It was because Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 (from Vatican II, 1963) contained the following, that vernacular eventually superseded Latin:“it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used”
- St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, “Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed” (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).
So how can something reflourish in splendor if it’s suppressed altogether? We always seem to be getting and using translations of those official acts mentioned.
- But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.
It ought not be only in the vernacular! It seems that most of the clergy today are opposed to Latin.Even so, Pope Paul in his Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
So how can something reflourish in splendor if it’s suppressed altogether? We always seem to be getting and using translations of those official acts mentioned.
It ought not be only in the vernacular! It seems that most of the clergy today are opposed to Latin.
From the Council of Trent:
Canon IX, Session 22
If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
Yep, and note the page was marked as “DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ” (Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.)
Actually the document says Latin is the preferred language, which means that it was not all intended to be in the vernacular.It was because Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 (from Vatican II, 1963) contained the following, that vernacular eventually superseded Latin:“it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used”
I remember that transition from Latin to English in 1967:
- Orders for Missal changes March 1965 (vernacular, option to face congregation).
- Communion under both kinds 1965.
- Second instruction 1967 (English canon, simpler rubrics)
- Additional anaphora 1968
- Novus Ordo Missae on March 22, 1970.
I have been up to the abbey once or twice but unfortunately not for a mass- though I was there for one of the daytime offices years ago. Actually, the Archdiocese’s seminary is up there and some of the monks serve as professors. I imagine the mass would be much like what you have described at your abbey. I’ve been told when the Abbot vests to celebrate a solemn mass, he puts the archbishop to shame.Have you checked out Westminster Abbey near Vancouver? I heard a few clips on their website Westminster chants
Gregorian melodies in English, pretty well done too. I’d love to hear what they do for the Mass.
Agreed that the OF, properly celebrated, is very beautiful and reverent.
“Not at all”, is a strong statement. Perhaps it was not intended to be entirely in the vernacular.Actually the document says Latin is the preferred language, which means that it was not all intended to be in the vernacular.
If you notice, the law is the first thing mentioned then the other allowances. The documents of Vatican II do not warrant what happened afterwords with the New Mass.
- Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
I didn’t realize it took 2/3 vote to do this. I thought the national language(s), whether Spanish, Polish, or English, just took whatever the bishops in those countries translated for them and shared them with others who spoke that same language wherever they were.“Not at all”, is a strong statement. Perhaps it was not intended to be entirely in the vernacular.
The 1970 Mass maintains the Latin, along with additional approved vernacular translations. By 2/3 Bishop vote, the vernacular is chosen as the norm for a territory rather than Latin.
What does that mean? I’m opposed to English but yet I’ve managed to adapt.It seems that most of the clergy today are opposed to Latin.