Mass in Vernacular

[mia2]

Dear Jim-R, have you read Pope Benedict’s books which talk about acticve particiation misinterpreted as external particiation? You mean everage people cannot understand simple Latin prayers? Is it because we don’t give them a chance to learn and show them how valuable is is, or because we are too busy to learn and spend time on Church things? So we should get rid of our Church’s tradition completely from our Mass?
We don’t think it’s worth effort to learn Chruch’s universal language, even some basic prayers. I don’t believe OCP missalette is the only official missalette.
I’m sure they didn’t violate the Church law, since the Church allowed, and the extend of use of vernacular language seems almost unlimited. But how about the Church’s instruction on preserving the tradition in our Mass? Catholics can move forward as Catholics without losing our identity, because of our tradition.
mia2

 

[japhy]

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.

You are the second person I have seen relate “canon law” to “canons from a Council”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not abrogate the canons passed at ecumenical councils; while the penalty of anathema may no longer exist, the content and force of Canon IX of Session XXII of Trent still stand. I say this to eliminate any confusion in this matter, not necessarily because I might think you be thinking something to the contrary.

Otherwise, we have literally hundreds of canons from ecumenical councils which are no longer in force (big problem) simply because the 1983 Code of Canon Law doesn’t repeat them!

 

[japhy]

I’m very sorry to repeat myself again, but preserving tradition is ‘old fashioned’ and ‘backwards?’

Some people think so, yes. The see the traditions of the Church from 50 years ago and think of them as outdated, medieval, backwards, and patriarchal… and thus they should be gotten rid of and new traditions made (or borrowed from other religions without a second thought).

 

[japhy]

What about Croatia, which has had an indult for liturgy in Church Slavonic since well before Vatican 2? … What about the 20-odd churches of Eastern Catholicism which use just about every language BUT Latin in their liturgies?

I’m curious what the list of “traditional” liturgical languages in the Catholic Church is. Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Church Slavonic… what else? I’m genuinely curious.

It’s very simple. If the powers which be which promulgated the NO had wanted Latin to be used in EVERY SINGLE MASS, as opposed to, as we do now, having it available in some Masses, then they wouldn’t have approved a translation of that Mass ENTIRELY into vernacular, no? … Why didn’t they approve a translation that kept the Ordinary, or part of if, in Latin only, and which never translated some of those prayers at all, if their intent was that every single Mass MUST retain some Latin prayers?

That’s a question which should have been put forth to the Consilium and Pope Paul VI (who gave approval in the end to the new Missal). Some would say the “powers which be” either had an agenda (referring to Annibale Bugnini and the Consilium) or made prudential errors (on the part of the Pope).

I have every reason to believe that within my lifetime (I’m 26 now, and I plan to live to about 320) there will be a revised Missal which keeps a healthy amount of Latin (mandatory, except perhaps in mission countries and fledgling churches) and provides for the optional use of the vernacular as the Vatican Council said.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Dear Jim-R, have you read Pope Benedict’s books which talk about acticve particiation misinterpreted as external particiation? You mean everage people cannot understand simple Latin prayers? Is it because we don’t give them a chance to learn and show them how valuable is is, or because we are too busy to learn and spend time on Church things? So we should get rid of our Church’s tradition completely from our Mass?
We don’t think it’s worth effort to learn Chruch’s universal language, even some basic prayers. I don’t believe OCP missalette is the only official missalette.
I’m sure they didn’t violate the Church law, since the Church allowed, and the extend of use of vernacular language seems almost unlimited. But how about the Church’s instruction on preserving the tradition in our Mass? Catholics can move forward as Catholics without losing our identity, because of our tradition.
mia2

Well, I grew up in pre-Vatican II and attended Catholic School, where we memorized by rote, the parts of the Latin Mass and we also learned Latin Hymns. However, we knew very little Latin.

Even if I were to study Latin to become fluent, it would no way be as meaningful as praying in my own native tongue, where I don’t have to think about the translation of the words I’m using.

We must pray from the heart, not the tongue. Saying words I merely memorized and mimic, is not prayer.

Jim

 

[pnewton]

while the penalty of anathema may no longer exist,

That is all I was referring to. As I said, the principle remains. I did not mean to be so confused or confusing.

 

[LilyM]

I’m curious what the list of “traditional” liturgical languages in the Catholic Church is. Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Church Slavonic… what else? I’m genuinely curious

I can think of one or two others offhand - one being Coptic for the Coptic Catholics, another is Syriac.

You could possibly also count Malayalam - which although it is a vernacular in the region of Southern India, is much more widely used than just in the areas where it is vernacular, as part of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches, and so is listed in wikipedia as a ‘liturgical’ language for them alongside Syriac.

That’s a question which should have been put forth to the Consilium and Pope Paul VI (who gave approval in the end to the new Missal). Some would say the “powers which be” either had an agenda (referring to Annibale Bugnini and the Consilium) or made prudential errors (on the part of the Pope).

What is there to ask questions about? The fact that they translated the whole thing seems to be a pretty clear statement as to their intent - which was that those who wished to say the whole darn thing in the vernacular could do so. Whether prudentially or not it is a good thing isn’t my or your call, fortunately.

I have every reason to believe that within my lifetime (I’m 26 now, and I plan to live to about 320) there will be a revised Missal which keeps a healthy amount of Latin (mandatory, except perhaps in mission countries and fledgling churches) and provides for the optional use of the vernacular as the Vatican Council said.

Sorry, saying ‘Latin should be retained in the Mass’ as a general proposition is a different kettle of fish altogether from saying ‘EVERY Mass should be partially in Latin’. I think the Fathers of Vatican 2 knew the difference and said what they meant and meant what they said, which is NOT what you think they said.

 

[mia2]

*We must pray from the heart, not the tongue. Saying words I merely memorized and mimic, is not prayer. *

I totally agree. I hope the **entire Mass in English **accomplishes this, because it seems that there were lots of sacrifice went along with it.

I had a good conversation and got more info than I asked. I will be still searching for the truth.

Thanks,
Mia2

 

[peregrinus_sg]

The norm in the Latin Church remains that the Mass is celebrated in the Latin language. However, following the encouragement of the Second Vatican Council, the Apostolic See has granted very generous permission for Bishops to permit Masses in the vernacular for the pastoral benefit of its people. Originally, this permission was only for certain parts of the Mass, but due to the positive response of people and Bishops, the permission was extended for all the parts of Mass.

As a case in point, in the USA, Masses may not be celebrated in an immigrant language (e.g. Chinese or Japanese) without the express permission of the local Bishop, even if the proper texts approved by the relevant Bishops Conference is used. On the other hand, a priest may, without the need for any approval of his Bishop, always celebrate public Masses in the Latin language.

It is only in recent years that the injunction for people to be familiar with the common responses in Latin was given greater awareness and practice. It seems that Pope Benedict had a flair for inspiring a change that even Pope John Paul the Great did not. Why? My local parish priest, who was previously adamant against reintroducing Latin into the Mass, now wants to have All Souls Day Mass done in Latin! And he quotes the directive and example of the Pope in support where previously he lamented Vatican’s “interference”. I can only thank God for Pope Benedict!

 

[mia2]

Thanks for the great info. It is very hopeful.

mia2

 

[japhy]

What is there to ask questions about? The fact that they translated the whole thing seems to be a pretty clear statement as to their intent - which was that those who wished to say the whole darn thing in the vernacular could do so. Whether prudentially or not it is a good thing isn’t my or your call, fortunately.

There is a disconnect between Sacrosanctum Concilium and Pope Paul VI’s two November addresses (primarily the second one) of 1969. In the second one, he laments the loss of Latin and Gregorian chant that were necessary due to the vernacular becoming the primary language of the liturgy. That is not the picture painted by SC nor the documents which followed it which reminded bishops and pastors to teach their faithful the Latin responses. But did the bishops and pastors do this? No; instead, they jumped on every occasion to get the vernacular into use, and once you could do part X of the Mass in the vernacular, there was no need to teach the faithful how to do part X in Latin.

It’s just like Communion in the hand, in my opinion. The Church had a traditional “preference” (you might say), but didn’t enforce it and allowed it to eventually get swept under the rug in most places.

Sorry, saying ‘Latin should be retained in the Mass’ as a general proposition is a different kettle of fish altogether from saying ‘EVERY Mass should be partially in Latin’. I think the Fathers of Vatican 2 knew the difference and said what they meant and meant what they said, which is NOT what you think they said.

“Latin should be retained in the Mass” as a scholarly, academic, theoretical, potential (not actual) ideal, perhaps? For use on special occasions? Sounds like “for use elsewhere”. I think Pope Benedict and his successor will restore Latin and Gregorian chant to their rightful place in the liturgy – Gregorian chant holds the principal place, you know – and enforce and model (by word and deed) a “hermeneutic of continuity”.

 

[Brendan]

We must pray from the heart, not the tongue. Saying words I merely memorized and mimic, is not prayer.

Jim

I believe the point that Mia was making was that Pope Benedict, in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” noted that the active participation that Vatican II sought was not a verbal participation at all, either vernacular or in Latin. Rather, it was to be a silent, interior participation.

Pope Benedict used the example of the Liturgy of the Word, where the faithful are to silently take to heart the lessons of Scripture being taught. He also used the example of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where the faithful are to silently offer themselves along with, but distinct from, the Sacrifice being offered by the celebrant

The key is that the most important active participation by the faithful is done interiorly and in silence.

All of this echo’s what Pope John Paul II said to the US bishops during their 1998 ad lima visit

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

 

[mia2]

Thank you so much. I’m so greatful that there are people out there who understand the Liturgy more deeply.
God Bless,
Mia2

 

[pnewton]

Active passivity. I will have to forgetfully remember that. Not however what the Holy Father said in your quote was:

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it.

Not precluding a thing is a long way from stating that this was the primary meaning and thar verbal participation was not meant.

 

[japhy]

Active passivity.

We are actively participating in the Mass even when we aren’t saying, singing, gesturing, or “doing” anything in particular. “Full, conscious, and active participation” does not mean “give the laypeople something to do”. This participation must first be internal before any external participation can be meaningful. T

Musicam Sacram, n. 15, puts it quite well:The faithful fulfil their liturgical role by making that full, conscious and active participation which is demanded by the nature of the Liturgy itself and which is, by reason of baptism, the right and duty of the Christian people. This participation

(a) Should be above all internal, in the sense that by it the faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace,

(b) Must be, on the other hand, external also, that is, such as to show the internal participation by gestures and bodily attitudes, by the acclamations, responses and singing.

Gestures and responses, which make up the majority of external (i.e. visible) participation, were encouraged long before Vatican II. And participation in the Gregorian chant of the Mass was seen as a role for the faithful.

 

[pnewton]

We are actively participating in the Mass even when we aren’t saying, singing, gesturing, or “doing” anything in particular.

I know, but I still appreciate the irony. All the accusation at liberal theologians nuancing words 180 degrees, and here we have the Holy Father doing it.

The thing is, I understand active passivity. What does that say about me? I think I am getting crazily sane.

 

[Brendan]

Active passivity. I will have to forgetfully remember that. Not however what the Holy Father said in your quote was:

Not precluding a thing is a long way from stating that this was the primary meaning and thar verbal participation was not meant.

 

[Lisa44]

Thank God for Pope Benedict.

I for one cannot fully participate in Mass when its not passive participation. Singing, and jumping around like a monkey, holding hands, and clapping…

(We don’t jump around like monkeys but we MIGHT AS WELL)

(sorry, I was following this thread and am totally sympathetic to Mia)

 

[pnewton]

I for one cannot fully participate in Mass when its not passive participation. Singing, and jumping around like a monkey, holding hands, and clapping…

(We don’t jump around like monkeys but we MIGHT AS WELL)

I can not agree with you on the jumping around like monkey’s bit. Not that I have ever been to a Monkey Mass (California, maybe), but I would not find it conducive to worship, or safe considering the fragility of the light fixtures.

 

[jfoges]

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.

I think the Council of Trent had many such statements that were absolute and imperative at the time of the Reformation. These helped hold the Church together in the face of the worst crisis of it’s existence. While specific penalties may be abbrogated, the underlying truths behind them remain. We must, however take into account the historic setting.

No. You are wrong. Those canons from Trent are not canon law, they are solemn definitions by the Extraordinary Magisterium. They do not expire, ever.