Tridentine Mass in the Vernacular?

[mikellie]

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.)

 

[AJV]

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.)

You opened the hornet’s nest with this one. To answer your question, there is no place that offers the ‘Tridentine’ Mass entirely in the vernacular. According to the liturgical legislation in force, that is not permissible.

The Apostolic Consitution Veterum Sapientia of Pope Joihn XXIII lays down some reasons for the use of LAtin as a liturgical language of the Church.

You might want to a search since there are quite a few past threads on the subject, but here are one or two:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185589
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=183996
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180176

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think it would be a fantastic idea. The prose of the TLM is frankly beautiful. I’m hopeful that this will someday be an option.

 

[Fuerza]

I think it would be a fantastic idea. The prose of the TLM is frankly beautiful. I’m hopeful that this will someday be an option.

I also think it would be a great idea, as long as at least a few lines of Latin were retained. Perhaps almost the entire liturgy could be in the vernacular, but with the Canon in Latin and maybe even a Greek Kyrie. I also think it would be a good idea to pronounce all the prayers audibly.

 

[palmas85]

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.)

They tried it in the mid sixties. The progressive and modern thinkers hated it so we ended up with the Pauline instead. Since they didn’t like it then, I doubt they will like it now.

I don’t really understand the apparent yearning or at least acceptance of the Traditional Mass by some, **but only in the vernacular. ** Why?

YOU DON"T HEAR MOST OF IT ANYWAY

And if you use a Missal, it has the vernacular right there in front of you, and you are free to pray it in your own language. It is the Priest who needs to say it in Latin, not you.

Of course, I’m sure that those who say they want the Traditional in the vernacular would like it to be said ad orientem also, and spoken aloud as well. Maybe throw in a few extraordinary ministers and female altar servers, you know for greater participation and all that. . And while we’re at it, lets move the altar forward so that the Priest can easily walk around it and of course, lets extend the chalice to the laity as well… See what I mean? Thats how we got to where we are today.

No, I firmly believe those that ask for the Traditional in the vernacular want noting more than another version of the Pauline. They want to appear accomodating, non judgemental , open minded and all that good stuff. Thats all., They don’t want the Traditional any more than the progressive thinkers in the mid sixties did. They only want some adulterated model that bears little resemblemce to the real thing.

 

[BobP123]

Nothing wrong with adding vernacular readings where it may be beneficial. So long as the Latin prayers and readings are all there.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

They tried it in the mid sixties. The progressive and modern thinkers hated it so we ended up with the Pauline instead. Since they didn’t like it then, I doubt they will like it now.

I don’t really understand the apparent yearning or at least acceptance of the Traditional Mass by some, **but only in the vernacular. ** Why?

YOU DON"T HEAR MOST OF IT ANYWAY

And if you use a Missal, it has the vernacular right there in front of you, and you are free to pray it in your own language. It is the Priest who needs to say it in Latin, not you.

Of course, I’m sure that those who say they want the Traditional in the vernacular would like it to be said ad orientem also, and spoken aloud as well. Maybe throw in a few extraordinary ministers and female altar servers, you know for greater participation and all that. . And while we’re at it, lets move the altar forward so that the Priest can easily walk around it and of course, lets extend the chalice to the laity as well… See what I mean? Thats how we got to where we are today.

No, I firmly believe those that ask for the Traditional in the vernacular want noting more than another version of the Pauline. They want to appear accomodating, non judgemental , open minded and all that good stuff. Thats all., They don’t want the Traditional any more than the progressive thinkers in the mid sixties did. They only want some adulterated model that bears little resemblemce to the real thing.

Palmas: You know I wouldn’t lie to you and I was a mere child in the mid 60’s. I don’t want girl altar servers, or ad populum. I don’t see WHAT is wrong with being able to hear the canon and consecration and I still don’t see what’s wrong with rec. both Sacred Species, but we’ve never agreed on that. AND you’ve never made a convincing case for why the priest “needs” to say it in Latin. But I don’t have a “liberal” or “progressive” agenda and I don’t want a duplicate of the NO (which properly offered, is fine anyway).

I think a lot of people would like it because it’s beautiful. If we buy the argument of organic development, I think we’ll see it in the Tridentine.

 

[Corki]

I think it would be a fantastic idea. The prose of the TLM is frankly beautiful. I’m hopeful that this will someday be an option.

The prose of the TLM is beautiful and it is in Latin. The prose of the NO Mass is beautiful in Latin too. But then the ICEL got a hold of it and decided that English speakers couldn’t handle the poetic and metaphoric so it was “dumbed down”. The English translation that you see in the missal is not an approved translation.

Be careful what you ask for. In order to get an English translation for the TLM, we would need to go through the whole USCCB and ICEL process that has taken how many painful years for the NO? Do you really want the USCCB voting on the TLM?

mikellie,

That is the reason why you don’t see the TLM in the venacular. We don’t have approved translations of the TLM in other languages, at least not English.

 

[BobP123]

We don’t have the Tridentine Mass in vernacular because (1)vernacular only in the Mass was prohibited by Trent and (2) Vatican II expressed specifically that Latin stays in the liturgy.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would there be any point in mentioning that Western Rite Orthodox celebrate what is basically the Tridentine Liturgy in the vernacular, or a mixture of the vernacular and latin?

St. Augustine Orthodox Church in Denver, CO uses mostly Latin in its Sunday High Mass, though Metropolitan Philip directed them to do the Lessons, Creed, and Our Father in English, the latter two congregationally, even though Latin is used for the rest of the service.

 

[Image_of_God]

The prose of the TLM is beautiful and it is in Latin. The prose of the NO Mass is beautiful in Latin too. But then the ICEL got a hold of it and decided that English speakers couldn’t handle the poetic and metaphoric so it was “dumbed down”. The English translation that you see in the missal is not an approved translation.

Be careful what you ask for. In order to get an English translation for the TLM, we would need to go through the whole USCCB and ICEL process that has taken how many painful years for the NO? Do you really want the USCCB voting on the TLM?

mikellie,

That is the reason why you don’t see the TLM in the venacular. We don’t have approved translations of the TLM in other languages, at least not English.

I read somewhere that the ICEL did a quick rush on the translation from the Latin. This is why there is not metaphoric languauge in the NO. It is possible that it would have taken more English Language would have required more words to contain the poetic nature of the Mass. It could be concluded then, that the NO would be in essence longer than it is now, if the poetic language was brought back—at least a little bit over what it is now.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We don’t have the Tridentine Mass in vernacular because (1)vernacular only in the Mass was prohibited by Trent and (2) Vatican II expressed specifically that Latin stays in the liturgy.

1. Trent stated that the use of the vernacular did not seem appropriate at the time. It did not exclude the idea forever out of hand.
2. This is a matter of discipline and thus not immutable. It’s a perfectly legitimate option (Cyril and Methodius were permitted to translate the liturgy into Slavonic) and one which we will hopefully see some day. Further, the vernacular Mass exists today because the competent authority (the Holy See) permitted it. Popes certainly do not answer to councils on disciplinary matters in particular and a council’s dogmatic declarations have to be ratified by the Pope before they are binding, do they not? I know that the Orthodox believe differently.

 

[otjm]

For most people sitting in the pew in an OF, I suspect, being able to hear the Mass in English is one of the most important aspects of the liturgy. Most of them are not particularly educated about the change in the rubrics (we have better than one generation who has not seen the EF, and many who don’t really recall what the rubrics were or the changes made - it has been well over 35 years), and most are not even aware any more of the changes to various prayers - moved, added, removed, modified or whatever, and have no current opinion.

Some people are able to participate well reading a translation of Latin; others are not. And of the some who are able to participate by reading a translation, there are those who prefer to hear it than read it.

There are no clear statistics on who wants the EF; some are those who were present when the EF was the only liturgy, and miss it, but repeatedly I have seen comments that it is the young who yearn for it.

In any large group, there will be people on both ends of a spectrum; with a group as large as the Catholic Church, and taking the group as that part still living who had a significant exposure to the EF (and I am going to arbitrarily put that at 20 years, as that takes them into early adulthood), that gives us a group from those born in 1949 and earlier.

There seems to be a presumption that if anyone in that group doesn’t particularly pine for the return of the EF, that they are therefore “liberals”. That simply is not the case. Some of them were liberals, some conservatives and many are just in the middle, neither particularly conservative nor liberal. And they make up the largest group. Why do they not pine for it? From what some of them have told me (and the answer is extremely consistent), having the Mass in English is the most important factor to them.

My survey has been local, and certainly not scientific. But for all those who want the EF, and feel that there has been a tremendous loss (and reverance is at the top of my list in losses), it might be worthwhile hearing what those who have had the EF in their life for a significant amount of time have to say.

Just a thought.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The prose of the TLM is beautiful and it is in Latin. The prose of the NO Mass is beautiful in Latin too. But then the ICEL got a hold of it and decided that English speakers couldn’t handle the poetic and metaphoric so it was “dumbed down”. The English translation that you see in the missal is not an approved translation.

Be careful what you ask for. In order to get an English translation for the TLM, we would need to go through the whole USCCB and ICEL process that has taken how many painful years for the NO? Do you really want the USCCB voting on the TLM?

mikellie,

That is the reason why you don’t see the TLM in the venacular. We don’t have approved translations of the TLM in other languages, at least not English.

Are you talking about the NO? Are you sure that the langauge now used is not approved? I know that the Holy See wants the language tightened up, but I *think *that the use of any translation had to be approved by the Holy See.

And I don’t see what the problem would be with translating the TLM. It’s already on the opposite page from the Latin. Why not simply use that? ICEL might not care for it, granted, but I bet the Holy See wouldn’t mind.

And I meant that the prose of the Tridentine was beautiful in English. I wasn’t speaking of the Latin, though I’m sure it’s beautiful as well, to those who understand it.

 

[otjm]

We don’t have the Tridentine Mass in vernacular because (1)vernacular only in the Mass was prohibited by Trent and (2) Vatican II expressed specifically that Latin stays in the liturgy.

However, they did not say that the Liturgy stays in Latin. There is a difference between the two.

And since it has been widely pointed out (particularly by those who seem to have what - disdain? for Vatican 2) that it was not a “dogmatic” Council (never mind the names of some of the documents), it might be pointed out that what the Council wrote as to the Liturgy was not dogmatically pronounced.

First, I will grant that the use of Latin in the current liturgy is a) not what the Council envisioned, and b) most likely not what any pope since then has wanted to see.

Secondly, I would point out that watching this whole thing play out, the Pope has said that he wants to see each form to affect the other - he has hinted at the use of more readings, and English in the EF. It shouldn’t take a road map to figure out that the EF, since it was to be organically developed, may just still be open to that organic developement - meaning that over time, further changes will occur.

I would not expect them soon. The first step hasn’t been accomplished - greater availability, which the Pope in his letter indicated that he did not expect if for no other reason than a paucity of priests able to say it. It all takes time.

But is it likely that the EF may have more vernacular? All the signs seem to point that direction, and we have over 35 years of vernacular experience which a whole lot of people may prefer. That, too, will take time to judge from practical experience.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas: You know I wouldn’t lie to you and I was a mere child in the mid 60’s. I don’t want girl altar servers, or ad populum. I don’t see WHAT is wrong with being able to hear the canon and consecration and I still don’t see what’s wrong with rec. both Sacred Species, but we’ve never agreed on that. AND you’ve never made a convincing case for why the priest “needs” to say it in Latin. But I don’t have a “liberal” or “progressive” agenda and I don’t want a duplicate of the NO (which properly offered, is fine anyway).

I think a lot of people would like it because it’s beautiful. If we buy the argument of organic development, I think we’ll see it in the Tridentine.

Equally true old friend is that you have never made a case for being able to hear the canon except that is your personal preference. The only other possible reason might be that you are afraid the Priest won/t say the consecration correctly and you want to keep an eye on him. Not the right attitude to take into Mass I might add.

As far as the Traditional Mass I see no reason to alter it from what it is and has been in order to accomodate the personal desires of some. And I will repeat, unless you are also pushing for an audible canon there is absolutely no need to go to the vernacular, And, if you go to the audible unless you face the people some might not hear it, so the next logical step, face the people. Well, once you face the people it becomes a dialogue more between the Priest and laity than of the Priest and God. And so on and so on down the slippery slope until you have the situation that exists today in many congregations. Its all linked Kirk it really is…

No Kirk, its better just to leave it the way it is. We don’t need to hear the canon in order for it to be valid and it sure doesn’t have to be in the vernacular either.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Equally true old friend is that you have never made a case for being able to hear the canon except that is your personal preference. The only other possible reason might be that you are afraid the Priest won/t say the consecration correctly and you want to keep an eye on him. Not the right attitude to take into Mass I might add.

As far as the Traditional Mass I see no reason to alter it from what it is and has been in order to accomodate the personal desires of some. And I will repeat, unless you are also pushing for an audible canon there is absolutely no need to go to the vernacular, And, if you go to the audible unless you face the people some might not hear it, so the next logical step, face the people. Well, once you face the people it becomes a dialogue more between the Priest and laity than of the Priest and God. And so on and so on down the slippery slope until you have the situation that exists today in many congregations. Its all linked Kirk it really is…

No Kirk, its better just to leave it the way it is. We don’t need to hear the canon in order for it to be valid and it sure doesn’t have to be in the vernacular either.

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.

 

[Image_of_God]

However, they did not say that the Liturgy stays in Latin. There is a difference between the two.

And since it has been widely pointed out (particularly by those who seem to have what - disdain? for Vatican 2) that it was not a “dogmatic” Council (never mind the names of some of the documents), it might be pointed out that what the Council wrote as to the Liturgy was not dogmatically pronounced.

First, I will grant that the use of Latin in the current liturgy is a) not what the Council envisioned, and b) most likely not what any pope since then has wanted to see.

Secondly, I would point out that watching this whole thing play out, the Pope has said that he wants to see each form to affect the other - he has hinted at the use of more readings, and English in the EF. It shouldn’t take a road map to figure out that the EF, since it was to be organically developed, may just still be open to that organic developement - meaning that over time, further changes will occur.

I would not expect them soon. The first step hasn’t been accomplished - greater availability, which the Pope in his letter indicated that he did not expect if for no other reason than a paucity of priests able to say it. It all takes time.

But is it likely that the EF may have more vernacular? All the signs seem to point that direction, and we have over 35 years of vernacular experience which a whole lot of people may prefer. That, too, will take time to judge from practical experience.

It should be stated that Pope John XXIII did in fact envision the use of Latin in the current liturgy. No one since him, except perhaps Pope Benedict XVI, has stressed the importance of Latin in the liturgy.
Pope John XXIII says that:
2. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

It is true that Pope John XXIII did not see the change to venecular completely coming, but since his time, each and every one of his successors have expressed an interest in preserving Latin in the liturgy. The more I read of the Council of Vatican II, the more I find myself agreeing withit.
I think that we should mimic our Eastern Brethren in this matter. They have preserved their liturgy almost in completely in tact as the Fathers left it. While I do not recommend the freezing that the Council of Trent did, I do propose a respect for Tradition. The Easterners call the Mass, the Divine Liturgy, attributing to it a certain unchangibility. Concluding that the Roman Liturgy has gone through many changes, it still is evident to say that it in essence the same from at least the 6th Century (Gregorian era) to Second Vatican II. Concerning the NO, much of it does in fact have a continuation between the TLM and it, though we could see a lean towards a TLM look (I believe that is what Pope Benedict XVI has in mind).
Please do not take this as an attack against you at all. That is not my intention. It has occured to me that to many have advocated progression to an unneccessary degree. I wish the liturgy would hardly change at all (I did not say not at all) so that we Roman Catholics can value tradition and stop seeking change in every part of the Church. Make no mistake. Change is good. But change is not good all the time.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

%between%

It is true that Pope John XXIII did not see the change to venecular completely coming, but since his time, each and every one of his successors have expressed an interest in preserving Latin in the liturgy.

**Pope Paul VI allowed each country’s conference of bishops to determine to what extent the vernacular would be used. Each conference’s extension had to be approved by the Holy See. Thus, the all-vernacular Mass exists because the Holy See allowed it to do so. Pope Benedict has asked the faithful to learn some of the common prayers in Latin (which I fitfully try to do when I remember to do so), but in terms of Latin in the Mass, hasn’t mostly what he has emphasized had to do with international masses? **

The more I read of the Council of Vatican II, the more I find myself agreeing withit.
I think that we should mimic our Eastern Brethren in this matter. They have preserved their liturgy almost in completely in tact as the Fathers left it. While I do not recommend the freezing that the Council of Trent did, I do propose a respect for Tradition. The Easterners call the Mass, the Divine Liturgy, attributing to it a certain unchangibility. Concluding that the Roman Liturgy has gone through many changes, it still is evident to say that it in essence the same from at least the 6th Century (Gregorian era) to Second Vatican II. Concerning the NO, much of it does in fact have a continuation between the TLM and it, though we could see a lean towards a TLM look (I believe that is what Pope Benedict XVI has in mind).
Please do not take this as an attack against you at all. That is not my intention. It has occured to me that to many have advocated progression to an unneccessary degree. I wish the liturgy would hardly change at all (I did not say not at all) so that we Roman Catholics can value tradition and stop seeking change in every part of the Church. Make no mistake. Change is good. But change is not good all the time.

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

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?

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?

 

[mikeanayaus]

Would there be any point in mentioning that Western Rite Orthodox celebrate what is basically the Tridentine Liturgy in the vernacular, or a mixture of the vernacular and latin?

St. Augustine Orthodox Church in Denver, CO uses mostly Latin in its Sunday High Mass, though Metropolitan Philip directed them to do the Lessons, Creed, and Our Father in English, the latter two congregationally, even though Latin is used for the rest of the service.

Interesting. Do the Western Rite Orthodox also receive under both species and is the Canon audible? If so, has this led to any guitar, clown, polka, etc. masses or the priest facing the people?