A Brief Discussion on the Importance of Latin Language in the Catholic Church

Abstract

Throughout history, Ecclesiastical Latin has been regarded as a cornerstone of Western culture and the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet over the past forty years, this distinctive “Catholic characteristic” (Sensus Catholicus) has gradually faded from the Church’s liturgy and from the spiritual lives of the faithful.

This phenomenon is, of course, partly attributable to misunderstandings among the faithful, and even among clergy and ecclesiastical institutions, concerning the proper use of Latin. Some hold that Ecclesiastical Latin is not, in fact, the “official language” of the Church, arguing that this “sacred language” was used for only a few centuries throughout the history of the Church. Others maintain that Latin has become “outdated” and can no longer meet the spiritual needs of the Church and of modern people, and that the Second Vatican Council therefore replaced it with the vernacular in the Church’s liturgy.

But are these claims consistent with the historical facts? Does the modern Church truly discourage—or even reject—the use of Latin?

This article will examine three principal areas:

1. The historical use of Latin in the Church’s liturgy
2. Why the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin as its “liturgical language”
3. The views and practical use of Latin by the Second Vatican Council and the modern Popes

1. The historical use of the Latin in the Church’s liturgy

Some people believe that Latin was used by the Catholic Church for only a few centuries and therefore cannot be regarded as the official language of the Church. But is this claim consistent with the historical facts?

If we examine the history of the Church carefully, we can see that there are grounds for questioning this assertion. In the early Church, Hebrew or Aramaic was initially used as the principal liturgical language of the Mass, since these were among the languages commonly spoken by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. This also helps explain why we still find certain Aramaic expressions, such as “Amen” and “Alleluia,” in the celebration of the Mass today.

By the middle of the second century, these languages were gradually replaced by Greek, the language widely used among the people of the Roman Empire at the time. For example, the familiar liturgical monogram “IHS,” often seen in churches, derives from the Greek name of Jesus Christ. (It is worth noting, however, that some have interpreted “IHS” as an abbreviation of the Latin phrase Iesus Hominum Salvator, meaning “Jesus, Saviour of Mankind.”)

After nearly a century of Greek usage, Latin gradually began to be adopted as a liturgical language in Masses celebrated in various cities of the Roman Empire. By around AD 250, Latin was increasingly being used in places such as Milan. Here, it is important to recognise that the introduction of Latin into the Church was not a sudden development.

From the earliest centuries of Christianity, various saints and Fathers of the Church were already writing in Latin. Latin works can be found, for example, among the writings associated with St. Justin Martyr (c. AD 150) and St. Hippolytus (c. AD 215). The process by which Latin gradually replaced other languages was therefore slow and progressive.

In addition to being one of the principal languages of the Roman Empire, there were other factors that contributed to the Church’s increasing use of Latin. For example, the emergence of the Arian heresy prompted the Church to formulate and employ various Latin prayers and texts for use in the liturgy, thereby contributing to the wider adoption of Latin.

Thus, by around AD 380, the Catholic Church in the Western Roman Empire had formally established Latin as the liturgical language of the Mass. From that period until the latter part of the twentieth century—a span of more than 1,500 years—Latin became the principal liturgical language of the Roman Rite.

2. Why the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin as its official “liturgical language”

From the foregoing, we can understand the history of the use of Latin in the Church. But why did the Church continue to use it?

Some argue that, by the seventeenth century, Latin was no longer the common language of Europe. Furthermore, since Latin is considered an “extinct language” (extinct language), in the sense that it is no longer spoken as an ordinary means of communication, they argue that the Church today should no longer continue to use it.

Yet these historical circumstances apparently did not lead the Church to change its position. Why, then, has the Church continued to choose and promote the use of this supposedly “outdated” language?

Fr. Richard F. Clarke, in his well-known work The Catechism Explained, explains that the use of Latin is connected with its qualities of “venerability” and “mystery.”

First, the quality of “venerability” refers to the antiquity of the Latin language. It has, as Clarke explains, “been the language in which Catholics have praised God since the earliest centuries of the Church,” and has likewise been “the language in which the faithful have prayed to God during times of persecution.” The Church’s continued use of Latin therefore serves to preserve the tradition of the early Church and to unite Christians throughout the ages in praising God “with one voice” (una voce).

Furthermore, we should recognise that this unity transcends time, geography, and national boundaries. Whether in France, China, or among peoples speaking other languages, Catholics who participate in the Mass or other Catholic liturgies can praise God using a common liturgical language. This not only expresses the unity of the Body of Christ, but also manifests through language the fact that the Catholic Church is both “one” and “catholic”—una et catholica. Members of this great family, from the earliest generations of Christians to those living today, are united in praising Christ upon the altar of the Church, which signifies the “Heavenly Jerusalem.”

Thus, the unity of language serves as an expression of the unity of the Church. This principle of unity was also among the reasons why the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council retained Latin in the liturgy.

Moreover, beyond its role as the language of ecclesiastical tradition, Fr. Clarke points out that Latin, as a “dead language,” can contribute to a certain sense of mystery within the liturgy.

As the late Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI explained in his work The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Mass is an encounter and union between God and man. The entire “divine action” (actio divina), as the most beautiful and sacred mystery in this world, ought to constitute a “space” set apart from ordinary worldly life.

The use in the liturgy of a language that is not primarily employed as an ordinary means of human communication can therefore serve a similar purpose to the practice of the early Church. According to this understanding, when the Church sang the Sanctus—“Holy, Holy, Holy”—during the Mass, a curtain was drawn across the sanctuary, concealing the altar and the Eucharistic mysteries. Such practices helped create a sense of mystery, directing the hearts of the faithful through visible signs towards the invisible God.

Indeed, the Old Testament itself provides a similar precedent: the priests of ancient Israel employed the ancient Hebrew language in the Temple’s sacred worship rather than the ordinary language of daily communication when offering sacrifice.

3. The views and practical use of Latin by the Second Vatican Council and the modern Popes

Some may argue that the Second Vatican Council abolished the use of Latin in the Church’s liturgy, and some have gone so far as to describe this as part of the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.” However, various Church documents and statements by the Popes appear to contradict this understanding.

In the following section, drawing upon contemporary papal statements and Church documents made available by EWTN, I will examine the Holy See’s position on the use of Latin, as well as the role of the vernacular in the ordinary liturgical life of the Church today.

I. The Second Vatican Council

As is well known, the term “Latin Mass” is not sufficient to describe the Tridentine Mass, since the first celebrations of the “New Mass” (the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite aka Novus Ordo) were themselves celebrated in Latin. Furthermore, the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI in 1969, in accordance with the norms of the Second Vatican Council, was itself published in Latin. Thus, from the very beginning, Latin was never abolished.

On the contrary, the Second Vatican Council explicitly intended to retain Latin as a language of the Roman Rite. In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council stated:

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 vernacular, whether in the Mass, in the administration of the Sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use of the vernacular may be permitted, especially in readings, directives, some prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

§ 3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22 § 2 to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant, this authority is to consult with the bishops of neighbouring regions having the same language.

The text of the Constitution clearly demonstrates that, even while acknowledging the advantages of using the vernacular in the liturgy, Latin was nevertheless to be preserved. Therefore, as H. A. Reinhold observed prior to the Council, the focus of the liturgical reform was not the abolition of the sacred language itself—that is, a “Liturgy in the Vernacular”—but rather the extent to which the vernacular and Latin should be used within the Mass: the “Vernacular in the Liturgy.”

II. The Implementation after the Council

Following the Council, the Holy See continued along this course in the implementation of its conciliar documents. On 16 October 1964, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which stipulated:

§ 59. Priests should take care to ensure that the faithful are able to recite or sing, in Latin and with simple melodies, those parts of the Mass which pertain to them.

It is therefore clear that Latin was not, as some claim today, to be diminished or devalued for the sake of pastoral considerations. On the contrary, priests were expected to follow the intention of the Church by instructing the faithful to participate in the liturgy through singing in Latin.

Building upon this, three years later, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued another instruction concerning the use of Latin in sacred music, which stipulated:

“Priests should take care that the faithful are able to recite or sing, in Latin as well as in the vernacular, those parts of the Ordinary Mass which pertain to them.”

— Musicam Sacram, Instruction on Music in the Liturgy, 5 March 1967

Therefore, the introduction of the vernacular did not mean that the use of Latin in contemporary Catholic liturgy was intended to be diminished.

III. On the use of Latin

Some have claimed that Pope St. Paul VI approved the use of the vernacular in the Mass because he did not wish the faithful to continue using Latin as the language of worship. The reality, however, is that although the Pope approved the requests of the bishops to permit the use of the vernacular throughout the Mass, he continued to require that the faithful be able to pray the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, accompanied by simple Gregorian melodies.

These parts of the Ordinary include, for example, Dominus vobiscum (“The Lord be with you” — “And with your spirit”), the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei.

In other documents, the Pope expressed the same desire:

“19. Since faithful of different nations are coming together with increasing frequency, it is desirable that they should be able to sing, with simple melodies, certain parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the profession of faith and the Lord’s Prayer.”

— General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Roman Missal, 1975, Third Edition

Thus, rather than abolishing Latin, Pope St. Paul VI continued to encourage its use in the liturgy, as the aforementioned documents demonstrate.

But what about the other modern Popes? Did they express their own views on the matter? The answer is yes. As successors of St. Peter, they likewise recognised that the use of Latin could be beneficial to the faithful. Pope St. John Paul II provides a particularly clear example.

In 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated in The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation:

“40. Music and song, which express the human soul, have an important place in the liturgy. Therefore, singing must be promoted, and the singing of the liturgical texts should be given pride of place, so that the faithful may hear their own voices in the liturgical celebration…”

— The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation, 1994, no. 40 (cf. no. 84)

Conclusion

From the foregoing, it can be seen that, throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has used Latin as a means of preserving ecclesial unity and promoting the spiritual good of the faithful.

In fact, incorporating a greater element of the vernacular into the liturgy is not mutually exclusive with the continued use of Latin. If one were to argue that the faithful cannot meaningfully participate in the liturgy unless they understand Latin, perhaps we should reflect upon the words attributed to St. Augustine:

“Even if they do not understand what is said or sung at Mass, at least they know that what they are doing is for the glory of God; and this is sufficient reason for their active participation.”