Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Coillte7 on March 06, 2025, 02:27:01 PM
-
Does anyone here have experience of the SSPX reading the Gospel in English (AND NOT IN LATIN) during Mass?
For Ash Wednesday our priest did not read the Gospel in Latin at all but solely English and I wanted to know how much of an issue this is (given that I'm still learning about Tradition)?
NB. I realise it is fine to read the Epistle and Gospel in English preceding the sermon after they were already read in Latin as part of the Mass, but that is not what I am speaking of here.
-
I haven't been at a mass where this was practiced.
However from my understanding I believe that this was something quite common in France before the Novus Ordo but after Vatican II.
-
Never at FSSPX owned place. In fact, I remember a case when a priest skipped reading in English because it was too long.
-
At St. Nicolas du Chardonnet a priest reads the Gospel in French on Sundays while the celebrant is reading the Gospel in Latin. Here is last Sunday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvURQmOxoL4
Gospel begins around minute 13:25.
The French SSPX has been doing this for quite sometime I understand. I've even seen during the weekday Masses they only read the Epistle and Gospel in French.
-
At St. Nicolas du Chardonnet a priest reads the Gospel in French on Sundays while the celebrant is reading the Gospel in Latin.
The French SSPX has been doing this for quite sometime I understand. I've even seen during the weekday Masses they only read the Epistle and Gospel in French.
When I was at St. Nicolas back in the 1990s, the celebrant read the Epistle and Gospel only in French, not in Latin. It was rather jarring at first. That and the majority of women wore slacks (pace Msgr. Williamson) and lacked any head covering. This was for weekday Low Masses.
-
Reading the epistle and/or gospel in the vernacular only is most assuredly a liturgical abuse. I am to understand that it has long been the practice in France, but the SSPX now try to show it down the throats of Americans, together with their dialogue masses.
-
Reading the epistle and/or gospel in the vernacular only is most assuredly a liturgical abuse. I am to understand that it has long been the practice in France, but the SSPX now try to show it down the throats of Americans, together with their dialogue masses.
Yes, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rubrics permitting vernacular only readings. Ultimately it's an innovation.
-
Yes, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rubrics permitting vernacular only readings. Ultimately it's an innovation.
Vernacular readings alone is actually mentioned as an option in one of the docuмents governing "Indult/Motu" Masses. I would call this creeping towards the Novus Ordo Missæ.
-
In the France SSPX, we are so used to hearing the epistle in French, that we are surprised when it is said in Latin. I've heard the gospel once spoken in French
-
Having the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular became the norm with the changes introduced on Advent Sunday 1964, or Lent 1965, depending on the local bishops.
There may have been indults/concessions for France, and other countries, before that.
-
Does anybody know whether the Resistance in France practise this?
I'm fairly sure the Epistle and Gospel were read in Latin at the three Resistance Masses I attended in France, but my memory is hazy.
-
Having the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular became the norm with the changes introduced on Advent Sunday 1964, or Lent 1965, depending on the local bishops.
There may have been indults/concessions for France, and other countries, before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#Use_of_the_vernacular
Permission for the use of the vernacular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular) for parts of the Mass had been granted on occasion long before the papacy of Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII); including in 1906 by Pius X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_X) (parts of Yugoslavia), Benedict XV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV) in 1920 (Croatian, Slovenian, and Czech), Pius XI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI) in 1929 (Bavaria).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-:0-3)
Under Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII), the Sacred Congregation of Rites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Congregation_of_Rites) granted permission for the use of local languages in countries with expanding Catholic mission activities, including in Indonesia and Japan in 1941–2. In 1949 permission was granted for using Mandarin Chinese in Mass except for the Canon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_the_Mass), and for the use of Hindi in India in 1950. Permission was also granted to use a French (1948) and German (1951) translation for rituals other than Mass.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-:0-3)
As a means of increasing the participation of the congregation in the celebration of Mass, recognizing that joining in chant is not possible at a Mass that is "read" rather than sung, in 1958 Pius approved the use of hymns in the vernacular at appropriate points in the service.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-4) As a means to closer awareness by the congregation he also allowed the epistle and gospel to be read aloud by a layman while the celebrant read them quietly in Latin.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-5)
Though insisting on the primacy of Latin in the liturgy of the Western Church (cf. Mediator Dei, par. 60), Pius XII approves the use of the vernacular in the Ritual for sacraments and other rites outside the Mass. All such permissions, however, were to be granted by the Holy See, and Pius XII strongly condemned the efforts of individual priests and communities to introduce the vernacular on their own authority. He allowed the use of the vernacular in other rites and sacraments outside the Mass,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-american-6) in the service for Baptism and Extreme Unction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Unction).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-7)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-7)
-
Эпӗ XII Пийӑн пысӑк промоутерӗ мар, каҫарӑр. Вӑл литургире нумай диверсисем тунӑ, уйрӑмах Псалтирьне улӑштарнӑ.
Épĕ XII Pijăn pysăk promouterĕ mar, kaçarăr. Văl liturgire numaj diversisem tună, ujrămah Psaltirʹne ulăštarnă.
Long live Latin.
-
I understand the original post on the thread mentioned having the reading(s) only in the vernacular and not in Latin at all.
It was common practice for the priest to read the epistle and Gospel in English (or whatever the local language was) from the pulpit at the start of his sermon after he had read/sung both at the altar. The Liturgical Movment encouraged 'parallel' reading of the texts in the vernacular but the celebrant still read them in Latin as your emphasised quote indicates.
-
Does anybody know whether the Resistance in France practise this?
I'm fairly sure the Epistle and Gospel were read in Latin at the three Resistance Masses I attended in France, but my memory is hazy.
"I'm fairly sure everything was proper at the Resistance Mass I attended, but you know how unreliable a person's memory is. Can I interest you in some Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt?"
"I have never seen Fr. Resistance do anything wrong, but sources say he might have done something wrong. I don't know. It's hard to say. Memories can be faulty. What say all of you?"
Watch it. That's how rumors get started.
-
In short, my answer to the OP’s question, “No, I’ve never experienced it.” My exposure to SSPX chapels is limited to the USA, however.
It may be by local custom in some places, and if it’s long established, ie. substantially before Vat. II changes, I’d have to find it acceptable. My personal opinion, for what little that’s worth, is that I think something as important as the Gospel is better in Latin and then again in the vernacular. If any reading is going to be shortened, let it be in the vernacular, not Latin. Example, if time is of the essence, the priest has a plane to catch or to administer urgent Sacraments, and the sermon is centered on the Gospel, I see no reason under these circuмstances for the priest to read only selected portions in the vernacular.
In certain circuмstances, it is acceptable to omit the Sunday sermon altogether. Private and weekday Masses needn’t be repeated in the vernacular at all.
-
I don't know how it was around here (South America) before the council, but I've seen several masses on which the Gospel was read by the priest only in the vernacular. It's common practice.
I have also seen many low masses on which the Leonine Prayers are not said at all. It was not like this when I started attenting SSPX masses about ten years ago.
-
As a means of increasing the participation of the congregation in the celebration of Mass, recognizing that joining in chant is not possible at a Mass that is "read" rather than sung, in 1958 Pius approved the use of hymns in the vernacular at appropriate points in the service.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-4) As a means to closer awareness by the congregation he also allowed the epistle and gospel to be read aloud by a layman while the celebrant read them quietly in Latin.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-5)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-5)
We did this all the time at our traditional chapel (independent) growing up.
The priest had to drive to about 5 places on Sunday, so he tried to maximize efficiency. That was his only motivation.
Crisis in the Church. Priest shortage.
But frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry than complaining about parallel readings. Replacing the readings with vernacular altogether, however, is literally the 1965 Mass.
Nevertheless, if ditching the Latin readings in favor of Vernacular had been the ONLY change after Vatican II, I would 100% certainly be attending my local parish right now. I can't even *imagine* how that alone would destroy one's Faith, even after many decades.
But that is just academic. Practically speaking, yes, moving towards the Novus Ordo is a highly alarming thing.
Yes, the Novus Ordo "did what it did" plus it got rid of Latin readings in favor of the vernacular. That's like saying a man did a mass shew-ting at a sch00l, and he was also impolite to several people on the way in. Um yeah, I guess he was impolite to a few people at the front entrance, but the real issue is what he did afterward...
-
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_reforms_of_Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-5)
We did this all the time at our traditional chapel (independent) growing up.
The priest had to drive to about 5 places on Sunday, so he tried to maximize efficiency. That was his only motivation.
Crisis in the Church. Priest shortage.
But frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry than complaining about parallel readings. Replacing the readings with vernacular altogether, however, is literally the 1965 Mass.
Nevertheless, if ditching the Latin readings in favor of Vernacular had been the ONLY change after Vatican II, I would 100% certainly be attending my local parish right now. I can't even *imagine* how that alone would destroy one's Faith, even after many decades.
But that is just academic. Practically speaking, yes, moving towards the Novus Ordo is a highly alarming thing.
Yes, the Novus Ordo "did what it did" plus it got rid of Latin readings in favor of the vernacular. That's like saying a man did a mass shew-ting at a sch00l, and he was also impolite to several people on the way in. Um yeah, I guess he was impolite to a few people at the front entrance, but the real issue is what he did afterward...
I agree, but when they start implementing stuff that was never a custom, like these vernacular only readings in the English speaking territories, we are alarmed. Why change something like this? It seems that they don't want only the same missal, but the same liturgical customs all over the world. Considering the historical predecents, people will naturally suspect that something more sinister is going on, as it usually is with the SSPX these days.
I don't know for certaing, but the 1965 mass had more than just the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular didn't it?
-
So, as long as the priest is actually reading the Gospel, there's no strict issue liturgically, since the layman reading up front is no more a liturgical action than someone's child talking in the front pew, or even back pew.
I would certainly remove said "reader" from the sanctuary, and there may be confusion of the faithful regarding the non-liturgical nature of the action that perhaps certain practical measures can be taken to alleviate. I've argued before for making Minor Orders permanent, and so this would be a case where you'd confer the Minor Order of Lector on the individual(s) who would do the readings, and this would safeguard Catholic liturgical theology from any slide toward Novus Ordism.
Whether it's vernarcular or Latin, IMO, is less the issue Liturgically than WHO is doing it. As you said, Matthew, if the priest just read the Epistle / Gospel in English and no other changes occurred, it would be no big deal.
With all that said, in this day and age, most people have MISSALS and, unlike in earlier times in history, paper and books and printing are NOT EXPENSIVE -- and MOST PEOPLE these days are LITERATE and can read. These factors take away all justification for this practice. How difficult would it be to just have a one-page printout, perhaps added to the bulletin with the Latin + English and have the faithful just follow along? And that would be just for those who didn't have Missals. You could even just post it on the chapel website if you didn't want to spend the $5 to print out 100 copies of it. In addition, comparing the Latin and English side by side might help the faithful absorb a bit of Latin over time. My dad dropped out of school after 4th grade, since they were poor and he had to work, but as an adult, he knew what pretty much every word in the Latin meant (without obviously understanding the precise syntax) ... just by following along.
Finaly analysis ... there's absolutely no need for it in this day and age. Sure, if printing and paper were prohibitively expensive, and if a significant number of people were illiterate, then maybe. IMO, the only reason to introduce these practices, then, absent any practical justification ... would be to boil the frog toward Novus Ordism. If the faithful get used to layman reading the Gospel, then it's one small stept to have layman reading it INSTEAD of priest, while priest and other clerics sit there listening. From there it's anything goes in the Liturgy.
-
I don't know how it was around here (South America) before the council, but I've seen several masses on which the Gospel was read by the priest only in the vernacular. It's common practice.
I have also seen many low masses on which the Leonine Prayers are not said at all. It was not like this when I started attenting SSPX masses about ten years ago.
For what it's worth, today I realized that I was wrong here. Forgive me.
The Gospel is always read in Latin by the priest. Sometimes the epistle is read in the vernacular only by the priest.
-
Replacing the readings with vernacular altogether, however, is literally the 1965 Mass.
Not so. I have a 1962 -- NOT 1964/65 -- ALTAR missal that has vernacular only for the Introit, Epistle, Gradual/Tract/Alleluia/Sequence, Gospel, Offertory, and Communion. It was clearly creeping earlier than the Council years.