Tridentine Mass in the vernacular?

[ServusHumilis]

The bishop is the right one to seek permission from and it is reported he granted it.
He may have done so mistakenly.

But you’ll have to come up with a more sound argument than assuming the consequent, “I feel like it wouldn’t have been allowed”.

:twocents:
tee
FTR: A Latin Lover

My argument is that what he approved as far as I know wasn’t even an option; if it was it would have been very widespread and would have been happening everywhere at the time. I question whether the consecrations would have even occurred. The Mass is something above the local Bishop; he can’t just willy nilly approve whatever he wants with it. I see no educational benefit at all as back then I’d imagine most everyone would have a Missal with the Latin on the left and the English on the right. Conversely today almost no one seems to look at the Missal and therefore perhaps have no idea what’s even going on in the Mass. I know I had no idea until I discovered the Extraordinary Form and was forced to pick up a Missal; heck I even used to be an MC server in the Ordinary Form and had no idea what was going on!

 

[ProVobis]

The Muslims have a strange principle where they say that the Quran is not the Quran if it’s translated into any other language than the Arabic & the Muslims must say their prayers in Arabic, eventhough they may not understand a word of what they’re saying.

Why is this strange?

Here is what Cardinal Arinze said on the matter.

"…Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth…".

 

[otjm]

My argument is that what he approved as far as I know wasn’t even an option; if it was it would have been very widespread and would have been happening everywhere at the time. I question whether the consecrations would have even occurred. The Mass is something above the local Bishop; he can’t just willy nilly approve whatever he wants with it. I see no educational benefit at all as back then I’d imagine most everyone would have a Missal with the Latin on the left and the English on the right. Conversely today almost no one seems to look at the Missal and therefore perhaps have no idea what’s even going on in the Mass. I know I had no idea until I discovered the Extraordinary Form and was forced to pick up a Missal; heck I even used to be an MC server in the Ordinary Form and had no idea what was going on!

Missals were to be had back before the OF was introduced, but they most definitely were not ubiquitous. Somewhere near a half of the people might have one.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Sounds like one of those pre-VII abuses that some like to point out did in fact occur.

I think you have to consider the times. The 1960’s…

Vatican II had been announced. Most “progressive” Catholics were expecting a liberalization of the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control and sexual relations before marriage.

There was considerable lay and clerical discussion about the use of English in the mass. It was expected that the General Instructions of the 1965 Roman Missal would allow the use of English in many parts of the mass. It was assumed that Vatican II would address the issue and allow the entire mass to be said in the vernacular.

Anticipating a change from Latin to English and the various affects on faithful Catholics, some Catholic universities obtained permission from local bishops to celebrate “preview” masses (roughly translated into English) as an introduction of what may be coming. I remember people being surveyed after an “English” mass was said. I thought it was “cool”. Older people thought it was un-Catholic.

If these masses were “in error”…I don’t know. The idea seemed reasonable at the time.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I
None of that is heresy. none. Not one iota. It does not deny any doctrine of the Church. And please, if you are going to make allegations that “someone” said that the vernacular would lead to heresy, please cite your source.

I got most of my information from the book called The Latin Mass Explained by Msgr. George J. Moorman. There is a little section that explains why the Mass is said in Latin and he says, “If a living language were employed in divine worship, heresies and errors would inevitably creep into the Church, and sacred words would be employed in an irreverent or mocking manner by the unbeliever”. This was published with an imprimatur around 1920.

The things that I listed were intended to show how the Mass can be mistranslated. I didn’t mention the heresies that were introduced since I couldn’t remember them well enough to outlay them. I have quite a bad memory and am not a religious scholar, so I try to avoid mistakes.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. I seriously doubt that Latin was used in Jerusalem, which is the founding seat of the Church. The New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, and was later translated into Latin.

You seem to have a rather narrow view of the Church. For starters, Latin does not unify the Church; it unifies the Roman rite.

Keep in mind that the words “unity” and “uniformity” do not have the same meaning.

The Church, although of a number of rites, have unity.

They most definitely do not have uniformity, and never have, once St Paul brought in all those unwashed Gentiles.

I suppose I am guilty of exaggeration, but Latin was used by the early Church. In the same book, it says, “It [Latin] is the language in which the praises of God resounded from the lips of Christians during the first centuries. It is a sublime and solemn thought that the holy Sacrifice is now offered in the same language - nay, with the very same words - with which it was offered in times long past in the obscurity of the Catacombs.”

The book also speaks of unity, “The use of Latin is a means of maintaining unity in the Church, as well as uniformity in her services, for the use of one and the same language in Catholic churches all over the surface of the globe is a connecting link - binding them to Rome and making one out of nations which are separated by diversity of tongues.”

 

[otjm]

I suppose I am guilty of exaggeration, but Latin was used by the early Church. In the same book, it says, “It [Latin] is the language in which the praises of God resounded from the lips of Christians during the first centuries. It is a sublime and solemn thought that the holy Sacrifice is now offered in the same language - nay, with the very same words - with which it was offered in times long past in the obscurity of the Catacombs.”

The book also speaks of unity, “The use of Latin is a means of maintaining unity in the Church, as well as uniformity in her services, for the use of one and the same language in Catholic churches all over the surface of the globe is a connecting link - binding them to Rome and making one out of nations which are separated by diversity of tongues.”

Thank you for sourcing your comments.

I know nothing of your Monsignor, so any comments are not directed to him or to his book. But to put it kindly, everyone seems to have an opinion, and all too many of them are founded on a somewhat rarified factual basis, to put it politely.

The act of shifting the Mass into the vernacular in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with heresy. Heresy comes from the fertile imagination of the heretic, who often has an agenda hidden somewhere behind their heresy.

And there have been a plethora of heresies which the Church, in the last 2000 years, has had to deal with; and for the greater majority of time, Latin was the official language of the Church. It didn’t even faze the heretics. In fact, some of them probably promulgated their heresy in Latin. Your Monsignor to the contrary.

Part of your comment brings to mind the work that John Paul 2 did - very explicitly, to stop what was called the Romanization of the Eastern rites. Finally - finally - one of the Eastern rites has been able to ordain a married man in the US; something that was adamantly and forcefully fought by various Roman rite bishops for decades upon decades. Married clergy were standard in the Eastern rites, but the rear guard skirmishes were something to behold. Excuse my comment, but it really sucked to be a Catholic Christian in the US if you were an Eastern rite - they were not really second class citizens - more like third class.

As I said, unity is not uniformity, but certain people in the past in the hierarchy seem not to have seen the memo.

There is no question that the Roman rite is by far the largest rite within the Church, but sometimes it seems to think it needs to act like the Older Brother in how it treats the rest of the Catholic Church. Unity has too often been looked at as uniformity - which it is not. We are united in Christ; but the more mystically oriented theological approach of the Eastern rites is every bit as valid as the more Socratic/Platonic approach which is a keystone to a Western theological approach.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thank you for sourcing your comments.

I know…

You’re welcome.

When I say that Latin in the Mass prevents heresy, I do not mean all heresy. It would be quite a dumb thought to believe that if Mass were said only in Latin, heresy would disappear from the Church. What I and the authors intend to say is that the Mass itself is preserved from heresy being placed into it, which would then spread throughout the Church. This isn’t always from the official translation from the Holy See. If the Mass is said in the vernacular, the priest may alter the prayers to push his own heretical ideas onto the faithful. If the Mass is said in Latin, he wouldn’t bother since most don’t even understand him. Even if this wouldn’t hinder heresy in the Church, it would at least preserve her most sacred Sacrifice.

Can’t uniformity be an expression of unity? If every church in the world has Mass said in the same language which the Holy Father says Mass, that certainly is a sign of unity. I can sit in the pew next to a man from Japan, yet we would be responding in the same tongue despite our cultural diversities. In my parish, we have English, Spanish, & Vietnamese speakers. All of whom attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Latin can be a unifying factor in the Mass that is not achieved with the vernacular. The uniformity serves as a sign of unity and helps foster it. The problems that are faced by the Eastern Catholic rites are a shame, but that doesn’t mean the Roman rite should toss away one of its traditions.

I don’t think the actions of the Bishops arose from a belief that uniformity and unity were the same thing. When I see the Masses in Africa in which dancing is allowed, I am shocked and horrified that something like that would be allowed at Mass. I fail to see that this is a tradition of Africa and is actually reverent. Something that is different and that contradicts directly one of the practices of which one is accustomed is naturally seen as something that is meant to be censored.

 

[otjm]

You’re welcome.

When I say that Latin in the Mass prevents heresy, I do not mean all heresy. It would be quite a dumb thought to believe that if Mass were said only in Latin, heresy would disappear from the Church. What I and the authors intend to say is that the Mass itself is preserved from heresy being placed into it, which would then spread throughout the Church. This isn’t always from the official translation from the Holy See. If the Mass is said in the vernacular, the priest may alter the prayers to push his own heretical ideas onto the faithful. If the Mass is said in Latin, he wouldn’t bother since most don’t even understand him. Even if this wouldn’t hinder heresy in the Church, it would at least preserve her most sacred Sacrifice.

Can’t uniformity be an expression of unity? If every church in the world has Mass said in the same language which the Holy Father says Mass, that certainly is a sign of unity. I can sit in the pew next to a man from Japan, yet we would be responding in the same tongue despite our cultural diversities. In my parish, we have English, Spanish, & Vietnamese speakers. All of whom attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Latin can be a unifying factor in the Mass that is not achieved with the vernacular. The uniformity serves as a sign of unity and helps foster it. The problems that are faced by the Eastern Catholic rites are a shame, but that doesn’t mean the Roman rite should toss away one of its traditions.

I don’t think the actions of the Bishops arose from a belief that uniformity and unity were the same thing. When I see the Masses in Africa in which dancing is allowed, I am shocked and horrified that something like that would be allowed at Mass. I fail to see that this is a tradition of Africa and is actually reverent. Something that is different and that contradicts directly one of the practices of which one is accustomed is naturally seen as something that is meant to be censored.

You suffer from what many, many others suffer, and that is cultural elitism. I don’t say this as a put down; we all have blind spots, and culture is one of them.

The Church is comfortable with it, and that is good enough for me. I don’t have to get out and “do the bugaloo” (and that, I hope, is not taken offensively by anyone - it is late at night and I don’t have the patience to try to describe other forms of dance). It would be completely inappropriate for me to even attempt it, not to say that it would also be a point of sincere and profound embarrassment.

The Roman rite is steeped in Thomistic theology, which is done a la “scholastic” philosophy, which in turn goes back to Plato and Socrates. Not all philosophy (by any stretch of the imagination) is scholastically based. To be more specific, John Paul 2 had 2 PhDs, one in theology and one in philosophy. He was flat-out brilliant, and when he wrote Theology of the Body, he did so not in terms of a scholastic approach, but rather in the approach of humanism and phenomenology. It is a marvelous gift to the Church and to the world (should the world be bothered enough to actually read it). However, after it was produced (from his weekly Wednesday reflections), he really rocked some boats; a group of neo scholastics pretty much had a hissy fit as they simply could not get their minds around it, as it was not done in the scholastic mode of major topic, breakdown to the next level, down to the next level… somewhat like our approach to biology: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species… and etc.

When one is Germanic, anal retentive, Anglo-Saxon closed body posture with significant and extensive personal space, rigid, dour, and whatever else can be used to describe some of us "northern European types, we don’t get along too well with the effusive, loud boisterous, invading personal space, gesticulating Mediterranean types, let alone someone from Africa or the South Sea Islands, or the Philippines, and not to mention Asian, or African.

So it is not surprising that you are offended, or discombobulated by what is considered “standard” in other cultures. Cultural hegemony is not exactly something new under the sun.

But to go to your first point; if a priest is heretical, he doesn’t need the Mass in the vernacular to spread his heretical ideas; he always has the vehicle we used to call the sermon. And any other pulpit he could find. Didn’t slow Luther down in the least.

And one last thought - St Paul talks about uniformity; he speaks of the different gifts each is given. That is not uniformity; but he also speaks of unity - in Christ.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

You suffer from what many, many others suffer, and that is cultural elitism. I don’t say this as a put down; we all have blind spots, and culture is one of them.
…

So it is not surprising that you are offended, or discombobulated by what is considered “standard” in other cultures. Cultural hegemony is not exactly something new under the sun.

But to go to your first point; if a priest is heretical, he doesn’t need the Mass in the vernacular to spread his heretical ideas; he always has the vehicle we used to call the sermon. And any other pulpit he could find. Didn’t slow Luther down in the least.

And one last thought - St Paul talks about uniformity; he speaks of the different gifts each is given. That is not uniformity; but he also speaks of unity - in Christ.

I don’t see how my shock at the traditions of other cultures makes me an elitist. I was shocked at the dancing of Africa because I was taught that dancing at Mass is forbidden and it shouldn’t be a dance party like it is in some parishes, so when I first saw people dancing at Mass in Africa I thought they were going against the rules. Once I learned that it was a licit tradition of their culture, I was fine with it (but wouldn’t want to do it myself since that isn’t my culture). I may not understand how dancing can be reverent since dancing in my culture has a completely different meaning, but I don’t say that it should be censored in their Masses because it doesn’t fit my culture.

I understand that an arch-heretic will use whatever means necessary to spread his heresy, even the pulpit at Mass, but my point was that he won’t abuse the prayers of the holy Sacrifice which are to be maintained in their proper forms out of due reverence. He won’t do this since the people can’t hear/understand him anyway. That’s why I said that using Latin at Mass will not stop heresy completely, but will at least preserve the Church’s Sacrifice. It will also not reinforce the heresy that is preached in the homily by making it seem like the very Mass itself supports it. I see no weighty reason the Mass should be offered in the vernacular.

 

[otjm]

I don’t see how my shock at the traditions of other cultures makes me an elitist.

I believe there is a difference between calling someone an elitist (which I did not do) and saying that they suffer cultural elitism. Most people are raised in one culture, and it imprints at a very early age. The only people I have met who have been raised in an exposure to more than one culture during their youth. I observed a tremendous amount of cultural elitism when I was in Viet Nam, often in people who should know better. It is very real, and very much a blind spot. Don’t be offended - no offense was intended.

I understand that an arch-heretic will use whatever means necessary to spread his heresy, even the pulpit at Mass, but my point was that he won’t abuse the prayers of the holy Sacrifice which are to be maintained in their proper forms out of due reverence.

Your first post on the matter spoke of your reading, and then gave the example of inaccurate translation; and after reading it again, it still seems that you are positing that the translation (at least the first go-round) had heresy in it.

It didn’t.

Now you seem to be moving away from heresy and towards abuse - also very vaguely defined.

I grew up in a parish, and became an altar server, under a pastor who was a roaring drunk Irishman. He could say the 6:30 a.m. Mass in under 15 minutes, including Communion to the few who attended early. My younger brother swears the priest could say Latin breathing in as well as out.

The point I am making is that it really doesn’t matter what language the Mass is in; what matters is to what degree the priest says the Mass reverently. Since the OF was promulgated, I have been to numerous Masses by Benedictines, Trappists, Franciscans, Jesuits, and diocesesan priests who said the Mass reverently. Language has absolutely nothing to do with reverence or lack of it. Training and mindset do.

Furthermore, the Church has had Masses said in native languages; granted that over time some of those languages have shown change; but they are still said in the native language. And the Eastern rites were no more subject the heresy than the Western ones. And in both the West and the East, the Church’s Sacrifice has been preserved, up to this very day.

You see no weighty reason the Mass should be said in the vernacular? Then look around; the vast majority of those attending Mass are doing so in their native tongue. The Mass is there for us to join with the priest in offering the sacrifice of Christ to the Father, and it is far easier to do when you can actually understand it.

My mother was born in 1917 and there were four in her Catholic high school graduating class as she grew up in farmland in Oregon. She was in no way shape or form a liberal. One day I asked her what she liked best about Vatican 2, and I hardly had the words out of my mouth when she said 'Oh the Mass in English! Now I can understand the priest! "And this was a woman who made sure we not only had missals prior to Vatican 2, but also that we used them.

It is only a very small minority who think it never should have been changed.

 

[ProVobis]

You see no weighty reason the Mass should be said in the vernacular? Then look around; the vast majority of those attending Mass are doing so in their native tongue. The Mass is there for us to join with the priest in offering the sacrifice of Christ to the Father, and it is far easier to do when you can actually understand it.

Okay, let’s look at Shakespeare, for example. Someone who reads a Chinese translation of it may indeed love it and perhaps the translation will sell millions of copies (as did Cliff’s notes, for that matter.) They will no doubt understand the plot but this really isn’t Shakespeare, in the style and vibrations and beauty as he intended it, is it? People will just have to learn to learn Shakespearean English to better understand Shakespeare and Ecclesiastical Latin to better understand the Latin Mass, that’s all. People aren’t born with this knowledge and even the best Shakespearean and Latin scholar has to make some effort when he follows a Shakespearean play or follows a Latin Mass.

But then there are those who just like the mystery of it all and any translation, even Cliff’s Notes, will destroy that mystery for them.

Maybe there are fewer and fewer of them now, but at least they used to show up for Mass when there were many more of them. So just as they were okay with reading Shakespeare without the footnotes, they were just as well as following the Latin Mass without the missals. Perhaps they just had better teachers back then. I had some teachers who didn’t want to see copies of Cliff’s Notes in the classroom.

And if you don’t like my analogy with Shakespeare, fine, then try Italian operas.Thousands spend thousands of dollars not understanding that either.

 

[Thomas_White]

The Tridentine Mass, as it was prior to 1962, differed from the EF Mass. The Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass differed only slightly from that of the 1962 Roman Missal, but there were differences in practice. Perhaps the most significant difference from the EF Mass was that only the altar servers gave the Latin responses during the Tridentine Mass. A member of the congregation could experience the spituality of the Tridentine Mass without understanding any Latin at all. It truly was a different form of the Mass, with silence and other non-verbal communication. Most children attending a Catholic school in that era attended a Tridendine Mass at the beginning of every school day, and did so beginning in the first grade. Latin was not taught in elementary schools, or at least not at the one I attended for eight years. The Mass was nevertheless a significant spiritual experience.

When the entire congregation gives the Latin responses, as it does during every EF Mass I have attended, it changes something essential (perhaps it could be termed ambiance, though that is not quite the right word) about the Mass. It affects spirituality. As many have noted, this is also one of the more significant differences between the Tridentine Mass and the OF Mass. To say the Tridentine Mass, or the EF Mass, in the vernacular would only enhance this effect. There would be nothing wrong with this, but the experience would not be that of the Tridentine Mass. And it does not mean there are those who would not appreciate it either. And it is certainly not to say that understanding the Latin of the Tridentine Mass was not a good thing, but it was not necessary to speak the Latin responses to benefit from understanding it.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I believe there …

It is only a very small minority who think it never should have been changed.

Don’t worry, I didn’t take offense, I just didn’t see how what I said could be a sign I suffer from cultural elitism.

My apologies that my previous post was poorly written. That example I provided of et cum spíritu tuo was meant for “did not reflect the true Latin meaning” and not the heresy I spoke of. I have no idea what good AP English did for me.

Many people wanted the Mass in Latin and still do. My grandfather & grandmother (requiéscant in pace) and their family of 10 children greatly disliked the Novus Ordo and its use of English, so they sought out Latin Masses and drove for miles to hear one. The children still feel the same way. All the books I read from the old days have priests praising Latin in the Mass and defending it, so I think more than a small minority liked the Latin.

Anyway, as to why the Mass has no weighty reason to be said in the vernacular, the Mass is not a prayer but an action. The priest *is * praying, but in doing so he is doing an action of sacrifice that is above all prayer. You don’t need to know a single word of the Mass to be able to participate fully. The Mass was said in Latin for centuries and yet I have never heard a saint say the Mass would be more helpful in vernacular so people can participate easier. This was the way it was for countless saints & faithful; I don’t believe they struggled every Sunday due to their ignorance of Latin & possible illiteracy.

The thought of vernacular at Mass has happened since the Protestant revolt. The Council of Trent said, “Though the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” & “If anyone says … that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema” I don’t see why this should change in a few hundred years since most Catholics then (peasants) were illiterate with no knowledge of Latin so they knew less of the words at Mass than we do today. Despite this, they knew more about the Mass than most people do today (I believe I read this on Catholic Answers). The vernacular doesn’t seem to be helping.

There are churches that get so crammed that people are outside without hearing or seeing the priest at all, yet they are participating in the holy Sacrifice just as much as the people in the pews. Knowledge of what the priest is saying may facilitate participation, but it is not necessary at all. At Mass, I see people praying the rosary or doing their own devotions, these people are participating just as much as someone who is following the missal because they are uniting themselves to the action of the priest’s Sacrifice. This is similar to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in which barely any words were used by Our Lord, and not even all of them were prayers, yet the Blessed Mother with St. John & St. Mary Magdalene united themselves to that Sacrifice all the same since they knew what He was doing. If people want to know what the priest is saying, they can follow the missal.

People often say, “well, I knew a priest that said Mass in x minutes and that shows the Mass doesn’t have to be in Latin”. Well, let me say I have been to party Masses and seen rock bands with people dancing at the altar while the priest speeds through the prayers so he can say what he wants to add. This is so common in my area its sickening, and from the looks of CAF, it is everywhere. If irreverence at some Latin Masses proves the futility of Latin at Mass, then it is much more condemning for the vernacular Masses.

 

[ServusHumilis]

The Tridentine Mass, as it was prior to 1962, differed from the EF Mass. The Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass differed only slightly from that of the 1962 Roman Missal, but there were differences in practice. Perhaps the most significant difference from the EF Mass was that only the altar servers gave the Latin responses during the Tridentine Mass. A member of the congregation could experience the spituality of the Tridentine Mass without understanding any Latin at all. It truly was a different form of the Mass, with silence and other non-verbal communication. Most children attending a Catholic school in that era attended a Tridendine Mass at the beginning of every school day, and did so beginning in the first grade. Latin was not taught in elementary schools, or at least not at the one I attended for eight years. The Mass was nevertheless a significant spiritual experience.

When the entire congregation gives the Latin responses, as it does during every EF Mass I have attended, it changes something essential (perhaps it could be termed ambiance, though that is not quite the right word) about the Mass. It affects spirituality. As many have noted, this is also one of the more significant differences between the Tridentine Mass and the OF Mass. To say the Tridentine Mass, or the EF Mass, in the vernacular would only enhance this effect. There would be nothing wrong with this, but the experience would not be that of the Tridentine Mass. And it does not mean there are those who would not appreciate it either. And it is certainly not to say that understanding the Latin of the Tridentine Mass was not a good thing, but it was not necessary to speak the Latin responses to benefit from understanding it.

It seems to be a little known fact that Pope Pius XII in the late 50s approved at the very least the laity’s recitation along with the priest if they were able the Ordinary (and possibly the Propers?) of the Mass, if not the responses as well. We’re even allowed to say the Pater Noster along with the priest though few if any seem to do it. While this was approved, it seems to have hardly gone into practice. It’s perhaps something that for the most part has been forgotten to the past as the “new Mass” was introduced not long after.

 

[ProVobis]

The vernacular doesn’t seem to be helping.

In fairness, the vernacular in remote areas of Africa and Asia seems to have helped in evangelizing there, but it has been pointed out that they also do Gregorian chant there as well. There are videos which show this.

We should face it, that other than Latin, Catholics just don’t have a common (or in math terms, the LCD) language, at least in the Western rites. Any attempt to force one’s native language to be the dominating one is just plain arrogance. That’s for the Protestants and their 30,000 denominations.

And from the Baltimore Catechism,

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?

A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:

    To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
    That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
    To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to be a little known fact that Pope Pius XII in the late 50s approved at the very least the laity’s recitation along with the priest if they were able the Ordinary (and possibly the Propers?) of the Mass, if not the responses as well. We’re even allowed to say the Pater Noster along with the priest though few if any seem to do it. While this was approved, it seems to have hardly gone into practice. It’s perhaps something that for the most part has been forgotten to the past as the “new Mass” was introduced not long after.

Right. I think there’s a feeling among some that praying in cadences isn’t true prayer. Private prayer or praying quietly perhaps seems more sincere to them. I had a boss back in 1970 who was quite upset that the Church was forcing congregations to shout out responses as this focuses less on what the prayer actually says and more in trying to keep up or even compete with one’s neighbors.

 

[TarkanAttila]

What I’m trying to say is that the beauty of liturgy isn’t necessarily bound to one particular language.

…This thing about the liturgy always in the Latin was from very early on a peculiarity of the western church. It made sense in Gaul, Hispania & Italy, which were western roman provinces, but it never made sense to me in Germany & far north where Vulgar Latin wasn’t the tongue of the people.

You’ll never see a popes condemning the Greeks for celebrating the mass in Greek or for translating it into Slavonic & Russian for example. Because that’s how things was always done in the east. & now, the Vatican II council has introduced a new liturgy that permits the use of the vernacular language - which isn’t a novelty in Christianity, but only in the Latin rite.

Stopping for a second to address this. Actually, I believe there are some old, defunct Celtic and English Rites that were in the vernacular, such as the use of Sarum. But they never caught on.

Therefore, it should be made legal to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular language so that the 2 forms of the liturgy can “compete” on an even basis.

While I appreciate the logic, there are two flaws with it.

First - and you will probably find this most favourable to you - there already is a Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. The Anglican Ordinariate uses it. Aside from a few extra prayers, it is otherwise the Tridentine Mass in English. That’s probably one reason Anglicanorum coetibus was formulated and they were allowed into the Church - to become a prophetic message about the Mass, in both its tradition and expression.

Second, you are correct about the locality of Latin, in the Roman Empire and abroad. However, there is a slight misunderstanding about “vernacular” in Churches, East and West. The East doesn’t actually use “vernacular”. Old Church Slavonic, Koine Greek, and Syriac (despite the name! ) are not “vernacular” tongues!

From what I gather, Latin was used because, even if not everyone spoke it, it was more widely spoken and more widely intelligible across time and place than any other language in the West. It was a unifying principle. It still is; most every document the Church has promulgated is written in Latin, and anyone can learn the language and gain access to all of it in its original form. That’s an important, powerful advantage to Latin as the Church’s language.

I do not speak Latin myself. But anyone who does gets to read the story of Western civilisation without the ambiguities of translation.

Those who will want to learn Latin will always be in a small minority so keeping it strictly Latin will restrict the use of the Tridentine mass - which is said to be the most beautiful even, this side of heaven. Which I feel is unfair.

So if there are different forms of the mass; silent & chanted - they should be available in the vernacular tongue so that the people can visit & fully participate in mind & spirit in the prayer & worship of the saints of the Latin rite.

Again, I think that’s one reason the Ordinariate exists - to bring the Ordinary and the Extraordinary closer together.

Still I don’t want to ever lose the Latin Mass. It is still a joining with the saints in Heaven across 2000 years - many of whom also did it in the Latin.

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems to be a little known fact that Pope Pius XII in the late 50s approved at the very least the laity’s recitation along with the priest if they were able the Ordinary (and possibly the Propers?) of the Mass, if not the responses as well. We’re even allowed to say the Pater Noster along with the priest though few if any seem to do it. While this was approved, it seems to have hardly gone into practice. It’s perhaps something that for the most part has been forgotten to the past as the “new Mass” was introduced not long after.

Yes, and I did learn this later though I never saw it practiced. The article said that Pope Pius XII authorized other changes as well in “anticipation” of Vatican II, which did not mean he forsaw the actual occurrance of Vatican II but rather that he authorized the changes as an adjustment to the modern world.

It would be interesting to experience the Tridentine Mass said in the vernacular where only the altar servers spoke the responses.

 

[otjm]

Okay, let’s look at Shakespeare, for example. Someone who reads a Chinese translation of it may indeed love it and perhaps the translation will sell millions of copies (as did Cliff’s notes, for that matter.) They will no doubt understand the plot but this really isn’t Shakespeare, in the style and vibrations and beauty as he intended it, is it? People will just have to learn to learn Shakespearean English to better understand Shakespeare and Ecclesiastical Latin to better understand the Latin Mass, that’s all. People aren’t born with this knowledge and even the best Shakespearean and Latin scholar has to make some effort when he follows a Shakespearean play or follows a Latin Mass.

But then there are those who just like the mystery of it all and any translation, even Cliff’s Notes, will destroy that mystery for them.

Maybe there are fewer and fewer of them now, but at least they used to show up for Mass when there were many more of them. So just as they were okay with reading Shakespeare without the footnotes, they were just as well as following the Latin Mass without the missals. Perhaps they just had better teachers back then. I had some teachers who didn’t want to see copies of Cliff’s Notes in the classroom.

And if you don’t like my analogy with Shakespeare, fine, then try Italian operas.Thousands spend thousands of dollars not understanding that either.

Then according to that, no one should ever use a missal at an EF Mass.

Okey dokey.