Tridentine Mass in the Vernacular?

[Image_of_God]

If I’m not mistaken, the Eastern Orthodox (and certainly the Eastern Rite Catholics) have their services in the vernacular as well.

I am sure that you understand the quarrel between St. Nicholas the Great and St. Photius and how St. Cyril and Methodius obtained permission from the Holy See to translated the Greek Litugy from Greek to Slavic? Well that is where it begins. I am certain that the Pope St. Nicholas had in mind their translation into the venecular and for some reason saw a greater benefit if the Roman Church continued to say their Mass in Latin (in spite of the various new languages occuring). I don’t have disdain the use of venacular in the Church and I am sure that Jesus didn’t speak Latin , but I think that at times when people think of change to the venacular, they forget the almost 2 milleniums the Church used Latin as the language. The Popes of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II era have constantly urged more Latin in the Mass, though they do acknowledge the benefits of the venacular. In referrence to your original statement, yes the Eastern Churches do use venecular, but I think that they have a lot more respect for the official language of their particular Church than we do for Latin. And I used the quote from Blessed John XXIII to show that the “Pope of Vatican II” has a difference stance on Latin than many people who claim to have “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

I’m all for clinging to tradition. Would tradition not be better conveyed and appreciated if it were in the language of those to whom it is entrusted?

And I too am for the venacular. But I think that many people view inculturation to one sidedly. Certainly, the people should influence the liturgy, but it does to apply the other way around. The Church and liturgy influence the people too. Many people forget that the Roman Church does too have a heritage just as many cultures do. I envison that Latin and venacular could take place in a particular culture and strengthen the respect for the Liturgy still.

You speak of agreeing with the Council, which also called for a “noble simplicity” in the Mass, did it not? Would you favor the simplification of the Tridentine, in keeping with the Council’s desires?

I have little problem with the NO, as it was intended by the Council. It would be interesting to know that even if the Council did envision a noble simplicity. Although, I do find it hard to answer your question. Much of what I know of the Extraordinary Form comes from reading. I think that an Catholic who has attend this Mass should answer.
“34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”
I do believe that a simplification could be done to the TLM without take away most of it. The statement says no where about the removal of the grand beauty of that Mass, just that rites should be short, clear and oncely done. I don’t think that alot would need to be done.

 

[Image_of_God]

I must add that I was responding beforehand to a poster who said that there hasn’t been a Pope during and after Vatican II who has supported Latin.
You should read recent recent articles on Benedict XVI. You will see that he supports Latin in other Mass, not just international ones.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<I am sure that you understand the quarrel between St. Nicholas the Great and St. Photius and how St. Cyril and Methodius obtained permission from the Holy See to translated the Greek Litugy from Greek to Slavic?>>

There’s something else to consider:

The various vernaculars of Europe just weren’t developed or unified enough to be used liturgically until about the time of the Reformation!

How long did it take English to get stabilized and standardized?

I might mention that Slavonic, while based on the Bulgarian Slavic dialect spoken on the streets of Thessaloniki in the 8th century, was NEVER a vernacular language, but always an artificial ecclesiastical language. It is full of words–and not just liturgical terms–that are Greek roots with Slavic inflections.

 

[Image_of_God]

<<I am sure that you understand the quarrel between St. Nicholas the Great and St. Photius and how St. Cyril and Methodius obtained permission from the Holy See to translated the Greek Litugy from Greek to Slavic?>>

There’s something else to consider:

The various vernaculars of Europe just weren’t developed or unified enough to be used liturgically until about the time of the Reformation!

How long did it take English to get stabilized and standardized?

I might mention that Slavonic, while based on the Bulgarian Slavic dialect spoken on the streets of Thessaloniki in the 8th century, was NEVER a vernacular language, but always an artificial ecclesiastical language. It is full of words–and not just liturgical terms–that are Greek roots with Slavic inflections.

I submit to your facts. I was under the assumption that the Slavic they used was venacular. But even still, the venacular did exist. Add that factor with the German that had been spoken for many years, even during the Roman Empire. I would think that the German spoken then, was a similar German to the one of Charlemagne and of the medieval period. Portuguese did not become the official language of Portugal until the late 12th Century. But, Portuguese was well established before then. St. Nicholas must have had something else in mind that he did not at least take the same actions of Cyril and Methodius. I think that he saw the unifying nature of Latin in the Roman Church—even though he himself could speak early Italian. Yet, I still insist that you correct me further in this matter; there is alot that you know that I don’t.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am sure that you understand the quarrel between St. Nicholas the Great and St. Photius and how St. Cyril and Methodius obtained permission from the Holy See to translated the Greek Litugy from Greek to Slavic? Well that is where it begins. I am certain that the Pope St. Nicholas had in mind their translation into the venecular and for some reason saw a greater benefit if the Roman Church continued to say their Mass in Latin (in spite of the various new languages occuring). I don’t have disdain the use of venacular in the Church and I am sure that Jesus didn’t speak Latin , but I think that at times when people think of change to the venacular, they forget the almost 2 milleniums the Church used Latin as the language.

**Yes, but the pope who approved the change to Slavonic for Cyril and Methodius (I cannot remember if it was Hadrian II or John VIII) wrote that God had created all langauges to praise him.

I don’t think anyone disregards the importance of Latin to the Church (at least not any thinking person), as that would be like saying that Greek and Hebrew were not important to the Church. We do not, however, as a body study Greek and Hebrew in order to read the Holy Scriptures. I think that the same applies to the language of the Mass.
**
The Popes of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II era have constantly urged more Latin in the Mass, though they do acknowledge the benefits of the venacular. In referrence to your original statement, yes the Eastern Churches do use venecular, but I think that they have a lot more respect for the official language of their particular Church than we do for Latin. And I used the quote from Blessed John XXIII to show that the “Pope of Vatican II” has a difference stance on Latin than many people who claim to have “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

**I don’t claim to have the “Spirit,” I am, in fact, a lot closer to the “traditionalists” than to the “spirit” folk (though I seem to hear snorts of derisive laughter echoing through the forums). I simply believe that there are great benefits to the faithful to have the Mass in ther vernacular. **

And I too am for the venacular. But I think that many people view inculturation to one sidedly. Certainly, the people should influence the liturgy, but it does to apply the other way around. The Church and liturgy influence the people too. Many people forget that the Roman Church does too have a heritage just as many cultures do. I envison that Latin and venacular could take place in a particular culture and strengthen the respect for the Liturgy still.

**I understand the culture of the Mass and of Catholicism. I also happen to think that culture might be more readily understood, appreciated, and passed on if it were in a language readily understood by the faithful. That is to say, I don’t think we loose anything at all by having our Mass in the vernacular. **

I have little problem with the NO, as it was intended by the Council. **But how about how it was permitted by the Pope (ie, an all vernacular Mass)?

**It would be interesting to know that even if the Council did envision a noble simplicity. Although, I do find it hard to answer your question. Much of what I know of the Extraordinary Form comes from reading. I think that an Catholic who has attend this Mass should answer.
“34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”
I do believe that a simplification could be done to the TLM without take away most of it. The statement says no where about the removal of the grand beauty of that Mass, just that rites should be short, clear and oncely done. I don’t think that alot would need to be done.

I agree! But I’d offer it in the vernacular, as well.

 

[palmas85]

I honestly think that organic development is going to lead to the audible canon and the vernacular in the Tridentine (neither of which is simply my personal preference). I think it will be only a matter of time (not even that much, in terms of how slowly the Church does things). Why? Because I think many will recognize the beauty of the Tridentine, but will still basically want to go to Mass in their own language. I think that the overwhelming majority of the faithful feel that way about the vernacular and the Pope isn’t going to attempt to force the flock over an issue that isn’t an essential (and neither the audible canon or the use of Latin is an essential, coming to us from the Apostles). In terms of “market forces,” I think the vernacular Mass that you can hear is going to always be more popular (sort of a “how are you going to keep them down on the farm once they’ve seen the lights of gay Paree?”) and the Tridentine will eventually be allowed to be in the vernacular, audibly.

Well old friend I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that. Oh, by the way, out in San Diego they now have daily Traditional Masses in addition to the two on Sundays. I have also been attending the Traditional Mass while visiting in New Orleans. Standing room only Kirk, remarkable isn’t it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well old friend I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that. Oh, by the way, out in San Diego they now have daily Traditional Masses in addition to the two on Sundays. I have also been attending the Traditional Mass while visiting in New Orleans. Standing room only Kirk, remarkable isn’t it?

We’ll have to see, Palmas. My very large NO parish is also pretty packed Sunday by Sunday, at all Masses (well, I’ve never been to the Sunday 6:30 AM). And no one has breathed a word about the Tridentine.

Besides, I never said people wouldn’t want to go. The question is, will they want to stay? When they can go to Mass in their own lingo? We’ll see.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I am not sure about all of you on this thread, but my missal is in the vernacular and Latin. Latin is on all the left pages and the English is on the right! So as the mass is going along you can follow in the vernacular.

When I first started going to the TLM this year, I was able to follow along adequately, and now of course it is second nature. In addition, Latin is not as difficult as it initially seems. It is most difficult in North America since the educational system, in the area of languages, in deficient (with the exception to parts of Canada - Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which are bilingual). In most countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America (where most of the world’s population is), it is normal to learn 2 or more languages from the age of 4.
Case in point, in India the minimal of 3 languages is taught in every state and so most are trilingual (i.e. Hindi, English, State Language, + more)

I purchased a Children’s Missal for the Tridentine Mass for a 7 year old and after 2 1/2 months it is moving along great!
So the TLM is already in the vernacular all you have to do is look on the right side of your Missal.

I hope this helps.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am not sure about all of you on this thread, but my missal is in the vernacular and Latin. Latin is on all the left pages and the English is on the right! So as the mass is going along you can follow in the vernacular.

When I first started going to the TLM this year, I was able to follow along adequately, and now of course it is second nature. In addition, Latin is not as difficult as it initially seems. It is most difficult in North America since the educational system, in the area of languages, in deficient (with the exception to parts of Canada - Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which are bilingual). In most countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America (where most of the world’s population is), it is normal to learn 2 or more languages from the age of 4.
Case in point, in India the minimal of 3 languages is taught in every state and so most are trilingual (i.e. Hindi, English, State Language, + more)

I purchased a Children’s Missal for the Tridentine Mass for a 7 year old and after 2 1/2 months it is moving along great!
So the TLM is already in the vernacular all you have to do is look on the right side of your Missal.

I hope this helps.

Good, then we won’t have to worry about translations when permission comes to offer the Tridentine in the vernacular. They’re already right there!

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I think some may have misunderstood the post so edited a little:

I am not sure about all of you on this thread, but my missal is in the vernacular and Latin. Latin is on all the left pages and the English is on the right! So as the mass is going along you can follow in the vernacular.

When I first started going to the TLM this year, I was able to follow along adequately, and now of course it is second nature. In addition,* Latin is not as difficult as it initially seems. It is most difficult in North America* since the educational system, in the area of languages, in deficient (with the exception to parts of Canada - Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which are bilingual).

In most countries such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America (where most of the world’s population is), it is normal to learn 2 or more languages from the age of 4.
Case in point, in India the minimal of 3 languages is taught in every state and so most are trilingual (i.e. Hindi, English, State Language, + more)

I purchased a Children’s Missal for the Tridentine Mass for a 7 year old and after 2 1/2 months it is moving along great!
So the TLM is already in the vernacular all you have to do is look on the right side of your Missal.

I hope this helps and is more clear for the OP.

 

[otjm]

I think some may have misunderstood the post so edited a little:

I am not sure about all of you on this thread, but my missal is in the vernacular and Latin. Latin is on all the left pages and the English is on the right! So as the mass is going along you can follow in the vernacular. However, experience from the change in the Mass in 1969, which was widely and rapdily accepted by people shows that one of the greatest reasons for its widespread acceptance was that it was in the vernacular. People had missals before 1969; it was not exactly new. What was new was the Mass in English, and was what caused such widespread acceptance.

Note: I do not say by all. There were those from the beginning who did not want the change. The majority, however, accepted it quite willingly.

In most countries such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America (where most of the world’s population is), it is normal to learn 2 or more languages from the age of 4.
Case in point, in India the minimal of 3 languages is taught in every state and so most are trilingual (i.e. Hindi, English, State Language, + more)

And it was fairly common to have Latin taught in high schools - even public schools - prior to 1969; however by and large it was not taught as a spoken language, but rather as a translated language. Even people who took Latin had to use a missal, as they could not speak it.

So the TLM is already in the vernacular all you have to do is look on the right side of your Missal.

I hope this helps and is more clear for the OP.

Actually, no, it is not clear. Mass in the vernacular is just that; it is in the language of the people. Latin is not the language of any people anymore.

Some people learn by hearing; some by seeing, some by reading. That is why the move by some idiots to remove the missals from the pews in the OF would be so funny, if it were not so sad. They insist that the Gospel “must be heard”, as the Gospel “is to be preached”. In their rush to be “theologically” (read: politically) correct, they ignore basic facts of learning; leave it to a liberal to determine what is correct.

The point is, however, that people took to the vernacular like ducks take to water. And that was after they had had the missals wiotht he translation on one side and Latin on the other.

 

[Image_of_God]

I agree! But I’d offer it in the vernacular, as well.

In many of these things you are correct, but I’m afraid that Pope John XXIII and the Church would disagree with you in other matters. Of course some of my own statements on the matter are my own personal opinion, but I have gained this opinion based on what I have heard.

You bring up an excellent point that one of the Popes you mention said that God created all languages to praise him. However,though true this is, you fail to mention why these Popes did not use the venecular in the West. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what they meant?

On another note, I wasn’t accusing you of having the “spirit,” it was intended as a general example, not the least do I see it in you.

You also question about the permission that Pope Paul VI gave to the use of the venecular. I have no problem, and I concur with John Paul II that the use of the venecular was has had benefits. But I use Blessed John as support and that doesn’t change this. We look amongst the Churches and hear of Spanish, African, English Masses, etc. all done by the same priest. Couldn’t this all be solved by having one Latin Mass in which everyone is required to learn? This is what Pope John means when he speaks of Latin’s impartiality. Many people don’t know English and have to go to other parish that serve a Mass in their language, if the parish doesn’t offer it. It would be to an advantage if all had to learn one knew language.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

However, experience from the change in the Mass in 1969, which was widely and rapdily accepted by people shows that one of the greatest reasons for its widespread acceptance was that it was in the vernacular. People had missals before 1969; it was not exactly new. What was new was the Mass in English, and was what caused such widespread acceptance.

Conformity or acceptance does not mean it is licit.

And it was fairly common to have Latin taught in high schools - even public schools - prior to 1969; however by and large it was not taught as a spoken language, but rather as a translated language. Even people who took Latin had to use a missal, as they could not speak it.

India, a population of 1.1 BILLION, has more Christians than the population of Canada! The Catholics there do not seem to be having difficulty learning language for the TLM. On top of the 3 languages that is taught in school.

Actually, no, it is not clear. Mass in the vernacular is just that; it is in the language of the people. Latin is not the language of any people anymore.

Actually it is quite clear, that the mass you are referring to is one in the US, but as I have shown, other countries have no problems learning languages. You must remember that the greater population of this planet is not English speaking.
Which people? Why does it remain the language of the Church? Why is it good for the Church but not the People of the Church?
Contradiction.

Some people learn by hearing; some by seeing, some by reading.

The best mode would be to incorporate all these faculties if possible.

The point is, however, that people took to the vernacular like ducks take to water. And that was after they had had the missals wiotht he translation on one side and Latin on the other.

Again, the mass is in the Vernacular on the opposing pages of the Missal. It is not difficult to follow along. I was quite good after about 11 masses (that was only this year) and I am horrible at learning languages (pertaining to of course the language of the mass and not the whole Latin language - again this is another modernist flaw - since you need not learn the whole of Latin to follow the Mass).

 

[Pious_Mat]

I’d love the Tridentine Mass in English…as a replacement for the NO.

I don’t understand why people are so hot-headed about the Tridentine Mass in English–don’t worry, the mass of 1962 will never be abrogated–it may well be slightly changed, as it was in the late fifties, but the Tridentine Mass itself will always be the same.

The purpose of the MP Summorum Pontificum is to make the New Mass more traditional, and if people tell me that they’d prefer the Tridentine in English to the Novus Ordo, I’ll think to myself, “mission accomplished.”

However, I’d want a team of Orthodox, loyal experts translating it, and taking their time to produce a high-quality literal translation. Some prominent scholars have suggested that there are as many as 300 translation errors in the English version of the NO Missal, and although I’ve never counted (somebody here with a good knowledge of Latin ought to), I believe him. Even I, a seventeen year old whose knowledge of Latin comes from the prayers of the Mass and 19th century first year latin texts, could probably produce a better translation of the mass than the people who produced the NO translation.

Pro Multis is not for “for many”, Et cum spiritu tui is not “and also with you”, Mea culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa is not simply “through my own fault”, totiusque ecclesiae suae sanctae is not “and all his Church” (there needs to be a ‘Holy’ in there). Never mind the pointless additions and omissions! I can almost understand wanting a “new” mass; wanting to change the text of the canon, I cannot.

 

[otjm]

Conformity or acceptance does not mean it is licit.

Having the Mass said (the OF) all in English is not illicit as the translations have been approved. It was not made mandatory that any part - e.g. the Sanctus - be said in Latin; it is greatly desired and the fact that in general it is not done in the US has been noted and commented upon, but it does not violate any mandate. Licitiness is not the issue. Common sense may be; following the lead from Rome may be, but it is not an issue of licit vs. illicit.

Actually it is quite clear, that the mass you are referring to is one in the US, but as I have shown, other countries have no problems learning languages. You must remember that the greater population of this planet is not English speaking.
Which people? Why does it remain the language of the Church? Why is it good for the Church but not the People of the Church?
Contradiction.

The issue is not per se English, but vernacular. and the vast majority of people on the plant=et do not know and are not going to learn how to spek Latin; a miniscule number in the world may learn to read it or speak it, an miniscule , given the population of the world, is probably better said infinitesmal.

Again, the mass is in the Vernacular on the opposing pages of the Missal. It is not difficult to follow along. I was quite good after about 11 masses (that was only this year) and I am horrible at learning languages (pertaining to of course the language of the mass and not the whole Latin language - again this is another modernist flaw - since you need not learn the whole of Latin to follow the Mass).

and the issue you are missing is that the large majority of people are not sophisticated enough to even know there are differences in prayers or rubrics between the EF and the OF, but they do know they appreciate and want the vernacular.

And given that they will have both forms available to many, if not the majority in the future as more priests are available to say the EF, time will tell as to how people vote when they have both forms available. From what I have seen and experienced and been told by people born before, say 1949, it would certainly be well within the realm of possiblities that the majority of people would continue to flock to the OF simply because of the vernacular. In short, what I am saying is that Kirk’s point is not that people can’t read; it is that they prefer to hear the Mass in their native language.

And as to your issue about people learning multiple languages in other countries, most of that is in countries where the other languages are being spoken. People in the US (by no means all) are learning Spanish, at least enough to converse about work information; no one here is speaking Latin daily, nor is likely to. The point is not relevant to the conversation as it is not illustrative of the issue at hand.

 

[palmas85]

I’d love the Tridentine Mass in English…as a replacement for the NO.

I don’t understand why people are so hot-headed about the Tridentine Mass in English–don’t worry, the mass of 1962 will never be abrogated–it may well be slightly changed, as it was in the late fifties, but the Tridentine Mass itself will always be the same.

The purpose of the MP Summorum Pontificum is to make the New Mass more traditional, and if people tell me that they’d prefer the Tridentine in English to the Novus Ordo, I’ll think to myself, “mission accomplished.”

However, I’d want a team of Orthodox, loyal experts translating it, and taking their time to produce a high-quality literal translation. Some prominent scholars have suggested that there are as many as 300 translation errors in the English version of the NO Missal, and although I’ve never counted (somebody here with a good knowledge of Latin ought to), I believe him. Even I, a seventeen year old whose knowledge of Latin comes from the prayers of the Mass and 19th century first year latin texts, could probably produce a better translation of the mass than the people who produced the NO translation.

Pro Multis is not for “for many”, Et cum spiritu tui is not “and also with you”, Mea culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa is not simply “through my own fault”, totiusque ecclesiae suae sanctae is not “and all his Church” (there needs to be a ‘Holy’ in there). Never mind the pointless additions and omissions! I can almost understand wanting a “new” mass; wanting to change the text of the canon, I cannot.

I will reiterate, even if the Traditional is celebrated in the vernacular

**
YOU STILL WON’T HEAR MOST OF IT**

So whats the big deal? I guess now you’ll want to say the entire thing audibly, correct? And then have the Priest face the people, correct? Where does it end?

In the Traditional you already have the readings and the homily in the vernacular and since you don’t hear the rest of it what do you wantthe vernacular for? The Missal has the vernacular in it and you can easily pray those yourself…

So why the push for the vernacular except as a precurser to other changes down the road, which is what I suspect it is all about anyway.

 

[Brendan]

We don’t have the Tridentine Mass in vernacular because (1)vernacular only in the Mass was prohibited by Trent .

That’s not quite true,

What Trent anathemtized was the opinion of the Protestants that the Liturgy should only be said in the vernacular, to the exclusion of Latin.

Trent could not have prohibited a totally vernacular Mass as previous Popes has authorized that, not the least of which is Pope John VIII’s authorizing St. Methoduis to translate the Liturgy into Slavonic.

 

[Brendan]

Having the Mass said (the OF) all in English is not illicit as the translations have been approved. It was not made mandatory that any part - e.g. the Sanctus - be said in Latin; it is greatly desired and the fact that in general it is not done in the US has been noted and commented upon, but it does not violate any mandate. .

Is there a mandate that says that the Sanctus must be said in Latin? No there is not.

Is there a mandate that says the faithful should know the Sanctus and be able to sing or recite IN LATIN, yes there is.

Sacrosanctum Concillium #54.

 

[otjm]

I will reiterate, even if the Traditional is celebrated in the vernacular

**
YOU STILL WON’T HEAR MOST OF IT**

So whats the big deal? I guess now you’ll want to say the entire thing audibly, correct? And then have the Priest face the people, correct? Where does it end?

The short answer is wherever Rome decides. If Rome decides that the parts said quietly will be said so that all can hear, then that is what will be done. While it is traditional, it is a rubric and like any other rubric can be changed. It certainly is not immutable. Whether or not it should be changed will be decided on a pay level much higher than anyone in these fora. And no, I do not see that having the Canon audible makes any suggestion at all that the priest would be facing the people, but as has been noted on another thread, such a shocking thing had occured well prior to Vatican 2, which was prior to the 1969 Missal. But having the Canon audible has no implication at all to the dirction faced; that is just a red herring.

[In the Traditional you already have the readings and the homily in the vernacular and since you don’t hear the rest of it what do you want the vernacular for? The Missal has the vernacular in it and you can easily pray those yourself…

The rest of the Mass from the Offeratory forward was not inaudible. The standard practice was to say the Mass in Latin and repeat the readings in English. If, for the sake of reducing repetitions (which appears what the Council wanted), the readings were in English only, you then are moving well into what should or should not be said in one language or the other. It is not a far stretch to have parts of the remaining Mass in English, and some retained in Latin.

ThereCanBeOnly1:

So why the push for the vernacular except as a precurser to other changes down the road, which is what I suspect it is all about anyway.

Because of the power of the vernacular; it does not per se lead to any other changes. However, given that both JP 2 and Benedict 16 both strongly supported the Council, I would assume that one of the things that would eventually occur would be the reduction of repeated prayers, and other items that have been identified as added on through the ages, which is the gist of what the Council wanted.
[/QUOTE]

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I will reiterate, even if the Traditional is celebrated in the vernacular

**
YOU STILL WON’T HEAR MOST OF IT**

Excellent point!

So whats the big deal? I guess now you’ll want to say the entire thing audibly, correct? And then have the Priest face the people, correct? Where does it end?

They do not want it to end and that is the whole modernist agenda.

In the Traditional you already have the readings and the homily in the vernacular and since you don’t hear the rest of it what do you wantthe vernacular for? The Missal has the vernacular in it and you can easily pray those yourself…

Precisely, but as usual some modernist will post the contrary.

So why the push for the vernacular except as a precurser to other changes down the road, which is what I suspect it is all about anyway.

Exactly, your suspicions are valid. It is a modernist mind trick.:hypno: