![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
PCED clarifies: Summorum Pontificum 6 allows vernacular readings instead of Latin
There is an interesting development in the matter of Summorum Pontificum and the use of the vernacular in celebrations of the TLM.
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei reponded to a questions proposed concerning Art. 6.
The questions were: "Can readings be given in the vernacular in the context of the Liturgy? Does Article 6 uphold the practice of duplicating the readings reading them in the context of the Liturgy in Latin, then before a homily in the vernacular, or does it allow them to be read from the Altar in the vernacular?
Also, can local editions of the Missal that refer back to the 1962 Missal could be used for this purpose (i.e. the one that came out in the US in early 1964. For example, a Missal faithful to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, but with a vernacular proper. This was given approval for use in the US by the Holy See.
The responses:
1. Article 6 of the Motu Proprio summorum Pontificum forsees the possibility of proclaiming the readings in the vernacular without having to proclaim them first in Latin.
2. The readings may be proclaimed in English according to translations approved for liturgical use by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States.
It seems I was right after all.
Don’t get me wrong: I do NOT think that what is permitted here should be imposed on congregations. That would be a terrible idea, if people didn’t want such a thing. However, Summorum Pontificum permits this, according to the PCED. I can think of some occasions when I might be good to do. I bet you can too.
I don’t see how “approved” readings could be read at the Extraordinary Rite, since they don’t match the COMES of the Extraordinary Rite.
That is to say, you would have to do a LOT of work to dig up the ICEL translations of readings that PRECISELY match the readings proscribed for the Extraordinary Form.
Comment by Pope Evaristus, Martyr — 24 April 2008 @ 7:41 amI think you mean “prescribed”. ;-)
Oh, and back in the nineties, at the monthly Missa Cantata I attended, the priest sang the epistle and gospel in English; and the sky didn’t fall in.
I’m told that this usage of the vernacular for the readings is so common in France that even the SSPX do it.
Comment by Joshua — 24 April 2008 @ 7:53 amSo, is the priest supposed to proclaim the vernacular readings at the altar the same way that he would do the Latin readings?
Comment by James — 24 April 2008 @ 8:09 amWould an old approval do? Specifically if one had say, the Boylan lectionary (Epistles and Gospels, per the 1962 Missal, translated by a Dublin priest in 1964 and approved by the Irish bishops en masse) couldn’t that still be used? We always have used that one in Dublin but there is also a Burns Oates lectionary drawn from the Douy-Rheims-Challoner which sees the light of day from time to time. (It dates to 1920 or so if memory serves.)
Comment by Eamonn Gaines — 24 April 2008 @ 8:21 amLEAVE IT ALONE.
Comment by Volpius — 24 April 2008 @ 8:22 amWell thanks to Ecclesia Dei (sarcasm), Fr. Fessio has already started doing this at Ave Maria, and it is absurd and out of place. Fr. Fryar F.S.S.P., who trained him, is not happy with his decision to start taking this liturgical liberty upon himself much to the dismay of the students and traditionalists nearby.
Comment by Malcolm — 24 April 2008 @ 8:23 amWhen I went to Mass at the SSPX in Paris the epistle and Gospel were done in Latin with another priest reading them in French more loudly. Unfortunatly this served only to confuse me as my Latin is (barely) better than my French. I didn’t much care for it to be honest. Until that point I was very happy the Mass was the same in Peoria, IL as it was in Paris, France :). Universality is a Good Thing.
Comment by Bryan Jackson — 24 April 2008 @ 8:29 amIf Vatican II had never occurred, do you think we still might have had some changes/options/reforms in the TLM such as this? I tend to think we would have. I just wonder if the reaction to this by some people would have been as strong as it is having had the Council and the subsequent restoration of the Extraordinary Form?
Comment by TNCath — 24 April 2008 @ 8:34 amin Masses I’ve been to (usually FSSP) the priest repeats the reading in English just before the sermon/homily.
Hopefully this model will win out.
Comment by Michael — 24 April 2008 @ 8:44 amSo… this wasn’t OBVIOUS?
Comment by Gavin — 24 April 2008 @ 8:55 amWhile I do not prefer the vernacular to replace the Latin—Latin IS the liturgical language—right? Why is it that seemingly only the diocesan priests and those new to the TLM want to impose this innovation on the lay faithful?
The vast majority of the lay faithful DO NOT WANT IT! Now I know it is allowed—just like the people singing the Pater together is allowed—-but there is a theological reason, attached to the Roman Breviary and the monastic orders that the Pater is NOT sung by the laity, right? Do we do anything liturgical any more to ensure theological continuity?
Seriously, my former pastor does this at the TLM because he thinks it will enhance participation for those attending the TLM who are new to it since he puts it periodically in place of the 11 a.m. Sunday Novus Ordo. The regular Latin Mass attendees, to a person, do not want it. But why should the priest care? A pastor is the Pope/bishop of his parish, and many act like it.
Fr. Fessio’s new Ignatius Press Latin Mass booklets have all of the allowances outlined in them. Won’t be selling any to the FSSP or ICR communities, I guess.
Another note, What about sung Masses? Isn’t the ideal Mass a Solemn High Mass, and if not that, then a Missa Cantata. The priest should SING the Latin. Certainly, we’re not going to start singing the English from those awful NAB English translations, are we?
The SSPX warned about the beginnings of the hybrid Mass, and so they were right again.
Comment by Brian Mershon — 24 April 2008 @ 8:56 amI like the idea of having the scripture readings done only in the vernacular. After all, exceedingly few of us are fluent enough in Latin to make heads or tails out of a priest rattling off a few paragraphs rapidly in Latin.
I also feel the Holy Father wants the TLM and the Novus Ordo Masses to somehow meld over time and meet at some point between the two. A good way to start this, is to skip the Latin for the readings and just read it in the vernacular. The TLM shouldn’t be a museum piece or a ‘fly in amber’, that is rigidly held unchanged no matter what.
Comment by Janet — 24 April 2008 @ 8:58 amI think this is a good development. I have always felt that repeating the Epistle and Gospel in english before the Homily was an awkward addition. One has to ask oneself this question: If the entire Mass of 1962 were FAITHFULLY translated into english, would that be a bad thing? Is it the Rite of 1964 or the Latin (or both)? Consider this also. Most Catholics should, after regular attendance at the Mass of 1962, become acquainted with Common. Having the Epistle and Gospel in english would also better ‘access’ to most Catholics as very few know Latin to that extent.
Comment by Michael — 24 April 2008 @ 9:03 amBrian,
I would think that a “hybrid” is not that far off, and is possibly the intention of the Holy Father. It’s pretty clear that he does not see the TLM as a purely unchanging liturgy. Changes that can make the TLM more accessible to those who have grown up with the current Mass can be a very good thing.
Comment by Patrick — 24 April 2008 @ 9:12 amI think this practice is okay, provided that the translation used is from the Vulgate, not the Nova Vulgata or other modern editions. The NAB-derived Lectionary the NO uses excises many passages that are part of the traditional Missale Romanum.
Reading the vernacular before the homily after the Latin is read at the altar, while having the advantage of preserving the reading of the Latin, seems like an unnecessary duplication of limited benefit.
Comment by Josh — 24 April 2008