Tridentine Mass in the vernacular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cassianus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cassianus

Guest
Hi,

Could the Tridentine mass be celebrated in the vernacular language? Wouldn’t that be a good idea?

The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is celebrated in vernacular & it’s very otherworldly, reverent & spiritual. This fact makes me believe that the Tridentine mass would also keep its holiness with a nice translation.
 
Doesn’t the Anglican Ordinariate already do this, if you call Elizabethan English the vernacular?
 
Maybe that’s how the Anglican Catholics do it, I don’t know? But if it’s legal, why is it not more common? If the traditional Catholics feel the current mass is too irreverent & disconnected from the tradition of the saints & the other side feels that Latin is a barrier 'cuz they don’t understand it & therefore can’t participate in the common prayer - wouldn’t the best compromise be to offer the ancient mass in the vernacular language? In that way, everyone could participate with intellect & tongue AND be connected with the tradition of how the saints used to celebrate mass
 
No, it is not permitted, nor is it what the Anglican Use does the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. The Book of Divine Worship (which Anglican Use parishes use) is based on the modern American edition of the Book of Common Prayer, descended from the 16th century English BCP, which in turn is *loosely *based on the Sarum Use Latin Mass. Not the same thing as the Tridentine in English.

The Orthodox have a “Western Rite” which very closely follows the Tridentine Mass (except they changed some prayers such as the epiclesis, and use leavened bread, etc.), and personally I would not be opposed to such a use in the Roman rite, provided it were chanted solemnly. The Mass just loses too much, in my opinion, when you take away *both *the Latin *and *the chant. It’s like displaying your fine china in a cardboard box.
 
The Tridentine Mass cannot be said in the vernacular. It must be said in Latin. Not even the propers may be said in the vernacular (except before the homily).

Personally, I would be very displeased if this became the trend since the Latin is very important to the Mass and one of the reasons I love it so much. It would make a huge difference if it was said in the vernacular.
 
Well, first you would need an official translation (not any of the ad hoc, unofficial translations found in Latin facing English (or whatever) missals)…

🤷
tee
 
Well, first you would need an official translation (not any of the ad hoc, unofficial translations found in Latin facing English (or whatever) missals)…

🤷
tee
True.

And most of the handmissal translations differ with each other, even though -]they all/-] most come with an imprimatur.
 
The Tridentine Mass cannot be said in the vernacular. It must be said in Latin. Not even the propers may be said in the vernacular (except before the homily).

Personally, I would be very displeased if this became the trend since the Latin is very important to the Mass and one of the reasons I love it so much. It would make a huge difference if it was said in the vernacular.
The vernacular would also go against Pope John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia, where he effectively banned the vernacular in religious matters.
 
In 1960 the Religious Education Department of the Catholic high school I attended requested permission of the bishop to have a mass said in the vernacular as an educational program.

The permission was granted and our chaplain said the mass in English.

This was prior to Vatican II and before the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI in 1969.

If I am not mistaken the Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass was what the mass was in those days. The mass COULD be said in the vernacular…for a special reason and with permission.
 
Of course, I’m assuming that in such a scenario, the translations would have to be approved by the authority in Rome or by the highest church authority in that particular country.

Well, if the western rite orthodox have it, why shouldn’t the Catholic Church have it? The western rite orthodox is probably an attempt to proselytize discontented Catholics anyway.

Isn’t the Tridentine mass always chanted? The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is transcendentally beautiful in English as well & I’ve never heard it not chanted.

I don’t think it’s possible to return to Latin as the language for mass in the whole church. It was kind of a peculiarity of the western church from the beginning since the eastern church translated their liturgy into Slavonic from the very beginning. That’s what Sts Cyril & Methodius largely did along with translating the Holy Scriptures. That’s probably why the vast majority of Slavonic people’s went with the Byzantine rite, eventhough their empire was declining, as it permitted the use of the vernacular.

I think each country has a ‘church language’ of sorts anyway. The English speakers have the Elizabethan English & other countries also have similar ‘modes’ of language for worship.
 
Of course, I’m assuming that in such a scenario, the translations would have to be approved by the authority in Rome or by the highest church authority in that particular country.

Well, if the western rite orthodox have it, why shouldn’t the Catholic Church have it? The western rite orthodox is probably an attempt to proselytize discontented Catholics anyway.

Isn’t the Tridentine mass always chanted? The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is transcendentally beautiful in English as well & I’ve never heard it not chanted.

I don’t think it’s possible to return to Latin as the language for mass in the whole church. It was kind of a peculiarity of the western church from the beginning since the eastern church translated their liturgy into Slavonic from the very beginning. That’s what Sts Cyril & Methodius largely did along with translating the Holy Scriptures. That’s probably why the vast majority of Slavonic people’s went with the Byzantine rite, eventhough their empire was declining, as it permitted the use of the vernacular.

I think each country has a ‘church language’ of sorts anyway. The English speakers have the Elizabethan English & other countries also have similar ‘modes’ of language for worship.
That Catholic Church used Latin since the very beginning. The use of Latin has innumerable benefits to using the vernacular at Mass:

  1. *]Protection from mistranslation & heresy
    *]A unified language in the Liturgy across the Church
    *]The expression of the mystery & sacred nature of the Mass since most do not understand it nor use it in daily conversation
    *]Latin is a dead language, so the meaning of words do not change over time
    *]St. Peter himself said Mass in Latin, as did our ancestors of the Faith

    This is just a few reasons, there are more. It was predicted, before the Second Vatican Council, that if vernacular were introduced into the Mass, heresy would creep in. This was proven true by the fact that the Novus Ordo was translated in such a way as to promote specific heretical agendas (in languages besides English as well). A new translation had to be prepared for the English Catholic Church since the old translation had heresies & did not reflect the true meaning of the Latin that the Novus Ordo was originally written in (for example, et cum spíritu tuo was translated as “and also with you” when it really means “and with thy spirit”).

    The use of Latin also unifies the Church across the world. No matter what country you hear Mass in, the language is the same because the Church is the same. It expresses our unity in the Catholic Faith & the Mystical Body of Christ. Also, the meaning of words do not change in Latin since it is a dead language. With Mass being said in the vernacular, new translations have to be written as the meaning of words change over time. With Mass said in Latin, it makes someone realize that something beyond what he normally experiences is taking place at the altar, something beyond his comprehension since most do not understand Latin. If someone wants to know what is said, it’s as simple as reading the missal.
 
If it was said in the vernacular I’d be looking again.
I wouldn’t support it. For one thing, it probably wouldn’t be said submissa voce (low-toned), as Trent commanded. Some people do like the quietness of the Mass.

Besides which, I wouldn’t classify English as a true vernacular, not like the supposed 240 vernaculars in NIgeria, for example. There I would agree the vernacular has helped grow Catholicism. But I don’t know if the Missal of 1962 in any language other than Latin would help them more.
 
Probably not, but all your other points are valid.
I thought that the Mass was said in vernaculars at the time of the Apostles and so St. Peter said Mass in Latin when he was in Rome. I’m sure I read it somewhere but can’t remember where. But if you say so I believe it since you seem to know a lot. 🙂
 
No, the first masses was in Greek. Kylie Eleison, Lord Have Mercy, is a remnant from that time. Greek was the language of the educated classes, emperor Marcus Aurelius for example wrote his meditations in Greek, although the state language was Latin.

Anyways, the enforcement of one single language is not sufficient protection against heresy anyway & I personally don’t think the Catholic Church will reinstate the Tridentine mass in Latin. All it really does is that it separates theology & liturgy from the masses of the faithful & establishes a kind of aristocracy 'cuz you have to know Latin to know the mass.
Isn’t the protection from heresy established by an official catechism sufficient? If someone diverges from the official catechism, he or she is in heresy.

The whole of the eastern church celebrated their masses in the vernacular language; this was the norm of the church everywhere except for the churches in the roman rite. Celebrating mass in the language of the people inculcates the faith into the people. Perhaps that’s why countries like Greece or Russia could never become Protestant, eventhough they’ve had Calvinist patriarchs & Protestant Tsars: because everyone knew the Divine Liturgy in the language of the common people.

Translation was ideally done by monastics who many times became saints. Thus the people prayed what this particular person prayed, whose they know, from the authority of their bishop & witness of their parents, was a saint.

Besides, the Catholic Church has an authority system that can guarantee the translation is free from error.

Saint Peter most likely celebrated the mass either in Aramaic or Greek. Greek was the international language spoken in the Mediterranean world since the days of Alexander. The apostles probably spoke Greek & Saint Paul is quoting from the Old Testament as it reads in the Greek Septuagint translation. Latin was the language of Law & State for the Roman Empire up until the time when Constantine transferred the Capital from Rome to Constantinople, where Greek was spoken. Though Latin was used in legislation for a few centuries more.
We do not bring forth mere sounds without signification, but along with the sounds we signify conceptions. Because of this, I have often found the godbearing fathers to run counter to one another in sound, but never in meaning; for the mystery of our salvation does not consist in syllables, but in notions and realities. Those whose minds are set upon the notions make peace, while, by the realities, they establish souls in the truth.
  • Saint Maximus the Confessor
 
Besides, the Catholic Church has an authority system that can guarantee the translation is free from error.
Not true. No translation is infallible. Besides, translation is more of an art than science, especially when translating from an ancient language to a modern one. Take ten translators and you’ll get ten different translations. Scholars have been known to disagree on them.

And as the famous Bill Murray once stated, the Latin Mass simply has different vibes.
sn’t the protection from heresy established by an official catechism sufficient? If someone diverges from the official catechism, he or she is in heresy.
No, because even though it may not be heresy, it very well could be a change in theology. I don’t happen to have the old Mass translations any more to show you some examples.
 
I thought that the Mass was said in vernaculars at the time of the Apostles and so St. Peter said Mass in Latin when he was in Rome. I’m sure I read it somewhere but can’t remember where.
I’ve discussed this with people, some of whom happen to think the Mass was never really in all-vernacular. Code-switching (inserting some foreign element for better effect) like an Syriac consecration inside a Greek or Arabic Mass was very possible throughout. Even in the Latin Mass, Greek and Hebrew expressions are retained;; maybe they’re small but they are significant.

I’m always reminded that Shakespeare chose Latin (Et tu Brute) inside one English play, though the original Julius Caesar phrase was Greek inside the Latin.
 
I thought that the Mass was said in vernaculars at the time of the Apostles and so St. Peter said Mass in Latin when he was in Rome. I’m sure I read it somewhere but can’t remember where. But if you say so I believe it since you seem to know a lot. 🙂
From what I’ve read, the very early liturgy of the Roman Church was likely Greek, despite the fact that Latin was the language of Rome. Even today the Latin liturgy retains the Kyrie in Greek. When St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman Church he did so in Greek. I imagine St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Romans was also in Greek, but perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong on that point.
Greek is the language of the New Testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top