Council of Trent forbids Vernacular?

[ProVobis]

You are right about that. From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?

A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:

To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;

That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;

To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.

*Non tam præclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire *- (“It is not so much excellent to know Latin, as it is a shame not to know it”.) - Cicero, quoted by JPII

 

[pnewton]

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?.

Consider the analogy of a master disc or plate in recording or printing. There is a need for a precise wording that does not change much with time and can serve as a standard by which the less exact translations can compare.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

The misunderstanding part I can believe but I heard that a woman learned in Latin outside the Vatican discovered the news and disseminated it to the public. In fact, I heard this from one of my non-Catholic buddies who emailed me with the information, and he provided me with the Latin to substantiate the claim. How often is this done when we report Vatican news? Instead we just report the translation as fact, as if there isn’t enough bias from the press already.

1. 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.

What’s “navel gazing” in Italian? Who translated that?

I ask that because I have a step-brother who’s a court linguist. I asked him once how he translates certain foreign “cuss” words to the judge/lawyers/courtroom. He told me he just translates everything as GDI, though they may not be any actual reference to God or damnation. I asked him wouldn’t this bias a jury unnecessarily? He told me that there was no way to fix it. Some translations you just can’t do, but they require something. It becomes a divergent problem, much like some infinite series, Σ1/n for example. But you probably know that, being a mathematician and multi-lingual yourself.

 

[JerryZ]

The misunderstanding part I can believe but I heard that a woman learned in Latin outside the Vatican discovered the news and disseminated it to the public. In fact, I heard this from one of my non-Catholic buddies who emailed me with the information, and he provided me with the Latin to substantiate the claim. How often is this done when we report Vatican news? Instead we just report the translation as fact, as if there isn’t enough bias from the press already.

What’s “navel gazing” in Italian? Who translated that?

I ask that because I have a step-brother who’s a court linguist. I asked him once how he translates certain foreign “cuss” words to the judge/lawyers/courtroom. He told me he just translates everything as GDI, though they may not be any actual reference to God or damnation. I asked him wouldn’t this bias a jury unnecessarily? He told me that there was no way to fix it. Some translations you just can’t do, but they require something. It becomes a divergent problem, much like some infinite series, Σ1/n for example. But you probably know that, being a mathematician and multi-lingual yourself.

Well of course if you look for “Navel Gazing” in any of Pope Francis or Cardinal Bergoglio speeches, you will not find them

Sort of like looking for the word “Purgatory” in the Bible.

However, he did say as much in a speech, right before he was elected Pope and many credit this speech as to why he got elected.

In it he says that the Church needs to stop being self referent and to go out of Herself to the periphery and find the poor, the marginalized etc.

“Navel Gazing” is closing in himself by someone and failing to see the outside reality.

Here is the original speech by then Cardinal Bergoglio:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350484 (Italian)

And this is how the media represented it (In english)

nydailynews.com/news/national/pope-francis-urged-church-outward-conclave-article-1.1316628

Not bad I would say all in all.

Peace

 

[ProVobis]

Not bad I would say all in all.

Well, if you think that was an adequate translation do you think this is as well?

VETERVM SAPIENTIA

1. Neque solum universalis, sed etiam immutabilis lingua ab Ecclesia adhibita sit oportet. Si enim catholicae Ecclesiae veritates traderentur vel nonnullis vel multis ex mutabilibus linguis recentioribus, quarum nulla ceteris auctoritate praestaret, sane ex eo consequeretur, ut hinc earum vis neque satis significanter neque satis dilucide, qua varietate eae sunt, omnibus pateret; ut illinc nulla communis stabilisque norma haberetur, ad quam ceterarum sensus esset expendendus. Re quidem ipsa, lingua Latina, iamdiu adversus varietates tuta, quas cotidiana populi consuetudo in vocabulorum notionem inducere solet, fixa quidem censenda est et immobilis; cum novae quorundam verborum Latinorum significationes, quas christianarum doctrinarum progressio, explanatio, defensio postulaverunt, iamdudum firmae eae sint rataeque.

1. Cum denique catholica Ecclesia, utpote a Christo Domino condita, inter omnes humanas societates longe dignitate praestet, profecto decet eam lingua uti non vulgari, sed nobilitatis et maiestatis plena.

1. Praetereaque lingua Latina, quam dicere catholicam vere possumus (10), utpote quae sit Apostolicae Sedis, omnium Ecclesiarum matris et magistrae, perpetuo usu consecrata, putanda est et thesaurus … incomparandae praestantiae (11), et quaedam quasi ianua, qua aditus omnibus patet ad ipsas christianas veritates antiquitus acceptas et ecclesiasticae doctrinae monumenta interpretanda (12); et vinculum denique peridoneum, quo praesens Ecclesiae aetas cum superioribus cumque futuris mirifice continetur.

---

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[JerryZ]

Well, if you think that was an adequate translation do you think this is as well?

Hey look I think that you are preaching to the quoir here. My ancestry is Italian and I love latin. Heck I pray in latin.
I totally defend the fact that the Church uses latin as her language to conduct internal affairs. And the reasons are compelling and logical.
That being said however She needs to communicate with the laity in every corner of the earth and we cannot expect that they learn latin in order to go to mass.
We have a massive problem of poor cathechesis in EVERY country and before we can even dream of returning to the mass in latin everywhere we better solve this issue first.

Peace

 

[ProVobis]

We have a massive problem of poor cathechesis in EVERY country and before we can even dream of returning to the mass in latin everywhere we better solve this issue first.

Well, we had the Baltimore Catechism for a while there, with the Latin Mass and Catholicism flourishing in the U.S. and the U.K., until the educators told us it was all wrong. So what exactly is GOOD catechism?

 

[pnewton]

Well, we had the Baltimore Catechism for a while there, with the Latin Mass and Catholicism flourishing in the U.S. and the U.K., until the educators told us it was all wrong. So what exactly is GOOD catechism?

This has been kicked around a lot. I think if anyone will go back they will find that Catholicism was not “flourishing” but there was already a decline in Catholic indicators before the vernacular was changed, at least in those things that were measured then.

 

[ProVobis]

This has been kicked around a lot. I think if anyone will go back they will find that Catholicism was not “flourishing” but there was already a decline in Catholic indicators before the vernacular was changed, at least in those things that were measured then.

The Cara stats show the decline to have started in 1965. (I’d say give or take a couple of years.) But if you go back to the mid 19th century, you’d find that Catholicism hardly existed in both the U.S. and the U.K. In fact, the Church in London where I received my First Communion has this in its history page.

stmarys-clapham.org.uk/history.html

…
Catholicism was still considered a foreign import. It was only in the previous year [1848]that the Catholic Hierarchy of England and Wales had been established and approved by the Pope. …
Church attendance began to grow, and this pattern continued until the 1960s. …

Just thought I’d provide that little bit of history for the forum.

 

[pnewton]

The Cara stats show the decline to have started in 1965. (I’d say give or take a couple of years.)

LOL 1965 is when CARA started tracking Catholic indicators. Here is a Gallop Poll that goes back another decade and shows the decline.
gallup.com/poll/117382/church-going-among-catholics-slides-tie-protestants.aspx

But with all that was going on in society, I do not see how the use of one language or another as a causative factor could even be considered.

 

[ProVobis]

But with all that was going on in society, I do not see how the use of one language or another as a causative factor could even be considered.

Well, if you don’t think language is important, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=VBj2vqL1lbQ

I can only tell you my Polish parents weren’t very happy to hear all-English in the Mass. It seemed so arrogant and secular. Now of course they have the Polish Masses for the Poles, Spanish Masses, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is a Gallop Poll that goes back another decade and shows the decline.

They show current attendance at 45%? Where are they tracking, New Orleans? LOL

FWIW, at my local English Masses, I notice about 95% are 55-or-older. The Spanish ones have a much younger crowd. IMO attendance would increase if they had more Spanish priests.

By the way, Gallup was off quite a bit on the last election so…

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps a fairer evaluator of the Catholic population and church attendance:

blog.adw.org/2010/12/is-the-bottom-really-falling-out-of-catholic-mass-attendance-a-recent-cara-survey-ponders-the-question/

1.2 million in 1850 (from graph)
…
In the early 1950s there were about 35 million Catholics in the US. Today there are are over 75 million…
…almost 9 million fewer Catholics are in Church now as compared to the 1950s.

 

[pnewton]

Well, if you don’t think language is important, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=VBj2vqL1lbQ

I can only tell you my Polish parents weren’t very happy to hear all-English in the Mass. It seemed so arrogant and secular. Now of course they have the Polish Masses for the Poles, Spanish Masses, etc.

Arrogant? I do not see why that would be the case. I understand it seeming secular. I would be the first to admit that Latin feels more churchy.

One more thing. A lot of these polls track the United States. I know we tend to think of us as the benchmark of the Catholic Church, but comparison across the world filters out factors that vary from one society to another, and from one culture to another.

 

[ProVobis]

Arrogant? I do not see why that would be the case. I understand it seeming secular. I would be the first to admit that Latin feels more churchy.

One more thing. A lot of these polls track the United States. I know we tend to think of us as the benchmark of the Catholic Church, but comparison across the world filters out factors that vary from one society to another, and from one culture to another.

That is true. We also think of the English Mass as the standard, yet the number of Spanish Masses and bishops far surpass the number of English Masses and bishops. It appears, however, that the ICEL did take on the leadership role in translations. Maybe in too much, too soon type of way, though. It seems almost rebellious that 10 years after Veterum Sapientia and SC all Latin would be removed from the liturgy after 1700+ years. Even the work the Vatican put into Jubilate Deo, and allowing free distribution of its Latin chants, etc. and Canon Law #249, couldn’t restore even one Latin phrase into the Mass.

We don’t have actual church numbers aside from some dioceses (as opposed to poll taking), but it does appear Mass attendance is growing in Asia and parts of Africa, from what I’ve heard. But then evangelization is different than/from a lifetime of weekly commitment to the Mass.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

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?

 

[awsiukiewicz]

I read that in the 12th Century Pope Innocent III said that " If a future Pope was to change all Rites of Sacraments he would put himself outside the Church" and…In 1441 Florence, Pope Eugene IV held the same…and finally at the 7th session of the Council of Trent, on the Sacraments in general, this was made dogmatic…in the Canon XIII …"If anyone was to say that the traditionally handed down Rites used in the solemn administration of Sacraments can be held in disdain or be shortened or be changed into new ones by whomsoever (ques cum que) he would place himself outside the Church…pretty clear to me…How can a subsequent Pope change Dogma…if it’s possible, then wouldn’t it be just as possible that a future Pope would question, alter, change the Dogma of the Assumption…seems unlikely…but, honestly…where do we draw the line…I’ve posted this comment/question,although admittedly probably not that eloquantly,but haven’t had anyone from this site…or CA…offer an explanation…my comments are sincere…latin is a precise language…one can argue endlessly pro/con the Latin liturgy…I’m sure the words of consecration would be just as valid in swahelie (if spelled correctly)…for me it’s just everything…the music, Priest facing the people, (O.K. let me hear from you about the early church here,), I’ve been to Catholic Churches where It took me 10 minutes to find the Tabernacle…it’s a lot more than the language…but it’s important…everone seems anxious to bash the Trads as being radical…I disagree…PAX

 

[JerryZ]

I read that in the 12th Century Pope Innocent III said that " If a future Pope was to change all Rites of Sacraments he would put himself outside the Church" and…In 1441 Florence, Pope Eugene IV held the same…and finally at the 7th session of the Council of Trent, on the Sacraments in general, this was made dogmatic…in the Canon XIII …"If anyone was to say that the traditionally handed down Rites used in the solemn administration of Sacraments can be held in disdain or be shortened or be changed into new ones by whomsoever (ques cum que) he would place himself outside the Church…pretty clear to me…How can a subsequent Pope change Dogma…if it’s possible, then wouldn’t it be just as possible that a future Pope would question, alter, change the Dogma of the Assumption…seems unlikely…but, honestly…where do we draw the line…I’ve posted this comment/question,although admittedly probably not that eloquantly,but haven’t had anyone from this site…or CA…offer an explanation…my comments are sincere…latin is a precise language…one can argue endlessly pro/con the Latin liturgy…I’m sure the words of consecration would be just as valid in swahelie (if spelled correctly)…for me it’s just everything…the music, Priest facing the people, (O.K. let me hear from you about the early church here,), I’ve been to Catholic Churches where It took me 10 minutes to find the Tabernacle…it’s a lot more than the language…but it’s important…everone seems anxious to bash the Trads as being radical…I disagree…PAX

NO Pope will ever chance the Sacraments, however the languange they are given with has zero impact in their efficacy.
We have absolute assurance of this.
If this was NOT the case the words of institution would need to be said in Aramaic. OK
Our Lord did not come to revert Babel and impose a 1 world language, He came to bring us to God, when we join him there will be no need for language at all.

Also to further show as WHY the Church has slowly allowed the usage of “vernaculars” (more than one as there are many languanges people speak)

Consider this, all the approved apparitions have something in common.

Our Lady of Guadalupe spoke to San Diego in Nahuatl (Native language of Mexico)

Our Lady of Fatime spoke to the children in Portuguese

Our Lady of Lourdes spoke to Bernadette in French

Also when we read about the day of Pentecostes in the upper room the “gift of tongues” is displayed as the Apostles preaching seemingly in their native language and there were people from foreign lands and each heard the message in their own language. (Not that they were babbling jibberish)
Someone there needed to hear the message from Jesus (the Gospel) and heard it in his/her own language.
By the way there is another example of this gift in St Anthony of Padua when he visited the Pope and the cardinals reunited in consistory

So Babel was not reversed (It would require all people to understand Aramaic)
Nope the Holy Spirit allows the message to be delivered in the recipient’s own language.

No Pope EVER stated that “latin” was to be imposed on all the faithfull. The Eastern Church which IS a part albeit separated of the Chatolicos uses greek and so our brothers from the Eastern churches that are in communion with the Pope use their own languages.

The real issue rests with the latin Rite Church of Rome, She has been just too succesful in evangelization and as a result She is present in every continent which has “forced” her to adopt other “vernaculars” in order to carry our Her mission.

Latin IS the official language of the Catholic Church Latin Rite and that of Official Church Documents. There is NO dispute there whatsoever for the very good reasons you enumerated.
But that does NOT forbid Her in choosing the best method to reach the faithfull.

Peace

 

[sw85]

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?

What you see here is a perfect example of “prudential judgment.” Note the words “it has . . . not been deemed advisable.” Does that sound like a doctrinal teaching to you? Of course not. What is “advisable” is something that can change. What was advisable in 1570 is not necessarily advisable in 2013 (although I’d argue the gap is narrower than most people imagine).

Prudential judgment is not part of the deposit of faith because it does not involve constant, fixed, unchangeable truth. You can, therefore, disagree with such judgments on prudential grounds provided you render due charity, obedience, etc. A Catholic could believe Mass should be in the vernacular in the 1570, and a Catholic can believe Mass should be in Latin in 2013.

 

[JReducation]

This is a very good example where zeal can carry us away.

“The Council of Trent said that all masses on Friday must be celebrated with white vestments in honor of the Trinity.”

I just made that up.

So the Church starts doing this. Along comes Pope Francis in 2013 and says, you can celebrate the feast of a saint on Fridays, you do not have to celebrate the mass of the Holy Trinity.

Someone else jumps up and down and says, “But the Council of Trent said and the Council of Trent was an infallible council.”

But, if Pope Francis were in the room, he could say, “The Council of Trent was not an infallible council. It made some infallible pronouncements on matters of faith. But those pronouncements were on beliefs held by the Church from the beginning. The Friday Mass in honor of the Holy Trinity is not a matter of faith. It’s a practice. I’m not bound by any practice, regardless of what council or what pope said so in the past. I am the pope today. I am the Bishop of Rome today. I make law for today.”

The rational person may not like this, but understands that this is correct and assents to it. The Pope is the current Bishop of Rome and whatever he approves, regardless of who said the opposite in the past, is law today. Whatever his reasons are, he has a right to have them. He also has a right to share them or not to share them. Pope are immune to the wishes of their constituency.

An over zealous person will continue to argue that the Council of Trent said. No one denies what Trent said, not eve the pope. But the pope of today is choosing a path different from that of Trent. He has a right to do that. The over zealous person will continue to ask ,“What is wrong with what Trent said?”

The pope can answer, “Nothing.”

The over zealous person says, “Then why can’t we keep it?”

The pope says, “Because I’m of the opinion that we need this today and not that.”

The over zealous person goes home with high blood pressure and an ulcer. He stops going to Friday mass, because it’s not the votive mass of the Holy Trinity. He deprives himself of the holy mass.