The meaning of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium

[jayk15]

From Paragraph 21 of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

---

Im just trying to understand this. I have always liked the use of latin in the liturgy but this paragraph states that the faithful should understand with ease the texts and rites of the liturgy. Does this just mean that the faithful should just be properly educated on the meaning of the texts and rites and not that the use of latin itself will hinder the faithful from understanding the texts and rites of the liturgy?

 

[ProVobis]

From Paragraph 21 of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

---

Im just trying to understand this. I have always liked the use of latin in the liturgy but this paragraph states that the faithful should understand with ease the texts and rites of the liturgy. Does this just mean that the faithful should just be properly educated on the meaning of the texts and rites and not that the use of latin itself will hinder the faithful from understanding the texts and rites of the liturgy?

It seems as if this wasn’t translated correctly. It seems to imply a community gets to decide on what the texts and rites and responses should be in order to understand the Mass better for that community. Rites aside, a one-size-fits-all translation for a whole country doesn’t quite fit that request. Just my opinion.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oooh. Fun topic.

I’ve maintained the opinion that the use of the Latin language in the liturgy does not excuse people from understanding it.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Oooh. Fun topic.

I’ve maintained the opinion that the use of the Latin language in the liturgy does not excuse people from understanding it.

 

[jayk15]

It seems as if this wasn’t translated correctly. It seems to imply a community gets to decide on what the texts and rites and responses should be in order to understand the Mass better for that community. Rites aside, a one-size-fits-all translation for a whole country doesn’t quite fit that request. Just my opinion.

I was reading this document off the vatican website

 

[MarkThompson]

Im just trying to understand this. I have always liked the use of latin in the liturgy but this paragraph states that the faithful should understand with ease the texts and rites of the liturgy. Does this just mean that the faithful should just be properly educated on the meaning of the texts and rites and not that the use of latin itself will hinder the faithful from understanding the texts and rites of the liturgy?

It obviously does not just mean that better education is necessary, since paragraph 21 is proposing “a general restoration of the liturgy itself,” affirms that the rite has element that “not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time,” and talks about how the “texts and rites should be drawn up.” The issue of language, though, is only part of it. One may assume that the Council had in mind such practices as “proclaiming” the readings in an inaudible voice while facing the wall, or introducing the Lord’s Prayer with “audemus dicere” (“we dare to say”) but then forbidding the people to actually say it. Likewise, paragraph 30 proposes that “the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs,” which would be difficult if not impossible in the unreformed rite.

It is always interesting to see people from each wing of the liturgical divide try to come to grips with what the Council actually said. On one hand, the “Council changed everything” faction is hard pressed to know what to do with the Council’s statements about retaining some Latin, making changes only where necessary, etc. On the other hand, there is a growing faction that wants to believe that the Council intended to change nothing at all and basically planned to keep the TLM exactly as it was, except maybe with better education and an Old Testament reading inserted here and there. They’re equally at a loss as to what to think when they read the Council’s statements calling for a thorough overhaul of all the sacred rites from the ground up.

Could it possibly be that the Council intended major changes, but not a bunch of irreverence? Nah . . . .

 

[jayk15]

Oooh. Fun topic.

I’ve maintained the opinion that the use of the Latin language in the liturgy does not excuse people from understanding it.

Thats what I was thinking as well. People know the ordinary of the mass in the vernacular then surely they should be able to understad what they are saying in latin

 

[ProVobis]

Thats what I was thinking as well. People know the ordinary of the mass in the vernacular then surely they should be able to understad what they are saying in latin

But handmissals with side-by-side Latin-vernacular have been around for over a hundred years. One may need to look at the Trent documents for some clarification here. (As we’re supposed to see all VII documents in light of tradition.)

CHAPTER VIII.

On not celebrating the Mass everywhere* in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass 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, 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.

• does not appear in the Latin

Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. Ejus mysteria populo explicentur.

 

[jayk15]

It obviously does not just mean that better education is necessary, since paragraph 21 is proposing “a general restoration of the liturgy itself,” affirms that the rite has element that “not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time,” and talks about how the “texts and rites should be drawn up.” The issue of language, though, is only part of it. One may assume that the Council had in mind such practices as “proclaiming” the readings in an inaudible voice while facing the wall, or introducing the Lord’s Prayer with “audemus dicere” (“we dare to say”) but then forbidding the people to actually say it. Likewise, paragraph 30 proposes that “the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs,” which would be difficult if not impossible in the unreformed rite.

It is always interesting to see people from each wing of the liturgical divide try to come to grips with what the Council actually said. On one hand, the “Council changed everything” faction is hard pressed to know what to do with the Council’s statements about retaining some Latin, making changes only where necessary, etc. On the other hand, there is a growing faction that wants to believe that the Council intended to change nothing at all and basically planned to keep the TLM exactly as it was, except maybe with better education and an Old Testament reading inserted here and there. They’re equally at a loss as to what to think when they read the Council’s statements calling for a thorough overhaul of all the sacred rites from the ground up.

Could it possibly be that the Council intended major changes, but not a bunch of irreverence? Nah . . . .

Yes. It also didn’t call for latin to be completely thrown out of the liturgy as we read through through the rest of the document didn’t it?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes. It also didn’t call for latin to be completely thrown out of the liturgy as we read through through the rest of the document didn’t it?

To be fair, he didn’t say it did.

 

[jayk15]

To be fair, he didn’t say it did.

I know he didnt.I was just asking him another question to give me further clarification

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes. It also didn’t call for lating to be completely thrown out of the liturgy as we read through through the rest of the document didn’t it?

Right, though I think that was probably expected. This is why all the bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium then went home and approved translations containing no Latin. If it were actually the case that the Council intended for significant amounts of Latin to be retained for ordinary Masses on a day-to-day basis, then you would think that at least one bishops’ conference, somewhere, would have proposed such a thing, right? Or that some non-negligible quantity of the Council Fathers would have said, “Wait a minute, this isn’t what we agreed on.”

The fact that that didn’t happen at all is pretty good evidence of what the intention was, just like the fact that same Congress which approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification also appointed a chaplain and called for sessions to begin with prayer is pretty good evidence that the First Amendment wasn’t intended to forbid the government from employing chaplains and starting official functions with a prayer.

Don’t misunderstand, (1) this is intended to be a purely descriptive, not an evaluative, account of what happened, and (2) I don’t think the Council intended the positive hostility to Latin that in fact resulted, although this should perhaps have been foreseen. Nevertheless, accounts which reason that, you know, the Council intended for maybe the readings – maybe sometimes – to just possibly be in the vernacular, but with lots of Latin retained and the people happily reciting it, have to contend with the plain fact that the bishops who were there took no steps at all to bring such a state of affairs into being.

 

[jayk15]

Right, though I think that was probably expected. This is why all the bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium then went home and approved translations containing no Latin. If it were actually the case that the Council intended for significant amounts of Latin to be retained for ordinary Masses on a day-to-day basis, then you would think that at least one bishops’ conference, somewhere, would have proposed such a thing, right? Or that some non-negligible quantity of the Council Fathers would have said, “Wait a minute, this isn’t what we agreed on.”

The fact that that didn’t happen at all is pretty good evidence of what the intention was, just like the fact that same Congress which approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification also appointed a chaplain and called for sessions to begin with prayer is pretty good evidence that the First Amendment wasn’t intended to forbid the government from employing chaplains and starting official functions with a prayer.

Don’t misunderstand, (1) this is intended to be a purely descriptive, not an evaluative, account of what happened, and (2) I don’t think the Council intended the positive hostility to Latin that in fact resulted, although this should perhaps have been foreseen. Nevertheless, accounts which reason that, you know, the Council intended for maybe the readings – maybe sometimes – to just possibly be in the vernacular, but with lots of Latin retained and the people happily reciting it, have to contend with the plain fact that the bishops who were there took no steps at all to bring such a state of affairs into being.

Thanks a lot

 

[jayk15]

But why then would Paul VI have issued Jubilate Deo to the bishops of the world saying:

Letter to the Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of
Plainchant
This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant
has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to
make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and
spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the
living traditions of the past. Hence it is that those
who are trying to improve the quality of
congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian
chant the place which is due to it. And this becomes
all the more imperative as we approach the Holy
Year of 1975, during which the faithful of different
languages, nations and origins, will find themselves
side by side for the common celebration of the
Lord….

============
Didn’t he intend that parishes throuhout the world retain some latin during the liturgy by issuing Jubilita Deo? By issuing Jubilate Deo he wanted to make it easier for the faithful to sing the parts of the mass in latin. Wasn’t this a sign of his intentions to ensure the regular use of latin during the mass?

Maybe he also issued Jubilate Deo to clear confusion which arose after the council

 

[JM3]

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

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 may also 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.

IMHO, This has been ignored far too long.

 

[MarkThompson]

Didn’t he intend that parishes throuhout the world retain some latin during the liturgy by issuing Jubilita Deo? By issuing Jubilate Deo he wanted to make it easier for the faithful to sing the parts of the mass in latin. Wasn’t this a sign of his intentions to ensure the regular use of latin during the mass?

Maybe he also issued Jubilate Deo to clear confusion which arose after the council

Presumably. In the end, Jubilate Deo stands as a bizarre outlier in the overall pattern of conduct of the Holy See, to say nothing of the bishops, after Vatican II. Obviously, it mandated nothing, only suggested; nor was it – or the basic sentiment from which it appears to have sprung – ever bolstered by anything similar, still less by anything obligatory.

Perhaps more to the point, if you read Voluntati Obsequens it seems clear that this “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant” was envisioned to be simply an alternative to congregational singing in the vernacular, not that the Holy See envisioned uniform use of it. This is rather emphasized in the passage:
For this reason the Holy Father recommended that “Gregorian chant be preserved and be sung in monasteries, other religious houses and seminaries, as a special form of chanted prayer and as something of high cultural and pedagogic value.”
Reading between the lines, Gregorian chant is appropriate for monasteries, and as art music. Not much of a commendation for standard parish use, is it?

 

[MarkThompson]

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

IMHO, This has been ignored far too long.

True, although in the context of the time it was written this represents a liberalization, not a conservative pull, on the liturgy.

 

[Dirt]

Right, though I think that was probably expected. This is why all the bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium then went home and approved translations containing no Latin. **If it were actually the case that the Council intended for significant amounts of Latin to be retained for ordinary Masses on a day-to-day basis, then you would think that at least one bishops’ conference, somewhere, would have proposed such a thing, right? Or that some non-negligible quantity of the Council Fathers would have said, “Wait a minute, this isn’t what we agreed on.”**The fact that that didn’t happen at all is pretty good evidence of what the intention was, just like the fact that same Congress which approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification also appointed a chaplain and called for sessions to begin with prayer is pretty good evidence that the First Amendment wasn’t intended to forbid the government from employing chaplains and starting official functions with a prayer.

Don’t misunderstand, (1) this is intended to be a purely descriptive, not an evaluative, account of what happened, and (2) I don’t think the Council intended the positive hostility to Latin that in fact resulted, although this should perhaps have been foreseen. Nevertheless, accounts which reason that, you know, the Council intended for maybe the readings – maybe sometimes – to just possibly be in the vernacular, but with lots of Latin retained and the people happily reciting it, have to contend with the plain fact that the bishops who were there took no steps at all to bring such a state of affairs into being.

I have wondered about this many an evening. What happenned? I have several interim Missals from the post Council time before the Ordinary Form was promulgated in 1969. One printed in 1965 by St. Joseph/Catholic Book Publishing is a rather beautiful mix of Extraordinary and the Ordinary form. In english and Latin. I often wonder if this was not what was expected By the Bishops? Yet when the Ordinary form was promulgated, we did not see any loud outcry. No Bishops Conferences that I know of complained. Regardless of opinion, what we have is what we have. Approved, and authorized. And now more closely translated to the Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

From Paragraph 21 of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

I was reading this document off the vatican website

Here it is in Latin:

Qua quidem instauratione, textus et ritus ita ordinari oportet, ut sancta, quae significant, clarius exprimant, eaque populus christianus, in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione participare possit.

It seems as if the Latin OF fits the requirements. It is considered easier Latin than the Usus Antiquior and allows for full and active/actual participation of the liturgy. Nothing is mentioned here about any vernacular.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’ve maintained the opinion that the use of the Latin language in the liturgy does not excuse people from understanding it.

Perhaps not for you, but there’s plenty of people who would be very angry and would simply attend another parish if they came to Mass one Sunday and there was quite a bit of Latin at Mass.

A local mixed ethnicity parish tried it, it did not go over well. The priests there tried their best but it did not fly.