What if the only change had been the language?

What if the only change made to the TM was the language would we be as divided as we seem to be?

IMHO if the only change had been to the vernacular, with all form and reverence remaining the same, would there ever have been a loss in attendance or the lack of traditional teaching that we have experienced these last forty years?

But then again the forty years in the wilderness might just be something we have had to endure.:eek:

I would concede that MY major issue is the vernacular (though I think it’s a good thing that we can also hear the words of the Consecration in the Pauline). If the pope said,"So what if I allowed the Tridentine in the vernacular and sotto voce wasn’t quite so sotto voce?, I’d jump on the bad wagon. I simply don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to hear the words or understand them. I think it would be great and as much as I hope the MP will help the Church, I’m a little afraid it has the potential to deepen divides, despite the Pope’s hopes. So one right, offered in both the Latin and the vernacular would eliminate it except for the modernists, progressivists, feminists, etc.

Well, changing the TLM to the vernacular still involves translation, and there have been problems regarding translation of the Mass into English, which may have occurred whether TLM or NO was being translated.

For example the translation of the Latin ‘pro multis’, ‘for many’, into ‘for you and for all’. Since this occurred in the very words of consecration (the heart of the Mass) some heretics have gone so far as to say the difference in meaning actually renders the English translation invalid.

IMHO if the only change had been to the vernacular, with all form and reverence remaining the same, would there ever have been a loss in attendance or the lack of traditional teaching that we have experienced these last forty years?

But then again the forty years in the wilderness might just be something we have had to endure.:eek:

The ICEL caused considerable damage to the liturgy even before the NO was promulgated. But then its replacement, if we continue to vernacularize, might prove a lot worse. History has repeatedly shown that there just isn’t any way to translate something of even minor importance without creating an unnecessary crisis. Even with all the care the Holy Father has taken, the MP will be open to many translations, spins, and interpretations, watch.

Granted translation and proper meanings in a modern “living” language can be difficult. But we have had forty years for someone to do the “deed” so why has it not been done?:shrug:

I have to agree that there are problems with translations. BUT it could be done. Few orthodox Catholics are complaining about the new translations that are coming out. Who IS complaining? Liberals, modernists, feminists, etc. Of course, if we leave it up to them, there are going to be problems.

But, Bob, take the word “consubstantial,” for example. Maybe I’m not a sophistimacated theological type, but I don’t see how you can explain (ie, “translate”) the word without saying “it means ‘one in being with.’” So it would be translated on the English page of the missal as being something along those lines.
If that’s what the people who are following along in the missal are reading and understanding, ie, Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, True or Very God of True or Very God, one in being with the Father, how much different is that from SAYING the same thing? You might argue that “consubstantial” captures it better, is the original, etc., but people are still going to translate it in their heads to reason it through.

Good question. Entropy is the only thing I can think of. (In physics, it is a measure of disorder in a given universe over time. It is never negative, unless you can manage somehow to shuffle a deck of cards to a state where they appear in their original order.:slight_smile: )

There would be some who still think Latin is somehow holier than other languages (how the language of pagan Rome is intrinsically holy is beyond me…), but I don’t think we would see the divisions we see today- especially among younger Catholics. If the traditional Sacred Music were retained (in Latin/Greek- no poetic translations into English like they have with choral music in foreign languages), the traditional calendar, and canon laws were retained, then some people would be happier. There have been disagreements in the Church since the time of Christ, though. Nobody will be perfectly content this side of heaven.

There would be some who still think Latin is somehow holier than other languages

If it conveys Catholic theology, culture, mindset, and universality better than the other languages, that’s good enough for me. Doesn’t even need to be holy. :slight_smile:

I think if language were the only change we wouldn’t be seeing the upcoming Motu Proprio. I’ll even go so far as to say that if the NO were celebrated right we wouldn’t be seeing the upcoming Motu Proprio.

I think the “Spirit of Vatican II” people who fear the Motu Proprio the most are the ones who are most responsible for it. If they hadn’t run away with the liturgy young people like me who have never seen a TLM would have no reason to go looking for one. But when we see the beauty of the truth the Church proclaims and then see the banality of a poorly celebrated Sunday liturgy, we yearn for something better.

This, I think, goes to the heart of the matter. If the bishops complain or sulk about the resurgence of the TLM, they’ve only themsleves to blame. If the Pauline, which I love, had been celebrated according to the rubrics, with transparent reverence, we wouldn’t be in the state we’re in. Those who allowed experimentation and abuse or who didn’t stamp them out where they reared their heads have only themselves to blame.

This would have been my principal point of liturgical reform in 1965. I know the TLM diehards say the intimacy of the whispered canon is like a nuptial act for the Priest – but hey! We are ALL the bride of Christ as a priestly people, and the inaudible canon is extremely isolating.

Also the new lectionary is wonderful (I would restore the omitted particles) and a vast improvement over the old one. In the old lectionary, you never hear the OT and NT passages that “match” read together. In fact, you get almost no OT readings at ALL. People are not wrong when they say that Catholics knew next to nothing about the Bible.

Now that I think of it, what I have just described is pretty much the liturgy in any good High Anglican church. I left that for Rome. Not sorry. But I definitely miss the reverence and the beauty.

I wonder why the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the correct translation?

**1393 **Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

We are ALL the bride of Christ as a priestly people, and the inaudible canon is extremely isolating.

So you don’t accept the teachings/anathemas of Trent?

Quote the problem, please. If you’re going to say something like this, it is only common courtesy to provide the source of your complaint.

I know the TLM must be celebrated with the silent canon. But even as one who attends the TLM, I find it extremely isolating to be out of the loop on that. I scramble through reading the canon for myself, and never come out at the same time as the priest. Kind of makes “partipatio actuoso” a fantasy, even for those of use who are sympathetic to the TLM.

Sorry if I sounded harsh but gladly I will give you the canon. From Session XXII:

Canon IX.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX.—If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html

As for being in synch with the priest, don’t worry. Just go at your own pace. Everyone’s pace and comfort level of understanding is different. At least you’re praying the same prayers. :thumbsup:

Note: I did not say that whispering the canon was “to be condemned.”

I said that had I been engineering liturgical changes in the 1960s I would have instituted the audible canon. The whispered canon isolates the congregation: a congregation that UNDERSTANDS Latin and is eager to be fully present to the liturgy as it is celebrated.

Be careful with what you assume when you phrase a question like, “So you don’t accept the teachings/anathemas of Trent?”

And I still think the audible canon would be an improvement.

Yes, and again, I apologize. :frowning:

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.