Not from Vatican II. The documents that were written by the Consilium (to implement the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) eventually authorized the use of the vernacular in some parts, then more parts, then more parts, and then eventually the whole Mass.In my understanding, the Mass is in Latin, but after the Second Vatican, vernacular is allowed in the Mass. Is there a Church document that support that the **entire Mass **is done in English?
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said that National Conferences were to decree how much vernacular was to be used in the Mass and said decrees had to be approved by the Vatican. I don’t know about other Conferences but in Canada there has never been such a beast. (I have a book containing all the decrees and that’s not one of them)Not from Vatican II. The documents that were written by the Consilium (to implement the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) eventually authorized the use of the vernacular in some parts, then more parts, then more parts, and then eventually the whole Mass.
Some dioceses (including some in the U.S.) had local guidelines, during the late 1960’s between the Council and the promulgation of the 1969 Pauline Missal, which prohibited the use of Latin in those parts which involved the congregation (dialogue).
The exact opposite of what was in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
It is reported that the USCCB tried to get approval for a straight-up ban on Latin in the liturgy, but the Vatican did not approve it… but I haven’t seen any evidence of such a request.
A bit of terminology to avoid confusion is in order:So the Concilium eventually authorized the use of vernacular for the entire Mass. Could you tell me exactly where it says that?
Yes, the Vatican II document says that Latin should be retained (and employed by the faithful) but also that the vernacular should be permitted in certain places that would be the most beneficial to the people.It also says that steps should be taken to so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass whcih pertain to them? (Concilium; 54)
The Constitution is not contradictory, but I think it is clear that the Consilium which was charged with carrying out the Constitution failed in its task in some matters. Furthermore, Vatican II (and the Constitution on the liturgy) did not occur in a vacuum, and the importance of Latin in the liturgy was testified to only a year or so prior to SC being promulgated, in Bl. Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia; see also Pope Pius XII’s lengthy encyclical on the liturgy Mediator Dei.It seems that there is a contradiction within the document then, or am I very confused? … I simply want to understand the teaching of Holy Church and her document, so I can obey her in the right way.
Yeah… about that…Also it seems there are many among the faithful who are not informed well and very confused about the matter.
FIFTH INSTRUCTION
“FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL”
(Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36)
Liturgiam authenticam
ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES
IN THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
Jim
The Council of TrentIn my understanding, the Mass is in Latin, but after the Second Vatican, vernacular is allowed in the Mass. Is there a Church document that support that the **entire Mass **is done in English?
Thanks,mia2
Excuse me, but why do you suppose the Vatican publishedThank you for all the great info. But I still don’t find the support or encouragement of use of vernacular for the entire Mass. Then why most of local churches do it that way? I’m sure the bishops and priests know these documents a lot more than average people. I don’t hear a single Latin word in our Sunday Masses every week, and many people believe it supposed to be that way.
mia2
I can show you the documents published after Vatican II which slowly but surely permitted use of the vernacular, eventually, throughout the entire Mass. Inter Oecumenici (1964), Tres Abhinc Annos (1967), as well as Comme le prevoit (1969), Liturgicae Instaurationes (1970).But I still don’t find the support or encouragement of use of vernacular for the entire Mass. Then why most of local churches do it that way? I’m sure the bishops and priests know these documents a lot more than average people. I don’t hear a single Latin word in our Sunday Masses every week, and many people believe it supposed to be that way.
The issue is not simply the use of the vernacular, it’s the use of the vernacular to the exclusion of Latin.Excuse me, but why do you suppose the Vatican published Liturgiam authenticam ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY, if use of the vernacular were not supported or encouraged?
What disciplines, specifically? The canons from the Council still stand. One such canon does not prohibit a Mass said only in the vernacular, but does anathematize he who would say that Mass ought to be said only in the vernacular.Since the disciplines from the Council of Trent have long since expired…
Well, anathema for one, or major excommunication, which is a canonical penalty that no longer exists. I thank you for pointing out the distinction that I did not, as I knew the change in canon law nullified that particular decree. I clean missed it.What disciplines, specifically? The canons from the Council still stand. One such canon does not prohibit a Mass said only in the vernacular, but does anathematize he who would say that Mass ought to be said only in the vernacular.
The oft-quoted Canon IX from Session XXII (“If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church … ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only … let him be anathema”) stands as a pronouncement of the Church through an ecumenical council. This remains in force (although perhaps the penalty is changed, as you suggest); the GIRM even refers to Session XXII in its preface:I thank you for pointing out the distinction that I did not, as I knew the change in canon law nullified that particular decree. I clean missed it.
Well, I’ll let the Church take the historic setting into account, and until the Church says that Canon IX from Session XXII of Trent is overturned (somehow), I will hold to it.While specific penalties may be abbrogated, the underlying truths behind them remain. We must, however take into account the historic setting.
Maybe you can help me with my ignorance here. How do you know which canons of the Council of Trent are considered modifiable disciplines and which ones are not? Some are quite obvious to me as unchangeable but others I do not know.Since the disciplines from the Council of Trent have long since expired, I have a copy of the Sacramentium in English that has been approved. That approvel allows for the Mass in the vernacular. I am all for inclusion of Latin, but I bet no one can find a recent document that mandates Latin must be included in every Mass.
Some (statistically few) parishes do celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Latin, or with Latin and the vernacular mingled. Not many, though.What I’m confused is that the Church also wants to preserve her tradition in the Liturgy and her official language that is universal. But it seems that local parishes are not helping people to be more aware of the tradition and understnad it by not offering it at all in the Mass. I want to know why.
What the Church encourages, according to the Vatican II Document on the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, is fuller participation in the Mass. If the use of the vernacular in the entire Mass accomplishes this, then obviously, the Church encourages it and is what exactly has taken place.It’s obvious that the Church allowed the vernacular for the better understanding. What I’m confused is that the Church also wants to preserve her tradition in the Liturgy and her official language that is universal. Also, when the Church allow the entire Mass in vernacular, does she encourage it? Because allowing and encouraging is totally different.
None, I would hope. As to where the anathema was overturned,all one needs do is read the introduction to the 1983 Code of Canon Law where is specifical abbrogates all previous codes. I could not figure such stuff out on my own. This was pointed out by the Canon Lawyer/Bishop that the have every now and then on CA Live.P.S. I wonder how many Catholics nowadays “would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin”…
What about Croatia, which has had an indult for liturgy in Church Slavonic since well before Vatican 2? Were Croatia’s Latin Rite Catholics ‘split off’ from their brothers across the border in Italy? What about the 20-odd churches of Eastern Catholicism which use just about every language BUT Latin in their liturgies? Are they ‘split off’ from any of their fellow Catholics? Or are all alike Catholic, with options as to the language their liturgy employs?I’m very sorry to repeat myself again, but preserving tradition is ‘old fashioned’ and ‘backwards?’ I’m from a country where the tradition is highly valued and also the language, becuase they bound a group of people as one. It seems that Jewish people are also very keen on preserving and passing their tradition to the next generation. I know that many Jewish teens have to prepare the entire service, which is longer than 2 hours, in Hebrew for their celebration.
Our Pope celebrates Mass mostly in Latin, and Latin is still Church’s official language. But most of local churches don’t want Latin in their Mass. Maybe I’m missing something here, but aren’t we splitting ourselves, instead of uniting as one by following what Holy Church does and wishes? Once again, what is allowed is very different from what is encouraged. What is encouraged is ‘preserving the tradition’ and what is allowed is ‘use of vernacular’, or is it the other way around?
mia2