 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CHANGES IN THE ROMAN MISSAL PART 2: From Greek to Latin to the Vernacular
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is part of an ongoing series written by Father Daniel Merz highlighting many of the historical and theological bases of the forthcoming publication of a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. The new translation, tentatively set for release around November 2011, will involve slight but noticeable changes at Mass. Father Merz is the chairman of the Liturgical Commission for the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo. — BH]
TENSIONS BETWEEN LATIN AND THE VERNACULAR
In the eighth century, a group of German clerics believed that the only languages that one should use for worship were those used on the inscription placed on the cross of Christ: Hebrew, Greek and Latin (namely, the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” cf. Jn 19:19-20). The Council of Frankfurt in 794 condemned these “trilinguists”: “to those who believe that God can only be adored in three languages, anathema sit.” Still, there were many Catholics who equated being Catholic with celebrating the liturgy in Latin.
It is helpful to remember that there was no such thing as separation of church and state in the Roman Empire. The languages of literature, schools, political life and liturgical life would have been matters of civic and national interest, perhaps not unlike the strong emotions encountered in the United States today regarding immigrants learning to speak English. The Latin-speaking members of the Roman Empire felt strongly about Latin as their language, including their language of worship.
A classic example of the volatility of the question of the vernacular in the liturgy was the missionary effort by sibling Saints Cyril (d. 869 A.D.) and Methodius (d. 885) to the Slavic communities of Eastern Europe (Moravia and Pannonia). Cyril created the Glagolitic alphabet (later known as the Cyrillic alphabet) and the brothers translated the Gospels and some liturgical texts into this newly writable vernacular. As they began to have success with their evangelization efforts, they decided to take local candidates to Rome for ordination, and to seek papal approbation of their vernacular innovations. Pope Hadrian II (reigned 867-872) granted the two brothers full permission for the use of Old Slavonic in the liturgy. Together, they celebrated that vernacular liturgy in Hadrian’s presence, and Hadrian ordained their candidates as priests and deacons, and Methodius as bishop. In 870, Hadrian formally ratified this Slavonic liturgy.
Three years later, however, Pope John VIII (872-882) came under the influence of the “trilinguists” and forbade the liturgical use of Old Slavonic. In 879, the pope summoned Methodius to Rome for questioning. Upon hearing Methodius, Pope John suddenly reversed himself, declaring Methodius free of all heresy and publicly defending him and his vernacular liturgy against the “trilinguists.”
Pope John wrote: “It is not opposed to the integrity of faith or doctrine that Mass be celebrated in the Slavonic tongue or that the Holy Gospels and the other lessons of the New and Old Testaments well translated in that language be used for the Mass and the Office, for He who made the principal languages, created all the others for His own praise and glory.” (L. Eisenhofer, “Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik I,” Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1932, p. 154)
Pope John even placed Cyril and Methodius’ translation of the Gospel on the altar in St. Peter’s and in 880 formally reactivated permission for the use of Old Slavonic in the liturgy.
Fortune turned again, however, following the death of Methodius. Pope Stephen V (885-891), acting under the influence of a forged letter purported to have been written by John VIII, condemned the liturgical use of Old Slavonic and forbade its use. As a result, much of Christianized Eastern Europe shifted allegiance from Latin Catholic Rome to Greek Byzantine Constantinople, which allowed Old Slavonic. This is one reason why the Russian Church today counts its Mother Church as Constantinople and not Rome. It wasn’t until the 17th century, in 1631, that the use of Slavonic in western liturgical rites was officially approved by Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). The Greeks in Constantinople, on the other hand, by the year 1190 had adopted the principle that those who did not understand Greek were to celebrate the Greek liturgy in their own language, faithfully rendering the texts directly from the Greek official edition.
CONCESSIONS AWAY FROM LATIN
Scholars believe that Latin, as a spoken, living language, began to give way to the modern European languages by the 10th and 11th centuries. There is evidence of bishops and priests preaching in French (though celebrating the rest of the liturgy in Latin) in 1195. Missionary Orders often received permission to preach in the vernacular in order to instruct and deepen the faith among the uneducated. Consider the following vernacular permissions granted by the Church long before the Second Vatican Council:
— In the early 1300s, Pope Clement V granted special permission for the use of Mandarin Chinese in the liturgy as a means of evangelizing the Chinese.
— In 1624, Carmelite missionaries in Persia (modern day Iran) were granted permission to celebrate one Mass each day in classic Arabic “for the consolation of peoples recently converted.”
— In 1631, full privileges were granted to missionaries in Georgia for the celebration of the Eucharist in either Georgian or Armenian as an instrument of evangelization.
— In 1773, Jesuit missionaries received permission from the Holy See for use of the Iroquois language in the liturgy celebrated with that Native American community around the area of modern day Montreal.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) spent a good part of one of its sessions discussing a switch to the vernacular at Mass for Europe. There were many proponents and many opponents. For the opponents of a switch, Latin held associations of mystery, universality and orthodoxy of linguistic formulation (e.g. in the prayers and creeds).
There was concern that translations into many vernaculars would run the risk of inaccuracies of doctrine (just like the concerns over going from Greek to Latin in the third and fourth centuries). The proponents of vernacular argued that the patristic church used a vernacular liturgy, and that there was a great catechetical loss with the use of Latin since the vast majority of the faithful could not understand the Scriptures or the liturgy. They believed that pastoral necessity (as well as historical precedent) called for a return to a vernacular liturgy. Some of them actually believed that the use of Latin was perpetuating an impoverishment of the faith.
All the bishops who had experience of a vernacular liturgy spoke out in favor of it. In the end, however, with the Protestant reformers demanding the vernacular and deriding the Latin, the council fathers decided that it was not an opportune time to change to the vernacular, lest it be seen as a concession to the Protestants.
[NEXT COLUMN: From the Council of Trent to the Second Vatican Council.]
(This article was reprinted with permission from The Catholic Missourian, the newspaper of the Diocese of Jefferson City, Mo.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |