Tridentine trade-off?

[Mike30]

There’s a lovely Christian sentiment for you.

Not quite as lovely as those who loudly proclaim something is there and try to convince others something is there, when in fact it isn’t there at all…

At least I’m being honest.

 

[10thCrusader]

There are quite a few such documents, as bishops’ conferences voted one by one for the vernacular and applied to Rome for permission, who granted it.

People who haven’t seriously studied the history of the council seriously often assert that the fathers did not anticipate the massive expansion of the vernacular. But the bishops at Vatican II were virtually the same ones who, a few years later, voted orwhelmingly for the vernacular in their separate bishops’ conferences across the world. Like it or not, the Council anticipated wide use of the vernacular—even in its first document—and the bishops there carried out their own intention, with the explicit agreement and approval of the Pope and Curia.

And, of course, one only gets to say “no documents” in such contexts. If one said that there are “no church documents against gay marriage,” you’d be swiftly corrected with texts from the USCCB and various curial offices. “No documents” only happens when people don’t LIKE the documents.

And yet… still no reference Vatican II documents…

 

[Sirach2]

And you never did answer my question as to where in the Vatican II documents it was stated that the Mass **should **be said in the vernacular.

Why was that?

Because it is not in the Vatican documents verbatum, other than by reference, directing that a commission be established. Pope Paul VI issued a Motu Proprio to established this Consilium to implement the liturgical norms of the Council. Here is the authorization.

***Inter ***oecumenici

Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964
　
2. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.

1. Vernacular translations of liturgical texts to be prepared in conformity with the norms of art. 36, § 3

 

[ProVobis]

Because it is not in the Vatican documents verbatum, other than by reference, directing that a commission be established. Pope Paul VI issued a Motu Proprio to established this Consilium to implement the liturgical norms of the Council. Here is the authorization.

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)

1. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

1. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

1. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM

 

[Megan7]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)

1. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

1. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.
2. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

Thank you PV

 

[TimSpalding]

Language differences between Latin and Greek perhaps leading to the biggest schism in the world and you’re implying one language is as good as another?

What I’m saying is that languages are languages. There’s nothing special about Latin and Greek that makes them uniquely holy or uniquely appropriate to convey our prayers.

To follow your tangent, however, I think your analysis is incorrect. Language didn’t drive the churches apart. Language issues came up eventually, but only in a context where the cultural and political factors were absolutely dominant. That is, nobody brought up the language issues until the west and east had grown apart in many other ways, including a massive decrease in cultural interpenetration generally. When the empire was whole and educated people moved between the languages, things worked out. It wasn’t until education declined, the cultures diverged and the politics went south that the Byzantines could call Latin a “barbarian, Scythian language” and Latins started accusing Greeks of omitting the filioque.

Anyway, whatever the causes of the schism, it probably would have been healed but for the Fourth Crusade, the Latin sack of Constantinople, and the Latin Kingdom. Theologians can talk about leavened and unleavened bread, or the filioque, but the most important factor keeping the churches apart has been lingering visceral hatred and suspicion occasioned by the Latin destruction of Byzantine civilization. The Greeks didn’t say “better the turban than the mitre” because they liked Islamic theology, or Arabic and Turkish. They said it because they hated and feared the Latin west and the Pope.

As for Vatican II, I just want to say it: There are no Vatican II documents about gay marriage. Therefore the church is just fine with gay marriage. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Sirach2]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM

We know your desire for latin, PV, and in printing the excerpts that you noted from the above document, you give an implication that the Church is amiss if certain parts of the mass are not prayed in latin. I pray that all who read this will realize that …

a) Permission for the vernacular was approved,

b) Initially, certain prayers in the mass were encouraged to be learned in latin, and it is my observance that even today, many churches have the option to pray them in latin and do so.

c) The document was framed in March, 1965, when the vernacular was first being adopted. The use of full vernacular has attained development over the years. It would be a serious misconception to believe the Church erred in allowing this development.

We need to keep separate the two forms (EF and OF) and refrain from hinting that unless latin is used in the OF, the Church is wrong in allowing full vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

As for Vatican II, I just want to say it: There are no Vatican II documents about gay marriage. Therefore the church is just fine with gay marriage. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Non demonstrandum. Vatican II specifically mentioned Latin, not Greek, not Arabic, not Turkish. Even Trent wasn’t that specific, yet the Latin was/became the de facto non vulgaris lingua for all this time.

Furthermore you ignore language and their mutations (modern languages are hardly static) as a reflection of culture and cultural changes inter alia in your historical analysis. But it’s hard for historians to duplicate the speaking languages of those early cultures so I won’t hold that against your arguments. But languages do have a purpose. Would Shakespeare have had the same impact had he written in Chinese or Polish? I doubt it.

 

[ProVobis]

c) The document was framed in March, 1965, when the vernacular was first being adopted. The use of full vernacular has attained development over the years. It would be a serious misconception to believe the Church erred in allowing this development.

I believe it was “fully approved” in 1969. The Church didn’t err in doing so, but translations into the vernacular are not infallible nor have a better effect necessarily. So what’s your point?

 

[otjm]

As was pointed out “servetur” is a jussive (subjunctive) mood; it is a command.

Where Latin is allowed by law, Latin is to be preserved in the Latin Rite. ’

I think it has been preserved - injected with formaldehyde, hermetically sealed in a jar and stored on s shelf somewhere…

 

[ProVobis]

I think it has been preserved - injected with formaldehyde, hermetically sealed in a jar and stored on s shelf somewhere…

Cicero had done that already. But thanks for lightening the tone of the discussion.

 

[Sirach2]

I believe it was “fully approved” in 1969. The Church didn’t err in doing so, but translations into the vernacular are not infallible nor have a better effect necessarily. So what’s your point?

Something Bro. JR has said repeatedly, that we must think with the mind of the Church and refrain from hinting that one knows a more acceptable, more perfect way of celebrating the liturgy, and the Church should pay heed.

Granted, some translations have needed revision, but that in itself does not invalidate the practice of allowing full vernacular. Isn’t this why we have the new missal?

The mistake many have made is not finding specific language in V-II documents, so they somehow assumed the Church was wrong. How many posts have we seen in this regard, and even in this thread? Instead of believing there are other communications authorizing vernacular and think in agreement with the Church, they just chuck the whole idea. Worse yet, their false conception is spread to others and the error escalates.

 

[malphono]

I believe it was “fully approved” in 1969.

IIRC, I think that happened in 1967 when the “second version” of the “Interim Missal” came around.

 

[ProVobis]

IIRC, I think that happened in 1967 when the “second version” of the “Interim Missal” came around.

That sounds about right. I think that’s when all the questioning of the validity of the All-English Roman Canon came about, even before the 1969 Missal came to be. They may have altered the English translation a little after that.