BOOK: In Praise of the Tridentine Mass and of Latin, Language of the Church

What a great title!

The nice folks at Angelico Press sent a copy of

In Praise of the Tridentine Mass and of Latin, Language of the Church

by Fr. Roberto Spataro, Secretary of the Pontifical Academy for Latin.

US HERE – UK HERE

Table of contents.  This is a collection of talks given around Italy.   Note that the introduction by Patrick Owens is significant.  Inter alia he provides a history of Latin in the Church.

In the section “Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures”, the author argues that spreading to use of the Vetus Ordo is a “work of mercy”.

Fathers, these essays could help you to prepare the way for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in your parishes.  They could help lay people bring their priests around to what must be done.

He’s right.

Please share!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, REVIEWS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to BOOK: In Praise of the Tridentine Mass and of Latin, Language of the Church

  1. Geoffrey says:

    I will definitely purchase a copy, but the title distresses me as it encourages the false idea that Latin is only proper to the Mass of St Pius V and not the Mass of St Paul VI.

  2. Ms. M-S says:

    Despite the current fog from overheated liquid modernity among some factions infesting the Church, the truth doesn’t change. Latin doesn’t change. The vernacular changes. How hard can it be to choose which to use in celebrating Mass?

  3. docsmith54 says:

    A big problem with NO is the people have come to believe they are concelebrants. The vernacular promotes this false idea.

  4. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    B16, Doctor of the Church?

  5. bobk says:

    I’ll be difficult. If the Latin is so necessary and I presume so well undesrtood, why is the book in English? I ask this about people who want Slavonic or Greek in the Orthodox Church too. Nobody ever answers IN Greek or Slavonic, I can’t imagine why not. I would feel different about this if I was tempted in Greek or Slavonic, but the devil always translates. If he(?) would be considerate and tempt me in a language I don’t know it would simplify my life.

  6. robtbrown says:

    Geoffrey says:

    I will definitely purchase a copy, but the title distresses me as it encourages the false idea that Latin is only proper to the Mass of St Pius V and not the Mass of St Paul VI.

    I have been Catholic since 1970. In the almost 50 yrs since, except for papal masses, I have not found ten public Latin Novus Ordo masses. We only hear about that possibilty now because it’s a fallback position of those who oppose Summorum Pontificum.

    As a former colleague noted, the Novus Ordo was designed to be said in the vernacular. The edition typically (Latin) appeared only after the vernacular was said for a few years

  7. robtbrown says:

    bobk says:

    I’ll be difficult. If the Latin is so necessary and I presume so well undesrtood, why is the book in English? I ask this about people who want Slavonic or Greek in the Orthodox Church too. Nobody ever answers IN Greek or Slavonic, I can’t imagine why not. I would feel different about this if I was tempted in Greek or Slavonic, but the devil always translates. If he(?) would be considerate and tempt me in a language I don’t know it would simplify my life.

    1. All of the responses in either Latin mass are the same at every mass with a few exceptions, e.g., Requiem.

    2. You’ve unintentionally touched on two very important principles:

    A. The liberals knew that once they tossed out Latin, the study of Latin would also stop. Then they could use the excuse that no one understood Latin anymore.

    B. The fact that temptations are in the vernacular is, Imho, a prime reason for using a liturgical language. Latin brings a contemplative dimension because it elevates someone from the vicissitudes of daily life. The mind and heart are directed not at one’s own failings but toward the Divine Gift, Christ Himself.

    Any basic understanding of sanctifying grace begins with the understanding that it both heals and elevates.

  8. robtbrown says:

    Edition typically should be editio typica.

  9. veritas vincit says:

    Without question, Latin is and should remain the language of the Latin Rite of the Church.

    However, given that few people in most countries in the West study Latin anymore (that arguably is not a good thing, but it is a reality), there has to be a place for vernacular in the liturgy, properly used. I’m pretty sure most homilies for TLM Masses are given in the vernacular.

    When the “mutual enrichment” of the NO and the TLM, envisioned by Pope Benedict XVI, is complete, Latin will be restored to its proper place in the liturgy. And I have no doubt the vernacular will be at its side, supplementing the Latin, “so that all could understand what was read” (see Nehemiah 8:8).

  10. Zavodny Margarett RBC says:

    From your mouth to God’s ears!

  11. robtbrown says:

    Veritas vincit,

    When the “mutual enrichment” of the NO and the TLM, envisioned by Pope Benedict XVI, is complete . . .  

    I didn’t know it has been started.

  12. Geoffrey says:

    “We only hear about that possibilty now because it’s a fallback position of those who oppose Summorum Pontificum…”

    They exist, but are indeed too few and far between. Liturgies celebrated in St Peter’s Basilica, by Opus Dei, and ETWN’s daily Mass all use a healthy dose, if not a majority, of Latin. There are some parishes that also have OF Masses with a healthy dose Latin. The Latin Liturgy Association has been promoting Latin in the liturgy, regardless of which form, for many years before ‘Summorum Pontificum’. I have always been a firm proponent of the “reform of the reform”, which includes more Latin and chant in the Mass of St Paul VI, and I do not oppose ‘Summorum Pontificum’.

    The Mass of St Paul VI was indeed “designed” to be celebrated in Latin, with readings and such in the vernacular, along with Gregorian chant, incense, bells, and instituted ministers. Had this been faithfully followed, we would be having a very different conversation.

  13. TonyO says:

    When the “mutual enrichment” of the NO and the TLM, envisioned by Pope Benedict XVI, is complete . . .

    I didn’t know it has been started.

    It may not be obvious, but it is happening: in my old parish (of 20 years), the pastor, a thoroughly decent sort who nevertheless has never said mass in the EF, a couple of years ago decided that in the parish the priests would face ad orientem, as is the norm of the Latin rite. In numerous parishes (including that one), they have been adding Latin for Common parts over the years, doing the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin, even though the rest is in English (and adding Greek, in the Kyrie).

    I have been Catholic since 1970. In the almost 50 yrs since, except for papal masses, I have not found ten public Latin Novus Ordo masses.

    I know of at least one place where the priests have been saying the Novus Ordo in Latin without change since the early 1970’s.

    As a former colleague noted, the Novus Ordo was designed to be said in the vernacular. The edition typically (Latin) appeared only after the vernacular was said for a few years

    ??? That makes no sense. The earliest editions of the NO mass in the vernacular languages were translations of the NO mass in Latin. (Well, maybe one should use “so-called translations” because at least the English was more an interpretation than a translation, but either way it was TAKEN FROM the Latin NO). The editio typica came out a few years later because that version is set after the bugs are located and corrected, over a few years time.

  14. robtbrown says:

    Tony O and Geoffrey,

    You have given one example. No doubt there are some others–but rather few compared to the number of masses using the Missal of Pius V.

    I am familiar with two churches without the picnic table. One removed it–no problem. The other, the pastor of which was a classmate, un wreckovated a church with no altar. He was able to buy an old altar and communion rail.

    Answering you other comment, yes, it makes perfect sense.

    In the early 70s a friend and I came upon a “transitional” altar missal. Everything was still in Latin except, we were surprised to see, the Commons, e.g., the Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc.–the parts that were known and understood by everyone. This contradicts the notion (also told to me by Cardinal Foley) that they only wanted the readings in the vernacular.

    There was also the line that vernacularization was done for Pastoral reasons, which of course doesn’t explain why so many strict contemplative monasteries abandoned Latin.

    That there was some Novus Ordo model from which the translators worked is certain. It existed, however, as merely a source for translation. As I noted before, the liturgical innovvation had already been implemented before its editio typica appeared. The editio typca, whether the 1969 or 1970 date is used, was meant as a standard source for translation.

    Opus Dei gave up any public celebration using the Missal of Pius V when they began the push to become a Personal Prelature.

    Re a reform of the reform: BXVI brought in his hand picked man to run Rites and sacraments–and he did nothing. Francis has prevented and leak of the TLM into the Novus Ordo area of the Church.

  15. robtbrown says:

    Should be: prevented the leak

  16. robtbrown says:

    In summary:

    By the time the editio typica was promulgated, the lemmings had long since reached the sea.

  17. John Malloy says:

    Pope Pius V gave a perpetual indult for the Tridentine mass (Quo primum). This is the ultimate fall back position on a return to celebrating the received and approved rite of the Roman Church.

  18. John Malloy says:

    Gregorian chant is the Roman rite as music. If you lose Latin, you lose Gregorian chant.