Hi all!

I'm working on writing a research paper for my Liturgy class (due November 14th) and the topic I chose is the progression of the language of the Liturgy. I plan to talk about the progression from Greek to Latin to the common vernacular as well as the exceptions that were made during times where the vernacular was restricted. I also want to talk about the importance of translation of the texts, the arguments against the vernacular, the purpose of allowing the vernacular, and the usage of the vernacular in the liturgy today.

Basic outline is going to look something like

1. History of the Language
2. Arguments against use of vernacular
3. Arguments for use of vernacular
4. The importance of translation
5. The use of the vernacular in the Church today


I have my resources for the arguments against the use of the vernacular, for the use of the vernacular, and the importance of translation, but I'm lacking on the history of the language between the 4th and 16th centuries. I think I have the research for the vernacular in the Church today.

It is a 6-8 page paper so not too long. It's focus is on the Latin rite, but when it comes to history, since history is pertaining to language and leads up to the arguments for/against the vernacular, the usage of language in eastern rites can also be helpful.

If you have any sources or suggestions on where to go with the paper, let me know! Really I need sources on the early Church history of the languages used in the Church. This includes any push for/against a language throughout history. For example I'm covering the push of the protestants in the reformation for the usage of the vernacular around the time of Trent as part of history.

Thanks!

My father in law is a retired professor of Medieval English. He speaks like 7 dead languages. I just wish he spoke English better. Anyway, we were talking about this a couple of months ago. The biggest problem with the vernacular during that time was that the languages were changing and evolving so quickly. They were mainly used by a primarily illiterate population, and were kind of crude in many ways. The equivalent today would be to set the mass to the language used on MTV or in text messaging. When Luther made his translation, biblical scholars in Rome would not have considered German to be worthy of translating the Scriptures into, but the Germans did. His example was that part of Amadeus where Mozart is trying to talk the King into letting him do an opera in German, and the Italians were livid that true opera had to only be in Italian. The King James bible was about letting his people read the bible in English, certainly, but it was also about showing that English was a civilized, cultured language.

Any book/journal/article sources? Maybe your father in law knows a good book? Unfortunately I'll have to be able to provide citations for most of my information since it *is* a research paper... I don't know if my prof would be too happy if I cited phatmass forums as a source

I have some sources on the history, but the part that is really lacking and quite possibly the most important is the reformation era and why the vernacular was not immediately used (I know the general gist of the reason, but have to have a source)

Well, he wrote a book on the Cursor Mundi that I quoted on my last Christology paper. That was kind of cool getting to quote my father in law. It's in a lot of libraries in Canada, but it isn't one of the ones that's been done electronically. Most of his stuff isn't in English, and you probably don't read Welsh Gaelic. The book "Dissent from the Creed" by Richard Hogan has a section on Luther's stuff. You might be able to get a couple of quotes from that. "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Thomas Bokenkotter has some reformation stuff too about where we took some wrong steps. I once wrote a paper in undergrad theology on how Pope Gregory the Great would have handled Luther.

Just be prepared for people to jump on you for suggesting that the church was or could ever have been even the slightest bit wrong. My personal opinion is that we would have gone to the vernacular at least 200 years ago except for Luther. After he challenged, for us to do it too soon would be to admit that he might have been right about something. Floodgates and all. One of my favorite priests had been a member of the Vernacular Society back in the 50's. Their archives are kept at Notre Dame University. That might make for a cool obscure citation.

Thanks Catherine! I agree with the move of the vernacular. I think it would have come much sooner if it wasn't for Luther pushing for it. Many valid reasons for the vernacular were being brought forth but with the fear the Church had of heresy and protestantism, she refused to budge.

one problem: we went ahead and admitted that Luther was right about a whole bunch of things right after the reformation. we had no fear of admitting where he was right and condemning him for where he was wrong. the reasons for maintaining Latin (which is still technically maintained and promoted by Rome as the language of the Church) are many. Latin is still the language of the Church and the language of the Liturgy, the use of the vernacular is permitted for increased understanding, but the Church still maintains Latin as the preferred language of the Liturgy and this pope has encouraged Catholics to start learning prayers in Latin. The Second Vatican Council says as much, and the Church originally intended for the changeable parts of the mass to be in the vernacular while the unchangeable parts remained in Latin, and that is likely the direction Rome is now leading the liturgy.

we did not stupidly cling to Latin out of fear of admitting Luther was right; we proposed that he was wrong; that the Liturgy was not to focus upon attempting to say something to the people and that the veil of mystery created by a non-native sacred language was an important symbol, especially having it as the selfsame language throughout the world to not only symbolize the mystery but also symbolize the universal unity of our prayer. we admitted Luther was right about things such as the sale of indulgences; we would have done so with the Latin language had it been something we thought he was right about... we did not think so; and the Second Vatican Council assures us that we still do not think so as it calls for the Latin language to be maintained. to be faithful to the Second Vatican Council means to believe in the importance of the Latin language in the history not as something we had to eventually shed off, but as something that must continued to be preserved and maintained as a treasure with depth of symbolism and meaning.

from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

the use of the vernacular is another tool in addition to the use of Latin, not as a replacement for it. if things were as you say, and we had simply been afraid to admit Luther as correct for fear of heresies, why has the Second Vatican Council continued in saying that Latin ought to be maintained? latin=bad vernacular=good is not a good equation for a Catholic.

This is true, however, looking at the HISTORY of language in the liturgy, the Church has used a well known and fairly common language throughout almost all of her history. Up until even the 16th century Latin was still widely used. In the 16th century, other languages were still taking their roots and they were not strong enough languages to be translated into as the beauty and symbolism found in the liturgy would have been lost had translations been attempted. The languages weren't suitable for such worship. Now however, those languages have developed and can support translations of the liturgy without losing the beauty and meaning (although the current English translation is abhorrent).

Yes Latin is to be preserved as S.C states in article 36, however, the Church continues to grow and develop organically even with its use of language in the liturgy as it has done throughout all of history. The Church originally changed from Greek to Latin because Greek was no longer understood and Latin was the common tongue, the vernacular. Now the Church has continued to develop and its use of language has again been fit to meet the needs of the people.

One must also understand that when S.C was written, the Canon was still silent, and many of the prayers of the priest were still silent. The priests had been trained in Latin and there was no need for a vernacular translation of those texts as the congregation did not hear them anyways. Now that the Canon is spoken audibly, as well as many more prayers of the priest, the vernacular has begun to be used in order that the laity can understand the language.

The sense of mystery found in the mass ought not be found in the language itself as that is not conducive to a sense of mystery, but a sense of mysteriousness. The people would not see the liturgy as something sacred, but something foreign.

The unity of the Church is not to be found in the language, but in the rite itself. The act of worship is the unity of the Church, not the spoken language in the liturgy. Now the Church still does need an official language so that everything can be held accountable to the language of the Church, I.E Latin. Latin is also the best language and ought to remain that language considering both the place of esteem it has found in the Church, and that many other languages are based off of it (French, Spanish, Italian, partly English...). The Church must be in unity, not uniformity. Are we to say that our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are lesser Catholics since they do not use the same language and are therefore in lesser union?

For the Church to lose Latin would be a horrible loss, that is why S.C continues to promote it, and our Holy Father continues to try and keep it preserved (because it has begun to be lost in the Church).

Also, to clear things up Aloysius...

The Church didn't not accept the vernacular SIMPLY because Luther was pushing for it, but because of his reasoning behind wanting the vernacular. There were many Catholics pushing for the vernacular at the same time, but the Church defended herself from heresies that Luther was promoting such as Jansenism that usage of the vernacular at that time could have spurned on.

The Church was wounded greatly by the Protestant reformation and took a defensive position in the aftermath. This allowed for very little change in the Church whatsoever (including language), especially in Her most sacred Liturgy in the following four hundred years.

Look at the amount of change seen in the Liturgy between Trent and Vatican II. Almost none. Any change for the most part was rubrics. There was no organic growth. Not to say that the outcome of Vatican II was organic, but look at what it was trying to make up for.

Monsignor Klaus Gamber held the same opinion.



Gamber thought rather that the Council of Trent decided against introduction of the vernacular (which was actually seriously considered) to protect the Mass from the Protestant liturgical aberrations that were then prevalent. He did lament, however, that this protective posture lasted into the 20th century because he believed that introduction of the vernacular earlier (I think he said early 19th century) could have prevented the decadence (used in the technical sense) of our vernacular texts of today.

This, and other material by Gamber is contained in a series of translated essays that have been published in a book titled The Modern Rite: Collected Essays on the Reform of the Liturgy.