Novus Ordo in Latin?

[Brendan]

What I hear you saying is that most of the priests and bishops in the United States who allow vernacular in the OF Masses for parts other than the readings and propers are interpreting the documents incorrectly.

I do not think that anyone is making that claim, as S.C. also allows a national conference of bishop to choose to allow a greater use of the vernacular in the liturgy.

But they still have an obligtion to have the faithful know the common responses of the Mass in Latin, and the ability to sing a basic repitoire of chant.

That is something that a lot of bishops have failed to do, especially in the 70’s.

We can see that in Pope Benedict’s mode of releasing Sacramentum Caritas, as an Apostolic Exhortation. An Exhoration is a document which gives no new teachings, but challenges us to live what has already been taught by the Church, but has fallen in disuse. In other words, a sort of ‘wake up call’ to what the Church teaches that is not being either fully or correctly taught.

At least we are seeing a resergence in faithfulness to the teachings of Vatican II in this area.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Am I misinterpreting smndtupidisaftr’s posts?

If so, I’m sorry. Please forgive me.

I think it is quite possible for a bishop–let’s take the very well-known traddie sympathizers and good friends of the Reform of the Reform, Cardinals Burke and Ranjith, for example–to be aware that we have several crucial crises in our Church right now, not the least among them liturgy, and still be very tepid about doing a major overhaul just yet. The Pope himself realizes that the liturgy isn’t, by far, where it should be. Read his extensive writings and interviews, as well as essays done by others on him.

Before a rubrical and language overhaul (perhaps “rehaul” is a better word?) can be accomplished, the “spirit” of things has to change. Everything went crazy after Vatican II; there was no… natural element to it, so to speak. It was, “Today we’re doing this, tomorrow we’re doing that.” It was very abrupt. And it is clear that things do not work very well like that, and I think the Church has realized that. Before immense changes can be brought about, especially as regards such a precarious topic like the liturgy, the “spirit” of this topic, the overall attitude, has to change, and even then the actual implementation has to be slow. Attitude is a human thing, and humans live a certain length of time.

So do I think that our post-Vatican II liturgy is not quite in line with the letter of Vatican II? Yes, yes I do, I believe that quite adamantly, and I do not believe I am demonizing any bishop by saying so. Do I think that it will change, and for the better? It is only a matter of time, and by saying that I do not mean sooner or later, I really don’t know when. This change has to only happen after a good length of “theme brewing.” I can’t really think of a better phrase than that. So, I do not think that we can blame the current men in the episcopacy, who nevertheless want liturgical re-beautification to happen, for not doing everything they can just yet. The theme of liturgy itself has to brew in the Church for a couple more decades. If some gung-ho, high-falutin document came down right now from some dicastery of the Roman Curia commanding absolute liturgical obedience and a rubrical overhaul, it would be a disaster. The time isn’t quite right for that, and I do not blame the bishops for that, no matter how secretly (or not so secretly!) elated I would be if that happened tomorrow. But even so, we can still whine until it happens.

PS: I believe that if the SSPX is reconciled (GOD WILLING!), they will be a major impetus as regards liturgy at higher levels.

 

[Chatter163]

So did they get to use the third edition immediately after it was issued in 2002, or did they have to wait for the bishop to transmit it to them or issue an approval to begin using it?

They began using it at the time, but that edition did not alter their celebration of Holy Mass. The changes were quite minor and more rubrical than textual.

 

[runningdude]

I wasn’t aware that there were native Latin speakers anywhere in the world.

There could be a handful somewhere. I don’t want over reach.

 

[runningdude]

Did you read any of the links. THere is no need for any native speakers. Rather, the Church uses Latin, as Blessed Pope John XXIII noted, because it is a neutral language. It does not favor one cluture or langauge over another.

That is why Pope Benedict (and the Synod of Bishops) called for it’s use in multilingual environments.

Let me give you an example. I am very familar with the Latin OF Mass. I grew up with it. The parish my grandmother went to was half Irish and German and half Hispanic. Prior to the ‘new’ Mass, everyone worshiped together. THere was not "Spanish Mass’ and "English Mass’. When the new Missal was published, the pastor just used the Novus Ordo in Latin and everyone continued to worship together. Thus when we took grandma to Mass ( which got to be quite often as she aged) we went to a Latin OF Mass.

Fast forward to about 5-10 years ago. I was travelling globally for work, extensively. Seoul one week, Sao Paulo the next. Since it would be impractical to learn all the very languages for the multitude of countries I was in, or going to be in, I simply relied on my Latin. I would email the chancelory office of where I was going to be, and find out where and when the Latin Masses would be at. So I could fully and consciencely participate in a Mass in whatever country I was in.

Americans, and really, most English speakers are rather arrogant in that regard. We want everything to be in our langauge.

But consider the international visitor who might be among us, or the recent immigrant. We think we are doing good by sending them to another mass, another parish. How about doing what the Church asks for us to do, to learn the Latin responses and basic chants that are used by the faithful at Mass. That is part of Vatican II, something that the Council told us that we should be able to do ( and subsequently repeated by Popes John Paul II and Benedict).

In that way, we can welcome the visitor like I was welcomed. We can all worship in a common language, TOGETHER.

So if you support the 2nd Vatican Council, why not do what it says we should do?

Look, I’m not saying a Latin OF is bad. I’m saying we have a shortage of priests. We need to pray for vocations, not bicker online.

 

[runningdude]

posting error.

 

[Digitonomy]

At least we are seeing a resergence in faithfulness to the teachings of Vatican II in this area.

I think “teaching” is overstating things a bit, as that word usually implies that the topic is doctrinal. I may be overlooking something, but I think the passages from Vatican II that discuss how frequently Latin should be used are simply disciplinary instructions, along with some logic and backstory as to why these instructions are a good idea.

 

[Cat]

I think it is quite possible for a bishop–let’s take the very well-known traddie sympathizers and good friends of the Reform of the Reform, Cardinals Burke and Ranjith, for example–to be aware that we have several crucial crises in our Church right now, not the least among them liturgy, and still be very tepid about doing a major overhaul just yet. The Pope himself realizes that the liturgy isn’t, by far, where it should be. Read his extensive writings and interviews, as well as essays done by others on him.

Before a rubrical and language overhaul (perhaps “rehaul” is a better word?) can be accomplished, the “spirit” of things has to change. Everything went crazy after Vatican II; there was no… natural element to it, so to speak. It was, “Today we’re doing this, tomorrow we’re doing that.” It was very abrupt. And it is clear that things do not work very well like that, and I think the Church has realized that. Before immense changes can be brought about, especially as regards such a precarious topic like the liturgy, the “spirit” of this topic, the overall attitude, has to change, and even then the actual implementation has to be slow. Attitude is a human thing, and humans live a certain length of time.

So do I think that our post-Vatican II liturgy is not quite in line with the letter of Vatican II? Yes, yes I do, I believe that quite adamantly, and I do not believe I am demonizing any bishop by saying so. Do I think that it will change, and for the better? It is only a matter of time, and by saying that I do not mean sooner or later, I really don’t know when. This change has to only happen after a good length of “theme brewing.” I can’t really think of a better phrase than that. So, I do not think that we can blame the current men in the episcopacy, who nevertheless want liturgical re-beautification to happen, for not doing everything they can just yet. The theme of liturgy itself has to brew in the Church for a couple more decades. If some gung-ho, high-falutin document came down right now from some dicastery of the Roman Curia commanding absolute liturgical obedience and a rubrical overhaul, it would be a disaster. The time isn’t quite right for that, and I do not blame the bishops for that, no matter how secretly (or not so secretly!) elated I would be if that happened tomorrow. But even so, we can still whine until it happens.

PS: I believe that if the SSPX is reconciled (GOD WILLING!), they will be a major impetus as regards liturgy at higher levels.

I think this post is well-written, and I definitely can go along with the time frame of a couple more decades.

A massive shift in Catholic thinking will be necessary for Latin to become the norm in OF Masses. I can’t even imagine it right now. Before Advent, we spent three months trying to get the congregation at our parish to sing the simple chants for the new translation, and it never did work out. Nobody sang, nobody, and only a few cantors felt comfortable doing it. We’re doing a melodic Mass setting now, and I’m very relieved.

I will probably not be alive to see any of the changes. So in the meantime, I will rejoice in what we have rather than worrying about what we don’t have.

If there were a betting pool (which there isn’t), I would bet on “less Latin” and more vernacular in the Mass in the future. Our world society is just not scholarly, and I don’t think that the Catholic Church will take steps to move “out” of that society, but just the opposite–I think they will take steps to “engage” that society and influence it.

But this is just my opinion and my bet, and since there is no betting pool and never will be, I won’t lose anything over it, and neither will any other Catholics who have their own opinions that are different than mine.

 

[ProVobis]

I think “teaching” is overstating things a bit, as that word usually implies that the topic is doctrinal. I may be overlooking something, but I think the passages from Vatican II that discuss how frequently Latin should be used are simply disciplinary instructions, along with some logic and backstory as to why these instructions are a good idea.

I would dispute that as a simple disciplinary instruction as it connects directly in what Trent has expressed doctrinally. Per Session 22 of Trent:

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
DOCTRINE

Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.

The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may,** all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice. **…

CHAPTER VIII.

On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.** Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained;** and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals.
…

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[Brendan]

I think “teaching” is overstating things a bit, as that word usually implies that the topic is doctrinal. I may be overlooking something, but I think the passages from Vatican II that discuss how frequently Latin should be used are simply disciplinary instructions, along with some logic and backstory as to why these instructions are a good idea.

OK then, How about Pastor Aeternus, the Vatican I document that clarified the role of Papacy and it’s infallibiltiy

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

If the frequency of use of Latin is a matter of discipline, do not the Bishops and Priests of the world have an obligation to follow it, out of “hierarchical subordination and true obedience”

 

[Digitonomy]

I would dispute that as a simple disciplinary instruction as it connects directly in what Trent has expressed doctrinally. Per Session 22 of Trent:

teaches, declares; and decrees what follows

Sounds to me like what follows is a mixture of teaching, declaration, and decree. Which statements are decrees and which are teachings I suppose could be best determined by the content and context. The semicolon also seems odd in there, but I can’t find it in Latin to confirm, and I don’t think it affects your point or mine in any way.

ProVobis:

the ancient usage of each church… being in each place retained… the holy Synod charges pastors…

I’m only an amateur grammarian, and not a good one at that, but “being” looks like it is used as a run-on participle phrase. The true subject and verb of the sentence are “Synod charges”. It could be a poor translation from the Latin so I’m open to correction, but it sounds like they are saying “Since non-vernacular liturgical languages are being used, the Synod charges pastors to explain them.”

ProVobis:

If any one saith… that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only… let him be anathema.

One could argue that this means it’s OK to have a mass entirely in the vulgar tongue, so long as one doesn’t call for (all) masses to be in the vulgar tongue only, but I’m inclined to think it means what you think. Nonetheless, given the Church’s approval of masses entirely in the vulgar tongue, it’s hard to believe this is a dogmatic statement. I think it is one of the declarations mentioned in your first quote, and probably best understood by the context of the paragraph, which excommunicates those who criticize various aspects of the Tridentine-era mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

If the frequency of use of Latin is a matter of discipline, do not the Bishops and Priests of the world have an obligation to follow it, out of “hierarchical subordination and true obedience”

Absolutely; if the hierarchy mandates the use of Latin, bishops and priests must celebrate mass in Latin.

 

[Brendan]

Absolutely; if the hierarchy mandates the use of Latin, bishops and priests must celebrate mass in Latin.

If the heirachy say that the faithful should know all their parts to the Mass in Latin, and some basic chants, the faithful should know those, correct?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Absolutely; if the hierarchy mandates the use of Latin, bishops and priests must celebrate mass in Latin.

But isn’t that what Vatican II said?

 

[Digitonomy]

If the heirachy say that the faithful should know all their parts to the Mass in Latin, and some basic chants, the faithful should know those, correct?

YoungTradCath:

But isn’t that what Vatican II said?

Yes to both.

 

[ProVobis]

It could be a poor translation from the Latin so I’m open to correction,

Actually it seems stronger in the Latin

Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.

but you’re welcome to retranslate it:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html

(I think they changed this slightly. I don’t see any references to the Holy Spirit here. I’ll try to find the right preamble.)

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually it seems stronger in the Latin but you’re welcome to retranslate it:
(I think they changed this slightly)

It does look like there was some tampering. I don’t see “everywhere” in the Latin subhead or text of Chapter VIII. This may be because I simply don’t know the Latin word for “everywhere,” or because it’s somehow implied in the Latin, but I suspect some latter-day revision of the English.

 

[ProVobis]

It does look like there was some tampering. I don’t see “everywhere” in the Latin subhead or text of Chapter VIII. This may be because I simply don’t know the Latin word for “everywhere,” or because it’s somehow implied in the Latin, but I suspect some latter-day revision of the English.

You’re right, the literal translation is “The Mass is not to be celebrated in the vulgar language” in the header.

But then Vatican II’s translators rendered “haud raro (not rarely)” to “frequently” (see post #40) and subsequently used this to justify the complete suppression of the Latin.

 

[MarkThompson]

It does look like there was some tampering. I don’t see “everywhere” in the Latin subhead or text of Chapter VIII. This may be because I simply don’t know the Latin word for “everywhere,” or because it’s somehow implied in the Latin, but I suspect some latter-day revision of the English.

“Tampering”? The word is right there: “… ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur.” As to the section titles, I assume they are an editorial addition, but it is there in the subtitle in the version I am looking at as well: “De Missa vulgari lingua passim non celebranda, …”

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 elsewhere a few months ago,
it is a mistake to think that in Canon IX the Council was intending to make a dogma of the Catholic faith out of which language the Mass should be said in. That would be bizarre; and it would be in contradiction with their previous statement that the issue was one of expediency. (Imagine a Council writing: For the present, it has not seemed expedient to ordain women to the priesthood. And if anyone says that women should be ordained to the priesthood, a.s.)

Rather, Canon IX, like the other canons you see there, was a response to Protestants, who objected to the Catholic way of doing things (e.g., praying to saints) not merely on the prudential grounds that they were bad ideas (might as well pray straight to God), but on the theological grounds that they were blasphemous (thus the response in Canon V). … We can get a better sense of this looking at Canon VIII:

If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful illicitas], and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
That was what the Protestants were saying: a Mass where the priest does not offer Communion to the faithful, more than just being a bad idea, are against divine law. But what did the Council itself say about this issue in Chapter VI?
The sacred and holy Synod would fain indeed optaret quidem, would gladly have it] that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice …
Here we have at issue where on the prudential judgment the Council does agree with the Protestants – it’s better that the people should be allowed to receive Holy Communion – but cannot agree with enshrining that judgment as a theological doctrine, with saying that it the people are not allowed to communicate then the Mass is wrong. That is simply the inverse case of what happened in Canon IX, where the Council disagreed with the Protestants on the prudential question, and also disagreed with their doctrinal position that the Mass celebrated in Latin is blasphemous and wrong. But it is clear that it is no more anathematized to say “I feel it would be a good idea to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular everywhere” than it is to say “I think it best if priests always distribute Communion to the faithful.”

It is definitely true that the non-doctrinal portion of Trent’s decrees on this issue has been superseded. The Vatican II fathers made it clear that they did not hold the same judgment in 1963 about what is “expedient” that was held in 1562. The acknowledged that the use of the vernacular would frequently haud raro, “not rarely whatsoever, not by any means rarely”] be of benefit in helping people understand what was going on. Trent obviously recognized that this was an issue, since they called for priests to “expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass.” The fact that that didn’t happen very much probably contributed to Vatican II’s reversal of the judgment about the expediency of using the vernacular.​

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.