Novus Ordo in Latin?

[MarkThompson]

Incidentally, people might be interested in the section of the official commentary from the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Sacrosanctum Concilium anent this article (56 A.A.S. 891; my translation):
V. Of the portion which can be rendered into the vernacular language at Mass (regarding article 54 of the Constitution):

1. In Masses, whether sung or said, which are celebrated with the people, the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority can admit the vernacular language, by acts approved or confirmed by the Apostolic See:
   
   a) chiefly in offering the Lessons, Epistle, and Gospel, and also in the prayer of the faithful, or common prayer;
   ​

b) as local conditions may warrant, also in the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely: the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, and Agnus Dei, and in the antiphons at the entrance, at the offertory, and at communion, and also in the chants occurring between the readings;

c) furthermore in the acclamations, the salutations and dialogue formulas, in the formulas Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, and the Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and in the Lord’s prayer with its admonition and embolism.
But missals which serve in liturgical use ought to contain, in addition to the vernacular rendering, also the Latin text.

1. It belongs to the Apostolic See alone to concede the use of the vernacular in the other parts of the Mass, which are sung or said by the celebrant alone.
2. Pastors of souls should take diligent care that the Christian faithful, and above all the lay members of religious societies, also know how to say or sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them, principally by making use of the simpler modes.

1. 
   (It bears pointing out, I suppose, that this was all in reference to granting permissions concerning the Mass then in force (1964), and should not be taken as setting preconditions or requirements on the new Ordo Missae which Paul VI would issue six years later.)

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, MarkThompson. I think we all know that, but no one has said it yet. It would be quite silly to say that Mass must be in one language or another as per a doctrinal mandate.

Reread some of the above posts, I guess. Maybe do a CTRL-F for “doctrinal.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Incidentally, people might be interested in the section of the official commentary from the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Sacrosanctum Concilium anent this article (56 A.A.S. 891; my translation):

Gah, nuts. It suddenly dawned on me that this is just the well-known instruction Inter Oecumenici. So it was a waste of time translating it, but now if you care to you may compare my translation with others’.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, MarkThompson. I think we all know that, but no one has said it yet. It would be quite silly to say that Mass must be in one language or another as per a doctrinal mandate.

Thanks but why would it be silly? My understanding is that Trent was to counter the Protestant belief that anyone can interpret scripture and the liturgy and displace the Church’s sacred languages as they saw fit. I’m sure the Trent fathers thought this one out thoroughly during the 17-yr span under which this Church Council took place.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

They do exist, but they are rare, yes. I believe the freely-available EF is putting them out of business, so to speak. In fact, the infamous Fr. Z subscribes to this opinion as well. I would love to have a Latin NO near me. Alas, it won’t happen. My pastor has an aversion to Latin even though the choir master loves it. I think most priests who appreciate Latin usually go all out and offer the EF.

Most large cities do offer one or more such Masses. Chicago has St. John Cantius, for example. Wisconsin has the world-famous St. Agnes. So they exist, but you really do have to look for them.

St. Catherine of Siena offers a NO Latin mass on Sundays. The church is in Great Falls, VA, which seems to be some 260 miles from your location. Perhaps there is one closer, I don’t know.

St. Agnes is in St, Paul, Minnesota.

 

[YoungTradCath]

St. Agnes is in St, Paul, Minnesota.

oops

 

[runningdude]

Incidentally, people might be interested in the section of the official commentary from the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Sacrosanctum Concilium anent this article (56 A.A.S. 891; my translation):

V. Of the portion which can be rendered into the vernacular language at Mass (regarding article 54 of the Constitution):
…
58. It belongs to the Apostolic See alone to concede the use of the vernacular in the other parts of the Mass, which are sung or said by the celebrant alone.
​

Indeed, I think I’d consider the Holy See’s approval of an English translation of the entire Order to be such a concession…

(It bears pointing out, I suppose, that this was all in reference to granting permissions concerning the Mass then in force (1964), and should not be taken as setting preconditions or requirements on the new Ordo Missae which Paul VI would issue six years later.)

I think you hit the nail of the dot right there! ​

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed, I think I’d consider the Holy See’s approval of an English translation of the entire Order to be such a concession…

OTOH

Introduction

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

Unfortunately, the faithful were not taught these chants, and it is rare to hear any music from this collection sung in parishes today.

Its Latin selections, since they form a minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant, would allow us to finally fulfill the provision of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which said that “steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them” (§54).

This is reiterated in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[MissRose73]

I went to an Ordinary Form Mass yesterday at the same parish that hosted a Pontifical EF Mass later the same day that I also attended. The only parts that were in Latin were the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei. I remembered some of them from past EF Mass attendance. The priest did the Liturgy of the Eucharist with his back turned at the altar like the EF Mass but in English. Communion was received kneeling on the tongue with the cup available. I just wish this parish was closer to me as I much liked how this priest celebrated the Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

“Tampering”? The word is right there: “… ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur.”

Having already claimed ignorance, I stand by my claim.

MarkThompson:

Anyway, I’m not sure why some people keep spreading these myths about this decision by the fathers at Trent. As I have explained at length…

MarkThompson locutus est… Actually your explanation is in agreement with what I had said earlier in post 51, but your contextual analysis makes a stronger case than my ex post facto argument looking at the declaration in light of recent Church history in our own time.

 

[runningdude]

OTOH

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

TLDR

please state your point, not slap me with out of context quote from unknown website.

 

[ProVobis]

my ex post facto argument looking at the declaration in light of recent Church history in our own time.

Think of it this way: What is the negative/opposite of “Mass should be celebrated everywhere in the vulgar language”? Would that have been what the Trent fathers meant when they wrote in the Latin nuance:

non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. ?

(In other words non passim = “nowhere” or close to it?)

I’m just thinking what if this were translated into some other language like Polish, for example.

 

[Digitonomy]

Think of it this way: What is the negative/opposite of “Mass should be celebrated everywhere in the vulgar language”? Would that have been what the Trent fathers meant when they wrote in the Latin nuance:

non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. ?

(In other words non passim = “nowhere” or close to it?)

I’m just thinking what if this were translated into some other language like Polish, for example.

I’m confident Latin can distinguish between “not everywhere” and “not anywhere,” but as someone who didn’t recognize “passim” in the first place, I’m hardly qualified to comment further.

 

[sw85]

Why isn’t it more common for parishes to offer a Novus Ordo mass in Latin? Or is it common, and I’m just not fortunate/observant enough to recognize it? I’ve only ever seen videos of the Novus Ordo in Latin, but I would love to attend such a mass. I’m a Classical Studies major, focusing on Latin and Ancient Greek, so I’m adequate at following the TLM. However, since I’m more familiar with the order of the Novus Ordo, I feel like a modern Latin mass would be a great way for me to enjoy the Latin (a language that I love ceaselessly) without getting lost and losing focus on what’s important. Also, I’m lucky enough to have a big Missale Romanum all in Latin, so I’d love to be able to use that to look up that day’s mass’ different Latin prayers, antiphons, etc. before going to mass. Is this just a pipe dream? Why don’t more churches offer this?

I was wondering this during our Holy Thursday mass, which was heavily attended by both our parish’s Spanish- and English-speaking populations. The mass was bilingual, so that it alternated aggravatingly between spanish and english (e.g., the bread was consecrated in English, the wine in Spanish, etc.). I thought, “why not just use Latin?!”

 

[YoungTradCath]

I was wondering this during our Holy Thursday mass, which was heavily attended by both our parish’s Spanish- and English-speaking populations. The mass was bilingual, so that it **alternated aggravatingly between spanish and english **(e.g., the bread was consecrated in English, the wine in Spanish, etc.). I thought, “why not just use Latin?!”

That is extremely aggravating, yes, and it certainly seems to go against the “spirit” ( ) of the Mass.

 

[Brendan]

I was wondering this during our Holy Thursday mass, which was heavily attended by both our parish’s Spanish- and English-speaking populations. The mass was bilingual, so that it alternated aggravatingly between spanish and english (e.g., the bread was consecrated in English, the wine in Spanish, etc.). I thought, “why not just use Latin?!”

Our parish has a large Eastern European contingent, and there is a Mass in Slovak on our schedule.

For combined Masses, like Holy Thursday, the readings alternate, but the common responses by the people are said in Latin, for precisely the reason you mentioned.

And that is exactly in line with the recommendations of the worldwide bishops in the Eucharistic Synod several years ago.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m confident Latin can distinguish between “not everywhere” and “not anywhere,” but as someone who didn’t recognize “passim” in the first place, I’m hardly qualified to comment further.

Reading your posts, I’d say you’re qualified enough. “Passim” can be translated in many ways (like the word “many”) but Trent wasn’t much for ambiguity with its anethema sit’s. The “non” part is clear, and you have to remember what Trent was all about. If they “allowed” anything, they certainly weren’t going to compromise anything with the Reformers who emphasized the use of the vulgar language to displace the sacred languages of the Church, and not only of Latin. So the vernacular might have been allowed in very exceptional places where there was no danger of converting to self-interpretations and Protestantism. At least that’s the way I read Trent. Latin was almost solely used in the Roman liturgy for 400 years since then so I don’t think I’m too wrong on the council’s intentions.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m confident Latin can distinguish between “not everywhere” and “not anywhere,” but as someone who didn’t recognize “passim” in the first place, I’m hardly qualified to comment further.

Sure, it could have said “nusquam” or “nullo loco.” As it is, I don’t think it should take many semesters of formal logic to understand that, as you say, the opposite of “not everywhere” is not “nowhere.” And this, of course, fits completely with what I have said about the council’s reasoning here. First, that whether the Mass should be in Latin is a question of expediency, not doctrine. Second, that on the question whether the Mass could be in Latin this is a response to the Protestant objection that stated that it could not be, that it was objectively sacrilegious or heretical to hold divine worship in a language only the priest understood without the participation of the common presbyterate of believers, etc. The complaint of the Protestants was that it was flat wrong, and an affront to God, for the Mass to be celebrated anywhere in Latin, and Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only. The Council’s response was that this view of the necessity of the vernacular is theologically incorrect, and that on the question of the expediency of the vernacular, “non expedire visum est,” it hasn’t seemed appropriate.