has a Solemn High Mass twice a month”
“I wouldn’t touch that place with a ten-foot crozier, he uses married permanent deacons for the deacon and subdeacon!”
“Wow. Hey, y’know, you were right about that motu proprio; all it did was let a bunch of creepy Novus Ordo people into OUR Mass.”
“Yeah, I know. I liked it much better when we all used to drive two hours at the crack of dawn to that Mass in Fr. G.’s garage. He’d never have anything to do with all of these Conciliar Church innovations!”
“Yeah, and he was ordained before the Council”
“Yeah!”
“Yeah!”
**************************************
If there was ever a need for a bit of gently-tweak-the-Traditionalist-type humor, this thread shows that the time is now.
Love it, Maynard.
SanctaMissa.org claims otherwise, so I wrote them. Here is there response
#1
“In pre-1962 Missals, in the “Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6,” this Confiteor is stipulated. In the same section in the 1962 Missal it is not mentioned, but nowhere in the rubrics is it forbidden. Apart from this omission the ordinary of the Mass was not changed.”
The Missal of 1962 – A Rock of Stability
by Michael Davies – Spring 2001
#2
Klaus Gamber, a favorite theologian and liturgist of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his critique of the reforms that the second Confiteor was a legitimate option in both the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Missal, even though they were not specifically mentioned.
#3
Regarding the question of the second (or, if you like, third) Confiteor in the 1962 rite, in the Ponticale Romanum (Marietti, editio iuxta typicam, 1962) there is a second Confiteor.
#4
When the Confiteor was dropped as part of Blessed John XXIII’s revised rubrics in 1960, permission was given shortly after by the Sacred Congregation of Rites to continue the second Confiteor, where it was an established custom. It said, I believe, that this practice could be tolerated. That is the permission that has continued to operate under the indult.
#5
The Roman Ritual as late as 1964 still provides for the use of the Confiteor before the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful as an option.
#6
When our parish began to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in 1989 at the request of Cardinal Bernadin, the Cardinal asked us to consult with Msgr. Charles N. Meter (Secretary of the Commission for Sacred Music, president of the American Federation of Pueri cantores, director of several diocesan choirs) in order to restore the use of the 1962 Missal as it was observed here in the Archdiocese of Chicago. In the 50’s and 60’s Msgr. Meter was very much involved with the guidance of the Sacred Liturgy in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Msgr. Meter recalled that the parishes in our Archdiocese never discontinued the use of the 2nd Confiteor. He mentioned that the Sacred Congregation for Rites, at the time of the revision of the rubrics under John XXIII, clarified that while the 2nd Confiteor was no longer required it was permitted. Thus it is a legitimate option in th ’62 liturgy. At the time of the re-introduction of the Traditional Mass in our parish Msgr. Meter confirmed this with the Ecclesia Dei commission which simply re-stated the previous decision of the S.C.R.
This was from Fr. Scott
Dan, we HAVE a clarification. Again, in the general rubrics in the front of the 1962 Missal, it says specifically that the Confiteor is not to be said. So, no, it is not said before the Ecce Agnus Dei. I simply have to “Say the Black and Do the Red.” I’m not going to be putting things into the Mass that aren’t there.
Comment by Fr. A
That is not true. The rubrics omit the 2nd Confiteor, they don’t mention it all even to forbid. Perhaps that amounts to suppressing it, but it does not say “specifically that the Confiteor is not to be said” that is just a falsehood
I think the issue at hand is very simple to explain. One must use the typical edition of the Missale Romanum. The last typical edition of the Missale Romanum of the extraordinary form was put out in 1962. One may not use anything other than the typical edition. Period. Just like people may not use anything other than the typical edition in the ordinary form. The rubrics are to be followed no matter how small or insignificant they may seem. Someone wrote in a previous post that one could still use the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus pre 1955 after the new one was promulgated. This is incorrect. One must use the typical edition unless one has been granted an indult to do otherwise.
I just got off the phone with the Superior of the North American District of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and he informed me that since only the Communion of the Priest is absolutely necessary, and conversely the Communion of the faithful is not, the Second Confiteor is actually outside of the essential part of Mass and is a very holy means by which the faithful can prepare for the reception of the Blessed Sacrament, much like the Act of Contrition.
The ICKSP will continue to use the second Confiteor, according to their U.S.superior.
God bless you.
Joshua, so you’re saying that Fr. A. is mistaken or lying about what the general rubrics say in the front of the 1962 Missal? He’s not talking about hand missals used by the laity, you know.
# 503 of the general rubrics of the Roman Missal states:
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.
Straight foward enough for you?
It is truly astounding how quickly we will adopt the arguments of those we so often criticize when it serves our desires. “Local custom”… “It doesn’t say we can’t do it, only that we shouldn’t do it”… “when it serves the needs of the faithful”…”if we are going to be truly faithful, we have to…”… and so on and so forth. How quickly we back away from just doing what we’re told when we want to do something else…
As one who really could care less either way, as I have attended Masses where it is, and where it is not used, Joshua’s post makes the most sense yet.
A book, called the 1962 missal, does not exist in a vacuum, as much as everyone here likes to say “say the black, do the red.” We are not “missal fundamentalists” any more than we are “Biblical fundamentalists.” The liturgy does not exist in a vacuum.
It appears that Joshua has affirmed what I have said more than once now. The PCED itself authorized the continued use of the second confiteor. It is not mandated, but is allowed, which is exactly how the liturgy organically develops, rather than being over-legislated, like it has been for the past 40 years–including the most recent changes to the TLM.
Organic development cannot happen when everything is MANDATED from on high by “experts.” Didn’t a prominent cardinal–oops!–now Pope, say something to that effect?
If someone does something other than what #503 of the General Rubrics states, it is an abuse.
I am sometimes reminded on these threads of a now deceased Jesuit I once knew who studied in Europe in the late 1950s. (and who was very sympathetic until his death to the cause of tradition).
He noted with bemusement that in the late 1950s, under the last years of Pius XII, the “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus” was on sale in the Vatican bookstore, but wasn’t used in St. Peter’s and the other Roman basilicas.
Jordan Potter:The priests altar Missal of the 1962 edition says nothing about supressing the second Confiteor.
Brian Mershon: As a wise priest told me recently,”Ask a lot of questions get a lot of answers”.
God bless.
The processional hymn, if there is one and the recessional hymn, if there is one, and the priest’s sermon, if there is one, and the communion of the faithful, if there are any, are not technically part of the Mass per se. For that reason, the rubrics for the second confiteor and for distributing Holy Communion would not be in the Missal for the Mass.
These things are outside of the Mass. It is very simple actually. Shows again how our Novus Ordo mentality of the THE MASS has warped our thinking and crept into traditionalist’s minds.
As I am to understand it, the original reason for a “second Confiteor” was that the communion of the faithful was once not a regular part of the Mass, but was “grafted in,” essentially, from the Rituale. When the rubrics were revised in 1960, one might have surmized that communion of the faithful had become the norm, and so the need for a separate preparation (that is, the Confiteor) was not as essential as before, when communion of the faithful occurred outside of Mass. I understand that currently its use is tolerated where it has been established for some time, but that since it is not in the 1962 Missal, at the very least it is not required. What Father Z has learned would seem to reinforce this.
When I train servers at our parish, I tell them that they may be in situations where it is used, to prepare them for that event. But our pastor has determined to follow the norms proper to the 1962 Missal in this regard.
People are going to defend what they prefer in such fora as this. It doesn’t appear to matter that Rome is an authority in this matter at all. Some of us would rather follow dead popes than live ones.
In which case, why bother having a live one?
Danphunter and Brian Mershon,
Number 503 of the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal of 1962 states:
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.
Kevin Symonds wrote:
“Also, I have a question that I’m hoping someone can help with. Can it be said that there are more graces at a Mass said in Latin as opposed to English or another vernacular language?”
The answer is “yes,” and here’s a link to an article that explains why:
http://schamelot.blogspot.com/2007/07/merits-of-mass-and-how-to-gain-them.html
Sorry. I was mistaken.
Canonists, rubricians and Latinists, but not a theologian to be found.
It happens outside of Mass, just like the Leonine prayers–after Mass. Therefore, it would not be in the missal. There are a LOT of things that happen in the course of Mass that are NOT in the Missal–any Missal–but they are not abuses necessarily. Come on people.
I’m quite positive that Msgr. Schmitz, cited above, knows more about the history and theology of the liturgy than all of us posting on this blog together combined.
Michael Garner, Thanks for the clarity. It is Greek to me.
I guess Msgr. Schmitz can’t read Latin either then, huh? The communion rite is outside of the rubrics of the Mass; therefore, it is tolerated.
Again, you can list your rubric in Latin again for us all here, but it is Greek to me. I am a Catholic, not a Latinist, nor a rubrician.
Joshua’s post and Dan P. Hunter’s, since he went to the source, are good enough for me. If any of you think the Pope told Msgr. Perl what to say to answer this question of Fr. Z to Msgr. Perl, I would merely point out again that Msgr. Perl said no more than one week prior to Cardinal Bertone’s announcement re: the new prayer for the Jews that no such “new prayer” was necessary nor in the works.
Fr. Z, you did not talk to the Pope at the PCED, did you? :>)
Brian,
Exactly.
I have two videotapes of two Cardinals offering the Tridentine Mass in the Missal of 1962.
One is Cardinal Alfons Stickler offering Holy Mass at St Patricks Cathedral on May 12 1996.
You can clearly see the altar boys praying the second Confiteor at the Communion of the faithful.
The second video is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger offering the Tridentine Mass at Weimar Germany May 12, 1999.
Again the second Confiteor is visible.
God bless you.
The two key phrases in the rubrics are “infra Missam” and “omissis.” I’m not a Latinist, but “infra” is defined as beneath, under, and later than, leading me to believe that the distribution of Communion is not considered an integral part of the Mass by the rubrical editors. “Omissis” I can’t for the life of me figure out because I don’t recognize the stem. I’m assuming it’s present tense, but don’t know for sure.
Perhaps all this discussion should wait until the Pope celebrates the Extraordinary Form. Then we can see what will be allowed in the way of the second confiteor.
But I don’t think that this discussion is going to change how priests currently celebrate the TLM.
Scott said: “Perhaps all this discussion should wait until the Pope celebrates the Extraordinary Form. Then we can see what will be allowed in the way of the second confiteor.”
I believe one of the previous posters revealed how the Pope offered Holy Mass when he was a cardinal. Oh no!!! He violated what his own Monsignor at the PCED told Father Z!!!
“But I don’t think that this discussion is going to change how priests currently celebrate the TLM.”
Exactly. But it certainly will raise Fr. Z’s page view number. Considerably.
As I recall, the rubrical book “Celebration of the Mass” gives various examples
in the beginning of how custom has overcome existing rubrics, or how rubrics may be violated
without it being an “abuse.” Don’t the rubrics mandate a pillow for the
missal, for instance, whereas a stand is used by custom?
I think legalism is being pushed too far here. “Do the Red, Say The Black,”
expresses a truth, but an incomplete truth. There is a delicate interplay
between custom and rubrics. I think there’s a tendency now to want to deny
custom any value, a kind of sola-rubrica mentality. It’s unhealthy.
As I recall, the rubrical book “Celebration of the Mass” gives various examples
in the beginning of how custom has overcome existing rubrics, or how rubrics may be violated
without it being an “abuse.” Don’t the rubrics mandate a pillow for the
missal, for instance, whereas a stand is used by custom?
I think legalism is being pushed too far here. “Do the Red, Say The Black,”
expresses a truth, but an incomplete truth. There is a delicate interplay
between custom and rubrics. I think there’s a tendency now to want to deny
custom any value, a kind of sola-rubrica mentality. It’s unhealthy.
Pomofo,
In this case infra means during or within.
Scott: Perhaps all this discussion should wait until the Pope celebrates the Extraordinary Form. Then we can see what will be allowed in the way of the second confiteor.
Actually, that would not settle anything. Aside from the fact that the Pope is supreme legislator, I understand that the 2nd confiteor is included in the 1962 Rituale for Pontifical Masses. So any Pontifical Mass celebrated by a bishop should include the 2nd confiteor.
For instance, the ordination Mass celebrated by Archbishop Burke in St. Louis last June quite properly included the 2nd confiteor, as will (I’d assume) the upcoming FSSP ordination Mass to be celebrated by Cardinal Hoyos.
Henry,
Yet, anyone who lives near an ICKSP oratory can assist at any Holy Mass there, offered by a priest or a bishop and they will see, and hear, the second Confiteor.
I am absolutely positive that these good priests know a lot more than you and I do about whether or not they are allowed to pray the second Confiteor.
God bless you.
The translation of the Latin for number 503 is:
503. Whenever holy communion is distributed within the Mass, when the celebrant has consumed the most sacred Blood, the Confiteor and the absolution are omitted, but the celebrant says the Ecce Agnus Dei and says the Domine, non sum dignus three times, and then proceeds immediately to the distribution of the holy Eucharist.
Obviously it is not outside of the rubrics of the Mass since this instruction is given in the Rubrics of the Mass.
Why is “infra” used to denote within in this instance? Why not “per” or “intus”?
Pontifical Masses retain customs long after they have been surpressed in low or priestly high masses.
In this case, the second confiteor is still permitted in Pontifical Masses, but not in other masses.
So looking at what bishops do is by no means a barometer of what your parish should do.
Michael Garner,
Then please call the North American northeast district superior of the ICKSP and inform him that he and every single priest of the Institute are at fault, every time that Holy Mass is offered and you have the proof that they have overlooked through years of seminary training and thousands of Sacrifices. The North American Priory number is 773-363-7409
God bless you.
Michael,
And standing for communion is the rubrical norm in the USA. That doesn’t
prevent licitly kneeling for communion.
It’s clear there is now no legal obligation to have the Second Confiteor.
But it’s not clear that that rubric has the legal force, or intent, to suppress
a particuar custom.
Unless we are to be sola-rubrica?
I think it more likely that the rubric means that the Second Confiteor
can be omitted, or is omitted generally, but not to the prejudice of particular
custom.
Danphunter1,
I can’t help what the rubric states. I gave you the rubric that states that the confession and absolution are to be ommitted yet you obviously still think it is right to use it when a simple priest celebrates Mass. If the ICKSP is doing this then obviously they are not following the rubric of the Missale Romanum.
Breir,
This is very true, and comes close to what the ICKSP superior told me.
There is much that is permitted in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as far as rubrics go.
There is not much that is surpressed. If it existed before.
The Church is allowed to worship God in an extraordinarily rich manner that the rubrics do not eliminate.
God bless you
Michael,
It’s not clear to me whether the rubric is descriptive or prescriptive.
Are omitted is different from are to be omitted.
The rubrics in the text of the Mass, which is what everyone refers to when
they say “Do the Red,” do not mention the second confiteor at all.
It’s not clear that general rubrics at the start of the Missal are to be
taken as suppressing any custom that they apparently clash with. I think
they’re more flexible, which the O’Connoll book on rubrics pointed on
in its introduction. He gives examples of rubrics that are ignored by
everybody. If rubrics alone are all of moral obligation,
that couldn’t be the case. Custom plays a part.
I’m curious, does anyone think the suppression of the second confiteor
is a spiritually beneficial thing, or is everyone simply arguing it needs
to go because of a sense of obedience?
The ICKSP will continue to use the second Confiteor, according to their U.S.superior
And they will continue in disobedience, thank you!
Brier,
As I mentioned before the second Confiteor is perfect where it is as a beautiful and complete expression of our sorrow for our sins.
It is an Act of Contrition, par excellence and there is absolutely no theological reason to surpress it.
Michael Garner,
I am stating that the ICKSP might have a better grasp of what that rubric really means, more than what the layman can see.
Also, they might have permission to use an older book.
I did not ask Father Superior that question.
Maybe you can.
God bless you.
“I’m curious, does anyone think the suppression of the second confiteor
is a spiritually beneficial thing, or is everyone simply arguing it needs
to go because of a sense of obedience?”
Breier, I tried to get a theological and/or spiritual benefit for the reason or “why?” the elimination of the second confiteor in previous posts. There has been no answer so far and none forthcoming. I would conclude that a false sense of fundamentalist-type obedience is what is going on here.
Again, there are Latinists, canonists and rubricians, but not a theologian or spiritual master to be found among us.
dad29,
Give them a call and tell them that they are disobedient, then.
If you truly believe that, then it is one of your duty’s through the Spiritual Works of Mercy, to instruct the ignorant, and admonish the sinner.
God might be using you to set them straight.
God bless you
The Ritus Servandus of the 1962 Missale conveniently omits any mention of this (truly trivial) matter.
O dear, what a stink has been caused…
The following is taken from a recent interview with Cardinal Castrillon regarding what is needed to to “sew back together the ecclesial fabric.” It will take both a little *humility* and a little *generosity*. Could the Cardinal also be referring to generosity relative to adhering to liturgical norms regardless of our own personal preferences or attachment to a particular “custom”?
=============
In this moment,” he continued, “with a little humility, with a little generosity, we can return to full communion, and the faithful want this because they do not want to participate in the rites when the priest is under suspension because the Church does not permit them to say Mass and absolve sins — so the faithful want this full return.”
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos said he hoped that everyone involved will continue “to work with the Holy Father to sew back together this unity so that these good people can have the fullness of holiness that comes from union with the only Church of Christ, founded upon Peter and his Successors.”
Brian, I am not sure there is a “theological” reason for eliminating the second (or rather third) confiteor. Perhaps it has more to do with practical pastoral reasons. For example, the preparation and contrition was addressed at a previous point in the liturgy and now — at that moment — the Church wishes to call our attention to communion with Christ.
This could explain the origen of the *last* confiteor as conceived as “communion rite” outside of Mass itself. (Cf. Fortesque). Yet in the context of Mass the last (3rd) confiteor could seem redundant when the Church wishes to focus our attention on communion with Our Lord.
Schoolman,
But to be in Communion with our Lord we must recognize our sinfulness and be in a state of Sanctifying Grace, which the second or last Confiteor reminds us.
God bless you
This answer that the confiteor is outside the Mass is the same reason that Msgr Schmitz gives for removing the chasuble before the homily:
Here is his response to me on that question:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the removal of the chasuble for preaching. When the priest leaves the altar to go the pulpit, it is perfectly correct on a liturgical level. In former times, the homily or sermon was not given during Mass but before Mass because it is not a strictly spoken part of the Holy Sacrifice, for which reason it can be omitted on weekdays or for any other serious cause. Therefore, traditionally the priest takes off the chasuble, or at least the maniple, to signify the sermon is not a strictly liturgical act. . . I assure you that the priests of the Institute of Christ the King are trained to know exactly what they are doing during the liturgy.
Notice that he cites the historical precedent of “former times”. What other customs from “former times” are justified by this?
All: I do not pretend to be the rubrical expert that some here pretend to be, but I believe the FSSP was given permission in the early 1990’s to use the 2nd confiteor. I am quite certain they would not use it without understanding that they are doing so licitly and properly. Surely, no one who knows the FSSP well (as I do) would suggest otherwise.
Schoolman: Perhaps I will call Cardinal Castrillon and ask him specifically if the quotes you attribute to him and place in bold (Did he pronounce these with extra emphasis?)were really a condemnation of those priests who offer the TLM in full communion with the Holy See and still use the second confiteor with the PCED’s permission.
Then perhaps the words you quote from him here, which of course were primarily intended for the SSPX, might actually be able to be used to justify your usage of them.
I don’t wager, but in this case, I would wager a large sum of money that his quotes had/have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the second confiteor. What do you think?
Mr. Brian Mershon said: “Breier, I tried to get a theological and/or spiritual benefit for the reason or “why?” the elimination of the second confiteor in previous posts. There has been no answer so far and none forthcoming. I would conclude that a false sense of fundamentalist-type obedience is what is going on here.”
I too and interested in an answer but the the lack of one at this time does not logically support your conclusion.
Mr. Brian Mershon said: “Breier, I tried to get a theological and/or spiritual benefit for the reason or “why?” the elimination of the second confiteor in previous posts. There has been no answer so far and none forthcoming. I would conclude that a false sense of fundamentalist-type obedience is what is going on here.”
I too am interested in an answer but the the lack of one at this time does not logically support your conclusion.
Michael Garner:
Thank you! Yes, that is the rubric. That _Confiteor_ and absolution are not simply not mentioned, they have been taken out specifically. This is quite clear to me. I obey.
Stu: I did not say it was happening with everyone. However, the fact that certain people quote only from what they find in Latin from the 1962 missal, and ignore all the rest of the evidence against their argument–especially when they are accusing entire groups of priests as being “disobedient”–is certainly the sin of rash judgment, and perhaps pride and assurance in their opinion.
As such, those who quote from select texts without considering the arguments put forth for a broader understanding and perspective would lead me to conclude that they are fundamentalists in their approach to the liturgy and liturgical norms and rubrics. This is bred from the Novus Ordo atmosphere from which we have all breathed for too long now.
Remember, there are NO rubrics for the laity in the TLM. It allows people to pray the way best suited to them. Those who MANDATE rubrics for laymen (the Novus Ordo liturgical Nazis) are really doing a great disservice to Catholics’ spirituality.
I’m with Henry. I pray the confiteor privately right before Holy Communion, whether it is done at the TLM or Novus Ordo or not. Am I being “disobedient”?
Fr. A is “obedient” while the FSSP, ICR, St. John Cantius priests, Institute of Good Shepherd, St. John Marie Vianney priests are all “disobedient” and no better than liberal liturgists.
Now I have heard it all. Give it a rest. This thread has been ridiculous and not at all spiritually edifying for the lay faithful.
Wait until I tell my FSSP, ICR and Institute of Good Shepherd priest friends and seminarians how “disobedient” they are while the diocesan priests who just now began to learn the TLM rubrics (with very little liturgical formation or spiritual formation to go along with it)are so much more “obedient” because they have no context for the liturgy and immemorial customs. Someone, quick, tell the Pope!!!
Brian Mershon wrote: “I’m with Henry. I pray the confiteor privately right before Holy Communion, whether it is done at the TLM or Novus Ordo or not. Am I being “disobedient”?”
Not at all.
I have a bit of a tin ear towards what appears as extreme viewpoints no matter from what direction they originate. This is a topic that requires ample discussion and reasoning on our part. Your words of clarification are noted and I believe we are mostly in agreement.
Cheers.
Brian: That was not a restrained and thoughtful comment. I called no one disobedient by saying I obey the rubrics of the ’62 Missal. I certainly said nothing about priests being no better than liberals. Also, I am not a priest who is new at saying the Tridentine Mass. I find your comments somewhat shocking.
If one prays with the priest, deacon and sub-deacon (or server) at the first confiteor at the beginning of mass why is there a need to repeat the same prayer later on in the mass? Also, I thought having a liturgical “confession and absolution” prior to communion was a feature of some Protestant communion services (including anglo-catholic masses) and does not carry the same weight as sacramental confession by any means. I would think that not having the second confiteor would encourage people to go to confession more before mass rather than say “oh I’ll just say the confiteor before communion and be absolved.”
Brian: This thread has been ridiculous and not at all spiritually edifying for the lay faithful.
In looking at Father Z’s “Recent Posts” list, it just occurred to me what the problem is. This thread is misplaced. Obviously, it was supposed to be placed under the “Internet hell” heading.
It seems to me that if their were already an established local custom (to do the second confiteor) prior to the promulgation of the changes in contained in the 1962 Missal clear through to the present, it would be permissable to continue as is. But the problem is there are very few places that have been saying the extraordinary form of the Mass since then. A juridical person who is just begining to offer the extraordinary form, it seems to me, has no local custom to fall back on and thus would be required to offer the extra ordinary form according to the rubrics of the 1962 roman missal as is (No additions or subtractions).
Brian, of course Cardinal Castrillon’s comments were in a different context, however, his call for *obedience* and *generosity* seem to have application here. After all, if each acts according to his own liturgical preference without due regard to liturgical norm then certainly unity will suffer.
Again, let’s be as consistent here as we will be with future changes to the OF. You and I both know that there will be dissenting priests who will resist valid reforms issued by Pope Benedict. Should we give them support to simply follow a “custom” to their own liking or should we call them on their disobedience?
“Schoolman,
But to be in Communion with our Lord we must recognize our sinfulness and be in a state of Sanctifying Grace, which the second or last Confiteor reminds us.”
============
Yes, but does not the first confiteor remind us of the same — and also hearing the confiteor of the Priest?
Why even stop at three, for that matter? Why not four or five confiteors? Maybe the Church wants to call our attention to different realities during various moments in the llturgy. It’s not either/or but both/and.
Schoolmen,
The question isn’t of resisting a lawful order to omit the Second Confiteor.
It is instead questioning the existence of such an obligation in the first
place. Why do we have to rely on Fr. Z’s anonymous double-hearsay for a
resolution of this question? If Rome would actually speak out with clarity
on these issues, this wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t think there is any
lack of clarity with regard to the condemned modernistic liturgical abuses.
I think it is important to note, however. That “Do the Red” does not mean,
or should not necessarily mean, “Do the Red Exclusively.” Custom has a very
important role to play in liturgy, both with additions to, and interpretations
of, the rubrics.
In my local parish, Mass is celebrated by a priest associated with
the FSSP, and there is not a second confiteor.
The reason I remember hearing the Confitior just before communion as well as the priest reading the Epistle and Gospel at Solemn Mass is to eliminate repitition. Not a good reason in my opinion. I don’t think there is any theological reason to be had. It certainly makes more sense to keep it given that the Communion of the faithful is not part of the Mass (at least from a historical perspective). Further historical support for the Communion of the faithful not being part of the Mass is that in some places Communion was distributed before or after Mass. I know one place where this continued into the 70s.
Breier, the respect for norms would indicate that we are not at liberty to take away or *add* anything. Consider a future scenario where the OF is reformed. How would you feel about certain priests deciding on their own to *add* to the norms certain elements of the prior Missal that have been abandoned? Let’s be consistent folks!
Schoolman,
Fortunately, traditionalists are not burdened with the liturgist’s scruples
of rationally constructing a liturgy from scratch.
We can find reasons, perhaps not equal in strength, to support both positions. I think it clear, however, that the continuation of this custom, rather than attempting
to supress it, is more pastorally sensisitive to the needs of the faithful.
“Further historical support for the Communion of the faithful not being part of the Mass is that in some places Communion was distributed before or after Mass. I know one place where this continued into the 70s.”
You make it sound like a good thing, something worth maintaining. Is there a difference between a custom and a bad habit? How have popes of the 20th century viewed THIS phenomenon?
I have to say, some of these comments are among the most unedifying expresions of selective obedience and legalistic loopholism on the part of traditionalists that I’ve ever seen. The approval Missal of the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite in the 1962 Missal, which explicitly calls for omission of the second Confiteor as a rule. Local custom local shmustom! Would local custom have justified someone ignoring the Missal of St. Pius V in 1570 in those cases not specifically included by the Pope as exceptions? Of course not!
Some people need to be less traditionalist and more Catholic.
Very good point schoolman. It seems to me that this question is a cannonical question and yet people are still making personal judgments and trying to enforce their opinion. Stick to what is written: say the black and do the red.
Jordan Potter, I agree with you. Many of these same folks would scream foul if this were a case involving the OF We are going to have to be consistent in our application across both the OF and EF. The alternative is to be pointed out as hippocrites…
You know, in France, where the traditionalist movement is strong, they were using their own Missals well into the 18th century…
We are indeed in a deplorable liturgical age when the best we can do is say you just have to check a rubric and do it and presto, you have liturgy.
A dubium might be in order, OR a search of the Acta from 1961 that might clarify this (and there were many Acta in 1961, as I recall).
But what are we to do minus a dubium? Shall we call our local “disobedient” priest and tell him that because the WDTPRS Blog says it’s not to be done, ergo, you’re a disobedient priest who is no different than some liberal who inserts dance into the Offertory?
Dubia have been written over even more trivial things than this. But I will suggest this: a quick way to hurt the traditionalist cause will be to start pointing fingers of “disobedience” at those who dare recite the Second Confiteor.
Schoolman,
Isn’t the development of our rites largely a result of additions made, by episcopal or independent initiative, to the liturgy? How exactly do we have an organic development
if absolutely every action is prescribed to the extent of forstalling any
additions?
The Pope has the authority to regulate the liturgy; but it’s not clear to me
that it’s been regulated to the extent that no more local customs can ever
develop. Or if that has been done, I think it’s a fair question about whether
having a “fly in amber” rubrical mentality is necessarily the best thing
for the liturgy.
Something like the Second Confiteor seems like true organic development.
Maybe it came to be for one reason, and stays because of another, but it’s
a good thing, and good for the faithful.
At least, it seems to me that this is a small example of a larger problem.
Thomas Aquinas says it’s a generally bad idea to change a law for the better,
because of the value of custom. Here we have changes being forced on people
who generally don’t want, or need them. And in this case it’s not clear to
me at all, given the widespread use of the Second Confiteor, that it has any
binding force.
I would be interested to see if this is just an American issue, or a European
one as well.
The problem with this entire thread is that – whichever side one comes down on – it is encouraging an already fanatical rubric-police mentality among traditionalists of every stripe. This is just going to drive good priests away from the TLM. Not many are going to want to wade into this swamp unless very highly motivated.
Personally, I like the 2nd confiteor and think it should be retained. The theology and praxis makes sense, the antiquity of the custom is venerable. Next time the Holy Father asks me I’ll be sure to give him my opinion. In the meantime, unless you see something grievously abusive, trust your priest, whomever he is, to know the rubrics and relax.
The priests of the Institute celebrate the Mass using the liturgical rites that they had requested permission to use when they Institute was founded. Therefore you will note that some of the rites used are pre 1962 as that was what permission had been requested for. They follow strictly the rubrics of the rites that they have permission to use.
“Something like the Second Confiteor seems like true organic development. Maybe it came to be for one reason, and stays because of another, but it’s a good thing, and good for the faithful.”
So let’s presume that its use is tolerated, because of its longstanding prior use before being dropped from the Missal currently in force. That is not the same as requiring it, nor it is grounds for bragging rights, as in being “more traditional than thou.”
But most of all, its removal is certainly not grounds for wild conspiracies of some “novus ordo mentality.” The liturgical movement was already strongly influenced by such parties as Dom Casal and Maria Laach, even before men like Bugnini came on to the scene. I was alive back then. Trust me, there was no “novus ordo.”
dad29:
Please specify what canons in the Code of Canon Law are you refering to and are you referenceing the 1917 Code or the 1983 Code as I would like to review the canons. Thanks
Maybe Father Zed was “floating a balloon” for the PCED before the
upcoming document clarifying the pretty clear Motu Proprio!
I’ll be you they’re following the discussion with interest!
The way I understand it as far as SSPX is concerned, Archbishop Lefebvre, when he formed the SSPX, was debating as to whether use the pre-62 Missal, or the 62 Missal, finally settled on the 62 Missal, with the stipulation that the second Confiteor would be said. Even though the “new” 62 Missal does not have it, it is still done IF there are communicants. If there are no communicants, it it not done. Having served Mass at an Independent Chapel, the reason for this was that it lets the priest know if anyone is going to Communion.
We hear a lot of what the ICK “officially” does, from people who insist they can speak with authority. I am wondering if they could go out on a limb and represent themselves. I am to understand they have a website. They could issue a public statement, from their own source — no more of this passing the word along — to assure us that all is well, and in what respect. AND… I’m sure that those of us in this forum who are so well-connected with them could pass this concern along in short order, for the betterment of all of us.
Unless, of course, NONE of you can speak with authority as to what the ICK “officially” does…
Personally, I don’t like the second confiteor. Not that that matters in any sense.
Actually, I have only been at a Mass where there was a second confiteor about three or four times, and the celebrant was not a priest of the FSSP. As far as I can recall, I have never heard a priest of the FSSP do one.
But I am not sure that being pernickety about it is requisite for being faithful. I would think that one can be faithful while preserving certain things in the liturgical books older than 1962. But if I am asked whether this attitude isn’t the same as the liberal one, I can give half a dozen reasons for why it isn’t. For one thing, nobody is randomly innovating, or randomly bringing back elements of tradition which have been abandoned a thousand years ago. It is not a question, for instance of bringing back the custom of drinking wine immediately after recieving communion. This is a question of retaining certain minor customs which were in force prior to 1962. I am reliably informed that even Pope Benedict is (or Cardinal Ratzinger was, when he visited the FSSP seminary) in favour of retaining certain pre-1962 uses. One recalls that Trent did not do away with local customs altogether, and I can’t see why we need to be rubrical literalists to the extent of doing away with customs which are clearly not contradictory to the spirit of the law. It is a different matter if one were innovating, or preserving customs clearly contrary to the law (like keeping the old prayer for the jews on Good Friday), or bringing back things long out-of-date.
And we should continue to use it until it is put back? It worked for putting girls at the altar in the Novus Ordo.
I was really trying to avoid reading these comments. I really wish I was successful at avoiding them.
The one thing that this thread does reinforce is the generally held assumption that “Traditionalist” like to complain and are never happy. Try to remember the letters from/about priests Father has published. The ones that are negative towards those who prefer the EF tended to stereotype us as irrational or divisive. I think the above comments would support that viewpoint.
I think the original point of this posting was that Father is trying to get an idea if Rubric 503 requires the priest to omit the second confiteor. I do not think that anyone who has posted a comment has the canonical authority to provide an absolute answer to this.
I love you all.
Now THINK!
Fr. Z
Of course, incorporating “local customs” into the liturgy was one of the great ideals of the original reformers (I use the term out of necessity) of the mass. Hello?! Bending the rubrics, whether 1955, 1962 or 1969, is exactly why we are having all these problems now! Were the titular Archbishop of Martirano (Marini I) in favor of the old mass don’t you think he would be in favor of the second confiteor as well? I think this is a prime example of how deep the corrosive effect of the reform of the liturgy has gone.
To clear up any confusion about just what removing the 2nd Confiteor means, may I propose a modification? Someone correct me if this is theologically incorrect.
Instead of removing the 2nd Confiteor, have the servers say it. Then, as the servers are bowing down begging God for mercy on behalf of the people (especially those who may have arrived late or been involuntarily distracted at Mass), have the priest lift up his hand, make the sign of the Cross over them, and say to them:
“Your sins are retained.”
“Instead of removing the 2nd Confiteor, have the servers say it.”
If they do that, it would not be removed, would it?
What is so hard to understand about this?
The 1962 missal, based on the rubric reported above, does not allow for a recitation of the second Confiteor as a part of the liturgy (with the exception of Pontifical masses). According to the rubric cited, it’s specifically-excluded.
The faithful who attend are free to prepare for communion using a Confiteor if they want, along with many other ways of doing so.
The Leonine Prayers were mandatory after Low Mass until 1962. At that time, they became optional (the word used in the new Baronius Missal, but I would defer to those with a more official pronouncement).
Fr. Z is correct. If we’re going to require that Ordinary Forms follow the rubrics, and ordinaries implement Summorum Pointificum faithfully, we should follow the 1962 rubrics.
To do otherwise is to go down the crazy path of SSPV.
What is so hard to understand about this?
The 1962 missal, based on the rubric reported above, does not allow for a recitation of the second Confiteor as a part of the liturgy (with the exception of Pontifical masses). According to the rubric cited, it\’s specifically-excluded.
The faithful who attend are free to prepare for communion using a Confiteor if they want, along with many other ways of doing so.
The Leonine Prayers were mandatory after Low Mass until 1962. At that time, they became optional (the word used in the new Baronius Missal, but I would defer to those with a more official pronouncement).
Fr. Z is correct. If we\’re going to require that Ordinary Forms follow the rubrics, and ordinaries implement Summorum Pointificum faithfully, we should follow the 1962 rubrics.
To do otherwise is to go down the crazy path of SSPV.
The servers are the only ones that do, audibly, say it.
If they do that, it would not be removed, would it?
There’s no big problem with removing the part prayed by the servers, “Confiteor Deo ominpotenti…”, which can of course be prayed privately with equal effect. The real substance here is the Misereatur and Indulgentiam which follow and together form part of “the Confiteor”. These prayers by the priest are actual absolutions of the faithful’s venial sins, and so help prepare the faithful for Holy Communion.
Why the prayers would be removed is anyone’s guess. The long-term history of the Church has been one of ever more generous grants of forgiveness and grace and blessing from Her infinite treasury. This was a step back, and the widespread and long-standing rejection of this “reform” indicates I hope that it will be merely temporary. But that won’t stop the self-deputized Eliot Nesses of the Church from enforcing it with truncheons in the meantime.
Does anyone know if the ICKSP, FSSP, Society of St John Vianney and the Institute of the Good Shepherd use a pre’62 Missal?
Almost all of their priests have the servers say a second Confiteor.
Fortunately, traditionalists are not burdened with the liturgist’s scruples
of rationally constructing a liturgy from scratch.
And, apparently, some folks are not burdened with obedience to lawful liturgical regulation. And I don’t mean just the Jesuits.
As to the Canon Law citation:
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code. (1983 Code)
In effect, this means that only the Pope (or through his designees–Cong. Div. Liturgy or Eccl. Dei, e.g.) “defines the rites…” etc.
Notice the term “liturgical laws.” They are, in fact, LAW, not suggestion, nor recommendations. What the Pope (or designees) ordain in rites is law.
Liturgical rites have always been reserved to Rome (e.g., the Pope/Curia.) This Canon merely re-states that fact.
Liturgical law is just that. Claiming exceptions to the law is nice, but actually having a rescript to a dubium is what’s required. Claiming that there is an “immemorial custom” in a place (e.g., the USA) where no such “custom” exists is, to be kind, somewhat inventive. Claiming that a custom is “immemorial” when JPII’s Indult is only 20+ years old is simply straining credulity beyond its breaking point.
Remember, it is the TRUTH which makes one free.
So what does this accomplish?
We could pronounce all priests who violate this rubric guilty of disobedience. Perhaps we should start a website to list the malefactors and their chapels/churches, so the poor faithjful can avoid the disedification of having to go home near-apopletic because Father was “disobedient” to the 1962 rubrics.
Thorn: “To do otherwise is to go down the crazy path of SSPV.”
So, I guess you think the FSSP, ICKSP, and the other recognized communities that use the Confiteor before the people’s Communion to be going “down the crazy path of SSPV” (your words)?
I suspect there is more to this issue of the second (third?)Confiteor than we know of.
It certainly is not unheard of where there are conflicting answers coming from the Holy See. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding or a lack of communication somewhere.
A dubium sent to Ecclesia Dei is a good idea. In my opinion, until a solid clarification is given one should not be casting stones and it does not seem pastoral to make changes based on this discussion.
If the PCED answer to the dubium is that it shouldn’t be done, then the FSSP, ICK, etc. may still make a further request to continue the custom where it has been maintained. These things will, of course, all take time.
“Why the prayers would be removed is anyone’s guess.”
And it’s been discussed here, among other things. It’s been removed. It might be tolerated (note my concession that it might be used in some places with acceptance), but it is NOT in the 1962 Missal.
“If the PCED answer to the dubium is that it shouldn’t be done, then the FSSP, ICK, etc. may still make a further request to continue the custom where it has been maintained. These things will, of course, all take time.”
Agreed.
I have been following some of this with interior laughter. As Rome is burning, some are concerned with the “second confiteor,” LOL! OK, OK, throw eggs at me as you will, but, really folks we are living in one of the most disastrous times in the history of the Church and we are nit-picking. Who gives a shite about the “second confiteor” compared with dwindling mass attendance, an almost non-existent belief in the Real Presence, and an almost universal belief in contraception and abortion among the average “catholic”?
Oh, but some of you live in an Ivory Tower, I forgot; the universal disintegration of Catholicism is meaningless when you are shielded from reality. Wake up, folks.
Where is the Holy Spirit in the average John.Kerry.Ted.Kennedy-esque “mass”?
….
This from Fr. Fortesque seems relevant here:
*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.*
The second Confiteor is perfect where it is.
Thank you dear Lord for putting it there, for Thy Glory and mankinds edification.
Deo Gratias!
Just to throw something else out there, does it not strike some of you as odd that Sec. 503 calls for the omission of a Confiteor which isn’t actually in the Missal? If the second Confiteor is not in the Missal how can it be omitted if it’s not there to begin with? Doesn’t this imply a recognition that the Confiteor will continue to be used with the 1962 celebration? Further, as best I can tell, “omissis” is derived from the subjunctive, expressing the sense that something “should” be done, not necessarily that it “ought” to be done.
C.M. said: These prayers by the priest are actual absolutions of the faithful’s venial sins, and so help prepare the faithful for Holy Communion.
Here is how I was taught: In the case of venial sin, such absolutions are not strictly needed, because venial sin can be forgiven if the sinner is contrite and does penance — in such a case, receiving Communion itself remits the repented-of sin. Thus, there is no harm in the omission of the second Confiteor, whereas it is conceivable that the second Confiteor could lead one to believe that a priest’s absolution was absolutely required even in the case of venial sin. That, I gather, is why the Pope removed the second Confiteor, though I would welcome correction from somebody who, unlike me, actually knows what he’s talking about.
the widespread and long-standing rejection of this “reform” indicates I hope that it will be merely temporary.
This rejection must be placed in the context of the former restrictions placed upon the pre-Vatican II Missal(s). During the decades when the 1961 Mass was restricted, it was rarely celebrated, and anyway the 1962 Missal was only in use for three years before the Missal was reformed again, and a few years later reformed drastically. So the clergy and the lay faithful generally have never had a chance to become accustomed to the 1962 Missal’s rubrics — it’s not that the reform (your scare quotes are unwarranted) was rejected as much as nobody got a chance to accept it. Add to that the fact that many Catholics of a traditionalist bent have preferred pre-1962 Missals, or have preferred rubrics or practices associated with them. This has led the minority of Catholics who remained attached to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, or who developed an attachment to it, to
adhere to certain pre-1962 practices, such as the second Confiteor, that had been suppressed by directive of the Holy See. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the second Confiteor to be returned to the Missal. It could happen, but it’s not likely given that the Pope has already made a revision to the 1962 Missal, and it was not a revision that restored a pre-1962 prayer or rubric.
But that won’t stop the self-deputized Eliot Nesses of the Church from enforcing it with truncheons in the meantime.
I doubt you could call priests who follow the 1962 Missal’s rubrics “self-deputised Eliot Nesses,” and as for laity, they probably won’t find it easy to force a priest to follow the rubrics if he is not inclined to do so.
In the case of venial sin, such absolutions are not strictly needed
What an ungenerous concept! Tell that to St. Teresa of Avila, who never dared to go to Communion without first confessing her venial sins. Tell that to our Holy Mother the Church, who continues to place the absolution at the beginning of every Mass! The graces obtained from Communion are in relation to one’s preparation, both remote and immediate.
Dan said: Thank you dear Lord for putting it there, for Thy Glory and mankinds edification. Deo Gratias!
Amen. And also thank you dear Lord for removing it, for Thy Glory and mankind’s edification. Deo Gratias!
C.M. said: have the priest lift up his hand, make the sign of the Cross over them, and say to them:
“Your sins are retained.”
I hope the priest doesn’t say that — when a priest “retains” someone’s sins, that means he has declined to absolve them. When you “retain” something, that means you’re keeping it, not getting rid of it.
“If the second Confiteor is not in the Missal how can it be omitted if it’s not there to begin with? Doesn’t this imply a recognition that the Confiteor will continue to be used with the 1962 celebration?”
If it did, there would be no need for a rubric mentioning its omission. (See above.)
I hope the priest doesn’t say that—when a priest “retains” someone’s sins, that means he has declined to absolve them.
I know. That’s what removing the 2nd Indulgentiam truly means. Isn’t it horrible?
I THINK all of us need a Vatican style internet connection for a few days. And a stiff one.
m
Fr Z
Eagerly awaiting my SECOND “Sour Grapes” award.
m
Remember in Latin there is lex and there is ius. Liturgical law is the law of custom: EF or it is the concoction and legislation of a committee: OF.
All this talk about obedience and the Pope, what of the Popes’ responsibility to safeguard the liturgy? Is it the office of the Pope to innovate rites? Sure, he can do it legally, but is it right because of might? Is it the office of the Pope to maintain the discipline of the Church, which btw is the real issue here. Everyone is so concerned about the rubrics of the second confiteor because of the underlying issue of discipline, which everyone can see has nearly disappeared in the Novus Ordo, everything being left to the whim of the priest.
So, the Pope and discipline: is it the job of the Pope to ease the burden of the Divine Liturgy so that the clergy can grow more lax in their duty? As if the worship of God is onerous. Is it the job of the Pope to see how much he can pare down the Mass so that it doesn’t take as long?
St. Thomas Aquinas had a few things to say about changing discipline and one of them was “Don’t!” Actually he said if you are going to change the discipline, you had better do it not for something good, but for a great good, because when discipline is changed, there WILL BE an increase in laxity.
The Church has seen many changes of discipline since the 40’s and through the 70’s culminating in the New Code of Canon Law in 1983. The discipline of the Church is what is at stake here, not the second confiteor.
One must not look upon the FSSP, the ICK, IGS, or even the SSPX as instruments of Disobedience, however casual you may think they are observing the little red words. These are the groups, call them traditional, whether you are traditionalist or not…but know that the point isn’t in being traditional or nostalgic which is basically the charge laid against “those who won’t accept the changes”… Please realize that they are not traditional because they like the pomp and circumstance of times gone by. They are traditional because they desire to maintain the traditional Discipline of the Church.
Some will say, “well, the discipline changed and they should be obedient to that!” Maintaining the older discipline in groups such as the FSSP or the ICK is not disobedient, but is profoundly obedient to the heart of the Church. Laws in the Church are not statutes or legislation in the sense that we often understand them, they really are norms, or guides. The slippery slope is only a problem when there isn’t Discipline, either culturally, or from an authority.
Read the decrees when the Popes issued changes, like when Pius X changed the psalter, or when Pius XII reformed Holy Week, it was about the ancient discipline of the Church. There is nothing to argue about in those decrees. Pius X wanted the entire psalter to be prayed in a week instead of always being interrupted by some feast wherein the Sunday’s Psalms were used. Even Pius XII in his decree wanted to restore the times so that people can attend them, since they ceased being days of obligation hundreds of years ago.
So kind people, fellow traditionalists, let us remember that it is the Discipline of the Church that is very much at stake here, not obedience to little red words. Obedience is only a virtue if it gets you to heaven, otherwise it is just obsession.
C.M. said: What an ungenerous concept!
It is not necessarily ungenerous not to give something that is not actually needed.
Tell that to St. Teresa of Avila, who never dared to go to Communion without first confessing her venial sins.
The Church recommends, but does not require, sacramental confession of venial sins. St. Teresa’s practice is commendable and worthy of imitation.
Tell that to our Holy Mother the Church, who continues to place the absolution at the beginning of every Mass!
That is a minor absolution, not a sacramental one. It acknowledges and asks forgiveness for sin in general and venial sin, but it does not remit mortal sin.
The graces obtained from Communion are in relation to one’s preparation, both remote and immediate.
True, but that still doesn’t make the second Confiteor strictly necessary.
C.M. said: I know. That’s what removing the 2nd Indulgentiam truly means. Isn’t it horrible?
No, it’s not horrible, because that’s not what removing the second Indulgentiam means. It would mean that if venial sin could only be remitted through a priest’s absolution, but sin that is not the case, there’s noting horrible about it.
C.M. said: I know. That’s what removing the 2nd Indulgentiam truly means. Isn’t it horrible?
No, it’s not horrible, because that’s not what removing the second Indulgentiam means. It would mean that if venial sin could only be remitted through a priest’s absolution, but since that is not the case, there’s nothing horrible about it.
Jordan,
Your point doesn’t follow, because the 1962 missal includes the confiteor,
with absolution, at the start of the Mass. And I don’t know anyone who
believes that venial sins can only be forgiven by a priest’s absolution. That’s
a red herring.
We also need to remember that a simple cited rubric is not the last word. Just
as in law someone can’t cite the Constitution and ignore the Supreme Court, so
one can’t cite a rubric and ignore the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites. Often their degrees loosened or clarified certain rubrics.
If you look just at the rubrics, and nothing else, you will see that some are
simply not followed generally, and that such was sanctioned by the Congregation.
So we should be asking, was there every a document from Rome that allowed
the Second Confiteor to continue? That there’s a rubric, or that the current
PCED says it hasn’t given permission, doesn’t answer that question.
Jordan,
Noone is claiming that a non-sacramental absolution is strictly necessary before
holy communion. One can go to communion with venial sins, or have venial sins
forgiven some other way. But have an absolution of venial sins is certainly
a useful and spiritually well-placed thing to have directly before Holy Communion.
In the event any sins were committed during Mass, this is a convenient way to be
purified for Holy Communion.
As such, I think it unfortunate that the faithful are now deprived of that. Not
that it’s existence is necessary, but that the removal of what already exists
gives a loss, a privation, of what was once there.
A relatively minor thing, yes, but unfortunate nonetheless.
Wow. I’m in a predicament now. I just learned how to offer the Mass using the 1962 missal and when I began I offered the Mass without the 2nd Confiteor. Now, I never knew there was a second Confiteor because I had never been to a TLM and had never seen a video of one. I had no idea there was a 2nd Confiteor. In our area there is a SSPX chapel that has about 60 parishoners. When they found out, by word of mouth since I hadn’t really advertised my decision to begin offering the Extraordinary Form at the petition of my own parishoners, they called the parish office and I had a series of meetings with them. Now in these meetings I am thinking that I have an opportunity to do what a part of Summorum Pontificum intended, bring back those who were attached to the older liturgy.
I had about 30 of these Catholics who frequented the SSPX chapel once a month come to the first Mass two Masses, after which they asked for another meeting. This is when I learned that there was a 2nd Confiteor and they asked why I didn’t do it. I told them it wasn’t in the rubrics but they insisted that it was always a part of their Mass and that the priest used the 1962 Missal. This is when I asked for help from the Canons Regular and discovered that it was possible to use it. So, on the third Mass, I began using the 2nd Confiteor. I have been doing this 2nd Confiteor for almost 3 months–how do I stop doing it now?
Will I lose the SSPX parishoners that have now been coming to Mass every Sunday if I leave it out? I’ve worked very hard to keep them in the fold. Will I cause confusion in those parishoners that have just discovered the TLM?
So whether its rubrically correct to do it or not, how do I help heal the rift and secure these people in the Church? I know I can speak to them and explain to them but these SSPX parishoners don’t trust us Novus Ordo priests (as they call us) just yet.
I’ll use canon 1752: In cases of transfer, the provisions of can. 1747 are to be applied, always observing canonical equity and keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law. (My emphasis)
Latin: 1752 In causis translationis applicentur praescripta canonis 1747, servata aequitate canonica et prae oculis habita salute animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet.
OK —
1) Immemorial Custom does not apply in any place where the Extraordinary Form has not been in continuous use since before Rubricarum Instuctum, therefore making this an effectively neutered argument.
2) It was dropped because it makes no sense. The Confiteor is an act of contrition. That means it removes venial sins only (yes, there are always circumstances that are exceptions). The Eucharist removes venial sins. The question Fr Devillers always asked was, “What sins are you committing between the beginning of Mass and Communion????”
3) Being a sacramental and not a sacrament, it gains its efficacy from the Church — it works because the Church says so. Now the Church says it is not to be done. That sounds like the Church is not giving her authority to that sacramental to have any effect at that moment. She is free to withdraw her power in sacramentals as she sees fit.
4) “Everybody else is doing it” didn’t work when your mom wouldn’t let you get that tattoo, and it doesn’t work here.
I think that part of the problem with regards to the use of the 2nd Confiteor,
is the vagueness with which the very term “1962 Missal” is used. I have a post
about it here:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195901
Breier said: Your point doesn’t follow, because the 1962 missal includes the confiteor, with absolution, at the start of the Mass.
Which point? I made several — though I don’t see how any of my points would not follow in light of the fact that there is a Confiteor with absolution at the start of Mass in the 1962 Missal.
And I don’t know anyone who believes that venial sins can only be forgiven by a priest’s absolution. That’s a red herring.
Yes, I agree, it is a red herring to suggest that it is horrible that a priest does not absolve venial sins immediately before Communion.
No one is claiming that a non-sacramental absolution is strictly necessary before holy communion. One can go to communion with venial sins, or have venial sins forgiven some other way. But have an absolution of venial sins is certainly a useful and spiritually well-placed thing to have directly before Holy Communion. In the event any sins were committed during Mass, this is a convenient way to be purified for Holy Communion.
It is convenient, yes, but not necessary. Its absence from the 1962 Missal is not the awful thing that some seem to think it is. You and I agree that this is relatively minor — I’m not sure it’s unfortunate, though.
What about us OR slobs who don’t have a “custom” to begin with, what are we to do, those of us who are just now being introduced to the ER? The Motu Proprio as given by the Holy Father states that the 62 Missal is to be used, from my stand point if there is no mention of it in the rubrics I don’t do it. Remember that the ER is not just for all of those who have had the privilege to do so since at least 1988 or before, those who have this or that custom. I feel that there should be a base line from which to begin, I think the Holy Father has done this. It seems to me that no one is disallowed for saying any prayer they wish before the reception of Holy Communion privately, is there any less grace received wether or not this third confiteor is done publicly or privately? Shouldn’t the laity be praying along at least interiorly with the altar server when he does the confiteor after the priest’s ? I have always understood that the server was praying in the name / place of the folks in the pews.
As a young priest who is learning the ER I find this whole conversation rather disappointing. I already have enough bickering and garbage to deal with among my OR folks, as I try to undo the silliness of former pastors from 20 years ago. I am very attracted ,like many young priests are, to the ER for obvious reasons, but this kind of rabid bickering is disappointing at best, God forbid I make the tiniest infraction against the reasoned preferences of the likes of many of you. Am I and my best efforts at offering the Holy Oblation going to become like a toy mouse between two angry cats? So who should I aim to please those who do not include the confiteor or those who do??
Dear Fr. John Charles,
I think your doing a good job Father. Don’t become distracted by all this, important though it may or not be. I think some people are caught in the mud over this issue. You can’t please them all Father, I’m sure many old priests would say this. Keep you eyes focused on the Lord, He is the one whom we must all please and love. If you stick to the rubrics you’ll be ok. Remember folks (as Fr Z might say) : ‘Read the black and follow the red’ (or words to that effect).
Oy vey! I went to bed with Z-blog withdrawal due to lack of activity on Fr. Z’s blog and woke up to 192 comments in this thread.
With as much emotion as I see played out here, hopefully, PCED will include this in a future clarification (or reiteration of what is in the rubrics if they want to keep it that way), of which I suspect there will be many over time.
In reading through these many comments, it’s visible that some readers mistakenly think the “2nd confiteor” is the one said by the servers after the priest at the beginning of Mass.
Just to clear the dust, the discussion here involves a confiteor prior to Holy Communion.
ALL: I arose this morning to find that this spirited had developed rather wildly.
Given the reaction to my report of what I asked about at the offices of the PCED, I guess I won’t post what I learned about the guidelines document which is coming.
Father Z is back, straight from reporting to the Kommendantur. For it is, of course, from the Commission at hand that Tradition flows from. The Commission and Father F, I sould add. Sic volo, sic iubeo. Such a deplorable conception of things…
Legalism may be father Z´s religion. It is not mine.
Jon K: Yours may be a good example of the inability to self-edit, which I mentioned above.
This issue is at heart about the willingness of those who love traditional liturgy to give up putting their own preferences above the law.
At the heart of that Traditional Liturgy is the Heart of Christ, who said, “Do what they say.” And, of course, “What they do” is not necessarily evil! “Say the Black, Do the Red” is fine by me.
Theological reasons to keep to the 1962 (2008) Missale Romanum, reasons which blow out of the water other reasons not to — with this particular case in mind — are reasons which cannot, perhaps, be seen if one is at the same time not putting the 1962 (2008) Missale Romanum into practice.
No, it’s not horrible, because that’s not what removing the second Indulgentiam means. It would mean that if venial sin could only be remitted through a priest’s absolution, but since that is not the case, there’s nothing horrible about it.
How much penance can you do, exactly, in the five minutes before Communion? There is a reason for the absolution at Mass, and a reason it is anticipated greatly by the faithful, both at the start and before Communion. Not everyone can arrive at Mass right at the start, and it is not an obligation under the old rules to do so.
Purgatory is a horrible place. Reducing the grace received by the faithful in Holy Communion out of a desire to shorten the Mass by 20 seconds is disgraceful. The same can be said of omitting the “…custodiat te” at Communion.
This issue is at heart about the willingness of those who love traditional liturgy to give up putting their own preferences above the law.
No, it’s the willingness of those who love traditional liturgy to give up Tradition in order to achieve regular status within the Church. Hear’s news to you, Father, they haven’t done this for forty years, and they’re not about to start. Shame on you and your friends in PCED for scandalizing them and us.
This is treachery against the Holy Father, for his stated intention is to achieve reconciliation in the Church, and here you are going about destroying that very reconciliation with your little, tittle rules. THINK before posting, Father. Tell them to THINK again before publishing guidelines that are only sure to scandalize. Millstones and necks, Father. This is serious.
What is needed is the prompt reporting to PCED of priests who abuse the rubrics of the 1962(2008)MR. How often have we seen in addition to the confiteor before communion, bows to the cross at the Holy Name, the celebrants hands held as though holding a ruler as in the former rite etc. etc.
Loyal Catholics should report to PCED those priests abusing the permission to use the 1962(2008)and hopefully action will be taken.
Likewise when the next alterations come Rome needs to ensure these are obeyed to the letter.
Some of you will not maintain respect for me, this issue, or others who are posting and reading here.
I will close the comments now.
You can e-mail me comments. If they are good, I will post them, perhaps even in separate entries.
Since I am on the road, I will have to collect my mail less often than I would were I at home.