Why don't they just translate the Tridentine Mass?

[ChestertonFan]

I am in the process of converting to Catholicism, so please forgive my ignorance, but I am wondering why they don’t just translate the Tridentine Mass into English while preserving the rites and liturgical norms?

As I have been studying Catholicism, I have constantly encountered the debate over the extraordinary form and the ordinary form. The debate seems to center around reverential worship, with the main objection to the Latin Mass being that the language makes it too obscure.

Having attended a couple of Latin mass services recently, so I can appreciate the argument for greater reverence, but also the argument for obscurity or lack of understanding.

I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic parish with a very reverent and very catholic liturgy, and also a very, very catholic Lutheran church. At some points, the services in these churches even bordered on what I just described–the Tridentine mass in the vernacular. Wouldn’t a vernacular Tridentine Mass be a middle ground between the mass in Latin (which can be intimidating to many) and the Novus Ordo? Is there some canon law against this? Am I missing something?

Please note: I am in no way criticizing the OF mass or the EF mass–simply curious as I learn more about Catholic liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

First, there’s no such thing as the Tridentine Mass. (However Pope Pius V did codify the old Latin Mass after Trent.) Second, the old Latin Mass has been translated and retranslated into English for over 400 years. What’s wrong with the English OF or the Anglican Use? Third, some people (like Poles and Hispanics) just prefer not any English in the liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

This was tried and failed in the 60’s. The new translations in the OF should be satisfactory to those who liked the Latin-English translations in the old handmissals.

 

[Corki]

This was tried and failed in the 60’s. The new translations in the OF should be satisfactory to those who liked the Latin-English translations in the old handmissals.

If you are referring to the Missal of 1965, it didn’t fail. It was purposely temporary while the ICEL worked on a full blown translation to coincide with the new Missal. Even then, most of it was still said in Latin anyway.

 

[Little_One0307]

This was tried and failed in the 60’s. The new translations in the OF should be satisfactory to those who liked the Latin-English translations in the old handmissals.

And still they are a bit closer to the Latin, but still are not accurate, but clower to being accurate.

I wonder why it failed in the 60s, I am all for them trying to do it again. But that’s my personal opinion.

God bless.

 

[Insight]

I am in the process of converting to Catholicism, so please forgive my ignorance, but I am wondering why they don’t just translate the Tridentine Mass into English while preserving the rites and liturgical norms?

As I have been studying Catholicism, I have constantly encountered the debate over the extraordinary form and the ordinary form. The debate seems to center around reverential worship, with the main objection to the Latin Mass being that the language makes it too obscure.

Having attended a couple of Latin mass services recently, so I can appreciate the argument for greater reverence, but also the argument for obscurity or lack of understanding.

I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic parish with a very reverent and very catholic liturgy, and also a very, very catholic Lutheran church. At some points, the services in these churches even bordered on what I just described–the Tridentine mass in the vernacular. Wouldn’t a vernacular Tridentine Mass be a middle ground between the mass in Latin (which can be intimidating to many) and the Novus Ordo? Is there some canon law against this? Am I missing something?

Please note: I am in no way criticizing the OF mass or the EF mass–simply curious as I learn more about Catholic liturgy.

That was because those who support the Latin Mass are more loyal to Emperor Charlemagne who ordered the Latin Mass in year 800, than the true Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II was designed to bring the Mass back to its original roots, a Mass in the language of the people. Vatican II also utilized Eucharistic prayers that date back to year 80.

God Bless

 

[Corki]

That was because those who support the Latin Mass are more loyal to Emperor Charlemagne who ordered the Latin Mass in year 800, than the true Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II was designed to bring the Mass back to its original roots, a Mass in the language of the people. Vatican II also utilized Eucharistic prayers that date back to year 80.

God Bless

Very interesting historically but it really has no relevance to whether the EF Mass could/should be said in English (or other vernacular).

I love the Mass in Latin, both OF and EF. But I understand the feelings of many like the OP who may not have that love of Latin but don’t want to sacrifice the other elements of the EF Mass. The differences are much deeper than just the language.

 

[At_Trent]

I am in the process of converting to Catholicism, so please forgive my ignorance, but I am wondering why they don’t just translate the Tridentine Mass into English while preserving the rites and liturgical norms?

As I have been studying Catholicism, I have constantly encountered the debate over the extraordinary form and the ordinary form. The debate seems to center around reverential worship, with the main objection to the Latin Mass being that the language makes it too obscure.

Having attended a couple of Latin mass services recently, so I can appreciate the argument for greater reverence, but also the argument for obscurity or lack of understanding.

I used to attend an Anglo-Catholic parish with a very reverent and very catholic liturgy, and also a very, very catholic Lutheran church. At some points, the services in these churches even bordered on what I just described–the Tridentine mass in the vernacular. Wouldn’t a vernacular Tridentine Mass be a middle ground between the mass in Latin (which can be intimidating to many) and the Novus Ordo? Is there some canon law against this? Am I missing something?

Please note: I am in no way criticizing the OF mass or the EF mass–simply curious as I learn more about Catholic liturgy.

Here is what the man who called the Second Vatican Council said

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Here is what the man who called the Second Vatican Council said

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

I have only one question: WHA HOPPENED? Why did most seminaries during the
1970’s and '80’s, at least in the USA, drop Latin…and under whose authority?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That was because those who support the Latin Mass are more loyal to Emperor Charlemagne who ordered the Latin Mass in year 800, than the true Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II was designed to bring the Mass back to its original roots, a Mass in the language of the people. Vatican II also utilized Eucharistic prayers that date back to year 80.

God Bless

As others here will undoubtedly attest, I am not a “traditionalist.” While I respect the Extraordinary Form and the aspirations of those who love it, I prefer the Ordinary Form in the vernacular. That said, WHERE did you get hold of the idea that Charlemagne ordered the Mass as it is offered in the EF (he didn’t, the Council of Trent did) or that Vatican II wanted “to bring the Mass back to its original roots” (I recall nothing in the documents of the Council that said that, though it spoke of a “noble austerity”) or that Vatican II mandated or even desired “a Mass in the language of the people” (though the vernacular Mass exists by the proper authority of the Holy See, the Council actually called for the retention of Latin)? And what Eucharistic prayer definitively dates back to the year 80? The canon of Hippolytus? That was in the third century, if memory serves. You are aware that many scholar believe that the Roman Canon (used exclusively in the Tridentine Mass/EF) is Apostolic in origin (in the other rites, there are anaphora that are equally regarded as Apostolic), right?

 

[Insight]

As others here will undoubtedly attest, I am not a “traditionalist.” While I respect the Extraordinary Form and the aspirations of those who love it, I prefer the Ordinary Form in the vernacular. That said, WHERE did you get hold of the idea that Charlemagne ordered the Mass as it is offered in the EF (he didn’t, the Council of Trent did) or that Vatican II wanted “to bring the Mass back to its original roots” (I recall nothing in the documents of the Council that said that, though it spoke of a “noble austerity”) or that Vatican II mandated or even desired “a Mass in the language of the people” (though the vernacular Mass exists by the proper authority of the Holy See, the Council actually called for the retention of Latin)? And what Eucharistic prayer definitively dates back to the year 80? The canon of Hippolytus? That was in the third century, if memory serves. You are aware that many scholar believe that the Roman Canon (used exclusively in the Tridentine Mass/EF) is Apostolic in origin (in the other rites, there are anaphora that are equally regarded as Apostolic), right?

From a sermon given at our Parish by a blind visiting Priest:

Vatican2.Mp3

God Bless

 

[At_Trent]

I have only one question: WHA HOPPENED? Why did most seminaries during the
1970’s and '80’s, at least in the USA, drop Latin…and under whose authority?

Well, I don’t know. It is my opinion that Latin was a victim of laziness.

or… it might have went down like this…

On a rainy night at the Council not long after the funeral Mass of JXXIII -

Cardinal 1 - “Let us offer a prayer of thanksgiving for our dear Pope John for calling this Council before we begin this evening’s session”

prayer

Cardinal 1 - "Anyone else have anything we should acknowledge ? "

after a few moments of silence

Cardinal 2 - "I suppose that’s about it "

Cardinal 3 - “Wait, I’d like to acknowledge his wonderful Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia !”

after a few moments of silence

Cardinal 1 grins - “Dominus Vobiscum Cardinal 3”

laughter fills the building

 

[JKirkLVNV]

From a sermon given at our Parish by a blind visiting Priest:

Vatican2.Mp3

God Bless

Regarding the Cannon of Hippolytus, of which this priest speaks: the current Eucharistic prayer that begins "Lord, You are Holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness was MODELED on the Cannon of Hippolytus…which isn’t dated from AD 80, but the fourth century…MODELED on, not word for word, and the model left out significant portions. The Roman Canon dates from approximately the same time in it’s recognizable form, but is based on prayers that are earlier and in common with portions of the Eastern Church’s liturgy. St. Hippolytus, though he died a martyr’s death and was reconciled to the Church beforehand, was an anti-pope and in schism for a part of his life.

His assertion that Charlemagne imposed Latin on the Church is also misleading. The Church switched from Greek to Latin in the 300’s BECAUSE Latin had by that time become the vernacular. Before that, the Mass had been in Greek, decreasinly used and understood. So the Church’s switch TO Latin is actually a switch to a vernacular language (albeit a more formal Latin than the vulgar tongue), not a ceremonial language. Further, Vatican II actually called for the retention of the Latin language. The Holy See permitted bishops’ conferences to determine to what extent the vernacular languages would be used, though retaining to itself the right to formally approve the bishop’s proposals. The conferences throughout the world eventually moved toward all-vernacular masses with the Holy See’s permission, but the Council had little or nothing to do with it.

These kind of mistakes are not uncommon on the parts of priests these days, but they are mistakes nonetheless.

 

[Insight]

Regarding the Cannon of Hippolytus, of which this priest speaks: the current Eucharistic prayer that begins "Lord, You are Holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness was MODELED on the Cannon of Hippolytus…which isn’t dated from AD 80, but the fourth century…MODELED on, not word for word, and the model left out significant portions. The Roman Canon dates from approximately the same time in it’s recognizable form, but is based on prayers that are earlier and in common with portions of the Eastern Church’s liturgy. St. Hippolytus, though he died a martyr’s death and was reconciled to the Church beforehand, was an anti-pope and in schism for a part of his life.

His assertion that Charlemagne imposed Latin on the Church is also misleading. The Church switched from Greek to Latin in the 300’s BECAUSE Latin had by that time become the vernacular. Before that, the Mass had been in Greek, decreasinly used and understood. So the Church’s switch TO Latin is actually a switch to a vernacular language (albeit a more formal Latin than the vulgar tongue), not a ceremonial language. Further, Vatican II actually called for the retention of the Latin language. The Holy See permitted bishops’ conferences to determine to what extent the vernacular languages would be used, though retaining to itself the right to formally approve the bishop’s proposals. The conferences throughout the world eventually moved toward all-vernacular masses with the Holy See’s permission, but the Council had little or nothing to do with it.

These kind of mistakes are not uncommon on the parts of priests these days, but they are mistakes nonetheless.

If the Church switched from Greek to Latin because Greek was becoming decreasinly used, Latin is now a dead language and not used at all, so the Church only followed suit switching Mass to the language of the people.

God Bless

 

[Little_One0307]

If the Church switched from Greek to Latin because Greek was becoming decreasinly used, Latin is now a dead language and not used at all, so the Church only followed suit switching Mass to the language of the people.

God Bless

Actually all the Church documents from the Vatican are published in Latin. The Church keeps the langauge alive.

God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If the Church switched from Greek to Latin because Greek was becoming decreasinly used, Latin is now a dead language and not used at all, so the Church only followed suit switching Mass to the language of the people.

God Bless

As has been noted, the documents of the council were all published in Latin. Latin is still the official language of the Roman Church and all Her documents are published in Latin, then translated into the various vernaculars. Further, the Second Vatican council stated that Latin was to be maintained. It wasn’t, but the fact that it wasn’t is of little matter legally, because the Holy See had and has the authority to alter or dispense with disciplines and a council never trumps the apostolic authority of the pope.

I am assuming, in the day and age, that you pump your own gas. Have you ever noticed a stamp or sticker on the gas pump, certifying that it complies with your states Bureau of Standards and Measures? Each state has just such a bureau, to make sure that weights and units of measurement that are used in commercial transactions are all the same. That stamp or sticker means that when you pay for a gallon of gas or a pound of bacon, you’re actually getting an exact gallon of gas or precisely a pound of bacon, near as is humanly possible anyway. Well, the Church has a standard for the Mass and it’s written in Latin. The translations are expected to be as close a possible to the meaning of the original Latin (and we’re getting an English one that more closely complies with that expectation).

 

[MarkThompson]

Actually all the Church documents from the Vatican are published in Latin. The Church keeps the langauge alive.

God bless.

Latin is still the official language of the Roman Church and all Her documents are published in Latin, then translated into the various vernaculars.

This is actually not true. Most major documents are published in Latin, though even well before the Council some were not – see, e.g., Tra le sollecitudini (St. Pius X, Italian) and Mit brennender Sorge (Pius X, German). As it stands, I would guess that most workaday documents directed to a particular country don’t get translated into Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is actually not true. Most major documents are published in Latin, though even well before the Council some were not – see, e.g., Tra le sollecitudini (St. Pius X, Italian) and Mit brennender Sorge (Pius X, German). As it stands, I would guess that most workaday documents directed to a particular country don’t get translated into Latin.

I stand corrected and I thank you, Mark. It would stand to reason that a document directed at the German clergy or laity would be in their language from the beginning.

 

[Little_One0307]

This is actually not true. Most major documents are published in Latin, though even well before the Council some were not – see, e.g., Tra le sollecitudini (St. Pius X, Italian) and Mit brennender Sorge (Pius X, German). As it stands, I would guess that most workaday documents directed to a particular country don’t get translated into Latin.

I too sit corrected on this one. I should be a little more careful with categorical statements. Thanks Mark.

God bless.

 

[MarkThompson]

I too sit corrected on this one. I should be a little more careful with categorical statements. Thanks Mark.

God bless.

And I meant to type that Mit brennender Sorge was by Pius XI, not Pius X.