bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (09/04/89)
Did Vatican II _require_ all masses to be said in the
vernacular or did it _permit_ masses in the vernacular?
Regards,
--
Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of
bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose
wbralick@afit.af.mil | their state.
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavellichristian@geneva.rutgers.edu (09/08/89)
In article <Sep.4.05.56.43.1989.25700@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >Did Vatican II _require_ all masses to be said in the >vernacular or did it _permit_ masses in the vernacular? I got 6 responses. Since Usenet doesn't always keep postings together, I'm bundling the responses into one message. In addition to those posted here, my thanks to Steve Dyer, David Hawkins, and Henry Troup. David Hawkins recommended a book by Robert McAfee Brown discussing Vatican II. (He didn't recall the title.) Brown (a Presbyterian theologian) was apparently an observer, and reports on how it looked while it was going on. ----- From: conan@jif.berkeley.edu Reply-To: conan@agate.berkeley.edu Organization: Math Dept., UC Berkeley Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of the situation. Subtle details may be lost. It is my understanding that Vatican II required all ordinary masses to be in the vernacular; however, the Pope had (and has) the perogitive of granting dispensations to this rule. Currently (to combat the Lefevbre (sp?) schism) the Pope is granting such dispensations to all groups which will admit to the validity of the mass in vernacular. Are there any canon law specialists out there who can clarify the situation? Your brother in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO ------- From: mlawless@ncrwic.wichita.ncr.com (Mike Lawless) Reply-To: ncrwic!mlawless@uunet.uu.net (Mike Lawless) Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS The correct answer, believe it or not, is that it permits the vernacular, and in no way prohibits the use of Latin. BTW, most if the argument over Latin these days has to do with the insistence by certain very conservatives in the use of the Tridentine Latin Mass (the Mass used from the Council of Trent until shortly after Vatican II). For a short time, Masses in English were a translation of the Tridentine Mass (I am just barely old enough to remember this; I trained as an altar boy in Latin, but the Mass was in English before I served my first Mass). A year or two later, the "Novus Ordo" Mass was introduced worldwide, in the various vernacular languages as well as in Latin. The use of the Latin Novus Ordo Mass has never been controversial, except for minor squabbles involving lay persons who object to any use of Latin in the Liturgy anymore, or those who would like to see more use of the Latin. The prinicpal problem some people have with Vatican II is the notion that the Catholic Church somehow "sold out" to the protestants, by making changes in the structure of the liturgy which they see as "watering down" doctrine, as well as the new emphasis on ecumenism. Personally, I miss the use of Latin to an extent, although we still use a lot of Latin music, at least in my parish (since I am the choir director, I have a little influence there). But it should be pointed out that the reason Latin was used for the liturgy at the time is that all educated people knew Latin; it was the ideal universal language for the universal church. Of course, over several centuries, that situation changed somewhat. Yet, the use of Latin in the liturgy was on of the things that attracted my parents to the Church (the both coverted just before I was born); the Mass in Wichita, Kansas was virtually indistinguish- able from the Mass in Paris, or Manila, or Mexico City, etc. I remember when I was in Vienna in 1975, being rather frustrated that I was completely unable to follow the Mass in German. That would not have been true if it had been in Latin. BTW, Latin is still the official language of the Church; all Vatican documents (the Code of Canon Law, papal encyclicals, etc.) are issued in Latin, and in cases of disputed meaning, the Latin original is definitive. Some of the changes in the liturgy I could live without, at least the way they are commonly practiced. Chief among these is the "Sign of Peace." But it should be pointed out that even this is based on ancient practice; it was just that it was exchanged only among those in the sanctuary (the Latin phrase used was "Pax tecum"). Most of the new elements of the Mass are revivals of ancient prayers and practices, dating in some cases to the first few centuries. Many new practices, such as everybody holding hands during the Lord's prayer, are not official parts of the Mass at all, but rather additional to the official rubrics which to not come from the universal Church. I take the conservative view in wishing that these unofficial practices would cease. However, I part company from the conservatives who maintain that the Novus Ordo Mass denies critical elements of the faith, such as the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Church has been steadfast in teaching these doctrines unaltered (although the same cannot be said of some theologians who claim to speak in the name of the Church). In summary, I tend to prefer Latin on certain esthetic and pragmatic grounds, but I will accept as valid any Mass in any language as long as it has the approval of the Vatican behind it. In closing, note that even the Tridentine Latin Mass is still allowed as long as it is not used to deny the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, or of Vatican II in general. On the other hand, those who harp about the "Spirit of Vatican II" as a justification for all sorts of liturgical adventurism should actually read the documents of Vatican II, an find out what was really said. The council documents are not a license to "do your own thing" liturgically, or theologically. -- Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666) 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM {ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless ------ From: Joseph H. Buehler <daemon@garage.att.com> [The daemon address looks suspicious to me. I'd try jhpb@garage.att.com --clh] Will Bralick wrote: Did Vatican II _require_ all masses to be said in the vernacular or did it _permit_ masses in the vernacular? If I recall correctly, Vatican II did neither. The vernacular Mass was a post-conciliar matter. The New Mass was originally in Latin. Vatican II actually says that the use of Latin should be fostered, or something of the sort. The principal law of the Church on the Roman rite of Mass is the Papal bull called Quo Primum (from its first two words), issued by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, as modified by Missale Romanum, issued by Pope Paul VI of recent memory. Something to keep in mind is that not every Catholic priest is of the Roman rite; the Vatican II liturgical changes left a sizable number of Catholics untouched. (The Eastern rites still have their liturgies in a variety of languages, things like Old Slavonic and Aramaic, though some, at least, have experimented with vernacular liturgies.) The following is a short summary of some pertinent canon law on the subject of the Mass: Quo Primum did the following: 1. It required all priests of the Roman rite to use the Mass codified by the bull, barring certain specific exceptions, such as rites having a usage of at least 200 years, such as the Ambrosian rite, and the Dominican variant of the Roman rite. 2. It forbade that any Roman rite priest ever be penalized for using the 1570 Mass. Whereas Missale Romanum did the following: 1. Gave permission to use a different rite of Mass than that codified by St. Pius V. A bull like Quo Primum remains the law of the Church until it is altered by a succeeding piece of legislation of equal authority. Since a Papal bull is involved, a piece of Papal legislation is required. Quo Primum can be altered in three ways: 1. Abrogation -- the law is replaced by the proper authority specifically saying so, observing the proper legal forms (something like "due process"). 2. Obrogation -- the law is replaced automatically, without specific mention. 3. Derogation -- the law is altered in some way, without being totally replaced. Even were Quo Primum abrogated completely, the old Mass would simply revert to the status of immemorial custom, requiring explicit legislation by the Pope to abolish. Quo Primum is currently subject to derogation, in so far as Missale Romanum permits the New Mass. However, it remains in effect insofar as it forbids anyone to penalize a Roman rite priest for using the 1570 Mass. There is currently no strict obligation for a priest of the Roman rite to say the New Mass. They may use the old one if they wish. Bishops who attempt to block the celebration of the older Mass exceed their authority, since we are dealing with Papal legislation. In toto, the old Mass represented a gradual accretion that took place beginning in the early centuries of the Church. The canon is thought to have been virtually unchanged since about the year 600. Some of the prayers around the consecration were almost fully-formed in the 400's. It's a pity it got dropped; it had a sense of the sacred that the new one doesn't have. (A complete summary of the canon law involved can be found in a booklet by Michael Davies, called The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass. If the above seems somewhat technical, it's because it's a discussion of the legal system of the Church, which has its own internal laws, courts, judges, lawyers, etc. Canon law is a specialty; you can get a doctorate in it. The above is a sketch of an explanation by Count Neri Capponi, a canon lawyer.)
mlawless@ncrwic.wichita.ncr.com (Mike Lawless) (09/11/89)
One point I omitted in my previous treatise on Latin the the Liturgy:
If I recall correctly, many of the objections raised by conservatives to the
Novus Ordo Mass in English arise from the way the Latin version (the official
standard) is translated into English (not unlike arguments that arise over
biblical translation).
Also, Joe Buehler's comments suggest that the Canon of the Tridentine Mass
was dropped when the Novus Ordo mass was introduced. I have always thought
that what we now know as Eucharistic Prayer #1 (aka the Roman Canon) was
virtually identical to the Tridentine Mass Canon (although there are a couple
of passages which may now be optionally shortened). Granted, it is not heard
much anymore; mostly on special occasions. Also, I have read that the
other current Eucharistic Prayers also have roots in the ancient church, but
fell into disuse at some point, and were revived in the Novus Ordo; the
prinicipal difference from the Tridentine Mass, as far as the Eucharistic
Prayer is concerned, is that there is more than one to choose from. Of
course, the Words of Institution during the actual consecration are virtually
identical across all of them. The differences are in the prayers before and
after the consecration.
Joe laments a general perceieved loss of a "sense of the sacred" in the Mass.
I must admit I have observed a bit of that myself. However, I have observed
the opposite as well. A lot depends on local practice. Much of what one
sees in various Catholic parishes these days is at best not a part of the
official rubrics (such as the aforementioned hand-holding during the Lord's
Prayer), and at worst banned by either the Vatican or the Bishop's conference,
but done anyway (like the use of female altar servers, or the inappropriate
use of lay Eucharistic Ministers, or unauthorized ad-libbing of the pre-
scribed text of the Mass, or so-called "liturgical dance," or the use of
invalid matter for the Blessed Sacrament (containing ingredients other than
wheat flour and water), etc.). I can testify, however, that there still are
Catholic parishes that approach the Liturgy with great reverence, and I am
grateful that I belong to such a parish. On the other had, I could hardly
wait for the Mass to be over when I visited a parish in Ft. Collins recently.
About the best I could say about it was that it wasn't as bad as it could have
been, based on what I have heard about.
--
Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666)
3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM
{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless
{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless