Suggesting Changes to the TLM is Absurd!

[I_Believe]

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.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Why? Yes, “traditionally” it has been a Latin Mass, but that’s not sacred tradition handed down from the Apostles. No one is bound to believe that the Mass MUST be in Latin.

There’s lots of things that could change in the TLM without any harm to its nature: it could be done in the vernacular, there could be one confietor, etc. Organic development may lead to those things.

 

[I_Believe]

JKIRK, it is just one of those things you don’t mess with.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The TLM is the signature Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. The NO is more widespread, and the vast majority of Catholics attend it. But we can’t change something as precious a treasure of the Church.

The NO is a whole different animal. A “modern liturgy”. It hasn’t been around long enough to settle into a traditional order. You can seldom attend two separate NO Masses in a large city and come away saying there were no differences in the rubics and gestures.

But that’s fine. If one wants accelerated organic growth, the NO is there. Try and find a parish where the NO is said the same way it was twenty years ago, or in 1970.

Go to 10 NO Masses in ten different parishes over the next few weeks. Find one you like ?

Fine, but please, not just you JKIRK, but everyone, at least stop suggesting we make changes to something so treasured by the Church.

It hurts.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Why? Yes, “traditionally” it has been a Latin Mass, but that’s not sacred tradition handed down from the Apostles. No one is bound to believe that the Mass MUST be in Latin.

There’s lots of things that could change in the TLM without any harm to its nature: it could be done in the vernacular, there could be one confietor, etc. Organic development may lead to those things.

:doh2: This was already accomplished by the Second Vatican Council and the NO-service by copying much out of the 1549 Heretical Cramner Anglican Prayerbook.

Also if I may be so bold to ask, what really is your function on the Traditional forum? I thought you left for good?

It seems you are determined to even go against the Holy See to get rid of the TLM. :bigyikes:
What is even worse is you do not realize that.

Lastly, I have to go to sleep (must work later), but I will admit I will never reach 1000000000+ posts in the Traditional Catholic Forum in my lifetime (nor shall all members posts in summation), something you are going to do before the end of the year! Now that is either absurd :whacky: or a feat in itself :clapping: (or both).

I truly say prayer for you. May Christ be with you.

 

[Catholic29]

Why? Yes, “traditionally” it has been a Latin Mass, but that’s not sacred tradition handed down from the Apostles. No one is bound to believe that the Mass MUST be in Latin.

I agree for the most part. History indicates the Mass was originally said in Greek, and certainly Aramaic before that. So one could say that the Latin Mass is a western version of the Eastern divine liturgy, or an early form of it.

In spite of what history has to say, many SSPX supporters and most Sedevacantists hold to the theory that the Missal of Pius V was handed down to them verbatim straight from the last supper. And anything else is assumed to be invalid, or at best highly corrupt.

There’s lots of things that could change in the TLM without any harm to its nature: it could be done in the vernacular, there could be one confietor, etc. Organic development may lead to those things.

Organic development seems to be an alien concept among most radical traditionalists. Some of them already suspect the Indult TLM to be bait for luring them back into the fold, only to later have the Missal changed (modernized), or the Novus Ordo sprung on them after the SSPX (or other traditionalist) chapel is shut down, basically the “bait and switch” tactic. Which is why I think the TLM should be left as it is for the forseable future.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I’m all for organic growth in the liturgy but the Pauline Mass was not an organic growth - it was a rupture. It was an invention. The reason traditionalists are against making changes to the Tridentine Mass is because they have seen what has happened in the past.

I’ll stick with the Tridentine Mass as it is.

 

[BobP123]

Start making changes to the Traditional Latin Mass and all you’ll have would be the more universal SSPX. Need to rethink that strategy a little, vegas.

 

[AJV]

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

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.”

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I agree for the most part. History indicates the Mass was originally said in Greek, and certainly Aramaic before that. So one could say that the Latin Mass is a western version of the Eastern divine liturgy, or an early form of it.

In that sense we should change the Latin to Arabic/Hindi/Cantonese/Mandarin/an African language (or a mix of these) since people of these populations make up >85% of the world’s population and ever increasing. Simultaneously the English and other languages are very much less statistically speaking. This way you can appease most of the world instead of such a minute number.

In spite of what history has to say, many SSPX supporters and most Sedevacantists hold to the theory that the Missal of Pius V was handed down to them verbatim straight from the last supper. And anything else is assumed to be invalid, or at best highly corrupt.

I thought the SSPX use the missal of 1962, is this correct? The CMRI do not use the 1962 missal and prefer the missals of prior to 1945.

Some of them already suspect the Indult TLM to be bait for luring them back into the fold, only to later have the Missal changed (modernized), or the Novus Ordo sprung on them after the SSPX (or other traditionalist) chapel is shut down, basically the “bait and switch” tactic. Which is why I think the TLM should be left as it is for the forseable future.

Until it is solid that the TLM missal shall remain, well then it maybe a lure, and believe me, many traditionalists know this very well.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I’m all for organic growth in the liturgy but the Pauline Mass was not an organic growth - it was a rupture. It was an invention. The reason traditionalists are against making changes to the Tridentine Mass is because they have seen what has happened in the past.

I’ll stick with the Tridentine Mass as it is.

Some have gone further and said the pauline service is oncogenic and that it must be excised.

 

[havemercy]

Well, the mass has been modified slightly by the Popes after Pius V. Those changes were hardly absurd. But I think most people can agree that keeping the vernacular out of it is probably a good idea. May the Novus Ordo be reformed (or even abrogated) before any modifications are made to the Mass of Ages.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

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.

 

[Genesis315]

Start making changes to the Traditional Latin Mass and all you’ll have would be the more universal SSPX. Need to rethink that strategy a little, vegas.

Actually, if you were correct, it would be more correct to say the SSPV, which was founded when Lefebrve mandated the 1962 changes be implemented in all SSPX liturgies. That, among other things, led to the SSPV schism from the SSPX.

Of course, I don’t think either would happen.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This was already accomplished by the Second Vatican Council and the NO-service by copying much out of the 1549 Heretical Cramner Anglican Prayerbook.

Also if I may be so bold to ask, what really is your function on the Traditional forum? I thought you left for good?Part of the reason I’m here is diaglogue and part of the reason I’m here is to keep misinformation from people such as yourself being proclaimed as the Gospel. You’re FACTUALLY wrong on what the Church says now AND has said in the past on so many issues that the danger of you misleading the innocent SPIRITUALLY is very great. People have an obligation to keep those bent on misleading others from doing so.

It seems you are determined to even go against the Holy See to get rid of the TLM. :bigyikes:
What is even worse is you do not realize that.

**The dramatic histrionics in which you engage are very easily seen through. It is, again, simply an example of a McCarthy mindset. You think if you say something enough times, it will be true. If you describe a person in a certain way over and over again, others will think of that person as you do. It’s a childish ploy. I do NOT wish to get rid of the TLM. The point is that if “traditionalists” are going to cite organic development as what is lacking in the TLM, then they/we’d all better be prepared for organic development to continue. It is and it will be perfectly legitimate to ask of the Holy See to allow the Tridentine to be offered in the vernacular. It’s perfectly legitimate to think that organic development will slowly change the TLM (nothing dramatic and it will happen over time). **

Lastly, I have to go to sleep (must work later), but I will admit I will never reach 1000000000+ posts in the Traditional Catholic Forum in my lifetime (nor shall all members posts in summation), something you are going to do before the end of the year! Now that is either absurd :whacky: or a feat in itself :clapping: (or both). **I doubt I’ll make a million, there are people who post more than I do. Kindly note that our good PuzzleAnnie has nearly twice the posts that I have and Genesis315 is catching up on me fast. But if it bothers you, you can always put me on ignore. **

I truly say prayer for you. May Christ be with you.

**While you’re at it ask Christ, whom you wish to be with me, to help you avoid the sin of calumny and detraction, to help you stop accusing people of being “modernists” when they aren’t, of wanting to get rid of the Tridentine, of the NO being “protestant,” etc. All I’ve suggested is the TLM, with a few minor changes that would not effect its nature, in the vernacular. I think it would become even more widespread. **

 

[Freshman88]

It is absurd … the vernacular would take away from the liturgy, not add to it. Organic change is for the better, not for the worse.

Please read Veterum Sapientia to understand the importance of Latin.

We have a unifying, unchanging, holy and precise language - Latin, the language of our tradition. Yet we want to exchange it for the vernacular which is non-unifying, changing and vulgar.

I simply don’t understand it.

And its not an issue of understanding, all one has to do is look at the pages on the right hand side of your missal. Not to mention that 60% of English words have a Latin origin - meaning that if you look closely you can identify a large number of words as is.

Even when we do look to our history we can see that the reason for language change was not the same as it was now. When the Church switched from Greek to Latin - it was because Latin was a unifying language for the West. Roman dominance meant that Latin was spoken in areas where Latin wasn’t even the common language. Today that is not the case with any vernacular language, none of our modern languages show a dominance similar to Latin - English is widespread, French is widespread and Spanish is widespread - but none of them takes the cake like Latin did.

Plus, we aren’t talking about choosing a single language, we’re talking about multiple languages - Has anyone heard of the story of the tower of Babel? - having multiple languages isn’t a good thing (infact, God saw it as a punishment!). There was a reason to choose Latin when they did, there is no likewise reason to change to any of today’s languages. It’s simple - they choose Latin to unify while we aren’t choosing the vernacular in the name of unity. Its ONE holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - Latin serves to honour that concept of “one”.

So why use the common, profane language of everyday, when we have both a practical and beautiful language at our disposal - the language of our Church ancestors.

 

[latinmass]

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. With that said, putting the TLM in the vernacular at Vatican 2, instead of creating the NO would have been better for The Church. God has his plan, and it was probably this way to see all the errors of the fruitless Second Vatican Council, that is why it was a pastoral council, and not a doctrinal council as the previous twenty councils were. Dominus Vobiscum

 

[Freshman88]

The key here is understanding organic growth.

Yes, the mass can be changed so that it is used in the vernacular.

But it isn’t a question of can the mass be in the vernacular, but should the mass be in the vernacular.

As i’ve argued in my previous post, the mass should NOT change to the vernacular. It would not be a positive change. It isn’t question of preference either, but a question of what will better serve Holy Mother Church. I firmly believe that Latin will better serve the Church, and that the vernacular is the lesser of the two options.

 

[MMLJ]

I do not think changes to the TLM are wise, and would probably only lead us further into dissent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

At least they should print a new missal with the saint’s feast days updated. They could also replace the english translations in the missal with more up to date translations. Maybe use the RSV-CE for the english translations of scripture instead of douay-rheims. Also they could update the latin scripture with the Nova Vulgata.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Even when we do look to our history we can see that the reason for language change was not the same as it was now. When the Church switched from Greek to Latin - it was because Latin was a unifying language for the West. Roman dominance meant that Latin was spoken in areas where Latin wasn’t even the common language. Today that is not the case with any vernacular language, none of our modern languages show a dominance similar to Latin - English is widespread, French is widespread and Spanish is widespread - but none of them takes the cake like Latin did.

This is not the case, really. English is the dominant language throughout the entire world.

Plus, we aren’t talking about choosing a single language, we’re talking about multiple languages - Has anyone heard of the story of the tower of Babel? - having multiple languages isn’t a good thing (infact, God saw it as a punishment!). There was a reason to choose Latin when they did, there is no likewise reason to change to any of today’s languages.

**Either Pope Hadrian II or John VIII wrote, at the time that Sts. Cyril and Methodius rec. permission to translate the liturgy into Slavonic, that all tongues were created by God to give him praise. **

So why use the common, profane language of everyday, when we have both a practical and beautiful language at our disposal - the language of our Church ancestors.

Because there are benefits to people being able to understand the Mass in the language in which they think and reason. Also, they’ve grown accustomed to it. And we aren’t talking about using common, street language. I don’t think there is anything vulgar about the English of Shakespeare, Donne, Tolkien, Lewis, etc.

No one has ever answered this adequately: Does GOD need it to be in Lain? If He does, where has He indicated this? As it is, it seems an odd disconnect to me (still) to have a priest that speaks the native tongue of his congregation standing before that congregation and addressing God in a foreign tongue while the congregation follows along with a translation of what he’s saying into their native tongue.