Vernacular with Traditional rites

[Margaret_Ann]

So you’re in the Archeparchy/Archdiocese of Pittsburgh?

 

[dochawk]

“Umpty-frat” is like “umpteenth”, it’s an expression meaning some number.

but is it more or less than “lebenty-leven”?

So you’re in the Archeparchy/Archdiocese of Pittsburgh?

Yes, and the Eparchy of phoenix (nee Van Nuys), and specifically in Las Vegas

But we have been sending our deacon candidates to the Ukrainian Eparchy (whose schedule is, well, actually possible for men with jobs, rather than a specific two weeks each year that they somehow have to be able to take action for . . .)

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Do your diaconal candidates go to Stamford, Chicago or St. Josaphat in Parma?

 

[CTBcin]

To the OP: much of why the traditional Mass is celebrated in Latin is due to how it organically developed. In the west, Latin became the primary language, and this continued well after other languages overtook it and Latin died out in popular usage. The Church in the west, generally speaking, became the “Latin Rite.”

Even Vatican Council II, which called for greater usage of vernacular in the liturgy, also called for the preservation of the Latin heritage. The interim Mass used in the late ‘60s in the period between the Tridentine Mass and the promulgation of the current “Ordinary Form Mass” or “Novus Ordo” provides an interesting look at how liturgical reform was implemented in the late ‘60s, taking into account the reforms of Vatican II.

This tension exists in some of the Eastern rites as well, as you mentioned with your Coptic heritage; the tension between the desire to keep the tradition and heritage that had been formed through language, along with the desire to adopt a language that is easily understood by the people. There’s no easy answer.

 

[dochawk]

Do your diaconal candidates go to Stamford, Chicago or St. Josaphat in Parma?

err, uhm, I thought they were in Connecticut

The seminary we’re using has them flying out for three day weekends fro the in-person part.

fc

To the OP: much of why the traditional Mass is celebrated in Latin is due to how it organically developed

I think you go not to overstate this.

Rome changed from Greek to the vernacular through the third and fourth centuries. After that, it’s liturgy spread not so much because latin was used elsewhere (it wasn’t; it had drifted regionally by the point), but because it was the liturgy of Rome.

aide from that, I’d agree with you about the rest.

 

[paulthehanna]

It is not a case of traditionalists holding out for anything. What some refer to as the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the Church officially calls the Extraordinary Form (EF), has to be celebrated in Latin as per Church law. It may not be celebrated in any vernacular language.

But why? From the Orthodox POV the combination of traditional service with vernacular solves so many problems.

massive groundswell

I guess I assumed this was the case. This has been the case with the Orthodox. Although there are some who wish to simplify the liturgy, they are not a sizeable group.

This tension exists in some of the Eastern rites as well, as you mentioned with your Coptic heritage; the tension between the desire to keep the tradition and heritage that had been formed through language, along with the desire to adopt a language that is easily understood by the people. There’s no easy answer.

I don’t know, I think the simple answer is simply to translate what exists and keep whatever rites are beneficial to the sanctity of the faithful. Perhaps there’s something huge I’m missing but I see those that wish to blindly keep tradition as holding onto culture instead of Christ and it’s pretty clear which way is right (to me).

 

[TomH1]

But why? From the Orthodox POV the combination of traditional service with vernacular solves so many problems.

Because that is the tradition of the Latin Catholic Church. It is not appropriate to say the Latin Catholic Church should do this because the Eastern Orthodox do. Equally, it would be wrong to say the Eastern Orthodox should do something and to give as your reason because the Latin Catholics do it.

 

[TomH1]

There was a desire, among some professional liturgists and reformers, not only to have the Mass in the vernacular, but to simplify, streamline, and introduce different elements into the Mass. If the only thing going on prior to Vatican II had been some kind of massive groundswell — which there was not — to have the Mass in the vernacular, it most certainly could have been translated, and that could have been the end of it. It went much further and deeper than that.

The changes were imposed from the top down, and people were basically told “this is how it is going to be from now on”. They were told that they were supposed to like it, and to get on board with it, and Catholics being obedient in those days, that is precisely what they did.

Please note that I am not saying any of this was a bad thing. I am just stating what happened.

I must be missing the point but I cannot find what relevance these comments have to my post you quoted. I was simply pointing out to the OP that having the EF Mass in Latin is not the result of some conspiracy of traditionalist Catholics but is the Church’s own law.

Of course, the EF has been translated and can be found alongside Latin in many EF missals. It is always interesting to note that in the English translation of those missals the response to the ‘Lord be with you’ was always ‘And with your spirit’, which in 1970 suddenly became ‘And also with you’ and which quite a lot of people found strange in 2011 when it became ‘And with your spirit’.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

From the Orthodox POV the combination of traditional service with vernacular solves so many problems.

As a Latin Catholic, I’m getting a bit confused as to why you keep bringing this up after numerous people have offered you explanations on why the Western Church had Latin Mass for so long and why some people still like to have it.

Please understand that in the Western Church, most people have little or no idea of what the Orthodox do or why they do it or why we would want to do the same thing. We did not have large groups of people within the Catholic Church in USA arguing over what language to use at Mass - because Latin was used across the board, and had been for centuries. We didn’t have a lot of “problems” with the Latin Mass. For the most part, people in the US weren’t out there agitating to get rid of it. As Homeschool Dad said, the changes into the vernacular were the idea of a relatively small group of liturgists and clergy who were really interested in overhauling the Mass, and they were imposed on the vast majority of Catholics from the top down.

You constantly bringing up Orthodox this and Orthodox that makes no sense to me. I don’t want to be rude and say, “I don’t care what the Orthodox do, and why should I?” but it’s hard seeing the relevance. As someone else said, it’s not our tradition. You also seem to be insisting on seeing “problems” to solve where there weren’t many, or any.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There was a desire, among some professional liturgists and reformers, not only to have the Mass in the vernacular, but to simplify, streamline, and introduce different elements into the Mass. If the only thing going on prior to Vatican II had been some kind of massive groundswell — which there was not — to have the Mass in the vernacular, it most certainly could have been translated, and that could have been the end of it. It went much further and deeper than that.

The changes were imposed from the top down, and people were basically told “this is how it is going to be from now on”. They were told that they were supposed to like it, and to get on board with it, and Catholics being obedient in those days, that is precisely what they did.

Please note that I am not saying any of this was a bad thing. I am just stating what happened.

The “point” is that the Mass was not merely translated, but given an overhaul from top to bottom. This was not a gradual, organic development, but a deconstruction and rebuilding of the Mass basically “overnight” (seven years in “Catholic time” would be pretty much “overnight”). Some say this was good, some say this was not so good. There may have been a few who said “yee-hah, Mass is finally what it’s supposed to be, hallelujah!”, but many people were deeply disturbed by the radical changes to the only form of worship they had ever known — the vast majority of these just “sucked it up” under the rubric of blind obedience, and the Latin Mass became “something we don’t talk or think about anymore”. A few people cried foul, took action, some of it licit, some of it not, and after much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” from all sides, the Church finally relented and issued blanket permission for the restoration of the TLM where people desire it. And so it is today. Without saying one thing bad about the “new Mass”, anyone who goes to a TLM church will see instantly that it is a hotbed of very serious, very reverent, “high-test” Catholicism, and many grow to prefer it.

Of course, the EF has been translated and can be found alongside Latin in many EF missals. It is always interesting to note that in the English translation of those missals the response to the ‘Lord be with you’ was always ‘And with your spirit’, which in 1970 suddenly became ‘And also with you’ and which quite a lot of people found strange in 2011 when it became ‘And with your spirit’.

While they are very nice, these translations are unofficial and could not be used to “celebrate the traditional Mass in the vernacular”. They exist solely for the convenience of the faithful who may not understand Latin.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Please understand that in the Western Church, most people have little or no idea of what the Orthodox do or why they do it or why we would want to do the same thing.

You constantly bringing up Orthodox this and Orthodox that makes no sense to me. I don’t want to be rude and say, “I don’t care what the Orthodox do, and why should I?” but it’s hard seeing the relevance. As someone else said, it’s not our tradition.

For my part, I have no problem with someone bringing up Orthodox practices. Aside from irregularities that may have been introduced post-schism (whatever these might have been), their practices and traditions are just as old, just as venerable, as ours are in the Western Church, and I think it is a good thing to ask the question “how have the Orthodox handled Situation X?”. Their approach, for instance, to marriages subsequent to the first one, deserves serious study before it is dismissed simply as a case of “we’re right and they’re wrong”. And if I am understanding it correctly (not having a scholarly knowledge of either language), to try to render the concept of filioque in Greek “just doesn’t sound right” and really cannot be done, hence much (if not all) of the reason for the dispute in the first place.

As I always say, we like the Orthodox a lot better than they like us.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t dislike the Orthodox. I enjoy watching videos of their services and some of the educational videos about them on Youtube.

I just have absolutely no idea how whatever issues they had with languages, which the OP has not made clear so I don’t know what issues exactly they had with languages, relate to anything in the Western Church. If I had to make a wild guess I’d say maybe this has to do with national heritage which seems to be a bigger deal in the Eastern church than the Western church, but I really don’t know.

In USA we never had arguments about whether the Mass should be in Polish or Italian or English (for the Irish immigrants) or German, because the Mass was in Latin whether you were at the Polish American, Italian American, Irish American, or German American parish. In that sense, it was a unifying factor when we had immigrants from all kinds of countries coming here in droves.

 

[Bill6]

Hello Paul,
I think that a Bishop can give a dispensation for parts of the Tridentine Mass (TLM) to be celebrated in English or another language.

The English translation of the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) was changed in the early 2010s, 2011 in the U.S.A to be specific. The reason being that the Church has, in recent years, been wanting to see more literal translations of the 1969 Missal. That Missal, which is the Novus Ordo, is in Latin. The only difference is that it can be translated and celebrated partially or entirely in the vernacular, which usually happens. Thus, most Catholics (probably the vast majority) have never seen a Novus Ordo Mass entirely or (in many cases) even mostly in Latin. Many Novus Ordo Masses do not have any Latin in them at all.

Just to answer the last part of your question, some people do prefer most or all of the Liturgy in Latin. Some people are fine with either form in Latin. Others want the Traditional Mass specifically. One reason may be that it is hard to find the Novus Ordo mostly or entirely in Latin. As I’ve written, it is sometimes hard to find any Latin in that Mass at all.

God bless and Mary keep you.

 

[Fauken]

I think that a Bishop can give a dispensation for parts of the Tridentine Mass (TLM) to be celebrated in English or another language.

Where’s your source? That makes no sense; there would have to be an official translation to use if that were the case, and as far as I know, there is no such translation.

 

[choose_to_love]

Apropos of several topics that come up in the thread (I hope)

The Gift of Liturgical Tradition Cannot Be Dismissed

On January 18, 2020, Homiletic & Pastoral Review published an article by Dr. Mary Healy entitled “The Gift of the Liturgical Reform.” The author seems oddly unaware of what is known about the history…

onepeterfive.com

The Gift of the Liturgical Reform - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Fifty years ago this Advent, on November 30, 1969, the reform of the Eucharistic liturgy called for by Vatican Council II and promulgated by Pope Paul VI

www.hprweb.com

First link is in response to the second. Seems like OP may be interested in certain topics that appear in this thread and in the links

 

[Bithynian]

I think part of the disagreement between the OP and others in this thread is due to a mismatch between the OP’s Australian cultural perspective and most other posters being American.

(Note I’m Australian.)

While this is a very broad generalisation, I think it’s characteristic of Australian culture (both public and religious) that we place much less of a premium on “tradition” than most other English-speaking countries. We have a very informal culture, in other words, and liturgical traditionalism - especially in terms of language - is seen as somewhat contrary to nationally shared expressions of life.

I can only speculate as to why this is the case: Australia is a very young country; Australia has historically been very homogenous culturally (we maintained an explicit “White Australia Policy” for immigration until 1973 designed to keep blonde-haired, blue-eyed Europeans in and everyone else out); contemporary Australian prizes multiculturalism with the English language as a point of unity; etc.

In any case, there tends to be a great impetus to, at least, offer liturgy in English and - to some extent - also to contemporise celebration of various Christian rites. Latin Masses are exceedingly rare, likewise Holy Communion according to the (Anglican) BCP are almost unheard of, liturgically traditional movements and churches (FSSP, SSPX, Moscow Patriarchate, etc.) have almost zero influence in Australia.

It’s also useful to note that the predominant form of Eastern Christianity in Australia is overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox (something like half a million compared to Russian Orthodoxy’s twenty thousand) and they have largely set the pace for liturgical “vernacularisation” (their current primate is a Harvard grad).

 

[Fuerza]

I actually think that the so-called 1965 missal, with the Offertory and Canon in Latin and the option for vernacular in the remainder of the Mass, was ideal given what was envisioned in SC. I firmly believe that if that Mass had remained there would not have been nearly as much of a problem and many of the schismatic groups would not exist today. There would of course probably have been some who only wanted the 1962 or earlier missals, but this likely would have had more to do with emotional attachment rather than deeming the “new form” invalid. In those cases a simple indult to use the earlier forms would probably have been sufficient, while the majority of Catholics would have accepted the new missal without complaint.

 

[TomH1]

The “point” is that the Mass was not merely translated, but given an overhaul from top to bottom. This was not a gradual, organic development, but a deconstruction and rebuilding of the Mass basically “overnight” (seven years in “Catholic time” would be pretty much “overnight”). Some say this was good, some say this was not so good. There may have been a few who said “yee-hah, Mass is finally what it’s supposed to be, hallelujah!” , but many people were deeply disturbed by the radical changes to the only form of worship they had ever known — the vast majority of these just “sucked it up” under the rubric of blind obedience, and the Latin Mass became “something we don’t talk or think about anymore”. A few people cried foul, took action, some of it licit, some of it not, and after much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” from all sides, the Church finally relented and issued blanket permission for the restoration of the TLM where people desire it. And so it is today. Without saying one thing bad about the “new Mass”, anyone who goes to a TLM church will see instantly that it is a hotbed of very serious, very reverent, “high-test” Catholicism, and many grow to prefer it.

I am fully aware of this but it has no relation o what I told the OP.

 

[TomH1]

While they are very nice, these translations are unofficial and could not be used to “celebrate the traditional Mass in the vernacular”. They exist solely for the convenience of the faithful who may not understand Latin.

I know they are not officially approved translations. I know that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass may only be offered in the Latin. I was simply saying translations have been done and exist.

 

[CTBcin]

I actually think that the so-called 1965 missal, with the Offertory and Canon in Latin and the option for vernacular in the remainder of the Mass, was ideal given what was envisioned in SC.

Yeah, I agree, based on my reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The more I’ve read about the ‘65 Missal, the more I like.