Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
We used what you call the European practice at Low Masses in the 1950s in my home parish of St Gregory in Chicago. Not new to me at all.
If anyone has watched the video of a Sung Mass at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris, you will see this practice.
I find this to be a reasonable solution. It preserves the Latin readings while allowing the congregation to hear them in the vernacular.
The more common practice of have the priest read the Epistle and Gospel a second time, in vernacular at the begining of the homily, seems a little out of place to me- for lack of a better word, artificial.
Nor can I get my head around the idea of scrapping the Latin readings in favor of vernacular. This might lead to a further "de-latinization" of the liturgy (for example, some might begin to ask "if the readings are in vernacular, why not some of the other propers? And why not have an audible Canon?", ect.).
The problem with vernacular epistle and gospel was solved in 1964-65 when the lectionary came out with the first Roman Missal in Latin, with English propers. Thes still can be found at some book dealers.
We should not make changes to the 62 Missal right now. The people just got it back, and now we want to make changes? Have we learned nothing?
Secondly, I'm not convinced that the chant tones would work as well with English as they do with Latin. Each language has its own cadence and accent patterns, and this is a tricky subject, to say the least. Priests have a hard enough time as it is; why foist this on them, too?
I would be wary of borrowing anything from the 1965 Missal for use in the 1962.
In any case, Mr. Lawrence is right- now is not the time to be experimenting with the Missal. While there is always room for small doses of organic development, considering the current circumstances I think it would be prudent to leave the traditional liturgy alone for a while.
"Have we learned nothing?"
Those who know the history of that time, or who were actually there, would have learned that the rubrics were already undergoing minor revisions. Some of them were to facilitate outward participation of the people, others were a legitimate form of "returning to the sources" (not to be confused with antiquarianism) called for by some 20th century popes. Even then, some indulgences to norms were subject to local discretion. The innovation spoken of here would have already been a long-standing practice in some parts of the world by the mid-20th century, and what's more, little if any in the way of rubrics or the text of the Mass would have changed to accommodate it.
In any case, charges of "borrowing" from a later form of the Missal are groundless.
I think folks need to keep in mind that we are speaking about an option that is now something given, and not rather an abstract proposal. I think therefore this is different than experimentation.
Further, it is an option that has arguably arisen by a process of natural development not only before the Council, but also as regards groups using the ancient rite after it -- and this is why the European example is so very relevant. It is an option builds upon the aforementioned workarounds.
I can understand the need for prudence and for not falling into the same mistakes, but I am not convinced that avoiding in principle even (arguably) minor organic developments is necessarily good either. Should we not at least make movements toward them? Also, we need to remember that in many ways, those movements were already well under way and so the Pope's formal allowance merely cements that.
The priest in question, by the way, is Abbé Gérard Trauchessec of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Currently, he is the rector of the Institute's apostolate in Basel, Switzerland. When I was a seminarian in the Institute in Germany, I used to drive Abbé Trauchessec to the apostolate in Maria Alm, Austria, when he would come to visit every month.
Let people invest in a hand missal and follow along with their vernacular translation. Why do they have to actually HEAR the vernacular read? A hand missal is a good life-long investment. Leave the epistle and gospel in Latin, otherwise we begin the slippery slope.
By the way, perhaps some of our European readership can let us know some of the variants upon handling the vernacular form of the readings.
I am pretty certain there are other practices, such as the priest reading the readings quickly and quietly and then turning at the altar and saying them in the vernacular -- something I witnessed at the FSSP seminary years ago.
The main key I see in European practice is there is a concerted attempt to have the vernacular form of the readings occur at the moment in the liturgy they are meant to occur.
Shawn,
I celebrate the old Dominican rite regularly, both in the "Low Mass" form and (much less commonly) in the "High Mass" form. I have never had (or seen done) the practice of having another cleric read them in the vernacular while they are read quietly in Latin.
Even at Sung Mass, it is not generally the practice in my experience to have them read a second time in vernacular: the translation in the program is, as often as not, considered sufficient.
I cannot say that I like the idea of simultaneous readings in Latin and vernacular very much. This is similar to my dislike of having the priest read the deacon's and subdeacon's sung readings quietly at Solemn Mass.
That practice crept into our rite in the 1400s and 1500s (probably when it also appeared in the Roman) because of a growing sense that Low Mass was the norm and so the priest should do everything at all Masses (as he did at Low Mass). The idea that it was not enough for the deacon and subdeacon to do their own ministries seems very odd to me, especially if one takes the Sung Mass as the norm.
I say this even though, at every Dominican sung Mass I have ever attended, the priest has read the other ministers' sung readings quietly--albeit that rubric was abolished in 1961! Force of habit, I guess.
The introduction of this practice at Low Mass seems even more odd. What is the purpose of the priest reading the lessons to himself (and God?). I agree with you, Shawn, that if the readings are to be in vernacular at EF Low Masses, the priest should do it. And, if vernacular readings are wanted at Sung Mass, they should be sung and replace the Latin lessons--as the Motu suggests.
But I am not about to go to the wall on any of this.
It is a practice that occurs there (even amongst the SSPX), and it is one I prefer over their re-reading prior to the homily; it at least preserves the liturgical context of the readings.
On the matter generally, I think the big thing is, the discussion is needed more than anything because the matter is bound to come up now that the Pope has universally formalized it as an option. We therefore need to think about how to deal with it -- and responsibly.
We are amongst friends here, and there will be disagreement amongst friends about something like this.
To further your own thought about the use of the vernacular, I think if we are going to have the Latin readings (which I have no opposition to of course!) the question I am asking is: why not simply have the Latin readings and, like other parts of the Mass, the faithful can follow along with a translation?
I'm making a proposal but I am as interested in the discussion that follows it as anything.
I think Michael's point about the translation of the chant over to English is one that merits consideration for example -- though I suppose one could say that a simpler form of plainchant could also be used at least in the interim.
I do think one thing is clear: we do need to have a pastoral sensitivity about this, and if people are going to -- as a rule -- feel very uneasy with this idea, then we should just leave things as is for the moment.
A short follow-up, Shawn. I agree with your view that if the people can read a program for the vernacular of the rest of the Mass, they can do so for the readings as well.
Indeed, that is the practice I have adopted every time I have celebrated the old rite publically. I have never read or had read the lessons a second time in the vernacular. (Although I have seen other priests do this.)
I am included to say that the custom of the place (where there be one) should give the practice.
When I was at Mass at St. Agnes in New York, the priest read the readings at the altar quietly while another priest read them in English from the pulpit. That was some years ago. I believe that the priest must pray the whole Mass in Latin, which includes the readings. That is why they are "read twice". That is also why the priest would read the Epistle and Gospel at a Solemn Mass even though a subdeacon or deacon is chanting them.
No. No. No.
The previous writer who said "slippery slope" has got it right. There must be no "innovations" in the Mass of the Ages. If well-meaning persons start suggesting tinkering with the Mass, before you know it we're back to 1962. And next in line will be the "libs" and "progs", who will start sticking their noses into the process for their own shady purposes. Shawn your essay scares me.
CrustyCatholic,
There is no need to be scared. Let's keep in mind that there can be development within the liturgy. That is very traditional. The key is the kind of development.
We must also avoid two extremes: innovationism and immobilism
We can't promote any and all change/development, nor certain change/development for its own sake; nor should we oppose it in principle -- though pastorally that reaction is very understandable given what we've been going through these past decades; and that might well be the strongest counter-consideration in all this (though eventually we must break out of that pattern).
You need to keep in mind as well that you are reacting as though we are dealing with something utterly novel here. We are not. This is why the example of what is the practice in places like Europe particularly, even within the SSPX, is fairly relevant to the issue I think. It isn't out of the blue.
There is no slippery slope here at all. The Mass remains in tact, period. IT is simply another priest proclaiming it from the pulpit and not exactly a "formal part" of the liturgy at all. Think of it this way, it is no more a part of the Mass as an old babushka clad woman reciting her rosary during Mass. IT is two things going on at the same time. Much like the Sanctus lasting the entire length of the canon.
I think CrustyCatholic is referring to the possibility that the Epistle and/or Gospel could be recited in the vernacular, period, without the Latin text being recited -- an option given by the motu proprio of the Pope.
Why has the legitimate option of reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular been more accepted in Europe than in other English speaking countries?
In France, it's allowed since an indult of the ex Sant'Officio of 10/17/1956 to proclaime in french the readings after the priest read them in latin.
"Ut in omnibus diocesibus Galliae, ministri sacri intra missam solemnem, Celebrans vero ipse intra missam popularem sive cantatam sive lectam, Epistolam et Evangelium latine primum, deinde lingua vernacula proclamare valeant"
I was the server at this Mass!
One detail that's missing from this discussion is the fact that the church was completely packed with middle school and high school students and their chaperones for the March, as an overflow Mass for the Verizon Center Youth Rally and Mass. I think the pastor, Father Harris, read the Epistle and the Gospel in that matter for the benefit of those people.
Father Trauchessec also didn't say the Leonine prayers after the Low Mass, but I think that was because he didn't know the prayers in English.
In France, when the 1962 French Latin lectionnaries were re published, the Archbishop of Lyons, president of the French Episcopal Conference, reminded everybody in the foreword that the authorization to read the readings in French did not mean they were not supposed to be proclaimed (or sung at sung mass) in latin.
Readings have been said in French from the pulpit for centuries in the french diosceses. The big change that Fr Husson mentions is the possibility to say them just after the latin proclamation, with same ceremonial.
When I read the motu proprio, I see the word etiam. Where do some people see that the readings can be said either in latin or in vernacular? I think it just allows to ADD a translation. But at sung mass it does not suppress the obligation to SING in latin the readings. To sing them BOTH in latin and vernacular seems a bit too much.
As it was already said in this post, the latin readings are meant to be heard by everybody and I do not really like the abuse made in France in the 50s: There are so many places where the epistle is not sung at sung mass.
Philippe,
In the English translation, the implication is that it may be done, not in addition, but instead of.
I am hopeful that Ecclesia Dei will confirm the exact intention of this.
If what you say is correct, the point is moot on that level! I would still stand by my thought about just using the Latin and moving on to the homily.
However, others more fluent in Latin than I seem to not see the translation we have received in English, which is suggestive that it might be either-or as opposed to having to be both-and, as unproblematic.
Still, it raises that interesting question. While I am certain Ecclesia Dei will address it, would you be interested in giving us your own translation, from both the Latin and French translation of that text, into English?
If we look at the Latin in the Mass, we may note that the readings are from the Vulgate (as opposed to the more formal sort of Latin found elsewhere), thus, they were intended to be audibly comprehedible. As long as such reasoning may be applied, there need be no slippery slope. I could be wrong, but it seems to make sense.
As a point of clarification, I am not personally saying anything contrary to the practice of the priest reading the reading while, for example, the deacon proclaims it; or for example doing the Kyrie at the altar while the choir chants it. In fact, I believe it is one of the strengths of the usus antiquior and emphasizes something of the nature of the priesthood.
However, my main critical thought is in relation to the dominant practice in the English-speaking world of re-reading the Epistle and Gospel prior to the homily. While it has some benefits I do believe it presents us with a liturgically less than ideal situation; one that can be used against the usus antiquior. Let me paint the picture in the context of the Sung Mass, and please keep in mind that I am trying to highlight the idea of the context, order and flow in which the liturgy intentionally operates:
1. The priest goes and chants the Epistle;
2. In response, the people/server say thanks to God for that reading;
3. The priest prays the tract and alleluia
4. Thr priest imposes the incense for the Gospel;
5. The priest then prays the private Gospel preparatory prayer (Munda Cor Meum)
6. The missal is moved to the Gospel side of the altar;
7. The acolytes with their candles and the thurfier with the incense solemnly process to the gospel side of the altar;
8. All the faithful stand to hear the gospel proclaimed.
9. The priest announces the reading and the people respond; the gospel page is incensed;
10. The priest chants the gospel;
11. All/the servers respond in thanksgiving for the gospel reading;
12. The missal is moved out of the gospel position and to the Canon position at the centre of the altar and the priest removes the maniple for the homily;
13. The acolytes and thurifer depart and sit;
14. The people take their seats.
------
15. Now, the priest, re-does point #1, re-reading the epistle;
16. When finished, the people stand up yet again, repeating point #8;
17. The priest now re-does point #10 and re-reads the gospel;
18. The people re-give their thanks and sit down again, repeating point #11.
While points 1-14 occur in their successive liturgical context, with the prayers of the priest; with the chants of the schola; with the dignified ceremonial of the incense and candles; in relation to the epistle and gospel sides of the altar; points 15-18 occur outside that context, after the candles and incense are gone, after the Missal has been removed from the gospel position; after the maniple has been removed, and after all have already given their thanks and due reverence.
Now I'm not a liturgical rationalist, nor do I see repetition as a bad thing necessarily -- see the beginning of my comment here -- but this particular practice does strike me as less than liturgically ideal.
In the context of the Latin readings then, it seems best to simply do 1-13 with the readings in Latin, letting people follow along the readings in their missal, or in something provided for them (where I am, the FSSP priests do a great job of providing all the Propers of the day in the Bulletin, thereby getting around the problem of those who may not be able to afford a missal) and then proceed straight into the homily.
Pastoral slant:
When the priest is preaching a homily on the lessons as is a venerable tradition, it is helpful/important that the faithful would have heard them or read them in their missal or in a program. I prefer the vernacular translation being found in a hand missal or in a program (sometimes the bulletin) to the lessons being read a second time in the vernacular. This seems strange. And I say this not because I grew up being formed by the Ordinary Use of the Mass (I was) but because at most of the chanted Latin Masses of the Ordinary Use that I have attended, the lessons were done one time . . . in Latin.
Everyone should have a beautiful missal to follow the Mass and lessons, in which case printed programs are unnessary in the habit. Of lesser preference, what about a missalette for the Ordinary Use of the Mass? I prefer the priest reading the lessons in the vernacular immediately after reading them in Latin (silently or intelligently) to reading them all before the sermon at the pulpit. I would like to experience the lessons read in the vernacular while the priest reads them in Latin, before making a judgment. Is this always done by another priest, or is this done by a layman? I understand the fear of a slippery slope. And thus maybe some of these different ways should be accomplished by someone formed lifelong in a Traditional community, not by a parish recently initiating the Traditional Latin Mass.
Isn't there an aspect of the lesson as not only being God's speaking of the Word to man but also being man's praying the Word to God. God reveals Himself in the Word made flesh, but we also pray this Word, more clear in the Divine Office.
It is interesting to note that many, if not most, people attending the Ordinary Use of the Mass celebrated in the vernacular still read from the missalettes, Magnificat, and a few from their own missals. And don't mess with that, or else! And how often does a priest speak of some important aspect from the 1st Reading (or even the Gospel) and see the blank start, "Huh?". Sometimes too much reading in the vernacular like too long of preaching makes many people forget it all (and I know especially of the second!).
I would like to expand this question a bit. What can we do to sing the gospel and the epistle in the vernacular. I think the specific Roman Tones are great as are some of the monastic tones. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox liturgies have a tone of sorts (forgive the ignorance) for the readings in english that seems to work well. What tones exist in the high anglican liturgies, and could they be used in the TLM, or in a parish that is trying to work within the confines of the Novus Ordo but wants to employ a reform of the reform approach to sing the readings?
I, for one, would prefer - in today's overwhelmingly literate culture - to chant (or, at low Mass, recite) the readings in Latin and distribute an approved vernacular text for reading. I realize that leaves bugs - children, the illiterate, those with poor vision, blind people without their own brail missals, etc., etc., but it remains my preference nonetheless.
Another thought occurs to me, so I'll just throw it out there for what its worth. The duplication of readings has precident in papal masses where the Gospel would traditionaly be sung in both Latin and Greek. The last time I recall seeing this was at Pope Benedict's inauguration Mass
There are only 2 readings, and reading the Gospel again in the vernacular from the pulpit just prior to the homily has been the practice for a long time in many parts of the worl before Vatican II. The problem is more with the epistle. The epistle is also the word of God so the priest reciting or chanting this in Latin is a prayer to God the Father. Having the epistle read immediately after makes sense for those who do not understand Latin or have no hand missals with translations.
There are 2 issues here with the epistle. One is that the Gradual and Alleluia chants have been traditionally used at High Mass to create space and time to meditate on the epistle. To read the epistle after the Gospel in the vernacular from the pulpit before the homily would not make sense at such Masses. Second, the Catholic Church as universal is Roman and Latin which means that if we start eliminating the Latin readings again we challenge that catholicity that has been present since the 4th century. We see now how after Vatican II the Church has become so fragmented according to provincial tastes.
By the way, my understanding of that passage from article 6 is that the vernacular readings may be done in addition to the Latin, not in place of.
In Canada the practice of another priest (if he was to preach the sermon)reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular at Sunday Low Masses while they were read in Latin at the Altar was certainly the norm back in the 1950's and likely long before. At Sung Masses the Epistle was normally read silently while the Choir sang the Gradual and at Solemn High Mass both lessons were sung in Latin then read in English from the pulpit afterwards. In this latter instance it seems not to have been considered in anyway part of the liturgy as it usually followed the announcements.
Regarding the lessons being read twice, before the missl of 1962 at Solemn Mass the celebrant always read the Epistle while it was sung by the subdeacon and he read the Gospel while the Gradual was being sung afterwhich it was chanted by the deacon. This still seems to be the practice in Institute parishes. The changes to this in 1962 seem to have been the beginning of a new approach which was increased in 1965 by having no parts sung by ANYONE else including the choir, read by the celebrant who was then moved to the sedillia for most of the synaxis. Soon there was little left of the Old Ceremonial. The paradigm had become the assembly of the people of God hearing the lessons read with the priest "presiding" over the assembly.
AS we all know, this was the guiding principle for the Novus Ordo.
If one were to have the lessons actually proclaimed in English by the deacon and subdeacon the natural question would be which translation. The modern translations tend not to be very singable. The King James works very well in Anglican Churches. Maybe the Douey Rheims would be considered acceptable in Catholic Churches but one has to be careful. For example. "He said" or "He asked" etc. must always go at the beginning of a sentence if the chant rules are to work. The norm in the Liturgy is always to chant as opposed to read except at Low Mass, even in the Novus Ordo when it is in Latin.
Interestingly the princple that the Liturgy (including the lessons) is to be chanted is followed by the Eastern Churches as well as by the Jews and the Muslims and more. When Jesus read from the scriptures in the synagogue in Capharnum He would have actually chanted it. Only the Protestant Reformation and the Post Vatican II Deformation (both tragedies) threw out that practice.
Another point is that the use of "thee" and "thou" was normal even in informal prayer by all Christian denominations until 1965. The Our Father and the Hail Mary reatain that practice as they were so well known.
Aaron wrote: "I realize that leaves bugs - children, the illiterate, those with poor vision, blind people without their own brail missals, etc., etc., but it remains my preference nonetheless."
Down in Phoenix, Arizona, where many Spanish-speaking families with their children attend Mass, it is likely that many of the older people are, in fact, illiterate. Also, children remember what they hear before they learn to read; and their minds are developed by what they hear long before it is developed by what they've read.
So, I think that it is rather necessary, in some parts of the world, that at least the Gospel be read aloud.
Having grown up after the usus antiquor fell largely out of use, when I attend that liturgy I find it very difficult to appreciate the celebrant's silent readings, with the people left to fend for themselves in hand missals. "Is he at the Gospel yet?...no, he's on the left end of the altar, so this is still the Epistle...I don't know where he is; I guess I just wait until he does something I recognize." Then it occurs to me that whilst I was trying to figure out where the celebrant is in the Liturgy, there were Scripture readings and they were about something important.
I welcome the motu proprio and fully accept the usus antiquor's equality with the ordinary form, and I say as one who loves the Church's traditions: the Council called for reform, and I think this is one area that really needed to be reformed. The Scriptures ought to be proclaimed in the Liturgy; there is a difference between hearing them proclaimed and just being left to read them on your own. In my opinion, we should be cautious about placing the rubrics on a higher level than the actual hearing of the Word of God. As it is permitted, I am all for the simultaneously reading aloud of the vernacular readings.
A writer above asks: "What tones exist in the high anglican liturgies, and could they be used in the TLM, or in a parish that is trying to work within the confines of the Novus Ordo but wants to employ a reform of the reform approach to sing the readings?"
The tones used are the same as those in the Latin Masses only in the King James English which works very well. Sadly, the lessons used in the present Novus Ordo are not very good for chanting.
For those who think that Gregorian Chant can only EVER be sung in latin may I introduce you to the Kyrie Eleison. Likewise there is the Greek Trisagion sung in Gregorian Chant on Good Friday. But MODERN English is somewhat difficult. I always refer to "Thee, Thou" English as Liturgical English. All of the Rites of the Church have a Liturgical Language.
David, the difference in the example you give of solemn Mass is that one isn't dealing with two audible proclamations. The audible one is handled by the deacon and subdeacon while the priest reads them quietly at the altar. Also this still occurs at the proper time of the liturgy.
John M,
I really have never had such trouble. I think there is a point to not having to focus so much on whether one is at the precise same point as the priest. This gives on their own chance to pray.
Also, I don't know that we should overstate that idea of reading vs. proclamation; it seems to me that "hearing the Word of God" is very much like "actively participating"; one can hear the word of God when one is reading it silently at home if one is actively engaging it and meditating upon it. That is more "hearing" in that sense than to, for example, be passively hearing words but not actively listening.
"For those who think that Gregorian Chant can only EVER be sung in latin may I introduce you to the Kyrie Eleison."
Irrelevant. The point is that the chant was not written for English, whereas for the Kyrie eleison it was written for that text. With English, we are retro-fitting it to the chant. With the Kyrie, the chants were written to go with it.
The quote in question from the motu proprio (in English translation) is this:
"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."
In English, this really gives no qualifier that would make one interpret it as meaning "in addition to". It simply states that in public Masses, "the readings may be given in the vernacular". This is why I interpret it as I do, pending any clarification otherwise.
This may well be a problem of translation as our good friend Philippe suggests is a possibility. Still, with various people parsing the Latin for inaccuracies, it seemed like it was a reasonable translation in that particular case. Had I felt there was a significant reason to pause here on that point, I would likely never have posted any kind of speculation -- though I am sure there are some good fruits that can come from this sort of discussion, even if theoretical.
For myself, the issue is this: is that is a development the Holy Father has allowed, then it is something we need to discuss and look at. Let me state this unambiguously however: for myself personally, I am extremely content with the readings being done simply in Latin.
I would, however, like to see a better way of approaching the question of the vernacular than by the common practice in our region of re-reading the readings prior to the homily.
That said as well, if the Holy Father has allowed for the option to read the readings in the vernacular on their own, that seems to me to be a reasonable and organic development and I don't think we should oppose it in principle, even if we may have a preference otherwise.
Michael's point is supported by the likes of Fr. Samuel Weber, OSB who has made a point of working to develop chant melodies suited to English, rather than approaching the melodies by trying to fit English into them.
I do think they have a point.
For Sung Masses, I think that the reason for the practice of reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular just before the homily is related to the prohibition of vernacular hymns during Offertory and Communion (which is also a rule broken in many places). Aside from the homily, the intent was for the liturgy to be heard as uninterrupted sung Latin. Vernacular readings within the liturgy would break the flow in that sense.
In my opinion, and it is an opinion, like others in the forum, that the readings could be done in the vernacular AT the Altar durring Mass preserving complete continuity of the rite. I am familiar with the first interim Missal that cam out here in the states. It integrated vernacular readings, while maintaining the Latin Ordinary. It is the complete traditional rite. By this time, the Roman Ritual was starting to be used in the vernacular. My own opinion is that IF folks heeded some practical developments in the liturgy, then we may be in a different place today. For the rank and file, it is the LATIN that turns them off from the liturgy, not the RITE. I love the Mass, but the latin readings are not worth fighting for.
BUT, if we are entering a time machine and returning to 62. We would see them in latin. That being said, this rite has been restored. We must be open to some resonable development. The optional use of the vernacular, seems reasonable.
"...one can hear the word of God when one is reading it silently at home if one is actively engaging it and meditating upon it."
Very true, Shawn, and thank you for your observations. But isn't a liturgical congregation something more than merely a collection of individuals offering their private prayers and silently reading missals? Isn't there a communal dimension to the Church's public liturgy as distinct from private devotion?
John,
That isn't simply expressed in externals however. As such, those people praying from their missals are still indeed part of the communal act; the communal act of worship through the public prayer of the Church which they are joined to.
Shawn
But aren't some things in the Liturgy (such as the Scripture readings) by their nature more effective when expressed externally? The Council seemed to think so in calling for the Scriptures to be more lavishly opened up to the faithful. I read this as not only increasing the variety of Scripture, but increasing its prominence in the public Liturgy.
Of course, the communal and external aspects of the the Liturgy were exaggerated, sometimes grossly so, in the reforms, but that does not mean such principles should be altogether inoperative.
Folks,
We all have our preferences and that is good. However, let's wait for the Holy See to clarify the matter in the upcoming document.
Shawn I understand your problems with the flow. I have gone to the Ancient Use a few times in the past year and it still throws me that the gospel and epistole are read twice. At the church that I go to the congregation tends to be more active (giving responses) when the gosple and epistole are read in English. I can understand the need for them to spoken/proclaimed, but I thought that it would be nice for the translation to be given right after it had been said in Latin. This would not interupt the flow. There is a long tradition of the Word of God being proclaimed and understood. I think that it would be better to have the translation within the liturgical context while preserving the Latin. Having it read in English while the Latin is being said seems silly to me, just like rereading it.
The only times I witnessed this practice of reading both concurrently it was jarring. This was at a Sung Mass.
The jarring effect was in part the abrupt change in the language, which is accented in a Sung Mass. At low Mass that did not strike me as much.
Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis.
The problem is that if you are using the 1962 Missal, the readings are in Latin in that Missal, and must be so with or without people according to the rubrics. I do not see any "notwithstanding clause" in this article that abrogates that Latin usage. The Holy Father is merely suggesting that the vernacular readings could also be used in addition to the Latin when people are present, I assume to help them understand more readily those important readings. In doing so, I do not think the Holy Father understands those readings to be more important for being readily understood by the people than any other parts of the Mass. I assume rather that it is because most people 40 years after the council are not familiar with Latin enough to be able to comprehend prima facie any propers, at least not at this time.
"Etiam" as in the above article, by the way, usually means "and also", which the English has not translated.
Ted, while I think you interpretation is possible, etiam can also mean "even" as "they can even be proclaimed in the vernacular". And that meaning of etiam is equally common
1) What does SP say? "Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula." "The lessons can be proclaimed also in the vernacular language." As pointed out by Guy, the issue here is "etiam", "also". The question is, what is "also" referring to? It could be "also" in the sense of "also in the vernacular, in addition to the proclamation in Latin" or "also in the vernacular, instead of the proclamation in Latin".
I agree that this needs calrification by Ecclesia Dei and will certainly be adressed in the document to come. However, in Germany at least, many Bishops have interpreted it (not authoritatively, but in interviews, statements etc.) the way Shawn does. Also, given the fact that the Holy Father has said that he envisions a future unified rite with the option of the lessons in the vernacular, and that, as far as I am aware, Ecclesia Dei hat allowed this practice even under the old indult, it seems to me to make sense to interpret SP that way. After all, it is an option, not a prescription.
2) As for the practice in Germany, as far as I can tell, the manner Shawn calls the European (the priest reading quietly in Latin, while someone else, even lay people, reads aloud in the vernacular) is very common at Low Mass. Luckily, unlike before the liturgical reforms, we seldom have Low Mass here on sundays. At Sung Mass, the lesson and the Gospel are read at the beginning of the homily. Frankly, I can see no problem in this (that the Missal is already in the centre, no candles etc.), as the homily isn't a part of the liturgy anyway. The preacher is simply, before beginning his exegesis, recalling the text he is about to explain. Makes perfect sense to me. We simply cannot, and I contend should not, force everyone attending to spend the Mass reading text books or leaflets. Who wants to do it, great, but there is also something to be said for simply following the Mass even if you don't understand Latin. But for these people, it makes sense to at least repeat briefly the text of lesson and Gospel, as they are the main "catechetical" element (although they are not only, and perhaps not even foremost that) of the Mass. So, all in all, I am quite happy with the German practice as described. (Of course, if it were just about me, there need not be any vernacular at all.)
Ted,
However, the question that can be asked still is whether "and also" intends to to mean, "in addition to" or whether it is intended to make reference to a list of autonomous possibilities.
Oh, something that might be of interest: At a weekdasy low Mass in Stuttgart, the (diocesan, I believe) priest did just what Shawn suggests - he directly proclaimed lesson and Gospel in German, and not at all in Latin. So, it is already not only academic, but practical.
Joshua:
"Even": Not according to my classic Andrew's lexicon.
What is important, however, is the position of "etiam" in the text before "lingua vernacula" rather than before "possunt". I grant that this article could have been written more precisely.
A last point: I thoroughly agree with Michael that the chant tones for lessons and Gospels were developed for Latin. For the venacular, and for each vernacular, there would have to be developed new tones. However, in the novus ordo, the lessons can also be chanted. At least for German, there are several "new" Gospel tones, which are not infrequently used. They could of course be transferred to the old Mass, which could be an instance of "mutual enrichment". My personal preference, though, is to keep the Latin chanted readings for Sung and Solemn Mass, at least.
""Even": Not according to my classic Andrew's lexicon."
etiam=even is absolutely standard. "crucifixus etiam pro nobis"="He was even crucified for us."
I think the pastoral part of this question cannot be underestimated either for certain.
Fr. Finigan at the Hermeneutic of Continuity has made a good comment on this part of the equation.
I must say, I was a little concerned what sort of reaction my private speculation might induce, but I am very happy with the quality of the comments. I believe we are challenging one another, but in a way that is extremely edifying and fruitful.
Berolinensis, I don't want to overstate the case either. We do the practice of re-reading the readings each and every Sunday at our FSSP apostolate. However, I have always felt the "French way" or "European way" as I generalize it, does seem to work better.
It was this thought that actually was the motivating factor which spawned the post in question.
It is encouraging to see this dialogue move from how to eliminate the Latin Epistle and Gospel (a couple months ago that was all the rage here by people who read a translation of SP that didn't include an important word, discussed above) to how to keep them while accomodating those unable or unwilling to read a missal.
The incident at Saint Mary's has never happened before -- that was, as reported, a special request by the visiting priest who spoke no English. Every other Mass there follows the logical practice of reading/chanting the Epistle and Gospel in Latin at the altar, followed by re-reading them in English from the pulpit.
The strongest point for keeping the practice of separated language readings is about what-is and what-is-not part of Mass. When the Epistle and Gospel are read for real, in Latin at the altar, that is Mass. When the priest leaves the altar for the pulpit, Mass has officially been halted (hence the sign of the cross, and a host of options for vestments). He can then read the Epistle and Gospel and reflect on them in the same language via a sermon. This makes so much more sense than breaking or deleting the end of the Mass of the Catechumens.
Shawn, I understood what you were getting at regarding the "European" way. What I was trying to say (perhaps obscuring it by including several other points) was that even here in Europe, that is done at Low Mass, but not at High Mass. Since I hope we all agree that on Sundays there should be High Mass if at all possible, this practice would not really be an option for Sundays. Personally, I am not a big fan of this practice we have here for Low Mass, as it means that I cannot hear the Priest saying the real Mass, but am forced to listen to a voice-over, even though I could perfectly understand the Latin. That's like watching a papal Mass on TV with voice-over. To me, it's annoying. But that's just me.
THERE WILL BE NO READINGS DONE IN THE VERNACULAR.
Oh wait, I forgot to put my God voice on. "THERE WILL BE..."
Ken,
I don't think there has been a suggestion of the elimination of the Latin readings. I know I certainly haven't suggested that.
But there is a question about whether the Pope hasn't enshrined a development that would allow a new option, and if so, how that might cause us to reflect upon some of our current practices and some of the variances that already exist in that regard.
I think its important that we make the distinction between options and elimination.
At the end of the day though, what this discussion makes clear is that a clarification is absolutely needed, because there is a legitimate cause to question whether there is even an option for vernacular only.
Regardless of the answer to that, I would like to propose it would be good if we consider how we presently handle the issue, and whether another model, such as that found more commonly in Europe, might not be more effacacious.
Berolinensis,
Thanks for the clarification. I believe the same practice is used by others on the continent, even for sung Masses however.
Perhaps someone can confirm this?
And absolutely: sung Masses for Sundays and Solemnities please.
Can someone explain to the Canadian I am the presence of american flags in the presbytery?
Of all those that have a problem with the priest (or other homilist) re-reading the scripture readings in the vernacular just prior to the homily, nobody has developed a satisfactory argument. I don't feel the force of the argument that it interrupts the flow of the Mass - merely having a homily does that.
I don't necessarily have a problem with reading or singing the lessons in the vernacular - I just don't have a problem with the prevalent practice mentioned above.
Some people seem too concerned with following along with missals. It can be good for some, but I find it distracting and I have the suspicion that many who like it aren't getting as much out of the Mass as they would if they were not following in a missal. I claim this because I've noticed some people utterly confused as to what is going on, flipping through pages back and forth - frustrated and seemingly without a clue what is going on (and they are not new to the usus antiquior!). I have also witnessed people not following in a missal, and yet serene in their deep prayerful participation.
Berolinensis, you wrote: etiam=even is absolutely standard. "crucifixus etiam pro nobis"="He was even crucified for us." In English (in my experience) we have that translated as "He was also crucified for us" (thought not in the ICEL translation which eliminates the "etiam" all together: "For our sake He was crucified..."). Perhaps Fr. Z could enlighten us on this point if he is reading the comments.
I was thinking about the issue from a bit of a different viewpoint. I spent a good part of my priesthood (a whole 10 years) in a bilingual parish (English/Czech) and a trilingual parish (English/Spanish/Tagalog). I also spent many years before seminary in a bilingual parish (English/Italian). For greater festivals such as Christmas and the Triduum the readings would be proclaimed in different languages and the translations were provided in a program in the other language(s). I spent a summer while in theologate at Ste. Anne de Beaupre where major services were bilingual and English/French Missals were provided. So, I cannot see that it is necessary to read the (Lessons) Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular. If people don't have hand missals it is easy enough to provide translations. In the 60s and before this was not the case. There really wasn't a quick and easy way to make legible copies without expensive equipment. Now, just about every rectory has a photocopier or there is a Kinko's or Staples nearby. The readings in the vernacular can be put in the weekly bulletin.
Reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular by another priest at the same time the celebrant is reading it at the altar only works for Low Masses or Sung Masses where they are not chanted. Reading them again before the sermon has been, for me sitting in choro or the pew, overkill. And it always came across to me that the priest was reading it because he had to and wanted to get through it...hardly edifying.
Having frequently chanted the Gospel in English with success (takes lots of practice) if the vernacular is going to be used, then use it alone for the Epistle and Gospel (depending on how the Holy Father meant "etiam." But, the best choice by far is to keep them in Latin and let people follow along with a translation.
And of course we could encourage people to prepare at home by reading the Epistle and Gospel or even have, dare I say, Bible Study on the readings for the upcoming Sunday.
Ted, 'the Catholic Church as universal is Roman and Latin' - er, whaaa???
Michael - only prejudice prevents you from being comfortable with chant in English. Retrofitting a new language to existing chant is done all the time in the Greek and Slavic Churches. Znamenny and Galician Chant sound absolutely fine in English. Even Byzantine Chant, which is melodically far more complex and intricate than Gregorian, and often depends on poetic texts in Greek that are far harder to translate into English than anything in the Roman rites, has been largely successfully transposed into English.
Joshua - an abrupt change in language is only jarring if unexpected, done badly, and if the two languages are not given equal solemnity. Russian Orthodox parishes in the diaspora, for a start, often have Epistle and Gospel chanted in both Church-Slavonic and English, and this is not at all jarring. The same applies when a litany in one language is followed by a litany in the other.
And I have a question.
I seem to remember that the priest only read the readings again in English on Sundays and not during the week. Was this the norm? Even when the English lectionary came out in 1966(?) daily Masses were entirely in Latin in my parish with an old Irish Monsignor. Heck, we didn't even start using the Novus Ordo until the summer of '72.
Edward:
This is another way of saying that the language of the Catholic Church is Latin, and that you would not know it following Vatican II. I think it is important to proclaim the Gospel in the Catholic language throughout the world to maintain a universal unity throughout all places amongst all Catholic peoples, although it can certainly be proclaimed in the vernacular in addition to the Latin. Latin is part of the glue that has held the Catholic Church together for a long time, and I see that unity gradually being eroded by nationalistic feelings in the various Episcopal conferences throughout the world. Latin transcends nationality and political boundaries. I believe the readings of the usus antiquior should remain in Latin, although the vernacular can be used in addition.
Ted - that's what I thought you said. I'd hasten to remind you that Latin is the language only of the Roman Church, and that the Catholic Church is more than the Roman Church alone. If you'd said that Latin is the language of the Roman Rites and should be preserved, I would agree with you. The Eastern Churches, where Latin and the Vulgate have no weight whatsoever, are no less Catholic. The Catholic Church has no language. the Churches sui juris that comprise her, do.
"Some people seem too concerned with following along with missals."
Yes. The Liturgy is something that should be lived as it is happening, not read in a book whilst it is happening.
Mark K,
Flow may not get across the sense, "progression" may be a little better -- in its sense of relation to the prayers and ceremonies which lead to the gospel from the Epistle.
Proclaim the readings one time in vernacular only. It makes the most sense and is entirely in keeping with Sacrosanctum Concilium. We shouldn't get overly attached to Latin in all things. It has it's place, readings isn't one of them. Viva organic development!!!
Edward:
Yes indeed I stand corrected for precision: it is the Latin rite of the Catholic Church that should have Latin as its primary universal language. The problem is that the word "Roman" in "Roman Catholic Church" was originally introduced as a somewhat pejorative designation by non-Catholics in English speaking North America, and many Catholics today refuse to use that title preferring instead "Catholic Church" instead, albeit somewhat misleading.
This sounds like a practice which respects the integrity of the Mass while allowing for the fulfillment of Sacrosanctum Concilium's permission of vernacular readings.
Since the readings are directed to the people (and not to instruct God!) it's hard to see how a good vernacular translation would be problematic.
Also, those parishes with permanent deacons might have the deacon help at Low Masses by reading the epistle and Gospel in English while the priest reads in Latin as was done at St. Mary's.
And this may be controversial since the preaching of deacons at Eucharistic Liturgies is a post-Conciliar phenomenon, but perhaps the deacon could preach. This would be especially helpful if a parish with only one resident priest began to offer a TLM. Otherwise, since the lectionary cycle differs, the priest would have to prepare 2 homilies each Sunday.
[And, of course, the deacon as a canonically ordinary minister of holy Communion might also distribute holy Communion to assist the priest.]
What do folks think of this idea? During a Usus Antiquitor Mass, what if the priest reads the Epistle, Gradual and Gospel in the vernacular before the homily, with the people seated, since they've already stood for the Gospel?
My wife and I have been to a few Usus Antiquitor Masses, and this is how it has been done there, only we stood for the Gospel and made responses in English for the readings.
Any thoughts?
Berolinensis:
My official translation (and others I found) for "crucifixus etiam pro nobis" in the creed says: "And he was crucified ALSO for us." Do not confuse "etiam" with "autem" as in:
Humiliávit semetípsum factus obédiens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.
Isn't one of the basic questions here: "Ought Sacrosanctam Concilium to be applied to the 1962 Missal?" Is the usus antiquior subject at all to Vatican II, or does it stand forever outside the liturgical reform?
...Granted, of course, that the liturgical movement is older than Vatican II...
Please, 'etiam' has multiple meanings. Even in classical contexts, 'etiam' very frequently has the meaning of 'even'. Latin particles do not have a simple English equivalent. One has to pick the correct word according to the context.
The problem I see with following the seemingly established FSSP practice is that it seems somewhat anticlimactic to follow the normal order for chanting the Gospel in Latin then sit for the English Epistle and then stand for the English Gospel with accompanying responses and gestures but proclaimed by the preacher from the pulpit.
Perhaps the solution is to follow the practice of Saint Peter’s before the reforms, i.e. proclaim the Gospel first in chanted Latin and then immediately again in chanted English. This way the people do not have to sit and stand several times and it does not create an anticlimax. With regard to the Epistle, if it is important to the homily it could be read but if the preacher works in the relevant passages I don’t think there would be a problem with not reading it in English.
Besides, if there is a bulletin with the readings in it or even simply citations I think we should trust that the congregation would have the intelligence to go and find the particular Gospel or Epistle if they want. Our culture loves to be spoon-fed information and it looks to me like we are falling into that trap as well. It’s also important to remember that all of the propers of the mass are integral in 1962—something that is not necessarily the case with the NO mass. Giving them the readings but not the introit or gradual seems to be to be just as bad as giving them nothing at all.
John M,
The thing you have to remember is the context of our day, including the pastoral situation around the liturgical reform and the preservation of the older Roman liturgy.
We have to "look again" but also in the light of our present situation. This precludes a certain amount of caution and pastoral sensitivity, just as it does for the reform of the reform.
WFW, at our local FSSP apostolate, each Sunday bulletin contains all of the propers for that particular Mass.
Daniel:
You will have to find me an example of this. The great Andrew's Latin-English Lexicon makes no mention of this at all.
I have just done a quick search of Genesis in the Clementine Vulgate using VulSearch. Of the 17 instances of "etiam", the Douay-Rheims translates 14 of these as "also", the other 3 simply as "and".
It is clear to me that article 6 needs some elaboration by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Enough said.
Dom Prosper Gueranger spent his whole trying to install the Roman Rite as the liturgy of France. He despised local innovations that had been introduced in France. And now, 130 years later, the French are still trying to introduce innovations in the ancient Roman Rite.
I formerly sang with a chant schola that sang all the propers for a Latin Novus Ordo mass on a monthly basis. We always took the readings in English. The first and second readings were normally chanted by one of the schola members. The gospel readings was less frequently chanted by the priest. I never found the shift in language to be particularly jarring.
In contrast, the times I have attended usus antiquior masses, I have found it very odd to have the readings in Latin at their assigned places in the liturgy and then to repeat them in English before the homily. I find this highly disrupted to the flow of the Mass. Moreover, I feel that it undercuts the whole value of saying the Mass in Latin. It sends the subliminal message that "hey, we know you really don't understand what we are doing here in Latin, so now we will repeat it for you in English."
As has been mentioned before, the readings, unlike most of the rest of the liturgy, are directed to the people, not to God. Use of the vernacular thus seems most appropriate here.
From a purely practical viewpoint, I doubt that many people ever gain a level of familiarity with the Latin text of readings similar to that which is readily attained for the common. Thus, people who can dispense with the use of missal for much of the Mass are forced to fumble for a missal in order to understand the readings.
I would go so far as to say that when I attend an usus antiquior Mass the double readings in Latin and English are one of the things that highlight for me the need that existed for liturgical reform at the time of the Council (despite my unhappiness with the way that reform was actually implemented). Use of the vernacular for the readings would go a long way to making me much more likely to attend a usus antiquior mass on a more frequent basis.
For both Michael and Shawn, It may well be argued that a piece of music is always in some way better in the language for which it was first composed but this has never prevented successful translations in all kinds of music. Of course one does have to have good musical English which the present English translations in the Novus Ordo are not.
Aas for Fr. Webber's attempts at a new chant I wonder if we will ever hear of them whereas, for example, Vexilla Regis works splendidly in English e.g.
"The Royal Banners forward go
The cross shines forth in mystic glow
Where He in flesh, our flesh who made,
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid."
Try chanting it to the traditional tune. It might seem strange at first and it works and believe me the presentRC hymn books provide nothing nearly as good.
I think we should just encourage people to get a hand missal. At most of the Low Masses I assist at, there is no vernacular readings and many of the High Masses there are the vernacular readings after the Latin ones but I've been told (by priests) that they'd rather not do it.
We also loose or undercut the symbolism of the position of the ministers/priest if we just trot up to the pulpit and talk at the people. Protestants put emphasis on the "proclamation" in the sense of talking at the people. This is why their services are readings and preaching-they have nothing else. However, we are not they and we need to wean ourselves of this conception. Proclamation of the Word is more than mere teaching.
Another good thing about getting your own missal is that you can use it to prepare beforehand-like, the night before and then can contemplate during the actual reading itself (especially if it it a High Mass). I've noticed that one misses what one gets out of the chant itself if your face is buried in the missal during Mass.
However, if we are going to have the readings in the vernacular, I wouldn't "mind" the readings during the Latin readings for a Low Mass but this would be inappropriate for a Sung or Solemn High.
Greg,
Keep in mind of course that the liturgy is not static and so any development does not necessarily constitute an innovation.
I concur with those who have said that the practice of the priest repeating the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular at the beginning of the homily is rather artificial and should be removed.
It is important to remember that the readings during the Mass are not mere readings from Sacred Scripture. Rather, they are a proclamation of God's Word in a special fashion. In a real way, we meet Christ during the Gospel (cf. the acclamations before and after the Gospel) and what is proclaimed during the ForeMass is made sacramentally present and applied to our souls during the Sacrifice and Banquet of the Eucharist. This lends the Mass lessons an importance that can never be equally by private reading (even aloud) of Scripture.
Given this understanding of the Mass lessons, I'm more inclined to support the restoration of the ancient practice of proclaiming the Epistle and Gospel at an Ambo, facing the people and without any repetition before the homily. The priest may recite a line from the Gospel before commencing his homily (a practice I've witnessed), but complete repetition is a bit much and betrays a rather "low" view of the significance of the Mass lessons in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Furthermore, if Christ is still preaching his Gospel in a real, yet mysterious way, in the Liturgy, it would seem appropriate (even if not necessary) for the faithful to hear the Epistle and Gospel proclaimed in a liturgically authentic way (i.e. “hearing” the lessons in their vernacular language, directly, as opposed to “reading” the lessons in a hand missal).
That said; I believe that Latin should be maintained for more solemn occasions, such as the proclamation of the Gospel on Palm Sunday and for the lessons during the Sacred Triduum, even while vernacular could be allowed at other Masses. Many who reject any possibility of the vernacular being used for the readings often take the view that the Mass is the priest’s affair and that anyone who performs a simultaneous function (even of the same action) is detracting from the “real Mass.” I find this understanding of the Sacred Liturgy highly incomplete. The Liturgy is the action of the Mystical Body of Christ, which by its nature includes the various orders of the hierarchy and the faithful, joining in chanting, prayer and even proclamation under the headship of the celebrant, who presides in the person of Christ the Head. The understanding of the Liturgy as the action of the Mystical Body of Christ combined with a proper sense of what the liturgical proclamation of Sacred Scripture entails causes the allowance of the vernacular for the lessons to be hardly something to complain about, IMO.
Not that I am a fan of the idea, but the use of etiam in no way could be construed to mean that the lessons can be proclaimed in the vernacular, in addition to the Latin. That would render etiam a substitute for et...et, or even more likely et...et etiam. If the composer of the Latin wanted to express that, he would have had to have written 'et lingua Latina et lingua vernacula' or something like that...it is rather abusive to consider etiam as merely conjunctive, and conjuctive with one half of the conjuction only implied.
further, as someone has noted, the placement of the etiam before a noun clause, lingua vernacula, renders it all the more likely that etiam should have a concessive, indeed even apologetic, force.
If any one is terribly interested, the first volume of F. Hand's book, de particulis Latinis, is available on google books.
All of that being said, and standards of Latinity being what they are, it is certainly possible (albeit unlikely) that the composer of the Latin meant to express both...and.
ACtually, amboes were introduced with the 1965 missal. In our parish we had two, one for the epistle and one for the Gospel and I have seen that elsewhere but within a matter of about a week they were reduced to one which also began to replace the pulpit for sermons.
Look! Summorum Pontificum has only been in effect for 4 months and in most cases the EF has yet to be seen. This is not the time to start mucking around with it and, in fact I prefer the pre 1962 practice of the priest reciting the lessons even when the subdeacon and deacon chant them. I favoured Liturgical Reform in the late 50's and early 60's and .... well let's just say, "once bitten twice shy". Let the EF rest for at least a decade or so. Right now the real emphasis seems to be on repairing the NO.
I celebrate the TLM everyday for a small congregation of young people and adults (I am a school chaplain). Since Sept 14 2007, I have read the epistle and gospel immediately in English in their proper place. This seems to work well and is the approach that I have always witnessed outside the UK. Before 1969, the readings were read in English at Low Masses and Sung Masses before the homily on Sundays and in many places as I have indicated from 1965 onwards, so this is not a recent innovation. For those who are being introduced to the TLM, this can be helpful, without prejudice to the requirement or the desirability of an all-Latin Mass.
My experience of inviting friends to Mass in the 1962 Missal for the first time is that they found the readings in Latin to be perhaps the most off-putting aspect. These were young committed Catholics who recognised the problems with the normal liturgy but have grown up with an expectation that they will hear (not read or translate!) God's Word during Mass.
Of course, we should be able to preserve the 1962 Missal in its integrity, but it seems to me that if we are to achieve the larger goal of 're-enchanting' the liturgy, then we have to accept that forty years has passed since this Mass was used regularly. We know that there is a need a desire for authentic liturgy, but it doesn't mean we can entirely forget about the last four decades. My inital reading of the MP may have been wrong, but it seemed to me that the Holy Father was accepting that there is a place for vernacular readings as part of the liturgy. I think this option helps enormously in drawing new people to the traditional liturgy.
In other words, I believe Sacrosanctum Concilium does apply to the 1962 Missal. How could it not?!
About the translation of "etiam", I think in case of doubt, unless the proper congregation gives the correct interpretation (which was the sacred congregation of rites) we used to follow the tradition or common usage. In France, the common understanding of this "etiam" was to give either the latin or both latin and French. This was the rule. Rule which, by the way, was unfortunately neglected in several places.
Has the lousy (but tolerated) pre-Vatican II custom of singing the Gradual WHILE the celebrant reads the Epistle at a Sung Mass been continued anywhere? Just curious. At a Sung Mass several years ago, I heard the Epistle read in the vernacular by a server while the celebrant read it in a low voice at the altar. The celebrant re-read the Gospel in the vernacular from the pulpit after he had sung it at the altar in Latin. This isn’t “normal” in the U.S. but it didn’t bother me. I liked that it eliminated the awkward momentary sitting-down between the two readings of the Gospel. Another peculiar thing at this church is that the celebrant not only intoned the Gloria and Credo, but continued singing throughout at the altar, not going to the bench to sit. I can’t find anything that forbids this practice.
I could do without the vernacular reading at all. Is it not adequate for the preacher to quote the relevant Bible passages at the beginning of his sermon or somewhere in the course of it? From what I understand, the both the Epistle and Gospel were chanted and then read in English, German, Spanish, and French at the traditional Latin Masses at the World Youth Day celebration in Germany. Would anyone on here NOT agree that this is going overboard?
The 1958 instruction De musica sacra is a good point of reference on this matter of vernacular readings. It states the following: “It is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days” (14c). “If a particular indult has been granted for the priest, deacon, subdeacon, or lector to read solemnly the Epistle, Lesson, or Gospel in the vernacular after they have been chanted in their Gregorian melodies, they must be read in a loud and clear voice, without any attempt to imitate the Gregorian melodies” (16c). “In those places where the Holy See has permitted the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular after the Latin text has been chanted, the commentator may not substitute for the celebrant, deacon, or subdeacon in reading them” (96e).
Is this instruction still binding? If so, the reading must never be sung in the vernacular. Does anyone have any idea why a lector could read in the vernacular but the commentator could not?
This is off-topic, but De musica sacra is the first document I’ve been able to find prohibiting organ music at the Elevation: “During the Consecration, the singing must stop, and there should be no playing of instruments; if this has been the custom, it should be discontinued” (17e). There are so many nice organ pieces written specifically for this moment in the Mass, what was the point in relegating them to another point in the liturgy? Maybe this will require another blog post from our administrator to discuss the pros and cons . . .
At our Indult Mass in the past, the priest read the lections in Latin alone. The vernacular was not read at all, either during or after the Latin. That is how most of us preferred it. I strongly oppose having the lections read in the vernacular. I feel that it will open the door by degrees to every sort of abuse. You start with Douay-Rheims texts (good), then the Biblical thees and thous are taken away (not acceptable to me under any cirucmstances), then cometh conversational English, then the Feminazis move in and make their changes, and it all endeth with the Blue Jeans Bible being recognised by the Holy See. No way, José. There will always be some of us who see the value of 'Whither thou goest, I shall go' to 'Where you will go I will go'. But step on the slippery slope of the vernacular and kumbayah will follow.
We all have Missals. Unlike most liberals, we can all read. Even the blind can have braille Missals. Better to read a good translation than to hear a bad one. I want not one single word of English before the Sermon!
Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, B.C., Canada
I have come to the (many)comments late, so apologies if I repeat thins already said.
While no expert, I would say 'festina lente'.
I suspect that in the English speaking ‘west’ (and for that matter western European languages) French, Spanish, Italian) the argument for the necessity of reading (or singing) the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for didactic reasons is not sustained – the situation here is relatively affluent, and the technology and cost to provide printed Latin and vernacular texts (of all the propers) for Sundays and major feasts is arguably within reach. One might contemplate the argument of necessity in places where the cost and/or the technology is prohibitive.
I think the ceremonies of the Solemn Mass (intended to be the normative form) should guide any thoughts here, rather than the Missa lecta or low Mass. Artistically I doubt there is a ready substitute for the ancient chant tones and/or the ‘unscanable’ English translations. I wonder for instance if the beauty of the sung Passion could be matched with anything currently available?
Also, in the current environment/time in history what would be the implication for the other latin chants of the liturgy ? Where does it end ?
Personally the thought of having the readings read silently by the celebrating priest at a Missa lecta and concurrently ‘proclaimed’ is like fingernails screeching over a blackboard!
And the rubrical reading of the Epistle & Gospel by the celebrant in a Missa lecta, followed immediately by the reading (more often than not quasi-ceremonially) in the vernacular, even when the texts are printed and available, has always seemed a bit ridiculous to me.
re: "etiam"
Ted, I'm afraid I don't know the "Andrews" dictionary, being German. But there cannot be reasonable doubt that etiam can also mean "even". The German standard dictionary, the "Georges", gives it as such, citing examples from Casear and Cicero.
Fr Bailey, when I was referring to the Creed, I of course didn't mean the ICEL translation. The German and Spanish official novus ordo translation also simply omit it (but then the German novus ordo Creed says "we believe"...). But in every German hand missal I have from before 1962 (and I have quite a few) it is translated as "He even was crucified for us" ("Gekreuzigt wurde Er sogar für uns."). I admit that that is not the only possible translation. But since giving up Himself for our salvation has always been considered the example of God's extreme love for us ("Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"), his last, gretatest and final Sacrifice for our redemption, the "even" makes plenty sense to me. But that's just IMHO.
Liturgy is not a conference nor a classroom. Besides, we all have Bibles at home. At 35, I already know most of the readings. All this man-centered, proclamation nonsense indisposes me. I´ll pass.
Any priest saying or singing Mass with vernacular readings instesd of Latin can be certain that I will arrive 15 minutes late for Mass.
'etiam' can often mean 'even'. Lewis & Short says so quite clearly http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bi...0:
1274.lewshort
Ah yes, I forgot... I wanted to say this regarding Mr Shawn´s favorite argument, natural development. One can call natural development just about any novelty one is fond of. It is just a way of imposing change. Something of which we´ve had quite enough of lately.
Change is certainly not what we need. Stability and interiority are.
And before someone tells me that life itself is change, I´ll remind him that so is cancer.
One of our contributors mentioned the difficulty of chanting the Scripures in English using Gregorian Chant. A few months ago I attended a seminar on chant; Dr. Mahrt did exactly that and had the participants do the same. It worked extremely well. As far as the comment "I will be 15 minutes late", make sure that you pick up your toys etiam when you go home. :>))
I (etiam) forgot to mention that I simply don´t understand irony, dear Hieromonk. So sorry.
I attended a Byzantine Rite parish for years. Much of the liturgy was in Slavonic. The readings, both the Epistle and the Gospel, were in the vernacular. At no time did the roof cave in.
However this plays out, the authority to make that determination rests with the Apostolic See, or in certain circumstances, with the diocesan bishop or competent territorial body of bishops (as opposed to self-made pundits on the internet, or some anonymous "priest" with a website). Although this is what Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium stipulates, it was true long before the Council.
I only mention this after reading some of the comments, because one thing that is obvious is... well, it isn't always obvious.
Jon K,
Your argument isn't really an argument against my basic point about development. One could as equally turn the tables on that kind of thought and suggest that one can likewise call any legitimate development one personally didn't like an "innovation" and "novelty".
It is possible to skew development to one's own agenda either which way, but that doesn't change the fact there is development.
The question that is really important is: what is a reasonable and organic development and what is not.
David,
I understand your point but there is no harm in discussing these matters in a forum like this, particularly since we are facing a possibility of a new option here.
This discussion is bringing out a variety of issues, perspectives and information, including some critical analysis about a present practice (re-reading the readings before the homily) and whether there might not be better ways to approach it -- even if we presume there is no new option.
For my part, I think that is valuable.
I'd agree absolutely with Philippe.
Because there is now a clearly debate about the sense of "etiam" and how that might have been intended to effect things, until we receive a clarification from the Ecclesia Dei, we must responsibly assume the status quo.
Of course, the theorized debate/discussion can continue, and further, that still keeps open the debate about whether it's better -- assuming the status quo -- to just do the readings in Latin, or if doing the vernacular in addition, when and how that is best done.
This clarifying document from Ecclesia Dei should be quite interesting.
"I understand your point but there is no harm in discussing these matters in a forum like this..."
No, there is no harm at all. Personally, I would welcome a substition of the vernacular for the readings, even in chanted form. As MC for a parish that celebrates the TLM, we discussed that option, on the basis of the permissions granted by the PCED in 1992 (which can happen, and did in some form even before the Council). It was the good Father's opinion that a chanted form of English would sound too gutteral in a setting with mostly Latin chant. I understand that such a school of thought exists, though personally I don't agree with it.
But my other point is (or should have been) that under proper approval, such variation in practice pre-dates the Council by decades -- DECADES, mind you, and has even enjoyed the support of some popes in the 20th century.
Hope that clears it up, Shawn. Overall, I find the discussion fruitful.
Fr. Bailey: I seem to remember that the priest only read the readings again in English on Sundays and not during the week. Was this the norm?
Yes, everywhere I attended daily Mass, it was non-interrupted for a sermon (and repeated readings). We heard sermons only on Sunday.
I believe this is still the practice in FSSP and ICK parishes. And one which I personally prefer, only infrequently having heard a sermon that added to rather than subtracted from the Holy Sacrifice itself. A daily Mass (whether ordinary or extraordinary) with its devotion not diluted or interrupted by a sermon is such a blessing (for me).
It seems to me a key point that traditionally the sermon is (or was) not considered part of the Mass, but rather an interruption to it. This, I understand, is the origin of the practice of the celebrant removing his maniple before proceeding to the pulpit. I've seen ICK celebrants even (etiam in both senses) remove their chasuble and leave it draped on the altar, to be put on again when the sermon is concluded and the priest is back at the altar to resume the Mass.
If the restriction to an all-Latin liturgy is accepted, one can see then why the vernacular readings take place within the sermon interruption when "anything goes", this break from the liturgical action not being a part of the liturgical flow and hence not being subject to liturgical restrictions.
Exactly, Henry. This is a point that more people need to realize -- concerning the time between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful.
I also remind those who favor eliminating the Latin Epistle and Gospel (and I will continue to use "eliminate," as there are many here who are pushing for that) that pointing to post-1962 documents is a slippery slope. The same argument for eliminating the Latin readings could be used for altar girls and communion in the hand at a traditional Latin Mass. As absurd as it sounds, that fact cannot be denied.
Finally, let's not forget the reason for Ecclesia Dei and part of the reason for the recent motu proprio. It is to unify the Church and bring those on the right who have left in full communion with the ruling authorities. Tinkering with the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews and proposing wacky ways to change longstanding customs regarding the Epistle and Gospel will not help with that mission.
Finally, in my experience, the churches that are known for post-1962 experimentation (and we have one in my area out of the seven or eight regular traditional Mass sites) are not seeing a huge turnout as a result of their innovations. The base of support for those innovations is small, whereas the base of support for by-the-book 1962 (or even earlier) Masses is growing. People are attracted to orthodoxy -- 100%, not a hybrid situation.
Oh, but it certainly WAS an argument, Shawn. Those who long for no changement will not cal this non-cahngement of theirs "organical changement".
But if you want more arguments, I´ll be very happy to accomodate you. From the hip, in no particular order:
The Orthodox haven´t had any changes for ages, and are much the better for it.
Is to-day the proper time for reforms, given the "air du temps"? I think not and I believe Bugnini and his friends showed this rather emphatically. Can we afford new experiments?
Once you ask yourself what changement we should have, once you are seeking for change, whatever you get won´t be organical. There is no point in criticizing Bugnini and then make your own Bugnini thing. My opposisiton is to anything created, manufactured, constructed, and I do not wish to see people of your sort destroy what was left by Bugnini in 1962.
Certain people are not satisfied with the tradirional liturgy simply because this liturgy does not embody their own vision of liturgy´s nature (the matter of the readings show this perfectly well). Rather than learn from the liturgy, and change themselves, they wish to make the old liturgy to their own image, to change tje liturgy. They will call this organical development or something of the kind, but it will be frabicated -- just as much as the 2nd eucharistic prayer.
I believe there is a ceratin amount of vitalism among those who can think of nothing but changing the classical liturgy now that it has been saved ("saved", for the 62-thing really isn´t my cup of tea at all, nor is Pius X´s new breviary). Change is mistaken for life. Well, vitalism simply is not Catholic dogma, and I am no vitalist my self.
To me, figdetting with the old liturgy can only give discord, pride and man-centeredness.
Need their be world wide uniformity in the matter of the reading of the Epistle and Gospel ?
"Summorum Pontificum" seems to allow for either the usage in English speaking countries or the usage in European countries.
Whatever happened to "according to local custom" ?
I find myself a bit overwhelmed, though not entirely surprised, at the extent of the commentary on this question. It is one which, as I understand has been asked of the Ecclesia Dei Commission for a clarification. The text of Articel 6 reads:
Art. 6. In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis cum populo, Lectiones proclamari possunt etiam lingua vernacula, utendo editionibus ab Apostolica Sede recognitis.
While it possible for etiam to mean "also," it more properly means something like "even". The text seems to say that the lessons can be proclaimed even in the vernacular in Masses celebrated with the people according to the missal of Blessed Jon the XXIII, using editions which have received the reconitio of the Apostolic See.
But this is a matter for official clarification from ED commission and it is my understanding that this will be coming "real soon now"
With regard to Michael's consern about the chanting of the readings in the vernacular, while there is a learning curve in finding the native rhythm of the vernacular (in my case, English) text in order to set it to the chant tones found in the LU, it actually is not too hard. I have done it on a more or less regular basis since seminary, and have taught the knack to at least one priest who claims to have a tin ear. I use the tonus antiquior for the gospel and the appropriate prophecy or epistle tone for the readings. It does require a sensitivity to the native rhythms of the two languages, finding the tonic and secondary accents, being sensitive to questions and quotations, but once that is done, the texts pretty much set themselves.
Let us suppose that there is a change, the first one since 1962, in the missal.
First, this is going to introduce division between those who like it and those who don't.
Second, when I go to china, I will understand everything but the readings. The same with most people here when they come to France. Or we have to admit that nobody understand latin anymore.
I am a bit worried as I think if the latin readings can be omitted, then we can omit many other things. In the end, this could lead to a vernacular TLM. I really like the idea of the mass being the same everywhere il all of its parts.
Another point: No doubt, the French bishops, who are massively against the motu proprio and the traditionalists, will impose the readings only in French. The less traditional the old mass looks, the happier they seem to be.
BTW, according to every single scholar I have read (Fortescue, O'Connell, and ceremonials on the Dominican Rite), when the readings are re-read at the pulpit there is to be no ceremony, as they were not liturgical proclamations.
Hence everywhere I have been where the priest is accustomed to the old rite, though the people stand for the gospel, there are no responses, because it is not liturgical to re-read them from the pulpit. A Dominican ceremonial I was reading even instructed the servers to remain sitting, because the reading in vernacular was merely pro beneficio populi.
Here at my college, one priest reads it in Latin and then re-reads it in vernacular, another reads it in vernacular from the altar, and yet another reads it in vernacular and turns to the people to do so. Also, any Sung Mass has readings chanted in Latin. My presumption is to tolerate this diversity until Rome clarifies the issue, but it seems to me a very bad idea to introduce wholly vernacular readings until then, because if, per chance, Rome did say they had to be read first in Latin, the change back will confuse the people
Thank you Henry for responding to my question.
******
Berolinensis, I wasn't questioning what you wrote, just pointing out how "etiam" was translatin in English. As for what is correct I haven't a clue. My Latin skills are rather limited (but I'm learning). It's interesting that etiam should be translated differently in German and in English in the Creed. I wonder if it has to do with the differences between English and German. Perhaps it is because in English we rarely use "even" that way, at least in the USA. (Don't mind me on this...I find languages, their history, use and development fascinating.)
*****
Fratres, after thinking about this and reading all the posts a couple of times my personal preferance is to not use the vernacular at all, regardless of the correct interpretation of "etiam" in article 6 of SP. Reading them again in the vernacular or in the vernacular alone smacks of a certain American bishop who sees to think the faithful haven't gone past the 5th grade.
I agree that any changes must be organic. Such things show the liturgy is alive. But great care is needed. For the time being adding new propers and doing so as needed, and perhaps the use of a wider variety of prefaces is sufficient. In future perhaps bringing back the Solem Blessings but at the end of Mass and reintroducing the Bidding Prayers but not for a long time and very slowly.
Joshua wrote:
"My presumption is to tolerate this diversity until Rome clarifies the issue, but it seems to me a very bad idea to introduce wholly vernacular readings until then, because if, per chance, Rome did say they had to be read first in Latin, the change back will confuse the people."
Well said. Whatever we do, we ought to do as we have been doing and not change anything until the clarifications from Rome come out.
I have personally witnessed:
In Indiana, a (Polish) homilist read (in English) the Epistle and Gospel aloud at the pulpit while the (Polish) celebrant read (in Latin) them silently at the altar. At a Missa Cantata.
In Spain, a (presmably Spanish) celebrant chant the prayers at the altar (in Latin), and then turn around and read the Epistle and Gospel (in Spanish), and then turn back around and resume the Mass as normal, without reading them in Latin. At a Missa Cantata.
Both struck me as rather odd, but I assumed the priests knew what they were doing. Although I would much prefer to have a Sung Mass of chanted Latin and nothing else.
I'll also note that it will only be a matter of time before someone claims that the "the New American Bible is the only episcopally approved liturgical translation in the United States" rule applies to the TLM as well. The possibilities are too horrible to consider.
Daniel: but I assumed the priests knew what they were doing.
A common mistake. But, instead of this tower of Babel approach to the TLM readings that has so plagued us in the NO, wouldn't it be better for everyone, wherever they were, to be able to follow the audible Latin readings, peaking at the vernacular translation in his hand missal as necessary to keep up with the meaning. Then nobody is left out (there being at almost every local Mass someone with a different native language). And then what is gained by a vernacular repeat, whether it be at the altar or in the pulpit?
Dear Jon K,
"The Orthodox haven´t had any changes for ages, and are much the better for it."
What do you mean by this? Perhaps the answer depends on what you mean by "changes" and how long "for ages" is. My understanding is that Eastern Liturgies have indeed changed, but via the process of "organic development" (understood in its proper sense).
Even so, I am not sure to what extent one can cite the Orthodox in this discussion. One thing this exchange has highlighted for me is the difference between the way Orthodox and Roman Catholics think about, approach, pray, celebrate, etc. the Eucharist, in spite of our common faith in the "real presence" and everything else on which we agree. If you'll pardon me, it seems that there is a debate of sorts in your Church over what exactly the Eucharistic Liturgy is, and from my vantage point, both sides are not without some truth. When you establish the lex credendi, I think the lex orandi will naturally follow.
Gregory,
You said that Sacrosanctum Concilium applies to the 1962 Roman Liturgy. I'm not so sure of this. At this stage, many who assist at the traditional Liturgy see the Second Vatican Council as a failed attempt to renew the Church and feel no obligation to embrace its "renewal."
Even though true organic development can occur in the 1962 Liturgy and Sacrosanctum Concilium makes many good points, I think we ought to wash our hands of the last Council (in short, acknowledge it as a valid Council, free of heresy, but a mistake, nonetheless) and base the development of our Faith and spiritual life on more solid, less confusing foundations.
If you want to have elements of the TLM in the vernacular, perhaps you should look to the practice of Anglo-Catholics (I know, I know...) who have long experience of chanting the Epistle and Gospel in English. It works very well. :-)
For the life of me, I don't know why Vatican II didn't authorize the translation of the existing rite. I don't see why the Novus Ordo should be the only option for celebration in English.
Daniel: I'll also note that it will only be a matter of time before someone claims that the "the New American Bible is the only episcopally approved liturgical translation in the United States" rule applies to the TLM as well. The possibilities are too horrible to consider.
Surely this is enough to show that -- aside from enjoyable inside the liturgical beltway chatter like this here -- any serious consideration of vernacular liturgical readings would not be just a bad idea, but actually insane.
1/24/2008
Going back ..way back to the late 1950s in seminary we started the practice described in the original post. 1st the lesson and gospel were read in Latin with the celebrant turned toward the reader (never himself reading the lesson or Gospel) later we began having the lesson and Gospel read in English and the celebrant continued to turn toward the reader. This was at the weekday low masses never at the High Mass which was according to Norm. It was quite an innovation at the time. Upon reflection I believe we being schooled gradually for the changes that were to come in 1967. Many of us wanted the mass in the Venacular but never dreamed of totally new rite. They were later confiscated by the prefects. Divine Word Seminary Giard Pa 1956-1960
W.Yates
I have attended a Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgy quite frequently over the years. The 1958 English translation was quite beautiful but it has now been stamped out by the last and the present Bishop. In the 1990s, some rotten little Freemason (I imagine) replaced it with an English translation that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Not only does it eliminiate liturgical English (e.g. no poetry in the liturgy and no thees and thous), but it makes serious errors, like translating 'consubstantial' to 'essense' in the Creed. There are many other examples. It is a disaster. I'd rather hear the entire Divine Liturgy in a language I cannot understand (e.g. modern Ukrainian) and read the good English translation from my handmissal. Better to read a good translation than to hear a bad one concocted in committee by the gang of old liberals that still holds sway.
We have just been through a revolution in Church and society. The revolutionary period is the very worse time to tinker with translations. There are Feminazis and Freemasons out there (and *in* the Church) who can hardly wait to be invited to render us a 'more advanced' translation of our Gospels and Epistles for use at the Traditional Latin Mass. The roof would very much cave in if they had their way.
I repeat: if you encourage any use of the vernacular for the lections at this time, you are encouraging those who would take us from the Douay-Rheims to the Blue Jeans Bible.
We need a recovery period of about fifty years before we encourage any innovation, include some that were common long before Vatican II.
P.K.T.P.
Adam Barnette -
I agree that many of those who assist and have been assisting loyally at the 1962 liturgy would be unhappy with any change, and I certainly don't think it should be forced on anyone. However, I think that the option to proclaim the readings in the vernacular as part of the liturgy would be an enormous aid in attracting newcomers.
Where I attend the TLM (one that started only after Summorum Pontificium) the readings are read in the vernacular (Italian). Most of the congregation are new to the 1962 rite and so happily join in all the responses and the entire Pater Noster. Some of the older ones said the second confiteor and that has caught on as well. These small options might not be correct, but they have helped Mass attendance to grow dramatically. I hope the forthcoming document will show a certain liberality on these questions.
William: It was quite an innovation at the time.
Lots of people think liturgical abuses were unheard of before Vatican II, and hence that the Council is to blame for it all. To the contrary, most of post-Council abuses we seen were the subject of experimentation well before the Council -- most often in hothouse environments like seminaries.
Speaking of seminaries...when I was in seminary, we had a weekly Mass in Spanish, as we had quite a number of Spanish-speaking seminarians.
The only parts of the Mass in English were the homily and any announcements. EVERYTHING else was in Spanish.
Two things are interesting here. First, we would have seen the Pope's wedding before a Latin Mass was ever offered in our seminary, but for some reason it was no problem to offer a Mass in Spanish (which I did enjoy, by the way).
Second, it seems to me that if the Spanish Mass went fine without re-reading the lections in English, the Latin Mass may well go fine the same way.
Just a thought
"In the 1990s, some rotten little Freemason (I imagine) replaced it with an English translation that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Not only does it eliminiate liturgical English (e.g. no poetry in the liturgy and no thees and thous), but it makes serious errors, like translating 'consubstantial' to 'essense' in the Creed. There are many other examples. It is a disaster."
Really? Perhaps it was just translating the original Greek texts. "Consubstantial" is not in the Creed, for example, but "ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί" certainly is.
I think getting readings in both Latin and vernacular (two inputs at different times) has a lot more meaning than in the vernacular alone. Besides I would really miss that beautiful clause "In illo tempore, Christus suis discipulos dixit:". I vote for leaving the way it is. I love the old Latin Mass even if I don't understand what each word means. My heart knows the meaning.
No offense to Latin, but sometimes I wonder why, if the Church wanted the possiblility of the vernacular in the Mass, why She didn't just use the English translation of the Usus Antiquitor - you know, everything the same, except in the vernacular?
If one describes the adjusting of anything in the XF into conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium's exhortations as scary or inconceivable, doesn't that preclude said person from being a real part of any "new liturgical movement"?
I think your treatment of the vernacular reading matter is fair and accurate, Shawn. It is an option after all, not a mandate.
Artifex,
Well, we do need some clarification it seems on what the Pope intended. That will come fairly shortly I think, when Ecclesia Dei released its clarifying document.
To David Alexander,
Just so you know, my comment about there being no harm in having the discussion was in response to David M. O'Rourke, not yourself.
Though there are those who would like to pretend Vatican II didn't occur, it did and it is binding. Sacrocanctum Concilium does apply to the Extraordinary Form, like it or not. Now that strikes fear into the hearts of many...myself included. When I think of V2 and the Liturgy I think of all the horrible expirimentation that went on *in the name of* Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium. The reality is, SC has never been applied to the EF in a careful, reflective, prudent way. Post V2 it was all reactionary... get this done and done a.s.a.p.!
As I said in a previous post, now is not the time for this to happen. But if it is done slowly, thoughtfully, and prudently with good, solid catechesis under the guidance of the Holy Ghost then maybe we will see the true flowering of grace the Council promised.
Jon K,
You are imputing a lot of motives that do not necessarily apply.
How about a real example of singing the readings in English at a Missa Cantata?
Well, throughout the late nineties, Fr (now Bp) Jarrett, then parish priest of Sacred Heart, New Town, Tasmania, sang a monthly TLM, at which he chanted the Epistle and Gospel in English, and I must say it worked beautifully.
(Bp Jarrett of Lismore is a convert from Anglicanism and so was familiar with singing High Mass in the vernacular long before he was ordained.)
One point further to add: somewhere it is noted that the translation sung must be a translation of the actual liturgical text, since there are many examples in the Missal of texts slightly divergent from the Vulgate, and the translation must express these. For instance, one of the Passiontide epistles, from Jeremiah, reads "the just man" - alluding to Christ - as the one being persecuted, whereas the Biblical text actually says "Jeremiah".
Fr. Baiily,
Remember, however, that all VII did was call for the reform of the Mass. Well, to be reductionist, we did it! The mass was reformed. VII never said, however, that that reformed liturgy must be used in perpetuity. After all, there are plenty of liturgical mandates of various councils that we no longer follow. See, for example, Council of Nicea's statement that there is to be no kneeling in the church during Eastertime.
"I repeat: if you encourage any use of the vernacular for the lections at this time, you are encouraging those who would take us from the Douay-Rheims to the Blue Jeans Bible."
Why stop there? I could maintain the Pope was asking for trouble in 1925 when he added the Feast of Christ the King to the calendar. Oh, he had a perfectly good reason, mind you. But in ignoring the timeless decree of Quo Primum, where a dead Pope has the power to bing decrees on all future living Popes, thus began the "slippery slope." It began innocently enough with the amendments of Pope Urban and Pope Clement. But in the 20th century, it would lead to yet another reform of the breviary, adding "St Joseph the Worker" to the calendar of saints, the Holy Week reforms of the mid-1950s, celebrating Easter Vigil after sunset, as if Vigils were supposed to be celebrated at night. Obviously the conspiracy is much deeper than we may have thought.
The above sounds perfectly ridiculous. My point exactly.
David:
Of course, that argument to absurdity ignores some rather important points:
Urban VIII's hymnal was one of the most boneheaded decisions ever to be made by a Pope, and deprived centuries of Catholics of the authentic hymnody of the Church Fathers in favor of faddish pseudo-Ciceronian Humanist reconstructions.
The early 20th century Breviary reform destroyed the traditional order of Psalms, not without mystical significance, that dates back at least to the composition of the Rule of St. Benedict, and probably much earlier.
Aside from the the time-of-day scheduling, nearly every revision of the Holy Week ceremonies in the 1950 made them worse, consigning a treasury of traditional ceremony, vesture, and music to the historical trash-heap.
When looking back at occasions of positivist papal innovation in the liturgy, the most obvious examples of it all caused us to lose very many precious things. And in light of that knowledge, it is not ridiculous at all to be cautious about it.
Moreover, there is a big difference between adding the Feast of Christ the King (finally countering Reformation Day) and eliminating the Latin Epistle and Gospel.
Xather, you responded to my comment:
"Remember, however, that all VII did was call for the reform of the Mass. Well, to be reductionist, we did it! The mass was reformed."
To let you know where I'm coming from: I don't think what happened after VII was a reform. The N.O. is a completely different order of Mass. Yes, it uses elements of what preceeded it, but it's a new composition as I see it.
I hope the TLM is left alone, though I would like to see new propers and prefaces as these don't constitute an essential change. The other thing I was thinking would be okay is the restoration of the bidding prayers, but they would be redundant. The Canon provides for this. I don't know, but perhaps that is why they fell into disuse. In a previous post I also mentioned the solemn blessings but upon further reflection I retract that since it would be completely novel.
I side very much with the cautious approach here of leaving things as they are. I have not been aware of any groundswell of opinion amongst mass-goers at the classical rite demanding the readings in the vernacular. If it's a straight choice of either/or (which seems to be the case in SP), then they should continue in Latin, which, after all, is the liturgical language of the extraordinary form. English isn't. Personally, I think the current custom in the English-speaking world of readings in Latin, read again in English before the homily, actually works. If it ain't broke... If they do it differently on Continental Europe, well that is for them. One notices, for example, visitors to England from France standing when their English counterparts kneel at certain places. So there is legitimate diversity in the classical rite. I can't see why we need to follow what mainland European Catholics are doing in regard to readings. Vive la difference! One final point of concern. Only the readings and not the other parts of the Proper are being suggested for vernacular reading, which is inconsistent. We might ask ourselves why the readings and not the other parts are being focused on here. Are not the readings being given a possibly undue emphasis? We all know from experience that the Liturgy of the Word has in many places assumed a centrality in the ordinary form that is held in the extraordinary form by the Canon. That may be subconsciously what is behind this. Please understand I'm not casting aspersions on the motives of any of those suggesting a vernacular element, but it strikes me that it is the Consecration and the Real Presence that need the emphasis here, and they work, and must remain, in Latin
There is no inconsistency with suggesting the readings alone be in the vernacular.
It might be pointed out that the emphasis itself comes with the practice of re-reading the readings and therefore, if we follow what you suggest, you should actually be arguing against that practice as well.
Let's always remember as well, simply for the sake of accuracy, that the liturgy is not entirely in Latin. There is also Greek.
Not being a liturgist, theologian or scripture scholar (which is good news for the Church!) I've been pondering something.
It's this; I wonder if what has become problematic is not so much the reform of the Liturgy, or even the "Novus Ordo," but a de-emphasis of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and an over-emphasis on the human element of the Mass.
Nothing happens in a vacum, and the fact that Vatican II happened in the 1960's should speak volumes; lots of other developments were afoot, too. It seems to me that Church and culture, while being distinct, cannot be isolated necessarily.
David Alexander, of course, fails to take into account the tenor of the times. We live in an age in which the likes of Cardinal Hummes and Cardinal Kasper hold major positions in the Church. We live in the age of the I.C.E.L. We live in the time following the sixties revolution. This is not a good time to start affording liberals the opportunity to intrude the Blue Jeans Bible readings, complete with politically-correct adaptations, into our lections. Keep it in Latin and we can read our very good Douay-Rheims tanslations from our handmissals as the priest reads the Latin. Why this need to hear the priest butcher an English translation?
P.K.T.P.
One more addition to my last post is in order. The sorts of liberals who still control the curia in our day will rub their hands together in glee if well-meaning but naïve people afford them the opportunity to re-translate the lections for our Mass. First, they will proscribe the Douay-Rheims versions on the grounds that those are élitist and inaccessible to 'the People of God' (by which they mean God's people) and they will then move to conversational English. That change alone would cause me to walk out. But that would be just the beginning. The experts in political correctness would move in and have a field day. Their hearts would sing in exultation as they moved in to destroy the grace adn glory of our Mass. No -man compounds would be allowed. Out with St. Joseph the Workman, in with St. Joseph the Worker. In the end, even God would no longer be a He. If you doubt this, you should see what is being cooked up in my country, Canada. The Holy See recently gave the bastards the right to compose a politically-correct substitute for the present garbage-translation of the Novus Ordo. They are now working hard on it. They can hardly wait to impose it on us. People fail to realise that liberals don't act so as to reap some benefit from their own works. Their works have no value and they know it. After all, they have to endure their banal and boring compositions and concoctions. No, their hearts are filled with anger (now more than ever, as their sixties revolution only produced disastrous effects) and they live only to *impose* their trash on us and force it down our throats no matter what. It is making us suffer that gladdens them, and nothing else. Will we open our mouths and cock back our heads back to co-operate with them? Will we swallow their trash willingly?
No thanks, Mr. Alexander. At this time in history, Latin protects us and our old handmissals in Douay-Rheims translations protect us. Nothing else is acceptable. If I hear any English translations from the sanctuary, I plan to arrive after them or to don headphones and listen to Gregorian Chant while reading the Douay-Rheims translations.
P.K.T.P.
At this time in history, Latin protects us and our old handmissals in Douay-Rheims translations protect us. Nothing else is acceptable. If I hear any English translations from the sanctuary, I plan to arrive after them or to don headphones and listen to Gregorian Chant while reading the Douay-Rheims translations.
Well....I really don't even know what to say.
As much as I admire the Usus Antiquitor, I hope like heck that what happened after Vatican II does not happen here; I hope we can learn from history. It seems to me it is just as unhealthy to beat people over the head with the Usus Antiquitor as it is to do it with the Novus Ordo.
The prayers at the foot of the altar read, "I will go in to the altar of God, to God who gives joy to my youth," not "to God who plants fear in my heart."
"David Alexander, of course, fails to take into account the tenor of the times."
That's because I was busy taking into account the potential for raving paranoia, among those who ignore the role of a central authority (that would be Rome) in the organic development of the liturgy.
Yes, Mr Mitsui, you can make the case for all those things. (I for one thought that Lazslo's critique of Pius X's reform of the Divine Office was quite brilliant.) But what are you left with? Are you so sure that even Pius V did not have nefarious curialists with whom to contend? Do you trust the agents of Mother Church in the least? Are you prepared to assume their role for them? How about we at least vote on it? It may not be ridiculous to be cautious about it, but it is ridiculous to forget that, sooner or later, someone has to make the tough decision. (Hint: it won't be in this combox.)
We are, at one level, dealing in mere speculation with respect to readings in the vernacular. No harm done. The problem occurs, I think, is when we forget that a "slippery slope," like any other peak, has two sides. We can be concerned that things be left where they are, for the sake of establishing a sense of stability. But for how long? To what extent? Who draws the line, a bunch of busybodies on the internet?
Bottom line, here is a question that some of you shouldn't be able to answer: Can you let Rome be Rome???
"Moreover, there is a big difference between adding the Feast of Christ the King (finally countering Reformation Day) and eliminating the Latin Epistle and Gospel."
Says who?
"If I hear any English translations from the sanctuary, I plan to arrive after them or to don headphones and listen to Gregorian Chant..."
If someone tells me I can't respond to the priest where the 1962 Missal (the one mentioned in the motu proprio) tells me I can, I plan to scream and holler and bang on the floor with both fists and hold my breath. Yeah, that oughta show 'em!
"Let Rome be Rome", says M. Alexander. How good of him...
I shalln´t even point out M. Alexander´s straw man methods. Rather, I shall simply point out this: in this context, "Let Rome be Rome" means that there should have been no traditional movement. Then, our holy Father would have had nothing liturgical to save last summer.
With friends like M. Alexander, the old rite needs no foes.
We just concluded an Octave for Christian Unity yesterday with the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.
With this in mind, it is my hope that both the old and the new forms of Mass can be instruments of unity in the Church, to bring us closer together, not further apart.
It seems to me that they can be collaborative and complimentary, not at odds with each other.
It's also my hope that the bad theology associated with the Usus Antiqitor be shown the rail on which to ride out of town. If the Usus Antiquitor wants anything other than a bad taste in people's mouths, it needs to divorce itself from a defeatist theology that not only has nothing to do with the UA, but also has no place whatsoever in it.
I heartily agree that some bad things developed in the wake of Vatican II, but I just as ardently believe that many good fruits came of it. You know the old kindergarten jingle they taught us, "make new friends, keep the old..."
Dear Mr. Alexander:
The title of this post was, if you may recall: "The Vernacular Option for the Lessons; A Call for Discussion".
If your sole interest here is shutting down the called-for discussion, I think you're in the wrong comment box.
And since you tempt me, I'll say that I'm not pleased with most 16th century papal legislation on the liturgy either, and have never made any secret of it.
Once again, Mr. Alexander fails to take into account the obvious fact that we have just been through a revolution from within. This is NOT what St. Pius V was faced with. St. Pius X, some four centuries later, was faced with a growing Modernism. He quite rightly stamped it out. It recovered after about 1920 and slowly built momentum. The post-war 1950s was the perfect time for a more rapid movement, but it was the 1960s that unleased the disaster that we are still dealing with.
The bishops of today were the priests of that time, especially the careerists among them. Many of them were the revolutionaries. To invite them to provide us with vernacular translations would be suicidal. Smarten up!
We need a period of fifty years or so for stability. Why not? There was no change at all in our Mass--not so much as a comma being altered, from 1637 to 1884. The recovery period after a revolution is the time for stability, not tinkering. Only a moron could think otherwise.
P.K.T.P.
An addition to my last comment is in order.
We have started to forget on this blog that the use of the vernacular languages for the lections (whether during the reading of the Latin or after it) is ONLY AN OPTION. That means that the matter can be decided locally by the celebrant. And it means that each of us has a prerogative to ask the celebrant to provide it or not.
Our T.L.M. is about to be restored. I intend, together with others, to ask the celebrant very politely not to use the verncular languages at all but only to read the lections in Latin. I am perfectly entitled to do so. So such matters CAN be decided by people on this blog, at least insofar as we can favour one policy or another.
If the celebrant wants to proceed in a verncular that is anything other than the Douay Rheims (for example), people are perfectly entitled to walk out until it's over. We are only required to be present during the liturgy per se, and added translations are not part of the liturgy (moreover, the obligation only applies from the Offertory).
I don't suggest that we be intrusive in our objections. One can sit near a door for a quick and silent exit, or enter late, or insert unobtrusive earplugs and listen to Chant. I just don't want to hear a translation concocted by my enemies in order to annoy me. And I won't. I don't want to hear an abomination such as the New American Bible. And I won't.
P.K.T.P.
"Once again, Mr. Alexander fails to take into account... This is NOT what St. Pius V was faced with."
No, he just had the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent, plus he found it necessary to stabilize the liturgical life of the West by codifying a unified missal. I'm sure most of us could accomplish that before breakfast.
"St. Pius X, some four centuries later, was faced with a growing Modernism. He quite rightly stamped it out."
I wouldn't play that card too often, sir. Had he been entirely successful, would we have had NEO-modernism?
I notice that M. Alexander did not answer me. I take it he must agree, then: there should never have been a traditional movement in the first place, since the Pope always knows best. M. Alexander would then be enjoying his papaly fabricated new Mass. And this discussion would not have taken place.
Dear Mr. Alexander:
There is a difference between a revolution from within and one breaking away. If you did your homework, you would know that the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V in 1570 was the same Missal in content as the Roman Missal of 1474, the first printed Missal (and one of the very first printed books in all of Europe). In other words, his reaction (and that is the right word!) to revolution was to preserve, not to create or innovate or play with options. The 1570 Missal only removed expressive errors and accretions that had crept into the text, and he proscribed uses that were less than two hundred years old, mainly because they were inconsistent with one another (thanks to copying errors in written MSS). He was a preservationist, not a tinkerer. I note that the 1607 and 1637 texts also dealt not with textual changes but only errors in spellings or punctuation, and other expressive elemenents. And the Missals of 1884 and 1920 made only the tiniest of changes. It was not until 1955 that there was any susbstantial change at all. If we could have no change in content from 1474 to 1954--almost 500 years--we don't need to invite dumbed-down English lectional options now.
On your second point about St. Pius X, the problem was that his successor, Benedict XV, was less rigorous than he. More's the pity. But, then, while both were good popes, only the earlier one was sainted. Benedict XV was doctrinally sound but a bit weak on resolve. Magnify that problem by 100 and you get ... Paul VI. But I digress.
Benedict XVI also seems to be a preservationist, like St. Pius V. The problem is that he is surrounded with the worst enemies of Christ we have seen in the Church since the Arian heresy. To invite them to move in and give us a Feminazi Blue Jeans Bible lectionary is what you are inadvertently doing. We need to stay anchored and rooted in the Latin text and the Douay-Rheims translation that no liberal can remove from our handmissals with his eraser; that no feminist nun can stroke out were her politically-correct pen.
By 2068, a Summer of Reason to answer the summer of Lust of 1968, we can, perhaps, make universal a practice of using the Douay-Rheims translations--and no others--at our Masses. Let us have a period of stability after the Age of Aquarius Revolution, and then a period of preservation of the 1750-51 Challoner text of the Douay-Rheims text and NOT the intrusion of something truly horrid, like the New American Bible.
P.K.T.P.
Why is it that so called traditionalists, conservatives, etc., on just about every blog, end up by showing such a sinful lack of charity? Don't you realize it just adds credence to what the detractors of tradition say about us? The last go round of comments is positively sinful. And it's here for all to see and propagate.
I am not now nor have I ever been ashamed of my faith and principles rooted in the tradition of Holy Church. But I am becomming more and more ashamed of being associated with any number of supposedly Catholic blogs and those who frequent them. No wonder so many bishops are imposing or trying to impose restrictions on the TLM post Summorum Pontificum given the consistant smugness and lack of charity among those who attend.
"If you did your homework, you would know that the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V in 1570 was the same Missal in content as the Roman Missal of 1474..."
Yes, sir, I was aware of all those things, and much more. I've probably read as many histories of the Mass as have you. I cannot help but observe that some of the remarks in your comparative study -- "only the tiniest of changes" as opposed to "any substantial change at all" -- are open to interpretation. Even if they were not, on one hand, the slightest changes have been enough to cause rancor in fora such as this, while on the other, the wisdom is acknowledged of adding the Feast of Christ the King, which certainly could be considered a substantial change.
The "revolution from without" of which you speak, began as one from within. Luther was a Catholic before he was a... well, a Lutheran, remember? True, those who revolt from within today appear to remain within. But are you so sure that history will see it that way? Luther never intended to found another church, or so he said. But history did not see him that way. Will history necessarily see us the way we see ourselves now?
Politics and intrigue in the Roman Curia are nothing new. Or do you think the Borgia popes appeared out of thin air?
And where do you get the news of "dumbed down lection options"? Can you honestly say (and try to be realistic here) that devotees of the Traditional Mass are going to settle for the "Blue Jeans Bible"?
In closing (Deo volente), I would hope that any real alterations to the Traditional missal would be carefully considered, if they are considered at all. Even then, I should think it would take years. But I would hope for some sense of proportion before we panic over the very thought of some things. Reading the Scriptures in the vernacular has never been the cause of mayhem in Eastern churches. Why would it cause it in the West?
Fr. Bailey,
Lack of charity, prudence, etc. is not limited to any one group, be they left or right.
All,
It's probably time to close out this thread.
In response to David Alexander:
(1) There was almost no change at all in the ordinary of the Mass from 1474 to 1955; indeed, from long before 1474 in the case of the Missal used at Rome. But changes in the propers have been common throughout history. The Church always added propers and feasts over time. That is a standard. The ordinary is like the rock of stability; the propers indicate the enrichment of the Church over time.
(2) The revolution from without did not really start from within. Obviously, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli were once Catholics. But they ceased being so long before this became apparent. However, they at least had the honesty to leave. The heretics who have infected the Church in our time will not have the honesty to leave; instead, they are bishops and cardinals and hold positions of authority, positions from which they can do maximum damage. They wreck havoc from within the formal structure of the Church. My point was that inviting them to compose translations of the lections is noxious. Look at the damage they have done over the past forty years? How can you be so naïve? Miscreants--heretics?--such as Remi De Roo would jump for joy and rub their hands together in glee if you gave them the chance to compose new translations to be approved by Rome for our Mass. That is the point. This is not the time to do it. If there should ever be a time for that, it would be ONCE THEY'RE GONE.
But I would never want even some of the translations that *are* approved by the Apostolic See, even now. I could never stay for any English translation other than the Douay Rheims, especially since others represent the threat of further change. But even on their own merits, translations in unliturgical English are completely unacceptable because, in formal prayer, we need formal and specialised wording for the same reason we need Latin. Anything less brings the liturgy down to the level of a conversation.
Good grief! Does nobody have any poetry in his soul anymore? Can nobody relish "Whithersover thou goest, I will go". Must it be for everyone, "Where you will go, I will go"? Must we bring the liturgy down to the lowest common denominator? I won't co-operate in that. I'll walk out first or don my headphones and listen to chant.
(3) Politics and intrigue are beside the point. For all their alleged immorality, the Borgias did less damage to the Church than the liberals of our day. They may or may not have been wildly immoral, but they did not teach that error was truth and did not attack the liturgy. It is the Mass that matters. We cannot ever judge the moral qualities of those who sit in the chair of Moses. But we can judge (and sometimes must) those of their actions that undermine Holy Church and the salvation of souls.
(4) Going to settle for the Blue Jeans Bible? But I thought that you said such decisions wouldn't be made by us on this list. After what I've seen in my local parish
(4) After what I've seen in my local parish, yes I can imagine the Blue Jeans Bible with feminazi alterations that divert attention away from the meaning of Scripture and re-direct it to a political agenda. Try doing that in a 'dead' (stablised) language! Therein lies the value of Latin. It is immune from changes in meaning and political warfare.
Let our watchword evermore be this: BETTER TO READ A GOOD TRANSLATION THAN TO HEAR A BAD ONE!
P.K.T.P.
Mr Perkins:
Shawn was right; it is time to close out this thread. Some guy already thinks he won because I didn't respond to him, when it's only because he got drowned out by the others. And I'm not particularly interested in haggling with anyone over the Reformation. This discussion has served its purpose, and as one who is currently training servers for the Low Mass in a neighboring parish, I see little danger of the TLM falling into total mayhem any time soon.
So my watchword will be: NEXT!
Dear Shawn,
Well! That certainly generated a discussion!
The temptation to change for the sake of compromise is very great but, alas, the itch for compromise and change is what got us in a mess in the first place.
I think there is something mystical at work, here, if it's not too dramatic to say so.
Why did God allow the virtual suppression of the TLM? In one sense, I suppose, God has preserved His treasure by allowing foolish men to act as if it were suppressed. Thus it has been curiously preserved whole and intact, amidst all the liturgical chaos of the last 40 years.
That seems providential, indeed.
In times past, as the English bishops said in response to Apostolicae Curae in the early 20th century, the idea that anyone could make substantial changes to the liturgy was utterly unthinkable and like a kind of sacrilege. Additions, yes, but subtractions, no, and the vernacular was viewed cautiously because it so easily lends itself to mistranslation and misinterpretation.
The Eastern Churches have a horror of such (and their liturgies are in a sacred vernacular, like Old Slavonic or Geez, which seems to give them, like 1662 Anglicans, an extra sensitivity to the unbridled vernacular).
Their view is that the Last Supper was like what we would call a "collegial" or "conventual" mass and that our Lord used Hebrew, as was used in the Temple worship, and not vernacular Aramaic or Koine Greek. And, today, liturgical Aramaic and Greek are not at all colloquial or "vernacular" but more akin to the relationship between Classical Arabic and vernacular Arabic.
Which translation of Scripture would be used?
The Earl of Clarendon said, in his history of the English Civil War, that three words had destroyed all peace and stability in the nation. They were: "Search the Scriptures".
He did not mean that there was anything bad about Scripture but rather that men wrought Scripture to their own damnation.
For this reason it is better kept in a sacred language and not broadcast promiscuously to the people who may then wrest the meaning to their spiritual destruction. Better that the learned understand it and the clergy explain it (in sermons etc).
When Vatican II urges greater reading of Scripture, that is, of course, right, but that surely meant under the guidance of the Church and not simply by promiscuous reading of Scripture in the vernacular so that the people might make of it what they will.
Liturgically, it seems odd, too, since it can interrupt the flow of the dramaturgy like, say, a man walking on stage during a Shakespeare play to explain in modern English to the audience what the dialogue means.
Yes, more than one thing can happen at a time in a play/liturgy but it can destroy the harmony of the whole if it does not fit the drama or is intruded into the drama.
Some will say that this is just the "old guard" moaning again. Actually, it was a twenty-something black student who made the
Dear M. Alexander,
I suppose I am the "guy" you mean. However, I do not go about the place believing I have "won" as you put it. I am rather very distrest at seeing how many people interested in the old liturgy simply want to change it to their own liking and... deeper understanding. I do not care for winning. I care for the old liturgy, and I do not like your agenda which threatens it. Why on earth you are not pleased with the Pauline fabricated liturgy with a bit of latin and a tadd of jeans inculturation I cannot imagine.
One more thing: to compare the addition of a new feast to alterations made to liturgical meaning, to liturgical structures and to the texts and ordinary of Mass I find little convincing.
Thank you, M. Bogle, for expressing my mind better than I could my self.
(To me, it seems quite obvious, that the changes of the 50s eroded a sound veneration for the liturgy. And this new mentality is among us, alas.)
Shawn,
What I see is a system of thougt, a mentality as well as an approach. At odds with the classical liturgy. Whatever people´s intent, what I fear will likely follow, for the sam ideas always give the same results (mutatis mutandis). This is my point. And I believe we already have tried the recipe of naivety once.
I shalln´t be naive.
Yours cordially,
James,
As I've said as well however, there are two problematic extremes. One is change for its own sake; the other is immobilism.
While there needs to be a certain caution and prudence, there also needs to be discussion and some reasonable sense of the normal, living liturgical process and how that might be manifest or approached. This is more than ever necessary given the problematic ways in which it has been approached in the 20th century.
What can concern me in addition to needless and arbitrary change -- which does concern me -- is that there can develop amongst some an attitude that seems somewhat reactionary, which possibly categorizes any development as equally problematic or undesireable.
Veneration of the liturgy has to occur with a respect to its natural context which is neither innovationist nor immobilist.
We need not agree whether a particular development -- such as this one we've been discussing -- is a reasonable development, but it seems to me that there should be at least be an openness to such possibilities in principle; possibilities that must be balanced off by a rejection of mastery over the liturgy; a rejection of liturgy-by-committee; a rejection of any sense of the liturgy and its form as arbitrary.
Thank you, M. Mitsui, for mentioning the matter of Holy Week. Such a sad story.
Jon K,
My point is that while we should be extremely cautious in the light of our current climate and while we need to learn from the mistakes of past, we must not put ourselves into any kind of reactionary principle either.
In response to Mr. Tribe:
It is true that immobilism is unCatholic. However, there is a season and a time for legitimate development (cf. Ecclesiastes). For example, there was no change in the ordinary of the Mass for over five hundred years, from well before 1474 to 1955 (no changes in content). Was that immobilism?
My point all along is that this is not the time to afford the very powerful liberals still reigning supreme in the Church to tinker with vernacular translations of the lections. Those people are filled with a deep and abiding hatred of all things traditional and would just love to have the opportunity to wreckovate our Mass.
I point out to Mr. Alexander and others on this blog that, in my country, late last year, the Apostolic See approved a plan for the Canadian bishops to re-write the Novus Ordo lections in politically-correct English. I kid you not. They are, at this very moment, working hard on removing male references to God, for example.
So this risk that I write about is not some fantasy. It is not only a real possibility. No, it is already in process for the Novus Ordo. I have no doubt at all that they would just love to destroy the grace and glory of our Mass in the same way.
Some of the editions already accepted by the Apostolic See are unacceptable because they don't use Biblical English (closely related but not identical to liturgical English).
A nasty liberal such as Remi De Roo could start by imposing the New American Bible versions on our lections. Who knows how these would be altered over time after this? But the New American Bible version is unacceptable to begin with.
I suggest that, if we could wait over 500 years to alter the ordinary, we can wait fifty years before making vernacular readings standard. The best way is to read a good translation rather than to hear a bad one. The Blue Jeans Bible is very much a threat right now. The aftermath of a revolution is not the ideal time for tinkering.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Shawn,
Your appproach seems to be that we should aim at a compromise as our first goal - a compromise between what you see as two extremes.
This is not the way the Church has ever thought about liturgy. Liturgy is not primarily an exercise in compromising. Liturgy is about worshipping God in the way He wants. And He indicates that by the test of time of time and continuity, as Newman eloquently tells us in his Development of Christian Doctrine.
All liturgical reforms of the Roman rite, save that of Bugnini's Novus Ordo, have been, first and foremoast, preservative and restorative and only after that have they been additive.
They have never been - and mark this well - subtractive.
To subtract from the sacred liturgy has always been seen as akin to sacrilege.
Thus the Gregorian reforms, the Gelasian reforms, the Pian reforms and all reforms (save Bugnini's) have been what you would call "reactionary". They have sought to eliminate recent and inconsistent novelties encrusted onto the old rite and to restore the rite to its ancient splendour, not by false antiquarianism but by careful preservation of that which has been handed down to us by Sacred Tradition.
Anything new has only ever been additive and then only at the edges of the rite by way of apporved and authroised devotions, themselves of considerable antiquity and always entirely fitting to the ancient rite.
Bugnini's reforms were as far away from such a model as could be imagine and were more comparable to those carried about by the "slash and burn" technique used by the early Protestants who butchered the Roman rite for their own nefarious purposes.
This is how the Apostolic See has, in times past, reformed liturgy. Its approach has been consciously preservative and not innovative. It has indeed been what you would call "reactionary".
There is not only no condemnation by any pope or Council of a reactionary approach to liturgy but, on the contrary, it is the approach that the popes and Councils themselves have alweays used.
Even Vatican II was largely preservative and not innovative. The innovations came about AFTER the Council.
Liturgy, since it involves the way in which the Church prays to God pulbicly, is, together with doctrine, the very paradigm of Sacred Tradition and the handing on of that which we have received from our fathers.
The liturgy is not about compromises, development, liturgical processes and so on. To think so is inevitably to hand oneself over to litrugical committees.
It is about the preservation of Sacred Traditions handed from the time of the Apostles until our time.
Any additions to the liturgy can only come after centuries of the hallowed use BY ALL THE PEOPLE (and not just in the mind of some specious expert) of holy prayers and ceremonies, in keeping with sacred tradition and, eventually after long usage, approved, by such continuous usage, by the Holy See.
Subtractions are never permitted since they sa
Shawn,
Might I sugges that if you intend to cut people off in mid discussion that you at least warn them of how many words they are permitted?
It seems bad netiquette otherwise.
James.
Shawn,
To continue from before I was cut off at the knees...
Subtractions are never permitted since they savour of suggesting that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in the past.
This is not to suggest that devotions, processions and so on, around and outside the sacred liturgy should be avoided. On the contrary, even certain very slight changes have been allowed within the rite itself giving rise to "uses" of the Roman rite such as the Sarum, York and Aberdeen rites among many others.
Some of these, when hallowed by centuries of use, may, if approved for universal use by the Holy See, become part of the main rite.
That is how the Holy See has, historically, introduced feasts into the Calendar.
But the idea that we can, within anyone's lifetime, see wholesale novelties added to the rite, no matter how fitting some people may think they are, is simply an idea without any precedent whatever.
The addition of a new feast or saint to the calendar and rite is not a novelty since the idea of venerating the feasts and saints in the liturgy is as old as the liturgy itself and thus not a novelty at all but the continuance of an exceedingly ancient and hallowed tradition.
The idea that we should introduce novelties in each generation but, in doing so, should avoid "extremes" of "reaction" or "needless innovation" is already itself an "extreme" idea and one with not the slightest foundation or basis in Catholic tradition or teaching.
It comes rather from the jejune shallows of modern political discourse where change, revolution, innovation and compromise are the key concepts and where the very idea of hallowed and sacred tradition are laughed to scorn.
"Why on earth you are not pleased with the Pauline fabricated liturgy with a bit of latin and a tadd of jeans inculturation I cannot imagine."
And yet you presume to know my "agenda."
No, M. Alexander. Nor have I ever said so. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Fairly recently.
As I said in answering Shawn earlier on, I do not care about various smart agendas entertained by different individuals. It may well be that you long for readings in vernacular out of love for Latin. This I do not pretend to understand, and to me it seems nonsensical.
Yet, this is not e point. You will one day be dead. So will I. Didactivism and activism, however, will still be among us, I fear. As systems. The question at hand is thus only whether or not the old liturgy will have been remolded to accomodate them or preserved. Put very simply, whether man-centeredness and modern man´s understanding of the liturgy will have triumphed.
What y o u think, believe and mean is irrelevant to me, at least in this matter. What you propose be done to the liturgy I love is not.
Ideas have consequences, M. Alexander. Independently of whether or not they are understood by those who foster their implementation.
I do not pretend to convince you. I do believe, though, that my case has its strengthes.
Shawn,
What you say is simply practically impossible. To-day. When devotion for what has been handed down is so feable... When the Pope him self only recently fabricated his own liturgy... When love of novelty is everywhere and becomin ever more intolerant around us... How on earth do you suggest we dicriminate between bad and evil.
Besides, new prefaces (along sound calssic Roman principles) and certain new feats do not distrurb me one bit. Redefining what liturgical readings are, on the contrary, and suppressing an older, profounder conception, does.
Jon,
No one has spoken about redefining the liturgical readings read. It's a question of the options for the language they might be read in. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying above however.
I also don't think the matter is impossible; but it will take some work.
James:
Your comments will automatically be cut off after a certain word limit; it has nothing to do with me.
I believe what I've written is quite consonant with the liturgical tradition of the Church. I will leave it at that as I I think we're just gonig to proceed with the same discussion over and over at this point. You're welcome to email me privately about it if you wish, though I need to turn my mind to newer threads.
I suggest all do likewise.
Dear Shawn,
As I see it, the modern preoccupation (fixation, one might say) of the readings in vernacular follows from a very flat and didactivist conception of the liturgical reading per se. In fact, readings in teh vernacular almost always inseparable from readings facing the people. In 1965, these changes were inserted together. It is no coincidence. Therefore, I dare say that a discussion about readings in the vernacular indeed means discussing a redefinition of the liturgical readings.
I am under no illusions, however: most people will not see this. This, at least, is my experience.
As I've said James, if you want to continue, you need to email me. While you might be able to focus upon this one discussion, I do not have that luxury, and so if you want a more focused discussion, it will have to happen in email, but you also need to stop distorting my argument.
For example, you say:
"The idea that we should introduce novelties in each generation but, in doing so, should avoid "extremes" of "reaction" or "needless innovation" is already itself an "extreme" idea and one with not the slightest foundation or basis in Catholic tradition or teaching."
And yet I have never stated such an idea; nor would I. Please do not attribute a positive principle to me that I have never stated ("we should introduce novelties in each generation") and that you cannot even reasonably find implicit in what I have stated.
I have not spoken of compromise; you are suggesting that is what I am saying. But I haven't. I have stated there are, de facto, two extremes and the Catholic position is in the middle between immobilism and innovationism. The extremes are not the Catholic positions, and as such, there is no "compromise" in a Catholic context. There is simply maintaining the Catholic position in the midst of two positions out of line with it.
Nor have I spoken of subtracting in this case; I've spoken of an option.
You mention "wholesale innovation", but is this really a wholesale innovation? The practice of a vernacular form of the reading has been occurings for some time now, including prior to the Council. As such, the possible act of formalizing an option for using the vernacular seems hardly a wholesale innovation.
"If your sole interest here is shutting down the called-for discussion, I think you're in the wrong comment box."
No, that was SHAWN'S interest, at least it was at some point, and it's his comments box. That's pretty obvious, and yet I'm supposed to carry on a decent argument with someone who misses that.
Since a few of you already presume to know my "agenda" (and yes, sir, you did use that word to describe my intentions), and there are a number of you to engage simultaneously to little constructive end as I see it, I see no point in continuing.
I suppose it's my responsibility to cancel the notices to this thread, then.
Later.
Folks, this could go on endlessly in the way it is being approached -- hence why I feel I have to start deleting comments here (that, and let me be frank, when people start accusing me of cutting them off mid-stream, even though I haven't, and when I am then chastised for not telling people what the cut off is, even though the comment engine itself tells people that, and when things generally start to take on that kind of tenor, it becomes clear to me that it can be tough to have a rational debate; I'm not interested in polemical or confrontational back and forth, but I am in for a reasoned and principle debate.)
IF we want to have this discussion, I think it needs divest itself of what I just mentioned and it also need to become more formal again; rather in the context of an older combox thread that I don't have time to particularly focus upon.
James: I am not suggesting that you are not raising some valid points of consideration; I think you are, and I think there could be some real value in exploring them. That said, I am not convinced they are as black and white as you are suggesting. Much of it comes down the question of what does or does not consitute a "wholesale innovation" versus a "reasonable development".
Perhaps what would be helpful is for you to develop your case as to what constitutes a reasonable development vs. what does not.
Peter: I don't think you are giving enough credence to the nature of the Epistle and Gospel as readings intended for the instruction and edification of the faithful. The liturgy is not itself -- as a whole -- primarily didactic, but so far as I can see, the readings are particularly didactic.
Does that mean they must be in the vernacular? Of course not. But should it be excluded even as an option? Given what we see going on even prior to the Council and which continues in traditionalist circles today -- re-reading,
Perhaps you can develop your case for your position.etc. -- it would seem that is not necessarily so self-evident either.
Feel free to respond to what I've just said. Perhaps we have an opportunity here to "start fresh" if you will.
For my part, I will try to turn my focus back to this thread somewhat and give your arguments greater focus and time -- which I haven't been able to do so far.
I don't feel that Mr. Tribe has responded adequately to the arguments I have developed in regard to vernacular lections. As to what he writes about the lections being primarily didactic, however, there are two points of view on this and both were mentioned in a recent scholarly work by a German liturgist (not Gamber) referenced by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. The more traditional view is that the liturgy should be seen as a *whole* which is primarily directed to God as an act of worship, and not as two parts directed first to the people and then to God. That is my view, even though the lections are more directed to the edification of the people than are other parts of the Mass. I note that, in the Traditional Missals, the Sermon is not part of the Mass itself (nor is the Communion of the people); rather, it is an interruption of the Mass. But the lections are certainly part of the Mass. In the Altar Missals printed before 1965, not even the single word 'Sermon' appears. I think of even the lections as being oriented to God.
Still, it is not impossible to have the lections in the vernacular. But there are two problems with this, and Mr. Tribe simply does not deal with them; Mr. Alexander deals with them but inadequately. First is the problem of affording archliberals (who are still in office and largely run the show) the opportunity of destroying the spirit of the lections in the aftermath of a revolution. Second is the problem of accepting editions already approved by the Apostolic See which do not comport with the solemnity of the Mass because they do not use the poetical Biblical English of the Douay-Rheims edition. I note that this is *not* archaic English but a specialised type of English developed for conveying the solemnity that is proper to formal and corporate prayer. (By the way, liturgical and Biblical English are not identical, but let that pass for now.)
I feel that there is too much openness to conversational English in the liturgy, especially owing to the influence since the Council. The danger, therefore, is that abominations such as the New American Bible would replace the Douay-Rheims versions in our handmissals. Later, by a slippery slope, we would wend our way to the Blue Jeans Bible with Feminazi alterations in politically-correct English. I'd rather hear the Mass in Chinese than hear that.
Peter,
As I've said, I haven't had the time to deal with your particular discussion.
So rather than simply throwing that out there, you may want to consider that fact that I'm attempting to make myself available for that conversation now.
I entirely subscribe to M. Perkins´ arguments, especially in his first paragraph. The liturgical readings as purely (or foremost) didactc is a Lutheran, rationalistic conception shared and inforced by the Enlightenment. It is very odd to see traditional Catholics advocate this practice.
To Shawn, who repeats the argument "It already existed in the 50s", I feel obliged to restate that the changes in the 1950s represent no good example of organic development, but -- rather -- excellent examples of enemy-within-the-fortress and lobbying. We have ample documentation to-day to know this (among which certain biographies).
We also know that the reformers active in the 50s had a didactivist, actvist, rationalistic notion of the liturgy; which, of course, can also be inferred directly from the reforms they forced (and wished to impose) upon the Church as a first step towards what would follow.
There were good elements to the pre-conciliar liturgical movement as well as not so good. It makes little sense to castigate all such things.
My other point in that regard is that already there seem to be some who deny the possibility of an option for a vernacular Epistle or Gospel, but who don't seem to see a problem with those readings being re-read in English.
It seems to me if one is going to be consistent in this kind of argument, you would also have to speak against that practice as well because it arguably undercuts any principled argument about why they shouldn't be in the vernacular.
As I say though, feel free to lay out a formal and principled argument against vernacular readings as a point of principle.
A principled argument? I have done that already.
I never said I favored the readings being repeated. I would, however, prefer repetition to the disparition of Latin altogether. As a temporary lesser evil.
"There were good elements to the pre-conciliar liturgical movement as well as not so good. It makes little sense to castigate all such things."
Your saying so does not make it so. And it so happens I do not share your opinion. I believe that the principles that motivated for instance le Centre national de Pastoral liturgique were very bad. Sadly, it is they who forced the reforms of the 50s and early 60s on the Church.
Dom Guéranger is one thing. The CNPL quite another. Therefore, talking of only o n e pre-conciliar liturgical movement is what makes little sense.
Computer problems have kept me offline for a while so I am a bit behind in this discussion. a few points deserve to be made however:
1) The chanting of the Lessons in Latin constitutes the "proclamtion" of the lessons whether vernacular readings follow or not.
2)The Sung LIturgy is by it's nature SUNG be it a Sung Mass or a Solemn Mass. Readings in the natural voice within the Liturgy are thus out of place. This rule of the Liturgy being sung is followed in the Eastern Rites as well aS in Judaism and Islam and even Hinduism and Buddhism (though these last may not have "scriptural" readings).
In the synaguogue in Capharnum Jesus would have chanted the scriptures to the people.
The two exceptions that I can think of to this rule was the practice of the Protestant Reformers and the practice of the Bugnini Reformers and even in the Novus Ordo if the lessons are in Latin at a Sung Mass they are sung.
The same unanimity seems also to aply to the language used although again I can't speak for the HIndus and Buddhists. The general practice going back to the time of Our Lord and before was to use a Liturgical language. The 1549 English still used in the Anglican Book Of Common Prayer fullfills much the same role.
As to the suggestion that the Usus Antiquior should have been kept in it's entirety but in the Vernacular, there exist two books, the English Missal and the Anglican Missal, both using the Usus Antiquior to the letter but in elegant singable English. Both are Anglican Books but they even include the prayers for the Pope including that in the first part of the Canon Missae. It has been suggested by some that in the 1960's the English Roman Catholic Bishops pushed for modern English because they were afraid of sounding like Anglicans. They could have done a lot worse. In fact they did do a lot worse. Sadly those Anglican Churches which used these Missals tended to follow Rome with Liturgical Reform and many of them now use the Novus Ordo, ICEL English and all.
All that said, I agree with those who say that any reform to the TLM is ridiculously premature. It's time for healing.
Unfortunately, I think we've traded positions. Whereas just previously I was exhausted of the discussion, now I think those who had been pursuing it are likewise.
Really what I was hoping is that we might start anew with a clean slate on the point, with James, Peter and yourself repeating the basic point and objections you wanted to touch upon.
Sean,
I´m sorry. I simply don´t have the time to start all over. Besides, I am uncertain whether I would be able to make my point any clearer. I simply belive that the idea of having liturgical readings in the vernacular stems from and encourages the notion that liturgical readings are didactic and the liturgy congregtional. Having known the traditional movement since I was 15, and having been a seminarian, I know this is very often the case. This, in my view, undermines the liturgy as I conceive it. Besides, change at a time like this, after the revolution we´ve seen, would be a disaster on its own account. Overall, I find it distressing to think that the Dialogue Mass, vernacular readings, baptism in the vernacular, microphones and the like are being pushed for.
At times, I wish I had a Russian Orthodox monastery in the area...
What on earth is wrong with Dialogue Mass?
It seems to me obvious that the responses like "Et cum spiritu tuo" that are sung at High Mass are properly spoken at Low Mass. (I don't think it best that the people join in the responses of the ministers at High Mass, such as their parts of Ps 42.) I would also say - as I do myself at the TLM I attend - the "Dne non sum dignus".
Typically the niggles are over precisely which bits are suitable for the congregation to join in, and which are better reserved to the ministers, but it seems obscurantist to imagine it wrong tout court.
If in the Carolingian Renaissance it was expected that the congregation sing the Gloria Patri of the Introit, then it is no wicked Protestantization, but a true revival of a pious Catholic practice, to join in with the responses. (Of course, if one finds one most devoutly attends Mass by plying one's Rosary or contemplating Our Lord's most bitter Passion, then do so.)
I likewise have no patience with the notion that somehow readings in Latin are prayers to God the Father to the exclusion of being messages from Him to His adopted children at Mass. The directions in which the Epistle and Gospel are sung are traditional and highly meaningful, and sufficiently guard against the obsessive and infantile didactism too often found in Novus Ordo circles.
Now, it seems to me that a prayer is a prayer in any language; it is known that indults have been granted down the ages for parts of the Mass to be said in say, classical Chinese, some Red Indian tongues, Glagolitic, classical Armenian, etc. - being according to the mind of the Church, which has the mind of Christ, when the epistles and gospels are read in these they are both pleasing to God and instructive to such as attend to them.
As I mentioned a long way above in these comments, I've heard the epistle and gospel regularly chanted at a Missa Cantata, in a conservative translation, in a manner entirely correct according to the rubrics. And no altar girls danced in.
If we learn from the past, we can see the following progression:
1. introduction of the Dialogue Mass
2. a distorted sense of community between the celebrant and congregation
3. the celebrant facing the congregation across the altar to emphasize no. 2 above
4. remodeling of the sanctuary (including the removal of the Communion rails) to accommodate no. 3.
The "logic" is thus: Christ presumably faced the apostles at the Last Supper, so the priest should do the same at Mass; the celebrant always receives Communion standing, so why should the people kneel to do the same? We can all see where this kind of thinking has led.
With that said, those who assist at the traditional Latin Mass today generally have no desire for these things. If they feel they've worshiped better by saying "Et cum spiritu tuo" with the server and "Domine non sum dignus" three times fast, them far be it from me try and stop them from doing so! Personally, I prefer music throughout Low Mass, so I'm not a fan of the Dialogue Mass.
Dialogue Masses in the US seem to be limited to the first degree (congregation makes the short responses they would sing at High Mass) or the second (they also make all the servers' responses). In practice, the Kyrie and "Domine non sum dignus" are usually added even in the first degree. The third degree involves recitation of the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei with the celebrant. Most of our people would reject this as too novus ordo-ish!
Now, already, the Pope has moved in to alter the Good Friday Prayers. The next question is this: What will be the official translation of this new prayer? Will it use Biblical English in imitation of the Douay Rheims? Will this even be an option? Will we be forced to use an English translation at some point that is writen by one of these morons from the I.C.E.L.?
As I have stated before. We are in the aftermath of a revolution. Changes are still acoming. Our Mass is no longer being authored by the Holy Ghost. Instead, it is being recast by the two chief rabbis of Palestine. Next, they will be demanding we remove the 'triumphalistic' wording for the Feast of Christ the King.
I counsel resistance. Whatever the priest may be saying in Latin on Good Friday, let us simply continue to read what our old 1962 texts already say. Let us ignore the change; let us refuse to pray the new formulation.
P.K.T.P.
I hate to seem to downplay the venerable Douay-Rheims, but it is the case that the D-R of the past two centuries is actually Bp Challoner's revision of the D-R, which he made by adjusting its style toward that of the KJV, quelle horreur. The actual original D-R, as well as being almost unobtainable and inaccessible, was quite markedly different to what we call the D-R today.
Mr. Williams,
By Dialogue Mass I meant, as is always the case in France, Low Mass being dialogued. Now, if you cannot see what is wrong with -- let´s say -- Martha, 73, saying Introibo ad altare Dei, I cannot help you.
I am quite certain one could find somewhere, in Church history, some argument for just about anything. I don´t see how it helps. To me, the matter at hand is activism, didactivism and what I call congregationalism.
For centuries, Catholics attended this subtle rite of Low Mass, kneeling, praying, meditating. Then, all of a sudden, some self-centered priest made them jump up and down and scream the altar boy´s responses while following the priest´s every word as if their lifes depended on it. Praying and meditating became almost impossible.
What would follow was obvious. And in fact, it did follow.
Dear Shawn,
Sorry to see that you refused to publish my further comments and simply cut them out.
I wonder why people bother to have blogs if they are so afraid of honest debate.
But there it is.
James.
Patrick Wayson says:
If we learn from the past, we can see the following progression:
1. introduction of the Dialogue Mass
2. a distorted sense of community between the celebrant and congregation
3. the celebrant facing the congregation across the altar to emphasize no. 2 above
4. remodeling of the sanctuary (including the removal of the Communion rails) to accommodate no. 3.
The only person Christ faced a the Last Supper was Leonardo Da Vinci. The table appears to have been horseshoe shaped with the front side unoccuppied to allow for easy access by the serving staff. Why do people presume that Christ faced the Apostles?
The Dialogue Mass was relatively rare before Vatican II, at least in North America. Most people went from what I believe Evelyn Waugh referred as "the blessed mutter of the Mass" directly to the beginnings of the Post Vatican II Reforms without going through the Dialogue Mass stage.
Before Vatican II. the Dialogue
Mass had Papal encopuragement whereas Mass facing the people emphatically did not. I believe Pope Pius XII condemened it in Mediator Dei.
Thus, the Dialogue Mass was merely an authentic form of "Participatio Actuoso". It did not lead inevitably to Mass facing the People by following the Hermeneutic of Continuity. On the contrary, it was one of the first symptons of the Hermeneutics of Disruption.
I just spent some time pouring over this incredibly long thread and up near the begining I found Shawn saying, "I think Michael's point about the translation of the chant over to English is one that merits consideration for example -- though I suppose one could say that a simpler form of plainchant could also be used at least in the interim".
I immediatly thought of the old maxim, "History teaches that history never teaches." In Canada, the lessons went into the vernacular on Passion Sunday, 1964. The instruction stated that at Sung Masses the lessons were to be sung on one note or read in the natural voice until new tones were appointed. Of course the new tones never came and a few years later an instruction forbade any chanting of the lessons on the grounds that the lessons were not by their nature sung like the Gloria in Excelsis (which, they argued, was a hymn) but rather "proclaimed. It was the beginning of the end of the Sung Liturgy.
Similarly, attempts at composing psuedo plainchant have occured numerous times but they have no staying power.
The real problem started with the decision of the English speaking bishops to go over to modern English in the Liturgy at a time when modern English in prayers was completely unheard of, even in private prayer. The first translation of the Mass was dubbed by Time Magazine as the "Yoo-hoo Mass" because of the translation of "qui tollis" as "you who" three times in close sucession in the Gloria In Excelsis instead of "Thou that takest" as in the traditional English. ICEL got rid of the "you whos" by getting rid of all relative clauses so that one now says, "You take away" etc. which sounds, at best, like telling God what He is doing or worse then that, when said a few times in nsucession, like a mob accusing God of something. It is certainly NOT musical.
I don't know how well it would go over nowadays when the notion of LIturgical English is lost to most people but in Toronto, the Oratorians sing Sunday Vespers (Novus Ordo) using the psalms from the Canadian Book of Common Prayer. The psalms are essentially the Miles Coverdale translations with a few barely noticeable modifications made in 1962, before the Roman Catholic introduction of modern English. Of course the traditional Gregorian tones are used. They also chant the Office hymns from the Anglican books using the Gregorian tones. Other parts are in Latin. The effect is solemn and traditional, a different world from what one finds in any other Roman Catholic church in Toronto.
To give an example, in the Book of Common Prayher, the Nunc Dimmitis starts out, "Lord now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word". Try that to any psalm tone. It works! And it also has worked with any number of other musical settings over the past few centuries. You can't do anything like that in the modern English. It is the attempt to set the modern English to the Gregorian tones which tends to turn people off. The graceful cadences are lacking and you/your tends to sound jarring. Also, the use of "O" as in "O Lamb of God" is missing. In other words, the sense of awe and majesty has been destroyed and people instinctively sense this.
In any case, I agree with those who say that in the Usus Antiquior, the Latin should be kept, at least until the liturgical mod squad have died off and a new generation can approach the matter afresh.
8 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
