Pope: Mass in vernacular helps people understand God, live the faith

[theoda]

The relevant quotes are those reflected by the Popes of our times. They don’t speak in contradiction to the Popes of the past who spoke for their times. When Pope Francis say to the faithful (per the OP)…

“Let us give thanks to the Lord for what he has done in his Church in these 50 years of liturgical reform. It was really a courageous move by the Church to get closer to the people of God so that they could understand well what it does, and this is important for us: to follow Mass like this,”

He speaks for the whole Church in guiding us in our times. It’s theologically errant to juxtapose the quotes of one Pope against another to dismiss one as wrong.

It is theologically errant to say that one doctrine applies to a certain time and then it no longer applies. If you pay attention to the quotes, it says that since the church endures throughout all of time, it needs a universal common language, Latin. They weren’t talking about only their time, but for all time of the Church. Now however, we have to decide who is right since they say different things, and I think the popes beforehand know more and are correct when they say that the Mass should be in Latin.

 

[theoda]

I objected to both quotes in the second paragraph. I have put it in bold now. There you go.

I responded to that earlier. If I recall correctly, I asked you to find any doctrine saying the vernacular is better and should be used.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I responded to that earlier. If I recall correctly, I asked you to find any doctrine saying the vernacular is better and should be used.

Mathew 16:18

Changing the language you speak doesn’t stop the Church from enduring until the end of time and it doesn’t change doctrine, because you know, Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church.
It will endure and teach the truth, no matter what. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Oh, and Mass wasn’t always said in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Sessio Vigesimasecunda, (22 Session)

DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ

*Caput VIII.

Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.

Etsi missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem; non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. Quamobrem, retento ubique cujusque Ecclesiæ antiquo et a sancta Romana Ecclesia, omnium ecclesiarum matre et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve parvuli panem petant et non sit qui frangat eis, mandat sancta synodus pastoribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex iis, quæ in missa leguntur, aliquid exponant; atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod declarent, diebus præsertim dominicis et festis.*

Chapter VIII

The Mass is not to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue; its mysteries are 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,251 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.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX.—If anyone 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.

---

Question: Would there even be a Roman Rite today had Trent allowed several hundred vernaculars without the Latin? What if they had allowed all-vernacular in the Roman rite in earlier centuries? Didn’t some people brag in the 60’s that the Roman Rite was essentially dead?

 

[Pulvis]

For what its worth, Sacrosanctum Concillium while adding more venacular retained latin in the liturgy, and asked for gregorian chant to be given pride of place. For those here too young to remember, try to get a copy of the 1965 missal. The one that the just past Mass by Pope Francis honored on the 50th anniversary of it being said by ++Pope Paul VI. It was clearly evident that this Missal was developed from the 1962 Missal. I have one. I collect Missals. I firmly believe that the Missal of 1965 came very close to S. C. What happened between this Missal and the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 I will leave to others. But clearly a break in organic development occurred. In the whirlwind of the 1960’s, many foundations were shaken. The liturgy was not immune.

 

[theoda]

Mathew 16:18

Changing the language you speak doesn’t stop the Church from enduring until the end of time and it doesn’t change doctrine, because you know, Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church.
It will endure and teach the truth, no matter what. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Oh, and Mass wasn’t always said in Latin.

You didn’t respond to my claim. I said that Latin should be used and you have responded the church will not fail. It doesn’t counter it. Doctrine doesn’t change, and the doctrine is that Latin should be used. I have asked you to find any Church teachings that says Latin is ineffective and the vernacular should be used, please do so. It will endure and teach the truth no matter what, but it will struggle like it is now. Since it has de emphasized Latin but not completely abandoned it it has seen a decrease in reverence and number of Catholics but it has not failed. I have never said that since the language of the Mass has changed, it won’t endure any more. Please don’t accuse me of this nor of the popes.

The Mass has been said in Latin for 1500+years, where as the vernacular only 50+. Therefore I think it is prudent to stand by Tradition rather than Modernism.

 

[SWolf]

For what its worth, Sacrosanctum Concillium while adding more venacular retained latin in the liturgy, and asked for gregorian chant to be given pride of place. For those here too young to remember, try to get a copy of the 1965 missal. The one that the just past Mass by Pope Francis honored on the 50th anniversary of it being said by ++Pope Paul VI. It was clearly evident that this Missal was developed from the 1962 Missal. I have one. I collect Missals. I firmly believe that the Missal of 1965 came very close to S. C. What happened between this Missal and the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 I will leave to others. But clearly a break in organic development occurred. In the whirlwind of the 1960’s, many foundations were shaken. The liturgy was not immune.

If one has patience that borders on masochism, the tome Iota Unum does a good job of explaining what happened in detail.

 

[Cider]

As a convert, I can say that if I didn’t understand what was being said, I would not have converted. Heck, I would have totally overlooked Catholicism. I’m a need to know type of person and well, they wouldn’t like it if I stood up and started asking what was going on in the middle of Mass.

Now, it would be neat to learn Latin, but when I was going through the process of finding the church for me, Latin would have totally intimidated me and I would have stayed away.

And as a convert myself, I wouldn’t have converted if I hadn’t had access to the TLM. I know because I attempted to more than once at parish’s with the only the ordinary form.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

You didn’t respond to my claim. I said that Latin should be used and you have responded the church will not fail. It doesn’t counter it. Doctrine doesn’t change, and the doctrine is that Latin should be used. I have asked you to find any Church teachings that says Latin is ineffective and the vernacular should be used, please do so. It will endure and teach the truth no matter what, but it will struggle like it is now. Since it has de emphasized Latin but not completely abandoned it it has seen a decrease in reverence and number of Catholics but it has not failed. I have never said that since the language of the Mass has changed, it won’t endure any more. Please don’t accuse me of this nor of the popes.

The Mass has been said in Latin for 1500+years, where as the vernacular only 50+. Therefore I think it is prudent to stand by Tradition rather than Modernism.

1500+ years ago, wouldn’t Latin have been “modern” ? Maybe it would be even more prudent to go allllll the way back to the beginning. Maybe Aramaic or Greek, perhaps? Didn’t the Protestant Reformation begin while everything was Latin? That made a whole heap of people leave the church, right?

 

[theoda]

Sessio Vigesimasecunda, (22 Session)

DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ

*Caput VIII.

Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.

Etsi missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem; non tamen expedire visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. Quamobrem, retento ubique cujusque Ecclesiæ antiquo et a sancta Romana Ecclesia, omnium ecclesiarum matre et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve parvuli panem petant et non sit qui frangat eis, mandat sancta synodus pastoribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex iis, quæ in missa leguntur, aliquid exponant; atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod declarent, diebus præsertim dominicis et festis.*

Chapter VIII

The Mass is not to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue; its mysteries are 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,251 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.—Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX.—If anyone 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.

---

Question: Would there even be a Roman Rite today had Trent allowed several hundred vernaculars without the Latin? What if they had allowed all-vernacular in the Roman rite in earlier centuries? Didn’t some people brag in the 60’s that the Roman Rite was essentially dead?

Thank you for providing the doctrine that shows that Latin should be used. Now if we don’t get any doctrine from anyone else saying that it shouldn’t be used, we can say that Latin is superior and this argument over.

 

[Cider]

I like Latin mass, but I also like understanding and participating in mass. I’m not taking sides but there is one fact that can’t be denied, we have far more converts than ever thanks to Saint John Paul II. Could masses in languages people understood contribute maybe, but I’m a convert and im sure it helped me some.

Really? You think there have been more converts in the last 50 years than in the previous 1900 years of the Church? Really?

 

[Cider]

Thank you for providing the doctrine that shows that Latin should be used. Now if we don’t get any doctrine from anyone else saying that it shouldn’t be used, we can say that Latin is superior and this argument over.

But that hasn’t resulted in the restoration of Latin on the parish level. At least not the ones I’ve been to in multiple states.

 

[theoda]

1500+ years ago, wouldn’t Latin have been “modern” ? Maybe it would be even more prudent to go allllll the way back to the beginning. Maybe Aramaic or Greek, perhaps? Didn’t the Protestant Reformation begin while everything was Latin? That made a whole heap of people leave the church, right?

I don’t think you realize what modernism is. There is a great tradition that the non-vernacular language should be used. That actually goes back to the beginning with the Old Covenant.
Modernism is the tendency to break with tradition and to do what should be done in that particular time period because Tradition won’t work on that modern time.

You actually proved my point better by saying that the Protestants say it in the vernacular. Since Protestants back then are according to the Catholic Church schismatics and heretics, why would we want to do something that they do? Aren’t we in the one true Church of God? If they broke away from it, why would we follow their example and say it in the vernacular. Don’t we trust our own doctrine which Christ promised to be infallible and guided by the Holy Ghost, than thier doctrine which is not protected? Didn’t Christ say that the gates of hell would never prevail against it?

If they broke away because of sin(the main leaders of the Reformation not the regular followers who might have been ignorant), then their fruits must be bad. Christ told us we can tell false prophets by their fruits, and if the fruit of the Protestant Reformation is worship in a vernacular language , we can reason that it is a bad fruit and therefore we shouldn’t use the vernacular.

 

[theoda]

But that hasn’t resulted in the restoration of Latin on the parish level. At least not the ones I’ve been to in multiple states.

Unfortunately, no, but hopefully some day it can be restoredas soon as people understand why it should be used.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I don’t think you realize what modernism is. There is a great tradition that the non-vernacular language should be used. That actually goes back to the beginning with the Old Covenant.
Modernism is the tendency to break with tradition and to do what should be done in that particular time period because Tradition won’t work on that modern time.

You actually proved my point better by saying that the Protestants say it in the vernacular. Since Protestants back then are according to the Catholic Church schismatics and heretics, why would we want to do something that they do? Aren’t we in the one true Church of God? If they broke away from it, why would we follow their example and say it in the vernacular. Don’t we trust our own doctrine which Christ promised to be infallible and guided by the Holy Ghost, than thier doctrine which is not protected? Didn’t Christ say that the gates of hell would never prevail against it?

If they broke away because of sin(the main leaders of the Reformation not the regular followers who might have been ignorant), then their fruits must be bad. Christ told us we can tell false prophets by their fruits, and if the fruit of the Protestant Reformation is worship in a vernacular language , we can reason that it is a bad fruit and therefore we shouldn’t use the vernacular.

I didn’t say that they speak in the vernacular. I said heaps left while everything was in Latin. So people left the church then because of sin, but they leave now because it is done in the vernacular? Yep, makes sense. Are you comparing the OF to heretics? Because that second paragraph kinda seems like you are. You know what? :takethat: I can’t even. :nope:

 

[theoda]

I didn’t say that they speak in the vernacular. I said heaps left while everything was in Latin. So people left the church then because of sin, but they leave now because it is done in the vernacular? Yep, makes sense. Are you comparing the OF to heretics? Because that second paragraph kinda seems like you are. You know what? :takethat: I can’t even. :nope:

You said they left because of Latin. One of the main goals of the Reformation was to use the vernacular language(that’s what the Protestants used). Since the leaders left the Church because of sin, their idea of a vernacular language is a bad fruit. Remember when Christ told us we can tell false prophets by their fruits?

I’m not comparing the OF to heretics. I didn’t say that at all and it doesn’t “seem” like I did either.

This is a difficult concept to understand . If you have anything to say, please say it.

P.S. It doesn’t matter whether or not you said Protestants celebrate in the vernacular, it is a fact they do.

 

[theoda]

Also the other disadvantage to the vernacular is that it does break with Tradition, which is never a good idea. It is an idea of modernism which was condemned by the Church before recently, most importantly St.Pius X

 

[dmar198]

Thank you for providing the doctrine that shows that Latin should be used. Now if we don’t get any doctrine from anyone else saying that it shouldn’t be used, we can say that Latin is superior and this argument over.

First, at this page that chapter heading is written this way: “On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue.” There is a big difference between “Mass should not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue” and “Mass should not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue everywhere.” The latter leaves room for Mass to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue and helps show that this was a discipline, not a doctrine.

Second, I want to emphasize that distinction between discipline and doctrine. Just because a document is headed by the word “doctrine” does not mean it does not refer to disciplines too. In this case, the Council of Trent, if I’m reading it correctly, ruled that Mass should not be said everywhere in the vulgar tongues. So it wasn’t. But I do think it allowed Mass to be said in some places in the vulgar tongue – like Greece, where I believe Greek Catholics had always said, and continued to say Mass, in Greek.

So there is your “other doctrine” that says that Mass can be celebrated in non-Latin languages, and it’s not a doctrine, it’s a discipline.

The language of the Mass affects the Mass itself, and if said in the vernacular it could lose the reverence that is due at Mass.

I don’t think that would be the language’s fault. How would you answer the following argument?

Premise 1. Something can only cause irreverence at Mass if it is inherently inappropriate for Mass.
Premise 2. Non-Latin languages are not inherently inappropriate for Mass because they have been used in the Mass with the Church’s approval for centuries.
Conclusion. Therefore, non-Latin languages cannot cause irreverence at Mass.

Do you think that is a valid argument?

 

[dmar198]

[deleted by author]

 

[ProVobis]

You said they left because of Latin. One of the main goals of the Reformation was to use the vernacular language(that’s what the Protestants used).

Best way to spread heresy and misinformation is through translations.

The Italians have this saying, “traduttore, traditore” (translator, traitor)

Of course they themselves were traitors to the original omnis traductor traditor (every translator is a traitor).

IOW “every translation is a corruption of the original; the reader should take heed of unavoidable imperfections”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28O%29