Today I can publish our seventh position paper, on Latin as a Liturgical Language.
This is not, I think, a topic likely to arouse great controversy among Rorate Caeli readers; nevertheless, this paper is an attempt to articulate what seems obvious to those attached to the Church's liturgical traditions, and to put our arguments into the context of the Magisterium. Perhaps the most important point about Latin has already been made, in PP 3 on Participation: the very things which progressives thought were barriers to participation, turn out to be the things necessary to the profound communication of the sense of mystery to the very soul of the worshipper, in a way which really makes a difference to him, which will make a difference to his life. And nor is it that the traditional liturgy has only things to say - that we are face to face with the Mysterium Tremendum - for it gives us all kinds of messages, appropriate to the moment of the liturgy or the feast or season, both joyful and penitential, using the intellect, the sense of beauty, and the emotions. For all this, however, Latin is the basic prerequisite: it is the fundamental indication, to use Martin Mosebach's language, that we have stepped out of ordinary life into a sacred time, where we are no longer talking to each other, but to God. The many people who attend the Extraordinary Form in less than ideal settings can testify that, important as architecture or vestments are, the liturgy retains is special atmosphere, its sacred register, through through the 'concise, rich, varied, majestic and dignified' character of Latin, to use Pius XI's words, particularly in the poetic cadences familiar in the Vulgate, the ancient Latin Psalters, and the traditional liturgy.
With that thought, and since it is very much in my mind, here's a photograph showing the procession to the Altar at the start of Mass in a French field in the middle of nowhere, and yet somehow attended by about 8,000 people.
The next paper will be published on 15th June, on Prefaces.
Comments can be sent to positio AT fiuv.org
Pdf of this paper here. Full set of papers, including the introductory disclaimer, can be downloaded from the FIUV website.
--------------------------------
FIUV Position Paper 7:
Latin as a Liturgical Language
Introduction
1
The relationship
between the liturgical tradition of the West and the Latin language is
extremely close. The translation of the normative Latin text of the Roman
liturgy into a variety of vernacular languages for optional use, as the
Ordinary Form does, is quite different from the establishment of, for example,
Coptic or Church Slavonic as liturgical languages proper to local churches, as
has happened among the Oriental Churches.[1] The language of the
liturgy of the Latin Rite remains, properly speaking, Latin, even in the
Ordinary Form.[2]
2
The purpose of
this paper is to give an account of the value, not only of Latin in the
normative texts of the liturgy, but also in its actual celebration. Many
Catholics are today unfamiliar with the idea of a Latin liturgy, and the
arguments in favour of it need to be rehearsed. The question of replacing the
Latin lections with vernacular translations, which is permitted in Low Mass (Missa lecta) by the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae,[3] demands separate
treatment. The more fundamental question is addressed here, of the very notion
of a non-vernacular liturgical language, Latin.
The Latin liturgy
of the West seems to have been composed, rather than translated from another
language, at an early though uncertain date.[4] The use of Latin as a
sacred language, with Greek and Hebrew, is traditionally connected with its use
on the titulus of the Cross.[5] As noted in Positio 5,[6] the Roman liturgy made use
of a distinctive, Christian, Latin which, while unlike the highly complex Latin
of the great pagan writers, was by no means the Latin spoken in the street,
which itself would have varied from one part of the Roman Empire to another.
Nor were all the inhabitants of the Western Empire fluent in Latin,
particularly outside the cities.[7] The Church’s Latin was
universal, as opposed to local, but also removed from the most readily
comprehensible language of the people. It was with the liturgy in this language
that St Patrick evangelised the non-Latin speaking Irish, St Augustine of Canterbury
the English, and St Boniface the Germans.
Practical advantages of Latin
4.
Reflecting on
the tradition of the use of Latin, Blessed Pope John XXIII quoted Pope Pius XI
in summarising its practical advantages:
in
order that the Church may embrace all nations, and that it may last until the
end of time, it requires a language that is universal, immutable, and
non-vernacular.[8]
Were
the Church simply to employ current, local languages, the vast periods of time
and geographical areas which the Church, uniquely among human institutions,
must compass, would create confusion. While the Latin of administration and
theology has developed over the centuries, it is still the case that Latinists
today are generally able to understand the writings of Churchmen from every age
of the Church’s existence, and from every part of the world, when they wrote in
Latin. This universality is no less valuable in the liturgy, since it enables
us to share the same liturgy, or the closely related Rites and Usages found in
the Latin Rite, across all ages and countries. The Extraordinary Form is thus
free from the need for periodic re-translation, and serves to emphasise the
unity of the worshipping Church across time and space.
5
In the context,
particularly, of mass migration, which has created both individuals and
communities not at ease with the official language of their adopted country, as
well as the enduring problem of minority languages, the Extraordinary Form
enjoys the advantage described by Bl. John XXIII:
Of
its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every culture among
diverse peoples, for it gives no rise to jealousies, it does not favour any one
group, but presents itself with equal impartiality, gracious and friendly to
all.[9]
It
is in this way a natural bulwark against the danger, noted in the Instruction Varietates legitimae, that the
multiplicity of languages in worship should lead to
a
Christian community becoming inward looking and also the use of inculturation
for political ends.[10]
Latin
and Christian Culture and Devotion
6
Pope Paul VI
went beyond such practical considerations when he wrote, of Latin:
For
this language is, within the Latin Church, an abundant well-spring of Christian
civilisation and a very rich treasure-trove of devotion.[11]
7
Latin is a
‘well-spring of Christian civilisation’ because it is the language of (almost
all) the liturgical texts of the Latin Church—from the Roman Canon to the texts
of Gregorian Chant and the Orations composed over the centuries—and also of the
theological, and many other cultural works (such as musical compositions),
which influenced and were influenced by them. Thus the Latin liturgy is of
incomparable worth in Christian culture, for which no translation, however
good, can substitute.[12]
8.
It is a ‘very
rich treasure-trove of devotion’ for the related reason that it is in great
part through meditating upon Latin texts, scriptural and liturgical, and Latin
commentaries upon those texts, that the Latin Church has developed her
spiritual life over the centuries.[13] Again, a translation
cannot substitute for the very words of the Latin Psalter or Song of Songs
which gave rise to the commentaries of St Augustine of Hippo and St Bernard of
Clairvaux, and so many others, which have such importance in the theology and
spirituality of the Latin Church.
The use of Latin in the Liturgy
9
The question
remains of the value for the Faithful, who may have no education in the Latin
language, of hearing the liturgy in Latin. That it does have value is
consistently implied by the teaching and practice of the Church. Following Bl.
Pope John XXIII’s affirmation of Latin in the liturgy,[14] the Second Vatican
Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, states simply:
Particular
law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the
Latin rites.[15]
Pope
Benedict XVI wishes seminarians not only to understand Latin for their studies,
but to be able to employ it in the liturgy when they are ordained, noting that
the Faithful themselves can be taught Latin prayers and chants.[16]
1 It should first be observed that, as Pope Benedict
XVI indicates, frequent attendance at Latin liturgies enables the Faithful to
become familiar with many texts, and in this way to understand them even
without recourse there and then to a translation. Even a limited liturgical
catechesis ensures that the Faithful have seen translations of familiar texts
such as the Gloria, and reflected upon them. Familiarity with a widening
repertoire of liturgical texts will enable the Faithful to pick up Latin words
and phrases to identify what a text is about, where it comes in the liturgy,
and to remind them what they may have learned about it.
1 The importance of liturgical formation is much
emphasised in Sacrosanctum Concilium.[17] The Extraordinary Form
benefits from a rich tradition of hand missals and other aids to following, and
learning about, the liturgy. The commentaries on the liturgy of the Church’s
year produced by Prosper Guéranger and Pius Parsch are monuments of tradition
worthy of study for their own sakes.[18]
1 It is worth noting also that the relatively limited
number of liturgical texts in the 1962 Missal is a great advantage to the Faithful
assisting at it in Latin. The limited size of the lectionary, the frequent use
of a limited number of Commons of the Saints and Votive Masses, the repetition
of the Sunday Mass on ferial days, the limited number of Prefaces, and so on,
make a thorough familiarity with the Missal a real possibility for ordinary
Catholics.
1 Furthermore, the use of Latin can be a direct aid to
participation in the liturgy. Blessed Pope John Paul II made this point in the
context of the experience of the Faithful in participating in the ancient
liturgical tradition, in his Apostolic Letter Dominicae Cenae (1980):
Nevertheless,
there are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old
liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this “one language,” which in all the
world was an expression of the unity of the Church and through its dignified
character elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic Mystery.[19]
This
dignity and universality of Latin noted by Bl. Pope John XXIII[20] are, indeed, essential
components of the ‘sacrality’ noted of the Extraordinary Form by Pope Benedict
XVI.[21] The necessity of the
liturgy using a language set apart at least to some degree from the ordinary
spoken language has been emphasised repeatedly in recent decades.[22]
1 This is a point taken up in Position Paper 3.[23] The Extraordinary Form
has many features which may seem to be barriers to comprehension, including
ritual complexity, the hiddenness of some ceremonies, the fact that some texts
are read silently, and above all the use of the Latin language.[24] These are not, in fact,
barriers to participation, if we think of participation in terms of the impact
of the liturgy on the worshipper, in creating a ‘profound sense of the
Eucharistic mystery’. They are all part of a whole which is effective in
communicating, non-verbally as well as verbally, the transcendent significance
of the liturgical action. Of all the aspects of the ancient Latin liturgical
tradition which contribute to this, the use of Latin seems both the most obvious
and the most important.
[1] Cf. the Instruction Varietates legitimae (1994) 36: ‘The
process of inculturation does not foresee that creation of new families of
rites; inculturation responds to the needs of a particular culture and leads to
adaptations which still remain part of the Roman Rite.’ The quoted passage ends
with a footnote reference to Bl. Pope John Paul II, discourse to the plenary
assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments, Jan 26, 1991, No. 3: A.A.S. 83 (1991), 940 (in part) ‘Nor is it
intended to mean inculturation as the creation of alternative rites.’
[2] Cf Code of Canon Law 928: ‘The
eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in
another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately
approved.’ (‘Eucharistica celebratio peragatur lingua latina aut alia lingua,
dummodo textus liturgici legitime approbati fuerint.’)
[3] Universae Ecclesiae 26
[4] Certainly before the end of the
Papacy of Pope Damasus (366-384); cf. St Ambrose De Sacramentis 4.5.21ff.
[5] John 19:19-20: ‘And Pilate wrote
a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF
NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title therefore many of the Jews did read:
because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was
written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.’
[6] FIUV PP 5: ‘The Vulgate and the
Ancient Latin Psalters’
[7] St Augustine ‘It is an excellent
thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation,
and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but life.’ (‘Forgiveness and
the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants’, 1.24.34); cf. St
Augustine Epistle 84 and 209.3, on the need for Punic-speaking clergy.
[8] Bl. Pope John XXIII Apostolic
Constitution Veterum Sapientiae 4: ‘Etenim
Ecclesia, ut quae et nationes omnes complexu suo contineat, et usque ad
consummationem saeculorum sit permansura..., sermonem suapte natura requirit
universalem, immutabilem, non vulgarem.’ Quoting Pius XI, Apostolic Letter Offιciorum
omnium (1922) 452. Cf. Pope Pius XII Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947) 60: ‘The use of the Latin language, customary
in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of
unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.’
(‘Latinae linguae usus, ut apud magnam Ecclesiae partem viget, perspicuum est
venustumque unitatis signum, ac remedium efficax adversus quaslibet germanae
doctrinae corruptelas.’)
[9] Veterum Sapientia 3. ‘Suae enim sponte naturae lingua Latina ad
provehendum apud populos quoslibet omnem humanitatis cultum est peraccommodata:
cum invidiam non commoveat, singulis gentibus se aequabilem praestet, nullius
partibus faveat, omnibus postremo sit grata et amica.’
[10] Instruction Varietates legitimae (1994) 49. For the context of this quotation,
see Cf. Varietates legitimae 7: ‘In
some countries, however, where several cultures coexist, especially as a result
of immigration, it is necessary to take account of the problems which this
raises (cf. below No. 49).’ Referring again to this problem, the Instruction
goes on (49): ‘In a number of countries there are several cultures which
coexist and sometimes influence each other in such a way as to lead gradually
to the formation of a new culture, while at times they seek to affirm their
proper identity or even oppose each other in order to stress their own
existence. It can happen that customs may have little more than folkloric
interest. The episcopal conference will examine each case individually with
care: They should respect the riches of each culture and those who defend them,
but they should not ignore or neglect a minority culture with which they are
not familiar. They should weigh the risk of a Christian community becoming inward
looking and also the use of inculturation for political ends.’
[11] Pope Paul VI Instruction Sacrificium laudis (1968): ‘in Ecclesia
Latina christiani cultus humani fons uberrimus et locupletissimus pietatis
thesaurus’.
[12] This point was stressed by the 1971
petition to Pope Paul VI by intellectual and cultural figures from England and
Wales, which led to the ‘English Indult’ of 1971. It read in part: ‘The rite in
question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless
achievements in the arts—not only mystical works, but works by poets,
philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries
and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and
formal Christians.’
[13] This is so in the context of the
traditional Latin of the Roman liturgy, including the Vulgate and the ancient
Latin Psalters: see Position Paper 5, ‘The Vulgate’.
[14] Bl. Pope John XXIII Veterum Sapientia 11, 2: ‘In the
exercise of their paternal care they [sc. Bishops and Superiors General] shall
be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary
changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred
studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will
in this regard or interprets it falsely.’ (‘Paterna
iidem sollicitudine caveant, ne qui e sua dicione, novarum rerum studiosi,
contra linguam Latinam sive in altioribus sacris disciplinis tradendis sive in
sacris habendis ritibus usurpandam scribant, neve praeiudicata opinione
Apostolicae Sedis voluntatem hac in re extenuent vel perperam interpretentur.’)
[15] Constititution on the Sacred
Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, 1:
‘Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in
Ritibus latinis servetur.’ Cf. 101. 1: ‘In accordance with the centuries-old
tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in
the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of
granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use
of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.’ (‘Iuxta
saecularem traditionem ritus latini, in Officio divino lingua latina clericis
servanda est, … singulis pro casibus, iis clericis, quibus usus linguae latinae
grave impedimentum est quominus Officium debite persolvant.’)
[16] Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis
(2007) 62: ‘I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive
the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also
to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the
faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to
sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.’ (‘In universum petimus ut futuri
sacerdotes, inde a Seminarii tempore, ad Sanctam Missam Latine intellegendam et
celebrandam nec non ad Latinos textus usurpandos et cantum Gregorianum
adhibendum instituantur; neque neglegatur copia ipsis fidelibus facienda ut
notiores in lingua Latina preces ac pariter quarundam liturgiae partium in
cantu Gregoriano cantus cognoscant.’) Cf. Canon 249: ‘The program of priestly
formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their
native language but also understand Latin well’ (‘Institutionis sacerdotalis
Ratione provideatur ut alumni non tantum accurate linguam patriam edoceantur,
sed etiam linguam latinam bene calleant’) Cf. also the decree on Priestly
Training of the Second Vatican Council, Optatam
totius 13: concerning seminarians, ‘Moreover they are to acquire a
knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the
sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of
the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a
suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be
greatly encouraged.’
[17] Sacrosanctum Concilium 41-46
[18] Prosper Guéranger ‘L’Année
Liturgique’, published in 15 volumes between 1841 and 1844 (published in
English as ‘The Liturgical Year’ in 1949); Pius Parsch ‘Das
Jahr des Heiles’, published in 3 Volumes in 1923 (published in English as
‘The Church’s Year of Grace’ in 1953); both works were and are widely
disseminated. The text of ‘L’Année Liturgique’ is available at least in
part online in French (http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/gueranger/anneliturgique/index.htm)
and English (http://www.liturgialatina.org/lityear/).
[19] Bl. Pope John Paul II Apostolic
Letter (1980) Dominicae Cenae 10: ‘Non
tamen desunt qui, secundum veteris liturgiae Latinae rationem acriter
instituti, defectum huius “unius sermonis” percipiunt, qui in universo orbe
terrarum unitatem Ecclesiae significat et indole sua dignitatis plena altum
sensum Mysterii eucharistici excitavit.’
[20] Bl. Pope John XXIII, again
quoting Pius XI, speaks of its ‘concise, rich, varied, majestic and dignified
features’ (‘Neque hoc neglegatur oportet, in sermone Latino nobilem inesse
conformationem et proprietatem; siquidem loquendi genus pressum, locuples,
numerosum, maiestatis plenum et dignitatis (4) habet, quod unice et
perspicuitati conducit et gravitati.’) Veterum Sapientia 3, quoting Pius XI,
Epist. Ap. Offιciorum omnium, 1 Aug. 1922: A.A.S. 14 (1922),
452-453.
[21] Pope Benedict XVI Letter to
Bishops accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum (2007)
[22] Instruction Varietates legitimae (1994) 39: The language of the liturgy ‘must
always express, together with the truths of the faith, the grandeur and
holiness of the mysteries which are being celebrated.’ The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam (2001) 27 urges
the development of ‘a sacred style that will come to be recognised as proper to
liturgical language.’
[23] FIUV PP 3: ‘Liturgical Piety and
Participation,’ especially 8-10
[24] The claim that these features
are barriers to participation, made at the Synod of Pistoia, was condemned by
Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (1794)
33: ‘The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the
cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the
principles relating to the order of the liturgy, “by recalling it (the liturgy)
to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language,
by uttering it in a loud voice”; as if the present order of the liturgy,
received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the
forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,— rash,
offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of
heretics against it.’
-----------------------------------
Ends
