 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CHANGES IN THE ROMAN MISSAL PT. 3: From Trent to Vatican II
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is part of an ongoing series written by Father Daniel Merz highlighting many of the historical and theological bases of the forthcoming publication of a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. The new translation, tentatively set for release around November 2011, will involve slight but noticeable changes at Mass. Father Merz is the chairman of the Liturgical Commission for the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo. — BH]
FROM TRENT TO VATICAN II
In the decades and centuries following the Council of Trent, in France, England and later in North America, translations of the missal and Office of Readings were published for use of the laity, though not for use by the priest in the liturgy. Sometimes, these publications were condemned by church authorities, sometimes they were ignored, and still other times they were promoted. In 1877, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), who earlier forbade vernacular translations, reversed his decision and authorized any bishop to provide the translation and use of vernacular missals for use by the laity. The following details the vernacular developments within the church in the first half of the 20th century:
— In 1906, Pope Pius X (1903-1914) granted permission for certain areas of Yugoslavia to make permanent liturgical use of the classical Paleoslav language.
— In 1920, Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) granted permission for the use of Croatian and Slovenian in church rites and for sung epistles and gospels in the vernacular at solemn Masses.
— Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) allowed the celebration of Mass in Estonian in response to a plea from the bishops of Estonia that their people were going to the Protestants and Orthodox for intelligible liturgies.
— In 1929, Pope Pius XI granted permission for a vernacular Ritual (the book containing the other sacraments besides the Eucharist) in Bavaria, Germany.
— Permission for a vernacular Ritual was granted to Vienna, Austria, in 1935.
— In 1941 and 1942, missionaries in various countries in Africa, China, India, Indo-China, Indonesia, Japan, and New Guinea were given permission to translate the Roman Ritual into the local language, retaining Latin only for the essential sacramental formulas.
— In 1948, a limited use of French was allowed in the celebrations of baptism, marriage and anointing of the sick.
— In 1949, permission was granted to China for the complete celebration of Mass in Mandarin Chinese, with the exception of the Eucharistic Prayer remaining in Latin.
— In 1949, the bishops of Cameroon in Africa petitioned to use French in their liturgy, but the church refused, saying instead that Cameroon should prepare a translation in the mother tongues of the people of Cameroon and to leave a French version to French citizens.
— In 1950, India received permission to use Hindi for the celebration of the sacraments in regions where Hindi was spoken.
— In 1954 an English Ritual for Baptism, Marriage, Extreme Unction and Funerals was approved by the Congregation of Rites for use in the dioceses of the United States.
— In 1960, Pope John XXIII authorized permission for Melchite-rite Catholics in the U.S. to celebrate their whole liturgy in English, with the exception of the eucharistic prayer.
— As can be seen, the vernacular has had long and widespread use long before Pope John XXIII called for the Second Vatican Council.
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
The “Constitution on the Liturgy” (approved by the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council on Dec. 4, 1963) in paragraph 36 addresses the use of Latin and the vernacular in the liturgy:
“36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
“2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
“3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
“4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.”
Both the Council fathers and the commission established by Pope Paul VI to help in implementing the liturgical reforms of the council were concerned that the passage from Latin to the vernacular should be gradual. The next step was for episcopal conferences around the world to make a formal request to Rome for permission to pursue vernacular translations for liturgical use. The U.S. bishops made their request and received permission to proceed on Oct. 15, 1965. The date of March 27, 1966 (Passion Sunday), was set for the whole country to begin increased use of English in the Mass. This initial permission included the prefaces of the eucharistic prayer and the prayers said by the priest and responded to by the people (opening prayer, prayer over the gifts, and prayer after communion).
On Jan. 31, 1967, Pope Paul VI gave permission for the episcopal conferences to decide whether it would be best in their countries to translate into the vernacular the whole eucharistic prayer as well as the rites of ordination. Every episcopal conference throughout the world moved in this direction, and their efforts have been sanctioned by every pope. While it may be true that the “Constitution on the Liturgy” envisioned Latin remaining an important part of liturgical worship, it is likewise true that the same bishops and pope who foresaw Latin’s continuance in the liturgy also endorsed wider and wider use of the vernacular when they saw its pastoral benefits.
In 1981, the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome conducted a survey of all the bishops regarding the use of Latin in the liturgy, the desire for more Latin, the use of the vernacular, and its level of acceptance. The response was overwhelming in favor of the pastoral benefit of the vernacular. The views of the bishops were that without the vernacular, “the liturgical reform would have been much less fruitful; that the demand for Latin is almost nonexistent; and that Latin is more and more disappearing from use as a liturgical language of the Church.” (Bugnini, “The Reform of the Liturgy,” p. 112)
I hope this brief history of the use of language in the liturgy has been instructive. The Latin language has played a major role in the Western Church for more than 1,700 years, and as a result it has a highly developed and sophisticated liturgical and theological vocabulary. There is a certain “Latin culture” which has shaped Latin rite Catholics for millennia. The Latin language remains a very important means for study and research into the historical, pastoral, liturgical and theological treasures of the church. It remains today the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, with all official church documents being promulgated in Latin before being translated into the various world languages. Often, when the liturgy is celebrated with an international audience, at least some of the prayers are offered in Latin (though the Scriptures are almost always proclaimed in the vernacular). And there are still a number of Catholics today who prefer to worship in the Latin language.
Nevertheless, the good fruit that the use of the vernacular has borne is certain, and its continuance in the life of the church is equally certain. In subsequent articles, I will examine first the history of our current English language translation used in the liturgy, and then explore some of the changes to come in the new English translation.
[NEXT COLUMN: We delve into the question of why a new translation of the Roman Missal is taking place.]
(This article was reprinted with permission from The Catholic Missourian, the newspaper of the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |