Language used in Mass

[wewin08]

Does anyone know if Pope Pius V ever said that the Mass couldn’t be literally translated into another language?

I never knew about the 1965 Missal until recently and I’m interested in it and why Pope Paul VI kept changing it until it eventually changed the complete format of the Mass which is the 1970 Missal. Thanks.

 

[japhy]

Does anyone know if Pope Pius V ever said that the Mass couldn’t be literally translated into another language?

I don’t know of Pope Pius V saying that, but then again, I don’t have a volume of his “Greatest Hits” in my library.

The Council of Trent (which preceded Pius V) deemed it “not … advisable … that [Mass] should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” (Session XXII, Chapter VIII) Also, that it is an error to believe that “the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only.” (Session XXII, canon 9). So it is an error (not just 500 years ago, but today too) to profess or teach that Mass in Latin is wrong, and it was inadvisable (500 years ago, though not necessarily 50 years ago – but that’s a whole other argument!) to allow the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular.

 

[Cluny]

The Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic for centuries before Vatican 2 in certain Dioceses in Croatia.

Look up “Glagolithic Mass” or “Glagolithic Rite.”

 

[wewin08]

I don’t know of Pope Pius V saying that, but then again, I don’t have a volume of his “Greatest Hits” in my library.

The Council of Trent (which preceded Pius V) deemed it “not … advisable … that [Mass] should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” (Session XXII, Chapter VIII) Also, that it is an error to believe that “the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only.” (Session XXII, canon 9). So it is an error (not just 500 years ago, but today too) to profess or teach that Mass in Latin is wrong, and it was inadvisable (500 years ago, though not necessarily 50 years ago – but that’s a whole other argument!) to allow the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular.

Alright, so then what exactly was the problem with the 1965 missal if it followed the guidelines of Vatican II? That kind of tells me that technically that the New Mass, which is now called the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, isn’t the Mass of Vatican II. Could you clear that up? Thanks.

 

[japhy]

Alright, so then what exactly was the problem with the 1965 missal if it followed the guidelines of Vatican II? That kind of tells me that technically that the New Mass, which is now called the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, isn’t the Mass of Vatican II. Could you clear that up?

I don’t know why we went from the 1965 Missal to the 1969 Missal. I don’t know how the Consilium determined that all the innovations and options in the 1969 Missal were “genuinely and certainly require[d]” for “the good of the Church.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23) Nor has it really been shown that all the new forms “in some way gr[e]w organically from forms already existing.” (Ibid.) Some examples:

• Why three forms of the Penitential Act?
• Why did the Asperges get moved from before Mass to during Mass as a replacement for the Penitential Act?
• Why did the Offertory prayers need to be changed so radically?
• Why did we need three more Eucharistic Prayers? (That number is even higher now.)

There’s not enough space in the margin to clear it up here.

 

[kalel76]

The Council of Trent (which preceded Pius V) deemed it “not … advisable … that [Mass] should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” (Session XXII, Chapter VIII).

Assuming that everywhere meant “every geographic location” rather than “every part of the Mass”, if a future pontiff decreed that the vernacular should be used everywhere except Rome, it would still follow the letter of the Council of Trent.

 

[wewin08]

I don’t know why we went from the 1965 Missal to the 1969 Missal. I don’t know how the Consilium determined that all the innovations and options in the 1969 Missal were “genuinely and certainly require[d]” for “the good of the Church.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23) Nor has it really been shown that all the new forms “in some way gr[e]w organically from forms already existing.” (Ibid.) Some examples:

• Why three forms of the Penitential Act?
• Why did the Asperges get moved from before Mass to during Mass as a replacement for the Penitential Act?
• Why did the Offertory prayers need to be changed so radically?
• Why did we need three more Eucharistic Prayers? (That number is even higher now.)

There’s not enough space in the margin to clear it up here.

Alrighty then. Thanks for the info. I think that the 1965 missal would have been perfect. Not only could the priest say the Mass the “old way” (in Latin, with slight modification), but the people would have the option of hearing some parts of the Mass in the vernacular, but in the same form as the Tridentine Mass. I my opinion, I do think just having the Mass in Latin causes a “rift.” I love the Tridentine Mass, but I could definitely do without the Latin in some parts. Latin should definitely be used in the main parts of the Mass though.

 

[FrancisB]

The Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic for centuries before Vatican 2 in certain Dioceses in Croatia.

Look up “Glagolithic Mass” or “Glagolithic Rite.”

Slavonic wasn’t the vernacular. It was the Holy Language of the Slavic people, used in the rites of most of the Slavic churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. It may not be Latin, but it’s not exactly the same as the vernacular.

That said, there were indults granted for the use of the vernacular in the mass well before Vatican II. This was the case for missionary areas, but the definition of missionary area might be surprising, especially since the US was, for a time in the 19th century, granted an indult to say the mass in English.

 

[Cluny]

Slavonic wasn’t the vernacular. It was the Holy Language of the Slavic people, used in the rites of most of the Slavic churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. It may not be Latin, but it’s not exactly the same as the vernacular.

As as matter of fact, Slavonic is based on the vernacular Slavic language spoken in Thessaloniki on the street. Ss Cyril and Methodius grew up with it as a vernacular before they translated the Byzantine services into it.

That said, there were indults granted for the use of the vernacular in the mass well before Vatican II. This was the case for missionary areas, but the definition of missionary area might be surprising, especially since the US was, for a time in the 19th century, granted an indult to say the mass in English.

Most interesting! I know that the USA was considered mission territory until 1905. Could you tell me more about the permission to use English as the language for mass before then?

Up to now I’ve been under the impression that the first parish of Roman obedience to use English as a normal liturgical langauge was St. George’s Melkite Church in Birmingham, AL. It took letters from both the Patriarch and Eastern Congregation to get Abp. Toolen, the Latin ordinary (under whom St. George’s was back then) to get him to stop interfering with this.

 

[FrancisB]

As as matter of fact, Slavonic is based on the vernacular Slavic language spoken in Thessaloniki on the street. Ss Cyril and Methodius grew up with it as a vernacular before they translated the Byzantine services into it.

And Latin was the vernacular in Rome when the mass was first celebrated. The fact remains that at least by the 16th Century this was no longer true. I never said that Slavonic was never the vernacular language; just that it was not the vernacular in the period following Trent.

Most interesting! I know that the USA was considered mission territory until 1905. Could you tell me more about the permission to use English as the language for mass before then? Up to now I’ve been under the impression that the first parish of Roman obedience to use English as a normal liturgical langauge was St. George’s Melkite Church in Birmingham, AL. It took letters from both the Patriarch and Eastern Congregation to get Abp. Toolen, the Latin ordinary (under whom St. George’s was back then) to get him to stop interfering with this.

I saw the English use stuff in a book or pamphlet or some other similarly tourist thing down in Baltimore at the first Cathedral in the U.S., so I don’t have documents at my fingertips to quote, but I’ll see if I can find the actual documents somewhere online. I also sang some Catholic mass music from 19th Century America that was written in English (not translated into it later), but this is more anecdotal, since it doesn’t prove so much that it was allowed, just that it happened.