Aren't vernacular-only Masses not permitted?

[thunderballs75]

Aren’t Masses only in the vernacular not permitted. Also, shouldn’t the words of consecration be said in a low tone and not said aloud as in the OF?

I was reading through the Council of Trent (Yes, this is what I do in my spare time lol). I found this interesting canon in the 22nd session:

CANON IX.–If any one 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.

Let him be anathema. Ouch.

 

[LilyM]

‘A low tone’ does not mean the same thing as ‘silently’. ‘Silently’ means NO tone at all.

And the mere requesting of one thing - the speaking of the words of consecration aloud - is not the same thing as condemning other things - the speaking of the words of consecration either softly or silently. If I request you to eat oranges it’s not to say I condemn your eating of apples now, is it?

and “Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only” means 100% of all Masses everywhere. If I think **some **Masses (OF Masses, or those in my local parish or in my country, say) ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue and **others **(EFs or those in other countries, or those celebrated by the Pope for an international congregation, or what have you) either wholly or partly in Latin, then it means I DON’T think Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only.

 

[The_Fool]

I think Canon Law says to ignore punishments that aren’t mentioned specifically in its Code some time after the Council. I could be wrong though. I have to check back on that(as it includes looking through the entire Code).

 

[cam100]

Aren’t Masses only in the vernacular not permitted. Also, shouldn’t the words of consecration be said in a low tone and not said aloud as in the OF?

I was reading through the Council of Trent (Yes, this is what I do in my spare time lol). I found this interesting canon in the 22nd session:

CANON IX.–If any one 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.

Let him be anathema. Ouch.

It is important to differentiate between dogmatic declarations and disciplinary ones. Dogma does not change, but discipline can and does. The Church has the final word on matters of Church discipline. This does not mean that the laws are necessarily the best, but they are still binding. However, the Church can change her laws. This includes prescriptions regarding the manner of celebrating Mass.
A council receives its authority from the Pope. It cannot bind a pope’s power, because it is subject to the pope. All popes have equal power, so a pope cannot bind a future pope with disciplinary laws. This means that even if the current practice of reciting the canon aloud or of celebrating Mass in the vernacular is contrary to the intentions of the Council of Trent, it is not “forbidden” if it is allowed by the current authority of the Church.

 

[Cluny]

What this canon means is that one cannot condemn the then Roman praxis of saying the Canon, and especially the Words of Institution, quietly or in Latin. This is particulary what Protestants were speaking against.

Some Protestants were also condemning the Liturgy in Latin (though Luther himself retained it), and the mixed chalice.

In other words, it was condemning certain Protestant controversial issues.

It does not condemn the Words of Instution being chanted aloud as such, because they have always been in most Eastern Catholic Liturgies.

Furthermore, recent Chuch law allows for Mass in any rite to be celebrated in any approved language, according to approved rubrics.

Trent was NOT the last word on anything.

 

[thunderballs75]

What this canon means is that one cannot condemn the then Roman praxis of saying the Canon, and especially the Words of Institution, quietly or in Latin. This is particulary what Protestants were speaking against.

Some Protestants were also condemning the Liturgy in Latin (though Luther himself retained it), and the mixed chalice.

In other words, it was condemning certain Protestant controversial issues.

It does not condemn the Words of Instution being chanted aloud as such, because they have always been in most Eastern Catholic Liturgies.

Furthermore, recent Chuch law allows for Mass in any rite to be celebrated in any approved language, according to approved rubrics.

Trent was NOT the last word on anything.

Thank you!