Question on Novus Ordo in Latin

[bear06]

A: I think hardly any Priest knows the Novus Ordo in Latin,

I can concur on this but I think the number is growing. I thought that my priest was the only one that did it but we have had many substitues in the past year and they all do it pretty well. Besides, if you know the Novus Ordo cold in English, it’s not hard to learn the translation. Even I didn’t have much trouble with that.

B: there are maybe one-tenth the number of Latin Novus Ordo missals than there are Tridentine and maybe 1/1000th of vernacular missals available, making active participation very difficult and costly,

Yeah but those who are interested in the Novus Ordo in Latin know exactly where to go to get one. I have 3! Before we had those, our church had simple Mass cards that covered it.

C: there aren’t enough Priests to have enough Masses that could allow for both the vernacular and Latin since there is a requirement for vernacular Masses, and

It works for my parish. We have an English vigil and 8AM and then we have one Novus Ordo in Latin and a 12:30 Tridentine. There’s something for everyone.

D: Priests who really love Latin would rather celebrate the TLM (in my opinion) than the NO in Latin.

That’s not true of our last few priests. The one at our parish now only does the Novus Ordo and since he’s pastor, he’d have the opportunity to do the TLM if he so chose.

 

[Corki]

A Bishop cannot forbid the use of Latin in the NO Mass. A Bishop may forbid (at this point in time, unless something has changed lately) the TLM in his diocese. It would not make any sense for a priest to celebrate all NO Masses in the parish in Latin only, if none of the faithful understand Latin however.

I know that the Bishop cannot licitly forbid a Latin NO. Nevertheless, our recently retired Bishop did just that. He publicly stated in our diocesan newsletter that he would only allow two Latin NO Masses to be said in the whole diocese each Sunday. He also allowed one TLMass in the diocese each Sunday. For a priest other than the one at that parish to go ahead would mean either outright disobeying his superior or the need to go over the Bishop’s head and likely get sent to a far-flung corner of the diocese for his efforts.

 

[demerzel85]

So for example Novus Ordo Sunday Evening Mass is scheduled for 5.30pm in the Vernacular. A Priest would require the permission of the Bishop to celebrate the Mass in Latin, which he can rightfully deny.

But lets say there is no scheduled Mass for 2.00pm on Sunday, would a Priest still require permission from the Bishop to celebrate Mass with congregation at this time in Latin? And if there are more than enough Priest available can the Bishop still turn down the request? What if the request is for private mass instead? Can a private mass still be celebrated on the main altar of a Church?

Also would there be a difference if only the Ordinary is in Latin while the Propers and/or Commons are in the vernacular?

And lastly as to the point about the availability of missals that have Latin, actually in South East Asia there is a hymn book called ‘Sing Your Praise’ that has most of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin with music notes. (Only the Eucharistic Prayers are not included I think.) Its widely available and far cheaper than the ‘Breaking Bread’ that some Parishes order. It even has a whole section where there are Latin Hymns.

 

[Rykell]

Palmas,

Here is an official document and a few excerpts which show the process for implementing correct translations of the “vernacular.” (Note, it does not forbid latin)

1. In nations where many languages are used, the translations into individual vernacular languages are to be prepared and submitted to the special examination of those Bishops involved. Nevertheless, it is the Conference of Bishops as such that retains the right and the power to posit all of those actions mentioned in this Instruction as pertaining to the Conference; thus, it pertains to the full Conference to approve a text and to submit it for the recognitio of the Apostolic See.
2. The Bishops, in fulfilling their mission of preparing translations of liturgical texts, are carefully to ensure that the translations be the fruit of a truly common effort rather than of any single person or of a small group of persons.
3. The translation of liturgical texts requires not only a rare degree of expertise, but also a spirit of prayer and of trust in the divine assistance granted not only to the translators, but to the Church herself, throughout the whole process leading to the definitive approbation of the texts.
4. Furthermore, as regards the major languages, an integral translation of all of the liturgical books is to be prepared in a timely manner. Translations heretofore approved **ad interim **are to be perfected or thoroughly revised, as the case requires, and afterwards submitted to the Bishops for definitive approbation in accordance with the norms set forth in this Instruction. Finally, they are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments with a request for the recognitio.
5. The recognitio granted by the Apostolic See is to be indicated in the printed editions together with the concordat cum originali signed by the chairman of the liturgical commission of the Conference of Bishops, as well as the imprimatur undersigned by the President of the same Conference. Afterwards, two copies of each printed edition are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
6. Approbation granted in the past for individual liturgical translations remains in effect even if a principle or criterion has been followed which differs from those contained in this Instruction. Nevertheless, from the day on which this Instruction is published, a new period begins for the making of emendations or for undertaking anew the consideration of the introduction of vernacular languages or idioms into liturgical use, as well as for revising translations heretofore made into vernacular languages.
7. Within five years from the date of publication of this Instruction, the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops and the Supreme Moderators of religious families and institutes equivalent in law are bound to present to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments an integral plan regarding the liturgical books translated into the vernacular in their respective territories or institutes.
8. In addition, the norms established by this Instruction attain full force for the emendation of previous translations, and** any further delay in making such emendations is to be avoided**. It is to be hoped that this new effort will provide stability in the life of the Church, so as to lay a firm foundation for supporting the liturgical life of God’s people and bringing about a solid renewal of catechesis.

After the preparation of this Instruction by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in virtue of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff transmitted in a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State dated 1 February 1997 (Prot. n. 408.304), the same Supreme Pontiff, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on 20 March 2001, approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority, ordering that it be published, and that it enter into force on the 25th day of April of the same year.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 28 March, the year 2001.

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect

 

[palmas85]

Palmas,

Here is an official document and a few excerpts which show the process for implementing correct translations of the “vernacular.” (Note, it does not forbid latin)

1. In nations where many languages are used, the translations into individual vernacular languages are to be prepared and submitted to the special examination of those Bishops involved. Nevertheless, it is the Conference of Bishops as such that retains the right and the power to posit all of those actions mentioned in this Instruction as pertaining to the Conference; thus, it pertains to the full Conference to approve a text and to submit it for the recognitio of the Apostolic See.
2. The Bishops, in fulfilling their mission of preparing translations of liturgical texts, are carefully to ensure that the translations be the fruit of a truly common effort rather than of any single person or of a small group of persons.
3. The translation of liturgical texts requires not only a rare degree of expertise, but also a spirit of prayer and of trust in the divine assistance granted not only to the translators, but to the Church herself, throughout the whole process leading to the definitive approbation of the texts.
4. Furthermore, as regards the major languages, an integral translation of all of the liturgical books is to be prepared in a timely manner. Translations heretofore approved **ad interim **are to be perfected or thoroughly revised, as the case requires, and afterwards submitted to the Bishops for definitive approbation in accordance with the norms set forth in this Instruction. Finally, they are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments with a request for the recognitio.
5. Approbation granted in the past for individual liturgical translations remains in effect even if a principle or criterion has been followed which differs from those contained in this Instruction. Nevertheless, from the day on which this Instruction is published, a new period begins for the making of emendations or for undertaking anew the consideration of the introduction of vernacular languages or idioms into liturgical use, as well as for revising translations heretofore made into vernacular languages.
6. Within five years from the date of publication of this Instruction, the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops and the Supreme Moderators of religious families and institutes equivalent in law are bound to present to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments an integral plan regarding the liturgical books translated into the vernacular in their respective territories or institutes.
7. In addition, the norms established by this Instruction attain full force for the emendation of previous translations, and** any further delay in making such emendations is to be avoided**. It is to be hoped that this new effort will provide stability in the life of the Church, so as to lay a firm foundation for supporting the liturgical life of God’s people and bringing about a solid renewal of catechesis.

After the preparation of this Instruction by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in virtue of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff transmitted in a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State dated 1 February 1997 (Prot. n. 408.304), the same Supreme Pontiff, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on 20 March 2001, approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority, ordering that it be published, and that it enter into force on the 25th day of April of the same year.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 28 March, the year 2001.

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect

Rykell:

I note that it does not forbid Latin.

I also note that it does not MANDATE the use of the vernacular either, and appears to refer to new translations, hopefully that will correct some of the positively hideous ones that have been thrust upon us.

I also note the date of 2001. A relatively recent document. Quite a jump from 1969 until 2001, wouldn’t you say?

I do hope it is not the only document that you can produce that indicates the Mass is to be said only or mostly in the vernacular. If it is, it is sorely lacking and doesn’t even appear to apply that that specific scenario but to something else entirely.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas,

Here is an official document and a few excerpts which show the process for implementing correct translations of the “vernacular.” (Note, it does not forbid latin)

1. In nations where many languages are used, the translations into individual vernacular languages are to be prepared and submitted to the special examination of those Bishops involved. Nevertheless, it is the Conference of Bishops as such that retains the right and the power to posit all of those actions mentioned in this Instruction as pertaining to the Conference; thus, it pertains to the full Conference to approve a text and to submit it for the recognitio of the Apostolic See.
2. The Bishops, in fulfilling their mission of preparing translations of liturgical texts, are carefully to ensure that the translations be the fruit of a truly common effort rather than of any single person or of a small group of persons.
3. The translation of liturgical texts requires not only a rare degree of expertise, but also a spirit of prayer and of trust in the divine assistance granted not only to the translators, but to the Church herself, throughout the whole process leading to the definitive approbation of the texts.
4. Furthermore, as regards the major languages, an integral translation of all of the liturgical books is to be prepared in a timely manner. Translations heretofore approved **ad interim **are to be perfected or thoroughly revised, as the case requires, and afterwards submitted to the Bishops for definitive approbation in accordance with the norms set forth in this Instruction. Finally, they are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments with a request for the recognitio.
5. The recognitio granted by the Apostolic See is to be indicated in the printed editions together with the concordat cum originali signed by the chairman of the liturgical commission of the Conference of Bishops, as well as the imprimatur undersigned by the President of the same Conference. Afterwards, two copies of each printed edition are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
6. Approbation granted in the past for individual liturgical translations remains in effect even if a principle or criterion has been followed which differs from those contained in this Instruction. Nevertheless, from the day on which this Instruction is published, a new period begins for the making of emendations or for undertaking anew the consideration of the introduction of vernacular languages or idioms into liturgical use, as well as for revising translations heretofore made into vernacular languages.
7. Within five years from the date of publication of this Instruction, the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops and the Supreme Moderators of religious families and institutes equivalent in law are bound to present to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments an integral plan regarding the liturgical books translated into the vernacular in their respective territories or institutes.
8. In addition, the norms established by this Instruction attain full force for the emendation of previous translations, and** any further delay in making such emendations is to be avoided**. It is to be hoped that this new effort will provide stability in the life of the Church, so as to lay a firm foundation for supporting the liturgical life of God’s people and bringing about a solid renewal of catechesis.

After the preparation of this Instruction by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in virtue of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff transmitted in a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State dated 1 February 1997 (Prot. n. 408.304), the same Supreme Pontiff, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on 20 March 2001, approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority, ordering that it be published, and that it enter into force on the 25th day of April of the same year.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 28 March, the year 2001.

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect

Rykell: Hi

A truly great document.

I note that it does not forbid Latin, although I really already knew that it did not do so…

I also note that it does not MANDATE the use of the vernacular in any way shape or form. The document actually concerns itself more with the proper translations of all Liturgical documents. It does not set forth which parts of the Mass, if any, should be said in the vernacular.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

REMINDER FOR THOSE POSTING REFERENCE OR QUOTED MATERIAL:

You may perhaps wish to take a peek at the “sticky” called Helpful Hints for Posting regarding Guidelines on Posting Articles to Catholic Answers Forums giving your particular attention to Items 11 and 12.

(Post 4) Helpful Hints: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511

 

[Brendan]

It would not make any sense for a priest to celebrate all NO Masses in the parish in Latin only, if none of the faithful understand Latin however.

Well, Sacrosanctum Concilium states that the faithful should be able to say or chant, IN LATIN, their parts of the Mass. (SC 54)

So if a pastor is assigned to a parish where compliance to the directives of Vatican II has been lacking in this regard, it would be an excellent educational and instructional opportunity for the pastor.

 

[Rykell]

Brendan,

I agree that this is what the document says. However, the date is 1963, did you notice? There have been other implementations of the Magisterium since then which permits the entire mass to be said in the vernacular.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

I agree that this is what the document says. However, the date is 1963, did you notice? There have been other implementations of the Magisterium since then which permits the entire mass to be said in the vernacular.

First of all Sacrosanctum Concilium remains the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for the Roman Church.

Secondly, I never said that a priest cannot say an approved translation of the Mass in the vernacular. What I was saying is that SC mandates that the faithful ALSO be familiar with the their responses in Latin.

Can another Papal document remove the requirement that the faithful ALSO know their responses for the Latin Mass, sure it can, the Pope’s Authority is complete and universal.

But I am unaware of any that removed that requirement, if you know of such a document, I would be very interested in it.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the relevant section to the document

(note this is the very same paragraph that makes an allowance for the Mass in the vernacular in the first place)

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful should be able to say or to sing together, in Latin, those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

 

[Rykell]

Brendan,

The first document was in place as early as 1965, and permitted all of the ordinary parts to be in the vernacular.
The second document included the canon itself, and is dated 1967.

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)

57.For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;

b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;

c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism.
adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html

VIII. Use of the Vernacular
28. The competent territorial authority observing those matters contained in the Constitution on the Liturgy art. 36, § 3 and § 4 may authorize use of the vernacular in liturgies celebrated with a congregation for:
a.** The Canon of the Mass;**
b. all the rites of holy orders;
c. the reading of the Divine Office, even in choral recitation.

In the audience granted April 13, 1967 to the undersigned Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larrona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul VI approved and confirmed by his authority the present instruction as a whole and in all its parts, ordering its publication and its faithful observance by all concerned, beginning June 29, 1967.
adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

The first document was in place as early as 1965, and permitted all of the ordinary parts to be in the vernacular.
The second document included the canon itself, and is dated 1967.

Yes, both allow for the Vernacular to be used for the entirety of the Mass.

As I said before, I do not disagree with that.

But SC still requires that the faithful know their parts of the Mass IN LATIN.

It allows them to use the vernacular in Mass, that is a given, but were is the requirement that they know their parts in Latin removed.

Could you highlight the sections that free the faithful from having the knowledge of the Latin responses that SC required.

 

[Rykell]

Why would they have to learn latin when the entire mass is in the verrnacular? If knowledge is not put to use regularly, it is forgotten. By the same token, can you show me one proof where any bishop is making the learning of latin mandatory? And why on earth would he? The original SC was in 1963 before the Commission appointed by the Council had completed its work.

 

[palmas85]

Why would they have to learn latin when the entire mass is in the verrnacular? If knowledge is not put to use regularly, it is forgotten. By the same token, can you show me one proof where any bishop is making the learning of latin mandatory? And why on earth would he? The original SC was in 1963 before the Commission appointed by the Council had completed its work.

I think the relevent point here is that the use of the vernacular is ALLOWED, not mandated. There is a big difference in the two. As I said before, if you can point to some document that mandates the use of the vernacular, I would love to see it.

On a side note, the Roman Missal is still in both languages, Latin and the vernacular of whichever country you happen to be in.

 

[Rykell]

I did post one Palmas, but because you felt that Paul VI’s words were addressed in “general assembly” rather than in a formal encyclical, perhaps they were not to be considered as valid? true? worthy? authoritative? requiring submission in filial obedience?

Not much else I can say, is there?

 

[drforjc]

Rykell et al.
The quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum settled the question asked by the OP. What are we arguing about now?

 

[Brendan]

Why would they have to learn latin when the entire mass is in the verrnacular?

Because Latin is still the Normative language for the Mass.

If knowledge is not put to use regularly, it is forgotten.

Which is why the Latin Mass should be regularly practiced

By the same token, can you show me one proof where any bishop is making the learning of latin mandatory?

Well the Vatican did in it’s norms for the preparation of clergy. And fluency in Latin is a requirement for one to become a Canon Lawer.

But as the the laity, the Archbishop of Riga, Lativa has mandated that at least one Mass in each of his parishes be in Latin.

In addition, His Grace was present at the Synod of the Eucharist last year and spoke Latin in all his addresses to the Synod.

From personal experience, I used to do a substantial amount of international business travel. So no matter where I was, Amersterdam, Bonn, Seoul etc… I could generally find a Latin Mass and therefore do all the “active participation” that Vatican II called for.

Learning the Latin responses is a whole lot easier that trying to memorize all the responses in all the languages that the Church covers, now isn’t it.

And why on earth would he? The original SC was in 1963 before the Commission appointed by the Council had completed its work.

Because the Latin Mass is still the Normative. One bishop might allow the vernacular Mass, but a later bishop might prohibit it.

The Latin Mass is Univerisal and thus cannot be prohibited.

 

[Corki]

Why would they have to learn latin when the entire mass is in the verrnacular? If knowledge is not put to use regularly, it is forgotten. By the same token, can you show me one proof where any bishop is making the learning of latin mandatory? And why on earth would he? The original SC was in 1963 before the Commission appointed by the Council had completed its work.

Well, when I was in San Antonio, every single Church I went to said at least part of the Mass in Latin, usually the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus. It may not be mandated but it is too coincidental to be by chance. My guess is that it is strongly encourgaed.

There is one document that is very explictit about the reason for this. The world has become even more mobile and diverse than it was 40 years ago when the vernacular was first allowed. If the faithful know the Latin, and the basic prayers of Mass are said in Latin worldwide, you can go to any Church in the world and participate. Even if you are not traveling, there are many parts of this country where a single parish has more languages than Masses so at least some of the people are going to a Mass and not able to participate. This would never happen if everyone knew the Latin prayers.

 

[palmas85]

I did post one Palmas, but because you felt that Paul VI’s words were addressed in “general assembly” rather than in a formal encyclical, perhaps they were not to be considered as valid? true? worthy? authoritative? requiring submission in filial obedience?

Not much else I can say, is there?

Hi Rykell

I’ve read both posts, the speech and the documentation provided. In the speech, it looked as though the Holy Father was explaining something, not issuing a mandate of any kind. The other document you provided also did not mandate the use of the vernacular. Thats all I asked for. An official document from Rome that says the vernacular MUST be used.

Don’t get me wrong, the use of the vernacular really doesn’t bother me except that it fosters dis-unity, especially in congregations where you have multiple ethnicities and languages… In a homogenious society it should pose no real problem. Unfortunately, we live in a world quite different than the mid 60’s when this whole thing started. Heck even in the documents you provided the use of Latin was thought appropriate in cases where multiple languages were spoken by the congregation.

Latin far from being the devisive force many think it was these days, was actually a unifying factor. A common litugical language can go a long way towards unity and group affiliation.