Tridentine mass - 'Traditional'

[shlomo3amrooh]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me why the Tridentine mass is often called the ‘Traditional’ Latin Mass?

When clearly it is not ‘Traditional’ like say the Byzantine, Coptic or Syriac rite, as it was only codified in 1570.

Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me why the Tridentine mass is often called the ‘Traditional’ Latin Mass?

Because the newer missal is also the Latin Mass, or at least it was promulgated in Latin.

 

[phil19034]

Please keep in mind that the title “traditional” is not an official Church title. As I’m sure you know, the official name is the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.” The work “traditional” is really a relative word, and in the case of the Roman Rite, the Tridentine Mass was the “traditional” Mass at the time of Vatican II. So I think the unofficial name stuck. Not to mention, before the Pope named it the Extraordinary Form, the Tridentine Mass was also used by so called “traditional” Catholics. I think this is another reason for the unofficial name.

But of course, this is not to say that any of the other Rites are not also “traditional.” For example, the Rite of Braga in the Latin Church (which is still used in Portugal) is older than the Tridentine Mass. Its just that the Extraordinary Form the Roman Rite is a more “traditional” Mass when compared to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

I hope this helps.

God Bless.

 

[catholictiger]

Please keep in mind that the title “traditional” is not an official Church title. As I’m sure you know, the official name is the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.” The work “traditional” is really a relative word, and in the case of the Roman Rite, the Tridentine Mass was the “traditional” Mass at the time of Vatican II. So I think the unofficial name stuck. Not to mention, before the Pope named it the Extraordinary Form, the Tridentine Mass was also used by so called “traditional” Catholics. I think this is another reason for the unofficial name.

But of course, this is not to say that any of the other Rites are not also “traditional.” For example, the Rite of Braga in the Latin Church (which is still used in Portugal) is older than the Tridentine Mass. Its just that the Extraordinary Form the Roman Rite is a more “traditional” Mass when compared to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

I hope this helps.

God Bless.

and you should be careful with tradition because yes it is a relative term. Some may even argue that the Mass suggested by Paul VI (not necessarily the interpretation of that Mass, which sometimes is done horribly) is more traditional than the EF mass. I don’t have time to get into but before the 2nd liturgical century (8th century through 16th I think) there are many writers whose idea of the Mass are more closely connected to the Current Liturgy.

For example from 155AD Justin Martyr gave a structure that has a close connection to today’s liturgy. Again I don’t have time to get into it, but to put it simply the theological minds behind the reforms of the liturgy in Vatican II wanted to go back to a more patristic idea of the liturgy, so today’s mass you can argue is more traditional than the EF.

Now if you think of tradition as keeping things the way they are than traditional is a perfect definition for those who want to practice the EF.

One more thing, the tradition of the Church holds Mass of Paul VI as the Ordinary Form of the Mass, so the current mass is more “traditional”

pretty much it all comes down to how do you define traditional.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict describes it well here:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tom_Baum]

Seeing as the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist and the Eucharist was instituted at what is referred to as the Last Supper, the “original” Mass was in the vernacular so one could say that the Mass in the vernacular is the “original” tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

Seeing as the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist and the Eucharist was instituted at what is referred to as the Last Supper, the “original” Mass was in the vernacular so one could say that the Mass in the vernacular is the “original” tradition.

We don’t know this. Christ (as some or all of the Apostles) worshipped in Hebrew, supposedly not a vernacular in that day.

 

[R_C]

Seeing as the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist and the Eucharist was instituted at what is referred to as the Last Supper, the “original” Mass was in the vernacular so one could say that the Mass in the vernacular is the “original” tradition.

That’s a good one

 

[catholictiger]

We don’t know this. Christ (as some or all of the Apostles) worshipped in Hebrew, supposedly not a vernacular in that day.

and this is simply described by the fact that they were Jewish and being good Jews they would pray in Hebrew.

The living tradition of the Church allows for the vernacular, while I have no object to people who only go to latin masses, there should not be any problem of people who go to mass in english, spanish, french, etc.

I think the Church has a very good reason for allowing the vernacular. While I do have to do more reading on it, part of the goal I would think would be to help in one of the two major goals of all Liturgies, that is the sanctification of the people.

 

[ProVobis]

and this is simply described by the fact that they were Jewish and being good Jews they would pray in Hebrew.

Thank you. And a non-vernacular language is traditional for other major religions as well. Just saying.

… there should not be any problem of people who go to mass in english, spanish, french, etc.

In theory, no. But vernacular does destroy the power of the original. The traditional “Sabaoth,” for example. Is the vernacular able to understand it better? Of course, but all we have is an educated guess. And there is a lot of loss in the translation if not the mystery. So it falls into the uncertainty principle, one which has been proven in physics. I think this was behind the wisdom of the ancient world as expressed in Sapientia Veterum. But we digress.

 

[clem456]

Thank you. And a non-vernacular language is traditional for other major religions as well. Just saying.

In theory, no. But vernacular does destroy the power of the original. The traditional “Sabaoth,” for example. Is the vernacular able to understand it better? Of course, but all we have is an educated guess. And there is a lot of loss in the translation if not the mystery. So it falls into the uncertainty principle, one which has been proven in physics. I think this was behind the wisdom of the ancient world as expressed in Sapientia Veterum. But we digress.

Power is lost in the vernacular? big What exactly do you mean by “power”.

Don’t see how any mystery is lost…it is after all…divine mystery. If by mystery you mean a vague misunderstanding, then I could see that.

And ironically much is lost if the language can’t be understood, or if it can be understood, but simply floats right in one ear and out the other, because the language is no longer used to speak or think in the dominant culture, as Latin was at one time.

Is there more loss from translating or from lack of understanding?

 

[phil19034]

and you should be careful with tradition because yes it is a relative term. Some may even argue that the Mass suggested by Paul VI (not necessarily the interpretation of that Mass, which sometimes is done horribly) is more traditional than the EF mass. I don’t have time to get into but before the 2nd liturgical century (8th century through 16th I think) there are many writers whose idea of the Mass are more closely connected to the Current Liturgy.

For example from 155AD Justin Martyr gave a structure that has a close connection to today’s liturgy. Again I don’t have time to get into it, but to put it simply the theological minds behind the reforms of the liturgy in Vatican II wanted to go back to a more patristic idea of the liturgy, so today’s mass you can argue is more traditional than the EF.

Now if you think of tradition as keeping things the way they are than traditional is a perfect definition for those who want to practice the EF.

One more thing, the tradition of the Church holds Mass of Paul VI as the Ordinary Form of the Mass, so the current mass is more “traditional”

pretty much it all comes down to how do you define traditional.

Good points!

 

[phil19034]

Thank you. And a non-vernacular language is traditional for other major religions as well. Just saying.

In theory, no. But vernacular does destroy the power of the original. The traditional “Sabaoth,” for example. Is the vernacular able to understand it better? Of course, but all we have is an educated guess. And there is a lot of loss in the translation if not the mystery. So it falls into the uncertainty principle, one which has been proven in physics. I think this was behind the wisdom of the ancient world as expressed in Sapientia Veterum. But we digress.

Personally, I love both the EF and OF and I believe there is a place for both vernacular and non-vernacular.

But they both have strengths and weaknesses. But I do think it doesn’t really make sense to compare us with other religions. For example, while Jews do read the Hebrew Scriptures in the non-vernacular (this has its pros) they only pray to God in Hebrew (as if The Lord cannot understand the vernacular). At the same time, unless they are a scholar in Hebrew, how much of the Scripture are they understanding what they are reading?

Some might argue that the continued use of Latin in areas of Northern Europe, where Latin really wasn’t spoken by the “avg Joe” might have played a roll in the reformation. Because it’s interesting that the reformation didn’t have a lot of teeth in the areas where the Romance languages (which are much closer to Latin) were/are spoken.

Personally, I would argue that its extremely important to refer back to the non-vernacular and use it when translations do not really work (words like “Hosanna” or “Alleluia” or perhaps some specific prayers).

In closing there must be a balance.

God Bless

 

[catholictiger]

Thank you. And a non-vernacular language is traditional for other major religions as well. Just saying.

In theory, no. But vernacular does destroy the power of the original. The traditional “Sabaoth,” for example. Is the vernacular able to understand it better? Of course, but all we have is an educated guess. And there is a lot of loss in the translation if not the mystery. So it falls into the uncertainty principle, one which has been proven in physics. I think this was behind the wisdom of the ancient world as expressed in Sapientia Veterum. But we digress.

you make some good points, but my question is, is a person more sanctified by hearing it in his own language? Does a person grow in a personal relationship with Christ more if he hears the prayers in his own language?

Yes I understand this isn’t the only point of the liturgy, but God understands our prayers no matter what language we say it in.

For the average Catholic in the pew will he get more out of
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

or

For this is my body

I think the people can enter more deeply into the liturgy when they understand the prayers and know what is going on in the liturgy. Sure some people could know this in latin but more people would know it in their own native tongue.

Again all of this is my personal opinion and I don’ know exactly how the Church speaks on this. I just know that the vernacular is allowed by the Church.

 

[catholictiger]

If you want to continue this discussion on language in the Mass please start an other thread and PM me with a link. I don’t want to derail this thread.

 

[ProVobis]

If you want to continue this discussion on language in the Mass please start an other thread and PM me with a link. I don’t want to derail this thread.

I either. Thanks for understanding.

And I agree with phil. You brought up good points on tradition.

 

[Megan7]

Pope Benedict describes it well here:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed

Thanks Ed.

 

[Megan7]

Thank you. And a non-vernacular language is traditional for other major religions as well. Just saying.

In theory, no. But vernacular does destroy the power of the original. The traditional “Sabaoth,” for example. Is the vernacular able to understand it better? Of course, but all we have is an educated guess. And there is a lot of loss in the translation if not the mystery. So it falls into the uncertainty principle, one which has been proven in physics. I think this was behind the wisdom of the ancient world as expressed in Sapientia Veterum. But we digress.

Thank you for your posts PV

 

[R_C]

you make some good points, but my question is, is a person more sanctified by hearing it in his own language? Does a person grow in a personal relationship with Christ more if he hears the prayers in his own language?

Yes I understand this isn’t the only point of the liturgy, but God understands our prayers no matter what language we say it in.

For the average Catholic in the pew will he get more out of
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

or

For this is my body

I think the people can enter more deeply into the liturgy when they understand the prayers and know what is going on in the liturgy. Sure some people could know this in latin but more people would know it in their own native tongue.

Again all of this is my personal opinion and I don’ know exactly how the Church speaks on this. I just know that the vernacular is allowed by the Church.

I suggest you read Veterum Sapientia by Pope John XXIII, and Sacrificium Laudis of Pope Paul VI.

No, people do not “get more” by hearing the vernacular. They get less. But it has been allowed for pastoral reasons. In fact, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for the retention of Latin and for the introduction of the vernacular in a small part of the Liturgy (readings, some prayers), but indult after indult, the entirety of the liturgy is now in the Vernacular.

Another good reading is this article by Dom Prosper Gueranguer OSB, one of the greatest liturgists of the Church. He takes a harsh stance because he is criticizing the protestant hatred for the Latin language, which is very different from the pastoral motivations by which the Church introduced the vernacular.

 

[malphono]

Hello,

Can someone explain to me why the Tridentine mass is often called the ‘Traditional’ Latin Mass?

When clearly it is not ‘Traditional’ like say the Byzantine, Coptic or Syriac rite, as it was only codified in 1570.

Thanks

I think it would be more proper to say that the Mass of the Roman Rite it was “standardized” rather than “codified” in the wake of Trent. In any case, though, the simple answer is that the expression “TLM” (“Traditional Latin Mass”) only came into being in the post-Vatican II era, and even so only as a result of the wholesale post-conciliar “changes” (for lack of a better word) to the Roman Mass itself.