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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lepanto said:
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.
Click to expand...
Priests have a right to celebrate Mass in Latin; that’s a right that, as Adam pointed out, does not extend to the vernacular. The reasonable restriction that is typically placed upon this right, however, is that it should not be exercised (though I don’t think this would rise to a must) at a liturgy that is “scheduled” for the vernacular. So turning the 10:30 am Mass that has been vernacular for 40 years into a Latin liturgy overnight without warning might offer a legitimate grievance, but beyond that Catholics basically always have a right to the “normative” options.

As far as switching among vernaculars, I would say that there is no hard and fast rule and prudence would have to govern the situation. Personally, I think prudence says in that case we use Latin, but that’s another thread.
 
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/VENDLATN.TXT

Thought I would share this article about the Eucharistic prayer in Latin. In fact, if you look in the Sacramentary which is the book used the priest with the words of the mass included…you will find the Latin Eucharistic prayer in there for the NO mass.
On occasion, our Polish priest who is more comfortable speaking his native language or Latin during mass, will use this form for our regular masses. It is beautiful!
 
Actually, the local bishop or major religious superior can override this. This is part of Canon Law. However, if the Holy See says that it is forbidden to do this or that, then the local bishop must assent. If the Holy See expresses a preference such as was the case with Pope Benedict XVI, there is no prohibition imposed on the bishops and no mandate either, to celebrate the mass in Latin. The Holy See made some valid points on this subject and I am sure that most bishops will apply it, but the document does not mandate or prohibit a single language. This was not a dogmatic, legal or moral document. It was a pastoral document.

Let’s take major religious superior first, because it’s the easiest. Within religioius houses where some members are priests, it is obvious that they are going to celebrate mass. Religious orders and congregations of Pontifical Rights have their own Ordinary. Their major superior is their ordinary. He grants and takes away priestly faculties within community. A major superior can even suspend a priest from celebrating mass in a parish run by his religious order or congregation. He simply has to give the bishop notice of his actions. As to mass within the religious house, he doesn’t even have to notify the bishop. Also, some religioius orders have their own liturgical calender, lectionary, missal and ordo. For example, all Franciscan parishes follow the Franciscan liturgical calendar, except where a holy day of the universal church overrides the Franciscan calendar. October 4 is a solemnity in Franciscan parishes. It’s only a feast in the rest of the Church. We’ll come back to the language part in a second.

The local bishop, for legitimate pastoral reasons can also make rules for his diocese regarding the use of language, including Latin. The operative term here is “legitimate pastoral reasons.” For example, I worked for three years in the Amazon region. The local bishop limited the use of Latin to one mass at the Cathedral on Sunday mornings, because the indigenous population was new to the Catholic faith and Latin was not part of their culture or tradition. Masses for the indigenous was celebrated in the Quechua, which has been the local language for more than 5,000 years. What the bishop cannot do is forbid the celebration mass in Latin because of a whim. Nor can the bishop approve changes in the words, prayers, readings prescribed in the Roman Missal and lectionary, unless those options are available.

In the diocese where I currently live, the bishop requires that the readings always be in the language of the people. The rest is really up to the parish priest, with one exception. The local bishop wants all children and youth masses in the language of the kids. However, he also allows the kids to be taught some parts of the mass in Latin, which they can use. Once the kids learn them and know what the words mean, they love it. All the bishop wants is to make sure that this younger generation, that was born post Vatican II be involved in the mass and understand. When he celebrates mass at our diocesan youth day, he always uses modern languages, several actually. For anyone under 40, Latin mass is not their ordinary experience. I have a 23-year old and an 18-year old who would go to sleep at a Latin mass. Nonetheless, they are very comfortable at an English mass and actively participate, especially in the hymns and prayers.

OK, sometimes they fall asleep in during some sermons, regardless of the language. 🤷

I said that I would return to the religious community. The major religious superior, like the bishop is an ordinary (the ordinary authority). Therefore, he has the same authority over those members of his community who are priests as the bishop does over diocesan priests.

In parishes where religious communities operate, there is always a coordination between the major religious superior and the bishop on such policies, if there is ever a need for discussion. This rarely happens, as major religious superiors and bishops always discuss this and all the other issues involved in parish administration and liturgy, before a religious community moves in. Legally, the parish is the bishop’s domain. The priests are under the authority of their religious superior. Therefore, there is a meeting of the minds prior to the partnership.

When there is a change of either bishop or superior there is always a meeting to discuss any important and pressing concerns. In places where language would be such a pressing concern, which is rare, this would come up. The religious priests alays have the right to leave the parish if they disagree with the bishop. Their first commitment is always to their community and their vow of obedience is to their religious superior, not the bishop. Only a diocesan priest promises to obey the local bishop. Religious priests are in a different group as setup by Canon Law. These conflicts are rare, because everyone is interested in what’s best for the Church.

As I said, unless there is a legitimate pastoral reason for the faithful not to have mass in Latin, bishops do not intervene. The other way around is also true. If the religious community has its own language, there is never a conflict between the local bishop and the major religious superior. This is already understood and agreed upon before they move into a diocese.

Many monastic communities celebrate mass exlusively in Latin or in Eastern languages, depending on their origins.

Then there is the case of Byzantine parishes. Byzantines never use Latin. This is a legitimate pastoral concern. Therefore, priests in a Byzantine parish must be bi-ritual or Byzantine. Bi-ritual priests must use the Eastern language or the local language instead of Latin, usually the Eastern language but not always.

I hope this does not confuse the issue more. :eek:
 
BEFORE WE HANG A BISHOP OR PRIEST OVER LATIN MASS, LET’S SEE WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS

The Latin language
  1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, **I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. **Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)
The Bishop, celebrant par excellence
  1. While it is true that the whole People of God participates in the eucharistic liturgy, a correct ars celebrandi necessarily entails a specific responsibility on the part of those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Bishops, priests, and deacons, each according to his proper rank, must consider the celebration of the liturgy as their principal duty (116). **Above all, this is true of the Diocesan Bishop: as “the chief steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to his care, he is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole of its liturgical life” **(117). This is essential for the life of the particular Church, not only because **communion with the Bishop is required for the lawfulness of every celebration within his territory, but also because he himself is the celebrant par excellence within his Diocese **(118). It is his responsibility to ensure unity and harmony in the celebrations taking place in his territory. **Consequently the Bishop must be “determined that the priests, the deacons, and the lay Christian faithful grasp ever more deeply the genuine meaning of the rites and liturgical texts, and thereby be led to an active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist” **(119). I would ask that every effort be made to ensure that the liturgies which the Bishop celebrates in his Cathedral are carried out with complete respect for the ars celebrandi, so that they can be considered an example for the entire Diocese (120).
I believe this says it all on the issue of language and the authority and duty of the Bishop. It doesn’t look like Rome is going to overrule a bishop, not while operating out of this paradigm. The Bishop makes the final call on what is pastorally appropriate. This obviously is going to include language.

Observe that the Pope is very careful to use terms such as “I wish” or “I would like” or “I endorse.”

When they want to make law, they usually use terms such a “decree, direct, command, forbid”

This does not mean that this is to be cast on a shelf to collect dust. It just means that Benedict is expressing his wish and explaining it, but leaving room for the local Church in communion with its Bishop to make the right choices.

The rest of the document covers the theology of the Eucharist. I wonder if we should pay more attention to that, seems the doucment spend much more time on that than the language question. The language is not a dogmatic issue, the theology is.
 
JReducation said:
BEFORE WE HANG A BISHOP OR PRIEST OVER LATIN MASS, LET’S SEE WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS

The Latin language
  1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)
The Bishop, celebrant par excellence
  1. While it is true that the whole People of God participates in the eucharistic liturgy, a correct ars celebrandi necessarily entails a specific responsibility on the part of those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Bishops, priests, and deacons, each according to his proper rank, must consider the celebration of the liturgy as their principal duty (116). **Above all, this is true of the Diocesan Bishop: as “the chief steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to his care, he is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole of its liturgical life” **(117). This is essential for the life of the particular Church, not only because **communion with the Bishop is required for the lawfulness of every celebration within his territory, but also because he himself is the celebrant par excellence within his Diocese **(118). It is his responsibility to ensure unity and harmony in the celebrations taking place in his territory. **Consequently the Bishop must be “determined that the priests, the deacons, and the lay Christian faithful grasp ever more deeply the genuine meaning of the rites and liturgical texts, and thereby be led to an active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist” **(119). I would ask that every effort be made to ensure that the liturgies which the Bishop celebrates in his Cathedral are carried out with complete respect for the ars celebrandi, so that they can be considered an example for the entire Diocese (120).
I believe this says it all on the issue of language and the authority and duty of the Bishop. It doesn’t look like Rome is going to overrule a bishop, not while operating out of this paradigm. The Bishop makes the final call on what is pastorally appropriate. This obviously is going to include language.

Observe that the Pope is very careful to use terms such as “I wish” or “I would like” or “I endorse.”

When they want to make law, they usually use terms such a “decree, direct, command, forbid”

This does not mean that this is to be cast on a shelf to collect dust. It just means that Benedict is expressing his wish and explaining it, but leaving room for the local Church in communion with its Bishop to make the right choices.

The rest of the document covers the theology of the Eucharist. I wonder if we should pay more attention to that, seems the doucment spend much more time on that than the language question. The language is not a dogmatic issue, the theology is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the quote. What is the source document?
 
lepanto said:
Thanks for the quote. What is the source document?
Click to expand...
Sacramentum Caritatis. But it should be noted, in n. 62 there, His Holiness is referring to the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (n. 36) and “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (n. 54).
 
I believe this says it all on the issue of language and the authority and duty of the Bishop. It doesn’t look like Rome is going to overrule a bishop, not while operating out of this paradigm. The Bishop makes the final call on what is pastorally appropriate. This obviously is going to include language.
.

Sort of.

The Pope has also delgated to the Diacteries the authority to make authentic interpreations of the leglistlative texts. Bishops are bound to respect those rulings.

For example, a Bishop does not have the authority to force a celebrant to use females in altar service. And thus, even a pastor cannot force an associate pastor to use altar girls.

This was based on a Canonical prinicilple that being granted an option to do something does not empower a mandate to do something.

This is also true in the use of the Vernacular texts. Rome allows the vernacular texts to be used, but that does not take away the normative status of Latin, nor the right of a celebrant to say Mass using the Latin texts.
 
Brendan said:
This is also true in the use of the Vernacular texts. Rome allows the vernacular texts to be used, but that does not take away the normative status of Latin, nor the right of a celebrant to say Mass using the Latin texts.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Latin remains a right of the celebrant.

JReducation, what you are misunderstanding is an ordinary’s authority re: the law. He can do a certain number of things to modify the law. One is that he has the power to dispense his subjects universal or particular laws. Another is that he can enact particular law for his territory that further specifies universal law. But in crafting that particular law, he can never contradict universal law (unless he were to seek a privelege for this specific case). This means he can’t bind his subjects in ways that would deny them rights offered by the unversal law - such as the right to celebrate Mass in Latin.

So while it’s true that *Sacramentum Caritatis *is not a juridic document, it is also true that this does not detract one bit from the priests already-established right to celebrate the Roman Rite in the language of the Roman Rite: Latin.
 
lepanto said:
Thanks for the quote. What is the source document?
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. I didn’t realize that I missed that.

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS
OF THE HOLY FATHER
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE EUCHARIST
AS THE SOURCE AND SUMMIT
OF THE CHURCH’S LIFE AND MISSION

It’s directly from the Vatican’s website

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

www.vatican.va is an awesome website.

Hope this helps.

JR
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
This is correct. Latin remains a right of the celebrant.
Click to expand...
But remember that we must look at Canon Law in its entirety. Bishops and major religious superiors have certain authority over their subjects. Unless the authority is exercised in a manner that is in conflict with morals or canon law or a mandate from the Holy See, their decision stands. For example, a bishop cannot order his priest to celebrate mass in English. He can say that it can’t happen in one of his parishes. However, religious major superior can give such an order, especially if the priest is a Brother. Two priests in two different circumstances, one religious and one secular, different rules apply.

This is an off-the-cuff example. We have many priests who are religious, not secular. Only those religious priests who work for the diocese in some capacity, answer to the bishop and then only in those instances where the issue is within the bishop’s domain. A major religious superior can, for pastoral reasons or because of the charism of his community, require that mass in the commmunity’s houses always be celebrated in the national language, instead of latin. In many cases, lay persons attend mass at religious houses. Because the laity is invited to celebrate mass with the Carmelites at their priory, it doesn’t make it a parish. Therefore, the Carmelite Provincial Superior has jurisdiction independent of the Bishop. Of course the Priory chapel cannot be used for liturgical celebrations that are ordinarily reserved for a parish without the local pastor’s consent, because the priory falls within the boundaries of the local parish. Unless they commit some violation of law or morals, the Provincial Superior is the second to final authority. The final authority is always the Chapter.

I realize that this is far-fetched. But I’m trying to say that we must avoid blanket interpretations of this kind of document, because there are usually many exceptions than can arise and that Canon Law and the Pope will support. The Church usually builds safety guards and exceptions into law for contingencies.

For example, it is the right of the faithful to have a parish staffed with priests. We know this.

However, it is also the right of a religious congregation and of a religious order to return to their roots. As a result of Perfectae Caritatis, many religious congregations and orders have pulled out of parish ministry or decreased the number of religious priests that they assign to parish ministry.

These are just examples of how the lines of authority function. I realize that these are not directly related to the Latin mass, because I have not seen a problem with this, I can’t quote one.

The theology on the episcopate is quite clear in this document. The Bishop is the highest authority in the diocese. As long as he can provide Rome with legitimate reasons for a decision, they will support him.

The consensus seems to be that Latin masses are allowed, including the Tridentine mass, but there is no intention on the part of the Holy See to make them the norm. They are special.

There seems to be a group of conservatives who would like to interpret this to mean that this is what every parish must do because the Pope wants it. That’s not what the Congregation on the Liturgy is saying.

I am not against mass in Latin or even the Tridentine mass. I find them beautiful. I understand it and can participate without the help of a booklet or translation.

Being involved in ministry to youth with disabilities, I also see how unfair it would be to make the Latin mass the norm for this population. I appreciate why the local Bishop would say that it is not pastorally helpful and therefore should not be the case. These kids can’t follow a reading class in school, nevermind a mass in Latin using a translation. They are multi-sensory and kinesthetic in their worship. When speaking with our pastor about including them in the liturgy, we had to draw the kids into the liturgy and preserve the dignity and nature of the liturgy. This is hard to do. If we begin to make the parameters too tight, we will end up exluding rather than including, for no no justifiable reason.

Unfortunately, we have some people in our parish that are so set on having a mass in Latin, that they would like it daily and would like to have all the Sunday masses in Latin. This is another extreme. The mass in the language of the people is in place for a reason, it was not a whim of the Church.

If we begin to take these documents as allowing no exceptions or interpret them as saying this is the norm, period, we can do a great deal of damage.

We have to be gentle and prudent. I believe that the the Holy Father would want us to be so. His celebration of World Youth Day is a very good example of his own flexibility on these matters.

Remember, this is also the Pope who named Rabbi Klenicki to the Papal Order of St. Gregory, Pope Benedict XVI has bestowed the highest honor the Catholic Church confers on a layperson, in recognition of “Outstanding Services Rendered to the Welfare of Society and the Church”.

cardinalseansblog.org/?p=1156

This is not a criticism of the Holy Father at all. Just a good example of how we must always be ready for surprises, concessions, exceptions and accomodations, even from the Pope. I believe the Benedict XVI tends to speak and write in objective terms, but he is also quite ableto see specific situations and how each is different, so should we. Honouring an American Rabbi for Outstanding servics to the Church, that’s pretty different from what we would expect. It is a very specific situation that warranted an exception to the rule.

In all of this talk of the language of the mass, I’m always afraid of extremists in either direction. Extremists can’t seem to see past their interpretation of the rules.
 
I just seem to be impeded here by the fact that my interpretation is right…

While my wording above referred specifically to bishops and particular law, the exact same reasoning holds true for religious superiors and proper law. In order for a religious superior to be able to forbid his clerics from celebrating the sacraments in Latin, the proper law granted to his institute by the Holy See would have to contain this deviation from the universal norm. Religious superiors can’t strip their subjects of canonical rights simply because they are bound by vows of obedience.

None of this enters into the realm of one’s preference for Latin or the vernacular, or one’s opinion of the vernacular’s value - it’s simply a matter of the law. There are things permitted by law that I think would best not be, but that doesn’t mean I can let that preference color my reading of the law itself. I, just like a bishop or superior, have no business stripping someone of a rite because I would prefer he not have it.

NB - Concerning whether Rome would back up a bishop trying to forbid his clerics from using the normative Latin texts which are their right, I have to say that I strongly disagree with you. Rome would, of course, seek to resolve the situation without having to throw its weight around, but especially with Benedict as pope, (ceteris paribus) no Roman official is going to strip a priest of his right to the Mass for which he was ordained.
 
Andreas makes some really good points. However, what I think we are not taking into account (because this thread has gotten a bit long) is that Latin is the default language of the Mass. The vernacular is optional. So, if Latin, then, is the language for the Holy Sacrifice, and Rome has stated it time and time again, then, the answer is pretty much right there. The vernacular is a choice, but, not necessarily a requirement. Furthermore, and Pope Benedict has stated this in Sacramentum Caritatis, when there is more than one language involved, then, the Mass should be said in Latin. That is what happens in many major Papal Masses, especially when the readings and General Intercessions are proclaimed in different languages. The go-to language for the celebrant, in this case, the Pope, is Latin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top