Before Vatican II, were the readings in the vernacular?

[mschrank]

Just wondering, before Vatican II, I know the Mass was conducted in Latin but what about the readings? Historically speaking, was the Bible read in the vernacular or was Latin read?

Thanks

 

[PhilotheaZ]

If I remember correctly from my childhood, the readings were first done in Latin and then repeated in the vernacular.

This is how it is done now by priests here who are celebrating the Latin Mass.

 

[AJV]

Just wondering, before Vatican II, I know the Mass was conducted in Latin but what about the readings? Historically speaking, was the Bible read in the vernacular or was Latin read?

Thanks

It depends…the general rule was Latin. However there were indults for vernacular readings (e.g. India in 1958, holy Week ad experimentum to Germany in 1959 and a whole slew in the 1960’s. Even earlier such as in the 18th century to Armenia and in the 17th to Georgia). De Musica Sacra allows that a lector may read the vernacular Epistle and Gospel

It is strictly forbidden for the faithful in unison or for a commentator to recite aloud with the priest the parts of the Proper, Ordinary, and canon of the Mass. This prohibition extends to both Latin, and a vernacular word-for-word translation. Exceptions will be enumerated in paragraph 31.However, it is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days. Between the Consecration, and the Pater noster a holy silence is fitting.

This of course refers to a re-reading. An indult was required for a liturgical reading (i.e. in the proper places of the Epistle and Gospel) or place immediately after each liturgical reading, in the vernacular

Also, local synods and councils sometimes enjoined the reading of Scripture in the vernacular before the sermon. For example, the first Synod of Baltimore (1791) enjoined the re-reading of the Gospel for Sundays and feasts before the sermon in the vernacular.

And of course, the rare places where the Mass was allowed in the vernacular or a non-Latin language.

 

[mschrank]

Whoa…

Why would the Church use a language nobody spoke to speak to the people on important scriptural matters? What happened to Jerome and his “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”?

So you’re saying if you were to walk into a Parish in a small village in rural France in say, 1350, the Priest would have been reading to the peasants in Latin?

 

[Markstorm]

Two posters have given good responses to your question. Are you skipping over the bits where they describe re-reading the Scripture in vernacular?

Whoa…

 

[palmas85]

Two posters have given good responses to your question. Are you skipping over the bits where they describe re-reading the Scripture in vernacular?

Whoa…

Its actually pretty obvious why isn’t it? Got to be able to bash it somehow.

 

[Digitonomy]

Also, local synods and councils sometimes enjoined the reading of Scripture in the vernacular before the sermon. For example, the first Synod of Baltimore (1791) enjoined the re-reading of the Gospel for Sundays and feasts before the sermon in the vernacular.

Does enjoin in this context mean forbid or direct?

 

[puzzleannie]

Just wondering, before Vatican II, I know the Mass was conducted in Latin but what about the readings? Historically speaking, was the Bible read in the vernacular or was Latin read?

Thanks

yes for a few years (late 40s to early 60s) before the “changes of V2” and the rite introduced by Pope Paul VI were fully implemented, as part of ongoing liturgical reform initiated by various 20th C popes, esp. Pius XII, the readings were proclaimed first in Latin as they had been at least since Trent, and then in the vernacular language of the people. Preaching had been in the vernacular at least through the 20th c probably earlier

before that time there were instances where the gospel at least could be re-read in the vernacular, which varied for time and place. It should be noted in this context that there have been, as long as the Church has sent missionaries to foreign lands, instances where Mass and readings have been permitted in vernacular languages, not common but possible

 

[AJV]

Does enjoin in this context mean forbid or direct?

My English gets better every day. I didn’t know it could mean forbid.

Direct.

 

[AJV]

[Edited by Moderator]

In case I gave the wrong impression, I hasten to point out that vernacular re-reading was not done at a regular Mass and not of obligation at a Mass pro populo on Sundays and feasts unless directed by a higher ecclesiastical authority.

As for 14th century France, I think that might be a tad more difficult. The language was a little less rigidly controlled then- some bishops at Trent seem to imply that reading at least the Gospel in the vernacular was commonplace (e.g. the bishop of St. Asaph says that the people should be able to understand more than the Gospel-evidently it was done in his diocese).

But at that time before Trent in the Middle Ages, there was the somewhat incorrect assumption by some that it didn’t matter anyway whether the people even heard it. For example, Bp. Gardiner wrote an apologetic which outlined this attitude- the priest should be praying, the people should be praying (in their own way). The texts though were often presented in a dramatic form which was greatly curtailed at the Counter-Reformation.

 

[mschrank]

[Edited by Moderator] I was not sure whether reading in the vernacular was common, or if it was in extraordinary circumstances only. It seems to have been the latter.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I remember (what a memory!) mass during the 1950’s. As I recall, the priests reread the gospel in English before the sermon. I don’t remember them reading the epistle in English. To understand the mass, I used the St. Joseph Daily Missal. On weekdays there was no sermon or reading in English. I also don’t think there were more than two readings on Sundays. Today it is SO much easier to follow along and really pray the mass, especially for people who have trouble reading. Just for the record, pre vatican II we did ‘participate’ at mass but not out loud and with a lot more effort.

 

[palmas85]

And you infer I’m a heretic from one critical post… Stop crying wolf. I’m as orthodox as the next guy. You should apologize.

However I was not sure whether reading in the vernacular was common, or if it was in extraordinary circumstances only. It seems to have been the latter.

Pretty disappointing.

Apologize for what? You completely ignored several exlanatory posts, brought up a situation that no one on this forum could possibly answer completely and knowingly, given a lack of documentation from that time period and sat back in self righteous indignation that 13th century French peasants might have had the Mass read to them in Latin.

Your intent was pretty obvious from the start.

I never indicated, implied or thought that you were a heretic.

Just another Latin basher thats all.

 

[blessed_wife]

[Edited by Moderator] We attend the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin on Sundays and are currently teaching ourselves Latin. My husband is just currious about the history of the use of Latin in the Mass and both of us are agreed that it would be beneficial for the Church to have a “catholic,” (“universal”) language for the Mass so that wherever a Catholic goes to assist at Mass, he can know the words to the prayers since he will be used to praying the Mass in that same very language. We have attended Mass in non-English speaking countries and found it more difficult to fully participate. Of course, though, the Mass is beautiful and the most precious gift to us to assist at no matter what language it is prayed in. Still, however, we think it would make more sense to bring the Latin back as the “catholic” (“universal”) language of the Church. [Edited by Moderator] We love the depth of meaning of the Latin words, my husband probably more so than me, and that is one of the reasons we began learning it, but most of all to fully participate in the Latin Mass.

 

[James_Miller]

We are talking about Sunday Masses, I assume. I cannot remember any rereading of the epistle or gospel at daily Mass which was almost always a high Mass
In the 1950’s a few priests reread the epistle before the sermon. All I can remember reread the gospel.

 

[mschrank]

[Edited by Moderator]

Anyway, I’ll look into this question myself and figure out conclusively what was the deal.

Well, I have to say that having the readings done in Latin only is simply not practical and should be done in the vernacular so the majority of people can understand it. St. Jerome was right, and people need to be able to understand the readings and the gospel, period.

Hopefully, what we will see in the future is the best of both worlds so to speak, with the readings in the vernacular and the liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin.

 

[Brendan]

Whoa…

Why would the Church use a language nobody spoke to speak to the people on important scriptural matters? What happened to Jerome and his “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”?

So you’re saying if you were to walk into a Parish in a small village in rural France in say, 1350, the Priest would have been reading to the peasants in Latin?

I think you have a problem with that because about the only place people get Catechisis is from the Mass. The correct way is for the ‘peasants’ to be taught from the Scriptures throughout the week, both from Psalters (in the vernacular) and from general instruction.

Why do you think there were street preachers such as St. Francis and St. Dominic? They gave lessions on the lives of the Saints and from Scripture, so that when the ‘peasants’ went to Mass, they could reflect on the Saints when they looked at the statues, and reflect Scripture as the priest offered Mass.