Tridentine liturgy in english?

[Caesar]

Thats the point.
The translation could be read by the priest instead of the latin.

The ICEL whatever it is seems to be full of “nuts” that shouldnt get their hands on it…

The biggest objection to the Latin Mass is this:

"But I don’t know Latin!"

And to that I respond,

"But you dont have to know Latin!"

Thats part of the beauty of the Traditional Mass- it is not necessary for the laity to understand everyword of what is being said (or sung) in the Mass!

 

[BobP123]

Thats the point.
The translation could be read by the priest instead of the latin.

The ICEL whatever it is seems to be full of “nuts” that shouldnt get their hands on it…

I don’t get the point. Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone just to accept what’s written in Latin, learn it, and be satisfied? Why struggle with having to translate it, as he’s probably going to be criticized for it anyway causing an unnecessary distraction?

Besides, much of the Mass is said quietly anyway. So why translate something you probably won’t hear? Doesn’t make sense.

 

[AJV]

Perhaps you attending a variation of the pre-concillar Milanese Ambrosian Rite, which is supposed to be a precursor to the Gregorian/Tridentine Roman Rite.

The Milan Synod is an old-calendarist Orthodox Church. They run the site odox.net I have seen (the text), under their name, at one time, a version of the Sarum practised by a Fr. Aidan (his exact status is disputed by some Orthodox I know so…) Now I think he is not under that jurisdiction any more but a lot of his stuff is still up on that site. He still produces Sarum materials, which sometimes are inclined towards Byzantine practices.

 

[stmaria]

Why is everyone so against having a tridentine liturgy in english?

Having the Tridentine Mass said in english or any other vernacular language is forbidden by the infallibile Council of Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone says 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 vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema

 

[AJV]

Having the Tridentine Mass said in english or any other vernacular language is forbidden by the infallibile Council of Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone says 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 vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema

Not at all. Or how did St. Pius V himself give permission for the Mass in Chinese?

 

[BobP123]

Not at all. Or how did St. Pius V himself give permission for the Mass in Chinese?

On the surface it does seem to be a violation of Trent, doesn’t it? Perhaps the Chinese Mass had been an accepted and approved Rite of over 200 years at the time? It was the newer liturgies and those that had been vernacularized just before Trent that were outlawed. You need to see the reason why Trent said what it said.

 

[AJV]

On the surface it does seem to be a violation of Trent, doesn’t it? Perhaps the Chinese Mass had been an accepted and approved Rite of over 200 years at the time? It was the newer liturgies and those that had been vernacularized just before Trent that were outlawed. You need to see the reason why Trent said what it said.

On the surface, on the inside, on the corner…everywhere actually

Nope, it was the Roman Mass to be said in Chinese and was NOT a practise over 200 years.

And I DEFINITELY agree that we should see the reason Trent said what it did. The proposition the canon is aimed against was that the Mass is not effacious and has no benefit if not said in the vernacular a la Calvin.

 

[AJV]

On the surface it does seem to be a violation of Trent, doesn’t it? Perhaps the Chinese Mass had been an accepted and approved Rite of over 200 years at the time? It was the newer liturgies and those that had been vernacularized just before Trent that were outlawed. You need to see the reason why Trent said what it said.

On the surface, on the inside, on the corner…everywhere actually And I made a big error…sorry…it was Paul V in 1611, 8 popes later not St. Pius V

Nope, it was the Roman Mass to be said in Chinese and was NOT a practise over 200 years…“ac in eadem lingua Sinarum possint a Sinis celebrari divina officia Missarum et Horarum Canonicarum. Denique permisit ut ineadem lingua Sinarum, possint a Sinis Sacramenta ministrari, et aliae Ecclesiae functiones peragi.”

And I DEFINITELY agree that we should see the reason Trent said what it did. The proposition the canon is aimed against was that the Mass is not effacious and has no benefit if not said in the vernacular a la Calvin.

 

[BobP123]

On the surface, on the inside, on the corner…everywhere actually And I made a big error…sorry…it was Paul V in 1611, 8 popes later not St. Pius V

Nope, it was the Roman Mass to be said in Chinese and was NOT a practise over 200 years…“ac in eadem lingua Sinarum possint a Sinis celebrari divina officia Missarum et Horarum Canonicarum. Denique permisit ut ineadem lingua Sinarum, possint a Sinis Sacramenta ministrari, et aliae Ecclesiae functiones peragi.”

Thanks for the clarification. Still it seems it violated Trent. I will need to do more research on this.

 

[JackQ]

Thanks for the clarification. Still it seems it violated Trent. I will need to do more research on this.

Well, what Trent seems to have condemned was not the saying of Mass in the vernacular, but the proposition that the Mass was to be said only in the vernacular.

 

[BobP123]

Is there a Latinist here who can perhaps translate this better? There does seem to be some ambiguity here concerning the vulgar tongue. The issue: does the translation of the Mass into Chinese violate Trent teachings or not? From Session XXII:

CHAPTER VIII.

*Etsi missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem; non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. Quamobrem, retento ubique cujusque Ecclesiæ antiquo et a sancta Romana Ecclesia, omnium ecclesiarum matre et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve parvuli panem petant et non sit qui frangat eis, mandat sancta synodus pastoribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex iis, quæ in missa leguntur, aliquid exponant; atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod declarent, diebus præsertim dominicis et festis. *

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each Church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at Mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals.

*Canon IX.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit. *

Canon IX.—If anyone 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.