Tridentine Mass in the Vernacular?

[Image_of_God]

I suppose it would be okay if said in English. But still, I think sort of that certain parts should remain in Latin (if not all ) and all the poetic language must be kept and that the Latin language be greatly advocated. People could actually start to hear Latin like they hear English if they actually tried to learn it.

 

[otjm]

Does it matter what you call it? Latin has been time-proven to be more universally accepted by the Catholic Church. Or at least in the Western world.

I am not sure what you mean by universal acceptance; given that it was the only alternative, it was universal. But acceptance? I think not, as there was no alternative. And considering that until Vatican 2, the laity in general pretty much were treated as “pay, pray and obey”, it was not as if they had any significant (name removed by moderator)ut. Had there not been a Reformation, or had it not had such wholesale wide acceptance, it is hard to say what the course of the Church might have been; it is not out of the realm of possiblities that the imposition of Latin as a reaction to the Reformation demand to drop it was why we have had it for the last 500 years. All of which only gets down to a “woulda coulda shoulda” discussion of not much merit.

 

[stmaria]

Brendan;2858576]

FYI, the text you quoted is from VII, not Trent. And it’s not 'Particular Law" which is a specific Canonical term. It is Universal Law of the Latin Rite.

As I posted it is from Vatican II* Constitution on the Liturgy * # 36 (1)
The use of the Latin language, with due respect to
particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites

This “law” comes from Canon 9 Council of Trent,
*Session XXII Doctrine Concerning The Sacrifice Of The Mass *

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,[25] let him be anathema.
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.
Canon 8. If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated,[27] let him be anathema.
Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

Even the theologians of the Consilium recognized this law
“ Some would have preferred to see the rite completely revised. The Consilium was of this opinion from the beginning, and it had even prepared a draft…. But the resultant Mass, partly in Latin, partly in the vernacular, was a hybrid, lacking in continuity… **the vernaculars had to stop at the threshold of the Roman Canon…**Reform of the Liturgy-Annabale Bugnini

I

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would there be any purpose served in pointing out that BEFORE V2, the Tridentine Rite was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia?

 

[stmaria]

Would there be any purpose served in pointing out that BEFORE V2, the Tridentine Rite was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia?

No it wouldn’t do any good. *Quo Primum *allowed vernaculars that had been used for 200 consecutive years

Quo Primum
“This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been **continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in **which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever”

"The use of the Glagolitic Missal and office books, while permitted in general among the Slavs of Dalmatia and Croatia from the earliest times since the Slavonic became a liturgical language under Pope John VIII, was definitely settled by the Constitution of Urban VIII, dated 29 April, 1631, in which he provided for a new and corrected edition of the Slavic Missal conformable to the Roman editions catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5191

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

The above being true, then there are a lot of traditionalists in trouble. And, once again, no one has said that the Mass should be said in the vernacular only. AND in matters of discipline, a pope cannot bind his successors.

 

[DustinsDad]

*Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.
*

The above being true, then there are a lot of traditionalists in trouble…

How so? Traditionalists love ceremonies, vestments and outwards signs of the mass - it’s the stripping away and “dumbing down” of those things that gest the traditionalists’ ire up. In context, Trent was defending all those distinctively Catholic things in the mass - the insense, the elaborate beautifully crafted vestments and artwork, the precision of the movement of those on the altar, the “smells and bells” - defending them from the “reformers” - the protestants. Traditionalists are still defending these things…just not always from protestants .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[AJV]

the precision of the movement of those on the altar,

I know this is nitpicking in extremis but I couldn’t resist.

Trent couldn’t fully defend the “precision of movement” because not only was there a lack of fixed precision but they was also quite a bit of everyone doing their own thing (piously of course, though when these concerned the altar and Sacrament, several made their way onto initial lists of things to be prohibited in the future). One of the reasons why the Roman Missal contains the section “Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae”, which at the time of printing was also printed separately to be read, was to provide a fixed model for the ceremonies that could be adhered to - since even the Pope (i.e. St. Pius V) was making mistakes in the Mass, as his MC noted in his diary. Even the Ritus though, does not give absolute precision- that was more the domain of the eminent rubricists.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

…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.

,

What are you talking about? What option did they have? Wasn’t the New Mass in the vernacular pretty much thrust upon the laity whether they wanted it or not?

Again, you talk about widespread acceptance. And I hate to beat a dead horse but the statistics on Mass attendance don’t bear this out. The New Mass in the vernacular certainly did not lead to greater Mass attendance, to say the least. I advocate it was much of the reason for the decline (along with other changes to the liturgy and church architecture as well).

You of course can say it was other factors like what was going on in the world. Nevertheless, the New Mass in the vernacular did not halt (or slow down) the plummet regardless of the cause. It also did not help lead to more vocations rather the opposite.

In the link in my signature line, Dietrich von Hildebrand states that it was very difficult to find a Latin Mass anywhere in the U.S. even by 1966.

And of course one does not find the bursting at the seams seminaries in the West as was experienced leading up to Vatican II. And all that with a liturgy some have said that “no one can understand.”

 

[mchale]

How so? Traditionalists love ceremonies, vestments and outwards signs of the mass - it’s the stripping away and “dumbing down” of those things that gest the traditionalists’ ire up. In context, Trent was defending all those distinctively Catholic things in the mass - the insense, the elaborate beautifully crafted vestments and artwork, the precision of the movement of those on the altar, the “smells and bells” - defending them from the “reformers” - the protestants. Traditionalists are still defending these things…just not always from protestants .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Excuse me for jumping into this thread late, but I think the previous poster’s point was not that traditionalists don’t love ceremony, but rather, that some traditionalists hold that the Pauline Rite (and some of the accompanying simplification in ritual and vestments, etc that came with it) is a stimulant to impiety.

Now granted, I think we can all agree that any Liturgy that has been abused, as the Pauline Rite has been, could be a stimulant to impiety, but the rite itself, properly instituted, must be accepted by all Catholics as valid and a stimulant to piety.

Now, I don’t know if that is the position of any non-sedavist Traditionalists, who may just prefer the Tridentine Rite (particularly in Latin), but you have to admit that it does seem to describe some of the Schismatic Groups.

–
Bill

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Excuse me for jumping into this thread late, but I think the previous poster’s point was not that traditionalists don’t love ceremony, but rather, that some traditionalists hold that the Pauline Rite (and some of the accompanying simplification in ritual and vestments, etc that came with it) is a stimulant to impiety.

Now granted, I think we can all agree that any Liturgy that has been abused, as the Pauline Rite has been, could be a stimulant to impiety, but the rite itself, properly instituted, must be accepted by all Catholics as valid and a stimulant to piety.

Now, I don’t know if that is the position of any non-sedavist Traditionalists, who may just prefer the Tridentine Rite (particularly in Latin), but you have to admit that it does seem to describe some of the Schismatic Groups.

–
Bill

Pecisely.

 

[universalindult]

The discussion of whether the traditional Latin Mass should be offered in vernacular should not even be discussed on this “Traditional Catholicism” subforum.

There is already a vernacular mass. Its called the Novus Ordo. If you desire a mass in the vernacular, go to the Novus Ordo. Go discuss it on the forums about the Novus Ordo. Work for the reform of the reform until the Novus Ordo becomes a vernacular version of the pre-VII mass.

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

 

[BobP123]

The discussion of whether the traditional Latin Mass should be offered in vernacular should not even be discussed on this “Traditional Catholicism” subforum.

There is already a vernacular mass. Its called the Novus Ordo. If you desire a mass in the vernacular, go to the Novus Ordo. Go discuss it on the forums about the Novus Ordo. Work for the reform of the reform until the Novus Ordo becomes a vernacular version of the pre-VII mass.

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

I wonder if it’s obsession or ability to control the liturgy. Probably both.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by universalindult
The discussion of whether the traditional Latin Mass should be offered in vernacular should not even be discussed on this “Traditional Catholicism” subforum.

There is already a vernacular mass. Its called the Novus Ordo. If you desire a mass in the vernacular, go to the Novus Ordo. Go discuss it on the forums about the Novus Ordo. Work for the reform of the reform until the Novus Ordo becomes a vernacular version of the pre-VII mass.

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

I wonder if it’s obsession or ability to control the liturgy. Probably both.

---

What these people don’t realize is–in our current Church–once change is introduced it will snowball. It may start with an indult for the vernacular–then it will continue with the application of indults for communion in the hand, and everything else that has been applied to the NO. Years down the road --the EF will be the NO second edition. Makes one wonder–if nothing has been learned from the past 40 yrs.

 

[dallas]

I’m new to the forums on this site. I’m nearly 30, married and have two young daughters. I like to read about our faith, the other rites, Orthodoxy, and the Tridentine Mass.

I’d like to learn more about what people think regarding the traditional mass but using the vernacular. Why isn’t that done more often? I can understand using a language that people speak.

I’m in NC and the Diocese of Charlotte is busy training priests so that they may offer the Tridentine Mass. I was wondering if any church offered it in English (I am not referring to the Anglican-Use rite.)

Don’t do it. The reason why it has to be done in Latin is because Satan does not understand that language and therefore cannot enter to destroy your faith! Research your research.

 

[dallas]

I wonder if it’s obsession or ability to control the liturgy. Probably both.

FINALLY! I am so glad to see someone on this forum defend the true way of the Roman Catholic Religion.

 

[ravenonthecross]

how’s about the phrasing, “let’s replace the NO with a Vernacular
tridentine Mass.
we could mandate that onlyone Vernacular Tridentine be said, with the rest being Latin Tridentine Masses, while insisting that the Latin Tridentine HighMass and one low mass be retained, if not more.)With only English (vernacular for non-englishers”_)
High mass,with the canon, in Latin mandated, but audible. That’s it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The discussion of whether the traditional Latin Mass should be offered in vernacular should not even be discussed on this “Traditional Catholicism” subforum.

There is already a vernacular mass. Its called the Novus Ordo. If you desire a mass in the vernacular, go to the Novus Ordo. Go discuss it on the forums about the Novus Ordo. Work for the reform of the reform until the Novus Ordo becomes a vernacular version of the pre-VII mass.

But leave the traditional Latin Mass out of your vernacular machinations. You’ve got what you want already in 99.99% of Catholic parishes. Why do you folks insist on imposing the vernacular on that tiny 0.01% of traditional Latin Masses? Why this obsession?

No one has proposed that the vernacular should be imposed on those wanting to retain the Tridentine in Latin. Not once has that suggestion been made. All that has been proposed is that the Tridentine ALSO be offered in the vernacular. That’s all.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Don’t do it. The reason why it has to be done in Latin is because Satan does not understand that language and therefore cannot enter to destroy your faith! Research your research.

Can you provide a citation that Satan does not understand Latin? I’ve never heard this asserted.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

FINALLY! I am so glad to see someone on this forum defend the true way of the Roman Catholic Religion.

The true way of the Roman Catholic faith is defined by the magisterium of the Church. It always has been and it always will be. That is seperate and apart from the tools used by the magisterium (of which Latin happens to be one).