The Recovering Choir Director

Dad29’s post “Actual History(!!) on the Eucharist” includes this snippet from Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.:

Vatican II is frequently praised or blamed for having authorized the translation of the Latin liturgy into the vernacular. But the matter is not so simple. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, its “Constitution on the Liturgy” (1963), the council declared: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (SC, No 36, Paragraph 1).

Those familiar with Monsignor Johannes Overath’s introduction to the Proceedings of the Fifth International Church Music Congress held 42 years ago in Chicago and Milwaukee* - published as Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II and available from MusicaSacra.com as a 37.0 MB PDF - will find these passages illuminating (with my comments and emphases):

[T]he question of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy must be judged by the canonists according to the will of the Second Vatican Council (Not the “Spirit of the Second Vatican Council” which some have described as a demon, rightly or wrongly). Prof. Georg May says:

Article 36, #1 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy formulates the principle: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” This sentence has imposed a command to preserve the Latin language. In contrast to the translation produced under the auspices of the German bishops, it must be observed that the official text of the document employs the subjunctive servitur and therefore expresses a command, not merely a recommendation. The Latin language must be preserved. In the future the Latin rites will continue to be moulded by the Latin language. The word usus clearly commands the actual employment of the Latin language and not simply the possibility of its being used. . . .[28. On the contrary, the head of the secretariat of the American Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy has stated that “it may be that in some areas retention (of Latin) will simply mean employing the Latin texts as the basis for translations into the vernacular, at least in the case of those parts of the Roman rite which are themselves original, such as the collects.” Frederick R. McManus, “The Constitution on Liturgy Commentary,” Worship (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1964), Vol. 38, No. 6, p. 351. A study of some of the activities of Fr. McManus in the area of liturgical renewal can be found in these articles: Gary Potter, “The Liturgy Club,” Triumph (Washington, May 1968), Vol. 3, No. 5, p. 10-14; Ronald D. Lambert, “The New Missal; Experiment in Heresy,” Triumph (Washington, March 1968), Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 17-24; Ronald D. Lambert, “The Threat to the Mass,” Triumph (Washington, January 1969), Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 20-24.]

The principle imposed by Article 36, #1, of the Constitution, commanding the preservation of the use of Latin, is to be considered the ruling, fundamental principle in explaining the legislation of the Council pertaining to the vernacular. Every interpretation which violates this principle errs against the sense of the Constitution and the will of the Fathers of the Council. The use of the vernacular is allowed in the liturgy in addition to the Latin. (Additive, not substitutive!) The primacy of the Latin may not be assaulted in the process.

Article 36, #2, of the Constitution permits the use of the mother tongue in certain parts of the liturgy. The use of the vernacular is not prescribed nor is it urgently recommended. It is simply permitted. Therefore the command to preserve the use of Latin stands in clear contrast to the permission to use the vernacular. The priority of Latin is unequivocally maintained . . .

Article 36, #2, of the Constitution gives examples indicating in which section of the liturgy especially (and therefore not exclusively) the use of the vernacular is of value: lessons, admonitions (Cf. Article 35, #3), many, but not all orations, and chants. By giving these examples the Council has made clear that it is not its intention to allow an exclusive use of the vernacular in the liturgy . . .

Whether and in what respect to use the vernacular in the sense of Articles 36, #2, 54, 63, 101 and 113 does not rest with the individual priest or layman not even within the discretion of an individual bishop. It belongs rather only to that authority which is competent in ecclesiastical matters for a particular territory (Articles 39, 36, #2, and 22, #2). But even the decision of the episcopal conference does not possess the force of law of itself, but it stands in need of review and confirmation by the Apostolic See (Actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatis). If confirmation of a decision has been granted to the competent territorial authority, then the bishop in his diocese has the right, but not however the duty, to permit the use of the vernacular according to the limit conceded . . .[29. G. May, “Umfang und Grenzen des Gebrauchs der Landessprache in der Liturgie nach der Gesetzgebung des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils,” Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht (Vienna, 1967), Heft 1, p. 16-94.]

Especially contrasted with his observations of the directives emanating from the U.S. dioceses at that time:

In the United States over-emphasis on the vernacular is also widespread. While not all dioceses have published regulations on the subject of the liturgical languages, some have put into stated form directions that are at variance with the conciliar decrees. These examples, to mention only a few, may be cited to demonstrate what can be found across the entire nation:

For the Archdiocese of Baltimore, in the Directory for Worship, published with the imprimatur of Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, March 1, 1964, the following rules are given:

No. 161. As of the First Sunday of Advent in 1965, the introduction of the vernacular into the sung Mass is to be completed in this archdiocese.

No. 162. All parts of the Mass where the vernacular is permitted should be performed in the vernacular.

No. 163. Latin songs may be sung by the choir where participation will not be hindered in any way. This does not mean, however, that those Ordinary or Proper parts of the Mass which must be performed according to the rubrics can be in Latin. (In direct, diametrical opposition to the Constitution!)

No. 180. If the funeral Mass is a sung Mass, the Ordinary must now be in the vernacular. (Again, in opposition to the will of the council!) After the first Sunday of Advent, 1965, the Proper must also be in the vernacular. (On paper, the entire tenor of this directive can be made to conform more closely with the will of the Council simply by changing the two occurrences of “must” into “may”.)

In the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Pastoral Directory on the Mass, newly revised edition of 1966, which has the imprimatur of John Cardinal Cody, gives the following direction on the use of Latin in sung Masses:

No. 701 (footnote). All sung Masses are to be in the vernacular except on special occasions when Latin is permitted to preserve the rich tradition of Gregorian chant and polyphonic music which is wedded to the Latin language. Care should be taken that the use of this music is meaningful to the particular worshipping community. The special occasion would be left to the discretion of the pastor in cooperation with the musical director. (Could something like this caricature of a dialogue have occurred as a result? Music director: “It’s Christmas, surely we can use Latin, can we not?” Pastor: “Christmas comes once a year, it’s not that special.”)

No. 836. In places where there is a large influx of tourists, especially from foreign lands, it may be helpful to schedule a Mass in Latin. This Mass would be arranged in a specific church according to an established and publicized time-table. If there is such need, permission is to be obtained in writing from the Ordinary.

Special directives on the Liturgy for the Archdiocese of Chicago, mandatory as of June 9, 1966:

No. 3. The vernacular is to be used at all public Masses to the extent permitted by law. (This smacks of the corporate-ethics “What can we get away with?” approach to liturgics instead of “How best to adhere to that which is proposed?”)

In the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio, directives concerning the Mass were issued in a letter from the chancellor, which was given at the direction of Bishop John J. Carberry, September 17, 1965: “All scheduled Masses should be in the vernacular and provide for the active participation of the faithful attending.” (Abuse of moral suasion in contradiction of the will of the Council as far as the language issue goes.)

In the Outline for the English High Mass issued for the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, Missouri, November 29, 1964, the exclusive use of the vernacular is presumed in such statements as this:

Beginning Sunday, November 29, 1964, the people’s parts of the High Mass may be sung in English as they are said at Low Mass. This includes the Proper and the Ordinary of the Mass. (The English-language version of the Rossini psalm tone propers is the only book that I am aware of that could reasonably attempt to accomplish this task as far as the propers are concerned.) Because of the extremely short notice the following directives are given: 1. Through the Christmas season, pastors may choose between Latin or English at High Mass as they feel will be pastorally most effective with materials available . . .

The legislation on church music for the Diocese of San Diego, California, for January, 1966, states: “The Ordinary and Proper of the Mass should be sung in English, but Latin motets may be used (e.g., at the Offertory, Communion or as a recessional after Mass).”

On the other hand, such sees as Washington, Milwaukee, Saint Paul-Minneapolis and Boston have made it clear in legislative directives that in conformity with conciliar decrees the use of the vernacular is a permission and not an obligation, while Latin retains its official position de jure if not de facto.

*I made an offhand remark to a couple of attendees that not only was it striking that a Jesuit university would host a CMAA event, but also that holding the Colloquium in Chicago after a generation was something like returning to the scene of a crime…like “CSI: Musica Sacra” or something…