Went to Mass this morning. It was concelebrated in Swedish by a Polish priest and another from somewhere in southern Europe, possibly Croatia. As a foreigner myself, it is no criticism of them to say that I had great difficulty in understanding what was being said. I could barely understand the reader either, who had a strong local accent. Matters were not helped by an indifferent sound system. Since more than half the congregation were immigrants, they probably also had trouble understanding the words.
Having the option to say Mass in the vernacular is beneficial - given an accurate translation, it should lead to better catechesis, amongst children, for example. But the use of the vernacular was only ever permissive, as is clear from the
text which states that "Mass may be said in the vernacular" - in other
words, that it normally would not be.
It is also the case that when the use of the vernacular became prevalent forty years ago, people were less mobile than they are today. But it makes no sense to say Mass in the vernacular when the neither priests nor a large proportion of the congregation are 100% fluent in the local language. It was presumably for precisely this reason, amongst many others, that the use of Latin became and remained the norm for so many centuries.
This is surely a situation where the Extraordinary Form should be used, with priests celebrating largely in silence and with the congregation following in printed translations in their own languages.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar