Replies

It does not work against the Sui Juris celebration of Mass in the vernacular, by other rites

Apologies, but I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you explain?

Also I don't believe how I cut and pasted it changed the sense at all, and it isn't comparable to your "communion under both kinds" example which is doing violence to the sense of the passage. I don't have the Latin in front of me, but the way I found it translated is as follows:

Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

I read the force of the anathema as being directly against those who think Mass should ONLY be celebrated in vernacular. Someone who think it is prudent in a given situation would not, naturally, fall under that--or else Ss. Cyril and Methodius would be heretics. :)

The "contrary to the institution of Christ" part is referring to the chalice, not (as far as I can tell) the vernacular. That might not be the case in its original, I dunno--but I'm going with what I have with very clearly demarked semicolons.

The way I read it:Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone,
(1) is to be condemned;
or
(2) that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;
or
(3) that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice
[concluding]
because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

I read it as all three are contrary to the Institution of Christ, that is these things were not as Christ intended them. The punctuation usage in older texts doesn't lend itself to the meaning, for old documents. I see an "if because then" structure in most of the Trent Canons.

Vernacular Masses were celebrated well before the English and Protestant Schisms. No matter the correct or incorrect parsing that you and I hold to this Canon, I think the objection the commonly held protestant notion that Latin obscured the Mass and the rite and therefore that rite was invalid, not that Vernacular Mass was invalid. Note that it didn't say Vernacular Mass was invalid, but that the notion that Mass must be only in the vernacular.

It is not an issue for anyone familiar with the Mass to concede that the original language of the Mass was Greek. If rites were invalid in the vernacular, they would have never been done in Latin, the vernacular of Rome. In that case, since Trent was infallible the doctrine should not be a new one for the past and the present.