What Chages would you make in the Tridentine Mass

I see nothing wrong wrong with using the vernacualr and updating the readings.- the essence of the mass remains the same.

How horrible. Especially the latter change.

All of these options would be good, especially #1. It would be most helpful to be able to follow along in the missal.

Exactly. That is what separates the two.

The only thing worth considering is perhaps reverting to the Missal of Pius V. :thumbsup:


But I believe as stated by the OP that this is suppose ot be a ‘companion’ thread to that other one.

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.

The SSPX won’t be in a position to talk since the 1962 missal is definitely not the same as the 1570 one. Quite a few differences

This thread scares me. Please leave the TLM the way it is, we do not need it updated and we do not need any innovations added to it. Latin is how it should be said, not vernacular. The consecration should be silent, not audible. Like someone else said, leave the innovations and change to the the Pauline Mass.

Why you object to it being in a language that people understand.? Why would you object to using the three year cycle of readings that gives Cathoilcs an oppotunity to hear most of scripture in that span? Do you think God ordained that he be worshipped only in Latin? Do you think that Saints cannonized since 1962 are inferior to those in the canon at that time?

I wouldn’t change a thing. Now that I have re-discovered the TLM, I don’t want it corrupted in any way. The Mass of the Ages is what it must remain.

The Novus Ordo folks have had all the changes they wanted over the last 40 years. Leave the TLM be.

How does using the vernacular corrupt the mass?

The Novus Ordo folks have had all the changes they wanted over the last 40 years. Leave the TLM be.

What does the Novov Ordo have to do with this? Are you saying the TM MUST remained unchaged for the rest of eternitiy???

The first reason for me would be that the 1 year cycle is very ancient.

The second is that there are some disadvantages to the 3 year system. The excessive dictum of Matthew in Year A, Mark in Year B and so on is sometimes pointless- some Sundays, all we are doing is hearing the same message only from a different Gospel. And sometimes that pointlessness is driven home- why read from Mark the temptation of Christ when he describes nothing of it?

Perhaps a good solution then for the TLM, in order to preserve antiquity but expose Scripture more to people in the pews would be to add a OT reading that harmonizes with the Gospel and introduce a ferial lectionary. In the cases where the readings appear to be following an ancient continuous order, now abridged, then maybe that could be expanded.

At the bare minimum new saints MUST be added to the calendar as they are canonised - surely the SSPX can’t object to THAT - not if they’re hoping, as I’m sure plenty of SSPXers are, that Lefebvre will one day be one of 'em :wink:

I’d also wonder how they can possibly object to a three-year cycle of readings that allows more of the Sacred Scripture to be proclaimed to the faithful? :confused:

Because the 1 year cycle is very ancient (at least to the 6th century) and the 3 year cycle has its own set of problems- not least an excessive reliance on certain dictums like Matthew in Year A, Mark in Year B and so forth. Sometimes it makes no sense- like why read the temptation of Christ form mark when he doesn’t say anything about it?

Cannot be done. Try it and then you will see further revolt and schism.

It is like New Coke and Classic Coke- In the 1980’s they came out with New Coke. But New Coke lost the battle as we all saw it a copy of heretical Pepsi. It had “Coke” on the lable but it tasted almost but not quite like Pepsi.

Old Coke cannot ever be changed or be made better. Take a lesson from that.


Do you really want to relegate the TM to a rarely said Mass attended by a very very few when a few minor changes could open its beauty and spirituality to genrations of Catholics? Again what is wrong with using the vernacular and using the three year cycle for readings? How does that hurt the essence of the TM?


In the TLM, the priest does face the people: when he is speaking to them.

The TLM is not free from modifications; the missal of John XXIII is not the same as the missal of Pius X or Pius V. However, there should never be change for the sake of change.

Mass in the vernacular is tricky. Look how hard it has been to get a good English translation of the Ordinary Form. How many decades has it been? Now multiply that by the number of vernacular languages people wish to hear the Mass in. Having the Scripture read in the vernacular is certainly easier to accomplish.

There are reasons why the one-year cycle of Scripture is favorable over the three-year (for Sundays) and two-year (for weekdays) cycles. I’d like to suggest the possibility that the over-exposure to Scripture in the Mass readings leads Catholics to think that they hear the whole Bible in the course of three years (I know this to be true, I’ve heard Catholics say it). And the more they think they hear at Mass, the less they need to read Scripture on their own.

Why must all of the Mass be said out loud? Much of it is not being spoken to us. We don’t always pray out loud (do we?). If you have a Missal in front of you that says what the priest is saying, you don’t need to hear the priest. And the more you pay attention and actually participate at the Mass, the less you’ll need the Missal and the more it will become natural for you.

estesbob said “… 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.” I think that is a very harmful opinion. Calling the TLM, which has existed for centuries, a “novelty mass” is very rude – the TLM fostered the piety and holiness of thousands of saints. And the rest of the statement seems to be directed towards an inevitable sense of alienation that adherents to the TLM will feel from other Catholics.

I’d go on, but le’s face it: the TLM is not going to become the NO, so energy should not be expended in the direction.

The problem is that it is difficult to follow even with a missal if the priest is extremely fast or slow. I went to one Mass where the priest sped through the Latin so fast that the only way I knew the Consecration happened was because I heard the bells.

  1. The language of the TLM is Latin. Latin is used to show the unity of the Church. The Latin language never changes like living languages do. The defense of the use of the Latin language vs vernacular translations is extensively documented. No mistakes come from the priest praying the Latin words- the meaning of words stays the same. You can see this already in the ICEL translations vs the original Latin text from Rome in the Novus Ordo.

  2. If you regularly attend the TLM like I do you do not see what I see. I see no meaning given to using a three year cycle of readings. To me, the Epistle and Gospel are not sung for my instruction, they are sung in worship of God.

  3. The direction the priest faces, the direction the Epistle is sung, the direction the Gospel is sung, all have an embedded liturgical meaning. You jave to understand that everything in the TLM teaches us something, and if you change anything, then you change what it is teaching us, what it is showing us and others about the Faith.

The Latin Language is the enemy of all who hate the truth. In the TLM the Deacon faces “North” and sings the Gospel in Latin. North is the direction of the pagans- and he sings the Truth in Latin in their direction.

And to make changes so that it “opens it’s beauty to generations of Catholics”??? That is absurd. NOTHING needs to be changed to the TLM at all to attract people. Wherever it happens many people come, many people attend. That is how it is here in my area.


Actually you CANNOT even hear the priest during the Canon because it is intentionally prayed in silence so you cannot hear it. No one at the TLM hears the sacred words and the only time we know is when we see the priest genuflect and the bells ring. The Canon is prayed in silence so how did you know he was “speeding through the Latin?”


True, the priest isn’t praying to us, but he IS praying on our behalf. And more particularly for our benefit. And WE are supposed to be praying right along with him - much easier if we can hear what he’s praying!

Truly, if the priest is merely to pray inaudibly such that we can’t follow along, what is the benefit of us even attending if we’re not receiving Communion? Just as much benefit in staying at home, reading the readings of the day for ourselves, and letting the priest get on with his prayers for us :shrug:

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.