Tridentine trade-off?

[PastorBonus]

I just want to say I am absolutely in love with the Tridentine mass. I think it is an antidote to the lack of reverence so often found in our mass now aday. However I do agree with the Vatican II idea that Mass should be celebrated in the language of the people. Mass was changed from Greek to Latin precisely to help people understand the rituals, so why maintain the language when nobody can understand them without burying their noses deep in their missal? Can we celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the language of the people, but maintain the rituals and dignity of the Tridentine Mass? Do you think this is a possible way Mass will be celebrated in the future?

 

[johnmann]

The extraordinary form may not be celebrated in the vernacular. The 1965 missal was basically the EF in the vernacular but it’s no longer allowed.

The OF can be done ad orientem with all the gestures of the EF in which it wouldn’t be drastically different from what an EF in the vernacular would look like.

For the future, I’d like to see stricter prescriptions for gestures (the red text). There’s too much “idling” in the OF, in my opinion. We should be using our hands and knees in worship. I’d also like to see bishops mandate that certain Masses throughout the year require that certain parts of the Mass be in Latin. The point is to give people some exposure. My old parish had Masses in multiple different languages. For a special anniversary Mass, all the Masses were combined. The Korean choir sang the Gloria in Latin and jaws dropped. There were parishioners who hadn’t heard that since the 60’s and many who’d never heard it!

 

[carlos19]

try an anglican use mass… this is fully catholic in communion with the see of peter. beautiful mass like the EF…only in King James English

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Mass was changed from Greek to Latin precisely to help people understand the rituals, so why maintain the language when nobody can understand them without burying their noses deep in their missal?

The interesting thing is that changing to the vernacular doesn’t move people’s noses from their missals. From my vantage point of the choir loft, I get to see a lot of people (whether I want to or not!) and I notice that a good share of them have their noses buried in their missals when the Mass is in English.

 

[Hasire]

The extraordinary form may not be celebrated in the vernacular. The 1965 missal was basically the EF in the vernacular but it’s no longer allowed.

The OF can be done ad orientem with all the gestures of the EF in which it wouldn’t be drastically different from what an EF in the vernacular would look like.

For the future, I’d like to see stricter prescriptions for gestures (the red text). There’s too much “idling” in the OF, in my opinion. We should be using our hands and knees in worship. I’d also like to see bishops mandate that certain Masses throughout the year require that certain parts of the Mass be in Latin. The point is to give people some exposure. My old parish had Masses in multiple different languages. For a special anniversary Mass, all the Masses were combined. The Korean choir sang the Gloria in Latin and jaws dropped. There were parishioners who hadn’t heard that since the 60’s and many who’d never heard it!

The Pope could overrule that norm. The same way the Pope allowed the Slavs to pray the Mass in their own tongue can be applied here.

 

[LINVS]

No way.

As per the church, Latin is one of the three sacred languages; the others being Greek and Hebrew. That’s where much of the reverence and beauty arises. Joseph Campbell pointed out that because Latin is an ancient language, it’s use acts to take us out of the worldly perspective; that is exactly the function of religion.

 

[10thCrusader]

I just want to say I am absolutely in love with the Tridentine mass. I think it is an antidote to the lack of reverence so often found in our mass now aday. However I do agree with the Vatican II idea that Mass should be celebrated in the language of the people. Mass was changed from Greek to Latin precisely to help people understand the rituals, so why maintain the language when nobody can understand them without burying their noses deep in their missal? Can we celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the language of the people, but maintain the rituals and dignity of the Tridentine Mass? Do you think this is a possible way Mass will be celebrated in the future?

If you look at the 1662 Book of common prayer for the Anglican Rite, you get a kind of halfway point between the OF and the EF (leaving out the King George bit) in English.

eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

It’s possible the Anglo-Catholic rite may become more widespread, now that they have an Anglo-Catholic Ordinariate. I know of at least one Anglican priest who is considering the idea of crossing the Tiber.

Most continental Europeans have no problem with the Latin language. The Catholic Church also has Rites in Greek, Arabic, Russian (really Slavonic), and probably some other languages I haven’t thought of. What more do you need?

Moreover, the OF can be quite solemn and reverent when celebrated properly (without the usual guitars, clapping and general prancing about). If you actually read the documents of Vatican II, you will find that most of the things that detract from the OF Mass are really violations of the instructions of Vatican II.

The OF and EF are meant to be separate rites, and the EF is clearly defined as being only Latin. I’m not sure why there is such a push to translate it into English. The OF when celebrated properly and reverently is very close to the same thing, especially if you pick the equivalent communion prayers, and not opt for the minimalized short forms.

Instead of trying to twist up the EF, why not talk to your pastor about making the celebration of the OF more reverent and solemn?

 

[JM3]

The OF and EF are meant to be separate rites,

Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum;

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annos’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

 

[ProVobis]

The Pope could overrule that norm. The same way the Pope allowed the Slavs to pray the Mass in their own tongue can be applied here.

He could but it would not be cost effective IMO. And there are no official translations of the EF. What’s wrong with the priest explaining the Mass in the vernacular at the homily?

 

[TimothyH]

No way.

As per the church, Latin is one of the three sacred languages; the others being Greek and Hebrew. That’s where much of the reverence and beauty arises. Joseph Campbell pointed out that because Latin is an ancient language, it’s use acts to take us out of the worldly perspective; that is exactly the function of religion.

The Church does not teach that Latin is sacred.

Latin is not revealed truth. Latin is used in the medicine and law, hardly reserved only for liturgical worship of God. These are the definitions of “Sacred” and neither Latin, nor Greek nor Hebrew fit these definitions.

-Tim-

 

[curlycool89]

The Church does not teach that Latin is sacred.

Latin is not revealed truth. Latin is used in the medicine and law, hardly reserved only for liturgical worship of God. These are the definitions of “Sacred” and neither Latin, nor Greek nor Hebrew fit these definitions.

Upgrading Latin to “sacred language” also seems to elevate it very close to language worship to.

As Aquinas would say, there is that which you understand and that by which you understand. Latin (as any language) is a means by which you understand stuff; it’s just a medium.

Also, to make the narrative complete they’d need to explain why Greek was a “sacred” language, which won’t work. For example, the Septuagint was a varient of Koine Greek, as was the New Testament. Koine was actually the common or, I would dare say, vulgar form of Greek. The High class (and academic) Greek dialect was Attic Greek (as a friend of mine informed me, Koine Greek is really only useful if you’re going to study biblical texts).

So it seems that what the Apostles used was no “sacred” language, but was in fact just the everyday ordinary lingua franca of the time.

 

[malphono]

The Pope could overrule that norm. The same way the Pope allowed the Slavs to pray the Mass in their own tongue can be applied here.

The Glagolitic Missal used in parts of Dalmatia was not exactly “their own tongue” although it was a Slavic language: Church Slavonic to be more precise, and written in Glagolitic script rather than Cyrillic. It wasn’t the “vernacular” of anyone.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church does not teach that Latin is sacred.

Latin is not revealed truth. Latin is used in the medicine and law, hardly reserved only for liturgical worship of God. These are the definitions of “Sacred” and neither Latin, nor Greek nor Hebrew fit these definitions.

According to Wiki:

A sacred language, “holy language” (in religious context), or liturgical language, is a language that is cultivated for religious reasons by people who speak another language in their daily life.

Once a language becomes associated with religious worship, its believers often ascribe virtues to the language of worship that they would not give to their native tongues.[citation needed] In the case of sacred texts, there is a justified fear of losing authenticity and accuracy by a translation or re-translation, and difficulties in getting general acceptance for a new version of a text. The sacred language is typically vested with a solemnity and dignity that the vernacular lacks. Consequently, the training of clergy in the use of the sacred language becomes an important cultural investment, and their use of the tongue is perceived to give them access to a body of knowledge that untrained lay people cannot (or should not) access. In medieval Europe, the (real or putative) ability to read (see also benefit of clergy) scripture—which was in Latin—was considered a prerogative of the priesthood, and a benchmark of literacy; until near the end of the period almost all who could read and write could do so in Latin.

more at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_language

 

[Mike30]

I just want to say I am absolutely in love with the Tridentine mass. I think it is an antidote to the lack of reverence so often found in our mass now aday. However I do agree with the Vatican II idea that Mass should be celebrated in the language of the people. Mass was changed from Greek to Latin precisely to help people understand the rituals, so why maintain the language when nobody can understand them without burying their noses deep in their missal? Can we celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the language of the people, but maintain the rituals and dignity of the Tridentine Mass? Do you think this is a possible way Mass will be celebrated in the future?

Where exactly does it say that the Mass **should be celebrated in the language of the people? **

I was unaware that it said any such thing.

 

[Hasire]

The Glagolitic Missal used in parts of Dalmatia was not exactly “their own tongue” although it was a Slavic language: Church Slavonic to be more precise, and written in Glagolitic script rather than Cyrillic. It wasn’t the “vernacular” of anyone.

It was a step in the right direction nonetheless, and the Pope has the power to make and unmake even more. The EF in vernacular would be fantastic for the Roman Church… instead of the Novus Ordo… but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Hasire]

Where exactly does it say that the Mass **should be celebrated in the language of the people? **

I was unaware that it said any such thing.

The original liturgical language of Rome was Greek. Now I ask you…
It changed to Latin for a reason right?

 

[Mike30]

The original liturgical language of Rome was Greek. Now I ask you…
It changed to Latin for a reason right?

That wasn’t what I asked. A statement was made that Vatican II said that the Mass SHOULD be celebrated in the language of the people. I just asked where that was specifically stated.

If you don’t know the answer to that question thats fine. I didn’t ask anything at all about changing from Greek to Latin or anything else for that matter.

 

[OraLabora]

I know of at least one Anglican priest who is considering the idea of crossing the Tiber.

I know of one who did but he became a Benedictine monk as part of the deal (and was recently ordained as a Catholic priest). I rather doubt the abbot will let him celebrate the Anglican Use, at least not publicly.

Moreover, the OF can be quite solemn and reverent when celebrated properly (without the usual guitars, clapping and general prancing about). If you actually read the documents of Vatican II, you will find that most of the things that detract from the OF Mass are really violations of the instructions of Vatican II.

I agree. At our abbey the full Gregorian propers and ordinary are used every day; plus solemn processions, incense, bells at the consecration, chanted readings in French (the local vernacular), chanted EP (also in French). Silent pauses between readings; the works (not to mention Lauds and Vespers in Latin and Gregorian chant). All the OF, all the time. Unless you are a liturgy geek, the only way to tell the difference with the EF is that it’s concelebrated and versus populum (which in any case was quite common for Benedictines before Vatican II).

The OF and EF are meant to be separate rites, and the EF is clearly defined as being only Latin. I’m not sure why there is such a push to translate it into English. The OF when celebrated properly and reverently is very close to the same thing, especially if you pick the equivalent communion prayers, and not opt for the minimalized short forms.

Instead of trying to twist up the EF, why not talk to your pastor about making the celebration of the OF more reverent and solemn?

I really think tightening up the OF is really what should be the liturgical focus of the Church. It doesn’t have to be Latin and Gregorian chant everywhere, all the time (though those options should be available to most folks at least occasionally at least in cultures where they were once common, and the Church needs to ensure that there are enough resources to preserve Gregorian chant, such as the abbey at Solesmes in France).

 

[OraLabora]

That wasn’t what I asked. A statement was made that Vatican II said that the Mass SHOULD be celebrated in the language of the people. I just asked where that was specifically stated.

If you don’t know the answer to that question thats fine. I didn’t ask anything at all about changing from Greek to Latin or anything else for that matter.

And here is the answer to that question, direct quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

 

[ProVobis]

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

As was pointed out “servetur” is a jussive (subjunctive) mood; it is a command.

Where Latin is allowed by law, Latin is to be preserved in the Latin Rite. ’