Liturgical Language

LITURGICAL LANGUAGE. – Language officially permitted in a given liturgical rite.

I. NOTIONS

The human word, with all its value as a precise expression of thought and will, exercises a predominant function in the Catholic liturgy, shared among all the participants in the various ceremonies: celebrants, assisting priests, ministers, singers, and bystanders, whose duty, according to the norms established by the Church, is to pronounce or listen to the same word, with as perfect an understanding of its meaning as possible.

But in fulfilling this function, the community acts out of respect for the Church, for Christ-Man, and for God himself, as an « instrumental » cause; and, under this threefold aspect, the liturgical words pronounced by human beings are truly the words of the Church, of Christ, and of God. It is therefore no wonder that the Church

and, more precisely, the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the others, should reserve to itself the right to determine a matter of such importance as the language in which the ritual word is to be expressed. A language is liturgical, and it alone, if the Church establishes or recognizes it as such. A liturgical language may be dead or living, learned, literary, or vernacular, not only according to the use made of it outside worship, but also according to its own forms, which, in turn, may display more or less learned aspects in the vernacular. With regard, moreover, to the region where it is used, a liturgical language may be national, or foreign in origin and national only by adoption, or entirely foreign because it has remained wholly outside vernacular usage. Finally, a liturgical language may be natural, or instead more or less artificial—that is, more or less reworked so as to adapt it better to its particular purpose. In any event, every liturgical language undergoes such adaptation to a certain degree, without this stylization ever attaining the degree undergone by the other liturgical elements (gestures, vessels, buildings, etc.).
II. L. L. 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, omen, hosanna, etc. 2) In the three Western rites still in existence, the Roman, Ambrosian, and Toletan (or Mozarabic): Latin, except for a few Greek formulae, such as Kyrie or Christe eleison, the Trisagion of Good Friday, and the Epistle and Gospel of the solemn Papal Mass, which are sung successively in Latin and Greek. Other, more important exceptions are listed in the historical section. 3) In the Greek Byzantine-Constantinopolitan rite, Catholic or dissident: principally the Greek language, but also Arabic, either alone or together with Greek, as well as Turkish, Albanian, and Hungarian. In the Catholic Melchite rite: principally, or almost exclusively, Arabic. In the Catholic and dissident Slavic-Byzantine rite: Church Slavonic, Ruthenian, or Russian, in Cyrillic characters, but also, together with the latter, among dissidents, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Polish, and Ukrainian, and, in the internal and external missions of the Russian Church, Chinese, Eskimo, Japanese, Hindi, English, Tatar, German, and some other minor languages. In addition, Georgian and Romanian, both used alone, though with some differences between Catholic and dissident Romanian. 4) In the Catholic and dissident Armenian rite: the ancient Armenian language, with a few rare Greek words such as: orthio, proschume, prosedhess, etc. 5) In the Syriac rite: Syriac as the principal language, together with Arabic in the Syro-Catholic Church; with Arabic, Turkish, or Kurdish in the Jacobite Church; and with Malayalam among the Catholic and dissident Malankarese of Malabar. 6) In the Maronite rite: principally Syriac, together with Arabic. 7) In the Chaldean and Malabarese rites: Syriac, together with modern Syriac in the former rite among dissidents. 8) In the Coptic rite: Coptic, together with Arabic, in addition to many Greek formulae. 9) In the Ethiopian rite: exclusively Geʿez (for further details and relevant documentation cf. A. Raes, Introductio in liturgiam orientalem, Roma 1947, pp. 207-27).

The wholly dead languages are Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian or Geʿez, Georgian, Greek, Syriac, and Slavonic; Latin is also a dead language, although it has remained widely used in the documents of the Church’s supreme teaching authority and government and in the teaching of ecclesiastical sciences. Of these eight languages, Armenian, Coptic, Geʿez, and Georgian are exclusively national; the other four are partly national and partly foreign. Latin may be regarded as an equally national language in all the Latin nations, both outside and within Italy, as is shown by the fact that, after the abandonment of Greek, the ancient Gallican or Hispanic liturgies knew no languages other than Latin. All eight of these languages were living languages at the time of their admission into the liturgy, but literary, or at least educated, languages. Liturgical Arabic, Chinese, and English, without being dead languages, are nevertheless neither vernacular nor spoken languages, but learned or literary ones. They are, however, national, at least in the broad sense of the word. All the other present-day l. l. are closer to spoken languages and have a more national character.

III. THE ORIGINS

It may be held as certain that, as long as they remained in Jerusalem, the Apostles and, together with them, the community of the first Christians ordinarily celebrated the sacred rites in the national Aramaic language, and that this was also used by the other Judaeo-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 worship soon spread, it was everywhere celebrated in the Greek language called coiol, that is, common; and it can be asserted 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 Christianity began to spread from the great cities into the smaller towns and the countryside as well; at that point Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac entered the liturgical usage of the Eastern Churches, and Latin that of the African Church and the other Western Churches. Its rapid, total, universal, and definitive victory was due to the fact that, as the division between the Eastern and Western Empires grew ever deeper, it had become, throughout the whole extent of the latter, the language of civilization (cf. G. Bardy, La question des langues dans l'Église ancienne, I, Paris 1948). Moreover, from the end of the fourth century it was the liturgical 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, simply had to and could be translated, and which it was especially important to make intelligible to everyone, namely, those drawn from the Sacred Scriptures. For the other parts, the change, much more profound, generally consisted in replacing the ancient formulas with new ones in literary language.

IV. CONCESSIONS FOR THE MASS

While the other Latin rites remained entirely closed to the admission of any new languages, the Roman rite, because of its universality, had to show itself more accommodating, already in Rome itself. Of these concessions, the most noteworthy for its religious, national, and political character, for its dramatic and still very obscure vicissitudes, and for its importance and duration, was certainly that of the Slavic language with Glagolitic script, made in favor of the Slavs of Great Moravia and Pannonia. Admitted as a secondary language by Hadrian II (870) for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel, repeatedly prohibited by John VIII (aa. 873, 879; PL 126, 850) in the celebration of the Mass itself, and shortly afterward approved almost without restrictions by the same pope (a. 880; PL 126, 904-906), the Slavic language with its Glagolitic script was finally once again and entirely forbidden by Stephen V (aa. 885-87; PL 129, 803-804). In Bohemia and Dalmatia, however, the use of the Old Slavic, or Slavonic, language with Glagolitic script has been maintained, through alternating advances and retreats, suppressions and restorations, down to the present day, but only as a local privilege reserved to particular centers or churches (S. Congregation of Rites, 13 Feb. 1892; 5 Aug. 1898; 14 Aug. 1900; Osservatore romano, 13 June 1920; V. JUGOSLAVIA, V. Liturgia).

Another concession, which might have had a decisive influence on the conversion of China, had it been implemented, was that which, following the favorable opinion of the Holy Office (26 March 1615), Paul V granted to the Jesuit missionaries in Beijing, allowing them to celebrate the entire Roman liturgy in Mandarin Chinese (Collect. S. Congregat. de Prop. Fide, 1907, I, 70 in note). Among the various reasons that prevented the execution of this singular privilege, the least important does not seem to have been the hesitation of other missionaries, also Jesuits, but perhaps motivated in this matter by an excessive attachment to their own nation. As early as 1670-75, the Sicilian Fr. Luigi Buglio had completed the complicated and gigantic work of translating into Chinese the entire Roman Missal and Ritual, 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, Sciangai 1932, p. 240 [cf. Enc. Catt., III, coll. 189-90]), but repeated efforts made before the Congregation of Propaganda Fide (established in 1622) and before the Pope himself (1661, 1667, 1673, 1676-78, 1681-88,

1695-98; cf. L. Pfister, op. cit., pp. 120; 310-11; 336; 360; 406-407) by Jesuit missionaries and others to obtain the renewal of the privilege of 1615 remained without effect. Paul V’s concession perhaps had a certain precedent in an analogous faculty granted, apparently, to the celebrated Franciscan missionary Giovanni di Montecorvino, whom Clement V (1307) appointed the first bishop of Beijing (Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiastici, ad ann. 1305, XIX-XX; ann. 1307, XXIX-XXX). Boniface IX (1389-1404) permitted the Dominican missionaries in Greece to celebrate Mass in the Greek liturgical language (Collectio Lacensis, II, 538). The Armenian association of the “Frati Unioni,” affiliated with the same Order, celebrated the Dominican liturgy in classical Armenian throughout its entire existence (1330-1794) (Orientalia cristiana, I [1923], pp. 232, 240; Holy Office, 6 Sept. 1713; M. A. V. d. Oudenrijn, Annotationes bibliographicae Armeno-Dominicanae, Rome 1921, pp. 42-47; Collectio Lacensis, II, 538). The Carmelite missionaries of Armenia also used the same language in the Preface and in other parts of the Mass, but permission to extend its use to the entire Mass was denied them (Holy Office, 30 Jan. 1627; Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, Rome 1907, I, no. 33, p. 11). On the other hand, a few years later the missionaries in Georgia were granted the privilege of celebrating Mass in Georgian or Armenian, if this usage were to contribute powerfully to the conversion of that people (Holy Office, 30 Apr. 1631; Collectio Lacensis, II, 502). 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 the Gospel (Holy Office, 10 Feb. 1757). The Carmelite missionaries of Persia were likewise granted permission, “for the consolation of those peoples recently converted,” to celebrate one Mass each day in classical Arabic (S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, 17 Apr. 1624; Collectio Lacensis, II, 501-502). For the use of the Malabarese, in the private celebration of Mass, the Third Council of Goa (1585; sess. III, decr. 7) and the Council of Diamper (1599; c. CXXIII, decr. 4) prescribed the translation of the text of the Roman Mass into Syriac. Since the end of the last century (4 Feb. 1895), the Ethiopian Catholics have provisionally used the Roman Pontifical and Ritual, translated into ge'ez. As early as the beginning of the fifteenth century, the Czechs made extensive use of the national language in liturgical ceremonies; through a concession of Benedict XV, this practice was regulated and legitimized (Osservatore romano, 13 June 1920). As for the ancient Greek, Slavic, or Georgian texts of the Masses called those of St. Gregory or St. Peter, it is difficult to determine to what extent they served to legitimize liturgical use (M. H. W. Codrington-P. de Meester, The Liturgy of St. Peter, Münster 1936).

V. NEL RITUALE

Whereas the aforementioned concessions concern almost exclusively the Mass, they make only very rare mention of the Roman Ritual. This book, in fact, because of the nature of its rites, and because it did not exist before 1614, had no typical edition before 1925, and was never imposed upon the other Latin Churches, admitted, together with many adaptations to regional customs, also the secondary use of several vernacular languages. Indeed, recently the Holy See granted the dioceses of France (28 Nov. 1947) and Germany (21 March 1950; particular concessions had already existed previously) a proper Ritual, as a supplement to the Roman Ritual, in which the use of vernacular languages is admitted to a greater or lesser extent. More recently, permission was granted to pronounce in the vernacular the formulas for the renewal of baptismal promises during the new Easter Vigil (AAS, 43 [1951], p. 136).

In 1941 and 1942, the missions of New Guinea, China, Japan, Indochina, India, Indonesia, and Africa were granted permission to translate and use the Roman Ritual in the vernacular, reserving Latin only for the 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 to use Mandarin Chinese also 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, Roma 1949, p. 388).

VI. IN THE EASTERN CHURCHES

The multiplication of national languages in the Eastern liturgies is a fact too complex for its history to be summarized in a few lines (cf. A. Raes, Introductio in liturgiam orientalem, Rome 1947, pp. 219–27). Nevertheless, when readmitting the dissident Churches of the East into the bosom of the Catholic Church, the Roman See, rather than prohibiting the l. l. proper to the various rites, wished them to remain in use in their entirety, but exclusively.

VII. THE QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

But although, in admitting national and vernacular languages into liturgical worship, the Roman Church has repeatedly shown herself accommodating whenever genuine needs or great spiritual advantages seemed to require it, on the question of principles, by contrast, she has always shown herself uncompromising. For her: 1) the use, even exclusive, in the liturgy, particularly in the Mass, of languages unintelligible to the people cannot be regarded as an error contrary to the nature of the sacred rites; 2) it is, on the other hand, contrary to the nature of the liturgical language to serve as an expression or instrument of political or nationalistic passions; indeed, liturgical languages should, as far as possible, serve as a supranational bond among Catholic communities, and between them and the supreme authority of the Holy See; 3) a dignity of their own and a particular suitability for liturgical use must be recognized in ancient languages, today more or less dead, but consecrated by many centuries of liturgical use.

This was certainly the mind of the Council of Trent in the face of the claims of the early Reformers (sess. XXII, chap. 8 and can. 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], Roma 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 it was that of Pius X in denying the clergy of Hajdu-Dorogh the use of the Hungarian language in the liturgy (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 430, 433). Canons 819 and 1257 of the CIC likewise do no more than express the Tridentine provisions, 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 l. l. presents itself under an aspect that is largely new and arouses, in very broad sectors of Christendom—it would be a great mistake to ignore this—a profound and vital interest. Is it or is it not advisable, in order to make possible the active participation of the faithful in liturgical ceremonies, to introduce the use of the vernacular into their celebration, and, if so, to what extent would it be advisable to do so? It is neither our task nor our right to resolve this arduous and most delicate problem, but we shall limit ourselves to presenting it as clearly as possible, shedding light on certain of its aspects.

It would be a very serious error, even a dogmatic one, to claim that the use of the vernacular is essential to liturgical worship on the grounds that the latter derives its proper efficacy from being the work of a community. In reality, as stated above, this efficacy, wholly supernatural, comes to liturgical worship as such solely from the fact that it is the work of God, of Christ, and of the Church. But it is also true that it is not only priests and their ministers who celebrate the liturgical “offices” in the name and by deputation of the Church, in the name and through the power of Christ, but the entire communities of those present; and although the performance of sacramental actions is reserved to the “ministers” of those Sacraments, such actions nevertheless not only often have one or more of the other participants in the sacred function as their object, but are expressly addressed to them. Moreover, these same sacramental actions, particularly that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, are performed by the celebrant also in the name of the others present, and they join in them not only through their presence and attention, but also by means of the secondary rites. Now, if in their first aspect the liturgical functions require, as far as possible, a sacred, hieratic, immutable

and uniform language, in their other aspect they would instead undeniably require the use of languages intelligible and speakable by all the participants, that is, the vernacular languages.

This antithesis seems to have no solution other than that already repeatedly admitted in the practice of the Holy See: a partial use of the vernacular languages, limited, that is, to those functions that have a more clearly defined character of “office,” with their invitations and greetings, communal prayers, exhortations and instructions, lessons, and choral singing, while the functions or parts of functions of a more sacramental and priestly nature would retain the use of the Latin language.

With this solution, in fact, the more hieratic parts of the liturgy would preserve the majesty and secrecy that inspire those sentiments of faith and reverence which are the foundation of Christian worship; at the same time, all those present would be given the possibility of participating actively, with interest and devotion, in the liturgical celebrations. This indeed seems in our own times an effective means of keeping faithful to the sacred functions those among the faithful who have not yet abandoned them and, if possible, of bringing back to them those who, unfortunately in very large numbers, have already more or less completely abandoned them. That is, it is necessary to reawaken in everyone the sense that the liturgy is not the business of the clergy alone, at whose performance the faithful are compelled to be present, but also their own concern, in which they are to take, with understanding and spiritual enjoyment, a part that is entirely their own. The collective character of the Roman liturgy must not merely be a reality, but a concrete and perceptible reality, open to common experience.

But however happy the above solution to this very serious problem may appear, it is nevertheless inappropriate to conceal its inadequacies, the irreparable sacrifices it demands, and the dangers it cannot fail to cause: the superficial and arbitrary character of the distinction; inelegant hybridism; ineffectiveness in making the liturgical formulary fully intelligible; impairment of the noble gravity and concision, and of the literary beauty, of many formulas; almost total repudiation of the traditional Gregorian melodies and of an immense treasure of religious music; the impossibility, for many formulas, of a literal translation and, consequently, the danger of doctrinal distortions; increased division between nations and races; the ruin of the grand liturgical manifestations at international congresses and gatherings of Catholics; the weakening of relations of affection and devotion between the Catholic Churches of the world and the Mother Church of Rome.