So, What If the TLM Were Allowed in Vernacular?

[Thursday1]

If the TLM is turned into the TVM, then I think it will use the "higher" english, though this is a mistake. Thee and Thine are not the higher form, they are the personal form. You was plural only first, but it has always been more respectful to address someone in the plural, so eventually you became the only use.
The modern attachment to the the personal "thee and thine" as more respectful is one of languages little ironies.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

[Holy Roller]

Originally Posted by KathleenElsie

No disrespect meant here. But, please let the Catholics decide this. Also as a Catholic I have heard much more actual scripture in a Catholic Mass then in the Protestant service. The Cathoic Church is just that CATHOLIC.

You just backed up what I said. I said, "Most Catholics who I know seem to regard the Bible as an encounter that is best kept private." Why?

Richard

[KathleenElsie]

Originally Posted by Holy Roller

You just backed up what I said. I said, "Most Catholics who I know seem to regard the Bible as an encounter that is best kept private." Why?

Richard

Sorry never said this. Private encounter? How about public encounter at all Masses no matter the language? I do read my Bible in private or with my family, but this is called private or family devotions.

[Cristiano]

If it were to be replaced by an English translation I think that it should be contemporary English. Even using archaic forms of the language you are going to have translation issues and it would not be vernacular anymore. I also think that the Church should just stick to Latin.

[LCMS_No_More]

Originally Posted by Holy Roller

Yes, more Bible, and more believing the Bible literally. Most Catholics who I know seem to regard the Bible as an encounter that is best kept private.

Richard

Nonsense. The Scripture finds its natural home in the liturgy. The liturgy itself is full of scripture references throughout and the book of Revelation describes the liturgy of the Mass in amazing detail.

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by Rabbititus

I think that eventually (perhaps not in our lifetime), parts of the TLM, like the propers or more, will be allowed in the vernacular. If so, what type of English would you wish to be used for official use?

For those of you who genuinely feel the TLM will never be allowed in vernacular, keep in mind that this is a hypothetical question.

This will never happen, It has already been tried.
In Reform of the Liturgy written by Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo, he writes about how, in 1965 experimental Masses were used to test the different ways that Mass could be said. The mixture of vernacular and Latin did not work. It is possible that it didn't work because some didn't want it to work . But that is another topic.

Pg 257- “By accepting the principle of adaptation, the Constitution on the Liturgy opened the way to some extent to experimentation…episcopal conferences can allow such experiments to “certain groups suited for the purpose and for a fixed time” and with the authorization from the Apostolic See”
Pg 104-110 “…But the resultant Mass, partly in Latin, partly in the vernacular, was a hybrid, lacking in continuity…but the vernaculars had to stop at the threshold of the Roman Canon…but a need was very quickly felt for having the entire liturgy in the vernacular…the Canon is a vital part of a living liturgy. It did remain in Latin for over two years from the beginning of the reform, but pastoral experience showed that a situation in which the celebration was half in the vernacular and half in Latin was intolerable.”

[rlg94086]

I'm not sure how to vote, because I really don't care which "version" of English is used in a vernacular Mass.

Personally, I think a blend of Latin and vernacular is good, but I've noticed that in the Latin versions of the Mass of Paul VI the mix varies wildly. I would imagine the same could happen with the TLM. It would be nice if some standards were adopted.

I thought it was interesting in another thread that someone mentioned a change in the TLM in 1964(?) where the Gloria and Credo were said in English, along with the readings and homily/sermon.

Contrast that with the Latin Mass of Paul VI: In our parish, we are chanting the Gloria and Credo in Latin (along with the Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei...and Kyrie in Greek). Meanwhile, the Greeting (Salutatio), Penitential Rite (Confiteor), Concluding Rite, and the Eucharistic Prayers (other than those above) are all in English. When I watch the Mass on EWTN, I think they pray some parts in Latin that we pray in English and vice versa. It would be nice to have some consistency.

[rlg94086]

If Bugnini was the "architect of the Novus Ordo," then why would anyone care about his personal opinion of mixing Latin and the vernacular in the TLM? He obviously would be a little biased, don't you think?

Originally Posted by stmaria

This will never happen, It has already been tried.
In Reform of the Liturgy written by Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo, he writes about how, in 1965 experimental Masses were used to test the different ways that Mass could be said. The mixture of vernacular and Latin did not work. It is possible that it didn't work because some didn't want it to work . But that is another topic.

Pg 257- “By accepting the principle of adaptation, the Constitution on the Liturgy opened the way to some extent to experimentation…episcopal conferences can allow such experiments to “certain groups suited for the purpose and for a fixed time” and with the authorization from the Apostolic See”
Pg 104-110 “…But the resultant Mass, partly in Latin, partly in the vernacular, was a hybrid, lacking in continuity…but the vernaculars had to stop at the threshold of the Roman Canon…but a need was very quickly felt for having the entire liturgy in the vernacular…the Canon is a vital part of a living liturgy. It did remain in Latin for over two years from the beginning of the reform, but pastoral experience showed that a situation in which the celebration was half in the vernacular and half in Latin was intolerable.”

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

If Bugnini was the "architect of the Novus Ordo," then why would anyone care about his personal opinion of mixing Latin and the vernacular in the TLM? He obviously would be a little biased, don't you think?

It wasn't his personal opinion. He was the secretary of the Consilium to implement the Constitution of the Liturgy. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI. Every change adopted by the Consilium had to be approved by Pope Paul.
He held that position from 1965-1975. Bugnini along with members of the Consilium wrote the Novus Ordo
In 1967 when the Novus Ordo was shown for the first time to the Synod of Bishops, the Mass was celebrated in Italian by Father Annibale Bugnini.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by stmaria

It wasn't his personal opinion. He was the secretary of the Consilium to implement the Constitution of the Liturgy. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI. Every change adopted by the Consilium had to be approved by Pope Paul.
He held that position from 1965-1975. Bugnini along with members of the Consilium wrote the Novus Ordo
In 1967 when the Novus Ordo was shown for the first time to the Synod of Bishops, the Mass was celebrated in Italian by Father Annibale Bugnini.

If that is the case, then why is an indult required to say the Mass of Paul VI in the vernacular? And, why is a Latin Mass of Paul VI allowed to have mixed Latin and vernacular?

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

If that is the case, then why is an indult required to say the Mass of Paul VI in the vernacular? And, why is a Latin Mass of Paul VI allowed to have mixed Latin and vernacular?

Your missing the point.The first experimental Mass tried to keep the Roman Canon in Latin and the other prayers in vernacular as was directed by Pope Paul in Inter oercumencihttp://www.adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html

Inter oecumeniciInstruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

48. Until reform of the entire Ordo Missae, the points that follow are to be observed:
c. In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding.
g. In recited Masses the congregation may recite the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular along with the celebrant; in sung Masses the people may sing it in Latin along with the celebrant and, should the territorial ecclesiastical authority have so decreed, also in the vernacular, using melodies approved by the same authority
j. The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed.
49. In Masses celebrated with a congregation, the lessons, epistle, and gospel are to be read or sung facing the people:
a. at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary in solemn Masses;
b. at the altar, lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary -- whichever is more convenient -- in sung or recited Masses if sung or read by the celebrant; at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary if sung or read by someone else.
57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:
a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

The Roman Canon was left untouched at this time.

[rlg94086]

How am I missing the point?

You quoted Begnini as saying " It did remain in Latin for over two years from the beginning of the reform, but pastoral experience showed that a situation in which the celebration was half in the vernacular and half in Latin was intolerable." If he was speaking for the Church and not just his opinion, why is it allowed today?

What are you trying to say, that a Mass (TLM or Paul VI) must be in either the vernacular or Latin, but not both? I don't see any evidence of that as a requirement. Can you explain please?

Originally Posted by stmaria

Your missing the point.The first experimental Mass tried to keep the Roman Canon in Latin and the other prayers in vernacular as was directed by Pope Paul in Inter oercumencihttp://www.adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html

Inter oecumeniciInstruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

48. Until reform of the entire Ordo Missae, the points that follow are to be observed:
c. In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding.
g. In recited Masses the congregation may recite the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular along with the celebrant; in sung Masses the people may sing it in Latin along with the celebrant and, should the territorial ecclesiastical authority have so decreed, also in the vernacular, using melodies approved by the same authority
j. The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed.
49. In Masses celebrated with a congregation, the lessons, epistle, and gospel are to be read or sung facing the people:
a. at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary in solemn Masses;
b. at the altar, lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary -- whichever is more convenient -- in sung or recited Masses if sung or read by the celebrant; at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary if sung or read by someone else.
57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:
a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

The Roman Canon was left untouched at this time.

[Rabbititus]

I've only ever heard positive things about "bi-lingual" (Latin and Vernacular) masses. I used to work with a girl who loved singing in the choir durring Lent, because they chose to do the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and other commonly sung parts in Latin, with the rest of the mass in English. Also, I've only ever heard good things about EWTN's bi-lingual masses, except for the criticism that they aren't consistant with what parts are Latin and what parts are English from day to day.

When I've been to beneditction, the Salutaris and Tantum Ergo are always in Latin while the rest is in English, it's never seemed disjointed to me.

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

How am I missing the point?

You quoted Begnini as saying " It did remain in Latin for over two years from the beginning of the reform, but pastoral experience showed that a situation in which the celebration was half in the vernacular and half in Latin was intolerable." If he was speaking for the Church and not just his opinion, why is it allowed today?
What are you trying to say, that a Mass (TLM or Paul VI) must be in either the vernacular or Latin, but not both? I don't see any evidence of that as a requirement. Can you explain please?

The Canon remained in Latin for two years but it proved to be "intolerable"

How can the Traditional Latin Mass be in the vernacular?
The Novus Ordo in Latin and the TLM are two different liturgies.
The Consilium at first wanted to keep as much of the TLM as possible but replace some prayers with new translations.

The first challenge of the Consilium was to adhere to # 36 of the Constitution on the Liturgy.

# 36 The use of the Latin language, with due respect to
particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directive and in some prayers and chants.

They tried to keep the Roman Canon in Latin with a few prayers in the vernacular.
Pg 338. “ The first meeting [of the Concilium] was held at Rome in April 1964.”
Pg 341 “ On April 17,1965, a sturdy, powerful machinery was set in motion that in five years time would bring the “new” Mass.”

Pg343. “The Roman Canon was the most sensitive and complex problem of all. On the one hand, respect for this prayer made the group hesitate to touch it; on the other, there were suggestions…for a different, more logical organization of the Eucharistic Prayer.” Footnote 5. “No one denied the difficulties presented by the Roman Canon. Some, however, closed ranks against even the slightest revision or development of the Roman Canon; their motives were historical and literary. On the other hand, all without exception urgently asked for the addition of a new canon to the existing Roman Canon.”

[rlg94086]

I don't get your points at all.

The Canon of the Ordinary Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, is still in Latin. It never stopped being in Latin. If the Mass of Paul VI (a Latin rite) can be said in the vernacular, then why can't the Traditional Latin Mass (also a Latin rite) be said in the vernacular? The TLM has been said with some parts in the vernacular, and the Mass of Paul VI has been said with some parts in Latin. They are different rites...the language used is a separate issue.

Originally Posted by stmaria

The Canon remained in Latin for two years but it proved to be "intolerable"

How can the Traditional Latin Mass be in the vernacular?
The Novus Ordo in Latin and the TLM are two different liturgies.
The Consilium at first wanted to keep as much of the TLM as possible but replace some prayers with new translations.

The first challenge of the Consilium was to adhere to # 36 of the Constitution on the Liturgy.

# 36 The use of the Latin language, with due respect to
particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directive and in some prayers and chants.

They tried to keep the Roman Canon in Latin with a few prayers in the vernacular.
Pg 338. “ The first meeting [of the Concilium] was held at Rome in April 1964.”
Pg 341 “ On April 17,1965, a sturdy, powerful machinery was set in motion that in five years time would bring the “new” Mass.”

Pg343. “The Roman Canon was the most sensitive and complex problem of all. On the one hand, respect for this prayer made the group hesitate to touch it; on the other, there were suggestions…for a different, more logical organization of the Eucharistic Prayer.” Footnote 5. “No one denied the difficulties presented by the Roman Canon. Some, however, closed ranks against even the slightest revision or development of the Roman Canon; their motives were historical and literary. On the other hand, all without exception urgently asked for the addition of a new canon to the existing Roman Canon.”