The meaning of the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium

[Leegal]

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?

I take it to mean that the vernacular should be more in keeping with the original Latin when translated.

I grew up pre-Vatican II and had no problems understanding the Latin Mass, what the Priest was saying and what my responses meant. You didn’t need a degree in Latin in order to understand what was being said and why and what you were responding to.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Perhaps a principle from canon law can help us to interpret the Council’s texts:

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

I was simply saying that it does not excuse them from understanding the mass. People tend to have an abhorrent rage for the Latin language, which I don’t understand at all, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand it if they give it ten minutes’ effort a day for a month, at least as far as the order of mass goes.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Perhaps a principle from canon law can help us to interpret the Council’s texts:

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

So what makes custom? ~1700 years or ~40?

 

[MarkThompson]

So what makes custom? ~1700 years or ~40?

Under the 1917 CIC, forty years (“per annos quadraginta”). See can. 28.

 

[ProVobis]

So what makes custom? ~1700 years or ~40?

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

 

[ProVobis]

I take it to mean that the vernacular should be more in keeping with the original Latin when translated.

Vatican II documents do not specify how they should be translated nor how often. They can be as loosely translated as the bishop conferences require or wish. The theory is that the bishops of that country know the language and the people of that country well enough to determine the limitations of the vernacular. It seems that Rome is more intent in preserving as much Latin in the Mass as possible, witness Jubilate Deo and Papal Masses.

 

[ProVobis]

I was simply saying that it does not excuse them from understanding the mass. People tend to have an abhorrent rage for the Latin language, which I don’t understand at all, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand it if they give it ten minutes’ effort a day for a month, at least as far as the order of mass goes.

Only 606 unique Latin words in the EF ordinary. (Many of them are basis for English words.) Fewer than that in the Latin OF if one considers only the EP1. It’s not like everyone needs to read Cicero or all the Church documents to be able to follow the Latin Mass.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So what makes custom? ~1700 years or ~40?

This thread has mainly been about whether certain documents have been adequately applied. What did the Bishops intend? seems to be the main question.

I referenced canon 27 as a general principle, not necessarily as a hard and fast rule. The canons referenced by others deal with when a custom enjoys the force of law. The main point is that the Church is not a black and white, rigid rule society.

While Latin is always allowable in any part of the Mass and is even encouraged when the people want it, custom shows us it is not a violation of the documents to have no or very little Latin in the Mass.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

…but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand it if they give it ten minutes’ effort a day for a month, at least as far as the order of mass goes.

When someone is working 2 jobs and raising 3 kids, they might not have 10 minutes a day. They simply want to go to Mass and pray.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

Yes, that is when custom enjoys the force of law. However, I was using the canon as a general principle for how to understand the proper application of rules and such.

 

[jayk15]

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?

But wasn’t that the exact reason why Paul VI issued Jubilate Deo? So that Gregorian chant wouldnt be thought of as something only sung in a monastry or as some form of sacred art but that it can be easily sung by the congregation. By using Jubilate Deo, the active participation of the faithful as envisioned by the council can actualy happen. it would have been a waste to issue Jubilate Deo if Gregorian Chant was only used in monastries. In my opinion I think, that the issuing of Jubilate Deo was a reafirmation of the council’s intentions

Just because some bishops might have done something differently to what the council had intended during the transitional period doesn’t mean that their actions is what the council had actually intended. Some bishops throught the world still encouraged the occasional or regular use of Gregorian chant during the transition. Some bishops interpreted the coucil one way while others interpreted it another way.

I think the council still wanted the faithful to still have an occasional taste of latin in the liturgy but in a lot of parishes, latin is never used

 

[ProVobis]

While Latin is always allowable in any part of the Mass and is even encouraged when the people want it, custom shows us it is not a violation of the documents to have no or very little Latin in the Mass.

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

 

[ProVobis]

I think the council still wanted the faithful to still have an occasional taste of latin in the liturgy but in a lot of parishes, latin is never used

Custom implies a certain level of continuity and habit. Occasional use of this or that doesn’t set up that necessary continuity, unless it’s a seasonal event. It is doubtful that occasional use was the intent of the council. Or the intent of the Pope who convened the council, for that matter. (Don’t forget Pope John XXIII who earlier had written Veterum Sapientia signed not a single document of the council.)

 

[Enim]

Jubilate Deo has a second edition too.
What is more important is Vatican II’s desire to maintain the Graduale Romanum for the new liturgy.This book contains thousands of chant for each particula feast and solemnity. In MS the council desires that its new editions will be the result of the research which was missed in the 1903 edition and has since continued. as in the Triplex-
Clearly this is a continuity of the reforms initiated by Pius X. who knew that
The Latin chants ,(propers and ordinaries) had fallen into neglect. They were rendered poorly were frequently replaced with romantic pop settings.- a practice that continued right up to the Council. So some of the images we have of the intended Latin content of the Mass may be erroneous and the Council clearly wishes this to be corrected.

Don’t think Latin conflicts with SC’s "Full and Active participation"

. SC begins with a 36 paragraph ostenvive definition of full and active participation without mentioning the vernacular or singing. These paragraphs show that full and active participation if achieved through Baptism, through active daily prayer, through instructions and proper training of our instructors. After this ground work is presented the first “nuts and bolts” liturgical action mentioned is this:

**

​

*36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

The first mention of and only mention so far of active participation in song is this :

55Nevertheless 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​

***

Then in the next paragraph we are reminded what real participation is :

**

* 55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.***​

"The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned.
Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of
ritualism.

But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.

“If subconscious experience is ignored in worship, an affective and devotional vacuum is created and the liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral. Yet the Roman Rite is again distinctive in the balance it strikes between a spareness and a richness of emotion: it feeds the heart and the mind, the body and the soul”- JPII Ad Limina to US Bishops 1998**

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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

Yes and no. Like I said, its merely a guideline. However, in this case the proper authority has made a deliberate intervention thus changing the custom.

The Holy Father is the legislator and judge of the law. He is essentially not bound by anything.

But as we look at the new Roman Missal in English it should be noted that it contains nothing new in terms regulating Latin in the Mass. So on that that matter it appears there was no intention to change the local customs.

 

[Corki]

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

When SC was written, people did not know the Mass in the vernacular yet.

In many ways, a person going to a Mass in Latin and using a hand Missal with Latin/vernacular texts and good explanatory notes (such as the Old St. Joseph’s Missal had/has) is likely to have a better understanding of the Mass than someone going to Mass in his vernacular language.

Another point is that “understanding” doesn’t mean the same as having the ability to translate word-for-word. As an example, even for people who have never been to a Latin Mass the term “mea culpa” is commonly understood to mean an expression of being personally sorry for something. One doesn’t need to know that it means literaly “(through) my fault” in order to understand it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPries
While Latin is always allowable in any part of the Mass and is even encouraged when the people want it, custom shows us it is not a violation of the documents to have no or very little Latin in the Mass.

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

I repeated the earlier post to keep this in context.

“Custom” is one of those words we encounter a lot here at CAF. The problem is that it’s often used by people who don’t understand what the word actually means. That’s why I’d like to add to NewEnglandPriest’s post (because he understands it, but others might not).

Custom does not mean simply “the way we do things around here”–which is the misunderstood definition we too often encounter. What it does mean is that it refers to how the law itself has been interpreted and applied by legitimate authority over a period of time. It’s very similar to what we see in civil law called “case law” or “precedent.”

The reason why a priest cannot invoke “custom” and use this to continue using the old adaptation of the Mass in English is because the law itself (the one making that version official for the English speaking world) has been abrogated–when the Sacramentary was abrogated. The use of that missal was never a matter of “custom” to begin with. It wasn’t the “use of” the Sacramentary that has become custom but “how it was used.”

What has been the “custom” is interpreting the liturgical laws of the Church to mean that it is permitted to celebrate the entire Mass in the vernacular; it has been the legitimate interpretation that doing so is permitted. That’s the part that is “custom” as the Church uses the word.

There is no legitimate way to interpret the Church’s liturgical laws/norms to continue using the old Sacramentary (with the exception of a blind priest), so there can’t be a “custom” of doing so.

 

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPries
While Latin is always allowable in any part of the Mass and is even encouraged when the people want it, custom shows us it is not a violation of the documents to have no or very little Latin in the Mass.

What has been the “custom” is interpreting the liturgical laws of the Church to mean that it is permitted to celebrate the entire Mass in the vernacular; it has been the legitimate interpretation that doing so is permitted. That’s the part that is “custom” as the Church uses the word.

So the new “custom” of using changing translations supercedes the custom of using 1600+ years of immutable Latin/Greek/Hebrew?

 

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPries
While Latin is always allowable in any part of the Mass and is even encouraged when the people want it, custom shows us it is not a violation of the documents to have no or very little Latin in the Mass.

What has been the “custom” is interpreting the liturgical laws of the Church to mean that it is permitted to celebrate the entire Mass in the vernacular; it has been the legitimate interpretation that doing so is permitted. That’s the part that is “custom” as the Church uses the word.

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