Council of Trent forbids Vernacular?

[St_Laurence_258]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:
Council of Trent 22nd Session Chapter VIII (September 16:

THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR.
IT’S MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE

Though the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them (Lam. 4:4), the holy council commands pastors and all who have the cura anumarum that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrfice, especially on Sundays and festival days.

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

 

[ProVobis]

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

Some say it forbids the all-vernacular.

Canon IX.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX.—If anyone 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.

Vatican II stated that Latin was to be preserved in the liturgy; allowance for some vernacular in the Mass where bishops thought it advantageous to do so.

 

[Megan7]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

I will read this later on. Thank you.

 

[janeway529]

“(1) In the letter Super quibusdam (Sept.29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “The Roman Pontiff, regarding the administration of the Sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ….always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the Sacraments.”

“(2) Council of Trent, Session III, Chap.2: “It (the Council) declared furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”

Taken from this interesting article: betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/heresies-concerning-papal-authority/the-intent-of-pope-pius-xii-concerning-the-liturgy/

Take what you need and ignore the rest.

 

[YoungTradCath]

No, what it anathematizes is essentially a statement like, “Mass should only ever be in the vernacular and the sacral tongue is not allowed because this is flawed in principle.” It doesn’t say Mass can’t be in the vernacular, it says that nobody can say that Mass that is not in the vernacular is wrong or bad.

 

[Annie39]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

This information if true would be very distressing to the members of the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church as they say the Divine Liturgy (what they call Mass) in the vernacular.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

I love the topic and I am more than just a little bit surprised that this thread has been allowed to reach this point…but I am happy that the subject is being discussed…I’m not sure how the Eastern Orthodox Church would feel about being referred to as ‘the Eastern Orothodox Catholic Church’ .celebrating their Devine Liturgy…I have a close friend that is an Eastern Orthodox Priest (who actually was a Catholic Seminarian prior to V-2) who would take issue…we have very civil conversations about such matters…I have read that V-2 actually stipulates that the majority of the Liturgy be in Latin…but then again, so much has been misunderstood…I abstained from eating meat today…and had a friend insist that we could now eat meat on Fridays…I totally understand the rationale…why skip meat yet feast on a seafood platter (I’m from the Gulf Coast),I get it…but nevertheless…Devotions, the Holy Rosary, Benediction, proper attire and demeanor during Mass, say what ye will, argue the benefits, the i.e. the new Mass is the Old Mass, I’ve read it all…including but not limited to the busines that the Mass is communal…what about stressing the Sacrafice…I’m one of two people going to Confession on the first Sat. of each month…young people in my daughter’s confirmation class actually asked ‘what is Mass’ during one of the classes…I’ve gone to confession and had the Priest tell me that not only what I was sharing was ‘not’ a sin…but also told me I could say the Act of Contrition if I really wanted to…when I asked what about it…by the way…I am not scrupulous…Can one Pope change dogmatic matters that a previous Pope has laid down…if this is in fact the case …would not things like the Assumption be up for change should a future Pope so deem it…seems unlikely ofcourse but…what about it…I asked the questions on this site to the CA team and never receive answers…It just seems that any time anyone poses a question that might be perceived as rocking the boat…they/we get ignored…someone make me feel better Please…

 

[pnewton]

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

Read this line:

Though the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.

The anathemas from Trent on saying the Mass should only be in the vernacular was not a matter of faith or morals. It was a matter of discipline. Remember that one of the changes made at this council was the standardization and reform of the Mass. The disciplinary changes were necessary to enforce these changes.

 

[JerryZ]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

I am quoting from your quote
“not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.”

You see that the wording CLEARLY states that it is NOT a blanket prohibition on celebrate in the vernacular, just NOT advisable at the time of the Council.

Further I would say that if we want to be fully “traditionalist” we better all start learning Aramaic because THAT is what Jesus spoke.

When GOD sent the Holy Spirit into the upper room at Pentecostes one of the gifts HE bestowed was “the gift of tongues”.
Had HE wanted that we all spoke 1 language and celebrated His Eucharist in 1 language He could have reverted the sign at Babel. HE did not

The faith has been and is being transmitted to the 4 corners of the earth in all the languages GOD’s people use.
It is not an issue of morals OR faith and the Church can adjust it’s decision on this as it is required by the local circumstances.

Peace

 

[Memaw]

I love the topic and I am more than just a little bit surprised that this thread has been allowed to reach this point…but I am happy that the subject is being discussed…I’m not sure how the Eastern Orthodox Church would feel about being referred to as ‘the Eastern Orothodox Catholic Church’ .celebrating their Devine Liturgy…I have a close friend that is an Eastern Orthodox Priest (who actually was a Catholic Seminarian prior to V-2) who would take issue…we have very civil conversations about such matters…I have read that V-2 actually stipulates that the majority of the Liturgy be in Latin…but then again, so much has been misunderstood…I abstained from eating meat today…and had a friend insist that we could now eat meat on Fridays…I totally understand the rationale…why skip meat yet feast on a seafood platter (I’m from the Gulf Coast),I get it…but nevertheless…Devotions, the Holy Rosary, Benediction, proper attire and demeanor during Mass, say what ye will, argue the benefits, the i.e. the new Mass is the Old Mass, I’ve read it all…including but not limited to the busines that the Mass is communal…what about stressing the Sacrifice…I’m one of two people going to Confession on the first Sat. of each month…young people in my daughter’s confirmation class actually asked ‘what is Mass’ during one of the classes…I’ve gone to confession and had the Priest tell me that not only what I was sharing was ‘not’ a sin…but also told me I could say the Act of Contrition if I really wanted to…when I asked what about it…by the way…I am not scrupulous…Can one Pope change dogmatic matters that a previous Pope has laid down…if this is in fact the case …would not things like the Assumption be up for change should a future Pope so deem it…seems unlikely of course but…what about it…I asked the questions on this site to the CA team and never receive answers…It just seems that any time anyone poses a question that might be perceived as rocking the boat…they/we get ignored…someone make me feel better Please…

Dogma cannot be changed ever. But discipline can and this falls under discipline. The first Mass was in the vernacular before Latin became the universal language of the Church. I love the New Mass when its done properly and I have been very fortunate to have had most done properly. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

Use of the vernacular is a matter of discipline like abstaining from meat on Friday, or fasting one hour before receiving the Eucharist. It can always be changed. And Vatican II, allowed use of the Vernacular where ever the Bishops deemed it proper. And most of the Bishops opted for the Vernacular. I don’t know the precise documents, but I have read them. So don’t be alarmed, all is well.

Linus2nd

 

[ProVobis]

The anathemas from Trent on saying the Mass should only be in the vernacular was not a matter of faith or morals.

This is true, but we’re dealing with philosophies here. Trent was realistic in that vernacular can’t be achieved without some translations, which means at least partial removal from the original, corruption of meaning and loss of nuances inter alia. Left to themselves, translations leave open to the possibility of self-interpretations, which is precisely what Trent taught against.

Vatican II did not allow the Mass to be said in whatever form the priest or the congregation wished. It was in a very controlled language environment, done to prevent the many possible interpretations of the original script. But even here there were no guarantees that translation errors were not possible. Above all, translations are not infallible. Sure the Mass is the Mass but we’re talking meanings behind the prayers and the externals involved. Not only that but Masses in different national languages have only further segregated Catholics and within their own parishes; this was not what was intended.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, NOR did a book review on “Trent: What Happened at the Council”

The Council of Trent is among the most momentous of the 21 ecumenical councils convened in the two millennia of the Church’s history. Held in 25 sessions between 1545 and 1563, it responded to the challenges of Protestantism and called for internal Church reforms, significantly impacting life within the Church and how she faced the world for centuries to come.

Despite the importance of Trent for the Church, and in many ways for the Western world at large, relatively little scholarly work on the Council had been undertaken by historians until the past century. Fr. John O’Malley, S.J., has written the first history of the Council in a single volume accessible to a general audience. Drawing mainly on primary sources from the Council itself, and on the groundbreaking four-volume history by renowned Trent scholar Hubert Jedin, Fr. O’Malley presents an engaging narrative. Trent, like any ecumenical council, is extremely complex, so any single-volume history would have to be considerably limited in scope. In explaining what happened at Trent, O’Malley focuses on disproving some common myths about the Council.

One of these myths is that Trent was a “monolithic and single-minded gathering, untroubled by rancor, confidently poised to take the steps necessary to put the Catholic house in order.” The Council was in fact troubled from the start, and that was only after many failed attempts to convoke it. Popes at that time were worldly and corrupt and so were hesitant to call a council for fear that their authority would be compromised and their corruption exposed. This caused much delay, compounding the many problems that necessitated a council and bringing the Church and even entire nations to a crisis point. When Pope Paul III finally agreed to convoke a council, tensions with secular leaders — especially the powerful Holy Roman Emperor Charles V — caused difficulty in deciding where to even hold it. The city of Trent in present-day northern Italy was finally settled upon, even though it was not an ideal location to accommodate an international event.

Bishops were wary of taking part in the Council. Few showed up in the beginning, and their attendance was often poor or inconsistent. There were intense debates throughout. In one famous episode, Bishop Tommaso Sanfelice of La Cava, Italy, and Bishop Dionisio Zanettini of Melopotamos, Greece, got into a heated argument during a doctrinal discussion. Insults were spouted until Bishop Sanfelice physically assaulted Bishop Zanettini. Onlookers had to pull them apart. There was much discord during the Council, combined with external factors such as threats of war and plague, that caused long interruptions and separated it into distinct periods.

Another common myth is that Trent was all-encompassing. Trent was held primarily to address Martin Luther’s ideas, which deeply divided Christendom. “Luther set the agenda for the Council,” O’Malley says, so it focused on those doctrines and practices that he challenged. Therefore, the main subjects of the Council’s doctrinal decrees were justification, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. At the very end of the Council came decrees on the veneration of the saints and devotional practices and imagery in response to Calvinist iconoclasm, as well as a decree on indulgences.
…

more at newoxfordreview.org/briefly.jsp?did=0713-briefly

 

[thistle]

I’ve done a quick search of previous threads on the forum, and I don’t see this question addressed.

In reading through the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent for the first time, I’ve come across a section that reads:

There has been a previous thread where people were debating the meaning of 22nd session canon 9, but not of 22nd session Chapter VIII, which was not quoted in the thread. I was very surprised to see that it clearly states “The Mass May Not be Celbrated in the Vernacular.” That seems pretty clear to me but I assume that I am not fully informed.

I have not yet read the Vatican II documents. Is there something in there (or elsewhere) that permits a work-around to this?

The language of the Mass is not a doctrine. It is a discipline which can be changed at anytime. In matters of discipline a Pope cannot bind a future Pope

 

[PacoG]

I’m not sure how the Eastern Orthodox Church would feel about being referred to as ‘the Eastern Orothodox Catholic Church’ .celebrating their Devine Liturgy…

The Eastern Catholic Churches are the the Eastern churches that are in communion in with Rome.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Churches are still apart from Rome.

I know there is someone on this thread that will provide a graphic explaining this.

 

[ProVobis]

The language of the Mass is not a doctrine.

Never mind that the head of the document referenced by the OP is marked

Sessio Vigesimasecunda, (Twenty-second Session,)
celebrata die XVII. Sept. 1562. (held Sept. 17, 1562.)
DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ (DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS)

(skipping down)
CAPUT VIII (Chapter 8)
Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.
(Mass is not to be celebrated in the vulgar language. Its mysteries are to be explained to the people.)

 

[thistle]

Never mind that the head of the document referenced by the OP was marked

Sessio Vigesimasecunda, (Twenty-second Session,)
celebrata die XVII. Sept. 1562. (held Sept. 17, 1562.)
DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ (DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS)

Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.
(Mass is not to be celebrated in the vulgar language. Its mysteries are to be explained to the people.)

The form of the Mass is NOT doctrine. It comes under disciplinary law. The words of consecration and the priest receiving are the only things which cannot be changed. Everything else in the Mass can be changed and a Pope cannot bind a future Pope in any disciplinary matters.
I repeat. The form of the Mass is NOT a doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

The form of the Mass is NOT doctrine. It comes under disciplinary law.

Where in Trent do you find this?

 

[Memaw]

The form of the Mass is NOT doctrine. It comes under disciplinary law. The words of consecration and the priest receiving are the only things which cannot be changed. Everything else in the Mass can be changed and a Pope cannot bind a future Pope in any disciplinary matters.
I repeat. The form of the Mass is NOT a doctrine.

I agree, read post #10, God bless, Memaw

 

[ProVobis]

The form of the Mass is NOT doctrine. It comes under disciplinary law.

Where in Trent do you find this?

Perhaps this is an afterthought in the 20th century, instigated by professional language -]manipulators/-] translators?