TLM minus the Latin

I wonder how many would be in favour of the TLM mass, except having it all done in the vernacular as opposed to Latin. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to the TLM mass, so I am curious to know if it is ever done in vernacular? Would anyone be in favour of it being done in vernacular?

To me having the TLM in vernacular seems like the ideal, but like I said, I am curious as to what those more knowledgeable on the mass think of this idea.

We pretty much had that in 1965. The Canon was still in latin, but pretty much the rest of the Mass was the TLM in English. While I was not too upset (if at all) by the Mass at the time, even then I thought it better to have the Mass in Latin. My reasoning was that Latin unified the Church throughout the world. Venacular Masses would only lead to the Church being the American Catholic, the Mexican Catholic, the French Catholic, etc. The venacular would be easier to follow than the Latin, but I never had a priest, nun or parent tell me the being a Catholic was supposed to be easy. In fact we should suffer and offer it up.

We posted elsewhere that it is waaaaay toooooo Exclusively Catholic and thus anti-Ecumenical.

We don’t want to look too Romish to those protestants now do we? :smiley:

After all it might offend them… :rolleyes:

Anyways us in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church have the Divine Liturgy in both English/Ukrainian and Church Slavonic (our church language). I think sacred languages should be preserved but vernacular is fine by me. Its interesting to note that Croatia (one of the two major slavic countries - the other being Poland - that are Roman rite) had their Tridentine Masses in Church Slavonic instead of Latin, from what I have heard at least.

We posted elsewhere that it is waaaaay toooooo Exclusively Catholic and thus anti-Ecumenical.
Adding: IN ANY LANGUAGE!

Haha! :smiley: This is what I like about traditionalists :wink:

The TLM has been done historically in other languages. The most notable (I think) is the Glagolitic Mass, which ran for many centuries. It was still being used until Vatican II in Yugoslavia, I believe. This is the Mass Canderous refers to.

The PNCC translated the Mass into Polish 100 years ago, and everyone I have spoken to about it states that it is beautiful and reverent. They also use English now.

In France there are some Orthodox parishes which use the TLM in French, it is called “the liturgy of Saint Gregory” by them I think. These were Old Catholic congregations originally.

There is no reason why the old Mass would not work well in the vernacular. I think an English liturgy would be wonderful with the wealth of English hymns by Catholics such as Tye and Byrd. I have attended NO Masses with that type of repertoire and it really lifts the entire atmosphere of the liturgy.

Has there been any discussion of the transitional Mass that we had to endure which morphed between the TLM and the NO between 1965 and, oh, 1969? To put it mildly, we went from singing Pange Lingua; Tantum Ergo; Holy God We Praise Thy Name, and Immaculate Mary to Sons of God; And They’ll Know We are Christians…because they were more …relevant. Swooosh! Out went the baby with the bathwater!

I give you a challenge, all you proponents of the NO. Introduce the following hymns into your Sunday liturgy:

Holy God, We Praise Thy Name; Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; Praise to the Lord; Hail, Holy Queen; Immaculate Mary; …I have sung in a cathedral choir and you would be amazed at the congregation’s response…

I can guarantee that the people my age who won’t sing Haugen or Haas or all the rest of the Muppet Music Maesters will sing these hymns.

Actually the 1965 Mass was not the TLM but what is referred today as the “Missal of 1965”. There were much more modifications such as elimination of prayers at the foot of the altar, priest praying many prayers from the sedelia, the canon was also said aloud but in Latin, elimination of the last gospel and “corpus Christi” instead of the prayer said for each individual communicant.

Also, as far as the TLM in the vernacular, that is not a good idea at all. The Latin stands as a barrier from any heresy entering into the Sacred Liturgy. The Latin words never change and it also shows a unity of the entire Latin Rite- with you being able to go to Mass in any country and have the words be the same everywhere.

Ken

Welcome, my Eastern brother in Christ.! I have an old Deustche Grammophone copy of the Galgolithic Mass which I bought back in the 70s. And as you are so confirmed in your eastern rites, so, too, I am confirmed in my western rites.

I just had to back up and delete alot about rites and being Irish. I will not do to others what was done to me.

My cathedral parish uses a lot of the English vernacular motets written during the late Renaissance. And, yes, they work well with a reverent NO liturgy. There’s nothing wrong with a REVERENT NO liturgy.

But, we call ourselves Catholic which means universal. In my youth, I could go to Mass in New Orleans or go to Mass in Sevilla, Spain and I could participate because the Mass was the Mass…Latin…the unifying force.

And, of course, because it is not used that often in most NO parishes, Rite I is a translation of the canon of the TLM Mass.

My friend, don’t you think that as a historian and an anthropologist that I am more than aware that my ancestors in the Emerald Isle were Celtic Catholics long before they submitted to Rome?

The knotwork of their manuscripts suggests a contact with the Coptic Church in Africa. Yes, our tonsure was different.

But there was this little thing called the Synod of Whitby…

I’m sorry. I feel as fiercely as others do. I am Irish and I am Latin Rite. My ancestors did what they had to do to preserve Holy Mother Church against the Sasenach.

More gently…the daughters and sons of Erin’s Isle came here to the swamps and marshes of south Louisiana. I am fourth generation Irish in America. I served as an altar boy for my grandmothers funeral Mass (in black vestments) in 1965 in Latin. I helped bury my grandmother in Latin.

Why, in the name of Our Lord, would I want to adopt a Renaissance English translation of the Latin? ( From a liturgical view, OK, I can see it). But why, would I, being Irish and used to the TLM adopt what could, argueably, be viewed as an English translation.

Parce Domine, parce populum…

Um, Ken…I have the battle badges and insignia…been there done that.

You are quite correct It was neither hither nor yon. I was senior altar boy for my parish when this happened.

Catholic kids didn’t protest back then. Hippies, yes. Catholic kids, no. I can assure you with all the fervor of my heart that I detested the NO - I was 16 and 17 in 1967 and 1968.

And I SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO HAVING TO SING SIMON AND GARFUNCKLE’S “BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS” and 'SOUNDS OF SILENCE" (did I get your attention?) at my graduation Mass from a Catholic high school in 1969.

I didn’t like it then. I was repulsed by it then…and I am repulsed by it now.

I give thanks that I am a member of a reverent NO parish but I will also say that there is an element missing.

I understand the point you’re making, but there is a centuries long, pope-established precedent of celebrating the liturgies of the Roman Rite in the vernacular; please read: Glagolitic, Slavonic Language and Liturgy.

I, for one, would be totally in support :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: of the traditional rites of the Latin Church being celebrated in the vernacular, e.g. English, Spanish, French, etc.

On the other hand, I am enthusiastic about them being celebrated in Latin too. :smiley:

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

I’ve heard many of these arguments in favor of the use of Latin language for years and I remember them before the Council.

Unfortunately, as I see it, they’re very confused.

In my opinion, the ideal would have the use of the vernacular and some Latin in the liturgy. Having the Mass entirely in Latin doesn’t make sense for a lot of reasons.

My reasoning was that Latin unified the Church throughout the world.

I can’t see how a language that nobody uses, speaks or understands “'unifies” people. Latin is said to be a Dead Language. It is also claimed to be a “universal language”. Well, it can’t be both. It’s frankly not a universal language at all since nobody uses it. English is far more universally used than Latin. So this argument is confused. How does Latin unify people? Are Catholics supposed to understand all the Latin at Mass (Gospels and Epistles and Proper prayers?).
The response to this is usually, “no, you don’t have to be fluent in Latin because you can have a missal with the vernacular translation.” Therefore, you’re reading the Mass in the vernacular – which again doesn’t make sense. We were told that vernacular was bad, but then that we should use a Missal with the vernacular in it so we could understand the Mass. Or else, the other argument is that “Latin is better because nobody understands it.”

Venacular Masses would only lead to the Church being the American Catholic, the Mexican Catholic, the French Catholic, etc.

Once again, when people go to Mass in all of those countries they read the Mass in the vernacular. The priest reads the lessons and gives the sermon in vernacular. The people pray the prayers after Mass in the vernacular and do their devotions in the vernacular. If the vernacular is a danger, they should do all of those things in Latin. But none of them do and they didn’t do it before Vatican II.

The venacular would be easier to follow than the Latin, but I never had a priest, nun or parent tell me the being a Catholic was supposed to be easy. In fact we should suffer and offer it up.

At the same time, nobody said that the Mass should be made deliberately difficult to understand and that Christianity requires that everyone should learn the Latin language.

But that’s additionally an interesting point. If being a Catholic is not easy because of the use of Latin – perhaps the idea is that everyone should do the difficult work to learn how to speak, read, write and understand Latin fluently.

But this also is not promoted in the most ardent traditionalist groups. A simple proof of this – prior to Vatican II, all priestly training was taught in the Latin language (save this point for later). Seminarians would be taught by a professor who spoke Latin to them exclusively. Interestingly, this is one part of “The Tradition” that the SSPX, for example, has not desired to restore. Why not?

Also, as far as the TLM in the vernacular, that is not a good idea at all. The Latin stands as a barrier from any heresy entering into the Sacred Liturgy.

I can’t see how that is possible. How does the Latin language prevent heresy? I think the idea is that “since Latin is not a vernacular” then no heresy can enter (since nobody understands it). But as I pointed out before, Latin was used in the seminaries before Vatican II so it was, indeed, a vernacular. But if we insist that Latin should be a Dead Language to prevent heresy from entering into the Church – then **nobody should learn how to speak Latin ** because to learn to speak, read, write and understand Latin risks having the language become a vernacular.

Again, this doesn’t make any sense.

The Latin words never change and it also shows a unity of the entire Latin Rite- with you being able to go to Mass in any country and have the words be the same everywhere.

I would agree that some part of the Mass should be retained in Latin. I would prefer it to be primarily in the vernacular for reasons given. But beyond that, it doesn’t make sense either to say that “the Latin words never change”. Certainly, the words themselves can be the same at Mass, but the translations of those words can be quite different. Additionally, with the addition of new prayers to Mass for feast days of saints, new Latin terms would need to be created. So the words at Mass would, indeed change even if entirely in Latin.

I will mention another major point – and that is that normally nobody can hear most of the Latin words at Mass anyway. So what difference does it make? The priest could be saying the Mass in any langauge for those parts.

There is no way that a person who is not highly skilled in Latin to understand the propers of Mass just by listening (even when you could hear them which is rare).

That’s why the priest reads the Epistle (facing the altar) in Latin, but then has to repeat it in the vernacular.

So, large parts of the Mass are unintelligible without a vernacular Missal. The sermon and readings are in vernacular – because it is wisely known that people wouldn’t get anything out of the readings or sermon if they were given in Latin.

This point alone makes it clear (to me) that the vernacular should be used for all of the parts of Mass that are directed to the people (sermon, readings and propers directed to the congregation).

The liturgical reform hoped to introduce some vernacular, while retaining prayers in Latin. To my way of thinking, that would be best. There’s no reason to have the Mass entirely in Latin.

It was originally changed from Greek to Latin because Latin was the vernacular anyway.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello brotherhrolf, thanks for the welcome :slight_smile:

:smiley: That’s pretty nice, but I was not responding to you, thanks for the history lesson though. :slight_smile:

I never mentioned a Renaissance English translation of the liturgy as such, I just made what I hoped would be a nice suggestion for some good music! The English of the liturgy could be contemporary.

I also would like to suggest plainchant, it sounds good in English.

When Vatican II (Sacrsantum ConciliumGloucester) suggested that the Mass be said in the venacular, I suspect that translating the TLM is what they had in mind, not the creation from scratch (“fabrication” if you will) of an entirely new rite.

I think an English Traditional Mass for English speaking communites would be great. I would support it whole-heartedly - but on one condition. That those doing the translation were hand-picked by our wonderful Holy Father, Pope Bennedict XVI.

I would support the TLM in English wholeheartedly…providing everything apart from the homily was either in Latin, Greek or Hebrew. :wink:

Uh, that was done (the translation) about 80yrs ago…look in the 1955-1962 Missals.

There is really nothing left but to SPEAK it.

In fact all or parts of the the Mass has been used in the vernacular in: Paleoslav, Czech, Croation and Slovenian (but I’m not fully sure to what extent, I think it was limited with regard to the Mass), Estonian, Georgian, Armenian, Arabic and Chinese in addition to Glagolitic (all pre-1935)

Which one? :slight_smile:

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