Is Latin the Normative Language? Does English Require an Indult?

[Andreas_Hofer]

Not true. The Pope requires many of the vernaculars changed. The bishops have temporarily allowed the older forms of translations.

He has not*, *however, rescinded his approbation for the books in use. If he wanted the real translation to proceed more quickly, though, doing just that would be an excellent strategy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He has not*, *however, rescinded his approbation for the books in use. If he wanted the real translation to proceed more quickly, though, doing just that would be an excellent strategy.

Thanks for the clarification, Andreas. And no, I wasn’t posting in answer to you.

 

[BobP123]

He has not*, *however, rescinded his approbation for the books in use. If he wanted the real translation to proceed more quickly, though, doing just that would be an excellent strategy.

Good point. Perhaps you can suggest this? I agree, they are dragging things a little bit and it sounds if you have no real objections to the new translations.

However, let me change directions here a little bit. As I mentioned before, there are many vernaculars of the Mass. And they do require the approval of the bishops. If a pastor wanted to change the 7:30 Spanish Mass to a Vietnamese Mass, he would require the approval of his bishop. Starting Sep 14, if a priest were to add a 2pm TLM, he would require no such approval, if I understand the MP. If he wanted to add a Spanish Mass, then I don’t know. He’ll probably still need to get the bishop’s approval, I would think

 

[Brendan]

. So the all vernacular mass is perfectly legitimate and approved by the competent authority (the Pope’s).

I agree, there is no doubt they have been legitiamately approved by the competent authoritues for use in the US. But the fact that they require such approval in the first place defines them as an Indult (which is the question being asked in this thread.

 

[Cat]

I hope that someone will answer my question.

Our official Catholic newspaper published an article from the Catholic News Service that stated the following:

"The pope said Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite, should be made available in every parish where groups of the faither desire it.

“He said that while the new Roman Missal, introduced in 1970, remains the ordinary way of Catholic worship, the 1962 missal should be consider ‘the extraordinary expression of the law of prayer’.”

"The pope said that the new Mass rite would certainly remain the church’s predominant form of worship. Use of the old missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language, and “neither of these is found very often,” he said.

“The Tridentine Mass has been allowed as a liturgical exception since 1984, but Catholics had to request permission from local bishops, who did not always consent.”

---

The boldface is mine. This article seems to say that the New Roman Missal is the norm and the Tridentine was the exception requiring permission.

This is what I was taught when I went through RCIA.

But the impression that I have received on this thread and others is that the TLM was the norm and it was the New Roman Missal that required permission.

So which is it? That’s my question.

Or does it just have to do with “language,” not the Missal used?

Here is the full article, if you are interested:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703892.htm

Thank you.

 

[mtr01]

The boldface is mine. This article seems to say that the New Roman Missal is the norm and the Tridentine was the exception requiring permission.

This is what I was taught when I went through RCIA.

But the impression that I have received on this thread and others is that the TLM was the norm and it was the New Roman Missal that required permission.

So which is it? That’s my question.

The former. You were correct in your understanding. Prior to the Motu Proprio, the 1970 (Novus Ordo/Pauline) Missal was normative, while celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 (TLM/Tridentine) Missal required permission from the Bishop. Now, of course, no permission is required for a priest to celbrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal (the 1970 Missal is now considered the “ordinary” form of the Latin Rite, while the 1962 Missal is the “extraordinary” form"

Cat:

Or does it just have to do with “language,” not the Missal used?

Yes, that is what this thread is concerned with…Latin is the normative language for the 1970 Missal. The use of English as we hae it today required permission from both the USCCB and the Holy See.

 

[Cat]

mtr01, thanks. One more question: I get the impression that it’s not too difficult to get an induit to pray Mass in the vernacular. It doesn’t seem that anyone gets turned down if they want to conduct Mass in the language of the people; in other words, even though Latin is the “formal” norm, the “practical” norm is the language of the people. It sounds like, from the article that I posted, that the Pope recognizes the value of Mass in the vernacular and doesn’t plan on making Latin the ordinary language.

True?

 

[mtr01]

mtr01, thanks. One more question: I get the impression that it’s not too difficult to get an induit to pray Mass in the vernacular. It doesn’t seem that anyone gets turned down if they want to conduct Mass in the language of the people; in other words, even though Latin is the “formal” norm, the “practical” norm is the language of the people. It sounds like, from the article that I posted, that the Pope recognizes the value of Mass in the vernacular and doesn’t plan on making Latin the ordinary language.

True?

As far as I know, the decision to use the vernacular primarily rests with the local ordinary or Bishops Conference (I have never heard of a case where the Vatican overruled a Bishops Conference). In the US the USCCB has essentially granted a universal indult to use the vernacular (however a priest needs no permission to celebrate the 1970 Missal in Latin). As far as the Holy Father’s intentions regarding the vernacular in the 1970 Missal, I can only speculate, but I doubt he will revoke such indults. If there is a movement away from the vernacular, I suspect it would be the result of organic development, rather than another motu proprio. I hope this helps.