One of my issues with post Vatican 2

[newcatholic2010]

Since I was received into the Church a couple of years ago and from meeting other Catholics and having studied it for myself, its been something Ive questioned as one of the reasons I was attracted to the church apart from recognising it was the church Christ founded was also its long history of traditions along with Latin which I always used to stereotypically associate it with as Ive always enjoyed listening to latin chants etc, its got that effect which I dont know how to describe compared to hearing it in English.

However from reading the official document SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, it seems that Latin was supposed to be retained:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
2. These norms being observed,** it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. **And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
3. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

The church I know still retains it as its official language but from reading this, Latin was supposed to be retained but it hasnt been in the liturgy. My question is what happend and why was this allowed to happen??

The territorial authority mentioned refers to the Bishops but if the Apostolic See has to approve the Bishops decisions as to where the uses of the vernacular are then surely that means Latin still has to be used in parts of the mass where the vernacular isn’t…but this isn’t the case though in the English speaking world why??

The recent translation to the missal is good as it is more accurate with the original Latin texts (although I have come into contact with some people who claim it to be a dead language which is no longer needed which I strongly disagree with). I do feel it has robbed a few generations of being given the accurate translation of what the mass should be as this should have been implemented back in the 1960’s.

I would like to hear what other people have to say so that I can have some light shed on this matter .

 

[triumphguy]

it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See.

And the competent authorities have decided that the use of the vernacular is a good thing.

So what’s the problem?

 

[Joe_5859]

I am sure that many will be along to voice their strong feelings lamenting the fact that this directive was not taken as seriously as it should have been. There’s certainly something to be said for that, but I would just point out that Latin has been retained in a very real sense. The official liturgical texts of the Latin rite Church remain in Latin. All other languages are simply approved translations from the normative Latin text.

You can see from the quotes your provided that the use of vernacular language in the liturgy could be decided upon by the competent ecclesiastical authority and confirmed by the Holy See. That has been done. It may not have gone down the way some would have liked, but those with the authority to do so have made these allowances.

 

[ProVobis]

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. …
   …
   The recent translation to the missal is good as it is more accurate with the original Latin texts

A few points here if I may, FWIW.

(1) “haud raro linguae vernaculae” more literally is “not rarely the vernacular language” not “frequently the mother tongue.” There is a difference and heavily biased IMO.

(2) The Council of Trent doctrinally pronounced that the vulgar liturgy was not to be used everywhere. This implies exceptions could be granted but it was an attempt to standardize the liturgy as much as possible as well. Thus very few exceptions were granted.

(3) The V2 documents said nothing objective about the quality of translations. (For example, what’s a test for correct translations?). Vernacular is vernacular, whatever that means, for the purpose of expanding its limits.

Unfortunately the end result became one where 500 vernaculars almost completely subsumed the Latin in the liturgy and there is no one bishop or one country or one culture who or which can be blamed for not complying with the primary intent to preserve Latin in the liturgy.

 

[johnnykins]

However from reading the official document SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, it seems that Latin was supposed to be retained:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
2. These norms being observed,** it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. **And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
3. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

The church I know still retains it as its official language but from reading this, Latin was supposed to be retained but it hasnt been in the liturgy. My question is what happend and why was this allowed to happen??

Usually the operative phrase is “Particular law remaining in force…” meaning that the law to use Latin can be changed - and has been. Gotta read things like a lawyer.

The territorial authority mentioned refers to the Bishops but if the Apostolic See has to approve the Bishops decisions as to where the uses of the vernacular are then surely that means Latin still has to be used in parts of the mass where the vernacular isn’t…but this isn’t the case though in the English speaking world why??

Yeah - it looks like the Council said keep Latin, but actually it allowed the change.

The recent translation to the missal is good as it is more accurate with the original Latin texts (although I have come into contact with some people who claim it to be a dead language which is no longer needed which I strongly disagree with). I do feel it has robbed a few generations of being given the accurate translation of what the mass should be as this should have been implemented back in the 1960’s.

I would like to hear what other people have to say so that I can have some light shed on this matter .

Canon Law is Law in all its glory!

 

[ProVobis]

meaning that the law to use Latin can be changed - and has been.

Where has it been changed? Permission to use vernacular does not necessarily supplant use of Latin any more than a judge allowing a particular witness to speak in Spanish (with an interpreter, of course) in an English courtroom. Jubilate Deo is proof that Paul VI did not suppress Latin in the liturgy.

 

[johnnykins]

Where has it been changed? Permission to use vernacular does not necessarily supplant use of Latin any more than a judge allowing a particular witness to speak in Spanish (with an interpreter, of course) in an English courtroom. Jubilate Deo is proof that Paul VI did not suppress Latin in the liturgy.

The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that “the Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (can. 928).

I didn’t say or mean to imply that Latin was suppressed, just that with the change of the “particular law” that can change usage - in this case from exclusive use of Latin in the Latin Rite to permissive use of the vernacular that effectively obliterated the use of Latin.