Council of Trent forbids Vernacular?

[St_Laurence_258]

Thanks to everyone for all of the informative and helpful replies. I hope that we can continue to keep things civl and friendly so that the moderators won’t be forced to step in.

Some of the things that I’ve learned so far are that:

Canon 9 in the Council of trent may be interpreted as prohibing an all-vernacular Mass (but also may not be interpreted that way)

Use of the vernacular may or may not be included as a matter of discipline. Where would the definitive answer to this be?

Vatican II requires that latin be said but that the vernacular may be included;

So I guess my question really comes down to: When the “popular” Mass was changed from Latin to all-vernacular; what explanation was given? It doesn’t sound to me like Vatican II (at least the portions mentioned in this thread) covers this.

In another thread, I saw a possible explanation as a hint, but I don’t know if that was the explanation given at the time: That the “New Mass” is not the “Old Mass” so none of the old rules were binding on it. Is that the official explanation?

I’m just trying to understand what the situation is or was. Perhaps my subject line should have been different.

 

[ProVobis]

In another thread, I saw a possible explanation as a hint, but I don’t know if that was the explanation given at the time: That the “New Mass” is not the “Old Mass” so none of the old rules were binding on it. Is that the official explanation?

No such thing considering that Session VII Trent documents specify:

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

 

[JM3]

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.

I wonder if anyone has considered that “vulgar” might mean latin.

 

[JerryZ]

I wonder if anyone has considered that “vulgar” might mean latin.

Actually you do have a point there.

Originally all the Church affairs were conducted in Greek, however since St. Peter and St. Paul had taken up residence in Rome the Capital of the Roman Empire where the “vulgo” ie the people spoke and conducted daily life in Latin they of course started evangelizing in Latin. So here we see that the “vulgar” language of Rome IS latin.
The St. Jerome Bible is called the Vulgata precisely because it is in latin.
“Proper” latin was spoken of course in Rome.
However there were lots of regional variation of it spoken all over in the Eastern part of the Empire. While the West had allways continued to use greek

These regional “dialects” would also be the “vulgar” language of the particular place and we call it “vernacular”.
In the end vernacular also mean the language spoken by the indegenous population of any place. So in Greece, greek IS the vernacular there

Peace

 

[Memaw]

No such thing considering that Session VII Trent documents specify:

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by any pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

A priest, not even a Bishop, can change the official words of the Mass on his own. Only the Proper Authorities, including the Pope can make any changes as far as the form of the Mass is concerned. God Bless, Memaw

 

[St_Laurence_258]

I have found the answer the my question.

Vatican II requires that latin be said

Not quite true, Vaticann requires that latin be used in the Latin rite. (article 36 below)
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

Article 101

1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.
2. The competent superior has the power to grant the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the divine office, even in choir, to nuns and to members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection, both men who are not clerics and women. The version, however, must be one that is approved.
3. Any cleric bound to the divine office fulfills his obligation if he prays the office in the vernacular together with a group of the faithful or with those mentioned in 52 above provided that the text of the translation is approved.

…

Article 36

1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

From vatican.va

 

[pnewton]

Where in Trent do you find this?

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

I would think the mere existence of more than one rite would be evidence enought that this is a disciplinary matter. Christian communities can not be split off in matters of doctrine, like Trinitarian Rite an Unitatrian Rite, Pelagian Rite or Arian Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks to everyone for all of the informative and helpful replies. I hope that we can continue to keep things civl and friendly so that the moderators won’t be forced to step in.

Some of the things that I’ve learned so far are that:

Canon 9 in the Council of trent may be interpreted as prohibing an all-vernacular Mass (but also may not be interpreted that way)

Use of the vernacular may or may not be included as a matter of discipline. Where would the definitive answer to this be?

Vatican II requires that latin be said but that the vernacular may be included;

So I guess my question really comes down to: When the “popular” Mass was changed from Latin to all-vernacular; what explanation was given? It doesn’t sound to me like Vatican II (at least the portions mentioned in this thread) covers this.

In another thread, I saw a possible explanation as a hint, but I don’t know if that was the explanation given at the time: That the “New Mass” is not the “Old Mass” so none of the old rules were binding on it. Is that the official explanation?

I’m just trying to understand what the situation is or was. Perhaps my subject line should have been different.

 

[ProVobis]

Use of the vernacular may or may not be included as a matter of discipline. Where would the definitive answer to this be?

Vatican II requires that latin be said but that the vernacular may be included;

FWIW, Trent refers to it as “vulgari lingua” and Vatican II as “linguae vernaculae.” They mean essentially the same thing except the cases are different and one seems more palatable than the other. I don’t know if it was intended that way, but there might have been more resistance had they still referred to it as “linguae vulgaris” (vulgar tongue). Just my opinion.

 

[JReducation]

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?

But no council can bind another council and even together, none of the councils of the Church can bind a pope. In a case of discipline, governance, liturgical law and anything that is not revealed dogma and revealed moral law, the pope always has the last word, not a council.

This is a problem that some people are having. They want to impose council canons on the current Magisterium and the current Magisterium is not having it. These are actually signs of very powerful popes, because they do not submit to the pressure under that we try to put on them or the demands. They pick and choose what they will acquiesce to and what they do not.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

From how I understand it the use of Latin in the Liturgy is a discipline not a doctrine; however, I still think it would be hard pressed for anyone to prove that an all vernacular Mass is something either council wanted for the Latin Rite. Saying one can do something is not the same as saying one should do something.

 

[JerryZ]

From how I understand it the use of Latin in the Liturgy is a discipline not a doctrine; however, I still think it would be hard pressed for anyone to prove that an all vernacular Mass is something either council wanted for the Latin Rite. Saying one can do something is not the same as saying one should do something.

So let’s try to follow the logic here shall we?

Premises:
The “Latin Rite” is the one that originated in the Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome is the one that has seemingly done a lot more evangelizing if we follow how well distributed is around the globe. So we find “Latin Rite” Bishops pretty much in every continent.

The original languange of the Eucharist or mass was greek. No one can dispute this.
The Church of Rome changed the language of the mass to the “vulgar” or “vernacular” to latin when they had to evangelize the romans.
Either that or teach them greek

When the Church “Roman” expanded to other countries She took all She had with her.
In Europe most countries had been conquered by the Roman Empire and latin was already a part of their culture and language. We see the influence in all major European languanges.
Even the new world which was mostly colonized by Spain and Portugal have this trait.

But when we go outside the boundaries of the old Roman Empire and subsequent sphere of indirect influence we have issues.

Let’s take Japan for example. It was a huge and arduous task to try to evangelize a culture that had ZERO connection with the Roman culture.
What did the Church do?

Translate the Bible INTO Japanese of course. Which meant that the Church had to be Profficient at Japanese Herself.
Did she carry out the liturgy in latin in these places? Of course she did. However not all the people there could follow what was going on.

It is like you going to a french movie with NO SUBTITLES.

This is why the Church developed the various translations into the “vernacular” in each country. All of this was done BEFORE the advent of computers and air transportation.
A trip to Japan from Rome for example could take much more longer than 3 months which meant that progress was slow.

Peace

 

[ProVobis]

The original languange of the Eucharist or mass was greek. No one can dispute this.

Not Aramaic?

The Church of Rome changed the language of the mass to the “vulgar” or “vernacular” to latin when they had to evangelize the romans.
Either that or teach them greek

Was the Mass as we know it actually translated from the Greek? Although we know the ROMAN Canon goes back a long time, at least before 750 AD, we do know from all the Saints mentioned it doesn’t go back to Christ. Therefore it seems reasonable that most of it was WRITTEN in Latin, save perhaps with some light tweaking with the consecration. And if so, the Roman Canon was never in the “vulgar” or “vernacular” until perhaps the Reformation.

Didn’t the Church do the similar thing with Old Church Slavonic?

Translate the Bible INTO Japanese of course.

Shakespeare’s been translated into Japanese too. Does that mean all the nuances of Shakespearean English, the real beauty of Shakespeare, have been preserved?

It is like you going to a french movie with NO SUBTITLES.

I’ve seen Polish films with English subtitles. Do you know it’s possible to change dramas into comedies with those things? Don’t take this the wrong way but it seems you have a very poor understanding of the dynamics of translations. Trent had reasons for forbidding the all-vulgar liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

This is a problem that some people are having. They want to impose council canons on the current Magisterium and the current Magisterium is not having it.

Br JR, when it took them over an hour to realize the Pope had renounced the Papacy, because no one present at that meeting understood the language of the Church, I’d say we have a definite problem that surpasses any disciplines (or lack thereof) imposed by the Magisterium. That’s my opinion, anyway.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, when it took them over an hour to realize the Pope had renounced the Papacy, because no one present at that meeting understood the language of the Church, I’d say we have a definite problem that surpasses any disciplines (or lack thereof) imposed by the Magisterium. That’s my opinion, anyway.

Let’s look at these from two very important parts.

1. The reports said that it took the media time to realize what was happening and that the clergy and religious who were present thought that they had misunderstood.
2. As Pope Francis says, the biggest problem facing the Church is that she’s navel gazing. If we believe that double checking our Latin is a problem, then we’ve proven him right. We’re navel gazing.

 

[Memaw]

So let’s try to follow the logic here shall we?

Premises:
The “Latin Rite” is the one that originated in the Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome is the one that has seemingly done a lot more evangelizing if we follow how well distributed is around the globe. So we find “Latin Rite” Bishops pretty much in every continent.

The original languange of the Eucharist or mass was greek. No one can dispute this.
The Church of Rome changed the language of the mass to the “vulgar” or “vernacular” to latin when they had to evangelize the romans.
Either that or teach them greek

When the Church “Roman” expanded to other countries She took all She had with her.
In Europe most countries had been conquered by the Roman Empire and latin was already a part of their culture and language. We see the influence in all major European languanges.
Even the new world which was mostly colonized by Spain and Portugal have this trait.

But when we go outside the boundaries of the old Roman Empire and subsequent sphere of indirect influence we have issues.

Let’s take Japan for example. It was a huge and arduous task to try to evangelize a culture that had ZERO connection with the Roman culture.
What did the Church do?

Translate the Bible INTO Japanese of course. Which meant that the Church had to be Profficient at Japanese Herself.
Did she carry out the liturgy in latin in these places? Of course she did. However not all the people there could follow what was going on.

It is like you going to a french movie with NO SUBTITLES.

This is why the Church developed the various translations into the “vernacular” in each country. All of this was done BEFORE the advent of computers and air transportation.
A trip to Japan from Rome for example could take much more longer than 3 months which meant that progress was slow.

Peace

Thank You God Bless, Memaw

 

[JerryZ]

Not Aramaic?

Was the Mass as we know it actually translated from the Greek? Although we know the ROMAN Canon goes back a long time, at least before 750 AD, we do know from all the Saints mentioned it doesn’t go back to Christ. Therefore it seems reasonable that most of it was WRITTEN in Latin, save perhaps with some light tweaking with the consecration. And if so, the Roman Canon was never in the “vulgar” or “vernacular” until perhaps the Reformation.

Didn’t the Church do the similar thing with Old Church Slavonic?

Shakespeare’s been translated into Japanese too. Does that mean all the nuances of Shakespearean English, the real beauty of Shakespeare, have been preserved?

I’ve seen Polish films with English subtitles. Do you know it’s possible to change dramas into comedies with those things? Don’t take this the wrong way but it seems** you have a very poor understanding of the dynamics of translations**. Trent had reasons for forbidding the all-vulgar liturgy.

For your first question I would say that yes the mass was translated from greek although I bet that since St. Paul was fluently conversant in Hebrew also he had that perspective as well. We need to remember that the bulk of the Jewish population in Jesus time did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic but greek. This is why 350 years earlier the Septuagient had been come into being.

yeah I see you have a point there, I am myself mother tongue fluent in English, Spanish and Italian.
So yes I see the point on the change of meaning, however you totally missed the point of my analogy.
Also it is why the Church has taken so long in developing “vernacular” versions of the mass.
I see you are failing to understand a very important fact.
Latin WAS the vulgar language of the romans. Same as greek WAS the vulgar language of the Eastern Roman Empire.
“Vulgar” here only means IN USE by the people of that locale. Which by the way is exactly the same meaning for the word “vernacular”.
Indeed vernacular for Jesus would have been Aramaic.
Therefore vernacular is an evolving concept since at the beginning of the Church of Rome it meant “latin” afterward as the Church expanded well beyond Rome it meant the local languanges.
If the Church adapted to Latin when She “colonized” Rome I don’t see any issues in Her adapting when evangelizing other lands.
Also I take issue with the word “forbidding” the language clearly does not do this.

 

[JReducation]

So let’s try to follow the logic here shall we?

Premises:
The “Latin Rite” is the one that originated in the Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome is the one that has seemingly done a lot more evangelizing if we follow how well distributed is around the globe. So we find “Latin Rite” Bishops pretty much in every continent.

The original languange of the Eucharist or mass was greek. No one can dispute this.
The Church of Rome changed the language of the mass to the “vulgar” or “vernacular” to latin when they had to evangelize the romans.
Either that or teach them greek

When the Church “Roman” expanded to other countries She took all She had with her.
In Europe most countries had been conquered by the Roman Empire and latin was already a part of their culture and language. We see the influence in all major European languanges.
Even the new world which was mostly colonized by Spain and Portugal have this trait.

But when we go outside the boundaries of the old Roman Empire and subsequent sphere of indirect influence we have issues.

Let’s take Japan for example. It was a huge and arduous task to try to evangelize a culture that had ZERO connection with the Roman culture.
What did the Church do?

Translate the Bible INTO Japanese of course. Which meant that the Church had to be Profficient at Japanese Herself.
Did she carry out the liturgy in latin in these places? Of course she did.

This is not totally accurate. Religious orders such as Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans often said the parts of the mast to which the people responded in the language of the people.
Until the erection of local dioceses, the missions were subject to the authority of the major superior of each order. Each mission simply asked for permission from his superior to do what they thought was best. This extended from the language in the mass and the LOTH to dress.

In the letters of St. Maximilian Kolbe, he wrote to the ordained friars about this custom that he had started in the mission where he had been superior in Japan. St. Francis Xavier had similar permission from St. Ignatius. The Dominicans were probably the largest number of missionaries in the East and they did not have a uniform system either. Each superior granted permissions as requests were made. Many of these letters can be read in the archives of the mother houses of our orders.

To this day, the Dominicans, Jesuits and Franciscans still try as hard as possible to use the local languages and customs in these countries. My point is that this is not new. This was handed down to us from previous generations of religious missionaries.

As dioceses were erected, things became more standardized, because the local bishop standardized them. Very often, those bishops were from Europe or America. When the first Japanese bishop was named, a Capuchin Franciscan, he went back to the local language for the parts of the people. It was right about the time of Vatican II or a year to two before, not very long between the two.

 

[pnewton]

. As Pope Francis says, the biggest problem facing the Church is that she’s navel gazing. If we believe that double checking our Latin is a problem, then we’ve proven him right. We’re navel gazing.

Let us conjugate.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Therefore vernacular is an evolving concept since at the beginning of the Church of Rome it meant “latin” afterward as the Church expanded well beyond Rome it meant the local languanges.

If this is the case then why does the Church still use Latin as her official language to communicate her doctrines and decrees to her faithful especially if she evolves to using the local languages? I mean who uses Latin anymore in Italy other than the Church? Something tells me Latin became the Church’s sacred language which is probably why she prefers it over the local languages of the countries she inhabits. Something also tells me that Latin was not the vernacular in Rome in 1545.