Trent "On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue"

[Geremia]

In response to some in this thread who argued that the Council of Trent (Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9) does not forbid vernacular-only masses, Session 22 Chapter 8 says (my emphasis):

On not celebrating the Mass every where 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.

It continued, in Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9 (my emphasis):

CANON IX.–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.

This is fully consistent with the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium which first advocated Latin then permitted some vernacular in exceptional cases.

Why, then, are entirely vernacular masses masses permitted everywhere today?

Thanks for the insight

 

[ProVobis]

Point taken.

But in their defense, the last two Popes have issued decrees to make the Latin Masses wide and generous.

 

[Spencerian]

The practice of Mass in the vernacular changed over time because the Church has the authority to change its own disciplines. The use of Latin was a Church rule, not a teaching of Christ in faith and morals, that is, doctrine or dogma.

This item you note from the Council of Trent wasn’t an infallible teaching. It appears to be a practice of the Church that stood for some time until vernacular Masses (in part, at least) became commonplace or even necessary.

In short, just as the Latin Rite clergy are obliged to chastity as a Church rule, so was the limitation of the use of the vernacular at an earlier time. The Church made the rule and was free to adjust it as they saw fit, as they have from the 2nd Vatican Council and in the update to the Roman Missal this past November.

:SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

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

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, 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; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

 

[ProVobis]

The practice of Mass in the vernacular changed over time because the Church has the authority to change its own disciplines. The use of Latin was a Church rule, not a teaching of Christ in faith and morals, that is, doctrine or dogma.

On the contrary. Session 22 of Trent specifically listed this as one of doctrines on the Sacrifice of the Mass.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

No way around this.

By the way, one can argue “haud raro” was translated with a bias toward the vernacular. It is literally “not rarely” but was translated as “frequently.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

I believe this an example of the Protestant thinking that is being condemned as heresy (from here):
Besides, the Pretence of the Papists to have the Common-Prayer of the Church in an unknown Tongue is one of the most impudent Crimes of all those many that Religion abounds with. For this is not only directly contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul, concerning the Unprofitableness of making use of a Tongue in the publick Assemblies, which the People do not understand, but is contrary to the Practice of the best and earliest Times of the Church. Liturgies being in the Greek and Latin Languages, must needs be understood by all Italy and Greece; and those other Nations where those Tongues were spoken, which was the far greater Part of the then known World. The Syrians, Ethiopians, Armenians, and other Nations have Liturgies in their Mother Tongue to this Day.

 

[domandcarols]

 

[MarkThompson]

This is fully consistent with the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium which first advocated Latin then permitted some vernacular in exceptional cases.

Why, then, are entirely vernacular masses masses permitted everywhere today?

Thanks for the insight

Well, the first part you quoted – the prudential judgment based on what seemed “expedient” in 1562 during the Counter-Reformation – was overturned.

As to the second part, it is a mistake to think that in Canon IX the Council was intending to make a dogma of the Catholic faith out of which language the Mass should be said in. That would be bizarre; and it would be in contradiction with their previous statement that the issue was one of expediency. (Imagine a Council writing: For the present, it has not seemed expedient to ordain women to the priesthood. And if anyone says that women should be ordained to the priesthood, a.s.)

Rather, Canon IX, like the other canons you see there, was a response to Protestants, who objected to the Catholic way of doing things (e.g., praying to saints) not merely on the prudential grounds that they were bad ideas (might as well pray straight to God), but on the theological grounds that they were blasphemous (thus the response in Canon V). [EDIT: Just Lurking’s comment, posted while I was typing, provides an awesome example of that.] We can get a better sense of this looking at Canon VIII:
If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful illicitas], and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
That was what the Protestants were saying: a Mass where the priest does not offer Communion to the faithful, more than just being a bad idea, are against divine law. But what did the Council itself say about this issue in Chapter VI?
The sacred and holy Synod would fain indeed optaret quidem, would gladly have it] that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice …
Here we have at issue where on the prudential judgment the Council does agree with the Protestants – it’s better that the people should be allowed to receive Holy Communion – but cannot agree with enshrining that judgment as a theological doctrine, with saying that it the people are not allowed to communicate then the Mass is wrong. That is simply the inverse case of what happened in Canon IX, where the Council disagreed with the Protestants on the prudential question, and also disagreed with their doctrinal position that the Mass celebrated in Latin is blasphemous and wrong. But it is clear that it is no more anathematized to say “I feel it would be a good idea to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular everywhere” than it is to say “I think it best if priests always distribute Communion to the faithful.”

It is definitely true that the non-doctrinal portion of Trent’s decrees on this issue has been superseded. The Vatican II fathers made it clear that they did not hold the same judgment in 1963 about what is “expedient” that was held in 1562. The acknowledged that the use of the vernacular would frequently haud raro, “not rarely whatsoever, not by any means rarely”] be of benefit in helping people understand what was going on. Trent obviously recognized that this was an issue, since they called for priests to “expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass.” The fact that that didn’t happen very much probably contributed to Vatican II’s reversal of the judgment about the expediency of using the vernacular.

 

[jimrob]

Mass has been celebrated in Latin since the Council of Nicaea who adopted it because** it was** the vulgar tongue. Before that the Liturgy had been conducted in Koine Greek (Kyrie Eleison) and an even earlier liturgy existed in Syriac.

Latin is the language of the Church and it is only proper that the Mass should be celebrated in Latin on occasions when any other language might be inappropriate. Churches should be encouraged to celebrate a public Mass occasionally in Latin to help familiarise the congregation with the language of the Church. However, there’s nothing particularly clever or reverent in insisting upon the Mass being celebrated only in Latin. Those of a nostalgic frame of mind would do better to advocate a return to Koine or Syriac as used by Eastern Rites.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Mass has been celebrated in Latin since the Council of Nicaea who adopted it because** it was** the vulgar tongue. Before that the Liturgy had been conducted in Koine Greek (Kyrie Eleison) and an even earlier liturgy existed in Syriac.

Latin is the language of the Church and it is only proper that the Mass should be celebrated in Latin on occasions when any other language might be inappropriate. Churches should be encouraged to celebrate a public Mass occasionally in Latin to help familiarise the congregation with the language of the Church. However, there’s nothing particularly clever or reverent in insisting upon the Mass being celebrated only in Latin. Those of a nostalgic frame of mind would do better to advocate a return to Koine or Syriac as used by Eastern Rites.

Yeah but this opinion doesn’t really mean anything if we take what the Council of Trent says as doctrine.

So the question then is, is Trent’s statement on the vulgar tongue doctrine? And if it is, what does it really, actually, exactly say?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Spirit of Vatican II. The council never called for much of the changes that have happened in our Church. The Council (and people’s ignorance of it) became a golden opportunity for modernists to change aspects of the Church, as people who didn’t read the documents could not object (they knew not what changes were called for in the Council).

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Latin Mass would be a great way to integrate immigrants into parishes, without having to create a new mass for every language. During the age of the Latin Mass, a man could go anywhere with his missal and follow the mass in any country. Now you are lost without the language of the country.

 

[martininthefiel]

A little bit of a tangent:

The first American archbishop, and founder of Georgetown University, John Carroll of Baltimore, advocated celebrating the Mass in the vernacular in the late 18th Century and insisted that the lectionary be read in English. It took almost 2 centuries for him to get his way with the Mass. The argument is an old one.

Interestingly, Carroll was also the only American bishop ever to be elected by his peers. This selection was later ratified by the Vatican, and he was elevated to Archbishop.

His cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was the only Catholic signatory of The Declaration of Independence. Another cousin, Daniel, also a Catholic, signed both the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

[markomalley]

Mass has been celebrated in Latin since the Council of Nicaea who adopted it because** it was** the vulgar tongue. Before that the Liturgy had been conducted in Koine Greek (Kyrie Eleison) and an even earlier liturgy existed in Syriac.

Latin is the language of the Church and it is only proper that the Mass should be celebrated in Latin on occasions when any other language might be inappropriate. Churches should be encouraged to celebrate a public Mass occasionally in Latin to help familiarise the congregation with the language of the Church. However, there’s nothing particularly clever or reverent in insisting upon the Mass being celebrated only in Latin. Those of a nostalgic frame of mind would do better to advocate a return to Koine or Syriac as used by Eastern Rites.

Huh?

First of all, your history is not quite right. Allow me to refer you to the classic work on the development of the Roman Rite, Fortescue, The Mass: A study of the Roman Liturgy (1912), pp 126-128 (link is to an online e-book).

§ 3. Latin as the liturgical language.

In the first period the liturgical language at Rome was Greek. Greek was spoken by the Roman Christians (as by those of all centres — Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) for at least the first two centuries. Clement of Rome writes in Greek ; the earliest Catacomb inscriptions are Greek. There was no idea of a special liturgical language at that time ; people said their prayers in the vulgar tongue. Latin was apparently first used by Christians in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), who was an African, is generally quoted as the first Roman to use it. Novatian (c. 251) writes in Latin ; since about the third century this becomes the usual and then the only language spoken by Christians at Rome. When it replaced Greek in Church is disputed. Kattenbusch dates it as the liturgical language from the second half of the third century, Watterich, Probst and Rietschel think that Greek was used till the end of the fourth century. In any case the process was a gradual One. Both languages must have been used side by side during a fairly long period of transition. A certain Marius Victorinus Africanus, writing about 360 in Latin, still quotes a liturgical prayer in Greek. The Bible existed only in the Greek Septuagint for some time. The lessons were read in Greek at Rome, at any rate on some days, till the VHIth century; some psalms were sung in Greek at the same time. Amalarius of Metz (f c. 857) and Pseudo-Alcuin still mention Greek forms. The creed at baptism may be said in either Greek or Latin, at the convert’s discretion, according to the Gelasian Sacramentary. But our present Greek fragments are later interpolations.

A change of language does not involve a change of rite ; though it may be the occasion for modifications. Novatian’s list of benefits in Latin (supposed to be an allusion to the liturgical Thanksgiving) corresponds well enough with similar Greek lists in Clement of Rome, etc. It is quite possible merely to translate the same forms into another language, as the Byzantine rite has been translated into a great number without change. On the other hand, no doubt the genius of the Latin language eventually affected the Roman rite. Latin is naturally terse, austere, compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. It would be a natural tendency of Latin to curtail redundant phrases. And this terseness and austere simplicity are a noticeable mark of the Roman Mass. We shall see that some writers think that the change of language was the actual occasion at which the Canon
was recast.

You will see elsewhere in that book that the Roman Rite was not even universal to the west until around the 8th-9th Century (The Gallican Rite was actually more universal up through that time – its remnants can be seen with the Ambrosian Rite and Mozarabic Rite, both still in use to this day)

As for the appropriateness of the Latin language, as opposed to Koine Greek or Syriac, the appropriate language goes with the rite in question. It would not be appropriate to celebrate a Byzantine Liturgy in Aramaic, nor would it be appropriate to celebrate the Maronite rite in Latin. Celebrating a particular liturgy in the proper language of that rite is only appropriate (and it supports the Catholicity of the Church). Making portions (but not necessarily all) of each rite available, as a teaching tool, in the vulgar tongue is appropriate. Trent did not forbid that (Trent forbade worship ONLY in the vulgar tongue, not worship in the vulgar tongue).