There is a thoughtful post today from Shawn Tribe at NLM, The Vernacular Option for the Lessons; A Call for Discussion. At Masses offered according to the Classical Roman Rite, the readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular as Summorum Pontificum allows.
In England, I think this needs to be looked at from two perspectives. First, where there has been a practice for some time of offering Mass in the Classical form of the rite, with the readings read or sung in Latin, I think it would be unwise to change this practice and introduce vernacular readings. Better to stick with the practice of reading the English texts before the sermon or simply accepting that people have the English texts and do not need them to be read out.
However, in a parish setting, where the Classical form is being introduced, it may be a good compromise to have the readings given in English by a cleric at the same time as the celebrant is reading them in Latin quietly. It is a prejudice of modern liturgical practice to insist that only one thing can happen at any given time. I believe that the traditional liturgy offers a freedom that the modern rite does not: that of allowing the faithful to participate in various different ways, depending on their level of education, personal spiritual life, or familiarity with the liturgy. We can be united at the altar without all having to do the same thing at the same time.
22 comments:
As someone who entered the Church under and grew up exposed to American Novus Ordo, I must say that one thing that both fascinated and confused me about the TLM is the "double track." I have noted the same thing with the Eastern Rites (where it seems even more pronounced to me). It took a while to get used to, even for someone who did so with love.
Your suggestion of doing the readings in Latin and English makes sense. However, I wonder if it would add to the confusion of getting the TLM started in a parish?
Maybe some preparatory instruction on the "double-track" effect would smooth things out. Back to the whole "what does participation mean?"
In my opinion this is an area that needs a lot of care. Several times in the past fifteen years I've attended a Tridentine Mass, completely open to its possibilities. Although I have studied much more Latin than most Catholics, I won't claim to have a firm grasp of the language, but I do appreciate it. Nevertheless, for the readings to be in Latin struck me as completely insane, especially when they were followed by the same readings in English.
I daresay that very likely there was not a soul in the Church who understood the readings in Latin apart from the priest- and I wondered about him. Obviously it would have helped to have had a missal, but I didn't.
I don't claim to be correct in these thoughts, only that it was a very large indicator to me at the time that the Tridentine rite people were somewhat off their nut if they hoped to persuade anyone of the viability of the rite.
If I had brought a friend, or a stranger had wandered in as sometimes happens, what good would reading the Word of God in Latin have done him? Would he not have thought us mad, to quote St. Paul a bit out of context.
Then follows the formal and even liturgical admission that no one understood a thing, so now they are read in English, further lengthening a Mass that the readings in Latin had just made seem interminable.
All I am trying to do here is give the view from the pew as it were. There is no such thing as the average Catholic I am quite sure, but to the extent that he exists as a figment of our imaginations, we well know that he is not up to speed with Pope Benedict XVI and has to be brought along gently, with great respect for his common sense.
In Parishes which celebrate Mass in both the Modern and Classical forms, I reckon the faithful who normally attend Mass in the Modern Rite would be more prepared to occasionally attend a Classical Rite Mass if the priest (or deacon and sub deacon) were to read or chant the readings in English. I think clergy should embrace this possibility with enthusiasm. I would like to see more people attending Mass in both forms.
I went to Dublin's TLM in St. Kevin's, Harrington Street, a few weeks ago, and Fr. Deighan read the readings in English from the pulpit just before starting his sermon. Someone told me that this is his standard operating procedure.
I am not quite sure what Brendan Allen is saying. Did the priest read the Episle and Gospel in Latin, then go into the pulpit and then read them in English, and then say his sermon? Or did he cut out the readings in Latin and only read them from the pulpit before continuing with his sermon?
Personally I can see no reason at all why, if it is a sung Mass, that the Epistle and Gospel cannot be both sung in English. The same style of chanting can be used both in English and in Latin. The traditional tune for the Paternoster fits the English words perfectly, and that is but one example.
JARay
I celebrate the TLM everyday for a small congregation of young people and adults (I am a school chaplain). Since Sept 14, 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.
Fr Andrew Wadsworth
In the Netherlands, I often visit a Benedictine abbey (see here), where almost 90% of the liturgy is completely in Latin (i.e., with Gregorian chant) - although not Tridentine. Here, they choose to do the readings in Dutch, but recited instead of just being read. For me this is a good middle way: the usage of Dutch makes certain that I understand the readings, the recitation makes it clear it are not just readings as if from a newspaper, but a 'heightened' reading.
In response to lee gilbert, I would just like to add that I think he has a point on one level. However, when I, and my family started attending the TLM because the inanity of the "performances" of the New Rite had just gone too far for us, we were totally at sea. We attended an SSPX chapel for a while, (they seemed to know what they were doing, and how to do it right!) and although I didn't know any Latin, the readings were always read out in English after the Latin. I wondered, at the time, what was the point of this, but then, I was wondering what was the point of a lot of the things that were going on, and gradually I started to understand a lot more about the Holy Sacrifice (which had never been obvious to me in many years of attending the NO, in fact I'd learned from a Monsignor at the RCIA group I attended at one time that the Mass "used to emphasise the Sacrifice, but we play that down now"), so I thought that the reasons for having the readings in Latin would become clearer as time went on. I always thought back to my rather poorly educated (could barely read or write) Irish Nana, who had such tremendous faith, who ultimately handed it on to me, and wondered how she managed all those years without understanding the readings?
A lot of things that happen at the TLM seem perhaps insane at first, and it did take some perseverence for me to feel completely at home with the rite, but, funnily enough, the Mass never seemed interminably long to me - perhaps because I saw the fault to be mine, and didn't expect instant understanding. Having now attended nearly every Sunday for the last 3 years, and having read up about the Liturgy, most of it has fallen into place. I did feel annoyed if I attended a weekday TLM and didn't know what readings I should be following, but I'm now beginning to get the hang of those too. I do admit that it would help if a lot of effort were given for people to be able to know what the readings are - and I would have no objection to them being read at the same time as the Priest read them quietly in Latin. (But I quite like hearing them read in Latin first, too, but that's probably because I'm trying to learn Latin, alongside my son!) It would also help if some instruction were given in what all the gestures, movements of gospel etc. were about, where they differ from anything seen in the NO. (Most of my education in this respect has come from accidental discoveries through blogging, or the Priest telling my young altar server son what the significance of things are!)
I suppose that those Catholics who are in no way disaffected with the NO may never make the effort to understand the TLM, and will dismiss it out of hand, or perhaps not - we know of one young altar server who wasn't a Catholic but attended a Catholic school, then asked to become a Catholic, then served in his NO parish, then started attending the TLM (bringing his mum along too - who also became a Catholic) and now loves the Traditional Mass, and prefers it to the NO, and thinks he may have a vocation to the Priesthood, all by the age of 11. So the Tridentine people may be off their nuts, but they don't need to persuade anyone of the viability of the rite, the Rite speaks for itself.
There are good reasons for hearing the Scriptures in the vernacular at the traditional Mass.
The Scriptures nourish us. But unfortunately a regrettably high proportion of Catholics do not read the Bible. The readings at Mass are, by and large, their only experience of its contents.
Since all are welcome at the traditional Mass, no one should feel that if he doesn't have a Sunday missal - let alone a daily one - this Mass is not for him.
Brendan Allen's account of the priest reading the Scriptural passages from the pulpit, in English, accords with what I remember from my youth. The readings are not usually so long as to add inordinately to the length of the Mass.
The shortage of priests would seem to make this option more practical than to have a second cleric read the vernacular version while the celebrating priest reads it in Latin.
A very useful post, at a time when "Summorum Pontificum" has derestricted the "old" Mass.
Certainly, it seems to have been the custom for some time in Francophone countries (including, I think, the SSPX churches,) to proclaim the readings in the vernacular, facing the people.
In this case, there is no need to make a case for what is already a fait accompli.
In England and Ireland, it has never been the custom, although on Sundays, the priest invariably reads the Epistle and Gospel from the pulpit immediately prior to the sermon.
Parishes in the USA and Canada seem to be going down this route.
In this case, the wisest course seems to be to "leave things as they are", so to speak, at least for the time being.
In any case, great pastoral sensitivity is needed which, unfortunately, was not evident at the time of the liturgical changes.
The 1962 Missal is, of course, not a relic or a museum piece, but I would not like to see the mistakes of the 1960s repeated forty years on.
And there exists, understandably in the light of past history, a deeply conservative "no compromise" mindset which sees any innovation as the thin end of the wedge.
But then I suppose most parish priests are alive to this already.
It is a not unimportant question, because it is undoubtedly going to affect the Benedictine reform of the novus ordo.
(This is a prime example of what Fr. Z refers to as "the gravitational Pull" of the two Missals on each other.)
Culturally, liturgically, and theologically, (though not necessarily in that order,) the sight of a layman or laywoman proclaiming the Epistle would probably empty the church ! (And only a priest or deacon could prolaim the Gospel, anyway.)
It's an area which calls for very careful and reasonable discussion.
This issue is a non-issue. An indult was granted many decades ago to have the epistle & Gospel read in the vernacular, following the Latin readings in the Mass. For that reason, the priest removes his maniple signifying that an interruption of the liturgical action has taken place. Following the readings, comes the homily, which technically is not part of the Mass.
So what's the probem? The chap in Dublin seemed somewhat puzzled. The fellow who answered his query is just down right ignorant. It is not the priest's personal preference, but the indult granted in English speaking countries in force. In Clare, Sligo, New York, Toronto, Sydney and perhaps even in Dublin in the "rare old days," this was how Mass was offered on Sunday, at the parish Mass. There was usually no homily at low Masses during the week. When I served Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral (NY) I saw the cardinal do this every Sunday he wasn't politicking around the country.
My Latin's pretty ropey, but I don't have any problem with readings in Latin, and I don't recall ever having had any such problems (I've been assiting at traditional masses whenever possible for several years now). I think that I would greatly regret vernacular translations being used, and I wonder what on earth is the difference between reading the gospel or epistle in Engliah and reading the other proper parts of the mass in the vernacular. I'm sure it would be a retrograde step. If y understandig of the Latin is poor, I tend to think that the fault os mine, rather than the liturgy's.
Some priests read the gospel (more rarely the epistle) in English ater it has been proclaimed in Latin, some don't. I don't mind which, but in this context I should like to mention the beloved Fr. Godfrey Carney, for whom I sued to serve mass a few years ago. After the Gospel he would read it again in English, translating as he went from the altar missal. I was very impressed.
Bad idea, and I say this as a wholly unqualified laymen. Let's concentrate on keeping faithful to what we have received. Everyone is full of 'good' ideas that seem to stem from the modern mentality of experimentation and innovation. No; this has lead us down so many blind alleys already, haven't we learned anything? Holy Mass is (should) be a sacred ritual in a cultic tongue, offered by men set apart. It should be in a sense, 'other'; there must be mystery because it is a mystery. This is the worship of the Almighty God, and I think He understands Latin just fine. One of the most unique aspects of the immemorial rite is the healthy indifference to the human personages present, because God is here and commands our adoration. This is what draws those who long for holiness. Lord, save us from good ideas; allow us to remain ever faithful to the treasures we have inherited.
Father,
I am not sure that the principle of parallel actions in the solemn or sung form of usus antiquor (such as the priest/sacred ministers read something inaudibly while the schola/choir/faithful sing it) can be applied to the sotto voce reading in Latin and simultaneous 'proclamation' of the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular in a Missa lecta. In the sung form (the normative form) the priest celebrant also listens to the readings and doesn't read them.
The readily available technological solution of printed propers sheets seems the easiest first solution (for read and sung Masses). For the Missa lecta the more liturgical and didactic approach might be to read in the vernacular only.
As for singing the lessons in English is there really satisfactory music AND 'scanable' translation that can be readily deployed? Wouldn't establishihng this practice (at this point in history) risk the disuse of the sung latin. For instance, could the available English resources match the beauty of the sung Passion?
Peter, Australia
By way of reply to a phrase in the first post, I submit the following article written for an Australian magazine a few years ago, shortly after the death of Michael Davies:
A LETTER FROM AMERICA
Neo-Protestants
Catholics of a traditional bent in America, like their brethren throughout the world, mourned the death of Michael Davies on Sept. 25. The Welsh writer's sensus Catholicus and solid common sense and balanced approach to many knotty controversies marked his
prolific output of books and articles, and the lectures he gave all over the world.
Two months before his death, in the June-July 2004 number of the British magazine, Christian Order,
Davies offered a forthright assessment of those he called "neo-Protestants."
"I have been greatly saddened during the past five years to note the emergence of what I term neo-Protestants. These are men who claim to be serving the faith, but who, to all intents and purposes, have become Protestants. The essence of Protestantism is that each Protestant is his own Pope. He refuses to submit to the Magisterium, the teaching authority, of the Church founded by our Lord, but makes his personal
opinion the ultimate authority of what he will or will not believe.
"The great weakness among traditionalist Catholics is a somewhat defective knowledge of the Church, and it was to remedy this that I wrote my book I Am With You Always, which explains the indefectibility of the Church. The doctrine of indefectibility means that the Church founded by Jesus Christ will endure until He
comes again precisely as He constituted it. It will remain a hierarchically governed Church teaching us what we must know and do to be saved, and giving us the grace that we need to live in accordance with that teaching through the seven divinely instituted sacraments."
The term "neo-Protestant" used by Davies can be seen as an ironic riposte to some traditionalist writers,
criticized by Davies in other writings for coining the
term "neo-Catholics" to describe members of the
Mystical Body whose judgment on the Church's present
difficulties does not coincide with that favored by
traditionalists.
The controversy calls to mind a passage from Ad
beatissimi Apostolurm, an encyclical written by Pope
Benedict XV in 1914, the year of his election to the
Chair of Peter. During the pontificate of Pope St Pius
X, some would-be guardians of orthodoxy made a
distinction between those they praised as "integral
Catholics," and assorted lesser grades of Catholics.
"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should
abstain from certain appellations which have recently
been brought into use to distinguish one group of
Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not
only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony
with both truth and justice, but also because they
give rise to great trouble and confusion among
Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it
does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a
whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic
faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and
firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanasian Creed). There
is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the
profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each
one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my
surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what
he calls himself."
Some traditional Catholics in America who share
Davies' and Benedict XV's distaste for 'qualifying
terms' regret the growth of another appellation used
to designate Catholics who worship at Masses
celebrated according to the 1969 Missal of Pope Paul
VI, the so-called 'Novus Ordo.'
One former teacher at a private school in America
whose chaplain celebrated Mass according to the Missal
of St Pius V, the so-called Tridentine Mass or Vetus Ordo,
with the permission of the local bishop, recalled two
episodes that have unhappily become typical in some circles.
"Some families from parishes in town where the English
Mass is offered decided to send their children to the
school. Although the parents weren't interested in the
Latin Mass, they admired our priest, and knew their
children would receive solid doctrinal instruction. Most of the children and teachers at the school were
traditionalists. One day I was horrified when another
teacher referred to a child whose family went to the
English Mass as 'that little novus ordo girl from Sacred Heart Parish.' She used the term in the same tone of voice, with the same venom, as a Mississippi segregationist might have spoken of 'that little nigger girl from the nigger church'.
"Recently a traditionalist friend from Canada and I
made a trip together to Ohio. We stayed with friends
of mine whose children, in referring to poor people in
a small town we visited, called them 'white trash.' My
Canadian friend was horrified by the lack of charity
and contempt the children showed. But he did not
realize that he regularly showed the same contempt
and lack of charity for other Catholics by the way he
spoke of 'novus ordo Catholics' and 'novus ordo
priests' and 'novus ordo parishes and the 'novus ordo
Church' and 'novus ordo bishops'.
"The old Mass is the context of my faith - it's how I
relate to God - and my love for the traditional Mass
grows deeper every year. And I don't minimize the
gravity of the problems in the Church. But the use of
these terms of abuse just introduces one more wound to
the Body of Christ, and sunders the peace and unity of
the Church. I wish Catholics who are attached to the
old Mass would stop using them."
I'm back. At that Mass I referred to earlier, the Epistle and Gospel were done in Latin from the altar.
Then later he walked the short distance to the pulpil, and read Epistle and Gospel in English, before starting his sermon.
Happy to clarify.
I think that this discussion is rather barking up the wrong tree, so to speak; and I'm also quite sure that the Holy Father in his MP quite clearly means that the readings can be in either Latin OR the vernacular. And more than just that, he also seems to indicate that ANY appropriated Lectionary can be used; which of course means that even at the EF of the Holy Mass one could use the readings in English/German/ French or whatever the local language is, from the Lectionary of the OF!
"Oh no!" I hear the EF regulars cry, "thats mixing rites and getting us onto the slippery slope, etc, etc."
But I think that is exactly what the Holy Father has said, if we read his writings carefully.
Did he not say that there is only ONE Roman rite, existing in two Forms, but it is still one and the same thing! We need to get our heads around that fact, just as much as the good old Liberals need to.
Even before the council (Vat II) the present Holy Father supported some use of the vernacular in the then only existing EF of the Holy Mass. Even the Vatican II documents... Sacrosanctum Concillium... which was about the liturgy makes it plain that the readings can be said/sung in the vernacular, but no where is there any indication of doubling: ie having the readings twice, first in Latin and then in the Vernacular.
Of course the obvious solution would be to have the readings in Latin too and have no second re-reading in english say, BUT then we actually go against an important liturgical principle. And that is HEARING the Word of God proclaimed. This is integral to the Rite, because through the Priest / Deacon in the liturgical setting (only in the Mass) we the people hear the Word of God spoke by the Mouth of God, as it were, as the Priest/Deacon is in that moment acting "in persona Christi". This is exactly the reason why a lay person cannot read the Gospel at Mass.
If we just follow the Gospel in our Missales or Missalettes whilst the Priest reads in Latin and we don't understand it, we are missing out on a very important part of the Liturgy, which has also salvific force! Please don't forget that when you are listening to the proclaimed Gospel in the Holy Liturgy you are in direct contact through your sense of hearing with Christ directly, in exactly the same way as when the Priest raises the Host at the "ecce Agnus Dei", you actually see Him and He enters into our hearts and souls and fills us with his Grace.
It is exactly at this moment in the liturgy when the "unveiling" of Christ takes place. Which is why, if we do not understand the readings, it is the same as glancing up at the elevation but at the same time holding a hand over our eyes.
Every act in the liturgy is not just a sign, but a making real of what is signed..( I hope Father can correct me if my dogm. theology is screwy)... Just as in the Roman rite the use of Latin acts as a veil for the Holy Actions, - like in the eastern Church the Iconostasis - it is precisely at the moment of the readings and especially the Gospel that an UN-Veiling must take place!
I personally, am happy with the readings in Latin, but ninety plus per cent of people do not speak latin. Should they be denied the hearing of Our Lord? No! Just as at the elevation the priest raises the Host above his head so that all can see!
"Ecce Agnus Dei" is also "Verbum Dei", or "Evangelium... Jesum Christum": The Gospel is not something written by Christ... it is Christ!
Sorry that I have written so much, hope that it is understandable, my English is not so good as it was. Best wishes Fr. Raphael.
Sorry I think I meant "aprobated lectionary" in the first paragraph.
Sorry I think I meant "aprobated lectionary" in the first paragraph.
"approved" (- easy mistake to make)
Thank you for your thoughts, Father. I think that the danger of the slippery slope is in the affirmation of a liturgical principle that the readings are proclaimed to the people. One way in which this principle would end is that the readings must be in the vernacular. this could be an implication of what you write.
Yet it is legitimate for the readings to be read or sung in a language that is not immediately accessible to most people.
I think (and would welcome the thoughts of others on this) that th ereadings are not "proclaimed" in the sense of a catechetical lesson but solemnly prayed as a sacred text, primarily to give adoration and praise to God. Secondarily, we can be nourished by understanding the words in accord with the teaching of the Church.
This affects the arrangement of the lectionary. The new lectionary seems to be largely catechetical in intent, except where readings are preserved from the older cycle for major feasts. Yet our knowledge of just why certain readings are traditionally used at some feasts is by no means complete and is a fascinatnig subject of further study.
Thanks for the quick response to my comment. And please excuse my dreadful English too.
Of course your reply was quite true, however, I most certainly do not mean to use the word "proclaim" in the catechetical sense, although one could reply that the entire holy liturgy is catechical and has a teaching role too. Indeed, as is still common in the eastern Church, the Church Fathers often cited the liturgical texts just to prove a point of teaching, as you are no doubt very aware.
Unfortunately, especially here in the German speaking countries this principle has been taken to such extremes that many priests see the Liturgy as a purely "educational process".
I try to explain it from an ontological standpoint first. (If one can explain the greatest mystery on Earth). One meets Christ our Lord, and one sees Him and hears Him too.
Of course all that happens during the Liturgy is on a level too deep to be stopped by the use of an unknown langauge. Thats true, but I would like to suggest that changing to the vernacular for the lessons is similar to an orthodox priest or deacon walking out of the iconostasis for the lessons too.
Perhaps I am not expalining myself too clearly, in which case please forgive me, and I also did not want to appear to say that the new lectionary was better than the older version either, but if the Holy Father is looking toward a growing together of the two formae, instead of an either or situation as it is today, then perhaps the forma extraordinaria with vernacular lessons is more likely to be the future than reading the lessons twice, in two different langauges, or more if there are other minorities present?
Enough of my thoughts. Thankyou for your very interesting blogg, and also to all the other interesting commentators.
I think (and would welcome the thoughts of others on this) that th ereadings are not "proclaimed" in the sense of a catechetical lesson but solemnly prayed as a sacred text, primarily to give adoration and praise to God. Secondarily, we can be nourished by understanding the words in accord with the teaching of the Church.
That is what I have always argued with those who slam the readings in the older form of mass. The readings are done primarily for the glory of God not the edification of people. Catholics should be encouraged to read the Bible outside the mass. I think I can safely say that the average priest before Vatican II had more knowledge of scripture than the ones nowadays - sermons by some of the canonised priest saints demonstrate this.
Fr Raphael - thank you for your comments. Your English is perfectly intelligible and I commend your courage for posting such well-informed comments in a language that is not your own. We English have no reason to criticise others on this score ...
Post a Comment