Traditional English Tridentine Mass

[ravenonthecross]

home.att.net/~sergei592/knottmissal.html

Here’s a Traditional Elizabethan English Style Tridentine Mass, Why not use it? (it can purged of any heretical adulterations by the Vatican, if it indeed does contain such)

 

[deigloriam]

Why, when we already have the Tridentine Mass as perfect as it is?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Where did you get the idea that the Tridentine mass was “perfect”? Since when have mere mortals been involved in anything that has been “perfect”?

If it were perfect, why was it tinkered with slowly but steadily almost from the time of its promulgation?

Anyway, just wanted to let this thread, too, know that the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic in several Croatian dioceses before Vatican II.

 

[Walking_Home]

Where did you get the idea that the Tridentine mass was “perfect”? Since when have mere mortals been involved in anything that has been “perfect”?

If it were perfect, why was it tinkered with slowly but steadily almost from the time of its promulgation?

Anyway, just wanted to let this thread, too, know that the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic in several Croatian dioceses before Vatican II.

---

Was/is Church Slavonic used as a general vernacular language by the people or was/is it used for mainly for Liturgical Worship.

 

[martinporres]

I like the EF mass. But I’ve yet to hear a good reason it cannot be said in the vernacular, and the parts in sotto voce said at normal volume. When I follow along, I always read the English anyway.

Would TLM enthusiasts be opposed to getting rid of the OF entirely, but only on the condition the TLM could be said in English? A second question for any taker: if I follow along and pray using the English in my handmissal, am I participating any less than if I were reading and praying the Latin side of the page?

I love Latin, but it’s not somehow more sacred than English could be, properly translated and written.

-mp

 

[ravenonthecross]

Why, when we already have the Tridentine Mass as perfect as it is?

Because if the High-Church Anglicans can pull it off well, Why Can’t we, in the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, I mean, a Reverent Elizabethan-English Tridentine High Mass (facing the Altar of course, with incensce, Gregorian Chant and English Chant) would invite many to explore the Holiness and mystery that would otherwise preclude them, due to an an aversion of Latin, of what they either refuse to learn as a language, or misperceive as dead language, or just prefer worshipping in their native tongue. I’m sure this would be more amiable than a Novus Ordo Missae translation that we have now.

 

[Aramis]

Was/is Church Slavonic used as a general vernacular language by the people or was/is it used for mainly for Liturgical Worship.

Church Slavonic is a bit of an anomaly; it’s a synthetic dialect derived from Slavonic, and while not the vernacular, it is generally intelligible to any slavic speaker even today, including serbs, slovenians, rusyns, russians, ukrainians, macedonians, etc…

It also has had a normative effect upon all the local slavic dialects. Since it was a unified liturgical language, but intelligible to the slavic speakers, it’s also held all of them closer to it.

 

[palmas85]

I like the EF mass. But I’ve yet to hear a good reason it cannot be said in the vernacular, and the parts in sotto voce said at normal volume. When I follow along, I always read the English anyway.

Would TLM enthusiasts be opposed to getting rid of the OF entirely, but only on the condition the TLM could be said in English? A second question for any taker: if I follow along and pray using the English in my handmissal, am I participating any less than if I were reading and praying the Latin side of the page?

I love Latin, but it’s not somehow more sacred than English could be, properly translated and written.

-mp

As I have said you don’t hear the English anyway so I don’t see that it really matters and yes, I use the English translations when I pray as well. I would go out on a limb and say IF and only if they are able to come up with a translation into the vernacular that is faithful not only to the written word but the nuances in meaning that Latin has, then I would go along with it. However, no other changes, . Going to the new calendar for Saints I think would be a stretch, as well as the three year cycle for readings.

But I think it could be handled if done properly. But that is a big big if.

 

[James0235]

I like the EF mass. But I’ve yet to hear a good reason it cannot be said in the vernacular, and the parts in sotto voce said at normal volume. When I follow along, I always read the English anyway.

The best reason is experience. The past 30 odd years have shown us that those who were put in charge of translating the Mass into the vernacular were completely and totally incompetent.

The paraphrasing and rewriting of prayers is inexcusable. The removal of references to the spirit may well have been diabolical.

Let’s wait a few years and see how the new English translation of the Novus Ordo comes out before we talk about handing the TLM over to the butchers at ICEL.

I certainly wouldn’t be opposed in theory to having parts of the Extraordinary Form in the vernacular. But, in no way should the entire thing be in the vernacular. VII called for the retention of Latin in the Mass. And it is much too early to be making major changes to the '62 Missal.

God bless,

James

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Gorgeous. I almost feel the earth shake every time I read that offertory.

 

[I_Believe]

I like the EF mass. But I’ve yet to hear a good reason it cannot be said in the vernacular,

-mp

:banghead: It’s called TRADITION.

But don’t take my word for it.

Pope Paul VI (encyclical Sacrificium Laudis, 1966): “The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of our fathers which were our glory for centuries.”

Several more Popes on Latin, both pre VII and post VII…
tldm.org/news5/latin.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:banghead: It’s called TRADITION.

But don’t take my word for it.

Pope Paul VI (encyclical Sacrificium Laudis, 1966): “The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of our fathers which were our glory for centuries.”

Several more Popes on Latin, both pre VII and post VII…
tldm.org/news5/latin.htm

No, it’s called “tradition.” We usually reserve Tradition for that which was handed down by the Apostles. We are required for the salvation of our souls to embrace the one. The other we are bound to obey when imposed by the legitimate authority. The legitimate authority, however, has allowed the vernacular. The one currently exercising the legitimate authority has intimated in the past that the Tridentine could be said in the vernacular. Besides, why do you view it as a scorning of Latin? Why can;'t we have both? Do you want peole to lie and say that they DON’T prefer the Mass in their own tongue?

 

[Rabbititus]

It would be nifty if the Knott Missal and English Ritual were revised and allowed to be used (it was last revised in the 1950’s - so it would need to be made to at least conform to the 1962 missal, and the Book of Common Prayer options would need to be removed, most likely).

Instead, I bet if the TLM were allowed in vernacular it would take about ten years for ICEL to make up their mind on how to translate the ordinary alone.

 

[ravenonthecross]

It would be nifty if the Knott Missal and English Ritual were revised and allowed to be used (it was last revised in the 1950’s - so it would need to be made to at least conform to the 1962 missal, and the Book of Common Prayer options would need to be removed, most likely).

Instead, I bet if the TLM were allowed in vernacular it would take about ten years for ICEL to make up their mind on how to translate the ordinary alone.

Aren’t thePropers, of the Tridentine in Elizabethan English as well as the ordinary? I’ve got a Marian Missal-1958 reprinted Edition. It has all the translations in Reverent Elizabethan English. Why not just use that reverent Translation, I mean it’s already translated and approved by the Bishops, presumably—you know the English translations on the right side of the hand missals? I still don’t get why we just don’t use that. I’ve been beating a dead-horse about this, yet NO ONE
has
given me any good reasons why this should not be done! Ugh!

 

[I_Believe]

No, it’s called “tradition.” We usually reserve Tradition for that which was handed down by the Apostles. We are required for the salvation of our souls to embrace the one. The other we are bound to obey when imposed by the legitimate authority. The legitimate authority, however, has allowed the vernacular. The one currently exercising the legitimate authority has intimated in the past that the Tridentine could be said in the vernacular. Besides, why do you view it as a scorning of Latin? Why can;'t we have both? Do you want peole to lie and say that they DON’T prefer the Mass in their own tongue?

Mercy JKIRK, No I didn’t mean Tradition. I emphasized every letter intentionally.

And sure it “could” be said/sung in the venacular. (You love tormenting me don’t’cha ?) But “easier to understand” isn’t a good reason. (not quoting anyone specifically) The Pope said use the Missal of 1962. Plain and simple.

Am I missing something here ? What other reason than “easier to understand” fuels this thought ?

Ecclesiastical Latin isn’t just how they communicated back in the old days. Perhaps researching Ecclesiastical Latin itself will be enlightening for those who don’t see the reasons why the Church retains it’s use. Ecclesiastical Latin is of the Church. The Church shaped it and has a purpose for it.

I’m not studied enough to explain it the way a seasoned clergyman could, but I can’t fathom the thought that I just may be wrong in thinking that the Latin Liturgy can be anything but the Latin Liturgy.

To me it’s absurd. It’s liberal where liberty doesn’t belong.

 

[Chatter163]

Because if the High-Church Anglicans can pull it off well, amiable than a Novus Ordo Missae translation that we have now.

Such a rite would indeed be beautiful, but why settle for an imitation, when you can have the Real Deal? :tiphat:

Such a rite is lovely, but a translation is still only a translation. It exists only in reference to its relationship with the original. Even Anglican Missals still list the Latin names of many of the prayers, because in order to appreciate the translation or imitation, one must have some appreciation of the original.

 

[universalindult]

home.att.net/~sergei592/knottmissal.html

Here’s a Traditional Elizabethan English Style Tridentine Mass, Why not use it? (it can purged of any heretical adulterations by the Vatican, if it indeed does contain such)

The discussion of whether the traditional Latin Mass should be offered in vernacular should not even be discussed on this “Traditional Catholicism” subforum.

There is already a vernacular mass. Its called the Novus Ordo. If you desire a mass in the vernacular, go to the Novus Ordo. Go discuss it on the forums about the Novus Ordo.

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

 

[Rabbititus]

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

Why do you jump to this conclusion? No one has said they want vernacular imposed on the .01% who go to the Latin mass - if anything, this is usually offered more as a replacement for the Novus Ordo.

The best translation to use would probably be that found in the Angelus and Baronius Missals because they are already so common, and in new editions - I’ve heard that both are based on the same old missal, so I assume they use the same translation. Then one could theoretically use it at either a vernacular or Latin mass.

 

[martinporres]

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

Agreed with Rabbititus. No one mentioned mandating the EF be in English.

universalindult, I notice you didn’t address the core issue though: would such a mass be invalid in your eyes if allowed for by the Church (EF in English)? And if so, what are your thoughts on congregants privately praying/following along in the EF mass in English these days?

Granted, if this is the wrong forum, we should abide by a moderator’s eventual ruling.

Praying for peace in this issue among the faithful,
mp