Rorate Caeli

The PCED "Official" Guide to the Mass: Some Videos now on Youtube

In August, Rorate noted that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has made available its own 2-DVD guide to the proper celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. Long excerpts have now been uploaded on Youtube:

Pars I: 01 - Praeparatio ad Missam, 02 - Orationes sub infimum gradum altaris, 03 - Pars Didattica.



Pars II: 04 - Offertorium, 05 - Canon Missae I



Pars III: 06 - Canon Missae II
-->

Pars IV: 07 - Pater Noster, 08 - Communio, 09 - Ablutionis.



Pars V: 10 - Dimissio, 11 - Ultimum Evangelium.




46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fascinating how PCED doesn't realise that in the 1962 Missale Romanum bows to the altar cross have been abolished except when the celebrant is at the center of the altar.

Roger Dal said...

Nice to hear Latin pronounced properly instead of in some dreadful French or worse still American accent.

Surprised the production of this video is not better though. Shakey camera shots, strange cuts and some errors etc. ED mustn't have much of a budget or much concern I guess.

Anonymous said...

Wow! That didn't take long before the bitching and complaining to commence.

Anonymous said...

Does the priest mumbles the server's parts? Anyone can answer this? In video 1 you see the priest also saying them. Excuse my ignorance, I am curious.

Anonymous said...

More online tutorials in a variety of languages, both by Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX, are available here:

http://www.maranatha.it/MissaleRomanum/video.htm

Anonymous said...

The boys are back in town!.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

I do wonder why the priest is vested in red, while the antependium and tabernacle veil are white..l.

Anonymous said...

A few questions about the server.

At the offeratory, the server approaches the altar (to the right of the Priest), and, after the Priest removes the chalice veil, takes it from the priest and sets it on the altar for him. I've never seen this or done this myself. Is this the correct action for the server?

Also, at the washing of the Priests hands, the server places the cloth the priest uses to dry his hands on the altar. When serving by myself, I've always opened it and placed it over my left arm, while pouring the water. The Priest then took it off my arm to dry his hands. Is one more correct? Or are both equally acceptable?

If anyone can shed some light on these two actions, I would appreciate it.

Thanks

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

I'm surprised that no one is commenting on the omission of the Second Confiteor -- a notable omission, given that this is supposed to be the PCED's "official" guide to how to offer the TLM.

By the way, I've been told that the priest in the videos is Fr. Francesco Ramella of the Diocese of Albenga-Imperia. He was ordained in January 2009 and offered his first Mass according to the Traditional Latin Mass:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/01/usus-antiquior-first-mass-in-dolcedo.html

Anonymous said...

The SSPX vide also omits the second (third) Confiteor. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Just got a letter from a former parishioner of the FSSP in Rome that the Vicariate of Rome had commanded the FSSP parish to suppress the Second Confiteor in their Masses in Santa Trinita. I guess the "no Second Confiteor" policy is alive and well...

Anonymous said...

And if indeed this was immerorial custom how was the Second Confiteor suppressed legally? Ithought the answer was that it could still be used where it had been previously...At least this is what I thought..

Dan Hunter said...

The IBP and at least the FSSP in America, and several Indult parishes that I have been to, use the Second Confiteor.
I am not sure about the Institute of Christ the King never having assisted at any of their Masses.

Anonymous said...

Because it is an immemorial custom. So far there's no explicit public condemnation of the Confiteor as a custom contrary to reason. It would be the only way of prohibiting it.

There will be no such condemnation, because it would mean that the Church was engaged in wrong activity since immemorial times, so don't worry.

The Confiteor was removed in 1962 as a part of the removal of "unnecessary repetitions" in the transitional rites that would lead us to NOM.

PCED answers bind only those who ask - if anybody at all. Sometimes they're contradictory. Yes, there are people who were given answer that the second Confiteor can be said.

We used to be told that the TLM is prohibited and priests need permission of the bishop to celebrate it, and finally it came out that the mass was never juridically abrogated. What a crazy world.

But anyway, the problems with 1962 Missal are relatively small in comparison to the NOM.

Anonymous said...

What's more to the point, why is St Joseph omitted from the Canon? He was added by Blessed John XXIII in 1962. Does this mean that an earlier edition of the Missale Romanum was used? I echo Signor Palad's question about the incompatibility of colour between the vestments and the altar. Odd.

Aristotle A. Esguerra said...

Votive Mass of the Holy Cross.

Appropriate for a tutorial video on multiple levels.

Hestor said...

Of course the PCED would produce this hodge-podge because half of the people who work there, know nothing about the traditional mass or the rubrics. They are there because they have be out of obedience.

If Abbé Franck Quoëx could see this...

Anonymous said...

I just spoke with a senior FSSP priest who said that this video is so laden with errors that he could barely watch it. Perhaps they should have done more consultation with the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King and others to ensure a worthy product. Typical.

Veritatem facientes in caritate said...

Dan: Yes, the Institute of Christ the King does the 2nd confiteor as well.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad:

Msgr. Perl was fanatically opposed to the Confiteor before Communion, and told people that it is incorrect in the 1962 rite. In fact, he's mistaken and it is licit to use it or omit it, as Davies explained in detail somewhere or other (one of his smaller pamphlets, I think).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

All the SSPX masses I have attended have all had the second confiteor.

Jeff

Pedro G. said...

Mr. Palad,
in Opus Dei centers, the tabernacle veil is of the color of the day for most part of the day, except during liturgical functions, in which the tabernacle veil is invariably changed to a white one. I think that maybe this is a Roman custom.

Anonymous said...

Never mind all this rubbish about Perl's guidebook. Let's just thank God that he's out of a job.

I want to know where the clarification of S.P. is. Where is it? It was on the Pope's desk over two years ago. Did it blow off the Pope's desk and into St. Peter's Square?

We have a French episcopate which has openly made war on S.P. I have argued before that, given an expression used in Article 1 of S.P., and given other norms of law, the bishops should be required to ensure that the old Mass is offered at least once per diem in each and every diocese in which this is requested.

Look at how these bishops in the U.S.A. are dragging their posteriors. Bishop Choby of Nashville and his priests--all the king's horses and all the king's men--cant' manage one T.L.M. on the every-Sunday basis. It's too much for them. They lack the expertise, the experience, the intelligence.

In the Philippines, meanwhile, the number of approved T.L.M.s seems to be actually DECREASING. What the hell is going on? Did the Pope change his mind and then circulate an anti-S.P. among his bishops?

It's business as usual with these Marxist bishops we're stuck with. Each one is a red pope in his own bailiwick and obstruction is the name of the game. If any priest should dare to offer the Mass of All Time without permission from the local communist chancery hacks, it's off with his career!

The Pope needs to kick these swine where the sun don't shine. The way to do it is simply to recognise all S.S.P.X faculties. Then the local Maoist bishops would be forced to offer Traditional Latin Masses just to keep the Society at bay.

P.K.T.P.

The young fogey said...

Brilliant! Just added these to this Tridentine Mass page. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Pedro G.:

Actually, there are two customs which co-exist:

1. In some parishes, the tabernacle veil is always white.

2. In some parishes, the veil is the colour of the vestments, except when they are black, in which case it is violet.

Similarly, the tabernacle lamp can be white or red. Until the 1920s, it was normally white. But red took over. I think that the Sacred Heart devotions were part of the reason. Some in the old days fought against red sanctuary lamps but they finally lost.


P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"In the Philippines, meanwhile, the number of approved T.L.M.s seems to be actually DECREASING....":

Yes. Thanks for reminding me to come up with my long-overdue report.

The number of weekday TLM's has increased but Sunday TLM's have decreased. Go figure.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Could someone please list all the rubrical mistakes to be found in this video, for the benefit of all who are interested in the exact and perfect celebration of the Classical Roman Rite?

I make that request without meaning to belittle the good work of Fr. Francesco Ramella, and without losing sight of the fact that this video (a training video for the TLM issued by a Pontifical Commission!) would not even have been possible 5 years ago.

Peter said...

Thanks Carlos for this post, and I agree this would not have been conceivable just a few years ago.

Perhaps we can all get finer gauge sieves in our Christmas stockings, so as to strain the gnats all the better?

It is really depressing to come to this blog, read or see a story or report which has some definite merit that should uplift or hearten us, and then to come to the comment thread and find an inexorable spiral down into the rending of garments and others, metaphorical to be sure, but sometimes no less violent.

latinmass1983 said...

1) The color of the Antependium and of the Tabernacle Veil can ALWAYS be white because that is the Color of the Blessed Sacrament (assuming the Blessed Sacrament is reposed there). It is allowed to use the color of the day, but it is not wrong to use white.

2) What they did in this video regarding the Lavabo is correct. There are many ways of doing the Lavabo, but in the US the custom that the Priest takes the towel from the server's left hand.

3) There are silent parts that the Priest here says louder but that is, we have to assume, for the benefit of the Priests who will use this video to learn how to celebrate the traditional Mass.

4) It is allowed for the server to take the Chalice veil from the Priest and fold it and put it on the Epistle side. It is also allowed that he take it from the Priest and take it to the Credence table until the Priest will need it to build up the Chalice after the Ablutions.

5) The omission of the Confiteor before Holy Communion was expected. However, it will not prevent those who do it now from continuing to do it.

6) The mistakes that are part of this video are in no way too many that it should prevent anyone from using this video to learn how to say the Mass/serve.

This video should not be the only thing used to learn the celebrante/serve the Mass. Those who use it should also have the responsibility of using books that will help them understand the Rubrics more appropriately and correctly. Mistakes are also made by FSSP and ICK Priests... I've seen them.

7) The Sanctuary lamp, just like the Tabernacle Veil and the Antependium, may also be white. However, red has also been allowed, but it is not required or obligatory.

8) I do not think that it would be appropriate to post all the "mistakes" here, particularly because most people will not be able to do it in a respectful manner or in an organized way.

Anonymous said...

It is an immemorial custom. So far there's no explicit public condemnation of the Confiteor as a custom contrary to reason. It would be the only way of prohibiting it.

There will be no such condemnation, because it would mean that the Church was engaged in wrong activity since immemorial times, so don't worry.

The Confiteor was removed in 1962 as a part of the removal of "unnecessary repetitions" in the transitional rites that would lead us to NOM.

PCED answers bind only those who ask - if anybody at all. Sometimes they're contradictory. Yes, there are people who were given answer that the second Confiteor can be said.

We used to be told that the TLM is prohibited and priests need permission of the bishop to celebrate it, and finally it came out that the mass was never juridically abrogated. What a crazy world.

But anyway, the problems with 1962 Missal are relatively small in comparison to the NOM.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins, can you provide more detail where the explanation of the legitimacy of the second Confiteor can be found?

It's a pretty important question for the hypercorrect.

liturgical commentator said...

I too would be interested in the supposed reasoning that would allow the confession before communion to be said in a 1962-rite Mass, when the confession was explicitly forbidden by the 1961 rubrics.

"celebrans... omissis confessione et absolutione" R.G. #503

Thomas W. Evans said...

Roger Dal,

You wrote: "Nice to hear Latin pronounced properly instead of in some dreadful French or worse still American accent."

To suggest that there is anything "dreadful" about the French and American pronunciations of Latin is contemptible pedantry; accent is inevitable. Before the time of Pope St Pius X, if I recall correctly, Latin was pronounced in each country pretty much as the local language was (listen, eg, to such recordings of Baroque music as are made with authenticity and period performance in mind).

There are interesting remarks on this video in the comments of this article.

As regards the second (third) Confiteor, the following comes from Fr Z.'s blog:

"# 503 of the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal states (it is in the Missale Romanum decreed on June 23, 1962):

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

Jordanes said...

Note to Mr. Perkins:

A fellow Rorate commenter would like to contact you, but I did not save your email address.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was interesting the praise of the Latin spoken properly unlike those Frenchies and us ignorant Americans. But I must ask is "Hic-a est-a " the correct pronunciation of "Hic est"? If so I will modify my lousy American accent and pronunciation next time.

Anonymous said...

Please post the quotation from Msgr Klaus Gamber's book where he claims that second Cnfiteor is licit both in 1962 and 1965 rites.

Anonymous said...

omissis confessione et absolutione

That means that it is to be omitted, but not forbidden.

The custom has always been to say Confiteor. Customs can obviously be contrary to law (this one is not). Also in case of introduction of a completely new custom it can be contrary to law.

Thinking that liturgy is in the rubrics, and what was sacred in 1961 is a liturgical abuse in 1962 denounces a completely Novus Ordo spirit, as it implies that the legislator can do with the liturgy what he wants.

Knight of Malta said...

This is NOT the mass that Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned. That document actually called for revising the Traditional Latin Mass, not creating a new rite, as Bugnini's consilium did. (cf. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html)

I'm of the opinion that this was the work of the Holy Spirit, and here's why:

If, as SC called for, the mass was watered-down and diluted, it would have slowly dissolved and degraded into a mushy banal mix of latin and vernacular, and Lefebvre and company might (might) have gone with it, much to the detriment of the Church.

Instead, by ignoring SC, and instead creating a brand new rite, Bugnini inadvertently preserved the TLM, as in amber, to be rediscovered anew, as evidenced by these superb video clips.

God works in mysterious ways, or, in theological terms, doesn't allow an evil without a commensurate greater good.

So, let's actually thank Bugnini for his masonic hatchet job on the liturgy--he actually effected the preservation of the Eternal Sacrifice of the Mass!

Jack B. said...

For a "training" video from the Institute of Christ the King, see CatholicLatinMass.org.

Anonymous said...

I love this. The P.C.E.D., which has not always been pleasant to traditionalists over the years, releases videos to show us how to do it right and, immediately, an F.S.S.P. priest (who will likely know best) tells us that its videos are full of errors.

I get the feeling that most diocesan priests, however well-meaning, are also making dozens of errors. I also get the feeling that there was wide difference in practice before the Council. Thanks to the Internet, a group such as the F.S.S.P. now has an excellent opportunity to show us how to do it right. I suggest videos with commentary voiced over, pointing to various practices. The action at the Altar could also be interrupted for longer commentary. The commentary could be improved over time and could include notes about differences in local custom.

Really, we have a better opportunity today to make things universal and right than we've ever had before. Meanwhile, this would not even occur to the N.O. people because they *strive* to make each Mass unique.

P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say, as one who loves the traditional liturgy but has never seen it "up close," these video clips are beautiful, even with the "mistakes." The differences between the Novus Ordo and the traditional Mass are glaring. This is truly prayer and worship directed toward Jesus, present in the tabernacle. The sacredness of the actions of the priest if palpable to me.

Soli Deo Gloria said...

Indeed, the Immortal God is to be thanked for turning what was meant for evil into good. None of the saints said thanks to those who sought to destroy them and so no thanks need be addressed to a disloyal servant of God who was named Bugnini.

Cato said...

There is at least one FSSP parish which has uploaded many videos of its Masses on to youtube. They are all listed here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/konigskinder

There is a selection of celebrations of the Mass at various points in the liturgical calendar.

Although the video camera is placed at the back of the Church, so that the videos are probably not ideal for the training of priests, perhaps an FSSP training video, with commentary over the video (as suggested above), could be made. That would be a great help for any priests who cannot attend one of the FSSP training days (though I should have thought that attendance at one of such training days would be the ideal way to learn the usus antiquor).

GandhianCatholic said...

I know it's off topic, but, considering the great affection so many of us have for our Orthodox brethren, I don't think it would be entirely innappropriate to post here. This morning, November 15th, 2009, His Holiness Patriarch Pavle of Serbia reposed in the Lord after recieving the Eucharist. Acclaimed by all that knew him as "the walking Saint", he will be sorely missed by all Apostolic Christians as a true example of Christ-like humility and piety, and a light in an increasingly dark, Godless world.

M.A. said...

Jack B.,

Very nice training video. Thank you!

Paulus Romanus said...

In the Ritus Servandus, it is stated the minister rings the bell thrice for each elevation, or without ceasing until the priest places the Host upon the corporal, and likewise after the elevation of the chalice. There should be only three rings in total for each consecration action. The 1-3-1 bell ringing method seen here is a misinterpretation of the rubrics, and not supported or advocated by a single rubrician, even though it is commonly used in SSPX and FSSP.