Vernacular with Traditional rites

[paulthehanna]

Hi,
I’m Orthodox but have a growing interest in Catholicism. I get the sense from many ‘trads’ that the vernacular has become tainted ever since Vatican II. I have been to TLM which is nice but I cannot understand why it does not exist in English. My understanding of liturgy is as the thing that builds up God’s people, as the fundamental and original Christian education and so I cannot appreciate why liturgy should be said in a foreign language. In my own Coptic church there is a war going on between our version of ‘trads’ (the majority) who want to keep Coptic and those who want to have an all-English liturgy. In our community, I believe this traditionalism has been devastating to people’s theological understanding. Can someone speak to this? Does anyone celebrate traditional catholic mass in English? Why not? (Is it just a knee jerk reaction to the Novus Ordo To keep things in Latin?) Could it ever change?

Thank you
Paul

 

[Vico]

… I cannot understand why it does not exist in English. …

It does in the Anglican Use Mass (for the members of the Personal Ordinariates), and also was in English in 1967 before the Mass of 1969. Specifically in the Orders for Missal changes March 1965 and in the Second Instruction 1967 where the Canon (Anaphora) was translated to English.

 

[paulthehanna]

So only in the Anglican Church?

 

[Vico]

So only in the Anglican Church?

The Catholic Church has personal ordinariates for former Anglican or Episcopal or Methodist. Promulgated in 2009.

Personal Ordinariates

• Our Lady of the Southern Cross (Australia, Japan)
• Our Lady of Walsingham (England, Scotland, Wales)
• The Chair of Saint Peter (USA, Canada)

 

[paulthehanna]

Our Lady of the Southern Cross

Thank you for this, I will take a look. The attitude or preference still bothers me. I cannot understand how anyone serious about their faith can prefer a service they cannot understand. I must be missing something.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Our Lady of the Southern Cross

Thank you for this, I will take a look. The attitude or preference still bothers me. I cannot understand how anyone serious about their faith can prefer a service they cannot understand. I must be missing something.

I am Byzantine Catholic. The vernacular is used, but our older books from 1994, for example, have Old Church Slavonic liturgy, which is still available. https://mci.archpitt.org/servicebooks/DivineLiturgySlavonic.pdf
The Divine Liturgy is sung and there is something to be said in favor of the OCS and the traditional musical phrasing, and that the words are accurate. It is a lot of work for the Archeparchy to make and approve each of the English translations from OCS, but it does make it easier to understand.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The attitude or preference still bothers me. I cannot understand how anyone serious about their faith can prefer a service they cannot understand. I must be missing something.

One big reason Latin was used in the old days was that wherever you went in the world, and whatever language you personally spoke, you would be hearing the same Mass when you went to church. Use of a common language was seen as a unifier. You see this to some extent when people go to pray at international shrines - sometimes they’ll have for example the rosary in Latin, and then every Catholic who knows Latin can join regardless of what his or her normal daily language is.

As Vico pointed out, there was a traditional Mass in the vernacular for a few years between Vatican II and the introduction of Ordinary Form Mass. Sometimes it is said today. But because it was only around for a few years, I don’t think either group of people, traditionalists or non-traditionalists, were that attached to it.

I can’t speak to whatever problems you’re having in the Coptic Church, but the average Latin Mass-going traditionalist in USA these days isn’t looking to impose Latin Mass on the entire Roman Catholic church in USA. They just want the freedom to celebrate Latin Mass for those Catholics who prefer to worship in that way. It’s a self-selecting group, no one is forced to go. Most of the conflict in the past has actually come from people who insist that we all need to be worshipping in English in the OF manner and don’t think Latin Mass should be allowed.

As for “devastating to people’s theological understanding”, unfortunately many Western Catholics are struggling with theology for reasons that have nothing to do with there being a small percentage of Latin Mass attendees. (The reasons being that a lot of Catholics since Vatican II were poorly catechized and don’t bother to make the effort to actually learn about their faith.) Those who attend the Latin Mass tend to be very educated about the Catholic faith, and know way more theology than the average person in the pew at OF Mass in English.

 

[paulthehanna]

I guess I can appreciate having a universal language. Was Latin taught widely enough such that people could understand Latin Mass? Catholics I have spoken to do not understand the entire Latin Mass.

I take no issue with those who prefer Latin Mass. I just find it odd that traditional rites are associated with Latin almost exclusively. The Orthodox have had traditional rites with an English service for some time without necessary losing ‘tradition’. The ‘trads’ I have spoken to seem to fear that using the vernacular always means a loss of rites too.

My understanding of liturgy comes from Fr Alexander Schmemann (eastern liturgiologist). He argues that catechism happened first and foremost historically by the palpable experience of liturgy then through formal ‘classes’. It seems to me that for that initial catechism to be effective, one has to understand the service.

I guess I just think an English traditional mass would be a great catechetical and evangelistic tool but no Catholics seem to agree and I am trying to figure out why. Could it be that the OF is seen as sufficient? Thank you for your detailed response.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I guess I can appreciate having a universal language. Was Latin taught widely enough such that people could understand Latin Mass? Catholics I have spoken to do not understand the entire Latin Mass.

Based on experiences with my mom and her siblings, who spent much or most of their lives attending pre-Vatican II Latin Mass but for the most part didn’t go to college or have a big understanding of Latin, they understood the basics, like for example what the repeated phrases like “Et cum spirituo tuo” meant, and they also understood what was going on at the Mass without needing to know every word of Latin, because they were taught in Catholic school what was happening in the Mass (the priest consecrates the Eucharist, etc). People back then used Latin Mass missals that had the Latin juxtaposed with the English and sometimes described what the priest and acolytes were doing. If you go to dozens of Masses over many years where the same Latin phrases are said, and you can see the English translation in your missal,then you’ll have a basic understanding of it. Altar servers and anyone who was planning to go to college in those days usually studied Latin in more depth and had an even better understanding of it.

My understanding of liturgy comes from Fr Alexander Schmemann (eastern liturgiologist). He argues that catechism happened first and foremost historically by the palpable experience of liturgy then through formal ‘classes’. It seems to me that for that initial catechism to be effective, one has to understand the service.

This is a very Eastern view. Your average Latin Rite Catholic does not believe that one gets catechized by simply showing up and experiencing liturgy. Most Latin Catholics alive nowadays have been hearing OF Mass in their native language their whole lives, and are still poorly catechized unless and until someone takes the time to explain to them what’s going on. Left to themselves they’re likely to think it’s some sort of praise-and-worship read- and-sing-along with a communal symbolic “meal” attached; it needs to be explained to them that it’s the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus.

I guess I just think an English traditional mass would be a great catechetical and evangelistic tool but no Catholics seem to agree and I am trying to figure out why.

Because those who want an English Mass or a Mass in other vernacular language are happy with the OF Mass for the most part. There hasn’t been a big push to incorporate more pre-Vatican II elements into the OF Mass. In fact, people who promote the OF Mass claim it’s actually the more “traditional” Mass because it was based on the practices of the early Christians, whereas the so-called “traditional Latin Mass” was actually based on practices that came about hundreds of years later.

Latin Rite traditionalists basically want to do things as they were done in the decades before Vatican II, which means they use Latin, and anybody who wants to join can grab their Latin-English missal and get on board.

 

[poche]

I believe that it is because of the influence of the Eastern rite in the Catholic Church that we have the ligurgy in the vernacular.

 

[paulthehanna]

Based on experiences with my mom and her siblings, who spent much or most of their lives attending pre-Vatican II Latin Mass but for the most part didn’t go to college or have a big understanding of Latin, they understood the basics, like for example what the repeated phrases like “Et cum spirituo tuo” meant, and they also understood what was going on at the Mass without needing to know every word of Latin, because they were taught in Catholic school what was happening in the Mass (the priest consecrates the Eucharist, etc). People back then used Latin Mass missals that had the Latin juxtaposed with the English and sometimes described what the priest and acolytes were doing. If you go to dozens of Masses over many years where the same Latin phrases are said, and you can see the English translation in your missal,then you’ll have a basic understanding of it. Altar servers and anyone who was planning to go to college in those days usually studied Latin in more depth and had an even better understanding of it.

Fair enough. I could make out a few phrases myself when I went to TLM despite having never been taught Latin. I suppose foreign languages (greek, Slavonic, arabic etc.) are such a barrier in the Orthodox Church I feared it would be similar. The prospect of bringing a convert to such services is virtually non-existent.

This is a very Eastern view. Your average Latin Rite Catholic does not believe that one gets catechized by simply showing up and experiencing liturgy. Most Latin Catholics alive nowadays have been hearing OF Mass in their native language their whole lives, and are still poorly catechized unless and until someone takes the time to explain to them what’s going on. Left to themselves they’re likely to think it’s some sort of praise-and-worship read- and-sing-along with a communal symbolic “meal” attached; it needs to be explained to them that it’s the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus.

Yeah its literally Eastern haha. Is this ambiguity (if you may) inherent to the OF though or more just due to poor catechism? I guess the Eastern liturgy is a lot more content heavy - which is probably a weakness in some contexts. Our liturgy needs explanation too but I guess the building blocks are provided such as through Hymns with complex theological language.

Thanks again for a patient and detailed response.
I guess I cannot figure out why the Latin traditionalists don’t want English Mass. But then again, I am approaching this from the exact opposite direction. We have had centuries of liturgy we cannot understand so we are thirsty for the vernacular. Also to be fair I have not attended any OF Mass that is even remotely traditional and perhaps those do exist. Of the few I have attended, one was essentially a concert, guitar and all. The other felt Protestant but in a different way. I guess experiencing those two extremes, TLM and what (to me) seemed like Protestant services, I wondered why there wasn’t something in between. Do my experiences sound representative?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

OF Masses vary widely. There are “solemn OFs”, usually held at places like Cathedrals on big occasions like solemnities, or the dedication of a saint’s tomb, or the 50th anniversary of the bishop’s ordination, etc. I was just at one on Jan 1 in the local Cathedral for Solemnity of Mary on Jan 1.

There are also OFs that aren’t quite that “solemn” but still have a lot of traditional elements such as organ playing old hymns and the priest giving traditional sounding homilies and a general feeling of formality.

Most of the complaints about types of Masses come from people who don’t have access to a lot of Mass options for one reason or another and thus are stuck with whatever their parish does, which might be very modern and not to their taste. I don’t have that issue because the places where I spend a lot of time are heavily populated with lots of Catholics and many different parishes which vary in their approach to the Mass. I can pretty much choose the Mass experience I want to have on any given Sunday.

 

[paulthehanna]

I see. I guess what I am realising is this: For the Orthodox, our traditional worship is so dear to us we see it as somewhat essential - in a way that is separate to language. Perhaps for Latin traditionalists, the TLM is a preference both regarding ritual and language. Since its merely a preference, and they don’t want to advocate it for everyone (as you said) there’s no real need to translate into English.

Despite my background, I don’t find many of the features of the OF as scandalising as some traditionalists. There is an Orthodox liturgy of St. James where the celebrant faces the congregation for example. I think I will have to seek out a ‘solemn OF’. That might be the missing link in my understanding. I’m in a fairly large city so I am sure I can find a variety of services. Thank you again!

 

[dochawk]

One big reason Latin was used in the old days was that wherever you went in the world, and whatever language you personally spoke, you would be hearing the same Mass when you went to church.

However, that wasn’t actually the case before Trent, contrary to popular belief.

Some diocese had their own liturgy, others used the liturgy of Rome, some even used Eastern iturgyies. Some used latin, others used the vernacular.

Trent suppressed most, but not all, of these usages, and many of the non-suppressed (e.g;, Dominican) were still dropped in favor of the Tridentine liturgy.

This is a very Eastern view. Your average Latin Rite Catholic does not believe that one gets catechized by simply showing up and experiencing liturgy.

In the East, it’s not simply the “view” or approach–the DL does this by design . . . It is commonly said that Liturgy is our primary form of catches (there is plenty more in the standard icons on the walls, too . . .).

Anyway, never having heard of such things before my first DL, my reaction was, “this was a complete statement of the faith!”

I don’t say this to knock or otherwise put down the western Mass; just to point out that the DL and Mass are quite different by design, not perception.

And in that vein, the focus is different: The Mass is Last Supper and emphasizing Paschal Sacrifice, while the Eastern focuses on the Kingdom of God and our attempt to join in the heavenly liturgy.

I believe that it is because of the influence of the Eastern rite in the Catholic Church that we have the ligurgy in the vernacular.

The suppression of the vernacular in the west was all about reacting to Protestantism . . .

I really couldn’t guess as to how much of the return was eastern influence, and how much is that crisis no longer driving the church.

Most of the complaints about types of Masses come from people who don’t have access to a lot of Mass options

the parish up the street at one point had the same “shrill sing-song performer” type singer at every single English Mass (and they had five or six!).

I think I will have to seek out a ‘solemn OF’.

And note that those exist in both English and Latin.

(there are many reported tales of people attending their first Latin Mass, gushing about how wonderful the Old Mass is and how superior to the new, and then someone having to gently explain that they had just attended the OF. And others of folks who grew up with the Tridentine Mass, and oculldn’t tell the difference between it and the Latin OF they had just attended [and presumed to be the EF])

 

[Tis_Bearself]

However, that wasn’t actually the case before Trent, contrary to popular belief.

Some diocese had their own liturgy, others used the liturgy of Rome, some even used Eastern iturgyies. Some used latin, others used the vernacular.

Trent suppressed most, but not all, of these usages, and many of the non-suppressed (e.g;, Dominican) were still dropped in favor of the Tridentine liturgy.

This is correct, but my impression is that the OP is speaking about what happened in recent centuries not way back in the era of Trent when many things were different.
Even if he was somehow interested in going back hundreds of years, the Church was using Latin as its official language then, so it makes sense that Latin would be gradually more and more imposed as opposed to imposing French, German, English or some other language.

I’m not one of these people who goes around acting like the Latin Mass was handed us by Jesus in its pre-Vatican II form and we should not deviate from it. I’m trying to give a practical explanation of why the Church continued to use it until the 1960s instead of creating umpty-frat vernacular Masses.
I’m sure another reason for not creating umpty-frat vernacular Masses is that translation into all kinds of languages would have been a major administrative headache, and the Church was already facing quite a few more pressing headaches.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think I will have to seek out a ‘solemn OF’.

There may be “solemn OF’s” in Latin out there, but they are not the norm around here.

If a church (typically the Cathedral) wants to do a Latin Mass, they do the TLM. That is what the Latin Mass attendees expect.

If a church (typically the Cathedral) wants to do a solemn OF, they do it in English.

I have seen maybe one mention of some group doing a “solemn Latin OF” in the last several years and it was mentioned on here, not any place in the neighborhood. My impression is that a Latin OF would be mostly interesting to liturgy geeks.

In the East, it’s not simply the “view” or approach–the DL does this by design . . . It is commonly said that Liturgy is our primary form of catches (there is plenty more in the standard icons on the walls, too . . .).

Anyway, never having heard of such things before my first DL, my reaction was, “this was a complete statement of the faith!”

I’ve been to several DLs, and while I thought they were nice liturgies and I will probably go to more, none of them hit me like a ton of bricks as being “this is a complete statement of the faith”. It’s probably a “different strokes for different folks” thing. It also didn’t wow me any more than the traditional-ish OF I attended with a visiting bishop as celebrant this morning. That’s not to put it down, I just didn’t immediately absorb truths of faith from being part of the Divine Liturgy, or from being in proximity to beautiful holy icons either.

 

[paulthehanna]

Trent suppressed most, but not all, of these usages, and many of the non-suppressed (e.g;, Dominican) were still dropped in favor of the Tridentine liturgy.

Very interesting! Why is this the case? Was there a desire to standardise the liturgy? (as for example happened with the Greeks imposing on the Antiochians)

And in that vein, the focus is different: The Mass is Last Supper and emphasizing Paschal Sacrifice, while the Eastern focuses on the Kingdom of God and our attempt to join in the heavenly liturgy.

I can certainly appreciate this difference. Most Catholic descriptions of Mass are focused on the ‘blessed sacrament’ whereas traditionally in Orthodox churches one may not even commune very regularly. It is deemed that there is a benefit to being part of the liturgy even if one does not commune (although regular communion is nowadays recommended).

(there are many reported tales of people attending their first Latin Mass, gushing about how wonderful the Old Mass is and how superior to the new, and then someone having to gently explain that they had just attended the OF. And others of folks who grew up with the Tridentine Mass, and oculldn’t tell the difference between it and the Latin OF they had just attended [and presumed to be the EF])

I am still getting my head around the terminology. The OF is the Novus Ordo which includes different rites such as the priest facing the people etc. right? I suppose the OF could still be celebrated with traditional chant, vestments and so on? (is that what solemn OF is?)
Does EF imply things like incense and vestments and so forth? or is it simply the older form of the Mass from before Vatican II?

Thank you!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The OF is the Novus Ordo

Yes. “Novus Ordo” is considered by some to be an impolite term because it’s usually used by traditionalists criticizing it. Also, “Novus Ordo” sounds a bit silly to me given that it’s now been in common use for 50 years, it’s not really “new” and for many people it’s the only Mass they’ve ever seen.
“Ordinary Form” or “OF” is the more neutral term.

which includes different rites such as the priest facing the people etc. right?

Generally the priest will face the people more during the OF, but this is somewhat dependent on things like how the church is designed/ where the people are sitting. For example, there are quite a few churches built between about 1980-2000 that are in a round design with the sanctuary somewhat in the middle so the priest is facing all different ways depending on where you sit. I have also seen OFs in very old historic churches where the priest faced away from the people because that’s how the old altar was set up and it wasn’t practical to have a freestanding altar or a table put in the space.

I suppose the OF could still be celebrated with traditional chant, vestments and so on? (is that what solemn OF is?)

You can certainly have chant and incense at an OF. There was so much incense at the one I went to this morning that half the church was coughing and a little kid started yelling, “Look, there’s smoke!”. I’m not a vestment expert but I don’t see much difference in vestments between the two types of Mass in general. There are likely some differences for particular special types of Masses.

Does EF imply things like incense and vestments and so forth? or is it simply the older form of the Mass from before Vatican II?

Like I said, priests wear similar vestments at both types of Masses. Incense can be used at both types of Masses. Not all EF Masses use incense.
EF is simply the pre-Vatican II rite of the Mass, and it is in Latin.
There are some differences in what is done, and major differences in how much the congregation is expected to respond in an EF (not much) vs. an OF (a lot more).

 

[ProVobis]

Does anyone celebrate traditional catholic mass in English? Why not?

Because the Missal of 1962 is perfect the way it is. Pope John Paul implied as much in 1984 when he restored all the liturgical books without all their translations, whatever they were.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

In my Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish, we had the entire Divine Liturgy in Slavonic when I was little. The only exceptions were the Epistle, Gospel and the homily. My late father and another gentleman took turns reading the Epistle in English and 2 other gentlemen took turns reading it in Slavonic or Ukrainian.

When I was in my early teens the Sunday Divine Liturgy was part Slavonic, part English. Then in 1987-1988 our Synod promulgated the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian and English. Pascha 1989 was the worst ever because everyone knew how to sing the Paschal Troparion in Slavonic!

We lost half of our parish because the Byzantine Catholics who attended our parish knew Slavonic not Ukrainian. Our parish has never recovered from it.

Now during Paschaltide it’s part Slavonic, part Ukrainian and part English. The rest of the year (with a few exceptions like Pentecost, Exaltation etc) we have Sunday Divine Liturgy in English and Ukrainian. Saturday evening it’s English or English and Slavonic during Paschaltide.

I’m not familiar with the Coptic tradition but honestly if I could bring back Slavonic in our Liturgy I think it would help our parish. TBH, most people haven’t heard Slavonic in years. My late father’s home parish in upstate PA still has the Liturgy in Slavonic and they have a marvelous choir. (I’d love to get up there one of these days - I haven’t been there since my grandmother’s funeral and that will be 30 years this October.)

If you’re going to keep the Coptic tongue, then young people have to want to learn it. That’s the only way it’ll work.