Question for the TLM only crowd

Pax vobiscum!

For those of you who attend the TLM (more specifically the ones who strongly dislike the NO and think it was a mistake–not just that it has been abused, but that the Mass itself is bad), I have a question for you.

If, after VII, the following reforms of the liturgy would have happened rather than the NO, would you still only go to the TLM?

  • The congregation gives the responses and sings/says the Ordinaries.
  • The readings done like they are in the NO (OT, Psalm, Epistle, Gospel)
  • The readings done in the vernacular
  • The collect and final prayer before dismissal sometimes done in the vernacular

Would these changes have been acceptable? Why or why not?

In Christ,

  1. This was already rubrically permitted before Vatican II.

  2. No; the “responsorial psalm” destroys the Gradual-Alleluia tradition, and the introduction of a second reading destroys the integrity of a liturgical observance, besides being an innovation in the Roman Rite (extra readings being reserved only for those days that retained the lengthy vigils of Matins as public worship).

  3. This was also already rubrically permitted before Vatican II, though of course the readings had to be read or sung in Latin as well.

  4. No; there’s no persuasive reason for this, except to condition people for accepting more and more and more in the vernacular.

Pax tecum!

I know, but I meant that you would see it every Sunday at every Church. The indult that I attend on occasion is not a dialogue Mass, so the only thing the people say are “Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meam, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea” after the “Ecce, Angus Dei…”

How does it “destroy the integrity of a liturgical observance”? I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean. You are saying that hearing more of God’s word proclaimed is a bad thing???:confused: Also, at the NO I attend, the Gradual-Alleluia sequence is done every Sunday after the second reading, before the Gospel.

I meant only the vernacular. At the indult TLM that, as I said, I go to on occasion, the readings are re-read at the homily. What about if they were done in vernacular at the time in the Mass they were read?

I meant only for those parts of the Mass, not to get people used to it so they could use it more.

In Christ,

There is always some talk about why not an English TLM and such changes as an audible canon, etc.

A lot of people seem to forget that there was sort of an English TLM and that was the 1965 Mass. That was the Missal that I made my first Holy Communion under. And I still have that Missal in my nightstand. The prayers at the foot of the altar were diminished and the Last Gospel was gone. But the advantages still were.

  1. Only one Canon “The Roman Canon” with no shortcuts
  2. The Mysterium Fidei was still part of the consecration
  3. Pro Multis was “For Many”
  4. The English Language translation was faithful to the Latin. (Very similar to the new translation approved last June by the USCCB)

At least in my parish growing up in the late 60’s, the Catholic culture and traditions of the parish remained relatively intact. Yes there were some changes like the altar moved out, but the rederos was supposedly falling apart anyway. The changes seemed organic. The church was not stripped of statues, communion rails, stations of the cross, kneelers, or forced to endure ugly modern art.

Mass under the 1965 Missal was solemn and reverent. The music was always organ, no bongos, tamborines, or maracas . Altar boys looked like altar boys, not like boys or girls in bathrobes. There was no parading around of the laity.

If there was legitimate change called for by VII, I believe that the 1965 Missal fit the bill. People actively participated in their own language, with none of the nonsense we see today.

When I first started attending the TLM, in response to the abuses in the Novus Ordo, I was kind of shocked how different the Mass was when I was an infant and toddler as opposed to the 1965 Missal which were my earliest Mass memories (no hymns at High Mass for example). I have since learned many of the theological bases for the 1962 Missal that I did not understand at first.

I know that there are many traditionalists that will take absolutely nothing less than the 1962 or earlier Missal, but I have very fond memories of the 1965 Missal. If somehow we could only get back there, I would be overjoyed.

One thing many Catholics today do not understand is the changes to the prayers of the Mass ( the Introit, Secret, etc…). I didn’t have a clue about it until I read a book on the subject that showed side by side comparisons. The Novus Ordo versions virtually eliminate (or at least water down) references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, sin, heaven and hell and several other Catholic doctrinal issues.

This is why the Ottaviani Intervention Letter was written. It was not due to the vernacular issue because at the time the intervention was composed, it was in response to the Latin version of the NO starting with the definition of the Mass as only a banquet or communal meal. Not many know that this was changed in the 2nd draft to include a short blurb about it being a sacrifice also.

Anyway, those are a few points to consider.

-Tradydaddy from Cincinnati

Great. Now how about actually addressing his post?

Sorry, may I request a little clarification of what the questioner had in mind regarding the changes listed? Do you mean something similar to the 1965 missal? If so, from my understanding, this was specifically created as an intermediary step to get people ready to accept the changes of the NO.

It’s the slippery slope argument. Of course I would prefer the 1965 modernized version of the TLM over the NO. But I would also prefer the TLM over any changes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit