Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Do on couldn't for example, read the readings out of the Douai-Reimss Bible since it's not approved for litugical use by the American bishops?
I don't know? This is a new option.
I would think the use of a 1964 Missal, or a lectionary that uses the traditional calendar (till 1969?) would be the norm for proclaiming them in the context of the Liturgy itself (at the altar).
The use of a bible or something would seem to be acceptable for the proclaimation before a sermon/homily.
My opinion
My impression is that the old Confraternity version was approved and was produced in vernacular lectionaries in the nature of the supplemental vernacular readings discussed, for the parishes. These are still around, I believe.
Great in theory, but the "translations approved for liturgical use by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States" part disturbs me, given the current, horrid translations of the Lectionary in the "Novus Ordo."
Right now, only the NAB is the "approved for liturgical use" translation. I can't imagine the USCCB would allow another translation for the "Tridentine" if we can't even use the Catholic RSV in the "Novus Ordo." (Hope springs eternal, though)
This seems to be a wonderful development. A stumbling block to new priests as well as to the laity is the much larger task of knowing enough Latin to do justice to the readings. Its much, much easier to master the ordinary of the Mass and the few, short proper prayers - quite a taller order to master the material contained in all of the readings. In addition, this is an easy by-pass of the horrid ICEL translations - immediately. One can go to the 1964 translations, or as was suggested, use the Confraternity translations, which I consider beautiful! May these readings then, be proclaimed from the ambo? I wonder.
What does the NAB translation have over the Douay-Rheims?
My Missal has the DR translations, and every TLM I have been to the priest uses the DR.
Given the ambiguity about what is approved, I would think that it would be better to read first in latin, and then provide a translation. In this situation, the priest has unquestioned freedom to choose the translation, and can use the Douai-Rheims. The Douai-Rheims would be good to use in such situations especially because it is not exactly "vernacular" and it is an extremely faithful translation of the Latin. Some people would claim that not all of the Douai-Rheims is easy to understand, but in the context of the liturgy, this is a virtue, and as Augustine argues, is productive of virtue too.
Overall though, I think it would be a pity to see latin replaced as the language proper to the liturgy (apart from the homily). I also think (though this is an opinion arrived at for good reasons as to what I would like to see done, rather than something I think is not capable of compromise) that, if indeed vernacular versions of the scriptures are used, they should only be used at Low Mass.
What a mess! Which translations are approved for the 1962 Missal? Were there ever "approved" translations of the Mass in the pre-Vernacular days?
What about singing the readings??? My fear is that this could go out the window with this. Not that it's impossible to sing with English, it just takes a little forethought in how to deal with the chant tones, and many priests can't be bothered with such a thing.
What a disaster!
Regarding Father's question re: the ambo. I cannot see that as being foreseen, no. It is simply an option given in the present ritual context -- which is, I think, as it should be.
I'm not so sure the 1964 Lectionary or bi-lingual Roman Missal (altar missal) translations would a good choice. I don't have those books available to check, but I've seen them before, and I recall that there were some rather odd translations. Attempts to be trendy and current in the early 1960s sound ridiculously dated now, and they don't fit in with the ancient character of the texts.
For example, I recall that they tried to convert amounts and units of money into American terms. I think the woman in Luke 15:8 loses a "dime." I seem to remember a parable about servants owing debts of some amounts of "dollars," or some such terminology that just seemed out of place.
Maybe someone who has access to the 1964 Lectionary could check up on this. Perhaps I'm remembering something from a later edition (maybe around 1967?).
So - first a new prayer for the Jews, now English in the Mass itself - and everyone thinks the EF is meant to influence the OF? When the Pope won't declare that the OF use "for many" but can order the trads to change their missal, I am left wondering what really is happening.
It is starting to look to me like the Pope is not working towards a restoration - he is, instead, working to change the traditional Catholics over to the New Mass in a much gentler way than Paul VI did.
I am moving countries soon and i will almost certainly be going to an SSPX parish. The Vatican has now thrown confusion in to the traditional Mass - not just the new.
I would just like to mention (just factually, it is not my personal preference) that the practice of proclaiming the readings in the vernacular and only in the vernacular is by no means a novel development. It has been done in several Ecclesia Dei Masses in Germany and, I believe, in France for considerable time. However, as far as I am aware, this has only ever been done in missæ lectæ. I have never heard of a sung Mass where the readings were sung in the vernacular.
As for the translation: I believe in Germany, where the option of vernacular readings only has been chosen in Low Masses, the translation from the famous "Schott" (the hand missal of Beuron archabbey which every German Catholic used to have) is mostly used.
The point that most people are overlooking in this discussion is that the Latin text is being proclaimed as part of the liturgy itself, as an act of worship, not an act of instruction for the people. This past Lent we had in our community a Tridentine Mass on a day when the Gospel had to do with the man born blind whom Jesus cured, and the lengthy discussion that ensued with the Pharisees about the cure. At the end of the pericope Jesus finds the blind man and asks him to make an act of faith. The blind man acknowledges Jesus as the Lord and worships him. What struck me is that the Tridentine Missal asks the priest and the faithful to genuflect at the last line of the Gospel, along with the formerly blind man. We are, in other words, contemporaries of that man, and we worship Jesus with Him. How beautiful it is that the Tridentine Missal sees the Gospel as timelessly living, such that we can enter into an act of adoration while proclaiming the Gospel. To shift to a vernacular reading from the ambo is to invite the fixation on text apart from sacral significance that is so characteristic of the Novus Ordo.
I agree with Michael..."what a disaster" It starts with the readings and pretty soon the whole mass is in the vernacular...not good. Then what's the point...we're right back where we started. I offer the TLM exclusively and no matter what the pced says, I'll never do that. The readings after in the vernacular if you want but the TLM is offered in Latin...PERIOD. Moreover, any priest who wants to say the TLM should be proficient enough in Latin to say the whole mass not bits and pieces because he feels Latin is too difficult,otherwise he shouldn't attempt it at all.
This should not surprise anybody. In fact, I think we should expect more attempts to reform the 1962 Missal in the course of the next few years.
The current Pope, in his 1998 speech in Rome to the Traditionalist movement, already spoke of the need for those who follow the 1962 Missal to obey Sacrosanctum Concilium:
http://www.unavoce.org/tenyears.htm
"The Council did not itself reform the liturgical books, but it ordered their revision, and to this end, it established certain fundamental rules. Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34 - 36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! It is in the light of these criteria that liturgical celebrations must be evaluated, whether they be according to the old books or the new."
It would take too long for me to discuss SC 34-36 here, but it does mandate certain liturgical reforms (simplification of rites and the moderate use of the vernacular). So, as early as 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger was aleady speaking of the need for Trads to obey this section of SC, which could only mean an eventual reform of the 1962 Missal in the direction of the 1965 Missal.
It should also not be forgotten that, in his 2004 letter to Professor Heinz Lothar Barth, the current Pope spoke of the eventual adoption of a single Missal for the Roman Rite, which would be based on the EF while adopting some elements of the Novus Ordo.
At the same time, the Holy Father has given indications that the 1970 / 2002 Missal will remain the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite for the foreseeable future. The fact that the work of Vox Nova continues apace can only mean that the Holy Father currently has no intention of soon implementing major reforms of the Novus Ordo.
I'm sorry, that should be VOX CLARA, not Vox Nova.
Options such as these are disastrous! English ‘only’ should never be an option. Latin always – no exceptions! If you can't read Latin, would it kill you to learn? If it would, then read the English in your missal.
Pardon my tone, I’m still miffed about the music.
Pax,
Mark
It seems to me that if one wishes to use a vernacular version, one should use a vernacular translation of the Traditional lections themselves.
The lections do not always take up the Biblical text word-for-word and thus, if one uses an 'ordinary' Bible, one would have to supply (unapproved) translations for those changes and interpolations, though these may be minor. I wrote a brief post about it here, 2 months back.
http://rubricsandritual.blogspot...l-
catholic.html
AV:
Exactly. That is why, as I mentioned aove, here in Germany, where this option has been made use of (in some places, by no means all, not even in the majority) the translations of the "Schott" are being read.
At the risk of disagreeing with most of the other posters, I offer that this is a perfect example of an "organic development" that should be encouraged.
Also, I am not certain that this is a "new" development. My EF parish (Turin) has always proclaimed the readings in Italian, not after the Latin, not whilst the celebrant does the Latin, but at the normative place in the liturgy. We did this even before Summorum Pontificum, when it was an indult mass.
In fact, I encourage one further development. Although I prefer the EF overall, I think that the OF Lectionary is a brilliant work of the Holy Ghost. (Even if it is a bit "Cartesian," as I have heard it called once at NLM!) I would love to see permission for this Lectionary's use with the EF, especially at parishes who celebrate both forms.
In the Extraordinary Form, we "trads" are sometimes appearing as a clique of insiders to the rest of the Church. By keeping identical liturgical cycles, we open the door to the outside world, and further to Benedict's dream that the EF can influence the OF for the better.
In my experience here in the UK, the practice was for the priest to read the English translations of the Epistle and Gospel from the pulpit after their proclamation in latin at the altar - but this only happened on Sundays and Holydays of Obligation. The priest went on to preach the sermon. I have seen this practice in use in more recent celebrations of the EF and see no harm in it.
Replacement of the latin by a vernacular translation during the liturgy itself, however, is a different matter and one I'd be unhappy with, particularly if it meant losing the beautiful latin chants.
In the context of the then-practice, the hierarchy of E and W had approved translations of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holydays using the Douay-Rheims and, later, the Knox translations. These books can still be found.
If there is an insistence now that the only translations to be used are those currently approved, then at least here in E and W, the RSV is approved - though rarely used now. However, neither that nor the Jerusalem Bible translation have been published in the same form as the old Sundays and Holydays pericopes.
This is very unfortunate but it was clear from the beginning. Really, it hardly needed clarification: Article 6 is quite clear.
I have managed to convince the celebrant at our Mass to read the lections in Latin alone, which is what we all prefer here.
To assess just how bad this news is, of course, requires finding out which editions have been approved. Any which are not in liturgical English (with the Thees and Thous) are completely unacceptable. I have a bad feeling that, while the old Confraternity translations are an option, others in non-liturgical English are as well.
I oppose this 'option' because I feel that it will lead, by degrees, to the Blue Jeans Bible version (I don't mean this literally but I'm not sure that it's an overstatement either). We should do our utmost to ask for Latin alone. If this is not possible, the next best option is Latin plus translations in liturgical English from the Douay-Rheims. Let's just hope that this ruling doesn't degenerate our Mass to the spirit of the Novus Ordo.
Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada
To answer Michael Lawrence's question, in Anglophone countries, there were approved translations in use from 1964 to 1974. During that period, the 1962 Mass could be celebrated in the vernacular. In some places (starting with Canada), entirely in the vernacular. So there are approved translations out there.
P.K.T.P.
On Gregor's comments:
I believe that, in France and Germany, vernacular translations were used exclusively in many places long before Vatican II, under special indult.
In the U.S.A., an Indult was issued before the Council which allowed vernacualar translations to be used but only *after* the Latin.
During the period 1964-1974, vernacular translations were used exclusviely in some places. The old Mass was being celebrated in just a few places as late as 1974 (owing to a provision of Missale Romanum) but was phased out in most places during 1971.
Article 6 of S.P. is not a surprise: it is taking account of variation from place to place and imposing a general rule which is as broad as possible.
According to my sources, a priest in France has submitted a more dangerous dubium. He has asked if the 1962 Masses in S.P. may be celebrated *entirely* in the vernacular. Before you say, 'not a chance', look closely at the text of the Articles of S.P. You will notice that the 1962 Mass is not once called a 'Latin' Mass. It is called the ancient use, the Mass of 1962, the Mass of Bl. John XXIII, the extraordinary form--you name it. But it is never called specifically a Latin Mass. Keep in mind that it was celebrated entirely in the vernacular in places from 1964 to 1974, starting with Canada in the case of English-speaking places.
I wonder if the next bombshell will be this: the Mass of 1962 can be celebrated entirely in the vernacular using an approved text.
P.K.T.P.
This is a most interesting thread. I was afraid at the beginning because I thought I would be the only one to write things which are not politically correct: I have a great veneration for the Holy See and its institutions, but not to the point to accept anything.
Let us say it clearly, we cannot compare the PCED with the Sacred Congregation for Rites. They do not have as many experts in liturgy as in the old days, and their background is mainly the Novus Ordo and the ideas associated with it. So I am not surprised they say today that we can get rid of the latin proclamation of the readings, and tomorrow they will probably grant us the authorizations they gave to some monasteries (always in the same direction no Pre Pius XII holy week but 1965 is OK).
The great majority of trads in France are fully satisfied with the missal we use and are not starving for new saints (which can be celebrated using the common of saints) new prefaces or a new lectionary.
So there has been very low enthusiasm towards the new prayer fo the Jews: many places still use the previous one, it has introduced division in the communities. I share the concern of Jamie and the fears of Gregor "the pope (I think PCED) working to change the traditional Catholics over to the New Mass in a much gentler way than Paul VI did".
As it is pointed by Gregor, in France there have been many abuses where the latin text was not proclaimed, to the point that in the 1962 bilingual lectionary, the cardinal primate of Lyons explicitly says that the latin proclamation is not optional. Should I go to Hungary, I would like to be able to listen to the latin gospel.
Peter remark is very good "Latin text is being proclaimed as part of the liturgy itself, as an act of worship, not an act of instruction for the people" and I am not sure the PCED can understand that. No doubt the epistle should be read facing the people if it was an instruction.
As I agree completely with Father G, I will continue to attend masses celebrated with the missal as it is today. Most people do not realize it is much more difficult to modify the traditional liturgy than the new one. Virgil would love to merge the new lectionary and the traditional missal. First I do not think the new lectionary to be a brilliant work (and my NO parish priest agrees with me!).
Then if you modify the lectionary, you cannot have everything in one book and need to have a library on the altar... You also need to modify the propers and the graduale, because they are adapted to the readings. The prayers as well. And moreover you need to have the breviary completely modified. The Church cannot do that in a reasonable time: the Chuch has not yet been able to print the NO antiphonale romanum, not even the vesperale, and the pope sings from loose sheets.
On Virgil's comments:
I have nothing to add to his first paragraph which I haven't stated before.
On his second, God forbid the 'richer fare' of the N.O. lectionary. We don't need to treble the number of readings. We need the repetitions of a one-year cycle. In the Greek Rite, some readings are given several times per year. This helps ordinary people know a little well rather than hear a mountain of Scripture. The average person is a bit overwhelmed by it all. The average Massgoer is not a Scripture professor.
Those who want a 'richer fare' are welcome to read the Bible and can earn indulgences for doing so. Let's not multiply readings in order to move the focus from the Sacrifice to the lections. Luther would love that idea; we should not. It is also why I prefer two lections to three during Mass (of course, the third one is optional at the N.O.M.: better to omit it).
P.K.T.P.
To PKTP:
"I believe that, in France and Germany, vernacular translations were used exclusively in many places long before Vatican II, under special indult"
This is not correct. I can give proofs that it was explicitely forbidden in the official latin french lectionary published in 1962. The text is signed by the president of the conference of French bishops, the Cardinal Primate of Gaules, archbishop of Lyons.
I have seen this error (or liar) used to introduced the usage in the US and given the proofs on ctngreg many years ago.
It is important to remember the "thin end of the wedge" factor: if the gospel is in English, then surely the intrduction and conclusion should be too; but if one Dominus vobiscum can be in English, then why not all? then why not everything? To use another metaphor, it is the slippery slope! And, to mix metaphors a bit, the slippery slope leads down to a quagmire!
It is interesting how a consensus is emerging here: keep everything in the sanctuary in Latin.
I agree, that this option is "organic in nature". No one is saying the reading should be proclaimed from an ambo, and no one is saying that the OF Lectionary is what is being required.
When the MP first came out folks thought Article 6 meant the OF Lectionary. This clarification is positive.
In my opinion it is a rare opportunity. Let the local community, with it's pastor decide. Again, it's an OPTION folks. "The possibility of"..... Latin is the jewel in the crown in the Ordinary, but a stumbling block as far as the readings are concerned!
When I speak to priests about the EF. It isn't the maniple, or the "back to the people", or kneeling.... They say, "I don't know all that Latin." I think this might be helpful to bring folks & priest to the EF Mass. No one is tampering with the rubrics...
This is a living liturgy now folks, not a museam piece.
Actually, the prayers of the Mass are much more difficult than the readings. Give me a gospel to translate any day before an oration!
The orations are repeated daily. They are easy to Master.
In our parish the Holy Week Passions are reading in English in the liturgy. The rest of the year they are read in Latin then English before the Sermon. We have no deacons that can sing the passion correctly. SO why have some one up there stumlin & bumblin in recto tono four pages straight. Who is that edifying? Again, it happens a couple times a year for pratical reasons.
This letter from PCED merely means the purists can't tar an feather us. It doesn't imply we must do it all the time, or every one needs to it now. It is just a simple option.
To Sacristy_rat :
"Let the local community, with it's pastor decide".
This is exactly what we want to avoid above all.
The NOM si full of "ad libitum", extraordinary ministers and so on.
One of the many advantages of the TLM is that it is more or less celebrated the same way in any parish and any country in the world.
So I am very reluctant to see the PCED opening choices and variations everywhere.
I do not have access to the EF of the Mass at this moment but when I travel, I seek it out. The last time I was able to attend, the readings were in Latin.
I did have 2 years of Latin in high school and I can read it but am not conversant nor can I grasp it when it is read our loud.
From the pewsitters point of view, I very much need the readings in the vernacular. In English and in Latin would be fine but for me to grasp them, they need to be read in my language.
Now, granted, that I may have my daily missal with the readings but not always; I might only have the Mass booklet without the readings.
I 'vote' for at least vernacular and latin, please.
I think carlos antonio p. palad's comment hit the nail on the head. Sacrosanctum Concilium applies to all uses of the Roman Rite.
I don't know about America, which uses a different translation of the Breviary, but in Australia, the UK and Ireland the Jerusalem Bible, RSV, Knox Bible and 'Today's English Version' are all used in the Breviary, so I presume any of them can be used in the Mass. The Breviary approved for these countries is also approved for Gambia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia and Singapore, New Zealand, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and the West Indies.
Yep,
This is not a museam piece. SC applies to this rite.
That another reason why folks should remember HIGH Mass should be the Normal Sunday service as it facilitates the participation of the people. Also, it is the purest form of the liturgy.
Benedict is no fan of Low Mass, which was really a late development. He is quoted as saying the "low mass of the 50's is not what liturgy was meant to be."
I'd be cautious. As I read His Eminence's response, I understood it to mean that presently approved translations are permitted. Are the Scripture readings of the 1964 _lectionary_ presently approved for liturgical use? The dubium asked for clarification about general use of the 1964 interim Missal and the good cardinal did not give a direct reply (in an understandable desire to be brief, but I fear, ending up by introducing new unclarity).
As I read the response, it seems to me that one would have to use the NAB or one of the few other approved translations if one proclaims the Scripture readings in the vernacular. The Douay-Rheims, it seems to me, would NOT be permitted for public liturgical proclamation if it the readings are not done in both Latin and English.
But that's my reading and it could well be wrong.
Which is why the response is so unsatisfying. It is not clear. Why couldn't the good cardinal have written a long enough reply to be clear? This thread shows beyond doubt that the response can be read in more than one way.
When, oh when, will they learn to anticipate these kinds of questions and head them off at the pass?
Couldn't one argue that there is no vernacular translation of the 1962 lectionary approved by the U.S. Bishops... and thus NO option to read the readings in English?
The only version approved for liturgical use is the NAB, and the readings of the old Mass aren't straight from the Bible, but mediated through the Latin, and often adding additional words at the beginning at least. You can't just take up a bible and read them out.
The language used in the Ecclesia Dei letter seems somewhat evasive; "forsees the possibility"! Why not be direct and say "it is permitted that"?
The second answer is curious because it refers to the "Bishops of the United States". So is this answer only for the Old Rite in America? Is Perl referring to the Episcopal Conference of the US? Or perhaps to each individual bishop.
Eccleisa Dei have been writing these ad hoc responses for years, giving permission for just about everything to make to Old Rite into the new mess.
Ought we not to have some patience and await the formal clarification on Summorum Pontificum rather than await answers to individuals which are then published all over the web without protocol numbers?
"I think carlos antonio p. palad's comment hit the nail on the head. Sacrosanctum Concilium applies to all uses of the Roman Rite..."
I wasn't stating my own opinion, but what the current Pope had said in 1998. Personally, I'm a fan of the pre-1955 Missal, so I hope that says something of what I think of SC. Still, I acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI as my Holy Father, and I am prepared to obey always.
In practice, what this PCED ruling means for me is: when a priest asks me if he could celebrate the TLM but with the readings in the vernacular, I am bound to inform him that yes, he has that option. Whatever I think of saying the TLM's readings in the vernacular only, it is now a lawful option and I cannot prevent a priest from using it.
I really think that it's time to pay more attention to what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger actually said in his writings on the liturgy -- including the less well-known pieces, not just Spirit of the Liturgy -- instead of expecting him to be some sort of liturgical closet traditionalist. His writings on the liturgy -- beginning with his scathing attack on the opening liturgy of Vatican II (written in 1963) all the way to his letter to Heinz-Lothar Barth -- show that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with the basic orientations of the liturgical reform movement of the 1950's and 1960's, whilst agreeing that some of the Novus Ordo reforms went beyond what the Council intended. What this Pope wants to do is to bring the Church closer to implementing the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and it is hard to see how he can accomplis that without introducing some modifications into the 1962 Missal.
1) I do have a copy of the bilingual Altar Missal, but I need to dig it out and check the translations.
2) The NAB was the translation used in the OF Mass for many years, but the newest version of the Lectionary is yet another variation of those Readings, and the actual NAB has not been updated.
3) There is almost no parallel between the new Lectionary and the old. I see no way to incorporate the new Lectionary into the EF Mass, not would I like to see that happen.
4) Some parts of the English speaking world do have permission to use the Jerusalem Bible, and Liturgical Press has the 3-volume Lectioinary available in two sizes.
5) The first English translation to be "approved" for use in the USA was the Revised Standard Version, and there is still a Catholic version of that Bible. There was a 2-year Lectionary printed, again by Liturgical Press, in 1971. Many Anglican Use parishes use this translation. The question comes back to: if a particular translation was approved at one time, does it automatically become un-approved with the introduction of a new edition of the Lectionary? If the absolute abolition of the Old Mass was NOT part of the Vat. II process, and has now been restored to us, then formerly approved English translations ought to have a similar situation.
I must admit, I find this response puzzling. It answers one question and leaves the other in more doubt than it began. 3 questions are asked, but only two are answered. I presume the second answer refers to the third question, leaving the second question unaddressed.
The answer to the first question is straightforward and helpful. Article 6 of SP foresees the possibilty (but does not mandate) the proclamation of the readings in the vernacular only. As I read it, this does not take away the possibility of either Latin only or Latin and Vernacular, but merely establishes that Vernacular only is a possibility.
Response two is more confusing, probably because the original questions were not asked in a particularly clear and precise way. This response does not address question two which was whether Mass could be celebrated using the 1964 missal published for the United States by the Catholic Book Publishing Company. For the English Speaking Faithful. This is basically impossible for Msgr. Perl to answer without causing a great deal of harm, so he chose not to answer it. First off, it is not clear exactly which edition is being referred to. Second, This was never approved for use in all English Speaking countries but only the US. Third, it was not the only such transitional missal approved in those years. He seems to have simply passed over this question in silence.
The second response seems rather, to address the third question and it simply repeats the stipulation of SP article 6 with a specification for the United States which is more general than can be helpful at this point. Presumably, this too will be one of the points to be clarified in the upcoming document.
Clearly this response is limited to those communities within the United States who have English as their vernacular, and has no application outside these regions.
Within these areas, it would seem that this permission applies to the proclamation of the readings according to a translation which has been or will be approved by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States.
This would not allow the lectionary for the OF, nor the NAB as such since in the one case the readings are integral to the EF and in the second, the NAB is not a liturgical text.
It seems we have a set of responses which still leave the question before us unanswered because of the inexact character of the original questions. Perhaps it is simply best to wait for the official response before rushing to judgment.
Fr. Kelly
I agree that Missa Solemnis should be the 'normative' form of the EF Sunday Mass (at least in churches which can do so) as it is the full expression of the Mass (plus a lot of gestures done during Low Mass are given a concrete explanation here).
As for the Readings, IMHO parishes which had celebrated EF for some time SHOULD purely use Latin (with leaflets containing the readings for the benefit of those new to the EF) while churches who heretofore had used purely the OF can use the vernacular (or both it and Latin) so as not to alienate the faithful; then the vernacular can be dropped as EF Masses become a regular fixture of the church's liturgies.
As for translations:
First choice IMHO can be Douai-Rheims. Yes, it uses archaic English, but then again many use the KJV (which actually came later, and was influenced stylistically by the DR) and yet no one seems to complain about that!
Other suggestions (note again that this is my personal opinion) include the Confraternity Version, or for more modern translations the RSV-CE or the Jerusalem Bible (not the New one, mind).
I own the 1st edition (1970) New American Bible, and while I think in places it's much more better than the present NAB (the main fault of the 1st edition is that it departs from more traditional wordings, to which later editions reintroduce to some extent; plus the questionable prefaces are present, though happily the footnotes are better than the present edition) I still think this translation is unsuitable.
How are such piecemeal rulings different from the various rulings of the SCR over time? In any case, I think this is a very positive development, provided real translations are used, though certainly in places which already do the Latin readings in chant ought to keep them; in other places, it may prove to be a great aid to the spread of the Tridentine liturgy. This is not 1964, and we should not assume a little vernacular means the sky is falling.
My point via the various Ecclesia Dei rulings, which I didn't make clear, is I don't see why such little rulings are by their nature such a bad thing; the Congregation of Rites made dozens of such separate rulings on the Tridentine Rite back before 1962, and they became part of the legislation.
Fr. Kelly,
You are correct canonically that a rescript or response is strictly speaking law only for the community for which it is issued and this letter seems intended for the U.S. alone, not even other English speaking jurisdictions.
But it is perfectly good canonical practice to argue by analogy from a piece of local legislation to what practice should be followed in other areas. There would be nothing canonically wrong with using this reply as a model for practice in a non-anglophone area. One would simply apply using the local vernacular and approval of the local bishops.
As to the question of what versions are included in by the phrase, "approved by the Holy See and the bishops of the United States" I would assume that this was intended to mean those currently approved: and there is only two of those the revised NAB and the mixed text found in the current lectionary.
But it is not clear that this cannot mean any translation that once received approval of Rome and the bishops. This would mean that the RSV-EC (old edition) and the Jerusalem (old edition), at least, could be used, even though (like the Confraternity Version), the permission to use them was later revoked.
There is another program with the phrase "liturgical use." Does that mean approved for use as readings at Mass? In which case a text like the Douay, which was approved for reading by the priest before the sermon, but was never approved (as far as I know) for use as the readings themselves when these went into the vernacular in the 1960s, could not be used. Or does it merely mean approved for use in church, which would include the Douay.
Generally, when law is ambiguous, as it does see to be here in at least two wys, the correct interpretation is that which gives the greater freedom to the recipient of the law. It is up to the drafter to get it right, if he wishes to restrict. So I would assume that local churches are free to use any translation that had at some point received episcopal and Vatican approval for liturgical use.
I might add that in light of the original dubium, which used "liturgical" to mean "as the readings themselves," one might argue that "liturgical" in the reply means only those texts approved for use as lectionary readings, not mere use in chruch. And I am inclined to that interpretation, and so would exclude the Douay, but not the Confraternity.
I think that sometimes "our folks" need things spelled out to the EXACT detail to a FAULT.
The syllogism that "because there was no Engligh lectionary in 1962 means there is no authorized liturgical text and the reaqings can't be read in the vernacular in the context of the Mass" really demonstrates that.
I like the line in the Remnant that said something like, traditionalists won't be happy with anything that Rome does untill a trumpet sounds and they read from a scroll that is entitled the errors of Vatican 2.
Folks. If the 1962 Missal was never abrogated than neither was it's readings. If the Holy See approved a text for the English speaking nations than what else needs to be said?
I was of the opinion from day 1 that Article 6 meant what it turn out it does. Stop waiting for that scoll! Some of this stuff is obvious!
Thank you for the clarification, Fr. Augustine,
My point on the limitation in this letter of Msgr. Perl is that he seems to be andswering the question in as narrow a way as possible so as not to let it become the basis of widespread law. The Ecclesia Dei Commission has announced that they are coming out with a document to address these questions, (cf. the response re seminarian training.) so it does not seem really opportune right not for them to commit to a lot of smaller regulations coming from replies to dubia.
I agree with you that there does not seem to be any reference to time in the question of approval. As long as a text has received approval from those sources and that approval has not been explicitly removed, it would seem to be usable. Msgr Perl explicitly uses the plural for translations. He does not limit it to one translation.
But this approval is given to translations of readings for Mass which may or may not come from one or another edition of the Bible. I know of no Bible translation as such that has this approval. In the OF there is one lectionary allowed in the US its translations generally come from the Revised NAB, but not exactly. (Compare the texts sometime and you will find interesting transitions that have been written in or out. It is the lectionary that is approved, not the Bible.)
That being the case, the OF Lectionary cannot be made to substitute, since the readings themselves are different and so the translations do not line up. Hence, the translations approved for liturgical use by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States must be something else. Presumably one or other of the translations which were issued in the collections of the epistles and gospels (Usually the Confraternity translation, I think.)
Fr. Augustine you are right about the latitude of the application of a doubtful law, but it is also important not to extend permissions past the intention of the law-giver. In all of this we are talking about the nature of a concession, so we ought to leave it up to The Ecclesia Dei Commission to establish the limits of this permission.
On Patrick's post:
No, the D.R. does NOT use archaic English. This is a common misconception. It uses 'Biblical English'. This is a specialised use of English in a particular context and is no more 'archaic' than the specialised uses for the various sciences. Patrick would be right if he asserted that many of the forms of Biblical English are archaic *in general use* or 'in vulgar use'. Quite so. But they are not archaic in (a) Biblical English, (b) liturgical English, (c) poetical English (where they are obsolescent but not obsolete) and (d) in some Yorkshire dialects (where they are also now obsolescent).
Note in my analysis that the Biblical use and the liturgical one are separate and distinct. Indeed, they use the T. (Thee, Thy, Thou, Thine) pronouns differently, which means that those pronouns will be used differently in the lections at Mass and in the translations of the Ordinary. That causes some confusion and is an argument for a resort to common English in text translation. Fortunately, this good argument never occurs to liberals because they are too ignorant and too stupid to know the difference between Biblical and liturgical uses. We can hope that it will remain that way. Thank the good Lord for the ignorance of the average liberal.
In liturgical English, used in translation of the Ordinary, the T. forms are respect pronouns and NOT, as commonly thought, left-overs of an affective use. Hence the faithful 'speak up' to the celebrant and say, "And with thy spirit', and we 'speak up' to God and our Lady and say, 'Thy kingdom come' and 'the fruit of thy womb'.
In the Biblical lections, it's a tad more complicated and I fear simplifying things. Essentially, however, in the Douay Rheims, the T. pronouns are quite the opposite: they are affective and even used to speak 'down' to someone. Hence our Lord says to the good thief on the Cross: 'I say unto thee, thou shalt be with Me in paradise'.
Before various contributors blab on this, let me say that English uses here do NOT parallel those in German or Spanish or even French. It is not that simple. Originally, the T. forms in the singular number were the only forms. The bifurcation between Biblical and liturgical use is rather complicated. To learn about it, find Kathleen Wales's article on this in Studia Linguistica.
To return to my first point, please note that it is incorrect simply to say that the T. forms of the pronoun are 'archaic'. They are indeed archaic in common or vulgar English but not everywhere. They most certainly are not archaic in certain specialised uses. For example, they were used in the poetry of the Late Romantic period, long after they were no longer used in the commoner dialects of educated Englishmen. Does that mean that poets of the late nineteenth century were writing in 'archaic' English? By no means: they were quite deliberately using a specialised poetical use to elevate their language.
Liturgical English was virtually universal in translations of prayers until the late 1950s. It was phased out by the usual liberals (by which I mean communists) from 1955 to 1970. They have tried at various times to remove it even from the English Pater and Ave, with some limited success in the latter case.
In the case of Biblical English, the work of the liberals has been somewhat easier, since there have been translations in common English available for well over a century. We Catholics, of course, don't use them except for some scholarly purposes. We use the Douay Rheims.
P.K.T.P.
How unusual are most of these comments especially the one which states that she will go to masses of SPPX if the readings are in the vernacular.let them go.Atchbishop Lefebrvre himself suggested that the readings be made exclasively and directly in the vernacular.
On M. Guy's comments;
Thank you for the clarification. Please elaborate, though. Was the French translation of the lections permitted only once the entire 1962 Mass was in French?
I have heard, I am sure, that French and German priests were using the vernacular long before 1962 for the lections. Was this a widespread but illicit practice or is the entire rumour untrue?
Sincerely,
Peter Karl T. Perkins
On Fr. McAfee's remarks:
Well, we cannot say that Archbishop Lefebvre was infallible either! His day is not ours, and he probably favoured vernacular lections long before he died but perhaps not later. We can look back and see the devastation that has followed the reforms; it affects us now in all its force.
I agree with you, Father, that we must not make this into a dogma. Clearly, it is within the power and the right of Holy Church to deliver the lections in the vernacular. Having said that, however, we have a right to favour or disfavour such options for good reasons. According to Msgr. Perl himself, one can fulfil the Sunday obligation at a S.S.P.X chapel even if there is a regularised T.L.M. nearby, provided that one does this out of devotion and with no schismatic intent. Even if the P.C.E.D. was wrong on this in law, it provides cause in Moral Law for us to repair to their chapels.
My fear about this general permission for vernacular readings is the slippery slope situation. I admit this directly. I do not hide from it. The fear is grounded in liturgical experience: one thing leads to another.
We are living in the aftermath of a revolution, and the leftist revolutionaries continue to be bent upon the destruction of the Church from within. They will use any and all means to destroy the ethos of our Mass because they reject everything it stands for. My fear is this slope:
From lections in Latin alone to
Lections in Latin followed (in Anglophone countries) by the Douay Rheims translations to
Lections in Latin followed by the inferior Confraternity edition (but still in Biblical English) to
Lections in the Confraternity edition alone to
New approved English translations in vulgar English coming from the Mahonys in the U.S. hierarchy and then approved by Rome under pressure to
Readings from the Blue Jeans Bible.
Meanwhile, there is a very good argument now being urged that our entire Mass can lawfully be celebrated in the vernacular. Notice how, in S.P., it is nowhere specifically called a 'Latin Mass'.
Should it be allowed in the vernacular, the I.C.E.L. will eventually dance with joy to find that it has 'new work': the preparation of a new feminazi politically-correct translation of the 1962 Mass in harlem English.
Would I flee to the S.S.P.X before we get there? No need: there is a Byzantine Ukrainian Divine Liturgy in my City every Sunday. The instant we move from the Confraternity Edition to any version in non-Biblical English and it's back to the Ektenias of Peace for me. At the moment, I have managed to convince our celebrant to use LATIN ALONE for the lections. Unlike most liberals, our supporters are intelligent enough to read, so they can simply read the Douay Rheims English as the priest intones the Latin.
P.K.T.P.
To PKTP
A translation of the readings has been read from the pulpit for many centuries in France. I do not know when il started but it was already well established in the 17th century, at least for high mass, just before the homily.
So there is nothing new. The change in France was that those two translations were ginven without solemnity, from the pulpit, and not from the place where the readings are sung. In 1962, the translation should be read just afer the latin text and with all the solemnity, from the same place and by the same minister.
To PKTP
I a m not sure I have been clear. In the 17th century, the translatins were read from the pulpit but they did not replace the liturgical proclamation in Latin.
Dear M. Guy:
Thank you: that confirms what I had thought.
I have one other question for you. When, exactly (if you know) did the entire 1962 Mass start to be celebrated *entirely* in French? I ask because I know many people in France and Québec, and everyone is always suffering a fault memory on this.
I am told that Mass entirely in English was introduced on the First Sunday of Advent, 1964. What was the date for the Francophone world?
P.K.T.P.
Here we have a problem. Not all translations are acceptable and that includes officially sanctions bible translations. Gender inclusive language and dumbed down vocabulary. the New American bible, NRSV and Jerusalem Bible are just unacceptable for these reasons.
Someone commented earlier: "In practice, what this PCED ruling means for me is: when a priest asks me if he could celebrate the TLM but with the readings in the vernacular, I am bound to inform him that yes, he has that option. Whatever I think of saying the TLM's readings in the vernacular only, it is now a lawful option and I cannot prevent a priest from using it."
When someone asks me where she could get an abortion, I am not going to tell her. Sorry. I will work to convince her to make the right decision, not roll over and let the current law -- contrary to what is right -- prevail.
Please, folks, if you want to use the vernacular in the Mass, stay away from the traditional Latin Mass. This is why traditional Catholics do not trust reform-of-the-reformers.
I think the time has come for vernacular readings if the worshipping community wiahes to have them.I believe it is part of organic development.I hope that this is a topic for one of the CIEL conferences-The Venacular in the Mass readings.
Father McAfee -- Ask your congregation if they would you to skip the Latin Epistle and Gospel tomorrow. My guess is the men and women of Saint John's are not going to wait until noon to go to a Latin Mass when with their Latin-English handmissals when the Latin is removed.
Give your sheep a little more credit for being able to follow along with the readings and/or listen to you re-read them in English.
Watch YouTube and you wil see masses by the SSPX with the readings innthe vernacular. I am personally divided on the question.I think the vernacular as an option should be in the readings yet I am not prepared to do away with the chant which is connected with the Latin.I believe peopel would wait until noon for a TLM at my parish even with the readings directly in the vernacular because the readings in Latin are not essential to the TLM (consider the position of Lefebrve's directive that the readings be exclusively in the vernacular).However,I am not going to make any change for the forseeable future because those who come to my parish for the TLM seem to be content with the readings in Latin.Perhaps the option is too premature which is shown by those who fear that this would foster further changes.I doubt it but the motu proprio should probably be in effect for a longer time and have taken hold to a greater extent befor any change even minor should be considered.I can understand that peoplewho are battle scarred liturgically are suspicious of any change or alteration to the Mass they love. By the way I do not think the mass was all in Englishin 1964-the 1964 rirual for the US was still in English and Latin.
Ken,
I am not sure what this has to do with reform of the reformers. These are matters of internal debate amongst those attached to the 1962 Missal.
It might surprise some to know, that the question of whether to use either the traditional or vernacular language exclusively for the readings (or for that matter, any other part of the liturgy) is a NON-ISSUE with our Eastern Rite brethren. In their churches, both co-exist peacefully, without fear of a slippery slope into total mayhem.
Does anyone wonder how they pull it off?
Shawn -- because it is most always the case that the ones pushing for the elimination of the Latin Epistle and Gospel (as well as other post-1962 novelties like a dialogue Pater Noter, offertory procession, etc.) are those associated with the reform-of-the-reform movement. They attempted to say Latin novus ordo services in the past, and people wanted more (the traditional Mass). Now these same men are working toward a hybrid.
Father -- since when do we base our actions on what Lefebrve and the SSPX did? The answer seems to be when the subject is about how the archbishop compromised at the time. But what about when he did not? I never seem to see him/the SSPX as justification for doing something pre-Vatican II.
"post-1962 novelties like a[n]... offertory procession..."
This "novelty" which dates to the early Church, was revived as early as the 1940s, and is remembered by some in this forum (and I have documentation in my library dating to that period). Further, it is mentioned specifically by Pius XII in Mediator Dei (1947) in the PRESENT tense.
As I said once in a similar forum to some other guy named Ken (maybe, maybe not, it's hard to tell at this distance), a man is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
On David Alexander's comments about the Eastern churches:
Frankly, Mr. Alexander is quite wrong. At the moment there is a very great dispute in the Ukraine between those who wish to keep Church Slavonic and those who wish to replace it with the vernacular.
I have attended the Ukrainian Byzantine Church now for years and language is the issue which rips the parish apart, although it is between two vernaculars, English and Ukrainian. But the loss of one lingua sacra is the ultimate cause of this other linguistic issue.
The Eastern churches all used traditional sacred languages until the Romanians, for special reasons, demanded and got modern Romanian in the 1880s (Romanians had been stuck with Church Slavonic, which, unlike Romanian, is a slavic language). Some Eastern churches still use only the traditional language, such as the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church.
In the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, there was a good English translation approved for 1958, all in liturgical English with the Thees and Thous. In recent times, this has been replaced by a disastrous translation in conversational English and with all sorts of problems (such as 'essence' replacing 'consubstantial' in the Creed. Frankly, the new translation now being forced on Ukrainians makes the Divine Liturgy there very defective. And parishioners have started, on their own authority, to use politically-correct terminology in the lections (such as replacing 'brethren' with 'brothers and sisters').
Yes, they have language problems. I wouldn't be surprised if the next official Ukrainian Divine Liturgy will use the wording of the Blue Jeans Bible. More likely, they will consult with Sister Chitister and impose sexually-neutral wording.
P.K.T.P.
I find this sets another dangerous precedent. One more thing to change, to opt out of, do if you want, if you don't.
Of all the Tridentine Masses I've been to and discussed with others, the Readings are read in Latin by the priest first and then read to us in English. ( Really, this is a case of rubrical adherence, a say-the-black, do-the-red moment. ) Just bypassing the Latin readings and going straight to the English sets precedence for innovation and OMISSIONS.
First, it was changing the Good Friday prayer, now it's omitting the Latin Readings ( always eliminating something Latin, have you folks noticed that? )... What next, Tridentine Rite ad populum, Tridentine Rite in the vernacular? Hang on to your Missals, folks. Here we go.
"Frankly, Mr. Alexander is quite wrong. At the moment there is a very great dispute in the Ukraine..."
...of which I am very well aware. No, those in the East are not immune to the human condition. But the rancor does not begin to compare with that of the West. They have used the vernacular side-by-side with the ancient tongue for much longer than has the West, so there is little in the way of an "either/or" debate, and the chance of a causal relationship is far more remote.
How do I reach such an audacious conclusion? I've BEEN there, sir. Seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears, didn't imagine a thing! In a former life, many years ago, I was married in a Byzantine church. Over a quarter of a century, I was an acolyte, a cantor, and had the opportunity to study their liturgy and history. I have also witnessed the day-to-day life of a parish. Compared to that of a "Roman church," it's a virtual time-warp. (I mean that in a good way.)
After the decree on Eastern Churches was issued some years ago, they began a "de-Latinization" of sorts. Far from another iconoclasm, some long-suppressed texts have been recovered. An example would be in the Rite of Baptism and Chrismation (in the Ruthenian Province in the USA). In addition, much of the revised translation (again, in the case of American Ruthenians) was an effort to better match the use of chant in the traditional language with the vernacular.
The effort has not been entirely successful, as they too are faced with the influence of popular culture and social trends. That being said, the comparison is not entirely fair.
No word yet on the "Blue Jeans Bible."
Dear Mr. Alexander:
I am also familiar with the Byzantine Rite, as I have been attending there for the last fourteen years, until our Traditional Latin Mass was recently restored.
First of all, language is the major issue at St. Nicholas Ukrainian Church in Victoria (and nearly everywhere else, from what I've heard across Canada), and de-Latinisation is also an issue. On language, there is a war going on there between the older Ukrainians, who want modern Ukrainian, and the middle-aged liberals, who are orientalists wanting the use of English. Orientalists are not traditionalists, of course; they are liberals; they are archæologists who violate the standard set by Pope Pius XII in 1948 in "Mediator Dei". Yes, yes, I know: abusus non tollit usum. But a past abuse can become a tradtion, and the older Ukrainians want to keep their Roman traditions. Tradition is that which is handed down, not that which is old. Ukrainian traditionalist have Roman imports as part of their tradition. It is what makes them distinct from the Orthodox.
John Paul II was wrong to support orientalism in the Eastern churches. This only moves us towards a false œcumenism in which we try to become more like the Orthodox. I note that, in the Maronite Rite, in which there is no parallel Orthodox church, all the ritual is being Nous Ordoised. Maronite priests in the West are now even celebrating versus populum. This is all the work of liberals.
As I teach English in a University, I have some standing to declare that the revised English translation used by the Ukrainians is a complete disaster, both doctinally and expressively. It is painful to hear. The 1958 English translation, on the other hand, was quite good.
So, as a result of abandoning Church Slavonic, they now fight over which vernacular to use and then, among those who want English, they fight over which translation to use. None of this would have happened if they had just stayed with Church Slavonic. In their sui juris church, the vernacular was generally permitted also in 1958, although it had been used in customary law in Canada for decades before that.
The situation of the Ruthenian Church is a bit different. I have heard that they are more modernistic and have introduced changes even into the sacred text. Because they do not have one vernacular (for Slovaks, Trans-Carpathians, Hungarians, &c.), they more easily adopt English everywhere.
In my view, allowing vernacular in a traditional Mass certainly does lead by degrees towards the Blue Jeans Bible. The current translation used by the Ukrainians (perhaps not the Ruthenians: I don't know) is vastly inferior to the one of 1958. The new English translation was clearly written by modernists and liberals in the spirit of an I.C.E.L. translation. It is so bad that I much prefer to hear the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy entirely in Ukrainian and follow along in my 1958 English translation. You wait: next will be an English translation in politically-correct wording. Mark my words. It's coming.
So, yeah, I don't want that to happen in our Latin Mass.
Mr Perkins:
I have to agree about the Maronites, and their faithful have been unusually docile about it, which I cannot explain. I believe one of their leading iconoclasts has worked for ICEL, which may explain a lot.
My experience with the Ukrainians, is that you find both extremes; those who are among the most traditional of the "uniates" (for want of a better term), and the ones under the influence of certain bureaucrats that you describe. I note, for example, that in the USA, the fasting and abstinence requirements for Ukrainians are more strict than they are for the Ruthenians, who have gotten rather soft.
The Ruthenians in the USA are using Eastern titles like "protopresbyter" instead of "dean," for another example. They also retain Slavonic in the liturgy, but not exclusively. My experience with them has been that the two co-exist peacefully.
The older generation to which you are referring is dying off. But this does not dampen the desire for ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox at the grassroots level. Catholics and Orthodox hold conventions and pray together, mindful that there are still areas of contention.
I'm sure attempts to modernize will continue. I am equally sure that a new generation will see what has been wrought by their Roman brethren, and resist it. At least among Ruthenians in the USA, I see only scant evidence of adopting "inclusive" language.
At least that's how it looks from here.
Jamie, it might come as news to you, but the SSPX does use English readings in the Mass.
Michael L, that is another point. If the vernacular is only used in Low Mass, it is less of an issue. On the other hand, at quite a few Novus Ordo masses, I have seen the Gospel sung. Of course, the problem is that most people will simply take the easy option and not put in the effort to sing.
Peter, I tend to agree. But there is an issue here which is wider, and I trust we can ask it without raising accusations of schism or worse. It is this: Was the Council simply wrong in wanting to adopt the vernacular in limited ways within the liturgy? I think it was, and that one can say so in the same sense that one can say - for instance - that the Council of Trent's suppression of sequences was simply misguided.
sacristy_rat, the question of whether this is a specifically organic development is different to that of whether the 1962 Missal is a museum piece. I think there is a point to the idea that latin is the language of the liturgy, to the extent that even singing in the vernacular is forbidden. Low Mass is, and always was, a simplified version of the Mass to be used when ideal conditions do not obtain (which is a great deal of the time). Ideally, Mass is always sung. At any rate, what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying that the Four-Hymn Mass sandwich with super-fast latin and people praying the rosary was not satisfactory. As much as said by the first liturgical movement. And if there is a question of things being read badly, I think the obvious response must be to work hard and improve it, not give in and use something else. Of course, we have the freedom to choose the vernacular readings, but I would support unquestioningly a priest who insisted on reading in Latin exclusively with a translation given during the homily, and I think SC, even if it is applicable, was not necessarily a good idea.
Obviously, if vernacular readings become liturgical law, which is possible, one has to obey, but one would then be justified in grumbling.
'Consubstantial' has no place in an English version of the Creed in a Byzantine-Rite liturgy. Our Creed is translated from the Greek, which has 'essence'. Any attempt to use 'consubstantial' should be resisted thoroughly.
Why bother? All kinds of fuss over nothing. Just another excuse to be lazy about latin. Just keep doing it the old way. Latin First, Vernacular second.
Matt and Catherine
We don't need a letter from Mgr.Camille Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission 'authorising' the readings and of course the Holy Gospel to be in the vernacular as article 6 of the 'Summorum Pontificum', already forsaw it and authorises it.
Why not have the Old Rite of Holy Mass in the vernacular ? Many more priests not qualified or who know latin could then say it.
Jamie
Tonight I returned from a evening low Mass said at a parish I haven't visited in a while. The priest who said the Mass is highly orthodox theologically and liturgically, so he is not one for reckless innovation. For the first time ever I heard the epistle and gospel in English from the altar (Latin for all other propers). I haven't been back for the Sunday missa cantata, but I suspect Father will chant in Latin and then read in English.
Now that I've seen vernacular readings in action I'm convinced that it's a great option. I think that the difference between the "revolution of 1964" and today is that today's TLM parishes will happily stop at vernacular readings for now.
I suspect that much of the liturgical anarchy experienced in the OF for almost 50 years stems from the rapid and indiscriminate introduction of often dubious innovations. SP makes it clear that Benedict will only introduce changes slowly and in an organic manner. Given the successful track record of vernacular readings in Europe, I suspect there is little to fear as versus populum and felt banners have yet to appear en masse in medieval monasteries.
I trust that most priests will responsibly apply new permissions to the liturgy. After all, it seems that most EF types are interested in careful organic change, and often are fleeing some chaotic situation.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
