How about a Tridentine Mass with some English?

[Conservative]

Annie,

What many people seem to forget is that Latin WAS the vernacular at the time…that’s why it switched to Latin from Aramaic.

If we REALLY want to be traditionalists, we should the entire Mass in Aramaic, like the Eastern Rites do.

That being said, I would love to see the Tridentine Mass (in English) with the responses and prayers in Latin…as the original poster suggested.
…

Okay. Duly noted that Latin was the vernacular of the time. However, let’s look at today’s world. It’s grown smaller by reason of convenience of travel, etc.

How many of you have traveled to other countries and been rendered clueless if you didn’t speak that country’s language. I’ve done my share of traveling and realized that, while I knew what prayers were being said (in another language though), it would be so much easier for us to retain one language - in this case the Latin - How much more united / universal would we feel - no matter what country we’d be attending Mass in?

I know this sounds elementary. For me, the Latin Mass argument was limited solely to possible translation issues. But the universality issue didn’t hit home until I was at a Mass in Lisieux, France, where a pilgrim group was celebrating Mass in Italian (I speak both French and Italian, so I could have bluffed my way through) - but somehow there’s a union when we are all speaking the same language for something so special - so sacred - and in some cases can’t follow the Mass properly because we don’t know the language.

We ALL knew the language when the Mass was only celebrated in Latin. I get it - why don’t the powers that be get it?

Humbly,
Conservative

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I will repeat Kirk, the question that you have so skillfully and deliberately dodged since the inception of this argument. Since you, the lay person doesn’ t hear the majority of the Mass anyway what difference would it make to you? It doesn’t unless you are also advocating that the entire Mass be audible and “modernized” in other areas as well perhaps, which is what I think it is all about anyway.

Palmas, that’s really unfair. I’ve never hidden the fact that I prefer the audible canon. I thought that was a given with those who knew me. And that’s hardly “modern.” The OP mentioned the Mass being “out loud” as well.

Better face it, dear brother, there WILL more than likely be some orgainic development. The things I’m thinking of are hardly the most radical things (one confietor, the vernacular, the new calendar and readings, etc.) that might be proposed.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We ALL knew the language when the Mass was only celebrated in Latin. I get it - why don’t the powers that be get it?

Humbly,
Conservative

With respect, a great many that grew up with the Mass in Latin (I did not) do not feel the way that you feel about it and much prefer the “English,” as I’ve heard it expressed. The “powers that be” may simply be heeding the voice of the flock.

I don’t buy the travel argument or the ghettozation of parishes arguement. It’s one that basically applies to some people in the more affluent West. When I travel, I expect Mass will be in the language of the locals. It’s still the Holy Sacrifice and I’m not going to be in that particular locale forever. I think that there are advantages to the vernacular in terms of chatechesis and devotion.

 

[Aramis]

Why can’t we make a partially english version of the Tridentine Mass mandatory and discard our current Mass?

I was born in 1969 and was raised with the current Mass and have witnessed the decline of our Church and society. I am no expert on the Tridentine Mass but I have looked into it and believe we should go back to it because we desparately need a sense of the sacred at Mass.

If you are basing your comments on the United States, remember that Catholics are only about 20-25% of the US population.

The so-called decline in society rests on the secularization, yes, but that has been driven by protestants far more than “lazy Catholics”.

The Vatican II reforms were, in part, to counter the European and US issues with people leaving the Catholic Church during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Heck, even in the 1920’s and 30’s secularization was an issue in both the US and Europe.

 

[markadm]

If you are basing your comments on the United States, remember that Catholics are only about 20-25% of the US population.

The so-called decline in society rests on the secularization, yes, but that has been driven by protestants far more than “lazy Catholics”.

I disagree. Whilst I agree that secularisation (often under the guise of modernism) has been an issue for the last 100 years, I believe that the impact of the laissez-faire element within Catholicism must be acknowledged. After all, how many Catholics believe that the Church’s stance on condoms or birth control is wrong?

What I mean to say is that the “bad deal” experienced by a Catholic minority (of 20-25%) is made worse by the let’s-go-along-with-it attitude of some within that group.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am 74 and was brought up with the values of pre Vactican 2 council I have four good children born since the council with my eldest son born in 1967,they have all left the church and are lapsed.I hope one day they will return,however I too cant face the banal mass offered today with as you say,no sense of the sacred,and the many abuses and ireverence to the real presence that passes as normal today.The treacherous clergy have a lot to answer for with their betrayal of the faithfull.Yet the liberal/left still cling to the opinion that they are right in every way,even though the young have left the church in droves,Ordinatios to the priesthood and the religious life have plummeted and so on.Now its said that there are not enough priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass (for all time) though priests can be found for concelebrated masses and any other trendy issue that takes their fancy,Unfortunately you missed all the wonders of the pre V2 days,but hopefully you and others can lead the church to something of what it once was

Welcome. I sadly must agree with everything you said. But there is hope. Many of the younger generation now raising families are turning to a more traditional belief system. They are following the teaching of the Magesterium and are raising their children with more traditional values.

So keep on praying. For the “dark days” are going to end and Holy Mother Church will prevail.

 

[I_Believe]

We can make all the suggestions we want, but it aint gonna happen.

If one wants a customized Mass, just grab a copy of the '65 Mass and knock yourself out.

Suggesting changes to the TLM is absurd.

JMHO of course. I’m sure the priests who pray the TLM will agree, as well as the man who opened VII himself.

For a clearer understanding of this, see Veterum Sapientia.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

If John XXIII had lived to see the end of the Council, we wouldn’t even be discussing this. Again JMHO.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We can make all the suggestions we want, but it aint gonna happen.

But then again, it just might.

“Traditionalists” love to quote Pope Benedict’s use of the phrase “organic” development in oppostion to the Mass of Paul VI (which he still appears to have some hopes for). They seem, however, to put all the emphasis on “organic” and ignore “development.” The Mass may WELL change and in an organic way, now that it’s back. One of those organic developments may well be that it can be offered in the vernacular.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Annie,

What many people seem to forget is that Latin WAS the vernacular at the time…that’s why it switched to Latin from Aramaic.

If we REALLY want to be traditionalists, we should the entire Mass in Aramaic, like the Eastern Rites do.

Here’s what Fr. Z has to say about Latin and the vernacular:

"Lastly, the mention of Latin being used now only because Latin was a vernacular that pushed out Greek back in the day, needs clearer thinking. The history of the introduction of Latin into the liturgy of Rome, is used as an argument for the use of the vernacular today: Latin was the vernacular back when, so it is the vernacular that counts, not the Latin.

Yes and no.

Yes, Latin was the vernacular. However, the kind of Latin used in the liturgy was not at all the way people spoke. Liturgical Latin really wasn’t the vernacular, in that sense. Liturgical Latin was highly stylized, far removed from the way people spoke. Also, the ancient Latin prayers contain concepts that were “available” only to the well-educated. That is part and parcel of liturgical pray as well: not all of it is going to be understood immediately and by everyone. The language and the concepts are special. That doesn’t mean that all prayer has to be difficult, of course. This is however why the Council Fathers said that some vernacular, especially for readings, could be used occasionally but why Latin was to be retained in the Latin Church."

From: wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/a-priest-writes-about-vernacular-in-the-traditional-mass-with-the-1962-missal/

Whether you like Fr. Z or not, he has some very good points. If the Church just always stuck with the vernacular, then the Church would’ve changed the language of the Mass at least 700 years or so before it actually did.

 

[SemperFidelis]

But then again, it just might.

I don’t think the changes you are proposing will come about. I think if any changes come about, you will see Latin in certain parts of the Mass, and the vernacular in the others. I don’t think it will be a Mass completely in the vernacular like we have now with the NO. I think the Church has seen the folly in this. Something about “Latin should be retained in the Latin Rites.”

 

[Fuerza]

Here’s what Fr. Z has to say about Latin and the vernacular:

"Lastly, the mention of Latin being used now only because Latin was a vernacular that pushed out Greek back in the day, needs clearer thinking. The history of the introduction of Latin into the liturgy of Rome, is used as an argument for the use of the vernacular today: Latin was the vernacular back when, so it is the vernacular that counts, not the Latin.

Yes and no.

Yes, Latin was the vernacular. However, the kind of Latin used in the liturgy was not at all the way people spoke. Liturgical Latin really wasn’t the vernacular, in that sense. Liturgical Latin was highly stylized, far removed from the way people spoke. Also, the ancient Latin prayers contain concepts that were “available” only to the well-educated. That is part and parcel of liturgical pray as well: not all of it is going to be understood immediately and by everyone. The language and the concepts are special. That doesn’t mean that all prayer has to be difficult, of course. This is however why the Council Fathers said that some vernacular, especially for readings, could be used occasionally but why Latin was to be retained in the Latin Church."

From: wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/a-priest-writes-about-vernacular-in-the-traditional-mass-with-the-1962-missal/

Whether you like Fr. Z or not, he has some very good points. If the Church just always stuck with the vernacular, then the Church would’ve changed the language of the Mass at least 700 years or so before it actually did.

I’ve been trying to get this point across for some time. Classical Latin, on which Liturgical Latin is based, was never spoken natively by anyone (with a few modern exceptions…too long an explanation for this topic). The people spoke Vulgar Latin (also known as Popular Latin), which differed dramatically from the Classical form in terms of grammar and vocabulary. In reality, if linguistic norms were applied, Classical and Vulgar Latin would be considered different languages.