FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Second Confiteor
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
This topic came up in another thread:
Quote:
(02-27-2012, 02:07 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-27-2012, 12:05 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-26-2012, 07:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-26-2012, 04:00 PM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-23-2012, 10:17 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]It would be good if the "second confiteor" was brought back into every offering of the TLM.

[Image: 15160752.jpg]

This guy concurs, as do I.

I realize this is somewhat of a joke, but it is somewhat scandalous to give non-Catholics (and non-traditional Catholics) the impression that this is an okay attitude to have.

If the second confiteor was omitted by unquestionably legitimate authorities, then one disobeys the authority of God by "saying it anyway" because we like it better that way. Catholicism is not a pick-and-choose religion. We are not permitted to go the liturgical salad bar and design our own liturgies in defiance of those handed to us by the protection of the Holy Ghost. That's what the revolutionaries did, and none of us wants to emulate them.

Adding a second confiteor to a form of liturgy that legitimately omits such a confiteor is to offer a form of liturgy that has never been approved by the Church in Her entire history. To do such a thing is rebellious if such a form has not been approved by legitimate authority.

I disagree.  It would have been impossible for liturgies to develop organically at all if we had this attitude.  Truly Catholic customs, with a Catholic basis, done for Catholic reasons, can be done in the liturgy and this is how things evolved organically and legitimately. 

If the second confiteor was clearly reprobated, I would agree with you, but it wasn't reprobated, it was just taken out.  The servers, out of devotion to tradition but especially to the Sacrament, are free to pray a confiteor before receiving, they are just not bound to, and the congregation is free to join in.  The priest is free to bless them and pray for God to forgive their sins and bring them to life everlasting.  It is a fitting formula to use before Communion of the people.

This is very different from non-Catholic ideas or personal preferences inserted into the rite, but that's not what the second confiteor is.

Rome herself has supported this by (1) including the second confiteor in videos supported by Ecclesia Dei used to train priests in the EF and (2) not in any way disciplining those who use the second confiteor.

I think that a priest who adds his own words in the liturgy for "creativity" or "entertainment" or for his own agenda is doing something not just on a different part of the spectrum, but fundamentally different, from using the 2nd confiteor in an otherwise 1962-missal Mass.

So you're proposing disobedience to the Church (provided that there is no disciplinary retribution) by offering a form of Mass not approved by Her authoritative magisterium in defiance of the pope's authority to promulgate liturgical revisions in the name of organic liturgical development?

That is not how the Church operates. Before liturgy was formally codified, the traditions that organically developed were incorporated and preserved by the subsequent codifications. Once it has been formally codified with the formal authority of the papacy to bind and loose, all Catholics are bound to true hierarchical obedience to the subsequent liturgical revisions. One cannot simply insert desirable or even preferable practices impromptu into the liturgy under the specious pretext of contributing to some form of living tradition. If that were permissible, there would be no need for strict codified liturgy. These strict codifications detail every word and movement of the priest to prevent the potential introduction of vain and spontaneous liturgical innovations. Without such rigorous standardization, it is up to the individual priest or lay person to deem what is appropriate and what is not. This introduces subjectivity, opinion, strife, and eventual dissension, which quite quickly and easily leads to a disunity of liturgical expression and faith, as accusations of heterodoxy, blasphemy, and even heresy ensue. The Novus Ordo is a perfect example of this. Arguing that a priest who introduces his own words for the sake of "creativity" or "entertainment" requires that you judge the priest's intention. He could just as easily deny that he is doing it for those reasons. A priest could add a saint to the Roman Canon, or a litany of saints to the Roman Canon, finding it useful and pious, and when division breaks out in the chapel there is no way to resolve it, since this is how liturgy is said to organically develop.

This is not how the Church has always operated. It was never permitted to deviate from the norms of the Church's formal liturgical codifications as set forth by Her authoritative magisterium, and this for good reason. The spirit of liturgical growth and development you are espousing is exactly the sort of spirit that prompted the liturgical changes following in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Many formal liturgical specifications were eliminated, which allowed for the insertion of individualistic expressions of the Faith. It may sound innocent enough to someone who has no true intention of introducing anything novel into the liturgy, but what is novel and what isn't is up the Church Herself. Many an arguably good tradition has been eliminated from the Church for good reasons (communion under both species, for example); the potential for priests to introduce their own personal expressions of faith into the liturgy presents the occasion for formerly suppressed liturgical practices to be reintroduced since they were once found to be present in the liturgy. There is simply no way to monitor, standardize, control, or unify such liturgical freedom. That is why there has always been a distinction between public and private prayer. A lay person may pray as he pleases during the Mass, but the priest is obliged to conform to the standards of the Church as set forth by Her authoritative magisterium. This is part of what it means to be obedient to the Church. It is a complete and total loving submission to everything the Church recommends to us.
This reply:
Quote:
(02-27-2012, 02:30 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-27-2012, 02:07 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]So you're proposing disobedience to the Church (provided that there is no disciplinary retribution) by offering a form of Mass not approved by Her authoritative magisterium in defiance of the pope's authority to promulgate liturgical revisions in the name of organic liturgical development?

I would not propose the second confiteor be done if I thought it was disobedient.  If Rome said, "don't use the second confiteor," then I would oppose its use.  However it was simply left out of the Missal, and not reprobated.  I think the context we live in, in which so much havoc was wreaked by the legitimate authorities in the past, is important here.

We should not disobey if the authorities tell us not to do something, but the fact that Rome has not only not disciplined those using the second confiteor but that Ecclesia Dei videos even included it shows that it is not forbidden.

I will think more about the rest of what you have written.  I think it is important, and in other threads I have mentioned that certain things like using Benedicamus Domino instead of Ite would be wrong because we are actually changing the Missal.  The second confiteor seems like something altogether different.  It is as if a server blesses himself after receiving Communion -- he has just received, it is not in the rubrics that he cross himself, and he functioning as a liturgical minister, but it's not wrong for him to do so.

In fact many of the things servers do are not specified in the rubrics, it's simply practical.  And if out of devotion the servers say the confiteor, it would be very awkward if the priest didn't respond.
The man in the meme says the 2d confiteor.  He's going to be saying it sometime between the Agnus and the exposition of the host.  He can pray anything he wants to during that interval.  He could ask the Lord to forgive his mom for turning him on to cannibis, or ask the Lord to forgive his father for growing cannibis, or to forgive his high school Spanish teacher for taking them on a field trip fo Columbia.  It's certainly not "wrong" for him to say a second confiteor for himself. 
The 2nd Confiteor was never abrogated.
It was just not in the Missal of '62.

It is not being disobediant to pray it.

Many FSSP and diocesan priests use it.
It is included in the SSPX Mass I go to, even though it is not in the 1962 missal many of us use.
(I think the priest(s) may be using a different version of the missal, since the English translations of the Epistle and Gospel are also not the same)
you're right it's no where in the missal.  I wonder why we do it

Huh?
The second confiteor wasn't in the older missal either. The second confiteor comes from the rite of communion for the faithful, which was inserted into the Mass, which in strict theology was not a part of the Mass. Part of the reform of the Missal involved placing the communion rite for the faithful back into the integrity of the Mass. The second confiteor was collateral damage in the process.
I don't care either way.

It's a trifle matter.
(02-27-2012, 07:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]It's a trifle matter.

[Image: luigi-bormioli-trifle-bowl.jpg]

It is so rare that Vetus trips on his English that I felt the need to comment. Grin
Lady fingers...yum
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6