tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post4113192181946646075..comments2024-01-29T08:39:40.754-05:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: Tridentine Community News - Dn Jacob VanAssche to be ordained, eliminating EF liturgical abuses, Mass scheduleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-78412385235502087642015-05-22T01:05:58.826-04:002015-05-22T01:05:58.826-04:00Following up: The Polish New Liturgical Movement w...Following up: The Polish New Liturgical Movement website back in 2010 did transcribe (alas, only in Polish and Italian) correspondence by a priest of the I.B.P. with the PCED which recognizes as permissible the recitation of the second confiteor in accordance with local custom: http://www.nowyruchliturgiczny.pl/2010/12/sprawa-iii-confiteor.html<br /><br />The second confiteor may be *contra legem* the 1962 missal, but it is of immemorial tradition, and thus *reasonable* as a custom (and not contrary to divine law!) and while it has been prohibited in the 1962 rubrics, its use has not been reprobated (a specific and higher level of disapproval.)<br /><br />We should indeed be wary of "liturgical cafeteria-ism" in the TLM, but this question of the second confiteor doesn't really rise to that level. And while Msgr Perl seems to have had some animus against it, the general attitude of PCED over the years seems to have been to live and let live on this question. <br /><br />One day, I hope and believe, we will have an indult to restore many if not all of the elements reformed by Pius XII and John XXIII, if not the 1945 missal itself (the last editio which truly preserves the ancient Roman Rite fully intact), and that will render discussions such as these bootless. But until then, the second confiteor, at any rate, is not an issue to get worked up about.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-18262711825855428852015-05-22T00:41:43.302-04:002015-05-22T00:41:43.302-04:00The second confiteor has a longstanding place in t...The second confiteor has a longstanding place in the Roman Rite (dating back to the 13th century, according to Fortescue). It remained in the Roman Rite, indeed, until nearly the very end - right up to 1960. It was only the final ediitio typica, that of 1962, where it was dropped. So it was only a reality for the last few years in which the traditional Roman Rite remained the normative one for the Latin Rite Church - a very brief period. <br /><br />That said, it is true that the 1962 missal omits it, and we are obliged by Church law to adhere to the missal we are authorized to use.<br /><br />And yet it must be pointed out that, notwithstanding the PCED letter of 4 July 2007, some communities have received guidance, usually unofficial but there just the same, that they recognize that recitation of the second confiteor where it has been the local custom is happening. I have heard this from the FSSP and St. John Cantius (which do not do so uniformly but, again, where there was already a custom in place under the indults). Fr. Z reprints one such communication back in February 2008.<br /><br />In any event, this is the sort of rubrical allowance that has long been part of the history of the Roman Rite. And this one has seven centuries of practice behind it, whereas the deletion by John XXIII has...a few years. And yes, it's worth adding as a final point that it *is* possible to sin between the first and second confiteors. <br /><br />Dad29's comment comparing the recitation of the second confiteor to plaid-clothed guitar-strummers is thus badly out of line.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-46191264071178195912015-05-21T18:18:41.116-04:002015-05-21T18:18:41.116-04:00@Mary: Well said. Thank you.@Mary: Well said. Thank you.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481730297658525937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-84981342516589215082015-05-21T18:11:44.842-04:002015-05-21T18:11:44.842-04:00Mary, Brilliant! Thank you! You are absolutely r...Mary, Brilliant! Thank you! You are absolutely right! That's something that needs pointing out these days, especially with those who want to equate traditionalist "issues" (even the SSPX, for example), with contemporary dissenters, heretics, and apostates.Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-65583723547406536932015-05-21T11:03:39.936-04:002015-05-21T11:03:39.936-04:00"they are no better than the plaid-clothed gu..."they are no better than the plaid-clothed guitar-strummers of the OF"<br /><br />When the holy priests of three well-known orders (FSSP, SSPX, ICK) devoted to the Tridentine Mass use the second Confiteor they are as bad as a guy in plaid strumming modern Church music on a guitar? What an unfortunate overstatement.<br /><br />The 2nd Confiteor is not a “deviation” but rather the continuation of a long-established practice that in 1962 had only been omitted for 7 years (for questionable reasons). The removal of the 2nd Confiteor – not the inclusion - was the actual deviation, if one wants to use that word. <br /><br />While adherence to older custom in the Tridentine Mass is certainly worthy of debate it is not logical to equate it with the seismic breaks to modernity that mark the NO, of which plaid-clothed guitar-strummers are but one example. <br /><br />Mary<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-52189774574970334522015-05-18T12:23:08.982-04:002015-05-18T12:23:08.982-04:00I have the same experience as Elizabeth, 2nd Confi...<br />I have the same experience as Elizabeth, 2nd Confiteor before Communion at my FSSP parish and any SSPX Mass I've been to. FSSP's position is explained here: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-summorum_pontificum_one_year_lat.htm<br /><br />During the time the EF was the norm, the second Confiteor was - and still is - a very fruitful practice that was included in Holy Mass for many more years than it was excluded. It was stripped out of the Mass, along with many other beautiful practices, in 1955 for the sole reason of laying the groundwork for the NO and the real abuse to follow, which drew Catholics away from union with Christ. There was a plan in place in the fifties; no breach of the magnitude of the NO Mass could have occurred in a few short years. First the people had to be drawn slowly away from lives that centered on the Church. <br /><br />I love my 1962 missal but can still acknowledge that it was the last missal before we went over the edge. Variations such as the second Confiteor cannot plausibly be compared to the actual abuses tied to the NO. It is not an “abuse” but simply a restoration of a former practice - discontinued for a few short years - that absolves venial sins and helps prepare us for Communion. <br /><br />MaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-82608884222208338482015-05-17T22:47:39.256-04:002015-05-17T22:47:39.256-04:00Elizabeth: they are wrong. In addition, there is...Elizabeth: they are wrong. In addition, there is at least one ICK priest who does the same thing (and a number of other deviations); they are no better than the plaid-clothed guitar-strummers of the OF.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-32375887957100310682015-05-17T13:26:16.529-04:002015-05-17T13:26:16.529-04:00Interesting topic (Should the Confiteor be said ag...Interesting topic (Should the Confiteor be said again before Holy Communion). My parish, St. John Cantius, always has the Confiteor before Communion. So do all the FSSP and SSPX Masses that I've ever been to. Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481730297658525937noreply@blogger.com