Suggesting Changes to the TLM is Absurd!

[I_Believe]

Yes, that is true, that traditionally (indults notwithstanding) it has been in Latin. But I would like to think the traditional and sublime nature of the Mass is embodied in its prayers, rather than its language. That’s why I’d disagree with the statement which seems a bit sweeping to me, that “we’d no longer have a traditional Roman Catholic Mass.”

We’d have a modified Roman Catholic Mass based on the traditional one.

Again, some things you just don’t change. I mean come on, is nothing at all sacred ? Might as well switch to nickle plated monstrances and linoleum altars.

 

[SemperFidelis]

JKirk,

If, and I emphasize IF because I am honestly not sure where you stand on this so correct me if need be, but if you are in favor of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular only, and not in Latin, I must tell you I think your outlook on this matter is one that if it were widespread could be very destructive to the just and proper preservation of the treasures of the Church’s traditions of sacred liturgy.

I’m not saying this as an attack on your person or to deride your practice of the Faith, but because if this is in fact your position I have a hard time understanding how someone with such seeming devotion to the Catholic faith could come to the point where they have no tolerance for a liturgical form which has nourished the faith of millions for almost 2000 years (admittedly, with changes along the way but it would seem none so drastic as those which followed the promulgation of the 1970 Roman Missal).

Not only has the Traditional Mass been a boon for so many Catholics throughout the ages of history, but the pendulum of faithful devotions is in our day swinging toward the more traditional, and this includes the Mass of the 1962 Missal. The traditionalist orders of priests our having no shortage of applicants and their seminaries are full, at least between the FSSP and the ICRSS. Granted we are not yet seeing a sea change in this regard but in different places throughout the United States (and I imagine in other parts of the world) we are witnessing wellsprings of youthful interest and newfound devotion to the Mass of the Classical Roman Rite. I go to the TLM regularly near my university and I’ve visited St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis. The pews are full on Sundays, and many of those present are young families or young adults.

I think what JKirk is proposing (sorry to speak for you JKirk, but I do agree with you here), is a TLM at every parish in both Latin and the vernacular. The “vernacular TLM” would completely abolish the NO. Now, personally I would go to the TLM in Latin only, as I am very fond of this Sacred language, but I have to agree that the TLM in Latin and the vernacular beats the TLM and the NO as two forms. If we were going to have Mass in the vernacular at all, I would rather it be a vernacular translation of the TLM, then a vernacular translation of the NO. I would rather have the TLM be universal in Latin only, and be the only form of the Roman Rite, but if we have to have a vernacular Mass, an Elizabethan English translation of the TLM would be best.

 

[AJV]

We’d have a modified Roman Catholic Mass based on the traditional one.

Again, some things you just don’t change. I mean come on, is nothing at all sacred ? Might as well switch to nickle plated monstrances

According to a ruling of the SCR, permissible as long as the luna is gold.

But I still feel that it is the prayers that matter above all else. Though as palmas said, since much is said secretly, the vernacular would be needlessly introduced for those parts

 

[I_Believe]

uh, hon, they did this in 1962 when the Missal that is being used for the extraordinary form was introduced. It codified a process of liturgical renewal that had been going on since before WW1, in gradual steps, one of which was permitting the proclamation of the epistle and gospel in the vernacular, and some other selected prayers and blessings in the vernacular.

if you care to go back even further than the Tridentine Mass, the move to Latin was a move to the vernacular in the areas where it was first codified as the language for liturgy, just as Greek was retained in areas where it was the vernacular language.

Well , the readings in the venacular make sense because they are directed to the people. They are not read to God. The prayers are directed to God, and traditionally they are in Latin.

Actually, an argument can be made that the earliest Masses were closer to the NO than the TLM. Fine, if one wants to make that argument, then the NO is there. Admission is free and there are plenty of seats.

But no one is going to convince me that substituting venacular for Latin is anything but a stripping of the TLM of one of it’s most beautiful qualities.

Look at it this way. We, here in the US, have buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Private individuals can own these buildings, but they can’t update them liberally. They are subject to laws stating that these buildings be preserved in ways that don’t take away from their beauty.

We can preserve buildings but not the TLM ?

You are killing me !

BTW, in case anyone here doesn’t know, I am a member of an NO parish.

 

[I_Believe]

Seeing how ICEL has worked so far, I can only fathom what kind of translation they would make of the TLM. It’s not that I believe the TLM cannot be in any other language, it’s that I believe it shouldn’t. Besides I think many, many people would leave the Church over this issue.

Many members of the Curia would leave over it !

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It’s crazy. A TLM is traditionally a Latin Mass. Substitute venacular for latin, and we no longer have a traditional Roman Catholic Mass.

I can see it now, "This just in. The vatican has announced approval of the Modified Tridentine Mass. "

Absurd.

Its worse than absurd, it borders on the insane. I think they do not know what the acronym TLM stands for. Those who want to change the TLM to the vernacular are still calling it the TLM! :hypno: :whacky: :banghead:

 

[Rabbititus]

I think what JKirk is proposing (sorry to speak for you JKirk, but I do agree with you here), is a TLM at every parish in both Latin and the vernacular. The “vernacular TLM” would completely abolish the NO. Now, personally I would go to the TLM in Latin only, as I am very fond of this Sacred language, but I have to agree that the TLM in Latin and the vernacular beats the TLM and the NO as two forms. If we were going to have Mass in the vernacular at all, I would rather it be a vernacular translation of the TLM, then a vernacular translation of the NO. I would rather have the TLM be universal in Latin only, and be the only form of the Roman Rite, but if we have to have a vernacular Mass, an Elizabethan English translation of the TLM would be best.

This is what I understood JKirk as meaning too - the TLM would still be in Latin for all those who love it, but would also be allowed in Vernacular as a replacement for the NO.

Also, I think it was addressed why one would want the TLM in vernacular even though the NO is available - it’s because the prayers are different. The NO doesn’t have the prayers at the foot of the altar, it has a different offertory, and it lacks the Last Gospel. What if one likes these but prefers vernacular? You can’t get those at the NO.

At any rate, he isn’t advocating that Latin be abolished. I very much disagree with JKirk that understanding the Latin is somehow a type of rocket science, but I also don’t think he’s some modernist kook who wants to take Latin away from everyone. A vernacular traditional mass would be glorious, even if it were in modern English (so long as it’s an accurate translation, not like the current NO translation). Also, it would probably help the Latin mass in that people who attended the English version would already know what is being said. When I attended a Latin NO, I found it easier to follow along because I already had most of it memorized in English anyway.

 

[I_Believe]

Its worse than absurd, it borders on the insane. I think they do not know what the acronym TLM stands for. Those who want to change the TLM to the vernacular are still calling it the TLM! :hypno: :whacky: :banghead:

Exactly. They just don’t get it.

 

[Rabbititus]

Its worse than absurd, it borders on the insane. I think they do not know what the acronym TLM stands for. Those who want to change the TLM to the vernacular are still calling it the TLM! :hypno: :whacky: :banghead:

TLM is shorthand for “the Missal of 1962.”

Telephones don’t generally “ring” anymore, but we still say they do - calling a vernacular mass according to the 1962 missal a “TLM” is not much different than saying your cell phone “rings.” It’s a shorthand term that most people understand to mean “the missal of 1962” or the “Tridentine Mass.” It is not perfectly accurate, but it is understood.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

If, and I emphasize IF because I am honestly not sure where you stand on this so correct me if need be, but if you are in favor of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular only, and not in Latin, I must tell you I think your outlook on this matter is one that if it were widespread could be very destructive to the just and proper preservation of the treasures of the Church’s traditions of sacred liturgy. **No, no, no! And if that’s what worried you, forgive me for not being more clear. That is not what I intended at all nor what I wish for or envision. Let me finish what I was saying: I don’t think that the Holy Father is going to get his wish for peaceful coexistence. I think we’re going to have to go back to one form over time and because of the contention over the Pauline, it’s going to have to be the Tridentine. I think most people can live with that, if the Church considers allowing the Tridentine in the vernacular (and if it comes to it, she will, because the Church/the Magisterium knows it’s wrong to force the flock over something that isn’t essential to salvation and Latin is not essential to our salvation). My stance is oneI came to after long soul-searching. Yes, I like the “noble simplicity” of the Pauline rightly celebrated and I have an affection for it as the Mass I knew coming into the Church, but MOSTLY what I like about it, considering it side by side with the Tridentine, is that the Pauline is in my langauge. In terms of the actual words (and the rites are made up of their words), the Tridentine is without comparison, hands down. What I envision is the the Tridentine as the only form, offered in both Latin and in the vernacular. I do NOT propose that the Latin should be abandoned, simply that the one form exists in Latin and in the vernacular. **

I’m not saying this as an attack on your person or to deride your practice of the Faith, but because if this is in fact your position I have a hard time understanding how someone with such seeming devotion to the Catholic faith could come to the point where they have no tolerance for a liturgical form which has nourished the faith of millions for almost 2000 years (admittedly, with changes along the way but it would seem none so drastic as those which followed the promulgation of the 1970 Roman Missal). **It isn’t a question of tolerance. I’ve never been anything, but respectful toward the Tridentine. Given the choice, however, I would rather attend Mass in my own tongue. I don’t think I’m alone in that and I would rather bet that most of the laity feel the same way. **

Not only has the Traditional Mass been a boon for so many Catholics throughout the ages of history, but the pendulum of faithful devotions is in our day swinging toward the more traditional, and this includes the Mass of the 1962 Missal. The traditionalist orders of priests our having no shortage of applicants and their seminaries are full, at least between the FSSP and the ICRSS. Granted we are not yet seeing a sea change in this regard but in different places throughout the United States (and I imagine in other parts of the world) we are witnessing wellsprings of youthful interest and newfound devotion to the Mass of the Classical Roman Rite. I go to the TLM regularly near my university and I’ve visited St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis. The pews are full on Sundays, and many of those present are young families or young adults.

**I’m glad to hear that, but you should know that the Masses in the parishes here where I live are packed (large parishes, too) and the lines for confession are long (unless I make an appointment, I regularly have to wait 30-45 minutes). Orthodoxy and love of the faith are not simply the province of the TLM crowd. And I agree that we, as a people, are hungry for the transcendent rather than the banal in our worship. I simply think we can have that transcendent in the vernacular. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think what JKirk is proposing (sorry to speak for you JKirk, but I do agree with you here), is a TLM at every parish in both Latin and the vernacular. The “vernacular TLM” would completely abolish the NO. Now, personally I would go to the TLM in Latin only, as I am very fond of this Sacred language, but I have to agree that the TLM in Latin and the vernacular beats the TLM and the NO as two forms. If we were going to have Mass in the vernacular at all, I would rather it be a vernacular translation of the TLM, then a vernacular translation of the NO. I would rather have the TLM be universal in Latin only, and be the only form of the Roman Rite, but if we have to have a vernacular Mass, an Elizabethan English translation of the TLM would be best.

EXACTLY, and thank you!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is what I understood JKirk as meaning too - the TLM would still be in Latin for all those who love it, but would also be allowed in Vernacular as a replacement for the NO.

Also, I think it was addressed why one would want the TLM in vernacular even though the NO is available - it’s because the prayers are different. The NO doesn’t have the prayers at the foot of the altar, it has a different offertory, and it lacks the Last Gospel. What if one likes these but prefers vernacular? You can’t get those at the NO.

At any rate, he isn’t advocating that Latin be abolished. I very much disagree with JKirk that understanding the Latin is somehow a type of rocket science, but I also don’t think he’s some modernist kook who wants to take Latin away from everyone. A vernacular traditional mass would be glorious, even if it were in modern English (so long as it’s an accurate translation, not like the current NO translation). Also, it would probably help the Latin mass in that people who attended the English version would already know what is being said. When I attended a Latin NO, I found it easier to follow along because I already had most of it memorized in English anyway.

Thank you, but to clarify: it isn’t becauase I think Latin is rocket science. Part of my position is that I work with second language learners. Many (not all, but many) struggle hard with meaning and expression. Generally people think and reason and even dream in their native tongues. It’s what has meaning for them and not in some sloppy sentimental way, I mean it is in their native tongue that they derive and construct meaning. That’s why I think the vernacular Mass is beneficial.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to a Dr. Barth in June of 2004 (and the link I said I’d share with There Can Be Only I):

“I believe, however, that in the long run the Roman Church must again have a single Roman rite: the existence of two official rites in practice is for the bishops and priests quite hard to “manage.” The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite; it could take in some new elements that have proven themselves, such as new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, a wider order of readings – more choices than before, but not too many – an “Oratio fidelium,” i.e., a fixed litany of prayers after the Oremus before the Offertory, where it earlier had its place.”

latinmassjax.org/augustnewsletter.htm

 

[CollegeKid]

**I’m glad to hear that, but you should know that the Masses in the parishes here where I live are packed (large parishes, too) and the lines for confession are long (unless I make an appointment, I regularly have to wait 30-45 minutes). Orthodoxy and love of the faith are not simply the province of the TLM crowd. And I agree that we, as a people, are hungry for the transcendent rather than the banal in our worship. I simply think we can have that transcendent in the vernacular. **

Well, I certainly understand your position better so thanks for the clarification. And I realize that in those dioceses where orthodox Catholic faith is taught we are seeing greater numbers return to the Church, longer lines for Confession, more vocations, etc., even in regards to parishes where only the N.O. is celebrated, as long as it is celebrated reverently and in keeping with Tradition. Actually, I too can speak with firsthand knowledge of this seeing as this description fits the diocese I’m originally from.

Can we have the transcendent in the vernacular? Yes, I think we can, especially if we’re referring to the liturgy of the 1962 Roman Missal. However, as you know it is my opinion that offering the Mass in Latin only increases the sense of transcendency, which is why I would continue to attend the Traditional **Latin **Mass and hope that others would as well.

Since you clarified, I feel compelled to remark that your position is actually far more traditional than I thought- with your prediction and acceptance of a situation where the Pauline liturgy is abandoned in favor of the Classical Rite with the option for offering it in Latin or the vernacular (if I’ve understood you correctly). Some of the most traditional priests I know haven’t predicted this kind of scenario, instead submitting that there will be a “reform of the reform” in regards to the Pauline Mass (priest facing ad orientam as a norm, perhaps the reintroduction of some of the offertory prayers, etc.)

 

[BobP123]

No, but it omits a fair amount of things that appeared in the Curial Missal. My question is what is the determination that these things are or aren’t part of the “received and approved” rites? In other words, which century do we have to go to to find the “received and approved rites”?

And moreover, how does this square with Pius XII’s Ultrmontane statement

Don’t know. I never claimed to be a history wiz. Besides what does this have to do with calling those of us who question the integrity of the Novus Ordo in light of tradition (as in handing down of the liturgy) heretics?

I’d like to add also one more example to the Trent Canon: what of the changes made by Papal order through the Propaganda to the rituals of the Eastern Churches most particularly Penance?

How do we know that they were not perhaps other violations of Trent? Either way it doesn’t justify the abuse of Papal powers if that’s what you’re implying.

 

[BobP123]

I would rather have the TLM be universal in Latin only, and be the only form of the Roman Rite, but if we have to have a vernacular Mass, an Elizabethan English translation of the TLM would be best.

That’s the problem with vernacular. No two people could agree on the best, or even fair, translation. And disagreement with the translations is hardly conducive to prayer. Not to mention a big time distraction.

Perhaps I shouldn’t talk as much of my time is wasted on word for word reconciliation with the Latin, where I really should be spending the time on the meanings behind the Latin prayers and readings.

Maybe the council fathers knew what they were talking about when they wanted to retain Latin in the liturgy.

 

[AJV]

Don’t know. I never claimed to be a history wiz. Besides what does this have to do with calling those of us who question the integrity of the Novus Ordo in light of tradition (as in handing down of the liturgy) heretics?

Where I did I say anything about heretics?

I wasn’t aware that your post was related to any talk on heresy. I thoguht post 40 was responding to another poster who said

Didn’t the Council of Trent make the TLM The Mass of the Church? I believe the Council of Trent stated if anyone makes changes to The Mass of The Church, let them be anathema. It should probably be left alone.

I don’t really have a problem with anyone questioning the NO in the light of tradition. Certainly, in some ways people *ought *to.
But I was interested in what seemed a new interpretation of the Canon of Trent to me, to see whether there were any authors who sanctioned such an interpretation. Also because it seemed to me to contradict what has happened in history.

How do we know that they were not perhaps other violations of Trent? Either way it doesn’t justify the abuse of Papal powers if that’s what you’re implying.

It does not “justify” the Papal power in changing the liturgy in the sense that it makes it seem that it was prudent, wise or beneficial. To me, it “justifies” saying that the Pope has the power to do so. And that historically speaking, it seems that the Canon of Trent has not been viewed in the light you view it.

I realise the above may sound a bit curt and disrespectful- that’s not my intention- but I couldn’t think of another way to phrase it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Since you clarified, I feel compelled to remark that your position is actually far more traditional than I thought

I’m glad I clarified it for you and thank you for your understanding.