lunedì, giugno 16, 2008

Anti-TLM:s beware!

Council of Trent, 22nd session

Canon 9.
If anyone says
  • that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; 
  • or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] 
  • or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] 
let him be anathema.

I wonder how many problems could be solved by just looking through the canons of the  Councils...

2 commenti:

Gustav Ahlman ha detto...

The only thing that differs a protestant from an ultra traditionalist is that a protestant believes that his own interpretation of Scripture is more correct than the Church's, while an ultra traditionalist believes that his own interpretation of Tradition is more correct than the Church's. As the Church is the only one who legitimately interprets Scrupture through by means of the councils, the Church herself is also the only one that interprets the councils by means of later councils.

The Church has already defended the use of the vernacular in the Mass against the Canons of Trent in the GIRM:

Accommodation to New Conditions

10. The new Missal, therefore, while bearing witness to the Roman Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi), also safeguards the deposit of faith handed down by the more recent Councils, and marks in its own right a step of great importance in liturgical tradition.

Indeed, when the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the dogmatic pronouncements of the Council of Trent, they spoke at a far different time in world history, so that they were able to bring forward proposals and measures of a pastoral nature that could not have even been foreseen four centuries earlier.

11. The Council of Trent already recognized the great catechetical value contained in the celebration of Mass but was unable to bring out all its consequences in regard to actual practice. In fact, many were pressing for permission to use the vernacular in celebrating the eucharistic Sacrifice,; but the Council, weighing the conditions of that age, considered it a duty to answer this request with a reaffirmation of the Church's traditional teaching, according to which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is, first and foremost, the action of Christ himself, and therefore that its proper efficacy is unaffected by the manner in which the faithful take part in it. The Council for this reason stated in firm but measured words:, "Although the Mass contains much instruction for people of faith, nevertheless it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that it be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular." The Council accordingly anathematized anyone maintaining that "the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the words of consecration are spoken in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular." Although on the one hand it prohibited the use of the vernacular in the Mass, nevertheless, on the other hand, the Council did direct pastors of souls to put appropriate catechesis in its place: "Lest Christ's flock go hungry . . . the Holy Synod commands pastors and all others having the care of souls to give frequent instructions during the celebration of Mass, either personally or through others, concerning what is read at Mass; among other things, they should include some explanation of the mystery of this most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and holy days."

12. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council convened in order to accommodate the Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, it examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the instructive and pastoral character of the Sacred Liturgy. Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that "the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people" and gave the faculty for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

13. Indeed, since the use of the vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis regarding the mystery that is inherent in the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council also ordered that certain prescriptions of the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the homily to be given on Sundays and holy days and the faculty to interject certain explanations during the sacred rites themselves.

Trent doesn't anathemize the use of the vernacular, only the total abscense of latin. And so does Vatican II, when it says that "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (SC 36). I guess it is up to each parish priest to decide what amount of latin in the celebrations that would be both pastoral and faithful to the council's teaching, but personally I don't see any problem with using latin for the ordinary (that is, the complete ordinary, not just the kyriale).

The Church consists of more people than just liturgy freaks, and to have all the orations, the preface and the canon all in latin simply won't fulfil the spiritual needs of the average catholic in the Church of today. Not even the pope does that in public celebrations at diocesan level.

Symeon ha detto...

"The Church consists of more people than just liturgy freaks,"

I refuse to believe that :P

"and to have all the orations, the preface and the canon all in latin simply won't fulfil the spiritual needs of the average catholic in the Church of today."

I'm not so sure. What people *think* is best for them does not have to be even close to what acually *is* best for them. I don't presume to know the spiritual needs of the average catholic today, I can only observe that for at least a thousand years the "Mass of ages" has filled those needs. Has man taken a great spiritual leap in development during the last century? I have failed to notice it.

"Not even the pope does that in public celebrations at diocesan level."

Well the televised Mass on CTV from St Peters usually is in Latin. But sure, the Pope has so far only *increased* the amount of Latin in the liturgy compared to his predecessor, he hasn't yet celebrated a big feast day Mass entirely in Latin.

But the main point we do agree on: Trent does forbid the *rejection* of Latin in the liturgy. I don't reject use of the vernacular in liturgy - most of the masses I attend are celebrated in the vernacular - but there are those who think Latin shouldn't be used at all, and with this post I have shown that that position is anathematised.