TLM At the National Shrine

[JReducation]

I don’t know, but I rather think perhaps the Pope is aiming for this type of thing. I think it’s going to be impossible for the Church to always have these warring camps within it. If organic development is our watchword, it may be that one day, there will be only one form again. It might be the EF, permitted in both the vernacular and Latin.

As I said, I will never say never on this subject, because it’s not a matter of faith, morals or sacrament. None of the above would be affected if you change the language rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ohiomom]

I was at the mass and it was beautiful. There were people of all ages, races and states of life all worshiping God. From those sitting around us, there were some who obviously were familiar with the EF and some who were coming to experience it for the first time. The music was outstanding. I very much enjoyed the children’s choirs (given that I was told by a music teacher at a Catholic school open house, that he does not teach the propers of the mass in Latin because Latin is too hard for children to learn)

No complaints on my and it was interesting to see a magna cappa (on the retired cardinal who attended) in person. I have seen pictures of some of the ceremonies at the Shrine “back in the day” so, as has been pointed out, the comments about the K of C or mixing of rites I think comes more from ignorance of what has been lost than of knowledge of what was. A pontifical solemn mass was not an every week occurence prior to 1968 from what I can gather. An event such as this past Saturday would be celebrated for a special occasion (as this one was).

I continue to pray that the EF form of the mass becomes more and more available to all of those who want to attend and that this mass and its coverage on EWTN and availability on the web help introduce it’s beauty to more.

 

[Ohiomom]

I don’t know, but I rather think perhaps the Pope is aiming for this type of thing. I think it’s going to be impossible for the Church to always have these warring camps within it. If organic development is our watchword, it may be that one day, there will be only one form again. It might be the EF, permitted in both the vernacular and Latin.

Ummm, there has not been just one form of the mass in a very long time. Byzantine rite or Maronite rite sound familiar? IMHO Pope Benedict was very wise to make it known that the EF is a rite just as the OF. No bishops I know of would dismiss their Byzantine or other eastern rite members and they will need to learn to minister to those that prefer the EF.

 

[ProVobis]

It was interesting, because I went to Rome to do my doctorate and expected to do more reading in Latin, as we had done in the USA. By the time that I got to the Pontifical Universities in Rome, they were much further ahead than Catholic University of America. Rome had switched entirely to European languages and Latin was never uesed, unless you wanted to see the original text. Even the Vatican had changed over to Italian and Spanish. Latin was only used to write documents. I believe now they have more English at the Vatican since there are more Americans working there.

Well, it’s nice that they’ve relaxed more rules but there is still Canon Law:

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also** well versed in latin**, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

 

[ProVobis]

because it’s not a matter of faith, morals or sacrament. None of the above would be affected if you change the language rules.

The vernacular, whether in the EF or OF, offends the intent of Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia, which was written only several months before Vatican II convened.

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature **Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.**Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The vernacular, whether in the EF or OF, offends the intent of Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia, which was written only several months before Vatican II convened.

Several months or several years makes no difference. What matters is the most recent legislation from the Church. And an Ecumenical Council has the same authority as the Pope in such matters. Also note, we are dealing with a matter of discipline, not of doctrine – and as such it really isn’t possible to be subject to accusations of ‘well it wasn’t like that earlier’ since discipline can (and sometimes does) change drastically overnight.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ummm, there has not been just one form of the mass in a very long time. Byzantine rite or Maronite rite sound familiar? IMHO Pope Benedict was very wise to make it known that the EF is a rite just as the OF. No bishops I know of would dismiss their Byzantine or other eastern rite members and they will need to learn to minister to those that prefer the EF.

What’s being referred to is the Latin rite. There are two usages (not different rites) of the Latin rite according to Summorum Pontificum, the Ordinary Form (Missal of Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal). “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum)

The other rites of the Church (which generally refer to the Eucharistic Liturgy with names other than Mass, such as Divine Liturgy, Qurbono, Badarak, etc.), are not really a focus of this thread.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually TLM is not its canonical name. It’s canonical name is the Tridentine Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass. I’m not sure where TLM came from. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that one. It’s not in canon law or liturgical law. And it’s only used by English speakers.

With all due respect again, JR, the word “Tridentine” or “Trent” doesn’t appear in the current Canon Law. There really is no such thing as the Tridentine Mass, as the now-called EF has been in continuous operation since Pope Gregory and very likely before that as well. The TLM terminology came after the Novus Ordo was promulgated to distinguish it from the now-called Latin OF.

 

[ProVobis]

Also note, we are dealing with a matter of discipline, not of doctrine – and as such it really isn’t possible to be subject to accusations of ‘well it wasn’t like that earlier’ since discipline can (and sometimes does) change drastically overnight.

The term “discipline” is wearing very thin these days and I beg to differ with that argument. Discipline in any organization (and the Church is one big organization) has to be adhered to a principle called* stare decisis*, which means, in general, “should respect its own precedents” in order to maintain stability.

STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE (Maintain what has been decided and do not alter which has been established.)

What would you say if the Pope came out and said “There is to be no more professional sports playing or watching on Sunday”? In fact, the last Pope did just that and did anyone obey him? I rest my case.

But even with all that said, doctrine is very dependent on the language used, and translations and paraphrasing can very well alter that doctrine. I know this because English isn’t my first language and I’ve tried to do a lot of translations in my lifetime. Veterum Sapientia wasn’t written as an exercise. Pope John meant it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The term “discipline” is wearing very thin these days and I beg to differ with that argument. Discipline in any organization (and the Church is one big organization) has to be adhered to a principle called* stare decisis*, which means, in general, “should respect its own precedents” in order to maintain stability.

STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE (Maintain what has been decided and do not alter which has been established.)

But not set in stone. There is a BIG difference between Tradition and tradition. And when one makes tradition into their Tradition, that is when they place something that can and does change (such as liturgical language) on the same pedestal as something in the Deposit of Faith (such as the Immaculate Conception) they are in direct violation of Matthew 15:9.

What would you say if the Pope came out and said “There is to be no more professional sports playing or watching on Sunday”? In fact, the last Pope did just that and did anyone obey him? I rest my case.

I didn’t know professional sports were part of the mission of the Church.

Not that I would object all that much, but just to refresh my memory, where was this stated?

But even with all that said, doctrine is very dependent on the language used, and translations and paraphrasing can very well alter that doctrine. I know this because English isn’t my first language and I’ve tried to do a lot of translations in my lifetime. Veterum Sapientia wasn’t written as an exercise. Pope John meant it.

Yes, language can introduce differences, subtle and not so subtle. That is way due diligence should be employed in translations to another language.

So are you suggesting that the Catechism should only be in Latin?

 

[JMJ_coder]

The term “discipline” is wearing very thin these days and I beg to differ with that argument. Discipline in any organization (and the Church is one big organization) has to be adhered to a principle called* stare decisis*, which means, in general, “should respect its own precedents” in order to maintain stability.

STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE (Maintain what has been decided and do not alter which has been established.)

It should be noted that in the East, the tradition has always been to have the Liturgy primarily in the vernacular. Also, in the early Church in Rome, the language was originally Greek, which was the vernacular for most of the early Christians and later was switched to Latin which at that time was the primary vernacular language of the majority of Christians in the Roman Church.

So if we are to stringently maintain precedents, Liturgy in the vernacular would be that original precedent.

 

[ProVobis]

But not set in stone. There is a BIG difference between Tradition and tradition.

That’s quite immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Not that I would object all that much, but just to refresh my memory, where was this stated?

I’ll see if I can find it.

Yes, language can introduce differences, subtle and not so subtle. That is way due diligence should be employed in translations to another language.

Agreed but who is qualified and trustworthy enough to do this? Ever see the movie “Fail Safe”? There was a massive search for a translator who could not only translate enemy phrases but also idioms, voice inflections, sarcasms, and could distinquish between common usage and diplomatic usage of the language. Despite hiring the best, the major cities were destroyed.

But if you want a Biblical source, all you need to look to is the Tower of Babel. In a sense, the vernacular is actually a punishment from God.

Do are you suggesting that the Catechism should only be in Latin?

No. The vernacular is necessary. But it shouldn’t be the absolute standard on which arguments and further translations are made. The Latin should be the source of infomation and general principles. It works in law and anatomy and chemistry.

 

[ProVobis]

It should be noted that in the East, the tradition has always been to have the Liturgy primarily in the vernacular. Also, in the early Church in Rome, the language was originally Greek,

Which is essentially what Pope John XXIII said in Veterum Sapientia. Have you read the whole thing?

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

So if we are to stringently maintain precedents, Liturgy in the vernacular would be that original precedent.

Vernacular is too general and too changing to make that precedent work. We’re already going to another English version of the Mass so it won’t work with the English. Latin is specific, Greek to some extent too, though we now have modern Greek using transliterations of the original Greek alphabet.

 

[Spirithound]

Vernacular is too general and too changing to make that precedent work. We’re already going to another English version of the Mass so it won’t work with the English.

We’re going to another English translation, not because English has changed, but because the first translation was not faithful enough to the Latin.

 

[JReducation]

Ummm, there has not been just one form of the mass in a very long time. Byzantine rite or Maronite rite sound familiar? IMHO Pope Benedict was very wise to make it known that the EF is a rite just as the OF. No bishops I know of would dismiss their Byzantine or other eastern rite members and they will need to learn to minister to those that prefer the EF.

But whe have to keep some things separate. The Catholic Church is made up of 22 independent Catholic Churches. The Roman Church is the only one in the East. Therefore it is the only one that can use the Latin Rite. There are five Eastern Rites and 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Churches use one of those rites. That can never be changed. They inherited those rites from the Apostles, just as we inherited the Latin Rite from the Apostles Peter and Paul, so we cannot change it. We cand have different forms of the one rite. The Eastern Catholics do the same thing. For example, they have the Greek Rite, but there are different forms of that rite. But the rite does not change.

What is meant by that is that there are cetain elements that must be present in at a certain point in the mass, even if you change other things around it. For example, in the Ukranian Rite you never kneel for communion or for the consecration. That’s locked into the rite. But you can have different ways of distributing communion or different ways of praying the anaphora, but the anaphora cannot change, only the way that you pray it.

You’re right that we have never had one rite. We have five Eastern Rites and four Roman Rites, but the EF and OF are not different rites. They are two forms of the Latin Rite. A rite is the Carthusian, Dominican, Maronite, Carmelite. Those are rites. They are Latin rites, but not the same Latin Rite. The EF and the OF are the same Latin Rite. They have the exact same elements in the same order. Differences are the things that are accidental, not the essentials.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

We’re going to another English translation, not because English has changed, but because the first translation was not faithful enough to the Latin.

Yes but you’re missing the point.

Here, let me show you what I’m talking about.

Say, for illustrative purposes, “Dominus vobiscum” is doctrine. So we can’t change it, right? But some translators will say that means “The Lord be with you,” right? I can just as rightfully say it can also mean “A Lord is with you.” Or you can go with the actual literal translation, “Lord you with.” All are significant changes in meaning and mood. And therefore none of the translations can be doctrine because this doctrine can’t be accurately expressed in English. Or in any other language, for that matter. That, I believe, is what Pope John was trying to convey in his Veterum Sapientia.

Folks, if you don’t like Veterum Sapientia or Canon 249, fine, take it up with the Vatican for even having it on their website. But please don’t pick me apart for merely pointing out the fact that these were written for the Church and not just an opinion by a single Pope. And if you know better, then get elected the Pope or call a council denouncing Veterum Sapientia and rewrite Canon Law to suit your agenda. And good luck in preserving whatever stability and integrity is still left within the Church.

 

[MIKE46]

That’s because your typical Catholic, saint or sinner, prefers the Mass in his or her own language. Offering the EF in the vernacular would PROBABLY go a long way to re-establishing it in the culture of the Church.

I simply cannot agree with this rather simplistic statement, especially given the multi-cultural world in which we live. How for instance is it fair to have, oh lets say an English Mass in a city with a large Hispanic or Asian population? How about a parish made up of immigrants all from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds? How do you choose which language to use? Majority rule perhaps? It simply doesn’t make sense given the culture we live in here in the US. In a homogenius culture perhaps, but in a multi ethinic and linguistic one, I don’t think so.

Having the Mass in Latin, while not perfect at least put EVERYONE on the same page so to speak. I know there wil be those who jump up and point out that the Church for years endorsed the so called ethnic parishes which catered to various ethnic groups. However, the Mass itself was still in Latin with the only the Homily and in some cases the readings and Gospel in the vernacular. Not the entire Mass. One could still attend Mass anywhere in the Latin Rite and have no problem with the basic prayers and with the Consecration.

Perhaps though what the vernacular only advocate is what we have now. A fragmenting of the community into small insular groups, each with the Mass in their own particular language and with the attendees of each particular group having little or no contact with the community as a whole. While it does work after a fashion, it creates a separationist mentality and the barriers it places between the Community are substantial and obvious to anyone who has ever had to attend these Parishes.

No my own opinion is that what the advocates for vernacular Masses really want is the Mass in their own language, regardless of the hardship or deprivation that it may cause for others. And I find that whole attitude disturbing.

The Extraordinary Form by its nature was designed so that all people everywhere could attend and worship together regardless of where they were, what ethnic group they were and what language they spoke. The rigidness of the Rite made change difficult and the use of Latin made it accesible to ALL. I have read accounts on this forum where immigrants in this country assimilated much easier into the Church community due to the Mass being in Latin and thus familiar to them. Why is it so easy for the vernacular only types to dismiss their stories and experiences as being inconsequential and having no merit?

More than that, when did the preferences of the congregation come to be the deciding factors in what happens in the Mass anyway? I didn’t think the Mass was about us and what we want. I thought it was for God and is about Him.

 

[Joannm]

I have read accounts on this forum where immigrants in this country assimilated much easier into the Church community due to the Mass being in Latin and thus familiar to them. Why is it so easy for the vernacular only types to dismiss their stories and experiences as being inconsequential and having no merit?

.

Immigrants assimilated easily because there were ethnic parishes. Where my parents grew up there was an Italian parish, an Irish parish and a German parish. All were basically within walking distance of each other and none went to the parish that was not of their ethnicity. So it wasn’t the Latin, but the fact that everything else was in their language and their culture.

 

[MIKE46]

Immigrants assimilated easily because there were ethnic parishes. Where my parents grew up there was an Italian parish, an Irish parish and a German parish. All were basically within walking distance of each other and none went to the parish that was not of their ethnicity. So it wasn’t the Latin, but the fact that everything else was in their language and their culture.

While that may have been true in areas where there were large concentrations of one particular group, Germans or Italians lets say, what if there is a very small ethnic group in a Parish overwhelmingly of another group? How do they fit in? Or do they? Or does anyone care?. One poster on this forum has repeatedly told of his experiences as a young boy in this country with no knowledge of English whatsoever and who was able to fit in easily, at least in the Parish, due to his knowledge of Latin used in the Mass. Thus he was able to participate easily.

I don’t think that experiences such as his should be discounted and given no merit by those who advocate vernacular only Masses. I think he probably knows what he is talking about in that area.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I know that according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, what you are saying about women covering their heads is correct.

I also know that in the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 there is no mention of this *“rule”, *and that this code replaces any older form.

That said, please give me a reference that states definitively that the Church indeed stated what color and style of head covering a woman was supposed to wear?

Vatican II revised it. The 1983 law on that isn’t something to be going by.