On another board, where I'm one of a handful of resource people for questions on Christianity, the issue came up of the Tridentine Mass vs. the vernacular Mass. So we got this far:
Tridentine Mass: Developed in accord with Council of Trent. For 300 years the standard Mass of the Latin-rite Church. Always said in Latin.
Novus Ordo Mass: Developed in accord with Vatican II. Effectively replaced Tridentine Mass as the principal Mass said in Latin rite. Originally drafted in Latin.
Vernacular Mass: Mass said in the common language of the people. Normally a translation of the Novus Ordo Mass, and like it a development from Vatican II.
So you have a Latin Tridentine Mass, a Latin Novus Ordo Mass, and a vernacular Novus Ordo Mass, the result of a second Vatican initiative distinct from that which revised the liturgy from Tridentine to Novus Ordo.
There's a potential fourth element to that Venn diagram: a Tridentine Mass said in the vernacular. But when someone else (not me) brought that up, an Australian with a strong background in liturgical music insisted that the Tridentine Mass must always be in Latin, that even a bishop was powerless to allow a vernacular Mass using the Tridentine liturgy.
Is this in fact the case? I'm aware that those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy normally prefer Latin over the vernacular. And I'm aware that there are some strong emotional investments by Catholics on both sides of the question. But if we can avoid arguing what "should" be done for maximum reverence and sanctity, and someone can clarify what Canon Law has to say about use of the Tridentine Mass, for relay to the other board, I'd be grateful.
Tridentine Mass: Developed in accord with Council of Trent. For 300 years the standard Mass of the Latin-rite Church. Always said in Latin.
Novus Ordo Mass: Developed in accord with Vatican II. Effectively replaced Tridentine Mass as the principal Mass said in Latin rite. Originally drafted in Latin.
Vernacular Mass: Mass said in the common language of the people. Normally a translation of the Novus Ordo Mass, and like it a development from Vatican II.
So you have a Latin Tridentine Mass, a Latin Novus Ordo Mass, and a vernacular Novus Ordo Mass, the result of a second Vatican initiative distinct from that which revised the liturgy from Tridentine to Novus Ordo.
There's a potential fourth element to that Venn diagram: a Tridentine Mass said in the vernacular. But when someone else (not me) brought that up, an Australian with a strong background in liturgical music insisted that the Tridentine Mass must always be in Latin, that even a bishop was powerless to allow a vernacular Mass using the Tridentine liturgy.
Is this in fact the case? I'm aware that those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy normally prefer Latin over the vernacular. And I'm aware that there are some strong emotional investments by Catholics on both sides of the question. But if we can avoid arguing what "should" be done for maximum reverence and sanctity, and someone can clarify what Canon Law has to say about use of the Tridentine Mass, for relay to the other board, I'd be grateful.
