TLM on the way ??????

[JKirkLVNV]

Backpedaling now, Kirk? How unbecoming.

If that’s not calling the Latin Mass an incentive to impiety, I don’t know what is.

Don’t make me quote Trent. But wait. You could prolly do it better than I, hmmmmm???

I meant I didn’t see the logic of the argument. I never said it was impious. And Trent never said no to the vernacular in perpetuity.

ADDED: You know me well enough, Doc, to know that I steadfastly refuse to believe that any Mass can be, in and of itself, impious.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What?? Maybe you are talking too fancy for me to understand what you mean. Perhaps you should give me the ICEL translation…

’

Perhaps if I said it in Latin?

What I mean is that “sit down” is not necessarily banal or mediocre in comparison to “I pray thee, good sirrah, do thou be pleased to be seated.” In the example you cite, I don’t see the NO to be banal, simply spare. And there can be an elegance in austerity.

 

[arieh0310]

’

Perhaps if I said it in Latin?

What I mean is that “sit down” is not necessarily banal or mediocre in comparison to “I pray thee, good sirrah, do thou be pleased to be seated.” In the example you cite, I don’t see the NO to be banal, simply spare. And there can be an elegance in austerity.

True, I think we should also hand over Shakespeare, Donne, Spencer, Milton, etc. over to the ICEL dynamic equivalent fellers and parse down them fancy words fer us simple folk.

We could take:
“To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”
and get:
“I really would like to rule, if’n I can’t do it in heaven
I guess Hell will do”

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Does God need for the Mass to be in Latin? We both know He doesn’t. Do we need for it to be? Not really. I think it benefits the faithful to be able to understand fully (or as fully as we can). I’ve hear the argument that it doesn’t matter if we understand it or not. Great. Now we’re using a language God doesn’t need and we don’t understand. I don’t see the logic.

This is flawed, I think. God doesn’t need for the mass to be in one or another language. He doesn’t need the priest to wear certain clothes, or for our prayers to be composed of specific words (Hail Mary, for example), etc. God doesn’t need anything. That’s not the point.

Likewise, we don’t need the mass to be in Latin. This is a red herring.

The real issue is: what benefits are derived from using a sacral language. Form does impart meaning, at least in part. Societies throughout all of human history have used sacral language in religious context–whether the language was merely an elevated form of the vernacular, or whether it was ‘magic’ langauge that was largely undecipherable to the practicioners. Latin would impart a sense of the mysterious and transcendent, for the very reason that it would not be entirely understood by most of the laity. Moreover, Latin connects strongly to church history–another sort of transcendence.

Now, one may object that the benefits accrued by using a highly sacral language is outweighed by the benefits of a more vernacular religious experience; that is a debate worth having. But focusing on what God needs or what people understand (and more accurately, one level or type of understanding) only confuses the issue.

 

[arieh0310]

I meant I didn’t see the logic of the argument. I never said it was impious. And Trent never said no to the vernacular in perpetuity.

Council of Trent, Twenty-Second Session, Canon IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

Do anathamas have expiration dates?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

True, I think we should also hand over Shakespeare, Donne, Spencer, Milton, etc. over to the ICEL dynamic equivalent fellers and parse down them fancy words fer us simple folk.

We could take:
“To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”
and get:
“I really would like to rule, if’n I can’t do it in heaven
I guess Hell will do”

Now you’ve taken refuge in exaggeration. Just when I was starting to enjoy the conversation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Do anathamas have expiration dates?

I’m not sure, but since I’ve never uttered any of these things and I don’t believe them (in these discussion, we really should give those expressing their views the benefit of believing that THEY at least know what they actually mean when they say something), I don’t really see your point. And Trent DIDN’T say that the Mass could never be said in the vernacular, it said it didn’t seem propitious to put that into effect at the time. And the Church has given permission for the Mass to be offered in the vernacular in a variety of places before VII or any of the changes to the liturgy.

 

[TradyDaddy]

… They should be the best words we can come up with, ie, the best translations. I do not happen to buy the argument that Latin is inherently more sacred and as it is no longer universal in the sense that it is a tongue common to virtually everyone (as it was when it became the language of the liturgy), I see no particular reason to maintain it in the liturgy. I certainly think it’s at least as important as Greek and Hebrew to the Church and I’m not a Latin hater. I’m just puzzled as to who needs to have us speak Latin.

Regarding the portion of your comment that I placed in bold print… erm… ah…well… you might want to read the documents of Vatican II and find the lines where it talks about maintaining the use of Latin. The vernacular was only supposed to be an exception to begin with. Of course, it was only a pastoral council anyway so why should we pay attention to something like that?

 

[arieh0310]

I’m not sure, but since I’ve never uttered any of these things and I don’t believe them (in these discussion, we really should give those expressing their views the benefit of believing that THEY at least know what they actually mean when they say something)

I did not mean to be accusatory, I only wished to point out that Trent made some pretty strong statements about the vernacular and soft voice. Vatican II suggested the possibility of maybe adding some vernacular to some parts of the mass, Trent laid down an anathama on anyone who said Latin should be totally ditched. This to me show that the constant voice of the Church is that Latin should be retained, at least partially.

But according to your argumentation above (God doesn’t need Latin, we don’t need Latin) the Church is foolish is demanding this, especially at Trent (the Council Fathers must have known that most parishoners weren’t fluent in Latin and couldn’t even read a translation if they had one). You have also in past conversations denounced the Silent Canon, again the Council Fathers saw value in the soft tone.

 

[redactorab]

What do we hope to accomplish in the liturgy? The proptiation of our sins through the confection of the Holy Sacrifice and the fitting worship of God. We can still do this in the vernacular. You are basically making the assertion that Latin is the best we can offer (what makes it the best?) and that the vernacular is banal, the “paper plates,” which IS a matter of taste, aesthetics, and opinion (lots of people love Bach’s cantatas, but as I can’t stand to sit and listen to sung German, I’m not able to share in their affection for those particular works of his. I’m a huge Bach fan, however, though frankly, I find Handel’s stuff more conducive to prayer. Why? Because I can understand it). I don’t buy that for an instant that the vernacular is banal, though a translation may be. A word is a symbol for a reality, ie, “cat” is the English “symbol” for an animal that meows, chases mice, washes itself and doesn’t come when it’s called. But “cat” isn’t the reality, any more than “gato” is, or “chat” or “felis.” “Deus” doesn’t come any closer to completely explaining God than “Dios” or “Gott.”

Does God need for the Mass to be in Latin? We both know He doesn’t. Do we need for it to be? Not really. I think it benefits the faithful to be able to understand fully (or as fully as we can). I’ve hear the argument that it doesn’t matter if we understand it or not. Great. Now we’re using a language God doesn’t need and we don’t understand. I don’t see the logic.

This post represents the most sensible take on the whole question. Thank you, Kirk. And I have no idea what someone meant by taking it as an “invitation to impiety.” It hit me more as an invitation to common sense.

As for the example given of the “proper” translation vs the “banal,” I definitely prefer the sparer text–fewer adjectives, fewer rococo flourishes, and clear as you please. (What do you know–there’s more subjectivity to these things than we might like to admit.) And I prefer it, I think, for the same reason that I prefer the spare “decor” of the Cistercian basilica at Gethsemani Abbey to a fully appointed gothic cathedral. I happen to like clean simplicity and think it’s a worthy atmosphere in which to worship. That’s my preference.

This argument is far more about personal aesthetic preferences than some people are willing to admit.

The preference for a veil of obscurity–someone posted earlier that part of Latin’s utility as a liturgical language stemmed from the fact that it was not easily understood by everyone–seems odd to me, although it makes a certain amount of sense from a psychological standpoint. i.e., How can a liturgy whose language is fully clear to me be worthy of the mysterious one true God? But I think that view just represents another kind of preference.

If it’s obscurity we’re after, let’s do the whole thing in semaphore.

There’s an invitation to impiety for ya.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

If it’s obscurity we’re after, let’s do the whole thing in semaphore.

There’s an invitation to impiety for ya.

Though semifore does not have the historical resonance of Latin. However, the liturgy is deply imbedded with gestures and movements, which add to the sacral quality while not necessarily making anything ‘clearer.’ Thank you, then, for reinforcing my point.

 

[redactorab]

Though semifore does not have the historical resonance of Latin. However, the liturgy is deply imbedded with gestures and movements, which add to the sacral quality while not necessarily making anything ‘clearer.’ Thank you, then, for reinforcing my point.

Where are the sarcasm tags when you need them? You read me wrong. I wasn’t suggesting that semaphore was a good idea in church. Quite the opposite.

 

[AlexV]

“Yes, the Mass one would have seen in Rome before Trent resembles what one would see in the 1962 Missal yet there were changes to it and it is not indentical in any way to that Mass from Trent.”

This statement from ByzCath is historically indefensible.

The Roman Mass of 1570, of 1962, of, indeed, 1965, of 1474…even of 1967…all are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

To say the Roman Mass before Trent “is not identical in any way to that Mass from Trent” is, to be blunt, historically laughable.

I own the 1474 Missal in facsimile. It is nearly identical to 1570.

The Ordinary of the Mass was not touched from 1570 to 1962. Period. There were corrections of printing press errors. Hardly innovation or “change”.

This is just historical fact, not supposition or innuendo. Fact.

Rubrics and sanctoral observances have always been modified. But even here, no feast was cut from 1570 to 1960. Not a single one.

And, even in 1960, the few feasts cut were still retained in the Missal as options.

So no feast was removed from the Missal between 1570 and 1970.

 

[Ham1]

“Yes, the Mass one would have seen in Rome before Trent resembles what one would see in the 1962 Missal yet there were changes to it and it is not indentical in any way to that Mass from Trent.”

This statement from ByzCath is historically indefensible.

The Roman Mass of 1570, of 1962, of, indeed, 1965, of 1474…even of 1967…all are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

To say the Roman Mass before Trent “is not identical in any way to that Mass from Trent” is, to be blunt, historically laughable.

I own the 1474 Missal in facsimile. It is nearly identical to 1570.

The Ordinary of the Mass was not touched from 1570 to 1962. Period. There were corrections of printing press errors. Hardly innovation or “change”.

This is just historical fact, not supposition or innuendo. Fact.

Rubrics and sanctoral observances have always been modified. But even here, no feast was cut from 1570 to 1960. Not a single one.

And, even in 1960, the few feasts cut were still retained in the Missal as options.

So no feast was removed from the Missal between 1570 and 1970.

So, it only changed a little and not a lot?

Did Quo Primum say that all changes (except really little ones) are forbidden?

 

[AlexV]

I don’t speculate; I simply state historical realities.

Some people…both now and in 1970…have claimed that the changes of 1970 were no different from the changes between 1570 and 1970.

That’s indefensible.

Pius V did not create a new liturgy. Nor did he abolish existing liturgies of venerable antiquity.

Paul VI did create a new liturgy (more accurately, Annibale Bugnini did). And he did all but abolish existing liturgies of even more venerable antiquity than the liturgies that were around in 1570.

THAT’S the sticking point, and that’s the root of the so-called traditionalist problem with the liturgy.

Every pope from 1570 to 1970 prefaced “his” Missal with the same documents. Only in 1970 did Paul remove them all…and with good reason, since his Missal was a new composition.

Minimal provision was made in 1970 to preserve existing liturgies. In fact, even a cursory reading of Bugnini’s official memos from Notitiae in the early to mid 70s will reveal that the intention was to end ALL western liturgies EXCEPT the Novus Ordo Missae.

That was historically unheard of in the Roman Rite, and that’s why there’s a traditionalist liturgical movement.

Not one word of the Ordinary was changed until 1962. And, then, in December, the only change was the addition of Joseph’s name to the Canon (no deletions).

Trying to compare the changes of 1570-1970 with the 1970 changes is pretty laughable.

 

[AJV]

"AlexV:

The Ordinary of the Mass was not touched from 1570 to 1962. Period. There were corrections of printing press errors. Hardly innovation or “change”.

This is just historical fact, not supposition or innuendo. Fact.

Rubrics and sanctoral observances have always been modified. But even here, no feast was cut from 1570 to 1960. Not a single one.

And, even in 1960, the few feasts cut were still retained in the Missal as options.

So no feast was removed from the Missal between 1570 and 1970.

I don’t speculate; I simply state historical realities.

Some people…both now and in 1970…have claimed that the changes of 1970 were no different from the changes between 1570 and 1970.

That’s indefensible.

Not one word of the Ordinary was changed until 1962. And, then, in December, the only change was the addition of Joseph’s name to the Canon (no deletions).

Trying to compare the changes of 1570-1970 with the 1970 changes is pretty laughable.

I agree, and I don’t think that anybody is trying to say that. To me, the question seemed to be more about whether one can legitimately use Quo Primam against the Roman Missal edito typica 1970 and later. IMHO, if one wishes to level against the inorganic ‘Novus Ordo’ the charge of not being the Missal of 1570 then certainly one can do the same for the other Roman missals, despite their minor changes especially the Missal of 1961/2 which is in use by the Indult communities and SSPX.

I’ve read suggestions that QP applied only to the Ordinary, or only to the Temporale, but without any reference why or any support for it.

Could I respectfully suggest you examine your fascimile of 1570 again before you assert that “not one word” was changed from there until 1962?

In any case, QP includes additions to the missal. And there were non- Sanctorale additions.
Feast texts WERE changed in the Roman Missal, and some feasts from the ‘pro alquibus locus’ section suppressed most particularly during the time of Pope St. Pius X, of blessed memory.

What happened to the collects said as commemorations on semidoubles and simples?

 

[Ham1]

I don’t speculate; I simply state historical realities.

Some people…both now and in 1970…have claimed that the changes of 1970 were no different from the changes between 1570 and 1970.

That’s indefensible.

Pius V did not create a new liturgy. Nor did he abolish existing liturgies of venerable antiquity.

Paul VI did create a new liturgy (more accurately, Annibale Bugnini did). And he did all but abolish existing liturgies of even more venerable antiquity than the liturgies that were around in 1570.

THAT’S the sticking point, and that’s the root of the so-called traditionalist problem with the liturgy.

Every pope from 1570 to 1970 prefaced “his” Missal with the same documents. Only in 1970 did Paul remove them all…and with good reason, since his Missal was a new composition.

Minimal provision was made in 1970 to preserve existing liturgies. In fact, even a cursory reading of Bugnini’s official memos from Notitiae in the early to mid 70s will reveal that the intention was to end ALL western liturgies EXCEPT the Novus Ordo Missae.

That was historically unheard of in the Roman Rite, and that’s why there’s a traditionalist liturgical movement.

Not one word of the Ordinary was changed until 1962. And, then, in December, the only change was the addition of Joseph’s name to the Canon (no deletions).

Trying to compare the changes of 1570-1970 with the 1970 changes is pretty laughable.

Weren’t there changes in the 50’s?

So, you are saying that not one tiny word of the Mass was changed, added or deleted between 1570 and 1962? Are there side by side copies of various missals that confirm this?

One last question, did the addition of St. Joseph violate Quo Primum (which I assume you view as binding)?

 

[AlexV]

My God, the pedantry!

The Ordinary did not change between 1570 and 1962. Period.

Joseph’s name was the first change in the Ordinary.

We’re not talking about the non-Ordinary.

As for that, NO FEAST was dropped from the universal calendar between 1570 and 1960. In 1960, dropped feasts retained their texts in the Missal. Period. They remained optional.

As for Joseph’s name, I agree with Pius IX, who felt he had no right to add names to the Canon. I think it was lamentable to change the text…but it’s hardly worth getting excited over. In any case, additions are infinitely more preferable than deletions.

But the Ordinary did not change between 1570 and 1962. Even the much-vaunted “Confiteor” before Communion was never in the Ordinary. It was borrowed from the Communion of the Faithful rite in the Roman Ritual.

The point here is 1970…and that’s where the fun and games begin.

 

[bear06]

My God, the pedantry!

The Ordinary did not change between 1570 and 1962. Period.

Joseph’s name was the first change in the Ordinary.

We’re not talking about the non-Ordinary.

As for that, NO FEAST was dropped from the universal calendar between 1570 and 1960. In 1960, dropped feasts retained their texts in the Missal. Period. They remained optional.

As for Joseph’s name, I agree with Pius IX, who felt he had no right to add names to the Canon. I think it was lamentable to change the text…but it’s hardly worth getting excited over. In any case, additions are infinitely more preferable than deletions.

But the Ordinary did not change between 1570 and 1962. Even the much-vaunted “Confiteor” before Communion was never in the Ordinary. It was borrowed from the Communion of the Faithful rite in the Roman Ritual.

The point here is 1970…and that’s where the fun and games begin.

Alex, I’m sure I’m not the only one that finds your use of Our Lord’s name quite offensive. This whole conversation isn’t worth getting excited over and it’s hardly worth taking Our Lord’s name in vain.

 

[AJV]

My God, the pedantry!

What can I say-pedantry is my middle name. I take solace in the fact that the sacred liturgy is one of the better things to be pedantic about.

The Ordinary did not change between 1570 and 1962. Period

Joseph’s name was the first change in the Ordinary.

We’re not talking about the non-Ordinary.

Can I again suggest you look at the fascimile of 1570? For example, the Confiteor at the beginning? Depending on which fascimile you have (to my knowledge there are 2 by LEV) it will also have Intribo ad domnum.
Oh, and Pius XII also altered the Ordinary for Maundy Thursday. E.g. requiring ‘miserere nobis’ to be said thrice for the Agnus Dei.

As for that, NO FEAST was dropped from the universal calendar between 1570 and 1960. In 1960, dropped feasts retained their texts in the Missal. Period. They remained optional.

In my usual pedantic vein I will point out the Solemnity of St. Joseph on the Third Wednesday after Easter whose texts were to my knowledge completely dropped from the missal.

And if you wish I can PM you the name of someone on another forum who claims that Pius X dropped saints from the kalendar primarily OT ones, and you can discuss it with him (since I know nothing about that.)

The point here is 1970…and that’s where the fun and games begin.

Assuredly. From plans dating much earlier.