Can the Tridentine mass be celebrated in English?

[Questioning_1]

I was thinking how beautiful it would be if the Tridentine Rite could be celebrated in English.

Perhaps that would have prohibited so many problems in the '60’s if they just allowed the Rite to be celebrated in the dialect. Maybe have the priest speak up also.

Can the Tridentine mass be celebrated in English though?

 

[benedictgal]

I was thinking how beautiful it would be if the Tridentine Rite could be celebrated in English.

Perhaps that would have prohibited so many problems in the '60’s if they just allowed the Rite to be celebrated in the dialect. Maybe have the priest speak up also.

Can the Tridentine mass be celebrated in English though?

No. It cannot. However, I might be wrong, but, the Anglican-Use Mass is almost like the vernacular of the EF with some changes.

If you are unfamiliar, the Anglican-Use Mass was permitted for use by Pope John Paul II for those former Anglicans who left their ecclesial community and converted to the Church. I used to assist at these when I lived in Austin because I found them to be rather beautiful, along with the music.

If memory serves, Cramner translated what we now know as the EF into English, with some major adjustments. I do not know if what we have in the Anglican-Use version is similar to what Cramner did, only with the necessary amendments to make it fitting for use in the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The Tridentine Mass actually became the English Mass during the 60’s. Need we say it failed?

The Anglican Use Mass is probably the best translation of the Tridentine Mass. However, although approved for Catholics, it is not is line with Vatican II documents which preserve Latin in the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

The Tridentine Mass actually became the English Mass during the 60’s. Need we say it failed?

The Anglican Use Mass is probably the best translation of the Tridentine Mass. However, although approved for Catholics, it is not is line with Vatican II documents which preserve Latin in the liturgy.

Actually, it is not. The Confiteor changed. There are now several Eucharistic Prayers. There are now three readings as well as a three-year cycle for Sundays and a two-year one for weekdays. The last Gospel is omitted. There are now General Intercessions. The Mystery of Faith has been moved from the Roman Canon to its present place after the Eucharistic prayer and the faithful now say one of four (soon three) options. There are no longer prayers at the foot of the altar.

So, to say that it is simply the EF in the vernacular is a vast oversimplification as well as, with all due respect, incorrect.

Now, as far as the Anglican-Use Mass is concerned, there is nothing that would preclude the use of the Latin in that particular liturgy. In fact, if memory serves, the Mass that I assisted included some singing of the parts of the Mass in Latin.

 

[Cluny]

The Old Catholics (an independent body) do so all the time.

Whether it can be done in the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t know.

However, the Tridentine rite was celebrated in Slavonic and Chinese for centuries before Vatican II.

 

[PacoG]

Actually, it is not. The Confiteor changed. There are now several Eucharistic Prayers. There are now three readings as well as a three-year cycle for Sundays and a two-year one for weekdays. The last Gospel is omitted. There are now General Intercessions. The Mystery of Faith has been moved from the Roman Canon to its present place after the Eucharistic prayer and the faithful now say one of four (soon three) options. There are no longer prayers at the foot of the altar.

So, to say that it is simply the EF in the vernacular is a vast oversimplification as well as, with all due respect, incorrect.

He didn’t mean the Mass of Paul VI. He meant the Interim Missal of 1965. That Mass had both vernacular and Latin elements.

 

[benedictgal]

He didn’t mean the Mass of Paul VI. He meant the Interim Missal of 1965. That Mass had both vernacular and Latin elements.

No, I don’t think so. I have a copy of that Missal in my office. The changes were already there and the confiteor from the EF was already gone.

 

[PacoG]

No, I don’t think so. I have a copy of that Missal in my office. The changes were already there and the confiteor from the EF was already gone.

I just reviewed 1965 Missal at coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/. It has both the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the double confiteor. The 1965 Missal was the Mass of Vatican II. It implemented a lot of what was called for in Sanctosactum Concilum like restoration of the Homily and the General Intercessions.

 

[benedictgal]

I just reviewed 1965 Missal at coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/. It has both the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the double confiteor. The 1965 Missal was the Mass of Vatican II. It implemented a lot of what was called for in Sanctosactum Concilum like restoration of the Homily and the General Intercessions.

I’ll concede that much, but, rather than make it required, the missal noted that the prayers at the foot of the altar were optional. That’s a big difference. As my copy is in the office, I’ll wait until tomorrow to look at it.

 

[Cluny]

No, I don’t think so. I have a copy of that Missal in my office. The changes were already there and the confiteor from the EF was already gone.

If by this you mean the so-called “second Confiteor” just before the Communion of the Faithful, it wasn’t “already gone” in the 1965 Missal, because it was NEVER in the Altar Missal to start with. This repetition was suppressed by John XXIII, I think.

Its inclusion came from transferring the Rite of Communion Outside of Mass (a very common practice once upon a time, accounting for the “refusal of the Chalice” to the laity) to just before the distribution of Communion within Mass.

There actually was never, until the Missal of Paul VI, any directions for the Communion of Faithful in the altar editions of the Missale Romanum through 1962.

What personal hand missals intended for the laity contained is another issue. In these, a lot of things that were said and done “by custom” were included that were never in the official books.

Among these are the Leonine Prayers (aka “St. Michael Prayer” as they get called here), which were never included in the altar Missal, either.

 

[benedictgal]

If by this you mean the so-called “second Confiteor” just before the Communion of the Faithful, it wasn’t “already gone” in the 1965 Missal, because it was NEVER in the Altar Missal to start with. This repetition was suppressed by John XXIII, I think.

Its inclusion came from transferring the Rite of Communion Outside of Mass (a very common practice once upon a time, accounting for the “refusal of the Chalice” to the laity) to just before the distribution of Communion within Mass.

There actually was never, until the Missal of Paul VI, any directions for the Communion of Faithful in the altar editions of the Missale Romanum through 1962.

What personal hand missals intended for the laity contained is another issue. In these, a lot of things that were said and done “by custom” were included that were never in the official books.

Among these are the Leonine Prayers (aka “St. Michael Prayer” as they get called here), which were never included in the altar Missal, either.

Yes, thank you. I read the respondent’s statement rather quickly and should have slowed down. I am in the process of planning my cousin’s wedding Mass and should have read the matter carefully. Thank you and Paco G.

They are beautiful prayers, nonetheless. My parochial vicar was lamenting about how he misses their richness and he was a very young kid when the OF came out.

Well, I must now go back to pulling my hair out with this Mass. My cousin owes me a bottle of hair dye for this.

 

[AJV]

The Tridentine Mass actually became the English Mass during the 60’s. Need we say it failed?

The Anglican Use Mass is probably the best translation of the Tridentine Mass. However, although approved for Catholics, it is not is line with Vatican II documents which preserve Latin in the liturgy.

The Anglican Use liturgy is nothing like the Traditional Mass. Neither did Cramner translate the Traditional Mass into English.

The notable feature of the Anglican Use is that it uses a different English translation of the Roman Canon. Otherwise, for most of the other material, it is either from later Anglican Books of Common Prayer, particularly the PECUSA ones, or inclusions from the post 1970 Roman Missals.

 

[AJV]

Its inclusion came from transferring the Rite of Communion Outside of Mass (a very common practice once upon a time, accounting for the “refusal of the Chalice” to the laity) to just before the distribution of Communion within Mass.

There actually was never, until the Missal of Paul VI, any directions for the Communion of Faithful in the altar editions of the Missale Romanum through 1962.

No there were. It was given in the Ritus Servandus at the beginning of the missal, in which, until 1962, there was a direction to recite the Confiteor before Communion. The difference with the missal of Paul VI is that within the Ordo Missae itself, the procedure for Communion was not given - instead there was the simple rubric “si qui sunt communicandi eos communicet”, and the priest had to observe the procedure given in the Ritus.

 

[benedictgal]

The Anglican Use liturgy is nothing like the Traditional Mass. Neither did Cramner translate the Traditional Mass into English.

The notable feature of the Anglican Use is that it uses a different English translation of the Roman Canon. Otherwise, for most of the other material, it is either from later Anglican Books of Common Prayer, particularly the PECUSA ones, or inclusions from the post 1970 Roman Missals.

For some reason, I thought that Cramner had done that. While there were some similarities, I thought that this was Cramner’s doing. Just for curiousity’s sake, I would love to see if the Anglican-Use translation of the Roman Canon bears any resemblance to the new forthcoming translation of same. That would be interesting.

 

[AJV]

No, I don’t think so. I have a copy of that Missal in my office. The changes were already there and the confiteor from the EF was already gone.

No, the only major verbal. deletions of the 1965 missal was the Psalm Iudica Me, and the Last Gospel, and the formula for distribution of Holy Communion. The rubrics themselves did have a few more cases where the Prayers at the Foot of the altar could be omitted, but that was it - with regard to words, not gestures. The 1967 omitted the separate Domine, non sum dignus of the priest, optionalized the *Placeat tibi * at the end of Mass and removed the special dismissal for Requiems.

 

[Orthkid]

**Pope Pius XII permitted the Mass, which at that time was ONLY the Tridentine Mass, to be celebrated in the vernacular in Dalmatia. Under certain circumstances he also permitted it to be celebrated in the vernacular (Gaelic) in Ireland.

I imagine that with that precedent having been established, it would be possible for the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated in English…or any other language for that matter.

One can only wait and see if it will be permitted.**

 

[malphono]

Pope Pius XII permitted the Mass, which at that time was ONLY the Tridentine Mass, to be celebrated in the vernacular in Dalmatia.

Not exactly. What was permitted was for the Roman Rite Mass to be offered in Church Slavonic (and written in the Glagolitic alphabet), which was not the vernacular in Dalmatia. The practice started earlier and was settled by Urban VIII in 1631.

Under certain circumstances he also permitted it to be celebrated in the vernacular (Gaelic) in Ireland.

First time I’ve heard of this. Is there a reference?

 

[Tepeyac]

There is something called the English Missal which includes the Tridentine Mass in English along with other material (prayers, readings) from the Book of Common Prayer. It was used by some Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) parishes in the past and I believe it is still used at St. Clement’s Episcopal Church in Philadelphia.

 

[BernadetteM]

The Anglican Use liturgy is nothing like the Traditional Mass. Neither did Cramner translate the Traditional Mass into English.

The notable feature of the Anglican Use is that it uses a different English translation of the Roman Canon. Otherwise, for most of the other material, it is either from later Anglican Books of Common Prayer, particularly the PECUSA ones, or inclusions from the post 1970 Roman Missals.

If you go back and look up the Sarum Use, which was used when England was still under the Pope, you will see that the Anglican Use Canon is much more in line with the Sarum Use, although actually the Latin Canon, Eucharistic Prayer I is almost the same. I am not speaking of all the prayers but especially the prayer of Consecration.

Rome decided what would be in the the Anglican Use Mass and Book of Divine Worship, of course the AU priests also were involved, but they took what ever Rome gave. I assume that revisions might be made in the future.

There are several uses in the Church and the Anglican Use liturgy is beautiful. But I have found that many people are never happy with the way Mass is done, whatever use or rite. I am just thankful Catholics have a liturgy and don’t have to just sit and listen to an hour sermon and sing a few songs.

I feel that the Church is going back to many of the traditions of the past. Of course, not all, but the changes were here for such a long time and it will take a long time to reverse the attitudes of people and many priests and Bishops. In my opinion the reverence the Church once taught was damaged by the liberal clergy in the US. Not all countries lost the spirituality as we did.

I am sorry if my post got off the OP’s original question.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[AJV]

If you go back and look up the Sarum Use, which was used when England was still under the Pope, you will see that the Anglican Use Canon is much more in line with the Sarum Use, although actually the Latin Canon, Eucharistic Prayer I is almost the same. I am not speaking of all the prayers but especially the prayer of Consecration.

I’m a bit confused - as I understand it. there is/was no difference between the Sarum and Roman on the matter of the Canon - both were identical, except that the Sarum (as the Roman in various countries) added the name of the King to the Te igitur. As it stands, the AU has a translation of the Roman Canon, with the changes in the Institution that parallel EP I of the Missale Romanum.