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.
I remember when the text of Summorum Pontificum was issued, I suggested that Art. 6 did in fact bear the interpretation that vernacular readings could be used instead of Latin. Lot’s of people pretty much freaked out and did everything but promise to dig up my mortal remains, try me and throw me in a river.
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.
Loading ...
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.
I 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.
So, is the priest supposed to proclaim the vernacular readings at the altar the same way that he would do the Latin readings?
Would 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.)
LEAVE IT ALONE.
Well 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.
When 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.
If 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?
in 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.
So… this wasn’t OBVIOUS?
While 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.
I 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.
I 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.
Brian,
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.
I 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.
This would probably have happened anyway had the organic development of the liturgy continued as it should have instead of being violently interrupted. It was done occasionally in New York City back in the late 50s, and, gasp, the Pater was also often sung by the laity. People who expect the Old Mass to remain frozen at some mythical point of perfection are going to be disappointed, because things simply don’t work that way.
Also, we can’t neglect the fact that more than 40 years have gone by and there’s got to be some genuine outreach to people who might basically like the form but are scared off by the linguistic issue. Furthermore, many priests don’t feel their Latin is good enough to proclaim the Gospel in Latin. So why put roadblocks in their path? The “EF” is more than the language.
Finally, why can’t they use the vernacular translation of the readings that were in the missals prior to the Council? All of these translations had imprimaturs or were taken from already approved translations.
I assist at the Tridentine Masses that Brian M. was referring to above. The pastor who offers the Tridentine Masses on an infrequent basis used to read the readings in Latin, then again in English from the pulpit. About a year ago he started the practice of reading the Epistle in English and the Gospel in Latin. I was told that it was to acculturate the non-Tridentiners to the Latin. However, rather than back off from the practice over time (which one would expect, if the congregation was to have been acculturated), he has actually started reading both Epistle and Gospel in English.
Frankly, it is rather audially jarring to hear the priest switch between Latin and English. It detracts from the Mass. Further, the translation that he uses is different than the one that I’m following in my Angelus Press missal, which is then a further distraction.
Yuk.
At our parish the readings at the altar are done in Latin and then
repeated in English from the lectern.
( yes , we stand twice for the Gospel)Seems to work fine.
Here we go they are going to repeat the same old mistakes. These same arguments for the vernacular in the Mass were used to support introduction of the NO. Why oh why do we need vernacular in the Mass now when most people can read but we didn’t need it in the past when many poeple could not?
The use of Latin in the Mass is very important. Firstly, it is the language of the Roman Catholic Church. It symbolises a real and true unity across the many countries in which the Mass is celebrated. Wherever you may enter a church in the Latin rite, the whole proceedings will be instantly familiar to you, bringing home an immediate feeling of the universality of the Church. The Catholic Church is truly universal, not fixed to one country or culture, but transcends national boundaries by simply using the same language, symbolising its unity in faith, authority and sources of revelation.
Secondly, Latin is a dead language. It is no longer used as a language in the streets, therefore it has stopped evolving as vernacular languages constantly do. Due to this, the meaning of the words has set in stone, and the liturgy does not need to be revised to avoid offending certain people for whom the words have taken on a different meaning. The dead language has, then, been turned into a “liturgical language” used for the liturgical celebration of the Church. This is not specific to the Latin rite either. The Russian Orthodox Church (although separate from Rome) uses Church Slavonic and the Greek Orthodox Church uses ancient Greek. When the Church was setting up in China, the missionaries there appealed to Rome that the locals truly could not use Latin as a language since it was so foreign to them. Subsequently, the Vatican decreed that the Church there could use ancient Chinese that was no longer in use, thus retaining its liturgical usage.
Thirdly, Latin exhibits a beauty and elegance that seemingly no vernacular tongue can match. Dietrich von Hildebrand, described by Pope Pius XII as a doctor of the 20th century Church, describes this feature as follows:
“Latin is in a unique position here. First, Latin grammar has an uncommon clarity, and to know it, is an incomparable training for our thinking. Secondly, Latin has a great beauty, a spiritual nobility of quite a special sort. This is also true of medieval Latin, which moreover produced works of highest poetical art and religious depth. One need only think of the Dies irae, which is ascribed to Thomas of Celano, of Jacapone da Todi’s Stabat mater, of the magnificent hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas, of the sequences of Venantius Fortunatus, and many others. The role which Latin has played in history, especially in the liturgy, and the universality which it possesses, gives the learning of Latin quite a special place” (“The Devastated Vineyard” by Dietrich von Hildebrand, page 90).
Latin is not a barrier, but an invitation into the treasures of the Church, both in liturgy and music. It cannot be seen as an obstacle to potential converts, or to the laity in general, as the personal piety of the laity, and conversions to the Church and also to the priesthood, were flourishing when the Latin Mass was the jewel in the Church’s crown.
If the entire Mass of 1962 were FAITHFULLY translated into english, would that be a bad thing?
This brings us to what I believe is the defining principle of the New Ritual: If the people don’t hear AND understand it, it didn’t happen.
If the readings are going to be in the vernacular then they need to be proclaimed, otherwise what is the point?
We’re going to need electronic amplification on the altar and/or we’re going to need to redesign the nave so everyone is close enough to hear what’s being said, since it’s being said in their common speech for their benefit.
And “readings”, does this mean just the Epistle and the Gospel or should it include all the propers? Say goodbye to Gregorian chant.
Once that foundation has been laid it becomes obvious that even the ordinary needs to be in a language understood by everyone present and we transition from worship to didactic and then some goober starts talking about the new dialectic and we end up with liberation theology and nuns in pants, and haven’t we really already had enough of that kind of thing?
Seriously though, there’s a whole pile of baggage that comes with just doing the readings in the vernacular.
Patrick said: “Changes that can make the TLM more accessible to those who have grown up with the current Mass can be a very good thing.”
BCM said: Accessible? The Mass is centrally and primarily about worshipping God. God understands Latin.
Reading it from the ambo is not even necessary because most people can READ. My only argument, and not a good one, for reading it from the ambo is for young children who cannot read (but most aren’t paying attention anyway and won’t recall it) and/or for repetition for others.
Reverent worship is directed toward GOD–not toward us. Why does everyone emphasize their own personal preferences?
God understands Latin. Prayer is also silent contemplation. Ideally, the laity have read the readings prior to Mass and even in the mornings for their private meditation/contemplation.
For all those who object to vernacular readings, a question that has to be asked is do we want the TLM to appeal only to the traditionalist community or do we want it to appeal to the greater Catholic community? If the former, then be resigned to the TLM remaining a minority rite for a very select group. If the TLM is to spread then an outreach must be made to those for whom it is unfamiliar. We cannot just pretend that the last 40 years did not happen. We now have two generations for whom the historic Roman rite is just as alien as the Syro-Malabar rite. How are we going to attract them to the TLM?
My practice is to say each reading first in Latin followed immediately in English at the altar. To me this would seem to be akin to the practice at Papal Masses where the reading are done first in Latin then in Greek.
I suppose this is why communities and orders dedicated to the Latin Mass will remain important. They will likely not exercise such options. It seems to me that repeating the readings in the vernacular before the sermon is sufficient to help those new to the old Mass.
Generally, people who come to the Latin Mass, expect that it will be, well, in Latin. Some are even surprised at first that the sermon is in the vernacular, let alone, the repetition of the readings (really, I’ve heard this). I’ve never heard anybody complain about the Latin Mass being said in Latin.
So I have a hard time understanding what would make this option desirable. That’s not to say there isn’t a legitimate reason for it; I just don’t know what it would be. I sincerely hope more and more options are not rapidly introduced. That has been tried already and, if I recall correctly, it didn’t work out so well.
Organic development doesn’t happen overnight.
Brian Mershon said: “Why does everyone emphasize their own personal preferences?”
You mean like only having the readings in Latin followed by English?
The Church tells us that it can be useful to have the readings in the vernacular. Perhaps, they see a benefit in such a thing. The Holy Father, the second Vatican Council, and the Ecclesia Dei Commission all seem to be on the same page on this one.
The priests who will jump on this liberalization will be the reform-of-the-reform crowd. We have one in the Northern Virginia area, but thankfully there is a very small base of support for the innovations imposed in his Mass.
Now that we have options for Mass locations, perhaps the best way to respond to a priest who chooses to skip the Latin Epistle and Gospel is to go elsewhere.
Ken,
Not supporting priests who say the TLM and make use of an APPROVED option will not help to spread the TLM. If you want the TLM to remain a small niche within the Church then by all means, carry on. But if you want it to spread and grow (as the Holy Father desires), then please reconsider “boycotting” priests who choose to say the TLM with readings in English.
Patrick — everyone I’ve ever brought to the traditional Latin Mass has gone there with the expectation of Latin being sung and spoken. Many have returned. I really don’t care to explain to visitors why, all of a sudden, the priest would break intoe English as the visitor is reading a Latin-English Epistle and Gospel in the handmissal I have brought for him.
Seriously, if someone wants English, he’s not going to the Latin Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre said he could foresee, and seemed tolerant of moving towards vernacular readings.
I can understand those familiar with the EF being unhappy, but in a pastoral situation where a priest wanted to introduce a OF congregation to the glories of the EF it could have advantages.
volpius hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Latin is useful precicely because it is a dead language. vernacular languages evolve too much. think about issues like gender inclusive language. do we really want to open that can of worms in the TLM?
this may come as a shock to some, but the primary reason for the readings is not for our benefit. the purpose of the readings (like the rest of Mass) is to glorify God. we already put the Mass on pause for the homily, let the vernacular readongs happen there. anywhere else it destracts from the worship of God.
“For all those who object to vernacular readings, a question that has to be asked is do we want the TLM to appeal only to the traditionalist community or do we want it to appeal to the greater Catholic community?”
First you would have to prove your premise that readings in the Latin will prevent it from appealing to the “greater Catholic community” whatever that means.
Secondly if you change to the vernacular do you still have the TLM?
And thirdly you are ignoring the fact that one of the reasons the TLM was allowed again was so what you label the “traditionalist community” who could not happily worship at the vernacular NO would have their rightful needs and aspirations met. By introducing vernacular into TLM you are actually failing to achieve one of the main goals of the MP because the “traditionalist community” will again find themselves with no Mass they can happily attend.
“If the former, then be resigned to the TLM remaining a minority rite for a very select group.”
We are resigned to nothing, God is not restricted by your opinion and the Holy Spirit teaches us to have Hope. The “traditionalist community” is growing all the time, Deo Gratias.
“If the TLM is to spread then an outreach must be made to those for whom it is unfamiliar.”
This “outreach” should not be done by sacrificing parts of the TLM it should be done through proper education of the laity about the TLM, stop been lazy trying to take the easy way out, it is not “outreach” to simply make the TLM more like the NO.
“We cannot just pretend that the last 40 years did not happen.”
No sadly we cannot but this does not mean that now a Mass in Latin is not possibile or desirable. Clearly it is.
“We now have two generations for whom the historic Roman rite is just as alien as the Syro-Malabar rite. How are we going to attract them to the TLM?”
I am 26 years old, the TLM attracts people through its own power, all you need to do is make it available, encourage people to attend and make efforts to educate them about it.
Changing the TLM into the English Mass or whatever happens to be the vernacular in your area is no the answer.
If the liturgical changes of the 60s alienated many Catholics from the Mass, then why would we want to follow the same path of change?
So now the only way the TLM is going to spread is if the readings are in the vernacular (apparently not even optionally) and we, the long suffering lay faithful must make our decisions on where to assist based on the priest enforcing this now mandatory option?
Here we go again. I recall growing up in the 60’s and particularly in the 70’s that every Sunday the Mass was different. One Sunday a Chasuabled Priest, the next Sunday not.
Then came the changes with regard to the chalice; gold, silver or pottery. Now we are faced with reading the Epistle and Gospel in English in place of the Latin from the Altar. Next will be the request to have the Propers said in the vernacular and then it will just keep going. We have had 40 years of ongoing change. Would’nt it be nice if we had 40 years of a slow down from all the change and an absorbtion of what we currently have. I have been to the Indult Mass in Erie where the Priest reads the Epistle and Gospel in English and it seems totally out of place.
Fr.Forte ,you are correct. The remarks by Ken are about me and the innovations are such in his eyesonly.He has consistently been shown his errors.But one must face the fact that the TLM belongs to everyone inthe church not to only a few malcontents who will never be satisfied.I will not be bothered by them because I have for my whole priesthood supported the TLM even though I could not say it. Archbishop Lefebvre himself called for the readings directly in the vernacular.I might do this ata general mass (eg.Midnight Mass)but I would not at our weekly TLM where the readings are done after the Gospel.I think there ought to be more conversation on LITURGICAL between experts such as CIEL.
The Latin Mass where I attend chants the Gospel in Latin then it is chanted again in English which sounds rubbish frankly English does lend itself to chant, then we have the sermon in English. This is actually really annoying because I have already read the Gospel with the Priest as he said it in Latin, then the vernacular uses a different version of the scriptures to the English translation in my Missal which drives me to distraction. It would be better if it was simply done in Latin, translations are handed to all people who come to Mass anyway so I really see no point in it been done in English it is more of a hindrance than a help frankly and ruins the sacred feeling of the Mass, for a moment I feel like I am back in a meeting at work.
The Latin Mass where I attend chants the Gospel in Latin then it is chanted again in English which sounds rubbish frankly English does NOT lend itself to chant, then we have the sermon in English. This is actually really annoying because I have already read the Gospel with the Priest as he said it in Latin, then the vernacular uses a different version of the scriptures to the English translation in my Missal which drives me to distraction. It would be better if it was simply done in Latin, translations are handed to all people who come to Mass anyway so I really see no point in it been done in English it is more of a hindrance than a help frankly and ruins the sacred feeling of the Mass, for a moment I feel like I am back in a meeting at work.
Patrick,
Well put. This “more Catholic than the Pope” mentality that there can be no approved options EVER benefits no one. I wonder if these same folks who are so upset over this development were equally upset when the Holy Week ceremonies were revised by Pope Pius XII back in the 1955 or when St. Joseph was added to the Canon by Pope John XXIII back in 1962? These were permanent changes and not options. Nobody has ever said that a celebrant MUST forgo the readings in Latin. Once again, it is an option. There are certain parts of the Novus Ordo I do not prefer (i.e. the second and third options of the penitential rite), however, it is an approved option that does not take anything away from the spiritual benefits of the Mass in itself, and I don’t have a fit when a priest celebrant (the Pope included) doesn’t say the Confiteor.
This has nothing to do with Archbishop Lefebvre, why are you referring to him like he was the Pope?
As someone who loves the traditional Mass, I personally think that this is wonderful news. The reason I say this is that most people whom I have invited ‘cold’ to a traditional Latin Mass for the first time say that while they find it very beautiful and moving they wish that the readings were in English. For that reason they tend to prefer a Latin Novus Ordo where this is the norm.
I think this is something that the Second Vatican Council rightly wanted and which, if succesfully implemented (for the Low Mass at any rate) with good scriptural translations (RSV please!), will almost guarantee the wider re-adoption of the traditional form of Mass throughout the universal Church.
Comment by Fr. Anthony Forte
For all those who object to vernacular readings, a question that has to be asked is do we want the TLM to appeal only to the traditionalist community or do we want it to appeal to the greater Catholic community? If the former, then be resigned to the TLM remaining a minority rite for a very select group.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think that this is a crucial point in the history of the Church. Do we wish to share the beauty, clarity, and depth of the traditional Mass with the whole Church and allow it to strengthen all of her members or do we just wish to keep it to ourselves as if it were our own possession? I think we need to examine our consciences on this point.
I believe that this, finally, is a genuine example of organic development.
Mass is worshipping God, prayer is oriented to God. However, we should understand what we are praying, or our tongue will say, but our hearts won’t go along.
We can understand what’s happening during the Canon, so our “Amen” is said with our heart. All of the ordo can be learnt. So the readings should be done in vernacular, or at once, or just before the homily.
Hey! Wait a moment, we can use the 2002 lectionary on the EF. (And the most orthodox TLM I have ever been to used it. It was the only TLM I have seen that there was no “second confiteor”. This is obbeying the Church. Following the 1962 missal AND the Vatican II)
Why then stop with the Epistle and the Gospel, what about the rest of the propers? Clearly most of the people commenting have accepted the idea that if the readings are in the vernacular then the greater good is served but it seems to me that most of the people in the Church have long since accepted the idea that abolishing the old rite altogether served the greater good.
If you want the vernacular then find a Novus Ordo Mass, it isn’t difficult, they’re all over the place.
boredoftheworld,
So, does this mean that when it comes to the TLM, there cannot be ANY positive liturgical changes after the Council of Trent? Or 1955? Or 1962?
Ken wrote: “Patrick—everyone I’ve ever brought to the traditional Latin Mass has gone there with the expectation of Latin being sung and spoken. Many have returned. I really don’t care to explain to visitors why, all of a sudden, the priest would break intoe English as the visitor is reading a Latin-English Epistle and Gospel in the handmissal I have brought for him.”
I’m betting your friends are pretty sharp, and they’ll figure it out really quickly. They’ll think, “Hey, english. I speak that. I think I’ll just listen.” I don’t think they’ll have a panic attack or anything.
Seriously, getting all bent out of shape at a priest for using this option is like getting steamed if a priest wears a roman chasuble when you prefer gothic (or vice-versa).
The Holy Father wrote Summorum Pontificum, and said that vernacular readings were an option (in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium). Why do so many of you persist in the idea that you know better than him on this matter?
Perhaps this is applicable here: “5) If the document (in this case the PCED clarification) doesn’t say everything we might hope for, don’t bitch about it like a whiner. Speak less of our rights and what we deserve, or what it ought to have been, as if we were our own little popes, and more about our gratitude, gratitude, gratitude for what God gives us.”
Fathers McAfee and Blake,
I the business world in which I spend the vast majority of my time, with its sometimes inadquacies, also comes some good. One of these goods is that we have to prove our thesis (this change will net our company this percentage of $ amount more revenues/profits).
Just because you and some others believe that having the readings in the vernacular might be more open to attracting a larger congregation, may in fact, have no basis in fact nor reality.
The fact of the matter is that when our parish changed the once-weekly TLM at 5:30 p.m., which brought about 120 of us, to 11 a.m. sometimes, based upon when the moons lined up, I’ll guarantee you that the 600 or more who showed up did not do so because the TLM had the readings in the vernacular. Those who FORGOT the TLM was this week at TLM were still angry when they left, and in fact, I have seen people walk in, see the TLM booklets, realize they have made a “mistake” and hand them back and then walk back out the door.
You see Fathers, and I’m not trying to be condescending, the vast majority of Catholics reject many of the Church’s moral teachings and doctrines–even those who still attend Mass. The No. 1 reason most Catholics choose for Mass is the convenience of the time, location and quite often, if it is an hour or less. THAT is what attracts Catholics.
Until and unless there is PROOF based upon some objective evidence, that the lay faithful desire (most of those unfamiliar with the TLM really could care less about whether the readings are in the vernacular or in Latin) the readings to be in the vernacular, why presume this to be so? You have no proof and you will not provide any. It is just a hunch.
Now, with that being said, those who do this “more Catholic than the Pope” stuff… Seriously… TN Catholic. I have read the book with that title. Have you? By their request, I gave Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere my blunt honest, exhaustive opinions about its arguments, both good and bad. Calling people names seems to be a preoccupation of those “conservative” Catholics who think an “allowance” of the vernacular is de Fide dogma, by citing the Pope, the PCED and Cardinal Castrillon. Look, the SSPX has had the readings in the vernacular in France for years!
We are NOT in France, nor Germany.
In business, we have to present evidence and proof of our hypothesis before major decisions are made. If not, the business does not survive and/or lots of people lose their livelihoods and then the Church doesn’t get our donations.
Having readings in the vernacular as an allowance is similar to the document from the Vatican “allowing” altar girls, but at the same time extolling bishops to continue the practice of altar boy guilds due to its effect on potential vocations. How many heeded that call in the U.S. Now, only ONE–Bishop Bruskewitz. Altar girls are “allowed” but not mandated. Communion in the hand is “allowed” not mandated. Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are “allowed” but not mandated.
Those of you so insistent on wanting the readings in the vernacular should realize those of us who DO NOT have valid reasons too. And you are NOT more obedient by your preference, which historically, is only about 40 years old in the 2008 years of the Church.
Patrick said: “Seriously, getting all bent out of shape at a priest for using this option is like getting steamed if a priest wears a roman chasuble when you prefer gothic (or vice-versa).”
Who is getting “bent out of shape”? The vernacular is an “allowance.” It does NOT have to be exercised. Latin is the NORM in the Latin Mass. Get it?
TN Catholic. The changes that Bugnini foisted upon the Holy Week liturgy were not beneficial nor more historical nor better than what came before. He merely truncated what was a richer fare. And for Fr. McAfee and CIEL. I attended the Sept. 2006 CIEL conference in the UK. It was magnificent. And the three prominent scholars who spoke in the ruin of the Divine Office by…
Pope St. Pius X. Another prominent religious order priest who is a scholar confided in me the same thing recently. Some of the scholars from CIEL said they prefer the pre-Pope St. Pius X breviary.
Food for thought.
Patrick wrote: “Seriously, getting all bent out of shape at a priest for using this option is like getting steamed if a priest wears a roman chasuble when you prefer gothic (or vice-versa).”
No, it would be more like having altar girls or communion in the hand at a traditional Latin Mass. Vestments are style and preference; the vernacular and other innovations are far from preferences such as the cut of fabric.
It is very telling to see the reform-of-the-reformers jump to implement post-Vatican II changes to the Mass; as these same people are the ones who have been shouting FIRE if they hear of a final Confiteor at Mass. So it’s not okay to use pre-1962 elements, but the door’s open on everything after the 1962 missal was published. Interesting logic.
Brian wrote: “Having readings in the vernacular as an allowance is similar to the document from the Vatican “allowing” altar girls.”
You can’t be serious. There is no similarity there.
Your opposition to any change reminds me of the liberals who want Mass to re-create the Last Supper (“Hey, let’s have Mass in a living room”). They want to freeze the Mass in 33AD, whereas you want to freeze it in 1962 AD. Either way, it’s a bad idea, and is in direct opposition to the idea of organic development.
So, does this mean that when it comes to the TLM, there cannot be ANY positive liturgical changes after the Council of Trent? Or 1955? Or 1962?
It means SLOW DOWN. Is this the time to begin the cycle of experiments anew? Is this the generation, are WE the people best suited? Have ANY of us absorbed the spirituality of the traditional ritual enough to decide where changes need to be made?
Leave the decision to our children, or their children.
This “potential” option has now become (as per usual) a new point of division.
Some of you make it sound like the 1962 missal is somehow immune to Sacrosanctum Concilium. How is that possible?
Patrick, It is an allowance, not a preference, nor supposedly, the norm. The same for altar girls, communion in the hand, communion under both species. Go to any Novus Ordo parish today, except for a handful, in the United States, watch mass, and tell me which of these “options” is the true norm. De facto if not de fide.
Patrick said: “Your opposition to any change reminds me of the liberals who want Mass to re-create the Last Supper (“Hey, let’s have Mass in a living room”). They want to freeze the Mass in 33AD, whereas you want to freeze it in 1962 AD. Either way, it’s a bad idea, and is in direct opposition to the idea of organic development.”
Patrick: THINK before posting.
Brian said: Please point out to me in any writings on this blog or ANYWHERE on the internet from my public writings where I have said I am opposed to ANY change.
I don’t think Mass was said in living rooms in 33 A.D. Patrick. Your entire analogy lacks any substance in truth or reality, not to mention your attribution to me of opposition to any change.
How about answering some questions posed by those of us opposed to the vernacular? Or do you simply resort to poor similes, analogies and name-calling when you can’t prove your thesis?
Brian wrote: “Who is getting “bent out of shape”? The vernacular is an “allowance.” It does NOT have to be exercised. Latin is the NORM in the Latin Mass. Get it?”
This was more addressed to Ken, who called for people to boycott priests who say the TLM and make use of this allowance. See, I thought it was good to support the TLM. I guess I was wrong. I guess it’s only good to support the TLM when it is said in a manner that one prefers.
Some of the posters here are beginning to remind me of the SNL skit: “If it’s not Latin, it’s crap!”
My practice is to say each reading first in Latin followed immediately in English at the altar. To me this would seem to be akin to the practice at Papal Masses where the reading are done first in Latin then in Greek.
I think this is a sound and tolerable practice. It avoids the vernacular insularity of some self-styled “reform of the reformers” and has the chance to satisfy the traditionalist who may be uneasy with too many changes (and who can blame them after the last 40 odd years?).
Brian Mershon,
Actually, yes, I have read the book, The term is simply an observation made about those who will never be satisfied with the Pope or the Church unless and until we get into a time machine and turn the clock back to the days before the Second Vatican Council.
Secondly, your generalization that the “the vast majority of Catholics reject many of the Church’s moral teachings and doctrines” is unwarranted. To quote yourself, “You have no proof and you will not provide any. It is just a hunch.” At the same time, don’t think that just because a person attends a TLM means that they fully accept the teachings of the Church, either.
Thirdly, you say that “We are NOT in France, nor Germany.” Yes, “we” are. “We” (the Church) are everywhere.
Finally, you say that “In business, we have to present evidence and proof of our hypothesis before major decisions are made. If not, the business does not survive and/or lots of people lose their livelihoods and then the Church doesn’t get our donations.”
Thank God the Church has never been and will never be a business! If this were the case, the Church would have been “out of business” centuries ago!
Brain,
If you want to use a business model, then remember we should also be open to market research. I am humble enough to know that my opinion on this matter is not infallible. We are at a strange stage in Church history. It is going to take a little time to discover what is the best solution. No one here has stated that vernacular readings should be mandated, just allowed. While I respect your desire for Latin only, please respect that others are sincerely searching for the best way to bring the entire Church back to its traditions and are not just being “lazy”. Time will prove the best course, in the mean time we should be working together, not fighting one another.
The reform-of-the-reformers’ “organic development” seems to always be a coincidence in its incorporation of failed innovations from 1962 to the present day.
There is a reason the traditional Latin Mass movement began with older intellectuals and is currently dominated by Catholics born after Vatican II. And his has nothing to do with introducing more post-1962 novelties in the Mass. That movement was the reform-of-the-reform movement, which sought to create a 1965’ish hybrid liturgy. And, sorry, but that movement is pretty much dead — with its leaders now using their energy to muck up the traditional Mass.
If the reform-of-the-reform crowd wants to send all these traditionalists to the SSPX, I’m sure the fraternity would welcome us. But I hope they would just leave the Mass alone and work to get even more young people to attend it.
Brian,
I understand that it is an allowance. I have no problem with priests who choose to only read the readings in Latin. I guess I just don’t see the similarity between this legitimate option and “altar girls, communion in the hand” etc. I assume you see altar girls and communion in the hand as modern innovations which are not good (started as abuses, etc.) I don’t think that readings in English is at all the same. Admittedly, there are potential negative effects from altar girls and communion in the hand. But, what are the negatives to readings in English???
I apologize if I offended you in any way. I don’t think that I engaged in “name-calling” but, if I hurt your feelings, I’m sorry.
Jeff, There are literally hundreds of pastoral mandates, and many of them touching upon doctrine itself, issued by General Councils throughout the history of the Church. One such early Council forbade kneeling for instance, during Mass.
Why don’t you stand during the entire Mass so you can be obedient to the dictate of that Council?
Everyone on this blog needs to read much more of the wealth of knowledge, history and liturgical wisdom of Michael Davies.
Spend more time reading Davies and less time blogging. Once you read all of his writings, which the current Pope, by the way, commended in a message prior to Davies’ funeral, then come back and blog.
“So, does this mean that when it comes to the TLM, there cannot be ANY positive liturgical changes after the Council of Trent? Or 1955? Or 1962?
Comment by TNCath”
Obviously not, look at the Good Friday prayer(IMO a neutral change), but use of the vernacular would not be positive, it destroys the sacredness by either replacing or attempting to merge Latin which is the most sacred language of the Catholic Church with the profane language of the common vernacular which is the language of the ordinary and routine; the everyday, world.
Patrick said, “I have no problem with priests who choose to only read the readings in Latin.”
Good. Since it is a Latin Mass, I would suspect that would be the case.
I’m not offended. No feelings hurt. I have no feelings. No apology necessary.
I’m open to arguments FOR the readings in the vernacular, backed up by substantive proof.
Thanks be to God I’m in the process of moving my family to a location where the FSSP and SSPX each have two locations. My children will not be subject to the inanities and hijinx of the Church I experienced in the Novus Ordo world through the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and 2000s. We will worship in peace without thinking we are all so smart to try to tinker with and tamper with the liturgy.
Thanks be to God for the FSSP, SSPX, ICR and other traditional orders who recognize it is their job to offer sacraments, worship and catechesis and NOT to innovate. Deo Gratias!
Volpius wrote: “Obviously not, look at the Good Friday prayer(IMO a neutral change), but use of the vernacular would not be positive, it destroys the sacredness by either replacing or attempting to merge Latin which is the most sacred language of the Catholic Church with the profane language of the common vernacular which is the language of the ordinary and routine; the everyday, world.”
I love Latin in the liturgy, the Extraordinary Form, and the Ordinary Form. But, sorry, I can’t go along with you on this. If you follow that line of thinking, then prayer in any language other than Latin cannot be sacred. I find that a rather dangerous line to walk.
TN Catholic: Good. It was an interesting read. It had some good points, but I’m certain did nothing to attract any traditionalists to their way of thinking (at that time). The title of the book was offensive enough to keep many traditionalists from reading it.
But they knew their target audience of the few English-reading “conservative” Novus Ordo Catholics and I’m sure made all of their sales there.
Again, I agreed with many parts of it. The title, however, was quite offensive. As Catholics, we don’t model ourselves to the Pope. We are baptized and through baptism and then further catechesis and prayer, grow in Faith, Hope and Charity. The currently reigning Pope is but one piece (albeit a very important one) of the puzzle.
Before his death D. Eric de Saventum president emeritus of The International Federation of Una Voce
did a paper on the subject of why the readings of the T-Mass were to be read only in Latin but were able to be read later again in English . One of his reasons was that they were part of the Mass and being that the Mass until 1962 was done entirely in Latin one could not do them in the vernacular from the altar.He referenced that the rubrics of the missal did not indicate at the points of the epistle and Gospel that there was an option to do them in the vernacular.I wish someone could produce his paper . I actually had a copy of it at one time.
Brian Mershon wrote: “As Catholics, we don’t model ourselves to the Pope. We are baptized and through baptism and then further catechesis and prayer, grow in Faith, Hope and Charity. The currently reigning Pope is but one piece (albeit a very important one) of the puzzle.”
Correct, we don’t necessarily model ourselves to the Pope, but a very important part of that “one piece of the puzzle” is loyalty and obedience to him. Therein lies the problem with the SSPX. I didn’t find the title offensive at all because I think that this is truly the way some people in the Society view themselves and come across. This “my way or the highway” makes for much unnecessary heartache and bitterness and does nothing to foster unity.
Before his death, D. Eric de Saventum president emeritus of the International Federation of Una Voce did a paper on the subject of why the readings of the T-Mass were to be read only in Latin but were able to be read later in English. One of his reasons was that they were part of the Mass and being that the Mass until 1962 was done entirely in Latin one could not do them in the vernacular from the altar. He referenced that the rubrics of the missal did not indicate at the points of the epistle and gospel that there was an option to do them in the vernacular. I wish someone could produce his paper. I actually had a copy of it at one time.
Fr. Forte: “If you want to use a business model, then remember we should also be open to market research.”
Brian said: Absolutely Father. There is a wealth of evidence. “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” by Kenneth Jones.
From the early 1900s until 1965, all important numerical figures (numbers of religious and priestly vocations, Catholic schools, Catholic baptisms, marriages, etc.) were growing geometrically. From the 1940s to 1965–explosively and geometrically.
Since 1965 and the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy–among many other factors both within and outside the scope of the Church– all of these numbers plummeted dramatically faster than they rose to their zenith.
No investment in market research necessary. It has already been done.
“You will know a tree by its fruits.”
Pretty soon Father is going to close the com box, you wait and see.
Anyway, practically speaking, I think it makes more sense to stick with the Latin. Maybe a person doesn’t understand Latin, but he can assent to it’s meaning, as intended by the Church.
If I read a Latin-English missal, my understanding of the text is affected by the translation, as it would be by the translation read by the Priest. If I comprehend Latin, my understanding of the text is affected by my linguistic ability. If I desire union with the Mind of the Church, I can prayerfully give assent to what I hear, even if I don’t understand it, a “what he said” kind of thing. I know the Church is offering the perfect sacrifice of worship to God, so how can I go wrong if I assent to what she is doing and saying? That way, little or nothing of “my” agenda, or anyone else’s, gets mixed in.
Finally, when I need to comprehend the texts, especially the readings, I can get the best English translation I can find, and read it and meditate on it before Mass, so that during Mass, I am freer to simply worship.
The Council of Trent said that there was much catechetical value in the Mass, but judged it to be an inopportune time to have parts of the Mass in the vernacular. Maybe, in this day of mass-produced missals and missalettes, it just isn’t necessary to have the Mass said or sung in the vernacular.
Robert said: “Finally, when I need to comprehend the texts, especially the readings, I can get the best English translation I can find, and read it and meditate on it before Mass, so that during Mass, I am freer to simply worship.”
AMEN!
Brain,
If you are talking about the TLM vs. the present NO, I completely agree with you. But this is not the question that I raise. Rather, it is how to bring those who know only the NO back to the traditional Mass. Nor need it be an either/or proposition. Neither is it a case of what I think would be the ideal liturgy.
In an ideal world there would be a revitalization of Latin in the general community that this whole question would be moot. But we do not yet live in that ideal world. In those established TLM chapels it would probably be ill advised to introduce vernacular readings. But how do we re-introduce the TLM into NO parishes? Think of vernacular readings as the TLM with training wheels. Instead of fighting each other, let us work together to bring about this ideal world. Case in point, we should all work to re-establish Latin as a core subject in education, both Catholic and public.
The argument behind the argument here is whether to keep the 1962 Missal as is and wait for the growth of EF Masses now happening to spread throughout the Church OR follow the “Benedictine way” and allow a hybrid Mass to develop. My heart says the former and my head the latter. Remember that Cardinal Ratzinger proposed some very limited changes to the Old Mass; vernacular readings, Prayers of the Faithful?intercessory Prayers, followed by the Sign of Peace. Theres the singing of the Pater and Credo which I believe are very positive elements, really actual participation. The bottom line is apprehension, a fear that changes would not be limited and therefore its safer to leave the ’62 alone. Trust in the Holy Spirit and learn from the mistakes of the past 40 years.
I disagree that the way to bring people into the Latin Mass is to turn it into a partially-Latin Mass. Rather, the way to accomplish this goal is to wow them with beauty and splendor.
Gregorian chant. Vestments. A Missa Solemnis, or at least Missa Cantata every Sunday. Lots of altar boys, with torches and incense. More Gregorian chant.
What impresses visitors, at least in my experience, is the overwhelming solemnity to the traditional Mass. The English they could get at their novus ordo is not the way to convince someone to change his current habit.
One ( 1 ) of the Priest’s who says the TLM does the English forgein language readings at the Altar. I humbly suspect most of the folks who attend ARE NOT going to bother and read the readings in the English after Mass or before ( preparation for ) Mass. A lot of them folks haven’t been trained or taught that they should, OR they juswt want to show up attend Mass then get on with THEIR Sunday.
As one who has been serving the TLM for over 16 yrs, it drives me batty when the good Father does that. Being a somewhat conspiracy theorist, I humbly think the Good Father intentionally reads it in English knowing it set’s me off to where after Mass I am ranting and raving in the sacristy.
Dear Fr. Forte, (I’m not picky as this happens often, but it is Brian, not Brain; thanks for the undeserved compliment though)
I understand your concern. Catholic education and the teaching of Latin through the use of the liturgy (Angelus and Regina Coeli at noon, basic prayers in Latin, commonly sung prayers and antiphons, etc.) from K through 12.
That is the only way. Most of the people as old or older than myself are not open to learning or relearning. Start with the young ones and develop it through Catholic schools and education.
Short of that, it is never going to happen and will be resigned to the homeschoolers (who have taught and learned it themselves) and some of the more initiated in the congregation.
Ultimately, one does not need to UNDERSTAND Latin. One needs to worship God contemplatively and meditatively. Most Catholics of the current and older generation want nothing to do with the Latin Mass.
It is the younger folks (some, not all) who are most open to it.
To Carolina Geo:
“Frankly, it is rather audially jarring to hear the priest switch between Latin and English. It detracts from the Mass. Further, the translation that he uses is different than the one that I’m following in my Angelus Press missal, which is then a further distraction.”
This why not try just listening when in Mass and reading it before or after mass.
Listening to the epistle/gospel can be instructive in a different way.
“The regular Latin Mass attendees, to a person, do not want it.”
Brian- better redo that market research. My family attends the same TLM mentioned here and my husband and I both prefer the vernacular for the readings. So don’t go and speak for all of us. Some of us are quite level headed and very supportive of Priests and specifically the Priests that actually answer to the Pope.
I really do not think the reform of the reform is dead either. At least not here in South Carolina, Father Newman celebrated his first Mass ad orientem last Sunday and who knows what he’ll add next. A little chant maybe……..prayers at the steps of the altar ………We may just end up with the TLM with a little English. Maybe all English…………with a little Latin………at this point I think what language we use is irrelevant. Our 1st goal should be to save what is left of the Church’s identity and its historical liturgy and that means making it accessible to the all people in whatever language the Pope sees fit to allow us to use.
Leslie, Thanks for the input. Thankfully, the Church does not decide based upon votes nor a democratic processs. I speak for no one other than myself and how the Church has worshipped for 1970 years until after the anomaly called Vatican II.
Dom Gueranger and the Council of Trent both spoke eloquently on the importance of Latin in the litugy and the potentially destructive elements of injecting the vernacular into the liturgy.
The reform of the reform, except for little pockets here and there–is as dead as a doornail. It is gone and done. By the way, I was at Fr. Newman’s first Mass ad orientem last weekend. Were you there? Did you know the diocesan administrator has written asking priests in the diocese NOT to say Mass ad orientem? At least in the Novus Ordo, that is.
And yes, I have frequented the TLM in Mt. Holly, as well as other Upstate Catholics, on more than one occasion. I guess that means I’m a schismatic.
Fr. Z has covered that here quite thoroughly, by the way. You have seen it, haven’t you?
I’m really not interested in any priest’s nor laymen’s views on how much vernacular vs. Latin we should have. The results the past 40 years have spoken for themselves.
This generation is so change-oriented and is so into novelty and experimentation. That is what happens when we rely upon our own preferences rather than the Fathers of the Church and the the Popes and Bishops for the past 1970 years (including Archbishop Lefebvre). The proud generation in which we live that believes God has given it the right to tinker with the Sacred Liturgy–and not–the TLM again.
Those who don’t learn from the past are deemed to repeat the past. Thank God for the FSSP, SSPX, ICR and other Traditional orders who hold fast not only to the liturgy, but to the doctrine and dogma of the Faith of Jesus Christ, outside of which, neither holiness nor salvation can be found.
Level headed? I believe I am too–if that is a goal, I guess. Again, the vernacular is allowed, but is in no way mandated. But again, just like with altar girls, communion in the hand and Eucharistic mistresses, the exception to the rule will certainly become the norm.
I go where the TLM is–or the closest thing to it in the NO. I do not venerate nor worship priests–even if they are my good friends.
Some of us are quite level headed and very supportive of Priests and specifically the Priests that actually answer to the Pope.
Does it have to be this way, “my side is sane and your side is not”?
I think it is a mistake to introduce vernacular readings into the traditional rite, does this make me less than level headed? I think adding the prayers at the foot of the altar to the new rite would be a HUGE mistake, if a priest did that and I objected does the objection mean I’m not supportive of priests who “actually answer to the Pope”?
One excellent point is made, though not perhaps as intended: “who knows what he’ll add next”. Without reference to any of the people mentioned, haven’t we had enough of exactly that for too long?
“I love Latin in the liturgy, the Extraordinary Form, and the Ordinary Form. But, sorry, I can’t go along with you on this. If you follow that line of thinking, then prayer in any language other than Latin cannot be sacred. I find that a rather dangerous line to walk.”
Comment by TNCath — 24 April 2008
Not at all. I speak to God every day in the vernacular, it is fine for day to day conversation even with God, but at Mass we are worshipping God in the highest form available to us and that is better done in a sacred language, that language is Latin for Roman Catholics who worship in the Latin Rite.
Saying it in the vernacular dilutes the Catholic identity, in so doing it weakens the Church by making it insufficiently distinct from its environment to be the focus of passionate loyalty. Its faithful saddened and demoralised, gradually desert it. In the end it suffers social death by its own hand, see the last 40 years for proof of this. That is why the re enchantment of the Liturgy and the full restoration of its sacral character are so vital an issue for us. Latin is integral to this as it helps to strengthen the mystical element of the Church and helps us identify with the traditions of all the Church Triumphant who have gone before us. That is vital for the Church to do its God given work effectively.
Good post Leslie!
The reform of the reform is alive and well. Along with true traditionalism. They are both rooted in the same thing: orthodoxy and reverence. Following the teachings of the Church, following the rubrics of her liturgies, and maintaining her musical tradition. I know of several parishes with young, dynamic pastors who say the novus ordo correctly, hire good music directors, who use chant and traditional hymnody, and their parishes are vibrant, traditionally Catholic parishes…without the TLM.
At my parish the readings at the altar are done in Latin and then
repeated in Spanish from the lectern before the homily.
“Some of us are quite level headed and very supportive of Priests and specifically the Priests that actually answer to the Pope.”
Of two Priests, one who chooses to exercise the option of use of vernacular, and one who chooses to continue the use of latin, which one is the “Priest that answers to the Pope”?
Honestly, the practice of labeling anyone who does not rush to embrace the latest “great idea” or innovation as being somehow disobedient is rather tiresome (and frightening too).
Dom Gueranger had much to say on the hatred evinced by the enemies of the Church for the use of Latin in the liturgy.
“Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship. This in the eyes of the sectarians is a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing.
“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the heart of all enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond of Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. They consider it the most efficient weapon of the papacy. The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of cult than the Protestant people.
“At every hour of the day divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. (It had been that) The faithful Catholic who assists leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart from the sermons he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the latter does not hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning…
“We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on its way to victory.”
Please take a moment to decide for yourselves what the answer is. How did the Protestant sectarians establish themselves and maintain their hold over the masses? Here is Dom Gueranger’s answer. Please note it carefully. “All they had to do,” states Dom Gueranger, “was to substitute new books and new formulas, and their work was done.”
Brian,
Do you really believe that this permission to allow the readings in the vernacular is actually some insidious plot to protestantize the missal of 1962 and destroy the Church?
http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
Pope John XXIII on the importance of Latin
Patrick, If you are speaking of the blessed and saintly Dom Gueranger in reference to your post to me, then we’re going to have to duke it out. Dom Gueranger’s 15-volume set on the liturgical year, is the most comprehensive, magnificient spiritual, liturgical, Biblical exegesis ever written that I have read.
Look: For anyone who still cares, after the ridiculous number of posts I’ve had in this thread…
I have no problem whatsoever with the priest reading the readings in the vernacular from the ambo prior to the sermon. This is the way that nearly all of the TLM priests have done it for years, and I suspect, it was that way in the majority of places prior to the Council.
I have no problem with that. Like I said earlier, that way, little children who can’t read can at least hear the Gospel, if they aren’t fighting with their brother, asleep or otherwise distracted. Communication theory, by the way, holds that the average person, adult or child, retains VERY LITTLE of it hears. Most people retain more of what they read, but even then, it is not always a lot.
To hear and read it is better. To hear it, read, smell it (incense), sing it (Gregorian chant) and taste it (the Holy Eucharist) is scientifically proven as the best pedagogic method. It also gets into a person’s sould.
We are there to worship God PRIMARILY. The most important part of the Sacred Liturgy is the Canon. We don’t even HEAR that part.
Oh no… I probably shouldn’t have brought that up.
Patrick: I defer to Dom Gueranger, Cardinal Ottaviani and Pope John XXIII and all the other Popes and true liturgists before them.
We are to comtemplate and meditate on Jesus Christ at Mass. That is simple. We don’t need the vernacular as part of the Sacred Liturgy. It can be done from the ambo if necessary, then both sides are happy.
Is there any reason you people INSIST on it being during the actual liturgy, other than the premise to attract the regular Novus Ordo crowd?
The Mass is supposed to be sung anyway. Certainly, you are not going to sing the vernacular, are you? Please tell me no. Please?
A quick point– Kenneth Jones “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is deeply flawed, by his decision to ignore all pre-1965 trends. For example, the decline in Mass attendance began in 1957-8, according to the Gallup poll, and the drop eased in the years 65-70. (And the slowest period of decline since 1957? 1970-78, after the introduction of the Novus Ordo!) But you’d never know that from Jones’ work, which implies that the decline began after Vatican II.
http://cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf
When a statistician sets out to prove a point instead of demonstrate facts, his research is worthless.
A mistake doesn’t have to be insidious or part of a plot to remain a mistake. When people of good will screw things up it’s usually down to them being people of good will and not sinister anarchists bent on destroying civilization.
There are principles at odds here, and the principle which is being introduced into the TLM is the same principle which led to the new rite in the first place. If you want the vernacular then you don’t want the old rite, you want the new rite with elements of the old. As I understand it there are plenty of opportunities to have that already.
“Some of us are quite level headed and very supportive of Priests and specifically the Priests that actually answer to the Pope.”
Fr. Novak, SSPX, prays for the Pope in every single sacrifice of the Mass he offers. He also gained permission from six parish pastors in the Charlotte area to do a pilgrimage with his congregation to their churches (emulating what happens on Maundy Thursday to the station churches in Rome) on Maundy Thursday evening. Six pastors did not give him permission. Seven did. All within the structure of the Charlotte diocese.
Fr. Novak also warned his congregation against doubting the validity of the hosts in the diocesan churches out for veneration. He clearly articulated that none of the priests nor bishops, nor Archbishop Lefebvre ever doubted the validity of the consecration of the Novus Ordo. He said it has never been, and never will be the policy of the SSPX. He is the Editor-in-Chief of their top publication. Do you think he might know what he is talking about?
I am left wondering. Did any of the pastors here imitate the Roman stational church pilgrimage on Maundy Thursday as did a priest from the SSPX in Mt. Holly? Anyone?
Another really funny point in the Ken Jones article…he uses the Gallup Poll for his beginning data showing 74% and then changes to a ND survey in (2000 or so?) for a figure of 24%. Hmmm…I wonder why he switched surveys when Gallup also had a survey in 2000 (or thereabouts)? Maybe was it because the Gallup poll had a figure of around 50%? I guess he couldn’t resist using the ND data because it helped him make his case!
Antiquarian, Have you ever read Kenneth Jones’ work? He did not use Gallup polls (Oh, those are SOOOO reliable and I’m certain are SOOOOO consistent over time…). I don’t think he even covered “Mass attendance” as a category.
He used the official Catholic directories and pulled the annual numbers from there: baptisms, Catholic schools, parishes, priests, nuns, religious, seminarians, etc.
Instead of relying upon nebulous polls, he used the official figures provided by the Church on an annual basis. I would think the REAL numbers are more statistically valid than poll numbers, no?
And again, he didn’t cover Mass attendance as a category.
Nice obfuscation though.
Brian Mershon: . . . We don’t need the vernacular as part of the Sacred Liturgy. It can be done from the ambo if necessary, then both sides are happy.
Bingo!
There’s no reason for this to be contentious. Just re-read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular from the ambo prior to the homily. It works fine. Those who want Latin get Latin; those who want vernacular get vernacular. It’s a compromise that we can all accept.
OK Patrick. How about forgetting the poll numbers and dealing with the other 99% of the book which used official numbers from the Catholic directory?
Deal with those…
Brian,
I assumed when you posted the piece by Dom Gueranger that you saw a relationship between what he wrote and what we are discussing. Since he (correctly) wrote that many enemies of the Church attack the Latin language, I presumed that you were again making a connection between “allowing vernacular readings” and “attacking the Church.” Did you not mean to position this decision of the PCED as weakening the Church and comparing it to the words of Dom Gueranger.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. I don’t think that Pope Benedict or Msgr Perl or the PCED are trying to “protestantize” the Church (I’m sure you agree), and I also don’t think they are “making a mistake” or “making a bad decision.” They see value in the vernacular just as it was described in Sacrosanctum Concilium. You seem to disagree. I’m not sure why, unless you view the Mass as “unchangeable.”
On another note, I find it puzzling when people bring up SSPX priests praying for the Pope as if that was some really noble thing. If I am committing a mortal sin (which a suspended priest objectively does when he says Mass), but claim I am “praying for the Pope” at the same time. I am still committing a mortal sin which is offensive to Our Lord. It’s rather like committing adultery, but claiming “Hey, I was thinking of my wife!”
Besides the general considerations (if there are bilingual missals at hand or a translation is given before the sermon I see no reason why the readings should not be sung in Latin as the rest of Mass is) it seems necessary to clarify some practical points. The first is about the translations: Some, like Douai, are to my knowledge based on the Vulgate, thus on the liturgical text, others (as the RSV) translated ‘from original tongues’. There should be a ruling about which translation to choose – especially the differences in personal names would suggest to use a Vulgate-based version, in order to be accord with the rest of the Mass.
Secondly, there are rubrical questions: Should vernacular lessons be sung in High Mass? and if so, to which tones? Should one try to adopt the Latin tones or use some of the tones developed for Novus Ordo lessons in some countries (e.g. Germany), which work well with the language but have little to do with traditional ways of recitation and thus would mark these texts even more as ‘alien’. Some translations, like Douai, were not written for liturgical use and thus may not be suitable for singing.
Whereas in High Mass the use of an ambo is permitted, what about Sung Mass and Low Mass? A gospel sung at left horn of the High Altar of a large church may be incomprehensible to the people in the back pew, be it in Latin or in vernacular, yet to my knowledge there is no provision for the use of a lectern under these circumstances.
I fear that quite a few more dubia will have to be submitted in order to clarify these issues.
Besides the general considerations (if there are bilingual missals at hand or a translation is given before the sermon I see no reason why the readings should not be sung in Latin as the rest of Mass is) it seems necessary to clarify some practical points. The first is about the translations: Some, like Douai, are to my knowledge based on the Vulgate, thus on the liturgical text, others (as the RSV) translated ‘from original tongues’. There should be a ruling about which translation to choose – especially the differences in personal names would suggest to use a Vulgate-based version, in order to be accord with the rest of the Mass.
Secondly, there are rubrical questions: Should vernacular lessons be sung in High Mass? and if so, to which tones? Should one try to adopt the Latin tones or use some of the tones developed for Novus Ordo lessons in some countries (e.g. Germany), which work well with the language but have little to do with traditional ways of recitation and thus would mark these texts even more as ‘alien’. Some translations, like Douai, were not written for liturgical use and thus may not be suitable for singing.
Whereas in High Mass the use of an ambo is permitted, what about Sung Mass and Low Mass? A gospel sung at left horn of the High Altar of a large church may be incomprehensible to the people in the back pew, be it in Latin or in vernacular, yet to my knowledge there is no provision for the use of a lectern under these circumstances.
I fear that quite a few more dubia will have to be submitted in order to clarify these issues.
Not to derail things, but the Gallup polls are exactly that: polls. They call people up and ask them questions. The Notre Dame study actually counted people at Masses, which indicates that not only are people not going to Mass but when questioned about it they’re lying.
For a real experience in surreal figures take a look at the CARA report. This chart just boggles the mind: http://cara.georgetown.edu/mattend.jpg
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm gives an overview of the situation in which we find ourselves.
As for the adulterous example, I think it’s rather more like “Hey, I THOUGHT it was my wife!” And that’s how something that is objectively a grave sin becomes something entirely different subjectively.
Patrick: “Did you not mean to position this decision of the PCED as weakening the Church and comparing it to the words of Dom Gueranger.”
BCM: Nope. Don’t know where you can conclude that. The obvious solution is to allow the priest to say the readings at the ambo. You don’t want to deal with that for some reason. This interpretation can also be used.
Patrick: “Sorry, I just don’t buy it. I don’t think that Pope Benedict or Msgr Perl or the PCED are trying to “protestantize” the Church (I’m sure you agree), and I also don’t think they are “making a mistake” or “making a bad decision.” They see value in the vernacular just as it was described in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
BCM: I do not think the injection of the vernacular into the Mass was a positive, noble development. The evidence suggests otherwise. Again, the readings can be read from the ambo in the vernacular. Why don’t you agree with that soluation?
Patrick: “You seem to disagree. I’m not sure why, unless you view the Mass as “unchangeable.””
CM: Patrick, the Mass has been changing EVERY year for my entire life. There is no danger in the Mass not changing. NONE of it has been organic. It has been imposed. Even doing the moderate things outlined in Sacrosactum Concilium as you propose (even though with all the loopholes in SC, it opened the door for everything that followed by putting authorit in the Bishops’ conferences) was not ORGANIC. It was imposed by “experts.” Only this case, NONE of those who imposed it were truly experts.
Ask the Orthodox how the Novus Ordo missae has helped ecumenical relations with them. Leave the Mass alone for 100 years. Let us worship in peace. Hand on what you’ve been given.
“I also don’t think they are “making a mistake” or “making a bad decision.” They see value in the vernacular just as it was described in Sacrosanctum Concilium.”
Ok. What value? In this specific case of allowing readings during the litugy in the vernacular, what value (positive effects) is expected to be added? By the same token, what costs (negative effects) can reasonably be expected to result from this change?
Would you also agree that if it can be reasonably concluded that the costs exceed the value, it is also reasonable to conclude that the Pope is “making a mistake” or “making a bad decision”?
Brian wrote:”Nope. Don’t know where you can conclude that. The obvious solution is to allow the priest to say the readings at the ambo. You don’t want to deal with that for some reason. This interpretation can also be used.”
I concluded because you posted in in this comment box. I suppose you just randomly decided to post that without regard to the discussion at hand. My bad.
If you’re going to make a point about “attacking Latin as evil”, and connect it to this discussion (which you did when you posted it) at least have the guts to back it up, instead of pretending it had nothing to do with the discussion.
Frankly, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, the meaning of Article 6 was clear from the beginning–at least to me. I oppose this completely and am proud (in the good sense) to report that I have convinced our new celebrant of the T.L.M. (not the ‘E.F.’: there’s no such thing) to say the lections in Latin only, which is the way we had it before our Indult Mass was cancelled.
I oppose this allowance because I fear that it will lead over time to the Blue Jeans Bible, or some other politically-correct feminazi version in which God and Our Lady, Who/who must always be a Thou/thou in public prayer, is insulted and demeaned into being a You, even a you.
If we could ensure that the Latin would be preserved and then followed by a Douay-Rheims English, that would be acceptable entirely (and this remains an option, by the way–well, at least with the Confraternity edition, also in Biblical English). The problem, as we all know, is that liberals may use this permission to wreckovate our Mass. The aftermath of a social and ecclesial revolution is just not the best time for this sort of tinkering. If we could go with zero change at least to the Ordinary from 1637 to 1884, we can do so now–and should.
One thing that is being forgotten amid all this controversy is that S.P. did do a good thing. Under the 1984 Indult, by a ruling of Cardinal Mayer in 1991, the new lectionary could be intruded into our Mass. This actually happened at Oakland (U.S.A.), Warsaw (Poland), and one other place in the U.S.A. Well, it’s not possible under S.P. (and has now been abolished in the two places in the U.S.A.; I’m not sure about Warsaw). The fact that Benedict XVI particularly loves the new lectionary and yet has removed it from our Mass shows his charity and pastoral solicitude for us. He is, at least in some respects, putting our wishes even above his own.
I think that he is allowing the lections to be said entirely in the vernacular because some people regard them entirely as spoken to us; others see them as having also a petitionary function directed to God. I note that it remains an option to have them entirely in Latin, and another option to have both Latin and the vernacular. I think it best simply not to write endlessly about this issue. Most priests will proceed in Latin, with or without the vernacular to follow.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Volpius:
Your arguments are superb. But remember, liberals are stupid and some can’t read. Also, ‘conservatives’ are only liberals in slow motion.
What people don’t seem to understand (especially neo-conservatives) is that vernacular lections are just an open invitation for liberal wackos to introduce politically-correct feminazi Blue Jeans Bible translations. It won’t take long for the American bishops to cook up new translations and send them off to Rome for approval.
According to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and a place for everything: everything has its time. The aftermath of a revolution is the worst possible time to tinker and fiddle when the faithful in the pews are just looking for some solace and peace.
In a more sober and conservative period, when the frenzied lunacy has subsided, then we might consider the wisdom of adding vernacular readings in formal Biblical English (Thees and Thous), so as not to undermine the aura of majesty and formal devotion in our Mass. But, even then, the vernacular would only be added; it would not replace the Latin. The lections are not merely instruction to the people; they are part of a unified Sacrificial act of adoration. In a sense, we offer God’s own words to us back to Him because we can only give unto Him what He has already given to us, since all we have comes from Him. Saying the lections in Latin facing east is a way of affirming this, since His word is completely by Christ Himself, Who is His Word. I don’t want to lose that meaning.
Latin is like the Altar rails or the rood screens of olden times: it separates us from God in order to affirm that He is infinitely greater than we. The entire Mass is more theocentric when we keep it focused on Him and on his unfathomable majesty. The Mass is interrupted for the Sermon and receiving Holy Communion, so vernacular lections might be added. But notice what is happening here? First, they are in Latin only. Then, we have both. Now, Article 6 allows the vernacular alone. What will be next? After all, Vatican II called for all those parts of the Mass which pertain to the people to be rendered in the vernacular, not just the lections. Is it just me, or does it seem as if the P.C.E.D. is moving us towards that false ideal. And, if so, will this, in turn, lead to a merging of the T.L.M. with the N.O.M.? May God forfend that.
P.K.T.P.
I think it may may helpful to make the Traditional Latin Mass more attractive to those less familiar with the old liturgy to hear at least the readings in English and I don’t see how that would be a compromise to the essence of the liturgy. Of course, if the people would prefer to have the readings done first in Latin and latter repeated in English, I have don’t have a problem with that either.
Rev. Gregory Hanks
Bryon and Volpius touched on the universality aspect of latin. I like the idea of Catholics all over the world saying the readings in one tongue–one voice. Why, at this point, with the ink still wet on SP, tamper with a liturgy that was the crucible that formed many of the greatest Saints?
Peter Karl T. Perkins, you said:
“(not the ‘E.F.’: there’s no such thing)”
How’s there no such thing? The pope called it “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite. And in this way it’s approved for use. I love to call it EF near people who think of themselves as “more catholic than the pope”, it demonstrates their schism, as you are doing now. Long live Benedict XVI, and may God help the Church in the organic development of the liturgy, not a revolution nor a freezing.
I would submit the following, Father.
1. As far as I’m aware, the official Bible of the Catholic Church is still the Vulgate. Legally and canonically, given QAA and/or EDA mention no mixing of rites and the official tongue of the Roman Church is still Latin, should this not be pointed out to Msgr. Perl, Cd. Hoyos, or the Holy Father? In my mind, this means that the readings of the Extraordinary Form should be completed not just integrally to the Rite (the traditional form offered in Latin, in toto), but from the official Bible of the Church — the Vulgate in the altar missal.
The use of a translation in a hand missal IN LIEU of Latin to me seems an unnecessary and implicit mixing of Rites.
2. Theologically and ontologically the Holy Sacrifice first and foremost is offered as an oblation to the CREATOR. Switching to a vulgar tongue IN LIEU of the Latin ONLY distracts from this realty and Truth, putting the convenience of attendees before the raison d’etre of the Sacrifice. Reading to Him that which He authored in the language He Ordained in THE language of the western Church is no small matter to be ignored. The Triune God is due our respect, in every respect, first and foremost. If you want to offer creatures attending a Mass a courtesy or convenience, then read the Epistle and Gospel in the predominant vulgar tongue either in parallel with the celebrant, or after.
Lastly, not to be seen as some old fogey (I was born two weeks after the NOM went into effect and did not join the Church until 1994) I’d like to affiliate my comments with your fine blog here. What does the altar missal really say, Father? Are most translations people going to use slavishly accurate? Me thinks not.
My two humble cents,
Todd
Peter Perkins,
Paranoid much?
This isn’t some evil action that will allow “feminazi” translations into the Mass. Do you seriously believe a priest saying the TLM is going to use some radical translation to secretly spread heresy to his congregation??? Get a grip, man. It’s a reading in another language. Nothing else changes.
Note to Malta: there was no tampering…this is exactly what SP called for.
Brian Mershon says: “Everyone on this blog needs to read much more of the wealth of knowledge, history and liturgical wisdom of Michael Davies.”
“Spend more time reading Davies and less time blogging. Once you read all of his writings, which the current Pope, by the way, commended in a message prior to Davies’ funeral, then come back and blog.”
Brian, you might want to be careful what you wish for, it could come back to bite you:
“Clearly, the nature of the Epistle and Gospel, for example, is to instruct the faithful and, providing the readings are based on an acceptable translation, there seems no point in reading them in Latin as well as the vernacular at Low Masses.” (Pope Paul’s New Mass, Michael Davies, Ch. 16, pg 370).
I love to call it EF near people who think of themselves as “more catholic than the pope”, it demonstrates their schism, as you are doing now.
Great Googly Moogly. When did we start playing limbo with schism?! I’m not sure the bar can get much lower than that. Is that what you think, that someone disagreeing with the terminology places them in schism? Or that it’s a sign of schism? How about if I don’t pray the Luminous Mysteries or don’t stand and cheer every time someone says “John Paul the Great”, am I demonstrating my schism? What if I threw away my copy of “Love and Responsibility”, are you going to joyfully shout “Extraordinary Form” at me?
I’ll never convince my extended family that Catholics don’t actually worship the pope when that sort of sentiment is rampant among ardent Catholics.
Not every prudential decision taken by any given Bishop of Rome is correct, St. Paul made that painfully clear when he went hammer and tongs at St. Peter over not eating with the gentiles.
I have just two words to say about this: PALM SUNDAY.
If the vernacular is allowed to replace the Latin, it is worth it for this liturgy alone, imo.
If you’ve never taken an otherwise well-behaved toddler to this mass in the EF, then you may not understand.
Anthony: “providing the readings are based on an acceptable translation,”
I posit that the readings from the NAB are NOT an acceptable translation, whether or not the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See think so or not. They are Barney translations. They are NOT acceptable.
I have heard the NAB translations at the TLM. I’m sure they will spread with this new innovation.
Michael Davies, as usual, was quite perceptible. Again, what is wrong with reading them in English at the ambo prior to the sermon? More than 100 posts, and NO ONE can tell me the reason.
Is it really because many of you really prefer the Novus Ordo with more Latin and this is the way you can get it at the TLM. Again, who cares about our personal preferences? Anyone want to address Pope John XXIII’s message in the document on Latin or Dom Gueranger’s?
Convenience. That is what it is. Merely convenience.
Those of you who prefer the readings in the vernacular can go to the nearest Novus Ordo. I hear you have lots to choose from (and lots of versions).
“Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.”
This sentence is so clear that it’s difficult to see why it needed to be interpreted.
Brian: (paraphrased) “Is the PCED moving towards more vernacular in the Mass,… a merging of the TLM and NOM? Would many of you really prefer the NO with more Latin?”
You’ve hit nails on heads here I think. So many Catholics are desperate for a reverent Mass in their parishes that the above scenarios would seem Heaven sent. Whether these would benefit the Church in the longer run, well we’re just so sick and tired of 40 years of … ahem, keep it polite.
It seems to me that many aspects of the liturgy and rubrics that we use for traditions sake today were born out of practical needs and logistics. I have trouble believing that introducing a modification that addresses practical and logistical needs is suddenly simply a “convenience” because we happen to live after Vatican II.
I love the Mass in all its reverent forms, and for years have attended the Novus Ordo on weekdays as well the TLM on Sundays. I am fortunate and, I take it, somewhat unusual in that a holy and reverent celebration of Mass is available to me 7 days a week.
Both at and outside of Mass, I have carefully compared the old and new readings through several 2-year daily cycles and 3-year Sunday cycles of the new lectionary.
One often hears the claim that the Novus Ordo has opened up the scriptures more richly. However, I do not believe that anyone equally familiar with both old and new could make any such statement seriously. Indeed, I would challenge anyone — whatever his initial preconception — to still affirm such a belief after having compared thoughtfully the old and new readings for several randomly selected several Sundays, feast days, and solemnities that the old and new calendars share.
For a whole year my TLM celebrant — who also celebrates the most sacred and reverent Novus Ordo one is likely to see — included in each Sunday’s homily a summary of where (if at all) that day’s TLM scripture readings were contained in the new Mass lectionary. It was truly amazing to hear more often than not, most often in the case of especially central and powerful scriptures, the report that “Unfortunately, this wonderful reading has never previously been heard from the ambo in this church that dates back only 25 years ago”, or perhaps that “It has never been heard on a Sunday, because in the new lectionary it appears only on (e.g.) every other 17th Thursday in ordinary time”.
In particular, the “hard scriptures” that deal with the last things (the wages of sin, etc) have predominately been excised from the Novus Ordo lectionary.
In short, it is only in regard to the cycles of weekday readings outside of Lent that any significant argument on behalf of the new Mass readings can be sustained. And even then, the usual plan of a forced march through predetermined swatches of the Bible often detracts significantly from the glories of the sanctoral cycle readings in the old Mass. (I understand this approach in the new lectionary resuls from didactic rather than liturgical intent in the readings.)
So even though hearing the Gospel chanted beautifully–as I did at solemn Mass this past Sunday — is a high point of high Mass that cannot but be treasured, it is not the vernacular itself that is to be regretted most if used uniformly for the readings at a TLM. Nor the fact that the U.S.-episcopally approved NAB English translation is so banal as often to be embarrassing in comparison with the Douay-Rheims that most traditional Catholics would prefer, or with the NSV which is arguably the most accurate and faithful English translation.
It is rather, since the new lectionary will inevitably find its way into the old Mass, the fact that the new selection of readings is so unfortunately inferior to that of the old Mass. I must say this plainly even though I daily look forward to hearing these new readings — whatever the deficiencies of their selection and translation — proclaimed as the Living Word at Mass.
Henry: This is the best way I have ever heard this described. You are right on the button with this one.
“In short, it is only in regard to the cycles of weekday readings outside of Lent that any significant argument on behalf of the new Mass readings can be sustained. And even then, the usual plan of a forced march through predetermined swatches of the Bible often detracts significantly from the glories of the sanctoral cycle readings in the old Mass.”
or with the NSV which is arguably the most accurate and faithful English translation.
I meant the RSV (Revised Standard Version). Stay away from the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which is almost as politically correct as the NAB.
Linday, How is having the readings for the sake of your young one in English going to shorten the Mass on Palm Sunday?
A few points:
Latin is not the sacred language of the “Roman Catholic Church” — it’s the sacred language of the Latin Catholic Church. There are many sacred languages in use in the Roman Catholic Church — Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Aramaic, Arabic, Geez, Coptic, etc.
Which leads me to my next point, which is basically–stop thinking that the American Church is the whole deal.
Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum is for the whole Church, not just the portion that has English as its vernacular. In many parts of the world, the Catholic faithful, and the local churches, are far too poor to afford missals with translations of the Scripture lessons. Perhaps the majority of the world’s Catholics do not have access. (I recall my year as an exchange student in Colombia, where none of the churches, including the cathedral, had hymnals or missals or missalettes.) Worshipping in Latin is not hard even for the poor, who can memorize the common, repeated prayers such as the ordinary, the Pater, etc. But with the readings changing every week, and even every day in Lent, there can be no understanding except for those who are truly fluent in Latin, and how many of us can make that claim?
Having the lessons in the vernacular only accords with both Sacrosanctum Concilium (an ecumenical council, keep in mind) and with Summorum Pontificum — just as Fr. Z’s interpretation surmised.
As for those who wonder how we could have sung lessons in English (which I agree is not as well suited to chant as Latin), I would suggest we take a look at the work done by the Anglo-Catholics over the past century, who have done just that (often using the same lectionary readings as we do). It is perhaps not beyond belief that Providence moved so many of the Anglo-Catholics in both America and England to conversion over the past 30 years. They have proved themselves to be not only orthodox Catholics, but keenly aware of the importance of reverent liturgy. Their past labors and talents should be leveraged for the honor of God and the edification of his people.
Well, at our mass, they read them in Latin and then in English except for Palm Sunday–which, the gospel is just done in English. That is a long time to stand up and stay focused even when its in English alone.
Honestly, I think that the addition of having the priest represent Christ and the people responding as the crowd and having to respond “crucify him” etc… is one of the better liturgical changes in the new missal. So, perhaps from my personal perspective, it isn’t just the practical–I like hearing the readings in English. Just to be honest. I still don’t want to take my children to an NO on Palm Sunday just for the reading, though, since that would be the only thing I’d prefer–and I’d be irritated even with that if the narrator were a woman.
I prefer the TLM, and I love the Latin. My children appreciate the reverence and are far better behaved at a TLM than an NO–they perceive the difference. But, I don’t see anything wrong with readings being done in English as well–in fact, it makes practical sense to me that a priest read the scriptures in the vernacular before expounding on them in a homily, and in the case of the Palm Sunday liturgy, to read it once in Latin and again in English would definitely make it longer.
Plus, the Latin in the mass doesn’t hinder me. There are so many other signs and rubrics to follow that facilitate one’s meditation during mass. I think that *allowing* (not requiring) reading something like the Passion in English (especially since, practically speaking, our priest is a 95 year old Italian, who certainly is not a candidate for chanting the gospel beautifully) does better enable one to focus and meditate on Christ’s passion than a priest standing and reading (or sometimes, droning) the Latin alone.
This is just one of the “occasions” Fr. Z mentioned that came immediately to my mind that seemed “appropriate” in my experience.
I have never heard the Passion according to Saint Matthew repeated in the vernacular after the Latin on Palm Sunday. Does anyone really not know the story? (If not, there’s a movie you should see.)
I enjoy reading Fr. Z’s blog because I learn a lot, but I’m afraid that what I seem to learn most is that those who have extreme views in either direction seem to be extremely poor at discussing things charitably. You win more flies with honey, and if you really want to convince your average Traditional Catholic who is earnestly trying their best to raise a family (or shepherd a flock) to come to your way of thinking, implying that they are lazy or stupid certainly won’t help your case.
Chesterton wrote through the mouth of Father Brown something to the effect of “those who lose their sense of charity lose their sense of logic as well.” If you have to resort to uncharitable tactics, I’m afraid your argument must not be very compelling, at least imo.
In case you’re keeping score, so far we have…
Those in favor of the option to do the readings in the vernacular:
Pope Benedict XVI
Msgr. Perl
Card. Castrillon Hoyos
Michael Davies
Archbishop Lefebvre
Fr. Zuhlsdorf
And those opposed to the option to do the readings in the vernacular:
Some internet posters
Patrick wrote:
“Those in favor of the option to do the readings in the vernacular:”
Leaving aside the fact that allowing or permitting certain behavior in specific circumstances does not equate to “being in favor” of that action, I’ll ask again:
To what end? Why do you, and presumably those whose names you’ve dropped, want to change the readings from latin to vernacular (during the liturgy itself)? Other than some vague “it may make it easier on those not familliar”, nobody especially the most ardent supporters has offered any explanation of the expected benefit of this change.
Patrick:
Give it a rest. The inability to make distinctions is not enamoring. This is what Fr. Z really said, at the beginning of his post.
“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.”
Just a refresher in case you forgot.
Lindsay: Extreme views? Which views would those be? Please delineate them. That we do not think the personal preference of a very few internet posters should turn the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular Mass with traditionalist trappings?
Which comments on the board were “uncharitable?” Better yet, which ones were judgmental of others by making accusations against charity?
And finally, to everyone, do readings in the vernacular prior to the sermon from the ambo count as having the readings in the vernacular?
That is the way that it has been customarily been done by those with experience offering the Traditional Mass for years (the FSSP, SSPX, ICR and others). Is that not a sensible solution?
If not, why not?
Brian,
I am perfectly able to make distinctions, and have been doing so throughout this discussion. Your comment is no more than name-calling. It’s not like we’re discussing some really intricate, nuanced theory here. This is pretty basic. The Church says you can do the readings in the vernacular if you want. Or do it only in Latin. Or do it in Latin and re-read the English from the pulpit. I don’t understand why you are so opposed to the first option I listed. It makes sense to read the readings once in the context of the Mass. If it aids the congregation by reading them in the vernacular, the priest may do so. That makes sense to me.
There are three options here. I am fine with all three options. I’m not sure why you disregard the option put forth by the Holy Father.
I am sick and tired of options, it was options that led to this whole mess in the first place. Communion in the hand was allowed as an option, use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy communion was allowed as an option, choice of parts of the Mass were left as optional or we were given several different options to choose from. Even holding the Catholic Faith has been made an option judging by some writings of the hierarchy in the past few years.
Options lead to disunity and chaos, people become used to one of the different options and not the others and some people will prefer one option over the others and other people will feel the same about a different option leading to disagreements. Set laws and rules lead to unity and order and give the people a sense of a common identity and a feeling of security in the familiar. This is not rocket science for crying out loud, it is the basics of good governance. The leaders need to lead, and part of leading is weighing up all the options and choosing the best one.
Patrick: so you are OK with keeping them in Latin in the LATIN Mass. Well, good. We agree then. There are very good theological reasons expounded upon by MANY here for not using the option of putting them in place of the Latin at the altar.
They have been voiced by MANY here, not the least being Pope John XXIII and Dom Gueranger–which of course you refuse to engage other than calling such things conspiracies and by ridiculing them with no argument. These reasons against using them in this place are theological.
The ONLY argument for using them that I have seen expressed here is that they MIGHT help attract more Catholics to the TLM. That is one premise of course with absolutely no proof.
The other seems to be a matter of convenience.
Again, the Holy Sacrifice is not about US. It is about God. God understands Latin perfectly well.
Volpius,
I understand how you can feel that way about options. But surely we can make a distinction here between Communion in the hand, altar girls, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, etc.
I think the leaders are leading here. The Holy Father evaluated the situation and decided that readings in the vernacular were a good and helpful option. I just don’t see reason to oppose his decision.
Patrick
YOU ARE WRONG! and you are mean spirited, you probably do not celebrate “GREEN DAY”, I bet you drive a SUV, and you are mean to the homosexuals and proaborts at your church and your feet probably smell (ALL LATIN MASSERS ARE LIKE THIS). I do not feel that you are ecumenical either, and personally I am greatly offeded by your repeated picking on that poor Mr. Mershon.
Rodney King would also be upset with you.
Now back to the discussion:
Why dont we have altar girls. “Extra” ordinary ministers. and liturgical dancing as well as the readings only in the venacular???????????????????
The slippery slope.
You do not see it.
Well here is a news break “all of these things are already happening during the EF Mass”. What is worse is that you probably know this aready.
I think it is important to experiment with the Novus Ordo since it has been a great experiment all along. ONE THAT I FIND COMPLETELY VALID AND LEGAL, just a little to much about the people and not about GOD.
I hope I did not offend anyone, or say something that may have been taken the wrong way…
You know I feel that offending someone should now be punishable by the death penalty, but that may offend some one as well..
Jim Dorchak
Brian,
I noted many posts ago the Dom Guerganger made a very good point. I just didn’t (and still don’t) think it’s applicable to the situation we are discussing.
The reason it may be a good option is that it will help people to participate more deeply in the Holy Sacrifice, at least, that must be what the Holy Father thinks since he came up with it, not me.
Patrick if the Hierarchy think they are are good then they should not be an option but should be made mandatory. The leaders are not leading what they are showing is that they are unsure whether it is a good thing or not so they are delegating their responsibility to individual priests.
In short what they are doing is putting the decision on how Mass is celebrated down at the parish level which means every Parish will be able to worship differently to the others just like they do now with the NO.
How Mass is celebrated is to big an issue to be left to the discretion of Priests at the parish level, particularly in today’s world of ever increasing mobility of people.
DEAD HORSE
Thank you, Mr. Dorchak. Not sure what it means, but thank you.
Volpius,
Perhaps it is now an option because they are aware that some traditionalists would actually leave for schismatic chapels, if they suddenly made vernacular readings mandatory. Or probably, it’s just because vernacular is always optional and never mandatory even in the ordinary form. It would be rather revolutionary to make the vernacular mandatory. Presenting it as an option is fitting.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session XXII
Canon 9
If anyone says 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 vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.
That will happen in any case Patrick by making it an option if a Priest decides to take that option won’t it, if they really fear that then it should not be an option at all.
Thank you, Mr. Dorchak. Not sure what it means, but thank you.
I can tell you what it means, it means you’ve managed to make Jim snap and he’s so laid back we have to check his pulse regularly.
Meanwhile I can’t understand why it’s not obvious that if we accept the idea that the Epistle and the Gospel are in fact didactic moments during the Mass then there are additional areas that by their nature follow: The Introit and the antiphons for Communion and the Offertory, and the Gradual immediately come to mind because they too are “readings”.
If this is being done for the purpose of making the rite more accessible to the uninitiated then a cut off date should be mandated when it will no longer be necessary to introduce large numbers of people, but that clearly isn’t in the cards which indicates that is NOT the real reasoning.
I guess I should reread my post before I post–lesson learned– I did not mean for it to sound so nasty—I know Brian and I like Brian. But you did speak for all of us…”down to the last one”…..
I think that I failed to make my point which was if our goal is to get the TLM said more often and in more places maybe we should be a little more understanding of parish politics. And of how and when the Priest decides to impose more newness on people who in most cases are lacking an even basic understanding of what is going on. So if we want more people to come back to a more identifiable Catholic Church and start to take more than an obligatory interest in their faith, we need to make concessions and the readings in English is a pretty small one. Communion in the hand ………in my Lutheran days we received on the tongue, kneeling at an altar rail so that one I do not get…… But people are taught this is how they should receive so they do……no altar girls in my Lutheran days either…….
The SSPX thing———–I know it full fills your Sunday obligation and well maybe it’s a convert thing but I do not think that I could go in good conscience. Schism or not——– not something that I can state one way or the other. I do know that they are not in communion with Rome and I am not going to presume to have the knowledge necessary to deal with them.
I get the agruement that the over abundance of options resulted in the problems with the NO, but it would seem that Art. 6 is straight from VII but limited to the readings. Is there something that would prevent other VII options from being introduced to the TLM? I know big changes would require a new missal thus a 3rd form I guess……I am not saying I want this. Just asking…….please be kind…..
Leslie, Let’s take this offline. My e-mail is bcmershon@juno.com for you or anyone else who’d like to discuss further.
As for church politics… I have dealt with it for more than 12 years. I have had more “church politics” than most church politicians. I have wasted eons of time, energy and effort on church politics that should have been spent on my wife, children and friends.
Playing church politics is not edifying for laymen who only want what Pope John Paul II requested 20 years ago–“a wide and generous application” at a convenient time and place for those who desire it. This does not mean monthly, quarterly or some other combination. It means weekly at a minimum.
Some of us have been with it for 12 years or more. Not playing church politics anymore. Instead moved to a place where I can worship in peace even if it means missing many friends.
Obedience to documents from popes by priests and bishops–or lack thereof–is what this is ultimately all about.
Those who fear a slippery slope or a secret plot to destroy the TLM ignore that Europe has had vernacular readings for decades before VII.They do not seem to fear a Trojan Horse in vernacular readings only.I always was aware that Europe did this but whenI read an article in the Angelus magazine seeing nothing wrong with it ,I thought maybe its the American tendency to push the envelope that grounds the fear of the slppery slope. I found certain things interesting 1)practically all the persons commenting on this topic are lay people and not priests.I asked some priests from the FSSP and Christ the King the quesion of the vernacular and they both pointed to the European practice to show there was nothing essentially wrong with it and they said they followed the custom of the community they serve.2)according to Alcuin Reid,right before the Council the Congregation of rites submitted an instruction which would allow the lessons or prophecies of the Easter Vigil to be read in the vernacular.Reid says that everyone thought this was a legitimate organic devlopment.Blessed Pope John XXIII vetoed it! As someone said there seems to be agreement that the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular before the sermon is preferable and I tend to agree.I would say however,to the person who claimed that there is no proof that the TLM would be more attractive to others if the readings were exclusively in English,that I celebrted Midnight Mass for 800 peopel and did a TLM with the readings in English (I chanted the Gospel in Latin)and I was surprisedby the poaitive recpetion on the part of those who never attended aTLM and they specifically mentioned the readings in english.However,I would like to see a non-polemical discussion between persons such as Frs.Zulsdorf,Kocik.Fessio and Deacon Reid et alii.Pax!
1)practically all the persons commenting on this topic are lay people and not priests.
I don’t know what that even means. It looks like something is being said beyond the mere observation of a fact, but I can’t tell what it is. Please enlighten me.
“I would say however,to the person who claimed that there is no proof that the TLM would be more attractive to others if the readings were exclusively in English,that I celebrted Midnight Mass for 800 peopel and did a TLM with the readings in English (I chanted the Gospel in Latin)and I was surprisedby the poaitive recpetion on the part of those who never attended aTLM and they specifically mentioned the readings in english”
It is normal human behavior to comment on something unusual; this does not necessarily indicate approval or desire.
I also do not understand why you seem to think that this is somehow “off-topic” for the laity. This change, presumably, is for the benefit of the laity, so why wouldn’t we comment on it?
You make a good point about following the custom of the community, and if this indult were limited to that, I would see no problem with it. If the past is any indication, though, this seems unlikely. As I understand it, there was no custom or desire among the laity for Communion in the hand, and yet is was approved and has become virtually mandatory – despite the contrary desire of those whom the practice was supposedly intended to benefit.
I’m sorry if I sounded judgmental, truly. I don’t want to come across as “holier than though” or anything like it. If there wasn’t a lack of charity, there are certainly remarks that seem careless to me. I just wonder if people realize how they come across? For instance to imply that a family or individual who is seeking out a TLM, possibly driving a long distance, or a priest who is putting in the extra time to learn the TLM to provide it for his parish holds an opinion about vernacular readings because they are “lazy” and seek convenience–well, it just isn’t logical, and it isn’t hard for that implication to be taken as a personal attack.
And, I will assume from your comment you meant it charitably, but things like: *That we do not think the personal preference of a very few internet posters should turn the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular Mass with traditionalist trappings?* strike me as snide. I’m not the only person who sees this discussion as polemical. Is that supposed to make my opinion seem insignificant because I’m just one of a few internet posters? What does that make anyone here or their opinions? The pope himself included this in SP–its hardly something I just came up with myself and posted in a combox. I also respect Fr. Z’s opinion on it and posted my initial comment in response to his question.
Todd,
damn, this is GOOD: “Theologically and ontologically the Holy Sacrifice first and foremost is offered as an oblation to the CREATOR. Switching to a vulgar tongue IN LIEU of the Latin ONLY distracts from this realty and Truth, putting the convenience of attendees before the raison d’etre of the Sacrifice. Reading to Him that which He authored in the language He Ordained in THE language of the western Church is no small matter to be ignored. The Triune God is due our respect, in every respect, first and foremost. If you want to offer creatures attending a Mass a courtesy or convenience, then read the Epistle and Gospel in the predominant vulgar tongue either in parallel with the celebrant, or after.”
The modern idea is that mass is meant to entertain US, whereas the traditional understanding, and the true understanding, is that the Sacrifice is meant to honor God.
The silly clown masses, liberation of theology, inculteration, etc., all point to “me, me, me,” the idea of God is almost subsidiary to what our needs are, in this politically correct world (which is drowning in that understanding,) let’s get back to giving homage to God, and the TLM is the best way to start that course.
“Antiquarian, Have you ever read Kenneth Jones’ work?”
Yes. I read it with open eyes as a genuine statistical work, instead of looking at it as polemic in order to support what I already believed. That, unfortunately derails its usefulness, since he selectively chose data in support of a point of view. “Partially accurate” statistical studies are as meaningful as “partially effective” antibiotics.
“I don’t think he even covered “Mass attendance” as a category.”
He did in the edition I read, and that Michael Davies cites.
Right, if this discussion is moving back toward Mass attendance then I think we need to pay particular attention to the chart I posted some time ago from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).
http://cara.georgetown.edu/mattend.jpg
The post-Vatican II generation(s) are attending Mass weekly at a rate of 15-17% according to the latest numbers (2007-2008). There’s no way to spin that into a positive, although I’m sure people are going to try.
What does this have to do with the common language being used for the readings at traditional Masses? Heck if I know, other than the decline in attendance by post VatII and millennial Catholics is growing and is outside the margin of error and MAYBE it’s time to start doing the opposite of everything we think will improve the practice of the faith.
Or we can keep doing what we’ve been doing, keep trying to re-impose ideas and programs from the past while we watch the attendance numbers drop to 10% among those people who came of age after the Council. Shouldn’t take more than five years or so at the current rate.
Ok if everyone is apologizing, I guess that I can too………
I dont really mean it, but I apologize……..
BTW what am I apologizing for again?
Oh yea wanting an un adulterated Latin Mass.
Jim Dorchak
In response to Fr Ray Blake, if a Parish Priest really wanted to introduce his NO congregation to the beauties of the TLM he would start by following the Council’s intention that the new rite of Mass would be celebrated in LATIN and AD ORIENTEM. Starting that way and using Gregorian Chant would accustom people to three major features of the TLM and re-introduce the beauty of the Chant.
Once they had become used to celebration of the Mass that way, it would be a very small step to introduce the full EF.
On other matters, using Latin throughout the body of the Mass enables ALL the congregation to totally follow the Mass, whatever their own native language, as they will be used to either following the Latin anyway, or else hearing the Latin and reading the corresponding vernacular text in their own missals. Introducing vernacular readings instead of Latin precludes many visitors from being able to follow the readings, which are there for their instruction. It was most inappropriate in the 1960s when the common people were beginning to travel more widely, to deprive them of the constancy of the Latin Mass. I well recall travelling to France and Germany in the 1960s and 1970s and being totally unable to follow any of the Mass as I don’t know either language well enough to understand the Mass said in them. I’d previously been to Switzerland and completely followed all but the sermon by listening to the Latin and reading with the corresponding English from my missal.
As a TLM Server for the last 16 plus years, there are many reasons ( Pastoral Theology ) why they are mis-understanding, thus allowing the vernacular.
As for the particular place that I, myself serve at, the people are either thru no fault of their own, don’t know enough too ( as not trained properly and reinforced by the parent’s and Catholic Schools and Priest’s, etc. ) Prepare themselves for Mass, as read the readings etc., before leaving the house for Church. On the other hand, there are folks who just want to get Mass over with so they can get on with their Sunday.
I for one can the understand the difference, due too my cultural background, thus rendering the Mass handed down to us from past centuries being said in the vernacular hidious. I understand Priest’s are who they are “they bring us our God”, absolve sins in the confessional, etc.
The local town, village mentallity applies, people for whatever reason cannot ( or don’t want too ) think, let alone grasp out of the box. I humbly think they forgot to mention to Priest’s, Brother’s, and Nun’s when they leave home ( in Scripture husband will leave Ma & Pa and cleave to their wife concept ), add in Nationalism, Americanism, and a host of other ism’s, you got problems.
Going to the TLM ( handed down to us from past centuries )”we” are being raised to Christ’s Bride Human and DIVINE Nature. Basically we are being raised up to Christ Jesus’s level to some extent ( depends on Holiness, if your a Priest, and many other reasons ) thru His Bride. It doesn’t matter how many Phd’s, etc one has, to get on the same level one must conform themselves to Holy Mother ROMAN Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church conforming Herself to the vernacular sublime ( don’t forget,
She married The Son of The Living God ) level.
I will end thee post, I try to keep things short and to the point, I unfortunately get bored myself, and writing long disertations ( with foot notes )Yuh!!!!!
Now being a somewhat conspiracy theorist myself, I humbly believe the One of the Priest that says the readings in the vernacular, only does it because He knows it set’s me off and He can heard meself ranting and raving like a mad man in the Sacristy while He is strolling to His car, to go back to His Parish.