There are two points that are important here. The Extraordinary Form that we celebrate today is not exactly the same as the form promulgated by Trent and implemented by Pope Pius V. It has undergone some changes all the way up to Vatican II. That’s the actual form that we call the Extraordinary Form, the last revision.
It is also true that the only episcopal conferences that translated it into a languages other than Latin were the Asian conferences. In Viet Nam, Japan and I believe it may have been Korea it was translated. The largest groups of missionaries in those countries were Franciscans and Jesuits. They translated it encouraged by both St. Francis Xavier and St. Maximilian Kolbe. But the Holy See approved the translations. However, they had an interesting arrangement. The Latin was always used in those churches where the Europeans attended mass. The local language was used in those places where the congregation was indigenous.
The logic came from St. Francis Xavier who wrote to St. Ignatius complaining that unless the mass was less European, they would have problems getting the Asians to attend. I’m not sure if it was Ignatius or some one of his successors who petitioned Rome for permission to translate it. But the Jesuits started it. In the 20th century, St. Maximilian Kolbe petitioned the General of the Franciscans for permission to translate again. The General petioned the Holy See and permission was granted for the Conventual Franciscans to use a translation.
There is a blank piece here that I don’t know about. I’m not sure what happened to the original Jesuit translation. But obviously it was not in use when St. Maximilian reached Nagazaki (sp?). Also, the translation that St. Maximilian and the Conventuals used is not the same as the Extraordinary Mass that we know today. Because the missal was rewritten long after the death of St. Maximilian and the arrival of the first Conventual Franciscans in Japan.
I would guess that there may be a translation of today’s Latin missal in the Asian countries, since they had translations of the former missals. Since there was a precedent, there is no reason to believe that if someone petitions the Holy See, permission cannot be granted to translate it into other languages.
The question would be why do so? Most of the people who want the Extraordinary Form also have a desire to have it in Latin. The circumstances of St. Francis Xavier and St. Maximilian was different. The Japanese were uncomfortable with Latin. Not only was it a different language, but it was also a different alphabet. The common man could not read western script. That was one of the big problems that the early Jesuit missionaries and the later Franciscan missionaries found. You can’t write phonetically using the Asian alphabets. They are not phonetic. People had to memorize the prayers for the entire year. That was too much. Even in the western nations we don’t do that. We follow along with a missal so that we can say the proper prayers for the day. We don’t memorize the 52 Sundays and the major holy days.
That’s why it was necessary to translate into the Asian languages. Today the situation may be different in Asia. Many more people can decode the western alphabet. Even if they don’t understand what they’re saying, they can pronounce it. There is no way to write western languages using Asian characters. That why they did have a translation.
We don’t hear about that in our neck of the woods, because we live in more modern times, in a different country and the Asian people with whom we’re familiar all read the Western alphabet. There are very few Asians in the USA who don’t read the Wesern Alphabet, even if they don’t speak a Western language.
But missionaries have always had to deal with the alphabet problem in Asia, until after WW II when the Western languages began to be taught in Asian schools, not just in the schools of the wealthy or the European schools in Asia, such as in Hong Kong where they learned English. In Viet Nam the higher classes learned French. If they could read French, they could read Latin. Those people had the mass in Latin. The peasants did not read French, because they did not have access to European books.
Given this history of Asia, there is no reason to believe that there is a fundamental law against a translation into English, but it is unlikely for cultural reasons more than legal ones.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
