Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

[MarkThompson]

I have assisted at both forms of Mass.
The Tridentine Mass has more reverence built in.

It’s possible to instill reverence, foster reverence, and encourage reverence, but the missal itself is really just a book.

 

[The_Reginator]

It’s possible to instill reverence, foster reverence, and encourage reverence, but the missal itself is really just a book.

Agreed, but Mark I believe what we are discussing is the form of Mass itself.
I really find that the EF NATURALLY leads to more reverence.
That is my experience. Have you had a chance to see the difference yourself?
My local parish celebrates the OF exclusively and is rather conservative. I have heard of some VERY reverent OF Masses but, unfortunately, I have not assisted at one.
(I wonder what Mass will be like for our grandkids.)

Reg

 

[Lycorth]

Originally Posted by Lycorth View Post
I am amongst those who believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid and does not constitute a doctrinal error, but that it is less efficacious…than the Traditional Mass.

Your words. And I have read the text of each Mass and still do not see what you mean.

Yes, those are my words.

Oh, nevermind.

Well, you can argue that it’s less effective in fostering reverence, instilling a sense of worship, transmitting the faith, etc. Those are all empirical claims.

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. The crisis of faith in the Church today practically condemns every new or altered institution within it, including the Mass of Paul VI. To be sure, lack of religiosity in the public and the encroachments of secularism have their share in the blame, but it’s not as if the Church didn’t make a mess of potentially relevant changes that need to be addressed.

Though, like Reginator said, there are some very reverent OF Masses; I had the pleasure of assisting at them back at my home parish for many a year. But now, I’m seeing a somewhat less reverent one at my current parish, and I’ve seen some real humdingers in different places over the years.

That’s the problem; instead of one, set formula that cannot be altered (because a ton of strict rubrics and intense training beforehand ensures it), we have something that is at times ambiguous and otherwise easily toyed with. Absolutely I agree that a Mass of Paul VI can be said with the most solemn and beautiful reverence, but the option is there oftentimes to do otherwise, and it happens; an option does not secure proper procedure nor ensure a reverent and truly Catholic Mass as much as strict and clear rubrics.

It’s like saying that a deer hunter is of the same caliber as a trained Marine sniper; yes, the deer hunter can be and many are right up there, but since only Marine snipers are trained to be Marine snipers, deer hunters can’t be expected to employ anywhere near the same discipline or skill.

 

[MarkThompson]

I really find that the EF NATURALLY leads to more reverence.
That is my experience. Have you had a chance to see the difference yourself?

Yes, I’ve definitely seen Masses in both forms, and I agree that on balance the average EF as currently celebrated is more likely to instill reverence in the average person that the average OF. However, (1) reverence is not the only goal of liturgy; imagine if, say, the catechetical value of the liturgy could be increased 50% at a cost of 5% of reverence. It’s hardly an a priori truth that this would be a bad tradeoff. And, (2) people differ. There will be people for whom the OF instills a greater sense of reverence; we can’t just discount them as impious idiots, or accuse them of lying about it. That’s the problem when people insist on absolute claims like “The TLM is more reverent!” If you’re willing to translate that into qualified empirical claims, fine, but then you have to defend those and investigate their consequences; otherwise, you’re never going to convince anybody who doesn’t already agree with you.

 

[hillsteven]

We were called by our Lord to evangelize. As Catholics today, with the profusion of non-Catholic Christians, including our fallen-away Catholic brothers and sisters, this means that not only should we strive to convert non-believers to become Christians, but we should also strive to bring our non-catholic brothers and sisters in Christ into the fullness of the Church that our Lord Jesus instituted.

The reality of the above is why I a strongly object to a church that ONLY worships in a dead language. (Though I must say that I also agree with those who point out illiteracy as an obstacle to learning a new language.) I have come to believe that there is, in fact, great beauty in the Latin Mass, and even in the chant in their original Latin. (I say this grudgingly, but honesty forces me to admit it!) That being said, I believe that it has the strong likelihood of becoming a barrier to entry if we must first teach these masses (pardon the pun) a new language in order for them to be able to comprehend our distinctive liturgy. I have seen arguments that we should not in some way “water things down” just for them, but I would argue that cementing ourselves into a particular formula for worship is one of those “traditions of men” that Jesus warned the Pharisees about. Whatever good one can argue for a single universal language (and there are certainly valid arguments here), to deliberately enact a man-made discipline that has the probability of turning souls away from the church seems a dangerous practice. Are there those who would embrace it willingly without argument? Undoubtedly. On the flip side, the soul behind THIS keyboard would have certainly been turned off by such a deliberately exclusive practice.

Our goal is to spend eternity with our Lord, ladies and gentlemen. A significant part of our journey here on this earth is to bring as many others as possible with us, as we were commanded to do. I would argue that ANYTHING ELSE is superfluous. Interesting as an academic discussion to be sure, but not really essential for salvation. I’ve been following this discussion since its inception, and can’t get past the fact that it seems to be majoring in the minors. The Mass is about the Eucharist. This is a gift of Grace that our Lord gave to us. He gave no instruction as to how it should be celebrated, only that we should re-present it. The rubrics are largely incidental, and certainly man-made.

If the Traditional Latin Mass is more beneficial for you, there are, in most areas, parishes that offer at least one TLM weekly. I think this is one of the fantastic components of the Catholic Church… we are universal, but not automatrons. Just as there are Charismatic parishes that are still fully faithful to the Magesterium, and therefor fully Catholic. If that’s something that you find to be more compelling, then you are free to seek out such a parish. We are universal, yet diverse!

Just my $0.02 worth…

~Steven

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

perhaps to complement brother steven’s viewpoint:

(He prophesieth that certain should depart from the Catholic faith, willing TIMOTHY therefore to inculcate to the people those articles of the said faith. 7. Item to exercise himself in spiritual exercise, 12. to get authority by example of good life, 13. to study, to teach, to increase in the grace given him by holy orders.)

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY: CHAPTER 4

AND the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times certain (people) shall depart from the faith attending to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3. forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God created to receive with thanksgiving for the faithful, and them that have known the truth. 4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving. 5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6. These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ JESUS, nourished in the words of the faith and the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto. 7. But foolish and old wives fables avoid: and exercise thyself to piety. 8. For vcorporal exercise is profitable to little: but piety is profitable to all things: having promise of the life that now is, and of that to come. 9. A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10. For to this purpose we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God which is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful. 11. Command these things and teach. 12. Let no man contemn thy youth: but be an example of the faithful, in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith in charity. 13. Till I come, attend unto reading, exhortation, doctrine. 14. Neglect not the grace that is in thee: which is given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of priesthood. 15. These things do thou meditate, be in these things: that thy profiting may be manifest to all. 16. Attend to thyself, and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For, this doing, thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.

1 Pet 5:8-9
Brothers: Be sober, be vigilant: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith:

"Fratres: Sobrii estote, et vigilate: quia adversarius vester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret: cui resistite fortes in fide. "

V. But thou O Lord, have mercy upon us
R. Thanks be to God.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree; it makes absolutely no sense, especially when all one had to do was order the Traditional Mass to be said in the vernacular if the big problem was that no one could understand the Mass or that it seemed too inaccessible to people.

You have to look at the realities, though. The Ordinary Form is being more “Latinized” and if you listen to Cardinal Arinze (there’s another thread on this), who was given high chances of becoming Pope last election, you would think he would be insisting on having more Latin OF Masses, even Latin sermons. It appears that the job of translating accurately in the OF is just becoming harder and harder so I wouldn’t expect the EF is going to get any more vernacularized than it is today.

 

[Lycorth]

You have to look at the realities, though. The Ordinary Form is being more “Latinized” and if you listen to Cardinal Arinze (there’s another thread on this), who was given high chances of becoming Pope last election, you would think he would be insisting on having more Latin OF Masses, even Latin sermons. It appears that the job of translating accurately in the OF is just becoming harder and harder so I wouldn’t expect the EF is going to get any more vernacularized than it is today.

Indeed. Thank God the Church has some voices of reason, like Cardinal Arinze. The OF needs stricter rubrics and frankly, more Latin can’t but have a positive effect on it.

I don’t expect anything to happen to the EF, except that it become more widespread. I know it isn’t going to be “vernacularized” anytime soon, if ever. I just want to stir up talk in order to help draw more focus onto the EF, so that everyone can see how much preferable it is, even if it theoretically were to be said in the vernacular. That, and to help others see that the EF isn’t just about using Latin, but about the entire form of the Mass, down to the last seemingly insignificant rubric. If debating what in all likelihood is a scenario that will never happen can help draw attention to one of the Church’s most efficacious traditions can help, then may God see to it

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed. Thank God the Church has some voices of reason, like Cardinal Arinze. The OF needs stricter rubrics and frankly, more Latin can’t but have a positive effect on it.

I don’t expect anything to happen to the EF, except that it become more widespread. I know it isn’t going to be “vernacularized” anytime soon, if ever.

To add strenth to that argument, Cardinal Arinze says two of the “details” are of having the 1962 more widespread are that it must stay in Latin and that the priest saying the Mass must know “good” Latin.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

It’s good to know the language and rubrics of the EF won’t be subject to compromises.

 

[Brian777]

To add strenth to that argument, Cardinal Arinze says two of the “details” are of having the 1962 more widespread are that it must stay in Latin and that the priest saying the Mass must know “good” Latin.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

It’s good to know the language and rubrics of the EF won’t be subject to compromises.

now here is my question though, I remember on EWTN it was mentioned that EF of the riote of Infant baptism was done in the vernacualr (English) by bishop…Baker? i can t remember now, but anyway it was done for the newborn of one of the workers on Life on the Rock. If a bishop moved ahead and did the EF of a sacrament ion the vernacular, perhaps then it is not necessarily out of the question to do the EF Mass in vernacular. I myself if by the grace of God ordained, would see a great value in perhaps using the EF in the vernacular, the Low Mass for the normal parish daily mass for instance.

 

[Lycorth]

To add strenth to that argument, Cardinal Arinze says two of the “details” are of having the 1962 more widespread are that it must stay in Latin and that the priest saying the Mass must know “good” Latin.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

It’s good to know the language and rubrics of the EF won’t be subject to compromises.

Cardinal Arinze never fails to make me smile

 

[The_Reginator]

Indeed. Thank God the Church has some voices of reason, like Cardinal Arinze. The OF needs stricter rubrics and frankly, more Latin can’t but have a positive effect on it.

I don’t expect anything to happen to the EF, except that it become more widespread. I know it isn’t going to be “vernacularized” anytime soon, if ever. I just want to stir up talk in order to help draw more focus onto the EF, so that everyone can see how much preferable it is, even if it theoretically were to be said in the vernacular. That, and to help others see that the** EF isn’t just about using Latin, but about the entire form of the Mass, down to the last seemingly insignificant rubric.** If debating what in all likelihood is a scenario that will never happen can help draw attention to one of the Church’s most efficacious traditions can help, then may God see to it

I find that I learn more from the EF Mass.

I particularly recall everyone kneeling during the Credo. At my local parish, here in Canada, we always use the Apostles Creed. No bowing or anything.
What surprised me wasn’t the kneeling but where we knelt down. I would have expected it to be at “He was crucified also for us …” (“Crucifixus ètiam pro nobis …”).
But after decades as a Christian it suddenly hit home what an incredible event it was that He was “… incarnate by the Holy Ghost … and was made Man.”
And the silence during the Canon as the priest consecrates the bread and wine helped me to genuinely realize what a holy miracle was taking place.

 

[choy]

Indeed. Thank God the Church has some voices of reason, like Cardinal Arinze. The OF needs stricter rubrics and frankly, more Latin can’t but have a positive effect on it.

I don’t expect anything to happen to the EF, except that it become more widespread. I know it isn’t going to be “vernacularized” anytime soon, if ever. I just want to stir up talk in order to help draw more focus onto the EF, so that everyone can see how much preferable it is, even if it theoretically were to be said in the vernacular. That, and to help others see that the EF isn’t just about using Latin, but about the entire form of the Mass, down to the last seemingly insignificant rubric. If debating what in all likelihood is a scenario that will never happen can help draw attention to one of the Church’s most efficacious traditions can help, then may God see to it

i can’t see how more Latin leads to stricter rubics. i agree on the stricter rubics part, but not the Latin. i don’t really see the connection

 

[ProVobis]

Cardinal Arinze never fails to make me smile

He has a certain way with the English. Yet so coherent. Doesn’t leave you with much doubt.

 

[ProVobis]

i can’t see how more Latin leads to stricter rubics.

Then you’ll need to watch the Cardinal Arinze video. He wants Latin in the OF too.

 

[Lycorth]

i can’t see how more Latin leads to stricter rubics. i agree on the stricter rubics part, but not the Latin. i don’t really see the connection

The only strictness Latin provides is that, being a dead language that no longer evolves and changes as do living, actively spoken languages do, it isn’t subject to translational errors over time. Though on the other hand there will always be troubles with accurately translating Latin since we have to translate it into our vernaculars in order to understand it, first. Even so, using a single language for the Mass logically reduces the amounts of misunderstandings that can happen, even though there is an initial learning curve for folks who are just starting out with it.

Though, that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that, even in the vernacular, the EF is still the better form of the Mass for the Church because it is a stricter Mass with more rubrics that reduce and oftentimes eliminate mistakes and errors and abuses as well is, by virtue of its form, more conducive to encouraging reverence and teaching the Faith. I think it is best in Latin and that remains the ideal, but that’s another topic that is well-covered elsewhere.

 

[graceandglory]

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? .

Yes, here’s why.

1 Corinthians 14: 13 - 19

"For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. **14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. **15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand[e] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.** 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.**

 

[choy]

The only strictness Latin provides is that, being a dead language that no longer evolves and changes as do living, actively spoken languages do, it isn’t subject to translational errors over time. Though on the other hand there will always be troubles with accurately translating Latin since we have to translate it into our vernaculars in order to understand it, first. Even so, using a single language for the Mass logically reduces the amounts of misunderstandings that can happen, even though there is an initial learning curve for folks who are just starting out with it.

Though, that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that, even in the vernacular, the EF is still the better form of the Mass for the Church because it is a stricter Mass with more rubrics that reduce and oftentimes eliminate mistakes and errors and abuses as well is, by virtue of its form, more conducive to encouraging reverence and teaching the Faith. I think it is best in Latin and that remains the ideal, but that’s another topic that is well-covered elsewhere.

if you are troubled with translation errors, shouldn’t you be calling for the Consecration and
the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic? since those were the languages Jesus used, you can’t get any more accurate than that. Latin would already be the second translation and there could already be losses in translation. Aramaic → Greek → Latin. so any concern about improper translation should be asking for Aramaic, not Latin

perhaps you should try the Chaldean Rite

 

[ProVobis]

Though, that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that, even in the vernacular, the EF is still the better form of the Mass for the Church because it is a stricter Mass with more rubrics that reduce and oftentimes eliminate mistakes and errors and abuses as well is, by virtue of its form, more conducive to encouraging reverence and teaching the Faith. I think it is best in Latin and that remains the ideal, but that’s another topic that is well-covered elsewhere.

But wouldn’t the Novus Ordo in Latin have the same effect as far as strictness is concerned? Somehow I can’t picture a priest performing too many innovations when praying the Mass in Latin. We tend to be stricter with the Latin grammar, where in today’s climate, we play fast and loose and ambiguous with the English language, provoking a lot of people in the process.

 

[Lycorth]

Yes, here’s why.

Great observation; food for thought

if you are troubled with translation errors, shouldn’t you be calling for the Consecration and
the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic? since those were the languages Jesus used, you can’t get any more accurate than that. Latin would already be the second translation and there could already be losses in translation. Aramaic → Greek → Latin. so any concern about improper translation should be asking for Aramaic, not Latin

Actually, wouldn’t Latin be a third translation, since Greek was the language of the Church prior to the adoption of Latin?

I see your argument, but the machinery for the use of Latin is already still in place within the Church, and the Church has much more experience in using Latin than Aramaic. That would make it much simpler to use Latin than Aramaic, or even the earlier Greek. Though, to be sure, the use of either Aramaic or Latin would bring in the dead language advantage, though again the Church has much more experience using Latin than Aramaic.

perhaps you should try the Chaldean Rite

Not an option where I live.

But wouldn’t the Novus Ordo in Latin have the same effect as far as strictness is concerned? Somehow I can’t picture a priest performing too many innovations when praying the Mass in Latin. We tend to be stricter with the Latin grammar, where in today’s climate, we play fast and loose and ambiguous with the English language, provoking a lot of people in the process.

Sure, but only where abuses or mistakes in language are concerned. The Mass of Paul VI, either in Latin or the vernacular, has fewer and less-strict rubrics than the Traditional Mass, issues which can only be amended by the Vatican restoring traditional rubrics.