Vernacular in the Mass originally forbidden?

[DavidJoseph]

I heard this claim from a rad-trad friend of mine. He claims that during Vatican II, when Pope John XXIII was still alive, several bishops (like 200 or so) asked the Holy Father to permit saying Mass in the vernacular. And, according to him, John XXIII said “absolutely not,” but they got together, defied the Pope, and allowed the vernacular in their dioceses anyway. Is there any truth to this? I can’t find any info on it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

DavidJoseph:

I heard this claim from a rad-trad friend of mine. He claims that during Vatican II, when Pope John XXIII was still alive, several bishops (like 200 or so) asked the Holy Father to permit saying Mass in the vernacular. And, according to him, John XXIII said “absolutely not,” but they got together, defied the Pope, and allowed the vernacular in their dioceses anyway. Is there any truth to this? I can’t find any info on it.

A bit of history. Many of the “changes” we often attribute to Vatican II actually started back during Pius XII. Mass was said in some places in the common language that was not anything new, it was the exception but never the less it was already happening.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

No, there’s no truth to this. The closest would be the issue of vernacular that was raised at the Council of Trent where they didn’t forbid it but, rather, stated that the time was not opportune for the introduction of the vernacular.

Deacon Ed

 

[flamingsword]

Another very intersting point of history that I don’t know the full story behind. Mass facing the congregation was experimented not far from where I now live at an unassuming parish. The Vatican, 50 years before the Second Vatican Council, gave permission for Mass to be celebrated this way in the Church’s crypt.

 

[alih]

it is hoped that no-one is going to make me pony up on my research as some of this information is filed. (and i’m tired) but i think you will find that in the 22nd session of trent an anethema was declared for those who would say mass in the vulgar. also,
of the points from the council of pistoria (jansenists i think) one was to have the mass said in the vernacular (vulgar) but was declared later, as heresy.
whatever the position, it is my fervant hope that one day this will all be behind us and unity will prevail (ut unum sunt).
the only question is…on what terms?

 

[flamingsword]

I hate to say it, but Latin was the vernacular language of an empire at one time. Aramaic was the language of Christ. Greek was, and still is, the language of many Christians before the split in the 11th century.

That is the long way of saying, show me.

 

[bear06]

alih:

it is hoped that no-one is going to make me pony up on my research as some of this information is filed. (and i’m tired) but i think you will find that in the 22nd session of trent an anethema was declared for those who would say mass in the vulgar. also,
of the points from the council of pistoria (jansenists i think) one was to have the mass said in the vernacular (vulgar) but was declared later, as heresy.
whatever the position, it is my fervant hope that one day this will all be behind us and unity will prevail (ut unum sunt).
the only question is…on what terms?

Yeah, I’ll have to ask you to pony up! It would seem impossible that mass in the vernacular could be a heresy since this had happened before unless the heretics were saying that the pope did not have the authority to ban Mass in the vernacular. The pope would always have the authority to say in what language Mass could be said. He could loose the vernacular or he could ban it.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

 

[alih]

in retrospect, it is unfortunate that the history of the catholic church was not taught to any great degree. it is only later in the game of life where we find out that which we should have. i think it would have made a great difference.
22nd session: council of trent;
doctrine on the sacrifice of the mass:
canon vi, if any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.
canon ix, if anyone 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 is contrary to the institution of christ, let him be anathema.
the words speak for themselves.

 

[bear06]

alih:

in retrospect, it is unfortunate that the history of the catholic church was not taught to any great degree. it is only later in the game of life where we find out that which we should have. i think it would have made a great difference.
22nd session: council of trent;
doctrine on the sacrifice of the mass:
canon vi, if any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.
canon ix, if anyone 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 is contrary to the institution of christ, let him be anathema.
the words speak for themselves.

OK, you’ve quoted this correctly but your original assumption is wrong

the 22nd session of trent an anethema was declared for those who would say mass in the vulgar.

I believe it said in vulgar tongue only. I think most people here know that VII did not call for the total abandonment of Latin.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

bear06:

I believe it said in vulgar tongue only. I think most people here know that VII did not call for the total abandonment of Latin.

Don’t get ahead of yourself. I was shocked when I finally read the documents of Vatican II for myself and saw all sorts of things that didn’t jive with the changes I had been told came from Vatican II. And even then, seminarians in my class (the context in which I read Sacrosanctum Concilium) told me that the Council Fathers really intended to abolish the use of Latin and just had to write the document that way in order to appease the hardliners. So hopefully most people here know by now what Vatican II called for, but don’t assume that people bring that knowledge to the table.

 

[bear06]

Andreas Hofer:

Don’t get ahead of yourself. I was shocked when I finally read the documents of Vatican II for myself and saw all sorts of things that didn’t jive with the changes I had been told came from Vatican II. And even then, seminarians in my class (the context in which I read Sacrosanctum Concilium) told me that the Council Fathers really intended to abolish the use of Latin and just had to write the document that way in order to appease the hardliners. So hopefully most people here know by now what Vatican II called for, but don’t assume that people bring that knowledge to the table.

Ah well, you are right. Have you ever noticed that someone posts a question and then the only people who show up for the conversation are the same old posters. 99% of the time this is who my posts are aimed at and I’m pretty sure that we (we as in the same old crazy posters) know that VII didn’t call for the abandonment of all Latin.

 

[alih]

when things are in files…they are filed…l.o.l finding them…but!

“changes in mass for greater apostolate”

address of pope paul iv to a general audience, nov. 26, 1969

our dear sons and daughters…

1. we ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical
   innovation of the new rite of the mass. this new rite will be
   introduced into our celebration of the holy sacrifice starting
   from sunday next which is the first of advent, nov. 30.
2. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed,
   the newness of language. no longer latin, but the spoken
   language will be the principal language of the mass. the
   introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sac-
   rifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the
   expressive sacrality of latin. we are parting with the speech
   of the christian centuries; we are becoming like profane
   intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. we
   will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable
   artistic and spiritual thing, the gregorian chant.
   9 we have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewil-
   derment. what can we put in the place of that language of
   the angels? we are giving up something of priceless worth.
   but why? what is more precious that these loftiest of our
   church’s values?
   
   my note: you shall know them by their works.

 

[severinus]

alih:

when things are in files…they are filed…l.o.l finding them…but!

“changes in mass for greater apostolate”

address of pope paul iv to a general audience, nov. 26, 1969

our dear sons and daughters…

1. we ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical
   innovation of the new rite of the mass. this new rite will be
   introduced into our celebration of the holy sacrifice starting
   from sunday next which is the first of advent, nov. 30.
2. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed,
   the newness of language. no longer latin, but the spoken
   language will be the principal language of the mass. the
   introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sac-
   rifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the
   expressive sacrality of latin. we are parting with the speech
   of the christian centuries; we are becoming like profane
   intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. we
   will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable
   artistic and spiritual thing, the gregorian chant.
   9 we have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewil-
   derment. what can we put in the place of that language of
   the angels? we are giving up something of priceless worth.
   but why? what is more precious that these loftiest of our
   church’s values?
   
   my note: you shall know them by their works.

Here is the entire address:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Considering the context of Trent, I would say that the focus on the “vulgar language” clauses in the Canons of Trent were relative to insistence by the Protestants that the worship of God by His people be in the language of the people. The Canon was a reaction to THIS. It didn’t say that the Mass couldn’t be said in the “vulgar languages.” In fact, the Eastern Rites all say the Mass in the “vulgar languages.”

 

[bear06]

Amen to that and thanks, serverinus, for posting the link to the entire context of that address. Context is very important.

 

[severinus]

bear06:

Amen to that and thanks, serverinus, for posting the link to the entire context of that address. Context is very important.

Vere veritatem dixisti.

 

[alih]

a statement i believe attributed to martin luther…if you destroy the mass, you destroy the catholic church…
have a good year.

 

[severinus]

From the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent:

Chapter VIII
“Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it should be** everywhere** celebrated in the vulgar tongue.”

And, as has been noted, the anathema of Canon IX applies to those who say that the Mass should be celebrated in the vulgar language only.

There are those who do not want to recognize Vatican II, and there are some who don’t want to recognize any councils except Vatican II. We should all avoid cafeteria conciliarism.

 

[pnewton]

severinus:

From the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent:

Chapter VIII
“Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it should be** everywhere** celebrated in the vulgar tongue.”

And, as has been noted, the anathema of Canon IX applies to those who say that the Mass should be celebrated in the vulgar language only.

There are those who do not want to recognize Vatican II, and there are some who don’t want to recognize any councils except Vatican II. We should all avoid cafeteria conciliarism.

Well said. Thanks for finding the quotes on this.

 

[bear06]

alih:

a statement i believe attributed to martin luther…if you destroy the mass, you destroy the catholic church…
have a good year.

As long as we are tossing quotes…
From Pius X:

If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement." (From an Allocution given on 18 September 1912.)

I think I’ll shorten it and add it to my signature.