By Canon Aime-Georges Martimort & Translated by Sergio Garibay
(From La Maison-Die, No 11, published in 1957)
Many authors, dealing with liturgical questions, seem to consider the use of a dead and universal language in ceremonies as a traditional requirement in the Church. This is to ignore history completely: the discipline, in this matter, has been very variable according to time and place, and it has been established less on the basis of doctrinal principles than on very contingent facts. Even a quick glimpse of this evolution1 will make it possible to realize clearly the relative character of the prescriptions concerning the liturgical language and the possibilities open to the Church on the day when, in her wisdom, she thought it necessary to reconsider these prescriptions.
Chapter I
Antiquity (From 1st to 6th centuries)
The nascent Church could hesitate, in the celebration of her liturgy, between two linguistic expressions. There was, in fact, the example of the Jews of Palestine, who used Hebrew, a dead language, for temple worship, the paschal ritual, the reading of the Bible (not to mention the practice of Roman paganism, whose formulas rituals are written in old italics were often unintelligible even for letters). But at the same time, there was another use, that of the synagogue and the Hellenizing Jews, which consisted in using, for worship, a living language, written language, or spoken language (common Greek, Aramaic, etc.).
Having to choose between celebration in a dead language and celebration in a living language, the Church has everywhere opted for the living language. The one that appears to be the most universal is Greek. We see its use from the first century in Greece proper (Epistle to the Corinthians), in Asia (Epistles of Saint Paul, Apocalypse), in Syria-Palestine, in Rome (Epistles to the Romans, Gospels of Saint Mark; Saint Clement). In Rome, in particular, Greek dominated to the exclusion of Latin, until the middle of the third century, as one can see by the inscriptions of the catacombs, the works of Saint Justin, those of Saint Hippolytus2. That we do not imagine that there is there the desire to have a unique liturgical language: where Greek is used, it is because, in fact, the greater part of the community is Greek-speaking (this is the case with Rome in particular, and this is now clearly emphasized value by all historians). But in the centers where Greek is not spoken, other languages are put at the service of the liturgy.
Thus, Latin is, from the start, the liturgical language of Africa (Carthage): Latin, and not Punic, which is in the process of disappearing completely, to the point that Saint Augustine's listeners do not understand it, this bishop is obliged to translate a local proverb into Latin3. Some communities in Syria-Palestine used Aramaic, as evidenced by the existence in this language of a text from Saint Matthew.
The Syriac of Edessa is used long before Saint Ephrem and the Pešitta; without entering into the discussion of the dates of the old versions of the Bible, it is certain that the Diatessaron of Tatian was from its composition, around 172, the object of a translation into Syriac.
In Egypt, Greek dominates in Alexandria and Fayum, but as Christianity enters the interior of the country, the liturgy uses other languages. Remarkable fact: the churches did not rule out any of the Coptic dialects. However, these dialects were officially ignored by the administration; some were not yet fixed in writing. These difficulties do not seem to have stopped the missionaries of Upper Egypt, since from at least 275, the Bible is read in Coptic in churches4: there is a Sahidic version, an Akhminic version, a Fayumic version. The popular character of the Egyptian liturgy, therefore, appears in a striking way; there were even translators in the bilingual communities, such as the martyr Procopius, who interpreted the liturgy in Scythian.
The Churches do not feel any reluctance to change the liturgical language when the need arises. The most typical case in this regard is that of Rome: during the third century, Latin competes with Greek there, which it definitively supplants around 375; later, in the 7th century, the presence of an imposing Byzantine colony will cause a partial return to the language of Saint Paul and Saint Clement (bilingual readings at mass and at the vigil; formulas, bilingual at baptism, etc.). Similarly in Egypt, the respective domains of Greek and local dialects have fairly shifting borders according to political vicissitudes. Finally, in some countries, evangelized first in Greek or in Syriac, a liturgy is subsequently formed in the national language, such as Georgia and Armenia. In Georgia, the Kartvelian must have been adopted between the 5th and the 6th century, whereas evangelization had taken place in the 4th century; in Armenia, a country Christianized from the end of the 3rd century (Saint Gregory the Illuminator), the national language was introduced into worship by the patriarch Isaac the Great, during the first quarter of the 5th century.
Thus, in various countries, thanks to the liturgical spirit of the missionaries, the local languages are fixed and rise to the literary level. But all these countries are located east of Rome, all these languages are languages of the East. In Gaul, Spain, Ireland, the liturgy is celebrated in Latin. With one exception (the gothic church of the bishop Ulfila), all the barbarian peoples who invaded the West in the V-VI century also adopted Latin. This is because the Latin found, in the countries of Occident, a power of penetration contrary to the penetration that the Greek and the Syriac tongues did not know in the East: of the local languages of the West5, as much of the natives as of the invaders, it remained almost nothing. This difference will lead to a great disciplinary divergence on the question of the liturgical language between the Churches of the East and those of the West, as we shall see shortly. For the moment, let us just note with Origen the great diversity of liturgical languages in the Catholicity of the imperial era; far from being astonished by this, the priest of Alexandria found it a subject of edification:
The Greeks use Greek words, the Romans Latin words, and all the other peoples pray and praise God each in his own language. God, being the master of all languages, hears those who pray to him in so many different languages, as if they were praying in one language; for he is not like men, who know one language, barbarian or Greek, ignore the others and do not bother about those who speak a language different from their own.6
Chapter II
Missionary Methods from the Orient to the Occident (7th to 10th centuries)
The Syrians did not have a missionary expansion. On the contrary, the Egyptians evangelized Ethiopia, the Nestorians brought Christ to India and to China, the Byzantines founded the Church among the various Slavic peoples. The Nestorians have, in all their missions, preserved the Syriac as a liturgical language in all their missions, without any explanation for this principle. Their rigor only weakened with regard to the readings and hymns, which were translated into Sogdian, Hunnic, Mongolian, and Chinese7.
On the other hand, Egyptians and Byzantines translated the liturgy and the Bible into the local language everywhere. At a date difficult to specify (5th-7th centuries?), Gheez became the liturgical language of the Ethiopian Church, a subsidiary of that of Alexandria. As for the Greeks, they did not hesitate to translate their books successively into Pravo-Slavonic, Arabic (10th century)8, later in Romanian (17th century). Faithful to their tradition the Byzantine missionaries of the modern era used the in the Baltic provinces, Estonian, Latvian, German, in Alaska and the surrounding territories, Eskimo and Indian dialects. In China and Japan, Chinese and Japanese; in North America, English and French, etc. We can see how true to itself this method is.
On the contrary, it would be a profound revolution in the missionary practices of the Western Church if the liturgy were celebrated by her in a language other than Latin. For the evangelization carried out by the Westerners in the period before the 16th century almost never posed the problem of a translation of the liturgy: even the catechesis and the preaching took place in Latin. The Angles, evangelized by Saint Augustine, had known Latin civilization in Roman Germany, and found on English soil very important remains of Latin culture; their language moreover contains many Latin words and will not be written before the 8th century. It was also in Latin that St. Boniface introduced the liturgy into non-imperial Germany and St. Ansgar into the Scandinavian countries.
However, there is a somewhat confusing area at the borders of the East and the West. Liturgical obedience overlaps, and so do missionary rights: Greek islands are scattered in Italy and as far as Rome. It is the Roman liturgy, which is implanted on the Dalmatian side, but according to the principle of the Byzantines, it is translated there is a dialect (Glagolitic missal, IX° century)9.
The agreement was not always so peaceful, since a serious conflict between the two usages broke out over the Moravian missions during the pontificate of John VIII. Moravia was simultaneously evangelized by Germans, who, following the Western custom, celebrated the liturgy in Latin and preach in Latin10, and by missionaries from Byzantium, Constantine from Byzantium, Cyril, and Methodius. The latter, faithful to the Eastern tradition, immediately undertook a translation of the Bible and the liturgy and for that purpose created an alphabet allowing the transcription in Slavonic.
The rivalry of the Germanic apostles brings before the apostolic seat the question of the orthodoxy of the Byzantines, and of the legitimacy of their translations. It seems that the following objection of principle was made to these translations: the inscription of the Savior's cross was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, so these three languages alone are allowed to praise the Lord. Methodius had no difficulty in demonstrating to Pope John VIII the traditional inconsistency of such a principle. He obtained satisfaction on all the line by a letter whose considerations are particularly important11:
Litteras denique Sclavonicas, a Constantino quondam philosopho repertas, quibus Deo laudes debite resonent, jure laudamus, et in eadem lingua Christi Domini praeconia et opera ut enarrentur, jubemus. Neque enim tribus tantum, sed omnibus linguis Dominum laudare auctoritate sacra monemur, quae praecipit dicens : laudate Dominum omnes gente et collaudate eum omnes populi. Et apostoli repleti Spiritu Sancto locuti sunt omnibus linguis magnalia Dei. Hincet Paulus caelestis quoque tuba insonat, monens : omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris. De quibus etiam linguis in prima ad Corinthios epistola satis et manifeste nos admonet quatenus linguis loquentes, ecclesiam Dei aedificemus (I Cor., XIV 2-6). Nec sane fidei vel doctrinae aliquid obstat sive missas in eadem Sclavonica lingua canere, sive sacrum evangelium vel lectiones divinas Novi et Veteris Testamenti bene translatas et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum officia omnia psallere, quoniam qui fecit tres linguas principales, Hebraeam scilicet, Graecam et Latinam, ipse creavit et alias omnes ad laudem et gloriam suam.
Thus, the Pope officially consecrated the principle of the Orientals in spite of the opposition of the Westerners; the objections drawn by the latter from a pseudo-scriptural argument were reduced to nothing. It is interesting to note that these same objections will be formulated again seven centuries later, as we shall see subsequently.
Certainly, Pope Stephen V reversed the decision of his predecessor John VIII12, but it should be noted that he did not appeal to any theological considerations; he based himself only on facts, the falsity of which John VIII had moreover expressly declared in a letter to Saint Methodius13. Stephen was thus played by the cabal of the German missionaries, but this time St. Methodius was dead and could no longer defend his cause before the apostolic see:
Divina autem officia et sacra mysteria ac missarum solemnia, quae idem Methodius Sclavorum lingua celebrare praesumpsit, quod ne ulterius faceret, supra sacratissimum b. Petri corpus juramento firmaverat, sui perjurii reatum perhorrescentes nullo modo deinceps a quolibet praesumatur…
The pope only concedes (proof that this was not common in the Latin liturgy) that the explanation of the epistle and the gospel is done in Slavonic:
Excepto quod, ad simplicis populi et non intelligentis aedificationem attinet, si evangeliis vel apostoli expositio ab eruditis eadem lingua annuncietur, et largimus et exhortamur, et ut frequentissime fiat monemus, ut omnis lingua laudet Deum et confiteatur ei14
Chapter III
The Middle Ages (10th to 15th centuries)
In the Middle Ages, it does not seem that the hierarchy asked itself the question of the liturgical language, although Saint Gregory VII renewed, for Bohemia, the prohibition of Slavonic already formulated by Stephen V15. A decretal of Innocent III at the Lateran Council (c. 14, 1. I, tit. 30) refers to the presence, in certain Latin dioceses, of faithful of the Eastern rites.
However, insensitively, the language spoken in the various countries of Europe separates more and more from Latin. The Romance languages and the Germanic languages even begin to have abundant literature (poetry, tales, novels, fabliaux, lieds). Certainly, Latin remains the official language of treaties, notarial acts, courts, teachers, and books, of all serious life in short. In France and in Italy (in Spain too, no doubt), its pronunciation makes it very close to the vulgar language, and therefore intelligible (cf. Pater noster, pronounced patenostre or patenôtre in France). However, in the peripheral regions mainly (England, Bohemia), one complains of not understanding it; in France, the vulgar language is mixed with Latin in the liturgical chant (stuffed pieces, etc.). This evolution was so insensitive that it never concerned the Church, nor the States, which continued to use Latin as an official language, in the same way as the Church. Thus, Christianity is a profound reality, and the unity of the language cements its homogeneity. The Eastern schism of the eleventh century, in spite of the crusades and the councils of union, made the Church more tightly bound to the destiny of the "Romanità".
Voices have been raised to ask for the liturgy in the vernacular, and perhaps initiatives have been taken in this direction. But these attempts at liturgical reform were premature: they were judged, with good reason, as taking away from the holy things their dignity, by displaying them in the language of the stage and the nightclub. Besides, they came from people who had fallen into heresy and who had disturbed, by their revolt, the peace of the Church: the Albigensians, Wicleff, Jean Huss.
Chapter IV
The 16th Century
In the 16th century, Latin remained the language of study and science, and thanks to the humanists, it was even revived among educated people who spoke and wrote it. But it is necessary to agree that it is not anymore that an elite who understands it from now on; one can even say that humanism is responsible for a great part of the decline of the Latin grammar of Cicero and by adopting a new pronunciation (wrongly called French), one has increased in great proportions the differences - which opposed it to the modern languages - have been increased into modern languages, more and more differentiated and evolved, and stabilized. Christianity no longer exists, the modern states no longer feel united by a common ideal; the world of moreover has suddenly widened as well in the east as in the west, upsetting the conceptions of medieval society.
This complete change in the situation of Latin was noted by François I, who, in 1536, in an edict dated Villers-Cotterets, decided that official acts would henceforth be written in French. Whereas it was the language par excellence, that of all serious life, of all that is solemn and official, Latin is henceforth became only the language of the Church, the University, and the scholars.
At that time, the Protestants had included in their revolutionary agenda the adoption of the vernacular language in the liturgy. A question of tactics, one might say, the heresy wants to rely on the people: in passing, it is rather painful to note that the Church has too often left to the heretics the monopoly of the frankly popular methods; the boldness of Saint Ambrose fighting against the Arians with their own method by introducing popular hymns into the celebration of the services has not been sufficiently imitated, and painful ruins are perhaps attributable to our timidity. Yet among the Protestants, the adoption of the vulgar language is more than a matter of the mass and the sacraments, having in their eyes no value ex opere operato, having only the efficacy of preaching, become totally useless if this preaching is not heard by the faithful.
The Liturgical Language in the Council of Trent
The Council of Trent, therefore, had to address, in its session on the Mass (August-September 1662), the question of the vulgar language in the liturgy. Among the articles extracted from the works of the reformers and submitted for discussion, the ninth is thus conceived: "An missa nonnisi in lingua vulgari, quam omnes intelligant, celebrari debeat." It must be said that the Assembly was faced with more serious difficulties, of a doctrinal nature, which caused this one to be relegated to the background; hardly three minor theologians and some theologians and a few Fathers expressed their feelings, and always in a vague and brief. Here, however, are the indications from this debate.
1) Almost everyone agreed that the principle of the Mass in the vernacular should not be condemned: Ferrante and several bishops (Bracaren, Calamonen, Veglen) insisted on this point. De Santis, a theologian from Salamanca, even stated that the pope could decide on a change of discipline on this point if he judged it expedient16. The definitive text of chapter VIII takes account exactly of these reservations: "Non tamen expedire visum est Patribus ut lingna vulgari missa passim celebretur. " The argument of the three languages presented by the same De Santis does not seem to have made an impact on anyone to be convinced.
2) However, the Protestant demand was not considered, and here are the reasons why the translation of the liturgy was considered inappropriate:
a) «Ne margaritae dentur porcis, ne vulgo arcana Dei publicentur et ludibrio habeantur17.»; «neque videtur esse dubitandum quin, si missae vulgaricujusque gentis idiomate peragerentur, divina mysteria minori reverentia colerentur18» This argument dates back to Gregory VII « Ne vilescerent et subjacerent despectui19. » Today, we are a bit surprised by this. To understand this, we must remember what I noted above, that throughout the Middle Ages, Latin was the language of "serious" life and of all things noble and official. Benedict XIV, still in the XVIII century, wrote in his De sacrificio-missae, 2, 2, 5: «Cum tot sint vulgares linguae risu plane dignae et prorsus contemnendae. » We must not lose sight also of the fact that those times, known as times of great faith, had a familiarity with holy things that bordered on irreverence:
Southern Italy could, even before the present war, give us some idea of this. Finally, the clergy itself was very poorly educated and lacking all dignity, was too much involved in the most trivial popular life.
b) « Esset etiam magnopere periculosum ne varii in multis translationibus errores nascerentur20.»
3) These reasons did not seem satisfactory to several Fathers21. They do not appear in the definitive text. Moreover, the text of 1 Cor. XIV, 16, came up several times in the discussion, and each time it was difficult to avoid it. If it is quoted by Justinian22, Cesare Ferrante declares peremptorily: Justinianum loqui de more greco23; as for Francisco de Santis, here is how he manages it: et ad 1 Cor. et ad 1 Cor. XIV, 16, quod opponunt haeretici, quod necesse est ut adstantes in ecclesia audiant quae dicuntur, etc., respondit Paulum intelligere de praedicante verbum Dei, vel quia eo tempore is mos erat, cum omnes essent tanquam religiosi et pii neque erat periculum irreverentiae, ut esset nunc, quando caritas refriguit24. -On the other hand, everyone agreed that at least some parts of the Mass were intended for the instruction of the faithful and should be understood by them: etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem, says the definitive redaction of chapter VIII25.
4) To compensate in part for the disadvantages of the Latin liturgy, the Council asks those in charge of souls to ensure the explanation of the Holy Mysteries and the readings:
Ne oves Christi esuriant, neve parvuli panem petant et non sit qui frangat eis, manda Sancta Synodus pastoribus singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex his quae in missa leguntur aliquid exponant, atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod declarent, diebus praesertim dominicis et festis26.
This text, which is much broader than the original draft, does not limit these explanations to the epistle and the gospel; nor does it specify that they must necessarily be given during the homily. In practice, however, these liberties and this advice are rarely taken advantage of.
Chapter V
The Language of the Liturgy After the Council of Trent
The attacks against the Council of Trent were not lacking in the camp of the Protestants; the most violent came from an Italian apostate, Paolo Sarpi (Pietro Soave). Among other grievances, the innovators reproached the Council of Trent for its attitude towards the vulgar language in the liturgy. The controversies and Catholic theologians were thus led to periodically take up the problem again, but now with an apologetic concern: for them, it was a question of justifying the decisions of the Council, of developing the reasons likely to show their validity. Hence the tendency to transpose onto the level of principles a discipline which the Fathers of Trent had based solely on expediency; this tendency can be seen in St. Bellarmine, and again, in the eighteenth century, in Benedict XIV 27.
The official decisions of the Church were influenced by this stiffening of the controversy. In 1699, the Holy See condemned Quesnel's proposal no. 86:
Eripere simplici populo hoc solatium jungendi vocem suam voci totius ecclesiae est usus contrarius praxi apostolicae et intentioni Dei28.
It is not possible to determine exactly which "note" this proposition is to be withered from, because it is, according to the custom, condemned en bloc with the others, without it being specified which are "respectively heretical, rash or false".
On the other hand, Proposition 66 of the Synod of Pistoia received a precise qualification from Pius VI:
propositio asserens fore contra apostolicam praxim et Dei consilia, nisi populo faciliores viae parentur suam vocem jungendi cum voce .totius ecclesiae, — intellecta de usu vulgaris linguae in liturgicas preces induceiidae : fasa, temeraria, ordinis pro mysteriorum celebratione praescripti perturbativa, plurimorum maloruni facile productrix.
(Bulle Auctorem fidei, 28 août 1794, D. B. 1566.)
It is remarkable that, in spite of its rigor, this condemnation remains on the level of opportunity, of good practical order, of a factual situation, and avoids any doctrinal note.
Same severity in the disciplinary acts. In 1661 (January 12), Alexander VII condemned the translation of the Missal even for the private reading of the faithful; the Congregation of Rites, in various successive responses, affirmed the prohibition of all chanting in the vulgar language during the proper liturgical ceremonies (sung Mass, Vespers)29 and proscribed, even outside the liturgy, the translation of liturgical prayers30. Scattered throughout the authentic collection authentic collection of decrees, these responses were taken up again in a modern document intended officially for the universal Church, the Motu proprio of Pius X of 22 November 1903 (n. 7):
“The proper language of the Roman Church is Latin. It is therefore forbidden in solemn liturgical ceremonies to sing anything in the vulgar language; even more so, to sing in the vulgar language the variable or common parts of the Mass and the Office in the vulgar language.”
It must be said that until the Revolution of 1789, in France, the clergy and the people were in agreement with the Holy See to throw the most rigorous ostracism on any intrusion of the vulgar language in the liturgy: Latin appeared as the touchstone of orthodoxy, the vulgar language was a sign of recognition of the Reformed. The condemnation of Alexander VII against the translation of the Missal had been preceded by a decision in the same sense of the Faculty of Theology of Paris (1655) and of the Assembly of the Clergy of France in 1660.
The vulgar language, driven out of the liturgical office, took refuge in the canticles and prayers of devotion, which in their turn were superimposed on the celebration of the low mass as much in France as in Italy and Spain.
It should not be concluded, however, that the problem of the vulgar language no longer arose before the ecclesiastical authority, that the various disciplinary measures which we have noted were universally applied, and that they were raised and universally applied without any exception
First of all, local customs have been maintained which have a legitimate value from the legislative point of view: thus, by immemorial custom, the Kyriale chants are performed in German at solemn Mass in certain regions of Germany and Austria.
Similarly, the use of the Glagolitic Missal (Roman liturgy translated into Slavonic) has always been maintained on the Dalmatian coast in the dioceses of Trieste-Capo d'Istria, Veglia-Arbe, Zara, Spalato, Sebenico, Szany-Modrus, as officially recognized by the decree of the Congregation of Rites, no. 3.999 of 5 August 1898.
The friars of the Orient were led to present to Rome requests for the translation of the liturgy into the language of the countries they were evangelizing. Generally, the Holy See refused to accept these requests, for example in 1627, the request of the Discalced Carmelites for Armenia, in 1681 for the Caucasus. Not always, however, and two little-known facts should be noted.
John of Monte Corvino, the apostle of Central Asia, obtained for his missionaries the faculty to celebrate in Mongolia the Latin Mass "tam verba canonis quam praefationis"; this assured them an appreciable superiority over the Nestorians who used Syriac without understanding it31.
On March 26, 1615, the Holy Office32 gave, in the name of Paul V, a response in principle favorable to the celebration in Chinese by the native priests. It is true that various causes, including violent persecution, delayed the making of the Roman missal translated into Chinese: when, in 1680, the Jesuit Philippe Couplet presented it to the Congregation of Rites, he was unable to obtain approval; he had, however, accompanied his request with a report, later published by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum33, in which he exposed the very particular difficulties caused by Chinese nationalism and the near impossibility of teaching Latin to the natives who were being prepared for the priesthood; he concluded thus:
Liceat mihi quarere an, si Apostolorum principes Petrus et Paulus in Sinam praedicaturi advenissent, non id facturi fuissent quod Romae et Athenis fecerunt, et relicto lingua hebraeo-syriaca, ut ibi usi sunt graeca et latina, ita apud Sinas Sinica lingua in sacris non fuerint usuri34?
This was the principle of Cyril and Methodius. Pope Leo XIII paid a glowing tribute to the apostles of Moravia by inserting their feast into the universal calendar: by doing so, the Church could let go of its past rigor with regard to the translations of the Roman liturgy. In 1886, in the agreement with Montenegro accepted the restricted use of the modernized Paleo-Slavonic, or Gradjanka, for the diocese of Antivari35. In 1920, a much larger concession was made to Czechoslovakia: while Paleo-Slavic was admitted for the Roman rite mass on certain. In 1920, a much more important concession was made in Czechoslovakia: while Paleo-Slavic was admitted to the Roman rite mass on certain feast days in some large churches, the popular language was officially used at high mass for the singing of the epistle and the gospel, after they had been sung first in Latin; it was also used for baptism, marriage, and funeral ceremonies, and for the procession of St. Mark's Day, Rogations, and the Blessed Sacrament36.
Finally, certain dioceses of Germany and Central Europe have obtained from Rome, in the course of the last twenty years, the approval of liturgical texts involving more or less extensive use of the vulgar language (e.g. Munich, 1929, Vienna, 1935).
Thus, the discipline of the Western Church in matters of liturgical language is far from being as rigid as it appears at first sight: it is likely to evolve according to circumstances, and could one day, under the effect of missionary needs, join the usage of the Greek and Egyptian missionaries37.
Notes;
1. I owe a lot of indications, mainly for the Eastern Church, to my friend Jean DAUVILLIER, professor at the Faculty of Law of Toulouse Law of Toulouse, who has kindly reviewed and completed my documentation.
2. Cf. G. BARDY, Research of Religious Science, 3o, 1940, pp. 109 ff; G. MORIN, Revue Bénédictine, 4o, 1928, p. 134
3. Sermon 167 De Sanctis
4. S. ATHANASE, Vita Antonii, 2. St. Anthony, who did not know the Greek language, was converted by hearing the deacon sing the Gospel.
5. A. MEILLET, Aperçus d'une histoire de la langue grecque, 56 édition, p. 305.
6. Contra Celse,8, 37.
7. Cf. Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Nestorians (E. car- dinal TISSERANT).
8. The Arabic language has gradually entered the Coptic, Syriac and Norwegian liturgies.
9. Cf. K. MOHLBERG, Memoric della P. Accademia romana di archeologia, 2, 1927, pp. 207-320.
10. Cf. JAFFE-WATTENBACH, n° 3407
11. Ibid, n° 3319; Migne, P. L., 126, 906.
12. Ibid. at 3407-3408.
13. Ibid. nr. 3344.- .-
14. IMd. Cf. the bibliography in E. AMANN, L'époque carolingienne,pp.451-463.
15. JAFFE-LOEWENFELD, n° 5151; Regestum, 7, 11.
16. EHSES,8,p. 744. t
17. De Santis,EHSES, p. 743. a
18. Draft Doctrina of August 6, 1562; EHSES, p. 753.
19. JAFFE-LOEWENFELD, no. 5151.
20. Doctrina project of August 6; EHSES, p. 753.
21. Veglen, EHSES, p. 766; Assaphaen, p. 771; Brixien, p. 780; Calaguritan, p. 780.
22. Novelle137.
23. EHSES, p. 742.
24. EHSES, p. 744.
25. D.B.,946.
26. Ibid. I will return to this text in another article.
27. De sacrificio Missae, 2, 2. 28. D. B.,
28. D.B., 436.
29. Décrets 3230, 3827 ad 1, 3113 ad 1, 3496 ad 1 .3994, etc
30. Décret 3537 ad 3.
31. E. TISSERANT, Nestorians, in the Dict de Théologie, col. 22/1.
32. DELPLACE, Synopsis actorum, p. 271, n. 162 and 164.
33. Propylaeum Maii. Paralipomena
34. Ibid. ,p.127
35. Thalhofer, Handbuch, I p. 23.
36. Documentation catholique, 4, 1920, p. 94.
37. The expression "vulgar language" used throughout this article is perhaps equivocal today; it would seem to imply
38. It would seem to imply a depreciative note which is however foreign to its origins: Dante's De vulgari eloquentia deals with the modern language, Tuscan, which he does not disdain to use in the Convivio and the Divina Commedia. Littré rightly defines: "Vulgar languages is said in opposition to learned languages and dead languages." Perhaps it would be better to say nowadays national languages.
Comments