Vernacular in the Mass originally forbidden?

[alih]

interesting quote. is it just co-incidental that just 10 days before this on sept. 8 in “the doctrine of the modernists” pope pius x stated in paragraph 2) …"the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the church’s open enemies, but what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.
we allude, venerable brethren, to many who belong to the catholic laity, and what is more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly impued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the church, and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of christ, not sparing even the person of the divine redeemer with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary mall.
now, i think it fair to ask, what is your position?

 

[bear06]

now, i think it fair to ask, what is your position?

Well, first I’d have to ask what’s your point and how you think your quote applies to the one I posted? In other words, I’m not sure what you’re really asking.

 

[alih]

it would be novel, if not downright illuminating to find one justification for saying mass in the “vulgar” prior to 1963.
the synod of pistoia was convened by those who subscribed basically to the jansenius heresy, amonst which one of their tenets was for the mass to be said in the vernacular.
this was condemned by pius vi in the bull auctorem fidei.
the canon cited in 22nd session of trent stands as un-refuted.
the section authorizing the vernacular did not apply to the roman rite.
from the catholic encyclopaedia under the definition of protestantism, one of john calvin’s criticisms of the church dealt with having the liturgies said in the vernacular, this also was condemned.
it seems to this soul, something is inconsistant.
have a good year. alih.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

alih:

my note: you shall know them by their works.

Then we’ve nothing to worry over. Many holy people love and serve this Mass. It has been celebrated by four popes now. It’s the normative Mass of the Church.

 

[Sean_O_L]

alih wrote:

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.

If the words have "spoken for themselves - then it is obvious that you have not understood what they have said! Furthermore, you have not understood them in the full context of the Fathers deliberations.

For example: Thirty-one days earlier, in Session XXI on June 16, 1562, the Fathers declared, in respect of “The Power of the Church as regards the Dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”:

“It furthermore declares that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times and places…”

To emphasise the point: “As it was in the beginning and ever shall be…” the Church has the power to do “what things soever it may judge most expedient.” The Fathers do not say “only those things which ARE most prudent or profitable…”, only thost things “it may judge most expedient.”

And, so it was that in the XXIInd Session, under Chapter VIII they wrote “On not Celebrating the Mass everywhere 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 everywhere (can. ix) celebrated in the vulgar tongue…"

Of course, logically, this means that it CAN be celebrated somewhere - just not everywhere! And, in fact, it WAS celebrated from the very beginnings of the Church in some places in the vernacular, but, in the Roman Rite - mostly (if not exclusively) in Latin which was the vernacular language of the Romans.

Again, all of this was dependent on what seemed “expedient” to the Fathers of the time who, nevertheless, acknowledged that the power to ordain or change “soever” belonged and belongs to the Church in all ages even until the end of the world.

Can mistakes be made? Of course! Our Lord never promised prudence to His Vicars or the Fathers of the Church in any age.

You mention (and correctly) that “canon vi, if any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.”

Well, no-one that I know of does say that of the Canon of the Pian Liturgy (the falsely so-called “Tridentine Mass”). And, I hope that you do not say that any of the canons of the Pauline Mass (the so-called “Novus Ordo Mass”) “contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated” - for they are both the same Mass and the anathemas of Trent (if they still apply) would apply to anyone who made such a claim about the Pauline Liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sean O L:

alih wrote:

If the words have "spoken for themselves - then it is obvious that you have not understood what they have said! Furthermore, you have not understood them in the full context of the Fathers deliberations.

For example: Thirty-one days earlier, in Session XXI on June 16, 1562, the Fathers declared, in respect of “The Power of the Church as regards the Dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”:

“It furthermore declares that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times and places…”

To emphasise the point: “As it was in the beginning and ever shall be…” the Church has the power to do “what things soever it may judge most expedient.” The Fathers do not say “only those things which ARE most prudent or profitable…”, only thost things “it may judge most expedient.”

And, so it was that in the XXIInd Session, under Chapter VIII they wrote “On not Celebrating the Mass everywhere 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 everywhere (can. ix) celebrated in the vulgar tongue…"

Of course, logically, this means that it CAN be celebrated somewhere - just not everywhere! And, in fact, it WAS celebrated from the very beginnings of the Church in some places in the vernacular, but, in the Roman Rite - mostly (if not exclusively) in Latin which was the vernacular language of the Romans.

Again, all of this was dependent on what seemed “expedient” to the Fathers of the time who, nevertheless, acknowledged that the power to ordain or change “soever” belonged and belongs to the Church in all ages even until the end of the world.

Can mistakes be made? Of course! Our Lord never promised prudence to His Vicars or the Fathers of the Church in any age.

You mention (and correctly) that “canon vi, if any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.”

Well, no-one that I know of does say that of the Canon of the Pian Liturgy (the falsely so-called “Tridentine Mass”). And, I hope that you do not say that any of the canons of the Pauline Mass (the so-called “Novus Ordo Mass”) “contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated” - for they are both the same Mass and the anathemas of Trent (if they still apply) would apply to anyone who made such a claim about the Pauline Liturgy.

I always feel a sense of gratitude for your posts, Sean!