The Title of the Holy Cross, in the Three Sacred Languages

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1603.htm

 The Dogmatic Council of Trent Decreed as an Excommunnicate
 Anyone Advocating the Use of the Vulgar Tongues in the Mass

 It Isn't a Matter of Mere "Rubrics"
 It Is a Matter of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith and Sacred Tradition
 Vulgar (Profane) Tongues by Their Nature Are Excluded from Sacred Worship
 Only a Sacred Language (Latin in the West, Greek in the East)

 Can Be Used Validly so as Not to Offend God Almighty in the Worship Due Him

Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

I was asked by a relative if the Traditional Latin Mass can be celebrated in the vulgar tongue of English. I said that I didn't think it was permissible according to the rubrics. Can the Traditional Latin Mass be celebrated in English? If not, is there a specific place where that is stated?

The TRADITIO Fathers Reply.

No, the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be celebrated in the vulgar tongue of English. To suggest such a thing incurs anathema (excommunication) by the decree of the dogmatic Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, Can. 9). In fact, the Anglican heretics tried to do just this in the 16th century. Nor is it a matter of mere "rubrics." Rather, it is a matter of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith and of Sacred Tradition. Vulgar (profane) tongues, such as English, by their nature are excluded from Sacred Worship. Only a Sacred Language (Latin in the West, Greek in the East) can be used (cf. Luke 23:38, John 19:20).

Moreover, any "translation" would lose the exact meaning of the original and so would make the Mass doubtful, and thus invalid for use. Languages are not interchangeable. The notion that one language can be put into some "translation" machine and pop out in another language is absurd. The very notion of a "translation" is flawed, as anyone who is familiar with languages knows. All that can be produced is a kind of limited paraphrase. That is not good enough for a valid Sacrament, which requires the precision and tradition of the original languages.

The Modernists who replaced the Catholic Church with the Newchurch of the New Order as the "institutional Church" in 1964 knew this fact only too well. They knew that they could not introduce their heretical, Protestantized (and worse) notions in Latin. They would have to overcome 2,000 years of the most precise Traditional understanding of the Latin theological texts, worked over by such geniuses as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the other Fathers and Doctors of the Church. No, the Modernists could perpetrate their fraud only in the vulgar tongues, and it was in this way that they fabricated the anti-Catholic Newchurch with its invalid "sacraments" and theology.

So, the 2,000-year precision of Catholic Latin texts was dumped in Newchurch, and ambiguous and erroneous "translations" into modern vulgar tongues was introduced. As an example, take the word spirit. In Latin, its meaning is carefully defined. But in English, the word can have more than a dozen different meanings, from the excitement at a football game to the soul to a leprechaun to a goblin to the gist of a phrase. The validity of a Sacrament or of precise theological teaching cannot survive in such a linguistic state.

I think I remember abp+ lefebvre saying that the traditional mass in the vernacular would be better than the new mass in latin.  And, according to what you have presented, that would be a scandalous thing to say.  ...

Objectively he is right because the Novus Ordo was introduced as a means of changing, or at least confusing, the doctrine of the Church, while a direct translation of the words of the traditional Mass (which the article correctly declares is an impossibility) would not have the intention of doing what the destroyers have done. Besides +AL was not encouraging the use of the vernacular, only implying that it is the less bad of two unacceptable options.  

I remember before the introduction of the new order of the mass. The
Offertory Prayers said silently by the Priest was the last of the Latin in
the 1965 Mass and the English translation that replaced the Latin.
The biggest change was the all English cannon and the use of the
all men instead for the many.

As I said before, +AL is not recommending the traditional Mass in the vernacular. He is only saying that it is preferable to the Novus Ordo said in Latin, which is at least questionable and likely heretical.

I am no expert either, but what would make the  traditional Mass in the vernacular invalid, if, for example, the English translation of the Traditional Mass as it appears in our traditional missals is used? It's just a question not a recommendation.

According to my search,
Council of Trent Sess. XXIII, Can. 9 says:

If anyone denies that each and all of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have reached the years of discretion, to communicate every year at least at Easter,[50] in accordance with the precept of holy mother Church, let him be anathema.

No mention of vulgar languages here. I'd guess that the writer may be untrustworthy.


 

If the approach Inter Oecuмenici was followed and the so called Transitional Missal, the Mass would have been unfairly mutilated, but the mass of Catholics could still go to a Mass. Alas, the Bugini missal and defective rites of ordination and consecration before the close of the decade showed the soiled Masonic aprons would be worn with Pride, so to speak, in light of Professor Bellegrandi's claims regarding Montini.

desmond  - I have read denzinger in its entirety.

Congratulations?

And, you, blackcat, are incorrect.

That is an interesting accusation, as I did not say anything except "Outrageous".

 

You are twisting the words of the pope.

I'm pretty sure you cannot twist someone's words by copypasting.

 

You have left out the essential context.  

I did not, the "context" is in the italian, I just didn't translate it(again) because I was in a hurry and messed up.

The pope is proclaiming as false the proposition that(denzinger 1566) "it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole church; if understood to signify introducing of the use of the popular language into the liturgical prayers".

This is an erroneous translation anyway.

It should read:

"It would be against the practice and against the plans/designs of God not to procure the populace the easiest means to unite their voice to that of entire Church".

That is directly translated from original italian scans of booklets reporting the entire deliberations of the Synod.

Have you read them or at least researched the Synod a bit?

And, I do not say that "anything other than the use of the popular language" is "against apostolic practice and the plans of God".  That is how that is to be understood.  And, that was the error of the synod in this regard.  

The condamnation "EASILY PRODUCING MANY ILLS" seems to indicate it refers to the introduction of vulgar into liturgy, which was what the Synod was asking for.

In fact, if you bothered to ditch Dezinger for a min, a look at the text itself, it even says:

"If it were to refer to the use of the vulgar tongue to be introduced in liturgical practices;" which is not part of the condemned proposition but part of Auctorem Fidei's condemnation itself..

Meaning IF what the SYnod said (reported above) were to mean that.. then etc.


As I correctly reported, and you did not.


In fact, said style is common to all/most of the Condemnations for the Synod, the Pope is clarifying a potential interpretation for the heretics' ramblings (they are in neo-speak just like V:II), and THEN proceeded to condemn them.

You'd know if you researched the topic specifically, as I did for my "ipso facto excommunication" research.

desmond - I mentioned that I have read denzinger in its entirety because there have been many "syllabuses" you might say such as this down through the ages.  And, you begin to pick up on how the pope acts in these situations.  Because, in many if not most cases, within the condemned sentence itself there is good.  And, that is because evil needs a vehicle.  So, you cannot just look at the pope saying "If it were to refer to the use of the vulgar tongue to be introduced in liturgical practices.... false, leading to ills blah blah".  The problem is not that some might desire use of the vulgar tongue in some or many situations.  The problem is when you say "it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God" not to "use the vulgar tongue".  That is the problem.  That is condemned.  And, I do not say that you are not free to argue the contrary.  However, I am free to argue as a I do.  And, believe me, I argue it vehemently.

What about other vulgar languages? Some Native American missions used Native American languages for parts of the Mass:

null

null



Also, Pope Alexander VII, according to Wikipedia, allowed the use of Chinese in China.

In a decree signed on 23 March 1656, Pope Alexander VII accepted practices "favorable to Chinese customs", reinforcing 1615 decrees which accepted the usage of the Chinese language in liturgy, a notable exception to the contemporary Latin Catholic discipline which had generally forbidden the use of local languages.[9]