SPLIT: Retention of Latin in the Liturgy

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul VI General Audience, November 26, 1969

And yet, five years later, he issued Jubitate Deo, intended to be a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant," and to be used in every parish.

adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html

 

[bmadamsberry]

And yet, five years later, he issued Jubitate Deo, intended to be a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant," and to be used in every parish.

adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html

Jubilate Deo was a book of chants. The accompanying letter, as well as the book, were published (I believe) by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, not the Pope himself.

That said, I don’t understand your “and yet,” which would imply that what I was stating was somehow wrong. Rather, I think Pope Paul VI’s vision was a Mass in which the majority of the spoken tongue was in English, with certain parts (such as the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, for example) sung/said/chanted in Latin. The implication therefore being that one should appreciate the need in our modern day for the use of the vernacular in Mass, while at the same time remembering our “heritage” and our history (of the Latin Rite).

I therefore either misunderstood your intent, or you misunderstood mine. If I misunderstood yours, then I’m sorry.

 

[ProVobis]

I think Pope Paul VI’s vision was a Mass in which the majority of the spoken tongue was in English, with certain parts (such as the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, for example) sung/said/chanted in Latin.

English Masses only constitute about 5% of Catholic Masses. But yes, to preserve Latin in the liturgy was the intent of the council, whose documents Paul VI had signed. Translations were left entirely up to the bishops and they would determine the extent of the translations. I think there was some confusion on this issue in 1969, because if I remember that same document you noted also included that Latin was not going away. In any case I think this is what you were referring to in the same document:

…But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

 

[Brendan]

Jubilate Deo was a book of chants. The accompanying letter, as well as the book, were published (I believe) by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, not the Pope himself…

FYI, Pope Paul VI ordered it to be published.

 

[superamazingman]

Jubilate Deo was a book of chants. The accompanying letter, as well as the book, were published (I believe) by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, not the Pope himself.

That said, I don’t understand your “and yet,” which would imply that what I was stating was somehow wrong. Rather, I think Pope Paul VI’s vision was a Mass in which the majority of the spoken tongue was in English, with certain parts (such as the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, for example) sung/said/chanted in Latin. The implication therefore being that one should appreciate the need in our modern day for the use of the vernacular in Mass, while at the same time remembering our “heritage” and our history (of the Latin Rite).

I therefore either misunderstood your intent, or you misunderstood mine. If I misunderstood yours, then I’m sorry.

However, the CDW speaks for the pope in matters liturgical. Don’t forget that.

 

[bmadamsberry]

FYI, Pope Paul VI ordered it to be published.

I hadn’t read that, but it might well be the case (I assume you mean the book, and not the letter).

 

[bmadamsberry]

However, the CDW speaks for the pope in matters liturgical. Don’t forget that.

The CDW semi-speaks for the Pope in matters liturgical. Documents that come out of the congregations do not have the same weight as those that come directly from the Pope. The Pope sometimes doesn’t always read all of the documents that come out of the congregations.

Nevertheless, the letter does not conflict with what I stated earlier, about the importance of using the vernacular language in Mass, while at the same time retaining the use of Latin in part.

 

[bmadamsberry]

English Masses only constitute about 5% of Catholic Masses. But yes, to preserve Latin in the liturgy was the intent of the council, whose documents Paul VI had signed. Translations were left entirely up to the bishops and they would determine the extent of the translations. I think there was some confusion on this issue in 1969, because if I remember that same document you noted also included that Latin was not going away. In any case I think this is what you were referring to in the same document:

Whoops! I said English instead of vernacular. My apologizes.

The Pope Paul VI did, indeed, state in that document that Latin was not going away for the Latin Rite, but rather that it was going to be retained/preserved in part.

 

[ProVobis]

"…Its [expanded Jubilate Deo] 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).

“All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy.…

“Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies” (GIRM §41).

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[ProVobis]

The CDW semi-speaks for the Pope in matters liturgical. Documents that come out of the congregations do not have the same weight as those that come directly from the Pope. The Pope sometimes doesn’t always read all of the documents that come out of the congregations.

Regardless of what Paul VI read or didn’t read in 1969, for the record:

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.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

 

[bmadamsberry]

Regardless of what Paul VI read or didn’t read in 1969, for the record:

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

Yes, and I totally agree with what the Pope said and with the idea, and I don’t believe any of my posts contradicted either what His Holiness said or the spirit of what he said.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and I totally agree with what the Pope said and with the idea, and I don’t believe any of my posts contradicted either what His Holiness said or the spirit of what he said.

Actually you did well in bringing up the point because it showed that the Church has become more and more attentive to the increasing frequency of Catholics of different vernaculars gathering together. (per the GRIM/GIRM noted above) And that’s a good thing, IMO. Now if we can only implement JD…

 

[Digitonomy]

“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”

An interesting difference I hadn’t noticed before is the slight weakening of the language from the first document to the second. The first is an imperative, although a weak and nonspecific one, in the passive voice. It doesn’t say who should take the steps, but by default the bishop is the shepherd of his flock, and was implicitly failing if steps were not taken at some level. By the second document, it is merely fitting that the faithful know some Latin. Maybe they already know it, maybe they’ll pick it up watching EWTN, maybe it’ll never happen, like some other fitting things (e.g. an end to murder). But unlike the first document, there is no indication that any action is needed.

 

[ProVobis]

An interesting difference I hadn’t noticed before is the slight weakening of the language from the first document to the second. The first is an imperative, although a weak and nonspecific one, in the passive voice. It doesn’t say who should take the steps, but by default the bishop is the shepherd of his flock, and was implicitly failing if steps were not taken at some level. By the second document, it is merely fitting that the faithful know some Latin. Maybe they already know it, maybe they’ll pick it up watching EWTN, maybe it’ll never happen, like some other fitting things (e.g. an end to murder). But unlike the first document, there is no indication that any action is needed.

Dig, is it a weakening or a reinforcement? Don’t forget the more it’s reiterated the more authoritative it is.

As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

 

[Digitonomy]

Dig, is it a weakening or a reinforcement? Don’t forget the more it’s reiterated the more authoritative it is.

Based on the sentence you quote, we have contrary indications of the repetition giving it greater weight, with the tenor of the verbal expression giving it lesser weight.

While such an analysis may still hold true, I would point out that your link addresses Church teaching, rather than instruction on implementing discipline, which is what we’re discussing here.

 

[TrueLight]

An interesting difference I hadn’t noticed before is the slight weakening of the language from the first document to the second.

That’s basically the trend.

 

[liturgyluver]

To be honest, I find most church documents so badly drafted, ambiguous and contradictory that it is almost impossible to be conclusive about what is intended: It sometimes feels like they are intentionally written so that they can be interpreted any which way!

Taking Latin in the liturgy, for example we learn that Pastors “should ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the liturgy which pertain to them.” although “the use of the vernacular is the norm in most liturgical celebrations for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.”

Gregorian chant has “pride of place”, but then we learn that this only applies to “sung celebrations in Latin” and is modified by “other things being equal”. What does this mean? Apparently, “the important pastoral and liturgical concens facing Bishops, pastors and musicians.” And “whenever the Latin language poses an obstacle to singers - even after training has been provided it would be more prudent to emply a vernacular language.”

No wonder the very clear statements about Latin in the liturgy from Vatican II, and about what specific chants should be learnt by the faithful are open to such widespread disagreement about what should happen in practice.

 

[ProVobis]

Based on the sentence you quote, we have contrary indications of the repetition giving it greater weight, with the tenor of the verbal expression giving it lesser weight.

But aren’t we weighing the English translations of these documents? We already saw how the English translations of the SC (“frequently,” for example) weighed more heavily toward the “mother tongue” than the Latin (haud raro, “not rarely”). Just saying maybe we’re reading too much into the translation?

While such an analysis may still hold true, I would point out that your link addresses Church teaching, rather than instruction on implementing discipline, which is what we’re discussing here.

You may be right that it’s not Church teaching. But then is the language of the Church a discipline or a conveyance of the teaching? One can argue that translations or even paraphrasings are almost always substandard to the original text in question. I submit that language has a purpose and is not a simple discipline. Java, for example, may be the language for OOP but it’s not the language of the supercomputer which requires much more efficient code for its multi-trillion instruction per second executions. In the same way Ecclesiastical Latin is the language designed for Catholic worship, almost by definition. This isn’t stated in any Church document as such, but can be deduced from reading Trent, Vatican II, Veterum Sapientia, Canon 249, etc. That said, one favoring vernacular-only certainly can find enough in the documents to satisfy his argument as well. However, sooner or later he will be faced with the fact that not everyone agrees with the translations and changes are imminent and vernacular is only local. And what is he going to do when he can’t find a vernacular Mass he can understand? He’s then no better off than if all the Masses were in Latin and he doesn’t know a word of Latin. And let’s not be that short-sighted to think it will never happen. We’re already in our third version of English translations and our understanding of the Mass collectively has never been lower.

 

[ProVobis]

Gregorian chant has “pride of place”

One would think steps would have been taken immediately to implement this wish of the council in some form or other while Latin was still fresh on everyone’s mind. This wasn’t even a matter for local bishops. The delay seemingly just made it tougher to implement later as other priorities started to dominate. Just saying.