Question about the Traditional Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter zinger90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zinger90

Guest
I went to my first Latin High Mass (I think it’s also called a Tridentine Mass) earlier this year and I loved it, all except that everything was in Latin and I couldnt understand most of the words and so felt a little disconnected from and sometimes lost in it. Afterwords, I asked my friend why that form of the Mass wasnt used in the common languages instead of the form that is most common today. He just said something about how it cant be, and left it at that. I am simply curious about this so can anyone tell me why we dont use that form in English/Spanish/French/etc? (please give sources if you have them)
 
I think that the mass we celebrate in the vernacular of whatever country one lives in, came about from Vatican II. It is thought that the current mass is more open to the people, and makes worship more inclusive. Please correct me if I am wrong thanks.
 
I don’t know too much on this subject, but i may be because i was the liturgy used at that time and now we have a new liturgy, i may be improper to change it since it is no longer in ordinary use.

Even if it were allowed, I’m not sure too many priests would say it that way. Priests usually celebrate the Tridentine (or the Extraordinary Form) because** it uses Latin.

Carlos
 
zinger90 said:
I went to my first Latin High Mass (I think it’s also called a Tridentine Mass) earlier this year and I loved it, all except that everything was in Latin and I couldnt understand most of the words and so felt a little disconnected from and sometimes lost in it. Afterwords, I asked my friend why that form of the Mass wasnt used in the common languages instead of the form that is most common today. He just said something about how it cant be, and left it at that. I am simply curious about this so can anyone tell me why we dont use that form in English/Spanish/French/etc? (please give sources if you have them)
Click to expand...
I think the reason Latin is used is to make the Mass universal, to show the universality of the Church 🙂

however - keep in mind that most people use missals in the Latin Mass… which have the English (or another) translation 🙂 so people do understand what is going on. It can be very confusing without a missal.

God bless 🙂
 
Originally the Holy Mass in the West was celebrated in Greek. When people started to speak Latiung. St Damasus pope (around 380 AD) changed in Latin. From that time until the end of the MIddle ages the Latin was practically the only written language.

The process against the Latin started with the Bible and the protestantism. As a reaction the XIX Ecumenical council (Trident) standardized the Latin for the Church. This resulted on the exclusion of the participation of the laity, the Mass became the affair between the priest and Christ.

Since St Pius X there is a natural (organic) development toward the full participation of the laity. This comes with excesses, so for this reason there is the coexistence of the traditional Latin Mass and the vernacular new forms. Both influence each other.

The TLM need and in most part got the active participation of the people; the new form need and hopefully will get the centering around Christ instead of the people
 
CarlosBarrera said:
Even if it were allowed, I’m not sure too many priests would say it that way. Priests usually celebrate the Tridentine (or the Extraordinary Form) because** it uses Latin.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you on that. The Latin seems to give the Mass a different character, one of authenticity if not poetic beauty.
Marithorne said:
I think that the mass we celebrate in the vernacular of whatever country one lives in, came about from Vatican II. It is thought that the current mass is more open to the people, and makes worship more inclusive. Please correct me if I am wrong thanks.
Click to expand...
You might be interested in the following video:

youtube.com/watch?v=UD4VlsLIZfI&feature=related
 
zinger90 said:
I went to my first Latin High Mass (I think it’s also called a Tridentine Mass) earlier this year and I loved it, all except that everything was in Latin and I couldnt understand most of the words and so felt a little disconnected from and sometimes lost in it. Afterwords, I asked my friend why that form of the Mass wasnt used in the common languages instead of the form that is most common today. He just said something about how it cant be, and left it at that. I am simply curious about this so can anyone tell me why we dont use that form in English/Spanish/French/etc? (please give sources if you have them)
Click to expand...
I notice that no one has really answered your question yet, so I’ll try.

The Tridentine Mass could be celebrated in the vernacular and, in fact, it WAS celebrated in the vernacular in the late 1960s, after the 2nd Vatican Council, but before the new Mass was introduced.

As for the vernacular in general, Vatican II never called for the entire Mass to be in the vernacular, but it left the door open for permission to be granted for entirely vernacular Masses.

In any case, the reason that the Tridentine Mass is not celebrated in the vernacular is that the new Mass was introduced instead.
 
Modern languages change meanings over time, requiring constant revision, and a lack of clarity results. By keeping the liturgy in a dead language, the doctrinal and theological clarity remains intact.
 
Will_S said:
The Tridentine Mass could be celebrated in the vernacular and, in fact, it WAS celebrated in the vernacular in the late 1960s, after the 2nd Vatican Council, but before the new Mass was introduced.
Click to expand...
Vernacular is one thing. Finding the right translation is another, especially in the English. For example, they still can’t figure out whether confiteor translates best to “confess,” “acknowledge,” (see Credo) or “give praise” (see Psalm 42 in the Anglican Church). Or whether hostia translates to “host” or “victim.” And so on.

The Tridentine Mass was essentially shortened as well as babelized in the 60’s. This (plus other factors) didn’t sit very well with many churchgoers who just plain stopped going to Mass.
 
Chatter163 said:
Modern languages change meanings over time, requiring constant revision, and a lack of clarity results. By keeping the liturgy in a dead language, the doctrinal and theological clarity remains intact.
Click to expand...
Amen. And Christ’s words remain Christ’s words not subject to a poor translation so that the essential meaning is lost.

God Bless Pope Benedict.
 
ProVobis said:
Vernacular is one thing. Finding the right translation is another, especially in the English. For example, they still can’t figure out whether confiteor translates best to “confess,” “acknowledge,” (see Credo) or “give praise” (see Psalm 42 in the Anglican Church). Or whether hostia translates to “host” or “victim.” And so on.

The Tridentine Mass was essentially shortened as well as babelized in the 60’s. This (plus other factors) didn’t sit very well with many churchgoers who just plain stopped going to Mass.
Click to expand...
Example?
 
khawk2 said:
Example?
Click to expand...
Attendance started dwindling in the U.S. at about 1964 and continued through the 60’s. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were shortened (less to study for the servers), the Last Gospel was eliminated, and the communion formula was shortened. Latin was slowly removed until the entire canon was read in some translated form. Catholic schools dropped the Latin requirement as well and many of them closed. Also at the time was the perceived ability to use conscience in ABC and the relaxation of the Friday abstinence. And HV was written but I’ll let others draw their own conclusions as to whether this led to fewer people attending Mass. I can’t think of any other factors right now but others are free to add, of course.
 
khawk2 said:
Amen. And Christ’s words remain Christ’s words not subject to a poor translation so that the essential meaning is lost.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the Latin inscription above Christ on the cross? Or Christ’s words in Christianized Latin after the death of Christ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top