TLM in English

[Agabus]

I recently read a side-by-side comparison of the TLM with the Novus Ordo, and — there is no getting around it — there are significant differences.

I understand that a lot of the objection to the NO is that it basically resulted in the [partial] shelving of the liturgy that had organically grown in the church through the centuries and replaced it with something that wasn’t.

So…would you traditionalists be objecting nearly as much if, after Vatican II, the TLM was preserved as the OF but was translated into whatever the vulgar was for a given area? Or is there something like that already that I, as someone who only occasionally wanders into a mass, just haven’t seen?

 

[thunderballs75]

That’s what it was until a later revision, I believe in 1969?

Of course, Latin is still the language of the Latin Church. And it should still be used in all parishes, as per Vatican II. But if the OF had the exact same prayers as the Tridentine Mass, except English, I don’t think we’d have as many problems with understanding doctrines and having things very clear. I honestly believe the current OF is a protestantized version of the Mass.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I recently read a side-by-side comparison of the TLM with the Novus Ordo, and — there is no getting around it — there are significant differences.

I understand that a lot of the objection to the NO is that it basically resulted in the [partial] shelving of the liturgy that had organically grown in the church through the centuries and replaced it with something that wasn’t.

So…would you traditionalists be objecting nearly as much if, after Vatican II, the TLM was preserved as the OF but was translated into whatever the vulgar was for a given area? Or is there something like that already that I, as someone who only occasionally wanders into a mass, just haven’t seen?

Certainly, the extraordinary form’s prayers are, in my opinion, much more intricate and beautiful than the ordinary form’s prayers, but the ordinary form is perfectly valid, etc.

So, since the issue is not necessarily the prayers themselves, it is actually how the prayers are said. Here we arrive at Latin.

Merely translating the prayers is not an acceptable option because it still creates division.

There is a word for, say, “pumpkin” in German, French, Italian, and Russian. The words mean the same, but they are not the same word. If I went to a French market and ordered a pumpkin, they probably wouldn’t know what I wanted unless they spoke English.

The beauty of Latin is that it is a common language all Catholics used for worship. It made for a TRULY “catholic” Church, in that our worship was identical no matter where we went throughout the world.

 

[reggieM]

It was the 1965 missal that only survived for a few years until the Novus Ordo was created.

The '65 was basically the TLM with permission for some prayers in the vernacular. The Canon had to be said in Latin though. It also made some very slight modifications to the prayers.

It’s probably what was most directly intended by Vatican II. But liturgists didn’t think it changed enough of the TLM so they just about re-engineered the entire liturgy for the OF.

Some middle ground between the 1965 and the current OF will probably be a future version of the OF.

If I could find a 1965 Missal OF (if it was permitted) in the average diocesan parish, instead of the current OF – I’d be very happy with that. But not at the expense of wiping out all of the '62 missals either.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I honestly believe the current OF is a protestantized version of the Mass.

---

**What is “protestantized” in the OF?

Please be specific about the protestant doctrines it teaches. Give appropriate quotes.**

 

[LilyM]

I honestly believe the current OF is a protestantized version of the Mass.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

I wish you could talk to my bestest buddy - she’s a non-Catholic Christian. I invited her to Ash Wednesday Mass (OF) a few years ago. Afterwards her comments were along the lines of ‘what do you need all that formality and ritual for?’

I’m sure she’d be highly amused at the idea that our OF is anything like non-Catholic Christian worship.

 

[thunderballs75]

I honestly believe the current OF is a protestantized version of the Mass.

---

**What is “protestantized” in the OF?

Please be specific about the protestant doctrines it teaches. Give appropriate quotes.**

I’m not trying to be offensive, first of all. So don’t get me wrong. You may also look at the link I’m taking these examples from. I posted the link in the original post.

There is of course the suppression of reciting Psalm 51. Then there is the ad populum posture (I’m not talking about cathedrals). There is the “Aufer a nobis…” prayer being suppressed. Most of the offertory prayers have been drastically changed. The prayer invoking saints after the Our Father was suppressed. A prayer during ablutions which refers very explicitly to Christ’s Body and Blood is suppressed. The prayer right before the last blessing, which also explicitly talks about the Mass being a sacrifice, was suppressed.

I will not say I understand the intentions of those who revised the Mass. However, I will say that the new Mass seems much more “ecumenical”. I’m not sure whether this is coincidence or not. But if somebody could explain why these prayers were suppressed, and if there was some contradiction with Catholic doctrine, please let me know. IMO if these prayers were in the vernacular Mass, there would be no problem and I think that Catholic doctrines would be much more clear.

edit: In fact, all of these prayers save Psalm 51 were kept in the Mass in the 1965 version. It was almost a word-for-word translation of the Tridentine Mass. Just in the vernacular. Why did they find it necessary all of a sudden in 1969 to destroy these prayers?

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
fisheaters.com/TLMinstructions.html

God bless.

 

[joelacour]

TB

If you happen to wander into a Lutheran or Episcopalian church and look at their services (mass???), a lot of it looks like the OF. And they did not change theirs in response to the OF - I believe the architechts of the OF wanted it to look a lot like the protestant “masses” to be more “ecumenical”. *just my opinion)

Strangely enough, I have a 1958, 1962, 1965, and a 1970 missal at home. I altar boy’d the '65 missal and would be OK if that was what was being offered in churches these days. I would be OK with the 1970, if the bells, bongos, whistles, and the froo froo all disappeared and left me with the Propers and chant.

Since the priest reads the Epistle and Gospel in English prior to the sermon, I would be OK with the Epistle and Gospel being read in English at the times indicated in the Mass. I would even be OK if they went to a 3 yr cycle like the OF.

There is talk of a “reform of the reform” Mass. His Holiness is not a fan of tossing out the baby with the bath water, so whatever the Benedictine Mass will be, it will grow out of the 1970 Mass, in a similar way the 65 Mass grew out of 62. I just hope that all the froo froo is supressed.

 

[LilyM]

TB

If you happen to wander into a Lutheran or Episcopalian church and look at their services (mass???), a lot of it looks like the OF. And they did not change theirs in response to the OF - I believe the architechts of the OF wanted it to look a lot like the protestant “masses” to be more “ecumenical”. *just my opinion)

Yes I have done this - as I recall there was a fair amount of praying for the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the like, for one thing, which straight away set it well apart in my mind.

I’m sure any non-Catholic who came to our Mass would find that there were altogether too many prayers to and about Mary, the Saints, the Pope. for their liking, and they too would find it clearly different. And would be totally freaked out at the idea of praying for the souls of the dead!

Not to mention the church surrounds themselves … there were no stations of the cross, no crucifix, I don’t even recall whether there was a tabernacle or a sanctuary light. Very little that was in sync with Catholic sensibilities.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There is of course the suppression of reciting Psalm 51. Then there is the ad populum posture (I’m not talking about cathedrals). There is the “Aufer a nobis…” prayer being suppressed. Most of the offertory prayers have been drastically changed. The prayer invoking saints after the Our Father was suppressed. A prayer during ablutions which refers very explicitly to Christ’s Body and Blood is suppressed. The prayer right before the last blessing, which also explicitly talks about the Mass being a sacrifice, was suppressed.

---

**Mere omission is not the synonym of Protestantization.

Psalm 51 was never in the Roman Rite of Mass, though it is part of the sacrity prayers of the Ambrosian rite. If you mean the Psalm 26 Judica me, it wasn’t in the Dominican rite either.

Not all Western rites had the prayer Aufer a nobis.

Neither the classical Dominica nor Ambrosian rite (or as far as I can tell, Mozarabic) have anything corresponding to the Roman offertory prayers.

The prayers at the ablutions have varied in local uses of the Roman rite.

The prayer Placet is not in all Western rites, either.

Do you think these were Protestantizations?

In any case, there are plenty of explicit references to the Mass as a sacrifice and the Bread and Wine being the Body and Blood of Christ in the OF.

**

 

[thunderballs75]

---

**Mere omission is not the synonym of Protestantization.

Psalm 51 was never in the Roman Rite of Mass, though it is part of the sacrity prayers of the Ambrosian rite. If you mean the Psalm 26 Judica me, it wasn’t in the Dominican rite either.

Not all Western rites had the prayer Aufer a nobis.

Neither the classical Dominica nor Ambrosian rite (or as far as I can tell, Mozarabic) have anything corresponding to the Roman offertory prayers.

The prayers at the ablutions have varied in local uses of the Roman rite.

The prayer Placet is not in all Western rites, either.

Do you think these were Protestantizations?

**

Sorry. I mixed up the Psalms. You are correct.

And of course let’s remember that I’m talking about the Roman Rite. Many of the rites you speak of are older than the Mass of Pius V. So of course they won’t have the same prayers. But the doctrines are still presented in these other rites you speak of, even if not the specific words. However in the 1969 Mass of Paul VI they are removed, or at least drastically de-emphasized. And some of the prayers DID vary. You are correct. That’s why the universal Roman Rite was propagated so that they wouldn’t.

My main point is why did we need to remove these prayers all of a sudden in 1969? Was there something wrong with the translation? Hardly. Read for yourself. It seems like a better translation to me. Is it just coincidental that we remove prayers which present specifically Catholic teachings such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharist, priesthood and the saints? So in this case, omission does mean protestantization, or at least a move closer towards it.

Remember, I’m being relevant to this thread. The 1965 Mass IS pretty much the Tridentine Mass in English.It was much more in line with the teachings of liturgy from Vatican II. It had a better translation. It was much more clear about Catholic doctrines. Why was it necessary to change it? Give me one good reason.

Pax tecum.

 

[Timothysis]

Sorry. I mixed up the Psalms. You are correct.

And of course let’s remember that I’m talking about the Roman Rite. Many of the rites you speak of are older than the Mass of Pius V. So of course they won’t have the same prayers. But the doctrines are still presented in these other rites you speak of, even if not the specific words. However in the 1969 Mass of Paul VI they are removed, or at least drastically de-emphasized. And some of the prayers DID vary. You are correct. That’s why the universal Roman Rite was propagated so that they wouldn’t.

My main point is why did we need to remove these prayers all of a sudden in 1969? Was there something wrong with the translation? Hardly. Read for yourself. It seems like a better translation to me. Is it just coincidental that we remove prayers which present specifically Catholic teachings such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharist, priesthood and the saints? So in this case, omission does mean protestantization, or at least a move closer towards it.

Remember, I’m being relevant to this thread. The 1965 Mass IS pretty much the Tridentine Mass in English.It was much more in line with the teachings of liturgy from Vatican II. It had a better translation. It was much more clear about Catholic doctrines. Why was it necessary to change it? Give me one good reason.

Pax tecum.

But where is your clear-cut example from the missal of anything "protestantized? What quotes can you provide that point to protestantism? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I have heard many times before that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “protestantized”, yet no one ever gives any quotes from the missal itself as an example of protestantization, just their own personal opinions that it has been protestantized. The omission of prayers and castings of prayers does not make something protestant; please give concrete examples!

 

[thunderballs75]

But where is your clear-cut example from the missal of anything "protestantized? What quotes can you provide that point to protestantism? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I have heard many times before that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “protestantized”, yet no one ever gives any quotes from the missal itself as an example of protestantization, just their own personal opinions that it has been protestantized. The omission of prayers and castings of prayers does not make something protestant; please give concrete examples!

Peace be with you Tim!

The problem here is not the *addition *of protestant things to the Mass. It is the *omission *of specifically Catholic prayers, which had no reason to be removed. These prayers just so happen to be things which protestants would object to. As I said, I don’t know the intentions of the people who made the 1969 Mass of Paul VI. Maybe they just rushed it for some reason? But it just so happens that this new Mass is more “ecumenical”.

But I don’t see why it needed to be changed. Give me one good reason why we needed to omit these prayers from the 1965 translation. It was essentially the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, which is what the OP is asking about. It was a great translation. And the prayers that were omitted would have been incompatible with the protestant homilies and blurring that some priests(not all) tend to give. People would have noticed a contradiction between what the Mass says, and when the priest says “this is just a community meal”. That is no longer the case., as we have seen.

God bless you.

 

[Timothysis]

Peace be with you Tim!

And also with you!

While I can appreciate your opinion, it doesn’t seem that you can point to anything in the missal itself that is protestant, yes? If I am mistaken, please let me know. I am trying very hard to understand where this train of thought comes from. It is true that Pope Paul’s missal does focus not as much on the sacrificial as Pope Pius’, but that hardly makes it protestant.

Also, while I attend the OF, I personally do think it is deficient in some aspects. I’m hoping that the new translations will be a bit sharper in the traditional catholic frame of mind than what we have now.

Thanks!

 

[thunderballs75]

And also with you!

While I can appreciate your opinion, it doesn’t seem that you can point to anything in the missal itself that is protestant, yes? If I am mistaken, please let me know. I am trying very hard to understand where this train of thought comes from. It is true that Pope Paul’s missal does focus not as much on the sacrificial as Pope Pius’, but that hardly makes it protestant.

Also, while I attend the OF, I personally do think it is deficient in some aspects. I’m hoping that the new translations will be a bit sharper in the traditional catholic frame of mind than what we have now.

Thanks!

Well, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the OF is evil, or inherently protestant, or anything like that. Absolutely not. I don’t think the God the Holy Spirit would allow something like that to happen. It is completely valid. 80% of the time I am at the OF Mass myself.

And you are correct. There is nothing in the Mass of Paul VI that is specifically protestant. However, in the same manner there is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer that is specifically protestant either, considering the fact that it is usable in Anglican Use parishes. But since the Sacrifice in here is obscure, it can be compatible with protestant ideas, which can be attested to by the fact that it is used in Anglican churches everyday. It is only Catholic when the priest makes it clear in his homilies that it is Catholic. The Mass of Paul VI is the same way.

Just as the current OF was likened to Cranmer’s “Lord’s Supper” more than the Tridentine Mass, it can be used unfortunately to further protestant doctrines and de-emphasize the Sacrifice of the Mass. Why? Again, I will not say I can read the hearts of the people who made the revision.

I guess we can agree on this much. Let’s hope the new version will present a better translation and will make the Catholic teachings very clear. Maybe it will be as good as the 1965 Mass!

God bless.

 

[bpbasilphx]

My main point is why did we need to remove these prayers all of a sudden in 1969?

---

**That, of course, is a different issue entirely.

In principle, I see no necessity to omit them, either.

But I don’t see how a doctrinal change, or even drift, can be deduced from omitting them, either.**

 

[Layman]

I think when Catholics say ‘Protestantised’ they mean ‘changed to what we think a Protestant service looks like having never darkened the doors of their churches ourselves’.

Something we picked up from television or the media. Meaning a waffly vicar, no crucifix, Virgin Mary right out, bare churches, some hymns and maybe a ‘lite’ version of the TLM. Or a hallelujah Baptist(?) in there somewhere, haranguing the congregation. And a choir clapping and dancing.

The problem isn’t really the N.O. Mass, 'though the TLM has more beautiful prayers and there’s not the ‘pro multis’ oddity. It’s what progressive clergy and religious have taken The Second Vatican Council to imply: it’s ‘spirit’. And they have to use this imaginary ‘spirit’ as justification for their experiments, as the Second Vatican Council never specified any of the current novelties as being the norm.

My opinion is: they should do the O.F. as was intended: in Latin, with chant, ad-orientem. But of course, if you’re going to do that, why not do the more beautiful and replete TLM?

God requires our best. I don’t get the sense that’s being offered in most N.O. Masses. To try to get people more involved, contradictory elements have been inserted.

 

[malphono]

The problem isn’t really the N.O. Mass, 'though the TLM has more beautiful prayers and there’s not the ‘pro multis’ oddity. It’s what progressive clergy and religious have taken The Second Vatican Council to imply: it’s ‘spirit’. And they have to use this imaginary ‘spirit’ as justification for their experiments, as the Second Vatican Council never specified any of the current novelties as being the norm.

My opinion is: they should do the O.F. as was intended: in Latin, with chant, ad-orientem. But of course, if you’re going to do that, why not do the more beautiful and replete TLM?

Referring back to what I was implying in another [thread=359871]thread[/thread] in this forum, I share a similar view.

I find it very interesting that the “reform of the reform” OF is as rare, if not more so, than the EF. The “reform of the reform” is the OF so there are no “conditions” attached. Truth to tell, any OF done ad orientem is a rarity, whether in Latin or otherwise. It leads me back to saying as I have done from time to time in this forum that there is, apparently, something about the ad orientem posture itself that disquiets many OF people.

In my experience, it (ad orientem) is the single most important point: if what appears to be the unnatural aversion to (or even hatred of) it on the part of many bishops and clergy can be overcome, there’s a good chance that other things can be overcome as well.

Someone once said in this forum: baby steps. Maybe that’s what’s needed.

 

[ProVobis]

I wish you could talk to my bestest buddy - she’s a non-Catholic Christian. I invited her to Ash Wednesday Mass (OF) a few years ago. Afterwards her comments were along the lines of ‘what do you need all that formality and ritual for?’

I’m sure she’d be highly amused at the idea that our OF is anything like non-Catholic Christian worship.

Are you sure it wasn’t the MALE priest that blew her off?

 

[ProVobis]

TLM = Traditional Latin Mass, not Traditional English Mass, but then it wouldn’t be Traditional.

Real question is whether the EF can add the local language to it. I think the Pope has stated definitely yes.