Tridentine in english ?

[kleary]

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?

Archbishop Lefebvre felt the same way as you. “We would rather have the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular and facing the people than with the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin and facing the altar.”

Ken

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

1. No one has said that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only. Further, if that means what YOU think it means, then several post Tridentine popes (but pre VII) anathematized themselves because they allowed it to be offered in the vulgar tongue.

Which is, of course, why I, Pope William IX, represent the true succession to the Roman See! These pretenders have occupied the Apostolic Throne for far too long!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Which is, of course, why I, Pope William IX, represent the true succession to the Roman See! These pretenders have occupied the Apostolic Throne for far too long!

Well, Andreas, better you than Popes Michael or Pius XIII.

 

[Ham1]

Which is, of course, why I, Pope William IX, represent the true succession to the Roman See! These pretenders have occupied the Apostolic Throne for far too long!

Sorry, but Canon 1834(c) specifically states: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is rendered invalid when the individual elected resides in the basement of a residence owned by his own mother.”

This is the same reason why Pope Michael’s election was invalid.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sorry, but Canon 1834(c) specifically states: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is rendered invalid when the individual elected resides in the basement of a residence owned by his own mother.”

This is the same reason why Pope Michael’s election was invalid.

But that canon doesn’t apply to me because my mother rents the residence. The law is on my side!

(Any more juridical questions can be directed to the dean of my signatura, Chuck Cardinal Franzia, at his office in the University Park Mall.)

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please return to the topic or I’ll have to close the thread. Thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

For​

comparison: Anglo-Catholicism ( with section on the Anglican Missal- the Epilogue and Bookstall may be of particular interest.

What we get, of course, we’ll have to see… ##

 

[DustinsDad]

…No one has said that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only. Further, if that means what YOU think it means, then several post Tridentine popes (but pre VII) anathematized themselves because they allowed it to be offered in the vulgar tongue.

Your point of view seem suspect to many, I think, because you are using the arguments of the so-called “reformers” to further your own preference for the mass in English.

And yes, I know you’ll tolerate a little snippet of Latin here and there, and of course you’d tolerate the TLMers having their mass “somewhere else” if they wish, so you aren’t technically saying vulgar tounge “only” - but we all get the gist of your position and it seems to dodge the big question, which is: In light of Trent and even Vatican II, what is the basis for the switch to almost totally “vulgar” tounge everywhere?

As an aside, one thing that seems odd to me is that, since folks at the time of Trent were for the most part unable to read a missal translation, it would seem mass in the native tounge would actually have made more sense then than now…if of course the common arguments for such are valid.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Herrobp]

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,

The mass to which I believe Mr. Zampino referred in an earlier post is called the Sarum Rite, and although it is primarily associated with the Anglican church, it was used in England for a while before the church in England split from Rome.

On an unrelated note, several members of my family recall that for a short period of time following the close of the Second Vatican Council, the mass was exactly the same as before VII except that it was translated into English. They said that it was beautiful, and that at the time, they appreciated the change. But then things changed so rapidly and horrible “innovations” were introduced that they all joined a sort of separatist group of Traditionals who called themselves the ORCM (Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement). But for a brief time, there was an English translation of the Tridentine Mass that was used after VII and prior to the introduction of the Pauline mass in 1967.

 

[AJV]

The mass to which I believe Mr. Zampino referred in an earlier post is called the Sarum Rite, and although it is primarily associated with the Anglican church, it was used in England for a while before the church in England split from Rome.

The Sarum sadly enough, has never been used in the Anglican Church. The “Sarum” which most allude to is actually an “English Use”- basically the Book of Common Prayer with a few minor Sarum trappings like riddel altars (the ones with curtains on the sides), pavement candles and colour schemes. Only in one or two places was the full Sarum Holy Week revived and not for long.

The Anglican Missal is a combination of the Roman Missal of the time and the Anglican BCP

The translation of the Canon of the Mass into English was in 1967 and the Pauline/NO in 1969.

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”.

VERY interesting… …could you please give some more information on this?

 

[AJV]

As an aside, one thing that seems odd to me is that, since folks at the time of Trent were for the most part unable to read a missal translation,

Would it be too pendantic to say that there were no missals for them to read?

I cannot help thinking that the alteration of Church discipline ought not only to be solicited, but insisted on as essential to the service of God and the benefit of mankind. Can there be anything more preposterous than for a small district containing in extent no more than Mount Libanus and a trifling territory at the foot of it, to say nothing of Greeks, Armenians, etc. to have a liturgy in their proper idiom and on the other hand for an immense extent of countries form Great Britain, Ireland, also North America, the West Indies, etc. to be obliged to perform divine service in an unknown tongue; and in his country, either for want of books or inability to read, the great part of our congregations must be entirely ignorant of the meaning and sense of the publick offices of the Church.

It may have been prudent, for aught I know, to refuse a compliance in this instance with the insulting and reproachful demands of the first reformers, but to continue the practise of the Latin liturgy in the present state of things must be owing to chimerical fears of innovation or indolence in the first pastors of national churches in not joining to sollicit this necessary alteration.

(John Carrol, first archbishop of Baltimore)

 

[DustinsDad]

Would it be too pendantic to say that there were no missals for them to read?

That’s my point…if it was imprudent then to have mass in the Vulgar tounge - lack of missals and an illiterate populace - then what has changed between then and now to suddenly make it so apparently prudent? What am I missing here?

I cannot help thinking that the alteration of Church discipline ought not only to be solicited, but insisted on as essential to the service of God and the benefit of mankind. Can there be anything more preposterous than for a small district containing in extent no more than Mount Libanus and a trifling territory at the foot of it, to say nothing of Greeks, Armenians, etc. to have a liturgy in their proper idiom and on the other hand for an immense extent of countries form Great Britain, Ireland, also North America, the West Indies, etc. to be obliged to perform divine service in an unknown tongue; and in his country, either for want of books or inability to read, the great part of our congregations must be entirely ignorant of the meaning and sense of the publick offices of the Church.

I’m struggling with the ArchBishop’s arguments here seemingly for the use of the vulgar tounge at mass, etc. (those darn American bishops!) - I don’t quite understand his reasoning…is he actually saying that the previous centuries of the Church’s liturgy has been, to use the Archbishop’s word, “preposterous” yet “prudent”?

It may have been prudent, for aught I know, to refuse a compliance in this instance with the insulting and reproachful demands of the first reformers, but to continue the practise of the Latin liturgy in the present state of things must be owing to chimerical fears of innovation or indolence in the first pastors of national churches in not joining to sollicit this necessary alteration.

Two things here -

First, why was it prudent *at the time of Trent *(to defend the liturgical dicsipline of the mass in the Latin tounge) and not now. What has or had changed? If anything, it would seem less “necessary” now since missals and a mostly literate populace are now better able follow word-for-word the mass in Latin than they were at the time of Trent.

Second, if the fears of “innovation and indolence” kept the language of the liturgy from using the vulgar tounge for so long - perhaps the present state of things proves those fears justified.

Thanks for the quote from the archBishop. Interesting.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Sarabande]

There is an aura of solemnity and a generation of a real sense of awe and majesty in the “old” Mass that is missing in any vernacular translation. There is also a loss of “global community”. I remember in the 60’s attending Masses in Germany, France, the Low Countries and Italy and really appreciating what it was to be a part of a truly catholic comminity.

I totally agree. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I never was fortunate to actually attend the “old” mass on a regular basis. While in college and post-college, I studied in England, Austria and Italy. I can say that when I was able to attend a mass in Latin, I did feel more like I was part of a “global community”. My language skills in German and Italian were elementary and knew just enough to “survive” without having to speak English. I felt the same in France when I’ve gone to visit there. So, it was wonderful to have the Latin there. I couldn’t find it at all the places I stayed, but I truly appreciated when I did find a Latin mass.

Hopefully, we’ll get a new and approved daily/Sunday Missal and be able to follow and appreciate the beauty of the Latin with the translation beside it.

BTW—If you want to hear something ugly, listen to Italian opera sung in English or, worse yet, German

Tell me about it!!! I remember having to audition for “Le Nozze di Figaro” and “Cosi fan tutte”. I knew the arias in Italian, but they asked for them to be in English. The whole production was to be in English. It was the corniest translation. English is the worst language to sing in for opera. For me, German is a lot easier and more beautiful to sing in than English. I love R. Strauss and any German lieder.

 

[bear06]

Your point of view seem suspect to many, I think, because you are using the arguments of the so-called “reformers” to further your own preference for the mass in English.

I agree with Kirk on this and, guess what, I love the Novus Ordo in Latin and hope to see it spread like you’d like to see the TLM spread. The fact here is that MD said what it says.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Your point of view seem suspect to many, I think, because you are using the arguments of the so-called “reformers” to further your own preference for the mass in English. **We’ve gone through this ad nauseum. I was resonding to the idea that anyone who says that the vernacular mass might be good or “helpful,” (to use then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words for the vernacular mass) has anathematized themselves per Trent. A) it isn’t true because no one has said “only” and B) it isn’t true because anyone who said,“oh, the Church has allowed us to have Mass in the vernacular and I quite like it” is only responding positively to a discipline the Church permits. **

And yes, I know you’ll tolerate a little snippet of Latin here and there,please, we do all the sung parts in Latin at the Mass I attend and of course you’d tolerate the TLMers having their mass “somewhere else” if they wish, so you aren’t technically saying vulgar tounge “only” - **Now who is reading whose mind? **but we all get the gist of your position and it seems to dodge the big question, which is: In light of Trent and even Vatican II, what is the basis for the switch to almost totally “vulgar” tounge everywhere?

As an aside, one thing that seems odd to me is that, since folks at the time of Trent were for the most part unable to read a missal translation, it would seem mass in the native tounge would actually have made more sense then than now…if of course the common arguments for such are valid.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Latin is the language of the Church. It should have an honored place IN the Church and it is particularly appropriate, as the pope has suggested, at gatherings that have an international congregation, ie, papal masses, World Youth Day, etc.

DD, I guess what I don’t understand is this: provided we get faithful translations, why do you object to the Church permitting Mass in the vernacular?

 

[Aramis]

The TLM and the NO should both continue, alike in dignity, but separate within the constraint of Union with Rome.

Give the TLM status similar to Italo-Byzantine or Russian-Byzantine: Separate, equal, and authentic.

 

[DustinsDad]

I was resonding to the idea that anyone who says that the vernacular mass might be good or “helpful,” (to use then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words for the vernacular mass) has anathematized themselves per Trent.

You would be correct here. .

it isn’t true because no one has said “only” .

Obviously, and no one is accusing you of saying “only”. I merely point out that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the virtues of Latin as the language of the Church and the language of the liturgy as explained and defended by the Church down through the ages.

Perhaps it’s just that your rigerous defence of the vernacular and the subtle antagonistic attitude toward the Latin that puts forth the “only” impression in the minds of your readers…that in addition to, like I said earlier, you seem to use reformers arguments against the Latin even though you don’t technically say “only”.

and B) it isn’t true because anyone who said,“oh, the Church has allowed us to have Mass in the vernacular and I quite like it” is only responding positively to a discipline the Church permits.

Well that’s fine and your “liking” mass in the vernacular is duly noted. Most folks these days do. But unfortunately that’s not all you say, and that’s certainly not “how” you usually say it. Such is the nature of heated message boards I suppose.

DD, I guess what I don’t understand is this: provided we get faithful translations, why do you object to the Church permitting Mass in the vernacular?

Well, when we get a faithful English translation, let me know I’m sure it’s right around the corner now.

As far as objecting, oh I’m not sure that’s a good choice of words. I simply think there are goods, and their are greater goods.

It’s like that priest said in an article on the other thread. In the TLM, you have a situation where most folks don’t explicitly understand every word spoken on the altar, yet the vast majority understand explitly what is happening on the altar, while at the NO, you have a situation where all folks can hear and understand exactly every word spoken on the altar, yet miss or don’t understand what is actually happening on the altar.

I’d also like to hear some explanation as to why the vernacular mass is prudent now, yet was not prudent then. I’m really really curious as to what changed about the nature of man over the course of the centuries. I’ve never really heard it explained…just sounds like change for changes sake and a compromise to “accomodate” the world, like a compromise that perhaps would have been better left unmade.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You would be correct here.
**Thank you. I will have to respond to this in sections and I’ve got to get to confession, so some may come latter. **

Obviously, and no one is accusing you of saying “only”. I merely point out that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the virtues of Latin as the language of the Church and the language of the liturgy as explained and defended by the Church down through the ages. **Then allow me to do so now (though I have done so in the past and even defended Latin against at least one poster who posited that that langauge was “past it”). Latin IS the language of the Church. We, being the Universal Church, the Catholic Church, need a common tongue. We should be versed in it (conversant in it is probably asking too much in this day and age, at least right now) and we should recognize its importance as being the equal of Hebrew and Greek. It’s a truly sad and pathetic thing that the “silly season” has resulted in so many, indeed, virtually all, of our priests not being versed in these three historic languages of such importance to the development of our faith. Granted, not every priest is going to be an Old or New Testament scholar, but every priest is going to have to illuminate and elucidate theological concepts for his flock, which I personally feel gives the weight of argument to Latin, because the bulk of the Church’s thought has been expressed in that tongue. **

Perhaps it’s just that your rigerous defence of the vernacular and the subtle antagonistic attitude toward the Latin that puts forth the “only” impression in the minds of your readers…that in addition to, like I said earlier, you seem to use reformers arguments against the Latin even though you don’t technically say “only”. **Well, there again, DD, with respect, but with entire truthfulness, who is attempting to read whose mind? My rigorous defense of the vernacular is two-fold and part of it has to do with defending the Church, whose legitimate authority extended and allowed the increase in the use of the vernacular. But as I’ve also explained, I don’t see what’s bad about people being able to worship in the language in which they think and reason. I teach English language learners. It is very, very rare for any second language learner to arrive at such a facility in that language that they think in it. **

I’ll have to finish latter.

 

[Herrobp]

The translation of the Canon of the Mass into English was in 1967 and the Pauline/NO in 1969.

Thanks for the clarification. I typed the wrong date, my mistake.

 

[BobP123]

Tell me about it!!! I remember having to audition for “Le Nozze di Figaro” and “Cosi fan tutte”. I knew the arias in Italian, but they asked for them to be in English. The whole production was to be in English. It was the corniest translation. English is the worst language to sing in for opera. For me, German is a lot easier and more beautiful to sing in than English. I love R. Strauss and any German lieder.

Bach’s German Cantatas are beautiful too. So forceful, so to-the-point.