LITURGICAL LANGUAGE. – A language officially admitted in a particular liturgical rite.
I. Concepts
Human speech, with all its value as a precise expression of thought and will, exercises a preponderant function in Catholic liturgy, shared by all participants in the various ceremonies: celebrants, assisting priests, ministers, singers, and bystanders, who, according to the norms established by the Church, must either pronounce or listen to the same words, with the most perfect understanding possible of their meaning.Yet in fulfilling this function, the community acts with respect to the Church, to Christ-the-Man, to God Himself, as an “instrumental” cause, and, from this threefold perspective, the liturgical words pronounced by men are truly the words of the Church, of Christ, of God. It is therefore no wonder that it is reserved to the Church—more precisely, to the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all others—to determine a matter of such importance as the language in which ritual speech must be expressed. It is liturgical the language, and it alone, which the Church constitutes or recognizes as such. A liturgical language may be dead or living, literary or vernacular, not only according to its use outside of worship, but also according to its very forms, which in turn may present, in the vernacular, more or less cultivated aspects. With respect to the region where it is used, a liturgical language will be national, or foreign in origin and national only by adoption, or entirely foreign because it remains completely foreign to vernacular usage. Finally, a liturgical language may be natural, or it may be more or less artificial, that is, more or less reworked to better suit its particular purpose. Every liturgical language, moreover, undergoes to a certain extent such adaptation, without this stylization ever reaching the degree undergone by other liturgical objects (gestures, vessels, buildings, etc.).
II. Liturgical languages in use
The languages currently in use in the various Western and Eastern rites, both Catholic and dissident, are as follows: 1) In all rites: Hebrew for certain words, such as alleluia, amen, hosanna, etc. 2) In the three Western rites still in force, the Roman, Ambrosian, and Toledan (or Mozarabic): Latin, except for a few Greek formulas, such as Kyrie or Christe eleison, the Trisagion of Good Friday, the Epistle and Gospel of the Solemn Papal Mass, which are sung successively in Latin and in Greek. Other more important exceptions are listed in the historical section. 3) In the Greek Byzantine-Constantinopolitan rite, Catholic or dissident: mainly the Greek language, but also Arabic alone or with Greek, Turkish, Albanian, Hungarian. In the Melkite Catholic rite: mainly, or almost exclusively, Arabic. In the Catholic and dissident Slavonic-Byzantine rite: the ecclesiastical Slavonic language, written in red ink, with Cyrillic characters, but also, alongside it, among the dissidents, White Russian, Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Polish, Ukrainian, and, in the internal and external missions of the Red Church, Chinese, Eskimo, Japanese, Hindi, English, Tartar, German, and a few others. Moreover, Georgian and Romanian, both alone, but with some differences between Catholic and dissident Romanian. 4) In the Armenian Catholic and dissident rite: the ancient Armenian language, with a few rare Greek words such as orthiu, proschume, prosotheos, etc. 5) In the Syriac rite: the Syriac language as the principal language, together with Arabic in the Syro-Catholic Church; with Arabic, Turkish, or Kurdish in the Jacobite Church; with Malayalam among the Catholic and dissident Malankaresi of Malabar. 6) In the Maronite rite: the Syriac language as principal, with Arabic. 7) In the Chaldean and Malabarese rites: the Syriac language, together with modern Syriac in the first rite, among the dissidents. 8) In the Coptic rite: the Coptic language, together with Arabic, in addition to many Greek formulas. 9) In the Ethiopian rite: the Ge'ez language exclusively (for further details and related documentation cf. A. Raes, Institution in liturgiam orientalem, Rome 1947, pp. 207-27).Totally dead languages are Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic or Ge'ez, Georgian, Greek, Syriac, and Slavonic; Latin is also a dead language, although it remains widely in use in the documents of the supreme magisterium and governance of the Church and in the teaching of ecclesiastical sciences. Of these eight languages, the following are exclusively national: Armenian, Coptic, Ge'ez, and Georgian; the other four are partially national and partially foreign. Latin may be considered equally national in all Latin nations, both within and outside Italy, as evidenced by the fact that, after the abandonment of the Greek language, the ancient Gallican or Hispanic liturgies never knew any other language than Latin. All eight of these same languages were, at the time of their admission into the liturgy, living languages, but literary or at least cultivated. Arabic, Chinese, and liturgical English, without being dead languages, are not, however, vernacular or spoken languages, but literary or learned ones. They are, however, national, at least in the broad sense of the word. All other modern liturgical languages are closer to spoken languages and have a more national character.
III. Origins
It may be taken as certain that as long as they remained in Jerusalem, the Apostles and, with them, the community of the first Christians, ordinarily celebrated the sacred rites in the national Aramaic language, and they used it also in the other Jewish-Christian communities of Palestine until their extermination around the year 70. In the other provinces of the Roman Empire and in foreign regions, where the new cult soon spread, it was celebrated everywhere in the Greek language called koine, that is, common, and it may be affirmed that for two centuries the Catholic Church, through the work of the Apostles, had a single principal liturgical language, just as it had a single calendar (the Jewish one) and a single ceremonial form.This state of affairs gradually changed when, from the great cities, Christianity began to spread also to smaller towns and rural areas; then Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac entered into liturgical use in the Eastern Churches, while Latin entered into those of the African Church and other Western Churches. The rapid, total, universal, and definitive victory of Latin is due to the fact that, because of the ever-deepening division between the Eastern and Western Empires, it had become, throughout the extent of the latter, the language of civilization (cf. G. Bardy, La question des langues dans l'Eglise ancienne, I, Paris 1948). Moreover, from the end of the 4th century, it was the language of Rome and Milan. In all the Churches, the parts of the liturgical formulary first expressed in the various vernacular languages were those which, by their nature, had to and could simply be translated, and which it was particularly important to render intelligible to all, namely those drawn from Sacred Scripture. For the other parts, the change was much more profound, generally consisting in the substitution of new formulas in literary language for the ancient ones.
### IV. Concessions for the Mass
While the other Latin rites remained entirely closed to the admission of any new languages, the Roman rite, by reason of its universality, had to show itself more accommodating even within Rome itself. Of these concessions, the most notable for its religious, national, and political aspects, for its dramatic and still largely obscure vicissitudes, and for its importance and duration, was certainly that granted to the Slavic language with Glagolitic script, made in favor of the Slavs of Great Moravia and Pannonia. Admitted as a secondary language by Adrian II (870) for the reading of the Epistle and Gospel, it was repeatedly prohibited by John VIII (a.d. 873, 879: PL 126, 850) in the celebration of the Mass itself, then almost without restriction shortly afterward by the same pope (a.d. 880: PL 126, 904-906), and finally renewed, expanded, and entirely forbidden by Stephen V (a.d. 885-887: PL 129, 803-804). In Bohemia and Dalmatia, however, the use of the Old Slavonic or Slavic language with Glagolitic script persisted with alternating advances and retreats, suppressions and restorations, down to the present day, but only as a local privilege reserved to certain centers or churches (S. Congregation of Rites, Feb. 13, 1892; Aug. 5, 1898; Aug. 14, 1900; *Osservatore Romano*, June 13, 1920; V. JUGOSLAVIA, V. LITURGY).
Another concession, which might have had a decisive influence on the conversion of China had it been implemented, was that which, according to the favorable opinion of the Holy Office (March 26, 1615), Paul V granted to the Jesuit missionaries of Peking, allowing them to celebrate the entire Roman liturgy in Mandarin Chinese (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1907, I, 70 n.). Among the various reasons that prevented the execution of this singular privilege, the least significant does not seem to have been the existence of other missionaries, also Jesuits, but perhaps animated in this by an excessive attachment to their own nation. Already between 1670 and 1675, the Sicilian Fr. Luigi Buglio had completed the complex and monumental work of translating the entire Roman Missal and Ritual into Chinese, as well as a large part of the Breviary (cf. L. Pfister, *Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les Jésuites de l'ancienne mission de Chine*, I, Shanghai 1932, p. 240 [cf. Enc. Catt., III, cols. 189-90]). Repeated steps taken with the Congregation of Propaganda Fide (established in 1622) and with the Pope himself (1661, 1667, 1673, 1676-78, 1681-88, 1695-98; cf. L. Pfister, *op. cit.*, pp. 120; 310-111; 336; 360; 406-407) by the Jesuit missionaries and others to obtain the renewal of the privilege of 1615 remained without effect. The concession of Paul V may have had a certain precedent in an analogous faculty granted, it seems, to the celebrated Franciscan missionary John of Montecorvino, whom Clement V (1307) appointed first bishop of Peking (Raynaldus, *Annales ecclesiastici*, ad ann. 1305, XIX-XX; ad ann. 1307, XXIX-XXX). To the Dominican missionaries in Greece, Boniface IX (1389-1404) permitted the celebration of Mass in the liturgical Greek language (Collectio Lacensis, II, 538). The Armenian association of the “United Brothers,” affiliated with the same Order, celebrated throughout the duration of its existence (1330-1794) the Dominican liturgy in the classical Armenian language (Orientalia Christiana, I [1923], pp. 232, 240; Holy Office, Sept. 6, 1713; M. A. V. d. Oudennijn, *Annotationes bibliographicae Armeno-Dominicanae*, Rome 1921, pp. 42-47; Collectio Lacensis, II, 538). The Carmelite missionaries in Armenia also used this same language in the Preface and other parts of the Mass, but permission to extend its use to the entire Mass was denied them (Holy Office, Jan. 30, 1627; Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, Rome 1907, I, no. 33, p. 11). Instead, to the missionaries in Georgia, a few years later, the privilege was granted of celebrating Mass in Georgian or Armenian, if this usage would greatly assist in the conversion of that people (Holy Office, Apr. 30, 1631; Collectio Lacensis, II, 502). The permission to use Georgian was renewed in the following century in favor of the Capuchin missionaries, but only for the reading of the Epistle and Gospel (Holy Office, Feb. 10, 1757). To the Carmelite missionaries in Persia, it was likewise granted “for the consolation of those recently converted peoples” to celebrate one Mass each day in classical Arabic (S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Apr. 17, 1624; Collectio Lacensis, II, 501-502). For the Malabarese, for the private celebration of Mass, the Third Council of Goa (1585; sess. III, decr. 7) and the Council of Diamper (1590; c. CXXIII, decr. 4) prescribed the translation into Syriac of the text of the Roman Mass. Since the end of the last century (Feb. 4, 1895), Ethiopian Catholics have provisionally used the Pontifical and Ritual translated into Ge'ez. From the beginning of the 15th century, the Czechs widely employed the national language in liturgical ceremonies; by concession of Benedict XV this usage was regulated and legitimized (*Osservatore Romano*, June 13, 1920). As for the ancient Greek, Slavic, or Georgian texts of the Masses, called of St. Gregory or of St. Peter, it is difficult to determine to what extent they served legitimate liturgical use (M. H. W. Codrington-P. de Meester, *The Liturgy of St. Peter*, Münster 1936).
### V. In the Ritual
While the above-mentioned concessions concern almost exclusively the Mass, they very rarely mention the Roman Ritual. This book, in fact, by reason of the nature of its rites and because it did not exist before 1614, nor have a typical edition before 1925, nor was ever imposed on other Latin Churches, admitted, along with many adaptations to regional customs, also the secondary use of several vernacular languages. Indeed, recently to the dioceses of France (Nov. 28, 1947) and Germany (Mar. 21, 1950; there already existed earlier particular concessions) the Holy See granted a proper Ritual, as a supplement to the Roman Ritual, in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the use of vernacular languages is permitted. Recently the faculty has been granted to pronounce in the vernacular the formulas of the renewal of baptismal promises in the new Easter Vigil (AAS, 43 [1951], p. 136).
In 1941 and 1942, the faculty was granted to the missions of New Guinea, China, Japan, Indochina, India, Indonesia, and Africa to translate and use the Roman Ritual in the vernacular, reserving Latin only for essential formulas. The translations are prepared by a Commission under the presidency of the local Pontifical Representative and approved by it “ad decennium.” In 1949, China was permitted the use of Mandarin Chinese even in the Holy Mass, with the exception of the Canon, which must be recited in Latin (cf. S. Paventi, *La Chiesa missionaria. Manuale di missionologia dottrinale*, Rome 1949, p. 388).
### VI. In the Eastern Churches
The multiplication of national languages in the Eastern liturgies is a fact too complex to be summarized in a few lines (cf. A. Raes, *Introduzione in liturgia orientale*, Rome 1947, pp. 219-27). However, in readmitting the dissident Eastern Churches into the bosom of the Catholic Church, the Roman See, rather than prohibiting their liturgies, sought exclusively to
VII. THE QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE
But while the Roman Church has repeatedly consented to the admission of national and vernacular languages into liturgical worship when true necessity or great spiritual advantage seemed to demand it, on the question of principle it has always shown itself unyielding. For the Church holds: 1) that it cannot be considered contrary to the nature of sacred rites to employ—even exclusively—in the liturgy, and particularly in the Mass, languages that are unintelligible to the people; 2) that, on the contrary, it is contrary to the nature of the liturgy to introduce languages that serve as instruments of political or nationalistic passions; indeed, the liturgical languages should, as far as possible, serve as a bond uniting Catholic communities across national boundaries and linking them to the supreme authority of the Holy See; 3) that ancient languages, now more or less dead but consecrated by centuries of liturgical use, possess a dignity and particular suitability for liturgical purposes.
This was certainly the mind of the Council of Trent in the face of the demands of the early Reformers (sess. XXII, cap. 8 and cap. 9; cf. H.-A.-P. Schmidt, *Liturgie et langue vulgaire. Le problème de la langue liturgique chez les premiers Réformateurs et au Concile de Trente* [Analecta Gregoriana, LIII], Rome 1950). It was likewise the mind of Clement XI (Bull *Unigenitus*, 13 Sept. 1713) and of Pius VI (Constitution *Auctorem fidei*, 29 Aug. 1794) in condemning the principles expressed by the Jansenists, as well as that of Pius X in denying to the clergy of Hajdu-Dorogh the use of the Hungarian language in the liturgy (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 430, 433). The same canons 819 and 1257 of the *Codex Iuris Canonici* merely express the Tridentine dispositions, and the same must be said of the teaching of the encyclical *Mediator Dei* on this matter.
VIII. ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AND THE VERNACULAR
Today, in the Western Church, the question of the liturgical language presents itself largely in a new light and arouses a profound crisis in vast sectors of the faithful. It would be a grave mistake to ignore the deep and vital interest it holds. Is it advisable, in order to enable the faithful to take an active part in liturgical ceremonies, to introduce the use of the vernacular into their celebration? And, if so, to what extent should this be done? It is not our task, nor is it within our competence, to resolve this difficult and delicate problem; we limit ourselves to presenting it as clearly as possible, illuminating some of its aspects.
It would be a grave error—even a dogmatic one—to claim that the use of the vernacular is essential to liturgical worship on the grounds that its efficacy derives from being the work of a community. In reality, as has been said above, the efficacy of the liturgy, being entirely supernatural, derives solely from the fact that it is the work of God, of Christ, and of the Church. Yet it is true that those who celebrate liturgical offices in the name and by delegation of the Church, in the name and by the power of Christ, are not only the priests and their ministers but the entire community of the faithful present. While the performance of sacramental actions is reserved to the ministers of those sacraments, these actions often have as their end one or more of the other participants in the sacred rite, and are expressly directed to them. Moreover, these same sacramental actions, particularly the Eucharistic Sacrifice, are performed by the celebrant also in the name of the others present, and these others associate themselves with them not only through their presence and attention but also through secondary rites. Now, if in their first aspect liturgical functions require, as far as possible, a sacred, hieratic, immutable, and unified language, in their other aspect they would unquestionably require the use of languages intelligible and speakable by all participants—that is, the vernacular.
This antithesis seems to admit of no solution other than that repeatedly accepted in practice by the Holy See: a partial use of the vernacular, limited to those functions that have a more distinctly "officiating" character—such as invitations and greetings, collective prayers, exhortations and instructions, readings, and choral singing—while the more sacramental and priestly parts of the functions or of the function retain the use of Latin.
By this solution, the more hieratic parts of the liturgy would preserve the majesty and secrecy that inspire those sentiments of faith and vitality which are the foundation of Christian worship, while at the same time enabling all present to take an active part in the liturgical celebrations with understanding and devotion. In our own time, this seems an effective way to retain within the sacred rites those faithful who have not yet abandoned them and, if possible, to bring back those who, in great numbers, have already done so. It is necessary to rekindle in all the awareness that the liturgy is not the affair of the clergy alone, to whose execution the faithful are compelled to attend, but also their own affair, in which they must take a full and spiritually intelligent part. The communal character of the Roman liturgy must be not only a reality but a concrete and tangible reality, open to common experience.
Yet however satisfactory this solution to the grave problem may appear, it is not possible to conceal its insufficiencies, the irreparable sacrifices it demands, or the dangers it cannot fail to entail: the superficial and arbitrary character of the distinction; the inelegant redundancy; the inability to render the liturgical formulary fully intelligible; the diminution of the noble gravity and conciseness, and of the literary beauty, of many formulas; the almost total abandonment of traditional Gregorian melodies and of an immense treasury of sacred music; the impossibility, for many formulas, of a literal translation and hence the danger of doctrinal distortions; the increased division among nations and races; the ruin of the grand liturgical manifestations at international gatherings and congresses of Catholics; and the weakening of the bonds of affection and devotion between the Catholic Churches of the world and the Mother Church of Rome.