What Chages would you make in the Tridentine Mass

For starters have it said in English and have the Priest face the people.

BTW-I started this thread becuase of the excellent insight recieved from TM fans on another thread about what changes should be made in the N.O. Mass. I thoughr N.O. Fans could similarly help them out

Have the reading in English using the 1970 Lectionary. It a lot richer…especially the weekday reading…The Calender would have to be changed there as well.

Is that when we went to the three cycles for Sundays? If so then I wholeheartedly agree with this one.

I would say nothing done soto voce (?) I am not sure if that is the correct term or spelling but my thought is nothing should be said quietly so the people can not hear it. If I remember correctly the Priest is saying these prayers and offering up the non-bloody sacrifice of the Mass for the people why should we not hear what he is saying. For all we know he isn’t saying it right

I don’t mind the Priest facing the Altar as opposed to facing the people as this is an indication that he is praying with us to God.

Having the entire Mass in English would be good too.

Brenda V.

None, the TLM is to be left fully intact that is why it is called the TRADITIONAL Latin Mass emphasis on Traditional gang. If you do not like or are not a fan of the TLM then I would suggest sticking with the Novus Ordo. Why is it that so many want to alter Traditional things I do not understand this at all.

There’s not much I would change. Add another reading, either from the Old or New Testament depending on what’s already in the Mass of the day. I think borrowing the Litany of Peace from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as the text for a type of Prayers of the Faithful would also be of benefit.

Also, I wish there were the option of the Canon being prayed audibly by the priest. When I hear the Roman Canon in the Novus Ordo despite being poorly translated, it’s absolutely wonderful and helps me focus better on the Holy Sacrifice. The silence sort of distracts me, but it helps others to concentrate so I wouldn’t push too hard for this.

In my opinion the language of the Mass doesn’t matter, whatever language it’s in it’s the same Mass. As long there’s a missal to read the propers, everything’s okay. After a couple of masses the ordinary is basically second nature.

None. The only thing I would like, to aid exposure, is the authorisation of an Elizabethan English translation of parts that the faithful hear.

Allow it to be said in dignified sacred English, allow for the new propers/prefaces.

The calendar and reading cylces for both forms should be unified, and re-enstate the old names for the seasons so we can be rid of “ordinary time.”

While I’m sure that there are people who think either one form or another is totally perfect, I think both need some sort of reform. After all, Vatican II did see things about the 1962 missal that needed reform, and many feel the OF failed to live up to the true intent of the council.

I would say have it in the Vernacular (using Elizabethan English, like in the Missals) up until the Canon of the Mass, where it should be in Latin (as a symbolic veil).

As well, utilize the three year cycle in order to give the Faithful exposure to more of the Bible (not everyone is a daily Bible-reader; the only bit of the Bible they hear is at Mass)

I would want to keep the Latin and the priest and people facing in the same direction. However, I would like it if more of the prayers were said audibly outside of the Eucharistic prayer. I would also like to have more readings. If not the whole three reading, three year cycle; then the addition of a second (OT?) reading before the Gospel. I would like to see the dialogue version be the norm rather than the exception.

Why would we want to change the TLM? The people who go to the TLM every week like it just the way it is, and I think most would not want it changed at all.

If you look at the first post, he says that this is a companion to the NO change thread that was done recently.

Good point; I don’t want to see it change either (except maybe for additional collects for new Saint’s days, etc.). When I suggested English above, I was thinking of some kind of halfway-house for those who cannot understand the TLM (i.e. those who say “Oh, the Latin Mass! That’s awful!”)–at least then they would understand the beauty of what is being said! :thumbsup:

I would not change anything except for eliminating the use of the low voice by the priest during the Canon. I would have him say all parts audibly. I would keep all the Latin, but not have it spoken so softly that the congregation cannot follow along in their missals.

No changes necessary or really even wanted. I think most of us like it the way it is and would never change it. You see that is one of the main problems with the Pauline Mass. You never know what you are going to get. It could be reverent or it could have Father feel good telling jokes and singing a few songs. You could have dignified Choiral arrangements or something akin to Black Sabbath playing throughout. You could have a respectable Mass with a proper consecration or you could have corn tortillas for the sacred matter,everyone communing each other and prayers offered to the four cardinal winds and the earth mother. You just never know what is going to happen. In the Traditional mass you know what you are going to be at, whats going to happens and how it is going to happen.

No I say leave the Traditional Mass alone. Leave the experimentation and other adaptations to the Pauline if that is what the Priest wants… It was designed to allow adaptations and experimentation and always has from the very start.

estesbob,

Good question. I don’t think I would change anything in the Mass but maybe before we could have the priest administer an abridged version of an oath against modernism. That would be a good reminder to everyone why we are there at the TLM and the need to protect it against the abuses that are so prevalent in the NO.

i wouldn’t make any changes. its the Mass of Ages. why would i want to make changes? its fine the way it is. always will be:)

  1. Audible, still sotto voce, but use a good mic on the altar.

  2. Option for vernacular.

  3. Readings only in vernacular (repeating them is pointless).

  4. Communion at a rail or in a line.

  5. 3 year cycle of readings.

  6. Add modern saints to the calendar.

  7. Sing the Mass don’t say it!

  8. Make the maniple optional.

  9. Make sure that any changes occur organically, the liturgy is not frozen in time.

I think what i have bolded is the bare minimum of changes needed if the TM is ever going to become anything more than a novelty mass celebrated by a very few of the faithful and absent from most parishes.

Yes. I would agree with that. I’d like to see the TLM be more than a museum-piece that is preserved for a historical reason. It should become a vibrant part of our liturgical life and it should be allowed to change organically as it did for hundreds of years.

The whole point of the TLM is that it doesn’t change. Changing it would send every Traditionalist Catholic the world over into a fit, and cause more schisms than Vatican II and the introduction of the Pauline Missal combined.

Also, we have to look at the decrees of Pope Pius V regarding the standardization of the Mass. If the Tridentine Mass is changed from the 1962 version, then we may well finally give groups like the SSPX a real reason to say that we have a vacant see in Rome.

Although I think that this is a good discussion, it is the answer to the wrong question. Perhaps the title ought to be “How much deviation from the Tridentine Mass should be included in a TLM-NO hybrid that may someday become the ordinary form of the mass?”

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.