As a good friend of Dr. K., I can back up what you and he are elucidating... the liturgy went 'off the rails' with the NO. There is no getting a train back on the rails once it is wrecked. You either bring in an entirely new train altogether, or you bring in the train that does not run off the rails, as proven by time tested practice.

It is NOT about the particular formula of the liturgy, or the longstanding tradition exempt from the proof of what is authentic... but moreso our humble willingness to embrace what has been handed down to us as it IS the essence of the Church LINKED inseparably from embracing and practicing the faith in full.

The subject on another thread bears this out, as devotees of the TLM do not (in itself) prove a Catholic adherent.

The bottom line is this...

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15

...NOT, 'if you sing Gregorian chant and attend a TLM you will inherit the kingdom of God'.

If they haven't been taught about Latin syntax, etc. you can't really hold it against THEM. But yes, I hear people say AGNES Dei like she's a lady and it makes me cringe!

Carol, you must not have met her sister, Ahgheenoos Dayee.

Keye-ree Ellison, maybe a little known brother of Harlan Ellison? hmm.

Um, Harlan Ellison being whom?

Ellison was given 8 Hugo awards, four Nebula awards, and a host of others.
personally I never liked him :-) ... I prefer his brother, Kiri A. Ellison

Ah, agnus: I've had debates in my choir about the pronunciation of almost the entire text. Some are adamant that we are Roman and therefore should use the Italian pronunciation; others adamant that this is a Polish parish and should be using the received Germano-Polish pronunciation. Ag-noos Dei kvee tollis peccata mundi dona nobis patsem. Fond, fond memories!

Don't forget the upcoming sweet feast of Our Lady of Mount Caramel.

I see an unexpected danger for the traditional movement somewhere else in the Church, that is to say, in a hyperliturgization [Hyperliturgisierung]. Despite all the theological narrowness of which one might accuse Archbishop Lefebvre, he had the zeal of a true shepherd who is concerned with the salvation of souls. To him, the preservation of the liturgy was not an aesthetic end-in-itself. Far more, he saw the liturgical crisis as part of the crisis of faith that was endangering the salvation of many souls. His intention was highly pastoral, in the full Catholic sense of the word. He was not concerned with rubrics, that is, with the letter of liturgical rules, but with their spirit. He was not altogether against reforms, but only against reforms that cloud over the spirit of the liturgy.

In my first year as a priest in the Society of St. Pius X, on Sundays I served at a chapel where they sang, on alternating weeks, Gregorian chant and Schubert Masses [i.e., Mass paraphrases in German]. No one had thought anything of that. The phenomenon of a liturgical purism that despises German songs in the liturgy, rejects the direct reading of Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular [i.e., without reading/chanting them in Latin], and cultivates an excessive rubricism to the point of a missionary self-gagging, crossed my way much later, especially in lay circles....

I would agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Engelbert's statement quoted above. And having read Dr. Kwasniewski's article, I get the distinct impression that Fr. Engelbert's legitimate and reasonable concern expressed in the above quote was not answered satisfactorily.

The idea that everything must be done in Latin and that any deviation from this model is some kind of modernist corruption of the liturgy is absolutely ridiculous. Why are Catholics forced to choose between a difficult to understand Latin liturgy on the one hand, and an easily understood vernacular clown show on the other hand? Why is this the only choice? It is a terrible choice, especially when it is so obvious that there are better alternatives. Having had numerous conversations with TLM folks over the last few years, it just never ceases to baffle me how this false dichotomy is not only perpetuated, but even legislated through official Roman channels. It makes no sense.

What strikes me as particularly strange and unconvincing about all the arguments against the use of vernacular at otherwise Latin liturgies, is the fact that such a segregationist view of language is not generally adhered to amongst the Eastern Rites, where a wide degree of linguistic liberty is afforded to local churches so that they can adapt their worship to their places and circumstances. And yet, nobody could seriously level a claim of "modernism" against them and their liturgies (which all follow the same ancient forms, regardless of language), especially in comparison to the wide range of craziness one can find in the use of the Novus Ordo.

So, why not both languages in the same liturgy? Why not simply have the exact same traditional liturgy offered in whatever languages (or combination of languages) is best suited to each individual congregation? Why is that considered taboo, or some kind of a modernist attack on the liturgy?

It all seems so very unreasonable to me, especially when there is already a better way that has been shown to work quite well.

Forever trying to find the middle ground, I find myself back in very familiar territory:

Given:

1) That the use of the vernacular is forbidden in the texts of the Mass.
2) That the Propers, the variable parts, are similarly to be in Latin.
3) Germany is a model of many things, but past and present not the model of orthodoxy.

What place, legitimately in line with sound tradition can (not must) be made for the vernacular?

The Church in Germany has been avant garde in many ways, and none of them particularly worthy of praise.

Maybe it was accidental that you used the word "tolerated" vis-a-vis the hymnody--but I think it is accurate. We tolerate what is bad, not what is good.

Amen, and amen!
And add to that the Old Church English of the Ordinariates.

And for me, the phrase "Old Church English" is definitely going to be standard terminology from now on, haha! I love it!

@MJO The Tridentine Missal has been put into English in 1912, It is called the English Missal or some times the Knott Missal, http://www.theenglishmissalsociety.co.uk/home.html
I note some of the links lead back to the CMAA parent site and it's resources!

One of our Ordinariate Priests is using it and we have sung at a celebration using this Missal (We sang from the Roman Graduale 1924, for the Ordinary and Propers, and the English Hymnal for the Hymns).

I agree with you that "the question of liturgical language has no bearing on the essential nature of a Rite" - on its essential nature. But that's not really the issue here - or rather it's the wrong way of putting it. Preserving a rite isn't simply a matter of not changing those things which bear on its essential nature. The question shouldn't be what can be changed and still have the same rite? - but what do the various elements add to the rite? So in the Latin rite, could we omit all genuflections and signs of the cross; or make certain ancient feasts optional? You could say that any single one of these elements has "no bearing on the essential nature of a Rite." Yet it doesn't follow that something would not be lost in the change. I would say that the same is true of the Latin language.

So the question isn't one of which language, but the role of language in the rite. I agree that a mass is no less a mass for being in English, or Slavonic, or Latin, or Swahili (my argument is not that of the Latinists of old, that Latin is somehow superior to other languages.) So I take exception when you say that "that there is no such thing as a liturgy ever being lessened or substantially altered simply because it is celebrated in a different language." It can be altered, and arguably, lessened - perhaps not substantially, but then that's not only issue at play here. The rites aren't simply a matter of "substance" or "essence" (which can be devilishly hard to define anyway); it is precisely those things which are not in themselves essential which can have the greatest bearing on the heart of the rite itself.

[As an aside, this discussion reminds me of the debates about the requirement of celibacy in the Latin church. All agree than celibacy is not of the essence of the priesthood - and of course the Eastern churches do not require it for priests - yet it cannot be dismissed simply for that reason. For example, it is telling that the Eastern tradition does not allow for married bishops. Yet the Latin church has long seen it as eminently fitting, a "brilliant jewel," to use the words of Paul VI. I would say the same of the Latin language in (of all things) the Latin rite.]

If, as you say, the EF and OF are "different liturgies," it would make sense that the way in which the readings are done in each would point to a different purpose for each. I suggested that the difference is that the readings in the EF are primarily a matter of worship of God, whereas in the OF they are done for the instruction of the people. The EF shows this difference by the fact that the readings are chanted with incense in a solemn mass, and in a direction not facing the people - and by the fact that they are not done in the vernacular. I would argue that this is part of whole package which serves the purpose of worship as opposed to instruction. None of this (except perhaps the incense) is required at a solemn mass in the OF, and the reading is done facing the people, suggesting that the purpose of this part of the rite is indeed different.

This doesn't necessarily mean that a vernacular reading can never ever be done as a matter of strict principle, only that this difference should be recognized (and at the very least doing it now, with the rampant confusion about liturgy, is not a particularly good idea). For instance, one could argue that the liturgy has developed so that instruction should in fact be primary, which would argue for readings in the vernacular. But this should be recognized for what it is - a change - perhaps legitimate, perhaps not.

But I would say that doing the readings in the vernacular in the EF gives "mixed signals," as most of the other aspects of the rite point toward one purpose, some towards others. I think it's really the source of the incoherence many of us experience particularly (and oddly enough) in solemn celebrations of the OF - some elements of the old rite are there, some are not, so the signals are mixed, on account of the underlying difference in purpose for the various elements in the two rites. I would say that a similar incoherence applies to doing (only) vernacular readings in the EF.

I don't think anybody said the meaning does not matter, or that the 'tone' of the language does not matter. MJO's 'Old Church English' is an 'elevated' or 'sacral' language, definitely not demotic/vulgar.

Many thanks, tomjaw, for the reminder of and the link to the Knott Missal. It was, indeed, highly favoured by Anglo-Catholics in the last century. Similar to it was The Anglican Missal in the American Edition, of which I have a copy printed in 1962. It includes copious notes about the whats and whys of the unfolding rite, and rubrics as to the many places where bowing of the head and profound bows are to be done. I have yet to see any Catholics enact so many bodily signs of worship as was and remains common amongst Anglo-Catholics and their heirs. Most don't even bow their heads at the Name of Jesus, at mention of the Most Holy Trinity, or even bow (let alone genuflect) at the creed's et incarnatus! That includes bishops, priests, and deacons, and even religious!

In the 'early days' before the Ordinariate became the Ordinariate, whilst the liturgy was not yet settled upon, there were those who wanted to use The English Missal. - not to mention those, amongst whom was I, who wanted the Sarum use. Needless to say, these 'wishes' were not acceptable to Rome - which is probably all for the better. The Ordinariate Use reflects a wide spectrum of Sarum and BCP uses representative of our historical ritual journey as Anglican Use Ordinariate Catholics.

The English Missal cannot licitly be used for Catholic masses of any rite or use, only DW:TM may be used in Ordinariate liturgy - though some of our priests use the Novus Ordo from time to time. This, I have heard, is the thoroughly perplexing norm in England. I do, though, share your disdain for the Mysterium fidei's intrusion into our liturgy. I also look askance at its having been inserted into the Novus Ordo. It is a maudlin intrusion into, more than that, an irritating disruption of, the dynamic flow of thought and prayer of the canon.

In the 'early days' before the Ordinariate became the Ordinariate, whilst the liturgy was not yet settled upon, there were those who wanted to use The English Missal. - not to mention those, amongst whom was I, who wanted the Sarum use.

That would be absolutely incredible.

The Sarum Use is almost verbatim the Traditional Latin Mass—and yes, it's entirely in Latin—with a few local variations from cathedrals in England (before they broke away from the Catholic Church).

That would mean the Ordinariate priests would be praying IN LATIN a liturgy almost identical (but not exactly the same) as the Extraordinary Form.

Oh, how I hope Rome will allow this!

I am struggling to think of anything more cool than if the Ordinariate would switch over to this.

M. Jackson Osborn wrote:
If there is an Anglican ordinariate and an Anglican use, what is the point in having it if its very identity is blurred by using the NO or even the EF?

I had a professor who would often say: "Don't ask questions you don't want answers to!"

Certainly there are people who feel that the Ordinariate—by adopting a Rite which emanated from heresy—turned away from everything that was most Wholesome, most Holy, most Glorious, most Traditional, and most Splendid about Catholic England. I find such an assertion difficult to argue against.

After all, if they had only gone back a few more years, they could have adopted the Sarum Use, which is 100% Catholic.

The Sarum Use (totally in Latin) is practically identical to what is currently called the "Extraordinary Form." It is not exactly the same, but it is almost the same as the 1962 Missal.

[ The Sarum Use was the form of Mass used at a major Cathedral in England shortly before Henry VIII broke away and brought England with him. ]

I think it's relevant, though, that adopting Sarum would be adopting a use that is no longer in living memory. The situation is very different from the Roman EF which has millions of people who celebrated in that form still living. That would be an unusual develeopment.

Well...the ICK and/or FSSP would just fiddle with the rubrics on the Sarum Rite, as they do with the 1962, claiming that they have "teh pipples" in mind and after all, they know better than the Church does, anyway. That's what Professor K mentioned in the cited article at the beginning of this thread.

They "know better than the Church" ?

Oops! This practice has long been approved by the Ecclesia Dei commission.

(I realize this doesn't fit the narrative of the article you refer to.)

"Spew venom"?

Be serious. I do not accept your terminology.

So now I'm a racist, too?

Cannot accept your scurrilous charges, sorry.

Prof. K. made the case very well; if you don't like it, refute the case.

I am sure I have met Fr. P. Engelbert Recktenwald, FSSP. while I agree with Dr. K, I feel that it is easy for us in the U.K. or U.S. to find fault... but not understand the problems that are being faced in Europe.

Here in the U.K. I can go to a Latin Mass following the pre-1955 rite in an anglican church said by an Anglican. I can go to other anglican churches and hear the glories of latin polyphony given to the world by the Catholic Church sung as part of a BCP service.
If I like traditional English hymns I can go to plenty of churches some even Catholic.

This is not the case in German speaking Switzerland, they do not have such choice. In Switzerland I can name one chapel that has the E.F. and it is mainly full of old women, they like their German hymns and the Schubert Mess, and will happily sing chant badly. In England they would attend a local Catholic O.F. Mass that is reasonably traditional, but their are no reasonably traditional O.F. Masses in Switzerland.

Because so many people attend the E.F. in Switzerland that are not traditionalist we have the problem that the priests feel they need to make the Mass more open by having German Hymns and the Readings in the vernacular (One priest (FSSP) I know sings them in German! another place has a layman read the Epistle!).

But there is a problem to this approach, does it inspire the youth? In France it seems to be working but in German speaking Switzerland it is noted the lack of vocations all these FSSP mass centres have brought... 0! Meanwhile in England the FSSP has enjoyed one ordination per year for over 10 years.

It is all very well focusing on the pastoral side, but if your Liturgy is not glorious we can have a problem... Anyway in two weeks I will be at an FSSP summer camp in Switzerland and my children and I will continue to encourage improvement to the Liturgy. We have followed this path in the U.K. and we can encourage others to follow.