What language do you want a mass to be told?

[Young_Thinker]

I’m sorry I was not able to include Greek in the poll menu. I don’t know a way to catch up especially at this point of time.

All right.

 

[malphono]

You would have seen a lot of this in 1965 or so. Obviously it didn’t catch on very well.

Yes, but I don’t think it was so much a matter of it not “catching on” as it was one of not giving it any time at all. That’s one of the main reasons I habitually refer to the “interim Missal of 1965” as “short-lived and ill-fated.”

When the “interim Missal of 1965” made its appearance, it was generally considered simply a minor change. And, (with one notable exception *), that’s what it pretty much was. Yes, there were some minor changes to rubrics, and the option (not “requirement”) for the vernacular in certain parts, and the option for intercessions (“Prayer of the Faithful”), but little more. But, of course, it was not allowed to breathe before more changes came, bit by bit at first. Then came 1967 what was essentially a re-do where the former rubrics were gutted and the “options” became the rule, all as an “introduction” to the forthcoming OF. That was really the beginning of the liturgical free-for-all that has continued to this day.

The point is that the so-called “reformers” had an agenda, and stopped at nothing to further it. In so doing, they ran rough-shod over the “interim Missal of 1965” and it never had a chance.

• The one exception that I note is the introduction of versus populum: while it was also originally an option, it was also the one thing that was essentially rammed down our collective throat by the agenda-driven “powers that were” from the get-go.

 

[Aramis]

That is very true on one hand; what matters is that we are reverent, that we always cultivate a reverent mentality when we pray, and that we pray to begin with. The language, ultimately, is not important.

It is why I would rejoice at a new OF being given to us - the TLM in the vernacular. I don’t know why this hasn’t been done already or why there (apparently) isn’t more demand for this, but I think there should be.

The council demanded increased use of the bible in the Roman Church’s liturgy; the new lectionary is thus likely to remain, even if the ritual is reverted towards that of the EF, because it was a result of a conciliar decision.

Likewise, the council encouraged the people’s participation in the liturgy, tho’ not as overwhelmingly. The EF liturgy is witnessed, often silently witnessed save for the confeitor and pater noster. That was deemed problematic by some of the council fathers of V II. They also found the silent prayers being inaudible a problem.

Merely doing the “Trent” (EF) Liturgy in the vernacular as the OF, therefore, would be in direct violation of the Vatican II council, tho the needed changes (a second reading and the people responding to and participating in more of the prayers) ould result in something that would be very much like the Lutheran and Traditional Anglican missals.