Latin and the vernacular

The primacy of Latin does not, of course, exclude appropriate use of the vernacular.

One of my favourite pieces of music is the wonderful piece by Thomas Tallis entitled "If Ye Love Me".


"If ye love Me, keep My commandments and I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may 'bide with you forever, e'en the spir't of truth."


Marvellous words!

Here it is performed by the Cambridge Singers directed by John Rutter:

Thomas Tallis

...

The Latin of the Vulgate is not vernacular

One correspondent comments on a passage from my Anglo-Catholic correspondent.

I think he is worth quoting:

"The Latin of the Vulgate is not a vernacular in any sense. Send your correspondent to read Fr Uwe Michael Lang. It is called the 'Latin Vulgate' as it is the counterpart of the 'Greek Vulgate', it has NOTHING to do with vernacular; the language of the scriptural and liturgical Latin is legal and literary, not populist".

So there you have it, Miss Anglo-Catholic; and, indeed, vernacular-obsessed modern Catholics, too.

In fact, of course, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages are important to us because they are the languages of revelation, not because they are vernacular languages. they gave us the Old Testament (Hebrew), the New Testament (Greek) and the language of the Church's teaching and law inspired by the Holy Ghost (Latin), corresponding to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, respectively.

Sorry, Miss Anglo-Catholic, English is simply not one of the languages of revelation.

Get used to it.

St Jerome, translator of the Bible into Latin, in his Scriptorium, shown here in a stylized medieval portrait

Eusebius Hieronymus Sophronius, better known as St Jerome, was born sometime between 340 and 347 AD in Stridon, a town on the border between the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia (now on the Italian side of the modern Italian-Croatian border).

He received a classical education and was tutored in Rome by the grammarian Donatus. At age eighteen he was baptized in Rome by Pope Liberius. He was well read in the Pagan poets and writers.

Jerome traveled extensively throughout the Roman Empire. He began formal theological studies in Trier. He moved to Aquileia in 370, where he met St Valerian. About 373 he headed to the East.

From 374 to 379 Jerome led an ascetic life in the desert southwest of Antioch. During this period he heard Apollinaris of Laodicea, a leading Bible scholar, who later left the Church. In 379, he was ordained a priest at Antioch by St Paulinus.

Jerome went to Constantinople about 380 to study scripture under St Gregory Nazianzus. In 382 he returned to Rome, where he became secretary to Pope Damasus who suggested that he revise the translations of the Gospels and the Psalms.

When Damasus died in 384, Jerome had to leave Rome, because his outspoken, often harsh criticism of Roman society created enemies. His travels returned him to Antioch, then to Alexandria, and finally to Bethlehem in 386, where he settled in a monastery.

There he translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin. This translation was recognized eleven centuries later by the Council of Trent as the official version of the Bible: the Vulgate.

In 410 Rome came under attack by the barbarian Alaric, creating numerous refugees who sought safety in the Holy Land. In the interest of providing for them Jerome wrote, "I have put aside all my study to help them. Now we must translate the words of Scripture into deeds, and instead of speaking holy words we must do them."

St Jerome died at Bethlehem from a long illness on 30 September 420.

He is buried in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome.

...

Vernacular readings: the discussion continued

The discussion continues on Shawn Tribe’s website The New Liturgical Movement at:

http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/

He writes:

“As I’ve said as well however, there are two problematic extremes. One is change for its own sake; the other is immobilism.

While there needs to be a certain caution and prudence, there also needs to be discussion and some reasonable sense of the normal, living liturgical process and how that might be manifest or approached. This is more than ever necessary given the problematic ways in which it has been approached in the 20th century.

What can concern me in addition to needless and arbitrary change -- which does concern me -- is that there can develop amongst some an attitude that seems somewhat reactionary, which possibly categorizes any development as equally problematic or undesirable.

Veneration of the liturgy has to occur with a respect to its natural context which is neither innovationist nor immobilist.

We need not agree whether a particular development -- such as this one we’ve been discussing -- is a reasonable development, but it seems to me that there should be at least be an openness to such possibilities in principle; possibilities that must be balanced off by a rejection of mastery over the liturgy; a rejection of liturgy-by-committee; a rejection of any sense of the liturgy and its form as arbitrary.”

And the reader replies:

“Dear Shawn,

Your approach seems to be that we should aim at a compromise as our first goal - a compromise between what you see as two extremes.

This is not the way the Church has ever thought about liturgy. Liturgy is not primarily an exercise in compromising. Liturgy is about worshipping God in the way He wants. And He indicates that by the test of time of time and continuity, as Newman eloquently tells us in his Development of Christian Doctrine.

All liturgical reforms of the Roman rite, save that of Bugnini’s Novus Ordo, have been, first and foremost, preservative and restorative and only after that have they been additive.

They have never been - and mark this well - subtractive.

To subtract from the sacred liturgy has always been seen as akin to sacrilege.

Thus the Gregorian reforms, the Gelasian reforms, the Pian reforms and all reforms (save Bugnini’s) have been what you would call ‘reactionary’. They have sought to eliminate recent and inconsistent novelties encrusted onto the old rite and to restore the rite to its ancient splendour, not by false antiquarianism but by careful preservation of that which has been handed down to us by Sacred Tradition.

Anything new has only ever been additive and then only at the edges of the rite by way of approved and authorised devotions, themselves of considerable antiquity and always entirely fitting to the ancient rite.

Bugnini’s reforms were as far away from such a model as could be imagine and were more comparable to those carried about by the ‘slash and burn’ technique used by the early Protestants who butchered the Roman rite for their own nefarious purposes.

This is how the Apostolic See has, in times past, reformed liturgy. Its approach has been consciously preservative and not innovative. It has indeed been what you would call ‘reactionary’.

There is not only no condemnation by any pope or Council of a reactionary approach to liturgy but, on the contrary, it is the approach that the popes and Councils themselves have always used.

Even Vatican II was largely preservative and not innovative. The innovations came about AFTER the Council.

Liturgy, since it involves the way in which the Church prays to God publicly, is, together with doctrine, the very paradigm of Sacred Tradition and the handing on of that which we have received from our fathers.

The liturgy is not about compromises, development, liturgical processes and so on. To think so is inevitably to hand oneself over to liturgical committees.

It is about the preservation of Sacred Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles until our time.

Any additions to the liturgy can only come after centuries of the hallowed use BY ALL THE PEOPLE (and not just in the mind of some specious expert) of holy prayers and ceremonies, in keeping with sacred tradition and, eventually after long usage, approved, by such continuous usage, by the Holy See.

Subtractions are never permitted since they savour of suggesting that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in the past.

This is not to suggest that devotions, processions and so on, around and outside the sacred liturgy should be avoided. On the contrary, even certain very slight changes have been allowed within the rite itself giving rise to ‘uses’ of the Roman rite such as the Sarum, York and Aberdeen uses among many others.

Some of these, when hallowed by centuries of use, may, if approved for universal use by the Holy See, become part of the main rite.

That is how the Holy See has, historically, introduced feasts into the Calendar.

But the idea that we can, within anyone’s lifetime, see wholesale novelties added to the rite, no matter how fitting some people may think they are, is simply an idea without any precedent whatever.

The addition of a new feast or saint to the calendar and rite is not a novelty since the idea of venerating the feasts and saints in the liturgy is as old as the liturgy itself and thus not a novelty at all but the continuance of an exceedingly ancient and hallowed tradition.

The idea that we should introduce novelties in each generation but, in doing so, should avoid ‘extremes’ of ‘reaction’ or ‘needless innovation’ is already itself an ‘extreme’ idea and one with not the slightest foundation or basis in Catholic tradition or teaching.

It comes rather from the jejune shallows of modern political discourse where change, revolution, innovation and compromise are the key concepts and where the very idea of hallowed and sacred tradition are laughed to scorn.”

Any further thoughts ladies and gentlemen?

Vernacular readings: treat with caution!

On his site The New Liturgical Movement, on 23 January 2008, Shawn Tribe posts this:

"The Vernacular Option for the Lessons; A Call for Discussion

One of our readers sent in this story: Aufer A Nobis: Missa Pro Pace at St. Mary's in Washington, DC. The Mass, offered in the ancient form of the Roman rite, occurred in relation to the Pro-life March in that same capital city.

What I found particularly interesting however was that the celebrating priest, a European priest from the Institute of Christ the King, employed a practice that -- to my knowledge -- tended to be employed within continental Europe, and in particular France: while the celebrating priest quietly read the Epistle and Gospel from the altar in Latin, another member of the clergy read the lessons in the vernacular aloud concurrently.

For whatever reason this practice had not found liturgical expression within the English speaking world -- enough so that to even see or hear of this might seem novel to some -- with the preference instead being for the proclamation of the readings in Latin from the altar and later again from the pulpit (in the vernacular) prior to the homily.

The former, more European practice has always seemed to me to be a more elegant solution that meshed better with the flow of the liturgy. Today however, the option for the use of vernacular readings has been made available to us by the Pope, therefore firming up a development that had been already occuring:

‘In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.’ (Article 6, Summorum Pontificum)

Simply put, the readings proper to the 1962 Missal may be spoken or chanted by the priest at the altar in the natural course of the liturgy.

While it is a point of legitimate disagreement amongst those of us attached to the ancient Roman liturgy, I myself believe that if one is going to have vernacular readings proclaimed (rather than simply read as we might do elsewhere in the liturgy with our missals) then doing so in the way described in article 6 of Summorum Pontificum is a preferable option to exercise given the right conditions -- i.e. pastoral preparation.

Previously we were more limited in this regard and so the aforementioned workarounds were implemented. These have served their purpose in the context of their day, but in the present situation I think we need to now re-analyze our approach to this.

In my mind, neither of the aforementioned practices are the best liturgical solution any longer. After all, if we wish to have the readings proclaimed in the vernacular, why have the priest say them in Latin at the altar while having someone else do so concurrently? Likewise, why have the same epistle read twice and why have people stand and listen to the same gospel proclaimed twice?

In the case of the latter, what I have often found mentioned is the aspect of the preserving the chanted Latin readings. I'd propose that we need not be all or nothing about this. A vernacular equivalent can be worked out using those same melodies -- thereby preserving the chanted aspect -- and if a community wishes to preserve the tradition of the Latin readings (a good thing as well) why not simply make the translation of the readings available to the faithful so that they might read along as the priest or deacon says/sings them in Latin, just as they might at other times in the Mass?

Some might say that I am myself being rather ‘all or nothing’ in promoting a choice between using either the vernacular or Latin for the readings of a particular liturgy -- rather than both-and. However, it seems to me there is something to be said for preserving the normal place of the readings in the context of the natural ebb and flow of the liturgy itself with its associated prayers, tracts, alleluias and ceremonial. So perhaps we need to just make our choice for that Mass, Latin or vernacular readings, and proceed with it accordingly.

There may indeed be some need for preparation of course. Perhaps all that will be required in one community is a simple explanation by the priest of this in the light of the Pope's motu proprio. Perhaps time will be needed for priests to learn how to chant the reading in the vernacular. Perhaps it will take time to source out an approved edition of the readings in question. Moreover, perhaps one's congregation is peculiarly sensitive to this issue, in which case it may be best to work in such possibilities gradually over a more extended period of time.

This is all fine of course. We have had enough rushing into things to last us for quite some time and we need measured, prudent and responsible applications. I am not interested in promoting such rushing in. However, I think it would also be a mistake to not at least begin to approach the issue, or to simply assume that there will be a negative response, particularly now that the Pope has made it a formalized option.

With that in mind, I would be curious to hear your comments either in support, caution, or disagreement. Let's hear your thoughts. In particular, I would be interested in hearing from our clergy celebrating the usus antiquior."

A reader replied to him thus:

“Dear Shawn,

Well! That certainly generated a discussion!

The temptation to change for the sake of compromise is very great but, alas, the itch for compromise and change is what got us in a mess in the first place.

I think there is something mystical at work, here, if it’s not too dramatic to say so.

Why did God allow the virtual suppression of the TLM? In one sense, I suppose, God has preserved His treasure by allowing foolish men to act as if it were suppressed. Thus it has been curiously preserved whole and intact, amidst all the liturgical chaos of the last 40 years.

That seems providential, indeed.

In times past, as the English bishops said in response to Apostolicae Curae in the early 20th century, the idea that anyone could make substantial changes to the liturgy was utterly unthinkable and like a kind of sacrilege. Additions, yes, but subtractions, no, and the vernacular was viewed cautiously because it so easily lends itself to mistranslation and misinterpretation.

The Eastern Churches have a horror of such (and their liturgies are in a sacred vernacular, like Old Slavonic or Geez, which seems to give them, like 1662 Anglicans, an extra sensitivity to the unbridled vernacular). Their view is that the Last Supper was like what we would call a ‘collegial’ or ‘conventual’ mass and that our Lord used Hebrew, as was used in the Temple worship, and not vernacular Aramaic or Koine Greek. And, today, liturgical Aramaic and Greek are not at all colloquial or ‘vernacular’ but more akin to the relationship between Classical Arabic and vernacular Arabic.Which translation of Scripture would be used?

The Earl of Clarendon said, in his history of the English Civil War, that three words had destroyed all peace and stability in the nation. They were: ‘Search the Scriptures’. He did not mean that there was anything bad about Scripture but rather that men wrought Scripture to their own damnation.

For this reason it is better kept in a sacred language and not broadcast promiscuously to the people who may then wrest the meaning to their spiritual destruction. Better that the learned understand it and the clergy explain it (in sermons etc).

When Vatican II urges greater reading of Scripture, that is, of course, right, but that surely meant under the guidance of the Church and not simply by promiscuous reading of Scripture in the vernacular so that the people might make of it what they will.

Liturgically, it seems odd, too, since it can interrupt the flow of the dramaturgy like, say, a man walking on stage during a Shakespeare play to explain in modern English to the audience what the dialogue means.

Yes, more than one thing can happen at a time in a play/liturgy but it can destroy the harmony of the whole if it does not fit the drama or is intruded into the drama.

Some will say that this is just the ‘old guard’ moaning again. Actually, it was a twenty-something black student who made the comment to me.

I think it is wiser to treat phrases like ‘it always seemed to me’ or ‘in my mind’ with caution.

Whenever Tradition is set aside or dismantled it is usually in the name of someone who has had a bright new idea and wishes it to replace what has been handed down for centuries.”

Any views, folks?



...