I think your dislike of the vernacular is stronger than what Sacrosanctum Concilium's is. You limit the vernacular to the readings and the rubrics, but that is not what SC limits it to. To the readings, the directives, some of the prayers and chants. SC also states that use of the vernacular may be of great advantage to the people, but you seem to deny that (or that is how I percieve what you have said in the past).My response:
Ok, so riddle me this...which one's? Which prayers and chants? Some does not equal all, so how do you discern which are acceptable and which are not? Clearly those who rewrote the liturgy did equate some to mean all, which is the issue.
And while the vernacular can be advantageous, when I consider that, I consider it within the scope of the WHOLE liturgical action, not only the Mass. Notice that I disagree with the vernacular in the Mass, but I've never mentioned anything about the divine office or the other Sacraments. So, while I focus 99.9% of my discussion on the Mass, there is more to the liturgical life of the Church than the Mass.
So, the question is put back on you. Which prayers and chants do the Council Fathers think would be advantageous in the vernacular? I'd like to see documentation from the Conciliar Fathers to prove the veracity of that statement made in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Also, I am not interested in the Consilium's view. They were not the Council Fathers.
My response:I am not saying I know which prayers and chants it may be helpful to have in the vernacular. I am saying that Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document of Vatican II and of the magisterium says that it may prove advantageous for certain prayers and chants to be said in the vernacular. I can give my opinion as to which prayers and chants I personally think would be helpful to have in the vernacular on ocassion, but by no means do I have any authority to make such a determination. Instead that determination was left to the bishops, whom I think made very poor decisions in that respect (some = all is a very poor decision indeed, advantageous = required is even worse).
What I don't understand in your thinking is this: if it is OK to have the divine office and other sacraments in the vernacular, or portions thereof, why would it not be ok to have portions of the divine liturgy in the vernacular as well? Why should one be able to get married, baptized, have confession in the vernacular but not have vernacular parts at mass?
I assure you I am not for the vernacularization of the mass. I am 100% opposed. I do think that the vernacular being offered ocassionally, or at some masses, during certain parts can be beneficial. Why have the readings in both Latin and English? Is the English not good enough to edify God as part of the liturgy and must be reduced to purposes of catechesis during the homily which isn't actually a part of the liturgy?
My personal opines very quickly and briefly written down and not well thought out are as follows:
Certain propers could be sung in English while the preist prays in Latin. No prayer that the preist prays quietly should be moved to the vernacular as the "advantageous" part of it being in the vernacular is gone. The preists should know latin well enough to not have any need for the vernacular, and the laity assisting at mass don't hear what the priest is praying anyways.
This means the entire canon remains in latin at a TLM. The propers are sometimes sung in english for the laity to hear and sing yet still prayed by the priest in Latin. The same possibility for the credo and all other prayers the priest prays.
and I'll have to finish this and re-iterate my thoughts better later tonight as my break time at work is almost over. Basically I think certain parts that are vocalized by the preist during the TLM could be said in the vernacular, all silent/quiet parts remain in latin, and some of the chant could be in English on ocassion. Maybe have a couple TLM's at a parish and one is all Latin while the other has the propers etc in English yet still keeps lots of latin. This is of course... when the Novus Ordo is abolished (either publicly or naturally) and we have a return to the TLM .
You have shown the very problem with the Consitution on the Liturgy...there is nothing definite. Their wishes were never concrete in nature. They were always a hypothetical.
Essentially it came to this: Some prayers and chants will be advantageous in the verncacular, but we're not going to say which ones (read: we don't know which ones). So the Consilium says, "Hey, we'll run with this (heck, we wrote it anyways), so why don't we just make ALL of the prayers and chants (strike that, we don't like chant) to be recited in the vernacular. We'll commission who we want to restructure the musical identity, because it will be less obtrusive to the Protestants (that's what they wanted anyways), by using hymns instead of singing the whole of the Mass. We'll also rewrite the prayers since they're going to be in new languages anyhow and we'll make sure that the prayers are not offensive to the Protestants, because we want to "be inclusive of all God's people." And then we'll present you with our ideas and pass them off as yours, so you can vote on them. Oh, you didn't like it...we'll go ahead and submit it to the Pope anyways, because we know your mind better than you do...we've been leading you along the whole way anyhow."
And that is EXACTLY what happened. It's in the record, go back and read it. Pretty sad, but in a nutshell, that's it.
I never said it was ok to have the Divine Office or the Sacraments in the vernacular, I'm saying that in reading what the Conciliar Fathers envisioned, that is where they thought the vernacular would be most appropriate. Because even then Latin is to be the norm, but wider applications may be of great use to the faithful, so the possibility does exist. I can see where they are coming from though...have you tried to read some of the Office in Latin? It's not the easiest read in the world...it can be done, but the average Catholic would struggle. So, like I said, I can see their point.
It isn't about the vernacular (English or whatever) being good enough to edify. That misses the point. The point is that the language of the liturgy is Latin. That was to be retained. Reading the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular only isn't consistent with the rest of the liturgical action. It is a break with the continous action, therefore it shouldn't be removed. (re-reading them before the homily, is technically not part of the Mass, so I have no problem doing that...it is considered to be part of the weekly announcements, so that is acceptable, but by no means necessary)
As for your opining, that is your own and I won't comment. You have your opinion and you're entitled, but I don't think that it can be supported in a cogent or coherent way with regard to a strict reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Reasons being these: 1. There is no real definition of how the vernacular is to be employed. 2. The Council Fathers wanted Latin to remain the normative language. 3. There is no discussion of the actual change of the Rite itself in any concrete form.
If we're going to be authentic in looking at Vatican Council II and the Constitution on the Liturgy, we should be authentic. There is nothing in there to support what happened to the Mass. The justification for the Novus Ordo is that the language of the Constitution is so vague that it is left open to interpretation. Fine, but whose interpretation are we subscribing to? The Council Fathers? The Pope's? The Consilium's? Well, who wrote the Novus Ordo? How supportive was the Synod of Bishops AFTER the Council? How much did the Holy Father act collegially when he promulgated Missale Romanum and the supporting documents? How does 1+1=4? Like I said square peg into a round hole. It doesn't add up.