Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

[Alex_Luciano]

Having the EF in the vernacular doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all. After all, this is similar to what some eastern rites have done. I’ve seen beautiful byzantine liturgies in the vernacular and I’m sure the EF would not lose a bit. What I would really like to see however, is an introduction of more Latin in the OF especially now that American Catholicism is seeing such a demographic shift. In Orlando the Bishop usually celebrates mass for special events in three languages (English,Spanish and Haitian Creole). It seems to me that Latin would be the OBVIOUS way to bring these three communities together at least for the common and proper and perhaps the readings and the hymns could be done in the other languages. Latin could be a great unifying force. Why Latin is treated so badly is beyond me. I am yet to understand why some people cringe at the idea of Latin in the liturgy and why some are so opposed to having the 1962 Missal available. Another great thing would be to see the OF completely in Latin and with the rubrics it was MEANT to be accompanied with. That I think would let us see more clearly how truly an organic development the Pauline Mass is as related to the “Tridentine” form…

 

[malphono]

Having the EF in the vernacular doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all. After all, this is similar to what some eastern rites have done. I’ve seen beautiful byzantine liturgies in the vernacular and I’m sure the EF would not lose a bit.

Personally, I am 100% opposed to all vernacular liturgy in any Church, Eastern, Oriental, or Western. Liturgical languages have their uses on many levels. One that I will mention here is music: I don’t care how “good” a translation is, it’s still a translation. The various hymns and chants do not have the same “feel” when done in translation. It’s quite the same with Gregorian chant.

Why Latin is treated so badly is beyond me. I am yet to understand why some people cringe at the idea of Latin in the liturgy and why some are so opposed to having the 1962 Missal available.

For some, (most, perhaps), I suppose it’s fear of the unknown. For others, though, (the “movers and shakers” behind the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”), it’s their worst nightmare. They did (and continue to do) all in their power to end it. And they poisoned the minds of many unsuspecting people in the process. If that taint can ever be eliminated, it’s going to take many years. Frankly, I don’t think that will happen.

Another great thing would be to see the OF completely in Latin and with the rubrics it was MEANT to be accompanied with. That I think would let us see more clearly how truly an organic development the Pauline Mass is as related to the “Tridentine” form…

It does exist, but it’s very rare. Latin and rubrics notwithstanding, though, the idea of “organic development” just isn’t there. Nor was it ever meant to be. The OF (or Novus Ordo, or whatever) simply is not an organic development of the Missal of 1962 (nor even, for that matter, of the “interim Missal” of 1965). Yes one can (usually) figure out which part is analogous to which part, but that doesn’t mean either “organic development” or continuity. One can do the same when comparing, e.g., the Byzantine Divine Liturgy to the Coptic, but neither is an “organic development” of the other: each developed on its own. There, each has its own organic development, and each has its proper continuity. Which is the same as was the case prior to the promulgation of what is now called the OF.

My :twocents:

 

[malphono]

Personally, I am 100% opposed to all vernacular liturgy in any Church, Eastern, Oriental, or Western.

Oops … I realized (far too late to edit) that I missed a hyphen, so I have to correct myself. The above should read:

Personally, I am 100% opposed to **all-**vernacular liturgy in any Church, Eastern, Oriental, or Western.

 

[franklinf]

I would support it if it mean the abrogation of the NO. The Mass is more than just hte language. So I would gladly take the TLM in the vernacular with all its prayers and rubrics.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Oops … I realized (far too late to edit) that I missed a hyphen, so I have to correct myself. The above should read:

Personally, I am 100% opposed to **all-**vernacular liturgy in any Church, Eastern, Oriental, or Western.

I’ve been to three Eastern churches. One was Ruthenian, one was OCA, and one was Greek Orthodox. The first two used Slavonic and Greek, as well as the English vernacular, and the third used Greek and Arabic, as well as the English vernacular.

The ancient tongues have a great place in the church. We should not lose them. However, I think that one of the issues with the Mass being only in Latin, from what some older people have told me and the one three Latin masses I’ve been too (two OF and one EF) is that it discourages people from participating or paying attention.

At the Greek church, however, the use of Greek and Arabic as well as the vernacular actually encouraged people to participate. It was wonderful.

The ancient languages definitely have a place in every liturgy. It makes the Liturgy feel truly Catholic, that I can know the Paschal Troparion in Greek and sing it proudly with the Easterners, even though I’m so unfamiliar with the rest of their liturgy. Likewise, it means that if I ever get a chance to go to Mass in a non-English language, I can at least make some intelligible responses if the Mass is partially in Latin.

 

[PJM]

***My dear friends in Christ.

The pole results strongly in favor of changing the Latin to English make the strongest possible case why THIS OUGHT NOT BE DONE.

This pole by intent is highly subjective; something that we have been trained by the Novus Ordo, and Ordinary Ministers of Eucharist, and lay lectors to think is both normal and good.

Judging the “fruits of the activites” clearly show that they are not.

A recent PEW Report shows the number of Catholics who "normally attend all Sunday and Holyday Masses; in the period of 1970 to 2008; FELL from about 73% to 23%.
Further this same group on receiving th Sacramnt of Confession “at least once per year” FELL from about 65% to about 10%.

No these ARE NOT the only caues; but they are MAJOR REASONS for this.***

The purpose of Latin, in addition to being the ONE Common language of a Worldwide Church, is because it BOTH causes and Permits the Laity to FOCUS on God… what the Church call’s “horizonial Worship.”

The Faces Populum [facing forward] of the priest AUTOMATICALLY places him on a stage; and as to be expected; MOST priest react to being on stage being keenly aware of putting on a performance… God centred Worship suffers, because everything the priest say’s can be taken as “speaking to the congregation.” NOT A GODLY THING.

The Latin permits the laity to stay out of the sanctury, and to concern themselves with Godly Worship. That is what the Magisterilum and our Holy Father too desire.

The only chnge I’d favor; anI cn live gratefully without it; would be the READINGS be done in the vernacular languages by the priest, or deacon.

Mark 2: 27 "***And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” ***

***As this pasage from Jesus Himself teaches us: The Sabbath is for us; precisely, specifically and primarily so that we may Worship and Thank God for His Mercy, Love and Goodness! It is NOT about us… period!

Love and prayers,***

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The purpose of Latin, in addition to being the ONE Common language of a Worldwide Church, is because it BOTH causes and Permits the Laity to FOCUS on God… what the Church call’s “horizonial Worship.”** It could also be argued that it permits them to be disengaged and inattentive. I’ve known far too many older Catholics who welcomed the change to the vernacular to think that it was a better before.**

The Faces Populum [facing forward] of the priest AUTOMATICALLY places him on a stage; and as to be expected; MOST priest react to being on stage being keenly aware of putting on a performance… God centred Worship suffers, because everything the priest say’s can be taken as “speaking to the congregation.” NOT A GODLY THING. I’ve never confused the two, but I see the symbolism more apparently in ad orientum.

Mark 2: 27 "***And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” ***

As this pasage from Jesus Himself teaches us: The Sabbath is for us; precisely, specifically and primarily so that we may Worship and Thank God for His Mercy, Love and Goodness! It is NOT about us… period!

I don’t think your assertion follows from the passage you quote. There is a problem, certainly, when worship becomes too horizontal (and we have probably all seen that), but I think that it would be far better if there were a dynamic tension between the two (horizontal and vertical), like a guitar string that is tightened and tuned as it should be. We DO matter (we’re worth at least the Death of the Son of God) and it IS somewhat about us, first as creatures and then as His Children by adoption in Christ, before the God we worship. Does God need the liturgy to be in Latin? Will He understand it if it isn’t? The liturgy in the vernacular, for me, resonates and I find the phrases of it running through my mind at odd moments, bringing comfort or fortitude or sense.

I’ve read the prose of the EF in English and it is far more beautiful than the prose of the OF, esp. the offeratory (“Recieve, Holy Lord, God Almighty and Everlasting, this unblemished host which I, your unworthy servant, offer to you, my living and true God…”), which is far more lovely than “Blessed are you, Lord God…” So I’d love to see the EF in the vernacular.

 

[revert_jen]

There is a problem, certainly, when worship becomes too horizontal (and we have probably all seen that), but I think that it would be far better if there were a dynamic tension between the two (horizontal and vertical), like a guitar string that is tightened and tuned as it should be. We DO matter (we’re worth at least the Death of the Son of God) and it IS somewhat about us, first as creatures and then as His Children by adoption in Christ, before the God we worship. Does God need the liturgy to be in Latin? Will He understand it if it isn’t?

Personally, one of my favorite aspects of liturgy in Latin is the horizontal aspect. It makes me feel more part of the universal church to know that I could share the liturgy with millions of other Catholics (living and dead) with whom I couldn’t share any other conversation because they don’t speak any language I know. To me, Latin is more of a bridge to other believers, and having a universal language is something that helps us be visibly a universal Church.

So, the desire for liturgy in Latin is not necessarily a resuly of an over-emphasis on verticality, although frankly I see no danger of such an over-emphasis in modern liturgy, even EF.

–Jen

 

[Lycorth]

****As this pasage from Jesus Himself teaches us: The Sabbath is for us; precisely, specifically and primarily so that we may Worship and Thank God for His Mercy, Love and Goodness! It is NOT about us… period!

No kidding the Mass isn’t about us - that ought to be obvious to the people who post on this particular forum, myself included. I wish people would read before they post.

Problem is, we already have a vernacular Mass, and it is a Mass of diminished beauty and theological might. The Traditional Mass is far superior to the Mass of Paul VI, even when the text of each Mass is read in the vernacular. The 800-pound elephant is already in the room.

If even merely talking about the Traditional Mass in the vernacular gets people to focus on the objective beauty and superiority of the Traditional Mass, then an even greater work is done. Or if by some strange happenstance that we can only attribute to God’s inscrutable providence it comes to pass that the Traditional Mass in the vernacular is mandated to replace the Mass of Paul VI, that is certainly an improvement.

 

[PJM]

=Lycorth;6515951]No kidding the Mass isn’t about us - that ought to be obvious to the people who post on this particular forum, myself included. I wish people would read before they post.

Problem is, we already have a vernacular Mass, and it is a Mass of diminished beauty and theological might. The Traditional Mass is far superior to the Mass of Paul VI, even when the text of each Mass is read in the vernacular. The 800-pound elephant is already in the room.

If even merely talking about the Traditional Mass in the vernacular gets people to focus on the objective beauty and superiority of the Traditional Mass, then an even greater work is done. Or if by some strange happenstance that we can only attribute to God’s inscrutable providence it comes to pass that the Traditional Mass in the vernacular is mandated to replace the Mass of Paul VI, that is certainly an improvement.

***My dear friend in Christ,

If in fact more Catholics understood the intent of the Mass, bepieved in the Real Presence,and were focused on God and not the stage; we’d not be in the mess we are in.***

God’s continued Blessings

 

[Brian777]

Yes I would…

it would be vastly superior to the OF(the new translation of which still does not include the PFAs, half of the Ofertory prayrs, and of course no ablution prayer, although these will probably end up back in eventually…)

Latin is beautiful, and I would strongly encourage the commons and propers to be sung in latin still even with the rest of the Mass in english/other vernacular.

one problem really arises however…the threefold tone of the priest…does he still whisper the Canon? if it is in the same language as the people does this mean an outloud voice for te entirety of mass? I am not sure what i think about this…there are probably some serious theological ideas behind that tradition and i would rather not tamper with them…

 

[Lycorth]

***My dear friend in Christ,

If in fact more Catholics understood the intent of the Mass, bepieved in the Real Presence,and were focused on God and not the stage; we’d not be in the mess we are in.***

God’s continued Blessings

Oh, I agree, absolutely

Problem is, the manner of the Mass, as you know, is important. It’s why I’ve started this thread, to focus on the meat and potatoes of the Mass and especially that of the Traditional Mass, regardless of language, that even in the vernacular the Traditional Mass is and always has been best.

Yes I would…

it would be vastly superior to the OF(the new translation of which still does not include the PFAs, half of the Ofertory prayrs, and of course no ablution prayer, although these will probably end up back in eventually…)

Latin is beautiful, and I would strongly encourage the commons and propers to be sung in latin still even with the rest of the Mass in english/other vernacular.

one problem really arises however…the threefold tone of the priest…does he still whisper the Canon? if it is in the same language as the people does this mean an outloud voice for te entirety of mass? I am not sure what i think about this…there are probably some serious theological ideas behind that tradition and i would rather not tamper with them…

Excellent post

 

[The_Reginator]

Yes I would…

it would be vastly superior to the OF(the new translation of which still does not include the PFAs, half of the Ofertory prayrs, and of course no ablution prayer, although these will probably end up back in eventually…)

Latin is beautiful, and I would strongly encourage the commons and propers to be sung in latin still even with the rest of the Mass in english/other vernacular.

one problem really arises however…the threefold tone of the priest…does he still whisper the Canon? if it is in the same language as the people does this mean an outloud voice for te entirety of mass? I am not sure what i think about this…there are probably some serious theological ideas behind that tradition and i would rather not tamper with them…

Good points – I would like to elaborate on what I’ve bolded. (Bolded? Is that a word?)

1. I like the language of the Mass to be different than our everyday language to show that we are participating in something that is most definitely not everyday. Sure, have the changable parts of the Mass in the vernacular, but the parts we know by heart could retain the Latin. (As a young Anglican I wondered why we spoke different at church, using thees and thous, etc. My folks explained that we did this out of respect for God – we spoke more formally.)
2. The priest praying quietly during the Cannon helps us to realize what an incredibly holy miracle is taking place. He’s entering the ‘Holy of holys’ so to speak. To me it emphasizes the sacredness of the sacrifice.

That’s my :twocents:

 

[Lycorth]

Good points – I would like to elaborate on what I’ve bolded. (Bolded? Is that a word?)

1. I like the language of the Mass to be different than our everyday language to show that we are participating in something that is most definitely not everyday. Sure, have the changable parts of the Mass in the vernacular, but the parts we know by heart could retain the Latin. (As a young Anglican I wondered why we spoke different at church, using thees and thous, etc. My folks explained that we did this out of respect for God – we spoke more formally.)
2. The priest praying quietly during the Cannon helps us to realize what an incredibly holy miracle is taking place. He’s entering the ‘Holy of holys’ so to speak. To me it emphasizes the sacredness of the sacrifice.

That’s my :twocents:

Good post. No reason why this cannot be accomplished; the only real stumbling blocks would be in those churches whose architecture is modern or otherwise have removed altar rails, etc. My church has no altar rails and it seems like the tabernacle is set far back against the wall, though judging from a picture dated 1931 it was always that far back to begin with. My concern there is how well can the priest be heard if, by necessity, the altar will be so far back in the sanctuary (though, evidently, it was not a problem in the days before microphones were common, so it wouldn’t be a problem now, I’d assume). Churches with architectural obstacles might find it more difficult to implement a Traditional Mass, but in the end it could certainly be done - and for those who find it hard, it ought to be seen as a penance for having been seduced down the modernistic road to begin with. Crosses must be borne.

I especially like your thoughts in point 2. Couldn’t have said it better, myself

 

[Bluegoat]

. (As a young Anglican I wondered why we spoke different at church, using thees and thous, etc. My folks explained that we did this out of respect for God – we spoke more formally.)

I agree that using special language for our interactions with God, at least in communal settings, has much to recommend it. Interestingly enough though, thees

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I am a traditional Catholic and I support using the Knott Missal of the Anglicans which is an extremely accurate english translation of the “Ancient Latin Mass” (tridentine).

I support late antique Latin and elizabethan English as being sacred languages. I have no prejudice against one form or the other and do not understand those who do.

The Western Rite Orthodox already use the Knott missal and have had excellent results with their parishes. I am most happy and inspired to find so many favourable responses to this survey. the plainchant gradual part 1 & 2 available as pdf file on musicasacra perfectly complements and completes the missal to produce a traditional solemn sung high mass in beautiful classical english with the gregorian chant.

musicasacra.com/books/plainchant_gradual_1-2.pdf

 

[bmccpy78]

I would like to see the Tridentine mass in the vernacular as a transition to latin as well

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think the Vatican has the resources right now to maintain and authenticize many hundred vernaculars of the EF as they do with the OF. The translations in the missals aren’t official and do vary. They do serve as a good guide and sell the different missals but I don’t think they were ever intended to replace the Latin. Besides much of the Traditional Mass is inaudible for most in church. (That’s perhaps something that can be changed.)

Some EF’s have the readings in the vernacular to save time, I guess, but I’m not sure this is a better idea than of leaving the Latin in at the readings and have the readings in vernacular at the sermon instead.

Also keep in mind every effort to vernacularize the Traditional Mass failed in the 60’s. For many different reasons, none of the versions was sustainable worldwide. However, I have heard the Anglican Use Rite is an acceptable Mass for those who insist on having a Traditional Mass in English today.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think the Vatican has the resources or cost justification right now to maintain and authenticize many hundred vernaculars of the EF as they do with the OF. The translations in the missals aren’t official and do vary. They do serve as a good guide and sell the different missals but I don’t think they were ever intended to replace the Latin. Besides much of the Traditional Mass is inaudible to make it necessary to vernacularize for most in church anyway.

Some EF’s have the readings in the vernacular to save time, I guess, but I’m not sure this is a better idea than of leaving the Latin in at the readings and have the readings in vernacular at the sermon instead.

Also keep in mind every effort to vernacularize the Traditional Mass failed in the 60’s. For many different reasons, none of the versions was sustainable worldwide. However, I have heard the Anglican Use Rite is an acceptable Mass for those who insist on having a Traditional Mass in English today.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think the Vatican has the resources or cost justification right now to maintain and authenticize many hundred vernaculars of the EF as they do with the OF. The translations in the missals aren’t official and do vary. They do serve as a good guide and sell the different missals but I don’t think they were ever intended to replace the Latin. Besides much of the Traditional Mass is inaudible to make it necessary to vernacularize for most in church anyway.

Some EF’s have the readings in the vernacular to save time, I guess, but I’m not sure this is a better idea than of leaving the Latin in at the readings and have the readings in vernacular at the sermon instead.

Also keep in mind every effort to vernacularize the Traditional Mass failed in the 60’s. For many different reasons, none of the versions was sustainable worldwide. However, I have heard the Anglican Use Rite is an acceptable Mass for those who insist on having a Traditional Mass in English today.