TLM, Vat.2, NO and a better english translation

So ive been thinking, as a catholic who likes the reforms of vatican 2 and the mass being said in english, why do some people want a return to the tridentine in latin? i agree the TLM is much more complete and full and i support our Pope in having it being a requirement to be learned in the seminaries (this seems the logical thing to do since he has made it widely available due to a possible increase in demand), but i also agree with Vat 2 that the mass should be said in the vernacular so that people can understand whats going on. The NO is great and im not suggesting it should be abolished but the TLM has more substance to it. im wondering if we want a return to the tridentine to keep substance but keep the reforms of Vat 2, why doesn’t the church produce a good english translation of the TLM have that be the standard for the mass and have the current NO as a valid option alongside the TLM in latin?

and i dont want the TLM in Latin to be abandoned, as a student who’s learning the language i think its beautiful (ps i have a mid term exam in it today, please pray to st. thomas aquinas that i do well).

thoughts anyone?

Every good TLM Missal I’ve seen has Latin text along with the English translation right next to it. By following along in your Missal, you absolutely can understand what’s being prayed.

For those who are new to the TLM, attending Mass requires far more concentration than with the NO, where everything seems so automatic that you can easily let your mind wander. This is one of many reasons that my family and I prefer the TLM.

Yeah…um…I just don’t get this. By no means am I picking on you. I have heard and read this a lot.

I did not grow up with the TLM. Never even saw it till I was 26 or so and just happened on it at that time. Just like the above comment, any good missal is going to have the latin and english side by side. Even then, you only need the missal for about a month or two in order to follow along. After that, you know what is happening (Yes to fully pray THE MASS, you probably do need it).

My convert roommate has been a catholic for a year and a half and understands the TLM better than the NO.

Nagoda, I think I know what you’re saying, and if I’m reading it right, you and I have a somewhat similar opinion on the matter.

First of all, I love the “two forms” system of the Roman Rite that Benedict has given us. I strongly believe that the 1962 missal should continue to be the EF of the Roman Rite, and should be made accessible to everyone everywhere who wants one. I also think that an OF, a vernacular Mass, ought be equally available. However, I don’t think that OF and EF are really proper titles, since they seem to suggest that one is superior to the other, something that certainly isn’t true.

However, continuing to use these titles, the OF, or vernacular Roman Rite Mass, ought to be very close to the 1962 EF for the sake of organic growth, as per Pope Benedict’s Spirit of the Liturgy. I would also suggest that certain directive of Vatican 2 be followed. My ideal reform of the OF would be same as same as the 1962 missal on paper except for : Some or all vernacular; The addition of a third OT reading (with great care taken to ensure that the text around this third reading is same as that around the current NT reading in the Usus Antiquitor; and an option for ad populum. I would also suggest that at some point, the OF and EF calendars be syncronized, and that after that, the NT reading and Gospel be made identical for both.

Rest assured, though, that I do not advocate tampering with the 1962 missal, and that the EF as we know it would exist alongside this OF vernacular Mass. I also think that certain defunct rites, such as the Sarum, Carmelite, Antiochene, and other Rites (as well as other rites are current still in use but rarely offered to the public) be allowed with Episcopal permission. I’m a great fan of liturgical diversity.

Well, that’s what I would suggest to the Holy Father if I were head of the Congregation for the Liturgy, but since I probably won’t get much farther than being a simple country pastor with an unhealthy obsession with all things liturgical, I don’t see this happening.


Suppose Catholicism and Orthodoxy faded away, leaving only Anglicanism. No more Latin or Greek masses, natch. Instead, masses would be in English. A thousand years go by, Mandarin becomes the de facto lingua franca globally, and there’s a council which finally authorizes masses to be said in the Chinese vernacular. Now imagine there’s some traditionalists in the Church of England who want to hear masses in the old-school English. It’s an emotional appeal. The answer to why people want to return to Latin Mass isn’t that the language is superior, but that it harkens back to a safe warm blanket time before the cold dangerous changes came in. And the N.O. is a convenient scapegoat. People will say, “Didn’t the gays get uppity at the Stonewall riots just about the time Paul VI promoted Mass in the vernacular?”

Ok lets get some things straight, and keep in mind this doesnt have anything directly to do with anything anyone said, this is a long needed rant…

People are naturaly lazy. Anyone can learn latin, I mean you dont have to try, just follow the ed missal for a few masses. Eventually you’ll pick it all up. I mean we go to college for some pretty bogos degrees. We spend 4 years on that and they get us nothing, and when the church, our own church, that we freely choose to be a member of, asks us to learn 1500 years of our past in one holy hour we say, “bah, no thanks its too hard to come out of my shell.” And the trads are the close minded ones?! And there is a reason for Latin, One Holy Church has ONE language, least we forget the offical language of the Vatican is still Latin. Most everythign comes out in Latin and is translated to the vernacular. Thnk if we in the U.S used one type of software and everyone else in differnt countries another, how would it be tryin to send and open a file… not easy. One church has some 1.8 billion members, so what an idea would it be for everyone to attend the same, unified mass under one unified voice, a common ground that transcends all culture. Thats the ultimate point here, the church transsends all culture in her litergy through various ways and brings vastly differnt people together in liturgry, faith, morals, doctrine and dogma.

Its not because Latin is inherently a superior language; it is only that Latin is the language of ancient Rome, from which our sui iuris Church (LATIN Rite) derives from.

The Byzantine Churches use Greek because they were founded in Greece; Armenians use Armenian, Slavs use Old Church Slavonic, etc. If there was an ancient Chinese Church it would doubtlessly have Chinese as its official language

Good post. Don’t forget we also use a universal music scale and pitches, universal mathematic symbols, universal chemical element charts, universal anatomical terms, and physics constants. Try to localize one of those and you’re in trouble. But don’t get me started on the metric system. :slight_smile:

If TLM was ever said in English would the universe blow up?

Would the universe blow up if we had an English version of the Nova Vulgata?

Is it OK to be pro TLM–Pro Novus Ordo–and pro correct, accurate, and literal English translation of all things Latin?

Would the universe blow up if everyone had to learn Latin? or Spanish or Chinese, for that matter?

It was, at one point(essentially). The 1965(? around then) missal was pretty much a translated TLM, which retained the prayers at the foot of the altar, etc. It wasn’t until the council had almost ended, that most of the nutiness started(so I hear), and the 1970 missal finished it off.

So, for a year or two between missals, we had a vernacular TLM (TVM? lol).

the “1965” missal is more inline with what the council fathers had in mind. I have a 1965 missal and it is almost identical to the 1962 missal.

Far more learned men than either you or I were responsible for the “nuttiness” as you put it. And I have great faith an confidence where their eternity will “finish off”…

I know who I will cast my lot with. :cool:

How do you know what they had in mind??? :shrug:

If the 1965 missal were authorized today would there be some TLM lovers and some Novus Ordo lovers who would die of a heart attack?

I can get it about people preferring either the Novus Ordo or TLM.

What I can’t get is people being against accurate translation of anything Latin.

Why can’t we have an accurate English translation of the Latin Vulgate?

And in the Novus Ordo why can’t we have accurate exactly matching translation of the Vulgate in the Mass?

Would TLM lovers respect the Novus Ordo more if they chunked the NAB and went with accurate English translation of the Vulgate for the readings and everything scripture related in the Novus Ordo?

If I were pope I’d make that happen and I’d also allow an English version of TLM.

The Novus Ordo could be made much better.

Even TLM could develop beyond the 1962 missal.

And it is possible for future masses to be somewhere inbetween the both of them.

Is such a thought blaspehmous?

What would traditionalists think if the Anglican use was abolished and an English version of the Sarin Rite was reinstituted?

Would that be traditional enough for English speaking people or does traditional always involve the Latin language exclusively until the end of time?

Are the other rites that never have used Latin–can they be traditional?

When Roman Rite saints in heaven pray for us–is it OK for them to use languages other than Latin when they address God?

At Pentecost there were some Romans there who undoubtedly heard St. Peter speak in Latin but there were others from other nations who understood him in their own languages as well.

If the vernacular was always imperfect then some of the first masses were imperfect which we know is not true.

If you indeed HEAR St. Peter in Latin I am happy for you–just cut others who hear St. Peter in other languages some slack–if the Holy Spirit can make it so that they can hear despite St. Peter speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic–who knows–maybe that same Holy Spirt can enable other LATIN HEARERS to hear him when he speaks in English during the mass as well!

I have my reservations against the spoken word, especially a translated spoken word.

For example, at a recent public rosary, I heard them praying "pray for our sinners now and " before the priest actually came out and corrected them “pray for us sinners now and…” Good example of poorly heard and misinterpreted theology being passed from person to person to the next generation. In the end it resembles nothing like the original.

I don’t think that’s what the Holy Spirit exactly had in mind when He gave them the powers of tongues.

Need to keep the Latin in the written texts as it never changes. Any translation is just that, just a translation, and always at the risk of being misinterpreted.

I’m not picking on you either but I just don’t get this. Why not just have it in the vernacular of the people? Why have it in Latin with a translation next to it? :shrug:

:confused: :confused: say what??? The Bible is translated. We read from it every week. And I bet if they looked at a printed copy of the Rosary it would not have said “our sinners.”

If you read the vatican II documents you will understand. Also - the changes in the mass were supposed to grow organically from the 1962 mass. The 1970 mass was not. 1970 mass was made up on the fly by a commission of people, allot of them protestants.

But that’s the point. They don’t look at the printed copy because they’re not encouraged to do so. So they resort to spoken instruction and the spoken word can be distorted from person to person. C’mon think about it. Do an experiment where you describe an event to the first person who will relay this information to the next person and that person to the next person and so on for about 10 people and hear what the last person says. We did this in a seminar once and the results were laughable.

Point is, never assume you hear right.

As far as the Bible goes, it is written but there you also have multiple translations, so which one do you put your trust in?

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