We are often told that we understand
Mass better when it is in the vernacular. I certainly believe it can help, and I
support its use in accord with Sacrosanctum
Concilium 54 (hence I have vernacular readings at our EF Mass) but I suggest
we do not understand the Mass better simply because it is offered in the
vernacular. Indeed, I think it is possible to say that use of the vernacular can
have its problems, namely, superficiality, automatic pilot and lack of
understanding. Some examples are necessary...
(1) Superficiality. At Mass last weekend I noted that week by week we request
one another to “pray for me to the Lord our God”, and asked how many times we
have lived this out by offering –in charity- a prayer that our neighbour be
forgiven. A number of parishioners told me they had “never thought about it”
and consequently, never really prayed for the forgiveness of our family,
friends and parishioners. This is but one example of how we can recite the texts
of the Mass by rote rather than consciously and actively.
(2) Automatic Pilot. We have probably all, at times, heard congregations
displace the “Amen” into the middle of a Preface when the phrase “Through
Christ Our Lord” is used. We have probably heard a displaced “Amen” when the
phrase “forever and ever” occurs during a reading too. This is indicative of
being on automatic pilot, and worrisome because it suggests there can be little
awareness even of which point one is at in
the Mass.
None of the above are the result
of the new translation; the same problems were present with the former
translation too.
(3)
Lack of understanding.
Occasionally, when I am haughtily confronted with “people understand the Mass
better in English” I ask, “Can you tell me the significance of the change in
the consecration from ‘for all’ to
‘for many’; or the significance of
the change from ‘everlasting
covenant’ to ‘eternal covenant’; or the
significance of the change from ‘fountain’ to ‘fount’ in Eucharistic Prayer II?
Can you tell me to whom the Kyrie is addressed, and to what purpose?” It is
surprising how many people cannot answer the first three questions and give an
erroneous answer to the fourth and fifth. One can legitimately conclude then
that understanding is not necessarily gained by using the vernacular; that what
is gained is but ease of response and
word recognition. Conscious, active participation is far more than reciting by
rote, and understanding far deeper than word recognition.
In case you are waiting for
answers: the change to “for many” follows scripture and liturgical tradition, and
articulates that while we are all redeemed, not all will be saved; the change
to “fount” from “fountain” has a profound significance because a fount is a
source, a fountain is not. The change from “everlasting” to “eternal” is also
profound: “everlasting” indicates salvation going on into the future; “eternal”
indicates it reaches backwards to Adam as well as into the future. As for the Kyrie,
this is addressed to Christ alone, and its purpose is to praise Him for His
work of Redemption. It is not only surprising but perhaps disturbing when clergy
address the Kyrie to Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, at the same time, turn it
from giving expression to Christ’s Redemptive work as in the Missal to
expressions of our sorrow: “You came to call sinners” becoming “Father, for the
times we have... Lord Jesus, for the times we have...Holy Spirit, for the times
we have...”. How many have misunderstood the Kyrie this way and consequently both
wrongly addressed it and altered its purpose?
So, while I agree that the
vernacular can be helpful and give it my support in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium, I don’t think we
can pretend it does not permit problems: it can become a pathway to automatic
pilot rather than active (attentive) participation, and a route to
misunderstanding. This is of course a danger in both the OF and the EF, and I
think that minimisation of this danger requires catechesis on how to pray the Mass rather than pray at Mass. That said, making automatic,
unthinking responses in the vernacular is perhaps less conducive to spiritual
growth than is meditating on the Rosary during an EF Mass, which produced many
a holy soul.
All in all, I simply wonder if we
have taken too much for granted; that we presumed use of the vernacular was all
that was needed to facilitate understanding of and participation in the Mass. Evidently
it is not, as is demonstrated by the failure to live–out the Confiteor, the displaced
“Amen”, the non-differentiation between everlasting and eternal etc, and the misunderstanding
and misuse of the Kyrie.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph. Having Mass in the Vernacular tends to make us lazy in our catechesis, because we think people can 'understand' the Mass, so why explain it? We need an altogether different understanding of what 'understanding' is!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Yes, 'understanding' is a concept often misunderstood today.
DeleteI think that was their intention by changing the liturgy and having it said in the vernacular. Unfortunately, as time has shown, they were wrong. The "new and understandable" Mass has created more problems than the EF was thought to have. At least at the EF Mass, there were devotions that were made during Mass if you cared not to read the missal due to the "silence" of the laity. Now, even in the laity's mother tongue, it is so noisy that no one can pray devotions. And the laity thought they were bored before! I guess the old maxim applies "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Yes, and its is not only devotions that one cannot pray when the Church is noisy; one cannot even pray the Mass very easily.
DeleteI remember an exercise carried out some years ago in the USA to test the 'vernacular is better for the people' argument. Someone stood outside a church and spoke to people as they left a vernacular Mass celebrated in English. They were asked quite simply what the Epistles (Readings) and Gospel were about. Even though they had been supplied with these flimsy missalettes very few were able to give this information. The figure was about 10%. Then the questionner stood outside a church where the traditional Mass had been celebrated in Latin and asked the same questions. The majority were able to answer the question. The conclusion was that in the new Mass nobody read their throwaway missalettes but simply attended and took no real interest in what was being said. In the Latin Mass most of the people had their personal hand missals and had read the Epistle and Gospel in English while the priest was reciting the Latin. It was this action of reading the texts that caused it to be remembered. Make of this what you will.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I have heard of this being done on various occasions with the same kind of result, though percentages differed the overall result was the same.
DeleteA second problems is the dignity of the Scriptures; Missalettes in which the Scriptures are included and which get thrown away afterwards means the Scriputers are literally trampled underfoot -one cannot imagine sections of the Koran being treated in such a manner. Really, if the Reformed Mass were done properly, only truly competent readers would be used so that people could actually take in part in the proclamation of the word by hearing, not by private reading, and there would be no need for Missalettes. Our Bishops have actively discouraged their use.
Even with competent readers there can still be a need of some sort of reading aid, such as when people for whom the local vernacular is not the first language are present. I have spoken with a priest friend who, at his last assignment, used to be annoyed when the translation in the people's missalettes was at all different than in the lectionary, because slightly different readings meant the a real portion of his congregation would get lost and then fail to understand the reading... but without the missalettes, they'd be lost too.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete