Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

[malphono]

What if TLM in the vernacular was a third option and most parishes that now use the OF chose it instead whilst still offering the EF in Latin?

Would that be a step backwards?

I don’t think so.

Two forms in the vernacular? Isn’t that what the latter-day Episcopalians did with their “Rite I” and “Rite II” thing? No, maybe it’s not a “step backwards” but perhaps it’d be a step too close to the precipice for comfort. What it would essentially do is add the “interim Missal of 1965” to the soup, and IMO, the whole thing would become an indigestible mess.

Let me cite a comment made earlier by the original poster of this thread:

I’m not advocating a third form of the Roman rite, which I agree we do not need more of. I’m advocating a replacement of the Mass of Paul VI with a vernacular Traditional Mass.

Personally, I’d prefer to avoid vernacular as much as possible, but at the same time if there has to be vernacular at all, I have to say that Lycorth does have a point. Much better to replace than add.

And, as was noted several times earlier in this thread, if the universal restoration of ad orientem could be achieved, the highest hurdle will have been overcome. The rest would likely flow organically.

 

[Apagano]

I think part of the problem with the EF in the vernacular is that you lose a lot in the meaning of the words of the Mass with translation. There are words in Latin that either don’t exist in some languages or there are a couple of words it can be translated into and someone chooses the least appropriate word as the translation. Latin is unchanging and therefore the best language of the Mass.

 

[Cristiano]

It was interesting to notice that at our OF Easter Vigil Mass when we had to pray the Litany of the Saints in preparation for the baptism of the new Christians the priest said that he was tired of all the English translations and that we would recite it in Latin. He provided a printed sheet and he said that people should learn to refresh their Latin a little bit.
I think that we have enough vernacular. We should stick to what we have for now, it is time to learn more and not to change/add more. Maybe in fifty years if we have stable liturgies we can discuss it again.

 

[Bluegoat]

I haven’t settled on an opinion yet, but it seems to me the answer the Easter Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and SSPX have given is the only one which will work. No.

I’m not sure how this relates to the Eastern Orthodox? Many Orthodox churches offer the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular. I think some Eastern Catholics do as well.

 

[hillsteven]

I’m sure I’ll get lambasted for this… but did it every occur to anyone that when Latin became the official language of the church, it is because Latin WAS the vernacular?? For centuries (we call them the Dark Ages) there were those who could read Latin… and those who were illiterate. If you want the whole Christian world to be Catholic, and you want the whole Catholic world to worship in Latin, it would seem to me more appropriate to first get the non-Catholic Christians to be Catholic, then teach them Latin… THEN change the language of worship to be Latin. It should also be noted that the official written language of the Catholic Church was GREEK. (kyrie eleison is NOT a Latin phrase)

That being said… I have been Catholic for 10+ years, and have fallen more in Love with Christ through the Eucharist, and by extension, the Liturgy, every time I attend Mass. I voted ‘Yes’ to this poll because I’d be happy to see some of the more long-standing rubrics used. Traditions, even though they be disciplines of man and not mandates by God, can still be beautiful, and need not be thrown out like yesterday’s newspaper just because there’s a brighter, shinier model available. On the other hand, the Church HAS changed over the millenium. You could no more make the Church of today into the Church of the Apostles and earliest Fathers than you could fit a 150 year old Oak tree into an acorn…

 

[white_sheep]

I’m not sure how this relates to the Eastern Orthodox? Many Orthodox churches offer the Divine Liturgy in the vernacular. I think some Eastern Catholics do as well.

I’m sure they didn’t change anything in their liturgy though, and that is the real sticking point. Offering the vernacular is, to me, not something I feel strongly about either way. I would prefer Latin across the board except for the readings. I’m not sure about the offering of these liturgies in the vernacular but won’t contest the point at the moment. It doesn’t change my point that they almost unequivocally resist all liturgical changes while we accept them as the changing of the wind.

 

[white_sheep]

I’m sure I’ll get lambasted for this… but did it every occur to anyone that when Latin became the official language of the church, it is because Latin WAS the vernacular?? For centuries (we call them the Dark Ages) there were those who could read Latin… and those who were illiterate. If you want the whole Christian world to be Catholic, and you want the whole Catholic world to worship in Latin, it would seem to me more appropriate to first get the non-Catholic Christians to be Catholic, then teach them Latin… THEN change the language of worship to be Latin. It should also be noted that the official written language of the Catholic Church was GREEK. (kyrie eleison is NOT a Latin phrase)

That being said… I have been Catholic for 10+ years, and have fallen more in Love with Christ through the Eucharist, and by extension, the Liturgy, every time I attend Mass. I voted ‘Yes’ to this poll because I’d be happy to see some of the more long-standing rubrics used. Traditions, even though they be disciplines of man and not mandates by God, can still be beautiful, and need not be thrown out like yesterday’s newspaper just because there’s a brighter, shinier model available. On the other hand, the Church HAS changed over the millenium. You could no more make the Church of today into the Church of the Apostles and earliest Fathers than you could fit a 150 year old Oak tree into an acorn…

Prepare to have your lamb basted! Latin was actually a lingua franca and not vernacular, much as English is the world over today. While the difference is minor and your point remains that it was a familiar language, sometimes I quibble over trivialities.

 

[hillsteven]

Prepare to have your lamb basted!

:tiphat:
If you’re going to poke fun at me with such acerbic wit, baste away!

Latin was actually a lingua franca and not vernacular, much as English is the world over today. While the difference is minor and your point remains that it was a familiar language, sometimes I quibble over trivialities.

a quibble to be sure, and one I was unaware of, particularly in light of the fact that I had always heard that the Latin Vulgate was so named precisely because it was a translation into the vernacular. That being said, it is definitely true that Greek was the lingua franca during the time of the Apostles, and that it was eventually superseded by Latin, much as English has superseded French in the past couple of decades. (Of course, on that basis, one could be quite justified to argue that all Masses be said in English!)

 

[Lujack]

Prepare to have your lamb basted! Latin was actually a lingua franca and not vernacular, much as English is the world over today. While the difference is minor and your point remains that it was a familiar language, sometimes I quibble over trivialities.

Wouldn’t it have been the vernacular in certain areas, in addition to being the lingua franca (at least at first)?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I think part of the problem with the EF in the vernacular is that you lose a lot in the meaning of the words of the Mass with translation. There are words in Latin that either don’t exist in some languages or there are a couple of words it can be translated into and someone chooses the least appropriate word as the translation. Latin is unchanging and therefore the best language of the Mass.

So true right there. I would not support the TLM in the vernacular. Leave it the way it is.

 

[Lujack]

I think part of the problem with the EF in the vernacular is that you lose a lot in the meaning of the words of the Mass with translation. There are words in Latin that either don’t exist in some languages or there are a couple of words it can be translated into and someone chooses the least appropriate word as the translation. Latin is unchanging and therefore the best language of the Mass.

My only issue with this line of argument is that people will still be following the Mass with translations out of their missalettes. What is the ultimate difference between these two scenarios:

1. The EF is translated into the vernacular. In the translation, Latin Word X becomes Imperfect English Word Which Doesn’t Quite Convey the Meaning X. The people at Mass understand the Latin as being equivalent to the English.
2. The EF is in Latin. Joe Average-Catholic is reading along in his missal. The priest reads Prayer of the Mass X, which includes Latin Latin Latin Latin Word X Latin Latin. Joe Average-Catholic, following along diligently in his missal, takes Latin Word X, sees it corresponds to Imperfect English Word Which Doesn’t Quite Convey The Meaning X, and understands the Latin as being equivalent to the English.

On the whole, I think it is the weakest of the arguments for Latin in the Mass. I think, personally, that the two strongest are:

1. It isn’t the vernacular. While Latin isn’t in and of itself sacred in a way that English isn’t, it is different, and that’s important. The use of something different reinforces the idea that we are doing something different than hanging out or watching a concert; this was really driven home to me this Lent at my parish, where we sang the Sanctus prayer and the Agnus Dei in Latin at an otherwise English OF Mass. The change itself hammers home the idea of solemnity. It doesn’t hurt that people in the English-speaking world are culturally conditioned to view Latin as solemn and serious.
2. It is a connection to the Church throughout the ages past. I can’t articulate this well, but Latin simply feels Catholic.

Now, there are legitimate arguments for the vernacular, as well. “The road not taken”, which Pius XII was considering at one point, would be very interesting; it seems that Pius was at one point toying with the idea of allowing readings and propers (and only readings and propers) to be done in the vernacular, with the ordinary of the Mass and especially the Eucharistic Prayer remaining in Latin.

 

[hillsteven]

Okay… I’ve read a boatload of threads where people wax poetic about how much they miss the Latin Mass, and how wonderful it is, and I have to confess, I just don’t get it. Perhaps that is because I am a Catholic convert, but I must say that what I fell in love with about the Catholic Church was the faith and the Theology (and yes, even her rich history!). The Mass is indeed beautiful, but the beauty is in the fact that we have the opportunity to meet the God of the Universe in such an intimate, tangible way. The words said, the gestures used, and even the ornamentation and colors of the vestments, regardless of how deeply rooted in scripture they may be, are window dressing in comparison with the reality of the Eucharist.

The vast majority of the written accounts of Jesus’ ministry were spent not in teaching us how to worship, but in teaching us how to LIVE. I am not saying that all of you who seem to be so wrapped up in the words used, and the language spoken, for one hour a week (or even one hour per day if you are pious enough) don’t attempt to live out your Christian lives the rest of the time, so please don’t read more into this than is actually here. God willing, we will all have eternity to spend in adoration with the beatific vision of God. On our fleeting time here in this mortal flesh, we were called to bring the Gospel of our Lord to the whole world, and from what I can see looking around me, we still have a long row to hoe on that score.

I’m not saying that praising, adoring, and worshiping God is not right and proper. Neither am I saying that we should be irreverent in how we do so (and there are definitely places, even within the Catholic Church, that are, to be sure). Too, Jesus certainly didn’t appreciate “His Father’s house being made into a den of thieves.” What I am saying is that I think, and I have spent a lot of time thinking on this, that there is much ado about something that is of far less consequence than how we treat our neighbor once our feet hit the pavement after the dismissal.

“The Mass is ended. Go, in peace, to love and serve the Lord!” How do we (and I should well look in the mirror here as well), serve the Lord AFTER the Mass? I think perhaps this is a question of far more importance than “what language did the Deacon use to send us out.”

I truly hope I haven’t stomped too hard on anyone’s toes, but this has been on my mind for a long time, and I felt it a concern worth raising.

 

[white_sheep]

Wouldn’t it have been the vernacular in certain areas, in addition to being the lingua franca (at least at first)?

Maybe in Italy I suppose, don’t know.

 

[white_sheep]

Okay… I’ve read a boatload of threads where people wax poetic about how much they miss the Latin Mass, and how wonderful it is, and I have to confess, I just don’t get it. Perhaps that is because I am a Catholic convert, but I must say that what I fell in love with about the Catholic Church was the faith and the Theology (and yes, even her rich history!). The Mass is indeed beautiful, but the beauty is in the fact that we have the opportunity to meet the God of the Universe in such an intimate, tangible way. The words said, the gestures used, and even the ornamentation and colors of the vestments, regardless of how deeply rooted in scripture they may be, are window dressing in comparison with the reality of the Eucharist.

The vast majority of the written accounts of Jesus’ ministry were spent not in teaching us how to worship, but in teaching us how to LIVE. I am not saying that all of you who seem to be so wrapped up in the words used, and the language spoken, for one hour a week (or even one hour per day if you are pious enough) don’t attempt to live out your Christian lives the rest of the time, so please don’t read more into this than is actually here. God willing, we will all have eternity to spend in adoration with the beatific vision of God. On our fleeting time here in this mortal flesh, we were called to bring the Gospel of our Lord to the whole world, and from what I can see looking around me, we still have a long row to hoe on that score.

I’m not saying that praising, adoring, and worshiping God is not right and proper. Neither am I saying that we should be irreverent in how we do so (and there are definitely places, even within the Catholic Church, that are, to be sure). Too, Jesus certainly didn’t appreciate “His Father’s house being made into a den of thieves.” What I am saying is that I think, and I have spent a lot of time thinking on this, that there is much ado about something that is of far less consequence than how we treat our neighbor once our feet hit the pavement after the dismissal.

“The Mass is ended. Go, in peace, to love and serve the Lord!” How do we (and I should well look in the mirror here as well), serve the Lord AFTER the Mass? I think perhaps this is a question of far more importance than “what language did the Deacon use to send us out.”

I truly hope I haven’t stomped too hard on anyone’s toes, but this has been on my mind for a long time, and I felt it a concern worth raising.

I think you are entirely wrong, except for the central importance of the Eucharist. The mass is of absolute necessity. It does not follow that one who goes to an irreverent hippie fest where one can hardly even remember they are there to worship God will go on to be edified and serve the Lord in a worthy manner for the next week. It is very difficult. It is much easier when refreshed by a sense of true connection with the Lord by a reverent mass.

 

[white_sheep]

To me it is a no-brainer. The only reason people want to continue with the OF is because they hate the mass the way it was, it has nothing to do with the language. To say it is merely because they don’t know Latin is something I could not accuse anyone of. Such a charge would be calumnious and difficult to fathom. I grew up with mass in English and have been thousands of times, I remember my first trip to an EF in Latin and really only had a little difficulty keeping up. I’ve been in Spanish to an OF and it was a piece of cake.

There is only maybe 20-30 minutes of Latin spoken in the mass and if someone says that is too much for them to handle when they are holding a missal with the Latin on one side and the English on the other, and could not learn it in a few weeks, then they are a liar, and that is not a charge I am going to accuse anyone of without proper evidence.

 

[The_Reginator]

I voted yes here simply because I’d like to have a Mass close by celebrated Ad Orientum with everyone kneeling and receiving COTT.
If my parish would offer this it would be a great improvement to the generally reverent OF Mass.

 

[Adeodatus]

As an alternative to the Novus Ordo? Yes.

 

[Hesychios]

We do not need a Third Form of the Roman Rite at this time.

Using English, Croatian or Swahili would not be a third form. It would be the EF in the vernacular.

If we are actually counting recognized legitimate forms, I think that a good argument can be made that there are currently more than four for the Latin Catholic church, not counting the special uses allowed to some religious congregations.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m right behind you on all of that.

However, we already have Mass in the vernacular, and universally so. We already have Spanish parishes and Asian parishes and all the divide that has already come. Why not encourage the use of the Traditional Form of the Mass in the vernacular, then? Why the stripped-down and theologically vulnerable Mass of Paul VI?

Changes will happen, eventually, and in time people will have to adjust to a liturgical change, be it to the TLM or something else. If not the TLM, then why not the same Traditional Mass, only in the vernacular? At least until the TLM is fully and universally restored, that is.

The form of the Mass is the most important thing, is it not? Despite the very real advantages to Latin, why not advocate for at least the *Traditional Mass *in the vernacular? Even just reading the text of the Traditional Mass in the vernacular moves one to a sense of profound holiness.

This is a very good post.

 

[Hesychios]

…

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 may be about you Mom’s age, or perhaps a bit younger, I can’t say. I too remember the Latin Mass from when it was common. By my own estimation I have attended nearly 700 Latin Masses, although many when I was too small to remember.

I agree with what your mom said. For that reason I feel the vernacular does have a place in public worship and it can and does inspire Christian sanctity. As has been noted elsewhere the Mass in Rome was originally in Greek because that was the language of the Christians there. Then it was changed to the local vernacular, by then Latin because that was the language of the Christians of that place. This new Latin Mass at Rome was the understandable vernacular for several hundred more years. It would be difficult to argue that because the people and priests understood the Mass like a native it wasn’t as good a Mass.

The reasons for the mayhem in the OF liturgy cannot be explained away so simply as just a language issue, and the reasons for the unquestioned dignity and elegance of the EF cannot be attributed simply to the language issue.

What is of interest to me is that so many people will not support the introduction of a vernacular EF, but (I am convinced that) if the OF were changed in small stages to conform to EF practice it would be generally praised in this forum as improvements.