The Incomparable Latinity of the Church’s Prayer: Two Newly-Released Books

It is characteristic of our strange in-between times that, while officialdom in the Church frowns severely upon all manifestations of tradition, be it in the wearing of cassocks and lace or the use of a bimillennial liturgy or the defense of the decalogue, “on the ground” there is a never-ending stream of indications that tradition is seeping in everywhere and saturating the rising generations who still believe in Christ. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the world of publishing, where nine out of ten books appearing on liturgy, sacraments, spirituality, and the like are either markedly conservative or defiantly traditional in approach.

Today I am pleased to announce the nearly simultaneous release of two books—the one by a living writer familiar to all NLM readers, namely, Dr. Michael Foley; the other a reprint, after many decades, of a valuable preconciliar work by Fr. C.C. Martindale—that have, in their distinctive ways, very similar concerns. Both are written to expound and exult in the enormous riches, the world of subtlety, the colorful details, of the Church’s specifically Latin orations, which no vernacular language can convey or capture.

The New Book

Michael P. Foley. Lost in Translation: Meditating on the Orations of the Traditional Roman Rite. Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2023. 302 pages. Paper $21.95; Cloth $32.

Publisher’s Description: At every celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, one of the greatest achievements of Christian culture passes by virtually unnoticed. The orations of the Roman Rite—the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion—are literary masterpieces: a unique species of rhetoric, they ingeniously combine tight structure, poetic rhythm, literary order, succinct imagery, and a panoply of human experience. These brilliant gems are underappreciated because much of their splendor comes from their deft exploitation of Latin, which, like any other language, has its own ecosystem and way of doing things. As a result, even the best translations will leave something out.

Lost in Translation was written to introduce readers to these gems even if they do not know Latin. In its pages Michael Foley explains one or more orations for every Sunday of the Church year and for a number of Saints’ feast days, unearthing the subtle nuances and vivid images that make these prayers such a delight. The result is a new portal into the beauty of sacred liturgy and the mystery of our redemption.

Praise for “Lost in Translation”

“The orations of the classical Roman Rite are rich and illuminating, especially when placed in their proper context: the days and seasons of the liturgical year. Acting as missal mystagogue, Michael Foley takes us on a delightful tour from Advent to Apocalypse, unpacking the prayers’ dense content, reveling in their linguistic finesse, and applying their lessons to our spiritual life hic et nunc. Food for prayer and kindling for homilies, Lost in Translation is guaranteed to intensify the reader’s astonishment at the treasure-chest of tradition, with the orations as its diamonds, emeralds, and rubies.” —PETER A. KWASNIEWSKI

“In this excellent book, Michael Foley skillfully guides us through the liturgical year using the Collects, Secrets and Postcommunions of the traditional Roman Rite. These liturgical prayers of the Church are crammed full of theological, biblical, and patristic insights as well as poetry, imagery, and wordplay, all of which can often be overlooked in vernacular translations. Dr. Foley’s valuable insights are sure to prove spiritually fruitful for laity and clergy alike, and will no doubt be a source of fresh inspiration for those entering into the Church’s traditional liturgy.” —MATTHEW P. HAZELL

“In clear, conversational prose, Michael Foley attentively studies the orations of select Masses of the 1962 Roman Missal in their context. His meditations foster personal inner appropriation of the Church’s common prayer and teach us how the prayers school our desires. Foley’s work is pleasantly enriched by the pertinent inclusion of words from Fathers and Doctors of the Church and of historical facts and customs that tell us about a feast’s celebration or highlight theological and spiritual truths presented in its Mass texts.” —LAUREN PRISTAS

Available directly from the publisher here or from Amazon (here, or at any other country’s site).

The Reprint

C.C. Martindale, SJ. The Words of the Missal. Lincoln, NE: Os Justi Press, 2023 (originally published by the Macmillan Company in 1932). 226 pages. Paperback $17.95.

For those unfamiliar with him, Cyril Charlie Martindale (1879–1963) was a Catholic priest, scholar, and writer, who, with fellow Jesuit Martin D’Arcy, was among England’s foremost Catholics of the first half of the twentieth century. He kept up a correspondence with such figures as Ronald Knox, Evelyn Waugh, and Graham Greene. In 1931, Fr Martindale wrote a fine and accessible study of key Latin words in the Missale Romanum, with this admirable goal: “All I want is that this book may help people to pray still better, and to love the Missal still better, so that what is old and familiar shall reveal new beauty and lovableness.”

The resulting book, accurately (if not excitingly) entitled The Words of the Missal, long out of print, has now been reprinted by Os Justi. Here are some words from the Introduction:

If you read St. John or St. Paul, you are almost sure to love their works, or at least some parts of them. But if you take real trouble to find out what exactly their words mean—Faith, for example; Justice; Fulness; Spirit; Light—their value begins to glow forth from within, and the page becomes transfigured and quite different from what it was before you took the pains to pause, compare, ponder, and to catch all manner of elusive shades and depths of meaning in such words. When you re-read those writers you will not any more have to spend time over such details, nor find yourself pulled up or committed to any complicated work, but the flow and the glory of the inspired pages will be a new thing for you.

          Something similar can be done with the Roman Missal. The Latin words in the Missal at times float and waver, and require care before they perfectly yield up their sense. Others have so definitely "Latin" a flavour that it is very difficult to translate them exactly into English; still, the attempt should be made, along with a little explanation. Others may seem so ordinary that we might take them for granted and not notice some of the richer meaning that is theirs.
          The method of this book, then, is quite simply to take a few of the words which come often in the Missal so as to be in a certain sense “favourite” words in the Liturgy, or else, other words that we might not notice; to collect several instances of their use (for isolated instances prove little; many exercise a cumulative effect); and then, to “worry” them until a kind of valuable juice of meaning is crushed out of them. Certainly no reader would be expected to attend to such details during Mass itself; but, having done it outside of Mass, he will find that Mass becomes full of added delight.

The Table of Contents:

Introduction
1 “Rejoice in the Lord”
2 Human Fragility
3 The Divine Initiative
4 God’s Hand of Power
5 God’s Largesse
6 Man’s Transformation
7 Drastic Discipline
8 How the Church Speaks to God and How We Should Think of Him
9 The Wording of Our Payers
10 The Mysticism of the Missal
11 The Light of Life
12 Newness of Life
13 Charity, Unity, Peace
14 Lights and Shades of Meaning
15 Delicacies of Meaning
Appendix: Latin and English
Postscript

Available directly from the publisher here or from Amazon (here, or at any other country's site).

Although Fr. Martindale speaks generally of “the missal,” in fact nearly all of his examples are drawn from the orations. That makes the Foley book and the Martindale book wonderfully complementary to each other, as each covers different parts of this vast territory and by different methods: Foley looking one by one at particular days or feasts in the Church calendar, Martindale exploring themes across the entire missal.

May books like these restore among eager Catholics the knowledge, appreciation, and savor of the wisdom of our inherited tradition—and may they help to bury, once and for all, the folly of those who claim that all of the Latin Church’s tradition of prayer can be effectively conveyed in vernacular. It cannot be, and these books demonstrate it with atomic force.

A New Latin Hymn for the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe

A new Latin hymn for liturgical use was commissioned earlier this year by the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, and composed by Latinist Sean Pilcher. The hymn’s organ accompaniment was originally written by the prolific French organist and improviser Pierre Cochereau (1924-84), who worked as the titular organist of Notre-Dame de Paris for three decades. Its meter is drawn from a twelfth-century sequence Jerusalem et Sion Filiae, which was sung on the feast of the Dedication of a Church in the Use of Paris. This sequence was written by by the cathedral’s famous precentor, Adam of Saint-Victor (1080 ca. – 1146), whose liturgical compositions were well-known across Europe.

The interior of the main church at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, with a reproduction of the tilma in the apse over the main altar. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Pgnielsen79, CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Shrine wanted a Latin hymn which could be sung to Cochereau’s organ masterpiece, but which focused on Our Lady’s patronage of the Shrine and highlighted elements from the Guadalupe story. The metre is decidedly mediaeval, and resembles that of the original Victorine repertoire of the twelfth century, while incorporating images from the greater, more ancient Marian hymnody of the Roman rite.

Since the hymn’s debut at an organ recital given by the shrine’s Director of Sacred Music and organist, Scott Turkington, it has been used liturgically for Pontifical Masses and religious professions held there.

The hymn, followed by a translation and some brief commentary by the author, to whom we are very grateful for sharing it with us.

Ad Virginem Guadalupanam	A literal English translation
Beato e caelo succurrere Parvulum Alma in itinere Ioannes, inquit, noli timere: Ave Maria!	From the blessed heavens the Sweet Mother comes to aid her little one on the way. ‘John,’ she said, ‘fear not!’ Ave Maria!
Verbum Sapientiae mundana Tunc ignotum in terra pagana Vincit cum ancilla christiana, Ave Maria!	The Word of Wisdom, then unknown, in that pagan land, comes to conquer worldliness with His Christian handmaid Ave Maria!
Regina sui petit honori, Solemne signum impugnatori Sacrum et genti et novo orbi, Ave Maria!	The Queen bids for her honour a solemn sign, set against the Adversary, sacred to the people and the New World Ave Maria!
Kaloni pallium fidelibus A Dei manu incredentibus, Pictum rosis, luna sub pedibus, Ave Maria!	She gives a tilma to her little minister for the faithful, painted by the hand of God for unbelievers, with roses, and the moon beneath her feet. Ave Maria!
Eburneam turrem advolamus Subter caeruleo superamus, Speculo Iustitiae collaudemus: Ave Maria!	We fly to the Tower of Ivory, under her caerulean veil we prevail, let us say to the Mirror of Justice: Ave Maria!

The first letters of each stanza form an acrostic to honor the patron of both the shrine and the hymn, His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal BVRKE; inclusion of the patron in some way into a work is of course a long-standing tradition in sacred art. The Latin word “pallium – cover, cloak” is used in other places in the Roman liturgy to describe the miraculous tilma. “Calo” is a very old loanword from Greek, possibly even Punic, meaning a low-ranking servant or an aide-de-camp, a fitting title for St Juan Diego, who lived his remaining years as a hermit in quiet, humble service to Our Lady. It is here spelled with a K, a device often employed by medieval writers to fit an acrostic when required, since the letter is not normally used in Latin. “Speculum Justitiae – Mirror of Justice” is the title under which canonists invoke Our Lady, and is used here as a tribute to the important contributions to canon law made by the shrine’s founder, as well as the annual conference held there for canonists.

“What if all these brilliant innovators were nothing more than a bunch of atrocious imbeciles?”: Msgr. Celada on the 1960s

Last October 24, I published here a translation of a remarkable open letter written by Msgr. Domenico Celada in 1969. What follows is an article he published late in February 1969 in the periodical Il Tempo. Enjoy the clarity of this distinguished musicologist and — we must surely say looking back — prophet of the Lord. —PAK

A “beat” Mass in Italy, from a book by Msgr. Celada

I remember having written, in the April-June 1966 issue of a music magazine, a note on the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council. Those were the months in which the destructive plan of certain “liturgists” was taking shape, in all its tragic significance, and they had come to propose those so-called “youth masses,” accompanied by dance-hall orchestras, which represent—even leaving aside any consideration of a religious nature—the triumph of ignorance and stupidity.

I wrote at the time: “The sacred liturgy is going through a period of great crisis, perhaps the most painful in its history. Never has there been so much decadence and confusion: it was truly reaching rock bottom.”

On that occasion I received messages of consent and praise, I can well say, from every part of the Catholic world: letters from simple faithful, from many priests and parish priests, even from bishops and cardinals. However, to be honest, I must say that I also received a strong “reprimand” from the ecclesiastical office in charge of the so-called liturgical reform, an office known by the name of “Consilium,” about which there is already a vast literature that is certainly not benevolent.

The emitter of the “reprimand,” written on official letterhead, with a coat of arms and a protocol number, began by expressing his shock at my diagnosis of a “crisis” in the liturgy, and maintained, on the contrary, that “the liturgy is going through one of its most flourishing and promising periods”; after which he declared that my remarks were of a “supine falsity,” and that the entire text represented an “offensive insinuation” and a “subjective and erroneous evaluation.” My prose was, moreover, “disconcerting, brazen, offensive, and audacious.”

I barely emerged, though completely unharmed, from that landslide of adjectives, grouped in foursomes, under which I could have been suffocated. Not even three years have passed since then.

About twenty days ago, I opened L’Osservatore Romano and found a seven-column article (an entire page of the daily newspaper of the Holy See!) entitled “History of the Church and Crisis of the Church.” [1] In it, the distinguished historiographer Hubert Jedin writes verbatim: “There is first of all, visible to all, the liturgical crisis, not to speak of chaos. When today, on a Sunday morning, one goes around the parish churches of a city, one finds in each one a divine service differently ‘organized’; one encounters omissions; one sometimes hears readings different from those provided for by the liturgical ordo; if one then comes to another country whose language one happens not to know, one feels quite a stranger.”

It seems important to note that Hubert Jedin, in his clear diagnosis of the current situation of the Church, mentions “first and foremost”—even before the crisis of faith—precisely the liturgical crisis, now “visible to all.” Considering the authority of the writer and that of the Vatican newspaper, which never hosts an article except after the most rigorous control, one must conclude that today the crisis of the liturgy is an indisputable fact, and that it is licit to speak and write about it without fear of receiving missives full of unflattering adjectives. [2]

On the other hand, many things have happened in three years. The Congregation of Rites was forced to intervene against the many arbitrary experiments with a “declaration” of December 29, 1966 (which, moreover, remained a dead letter), and the pope himself, in the famous allocution of April 19, 1967, expressed his pain and apprehension about what is happening in the liturgical field, emphasizing the “disturbance of the faithful” and denouncing a certain mentality aimed at the “demolition of authentic Catholic worship,” also implying “doctrinal and disciplinary subversions.”

But of particular interest is the comparison that the scholar makes between the crisis experienced by the Church in the sixteenth century and that of the present time. How did the Church overcome this earlier crisis? Jedin answers: “Not by renouncing her authority, nor by accepting equivocal formulas of compromise, nor by welcoming the liturgical chaos created [at that time] by arbitrary innovations in the divine service.”
 

Trent: a model of what to do in a time of crisis

This is very true. If the Tridentine decrees re-established the security of faith, the Missal and Breviary issued by St. Pius V further unified the liturgy. In fact, we must not forget that the “lex orandi,” according to the ancient saying, is also the “lex credendi”: the law of faith. It therefore seems logical that today’s “licentia orandi” corresponds to a “licentia credendi.”

Hubert Jedin writes: “I fear that before long, in some places, one will no longer find a Latin missal...” And yet (the scholar recalls), “the Liturgical Constitution itself (art. 36) maintains the Latin liturgy as a rule, the same way as it was before. Would it not be nonsense for the Catholic Church in our century—in the century of the unification of the world—to completely renounce such a precious bond of unity, as is the Latin liturgical language? Would this not amount to a very belated slide into a nationalism already considered outdated?”

These are purely rhetorical questions, since the inexplicable renunciation of Latin has already practically taken place “in fraudem legis”: against the obligatory nature of a conciliar law that clearly prescribes the preservation of the use of Latin, and against the right of the Catholic faithful to the enjoyment of a common good.

Now, having broken the unity of the language and destroyed the identity of the rites, the chaos has extended from the liturgical field to the doctrinal one. Already in April 1967, Paul VI began to lament “something very strange and painful,” the “alteration of the sense of the one and only genuine faith.” But this was the consequence, with a perfect and inexorable logic, of tampering with the grandiose edifice of the Liturgy—that is, of having translated, mutilated, and replaced texts and formulas that in themselves represented a “summa” of piety and doctrine. One understands today more than ever the truth of Pius XII’s teaching in the encyclical Mediator Dei: “The use of the Latin language is a clear and noble sign of unity, and an effective antidote to any corruption of pure doctrine.”

The crisis of the liturgy is now indeed “visible to all.” Many deceptions have been discovered. In spite of this, the innovators continue to work with the zeal of those who are not quite sure of themselves, they continue to tamper with, distort, and demolish what little remains. A recent conference of liturgists was held to discuss “new Eucharistic prayers” and a new “ordo Missae”... [3]

With regard to these obstinate reformers who are disrupting the liturgy, the famous Catholic novelist François Mauriac wrote not long ago: “I ask myself, in a sudden panic: what if all these brilliant innovators were nothing more than a bunch of atrocious imbeciles? Then there would be no more escape: for it has happened that the deaf regain their hearing, that the blind see again; it has even happened that the dead are resurrected; but there is no proof, no document, about an idiot who has ceased to be an idiot.”

It seems to me that the French academician is a bit too pessimistic. He seems to have forgotten that any idiot, even if he cannot cease to be an idiot, can simply be put in a condition not to do harm.
 

Fra Paolo Sarpi (1552–1623), “Eviscerator of the Council of Trent”: a nickname better suited to Annibale Bugnini?

NOTES

[1] This article appeared in the January 15, 1969 issue of L’Osservatore Romano.

[2] Angered by this article of Hubert Jedin, Annibale Bugnini wrote a private letter of protest to the author—and was later careful to quote it at length in his tome The Reform of the Liturgy (p. 283). This impassioned attack on the Church’s liturgical practice for most of her history must surely be one of the most remarkable passages ever written by a Catholic (if its author may be considered such):

As a good historian who knows how to weigh both sides and reach a balanced judgment, why did you not mention the millions and hundreds of millions of the faithful who have at last achieved worship in spirit and in truth? Who can at last pray to God in their own languages and not in meaningless sounds, and are happy that henceforth they know what they are saying? Are they not “the Church”? As for [Latin as] the “bond of unity”: Do you believe the Church has no other ways of securing unity? Do you believe there is a deep and heartfelt unity amid lack of understanding, ignorance, and the “dark of night” of a worship that lacks a face and light, at least for those out in the nave? Do you not think that a priestly pastor must seek and foster the unity of his flock—and thereby of the universal flock—through a living faith that is fed by the rites and finds expression in song, in communion of minds, in love that animates the Eucharist, in conscious participation, and in entrance into the mystery? Unity of language is superficial and fictitious; the other kind of unity is vital and profound… Here in the Consilium we are not working for museums and archives, but for the spiritual life of the people of God.

[3] This article was published in late February 1969, only about six weeks before Paul VI issued his apostolic constitution Missale Romanum promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.

A Formidable Apologia for Traditional Catholicism, by Dr Joseph Shaw

In a time like ours, when ignorance, half-truths, and outright lies seem to dominate the airwaves, classrooms, halls of power, and even church pulpits, Catholics need access to the unvarnished truth of the Faith as it powerfully confronts the errors and misdirections of the modern age. But where are we to find such help?

Dr. Joseph Shaw, president of the International Federation Una Voce and Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England & Wales, has distinguished himself as one of the finest writers today on a host of difficult and controversial questions. Os Justi Press is pleased to announce the release of Dr. Shaw's latest book: The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity.

The book is divided into three parts.

The first part examines the place of the ancient Catholic liturgy in modernity, defending it, against the misunderstandings of modernists, as something supremely suited to engage our deepest instincts towards the worship of God. Chapter 1 tells what Shaw discovered about the Church along the path of discovering the ancient Roman rite; chapter 2 looks at the purpose of liturgy; chapter 3 gives an account of the history of liturgy, explaining how it is conceptually and practically possible for a heritage to be both received as a “changeless given” and also enhanced and developed over time; chapter 4 develops the role of Latin in fostering participation (yes, you read that correctly!); and chapters 5 and 6 delve into the ways in which rituality, contrary to a standard narrative, is a cause of freedom rather than of confinement.

The second part turns to the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and addresses a series of lines of attack on those Catholics attached to the traditional Latin Mass—notably the attempt to link them to the crisis of clerical abuse. Here Dr. Shaw fearlessly probes what Vatican II actually accomplished “on the ground”; the intimate link between orthodoxy in doctrine and tradition in liturgy (and the contrary); true and false notions of diversity; the Freudian origins of the discourse about the “rigidity” of conservatives or backwardists; the need to assess rightly the meaning of “clericalism” and how it relates to abuse; and the damage done by means of so-called “sex education,” which has been allowed to take over unresisted by the postconciliar hierarchy.

In the third part Dr. Shaw addresses one of the most contested issues of our times, sexuality and gender roles, and asks what, if anything, the Church can still say about them. Partly agreeing with and partly correcting the theory of Leon Podles, Shaw explains the sense in which there has been a “feminization” of Christianity -- yet one that was to a large extent resisted in the Catholic Church by a patriarchal theology, liturgy, and structures until after the Council. He offers what is certainly one of the best expositions of male headship, natural and supernatural, in any available literature, and offers a powerful critique of the sexual revolution as a betrayal of women. Lastly, he looks at the family as the locus of culture and transmission of the faith, especially in an era when the hierarchy have largely abandoned both.

Your gut feeling that something has gone badly wrong in the Catholic Church is, in fact, correct; your intuition that it has something to do with our divine worship is right on target; your instinct that the response must come from deep within the family and deep within our bimillenial tradition is entirely accurate. Dr. Shaw's book explains just how all this is true; how we ought to evaluate the secularizing path the Church has trodden in recent decades; and what we, who wish to live the Faith, can do, here and now, to restore a healthy and sacred culture.

The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity is available either directly from Os Justi Press (shipping within the USA) or from any Amazon outlet.

Here is a video about this book:

“Shaw doesn’t propose that we turn back the clock, but reveals a path ahead out of the current crisis through a mature dialectic with those modern ecclesiastical developments that allow for a recovery of the tradition that belongs to all Catholics by a claim of right.” – Dr Sebastian Morello, European Conservative

“I commend it very enthusiastically.” – Fr John Hunwicke, Mutual Enrichment Blog

“With this book, Joseph Shaw provides Traditionalist Catholics with an antidote to such madness when dealing with our own deepest concerns, showing how the problems of the liturgy, the family, and the crises brought about by Modernity's Original Sins must be tackled as a unit, and with respect for historical mistakes.” – Dr John Rao, Roman Forum

“For after all these years, it is rare to find something as fresh, as thought-provoking, as original as the exploration of the crisis in these pages—one that marries acute, up-to-the-minute observation of unfolding secular trends with a striking inquest into the deep, underlying reasons for these trends (or rather tragedies).” – Roger Buck, author of The Gentle Traditionalist

“These essays are marked not only by clarity of style and breadth of knowledge, but also by something even more welcome: fresh thinking.” – Fr Thomas Crean, O.P., author of The Mass and the Saints

* * *

N.B. For readers in the United Kingdom:

There will be an official book launch with a talk by the author, refreshments, and a chance to buy the book at a reduced price, on Thursday, March 9, at 6:30 pm, in St Wilfrid's Hall at the London Oratory.

Was Liturgical Latin Introduced As (and Because It Was) the “Common Tongue”?

In a lecture published recently at Church Life Journal, “In the Swarm: The Liturgy and Liquid Identity,” Angela Franks offers an intriguing analysis of “solid” and “liquid” aspects of Christianity and the impact this should have on our concept of pastoral care. The article — a keynote address for the Society for Catholic Liturgy — contains much insight: her general line is reminiscent of John Henry Newman’s emphasis on ecclesial development as an enrichment and articulation of what is always already given in Christ and in the deposit of faith.

One must, however, take exception to an illustration Dr. Franks offers from liturgical history, where she unfortunately repeats a misconception that has shown a remarkable resilience against all attempts to correct it. Here is what she writes:

We need solidity… Let us not, however, dismiss too quickly the balancing reality of liquidity. The history of the development of the liturgy and of sacramental theology bears this out as well. I will not attempt to delve into this history, but let us take one simple example: the changes in the liturgical languages of the Church. Very early Christian liturgy privileged Greek (although not exclusively), as the language of Scripture and the universal “common” (koine) tongue, but other rites in the vernacular have ancient roots, such as Coptic and Syrian. The standardization of Latin as the Western liturgical language began to occur when Latin became the “common” tongue. In this and in many other ways, liturgy has developed and changed under the guidance of the Church.

The assertion here is a familiar one: the Christian liturgy was “done in the vernacular,” and whenever the vernacular changed, the language of the liturgy also changed (or, presumably, should have changed). The Latinization of the liturgy in the fourth century is therefore explained simply in terms of wishing to move from an earlier but no longer accessible vernacular (koine Greek) to the vernacular of the day (Latin).

The trouble with this assertion is that it is highly misleading, to say the least, and downright incorrect in some respects. In her classic work Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character, published by CUA Press in 1957 (and happily back in print), Christine Mohrmann (1903–88) explained at length, with an abundance of examples, that the Latin of the early Roman liturgy is anything but the vernacular Latin of its time. It abounded in archaicisms, Hebraisms, legalisms, odd or intricate syntax, and rhetorical tropes. In this respect it was similar to the unusual Greek of the Septuagint and of early Greek Christian liturgies—which should hardly surprise us, given that the Jews themselves continued to use Hebrew in their worship, which, by then, was a language no longer commonly spoken. Indeed, the Son of God would have conducted the Last Supper at least partially in an archaic sacral language. [1]

The discussion of language in Michael Fiedrowicz’s The Traditional Mass: History, Form, and Theology of the Classical Roman Rite is quite illuminating. The entire section (153–78) is well worth reading; I shall quote here only the most immediately pertinent passages.

…Latin translations of the Bible originated in the middle of the second century. But even these developments were not simply a colloquial element within the divine worship. These texts also possessed a sacred stylizing, insofar as the Latin translations bore a strong biblical complexion through a certain literalism, that is, a close following of the scriptural forms of speech, and in this way they acquired a peculiarly foreign style, soon felt to be holy….
       An appreciation for the sacred formation of the holy texts was the inheritance of old Roman religiosity. In order to conform to the requirements of a hieratic style, Christian Latinity first had to be perfected to a certain degree and be capable of rising above everyday speech. If the development of a Christian sacred language thoroughly drew on particular elements of style of old Roman traditions, then such an impartial use of Rome’s cultural inheritance was conceivable only in the later peacetime of the Church (from 313 on) when the pagan religion no longer presented a serious threat to Christianity; and just as confidently as the Church introduced the spoils of heathen temples into her own basilicas, she made the stylistic forms of ancient prayer texts her own. (156–57)
       The use of Latin as a sacred language that stylistically tied in with old Roman traditions would especially have won over to the Christian Faith the influential elite of the empire, who at this time [fourth century] had just begun to discover anew their texts of classical literature. The Church had at its disposal a language of prayer whose content was renewed by revelation and at the same time formally bound to the Roman tradition. (157–58)

And most to the point:

The introduction of Latin into the Roman liturgy, then, certainly did not indicate the abandonment of the principle of a sacred language. In that sense, Latinization cannot be understood as an argument for the vernacular, as though with the change of the liturgical language, the Church in Rome were simply accounting for the fact that the majority of the faithful by then were no longer Greek-speaking, but Latin-speaking Christians. The Latin of the liturgy was identical with neither the classical Latin of Cicero nor the colloquial language, Vulgar Latin. It was, at least in the texts of prayers, a highly stylized form of language, which was not readily understandable to the average Roman of the fourth and fifth centuries: “No Roman had ever spoken in the language or style of the Canon or the prayers of the Roman Mass.”
       It was rather a language that sought to awaken the experience of the sacred and to raise man above the things of this world to God. This rising up to God was accomplished neither by a complete renunciation of language (holy silence, silentium mysticum) nor in the form of glossolalia, the gift of tongues (cf. 1 Cor 14:2), which no longer possessed its communicative character; rather, it was accomplished by means of a sacred language that drew from biblical sources as well as from the hieratic idiom of pagan Rome and, not least of all, also made use of ancient rhetoric. As a glance at the historical development demonstrates, the Church did not slip Latin on as a garment that could be replaced with another at any time. Rather, the Roman Church artistically forged for herself her own Latin for her liturgy, and in it she uniquely expressed her identity. (158)

In his new book The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity—which, incidentally, engages with many of the issues raised by Dr. Franks in her lecture—Dr. Joseph Shaw summarizes and comments on Dr. Mohrmann’s research:

The argument from “expedience” may seem particularly weak today, in light of the stress laid by the reformist party on how the liturgy was translated into Latin to aid the comprehension of the faithful, and how it has been translated into a number of other languages by the churches of the East. This argument, familiar as it is, is misleading. We do not have any records of the reasoning behind the composition of the Latin liturgy, but the kind of Latin used suggests that popular comprehension was not the overriding consideration, in contrast to the importance of appropriating the tradition of solemn and sacred Latin for the use of the Church at a moment when Paganism was no longer a threat….
       The Roman Canon would have been at least as incomprehensible to fourth-century prostitutes and bums as Cicero’s convoluted orations would have been to their predecessors. In such cases the style, vocabulary, and in general the register is not designed for immediate and universal comprehension. In the case of the Roman Canon, we find archaisms, neologisms, Hebraisms and other foreign loan words, and echoes of the unnatural syntax of sacred and legal language. In any case, from an early date, and quite possibly from the start, it was said silently, by a celebrant hidden from the congregation in the nave by curtains. If verbal comprehension was the object of the Latin liturgy’s composition, Pope Damasus (if it was he) and his collaborators went about their task in a most surprising way. (60, 72)

With considerations like these in mind, it becomes clear why we need to be extremely cautious about making claims like “Christian liturgy privileged…the universal ‘common’ tongue” and “the standardization of Latin as the Western liturgical language began to occur when Latin became the ‘common’ tongue.” Both of these claims are demonstrably false.

As to the first, Christian liturgy, even when first rendered in the language of a certain people or cultural sphere, always exhibited peculiar traits that linguists describe as sacral or hieratic, and which would already have sounded that way even to those at the time it was first used, but much more so to those who come in the generations after, given both the continual development of the vernacular and the tendency toward a strong conservatism of forms on the part of the Church in every one of its historic rites.

As to the second claim, Latin was spoken for centuries before the Roman liturgy was rendered in Latin; the reason for the delay, therefore, was not that Latin was not a “common tongue” prior to this, but rather, that it still had pagan associations and lacked the resources needed for a distinctively Christian register suitable for divine worship. When Roman society (above all, in its aristocracy) had become more Christianized and an abundant Christian literature was available, the time was ripe for the Latinization of the Roman liturgy. As Fr Uwe Michael Lang writes in his recently published The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform:

The formation of a Latin liturgical idiom was a major contribution to this project of evangelising Roman culture and thus attracting the influential elites of the city and the empire to the Christian faith. It would not be accurate to describe this process simply as the adoption of the vernacular language in the liturgy, if ‘vernacular’ is taken to mean ‘colloquial’. The Latin of the canon, of the collects and prefaces of the Mass transcended the conversationl idiom of ordinary people. This highly stylised form of speech, shaped to express complex theological ideas, would not have been easy to follow by the average Roman Christian of late antiquity. (109)

Fr Lang also explains why the East saw a profusion of languages (including the Coptic and Syrian of which Dr. Franks makes mention):

The Christian East was in a position to make use of several languages that carried with themselves a certain cultural, social and political weight: in addition to Greek, which retained a strong presence well into the fifth century, Syriac, Coptic Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopic began to be employed in the liturgy. In the Christian West, vernacular languages were not used in divine worship. The case of Roman North Africa is instructive: Augustine held Punic in esteem and made sure that the bishop chosen for a Punic-speaking region knew the language needed for his ministry. However, there are no extant documents of a Punic liturgy, whether Catholic or Donatist. The religious prestige of the Roman church and its bishop helped Latin become the only liturgical language of the West. This would prove an important factor in furthering ecclesiastical, cultural and political unity. Latinitas became one of the defining characteristics of Western Europe. (109–10) [2]

So successful was this endeavor that Latin would remain the mother tongue of the Western Church at prayer for the next 1,600 years. The core of the Roman rite continued intact, while growing organically in its calendar, prayer texts, lectionary, rubrical codification, and artistic externals. Truly one and the same Roman rite, as a person is one and the same, though he was once a child and is now a man; yet also the source of an endless profusion of cultural riches on every continent. Truly, the traditional liturgy demonstrates the most harmonious interplay of the “solid” and the “liquid” in Western history, in support of a transnational and transcultural unity of religion—an interplay and a unity that have been lost in the demotic babelization and ritual fragmentation caused by the postconciliar reforms.

NOTES

[1] “At the time of Christ, the Jews used the language of Old Hebraic for their services, though it was incomprehensible to the people. In the synagogues, only the readings and a few prayers relating to them were written in the mother tongue of Aramaic; the great, established prayer texts were recited in Hebrew. Although Christ adamantly attacked the formalism of the Pharisees in other respects, He never questioned this practice. Insofar as the Passover Meal was primarily celebrated with Hebrew prayers, the Last Supper was also characterized by elements of a sacred language. It is therefore possible that Christ spoke the words of Eucharistic consecration in the Hebrew lingua sacra” (Fiedrowicz, Traditional Mass, 153).

The same author defines “the characteristics of a sacred language” as: “(1) a conscious distancing from the words of colloquial language, which makes the “complete otherness” of the divine felt; (2) an archaizing or at least conservative tendency to favor antiquated expressions and adhere to certain speech forms from centuries ago, as is well-suited for the worship of an eternal and unchanging God; (3) the use of foreign words that evoke religious associations, as, for example, the Hebrew and Aramaic forms of the words alleluia, Sabaoth, hosanna, amen, maranatha in the Greek books of the New Testament; and finally, (4) syntactic and phonetic stylizations (e.g., parallelisms, alliterations, rhymes, and rhythmic sentence endings) that clearly structure the train of thought, are memorable and allow for easy recollection, and strive for tonal beauty” (154–55).

[2] Regarding Roman prestige: one can well understand why Charlemagne would have adopted for the Franks the Latin liturgy of Rome.

What They Requested, What They Expected, and What Happened: An Addendum, from Pope Paul VI

Cardinal Montini, in favour of keeping
the Roman Canon in Latin

As an addendum to Dr Kwasniewski's excellent translations a couple of days ago of what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council requested and expected would happen with regards to the use of vernacular languages in the Mass, I thought I would add something else from the conciliar Acta that NLM readers (and others) may find of interest.

This particular extract comes from the meetings of the Central Preparatory Commission (CPC) of Vatican II, which met over seven sessions held between June 1961 and June 1962. The CPC was the body that was responsible for discussing and refining the schemata drafted by the various preparatory commissions, and which were due to be put before the Council at its first session. The draft Constitution on the Liturgy was discussed by the CPC at its fifth session (26 March to 3 April 1962). Among its members was the Archbishop of Milan, one Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini, who would be elected Pope Paul VI in 1963, and had the following to say about the use of the vernacular in the Mass (my translation: Montini's own emphases are in italics; my emphasis is in bold):

The Latin language, proper to the Roman Rite, must be preserved, for multiple and serious reasons, frequently confirmed by the Church.

But this statement does not invalidate the other, expressed several times, even publicly from the first speakers in this group or heard from the Commission of the Ecumenical Council, that is, “language is not to be attributed as among the first elements of religion (it is not ‘of the essence of religion’, as the philosophers say), even if one and the same language is a clear sign of unity and an effective instrument for the accurate transmission of truth.”

Do we not see the grave and ultimate loss that is imminent? If the common language is excluded from the sacred Liturgy, we will certainly miss the best opportunity to instruct the faithful, to restore divine worship… indeed, this [missed opportunity] happens because of reasons that are not pertinent to ‘the substance of religion’!

The proper or common language of each nation must be used:

In the first part of the Mass (the Liturgy of the word, as it is called): whether in the oration (Collect), because according to the thinking of Saint Paul, the word “Amen” demands the understanding of the people; or in the Introit, since this announces the mystery to be celebrated; or in the Epistle and Gospel, as is clear; or in the Profession of Faith (Creed), which best concludes the teaching of either the Prophet or Apostle or Christ or the Church; or in the oration at the Offertory [i.e. the secret/super oblata], as this is the most excellent invocation of the whole community, already used since the second century of the Christian era, and which provides an opportunity to declare the “intention of the sacrifice”.

In the rest of the Mass, the Latin language will be kept, except perhaps for the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father), which is, as it were, the summit of public prayer, and is the best preparation of souls for Communion.

Even in hymns (cf. Saint Paul), the common language should be used, so that the people can understand their poetry and beauty, and may be easily lifted up to God.

And the Latin text of his intervention at the CPC meeting:

[Lingua latina servanda est ut romani ritus propria, ob multiplices gravesque causas, saepius ab Ecclesia confirmatas.

Sed hoc enuntiatum alterum non infirmat enuntiatum quad saepius, etiam coram Consilio primario seu hac Commissione Oecumenici Concilii audivimus, nempe « linguam non esse inter prima religionis elementa adscribendam (non esse “de essentia religionis”, ut philosophi aiunt), etiamsi una eademque lingua clarum sit signum unitatis atque efficax instrumentum ad veritates accurate tradendas ».

An grave extremumque damnum quad imminet non videmus? Si lingua vulgaris a sacra Liturgia excluditur, optima certe omittitur occasio populum recte instituendi, divinum cultum restaurandi… et hoc quidem fit ob causas quae « ad substantiam religionis » non pertinent!

Lingua uniuscuiusque gentis propria seu vulgaris est adhibenda: In priore Missae parte (Liturgia, ut dicitur, verbi): sive in Oratione (Collecta), quia ex sententia Sancti Pauli, verbum « Amen » exigit ut populus intellegat; sive in Introitu, quippe qui mysterium celebrandum nuntiat; sive in Epistola et in Evangelio, ut patet; sive in Fidei Professione (Credo), quae doctrinam vel Prophetae vel Apostoli vel Christi vel Ecclesiae optime concludit; sive in Oratione ad Offertorium, utpote quae excellentissima totius communitatis sit deprecatio, iam inde a saeculo secundo aevi christiani adhibita, atque occasionem praebeat « intentionem sacrificii » declarandi.

In reliqua Missae parte sermo latinus servetur, excepta fortasse Oratione Dominica (Pater Noster), quae veluti culmen publicae deprecationis est animasque ad Communionem optime parat.

Etiam in canticis (cf. Sanctus Paulus) usurpetur sermo vulgaris ut populus, eorum poësin ac venustatem intellegendo, ad Deum facile elevetur.] (ADP II.3, pp. 86-87)

Pope Paul VI, after he had changed his mind and
decided to "sacrifice" the Latin language 

Readers may also find Cardinal Montini's intervention at the Council itself of interest (AS I.1, pp. 313-316), as it strikes very similar notes to what he had said at the CPC (and, incidentally, in his pre-conciliar votum: ADA II.3, pp. 374-381):

[E]specially when it comes to the language to be used in worship, the use of the ancient language handed down by our forefathers, namely, the Latin language, should for the Latin Church be firm and stable in those parts of the rite which are sacramental and properly and truly priestly. This must be done so that the unity of the Mystical Body at prayer, as well as the accuracy of the sacred formulas, is religiously observed. However, as far as the people are concerned, any difficulty in understanding can be removed in the didactic parts of the sacred Liturgy, and the faithful also given the opportunity to express in comprehensible words their prayers, in which they call upon God. (General Congregation IV, 22 October 1962; my emphasis)

[Latin: [M]axime cum agitur de lingua in cultu adhibenda, usus linguae antiquae et a maioribus traditae, videlicet linguae latinae pro Ecclesia latina, firmus sit ac stabilis in iis partibus ritus quae sunt sacramentales ac proprie vereque sacerdotales. Hoc ideo fieri debet, ut unitas Corporis Mystici orantis accuratio sacrarum formularum religiose serventur. Tamen ad populum quod attinet, quaevis difficultas intelligendi auferatur in partibus didacticis sacrae Liturgiae, ac detur fidelibus quoque facultas exprimendi verbis comprehensibilibus preces suas, quas Deo adhibent.]

That the man who would become Paul VI later allowed the entire Mass, even the Canon, to be celebrated in the vernacular, jettisoning Latin as antithetical to the "understanding" and "participation" of the faithful (see his General Audience of 26 November 1969) – contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers and contrary to his own thoughts just a few years prior – is a tragedy from which the Church is, sadly, still reaping the so-called 'rewards'.

For those who wish to read the Acta of Vatican II for themselves to see what the intentions of the Council Fathers actually were, as opposed to what the partisan defenders of the post-conciliar liturgical reforms frequently tell us they were, 54 of the 62 volumes (along with 2 of the 4 supplementary volumes) at the time of writing are freely available online here.

What They Requested, What They Expected, and What Happened: Council Fathers on the Latin Roman Canon

I’ve heard it said many times that in the mid-1960s, the Vatican was telling people that the Roman Canon would remain fixed, in Latin — and, only a short while later, brand new Eucharistic Prayers were rolled off the assembly line and the vernacular was allowed, if not virtually required. I was reminded of the subject by a post in which Fr. Hunwicke writes about Fr. Bryan Houghton’s Unwanted Priest:

Fr Houghton thought of retiring in 1964, when people started tampering with the Mass. “But I decided against [it]: the 1964 Mass had not touched the Canon — which in theory remained silent and in Latin. It was still possible to say the 1964 Mass with a certain amount of devotion. However, I wrote to the bishop handing in my resignation the day on which the Canon of the Mass was touched. He wrote back a charming letter in which he says: ‘Nobody intends to reform the Canon,’ and that ‘the bishops are there precisely to preserve it.’ Poor, dear Bishop! Little did he know what was going to happen.” Yet Bishop Leo Parker had attended all four sessions of the Council; if even he failed to realise the plots that were being hatched...

Re-reading this anecdote reminded me that I have always wanted to find out more about the bait-and-switch that occurred at and shortly after the Second Vatican Council. So I asked our resident expert on all things conciliar, Matthew Hazell, and he supplied me with the raw data that has been turned into this post (so, thank you Matthew!). You can blame any errors in the translations from Latin on me, as I quickly translated all of them for this post.

Although Matthew and I have not been able to source an official Vatican text that says, in the mid-1960s, that the Canon would remain fixed and in Latin, a substantial body of evidence exists in the Acta of Vatican II that certainly seems to indicate that such a guarantee was understood to be in place. Moreover, in the pre-conciliar vota (that is, the lists of desiderata sent in by bishops from all over the world, talking about what they’d like to see considered at the council), it is striking that even bishops who were happy for the entire Mass to be in the vernacular expressly exclude the Roman Canon. Mentions of the use of the vernacular in the Mass are either in connection with only the Mass of the Catechumens (referred to numerous times as the “teaching part of the Mass” or similar), or come with an “except the Canon” clause, as the following abundant examples demonstrate.

This evidence, taken together with my earlier article “The Council Fathers in Support of Latin: Correcting a Narrative Bias,” is more than sufficient to show that certain figures at the Vatican today are… how shall we say this politely?... telling fibs about Vatican II and the modest liturgical reform that was desired and agreed to.

ADA II.1

+ Leo Pietsch (aux. Seckau, Austria)

[100] De liturgia divina celebranda facultative in lingua vernacula, Sanctae Missae Canone excepto.

[That a faculty should be given for celebrating the divine liturgy in the vernacular, with the exception of the holy Canon of the Mass.]

+ Jean-François Cuvelier, C.Ss.R. (tit. Circesium) [Vicar Apostolic of Matadi, Belgian Congo (independent since 1960, known as Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1997)

[134] Petitur ut ordinariis concedatur facultas permittendi usum linguae vernaculae in missa, saltem pro prima parte i. e. usque ad Canonem, deinde etiam a « Pater noster » usque ad ultimum evangelium inclusive.

[A request is made that a faculty be conceded to ordinaries for permitting the use of the vernacular language in the Mass, at least for the first part, that is, up to the Canon, and then from the Lord’s Prayer up to the last Gospel inclusive.]

+ Félix-Marie-Honoré Verdet (aux. Nice, France)

[496] Optabile est, mea quidem sententia, ut in priore parte Missae sermo patrius amplitudine maiore fruatur, secluso omnino Canone. Epistula et Evangelium praecipue voce magna atque solemniter pronuntientur ea lingua quam fideles multo facilius intelligunt (translatio enim lectionum, ut opinor, tantam vim non habet ut loco usus patrii sermonis esse valeat).

[It would be choiceworthy, in my opinion, that in the first part of the Mass the local language enjoy a greater amplitude, altogether excluding the Canon. The Epistle and Gospel especially should be pronounced solemnly with a loud voice in that language that the faithful can most understand (for a {printed} translation of the reading, in my view, doesn’t have so much force that it prevails over the use of the local language {proclaimed}).]

ADA II.2

+ Patrick Collier (Ossory, Ireland)

[93] Ad fructuosiorem participationem fidelium in sacrificio Missae, nobis videtur esse necessarium habere usum pleniorem linguae vernaculae: id est omnia ante et post Canonem Missae in lingua vernacula, Canon Missae semper in lingua Latina.

[For a more fruitful participation of the faithful in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to us necessary to have a fuller use of the vernacular language: that is, everything before and after the Canon of the Mass in the vernacular language, but the Canon of the Mass always in Latin.]

+ Francisco Maria da Silva (aux. Braga, Portugal)

[625] [I]n administratione sacramentorum ac sacramentalium imo in Sancti Sacrificii Missae celebratione, excepto Canone, lingua vulgari uti possit.

[In the administration of sacraments and sacramentals as well as in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass — with the exception of the Canon — the common language can be used.]

+ Jacques Mangers, S.M. (Oslo, Norway)

[637] Etiam aliae quaestiones vere actuales examinandae sunt, v. g. usus linguae vernaculae in functionibus liturgicis, etiam, in celebratione Missae, Canone excepto…

[Other current questions, too, should be truly examined, e.g., the use of the vernacular language in liturgical functions, even in the celebration of the Mass, except for the Canon.]

Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski

++ Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski (Warsaw, Poland)

[677] Inter primaria media ad protegendam participationem fidelium in sacrificio Missae adhiberi potest introductio linguae vernaculae ad stabiles partes Missae ante Offertorium scilicet ad Gloriam, Lectionem, Evangelium et Credo. Reliquae partes Missae, praesertim in Canone, latine recitandae sunt.

[Among the foremost means for promoting the participation of the faithful in the sacrifice of the Mass may be advanced the introduction of the vernacular language to the stable parts of Mass prior to the Offertory, namely, the Gloria, the Lesson, the Gospel, and the Creed. The remaining parts of the Mass, especially the Canon, should be recited in Latin.]

+ Wacław Majewski (aux. Warsaw, Poland)

[706] Ad augendam activam participationem fidelium in Missae Sacrificio videtur mihi Gloria, Credo, Lectio et Evangelium in lingua [707] vernacula inducendum esse, lingua latina tantum in Canone necnon in mutabilibus Missae partibus esse servanda.

[For increasing the active participation of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it seems to me that the Gloria, Creed, Lesson, and Gospel should be done in the vernacular language, while the Latin language ought to be preserved only in the Canon as well as in the changeable parts of the Mass.]

ADA II.3

+ Guido Maria Mazzocco (Adria, Italy)

[22] Pars Missae quae elata voce a Sacerdote legitur, praesertim illa quae didactica dicitur, lingua vulgari, legenda, meo iudicio, videtur, ita ut omnes dare intelligant, sicut antiquo tempore intelligebant. Unica lingua latina, ubique terrarum, servari poterit [23] in Canone. Tali modo populus in divinis rebus, maxime animae necessariis, extraneus non teneretur.

[The part of the Mass that is read by the priest in an elevated voice, especially those that are called instructional, should be read in the vulgar tongue, in my judgment, so that all may understand, just as they understood in ancient times. One single Latin language, everywhere in the world, ought to be retained in the Canon. In such a way the people may not be bound by what is extraneous in divine things that are most necessary for the soul.] 

+ Giuseppe Bonacini (Bertinoro, Italy)

[105] De S. Missae Sacrificio: S. Missae Sacrificium ad pristinam simplicitatem reddatur, quo populus id altius intelligere et scienter participari possit. Quam ob rem lingua latina in Missa tantum quae dicitur «fidelium», vel potius in solo Canone servetur.

[The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be brought back to its pristine simplicity, by which the people may be able more deeply to understand it and knowingly participate. Nevertheless the Latin language should be kept in the Mass only for the part called “the Mass of the faithful,” or rather, for the Canon alone.] 

+ Danio Bolognini (Cremona, Italy)

[241] In Rituali et Pontificali linguae vernaculae usum augere, eo tamen modo ut lingua latina in formulis Sacramentorum et in S. Missae Canone retineatur.

[Increase the use of the vernacular in the Ritual and the Pontifical, yet in such a way that the Latin language is retained in the formulas of the sacraments and in the Canon of Holy Mass.] 

+ Felicissimo Stefano Tinivella, O.F.M. (Diano-Teggiano, Italy)

[247] Lingua vulgaris in Sacramentorum administratione et functionibus sacris, in Missa extra Canonem, imponatur ut christifideles vitaliter intersint.

[The vulgar tongue should be imposed in the administration of the sacraments and sacred functions, and in the Mass apart from the Canon, so that the faithful may be more vitally involved.] 

++ Angelo Paino (Messina, Italy)

[373] Servata lingua latina in canone Missae et in essentialibus relate ad sacramentorum collationem, optandum videtur ut partes quae ad fidelium instructionem sunt, lingua patria legantur eo fine ut populus attente et digne participet. Pari ratione revisenda videntur caeremoniae et ornamenta ecclesiastica quae non cohaerent nostrae aetatis exigentiis spiritualibus.

[The Latin language being preserved in the Canon of the Mass and in the essentials relating to the conferral of the sacraments, it seems better that the parts that are for the instruction of the faithful should be read in the local language so that the people may participate more attentively and worthily. For the same reason, it seems that the ecclesiastical ceremonies and ornaments ought to be revised which no longer conform to the spiritual needs of our times.]

+Paul Yoshiyuki Furuya

ADA II.4

+ Paul Yoshiyuki Furuya (Kyoto, Japan)

[78] Exoptatur ut permittatur litare Sacrum in lingua vernacula, excepto Canone.

[It is greatly to be desired that the liturgy be offered in the vernacular language, except for the Canon.]

+ Lucas Katsusaburo Arai (Yokohama, Japan)

[90] De usu linguae vernaculae in tota Missa, canone excepto.

[On the use of the vernacular language in the whole Mass, except for the Canon.]

+ Ignatius Mummadi (Guntur, India)

[132] Nonne expedit uti lingua vulgari cuiuslibet regionis in Missa, exceptione facta evidenter de Canone?

[Would it not be profitable to use the vulgar tongue of whatever region in the Mass, with an obvious exception being made for the Canon?]

++ Joseph Mark Gopu (Hyderabad, India)

[134] Usus linguae regionalis in prima parte S. Missae augeri potest, praesertim quoad epistolam et evangelium sed non in Canone Missae.

[The use of the regional language in the first part of the Holy Mass can be increased, especially as to the epistle and Gospel, but not in the Canon of the Mass.]

+ Antony Padiyara (Ootacamund, India)

[184] Valde suadendum est omnes partes Missae excepto tamen Canone, lingua vulgari recitari, eo fine ut fideles active participent.

[It is exceedingly recommended that every part of the Mass except the Canon be in the vulgar tongue, to the end that the faithful may actively participate.]

+ Jean-Rosière-Eugène Arnaud, M.E.P. (vic. ap. Thakhek, Laos)

[379] Pour le bien des fidèles on souhaiterait d’avoir la permission d’user de la langue qu’ils comprennent, en dehors du Canon ou au moins jusqu’à l’Offertoire.

[For the sake of the faithful it would be desirable to be allowed to use the language they understand, outside the Canon or at least until the Offertory.]

Pietro Maleddu, O.F.M. Conv. (ap. pref. Ankang, China)

[594] Lingua latina in Officio Divina et in toto Canone Missae, excepto «Paternoster», retineatur.

[The Latin language should be retained in the Divine Office and in the whole Canon of the Mass, with the exception of the Lord’s Prayer.]

+ Manuel António Pires

ADA II.5

+ Manuel António Pires (Silva Porto, Angola)

[126] 3. Usus linguae vernaculae in sacramentorum administratione, formula excepto. 4. Idem in celebratione sancti sacrificii Missae, Canone integro excepto. (Excepta tantum duplici consecratione?)

[3. The use of the vernacular language in the administration of the sacraments, except for the forms. 4. The same in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the entire Canon excepted.]

Continue Reading this Article. . .

A New Reading Class in the Lives of the Saints with Veterum Sapientia Institute

Veterum Sapientia Institute is an organization which seeks to promote knowledge and study of the Latin language in accordance with both the tradition of the Church and its law, as stated in Pope St John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution. In addition to an introductory Latin class (2nd level), I will be offering a reading class on the Lives of the Saints, focusing in part on how these lives were used in the Divine Office. We will read through passages from various periods in the original Latin version, and comment on their place in the history of this aspect of the liturgy. All VSI classes are online; the reading course will be held on Tuesdays at 7pm Eastern time. VSI is also offering another course of specific liturgical interest, on the Rituale, taught by Fr Dylan Schrader. There will also be a course on Carmina Burana taught by Dr Nancy Llewellyn, whose excellent essay about Veterum Sapientia and its fate after the Council we shared last year). Mr Sean Pilcher will have a course on the sermons of St Leo the Great, and Dr Jeremy Thompson will do an introduction to St Bernard of Clairvaux. I have known most of the staff of VSI for many years, and they are all superbly talented Latinists, very much dedicated to sharing their knowledge and passion with their students. For more information about the courses and how to enroll, visit the VSI website. You can also find more information about all its activities on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

A New Reading Course on Sacrosanctum Concilium with the Veterum Sapientia Institute

Next month, I will begin working with the Veterum Sapientia Institute, an organization which seeks to promote knowledge and study of the Latin language in accordance with both the tradition of the Church and its law, as stated in Pope St John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution. In addition to an introductory Latin class, I will be offering a reading class on Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. We will read through several of the most important passages in the original Latin version, and hopefully clarify what these passages really say and intend. All VSI classes are online; the reading course will be held on Tuesdays at 7pm Eastern time, starting, appropriately, I think, on the feast of St Peter’s Chair in Rome, January 18th. VSI is also offering some other courses of specific liturgical interest, one on the hymns of the Divine Office, taught by Fr Thomas Buffer, and an introduction to the Roman Missal, taught by Dr John Pepino. There will also be a course on the reading and translating of Scholastic texts, taught by Fr Dylan Schrader, and readings in Thomas à Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ, with Dr Nancy Llewellyn. (Earlier this year, we shared Dr Llewellyn’s excellent essay about Veterum Sapientia and its fate after the Council.) I have known most of the staff of VSI for many years, and they are all superbly talented Latinists, very much dedicated to sharing their knowledge and passion with their students. For more information about the courses and how to enroll, visit the VSI website. You can also find more information about all its activities on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I make bold to ask for a prayer or two for myself as I start in on this new endeavour.

“The Value of a Sacred Language”: Guest Article by John Byron Kuhner

John Byron Kuhner writes a column on Latin for Inside the Vatican magazine, where this originally appeared in the September-October 2021 edition. NLM is grateful for the permission from the author and the publisher to reprint it here.
 

The Value of a Sacred Language

by John Byron Kuhner

Latin has been back in the news recently, as most Catholics are aware, thanks to Pope Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, calling for fairly severe restrictions on the Tridentine Latin Mass. Reaction has been politically divided about as one would expect. If you get on some Latin Mass Facebook pages, you will find sadness and anger. If you go to Fr. James Martin’s Facebook page, people are celebrating and cheering Francis on.

I will note that I see a point in what Francis is saying. There is division in the Church. In my upstate New York parish, as in many places in America today, we already functionally had two parishes which never came together, divided by the Novus Ordo Mass. There was the Spanish-speaking parish and the English-speaking parish. Then a new pastor came in who added a Latin mass. This brought a whole new group of people in, who in general don’t socialize with the English-mass people OR the Spanish-mass people. I actually like the diversity of liturgy, but I can see the potential trouble. It would be nice to have a mass that was the same for everyone. The odd thing about Traditionis Custodes is that this dream of having a universal mass was the situation until the Novus Ordo.

But from comments and articles I’ve been reading, I think it is worth taking some time to think intelligently about how language operates in the liturgy. This whole controversy has raised some interesting questions.

First of all, why wouldn’t we want our prayers and the Mass in our mother tongue? It seems entirely rational to just have our prayers in the language we are most comfortable with. And since just about no one is as comfortable with Latin as they are with their native languages, why not simply get rid of Latin as a liturgical language? This seems rational enough.

But it is not upheld by the actual experience of the majority of human beings. India’s magnificent religious culture is sustained to this day by songs, chants, prayers, and Scriptures written in Sanskrit, a language just as dead as Latin. Tibetan Buddhists like the Dalai Lama pray in Classical Tibetan from the 12th century and not modern Tibetan. Muslims pray in 7th century Classical Arabic – even though Arabic has changed a great deal in the past 1400 years and the world’s largest Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, India) do not speak Arabic at all. The Hebrew language appears to have passed out of daily use sometime before Latin did, but it has remained the language of prayer for all Jews to this day, whatever language they may have first heard from their parents (Hebrew was also successfully resurrected as a spoken language in the 19th century by the remarkable Eliezer Ben-Yahudah). Greek Orthodox Christians still celebrate the Mass in ancient Greek – the same Koine Greek the New Testament was written in.

The idea of a preserving prayers in an old language – and not updating them to keep up with the times – is not an eccentricity of Roman Catholicism. It is at the heart of most of the world’s most successful religions. Even in the Protestant World, English speakers have kept the King James Bible to this day, and a whole host of archaic usages; Germans have kept the Luther-Bible and its New High German.

Such a widespread phenomenon must mean something. It may go against reason, but the idea of a sacred language different from the language of everyday life appeals to human beings. I can say from my own experience that prayer in Latin and Greek actually does seem to have a different effect on me: it pulls me out of my daily life, places me sub specie aeternitatis, where I have room to reflect on what is most important to me. Joseph Campbell – the furthest thing from a traddy Catholic – wrote about this:

There’s been a reduction, a reduction, a reduction of ritual. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, my God, they’ve translated the Mass out of the ritual language into a language that has a lot of domestic associations. Every time I read the Latin of the Mass, I get that pitch again that it’s supposed to give, a language that throws you out of the field of your domesticity.... They’ve forgotten what the function of a ritual is: it’s to pitch you out, not to wrap you back in where you have been all the time.

Human artifacts and cultural productions point the mind always to the era of their origin. Language acts this way as well. Sometimes this makes sense: the prayers and Scriptures of Islam hearken back to the days of Muhammad, who is considered the perfect embodiment of the Muslim life. The Aramaic of the Syriac Churches, and the Greek of the Orthodox Church, come directly from the times of Christ. When there is no particularly obvious reason for making the language of one era the language of prayer for later eras, people often resort to mythic reasoning: some Hindus maintain that Sanskrit is actually the language of the gods, just as some Jews maintain that Hebrew was the language spoken by God to Adam and Eve.

Latin has seen this mythic reasoning too, that it is the “language of the angels.” And indeed in Christian terms Latin’s claim to sacrality is not as great, quantitatively, as Greek or Aramaic, which were likely spoken by Jesus. But Latin has the same type of claim, qualitatively, as Greek and Aramaic: it is one of the languages of the days of Jesus. The Roman centurion he met spoke it; Pilate spoke it; when Paul had to defend himself in court in Rome, or when Peter heard the crowds in the Eternal City, Latin was the language of the day. And now Latin has been further consecrated by a whole host of saints and believers through the subsequent centuries of what has been called the Latin Rite. The Tridentine Mass makes those people and those present in the soul of the believer.

The Novus Ordo Mass is of course just as much a product of its time as any other cultural product. It is a product of the late 1960s. There is no doubt that this is the single most important period in the recent history of the world, a time when so much of modern life – our language, our architecture, our entertainment, our business habits, our social mores, our sex lives, and our liturgy – developed its current form. This is the strength of the New Mass: it is firmly rooted in a culture which is still very much with us.

But many people want the patina of age on their religions. A friend of mine declared that the older a religion is, the more respectable it is: he was uneasy with the newness of Scientology, the Baha’i, or Mormonism. Many people feel that way. And it is with the older forms of liturgy that Catholics actually get to experience the venerability of their religion.

Like many Catholics, I am not an exclusive adherent of the Tridentine Rite, but I see its beauty and importance. I think that people should pray, often, in the language they are most comfortable with; but I think people should also pray, at least sometimes, in a language removed from daily associations, and know, as most of the world’s believers do, the value of having a sacred language. I think eventually people will consider it odd that for a brief period of time there were many Roman Catholics, and even several popes, who did not understand this.