Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Minnesota on April 05, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
-
Everything else remains exactly the same. Judica me, Introit, Gregorian chant, silent Canon, etc. This already sort of happened with some parts of the world, but now it would be Christendom-wide.
I don't trust the Vatican enough to not completely ruin it, so I would vote no. But it's an interesting concept to ponder.
-
Councl of Trent (Session 22, Canon 9):
CANON IX.--If any one 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 it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
-
Councl of Trent (Session 22, Canon 9):
CANON IX.--If any one 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 it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
Is vernacular related to vulgar ?
Etymology of vernacular (adj.)
c. 1600, "native to a country," from Latin vernaculus "domestic, native, indigenous; pertaining to home-born slaves," from verna "home-born slave, native," a word of Etruscan origin. Used in English in the sense of Latin vernacula vocabula, in reference to language. As a noun, "native speech or language of a place," from 1706.
For human speech is after all a democratic product, the creation, not of scholars and grammarians, but of unschooled and unlettered people. Scholars and men of education may cultivate and enrich it, and make it flower into the beauty of a literary language; but its rarest blooms are grafted on a wild stock, and its roots are deep-buried in the common soil. [Logan Pearsall Smith, "Words and Idioms," 1925]
-
There is always a danger that a vernacular is subject to abuse and using language to bring a gradual change in church teaching
and doctrine in which the people in the pew are not aware of and the people fall into heresy without being aware. The
vernacular liturgy is largely responsible for the confusion in the church in the last 60 years that have broken into schisms
in which the catholic faith has disappeared in the majority of Catholics.
-
Councl of Trent (Session 22, Canon 9):
CANON IX.--If any one 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 it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
There were plenty of vernacular masses before V2 and even Mass in Mandarin was permitted by Clement XV. It would be heresy to say that the only masses that can be celebrated must be in vernacular. It is not heretical to say there should be masses said in vernacular.
-
I could tolerate it. I've have had thoughts of what I'd do hypothetically if I were a pope and I thought of introducing it in vernacular with everything but the Roman Canon and the Kyrie to get people adjusted to the TLM and then eventually just bringing it back and maybe allowing indult for vernacular.
-
There were plenty of vernacular masses before V2 and even Mass in Mandarin was permitted by Clement XV. It would be heresy to say that the only masses that can be celebrated must be in vernacular. It is not heretical to say there should be masses said in vernacular.
The OP posits a vernacular Mass “Christendom-wise.”
-
Dealing just with the Latin rite, it would be problematic. Latin has been the established language for the liturgy in western Europe and it's colonies for many, many centuries. Just changing it, even with an honest effort to be accurate in the translation, is unwarranted and would constitute a rupture with the past.
-
It is interesting that many people were told that this is exactly what happened...but it was a lie.
Even if they did this, the language of the Mass would have to change every few years (as the ICEL has already done on several occasions with the Novus Ordo) as the meaning of the modern languages change over time. This is hardly a way to convey permanence.
-
I wouldn't have an insurmountable problem with the TLM being translated into dignified, literary, possibly a bit archaic-like (think the style of Douay-Rheims Challoner, or even, putting aside its heretical origins and regarding only literary splendor, the KJV) language, a form of the vernacular that would be unchanging by its nature --- and no revisions down the road!
But, of course, allowing for the vernacular wasn't at all what the Bugnini and Pauline "reforms" were aiming at. There was far more to it.
-
I wouldn't have an insurmountable problem with the TLM being translated into dignified, literary, possibly a bit archaic-like (think the style of Douay-Rheims Challoner, or even, putting aside its heretical origins and regarding only literary splendor, the KJV) language, a form of the vernacular that would be unchanging by its nature --- and no revisions down the road!
But, of course, allowing for the vernacular wasn't at all what the Bugnini and Pauline "reforms" were aiming at. There was far more to it.
There exists a translation for the Anglicans who back in the day wanted the Tridentine liturgy but to not be in communion with Rome. It's honestly quite beautiful (https://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/knottmissal.html), but no one says it anymore because all of the Anglicans who tried staying converted when Anglicanism collapsed in the 70s.
-
There exists a translation for the Anglicans who back in the day wanted the Tridentine liturgy but to not be in communion with Rome. It's honestly quite beautiful (https://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/knottmissal.html), but no one says it anymore because all of the Anglicans who tried staying converted when Anglicanism collapsed in the 70s.
I am familiar with this liturgy, or least a variation upon it. It would be a vast improvement over the Novus Ordo. But as I alluded to above, it wasn't just the question of a vernacular. Bugnini et al wanted to re-imagine the entire liturgy from top to bottom.
The big, humongous problem I have with the Novus Ordo, is the humanistic and latitudinarian character of it. I go to Mass to worship God, not hear all about man and humanity. And when I would hear that "from east to west a perfect offering..." business, I would groan to myself, "oh, brother, here we go again, the geography lesson!".
-
This is not meant to criticize anyone for the comments posted thus far, just sharing my thoughts.
The thing that I find the most difficult to understand about the "reformers" who brought us the inglorious Novus Ordo religion is their lack of any love for the past. Even pagans have a natural respect for their ancestors, a certain sense of connection with those who came before. Not so the moderns.
When we attend Mass, obviously the only truly necessary part is that our Lord himself is made sacramentally present. But something that I find very compelling, inspiring, and comforting is the real connection with all who came before in the Faith. My ancestors, who are predominantly western European, were formed by the Latin Rite which includes the Latin language. These people lived, suffered, fought, and died for the Faith.
Which is why I believe that we must avoid thinking of the Mass as our own, it belongs to God and our forebears. It is not ours to do with as we please. We are rather to be formed by it and care for and preserve it, even it's most minute details undiminished, for the love of God and for our descendants.
-
Councl of Trent (Session 22, Canon 9):
CANON IX.--If any one 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 it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
I voted "yes" but I guess it would come down to why the vernacular was instituted.
If the Vatican were saying that its *wrong* to have the mass in latin, that would absolutely be condemned according to this section of Trent.
This is what the Protestant "Reformers" were arguing at the time. That mass in Latin is *wrong*.
On the other hand, if the Vatican just had made a prudential decision that we're gonna have the TLM in English, right now, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the prudence but I wouldn't see it as in itself heretical or necessary to resist like I do the NO.
All that being said, if they tried to do this while *also* keeping the NO I could see a better argument that resistance is absolutely necessary because the motives of the legislator are suspect.
-
The OP posits a vernacular Mass “Christendom-wise.”
Which is not the same as banning the Latin Mass. There are still Latin Masses in the Conciliar Church today.
-
A translated vernacular Mass was never on offer. The Bugnini boys of Concilium, after the deceptive Sacrosanctum Concilium of 1963, were able to proceed full tilt at their alleged update as SC permitted any change considered suitable. The alternative Congregation of Divine Worship update to the Mass was increasingly discarded. The point is that these Modernists were working in and through Latin on the ordinary and propers. Cardinal Cushing was one of the few sitting at the Council with poor Latin, so poor he needed translators. The translations of the International Committee on the English Language and others, was done mostly after the fact, although a good many English language errors emerged with the transitional Missal between 1963 and 1969. Anyhow the hieratic Book of Common Prayer high Jacobean English does not really have a counterpart in other languages, as far as I am aware, I think there is maybe an older style of Polish, but there is no real fairly fixed 'olde style' vernacular in most places.
-
Hypothetical: If the only change to the liturgy during V2 were a vernacular Mass, would you be fine with it?
Everything else remains exactly the same. Judica me, Introit, Gregorian chant, silent Canon, etc. This already sort of happened with some parts of the world, but now it would be Christendom-wide. I don't trust the Vatican enough to not completely ruin it, so I would vote no. But it's an interesting concept to ponder.
Your hypothetical already happened, a reality, it is what played out in the 20th century and was formalized after Vatican II. Every revolutionary change that actually took place in the 20th century IS what is was planned to be by the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary popes, bishops, clergy. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Roman Rite is supposed to be celebrated in Latin (95% of the worlds Catholic are Roman Rite), when it is not, it'll end up the same as what we have already lived.
-
There were plenty of vernacular masses before V2 and even Mass in Mandarin was permitted by Clement XV. It would be heresy to say that the only masses that can be celebrated must be in vernacular. It is not heretical to say there should be masses said in vernacular.
I do not believe that there were "plenty of vernacular masses" in the Roman Rite before the 20th century. 95% of the Catholics are Roman Rite. I do not believe that Clement XV authorized a Roman Rite mass in Mandarin. Catholics were not even allowed to use missals in his time. That sounds like a Novus Ordo smokescreen.
-
Take a look at what happened to the various translations of the Holy Bible. There is a reason why the Church has one language...and one that doesn't change.
-
I do not believe that there were "plenty of vernacular masses" in the Roman Rite before the 20th century. 95% of the Catholics are Roman Rite. I do not believe that Clement XV authorized a Roman Rite mass in Mandarin. Catholics were not even allowed to use missals in his time. That sounds like a Novus Ordo smokescreen.
Clement XI? There is no Clement XV, unless one of the minor, modern anti-Pope eccentrics are counted. Clement XI suppressed the so-called 'Chinese Rites.' The only real variant was the reversal of wearing hats. A priest in China would wear his hat on the altar, on account of the traditional understanding of hat wearing among the Chinese. Alexander VII had allowed Chinese in the liturgy. The only real exception regarding Latin for Latin Rite Christians were that native peoples in north America were permitted a substantial element of vernacular. Presumably their substantially nomadic culture might have created difficulty in creating a corp of native Indian priests using just Latin.