In another entry on this blog there are questions and comments about having the "Tridentine" Mass in the vernacular. Apparently radio commentator Paul Harvey inaccurately launched some rumor about this.
"But Father! But Father!", some of you are muttering. "That sounds like a really good idea!"
So, gentle readers … good idea? Not good? Latin only? Could the vernacular be the best of both worlds?
One commentor in this blog said:
What would be so bad if the MP included the option for a priest to use the 1962 missal translated into the vernacular?
Wouldn’t such an option be a good way of introducing the post-Vatican II group to the Traditional Mass?
Another comment responded:
The oldies around here (like me) all remember “a translation” in the pages of some missal from some publishing house about 1962, but which version would we take?
No. It would be an unofficial translation if we did that. It’s not that all that simple. We’ve had our fill of ad hoc translations—that is precisely the point of doing Latin. We have to fix this shambles the liturgy is in.
That raises an interesting point. It just so happens that for my WDTPRS article for this week’s 13th Sunday of Ordinary time, in which I scrutinize the Post Communion, I compared older version of the prayer. It happens that this Post Communion was identical to a prayer in the 1962 Missale Romanum. Here is an excerpt:
[T]oday’s Post Communion, which was in the 1962 Missale Romanum for the votive Mass of Our Lord Jesus Christ High and Eternal Priest.
POST COMMUNIONEM (2002MR):
Vivificet nos, quaesumus, Domine,
divina quam obtulimus et sumpsimus hostia,
ut, perpetua tibi caritate coniuncti,
fructum qui semper maneat afferamus.I like the chiasmus pattern. A chiasmus is an “X” shaped figure of speech: AB-BA. When the pairs are placed above each other, they form an X, like the Greek letter chi which looks like an “X”. The AB-BA in divina quam obtulimus et sumpsimus hostia puts the feminine divina… hostia on the ends and then embeds the relative clause with two perfect verbs. Elegant.
Let’s dig at affero (or adfero) with our fabulous lexical shovel, the Lewis & Short Dictionary. In its basic meaning, when applied to portable things affero is “to bring, take, carry or convey a thing to a place”. Regarding news it is “to report, announce, inform, publish”. Concerning reasons or excuses it means “to bring forwards, allege, assert, adduce”. But in the Classical period it could, though rarely, mean “to bring forth as a product, to yield, bear, produce”. Now we are getting somewhere. The references provided in L&S are from the Vulgate and two of them pair affero with fructum (“an enjoying; proceeds, profit, income; fruit, consequence, result, return, reward, success”). Coniugo means “to bind together, connect, join, unite; to unite, join in marriage or love”. Think of English “conjunction” and “conjugal”. The imagery of the prayer is nuptial.
Since this prayer remains as it appeared in the pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum, out of curiosity we can again consult those good old hand missals people carried to church stuffed with memorial and ordination cards.
The New Roman Missal (1945):
We beseech Thee O Lord that the divine victim
which has been our oblation and our food may give us life;
so that united with Thee in perpetual charity
we may bring fruit that remaineth forever.The New Marian Missal (1958):
We beseech Thee, O Lord, may the divine hosts
which we have offered up and received, quicken us;
that, bound to Thee by an eternal love,
we may bear fruit that remains evermore.I like that “quicken” for vivifico. L&S likes it too, “to make alive, restore to life, quicken, vivify”.
Saint Andrew Daily Missal (1959):
We pray, Lord, let the offering and reception
of the divine victim vivify us,
that, united to You by perpetual charity,
we may bear an everlasting fruit.Saint Joseph Daily Missal (1959 – New Edition 1961):
We beseech You, O Lord, that the Divine Victim
which we have offered and received, may give us life,
so that united with You in enduring bonds of love,
we may bring forth everlasting fruit.And last, but least, the lame-duck version from
ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
may this sacrifice and communion
give us a share in your life
and help us bring your love to the world.That is what you will probably hear on Sunday at church. On planet WDTPRS, however, it would be something like this
LITERAL VERSION:
May the divine sacrificial victim
which we have offered and received enliven us, O Lord, we entreat You,
so that joined to You by love everlasting,
we may bear the fruit which remains for ever.If you are used to reading Sacred Scripture or liturgical texts in Latin your ears would have instantly perked up at the sound of “fructum qui semper maneat afferamus”, an allusion to John 15:16: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide (ut eatis et fructum adferatis et fructus vester maneat); so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”
Okay… look at those versions.
One of the advantages to having those prayers in Latin is that people were free to participate fully, consciously and actively at Holy Mass with the aid of whatever approved hand missal they chose. It might even be interesting over coffee and doughnuts after Mass to compare your different versions and figure out what the differences were.
So, "Tridentine" Mass in the vernacular: good idea?
Loading ...
Hey Fr.
How many times can I vote? =)
I vote for a third option:
C) Only if Father Z translates!
I to vote for option C.
No, No, a thousand times No!!! I was a mid-20 year old during and after Vatican Council II. I thought the Mass in the vernacular was an outstanding idea. My father thought it was not. He was right as 40 years of devestation have proved. You want vernacular go to the Novus Ordo and I wish you well. The Classic Roman Rite, aka the Tridentine Latin Mass, should remain in Latin and only in Latin.
If you want to tinker, tinker with the Novus Ordo, we are use to it.
Carl: He was right as 40 years of devestation have proved. You want vernacular go to the Novus Ordo and I wish you well.
Bad translations of the Mass, however. I don’t think we have ever had the Mass in good English, as my 7 years of articles pretty well demonstrate.
Brian r: If you want to tinker, tinker with the Novus Ordo, we are use to it.
Okaaaaay. I’ll take that to be a “No” vote.
Father, cop out perhaps, but here it is. The traditional mass must be in Latin. the novus, novus ordo can be a vernacular translation, ad orientem, such as the 1965 missal, on a five year transistional basis to immediately replace the novus ordo, and then eventually disappear. That is my little utopian prescription.
Not surprisingly, I would favor a blending of Latin and the vernacular, with a predominance of the vernacular.
But honestly, IMHO there is an incarnational principle involved. Did the Word not “translate” Himself into human form as an accomodation to reach mankind? The missionary history of St. Cyril and Methodius is a lesson for both East and West in this regard. And I believe that each parish is still a missionary outpost.
Preserve Latin? Preserve Old Church Slavonic?
Sure there is value in that, but its value is far from absolute. I believe that the Church’s principal vocation is to preach and live Christ. Insofar as the language of liturgy serves and supports that vocation, I think it should be used. Does worship in any antiquated tongue support the spread of the Gospel and the cultivation of a common life based on its principles?
I’m not sure that it does.
In ICXC,
Gordo
Isn’t it the case that the 1965 Missale is essentially the 1962 Missale with permission by Decrees to use the vernacular in certain parts? So then, would those same Decrees be effective today?
I’m guessing the answer is no, as the Motu Proprio seems to be directed to a specific version of the Missale, namely the 1962.
Also Fr., would you happen to know why in the 1965, the variable parts ordinarily said in a loud voice are in Latin, and those ordinarily said in a low voice are in the vernacular (besides the readings, tracts, etc.)? Seems a little counter-intuitive to me, considering the Ordinary of the Mass could be said in the vernacular.
Gordo,
I neither grew up with Latin or took classes in Latin, but I love the language. The vernacular may be useful in certain parts of the Mass, such as the readings, but Latin is first and foremost a conservator in the Latin Church. It keeps us from errors, especially found in translations.
Furthermore, the unity of the Latin Church can be found in this beautiful language. I can go to Hong Kong and be immediately immersed in a Latin Mass there with no problem, whereas I would be twiddling my thumbs in a vernacular church.
Lastly, the Latin Church was by far most successful in evangelization among all the Christian Churches while Latin was its unifying tongue. The world came to Christ and was evangelized in Latin.
In Christ,
Will
Does anyone know why the Eastern Orthodox Churches starting saying their liturgies in the vernacular? I know they used to have sacred languages (Church Slavonic and an archaic form of Greek), but now you can go to Divine Liturgy in English.
Let’s let the traditional form stay as it is, and not add more unnecessary options to the Mass such as vernacular versions of the old rite. Just getting the new rite translated into beautiful English — some day — will be a good step forward.
RC: Just getting the new rite translated into beautiful English—some day—will be a good step forward.
And, a first!
I recently saw at a used bookstore a Roman Missal printed in 1964 (I think…definitely between 1962 and 1965) in Canada and it had the propers and readings in English and the ordinary in Latin, I think. Would that have been the 1962 missal partially in the vernacular?
Anyone who lives near Philadelphia can drop in on S. Clement’s (ECUSA) in Center City at 20th and Arch to see what an English Tridentine Mass would be like. Unfortunately I never got to see their high Mass.
Dear Will,
I am afraid that these arguments are not satisfactory. I myself am a proponent of the Latin Mass. However, your reasons for preserving Latin are lacking. Please, read Romano Amerio’s classic work Iota Unum. I am not criticising you, I merely wish that you would present more cogent arguments. I shall explain.
Your initial response is that you ‘neither grew up with Latin or took classes in Latin,’ but that you ‘love the language’. All very good, however, this leads the observant reader to believe that your justification is nostalgic and emotional. You find the language aesthetically pleasing. I have studied the Graeco-Roman classics and English Literature, as well as French Literature. Each of these languages is aesthetically beautiful, when properly executed. If you have ever witnessed an Anglican High Mass, or read the King James Version of the Scriptures. Two things no Catholic should be doing wantonly, you would find that the integrity of the language is retained and is quite poetic. Aesthetics is not a justification.
Furthermore, your statement that ‘It keeps us from errors, especially found in translations’ is flawed. For do you not see the logical incoherency: You depend upon translations in the hand missal for your knowledge of the doctrinal content of the liturgy!
Thirdly, the argument that ‘the unity of the Latin Church can be found in this beautiful language.’ is rather a weak attempt made by traditionalists. Whatever unity exists, because of the Latin language, is superficial(unless the people are readily schooled in Latin), since the knowledge of the Missals content would be obscured by national translations.
‘I can go to Hong Kong and be immediately immersed in a Latin Mass there with no problem, whereas I would be twiddling my thumbs in a vernacular church.’ Yes, you can my dear sir, but what is the likelihood of that, and (may I ask) what is the difference between one obscure language and another obscure language, if you intend to read the English, anyway. The structure of the Mass would be the same, you wouldn’t need a vernacular/vernacular missal, just look to the priest and read.
The world came to Christ and was evangelized in Aramaic among the Jews. The world came to Christ and was evangelized in Greek under St. Paul. Not a good argument, unless you doubt that the world came to Christ through the Apostles. African tribal people are not going to better understand Latin, than they are English or French. It’s all Greek to them.
My brother in Christ, I am acting as the devils advocate, nothing more. I am like minded in the belief that the Classical Roman Rite should be executed in Latin. But if you wish to be an Apostle, you may want to strengthen your arguments, or you make all traditionalists look like fools.
Yours in Christ,
A. M. Bond
Can I vote for the Novus Ordo in Latin? :)
I’ve attended a few and found them beautiful, simple, easy to follow, and very, very reverent.
If people off the streets are the “target audience” of the sacred rituals of the Church then by all means put it all in the vernacular, put up big projection screens with explanatory notes and pause frequently for Q&A. Make sure every pew is wired for sound so that not a single word is missed and have the ushers patrol the aisles with feathered poles looking for slackers. We can then declare the Puritan spirit victorious.
Of course the “target audience” of Holy Mass is God and God doesn’t need subtitles. (The remainder of this paragraph has been scrapped in favor of a recommendation to pull “The Heresy of Formlessness” out from under the pile of books next to the cat bed. Read or re-read the first half the book, Mosebach does a much better job than I could.)
If you want to catechize people then catechize them, sit down with them and teach them what the Church teaches. 40+ years of vernacular liturgy has not produced an iota of catechetical success on any scale that would justify it being introduced beyond an experimental period. Yes, it was worth a shot, ok, fine, but asking to expand the experiment in time and scope only makes us look like Sir Humphrey Appleby (look it up, you’ll be glad you did) going down his list of standard delaying tactics.
A case can certainly be made for new converts burying their faces in hand missals as they attempt to absorb absolutely everything but after a mere decade since my conversion I rarely consult my missal at all during Mass. Are there really people who, after 20-30 years of constant Mass attendance, DON’T know exactly what’s going on at any given time? How can this be? If such people do exist then putting the sacred rites into their own languages won’t help them, and we have over 40 years of evidence as proof.
Oh yes, we can certainly point to vernacular success stories, no question there. St. X’s parish in Xtown is doing a bang up job, there are vocations to the priesthood and religious life, people are “on fire”, the lines for confession go out the main doors and the High Mass on Sunday is standing room only… of course the other 150 parishes in the diocese are also offering Mass in the vernacular.
The very fact that we have actually been reduced to pointing out a few handfuls of parishes IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES (and I’m sure the situation must be similar in the rest of the world) where the reforms have been “properly” carried out should scare everyone away from the idea for at least a thousand years.
Father,
All translation issues aside, I still vote for Latin. There is something in the beauty of this language that enhances the Mass in ways I find hard to describe. People can say what they want about understanding the prayers and following along with the Mass without the need for hand Missals, but in my opinion (despite being only 18) I have come to find that Latin is far more then a Liturgical antique. Something must be said for the beauty and mystery of the language itself, and the fact that in praying the Mass in Latin we are praying with the very same words of so many past Saints, thus further uniting our prayer with countless priests and religious and laity over the centuries. The Latin language is a great heirloom of the Church to be treasured, but it is greater still because it is a gift from God to his Church and so must be seen as a blessing upon the Liturgy of the Church, not as a burden kept around merely for its historical value.
When I first started serving at the Tridentine Mass I was given the role of thurifer. So at the consecration I would kneel to the priest’s right to incense the Host and the Chalice during the elevations, and since our sanctuary is small my place is quite close to Father. Having gone to the Novus Ordo for all my life I know very well the words of consecration in English, and having spent much time reading my Missal I also know well the words of consecration in Latin. But despite this I was completely unprepared for the experience I had the first time I served at Mass. It is difficult to explain what I felt then, when the priest bent over the Altar holding the Host, slowly whispering the words of consecration that brought Christ down upon that Altar. Although I have believed in the Eucharist since my childhood, at that moment I was struck by such an acute realization of what I had just witnessed that I almost forgot my role as thurifer until ringing of the bells refocused my attention.
No, this wasn’t something supernatural-God didn’t speak to me, I didn’t hear any angelic choirs singing or smell any divine perfumes (other then the incense I was holding), and there was no vision of the Blessed Virgin- but through the externals of the Mass I was given a sudden awareness of the presence of God that I was left momentarily stunned. My point is this- though certain liturgical practices may seem to be only archaic vestiges of the past they are in truth gifts from God to His Church which help us to experience His presence in the Mass. The use of Latin is foremost among these “outdated†practices in my opinion. Would I have experienced the same realize had I heard Father whisper “â€THIS IS MY BODY†instead of “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUMâ€? I don’t know, but I would like to believe that the words recited by countless priests countless times over the course of nearly two thousand years since the Sovereign Priest Himself were impressed on me in a greater way that day partially through the Latin language. I cannot fully understand it myself, yet I believe that the traditions of the Church, however archaic they may seem, serve to unite us with God and the whole Church.
Will, wrote:
Lastly, the Latin Church was by far most successful in evangelization among all the Christian Churches while Latin was its unifying tongue. The world came to Christ and was evangelized in Latin.
Actually the Syriac/Assyrian Church was the most successful in evangelization and they allowed for both Syriac and the vernacular to be used, but mainly the Syriac. As to the Latin Churches expansions, it should be noted that the vernacular was allowed by Papal decree in China, parts of Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. So if you did go to a Latin Mass in China, chances are you’d have either heard it in Chinese or not understood the mispronounced ‘Latin-esque’ that was used. The polemic that the 1962 Latin Mass was the same worldwide is a falsity. And the idea that it would be more convenient for YOU, therefore it is BETTER seems quite egocentric on it’s face – if you go abroad, perhaps you should learn some other language, not expect them to conform to you.
Michael
Syro-Malankara Catholic
The simple answer is NO!…ESPECIALLY at this stage. At this point in time I dont think there should be any changes to the 1962 for at least 50 years (ie 2057) when all has calmed down. The fact is the liturgy works best in Latin, and as I said before MOST Latin Rite Catholics in the WORLD speak an offshoot of Latin (eg Spanish, which is close enough). The only significant group this “modification” would “appease” are the English speakers, but the TLM should never become TEM and we already know why.
At this point we need to rid our minds of any thoughts and talk of modifying the 1962 missal.
Same as some of the others – option C, only if you translate.
How about we just abolish ICEL, promote you to some big position, and send out vernacular English by edict? ;-)
Totally out of topic, but am glad to see the Papal Tiara is back on the head
of the Statue of St. Peter today :P
This is NOT the time for “option C”. People need to flee the mentality that we can “modify” liturgical texts, especially “modifications” based on “popular vote”.
PatrickJude wrote:
“Totally out of topic, but am glad to see the Papal Tiara is back on the head of the Statue of St. Peter today :P”
Yes, I’m watching on EWTN right now.
http://i16.tinypic.com/4rcczdk.jpg
I would strongly advocate the use of the vernacular for the readings. I believe that this was provided for by Pius XII – but am open to correction. From the Holy Father’s writings, I would assume him to be in favour of this option.
The problem with putting the Old Rite into the vernacular is that it could easily end up being treated with as little respect as the New Rite is.
That’s such a horrible thought that I’m going to have to go and lie down for a bit.
The simple answer is NO!…ESPECIALLY at this stage. At this point in time I dont think there should be any changes to the 1962 for at least 50 years (ie 2057) when all has calmed down.
I am of a similar mind. Let’s not touch the Missal until there has been a long period of stability and the liberal agendas of the last 40 years have become items of merely historical interest…
News: Letter to Chinese Catholics to be released tomorrow
Vatican link
English
A few things…
1. The “target audience” of the Mass is not God. He has no need of our worship. We are the complete beneficiaries of our worship of Him. Mass is itself an accomodation to our needs, as was the Incarnation.
2. Using a translation of the 1962 Missal into the vernacular does not lead necessarily to flashpods, rock and roll music and projector screens in the services. I attend a Divine Liturgy that is largely in the vernacular that is a profound experience of the heavenly, sans the Kansas lightshow.
3. I think a blend of the ancient and the vernacular accomplishes two things: a) it is a nod to the historical roots of the Church and respects the universality of the rite; b) it respects the need for the worshippers to here the Word of God (which is essentially WHAT the Mass is) in their own language. I attend services as a Melkite where throughout the Divine Liturgy at different times you can here English, Syriac, Greek and Arabic. As a parent I greatly appreciate the fact that my children are being exposed to the universality of the Church through the employment of different liturgical languages. But they do not walk away completely perplexed because they here the worship in their own mother tongue.
4. Latin preserves the integrity of the proclamtion, but if it needs to be translated into the vernacular for people to receive it, what is the point? You still have to have a worthy translation for people to understand what they are praying. Just employ Father Z. to make it a good one! (Perhaps a helpful analogy: Freezers are very good at preserving food. But ultimately, the purpose of food is for human consumption NOT to fill the freezer! (Sort of a modified version of Therese’s “The Eucharist was made for the belly not for the suborium”. – paraphrase :-) )
5. The Church’s mission is twofold:
a. Make disciples of all nations
b. Build a common life according to Acts 2:42.
So yes, the Mass serves both of these elements of mission. And that would include the person off of the street, insofar as we are inviting them to participate in a common life. I do believe that there are limits to accomodation as a liturgical principle. Ultimately the purpose of divine accomodation in the Incarnation was to elevate mankind to the divine life – theosis. Accomodation should not make the liturgy more wordly, but rather to make the world more liturgical! (that is, more heavenly!) And the Mass is not the only means of apostolate…there are, as someone rightly pointed out, the works of mercy which should flow out of the Mass, and bring return to the Mass wit the offertory and by bringing people in from the hiways and byways…much like the parable of Jesus about going and filling the banquet hall.
6. Finally, to say that the Latin Church’s missions were stronger when the Masses were in Latin is true. To assert that there is a causal connection between the two is a bit of a stretch.
God bless,
Gordo
Apologies for all typos and errors in my previous post…I wrote this B.C.! (Before Coffee!)
Blessings for a good day!
Gordo
The Compendium of the Catholic Catechism includes the Latin for various basic prayers and symbols of the Church. Taking the Compendium as an instance of Einstein’s “as simple as possible, and no simpler” this seems significant and relevant to NO too
Gordo said: The “target audience†of the Mass is not God.
I know what you’re trying to say, but if the Mass isn’t oriented toward God — if the “target audience” is not God –then who are we praying to? Angels? Ourselves?
Already have it in the vernacular: 1965 Missal. Or close enough, use that if vernacular is needed, otherwise keep it in Latin.
Maybe the propers and readings alone could be translated (correctly!), but it should only be for the “extra-ordinary” form of the “extra-ordinary” Roman missal. An all Latin mass should be normative for the Traditional Latin Mass.
If people off the streets are the “target audience†of the sacred rituals of the Church then by all means put it all in the vernacular, put up big projection screens with explanatory notes and pause frequently for Q&A. Make sure every pew is wired for sound so that not a single word is missed and have the ushers patrol the aisles with feathered poles looking for slackers. We can then declare the Puritan spirit victorious.
Comment by boredoftheworld
I think that people off the street would be more in favor of Latin than your basic white suburbanite liberals.
1. The “target audience†of the Mass is not God. He has no need of our worship. We are the complete beneficiaries of our worship of Him. Mass is itself an accomodation to our needs, as was the Incarnation.
Comment by Gordo
According to St Thomas, the mass is both Sacrifice and Sacrament (nb: no mention of it being a meal). In so far as it is offered up to God, it is Sacrifice; in so far as it is received by man, it is a Sacrament.
I think allowing the epistle and gospel to be read in the vernacular would be OK. Other than that though, keep it in Latin.
5. The Church’s mission is twofold:
a. Make disciples of all nations
b. Build a common life according to Acts 2:42.
Both of those practical aspects are secondary to the contemplative aspect: Primarily, the Church exists for the contemplation of the Love of God (which as a Byzantine, you should easily understand).
When the primacy of the contemplative is usurped by the practical, the life of the Church is splintered. Then we have Counter Reformation Theology, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Ecumenical Theology, and last but not least, the banalization of the life of the Church and Her liturgy–and such banalization undermines the practical aspects of mission.
6. Finally, to say that the Latin Church’s missions were stronger when the Masses were in Latin is true. To assert that there is a causal connection between the two is a bit of a stretch.
Comment by Gordo
No, it’s not a stretch according to Veterum Sapientia.
An amended Anglican Missal and Breviary would do just fine —
certainly the most literary of the available translations.
IMHO, the most important items are Latin (excepting readings in the vernacular in parishes) and ad orientem. And so, I’ll take a Latin Novus Ordo anyday over a vernacular 1962 model.
I am open to even a healthy dose of vernacular
in the old rite, though not for some time after the
motu proprio, so that it can first be properly established.
If it is done, however, it should be
the opposite of how it was done in 1965. There is no need
to have ANY of the Ordinary in the vernacular, anyone who
doesn’t have the presense of mind to learn what these mean
after years of repetition is not going to benefit from a
translation. But, it may be well for some of the readings
and bidding prayers to be in the people’s own tongue
Quicken us, O Lord, we beseech thee, by the divine victim which we have offered and received: that, being united to thee in perpetual charity, we may bring forth fruit that abideth for ever. Through… [American Missal]
Quicken us, we beseech thee O Lord, by the heavenly victim which we have offered and received: that, being united to thee in perpetual charity, we may bring forth fruit that abideth for ever. Through… [English Missal]
O Lord God Almighty, whose only Son hath made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world: quicken us, we beseech thee, by this our oblation and communion of his Body and Blood; that we may become one with him in the charity which never faileth, and thereby bring forth the fruit which abideth for ever. Through the same… [Anglican Missal]
Scott: Thanks for those additional versions.
Wow, father, this has been the only thing to actually sadden me in a couple of days of great news. I’m really dissapointed that, with all this good traditional news lately with the MP, that you’re already muddying the waters and posing questions as to whether it would be good to introduce vulgar tongues into the traditional Mass.
I’m not going to write something bombastic, or yell or scream, but it really is saddening that you would bring this up on the one day traditionalists actually have something to be joyous about in the Church. Let the destruction of the One True Faith continue …
What about the option of having just the readings proclaimed in the vernacular? It seems that this is an option even in our current Tridentine Masses: http://saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-decisions-of-ecclesia-dei.html
Father,
One of the blessings of Latin, as well as traditional English and most modern European languages, is the use of the second person singular/familiar. In this respect, all of the translations since 1958 are deficient. I do not think You, even with a capital Y, can have the same intimacy or dignity as Thee. It is especially painful to see the literal translation from planet WDTPRS lapse into modernism here.
“I recently saw at a used bookstore a Roman Missal printed in 1964 (I think…definitely between 1962 and 1965) in Canada and it had the propers and readings in English and the ordinary in Latin, I think. Would that have been the 1962 missal partially in the vernacular?
Comment by David C — 28 June 2007 @ 11:15 pm”
David:
I have this Missal. It was printed with the imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman in 1965 and does not contain the 1965 changes.
I’ve been quite fascinated lately with the 1965 interim rite and recently found a copy of the very well produced Maryknoll Missal from that time. I think that being able to see this rite done, in a YouTube video or something, would help facilitate a useful discussion of that rite. I barely remember it, as I was five at the time it started and only 10 when we got the 1970 rite, Monthly Missalettes, and a spacey-sounding wireless FM microphone system, all on the same weekend. I was weirded out! Saw all the pointings on the psalms and wondered whether they were part of a special version of English to be pronounced with odd accents and umlauts. :) –Scott, still a weird kid. With thanks to Fr. Z and a quick apology for a peevish post I made some days ago that he wisely declined to approve. I’m over my peeve now, glad to say.
How do the current 1962 Missals (i.e. the Baronius & Angelus versions) translate this prayer??
Ouch, please stop shouting, Prof Basto!
Pope St. Pius V canonized the Mass of Ages and provided it to all Catholics for all times (which kind of makes this MP hysteria nonsense anyway, but that’s another discussion).
However, what really troubles me is that there are people who think they can just take his Papal Bull, his direct order, and turn it on its head.
Why not introduce English? Neat! Why not let a woman hand out communion? Cool! Yea, this is fun playing Pope!
Really, can’t we at least act like we have respect for tradition for once, especially during what should be a time of triumph for tradition itself?
Forget accepting it well. With all this hostility toward tradition i’m throwing a “turning back the clock” party at my house tonight!
chris: you’re already muddying the waters and posing questions … it really is saddening that you would bring this up
You perhaps haven’t thought about why I wrote what I wrote.
If you don’t like this thread, feel free not to read it.
Michael (Syro-Malankar Catholic),
Make sure of what you are saying. I am pretty positive that the Chinese Church was allowed to use the ANCIENT Chinese language – not modern Chinese. The CHurch had never allowed the Mass to be said completely in any varcular language at all.
Gordo, you are giving your point of view based on your eastern way of viewing things. With that in mind, preaching was never done in Latin! The Mass was and there you would never be preaching to non-Catholics (for the most part). So, the idea of using the vernacular because the CHurch’s duty is to evangelize – we never did it in Latin. In fact, if you read about the early presence of the Church in Latin America, the varnacular was used for Catechisms, actual preaching, etc. BUT *not* the Mass.
Who says that the Syrian Church was the most successful in evangelizing? They are still one of the smallest groups in all Christendom — aren’t they?
ALL: Kindly… DO NOT SHOUT. Thanks in advance.
I admit I didn’t slog through all 50-some earlier comments but if it hasn’t been said yet I’d like to add that if you want this religion in the classical liturgical idiom of our language the Anglo-Catholics have done all the work for you complete with music. The Anglican missals and breviary (not the same as the Book of Common Prayer or the Anglican Use RC Book of Divine Worship) are yours for the asking if you ever get permission.
I have read that the Roman Missal has been celebrated in at least one other language other than Latin, namely, some form of Slavonic (Glattolitic?) in parts of Central Europe. Could any one confirm this? It may also be a liturgical language and not strictly vernacular, so the point may not be applicable. I don’t know about any other languages.
It seems the one of the general argument here against translation from the Latin is that it will lead to abuses. I don’t think that will happen. For abuse to happen whether it is bad non-traditional music or the priest altering parts of the Mass to suit his personal taste, it requires that the priest perpetrate or allow the abuses. I would propose that a priest who is likely to abuse the liturgy is not going to be stopped by the fact that the liturgy is in Latin. If he intends to accompany the Mass with unsuitable music or omit certain prayers, he will do so no matter what language the text appears. Now perhaps this priest would find it more difficult to adlib in Latin, but if he is open to liturgical abuse, he would probably just adlib in English before going back to the Latin text. On the other hand, a priest who intends to say the extra-ordinary Mass as well as he is able, will do so whether that Mass is in Latin or is translated into English. I don’t see that Latin would magically prevent abuses from occuring nor would saying the extra-ordinary Mass in English cause abuses.
Obviously, when we are discussing translations, it must be understood that a translation would have to be good and accurate. Now that I think of it, it may be best if the Vatican provides an English translation of the 1962 missal preemptively. If they do not, it will only be a matter of time before the USCCB presents the vatican with a translation to be approved.
Of course, even if the extra-ordinary Mass were allowed in the vernacular, it should still retain the more common prayers in Latin, just as should be currently done in the novus ordo.
Yes, since medieval times the Roman Rite was celebrated in what became an archaic form of Serbo-Croatian on the Croatian island of Krk (yes, that is spelled correctly, in Croation “r” is a vowel) and the nearby mainland. My ethics professor, a Croatian from Krk said that when he returned his home parish and celebrated Mass in the Dominican Rite (in Latin), it was the first time any of his neighbors had ever heard the Mass in that language.
Fr. Z: You perhaps haven’t thought about why I wrote what I wrote.
Well, Father, I’m assuming you’re not being provocative for the sake of being provacative, so why not enlighten us to what you’re actually trying to accomplish here?
I still like “quicken” – instantly noticeably coming to life – through some “otherly” and Divine inspiration
I always thought the best idea, both practically and in the spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium, would be to have approved, accurate vernacular translations rotated in every parish with the Latin. That is, each Sunday there would be Masses in both Latin and vernacular, but not at the same time each week. (E.g., the 10am Mass would be Latin one week, vernacular the next.) Or in places where there is only one Mass on Sunday, it would alternate. This would both allow use of vernacular, but ensure that the Council’s directives that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” and “the faithful. . .be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” I think few people would jump around in the Mass schedule, changing their routine, to avoid the Latin. In any event, the use of Latin in whichever Ordo should be mandatory as decreed by the Council.
…and English translations can be really beautiful!
“I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass thine altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all thy wondrous works. O Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwelleth! Take not away my soul with the wicked, not my life with men of blood: ijn heir hands are iniquities, and thier right hand is full of gifts. But I have walked in mine innocence: redeem me and be mercifult to me. My foot hath stood in the right way: in the assemblies I will bless thee, O Lord.”
Pure poetry.
This time without typos:
I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass thine altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all thy wondrous works. O Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwelleth! Take not away my soul with the wicked, not my life with men of blood: in their hands are iniquities, and their right hand is full of gifts. But I have walked in mine innocence: redeem me and be merciful unto me. My foot hath stood in the right way: in the assemblies I will bless thee, O Lord.â€
Thanks, Fr. Thompson. I can always count on you. Apparently, that language is not exactly “vernacular” in the sense we think of. More like Shakespeare.
Indeed, a “Knotty” question.
http://www.oldcatholic.org/liturgy/knott.html
Here’s another Knott Missal link.
I totally understand Jonathan Bennett’s reaction to the Latin.
Our parish is notorious for very loud talking in the church after Mass. We had a visiting Nigerian priest. All he did (with no notice or comment) is chant the Canon doxology in Latin. After Mass, all I heard were whispers and subdued speech.
The Latin seems to tear down the wall that blinds us to His Presence.
Xavier: <b>The Latin seems to tear down the wall that blinds us to His Presence.</b>
It at least gets out attention.
I had a great experience some years ago. I once directed a Gregorian chant schola in Rome, only women. My, did they sing chant beautifully. It was ethereal. I got them involved in sing at Masses rather than concerts. The number of people attended Mass in that church, the Basilica of San Nicola in carcere, began to multply. We were asked to sing all around, after that, for Masses.
One big occasion was a Mass at the Church called Ara Coeli, next to the Campidoglio. All the major figures of the Italian government were to be there, P.M., President, everyone. I agreed with the stipulation that we, our choir (read: I myself) was in complete charge of everything to be sung. It was to be entirely in Gregorian chant, from beginning to end. That is what we did. Vary that, and we walk. They agreed.
Since the Ara Coeli is the church where the famous Bambino Gesu is preserved, the Mass was really for children. So, the entire church was jammed with squirmy, exuberant Italian kids. You haven’t experienced chaos until you have experienced it with Italian children. Hundreds of pretty much out of control children. The racket was astounding.
The officious priestling running the thing began to tell us that some changes to the music were being made. They were going to do, X,Y, Z… I told the choir to pack up and we began to leave. The priestling backed off and Mass began.
Again, the noise was incredible. When the women began to sing, after a few short seconds there was total silence in the church, except for that glorious chant. When the choir would stop singing, the chatter and chaos began to rise again unchecked until we started singing again, at which is totally died away. These children, and all those pols, sat entirely mesmerized by the chant.
After Mass was over we were immediately surrounded by these bigwigs of the Italian government, which impressed the ladies, telling us that this was the most marvelous thing they had heard in years, etc. etc.
That, friends, was the object lessons that hammered home my conviction that the Church knows what she is talking about concerning music.
Fr. Z: I once directed a Gregorian chant schola in Rome, only women.
Hmmm. Isn’t that like saying girl altar boys? Wasn’t aware women were traditionally permitted to chant the Mass.
RECIPIENT OF THE SOUR GRAPES AWARD
One more translation to add to the mix…this is the translation known as the Goodliffe Neale which was approved by the hierarchy of England and Wales in 1972. We lost this in favour of the ICEL text.
“We have offered you sacrifice, Lord, and you have given us a share in it. Grant that it may bring us new life, so that we may be united with you in unfailing love and bear fruit which lasts for ever. Through Christ our Lord.”
Read this from the preface by Bishop Wheeler of Leeds “It is my hope that in the next few years we shall see the formation of teams of experts who will help us to arrive at a translation of the definitive Latin Missal which will surpass all those produced so far. We are still young in our experience of this kind of work. Nor have we, as yet, produced a Cranmer…” – Perhaps not, but they came closer than those who were to follow, methinks!
chris: Kindly show me a document in force today that forbids women from singing in church.
Make sure of what you are saying. I am pretty positive that the Chinese Church was allowed to use the ANCIENT Chinese language – not modern Chinese. The CHurch had never allowed the Mass to be said completely in any varcular language at all.
So why can’t we use “the Queen’s English”? If it’s the contemporari-ness of the language that bothers ‘thee’, why can’t the Latin just translated into “high-English”? Have you seen the beautiful Anglican-Use Catholic Mass, the NO can’t hold a candle to that. http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html
Who says that the Syrian Church was the most successful in evangelizing? They are still one of the smallest groups in all Christendom—aren’t they?
They are the smallest today, but they were the largest at one time. Islam, the Crusades, colonialism, and imperialism reduced the church to where it is today. Yet it isn’t “one of the smallest groups” if you include the Maronites, Syrian Orthodox and Catholics, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syro-Malankara Catholics, Malankara Orthodox, and Syro-Malabar Catholics in the Syriac Church family.
As to “who says” – other than the Vatican; Syriac Malpana (scholar) and former Chaldean priest Alphonse Mingana, William Dalrymple in his book From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East, and even Time Magazine in it’s Aug. 1940 story about the Assyrian Patriarch http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764354,00.html?promoid=googlep
Fr. Z: chris: Kindly show me a document in force today that forbids women from singing in church.
Please see below, from the last canonized pope:
V
THE SINGERS
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.
By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.
13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.
14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.
http://www.unavoce.org/intersollicitudines.htm
About the languages of the Tridentine Rite:
Since, in most countries, the language used in that period for celebrating Mass was exclusively Latin – apart from a few short phrases in Greek – most people consider the use of that language to be an essential element of what constitutes the Tridentine Mass. However, there was even then a long tradition of celebrating the Mass in the Church Slavonic language in what is now Croatia.[1] This was extended to other Slavic areas between 1886 and 1935.[2] Other languages in which the Tridentine Mass has been celebrated, at various times and places, include English, Classical Chinese, Classical Armenian, Ge’ez, Syriac and Koine Greek.
I opt for supertitles.
chris: Not in force now.
This is now a rabbit hole and will be dropped.
I have voted for the Tridentine rite in the venacular in this poll, which is slightly misleading. I do believe
that the traditional rite should remain in the Latin form, but also, in a spirit of organic liturgical
development should be used to “reform the reform” of Novus Ordo. A new(er) order of Mass, based more closely
upon the tradtional liturgy is needed by the Church, and use of such a liturgy as the common and most
widespread order of Mass would necessitate the celebration of Mass in the venacular.
I don’t know the Tridentine Mass very well, but I have been to enough to recognise the more profoundly
spiritual and medatative nature of the Rite, especially the medatative nature of the Last Gospel as a post-
communion reflection on the nature of Christ as the Eucharist.
I should of added that “in force today” really doesn’t mean anything to me. I can have a full immersion baptism performed by a rabbi in a protestant church but that doesn’t make it right.
And i don’t think i deserve the sour grapes award just for keeping you honest father! :)
chris: I should of added that “in force today” really doesn’t mean anything to me.
Fascinating attitude.
And i don’t think i deserve the sour grapes award just for keeping you honest father! :)
Not your role here.
ALL: Didn’t I have an entry about women singing in church not too long ago? In relation to the new/old Compendium by Trimeloni that was republished?
Just a joke father, that’s all. I think we could use some levity.
But my “facinating attitude” is about the only thing saving my Faith these days, which was long crushed until I left my Novus Ordo parish and started assisting at an indult Mass. If they can disregard tradition and even current Cannon Law then i can disregard the novelties and modernism that has swept into the Church.
In fact, I believe it to be a duty.
chris: Because two wrongs make a right….
Father: good point.
Did some more research and Pope Pius XII actually lifted the restriction on women chanting. I guess I need to take his picture down off my wall :)
cpaulitz: Kindly post the reference. It might help others understand the situation.
Father: here you go, although it greatly pains me to post this! (by the way, youtube has a FANSTASTIC old video of soon-to-be Pope St. Pius XII in Italian. It’s amazing):
MUSICAE SACRAE (On Sacred Music)
Pope Pius XII
——————————————————————————–
Encyclical Promulgated on 25 December 1955
74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that “a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter.”
Father Z: re your posting about singing that stopped the chattering, would you please recommend a few CDs for someone who’s just come into the Church and has never heard Gregorian chant (familiar, however, with Bach, Haydn, etc)?
Interesting. So, is Pope Pius XII’s law requiring men and women singers be segregated still in force? That is, has it ever been explicitly rescinded?
I don’t believe that now is a good time to tinker with the old rite…there has been too much tinkering and manipulation in the past half-century, that we need to settle down and appreciate the “givenness” of the Mass, including the traditional language of celebration, which helps to impress on us the objectivity of our religion and worship. There is something very profound about using the same forms of worship that our ancestors used for centuries upon centuries, even down to the very same words, something which should not be lost.
I do not understand the urgency of many to have the prayers of the Mass immediately understandable by using the vernacular. Most of the Mass consists of prayers addressed to God and so is not intended for teaching – that happens in the readings, sermon or outside of Mass. Also, most of the prayers are said by the priest in a low whisper inaudible to the congregation and so the use of the vernacular would provide no benefit there. The meaning of the ordinary parts, which are said or sung aloud, is easy to grasp, and is easily absorbed through constant repetition and so there would not be much gain in using the vernacular for those either. Understanding the services involves more than just having the prayers in one’s own language. The deeper, inherent meaning of the prayers and ceremonies must still be explained and not left to the people to figure out for themselves just because the text is in a language they readily understand.
As mentioned above, however, the readings are directed to the congregation and so it would make sense to have them in the vernacular, however, I believe that in most places where the old rite is celebrated, on Sundays the readings are read in the vernacular as an introduction to the sermon.
Also, Gregorian chant was composed for Latin and so the integrity of many melodies would be lost if forced onto other languages. Therefore, in bulk, there is little to gain from using the vernacular and potentially much to lose.
Craigmaddie,
Sorry. I often forget internet conventions and write whole paragraphs capitalized not due to shouting, but as a way of adding emphasis.
However, if I´m not mistaken, Father has seen fit to erase my comment. While I don´t understand why he has chosen to do so and even though I am unable to find any post of his explaining the reason for such an extreme action or at least placing the deletion “on the record”, I bow to his sovereign decision, not only because he is the owner of this blog, but also, and most importantly, because I respect him, and I sumbit myself to his priestly judgement.
Professor, your comment is still there (in the commentbox of another post)– but, whew!, you really should have counted to 10 before posting. Those priests should be disciplined, of course, but people tune out angry rants.
Jordan Potter,
I guess we are talking about two different posts of mine. I´m talking about a post in this thread. And you seem to be talking about a post in the thread about presbyteral councils defying the pope.
As for that second post, perhaps it trully deserves deletion. I was really angry and should have waited more before posting.
Now, my post on “vernacular” Tridentine Masses has nothing to do with it. It was also written in capital letters, but only because I don´t know how to add bold or italics. And, as I stated above, Father decided to delete it. It was not a hateful post, but Father must have good reason for having decided to delete it. I would like to know why he has chosen this extreme action, but if he prefers not to clarify that’s fine by me. I remain a loyal admirer and reader of this blog.
I will add no further comments on this, out of respect to good Father Z, and also because I don’t want to spoil our common joy in this blessed week when the Holy See has confirmed the much awaited Motu Proprio.
And, if I have done something wrong, may I just say: Confiteor Deo omnipotenti…
Prof. I bow to his sovereign decision, not only because he is the owner of this blog,…
Well put. I removed it because I don’t want people shouting at me or others. It’s not any more complicated than that, really.
Jordan,
Of course the object of our worship is the Holy Trinity. I certainly would never deny that as a Byzantine! But the notion which had been argued that because God understands Latin we should not concern ourselves with whether or not the people understand the words they are praying is absurd. Why not prayers in ancient Ugaritic then? No danger in God getting confused there.
RBrown,
As to the connection to the missions, I remain unconvinced that the use of Latin was a direct cause of successful missionary endeavors. The successful missionary work of Sts Cyril and Methodius were done in the vernacular. Am I to conclude that their missions would have been far more successful had they only employed Latin? (It had been argued by the German bishops that the missionary brothers were in error because they did not have the liturgy in Latin, Greek or Syrian/Hebrew. THe pope rejected this argument against them, though they suffered mightily at the hands of the Germans for it.) Is there something about the nature of this dead language of one half of the old Empire that multiplies the effectiveness of missionary work?
The very fact that the liturgies need to be translated for people to pray them with understanding …and that they will not be speaking or singing the words in their own tongue makes me scratch my head in wonder at the logic. The fact that, as someone mentioned, the homilies are in the vernacular and that that should be sufficient fails to recognize the kerygmatic nature of the worship itself – its relationship to the Word of God. In the East it is even reagrded as the principal (but not exclusive) means of the exercise of magisterium.
The contemplative, missionary and “common life” dimensions of the Church’s mission are no way in competition. In fact, I believe them to be largely interdependent. But I will say that I find nowhere in the Gospel the call to “be contemplative”. But I do find the Savior’s Great Commission and the apostolic account of Acts 2:42.
Pax,
Gordo
I don’t think the “Tridentine” mass should be in the vernacular, because:
a) Even though the meaning of Latin words can be rendered in other languages, (more or less) something changes with the process of translation: language A is never identical to language B.
b) The requirement to celebrate in Latin is an excellent aid to preserve the Latin language among Latin rite catholics: it necessitates the study and the usage of Latin.
c) It provides direct access to the Latin liturgy for those who understand Latin (after all there are those who understand Latin) – they are not forced to participate by some indirect means. It is always better to know something directly, first hand, not second hand, indirectly.
d) It provides for centralization: it avoids possible fragmentation into multiple translations of many different languages that do not remain the same over longer periods of time. We know what difficulties that can create.
e) It ties the liturgy to theology, a vast body of which has been developed and defined in Latin. It also ties it to Scripture (the Vulgata Latina).
f) It provides an opportunity for future developments that do not depart from a logical continuity.
I am sure I could think of other reasons, but these come to mind for now. I wish people would not assume, when thinking about this question, that there is no one who knows Latin. For someone who does speak Latin this can have a different meaning altogether. Moreover, there is a certain sense of “this is mine” associated with language. As an example, it would be hard for an Italian patriot to be told that Italy was going to switch languages, that Italians would start using English from now on as their official language. It would be seen as a betrayal of identity.
Prof. Basto and All,
For the betterment of everyone, this is a quick primer on HTML formatting. All that you need to do is add opening and closing tags around the text you want to format.
<i>text in Italic</i>
<b>text in Bold</b>
<strike>
text in Strikethrough</strike>If you like, you can combine formats, but you have to nest the tags.
<i><b>text in Bold Italic</b></i>
I hope this helps.
I think the Tridentine Mass in vernacular would be okay providing the translation was elevated in tone and befitting – like what some Anglicans (English Missal) and Western rite Orthodox (Liturgy of St. Gregory) use. Of course, I wouldn’t want the Latin Tridentine Mass to fall by the wayside, as I think there needs to be a rediscovery of our rite’s wonderful Latin tradition.
Personally, I like the idea someone mentioned earlier of mandating at least one rotating Latin Mass each Sunday. I’ve also had similar ideas. My notion was that every church would have at least one mandatory Latin Mass (either old or new version) each week for the whole year with the rest of the Sunday Masses being alowed in vernacular. Also, the ordinary for all Masses in certain seasons and Holy Days would have to be in Latin (like maybe Easter, for instance). This way, someone preferring Latin could attend a Latin Mass exclusively if they wished, while someone who preferred vernacular could attend a vernacular mass most of the time, but wouldn’t be able to avoid Latin completely.
Thank you, GCC Catholic.
How do the current 1962 Missals (i.e. the Baronius & Angelus versions) translate this prayer??
The Baronius and Angelus 1962 missals are descendants in the New Marian line of Latin-English hand missals, and their English translation of the Postcommunion of the votive Mass of Christ the High Priest differs only in the last couple of words from the translation Father Z quotes from the 1958 New Marian Missal. That is, in them the last line (in Father Z’s formatting) reads as follows:
we may bear fruit that will abide for ever.
Thus, “abide for ever” instead of “remain evermore”.
(Thank you, GCC Catholic. I was wondering how it was done.)
I’m confused about whether women will be allowed to chant in the returning Old Rite. Will not men be the norm and women extraordinary?
If this was discussed before, does someone know the link?
Xavier,
Have you never heard nuns singing Gregorian chant? That’s really too bad. It sounds like heaven.