EF in vernacular?
-
It has (sort of) happened in history: the Glagolitic Mass, Indian Masses, etc. I say "sort of" because technically the Glagolitic Mass wasn't the Tridentine and Indian Masses used Propers and Ordinary in the vernacular only. I believe there were some Chinese missions, and several smaller missions as well, also to employ the vernacular. The 1965 Roman Missal also used the vernacular for the Propers and Ordinary. Latin was kept only for the Priest's private prayers, the offertory prayers, and the Canon. I know Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has granted permission to use the 1965 Missak, though I can't remember where I read that.
-
Another important difference: the Glagolitic Mass was not anyone's "vernacular" by the time of the Council of Trent. It was the Roman rite Mass translated into "Old" or "Church" Slavonic.Thanked by 1CHGiffen
-
Good point!
-
There is no general permission to use the "1965 Missal".
I understand that during the pre-Summorum Pontificum days, one religious congregation petitioned the PCED and was granted the right to introduce a single post-1962 modification to the Latin.
Additionally, the English Indult of 1971, apparently still in effect, specifies the use of the edition of the Missal "published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967)." -
I understand that during the pre-Summorum Pontificum days, one religious congregation petitioned the PCED and was granted the right to introduce a single post-1962 modification to the Latin.
Specifically, the monastery of Le Barroux, if we're thinking about the same thing. IIRC, there were several minor modifications permitted to them, including the singing of the Pater noster by the whole congregation and the introduction of vernacular bidding prayers at Sunday Mass. They weren't requesting permission for vernacular Propers or Ordinary however. So the "Rite of Le Barroux" was not the 1965 missal.Thanked by 1Chrism -
the English Indult of 1971, apparently still in effect,
I suppose it is; I wonder when it was last invoked!Thanked by 1Chrism -
One day, if we're fortunate, some version The English Missal will be approved for use in the Ordinariate.
-
+1
-
At the risk of bringing the ire of many hereabouts down upon my head, I think the introduction of the vernacular (in a modern environment, certainly; in other environments, possibly; in all environments where the logic is that the prayers should be understood by the faithful) is a tremendously bad idea. When people translated Holy Writ into (modern) English, they lost the concept that understanding God involves the acknowledgment of a mystery. When we insist that only in the vernacular can we celebrate the Mass we ignore both a history of liturgical language and the point that Latin assists us in appreciating a mystery.
-
I don't think anyone here would "insist that only in the vernacular can we celebrate the Mass." So that's a little straw-man-ish.
As for my opinion:
I think that the "it's good to specifically NOT understand the language" argument is a bit of an over-play on the part of the TLM crowd. -
Plus, Adam, having holy writ and liturgical texts in 'a language understanded by the people' does not guarantee that it is actually understood by them. For most of us, hearing the word of God is one thing: really understanding it is most often a lifetime experience of what remains a mystery. Plus, Latin in itself is not a guarantor of this mystery. Certainly not to those classical scholars who comprehend it perfectly. This is, indeed, a straw man.
One might also observe that the Church of Rome, unlike those of the East, retained Latin for so long because of the confusion of evolving languages in Europe which for a long time had no written form, and because of the lingering phenomenon of Romanitas as a cultural binder throughout the post-Roman west. (Mystery had nothing to do with it!) Then came the Reformation and Latin vs. vernacular as rather unfortunate banners of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. The Catholic prelates, clergy and scholars at the time of the Reformation who wanted the mass in their vernaculars were far from rare. There is no magic or inherent mystery in Latin. Only that same beauty that inhers in English.
Plus: if the rationale for the retention of Latin was that its meaning would be a mystery, then it would follow that none should be allowed learn what it means; and thus its meaning would be a mystery to ALL equally, not just an ignorant laity who have their ignorance lordshipped over by a privileged clerical caste. -
My dream is basically: the EF, a liiiittle louder, and in English for readings and any variant parts. Parts that are the same every time, or parts that have music attached to them (the Propers) would be normally in Latin. People would sing the ordinary, usually, and the Pater. Sometimes maybe even the propers for big feasts. So... vote for me for Pope, if you want that.
-
With respect, Benjamin, I cannot fathom the preference of quite a few people for what are to me mongrel, or pastiche, masses - with this in English and that in Latin. What is the point in this, except to say that English can't really hold its own as a liturgical language? It enforces the falsehood that, ultimately, there IS some mysterious magic to Latin that some would have us believe is lacking in English. I have no problem at all with entirely Latin masses (including the readings!). I have no problem at all with Latin motets or anthems at the offertory or communion - these are ornamental, and, to me, decorative items.
What we need desperately is truly ecclesiastical English music for the mass that is of the same calibre as much of the historical Latin repertory, both chant and choral. We can't get there by having Latin ordinaries jig-sawed into English masses so that people can be thrilled at having done a Latin ordinary. What would you think of inserting an English ordinary into a Latin mass? Absurd, isn't it! Have Latin ordinaries and propers at Latin masses... and I will come and share your joy.
As for pope: you might very well make a good one... but, as Benedict would tell you, being pope doesn't guarantee having the whole Church agree with you about liturgy! -
It enforces the falsehood that, ultimately, there IS some mysterious magic to Latin that some would have us believe is lacking in English.
Maybe you could try reading, say, Veterum Sapientia, and find out about some of the non-mysterious, non-magical qualities that Latin has which make its use in the Roman rite especially appropriate.
There are perfectly valid reasons for rejecting the Macaronic Mass -- I think esthetics is the main one, in the same sense that either polyphony or praise-and-worship music would be preferable to a mix of polyphony and praise and worship, or that Gothic or modern architecture is preferable to a Gothic church expanded and renovated in a modern motif. But your reasons (wounded pride, apparently) don't stack up to very much.What would you think of inserting an English ordinary into a Latin mass? Absurd, isn't it!
Why not ask what he thinks of inserting an English proper into a Latin Mass? Oh wait, that's precisely what he already suggested.
Relatedly, I quite agree with Adam several posts back in repudiating as ludicrous the view that Latin ought to be used because being stymied by a confusing foreign language you don't speak creates "mystery," as though this would impart to the missal the romance and intrigue of the Voynich Manuscript. The point is, when Latin can be used in a way congruent with full understanding and participation -- which is only really going to be possible with the unchanging parts of the Mass -- then the benefits spoken of in documents like Veterum Sapientiae will militate in favor of using it. These include universality, continuity with the past, bridging of national or ethnic differences, and so on. An all-or-nothing absolutism doesn't do very much to advance any of the ends in play. -
What would you think of inserting an English ordinary into a Latin mass? Absurd, isn't it!
Well, yes, due to the lack of historical continuity. I like Latin Mass because my grandpa knew it (more or less). I would like Latin Propers/Ordinaries in a mostly English Mass because I like the idea of knowing the same songs the saints did. (I also like it as a ecclesial lingua franca in this globalized world.) I don't think Latin is magic, nor is my grandfather's pocket-watch--I will keep it around anyway.Thanked by 1MHI -
Thank you, Mark.
Some of the argumentation seen on this subject really seems like straw-man argument: arguing against the weakest utterances heard on the opposing side -- and perhaps even against implausible arguments that no one has made -- as if that were enough to give the subject a serious treatment.
Let's not be tempted to engage in such tactics.
-
Then I shant be tempted.
-
Any variant parts in vernacular? Then you can kiss the Graduale goodbye if that is truly your dream.
I don't understand the preoccupation with English, especially considering such a small slice of the Universal Church speaks it. Eng may be the lingua franca of the business world; it is not of the Christian world.
Furthermore, Eng is far too changing to supplant Latin and endure well. We'd probably have arguments about sacred language and craft new missal every generation. Oops- we are already there! Why aren't we learning from this?
-
What we are learning from this is that the Catholic Church has, so far, failed to produce the equivalent of the BCP in the finest modern English. When and if it can do this then perhaps it, too, will produce 500 years of English liturgical music that will be treasured for all time. And, nowhere have I even thought of faulting Latin masses, Latin music, or Latin period (I love them all, and am an energetic proponent of their preservation) - only liturgy that is a pastiche of languages, whether Latin or others. I have as little as possible to do with the business world: English is to me, and always has been, a liturgical language which needs no apologies and of which no short shrifting is appropriate.
-
I hate to quibble with Adam, but this:I don't think anyone here would "insist that only in the vernacular can we celebrate the Mass." So that's a little straw-man-ish.
is NOT a straw man anywhere I have served in a parish; it's the unwritten law.
I really just meant here. I'm aware of the vernacular-only folks.
(So maybe it's more of a strawberry than a straw man.*)
And of course, the vernacular-only crowd, for the most part, has little interest in a Hieratic Vernacular such as the Anglican Use. Which tells me that these people aren't so much interested in "the language must be understandable" as much as "the language must not challenge me in any way," since classical English is perfectly understandable if you just bother to pay attention. (Although I'm sure this is MOSTLY an unconscious preference.)
------
*No, I have no idea what a "strawberry" argument might actually be. But I've been rolling the joke around in my head for days with no punch-line in sight, and I figure meta-humor (this footnote) is better than no humor at all.
Thanked by 1gregp -
We might recall that in earlier times, especially before Trent, the common tongues were used for certain parts of the sacred Liturgy (e.g., bidding prayers; in the rites of betrothal and wedding).
There were no biding prayers after Trent, but the vernacular continued to be used for the wedding rites didn't it? -
I think it makes much more pastoral sense to fix/refine the many, many issues with the application of innumerable options in the OF before messing fundamentally with the EF.
I also find it funny, useless, and mildly cheeky that people who don't regularly (or ever) pray in the EF (especially the sung versions) spout views as to how to reform it. I think I will go on Missouri Synod blog and tell them how to fix their liturgy!
Reforms were attempted, and that's all still in process... it takes time and patience... and ecclesial clarity. Come, Holy Spirit!
While our current liturgical identity crisis remains pervasive, it makes sense to leave the EF in its essence. (The calendar is... another issue all together.)
For now, the EF (sung masses especially) is the main living touch point we have as to authentic Latin Catholic tradition. We need that example intact resolve current problems.
-
To say that Anglicans have a great tradition means pretty much nothing to Catholics who don't speak English. So that model accomplishes very little for the Unversal Church.
English for prayer is irrelevant to the vast majority of Catholics. It's hard for us to see, in our corners of the Church. But world-wide our language isn't thought of fondly when it's thought of at all. I had this hammered into me recently at an international conference of bishops. -
Particular bishops?
Mostly Latins, some Africans.
It's better for me to be vague on a public forum. -
The EF was reformed in the 60s by Vatican II. Whether or not one endorses the Paul VI reforms is another matter. However, the OF is the OF and is the norm, like it or not. It seems to me that ICEL and the U.S. bishops are slowly improving the OF, although the end result of that is going to be years in the future.
The EF is appealing to a smaller group, or fringe, and likely will not have wide effect on the majority - at least in the U.S. I realize this forum is a bit top heavy with the mantilla crowd, so a lot of wishful thinking exists to the contrary.Thanked by 1Gavin -
I agree. Every seminarian in my diocese is learning it. It's influence may be regional, depending on the diocese, but it'll be there.
-
Of course the OF is the norm. But this thread is about the EF...
The EF regional not so much because of the laity but because of the influence of supportive (or not so supportive) bishops.
"Mantilla crowd" gives you away, Charles, as a someone who probably doesn't see much of the EF outside a small area. (Plus it's snarky and tangential.) In lots of places outside the US, and even some here, women EF attendees (who also often attend OF) don't veil. Think world-wide, not just US. That's where the Latin Church is operating, like it or not. -
Yes, but we are here. I wish the rest of the Catholic world well, but it seems U.S. Catholics are not too affected by it. For crazy liturgy, I think it is sometimes even worse in other places. Me, snarky? Surely you jest. LOL. Adam is the snarky one and that melo guy from CA can be, too. ;-) Unfortunately, some of the EF folks here are still a bit cultic. Not all, by any means, but some.
-
Adam, et al,
Let's see which premise you don't accept:
1) Mass is the unbloody representation of the sacrifice of Calvary.
2) Latin (and the Traditional Latin Mass, although YOU brought it up; I didn't) has been effectively banished from the Church, so that most celebrations of Mass on Sunday are, de rigeur, in the local vernacular(s). The Council assumed that the Mass would continue to use Latin.
3) Mass is THEOcentric, not anthropocentric.
4) Melismatic chants in one language often don't work well when the text is translated to a new language. (If you seriously doubt this premise, look at the new ICEL-translated chant Ordinaries)
5) Latin isn't the province of any one people, and is thus the language which belongs to everyone.
6) When Our Lord died on the Cross, HEBREW, not Aramaic, was crucified with Him.
God bless,
Chris -
1) Mass is the unbloody representation of the sacrifice of Calvary.
Of course.2) Latin (and the Traditional Latin Mass, although YOU brought it up; I didn't) has been effectively banished from the Church, so that most celebrations of Mass on Sunday are, de rigeur, in the local vernacular(s). The Council assumed that the Mass would continue to use Latin.
True about the council.
"Effectively banned" is a bit over the top, but not terribly inaccurate.3) Mass is THEOcentric, not anthropocentric.
Well, it's Christo-centric, and Christ is very theo and very andro.
But I yeah, I'll go with it.4) Melismatic chants in one language often don't work well when the text is translated to a new language. (If you seriously doubt this premise, look at the new ICEL-translated chant Ordinaries)
This I dispute.
And I don't think the ICEL Ordinaries represent a particularly melismatic flavor of chant.5) Latin isn't the province of any one people, and is thus the language which belongs to everyone.
Or it belongs to no one. (just sayin')
I really have no problem with Latin. Really. Really.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with.6) When Our Lord died on the Cross, HEBREW, not Aramaic, was crucified with Him.
....and now I'm completely confused. -
I realize this forum is a bit top heavy with the mantilla crowd, so a lot of wishful thinking exists to the contrary.
Snarky
Dismissive (especially towards women)
Irrelevant
Inaccurate
But no offense taken- Lol
I recognize the whole judgmental, suspicious, condescending attitude toward EF attendees because I was a little like that before I worked in an EF parish. Now I have friends who say negative things about fellow Catholics they don't know in the parish where I work, and these friends haven't been to mass there even once. Ah well, we're all learning, we're all sinners.
-
Neither condescending nor suspicious. There was an independent chapel south of here for years, supposedly attached to the Knights of Malta. The good Knights protested that these folks were nuts, frauds and had no connection with them. Some of those folks are still very much around, so I wasn't kidding about some of the EF folks here being a bit cultic.
I think I will have a tee shirt made that reads, "Old and Snarky." LOL. -
I go to Mass in the EF from time to time, and I think it is beautiful. A big part of this is the use of Latin.
However, I also think there's a lot to be said for the church giving vernacular EF a go somehow (perhaps just in certain communities / selected regions to start with... indeed, perhaps we'll get something along these lines when the Ordinariate launches its Order of Mass, as I think Adam W suggests above.) I don't think we've had a chance to see what the vernacular is really capable of in the Roman Church. Our experience of the vernacular at Mass has been "tainted" by being joined at the hip with the OF, which is not the Roman Rite at its best, exacerbated by a dodgy translation (now improved, thank the Lord) and often poor music to go with it.
The Schola could sing from the American Gradual (supplemented by simpler psalm tones where necessary, e.g. for the Gradual). The Ordinaries could be taken from one of the very many beautiful new works written for the new translation (or I would be quite happy to use Missa de A, Orbis B, Lux et O etc, although I do note MJO's thought-provoking criticism of "pastiche" Mass). We could even have one or two hymns at appropriate places (Neale's translations of traditional hymns set to their original "Gregorian" tunes). That sounds great, right? -
CharlesW,
But you're in the south, right? So y'all tend toward cultic and weird anyway (and slow and racist and toss in whatever other stereotype you want). Embrace it.
I mean, if you're ok with that hurling that kind of thing toward fellow Catholics and all. Go for it!
Lol
(Spoken as one of the "fruits and nuts" in wacky CA)
Thanked by 1MHI -
"4) Melismatic chants in one language often don't work well when the text is translated to a new language. (If you seriously doubt this premise, look at the new ICEL-translated chant Ordinaries)"
With the greatest respect, I dispute this too. Check out the American Gradual. Amazing book. (I think the answer is: it depends (i) where you put the melisma, and (ii) how experienced your chanters are!)
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,506
- General Music Discussion7,774
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115