Must Tridentine Mass be said in Latin?

[Iridium77]

Permission was giving in the past to say the Tridentine Mass in various languages, such as Old Church Slavonic (hence you have Janacek's Glagolithic Mass, which is just the Mass Ordinary).

[MagisterMusicae]

Is or is not the "New Mass" celebrated in the vulgar tongue only?

It is not celebrated only in the vulgar tongue. The typical edition of the Novus Ordo has always been in Latin.

The particular canon of Trent says nothing of using a non-Sacred language, save that it cannot be held that Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular. Since the history  of the Church (even before Trent) has shown that She can allow languages other than Latin, Greek and Hebrew into the Liturgy, it is foolish to say that the Tridentine Fathers were intending to mean that the Mass may never be said a vernacular tongue.

Beyond this, even if Trent was outlawing any vernacular, such a matter is a discipline which may be changed by the legitimate authority for just cause.

[Catholicmilkman]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with all of you for the simple fact that the Church has before this worldwide crisis ever allowed vernacular to be used in the Liturgy as such. It is constant that sacred tongues be used for the celebration of the holy mysteries. Even St. Paul seems to say this to us: "For he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." (D-R's footnote: "Not unto men"... Viz., so as to be heard, that is, so as to be understood by them.) This cannot be the common tongue as it is not understood by men.

I take the Canon as I read it: the Mass ought not to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only. Meaning each Mass ought be celebrated with some sacred tongue as we have always known it to be as far as history can show and in the liturgical restorations. Speculation on Apostolic times is of not use, only evidence. And century upon century has shown that the vernacular ought not to be used.

[Catholicmilkman]

The particular canon of Trent says nothing of using a non-Sacred language, save that it cannot be held that Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular.

Yes and most N.O.'s are celebrated in only the vernacular. Was not the post-Trenten Church an anti-thesis to this with each Mass having Latin and Greek.

Since the history  of the Church (even before Trent) has shown that She can allow languages other than Latin, Greek and Hebrew into the Liturgy, it is foolish to say that the Tridentine Fathers were intending to mean that the Mass may never be said a vernacular tongue.

That's odd because the Church after Trent seemed to act like that's exactly what they meant.

[/quote]Beyond this, even if Trent was outlawing any vernacular, such a matter is a discipline which may be changed by the legitimate authority for just cause.[/QUOTE]A canon is not a discipline. Or am I wrong? The canonized Saints are not a discipline. You must accept them as Saints, no?

[Catholicmilkman]

Permission was giving in the past to say the Tridentine Mass in various languages, such as Old Church Slavonic (hence you have Janacek's Glagolithic Mass, which is just the Mass Ordinary).

Yes and Old Church Slavonic is a sacred language not a verncular.

[Catholicmilkman]

That still doesn't say the an entirely-vernacular Mass may never be used

That's exactly what it says: the mass ought [not] to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only. "The Mass" means to me "each Mass". What does it mean to you?

but someone who believes some Masses should be in the vernacular and others in Latin or another liturgical language would not.

I think that's exactly what it's condemning. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Catholicmilkman]

In this case, the proposition being condemned is that the Mass must always be celebrated in a vernacular language and not in a special liturgical language such as Latin.

That's not what it says though. Where do you see that proposition in Trent? I don't. Neither do I see ANY vernacular Masses after the Council.

It also does not mean that there must be Latin in every Mass.

Obviously.

[spasiisochrani]

In this case, the proposition being condemned is that the Mass must always be celebrated in a vernacular language and not in a special liturgical language such as Latin.

That's not what it says though. Where do you see that proposition in Trent? I don't. Neither do I see ANY vernacular Masses after the Council.

It also does not mean that there must be Latin in every Mass.

Obviously.

You can believe what you want, but you are taking the Council of Trent out of context.  It's as if you took this condemned proposition from Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

"80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

and took its condemnation to mean that the Pope must not use electric lights, ride in an automobile, or talk on the telephone.  Protestant controversialists claimed that divine services must always and everywhere be in the vernacular.  The Council said they were wrong. That's all the canon means.

[Gabriel]

Spasi is correct as to the scope of this particular canon of Trent. There is a tendency to forget that this is a disciplinary canon, not a definition of Holy Tradition.

If the competent ecclesiastical authority were to authorize the celebration of the Tridentine Recension of the Roman Rite in English (a permission already granted to the fledgling Anglican Use), it would be fully legitimate.

Remember your history. For over three centuries the Divine Liturgy, or Mass, was celebrated in Greek. The transition to Latin, which was gradual, was not completed until the pontificate of Saint Damasus I (366 -383). The use of Latin as a liturgical language did not originate at Rome, but Carthage in North Africa. And why did the transition to Latin take place? So that the people could understand the liturgical prayers! If it were not a legitimate aspiration to celebrate the Liturgy in a language understood by the people, then the Psalms and other prayers could never have been translated from Hebrew into Greek, nor from Greek into Latin, or Arabic, or Armenian, or Coptic, or Slavonic, or any other language.

Please, lay this issue to rest

[MagisterMusicae]

Yes and Old Church Slavonic is a sacred language not a verncular.

Old Church Slavonic (which became Church Slavonic) was, as a spoken language, a vernacular. It was the souther Slavic dialect that Sts. Cyril and Methodius used to create their alphabet.

The Syro-Malabars and Marionites use Syriac as part of their Divine Liturgy, which still is a vernacular language (although it is rarely spoken).

Latin, too, was, originally, a vernacular language.

So, I guess, the real question is: What is a sacred language and when does a vernacular used for sacred purposed stop being "vernacular" and star being "sacred"?

If Church Slavonic qualifies, then one could at least make an argument to qualify Middle- or Early Modern English as well. Both are long dead dialects of a vernacular whose meanings are more fixed.