Trent Prohibits Vernacular-Only Masses.

[Geremia]

The Council of Trent said, 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 Novus Ordo masses frequently performed? Why are institutions like the ICEL permitted at all? Thanks

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Council of Trent said, in Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9 (my emphasis):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 Novus Ordo masses frequently performed? Why are institutions like the ICEL permitted at all? Thanks

Because no where does any one say that vernacular Mass are the only option. The priest is free to celebrate an all Latin Ordinary Form Mass or to just use some Latin.

Your reading into the Canon from Trent that all vernacular Masses are not allowed, that is not what it says.

Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation. (This is found in the book *What About The Latin Mass? by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., on page 3.)

“And it wasn’t always in Latin: there were papal indults permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in Slavonic in Bosnia and Dalmatia, in Greek in Calabria and Sicily, and in Czech in Bohemia, for instance.”*

 

[ProVobis]

Why, then, are entirely vernacular masses Novus Ordo masses frequently performed? Why are institutions like the ICEL permitted at all? Thanks

The misinterpreted “spirit” of Vatican II would be my guess.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The misinterpreted “spirit” of Vatican II would be my guess.

Maybe so, but I think a bit of misinterpreting of Trent is going on here too.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Council of Trent said, in Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9 (my emphasis):

CANON IX.–If any one saith… that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;

which first advocated Latin then permitted some vernacular in exceptional cases.

Why, then, are entirely vernacular masses Novus Ordo masses frequently performed? Your question appears to assume that Trent was allowing masses that were perhaps half Latin and half vernacular, but nixing masses entirely in the vernacular. However, Trent was merely condemning those reformers who denounced any use of Latin, AFAIK.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Council of Trent said, in Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9 (my emphasis):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 Novus Ordo masses frequently performed? Why are institutions like the ICEL permitted at all? Thanks

Councils cannot bind popes on matters of discipline; indeed, popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. The use of Latin is a matter of discipline, not a matter of Divine Revelation through Sripture or Holy Tradition. The vernacular Mass exists by the proper authority, that of the Holy See.

 

[patrick457]

Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation. (This is found in the book What About The Latin Mass? by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., on page 3.)

Indeed. As testimony to it, we have the Missale Romanum Glagolitice, the Roman Missal in Glagolitic script printed in 1483, making it the first printed Croatian book and the first printed book in Europe not in the Latin alphabet. Also the late 15th century Hrvoje’s Missal, also from Croatia (ancient Dalmatia).

Remember what Pope John VIII (reigned 872-82) wrote concerning Sts. Cyril and Methodius?

We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in any wise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language (Nec sanæ fidei vel doctrinæ aliquid obstat missam in eadem slavonica lingua canere), or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory.

The OCE notes as well:

The Roman Mass was translated into this Slavonic shortly after the Greek liturgy had been translated by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, so that in the course of time among the Slavic peoples the southern Slavonic written in Glagolitic letters became the language of the Roman Rite, while the northern Slavonic written in Cyrillic letters was the language of the Greek Rite. The prevailing use of the Latin language and the adoption of the Roman alphabet by many Slavic nationalities caused the use of the Glagolitic to diminish and Latin to gradually take its place. The northern Slavic peoples, like the Bohemians, Poles and Slovaks, who were converted by Latin missionaries, used the Latin in their rite from the very first. At present the Glagolitic is only used in Dalmatia and Croatia. Urban VIII in 1631 definitively settled the use of the Glagolitic-Slavonic missal and office-books in the Roman Rite, and laid down rules where the clergy of each language came in contact with each other in regard to church services. Leo XIII published two editions of the Glagoltic Missal, from one of which the illustration on page 45 is taken.

The liturgy used in the Slavonic language, whether of Greek or Roman Rite, offers no peculiarities differing from the original Greek or Latin sources. The Ruthenians have introduced an occasional minor modification (see RUTHENIAN RITE), but the Orthodox Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians substantially follow he Byzantine liturgy and offices in the Slavonic version. The Glagolitic Missal, Breviary, and ritual follow closely the Roman liturgical books, and the latest editions contain the new offices authorized by the Roman congregations. The casual observer could not distinguish the Slavonic priest from the Latin priest when celebrating Mass or other services, except by hearing the language as pronounced aloud.

 

[Wowbagger]

Councils cannot bind popes on matters of discipline; indeed, popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. The use of Latin is a matter of discipline, not a matter of Divine Revelation through Sripture or Holy Tradition. The vernacular Mass exists by the proper authority, that of the Holy See.

If it’s not an issue of faith and morals, it’s not infallible or unchangeable. Vatican II did not alter or overrule this edict of Trent, but it could have done so.

And, incidentally, the post-VII rise of the vernacular Mass has nothing to do with any “misinterpretations” of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” There were a lot of abuses in the name of that flighty “spirit,” but this was not one of them. From Sacrosanctum Consilium:

ARTICLE 36.3 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.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And, incidentally, the post-VII rise of the vernacular Mass has nothing to do with any “misinterpretations” of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” There were a lot of abuses in the name of that flighty “spirit,” but this was not one of them. From Sacrosanctum Consilium:

Absolutely!

 

[ProVobis]

If it’s not an issue of faith and morals, it’s not infallible or unchangeable.

Not to the point. Trent was irreformable as it defined doctrine.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

DOCTRINE

Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.

The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.
…
CHAPTER VIII.

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.
…

Translations and explanations are two different things.

 

[ProVobis]

From Sacrosanctum Consilium:

Also from the same document

**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. **

Jublilate Deo, issued into the public domain for every parish, implemented this Vatican II specification by the same Pope but was conveniently ignored.

 

[ProVobis]

We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in any wise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language (Nec sanæ fidei vel doctrinæ aliquid obstat missam in eadem slavonica lingua canere), or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory.

Pope John XXIII also recognized these “others” in Veterum Sapientia:

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.

 

[Geremia]

Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation. (This is found in the book *What About The Latin Mass? by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., on page 3.)

“And it wasn’t always in Latin: there were papal indults permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in Slavonic in Bosnia and Dalmatia, in Greek in Calabria and Sicily, and in Czech in Bohemia, for instance.”*As of 1902, there were “twelve languages used in the Catholic liturgy; namely, 1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian,” none of which were vernacular except Romanian (The holy sacrifice of the mass by Gihr). The issue is vernacular (the language here and now of a people or region) versus vernacular at some point in the past; the use of an older language is better because, inter alia, it manifests tradition and averts modernism (the hubris that present times are superior and more “enlightened” than past times).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not to the point. Trent was irreformable as it defined doctrine.

Translations and explanations are two different things.

But Trent would only be irreformible on matters of faith and morals, doctrine and dogma, not on matters that were not (the same reason Quo Primum is not irreformible). And explanation requires translation, to one degee or another. And Trent did not reject vernacular out of hand, they said it was not expedient, perhaps at that time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As of 1902, there were “twelve languages used in the Catholic liturgy; namely, 1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian,” none of which were vernacular except Romanian (The holy sacrifice of the mass by Gihr). The issue is vernacular (the language here and now of a people or region) versus vernacular at some point in the past; the use of an older language is better because, inter alia, it manifests tradition and averts modernism (the hubris that present times are superior and more “enlightened” than past times).

No such language as “Ruthenian” and I think the Greeks would disagree that their language being a vernacular one.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As of 1902, there were “twelve languages used in the Catholic liturgy; namely, 1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian,” none of which were vernacular except Romanian (The holy sacrifice of the mass by Gihr). The issue is vernacular (the language here and now of a people or region) versus vernacular at some point in the past; the use of an older language is better because, inter alia, it manifests tradition and averts modernism (the hubris that present times are superior and more “enlightened” than past times).

Given the tenor of this post, I have to question how much of the original post was an honest seeking for information and how much was merely an effort to stir the cat box. At any rate, the benefits of an older language being “better” are something that faithful Catholics can disagree over. I willing concede that it is a matter of opinion (and I have one). There is no way, however, to objectively demonstrate the superiority of an older langauge over a newer one. Language is intended to do a job, which is to convey meaning, to allow the the speaker or writer or signer to express meaning to someone and to allow the hearer or reader or viewer to extract meaning from from what is spoken, written, or signed. In the case of any language unknown by the receiver, even Latin in the EF, translation is required in order for the hearer to understand (in this case, via the vernacular translation that accompanies the Latin text in the missal). Translation is inevitable, since few speak Latin. Therefore, “consubstantial” has to be “explained” (translated) for the hearer/reader as “one in being with” or “one in substance with” or “of the same substance.” So why not simply say that in the first place (unless one subscribes to the spurious argument that God NEEDS it to be in Latin, which I’ve never heard anyone admit to believing)? Anyone want to intelligently discuss the Hypostatic Union? “Hypo” and “stasis” are both going to have to be translated/explained, not to mention “ousia.”

As for what Trent could and could not bind with anathemas, well, the Catholic understanding of things is that popes OR ecumenical councils are infallible in matters of dogma and doctrine/faith and morals, but not on matters of discipline. There is no evidence that the Apostles knew any Latin (they may have, but Koine Greek was still the international language their time) or that Our Lord ever used it (being God, He would have certainly been able to do so, but we don’t see it depicted in the Gospels or related in Tradition), so there is no evidence that Latin is a part of Sacred Tradition, ie, spoken revelation handed down by them. Several centuries passed before the Church made the switch from Greek to Latin (at that time, a vernacular, though a higher form of that vernacular certainly). Popes and councils do not hive off and make things up. They clarify and illuminate and make binding what has always been believed by the Church. So Trent could not bind us to believe that Latin was a part of Sacred Tradition or that it was, ontollogically, sacred. I don’t think the Church, however, believes that was what Trent attempted to do. I think the Church teaches that they were to be anathema who said that the Mass HAD to be in the vernacular to be effectual,which would be a heresy, just as it was heretical to say that the canon HAD to be pronounced in an audible tone. Neither is true, the Mass does what the Church purports that it does whether in Latin or any of the vernaculars or whether the canon is audible or not, or whether there is a congregation there or not, etc. That is NOT to say, however, that the Church may NOT ever allow the Mass to be in the vernacular, or may NOT ever allow the canon to be audible. The anathema would not apply to those who might say, “Please, can we hear the canon?” or “Please, can we have the Mass in our own language.” Those asking would, of course, be bound to respond in obedience, even if they didn’t get the answer they wanted, ie., the Pope has the authority to get rid of the vernacular and restore Latin and we’d be bound to obey him, even if we disagree with him. All Trent said on the use of the vernacular, apart from condemning the idea that the Mass HAD to be in the vernacular, was that it did not seem expedient to the Fathers to make that change. That does not bind successive popes, who might well find it expedient. I saw an interview that a prominient curial cardinal gave to Raymond Arroyo. In that interview, he called the vernacular Mass “helpful.” That cardinal is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Further, Modernism as a heresy is very specifically and narrowly defined by the Church. All that is “contemporary” is not guilty of the heresy of “modernism,” the opinion of some who self-identify as “traditionalists” notwithstanding. And besides, as has been demonstrated, the use of vernaculars is neither “contemporary” or “modern” in the Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

As of 1902, there were “twelve languages used in the Catholic liturgy; namely, 1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian,” none of which were vernacular except Romanian (The holy sacrifice of the mass by Gihr). The issue is vernacular (the language here and now of a people or region) versus vernacular at some point in the past; the use of an older language is better because, inter alia, it manifests tradition and averts modernism (the hubris that present times are superior and more “enlightened” than past times).

This was also discussed here.

Looking at it logically, if the council Fathers had anticipated vernacular-only leading to Protestantism, they should have specifically banned the liturgy being celebrated in the Germanic language. There might have been less confusion that way. But that is my opinion only.

 

[ProVobis]

And explanation requires translation, to one degee or another.

That’s a common myth. Translation texts, such as Bibles et al, are copyrightable, and legalities (meaning potential money-making ventures) sometimes can prevent the correct theology from being disseminated. I believe Cardinal Arinze calls people who are in such ventures iconoclasts. To my knowledge true on-the-spot explanations, such as from pulpits and message boards, and which are normally considered to be in the public domain, are less vulnerable to be challenged in those courtrooms which process plagiarism charges. So there is a difference between explanations and translations, at least the formal kind used in the liturgy itself.

And Trent did not reject vernacular out of hand, they said it was not expedient, perhaps at that time.

Well, it didn’t seem too expedient around the time Vatican II was convened either, especially right after Pope John XXIII wrote Veterum Sapientia, a document strongly opposed to using any vernacular. (And, by the way, he presented facts and binding decrees in that document, and not just his opinions.)

That said, I would be willing to bet had Vatican II insisted that English is to be “preserved in the liturgy,” you and others here would be besides yourselves at an non-English Mass, calling that illegal and perhaps even immoral and senseless. Yet you appear to look for any loophole or rationale that might altogether suppress Latin, the Church’s official language, which was specifically identified in the Vatican II documents as to be preserved in the Latin-rite liturgy. Sounds very self-serving to me.