Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/100

 RITES

70

RITES

cording to the time at which they were written. V^e have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply late Chris- tian Latin of various periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the style of Christian Latin writers second only to that of the Bible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia scecula sceculorum) , many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning " for the sake of", Sid) and words (Eucha- ristia, litania, episcopus), expressions borrowed from B.'blical metaphors (pastor, liber pra'destinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei), and words in a new Christian sense (humilitas, compunctio, caritas). St. Jerome in his Vulgate more than any one else helped to form liturgical style. His con- structions and phrases occur repeatedly in the non- Biblical parts of the ALass and Office. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I, Celestine I, Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our services. The mediaeval Schoolmen (St. Thonias Aquinas) and their technical terminology have in- fluenced much of the later parts, and the Latin of the Renaissance is an important element that in many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of this Renaissance Latin many of the Breviary lessons are typical examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of the hvmns with the improved forms drawn up by order of Urban VIII (1623-44) will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The ten- dency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian Sacramentary " will show how much we have lost of style in our liturgical prayers.

Use of Latin. — The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or uni- versal. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Or- thodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the lan- guage would have been Hebrew or Greek. The objections of Protestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered eaj?ily enough. An argument often made from I Cor., xiv, 4-18, is of no value. The whole pasKage treats of quite another thing, prophesying in tongu<« that no one understands, not even the speaker (sf"e 14 : " I'"or if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, hut my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument, from practical convenience, from the loKH to the people who do not unrlerstand what is being said, has some value. The Church has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an ideal. There is no principle of sacerdotal mysteries from which the layman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people have means of understanding the service. That they might do so still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be ad- mittwl, but in making this change the loss would probably be greater than the gain.

By changing the language of the Liturgy we should losfi the principle of uniformity in the Roman patri- archate. According to the ancient principle that rite follows patriarchate, the Western rite should be that of the Wf*item patriarch, the Roman Bishop, who uwH the local rite of the city of Rom'- There is a further advantage in using it in hia language, bo

the use of Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through conservative instinct. It is not so in the East. There is a great practical ad- vantage to travellers, whether priests or laymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. An English priest in Poland or Portugal could not say his Mass unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin all over the Roman patriarchate is a very obvious and splendid witness of unity. Every Catholic traveller in a country of which he does not know the language has felt the comfort of finding that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in a Catholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere. Moreover, the change of liturgical language would be a break with the past. It is a witness of antiquitj' of which a Catholic may well be proud that in Mass to-day we are still used to the very words that Anselm, Gregory, Leo sang in their cathedrals. A change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it is forced into another language with different rules of accent.

These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made proportionately (since there are the Eastern Uniat rites) but valid for the Roman patri- archate may well outweigh the practical convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the liturgy. There is also an aesthetic advantage in Latin. The splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical accent and terse style redolent of the great Latin Fathers, the strange beauty of the old Latin hymns, the sonorous majesty of the Vulgate, all these things that make the Roman Rite so digni- fied, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost altogether in modern English or French translations. The impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately every educated person understood it. It is still taught in every school. The Church does not clothe her prayers in a secret language, but rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. If Catholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of the Church language all difficulty would be solved. For those who cannot take even this trouble there is the ob- vious solution of a translation. The Missal in Eng- lish is one of the easiest books to procure; the ignorant may follow in that the prayers that lack of education prevents their understanding without it.

The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:

1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia).

2. Greek in the. Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).

3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.

4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.

.5. Armenian bv all the C'hurclies of that rite.

6. /Ironic by tlie .Mclchitcs (Byzantine Rite).

7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.

8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).

9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).

VI. Liturgical Science. — A. Rubrics. The most obvious and necessary study for ecclesiastical persons is that of the laws that regulate the performance of liturgical functions. From this point of view litur- gical study is a branch of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, administration of sacraments, etc., are part of the positive law of the Church, jtist as much as the laws about benefices, church property, or fiisting, and oblige those whom they concern under pain of sin. As it is therefore the duty of persons in Holy orders to know them,