EF vs. TLM

[heart4home]

Are they the same thing? I attended a Mass recently that was celebrated by a Bishop and there was a little bit of Latin in it, but it wasn’t all in Latin.

Most received on the tongue, but not all. (I do anyways, so that wasn’t an issue for me)

Only the Nuns present sang, instead of everybody.

I just wondered if it may have been was an EF Mass or perhaps just a more formal OF Mass. Of course if EF means the whole thing is done in Latin, then that mustn’t have been the case.

Regardless, I really enjoyed it.

Sorry for sounding uninformed, but just wondering exactly what the differences are between EF and TLM.

 

[laszlo]

It was the Ordinary Form the Mass of 1970, which

• is defined in Latin
• is very similar of the Traditional Latin Mass except for the language and some slight changes.

The Traditional Mass has no vernacular at all.

I regularly attend a Mass similar what you described, except that only the chants are Latin, the priests usually pray the full text in English. I firmly believe that this was the New Mass as it was accepted by Paul VI and the Magisterium, and this will be the Mass of the future.

Keep the good , and remove what does not belong there.

 

[ProVobis]

I just wondered if it may have been was an EF Mass or perhaps just a more formal OF Mass. Of course if EF means the whole thing is done in Latin, then that mustn’t have been the case.

There are a lot of similarities between the Latin OF and the TLM, especially the audible parts. The Kyrie, Gloria, Nicene Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei, for example. The entire Canon, if it’s EF1. The readings may be in vernacular only and sometimes the priest even faces not towards the people. So it is understandable that there is some confusion between the two. In fact, I don’t think most people would know the difference. The Pope’s Christmas Mass was said in Latin and the world just saw it as “going back to tradition.” Yet that’s the way the New Mass was promulgated, or “formal” as you put it. Everything else textwise is a translation, although not always most accurate, of that Latin.

 

[bayernfan]

There are a lot of similarities between the Latin OF and the TLM, especially the audible parts. The Kyrie, Gloria, Nicene Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei, for example. The entire Canon, if it’s EF1. The readings may be in vernacular only and sometimes the priest even faces not towards the people. So it is understandable that there is some confusion between the two. In fact, I don’t think most people would know the difference. The Pope’s Christmas Mass was said in Latin and the world just saw it as “going back to tradition.” Yet that’s the way the New Mass was promulgated, or “formal” as you put it. Everything else textwise is a translation, although not always most accurate, of that Latin.

You can also say that there are a lot of differences between the Novus Ordo and the TLM.

Simply by comparing the Novus Ordo and the TLM, you can see how much was removed by the Consilium that created the Novus Ordo after the Second Vatican Council.
lms.org.uk/resources/comparison_between_the_traditional_and_novus_ordo_missals

 

[Vico]

heart4home,
Currently we are using the ordinary form Missale Romanum of 1975, until next Advent (in the USA). I believe the Latin text must match so it is from that same Missale Romanum of 1975 rather than the Latin text of 2002. It has always been possible to use Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

You can also say that there are a lot of differences between the Novus Ordo and the TLM.

There are also differences among the myriad of translations of the Latin OF.

 

[JaMc]

Are they the same thing?

Yes.

I attended a Mass recently that was celebrated by a Bishop and there was a little bit of Latin in it, but it wasn’t all in Latin.

Most received on the tongue, but not all. (I do anyways, so that wasn’t an issue for me)

Only the Nuns present sang, instead of everybody.

I just wondered if it may have been was an EF Mass or perhaps just a more formal OF Mass. Of course if EF means the whole thing is done in Latin, then that mustn’t have been the case.

Sounds like a “more formal” OF Mass. Ad Orientem is even an option as well. Basically, the 1970 Missal is like a Chinese Menu - you can have a Mass like what you attended or what’s on EWTN, or you can have some very - “informal” or “creative” (to use charitable terms) - Masses. A search on the TC forum on here will bring up quite a few discussions on some negative examples of the latter. Some praise that aspect of the 1970 Missal, others criticize it.

 

[laszlo]

There are also differences among the myriad of translations of the Latin OF.

As far as I know there is just one licit translation for each diocese. Any adlibiting (from outside the books) is abuse.

Naturaly

Luke 17:1 And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity.

This later is a good meditation point for every traditionalist. It is for God and not for us to clean up the scandals.

 

[Chatter163]

As far as I know there is just one licit translation for each diocese. .

Actually, there is just one licit translation for all dioceses. Each diocese does not make up one for itself.

 

[laszlo]

Actually, there is just one licit translation for all dioceses. Each diocese does not make up one for itself.

I am sorry Chatter, the world does not stops in the US nor in the English speaking word.

Before the XIX Ecumenical Council each diocese made her own liturgy without centralized control.

After the Council of Trent Pope St Pius V ordered the uniformity all over the world, with a very few exception, for the universal calendar, but the local calendars and the propers for the local saints still remained under the control of the local bishops.

After the XXI Ecumenical council the translations were trusted to National Conferences of the Bishops. For some reason (unknown for me) an organization called ICEL took over the control over the English speaking word. Apparently under Benedict XVI this control is significantly loosening, and even now some dioceses are using the New Translation for the Ordinary.

Also the right to add local saints and their propers with translation is retained right of the dioceses.

 

[Chatter163]

I am sorry Chatter, the world does not stops in the US nor in the English speaking word.

Before the XIX Ecumenical Council each diocese made her own liturgy without centralized control.

After the Council of Trent Pope St Pius V ordered the uniformity all over the world, with a very few exception, for the universal calendar, but the local calendars and the propers for the local saints still remained under the control of the local bishops.

After the XXI Ecumenical council the translations were trusted to National Conferences of the Bishops. For some reason (unknown for me) an organization called ICEL took over the control over the English speaking word. Apparently under Benedict XVI this control is significantly loosening, and even now some dioceses are using the New Translation for the Ordinary.

Also the right to add local saints and their propers with translation is retained right of the dioceses.

1. I never made any claims about the English-speaking world. I am not sure why you would impute such a truly bizarre statement to me. The context of the discussion was the English translation of the Mass and my comments were solely about that.
2. While the liturgy was not centrally-controlled prior to the Council of Trent, it would be at best misleading, and at worst inaccurate, to state that each diocese “made her own liturgy,” as if there were no general format, framework or tradition in place prior to Trent.
3. I am well aware of the meaning of *universal *and local kalendars. Nothing here implied that I did not, especially since we were speaking about English-language translations of the Order of Mass; nothing at all was being discussed about kalendars. I am again at a loss to know why that was brought up.
4. I am also well aware about the work of ICEL and how it came to pass, having been involved in liturgical matters for decades. When it was decreed that translations of the Latin texts of the revised missal would be made by the episcopal conferences of each country, the English-speaking conferences immediately agreed that it would be in their best interests to share an essentialy common translation. Thus, they created an organization to achieve this task; each bishop’s conference pledged resources to this effort and more or less agreed to publish its work.

This should be seen in light of several points: a) English-speaking nations were historically Protestant, and their bishops considerered it desirable to engage other religious groups, and even the world, with a commom set of texts; b) the establishment of episcopal conferences was a new concept, as these had not existed, except in a very limited context, before Vatican II. These were established rapidly and without much framework at first, and their first responsibility was the creation of translations. Bureaucratically speaking, the pooling of resources among English-speaking groups made the task of translation appear more manageable, and freed up the conferences to organize themselves for a variety of other tasks. The bishops would still vote on the work submitted by ICEL, but approvals were given fairly automatically, as there was a great desire to strike while the iron was hot and get the final vernacular texts published as soon as possible. Similar efforts of pooling resources were made with Spanish-speaking bishops conferences, but the much larger numbers of Spanish-speaking nations, and the wider variety of social and cultural conditions existing in those countries, made a central ICEL-type organization difficult to achieve. c) Finally, the rush to translation was exactly that, a rush. The translations all were made within 2-3 years’ time. (Compare that with the amount of time that the new translations took.) As a fully vernacular liturgy was seen as the council’s greatest accomplishment, bishops generally stood solidly behind the new translations for years to come. To question ICEL’s competence or the desirability of its output was to call into question the work of the council, and no one in authority wished to appear reactionary. It then took forty years before official notice was taken of the rushed nature of the work, and the questionable nature of dynamic equivalence, which was the translation principle that was employed in making the rushed translations. Needless to say, that recognition came from the Holy See, rather the the U.S. bishops’ conference, which was the largest and most influential of the ICEL member conferences. (To be fair, a handful of American bishops had previously made a few comments, but these usually came from a handful of small-town bishops, and were always ignored.) Tradition-minded Catholics had always complained about these very issues, and had long expressed hope that the translation could be redone, but these calls essentially went unheeded until the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001. Shortly afterward, ICEL’s membership was completely reconstituted at the direction of the Holy See, and their reliance on dynamic equivalence was immediately dropped in favor of a more literal and semantically accurate style.

1. I would dispute the assertion that ICEL’s control is being “loosened” under Benedict XVI; in fact, I would argue the exact opposite. It is just that the committee’s translation work has been redirected in an entirely different direction–one that I believe most in this forum, myself included, are very pleased about–but full advantage is being taken of ICEL’s organizational structure to ensure that its work in recent years, rather than the late sixties and early seventies, becomes the norm for English-soeaking countries. This process actually began under Ven. John Paul II, with Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001.

 

[ProVobis]

This should be seen in light of several points: a) English-speaking nations were historically Protestant, and their bishops considerered it desirable to engage other religious groups, and even the world, with a commom set of texts;

I agree with this. But the ICEL was not the first attempt to anglicize the Roman liturgies. Cranmer and Henry VIII pretty much iconoclasted (Cardinal Arinze’s word) the Latin Mass and Scriptures big time. But it sounded good so it caught on; never mind the meanings changed later.

 

[ProVobis]

After the Council of Trent Pope St Pius V ordered the uniformity all over the world, with a very few exception, for the universal calendar, but the local calendars and the propers for the local saints still remained under the control of the local bishops.

After the XXI Ecumenical council the translations were trusted to National Conferences of the Bishops. For some reason (unknown for me) an organization called ICEL took over the control over the English speaking word.

One could say that Vatican II (or specifically the SC) clarified and embellished Trent, whereas the “spirit of Vatican II” tried to undo Trent altogether.

Here’s an interesting take on the rest of your concerns:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/10/benedict-xvis-popular-new-traditionalism/