Cardinal O’Malley on the motu proprio
From his blog (http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/), here is Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s description of the meeting at which the Vatican explained the forthcoming motu proprio on the Tridentine Rite.
From Cleveland I flew to Rome at the request of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to participate in a meeting discussing the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio about the use of the older form of the Latin Mass. There were about 25 bishops there, including the president of Ecclesia Dei Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the prefect of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Cardinal Francis Arinze, several heads of bishops’ conferences as well as some cardinals and other residential bishops.
They shared with us the Motu Proprio and the Holy Father’s letter explaining it. We also had an opportunity to read the Latin document. We each commented on that, and then the Holy Father came in and shared some of his thoughts with us. The Holy Father is obviously most concerned about trying to bring about reconciliation in the Church. There are about 600,000 Catholics who are participating in the liturgies of the Society of St. Pius X, along with about 400 priest.
The Holy Father was very clear that the ordinary form of celebrating the Mass will be the new rite, the Norvus Ordo. But by making the Latin Mass more available, the Holy Father is hoping to convince those disaffected Catholics that it is time for them to return to full union with the Catholic Church.
So the Holy Father’s motivation for this decision is pastoral. He does not want this to be seen as establishing two different Roman Rites, but rather one Roman Rite celebrated with different forms. The Motu Propio is his latest attempt at reconciliation.
In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England.
In our archdiocese, the permission to celebrate the Latin Mass has been in place for several years, and I granted permission when I was in Fall River for a Mass down on the Cape. The archdiocesan Mass is now at Immaculate Mary of Lourdes Parish in Newton. It is well attended, and if the need arises for an extension of that we would, of course, address it.
This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant. For example, in Brazil there is an entire diocese of 30,000 people that has already been reconciled to the Church.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 am
I’ve always speculated, based on anecdotal evidence, that irregular interest in the missal of PiusV is greatest in dioceses that have the largest number of Pauline parishes that have failed to implement authentic liturgical norms. In other words, frequent liturgical abuses = more irregular interest in the venerable rite which seems to always grants the people a reliable liturgical usage.
I find it surprising that His Eminence would attempt to gauge interest in Pius V Masses based on the number of persons worshiping outside of diocesan structures. The clear majority of faithful who desire the venerable rite endure Pauline celebrations that may not speak to their piety. I say this as a regular participant at Pauline Masses.
Some bishops who grant little access to the venerable rite go ahead and say “See, no one wants it” in an obvious self-fulfilling prophesy. It seems obviously illogical to me. It is similar to bishops in the 19th c. who refused to invite or permit Byzantine rite priests into their dioceses who then claimed - “no one in my diocese is attending a Byzantine Divine Liturgy, therefore, no one here wants it (or at least - no one wants a married Byzantine priest when none were permitted in their dioceses).” Many US bishops have a history of avoiding diversity even if it risked confrontation with Rome or large numbers of marginalized faithful.
Also, many Pius X priests celebrate Masses in missions that are not full fledged parishes/chapels making his count significantly law. They are true circuit riders. There are also many independent parishes not affiliated with Pius X and other organized movements that use the older liturgy.
I still think that if we want to see which form of the Roman rite speaks to the Catholic people most effectively encourage easy access to the venerable rite and see which the Spirit blesses.
Maid
on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
How bizarre to think that the Spirit would bless one liturgy over the other. It undermines Benedict’s underlying pastoral concern, namely to allow the older rite so that those who desire it may return to be in union with the Church. Union is the key word here. (And I think this is Cardinal Sean’s point) Thus, suggesting that the Spirit would bless one liturgy over the other and that the measure of that blessing will result in a popular poll of who worships with what rite not only undermines Benedict’s point, but it also undermines your many previous and lengthy points about allowing the older rite breathe so as to be more inclusive. It makes me think perhaps that inclusiveness is not really what you seek…
on July 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Benedict’s thrust is illogical.
Lex orandi, lex credendi. Vatican II ushered in understandings of liturgy and Christian community either not accepted or seriously frowned upon by folks attracted to SSPX, etc. The pope is trying to mix oil and water. After things settle, what kind of so-called “unity” will the Catholic Church have? Other contributors to this blog have pointed out possible (probable?) problems down the road with this bifurcated liturgical arrangement.
It’s been forty years since Vatican II. The council’s liturgical constitution — say what one may — allowed for significant changes in the non-essential parts of the Mass (if one is skeptical on this point, I might still be able to refer the inquirer to a critique by a “traditionalist”-minded lawyer who tells his like-minded pewsitters to get real about the extensive loopholes in Sacrosanctum Concilium!).
JPII’s advisors tried to convince the late pope that allowing an indult for the Tridentine would only create more problems down the road. His successor needs to allow adults to make their own decision about church affiliation (stay out or return), and deal with more pressing concerns facing the church.
I read somewhere that O’Malley was one of two U.S. hierarchs at this meeting with the pope. The other? Try Raymond Burke of St. Louis.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
The problem is that Vatican II in some places was not implemented properly. Also when people were Catechized so much was feel good Theology and trouble with authority. So ther is not always a proper understanding of the Faith.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Even though I prefer the new rite, which is actually an older, more traditional rite from Early Christianity, I stand behind Benedict on this move. What he is saying is very powerful. According to Cardinal Sean, he asserts the primacy of the new rite we have now, but has decided to more openly allow usage of the old rite for the sake of unity. We all will have to wait until the motu proprio comes out to know for sure, but I think the message Benedict is trying to actually convey is that while he will give wider usage of the old rite, those in support of it will in turn need to accept Vatican II and everything that has since happened from that point. He is taking the wind out of their sails, so to speak, by giving them what they want in terms of liturgy and leaving them with little room to dissent on other issues.
If I felt confident that it were true that there would be widespread use of the old rite, I might quake in my boots a little more about the implications of using both liturgies. However, I suspect this will not disrupt US Catholic life in the slightest. I am inclined to agree with Cardinal Sean on that.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Carindal O’Malley does not seem to refer to what would appear to be a major issue: namely that it will be up to individual clergy to decided (or not) to do this, rather than the ordinary decided to give permission (or not).
If unity is the Vatican’s concern, how will this play out in parishes? and in dioceses? Aren’t we headed for major disuniting confrontations?
on July 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I would expect the number of confrontations to be relatively small. What I expect to happen in most cases is the following:
1) small group of parishioners goes to pastor and asks if he can celebrate mass using the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite.
2) pastor declines, citing the small size of the group, the existing canonical restrictions on bination and trination, and the practical and pastoral difficulties involved in eliminating a mass in the “ordinary form” in favor of one using the “extraordinary form.” The pastor then reminds the group that the “extraordinary form” is offered at St. Such-and Such parish several miles away.
3) Group complains to the bishop who, in the vast majority of cases, is going to side with his overworked priests.
The most likely outcome of the MP is a relatively small increase in the number of parishes that offer a single mass in the “extraordinary form.” I expect these will be small parishes that do not have a large number of Sunday masses already being offered.
What this is going to come down to in the end is the willingness of individual priests to celebrate using the “extraordinary form.” Some younger priests seem to have enthusiasm for this and may work together to “staff” the “extraordinary form” at a particular parish on a rotating basis. That may be the most sustainable way of doing this.
Abp. Sean is almost certainly correct that, in the United States, “supply” of the older rite is sufficient to meet “demand.”
on July 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
To me the question is: Was the Novus Ordo a liturgical reform or a liturgical change?
If it was merely a change, the offering of an alternative rite, then Paul’s suppression of the Vetus Ordo might seem excessive, and one might speak fairly of the virtues of diversity–a much abused word.
But if the Novus Ordo was in principle a reform, then Paul was right, and in particular he was right because the rejection of the Novus Ordo by many was a rejection of the reforms of Vat2.
Benedict is said to hope that the free use of tjhe Vetus Ordo will produce reconciliation. Perhaps. But it may also make credible the notion that the Novus Ordo as only an alternative, not a reform. I think that would be unfortunate.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I hope Nicole is right.
As I mentioned on a separate thread somewhere, JPII at least left matters up to the local bishop. Benedict, on the other hand, is essentially going to ignore his counterparts and tell THEIR local clergy that they are free to do what they wish, regardless of the (likely unsaid) preferences of their bishops. The upcoming motu proprio strikes me as a serious blow to the universal church’s teachings on subsidiarity and collegiality. In theory, at least, a bishop should have a better understanding of the local scene than the pope. In practice, at least, the pope should respect the fundamdental autonomy of his episcopal peers around the world.
Wouldn’t it be nice for a change to learn of bishops telling their priests that the motu proprio will not be implemented in their dioceses? Such assertiveness would be entirely in keeping with the practice of church leaders in ancient times.
TO OUR BISHOPS: Just say no.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Joseph J. This sounds as if you’ve seen an advance copy of the motu proprio. If so, could you let us know where to find it?
on July 2nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Joseph, I hope your suggestion for the Bishops goes along more successfully than Nancy Regan’s “Just Say No” campaign!
on July 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
FWIW, I just returned from a 2-week trip to the Holy Land. During this time I resided for a week in the Notre Dame Centre, the seat of the Vatican Chargé in Jerusalem. This centre has also been in the managerial hands of the Legionary of Christ and was done so by JPII in the early 2000s.
I have it on fairly good word from a Franciscan friend who has been in Jerusalem for almost 20 years that, once the LC took over the place one of the first things they did was to introduce a healthy dose of Latin into was what the only daily English-language mass in Jerusalem and particularly well attended on Sundays.
The “Latinizing” of those services was immediately unpopular and resulted in a significant drop in attendance. The LC dropped the changes after about 3 months and only uses Latin during the Consecration on “high holydays.”
If popular rebellion can make the LC change its mind, all things are possible …. and probable.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Just a some practical questions; please don’t read any ulterior motives into this. I’m just ignorant about how this works:
1. Are all priests sufficiently “trained” to do the Latin Rite now so that if parishioners request it, they can do it without feeling “rusty” or at sea? Seems like the last thing someone would want would be a badly done Latin Mass.
2. How and when will Latin Masses be performed? For instance, could an individual request that a Latin Mass be said on a death anniversary? Could a couple request a Latin Mass for their wedding? Could a family request a Latin funeral Mass? Would a priest be “bound” in any circumstances to use that rite over the vernacular?
3. Seems to me a Latin Mass is both an interesting “artifact” (again sorry if that word choice offends) and the source of the current liturgy. I barely remember it from going to Mass with my Catholic friends as a kid. But it wasn’t all that hard to cotton on to, as the missal had an English translation next to the Latin. Will missals now include Latin versions with parallel English translations so that people don’t get lost in the kerfuffle?
4. Don’t want to sound like a cheapskate here, but is any of this going to pose significant costs to poorer parishes (missals, etc.)?
on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Jean:
All of those are good questions. But the answers will in good part depend on what the motu proprio actually says.
As for priests being able to say the Tridentine Mass well, I began my priesthood saying it, but I would have to go back and relearn all the rubrics. And there are now almost forty years of ordained priests who have never said that Mass and would have to learn the whole thing. And I would be willing to bet that three-quarters of them don’t know Latin either.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Jean:
Regarding Qs 3&4 - Many Catholic publishing houses are making full Latin-English missal reprints available at price points all across the spectrum. Angelus Press and Baronius Press have recently put forward beautifully updated “re-prints” and are among the top results of a Google search for “Tridentine missal.” Amazon and AquinasAndMore also have. Thus, any parishoner who self-selects the Traditional Latin Mass will certainly have many option when it comes to a Latin-English missal.
As for parishes: I have visited many TLM parishes which use the Latin-English missalette prepared by the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei:
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/missals.htm
These missals have the Ordinary of the Mass and are available quite inexpensively - with a parish order of 100+, they are only $2.40 each.
This compares favorably with OCP’s missalettes:
Breaking Bread is $3.10/book/year - http://www.ocp.org/products/bb
Today’s Missal is $3.90/book/year - http://www.ocp.org/products/tm
(I can’t link directly to the pricing. You will need to make one more click once you follow these links. sorry.)
The CSED Latin-English missalettes can probably be used for several years each. Even if a parish did completely replace them every year, the cost would still be less than the subscription rate for the OCP resources.
CSED also supplies Latin-Spanish missalettes at the same $2.40 price.
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/missalfm.htm
on July 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Jimmy Mac,
If a drop of in regular Mass attendance is your measure of pastoral success or failure than the post V2 liturgical renewal has been a resounding failure by every measurable standard.
I also wonder how much of your Franciscan commentator was fueled by rivalry between religious congregations. The Holy Land province of the OFM’s is well known for their liberal use of Latin in many of their public liturgies including in their Wash. DC. monastery.
If priests have not been trained knowing or using ecclesiastical Latin then we’ve frustrated the clear desire of the Council Fathers at V2. This is precisely the “kick in the back side” some of us need to implement the liturgical renewal more fully.
“The people should be able to sing or say … in Latin…”.
Our priests should learn the Latin to be better custodians of the mysteries and to further the liturgical renewal.
The two liturgies will influence one another. Already ED has given permission for the readings in the 1962 RM to be said in the vernacular once each and for a congregational Pater noster. Lets see what happens and lets not fear change.
The 1962 missals, altar missals, and the St. Gregory hymnal would end up saving money since they don’t need to worry about being forced to subscribe to publishing houses nor worry about having to purchase updated gender inclusive replacements for their current hymnals. We will have to purchase new English language Altar Missals anyway with our forthcoming more accurate Mass translation. Maybe the 1962 RM text will be included in it.
The Maid
on July 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Father Joe, all I know is what I read in the newspapers — or on the internet :)
I’d be very much surprised if Benedict follows JPII on this matter.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I ask this seriously - can any of those favouring the older Latin Mass explain why they prefer a Mass said in a language they can’t understand.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Joseph Gannon asked “Was the Novus Ordo a liturgical reform or a liturgical change?” and pointed out why the answer is important. Strange that no one has answered it. I suspect then that it was indeed reform and not change.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Sunil,
Language is only a part of ‘understanding’. The Mass is not defined by the language, but by the mystery of the Sacrament taking place and the gathering of believers for common purpose. I have attended Masses in many languages and it was never ‘less meaningful’ for not being in English.
For some it increases their feeling of connection to Tradition and elevation of Mystery and the Sacred. A bilingual Missal can help follow it. I don’t have a problem with making it available to those who find meaning in it.
I am sure all of us have experienced the fact that it is quite possible to find deep meaning in something without language being a prerequisite.
RM
on July 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Thanks to all for addressing my questions. Will look forward to learning more about how this will all work out.
I understand Sunil’s point. But I have to say that 25 years ago or so, I attended Mass with a friend in Montreal, so it was in French. I don’t know enough French to say the responses correctly, but I knew exactly where I was in the service and what was going on.. And me an Episcopalian!
The church we attended was mostly Vietnamese. And one of the moving things about that experience was that the Mass, not the language, connected all of us worshippers.
So, I would agree with Robert M that the Mass is more than just language. In fact, the lack of intelligible language in some ways deepens that mystery.
Though I’m not sure I’d like a steady diet of it.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
MOK:
If one needs to know Latin to be “better custodians of the mysteries ….” (whatever THAT is supposed to mean!) then one is simply interjecting an element of Gnosticism into the picture. It smacks of “secret knowledge” available only to the initiates.
Are you saying that non-Latin speakers are lesser classes when it comes to “the mysteries?” A loose parallel in your country would be saying that an Oxbridge accent is more English than all others.
I find it strange that Jesus, the gospel and epistle writers, and the early church fathers didn’t need a special language (sans secret decoder ring, of course) in order to preach, teach and sanctify.
My point about the situation at the NDC with the LC imposition of Latin into the English language Mass was that the good little sheep of yesteryear are, in the main, gone from the picture. Most contemporary Catholics no longer roll over and play dead just because Father Says So. And so it shall be once the motu proprio is fully implemented and some eager-beaver priest tries to impose a Latin mass in a parish where it is not wanted.
The best way to implement this will be for the local ordinary to designate certain parishes as Latin Mass parishes and be done with it.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
A priest needs to know a little Latin to be a better “custodian of the mysteries” because it improves his ars celebrandi, his grounding in the tradition of the sui iuris Latin Church to which we belong. The ars celebrani is a truism mentioned a great deal these days:
“”Ars celebrandi” is based on the theological truth articulated by the Second Vatican Council …signs perceptible to the senses …respect the Scripture, Tradition, historical roots of the sacred texts and the theological riches of liturgical expressions” (”Sacrosanctum Concilium,” No. 7 quoted by H. E. F. Cardinal Arinze on 1/20/07 in an echo of the 2005 Synod of Bishops).
Latin is not our vernacular, it is a liturgical language and no one is suggesting a Latin sermon be given in the parish church. Latin cannot be described, legitimately, as a foreign language imposed on our parishes because it our liturgical language. It belongs to us as Aramaic belongs to the Maronites.
By the way, our Lord would have been quite familiar with liturgical Hebrew and never criticized the use of a liturgical language by the Jews of His day. Your concerns about what reads like a form of clericalism are interesting but seems extreme to me. In my experience the clericalism is more likely to come from the deacon/priest/bishop/religious/or lay Church employee who eschews tradition including liturgical Latin and faithful or accurate liturgical translations. These “clericalists” generally support liturgical minimalism because they perceive anything traditional as a betrayal of their preferences in an updated Catholicism.
Additionally, your seeming segregation of liturgical Latin to select parishes ignores the Council Fathers at Vatican II who wanted the faithful to be familiar with Latin ordinaries & Gregorian chant. The proper renewal of Vatican II includes regular use of Latin in parishes - enough regularity to make the people at home with their own tradition.
on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Sunil:
I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass because I find it easier to prayerfully assist the sacrifice of the Mass when it is celebrated in that form.
Jimmy Mac:
“whatever THAT is supposed to mean”
I think the Maid was making a reference to Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the sacred liturgy
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Paragraph 54:
“In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and ‘the common prayer,’ but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. ”
The Council Fathers recognized that many of the faithful were unable to pray the Latin Mass and laid out directives so as to bring about more active participation of the laity in the (mostly Latin) Mass. Two of these directives were:
1) Translate the readings, sermon and prayer of the faithful into the vernacular. AND
2) Teach the laity the Latin that they’d need to know for the rest of the Mass.
As such, a pastor is a “better keeper of the mysteries” - as measured against the liturgy standard of the Second Vatican Council* - if he learns Latin and teaches his flock their parts in Latin.
*this is not to say that Latin is the singular or even a main focus of Sacrosanctum Concilium. A priest who specialized only in Latin but had no other pastoral concern would certainly not be in a superior “class” of priests under SC. But, as between two priests who are equal in all other respects - except that one knows Latin and teaches it to his congregation - the Latin speaker more closely shares the mind of the Church as expressed by the Second Vatican Council.
Returning to the two directives I have summarized above:
The first has been adopted almost universally, even in the TLM communities - at every TLM I have attended, the readings and sermon have been in English (with the exception of one, where they were given in Spanish)
The second was essentially set by the wayside shortly after the Council and has languished (forty years in the desert) until God called a learned peritus of the Vatican Council to St. Peter’s chair.
By “freeing” the Traditional Latin Mass, Pope Benedict may just be removing the episcopal red tape blocking those priests and faithful most likely** to advance the Latin education mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
**SC is about 44 years old. The Latin version of the NOM has been available now for about 37 years. Judging by the comments at dotCommonweal, the worldwide Catholic faithful generally do not know Latin. Either the those interested in the NOM have not used that Mass to pursue SC’s Latin education mandate or they have been extremely ineffectual.
on July 4th, 2007 at 8:48 am
What a lot of thoughtful comments! Those priests who may wish to celebrate Mass in the older rite can download an audio recording of the Latin from http://latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/latinmass_audio.html. The text of the Mass (with translation) is available at http://latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/text_of_mass1.html. A rubrics video/DVD is also available.
on July 4th, 2007 at 8:51 am
What a lot of thoughtful comments! Those priests who may wish to celebrate Mass in the older rite can download an audio recording of the Latin from http://latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/latinmass_audio.html . The text of the Mass (with translation) is available at http://latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/text_of_mass1.html . A rubrics video/DVD is also available.
on July 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Since Sunil’s serious question has provoked few answers, I should say that Latin is essentially a language I do understand, so for me the question is moot — but on my own I almost always pray in English.
I wonder how many other participants in this discussion know enough Latin to follow what’s going on (probably important to distinguish following the set liturgy from following the Gospel readings) and how many just like or dislike the feel of it.
But then at mass in languages I barely understand (Spanish) or essentially don’t know at all (Tagalog, Dutch) I still have participation rewarding.
on July 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If Latin was so universally understood preV2, why were the missals in use translated into the local language as well?
I was just in the Holy Land and almost all of the churches there (virtually all built in the late 1800s/early 1900s) are festooned with Latin. To the average contemporary visitor to these places, they may as well have been written in Urdu.
on July 4th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I thought we belonged to the Catholic Church, i.e., the Universal Church. Should we speak of the :Latin Church”? I thought it was the Latin Rite.
on July 5th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Fathers Rumble and Carty were addressing Protestants with their “Radio Replies”, but I guess it applies to Catholics now.
Why, in all ceremonies and sermons, do Priests speak in Latin?
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, V., I., you will find these words, “Every Priest is ordained for men in the the things that pertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.” A Priest has two chief duties: to offer sacrifice to God, and to sanctify men by his teaching and instruction. Now, when a Priest is speaking, not to men, but to God in the name of men, he speaks in the language of the Church — in Latin — a language God certainly understands, as does the Priest. When on the other hand he speaks to the people he speaks in their own language; in France, in French; in England, he uses English; in Germany, German. Sermons are always given in the vernacular, in not in Latin, because they are addressed to the people. Go into any Catholic Church, and you will never here any sermons in Latin.
But the Priest says the Mass in Latin.
That is a sacrificial action offered to God. Latin is the liturgical language of the Catholic Church, just as Hebrew is the official language still used in the Synagogue.
on July 5th, 2007 at 1:08 am
here
hear
on July 5th, 2007 at 7:08 am
In the old rite, the priest did not use the vernacular when addressing the people. “Dominus vobiscum,” “Sursum corda”, etc. are not English, and the readings were all in Latin, and on a typical Sunday the only one of them read in English (after having been read in Latin, silently, by the priest) was the Gospel.
Latin is (was?) not “the ltiurgical language of the Catholic Church,” but simply of the Latin Rite–a rather important distinction..
on July 5th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Joseph G, and JAK can correct me if I’m wrong on this, when employing the language of Vatican II, the Latin Church is a sui iuris Church just as the Maronites are another sui iuris Church. There are Latin rite(s) plural, and our discussion is about only one of them, the Roman (Latin). Other Latin rites include the Ambrosian, the Toledo rite, and the religious order rites (Carthusian, Dominican), etc….
That gives us both the additional benefit of liturgical Latin and the burden of preserving this patrimony for our descendants in our ritual Church. The patrimony is rich in orthodoxy and orthopraxy and must be preserved for those reasons though the cultural reasons deserve attention too.
All of this is brought out in Vatican II itself. Unless we are reluctant to implement the council this is something we should agree on. If we seek the ability to only accept those parts of the council that suit us the discussion is altogether different.
on July 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
If I remember, a vocal and distinct minority persuaded Paul VI to designate Latin as the official language — either of the liturgical rite and/or of the Church. I know that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not designate Latin as the official language of the Church. The majority leaders, if I remember, went ahead with this (last minute?) change for fear of losing everything if they had tried to resist.
Father Komonchak, might you be able to shed any light on this issue?
Thank you.
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:05 am
The Council nowhere says that Latin is the official language of the Church, and that it was not was repeatedly stressed during the conciliar debates in response to those who said or implied that it was. Cardinal Bea, as head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was particularly insistent on the matter, as were the leaders of Eastern and Oriental Churches in communion with Rome.
I know of no last minute statement of the Council on the matter. The formal statement in SC 36, #1–”Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite”–was part of the schema on the liturgy from the beginning. The opening toward the vernacular came in #2 of the same paragraph: “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, the use of it may be extended, especially in the readings and directions, in some prayers and songs, in accord with norms on the matter to be laid down individually in the later chapters.”
It was Pope Paul VI himself who after the Council and in response to pleas from all over the world, decided that the entire liturgy could be put into the vernacular.
It is worth pointing out that the issue is not only (or even mainly) between Latin and the vernacular (since the New Order Mass can be said in Latin), but between the unreformed and reformed Roman Missal.
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Thank you!
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Fr. Komonchak says:
“It is worth pointing out that the issue is not only (or even mainly) between Latin and the vernacular (since the New Order Mass can be said in Latin), but between the unreformed and reformed Roman Missal.”
This is well said and it would be helpful if people would stop talking about the Latin Mass when they mean the rite of the unreformed Roman Missal.
As for tradition, the Latin Rite is the successor of an earlier Greek Rite in the West (the Kyrie is what survives) and it came about as a move toward the language of the people at that time. Pope Paul’s decision to have mass in the languages of the peoples is thus in the best sense traditional.
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I have always wondered where some people got the notion that “Latin is the official language of the Church.”
The only other document with which I am familiar is John XXIII’s issuance of February 22, 1962, mandating the study of Latin and Greek. The pope enumerates the value of Latin for the church, but nowhere could I find him stating that Latin is the “official language” of the church.
Might anyone happen to know where this idea originated? (I’m assuming this is an “idea” only and that there is no foundation in fact.)
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:47 am
It was often said, or assumed, by people who tended also to identify the Catholic Church with the Latin Church, or that the Latin Rite was superior to all others. The Council had good reason for reminding people that “holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal authority and dignity and wishes them to be preserved and fostered in every way” (SC 4).
on July 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety…. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers, which were your glory for centuries.”
–Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, August 15, 1966, Epistle to Superiors General of Clerical Religious Institutes Bound to Choir, on the Celebration of the Divine Office in Latin
Q: Where do people get the idea that Latin is the “official language” of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: To the extent that practice makes “official,” Latin IS the official language of the Holy See. Official liturgical text, such as the NOM, have their authoritative form in Latin. Official texts of canon law are in Latin. Authoritative Vatican and Papal documents - Encyclicals, Bulls, Briefs, institutions of bishops, replies from the Roman Congregations, acts of provincial councils - as published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, are principally published in Latin.
The Editio Typica of the CCC is in Latin.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/index_lt.htm
The Editio Typica of the Sacred Scriptures is in Latin.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
The Holy Father’s recent letter to Chinese Catholics is in Latin:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070527_china_lt.html
(This information can all be cited to wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin - but is also consistent with information that I previously knew)
These two links have a wealth of quotes by popes about the value of Latin:
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Introductio/Popes.html
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/latneces.txt
In other news, someone seems to have slipped Rocco the Motu Proprio:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
on July 6th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Precisely: the Latin Church is not the Church, and the Holy See is not the Church.
on July 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Una Voce changes the question to “Where do people get the idea that Latin is the ‘official language’ of the ROMAN Catholic Church?” (emphases added)
Fr. Komonchak, thank you for the correction.
I’m again reminded of the observation of Keith Pecklers, liturgist and liturgical historian in Rome, that Latin probably acquired its “sacral” character (i.e., reputation) because in due course, the laity could no longer understand it. As the professor noted, in and of itself, Latin is no more “sacral” than is Greek or Japanese.
“Practice,” contrary to UV’s assertion, no more makes something “official” than presidential use of a Cadillac or Lincoln makes such a car the “official” motor vehicle of the U.S. Government :)
Merely citing examples of Latin’s use by Rome does not confer or reinforce the notion of “officiality” of this dead and foreign language.