NO mass in Latin?

[SenorSalsa]

First of all, to play this game, I assume that the NO mass could be celebrated in Latin. I dont know if that is true or not.

Would you like that better than in vernacular?

What about the TLM in vernacular?

would that be any worse than in Latin?

I personally like the NO mass, but i think a TLM in vernacular(i realize that would remove the L) would be nifty, the ceremony involved in the TLM is amazing.

 

[Pious_Mat]

First of all, to play this game, I assume that the NO mass could be celebrated in Latin. I dont know if that is true or not.

Would you like that better than in vernacular?

What about the TLM in vernacular?

would that be any worse than in Latin?

I personally like the NO mass, but i think a TLM in vernacular(i realize that would remove the L) would be nifty, the ceremony involved in the TLM is amazing.

The NO (I shall call it the Ordinary Form herein) can is often celebrated in Latin. Many parishes and college chapels have Latin OFs from time to time, and many priests say parts of the Mass, e.g., the consecration, in Latin every week. A great number of people (even people who do don’t like the TLM, I might add) like this. The OF can also be said Ad Orientum, and can look a lot like the EF (TLM) if the celebrant wishes it.

The EF, however, cannot be celebrated in the vernacular, as the name TLM implies. Some people have expressed an interest in this, but it is not in the rubrics, and it from a logistical point of view, it doesn’t make much sense: if you want the tradition of the EF, you probably want the Latin too, which is quite easy to follow if you have a missal.

Best regards,

Mat.

 

[mgy100]

First of all, to play this game, I assume that the NO mass could be celebrated in Latin. I dont know if that is true or not.

Would you like that better than in vernacular?

What about the TLM in vernacular?

would that be any worse than in Latin?

I personally like the NO mass, but i think a TLM in vernacular(i realize that would remove the L) would be nifty, the ceremony involved in the TLM is amazing.

I’ve seen the Ordinary Missal celebrated with tons of Latin many times.

 

[bpbasilphx]

First of all, to play this game, I assume that the NO mass could be celebrated in Latin. I dont know if that is true or not.

The Typical (Standard) Edition of the Novus Ordo IS in Latin.

 

[kleary]

First of all, to play this game, I assume that the NO mass could be celebrated in Latin. I dont know if that is true or not.

Would you like that better than in vernacular?

What about the TLM in vernacular?

would that be any worse than in Latin?

I personally like the NO mass, but i think a TLM in vernacular(i realize that would remove the L) would be nifty, the ceremony involved in the TLM is amazing.

Yes Virginia…

The Novus Ordo can indeed be celebrated in Latin. In fact the Novus Ordo is even published in Latin. The Roman Missal comes from Rome and is in Latin- it is the ICEL edition however that you experience in your English speaking countries. The ICEL version is an “interpretation” of the Latin text from Rome- of which is blatently innacurate and not faithful to the original Latin text coming from Rome… You will see this hopefully in the near future as the ICEL texts are changed to make the English trahslations more faithful to the Latin originals coming from Rome. You will begin to say “And with your spirit” instead of “and also with you”- one of the many changes to make the English more faithful to the Latin Original.

Sorry, the TLM cannot be celebrated in the vernacular languages. If it is then there is really not much reason for us to attend it now is there. This “experiment” already happened in 1965…most of the Mass was done in the vernacular with the exception of the Canon- and it was a flop…

Ken

 

[James0235]

Sorry, the TLM cannot be celebrated in the vernacular languages. If it is then there is really not much reason for us to attend it now is there. This “experiment” already happened in 1965…most of the Mass was done in the vernacular with the exception of the Canon- and it was a flop…

Ken

I wouldn’t say it flopped as much as it was torpedoed by Paul VI. It is hard to say how successful it might have been. It was never given a chance.

The TLM translated into beautiful, accurate English might actually thrive. But, it is much, much, much too soon to even think about possibly considering maybe attempting something like that again.

It was botched so badly before that we should be in no hurry to try it again. IMHO.

James

 

[kleary]

I wouldn’t say it flopped as much as it was torpedoed by Paul VI. It is hard to say how successful it might have been. It was never given a chance.

The TLM translated into beautiful, accurate English might actually thrive. But, it is much, much, much too soon to even think about possibly considering maybe attempting something like that again.

It was botched so badly before that we should be in no hurry to try it again. IMHO.

James

I heard that the media played it as laughable…then again I heard “It was not that bad”…at least not as “bad” as it became after 1970…As the Sacristan at my parish told me, “The Mass of 1965 was not THAT BAD”…

Then again most likely it was not Paul VI himself who torpedoed it- but others who had a more sinister agenda- that we are still living through today.

Ken

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I would especially like the NO in Latin better than the inept translation under which we currently languish, and I would like it better in general as Latin is the well-established language of Latin Catholic worship, with all the benefits highlighted by Bl. John XXIII. Once you’ve got the NO in Latin and ad orientem, though, what’s the point of using the NO? The texts of the TLM are much better, and once you’ve removed the supposed benefit of “understandability,” by switching back to the original language of the NO, I don’t see why one wouldn’t just go all the way (I know our Assumption Grotto poster might disagree with me there! ).

As I’ve said in other posts, if faced with the terrible alternative of choosing either the NO in Latin or the TLM in the vernacular, I would opt for the latter, but hopefully that will always be a false dichotomy. I think the whole question of the vernacular plays up a) the didactic character of the Mass and b) our ability to really comprehend what is happening far more than either one deserves to be. Has the vernacular had benefits for some? It’s quite possible, and many would testify that it has. Is it worth abandoning our tradition of Latin worship? I just don’t think so.

 

[Cristiano]

I would especially like the NO in Latin better than the inept translation under which we currently languish, and I would like it better in general as Latin is the well-established language of Latin Catholic worship, with all the benefits highlighted by Bl. John XXIII. Once you’ve got the NO in Latin and ad orientem, though, what’s the point of using the NO? The texts of the TLM are much better, and once you’ve removed the supposed benefit of “understandability,” by switching back to the original language of the NO, I don’t see why one wouldn’t just go all the way (I know our Assumption Grotto poster might disagree with me there! ).

As I’ve said in other posts, if faced with the terrible alternative of choosing either the NO in Latin or the TLM in the vernacular, I would opt for the latter, but hopefully that will always be a false dichotomy. I think the whole question of the vernacular plays up a) the didactic character of the Mass and b) our ability to really comprehend what is happening far more than either one deserves to be. Has the vernacular had benefits for some? It’s quite possible, and many would testify that it has. Is it worth abandoning our tradition of Latin worship? I just don’t think so.

NO in Latin please!!!

Yesterday I missed the NO mass at my parish because my son was sick and I had to take turns with my wife. I went in the afternoon for the TLM at the Cathedral and I did not enjoy it too much. It was almost impossible to hear either the Latin or the English. It was also painful and heartwarming seeing this old Jesuit priest walking with a cane, and then giving the cane to the server to celebrate Mass, but most of all when he was forcing himself to genuflect when his body would not allow for it.

After Mass I started thinking on how many people in this country think that immigrants ought to learn English, but when it comes to the Mass they expect it in the vernacular. That tells me where the priorities are!

 

[twf]

I once attended an OF (NO) mass which was celebrated Ad Orientum and in Latin.
Andreas Hofer: Some people prefer the OF celebrated ad orientum and in Latin to the EF. There may be various reasons for this. Personally I enjoy both, but like that the OF includes a more explicit epiclesis and the sign of peace…both of which were originally in the Roman Rite but slowly disappeared later on.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I once attended an OF (NO) mass which was celebrated Ad Orientum and in Latin.
Andreas Hofer: Some people prefer the OF celebrated ad orientum and in Latin to the EF. There may be various reasons for this. Personally I enjoy both, but like that the OF includes a more explicit epiclesis and the sign of peace…both of which were originally in the Roman Rite but slowly disappeared later on.

Ad orientum is the standard for my parish for the OF. The amount of Latin depends on the Priest. Also, the norm in my parish is Communion on the tongue while kneeling at the Altar Rail.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I would especially like the NO in Latin better than the inept translation under which we currently languish, and I would like it better in general as Latin is the well-established language of Latin Catholic worship, with all the benefits highlighted by Bl. John XXIII. Once you’ve got the NO in Latin and ad orientem, though, what’s the point of using the NO? The texts of the TLM are much better, and once you’ve removed the supposed benefit of “understandability,” by switching back to the original language of the NO, I don’t see why one wouldn’t just go all the way (I know our Assumption Grotto poster might disagree with me there! ).

As I’ve said in other posts, if faced with the terrible alternative of choosing either the NO in Latin or the TLM in the vernacular, I would opt for the latter, but hopefully that will always be a false dichotomy. I think the whole question of the vernacular plays up a) the didactic character of the Mass and b) our ability to really comprehend what is happening far more than either one deserves to be. Has the vernacular had benefits for some? It’s quite possible, and many would testify that it has. Is it worth abandoning our tradition of Latin worship? I just don’t think so.

Really agree with this post. I also would rather have the TLM in the vernacular than the NO in Latin, mainly because of the prayers which go back centuries and are quite beautiful (as well as being doctrinally explicit).

 

[SenorSalsa]

i personally think that the Mass is better when the Priest faces the congregation. I mean how is it really any more reverent if he faces away? all it does is exclude the congregation.

as far as the “appropriate way” to recieve communion, i think it needs to be what ever the church standard is. I went to a mass at Franciscan University of Steubenville, and it was like every third person was bowing 90 degrees from the waist, then the next was going onto his knees, the next was recieving in the hand. I think it distracted from the Eucharist, making it more about look how I recieve the Body and Blood

 

[Rolltide]

i personally think that the Mass is better when the Priest faces the congregation. I mean how is it really any more reverent if he faces away? all it does is exclude the congregation.

There is an interesting argument against the priest facing the congregation. Although this was originally intended to draw worshipers into the action, so to speak, and make the congregation part of the sacrificial meal, an unintended consequence is that the priest sometimes goes from being the one to lead the congregation in prayer to a sort of master of ceremonies. The feeling is that the focus becomes the priest, rather than the Eucharist. There is also some belief that by encouraging this “master of ceremonies” image that it leads the priest to be more innovative, and thus, encourages liturgical abuse. When the priest leads the congregation in prayer by facing the crucifix, in the SAME direction as they are facing, it becomes clear that he is nothing special, and that the focus of everyone should be on Jesus.