Tridentine in english ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dljl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dljl

Guest
I’ve read countless posts about the debate between NO and TLM. They always seem to center around the Latin. As important as that is, I think it misses the larger issue. While both masses are valid and holy, it seems that the Tridentine stresses the sacrificial nature of the mass, while it is barely mentioned in the NO. I would much rather see the Tridentine in english than the NO in latin. I am alone in thinking this way?
 
I’m right with you. I attended my first Latin Mass awhile back and what I loved was the reverence and the beautiful wording when I read the English translation. But I have to admit I much prefer the Mass in English. I’m hoping the new translation of the missal…if it EVER gets finished and approved…brings back the eloquence of the TLM. Then all we’ll need is the reverence…another issue…

Can the Tridentine Mass be said in English? Is that allowed, or must it be said in Latin?
 
Way back when in the sixties, as I remember, we were led to believe, at least in our parish, that the present Mass would be said in English not a major rewrite. We were not told either that centuries of music would also be tossed out.
 
I agree. Its not the Latin so much I prefer as it is the nature of the Mass itself. I think the closest we’ll ever see to a “tridentine” in English is the Anglican Use (which is rare). Of course there is the outside possibilty of seeing the 1962 rubrics updated. I don’t know how well this would fly, who knows?
 
I’ve been to NO masses that were wonderful and reverent. However, I never really realized how much the mass is a re-presentation of The sacrifice at calvary until I attended the TLM. It’s not even called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass anymore. I saw a web site that compared the old and new readings and liturgy and the difference of emphasis was really obvious (I wish I could find it again!) I suspect there are many Catholics who don’t even realize that the mass is a sacrifice.
 
40.png
dljl:
I’ve read countless posts about the debate between NO and TLM. They always seem to center around the Latin. As important as that is, I think it misses the larger issue. While both masses are valid and holy, it seems that the Tridentine stresses the sacrificial nature of the mass, while it is barely mentioned in the NO. I would much rather see the Tridentine in english than the NO in latin. I am alone in thinking this way?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with the Latin. I just don’t prefer the silent canon.
 
I prefer the Tridentine Mass in Latin, over any other Rite of Mass in any other language.

Some things are so beautiful, that you don’t really care if you don’t understand every word.

To give some non-Latin examples:
  1. Italian opera, Nessun Dorma in particular(sung by Pavarotti at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies) is so beautiful, that I don’t care if I don’t understand the words. I don’t know what the meaning of Nessun Dorma is, but it is beautiful to listen to.
  2. One song in Welsh that I have heard is so beautiful, that again, I don’t care if I don’t understand the words.
Both of these examples above are not, of course, appropriate to sing at Mass.
 
If I really only had the choice between Pian English and Pauline Latin I’d pick the older rite. But I think removing the sacred language from the rite would SERIOUSLY detract from it.
 
the Tridentine Mass was said aloud with certain modifications (such as no final gospel and fewer prayers at the altar) according to the Missal of 1965 which was the last Missal which can really be counted as the same liturgy as Pius V’s missal. No one really remembers the 1965 missal very foundly, though, because it was during the time between 1965 and 1970 that liturgical abuse got the worst.

There is at least one monastery left in the world that still uses the missal of 1965, but they do it in Latin and not in English. Special permission might be granted (though I doubt it would me) to use the approved English translation of the Missal of 1965. But I really don’t see any reason to do that. Latin is much more beautiful anyway, and much harder to abuse. Now most of the masses I assist at ar ein English, but that makes it all the more a treat when I make it to a Tridentine Mass or (even more rarely) even a Novus Ordo in Latin.
 
40.png
dljl:
I’ve been to NO masses that were wonderful and reverent. However, I never really realized how much the mass is a re-presentation of The sacrifice at calvary until I attended the TLM. It’s not even called the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass anymore. I saw a web site that compared the old and new readings and liturgy and the difference of emphasis was really obvious (I wish I could find it again!) I suspect there are many Catholics who don’t even realize that the mass is a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
If you find it, please post it. I’d love to see it. In the many years I’ve been at our parish, I’ve never heard the Mass referred to as a Sacrifice.
 
It is impprtant to remember that there was no 1965 typical edition of the Missale Romanum. There was only the Ordo Missae, the Order of Mass. The remainder of the missal was untouched.
 
40.png
dljl:
I’ve read countless posts about the debate between NO and TLM. They always seem to center around the Latin. As important as that is, I think it misses the larger issue. While both masses are valid and holy, it seems that the Tridentine stresses the sacrificial nature of the mass, while it is barely mentioned in the NO. I would much rather see the Tridentine in english than the NO in latin. I am alone in thinking this way?
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, the old Gregorian Canon is found – in English – in the original Altar editions of the “Anglican Missal”. It is based on the early 16th century Mass, which (believe it or not) WAS sometimes being celebrated in English PRIOR to the English “Reformation”.

Blessings,
 
im still waiting for the USCCB to impliment thatnew translation of the mass (hopefully as-is, no dumbing down)
 
40.png
dljl:
I’ve read countless posts about the debate between NO and TLM. They always seem to center around the Latin. As important as that is, I think it misses the larger issue. While both masses are valid and holy, it seems that the Tridentine stresses the sacrificial nature of the mass, while it is barely mentioned in the NO. I would much rather see the Tridentine in english than the NO in latin. I am alone in thinking this way?
Click to expand...
I’ve often said the same thing. The sacrificial aspect is totally downplayed these days, not mentioned, ignored, all I believe in a failed effort at ecumenism. The Protestants always hated and reviled the mass mainly because of the priesthood and the sacrificial nature of the mass. Well, the role of the priest has been rendered fairly insignificant to a lot of Catholics and the mass turned into a communal meal without much if any mention of the sacrifice. What better way to improve ecumenical relations?
 
40.png
palmas85:
Well, the role of the priest has been rendered fairly insignificant to a lot of Catholics and the mass turned into a communal meal without much if any mention of the sacrifice. What better way to improve ecumenical relations?
Click to expand...
Do you think this was intentional - the downplaying of the sacrifice - or an unintended result that took on a life of its own?
 
The Tridentine Mass in English would be FANTASTIC, with the people doing the responses instead of just the altar boys.
I love the Tridentine Mass in English.
Jaypeeto3
 
I don’t understand why people say the NO Mass is not about the sacrifice. For me when I go to Mass the separate consecration of the bread and wine signifies the only time in history that Christ’s blood was separated from his body on the Cross and it is as if we are standing at the foot of the Cross looking up at our crucified Lord. I always think about his sacrifice at Mass.
Then when we receive Communion we are receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Risen, Glorified Lord.
 
40.png
thistle:
I don’t understand why people say the NO Mass is not about the sacrifice. For me when I go to Mass the separate consecration of the bread and wine signifies the only time in history that Christ’s blood was separated from his body on the Cross and it is as if we are standing at the foot of the Cross looking up at our crucified Lord. I always think about his sacrifice at Mass.
Then when we receive Communion we are receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Risen, Glorified Lord.
Click to expand...
You’re right, the NO mass is a sacrifice. My point is that it just isn’t emphasized compared to the Tridentine. It’s a subtle, but important difference I didn’t appreciate until I actually attended a Tridentine mass.
 
My question is this. What if, the Tridentine Mass was brought back in all it’s glory, High Mass and Low Mass, but in English, or what ever language of the country. In the Orthodox Church the Divine Liturgies are done in the vernacular, but the Liturgy is the same, NO CHANGES!!, in any language. If you took a 1962 Tridentine Missal and instead if saying the mass in Latin, apart from the Gregorian chant, say it in English, with the translation of the let’s say “English Tridentine Mass”. Or if your in Germany, the “German Tridentine Mass”, only differentiated by the language. How would this sound. The Mass would be just as elaborate, just as solemn, and spiritual. The “English Tridentine Mass”, could very well solve the probems we have with the Latin Mass vs Novus Ordo debate. The Tridentine Mass in the spirit of the Mass of old (so traditionalists can’t argue that the Mass is not as solemn and beautiful), and The Novus Ordo Mass in the spirit of the Vernacular (So people won’t say they can’t understand Latin). Why is it so hard to make an attempt to do this?. Do away with the Novus Ordo and create the “Vernacular Tridentine Mass”!. Problem Solved!! Call it the Tridentine Mass 2007edition.
 
The Gregorian Chant uses the latin language, so it cannot be done in a High Mass.

That and many more reasons, so no the problem is not solved.

I dont see why you are comparing the Eastern liturgies with the Western. Yes the Divine Liturgies of the East have vernacular. But this is not the Rite of St. John Chrystostom and St. Basil, this is the Rite of St. Gregory the Great (incorrectly called the Tridentine Mass).

Besides, you have posted other threads about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top