Council of Trent forbids Vernacular?

[pnewton]

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…AX

You read that? Out of curiousity, was it on a Catholic website? I am using the word Catholic as in the Catholic Church, and speaking with the authority of the Church, not those in dissent. I can find dissent with the name Catholic saying just about anything and everything.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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.

I don’t know Latin and I still attend the TLM. My missal has a Latin/(insert local language here) translation which is how I can follow along and know what is being said.

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.

Maybe the key to solving this issue is by returning Latin back to the mass, forcing Catholics to get up off their duffs and put some time and effort into learning something instead of having it spoon fed to them.

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.

No problem with this since it’s saying there is a choice to celebrate mass either in valid way A or valid way B.

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.

This is a good example but not the full story. The example would better be outlined as the Council said Fridays must be celebrated as the votive Mass of the Holy Trinity.

Yet Pope Francis says now there is a choice to either to do Friday mass to the Trinity or to a Saint.

Yet Bishops and others in the Church took Francis decree to mean, “out with the Trinity mass on Friday and in with the new whichever saint we want to celebrate mass”

Years go by with Bishops saying the Trinity mass was abolished and cannot be used. Others speak up and say no Francis didn’t abolish anything but said we could do either one, it’s up to us since both are valid and sacred.

This debate goes back and forth long after Francis is called back to the Heavenly Kingdom.

Later Pope (so and so) finally makes a statement that both options are valid and are to be held as sacred. He also tells us that they’re supposed to be offered to the faithful and made avail. He says this has always been the case.

But there is a problem. So much time has passed there are now generations of faithful Catholics that never experienced the Trinity mass because they didn’t know it existed or they have grown up with others telling them that it is an old and abolished mass that should not be celebrated.

Frustration breaks out between those who want to suppress the valid Trinity mass either through ignorance or hatred (reasons ranging from; the mass is a outdated and not progressive, to the mass is not ecumenical…etc.) and those who want the decree made by Pope so and so to be carried out and to have the Trinity mass provided and made available.

Yet the sad thing is there aren’t just overzealous members on the Trinity camp, but also on the other side. Sometimes their over-zealousness has more sway in the Church than the Trinity camp because they are the majority in the Church so they threaten to up-rise or even leave, if the Trinity mass becomes widely avail again; even though it was never suppressed or suppose to be suppressed in the first place.

---

I have seen Catholics leave Church and threaten to leave because the EF was being celebrated or was going to be celebrated.

 

[MorEphrem]

You read that? Out of curiousity, was it on a Catholic website? I am using the word Catholic as in the Catholic Church, and speaking with the authority of the Church, not those in dissent. I can find dissent with the name Catholic saying just about anything and everything.

Well I can’t cite anything but I distinctly reading something similar stating that bishops are to be the keepers of tradition, not change it for the sake of novelty.

 

[ProVobis]

No Pope EVER stated that “latin” was to be imposed on all the faithfull.

Where did Trent say we must use Latin? That was Vatican II and it was to the Latin Rite. (Now why would they call it the Latin Rite?)

But that does NOT forbid Her in choosing the best method to reach the faithfull.

Vernacular is not the only way to help people learn. And I’m not too sure that’s been as successful as you claim. The Mass should provide plenty of visuals and even silence to do help people learn. Of course, much of the Mass has to be explained anyway so that certainly can be done in the vernacular. But who has time these days to be bothered with that?

What’s that old saying about a picture being worth a thousand words? That’s how kids learn, isn’t it? And 3-yr old kids can be taught the Pater Noster and a few of the meanings. Yet adults can’t learn a simple “Dominus vobiscum” without setting off a major tantrum? And here we’re supposed to be an international community transcending borders?

In mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, there are a lot of symbols, Greek letters, and Latin names written so that people of all countries can sit even in the same classroom and understand the same concepts. I’ve had German and Spanish professors instructing me in advanced physics. Of course they’ll be those that say they can’t understand +, =, - but can understand only the words add, equal, subtract. Too bad for them. They don’t get the job.

 

[Memaw]

You read that? Out of curiousity, was it on a Catholic website? I am using the word Catholic as in the Catholic Church, and speaking with the authority of the Church, not those in dissent. I can find dissent with the name Catholic saying just about anything and everything.

Agreed, God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Prudence, discipline, judgement, practice, blah. I’ll bet that crucifix with the “INRI” inscribed at the top had more to do with the spread of Christianity than anything else they have floating around today.

 

[JReducation]

Where did Trent say we must use Latin? That was Vatican II and it was to the Latin Rite. (Now why would they call it the Latin Rite?)

Wait folks. Let’s not use terms interchangeably, because it only confuses all of us.

1. There is no such thing as the Latin Rite. There is the Latin Church.
2. It is called the Latin Church, because it is the Church of Rome and the Roman culture and everything that comes from it is referred to as Latin. It has nothing to do with the language per se. For example, we refer to the southern half of the American hemisphere as Latin America. It does not speak Latin. It is called thus, because it was colonized by Portuguese and Spaniards. Both of these were once part of the Roman Empire. They are considered to be Latin people as are French, Romanians and Italians.
3. In the Latin Church there are a number of rites. the best known is the Roman Rite.
4. The official language of the Roman Rite is Latin. However, the Church does not use the term “official” to mean mandatory. Here is where the great confusion in many people takes place. Official in “Church Speak” means just that. Everything written related to the liturgy has to be written in Latin. This does not mean that it cannot be translated and used in another language.
5. Latin is not simply the official language of the Roman Rite. It is the official language of the Latin Church with one exception, Vatican City. The official language of Vatican City is Italian. The pope and the staff do not go around speaking and writing in Latin. They use Latin to write only those things that will be saved for posterity. The same is true for the liturgy. The missal and the rubrics must be first published in Latin in order to save for posterity. There is no law that requires the use of Latin in the actual celebration. The documentation that has come to us from different sources since Vatican II is very clear that Latin is preferable and has a special place in liturgy. Preferable does not equal compulsory. Here is where people are going to run into trouble with current Magisterium, when people try to make Latin compulsory for the Latin Church while the Magisterium is moving in a different direction.

Here again, we go back to what Pope Francis has been harking about since he was elected, but which we have failed to discuss much on these threads. He has been saying that we are spending too much time and energy looking at ourselves. This applies to people along the entire spectrum not just Traditionalists.

This question about Trent has been asked many many times. We already know the answer. Trent has no authority over the current Magisterium. Only that which is divinely revealed binds a pope.

Constantly bringing up the same question is like the person who is hoping to hear someone give him the answer he wants. It’s not going to happen, because that answer does not exist. Trent banned the vernacular, but Trent did not have the authority to ban it for all time, unless future popes wanted to uphold such a ban. They have chosen not to do so. We have to move on and address the issues that the Holy See is asking us to address.

 

[Usagi]

Where in Trent do you find this?

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

It is impossible that the form of the Mass is doctrine, because the form of the Mass has changed over time. Not just in the 1960s, but many times between the Last Supper and the current Extraordinary Form as well.

Doctrine is true for all time and irreformable. Even if it is not recognized as such until late in history (like the dogma of the Assumption), it was still always true ever since it originally happened.

Likewise, doctrine is binding on all Catholics everywhere. There are Catholics who have never used Latin in the liturgy. (Isn’t it Fr. Mitch Pacwa who jokes, referring to the Maronite congregation he once served, that they found Latin too new-fangled and preferred to stick with Aramaic?)

The use of Latin in liturgy, though widespread, is nonetheless limited in both time and space. It is impossible for Trent in the 1500s to retroactively dogmatize a practice that is in no way universal.

Whether the wide abandonment of Latin (in those regions that formerly used it) in recent decades was wise is, of course, an entirely different question and one that we may usefully discuss.

Usagi

 

[ProVobis]

:banghead:

If you know better than Trent, Veterum Sapientia, SC, Canon 249, and/or are above the laws of entropy and linguistical corruption, then I don’t want that debate.

 

[ProVobis]

:banghead:

If you know better than Trent, Veterum Sapientia, SC, Canon 249, and/or are above the laws of entropy and linguistical corruption, then I don’t want that debate.

 

[JReducation]

It is impossible that the form of the Mass is doctrine, because the form of the Mass has changed over time. Not just in the 1960s, but many times between the Last Supper and the current Extraordinary Form as well.

Doctrine is true for all time and irreformable. Even if it is not recognized as such until late in history (like the dogma of the Assumption), it was still always true ever since it originally happened.

Likewise, doctrine is binding on all Catholics everywhere. There are Catholics who have never used Latin in the liturgy. (Isn’t it Fr. Mitch Pacwa who jokes, referring to the Maronite congregation he once served, that they found Latin too new-fangled and preferred to stick with Aramaic?)

The use of Latin in liturgy, though widespread, is nonetheless limited in both time and space. It is impossible for Trent in the 1500s to retroactively dogmatize a practice that is in no way universal.

Whether the wide abandonment of Latin (in those regions that formerly used it) in recent decades was wise is, of course, an entirely different question and one that we may usefully discuss.

Usagi

The problem is the word “doctrine”. The term can be used to mean dogma, which is revealed. It can also be applied to any other teaching that is not revealed. Doctrine is an umbrella term that covers what the Church teaches.

What the Church teaches about the form of the mass is not dogma. The rubrics and other details concern the celebration of the mass is not part of the deposit of faith. The rubrics must respect that the mass is part of that deposit.

Therefore, you can change the rubrics as long as those changes don’t change the mass: proclamation of the Word, offering of the sacrifice and communion. All the rites, Eastern and Western have these three elements. They’re unchangeable. They’re part of the mass as it was handed down to u. How this is executed is changeable and has changed and still varies even within the Latin Church. Not everyone in the Latin Church uses the Roman Rite. There are pockets that use other rites.

 

[pnewton]

Well I can’t cite anything but I distinctly reading something similar stating that bishops are to be the keepers of tradition, not change it for the sake of novelty.

That was not the questionable part. I do not think anyone has suggested or will ever suggest that something should be changed for the sake of novelty. That’s silly.