Vernacular Tridentine Mass


I am a new unexperienced Catholic. I am sure this has been discussed before but it has been bugging me. With the recent Motu Propio relaxing the use of the Tridentine Mass, has any thought ever been given to having the Mass said in the form of the older Tridentine way but in our vernacular language. It seems to me this would be the best of both worlds. The sacredness and tradition would be there yet we could understand it fully. I realize that the readings in the tridentine are in the Vernacular, are any other parts as well. The responses may negate my original questions but I would like to know what others think. Thanks.

There are far fewer congregation responses in the Tridentine Mass, and it would be comparatively easier than a Novus Ordo Latin Mass. 1/3 of English does come from Latin so some words just look strikingly familiar. For example, Pater and Paternal. The pronunciation of Latin is also quite similar to English. Hand missals allow you to follow everything in English.

This gets into the whole problem of producing suitable translations (dozens if not hundreds of them), and making sure that the translation fully conveys the sense and solemnity of the original Latin. You’d think this could be done, but the decades-long experience we have had with the awful ICEL English translation suggests we should not be too optimistic about translations.

And what about the music? All the sung Latin Propers suddenly disappear. What will take their place? Anything nearly as beautiful? One of the greatest losses in the move to the vernacular were the chanted and polyphonic Ordinaries and Propers. Nothing even close in beauty and suitability of form was ever produced in vernacular.

I believe (I wil begin studying the Rubrics of the TML soon) the TLM can be said in other languages, certain parts/prayers must be in Latin however.

Initially the readings will be allowed in Vatican-approved translations. I don’t know if this is “in place of” or “in addition to” the centuries-old Latin. I believe the spirit of the MP is to keep Latin in the liturgy however.

I have been a Catholic For 25 Years and believe there should only be the vernacular.:smiley:

The 1962 Missal allows the Epistle and the Gospel to be read in the vernacular after the Latin. How this was implemented in some places was different. Yet personally the best would be reading them just before starting the homily.

And I’m younger and enjoy everything in Latin :wink:

I have been a Catholic For 25 Years and believe there should only be the vernacular.

Vernacular, by definition, is NOT universal. So how is it Catholic?

Well, neither is Latin, so…

Personally, I believe the Mass should be celebrated in Esperanto.

Err… Roman Catholic = Latin Catholic :wink:

By using your logic, part of being Catholic should be the ability to speak and understand the Latin language - not that there’s anything wrong with that!

I agree with you - it’s a shame we are typing in English, not too long ago we would have been conversing in Latin, especially people that spoke different native tongues.

There was a part in Hilaire Belloc’s “The Path to Rome” where Belloc is having trouble communicating with the local populace somewhere in central Italy, so he tries to find a priest in order to communicate with him in Latin (mind you, this is a native French speaker in Italy, and he would prefer to communicate in Latin!)

Latin is definitely the language of the Church, and it is a testament to our times that not even educated members of the Church (such as myself) have a strong enough grasp of the language to use it in everyday situations.

For now well… all I can do would be pious ejaculations in Latin.

since much of the controversey surrounding the NO comes from the translation of the Latin, at least in the English version, my guess is that the same problems would persist, depending on who is doing the translating. It is still in issue in the revisions to the NO American usage translation being hammered out now (all vs many for instance).

since the whole point, according to the strongest proponents of the Tridentine rite, is that retaining the Latin retains the most exact meaning of the words, and most of the opposition to the NO comes from those who object to the entire idea of the vernacular usage, my further surmise is that your suggestion would be roundly rejected by such proponents.

I think this is not in the rubrics themselves but as part of a series of indults beginning in 1954 (and also found in some documents like the 1958 De Musica Sacra)

Same principle, but Esperanto is more…Bugnini-type artificial, for the lack of better term?

Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (14th Ed) says that there is no requirement to read in the vernacular, because given hand missals, it is superfluous. If it is read however, they are not liturgical and hence accorded no ceremony. This is all given in the context of the section on the homily

So this would assume the method of reading the vernacular just before the start of the homily, instead of the other options like simultaneously with the Latin or straight after.

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