Latin to vernacular languages

[markadm]

This is not a question about the Traditional Latin Mass, but rather about the history of it. However, I posted it here, because I was concerned my intent might be misinterpreted if I posted it in the “Liturgy and Sacraments” forum.

Really, it’s a history question.

I happened to find that the XXIInd Session of the Council of Trent says that vernacular languages are prohibited for the Mass (cap. VIII), even mandating that explanations must instead be given.

My question is, then, how did the Church “change her mind”, i.e. how did we get from there all the way to the greater use of the vernacular leading up to the Second Vatican Council. I know after that the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium kind of got misapplied - I am thinking of n. 36§2, but also in respect of the Divine Office, n. 101§1. But how did we get to that thinking…?

Can anyone explain the history? I’ve read about dialogue Masses, and experimental Masses in vernacular in the early 20th Century, and like to know more about how it all came about.

 

[reggieM]

As a hasty overview …

The early/first Christian liturgies were offered in the Greek language (there was probably a Hebrew language version in some places). Just as the Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, so also the prayers were in Greek (we retain the Kyrie Eleison from that time).

In the 4th century (I believe) around the time of Constantine, the Mass was translated into the Latin language. The reason for this was that Latin was being used more widely, and it was actually the vernacular language of the area so the Church wanted the Mass to be better understood.

The Mass stayed in Latin through the Middle Ages through the time when the European vernacular languages emerged.

By the time the vernacular languages of Europe were matured in the 16th century, Protestantism came around and used vernacular in their worship.

The Holy See, wanting to preserve the liturgy and doctrine in the face of the many heresies of the time, published Quo Primum – which not only codified the Roman Mass (which had been celebrated in various forms before) but preserving the Latin language.

From that point, the Church had some friction with Protestantism and the arguments for using Latin alone in the Mass were refined. Popes up through John XXIII affirmed the value and benefit of the Latin language in the liturgy.

There were two main reasons why the Latin language changed to almost entirely vernacular (as I see it).

1. The influence of Eastern Christianity was felt at Vatican II and the Melkite Patriarch heavily questioned why the Western Church was so bound to a non-vernacular language (while the East used vernacular). The Council fathers didn’t have a good reply for that and so they added an “exception” for the vernacular use.
2. That “exception” was also based on the perceived need that was seen in missionary countries – especially in Asia (China) and other very non-Western places where the Latin language was a huge obstacle to evangelization and conversion. Even before Vatican 2, going back some centuries, there were permissions for missionaries to use vernacular in some places.

Then the problem was that once the “exception” to the rule was in place – it ended up becoming the rule.

The apologetical reasons for using Latin in the liturgy sometimes were not very good or consistent.

Personally, I think the best argument is that Latin was used in the Early Church and therefore when we use it today at Mass it links us to that ancient time. All of the other arguments (as I see them) have some major flaws, and perhaps that is one reason why Latin was not retained as much as it should have been.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Here are some reasons for Latin given by Pope John XXIII in Veterum Sapientia:

**The nature of Latin

** Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

**Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

** For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”**7

** **Universal

** Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

**Immutable

** Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

**Non-vernacular

** Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

I’ve never seen arguments for the vernacular come close to the logic of Veterum Sapientia.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

An historical quote from Fr. John Parsons on Latin:

christianorder.com/featur…nus_dec01.html

Liturgical **Language Set Apart

**
For what are the facts? Historically the liturgy, like the Faith, has been received by cultures as a sacrosanct whole at the time of conversion, and has never been put into another language thereafter. Whether that language was the vernacular or not, seems to be utterly arbitrary and a matter of historical accident. In Italy, Gaul and Spain, the Latin liturgy was initially vernacular, but ceased to be so within five hundred years; the language however remained sacrosanct precisely because it was used for sacred purposes. In Russia, the liturgical language now known as Old Church Slavonic was used for the vernacular version of the Greek books; it is now old Slavonic precisely because it differs from the current language; but because it is sacred, it has been left undisturbed. In Ethiopia the liturgical language is Gheez, which centuries ago was replaced by Amharic as the vernacular; again no change was made to the liturgy. On the other hand, among the Irish, English, Dutch, Germans, Basques, Poles, Swedes, Ceylonese, Bantus, Vietnamese, Finns, Norwegians, Lithuanians, Hungarians and so many others, the liturgy had never been in the vernacular up until the 1960s. And are we to say that these great peoples and cultures were never Christian, never properly evangelized as a result? In South India the Faith had been quietly flourishing for a thousand years prior to the arrival of the Portugese in the sixteenth century, but the liturgy had never been translated and was still celebrated in the Syriac tongue in which it had arrived. English Catholics from St Augustine of Canterbury until the 1960s never used the vernacular for Mass.

                   In the 1960s, when mass literacy, cheap peoples' Missals, and bilingual editions were more in evidence than ever before, and it was thus easier to follow the Mass than ever before, there was less justification than there had ever been for switching to the vernacular. Why then did it happen?

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html

 

[markadm]

Thanks guys. Though I will admit the Fr Parsons quote is at odds with other stuff I heard…

 

[I_Believe]

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

Yes. Feb 1962. The same year JohnXXIII called the Council.
He died in 1963 and six months later in November 1963, the SC was adopted by the Council Fathers, permitting the use of venacular in the Latin Mass. Another six months, after wasting no time, we have the National Canference of Bishop U.S. approving “Text for the ordinary parts of the mass pertaining to the people” . April 1964.

Today, we have priests who can’t read latin.

What’s wrong with this picture ?

Wasn’t anyone reading or listening ? (“Stop the Council” )

John XXIII was good Pope, and it’s sad to read the nonsense that has been written about him.

 

[abucs]

Being too young to be familiar with the TLM may i ask how much of the liturgy is in Latin and how much (and which part) are in the vernacular ?

Also, does the liturgy follow the same structure as the vernacular mass with the congregation responding to the prayers of the priest and also are there differences with how music and singing responses are used ?

Thanks.

 

[Yerusalyim]

So, what about the NO in Latin?

 

[markadm]

So, what about the NO in Latin?

What do you mean?

My question is not about the 1962 Missal or the 1970 one. Rather, it is about how we ended up in the position of wanting to use the vernacular.

abucs: none of the Liturgy is in English, per se, though the Epistle and the Gospel may be repeated in English.

The singing of the responses, etc., depends on the form of the Mass, whether it’s a “Low Mass” (where only the server responds), a “Missa Cantata”/“High Mass” where much is sung, etc. Poking about on Youtube for videos of the TLM would probably help you.

 

[reggieM]

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

I find this part of the argument difficult to reconcile.

If Latin is not a vernacular, then we could see that it could be considered “immutable”. If nobody really used Latin in conversation or discussion, then new words or meanings would not be introduced.

But this might suggest that it’s not a good idea for people to learn Latin and use it as a vernacular language. In other words, Latin is better because nobody speaks, writes or uses it in daily life. It’s better for the liturgy because nobody speaks it.

This also conflicts with a couple of other ideas – first, if Latin is a universal language, it needs to be used an understood – much like a vernacular.
Secondly, if ecclesiastical meetings are conducted in Latin, then the listeners have to know it well enough to understand it. This would also introduce more modern terms that theology needs to include in discussions – thus the Latin language would change with modern terminology.

This argument does have it’s value, but it’s also a bit confusing (as I see it).

 

[TMC]

I find this part of the argument difficult to reconcile.

If Latin is not a vernacular, then we could see that it could be considered “immutable”. If nobody really used Latin in conversation or discussion, then new words or meanings would not be introduced.

But this might suggest that it’s not a good idea for people to learn Latin and use it as a vernacular language. In other words, Latin is better because nobody speaks, writes or uses it in daily life. It’s better for the liturgy because nobody speaks it.

This also conflicts with a couple of other ideas – first, if Latin is a universal language, it needs to be used an understood – much like a vernacular.
Secondly, if ecclesiastical meetings are conducted in Latin, then the listeners have to know it well enough to understand it. This would also introduce more modern terms that theology needs to include in discussions – thus the Latin language would change with modern terminology.

This argument does have it’s value, but it’s also a bit confusing (as I see it).

The worst part of the argument that a non-vernacular language is superior to the vernacular, is that Latin was the vernacular when it was adopted. Latin provides a traditional link to the past, and a link across the various cultures within the Church, but that is the only argument that carries any weight to me.

This is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the use of vernacular and Latin in 2003:

Generally, I think it was good to translate the liturgy in the spoken languages because we will understand it; we will participate also with our thinking. But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.” So generally, popular language is a solution. But some presence of Latin could be helpful to have more experience of universality.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

The worst part of the argument that a non-vernacular language is superior to the vernacular, is that Latin was the vernacular when it was adopted.

Perhaps, but I think the argument still has value. Suppose a teaching was defined when Latin was the vernacular. That’s not a problem, as we can all agree, since at that time everyone wuld know what was meant. Of course, the doctrine would be translated into various languages, all vernacular, and still there would be no problem.

As time progressed, Latin became a non-vernacular language and ceased to be commonly used. As such, it was no longer vulnerable to change. However, all of the other languages continued the natural process by which certain words and phrases adopt different meanings over time. By this time, it would be correct and prudent to support the use of Latin, since it alone would reliably convey the true doctrine defined in the beginning, when even Latin was vernacular.

This should be intuitive - even if a language was once a vernacular, if it ceases to be so then it becomes the best candidate for immutably handing down the doctrine of the Church. Indeed by 1922 (I’m sure there are earlier quotes, I have a very limited selection) Pope Pius XI would explain precisely this.

“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time … of its very nature requires a language that is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” -Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The worst part of the argument that a non-vernacular language is superior to the vernacular, is that Latin was the vernacular when it was adopted. Latin provides a traditional link to the past, and a link across the various cultures within the Church, but that is the only argument that carries any weight to me.

This is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the use of vernacular and Latin in 2003:

Yet a multitude of vernacular languages were not adopted (as is the case today). If the Church went to a country where Latin was not the vernacular, they didn’t start celebrating Mass in a language other than Latin. Every liturgical language starts somewhere, even the Hebrew of the Jewish people.

 

[markadm]

I don’t particularly like the non-vernacular language argument, but it is a true one: the Church does use Latin as a non-changing reference point. It is also true to say that “living” languages change by being used, hence Latin has that non-changing quality.

 

[TMC]

I don’t particularly like the non-vernacular language argument, but it is a true one: the Church does use Latin as a non-changing reference point. It is also true to say that “living” languages change by being used, hence Latin has that non-changing quality.

The unchanging quality of the non-vernacular has a certain appeal, but I think its a false appeal. I think it makes sense to preserve the original of any text in the original language. That is the best way to preserve the original meaning. So copies of the original Latin can be preserved and used to make new translations, and so forth. But saying the liturgy in Latin does not prevent confusion over the meaning of the liturgy, because people still need to translate the Latin into their vernacular (even if only mentally) to know what they are saying. Even if they learn to speak Latin, the same issue of understanding what the Latin really means arises, just as it would with a vernacular or a translation. So preserving the Latin as the official text makes sense, but using Latin in the Mass does little (if anything) to ensure the faithful have the same understanding.

I suppose some might say that using words that would mean the correct thing if properly understood is more important than whether the faithful really understand, but I don’t think the Mass works that way.

 

[Yerusalyim]

My question is not about the 1962 Missal or the 1970 one. Rather, it is about how we ended up in the position of wanting to use the vernacular.

Latin became the language of the Church because there was a time when most everyone spoke latin…and all educated people did. This ceased to be true long ago.

Because most people do not speak or understand latin. The bishops correctly decided that mass in the vernacular allowed the faithful to more fully participate with their whole being in the mass.

 

[markadm]

Latin became the language of the Church because there was a time when most everyone spoke latin…and all educated people did. This ceased to be true long ago.

Just today I read something that said that was not true - that the vast majority of people attending Mass hadn’t a scoobie what the words meant. Further in the same piece I read the assertation by Fr Uwe Lang:

'This was not an adoption of the “vernacular” language in the liturgy, given that the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were remote from the idiom of the common people.

‘It was a strongly stylized language that an average Christian in Rome of late antiquity would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low by the standards of today…’

In the same piece, the author (not Fr Uwe Lang) says that the Latin of the liturgy reverted to ‘a Christianized Latin drawn from the classical era which was not readily understood by the common people, but understandable enough that it produces mystery’.

What they both say makes sense. After all, if everyone understood the Latin of the Mass as a vernacular, why does Trent, whilst saying the vernacular is not to be employed, mandate the explanation of what is going on (XXII sess., cap. viii)?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The unchanging quality of the non-vernacular has a certain appeal, but I think its a false appeal. I think it makes sense to preserve the original of any text in the original language. That is the best way to preserve the original meaning. So copies of the original Latin can be preserved and used to make new translations, and so forth. But saying the liturgy in Latin does not prevent confusion over the meaning of the liturgy, because people still need to translate the Latin into their vernacular (even if only mentally) to know what they are saying. Even if they learn to speak Latin, the same issue of understanding what the Latin really means arises, just as it would with a vernacular or a translation. So preserving the Latin as the official text makes sense, but using Latin in the Mass does little (if anything) to ensure the faithful have the same understanding.

I suppose some might say that using words that would mean the correct thing if properly understood is more important than whether the faithful really understand, but I don’t think the Mass works that way.

First, if someone really learns a language, as C.S. Lewis noted in “Surprised by Joy”, eventually there will be no English word interceding. The person will begin to “think” in that language.

Second, it makes a huge difference in having the Mass celebrated in Latin and the people having access to the text. This is because committees like the ICEL would not be able to get away with shoddy “dynamic” translations because almost anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Latin could tell that they were shoddy. With the liturgy celebrated almost exclusively in the vernacular the people have to rely completely on the translation and they have little opportunity to know whether or not the translation is accurate. And if people do need to translate some of the Latin in their heads, their motivation will be to translate accurately. They will want to know what the Latin really says. This is a far different motive than what seems to motivate a number of liturgists who want to put the translation into “street level” language and can trim or alter the translation according to their predilections.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Latin became the language of the Church because there was a time when most everyone spoke latin…and all educated people did. This ceased to be true long ago.

Because most people do not speak or understand latin. The bishops correctly decided that mass in the vernacular allowed the faithful to more fully participate with their whole being in the mass.

First, it ought to be noted, that a majority of Bishops did not envision the Mass to be entirely in the vernacular. Sacrosanctum Concilium even calls for the people to learn the parts *in Latin *which pertained to them so they could more fully participate in the Mass. And Latin was to be retained in the Roman rite. In fact, Archbishop Dwyer related that when the Bishops were discussing the use of the vernacular in the liturgy one Bishop said that they ought to be careful or the entire Mass could end up in the vernacular. The Bishops all laughed because they thought that idea was absurd and wouldn’t happen.

 

[TMC]

First, if someone really learns a language, as C.S. Lewis noted in “Surprised by Joy”, eventually there will be no English word interceding. The person will begin to “think” in that language.

Second, it makes a huge difference in having the Mass celebrated in Latin and the people having access to the text. This is because committees like the ICEL would not be able to get away with shoddy “dynamic” translations because almost anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Latin could tell that they were shoddy. With the liturgy celebrated almost exclusively in the vernacular the people have to rely completely on the translation and they have little opportunity to know whether or not the translation is accurate. And if people do need to translate some of the Latin in their heads, their motivation will be to translate accurately. They will want to know what the Latin really says. This is a far different motive than what seems to motivate a number of liturgists who want to put the translation into “street level” language and can trim or alter the translation according to their predilections.

So we should have Latin Mass because we can’t trust the Church to translate it properly, or it is unable to translate it properly? But we are confident we can teach 1 Billion catholics Latin to a high level of fluency? Why don’t we just get better translations. Teaching a billion people a foreign language seems a long way around this problem.