Tridentine Mass in the vernacular?

[otjm]

That Catholic Church used Latin since the very beginning.

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.

St Peter was a fisherman, which pretty much leaves him lacking any formal schooling, and it has often been said that St Mark may have well had Peter as his primary source when writing the Gospel if Mark. In Greek, as best we have it.

And Greek was largely the language of commerce throughout much, if not all of the Mediterranean; and as there are no reports as to what St. Peter knew other than Aramaic, it is seriously debatable as to what language, other than Aramaic he might have celebrated the Eucharist, Given that St Peter was Jewish, and for some time what we know of as the Mass appears to have ben bifurcated, with people meeting in synagogue on Saturday for scripture, and Sunday for Eucharist, any guess is pure speculation.

The use of Latin has innumerable benefits to using the vernacular at Mass:

1. 
   *]Protection from mistranslation & heresy

1. 
   Not sure what you mean by this, but any official approval of a translation of the Mass resolves that matter.
   

   *]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

   I would willingly grant that, as it is primary proof as to why around the world, the vast majority of people hear the Mass said in their vernacular.
   

   *]Latin is a dead language, so the meaning of words do not change over time

   True
   

   *]St. Peter himself said Mass in Latin, as did our ancestors of the Faith

   Please cite your source, or this is pure speculation.
   

   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”).

   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.
   

   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.

   You seem to have a rather narrow view of the Church. For starters, Latin does not unify the Church; it unifies the Roman rite.
   
   The Maronite rite, for example, has said the Divine Liturgy in Aramaic and Arabic since the first apostle brought the Good News to the area. They continue to this day, and they consider themselves to be part of the Western Church, not the Eastern.
   
   And then we have the Eastern rites which are also in union with Rome, and have used their own languages (e.g. Slavic) since an Apostle brought, and etc.
   
   I have no doubts that Latin will continue to be the official language of the Roman rite, and that Rome will continue to produce documents in Latin until the mind of man comprehendeth the amount of time not. And every one of those documents will be translated, forthwith, into the languages of those receiving them. If for no other reason than that there are so extremely few people competent in Latin.
   
   You are very enthusiastic about Latin, and that is fine with me, having studied it both in high school and college. However, you might wish to do a bit more fact checking before making allegations.
   
   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.

 

[otjm]

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.

When I was young, before V2, we had what we referred to as a Low Mass, and High Mass.

The Low mas was said, not chanted. The High Mass was chanted.

And on a rare occasion, (e.g. Midnight Mass), we had a Solemn High Mass, with a priest, deacon and subdeacon. Also chanted.

 

[ProVobis]

And every one of those documents will be translated, forthwith, into the languages of those receiving them.

There are some 7000 languages spoken throughout the world. I doubt if all of them, or even a tenth of them, have the necessary Latin scholars to even begin translating every one of the documents. Summorum Pontificum, for one, has only been officially translated into Hungarian, of all languages. The letter has been clarified in other languages, however.

What’s especially sad is that Pope John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, which effectively mandated Latin learning, was only translated in English and Spanish. So that means most of the Catholic world has never even heard of it, much less had the “motivation” to begin to learn Latin. I suppose it says a lot that the Pope’s Latin twitter account has 375k followers so far.

 

[ServusHumilis]

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.

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

 

[tee_eff_em]

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

:tsktsk:
Permission was sought and obtained. Sounds nothing at all like abuse.

tee

 

[ServusHumilis]

Permission was sought and obtained. Sounds nothing at all like abuse.

tee

Meaningless. Permission can’t be given for something that isn’t allowed. :tsktsk: The Pope at time John XXIII, having written Veterum Sapientia, would not have approved. Perhaps it was written in response to such abuses.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Permission was sought and obtained. Sounds nothing at all like abuse.

tee

Meaningless. Permission can’t be given for something that isn’t allowed. :tsktsk: The Pope at the time John XXIII, having written Veterum Sapientia, would not have approved. Perhaps it was written in response to such abuses.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Meaningless. Permission can’t be given for something that isn’t allowed. :tsktsk: The Pope at the time John XXIII, having written Veterum Sapientia, would not have approved. Perhaps it was written in response to such abuses.

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

 

[TarkanAttila]

Doesn’t the Anglican Ordinariate already do this, if you call Elizabethan English the vernacular?

You could call it that. Just as, I suppose, you could call Old Church Slavonic celebrating the Mass in the Russian vernacular. Or Koine Greek, the Greek St. Paul used - I guess you could say that’s celebrating in the Greek Orthodox vernacular.

Vernacular is, really, the wrong word, even in the Ordinariate. Lingua sacra - that’s what all Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) worship in. Or ought to.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Yes, it could…with the permission of the local bishop.

No, it can’t because there is not an approved vernacular 1962 Roman Missal. The closest is the old Church Slavonic 1962 Roman Missal.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Isn’t the Tridentine mass always chanted?

No, there’s such a thing as Low Mass, which omits the deacon and subdeacon and related ceremonies, incense and related prayers, and chant. Instead the priest reads the prayers, most of them inaudibly, but some aloud. Low Mass makes the Tridentine Mass possible when only one sacred minister is available. It was never intended as the norm, but due to a shortage of sacred ministers, it is the de facto norm in many places.

 

[otjm]

No, there’s such a thing as Low Mass, which omits the deacon and subdeacon and related ceremonies, incense and related prayers, and chant. Instead the priest reads the prayers, most of them inaudibly, but some aloud. Low Mass makes the Tridentine Mass possible when only one sacred minister is available. It was never intended as the norm, but due to a shortage of sacred ministers, it is the de facto norm in many places.

Maybe today that is the norm; I am not questioning that.

What I said was the norm - excuse me, but I was actually there - and I was in a parish that had at least one assistant priest, and sometimes two. There was one Mass on Sunday that was chanted; the rest - all four others - were not chanted. And the weekday Masses were never chanted - either the 6:30 a.m. or the 8 a.m.

And we called them Low Masses and High Masses - so did the pastor, so did all the assistant pastors. There may have been a technical name otherwise, but I never heard one used.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

otjm, I was replying to Cassianus without reference to anything you wrote; and now I see that you already answered his question. But I forgot to mention Sung Mass, which is sort of a hybrid between High and Low. The technical, Latin names are:

Missa Solemnis (“Solemn Mass”) - High Mass with priest, deacon, subdeacon

Missa Cantata (“Sung Mass”) - also called High Mass, or Sung Mass, no deacon or subdeacon

Missa Lecta (“Read Mass”, as opposed to chanted) - Low Mass, no deacon or subdeacon

The first two are chanted, so you’re right, sometimes you might have chant with just a priest and no other ordained ministers.

 

[ProVobis]

And we called them Low Masses and High Masses - so did the pastor, so did all the assistant pastors. There may have been a technical name otherwise, but I never heard one used.

Low and High are simply vernacular terms. As of 1960, officially there were the missa lecta (read Mass), missa cantata (sung Mass), and missa solemnis (Solemn High Mass).

 

[ProVobis]

You could call it that. Just as, I suppose, you could call Old Church Slavonic celebrating the Mass in the Russian vernacular. Or Koine Greek, the Greek St. Paul used - I guess you could say that’s celebrating in the Greek Orthodox vernacular.

Vernacular is, really, the wrong word, even in the Ordinariate. Lingua sacra - that’s what all Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) worship in. Or ought to.

I agree. Personally I think someone introduced the word “vernacular” (vernacula in Latin) as it was more palatable than what Trent refered to as “vulgar” (vulgaris).

 

[TarkanAttila]

otjm, I was replying to Cassianus without reference to anything you wrote; and now I see that you already answered his question. But I forgot to mention Sung Mass, which is sort of a hybrid between High and Low. The technical, Latin names are:

Missa Solemnis (“Solemn Mass”) - High Mass with priest, deacon, subdeacon

Missa Cantata (“Sung Mass”) - also called High Mass, or Sung Mass, no deacon or subdeacon

Missa Lecta (“Read Mass”, as opposed to chanted) - Low Mass, no deacon or subdeacon

The first two are chanted, so you’re right, sometimes you might have chant with just a priest and no other ordained ministers.

Even in a Sung Mass, or High Mass, even without a deacon or subdeacon, lay persons can substitute for those roles - at least, so I’ve seen.

 

[Cassianus]

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

& if the relevant authority in the Vatican has approved of a translation as Orthodox, I think one should be content with the fact that it is. If one nevertheless feels it’s heretical, perhaps it’s more likely that ones own understanding of the words & meanings are in the wrong than the Church?

The catechism is the “Sure norm” for the Christian Faith. This is what Saint John Paul II says in the foreword. Whatever ambiguities may occur due to translation will be in a minority & can be cleared up using the official Latin version I’m sure.

Surely, it’s not like with the Arabic of the Quran is it? Words & sounds in themselves are but a finger pointing towards a reality. The finger itself is important, but not as important as the object to which it intends to direct attention.

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. 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.

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.

 

[malphono]

Even in a Sung Mass, or High Mass, even without a deacon or subdeacon, lay persons can substitute for those roles - at least, so I’ve seen.

It’s possible to have a layman function as a “straw subdeacon” but there is, and has never been, such an accommodation for a deacon.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Actually many of us are pulling to have the OF said in Latin, or at least have more parts in Latin, so I don’t know what to tell you here.

 

[Cassianus]

Actually many of us are pulling to have the OF said in Latin, or at least have more parts in Latin, so I don’t know what to tell you here.

Ok. What is it about the Latin that you feel is better than vernacular? God revealed the scriptures in Hebrew & Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. 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. I don’t think this is a reasonable principle for religion & that’s why the Catholic Church permits the Liturgy being said in the vernacular, so as to not let religion fall prey to clerical aristocracy.

On this question I’m in total agreement with the eastern catholic & Orthodox. Let the faith & prayers be taught & said correctly, but in a language that’s understandable for the believer. Because ultimately, it’s for the salvation of souls that religion exists.