Tridentine in english ?

[DustinsDad]

Then allow me to do so now …Well, there again, DD, with respect, but with entire truthfulness, who is attempting to read whose mind?

I am absolutely not trying to read your mind, but trying to shed some light onto how your posts are being recieved here. The clarification of your position here is very enlightening and helpful to me. Thanks!

My rigorous defense of the vernacular is two-fold and part of it has to do with defending the Church, whose legitimate authority extended and allowed the increase in the use of the vernacular.

I in no way question the right of those in authority to approve or disapprove of the vernacular, it is their authority used wisely or unwisely…I merely submit that the prudent use of the authority given them by Christ is not guaranteed. I humbly submit to the authority of the Church even when such decisions boggle my mind.

I also think it would be smart to be a bit more accurate in this given situation - the legitimate authority of the Church has not only allowed the increase in the use of the vernacular, they have pretty much allowed for the entire use of the vernacular in the Western World - probably 99% of the masses offered are offered as such, and that’s just a plain hard fact.

Aside from these rare occaisions and rare parishes, the prayer of the Church (the liturgy) is not spoken in the language of the Church (Latin). Approved by legitimate authority of the Church or not, something is wrong with such a situation since it stands in stark contradiciton to both Trent and Vatican II - especially since no real explanation has been offered as to what the difference is besides “that was then, this is now” - change for change’s sake.

And also, as you said before, the vernacular translations themselves are bad translations of the actual NO Latin Text…and these bad translations have themselves been approved by the legitimate authority of the Church. It is not a good situation and for anyone to say this “not good situation” has no bearing on the present state of the Church (which we should honestly call a crisis), for as such would be to intimate that the prayer of the Church has no bearing on the life of the Church. Let’s not forget the old saying Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

But as I’ve also explained, I don’t see what’s bad about people being able to worship in the language in which they think and reason. I teach English language learners. It is very, very rare for any second language learner to arrive at such a facility in that language that they think in it.

As someone who doesn’t think in Latin or even speak Latin, let me say that my thoughts and prayers in English don’t prevent me from worshipping in the language in which I think and reason when I attend the TLM. I humbly unite my thoughts and prayers and intentions (in English) with the prayers and intentions of the priest acting in persona Christi - who humbly addresses God with the prayer and worship of the Church in the language of the Church for the sake of the people of the Church.

So you see, I don’t think Latin in any way prohibits me from worshipping in the language in which I think and reason…if anything it draws me in deeper, and helps to better illuminate what is going on because I am forced to be more attentive to what is actually taking place. In short, I think their is more to the teachings of Trent and the recomendations of VII concerning Latin in the Liturgy than meets the eye.

I guess what I would say is “wrong” with an entirely vernacular mass or even a mostly vernacular mass is that it tends to undo so much of what has rightfully been enriched and organically developed in the liturgy over the course of the centuries - the sense of reverence, awe, mystery, sacredness is all to often replaced by the common and mundane.

In such concerns, I’d have to add before anyone misinterprets what I am saying…I am not deriding the Church…I am merely expressing my legitimate concerns because I love the Church.

Thanks and God bless,

DustinsDad

 

[BobP123]

In such concerns, I’d have to add before anyone misinterprets what I am saying…I am not deriding the Church…I am merely expressing my legitimate concerns because I love the Church.

Thanks and God bless,

DustinsDad

Good post.

Now how can anyone who follows Church’s teachings in its Councils be possibly deriding her? Questioning whether current authority has exceeded its powers is something every Catholic should undertake when he feels something isn’t right. Maybe part of the problem is that Catholic laity has slacked off to the point where they’ll accept anything as long as the rules are relaxed in their favor and their bishops are happy. It may be, as you say, obedience to legitimate authority, but is this really the preservation of Catholic integrity and/or identity?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As far as objecting, oh I’m not sure that’s a good choice of words. I simply think there are goods, and their are greater goods.

**Then this is where we differ. I acknowledge the beauty of Latin in worship (most in Gregorian chant, plain chant, hymns, etc., rather than the recited prayers), I acknowledge it’s utility in hallowing out a holy space. I very frequently say or sing,“Adoremus Te, Christi, et benedicimus tibi quia per Sanctem Crucem Tuam redemisti mundum” because it viscerally sounds better than “We adore You, O Christ, and we bless You, for by Your Holy Cross You have redeemed the world.” I get it. **

**For me, it’s like a balance scale. On one side, beauty. On the other side, understanding (and I don’t simply mean “a sense,” I mean comprehension). While I understand that the Mass is not primarily a tool of evangelism, I know that it CAN be a instrument of conversion, a profound one. It was for me, I wept in the courtyard of the monastery after the first Mass I heard there and they didn’t use a lick of Latin (they did for Benediction). I was done after that, there was no way I wasn’t going to be a Catholic, even though my family had just gotten used to the idea that I was probably going to be an Episcopalian priest (talk about your rescues). Jesus said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me.” **

Sorry, have to tend to something, more in a bit.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As I was saying:

Christ said,“If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me.” We LITERALLY lift Him up in the Mass. I think it’s entirely to the people’s advantage to hear and understand those words, as they are happening, as they bring Him to be present again on the Altar. I know it happens whether the people understand it or not, but how is it bad if they do?

So for me, the tipping of the scale goes more to understanding. We don’t have to loose the beauty, however, because we don’t have to use “common” or base vernacular. We can use our finest prose, we can say “thee” and “thy,” “thine” and “thou,” we can remember that we are addressing a King, not a homie.

You also ask me about the tone of my objections. While my tone IS my responsibility, “tone” answers “tone”(I don’t think I’m ever harsh with people who are respectful to the Mass and the Church). I get VERY tired of some of the illogical arguments I’ve heard coming from “traditionalists.” Latin is a sacred language because we’ve used it to describe sacred things, not because it is ontollogically sacred, not because it is sacred in and of its nature. “Uxor” is not more sacred than “wife,” “crux” not more sacred than “cross” or “croix” or “cruz.” Latin was the language of the empire into which Christ was born. It was used to scrawl grafitti on the walls of Pompey. There’s an apparition (unapproved), where I don’t remember, that apparently claims Our Lady has mentioned how much she misses the use of Latin. It strains at my creduality, at least, that the Blessed Mother is mourning the lack of the tongue native to those who are responsible for the death of Her Child, juridicially, at least. Latin’s advantages as a dead language are, also and with respect, vastly over-emphasized. Why? Because it still has to be translated, doesn’t it? What is the point of using a dead language which, few people understanding it,is constantly having to be translated? “It doesn’t have to be translated, it can simply be explained.” Sorry, how is that different from translation? No one has ever explained the logic to me, aside from the aesthetic, to which I’ve already stipulated agreement (to a degree), of having a priest address God in a tongue unknown to his congregation, in front of that congregation, as they follow along, reading a translation of what the priest is saying out of a book. “But it’s more exact” (are we worried that God isn’t going to get it? Does God need it to be in Latin?). “Well, the people can follow along with the translation in the missal” (but if the advantage to using a dead language is that it’s more precise, doesn’t it necessarily follow that the translation the people are following is conveying a corrupted meaning? Again, is it God that needs it to be precise? I don’t really think God is going to get confused). “But we need to give God our best” (sorry, it’s subjective opinion that Latin is best. I could make the argument that our own language is our “best,” because it’s how we think and reason, thus what we offer is from our very hearts). “Latin is sacred because it was one of the three languages that were written on the signboard on the Cross!” (please, Pilate wrote that for the precise reason that he wanted the passersbys who could read to be able to comprehend the message he was trying to convey, ie “this is what Rome does to kings.” Indeed, his purpose IS the purpose of language itself: to communicate, to convey meaning). The good reasons for Latin are that it has, by an historical process, conveyed meaning for the Church, thus making itself indespensible and it affords us a sense of unity, esp. in masses where more than one langauge group is present, ie, papal masses, congresses, conferences, etc. For our “regular” worship (as opposed to “ordinary,” there being nothing ordinary about the Holy Sacrifice), I don’t see the problem with the vernacular, indeed I see innumerable benefits.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s like that priest said in an article on the other thread. In the TLM, you have a situation where most folks don’t explicitly understand every word spoken on the altar, yet the vast majority understand explitly what is happening on the altar, while at the NO, you have a situation where all folks can hear and understand exactly every word spoken on the altar, yet miss or don’t understand what is actually happening on the altar. **I think that is the fault of very bad catechesis, not the fault of the Mass or the use of the venacular (where the priest’s argument is applicable, that is; I don’t think I’ve had pastors who’ve let instruction on what’s actually happening in the Mass “slide,” as it were). I don’t think that having Latin is going to improve that understanding. **

I’d also like to hear some explanation as to why the vernacular mass is prudent now, yet was not prudent then. I’m really really curious as to what changed about the nature of man over the course of the centuries. I’ve never really heard it explained…just sounds like change for changes sake and a compromise to “accomodate” the world, like a compromise that perhaps would have been better left unmade. **I can’t explain, per se, but I can conjecture. The world got “bigger?” The Church is in contact with far more language groups that it was before? More people (arguably still not the bulk of them, but more) understood Latin back then? The original shift OUT of Greek into Latin was so more people could understand, so it follows naturally that an expanded use of the venacular today allows even more to understand? Why is it imprudent, provided that we have translators with integrity, to HAVE the venacular now? And, with respect, isn’t an insistence on the Latin in worship just another form of antiqurianism? **

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am absolutely not trying to read your mind, but trying to shed some light onto how your posts are being recieved here. The clarification of your position here is very enlightening and helpful to me. Thanks!

I in no way question the right of those in authority to approve or disapprove of the vernacular, it is their authority used wisely or unwisely…I merely submit that the prudent use of the authority given them by Christ is not guaranteed. I humbly submit to the authority of the Church even when such decisions boggle my mind. **Excellent. That’s why I’m also endeavoring to learn my prayers in Latin, though why I have to do so boggles my mind. I may go to Rome ONCE, if I’m lucky. Otherwise, I’m going to be worshipping at Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility in Lake Woebegone (metaphorically speaking, at least). **

I also think it would be smart to be a bit more accurate in this given situation - the legitimate authority of the Church has not only allowed the increase in the use of the vernacular, they have pretty much allowed for the entire use of the vernacular in the Western World - probably 99% of the masses offered are offered as such, and that’s just a plain hard fact. **About which I’m not complaining. **

Aside from these rare occaisions and rare parishes, the prayer of the Church (the liturgy) is not spoken in the language of the Church (Latin). Approved by legitimate authority of the Church or not, something is wrong with such a situation since it stands in stark contradiciton to both Trent and Vatican II - especially since no real explanation has been offered as to what the difference is besides “that was then, this is now” - change for change’s sake. **Again, Trent didn’t condemn the use of the venacular outright, it used (word for word, I think) your word “prudent:” it didn’t seem prudent then. I have no trouble seeing why it’s prudent NOW. And I don’t think it was “change for change’s sake.” I think the bishops wanted their people to understand and comprehend. **

And also, as you said before, the vernacular translations themselves are bad translations of the actual NO Latin Text…and these bad translations have themselves been approved by the legitimate authority of the Church. It is not a good situation and for anyone to say this “not good situation” has no bearing on the present state of the Church (which we should honestly call a crisis), for as such would be to intimate that the prayer of the Church has no bearing on the life of the Church. Let’s not forget the old saying Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.** Right, we need good translations. No argument. But again, there is an illogic to the some traditionalists’ argument regarding this: “We need the dead language because of it’s precision. The people can then follow along in the translation.” But the translation is then, by its nature, corrupted, isn’t it, by virtue of it BEING a translation? Again, for whom are we being “precise?” God? I rather think God has the subtle nuances under control. **

As someone who doesn’t think in Latin or even speak Latin, let me say that my thoughts and prayers in English don’t prevent me from worshipping in the language in which I think and reason when I attend the TLM. I humbly unite my thoughts and prayers and intentions (in English) with the prayers and intentions of the priest acting in persona Christi - who humbly addresses God with the prayer and worship of the Church in the language of the Church for the sake of the people of the Church. **And that’s great, really. As I said, I was moved to tears by my first Mass, a Pauline in the venacular. I’ve known people who grew up with the Latin who’s experience isn’t yours and they welcomed the venacular. In answer to this paragraph and the one that follows, I should say that there would be a danger in both of us “universalizing” our experiences. **

So you see, I don’t think Latin in any way prohibits me from worshipping in the language in which I think and reason…if anything it draws me in deeper, and helps to better illuminate what is going on because I am forced to be more attentive to what is actually taking place. In short, I think their is more to the teachings of Trent and the recomendations of VII concerning Latin in the Liturgy than meets the eye.

I guess what I would say is “wrong” with an entirely vernacular mass or even a mostly vernacular mass is that it tends to undo so much of what has rightfully been enriched and organically developed in the liturgy over the course of the centuries - the sense of reverence, awe, mystery, sacredness is all to often replaced by the common and mundane. **I think that you can have all of the above, every last bit of it, and still have a venacular Mass. I know, I’ve experienced it. **

 

[DustinsDad]

Again, Trent didn’t condemn the use of the venacular outright, it used (word for word, I think) your word “prudent:”

Actually, the word Trent used was “expediant”:
Session 22, Chapter XVIII
…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.
Definition of expediant according to Webster online is *“suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance”. *

it didn’t seem prudent then. I have no trouble seeing why it’s prudent NOW. And I don’t think it was “change for change’s sake.” I think the bishops wanted their people to understand and comprehend.

The only difference in circumstance you see is that the bishops now want folks to understand and comprehend - but back then, they didn’t? Do you really believe that?

Anyway - thanks for the good conversation. Happy Palm Sunday!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, the word Trent used was “expediant”:Session 22, Chapter XVIII

…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.
Definition of expediant according to Webster online is *“suitable for achieving a particular end in a given circumstance”. *

The only difference in circumstance you see is that the bishops now want folks to understand and comprehend - but back then, they didn’t? Do you really believe that?

Anyway - thanks for the good conversation. Happy Palm Sunday!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

Thank you…“expedient.” I never can remember that.

Dunno. ‘Splain’ means translatin’, doesn’t it?

And if it’s an open question that the Pope might have been wrong in allowing the expansion of the vernacular (Paul VI), isn’t it an open question that the Fathers back then may have been wrong in NOT allowing it? If one is either prudent or imprudent NOW, then couldn’t the other have been imprudent then (both of us observing the caveat that neither discipline, imposed or allowed by the Church, is capable of leading the faithful into impiety)?

I still have to ask: why does it bother you so much if it’s in the vernacular?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I still have to ask: why does it bother you so much if it’s in the vernacular?

there is nothing wrong with mass in the vernacular, there are obvious advantages. but you have to take seriously the tradition that the roman rite was almost always celebrated in latin since about the 3rd century, and in africa almost since the apostolic era.

it is the patrimony of the church, it is a treasure. it was the language of the vulgate bible of st. jerome. the church by its very nature is conservative. it is only natural for it to hold on to latin as its offical language.

it is therefore a good thing to know and use latin as catholics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

there is nothing wrong with mass in the vernacular, there are obvious advantages. but you have to take seriously the tradition that the roman rite was almost always celebrated in latin since about the 3rd century, and in africa almost since the apostolic era.

it is the patrimony of the church, it is a treasure. it was the language of the vulgate bible of st. jerome. the church by its very nature is conservative. it is only natural for it to hold on to latin as its offical language.

it is therefore a good thing to know and use latin as catholics.

If you look back through my posts in this thread, I already agreed with the points that you make. And I don’t see why we cannot have both. But will traditionalists(or “traditionalists”) be happy with that?

 

[BobP123]

it is the patrimony of the church, it is a treasure. it was the language of the vulgate bible of st. jerome. the church by its very nature is conservative. it is only natural for it to hold on to latin as its offical language.

it is therefore a good thing to know and use latin as catholics.

Latin will continue to be our liturgical language. If the liberals don’t like it, we’ll just remove all the vernacular in their hand missals and sermon readings.

Some people just don’t know what’s good.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Latin will continue to be our liturgical language. If the liberals don’t like it, we’ll just remove all the vernacular in their hand missals and sermon readings.

Some people just don’t know what’s good.

Poor little mini-popes, it must be tough when the big pope, the real one with the authority and the charism, doesn’t get all of the little memos.

 

[thecoach]

So the “Rite of St. Gregory the Great” cannot be done in the vernacular?. How will the majority of people be able to understand the Tridentine Mass if it is not done in the vernacular. Do you really think thousands of Roman Catholics around the world will be taking Latin courses. Let’s be realistic here. Even if you read the English while the mass was being said, if you did not understand Latin, you would be lost as to where the priest was in the wording. I’m sure the Divine Liturgies were meant to be only said in Greek. But thankfully the Orthodox used their heads, and changed the language to vernacular without disturbing the Liturgy at all. Can’t say much for the Roman Church, and Novus Ordo!. I’m sure St. Gregory the Great would approve if he were here on Earth.

um,its called a Missal

 

[DustinsDad]

Dunno. ‘Splain’ means translatin’, doesn’t it?

I think Session 22, Chapter 28 makes clear the Church wanted the lay people to understand and comprehend the mass - that wasn’t a new thing that popped up at VII, so I’m still left wondering what the change in circumstance that made the vernacular non-expediant at Trent and suddenely expediant after VII (even though VII didn’t really call for it in the magnitude of the vernacularization that was implemented).

And if it’s an open question that the Pope might have been wrong in allowing the expansion of the vernacular (Paul VI), isn’t it an open question that the Fathers back then may have been wrong in NOT allowing it? If one is either prudent or imprudent NOW, then couldn’t the other have been imprudent then

Yep.

(both of us observing the caveat that neither discipline, imposed or allowed by the Church, is capable of leading the faithful into impiety)?

I will grant you that caveat. But not being capable of leading the faithful into impiety does not mean that all disciplines are always equally capable of leading the faithful into piety.

I still have to ask: why does it bother you so much if it’s in the vernacular?

I guess it’s just that such a big break with tradition, accompanied by so many other big breaks, concerns me - especially since it comes at a time of what I see as a great crisis in the Church. Something just doesn’t fit - or perhaps the two fit so well.

And I guess it’s not just the vernacular, that’s just one piece of the puzzle ('nuther brick in the wall) that we happen to be talking about at the moment.

It wouldn’t bother me near as much as if only portions of the TLM liturgy was spoken in the vernacular (one of my big surprises at my first couple of TLMs was that it wasn’t just the NO in English). but the fact that the entire liturgy was reworked, revamped and tweaked by committee and then vernacularized - ouch. Lord have mercy!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[BobP123]

And I guess it’s not just the vernacular, that’s just one piece of the puzzle ('nuther brick in the wall) that we happen to be talking about at the moment.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

Maybe one of the reasons why it was even brought up at Trent was that every one of Martin Luther’s tenets was to be addressed. Martin Luther, of course, was a big champion of the vernacularists.

I don’t know how much Latin other than the Mass that they had at the time, but except for the Mass itself, almost everything else, homily, prayers after Low Mass, confession, Church bulletins, etc., IS done in the vernacular today, so I don’t know what the big deal is. Perhaps Vatican II wanted to extend the vernacular to the readings but certainly not the entire Mass. Maybe it seems overwhelming today, but there were a lot of people back in the preVatican II who memorized quite a lot of the Mass prayers, if not the entire Mass. Not a bad idea, since the Latin, unlike vernacular, never changes.

Having said that, will it be long before the Blackberry vernacular Mass starts? 5 minutes and you’re done.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think Session 22, Chapter 28 makes clear the Church wanted the lay people to understand and comprehend the mass - that wasn’t a new thing that popped up at VII, so I’m still left wondering what the change in circumstance that made the vernacular non-expediant at Trent and suddenely expediant after VII (even though VII didn’t really call for it in the magnitude of the vernacularization that was implemented).
Frankly, I have no idea.

Yep. Good

I will grant you that caveat. But not being capable of leading the faithful into impiety does not mean that all disciplines are always equally capable of leading the faithful into piety. There is no evidence that the venacular has not lead anyone to greater piety. Less than fourty years is a blink of the eye in terms of how the Church operates and passes judgement on things. I know that some “traditionalists” like to talk about “fruits,” but I believe that they confuse the fruit of the Church and Her disciplines and the fruit of the world’s influence that has crept in, aka, the fruits of the "Spirit of Vatican II."

I guess it’s just that such a big break with tradition, accompanied by so many other big breaks, concerns me - especially since it comes at a time of what I see as a great crisis in the Church. Something just doesn’t fit - or perhaps the two fit so well. I, too, recognize the state of crisis that the Church is in. I simply don’t blame it on VII, or the Popes (though an argument could be made that the Holy Fathers need to tighten up on how they choose bishops) or the Mass.

And I guess it’s not just the vernacular, that’s just one piece of the puzzle ('nuther brick in the wall) that we happen to be talking about at the moment. **No question, we’ve been through the “silly season.” But it hasn’t all been bad, in my opinion. The venacular Mass is an example. The venacular Mass abused HAS been bad. **

It wouldn’t bother me near as much as if only portions of the TLM liturgy was spoken in the vernacular (one of my big surprises at my first couple of TLMs was that it wasn’t just the NO in English). but the fact that the entire liturgy was reworked, revamped and tweaked by committee and then vernacularized - ouch. Lord have mercy!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

**I guess it depends on how you start out, in terms of expectations. I admit that my experience of the liturgy began in the rarified air of the monastery. I also admit that the quality, for want of a better word, of the NO Mass is dependent on what you get for a pastor. I’ve been lucky, I guess. I’ve seen terrible abuses, but this mostly happens on vacation…in California. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe one of the reasons why it was even brought up at Trent was that every one of Martin Luther’s tenets was to be addressed. Martin Luther, of course, was a big champion of the vernacularists.

**That doesn’t make the venacular protestant or Lutheran or wrong. It’s a morally neutral question, depending on WHY it’s sought. **

 

[AJV]

DustinsDad:

I’m struggling with the ArchBishop’s arguments here seemingly for the use of the vulgar tounge at mass, etc. (those darn American bishops!) - I don’t quite understand his reasoning…is he actually saying that the previous centuries of the Church’s liturgy has been, to use the Archbishop’s word, “preposterous” yet “prudent”?

He is saying that it is preposterous that Eastern Churches much smaller than Rome can have a part or whole of the service in the vernacular while the Roman which is the largest of the Churches is confined to only Latin.

First, why was it prudent at the time of Trent (to defend the liturgical discipline of the mass in the Latin tongue) and not now. What has or had changed? If anything, it would seem less “necessary” now since missals and a mostly literate populace are now better able follow word-for-word the mass in Latin than they were at the time of Trent.

I will for the first point draw on the archbishop’s words. He is quite right when he characterized some of the vernacular requests as “reproachful and insulting”. Catherine de Medici (of St. Bartholomew’s Massacre fame) wrote a letter to the Pope asking (if one can use that word) for many things including the vernacular, no more veneration of saints, etc., etc. and obliquely alluding the Colloquy of Poissy and supporting its defiance of Rome. Likewise later in the year, around the time of the 22nd Session, the “20 demands” of emperor to the legates included the same demand in haughty terms. Hardly surprising that vernacular requests were not regarded very favourably.

(With reference to Bob’s post, Luther was one of the last to start vernacular worship. In fact in one place he encourages that Greek, Latina nd Hebrew be used as well)

The immediate argument that influenced Trent was that it would appear as if the Council Fathers were giving in to the Reformers and encourage them in other demands. This was also the gist of the reply given to John III of Sweden later when he asked for the vernacular. Equally important, the control over the liturgy, which was already differing (but to be remedied as seen from the decree on reform) would be decreased at a crucial time.

Nevertheless, Trent did not make absolute ruling on the vernacular- in the deliberations it excluded the position of de Santis who was a trilingualist (can only use Latin, Greek and Hebrew in the Mass because those were the languages on the cross)

Many of the Fathers were of the opinion that vernacular should be expanded (especially those areas where there was already a tradition of vernacular singing or Gospel,etc.) for esome, and including those after Trent were of the opinion that it simply did not matter. And some were even opposed to translation of any Latin texts whatsoever - bible, Missal, breviary, even writings of Popes. (like the cardinal of Jaen, who said it was “temerity”)

If one looks at some of the pro-Latin arguments one sees the attitude of many that characterized that period of time. I don’t know whether you’ve heard of that retort to the people understanding:

As for the people, if they do not understand, so much the better. There is all the more respect and none the less intelligence.

A little better phrased was

Prayers in the Latin tongue seem to double the religious feelings of the multitude. In the tumult of his thoughts, and the miseries with which his life is beset, man as he pronounces words a little familiar, or even unknown to him, seems to petition for things he wants and yet of which he is ignorant.

Moreover some of the Fathers of Trent argued from the wrong texts. While the vernacular-favourable people quoted Justinian (who was actually not talking about the vernacular at all, but about clerics speaking too softly) and the anti-vernacular quoted Dionysius regarding the disciplina arcana- the mysteries should not be revealed to the uninitiated- which is erroneous since it applied to catechumens and the practice of banishing catechumens had long fallen out anyway. However on account of the Fathers’ insistence (the majority of those SPEAKING on the topic were in favour) to the final draft was incorporated the wording were added the sentence that incorporates one of the phrases used “that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread……….”

 

[AJV]

Even Gardiner , great defender of the Faith in England, insisted that it was not ordained that men should HEAR the Mass but merely come to church, stand at the Gospel, kneel at the elevation and at other times occupy themselves in prayer and observe that the priests and clerks were doing so as well, and consequently it did not matter whether those standing in the nave could hear what was being said in the chancel. The attitude was that the general population were not educated enough to grasp the meaning- it would require too much exhorting “to keep their peace”.

Perhaps one could argue that the current translations prove that vernacular is too susceptible to alteration and the whims of the priest and certainly there is no shortage of evidence in that regard. But is that a fault of the vernacular or rather a result of the whole climate of change of the 1970’s and rubrics of the NO?

Can we not honestly say that if translation was done a century or more ago, when things were not flexible at all, it would have been done faithfully without “dynamic equivalence” and other such concepts? IMHO, the strict rubrics and the whole climate of the TLM would have prevented any monkeying and ad-libbing- I think I could be confident it saying that it would have been as unthinkable then. Even if you see, in the countries where the vernacular was permitted, they didn’t go about ad-libbing stuff. Nor did they do so for the more widespread vernacular rituals when that was introduced.

Now one has a missal and fine and good. But if you are going to understand from a missal, then why not hear it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

(With reference to Bob’s post, Luther was one of the last to start vernacular worship. In fact in one place he encourages that Greek, Latina nd Hebrew be used as well)

Very interesting, AJV, and enlightening. With regards to the above, since the “Luther as the proto-vernacularist” argument will more than likely continue to be asserted, do you have a citation for the above?