The meaning of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium

[NewEnglandPriest]

So the new “custom” of using changing translations supercedes the 1600-yr+ custom of using immutable Latin/Greek/Hebrew in the liturgy?

There’s a couple of issues being confused here. There’s the law and there’s custom.

Custom cannot simply sweep away the law. The Holy Father is the legislator and judge of the law. He promulgates it, adjusts it, and judges its violations. He is technically bound by nothing. So the short answer is: the Pope is not bound by any custom/tradition/longevity when dealing with issues of law.

The law is the Roman Missal, nothing else is allowed to be used.

Now when it comes to custom, that deals with how the law is used and applied. The custom shows us the mind of the Church, to a certain extent. As we’ve seen there are various amounts of Latin that could be used in the current OF. If it were indeed a violation of the law to have no Latin in the Mass shouldn’t we see a crackdown on that somewhere/anywhere over the past 40 years? Or, at the very least, some kind strong reminder in the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal?

 

[ProVobis]

If it were indeed a violation of the law to have no Latin in the Mass shouldn’t we see a crackdown on that somewhere/anywhere over the past 40 years?

Wasn’t this tried already by:

1. Veterum Sapientia
2. Studia Latinitatis
3. Vatican II
4. Canon 249
5. Jubilate Deo
6. USCCB document on priestly formation

Not to mention “gentle” reminders by Popes JPII and Benedict XVI

?

 

[FrDavid96]

Wasn’t this tried already by:

1. Veterum Sapientia
2. Studia Latinitatis
3. Vatican II
4. Canon 249
5. Jubilate Deo
6. USCCB document on priestly formation

Not to mention “gentle” reminders by Popes JPII and Benedict XVI

?

Actually, no. I’ll address that in more detail in the 2nd half here.

For one thing, some of what you listed is the law itself, and some are interpretations or applications of the law. Since we’re discussing custom, that’s a very important distinction to make.

I do think that the best way to describe “custom” is to compare it to what we see in civil law as case law or precedent, or even “common law” if we’re talking about immemorial custom.

One interpretation of the law (one custom) might say that it’s permitted to celebrate the entire Mass in the vernacular.

Another interpretation of the law (another custom) might say that there can, or even should, be a mix of Latin and vernacular.

These 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. That might sound a bit odd at first, but think of it this way. At my own parish, I can have a Mass entirely in Latin (using the current OF Missal) on Monday, and then a Mass entirely in English on Tuesday. Both would be legitimate.

On the other hand, a so-called custom which says that either language is forbidden would not be a custom because that interpretation would run contrary to the law.

In the earlier post, (the one to which you replied)

… If it were indeed a violation of the law to have no Latin in the Mass shouldn’t we see a crackdown on that somewhere/anywhere over the past 40 years? …

Look again at the words “a violation of the law to have no Latin.” Or to put that another way “a violation to have Mass entirely in the vernacular.”

Rome is not saying that it is a violation to have no Latin, but rather suggesting strongly that more Latin be added (or restored, if you will). In other words, the custom that says “100% vernacular is at least one legitimate option” is not itself a violation, but a legitimate custom.

It seems to me that what you’re trying to get at here is that the Church is encouraging more use of Latin in the Mass? Is that the bottom line? If yes, then I’m in total agreement with you on that.

We all know that many people have interpreted Vatican II to have said that Mass in Latin is forbidden. A few decades ago, many (indeed most) Catholics took that for granted. That interpretation ran contrary to the law itself. We’ve certainly seen the Church “correcting” this misinterpretation in recent years.

Earlier in the thread, you posted this

But can’t one use that same argument (of custom) to keep the old English translation for his parish or diocese?

Again, it seem to me, that you might be concerned that such a thing would happen. True?

The reason why I keep posting on the topic of “custom” is to set your mind at ease, that it would not be legitimate for a priest to invoke custom as a reason for continuing to use the old (early 70s) Sacramentary.

 

[Filii_Dei]

But can’t one use that same argument (of custom) to keep the old English translation for his parish or diocese?

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Custom is important, but it does not take precedence over directives given by the bishop or the Vatican. In this case, canon law permits masses to be celebrated in either the approved vernacular translation or the original Latin, and that is where local custom has the latitude to decide upon the balance of vernacular/Latin to be used.

The Latin Missal is by default the foundation of all (Latin) Catholic liturgies, and is perpetually available regardless of the opinions of the ordinary in question, but the old English translation has been officially deprecated (I presume) by both the bishops and the Vatican, so it cannot be used at all.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Custom is important, but it does not take precedence over directives given by the bishop or the Vatican. In this case, canon law permits masses to be celebrated in either the approved vernacular translation or the original Latin, and that is where local custom has the latitude to decide upon the balance of vernacular/Latin to be used.

I see what you’re saying here but wasn’t the vernacular a mandated “custom” in the 60’s? Hardly what I consider a true custom or even allowance. Veterum Sapientia was widely accepted at the time it was written so I didn’t see the vernacular canon as being that popular when it first came out, especially since a few people started doubting the validity of an all-English canon. (Omlor and others wrote on this.)

I’m no theologian but to me, dropping Latin would be like dropping math (and a foreign language, for that matter) as a requirement to studying physics. It may make physics more popular but how would physics be advanced as a science and what about preserving its integrity?

In a way, that everyone doesn’t see fit to familiarize themselves with Latin is perhaps a good thing in that those studying it won’t see fit to vulgarize it either, as happens with the vernacular. Yet somehow it is remarkable that the Church has managed to preserve the language for 2 some millennia in its liturgy and documents.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Wasn’t this tried already by:

1. Veterum Sapientia
2. Studia Latinitatis
3. Vatican II
4. Canon 249
5. Jubilate Deo
6. USCCB document on priestly formation

Not to mention “gentle” reminders by Popes JPII and Benedict XVI

?

I think Fr. David did an excellent job addressing this. But I did just want to briefly address your citation of canon 249 which reads: “The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.”

This canon does not require anything of the Mass to be in Latin. It merely asks that future priests be able to understand it well. Most seminaries do address this in various ways. Latin has application in the Church not just in Mass but in canon law and magisterial declarations.

Indeed the USCCB Program for Priestly Formation states: “knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of so many scientific sources and of the documents of the Church…”

There are multiple reasons for the recommendation that seminarians study Latin. In fact Latin is most helpful to priests even if they never say anything in Mass in Latin.

Ironically enough, the USCCB’s PPF also recommends several times the study of Spanish yet we don’t see too many complaints on these boards about the paltry level of Spanish language education in US seminaries.

 

[ProVobis]

Look again at the words “a violation of the law to have no Latin.” Or to put that another way “a violation to have Mass entirely in the vernacular.”

Rome is not saying that it is a violation to have no Latin, but rather suggesting strongly that more Latin be added (or restored, if you will). In other words, the custom that says “100% vernacular is at least one legitimate option” is not itself a violation, but a legitimate custom.

Yes, but legalities aside, once you’ve broken the continuity of a 1600+ yr tradition by pretty much mandating and reinforcing the vernacular for a full generation or two, how do you restore the Latin? It seems people freak out these days just at the sound of the word “Latin.” This is not a natural fear; it is taught.

On a side note, there is an attempt to make English the official language of the United States by legislation. First reaction I’ve heard is “Good luck with that.” I have mixed feelings on this as the attempt seems mean spirited against the English-challenged but yet I can’t fault them for trying to standardize the language used in law, tax codes, etc. Retranslating the Spanish version to be closer to the English, for example, wouldn’t be enough. And it seems I’m not the only one who thinks the U.S. Constitution (or Shakespeare, for that matter) would lose a lot in translation.

Can’t we say the same about the liturgy?