Can a priest licitly "sprinkle in" some Latin into a vernacular language Mass of the ordinary form?

[Digitonomy]

But, as puzzleannie indicated, Latin is the norm and the vernacular is the option.

Yes, and?.. I’m confused what you’re trying to say.

benedictgal:

Now, as for bilingual and multilingual Masses, this is what the Holy Father wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:

Based on that, it doesn’t look like there is any requirement for Latin to be used in bilingual masses, merely that such use would be fitting. There may be other passages in Sacramentum Caritatis or other documents which are more forceful about the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but unless such rules are binding on the whole mass, they don’t go very far toward answering the question of when Spanish may be sprinkled into the non-Latin part of a mass, or how often and where transitions may be made in a bilingual mass, and whether such rules are similar or different from Latin.

benedictgal:

You aren’t supposed to pray half ot the Eucharistic Prayer in English and the other half in Spansh. It is one complete prayer and should be prayed in one language.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it simply common sense (which I suggested earlier is probably the main restriction in this area)?

 

[Phemie]

You aren’t supposed to pray half of the Eucharistic Prayer in English and the other half in Spansh. It is one complete prayer and should be prayed in one language.

While I tend to agree with you on this, since several priests can take turns reading parts of the Eucharistic Prayer I think you could easily switch languages at those same places.

 

[benedictgal]

Latin is the official language of the Church. Technically, the priest can say the entire Mass in Latin, if he wants to. Technically, he could even deliver the homily in Latin, if he wanted to.

In real life, of course, “can” is a word of many shades of meaning, though, and just because he is allowed to by the Church doesn’t mean that he won’t get a reaction of some kind from the congregation, and this might limit his actions, to some extent.

If you recall, the first Mass the former Joseph Ratzinger celebrated as Pope Benedict XVI was entirely in Latin and, drumroll, he delived his entire homily in the Church’s language. The Mass was celebrated on April 20, 2005 (a day after he was elected Supreme Pontiff) in the Sistene Chapel. Although I had some idea (having read his books and writings on the liturgy) where I thought he was heading for, the fact that he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the manner he did, and, the fact that in his homily he said that the main thrust of his pontificate would be the Mass, in hindsight, this was a sign of things to come.

 

[benedictgal]

While I tend to agree with you on this, since several priests can take turns reading parts of the Eucharistic Prayer I think you could easily switch languages at those same places.

No. That was why the recommendation was made in Sacramentum Caritatis that the liturgy of the Eucharist, specifically the Eucharistic prayer should be in one language, preferably in Latin. Pope Benedict is leading by example.

The Christmas and Holy Week liturgies have myltiple languages as far as the Liturgy of the Word are concerned. But, even when there are concelebrating cardinals and bishops, the language used in Latin. Remember the Eucharistic Prayer is not directed at us; it is directed at the Father. Furthermore, I own several of the souveneir worship aids used for Papal Masses. The Eucharistic prayer is written in the vernacular (in my case, they are in Italian) so that the faithful can follow along in their own language. Of course, the folks who got them for me were Italian, but, I would imagine that English speaking pilgrims get their own set as would French and Spanish speakers.

Now, as far as the Liturgy of the Word is concerned, let’s say the first reading is in English. What the Holy See does is print the English version (read) on one side and the Italian on the other. Ditto when the Epistle is read in Spanish or French or German. That language appears on one side of the column, while the Italian translation is on the other. The Gospel is chanted in Latin and that appears in one column, while the Italian translation on the other. What makes things even more interesting is when the Gospel is chanted a second time in Greek. Than that version is also included in the book. I know, I own over six of these little gems.

Now, I have never been to Rome. But, I do make it a point to catch just about every Papal Mass broadcast (even if it means having to wake up at 3AM). And, when I am able to, I’ll get hold of the Papal Mass booklets. In fact, I have used them as a model when preparing the Mass booklets for our diocesan celebrations.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you have a cite for that, or is it simply common sense (which I suggested earlier is probably the main restriction in this area)?

I used to plan Masses for my diocese, working with the Cathedral’s original rector (a dear friend of mine) and our first director of liturgy, who also served as the Bishop’s MC, at the time. This also entailed having to be in the sacristy during the entirety of the Mass to make sure that things were flowing smoothly, including setting both the English and Spanish sacramentaries in order.

My rector saw that I had set the sacramentaries for the Eucharistic Prayer, thinking that the bishop could go from one to the other (language). He gently corrected me and said that only one would be used. “Because the Eucharistic Prayer is one entire prayer, it needs to be in one language.” The Bishop’s MC concurred (he studied liturgy at a Pontifical University in Rome and frequently concelebrated with Pope John Paul II) and only one book was brought out for the Eucharistic Prayer. Of course, I realize that concelebrating Mass with JP II doesn’t make one an expert in the Mass, he seemed to be pretty knowledgeable.

I didn’t question either of them. This was a learning moment for me, one of many. Should I have asked for citations? Maybe, but again, my rector was (and is) extremely on-target when it comes to the Mass, an even better shot than the Rifleman on these matters.

Interestingly enough, the Eucharistic acclamations were in Latin for that particular Mass.

Now, both the rector and the former MC are extremely proficient in Latin. Had either one of them been the celebrant at that Mass, Latin would have been the language for the Eucharistic prayer. With all due respect to his excellency, we weren’t quite sure what his proficiency in Latin was and we weren’t going to ask him on the spot.

Digitonomy, I don’t have the right citation for you, but, on Ash Wednesday, you’ll have a chance to catch a Papal Mass. Although I’m not sure if it will be an international one in nature (I think it will be Italian), chances are, you may witness the Eucharistic Prayer in Latin.

 

[Lepanto]

He is the priest. he makes these decisions. not the cantor, choir, altar server, liturgist or any other officious layperson.

Can his bishop override him?

 

[benedictgal]

Can his bishop override him?

No, because, as puzzleannie and a few of us have said, Latin is the norm; the vernacular is the option. In fact, the Holy See has been very clear about this. While the Bishop is the chief steward of divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments for his diocese, in theory, he can’t go against what the Roman Missal allows or says, especially if the Holy See has issued documents that continually reaffirm the issue of Latin.

Lepanto, please don’t get me wrong, but, I perceive that perhaps you may have an underlying issue regarding Latin. Is there a particular concern that you have regarding the language?

I ask this because the initial tone of your original post seemed to indicate that maybe something was amiss. Please remember that Latin is the official language of the Church. Furthermore, the Holy Father has strongly recommended that seminaries take all due diligence to instruct future priests in this sacred language.

 

[Lepanto]

While the Bishop is the chief steward of divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments for his diocese, in theory, he can’t go against what the Roman Missal allows or says, especially if the Holy See has issued documents that continually reaffirm the issue of Latin.

Yes, but the bishop does have the right to require certain things within his diocese, particularly as regards the liturgy. On his own, a priest might have the option to use Latin, but it’s possible that he may do so as long as his bishop doesn’t override him.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, but the bishop does have the right to require certain things within his diocese, particularly as regards the liturgy. On his own, a priest might have the option to use Latin, but it’s possible that he may do so as long as his bishop doesn’t override him.

Lepanto, as a few of us have said before, Latin is the norm and the vernacular is the option. To have the bishop nix using Latin would not go very well with the Holy See, especially since Benedict is in charge.

As I mentioned in my previous post, and, please don’t get this wrong, but I do sense that there is an underlying reason as to why you are asking this and zeroing in on the bishop possibly nixing Latin.

Is there an issue, and I ask this for clarity and for sincerity, that you may have regarding Latin that would make it problematic? Using Latin is not an illicit practice. In fact, it is allowed and encouraged, on top of the fact that it is the language of the Catholic Church and has been her language for centuries.

There is a common misconception that the Second Vatican Council did away with Latin in the liturgy. That is not true. In many of his books and writings on the liturgy, Pope Benedict pretty much dispelled that myth.

Furthermore, the Church’s important documents are all written in Latin. These include Encyclicals, the Roman Missal (and GIRM), Redemptionis Sacramentum, episcopal assignments and other important and sacred documents.

For a bishop to tell his priests that they must limit their use of language is going against what the Church holds sacred, especially now that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has a universal status.

That’s why I have to ask: what is your underlying concern/issue regarding Latin in the Mass?

 

[Lepanto]

Lepanto, as a few of us have said before, Latin is the norm and the vernacular is the option.

Yes, I know. But that’s not at issue.

To have the bishop nix using Latin would not go very well with the Holy See, especially since Benedict is in charge.

True, but disobedient bishops abound and they get away with it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, and, please don’t get this wrong, but I do sense that there is an underlying reason as to why you are asking this and zeroing in on the bishop possibly nixing Latin.

Is there an issue, and I ask this for clarity and for sincerity, that you may have regarding Latin that would make it problematic? Using Latin is not an illicit practice. In fact, it is allowed and encouraged, on top of the fact that it is the language of the Catholic Church and has been her language for centuries.

The underlying reason is I want to see more Latin used, and so I want to better understand what the impediments are. Yes, I know the history, but that means next to nothing at the parish level (at most parishes).

There is a common misconception that the Second Vatican Council did away with Latin in the liturgy. That is not true. In many of his books and writings on the liturgy, Pope Benedict pretty much dispelled that myth.

Ibid.

Furthermore, the Church’s important documents are all written in Latin. These include Encyclicals, the Roman Missal (and GIRM), Redemptionis Sacramentum, episcopal assignments and other important and sacred documents.

Ibid.

For a bishop to tell his priests that they must limit their use of language is going against what the Church holds sacred, especially now that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has a universal status.

Ibid.

That’s why I have to ask: what is your underlying concern/issue regarding Latin in the Mass?

Ibid.

 

[benedictgal]

The bottom line is that if a priest wants to use Latin for the Ordinary Form of the Mass, he certainly has Tradition and the GIRM on his side. The bishop may try to circumvent the priest, but the faithful can certainly write a letter to the local ordinary to remind him that Latin is the norm and the vernacular is the option.

Furthermore, one can also appeal to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments since this particular circumvention on the part of the Bishop isn’t looked too kindly by the Holy See, considering the fact that Pope Benedict is in charge and has made it a very strong point to incorporate more Latin into the liturgy.

Therefore, in answer to your original post, it is within the priest’s competency to use Latin in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He’s got a perfect example in Pope Benedict XVI, who, I am certain, will defend the usage of the Church’s language in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, since he uses it himself.

 

[Lepanto]

The bottom line is that if a priest wants to use Latin for the Ordinary Form of the Mass, he certainly has Tradition and the GIRM on his side. The bishop may try to circumvent the priest, but the faithful can certainly write a letter to the local ordinary to remind him that Latin is the norm and the vernacular is the option.

Furthermore, one can also appeal to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments since this particular circumvention on the part of the Bishop isn’t looked too kindly by the Holy See, considering the fact that Pope Benedict is in charge and has made it a very strong point to incorporate more Latin into the liturgy.

Therefore, in answer to your original post, it is within the priest’s competency to use Latin in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He’s got a perfect example in Pope Benedict XVI, who, I am certain, will defend the usage of the Church’s language in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, since he uses it himself.

benedictgal,

I appreciate your posts. However, the bottom line is that if a bishop can licitly forbid his priests to use Latin in the ordinary form of the Mass, then all the letter writing in world won’t change that. (Besides, I don’t think that the Church makes up its liturgical rules based on letter campaigns.)

So I ask again, does a bishop have that authority?

 

[porthos11]

benedictgal,

I appreciate your posts. However, the bottom line is that if a bishop can licitly forbid his priests to use Latin in the ordinary form of the Mass, then all the letter writing in world won’t change that. (Besides, I don’t think that the Church makes up its liturgical rules based on letter campaigns.)

So I ask again, does a bishop have that authority?

As far as I know, no lower authority can forbid what higher authority has permitted.

Since the highest authority has indicated that Latin is the norm, it cannot be prohibited by any bishop.

If any bishop has the poor sense to forbid Latin in the liturgy, priests, of course, would be prudent to obey him. But the bishop himself would be out of line.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

Obviously it would be inappropriate to just randomly insert Latin into the text, e.g. “Glory to Deo in the highest.”

it would usually be grammatically incorrect, if not liturgically, and just plain silly IMO

Well you could certainly get around the grammar issue by only substituting complete sentences of another language, instead of single words. Would that still be silly? I think so, but silliness is a subjective thing - some would argue that it’s silly to include any Spanish or Latin in an English mass.

The question is what is the smallest amount of a Latin, or Spanish, or English that can be inserted into a mass of another language? We have what sounds like a fairly reliable source for the notion that the Eucharistic Prayer must be said in a single language.

If that is true, perhaps the rule is that prayers or equivalent units that form the building blocks of the mass must each be in a single language. However, I have heard sung versions of the Kyrie which combined English and Greek; the same with one or two other prayers such as the Agnus Dei in both English and Latin. If we accept the standard of benedictgal’s rector, these may be illicit or inappropriate, but I’m skeptical.

 

[benedictgal]

The question is what is the smallest amount of a Latin, or Spanish, or English that can be inserted into a mass of another language? We have what sounds like a fairly reliable source for the notion that the Eucharistic Prayer must be said in a single language.

If that is true, perhaps the rule is that prayers or equivalent units that form the building blocks of the mass must each be in a single language. However, I have heard sung versions of the Kyrie which combined English and Greek; the same with one or two other prayers such as the Agnus Dei in both English and Latin. If we accept the standard of benedictgal’s rector, these may be illicit or inappropriate, but I’m skeptical.

What you probably heard was some bizarre thing that OCP puts in their bilingual Mass settings.

But, remember, Digitonomy, the issue of bilingual and multilingual Masses was important enough for Sacramentum Caritatis to address, as I quoted on earlier in the thread. And, remember, too, that the Eucharistic Prayer if the prayer that the celebrant directs to the Father and it is one complete prayer. As such, it needs to be said in one language.

One reason why you don’t find it in the GIRM is that, since Latin is the default language of the Church, the Holy See perhaps assumed that in huge bilingual and multilingual Masses, the language of the Church would be used. Latin is still the original universal language.

 

[japhy]

We have what sounds like a fairly reliable source for the notion that the Eucharistic Prayer must be said in a single language.

I’d really like to hear priests say “Mysterium fidei” instead of “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”, even if they don’t say the rest of the EP in Latin.

 

[Digitonomy]

What you probably heard was some bizarre thing that OCP puts in their bilingual Mass settings.

In other words, the English & Latin parts of an English-Spanish-Latin arrangement? I suppose that’s possible. I’ll keep my eyes open if I come across it again.

benedictgal:

And, remember, too, that the Eucharistic Prayer if the prayer that the celebrant directs to the Father and it is one complete prayer. As such, it needs to be said in one language.

I obviously remember that, since I commented on it in the post you quoted.

benedictgal:

One reason why you don’t find it in the GIRM is that, since Latin is the default language of the Church, the Holy See perhaps assumed that in huge bilingual and multilingual Masses, the language of the Church would be used.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the GIRM did not envision masses being in more than one language. I suspect the piecemeal use of Latin or another language was envisioned, but it simply wasn’t spelled out in detail.

benedictgal:

Latin is still the original universal language.

Not sure that it’s the original universal language, but it’s certainly the current universal language.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I think so. I personally don’t think that it is good to switch at a whim though. The congregation should be prepared for these language switches.

The Holy Father has desired more use of Latin in the vernacular liturgies but unfortunately this has been more of a recommendation than a mandate, like the motu proprio that allowed for free use of the 1961 missal.

What I think needs to occur is another motu proprio that specifies what parts must be in Latin. I would hope that at a minimum the Kyrie should be in Greek, and the Gloria and the Eucharistic Acclamations be in Latin.

I don’t know whether the Confiteor should be in Latin or not. My reasoning is that this is a prayer that is said by the individual as they call to mind their sins, therefore it should be in their native tongue.

 

[lizaanne]

Our parish used to have the NO in Latin - it truly is a thing of beauty. I do miss that. It has been replaced with the TLM, which is also very beautiful, but I really did enjoy the NO in Latin. Probably because I was used to the form.

Oh - funny side note: I went to the English NO on Sunday. As certain prayers were said, I found myself hearing bits of the Latin translation in my head!!! It cracked me up!! Guess that’s what happens once you start going to the TLM a lot!!

~Liza

 

[NetNuncio]

Our parish used to have the NO in Latin - it truly is a thing of beauty. I do miss that. It has been replaced with the TLM, which is also very beautiful, but I really did enjoy the NO in Latin. Probably because I was used to the form.

Oh - funny side note: I went to the English NO on Sunday. As certain prayers were said, I found myself hearing bits of the Latin translation in my head!!! It cracked me up!! Guess that’s what happens once you start going to the TLM a lot!!

~Liza

No Bishop has the authority to ban Mass in Latin. If a priest was banned from doing so (if it were me), I would do it anyway and await the penalty. After that, I would appeal the penalty to the Holy See.

Bishops DO, however, have the authority to now allow Mass in vernacular (although it may not be pastorally prudent), but I can’t imagine any current bishop doing it.

Adam