Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lycorth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lycorth

Guest
I have wondered about this myself, and I have seen a few posts on this forum basically expressing similar ideas.

Essentially, would you support the Traditional Latin Mass being merely translated into the vernacular and this being used to replace the current OF?

I know this isn’t an option that is on the table at the Vatican (to the best of my knowledge) and that other conditions may apply (essentially, this is another “new” Mass form, etc), but on its face, what do you think of it? Personally, I think it would be a great idea to retain all the traditional rubrics, forms, and reverences of the TLM, down to the littlest and seemingly least, and merely say the entire Mass in the vernacular; those who cannot abide hearing the Mass in a language they do not understand will have that problem averted, and those of us who prefer the traditional reverential practices and forms will have our concerns met.

Optionally, what about music? What about using traditional hymns of the sort that we use at most OF Masses now (excepting those Masses that are intentionally vulgar) in place of Gregorian chant and motets? Personally, I prefer chant and motets; I can’t sing and I don’t like lip-synching or trying to fake singing as I cannot carry a tune in a bucket and am not at all comfortable with it, and being a Medievalist I simply adore such ancient music, but that’s just me. Many people seem to like being able to sing out and praise God in song (my wife is one such person), and a vernacular TLM that included hymns wherever possible could also appeal to those who want to sing out and might be uncomfortable at a Mass where they had no singing to offer.

Also, might the TLM in the vernacular help to encourage Catholics to want the actual TLM at their parishes? If Catholics become accustomed to the form of the TLM in their native tongue, the transition to Latin might be an entirely smaller leap than going straight from the Of to the TLM. Of course, plenty of Catholics do that these days, anyway; I know I’d have very little trouble with it personally. But, again, that’s just me.

There are a dozen threads dealing with the differences between the Mass of Paul VI and the Traditional Latin Mass. I don’t want this thread to be just another one of those. Why on earth Vatican II did not just require the TLM to be said in the vernacular instead of building a whole new Mass is beyond me, but that, too, is a discussion for another thread (or dozen threads). I’m more interested in just one topic that doesn’t seem to be discussed much - replacing the current OF with the TLM in the vernacular.
 
I voted yes, but that doesn’t totally explain my position.

Having a vernacular TLM would certainly be vastly better than continuing with the Novus Ordo (no matter how reverent they try to make it), but I would only hold it up as an option if it were being used as a transition to the full Latin-only TLM. Latin is the sacred language of the Roman Church and should be forever retained in her rites. Replacing the NO with a vernacular EO should not be anything permanent IMO.

The same with the music. If you want to use “traditional” hymns, fine, but chant should be retained as the most fitting form of sacred music, over and above anything else.
 
Rites said:
I voted yes, but that doesn’t totally explain my position.

Having a vernacular TLM would certainly be vastly better than continuing with the Novus Ordo (no matter how reverent they try to make it), but I would only hold it up as an option if it were being used as a transition to the full Latin-only TLM. Latin is the sacred language of the Roman Church and should be forever retained in her rites. Replacing the NO with a vernacular EO should not be anything permanent IMO.

The same with the music. If you want to use “traditional” hymns, fine, but chant should be retained as the most fitting form of sacred music, over and above anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree; that’s why I think an OF composed of the TLM in the vernacular with possibly the addition of traditional hymns instead of sacred chant would be a serious improvement.

I think the Church would benefit from 40+ years of this better than 40+ of the current OF that we’ve had.
 
The Vatican II norm regarding the use of Latin has been ignored since the Ordinary Form made its appearance. Everybody thinks Pope Paul’s Mass came out of Vatican II. There are some things…the prayers of the faithful for instance, but in others the Ordinary Form is in violation.
Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
—Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, translation from the Vatican website.

So if the pope would officially abrogate SC 36, I guess would support a vernacular Extraordinary Form.

I would rather that the faithful learn more Latin as SC 36 wisely recommends. I would rather not have to listen to Spanish/English hybrids when I go to certain parts of the US.

But what is so bad about all Latin Rite Catholics in the whole world just sharing the knowledge of Latin as used in the Latin liturgy anyway? It isn’t a big deal. Don’t we want our kids to have exposure to a foreign language, the language of the Western Church for almost 2,000 years? Don’t we want to understand the liturgy when we go to other countries? I don’t get the antipathy to the mother tongue of the Latin rite.

I’ll say this. I wouldn’t trust that bunch who translated the Ordinary Form into English!

Et cum spiritu tuo = And also with you?
 
I voted no because if the TLM were in english it wouldn’t be the TLM, but a definate improvement over the Novus Ordo. Rory has it pretty well stated.

I still travel too far for the TLM (EF), but I do so most weekends. Sure would like to have a real parish life though.
 
I did not vote, but It seems to me the options here are a bit narrow.

If the idea is a revival of the short-lived (and ill-fated) “interim Missal of 1965” (in its original mode), where there was an option for vernacular for certain parts, I can deal with that. If, OTOH, the idea something more like the 1967-1969 pre-OF period where it ended-up to be vernacular only, it’s a totally different story.

It’s no secret that I’m all for tighter rubrics, but the experience in the 1967-1969 pre-OF period gives a clue: in that time, the rubrics of the “interim Missal of 1965” were still technically in force but “liberties” (to put it mildly) were taken anyway. That went hand-in-hand with the all vernacular and I fear that the same exact thing would happen again.

And before someone brings it up, yes, I know about the Anglican-Usage, but the Roman Church as a whole cannot be compared to that. The Anglican-Usage is pretty much all vernacular, but it stems from a long tradition of “Anglo-Catholic High Church” practice where extra-rubrical shenanigans were non-existent and would never have been tolerated anyway. Unfortunately, the same cannot now be said for the Roman Church as a whole, where such shenanigans have taken on a life of their own. That “RE closing liturgy” fiasco in LAX is a classic example.
 
I voted yes. I would not mind at all if the NO translation was better, and closer to Latin. All that I ask is that it’s in the vernacular.

That’s why I’m looking forward to the new translation due at the end of the year. But that’s a different topic.
 
I agree that this scenario is not likely to happen. 😉

I empathize with the dreamings about “what if…”, but the pragmatic part of me knows that the Vatican isn’t likely to expend energy on such a task when they’re only now finishing up the new English translation of the Roman Missal. Talk about confusion! They wouldn’t spend the past 8 years getting this new translation done just to turn around and scrap it and start with an English translation of the EF/TLM.

I know there have been many abuses, and reform in the liturgy definitely needs to happen (and it is happeneing with the new English translation due out soon). But I don’t think it’s realistic to think the Holy See will press the ctrl-Z buttons on the liturgy and we’ll all act as if the past 40 years never happened.

All that said, if the Holy See wanted to do it, I wouldn’t be opposed. I think a lot of people would be opposed to it, though.
 
I’d support it, minus archaic forms of English; thees, and thous. Keep the essence of translation. Wouldn’t want to replace Latin altogether.
 
Here’s an idea: learn Latin. Generations before ours did. Here’s another idea: buy a missal and read the non-Latin side
 
No way. I wouldn’t drive twenty miles each way to hear a vernacular Mass I could hear down the block. The EF I attend right now has the readings in vernacular and I’m growing bored with it. Latin forces me to think and appreciate the Mass differently.
 
Latin is also the official language of the Church. As members of that Church shouldn’t we strive to know the language? At Vatican II the world’s bishops from different countries all spoke fluently to each other in Latin.
 
i would, yes

just had a chat with my mom the other night. she lived through pre-Vatican II. she’s extremely religious with many particular devotions, but she told me she wasn’t interested much in mass back when it was purely in Latin

i wouldn’t mind if certain parts of the mass are in latin, like the concecration of bread and wine. but not all. i want a mass that i can be there mind, body and soul, and for my mind to be there it has to be in a language that i can fully understand and appreciate
 
Some good and thoughtful answers, folks. Keep 'em coming! 🙂
ProVobis said:
No way. I wouldn’t drive twenty miles each way to hear a vernacular Mass I could hear down the block. The EF I attend right now has the readings in vernacular and I’m growing bored with it. Latin forces me to think and appreciate the Mass differently.
Click to expand...
A traditional Mass in the vernacular would not be what you’re hearing now; unless I miss my guess, you’re referring to the Mass of Paul VI that you can hear locally. A Traditional Mass in the vernacular, I’d think, is a far cry from a Paul VI Mass, be it in the required Latin or the technically-illegal vernacular.

This is my point; with the exception of the use of Latin, the Mass would be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass in every other respect (with the music option). Is it not better to at least have that much restored, even if the restoration of Latin is the last thing to come?

I’d much rather see the TLM restored to absolute primacy, to be sure. But a single concession like this seems to assuage most of the fears most OF folks have about the TLM.

Sure, this is just so much speculation, but anything that helps restore even a majority of the Church’s proper traditions to common use ought to be a good thing, no? If enough people start talking about even this, I wonder how much it could come to help the Traditionalist cause regarding the Mass?
 
Something our TLM parish does is that the entire Mass in in the traditional Latin, but the Priest re-reads the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular. It’s the only TLM parish I’ve been to so I’m not sure if this is standard or not. I really love the Latin and the ‘transcendence’ of the TLM.
 
Lycorth said:
This is my point; with the exception of the use of Latin, the Mass would be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass in every other respect (with the music option). Is it not better to at least have that much restored, even if the restoration of Latin is the last thing to come? …

Sure, this is just so much speculation, but anything that helps restore even a majority of the Church’s proper traditions to common use ought to be a good thing, no? If enough people start talking about even this, I wonder how much it could come to help the Traditionalist cause regarding the Mass?
Click to expand...
I’ve said this before in other threads, but it seems to me that the single most import hurdle is the universal restoration of ad orientem. When that is accomplished, (yes, I know it’s wishful thinking …), I suspect that the rest, including the Latin, will, in time, flow organically.
 
Lycorth said:
A traditional Mass in the vernacular would not be what you’re hearing now; unless I miss my guess, you’re referring to the Mass of Paul VI that you can hear locally.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify. I would not drive twenty miles to hear a vernacular Mass, whatever form, if I could hear one down the street, whatever form. Hope that makes sense.

That said, ceteris paribus, I would prefer the Latin EF over the Latin OF and the Latin OF over the vernacular OF. I try not to even look at the vernacular in the Missal.
 
Absolutely not! That’s what opens the door to liberals such as +Mahoney and +Trautmann with their banal, inclusive, and borderline heretical translations and wording changes. Leave it in Latin and leave it alone.
 
I feel that compromises rarely work well, except to muddy the spring more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top