TLM in English

[eiram]

Hello,

First I would like to say how surprised I was to read that joelacour has missals from 1956, 1962, 1965, and 1970. Wow! I wish I could find one from 1956, I would “try” and buy it.

Now I would like to say that I don’t like the new “modern” mass at all. To me it seems that it is almost just like a Calvery Chapel service. They never kneel, many of their services have bands playing rock music that get the people up and dancing. The “modern” priest hardly does anything except sit in his chair and wait until it’s his turn to say or do something, everything else is done by some people from the church. Ever the alter servers look bored most of the time and they tend to forget what it is they are supposed to be doing. They also look very sloppy. Then comes the part of the mass that I think many people really look forward to…the sign of peace. I have been in churches where the people have started walking around to find their friends and give them a hug! Needless to say, all of this makes the mass a whopping 2 hours long. Oh yes, I almost forgot…the priest is now the “center of attention”. He may be leading us in prayer, but I feel kind of lost when he sits down(which is most of the time). What are we supposed to be doing? Sit there and watch all of the people go up to the altar to do their “thing”? Are we supposed to be entertained or what? Oh yeah, we are getting entertained by the band and singers while we wait for something else to happen…along with the priest who is also sitting and waiting. And now all the new churches do not have any kneelers in them! Somethings not right here.

When I was a child, mass was special and it felt holy. Now it just feels weird. I still attend mass but it’s extremely difficult to concentrate on any prayers because of the music being played. It’s NOT a joyfull noise to me. Yes, everything I said is my opinion, but I wonder if our Lord wants our attention to be on having a good time in his house of worship or concentrating on him in a silent calm church.

eiram

 

[reggieM]

The 1956 handmissal is generally easier to find than the 1962 or 1965 editions. The 1956 was very popular and widely used. It’s the old St. Joseph’s Missal (and many others) version. The 1962 is quite rare. It only existed for 3 years before revised in 1965. Most people didn’t buy it since it was so similar to the 1956. The same is true of the 1965. That only lasted a few years also since the new Mass came about in 1969.
Also, once the Mass moved to the vernacular (as it did in 1965) people didn’t feel the need to buy a missal (just as almost nobody buys one now for the Novus Ordo).

The fewer missals sold, the harder they are to find used copies. Usually, if you do find a used copy of the 1962 or 1965 they’re in mint condition because they never really got much use.

 

[GunslingerSaint]

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.

Exactly, God bless you!

Lex orandi, lex credendi

 

[I_Believe]

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?

I’m with this Cardinal. His fears have materialized.

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered. The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

And as far as your first sentence…

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. **This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed **(il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes:** “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” **(The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes:** “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” **(Milestones, page 148). ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Traditionalists don’t make this stuff up.

From the pope who called VII…

…With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
   adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

The Council was hijacked.

 

[DigiMom]

Hello,
I rarely have a chance to get online to the forums, but I was thinking about Latin Mass. I’m 45 and have never been to one - high, low, solemn, etc. So I did a search on the difference of high and low Latin Mass and still am confused.

I did not realize that there were so many versions of the Mass during the 60’s. I thought our current English speaking Mass “was” the Latin Mass, but just in English. From your discussion, I see that it isn’t. I’ve listened to some Latin Masses on YouTube, but I’m not sure if I could sit through an hour of that. With the Priest mostly facing away from me and mumbling, I didn’t like that either.

I think that I would like the 1965 Mass, true original Latin Mass, converted to English so that I may understand. We have 3 churches in the area that have Latin Mass so I may try one out. I know that the Holy See (along with USCCB) is working on revising the current English speaking Mass. I’m curious as to how much there will be in the revision and when will it eventually come to the masses (pun intended).

I have been “forming” my Catholic faith over the past 5-8 years, mostly learning through an organization that developed here locally (www.schooloffaith.com), but also working with the Sisters at the Apostles of the Interior Life (www.apostlesofil.org/AilIndex.htm). I will be taking a Bible study class that incorporates some of Scott Hahn this fall on Revelations and continue with School of Faith.

I’m glad that this forum is here.

Karen

 

[RyanML]

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?

I just returned from spending a few days at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, AL, and the Mass there was AWESOME! It was the first time I had been to a Novus Ordo all in latin, except for the propers, with the priest facing ad orientem. It was basically a simplified form of the traditional Mass. I was so excited and remember thinking that if this was how the Mass was celebrated in the average parish, perhaps the problems of the last 40 years would have been much less.

 

[Harpazo]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have often thought about this topic. Why did the Council add a new liturgy for the purpose of being a vernacular liturgy instead of simply taking the one in use and make it vernacular? After all, is God bound by language? At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not move the Apostles and others to speak in Latin alone did they?

When Ss. Cyril and Methodios brought Christianity to the Slavs, they brought them the liturgy in their tongue, and it worked quite well. In a more modern context, St. Innocent of Alaska brought the Orthodox faith to the natives in Alaska, in their tongue! The same for St. Nicholas of Japan. Neither have those countries had problems with the faith with modernization in the liturgy.

This is only my opinion, but the Latins would do well to offer the TLM in English. That in no way diminishes its beauty. For what purpose for one’s salvation does the Mass have to be in Latin?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ProVobis]

The 1965 Missal was the old Latin Mass in the local language. Didn’t last very long.

 

[malphono]

The 1965 Missal was the old Latin Mass in the local language. Didn’t last very long.

The “interim Missal” of 1965 included slight changes from the Missal of 1962. In any case, it was officially bi-lingual (Latin + whatever), and certain things were supposed to have been retained in Latin. (I recall that lasted about 5 minutes before the “spirit of Vatican II” got a hold of it and banished the Latin.)

 

[reggieM]

The Canon of the Mass had to be retained in Latin in the 1965 Missal. I believe all the other prayers could be offered in the vernacular. The move from Latin to vernacular was a major shock that affected people in a profound way. Many thought that anything and everything could change merely because the change in language was so dramatic.
The Eastern Rites avoided that problem, in part, because the Greek language remained closer to the vernacular while Latin was reserved as an academic language only and was replaced by several vernaculars in Europe.
The push for Vernacular at Vatican II was lead (in a significant way) by the Melkite archbishop.
Some balance between Latin and English was envisioned but the inertia caused by the use of vernacular at all was too great to control or overcome. As a result, nowadays, a large majority of Latin rite Catholics could not give a good reason why any part of the Mass should be offered in the Latin language.
It’s a counter-intuitive argument to say that the prayers should be offered in a language that the congregation does not understand.
But if all the priests and bishops retained the good arguments (and got rid of the bad ones) for using Latin, and taught the faithful those reasons, then there would not have been such a shocking and total elimination of Latin in the liturgy.

But we also tend to forget that there was some understandable animosity towards the Latin language by very many (I’d say a vast majority) of priests in the Church around the end of the Council. “Understandable” because all seminary professors taught classes in the Latin language. So, you had to know Latin fairly fluently even to understand the theology lessons. Many theology books were not even translated in the vernacular (some decades earlier they were forbidden to be translated). The brieviary, of course, had to be prayed in Latin. For those who struggled with the language (as some saints did) it was a very difficult thing. Once the Holy See admitted that Latin was not absolutlely necessary – a very understandable backlash ensued. “If it wasn’t absolutely necessary, then why did we wrack our brains for years trying to learn it well enough to complete our theology classes and to even do the readings of the Fathers and Saints in the breviary every day?”

 

[Brian777]

Hello.

I am a first uyear seminarian in Pittsburgh. I am traditional as well as all for the correct saying and use of the Ordinary Form.

I was wondering before i found this thread, if it was licit or valid for a priest to say the Traditional Mass in the vernacular at all. I remember on EWTN, one of the workers was talking about their child’s baptism, which was done by the Bishop of Birmingham AL, in the EF of the sacrament but in english. Is this also permissible for the Mass in any way?

Also, i just combed the seminary library yesterday for missals and such and found a 1966 missal(1965). It is NOT a translation of the TLM. The Prayers at the foot of the Altar are there, but the last gospel is gone, and the consecrations says “for all men” instead “for many” and the Canon is pretty much Euch. Prayer I, and substantially different from the Roman Canon. I would rather go to a normal OF than to a 1966 “mix and match” Mass.

 

[reggieM]

Hello.

I am a first uyear seminarian in Pittsburgh. I am traditional as well as all for the correct saying and use of the Ordinary Form.

I was wondering before i found this thread, if it was licit or valid for a priest to say the Traditional Mass in the vernacular at all. I remember on EWTN, one of the workers was talking about their child’s baptism, which was done by the Bishop of Birmingham AL, in the EF of the sacrament but in english. Is this also permissible for the Mass in any way?

Also, i just combed the seminary library yesterday for missals and such and found a 1966 missal(1965). It is NOT a translation of the TLM. The Prayers at the foot of the Altar are there, but the last gospel is gone, and the consecrations says “for all men” instead “for many” and the Canon is pretty much Euch. Prayer I, and substantially different from the Roman Canon. I would rather go to a normal OF than to a 1966 “mix and match” Mass.

First – it’s not permitted to celebrate the traditional Mass (1962 Missal) in the vernacular. At the same time, that particular rite is not governed by Canonical laws for the liturgy at present since it wasn’t expected to exist again - so, what would happen if a priest just started doing the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular? Probably nothing. If he had a congregation, then it would probably be permitted by Rome unless there was a major outrcry against it. If people actually flocked to attend, then it would be permitted (that is my guess based on 20 years of analysis on how the Holy See has responded to the Tridentine Mass issues).

Second – yes, the 1965 Missal (or 1966 as you found) did have some minor changes.
As you mention, there is no Last Gospel (which wasn’t part of the Mass anyway since it is recited after the Mass has ended). The prayers at the foot of the altar are shortened by the removal of the psalm verses.

As for the English translation of “pro multis” you read in whatever missal you found – that was not permitted to be said in the vernacular anyway. It was only offered in the Missal as a reference point. The Canon of the Mass in the 1965 edition was required to be in Latin only. So, there wasn’t an “official” vernacular translation for the Canon to be used at Mass.

But that rule didn’t stop most priests from offering the Canon in the vernacular anyway – and that’s what paved the way for the full vernacular of the 1969 Novus Ordo.

The 1965 Missal is not a “mix and match”. It’s the first attempt to modify the 1962 Missal in conformity with the liturgical directives of Vatican II. It made very minor changes and moved some of the Mass into the vernacular.

A vernacular version of the 1962 Missal would be an innovation that never existed before – that would be more of a mix-and-match. But again, the liturgical norms governing the 1962 Usage are not well-defined. Priests already do take some liberties with the 1962 Missal, and the Holy See has permitted the readings to be done in the vernacular only (since that was an innovation used for a long time in Europe and now accepted).

 

[moon1234]

Hello,
I rarely have a chance to get online to the forums, but I was thinking about Latin Mass. I’m 45 and have never been to one - high, low, solemn, etc. So I did a search on the difference of high and low Latin Mass and still am confused.

I did not realize that there were so many versions of the Mass during the 60’s. I thought our current English speaking Mass “was” the Latin Mass, but just in English. From your discussion, I see that it isn’t. I’ve listened to some Latin Masses on YouTube, but I’m not sure if I could sit through an hour of that. With the Priest mostly facing away from me and mumbling, I didn’t like that either.

I think that I would like the 1965 Mass, true original Latin Mass, converted to English so that I may understand. We have 3 churches in the area that have Latin Mass so I may try one out. I know that the Holy See (along with USCCB) is working on revising the current English speaking Mass. I’m curious as to how much there will be in the revision and when will it eventually come to the masses (pun intended).

I have been “forming” my Catholic faith over the past 5-8 years, mostly learning through an organization that developed here locally (www.schooloffaith.com), but also working with the Sisters at the Apostles of the Interior Life (www.apostlesofil.org/AilIndex.htm). I will be taking a Bible study class that incorporates some of Scott Hahn this fall on Revelations and continue with School of Faith.

I’m glad that this forum is here.

Karen

Hi Karen,

I am glad you are interested in learning more about your faith. Keep in mind that your comment “I don’t know if I could stand an hour of that” is offensive to many people. Almost all of the saints over the years had a deep love for the latin Mass.

What you are currently lacking is the knowledge of what is happening at the Latin Mass and what is expected of you. You are seeing only the most outward sign and only attaching meaning to what you see and hear.

When at the latin Mass you are there to unite yourself with the priest who is acting in the person of Christ. The priest is essentially reliving the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. His back is not to you. We are ALL facing east, towards Christ, towards Rome, waiting for Christ’s triumphant return. The sun does rise in the east after all.

There is so much symbolism and meaning in the Latin Mass that you will not understand unless you learn about it. Once you know the meaning of all of gestures, etc. you will wonder why everyone is not in love with the Mass.

Try praying alone sometime, in silence. Really speak to God. Now do the same thing at church. Unite your whole self, body and soul with the priest to truely honor and glorify our Lord.

What you see at most Novus Ordo Masses has a very different tone to it.

 

[moon1234]

First – it’s not permitted to celebrate the traditional Mass (1962 Missal) in the vernacular. At the same time, that particular rite is not governed by Canonical laws for the liturgy at present since it wasn’t expected to exist again - so, what would happen if a priest just started doing the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular? Probably nothing. If he had a congregation, then it would probably be permitted by Rome unless there was a major outrcry against it. If people actually flocked to attend, then it would be permitted (that is my guess based on 20 years of analysis on how the Holy See has responded to the Tridentine Mass issues).

Second – yes, the 1965 Missal (or 1966 as you found) did have some minor changes.
As you mention, there is no Last Gospel (which wasn’t part of the Mass anyway since it is recited after the Mass has ended). The prayers at the foot of the altar are shortened by the removal of the psalm verses.

As for the English translation of “pro multis” you read in whatever missal you found – that was not permitted to be said in the vernacular anyway. It was only offered in the Missal as a reference point. The Canon of the Mass in the 1965 edition was required to be in Latin only. So, there wasn’t an “official” vernacular translation for the Canon to be used at Mass.

But that rule didn’t stop most priests from offering the Canon in the vernacular anyway – and that’s what paved the way for the full vernacular of the 1969 Novus Ordo.

The 1965 Missal is not a “mix and match”. It’s the first attempt to modify the 1962 Missal in conformity with the liturgical directives of Vatican II. It made very minor changes and moved some of the Mass into the vernacular.

A vernacular version of the 1962 Missal would be an innovation that never existed before – that would be more of a mix-and-match. But again, the liturgical norms governing the 1962 Usage are not well-defined. Priests already do take some liberties with the 1962 Missal, and the Holy See has permitted the readings to be done in the vernacular only (since that was an innovation used for a long time in Europe and now accepted).

Actually this is not True. The Vatican has stated that all ruberics should be adhered to as they were published in 1962. Vernacular TLM would not be allowed. The sticky parts would be about Canon Law. Technically altar girls could be used in a TLM. I can just imagine what would happen in the pews if little Mary Sue came prancing out in cassock and surplice.

I really don’t understand why people are SO against learing a LITTLE latin? My word people. If you spent 10-20 hours studing the TLM with a hand missal that had vernacular translations you would be close to 50% fluent. How about traveling to some foreign land where you don’t know the language??? If you knew your little bit of Latin you would know most of what was being said at Mass. You could even bring your Missal and understand ALL of the Mass. Except maybe the homily. You can’t easily do that now. I have nevr seen a German to English OF missal or missalette have you?

As for Liturgical directive for Vernacular? There never was one. It is a complete made up fantasy that there was a directive for the vernacular. The documents said verncular may be permitted in limited use where the local priest thought it would benefit the people. It was also stated that Latin is always and everywhere to be allowed and was to be the Normal language of the church. Gregorian Chant was also to be given pride of place above all other forms of Music.

What happened was the dumping of Latin completely along with Gregorian Chant. Does not sound anything like what VII actually hoped for. The EF of today is what they were really looking for.