The Catholic University
Studies

in

of

America

Sacred Theology

(Second Series)
No. 123-A

The Church of Rome and >e
Problem of the Vernacular fsjrsus
the Liturgical Language
AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF SACRED THEOLOGY
OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA· IN, PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY

BY THE
s

REV. ANGELUS A. DE MARCO, O.F.M., Mus.B:, M.A., S.T.L.

The Catholic University of Americ

ft

Washington, D. C.

1960

&

J

1

This dissertation was conducted under the direction of Very Rev.
John Quasten, S.T.D., as major professor, and was approved by
Rev. Alfred C. Rush, C.SS.R., M.A., S.T.D. and Rev. Walter J.
Schmitz, SS., M.A., S.T.D. as readers.

The Catholic University

of

America

Studies in Sacred Theology

(Second Series)

No. 123-A

The Church of Rome and the
problem of the Vernacular Versus
the Liturgical Language
AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF SACRED THEOLOGY
OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY

BY THE

REV. ANGELUS A. DE MARCO, O.F.M., Mus.B., M.A., S.T.L.

The Catholic University of America Press
Washington, D. C.

1960

IMPRIMI POTEST:
Very Rev. Celsus R. Wheeler, O.F.M.

Minister Provincial.
NIHIL OBSTAT:
John Quasten, S.T.D.

Censor Deputatus.
IMPRIMATUR:
© Patrick A. O’Boyle,

Archbishop of Washington.

April 6, 1960
The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a
book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implica­
tion is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil
obstat and the imprimatur agree with the content, opinions, or
statements expressed.

Copyright, 1960

The Catholic University

of

America Press, Inc.

THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE PROBLEM OF THE VERNACULAR

VERSUS THE LITURGICAL LANGUAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................

v

CHAPTER FIVE: THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE PROB­
LEM OF THE VERNACULAR VERSUS THE
LITURGICAL LANGUAGE . 1

Object of the Council ........................... ................
Luthers principle tenets ......................................
Calvins doctrine ..............................
Vernacular translations of Bible ....................
The Councils decision ........................... ................
Session XV..................................................... ..............
Preparatory work of Theologians ....................
Canon 11 is drawn up ..............................................
Chapter of Doctrine ................................
Session XXII ................................................................
Article 9 is drawn up.............................................
Article 9 becomes Canon 10 .................................
Revision of Canon and Chapter...........................
Canon 9 is condemned......... ....................................
Chapter of Doctrine .................................................
Sermon prescribed in Mass....................................
Session XXIV ................................................................

1
2
5
6
8
8
9
14
14
16
19
20
23
23
24
25
26

REFERENCES TO CHAPTER FIVE............................................. 28
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................

36

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE COMPLETE DISSERTATION.. 45

FOREWORD

During the first sixty years of this century,the Chu­
rch witnessed developments in the field of Sacred Theolo­
gy which will leave their impress on many centuries to
come.

Chief amongst these developments have been the schol­
arly and persistant labors of Liturgiologists in reviving
the science of Sacred Liturgy. It would not be an exagger­
ation to say that developments in this field, have far
surpassed all previous achievements in the history of Sa­
cred Liturgy.
»

The fruitful pontificates of St,Pius X, Benedict XV,
Pius XI, have left an indelible print of "revitalised”
activity in the Church. At no time during their pontifi­
cates, were there lacking many and eloquent testimonials
of the importance the Church attaches to her Liturgy.

But perhaps, the pontificate of Pius XII witnessed
an even greater restoration in the field of Sacred Liturgy.
More than ever before, attention has been focused on the
doctrine of the ’’Mystical Body” which laid the ground-work
for the ’’magna charta” of the Liturgical Movement, Mediator Dei.
The Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the glory of
God, and the salvation of the souls of men, is endowed by
Him as a perfect society destined to the attainment of th­
is end. It is endowed with spiritual means of obtaining
the grace of God -necessary to enable human nature to per­
form the task of living as faithful members of this soci­
ety. In this Church, there is had the perfect means of of­
fering worship to God, - the Liturgy. In the framework of
this dual aspect of the Churchs mission, Pius XII there­
fore declared:
"The Sacred Liturgy is the public worship which our Re­
deemer as Head of the Church renders to the Father, as
well as the worship which the community of the faithful
renders to its Founder, and through Him, to the heavenly
Father."
While no conditions on earth could prevent the Church
from carrying out her mission; or render any instrument of
her power inefficacious, - there have been times and cir­

cumstances when the full realization of her ideal has
been curtailed.
Since the Liturgy in a wider sense, embraces that col­
lection of prayers and rituals, by which the Church publi­
cly worships God and sanctifies its members, the question
of language used in the Liturgy has given rise to the
Modern Movement toward the vernacular. As a matter of fact,
the vehemence with which it has been rejected or accepted,
makes It one of the most vital issues of the Liturgical
Movement.

This dissertation is by no means an attempt to side
with either the pro or the con of the problem. Rather,
we endeavor to present a study of the historical develop­
ment of the Liturgical language In the Western Church,
which should prove in this instance both interesting and
enlightening.

The original and complete dissertation available at
the Library of the Catholic University of America, ex­
amines first the historical use of Greek, and then Latin,
in the Liturgy of the Church of Rome, and then treats of
the exceptions made by Rome In allowing the use of other
languages in the Liturgy. This abstract deals with the
Council of Trent and her official declaration regarding
the Liturgical language.
A
The author expresses his deep gratitude to his Sup­
erior, the Very Rev.Patrick J.Howard,O.F.M. for his in­
terest and encouragement. The Very Rev.John Quasten,S.T.D.
professor of Ancient History and Christian Archeology,
deserves a special thanks for the suggestion of this topic,
and for his kind and Invaluable help in directing this
work. Gratitude is also expressed to Rev.Alfred Rush,C.SS.
R.,S.J.D.,S.T.O., and Rev.Walter Schmitz,S.T.D. not only
for reading this manuscript, but also for their suggestions.
And finally, thanks to Rev.Victor Mi lls,O.F.li. ,M.A. ,LL.D.
Professor of Church History at Holy Name College.

CHAPTER

FIVE

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE PROBLEM OF THE VERNACULAR
VERSUS THE LITURGICAL LANGUAGE
Since the fourth century, the Latin language has
acquired definite dominion in the Roman Liturgy.
From the historical instances already seen, it is,
therefore, clear that the use of the vernacular in the
Liturgy has been the exception to the general rule. While
showing herself condescending in the exceptions,(when a
true necessity of great spiritual advantage required it),
the Church has at the same time also shown herself un­
changeable in a question of principal; whence derives her
discipline which has carefully preservered the Latin lan­
guage as the special Liturgical language in the West.
Obviously, she had reasons for adopting this discipline.
What motives prompted this course of action? For an ans­
wer to this question we must turn to the Council of Trent
which pronounced authoritatively on this matter.*
As is known, the principal aim of the Council of
Trent was to combat the errors of the "Reformers’*-by re­
confirming, or making more precise, the dogmas which .they
were contesting.
In matters of the Liturgy, through a lack of a
strong discipline in the later Middle Ages, abuses were
not uncommon. In order to push their reform, the Protest­
ants were able to find in this climate sufficient material
- based on theories of a dogmatic nature, - for further
complaints against the Church.Having rejected the nat­
ure of Sacrifice and the Catholic Priesthood, and having
developed a new ’concept* of Divine Worship, they began
to wage war on Latin as a cult language. In taking action
in this linguistic question, It was not so much che Pro­
testant Innovation which now prescribed a vernacular Lit­
urgy, which interested Trent, but rather the MOTIVE which
led them to this conclusion. Only in the light of such er­
rors, which were then being suppressed, can the delibera­
tions of the Fathers, as well as the definitive decrees,
be interpreted.
Long before the sixteenth-century Reformation, a
trend towards the Introduction of a vernacular Liturgy had
already appeared as a national movement with the Hussites
in Bohemia (1415) who at the Council of Basle demanded the
use of their own tongue in the Liturgy.^ Even the Waldensians (1173) had decided to prescribe the vernacular to

1

the exclusion of any other language for Public Worship, as
was noted by Martin Luther.5 "To protest against the use
of languages not understood by the faithful, and to cele­
brate the Liturgy in the vernacular, so that the Liturgi­
cal prayers might be intelligible to the Ignorant, this
was a favourite idea of all the mediaeval heresies which
preceeded and prepared for Protestantism."6 But It was
left to Luther and his contemporaries to Ignite an Issue
which had long since been smouldering. "After John Huss,"
says Bossuet, "a world full of bitterness gave birth to
Luther.
Luther's gospel with Its fundamental tenet, viz.,the
absolute certitude of personal justification to be obtain­
ed from "sola fides" i.e., confidence engendered by Faith:
Through faith and by God's word, the soul will become
holy, righteous, true, peaceful, free, and entirely
good, and he will become a true child of God.8
Faith alone Is the means of man's righteousness.9

led both theoretically and practically to a 'purification'
of Catholic practice as well:

j

It is difficult perhaps impossible, to do away with
the abuse I shall now discuss....To alter or abolish
it....Almost the whole form of the Church life should
be changed and done away with. Entirely different rites
and ceremonies would have to be introduced, or rather
reintroduced.Ιθ
-----

The principal thing in Public Worship is the Word and the
arousing of faith:
Christ should and must be preached In such a way, that
in both you and me, faith grows out of, and Is receiv­
ed from the preaching....And that faith is received and
grows when I am told why Christ came.11
Liturgies must always promote faith and nurture love;
they must never be a hindrance to faith.If they no
longer serve these purposes, they are already dead
and done for, and of no further value....No Liturgy
has an independant value in Itself, though this is
how the papist Liturgies have been regarded hitherto.12

The doctrine of Transubstantiation must be rejected:
It is not necessary for human nature to be transub-

2

stantiated before it can be the corporeal habitation
of the divine, and before the divine can be contain­
ed under the accidents of human nature. Both natures
are present In their entirety.... In order that the
true body and true blood should be in the sacrament,
the bread and wine have no need to be transubstanti­
ated, and Christ contained under the accidents: but,
while both remain the same, it would be true to say;
"this bread is my body, this wine is my blood." 13
The Mass is no sacrifice. Its whole efficacy consists in
the words of Christ in which forgiveness of sins is pro­
mised to those who believe. We must fortify our faith in
His promise:

You will see therefore, that what we call the Mass
Is a promise made by God for the remission of our
sins.
If it Is a promise, we cannot prepare ourselves for
It by any works, by the use of force, or by any merits
but only by faith.*5

There Is no way by which a man can commune with God
or treat with Him except by faith; that Is to say, no
man by his works, but God by His promises, is the au­
thor of our salvation.16

The Mass In essence is solely and simply the words
of Christ.17

Nothing else than faith is needed for a worthy obser­
vance of the Mass, and the Mass Is truly founded on
this promise....Given faith, there immediately fol­
lows the most precious effection of the heart, en­
larging and deppening the human soul.1^
The misconception to be done away with....viz.,the
common belief that the Mass Is a sacrifice offered
to God.
The Sacraments (Baptism, Penance and Eucharist) are effi­
cacious through faith alone:
But our signs, and those given to the fathers, are
accompanied by a word of promise demanding faith,
the fullfiliment being Impossible by any other work.
....Thé whole of their effectiveness lies in faith,
and not in anything that Is done. He who believes in
3

them, fulfills them, even if nothing is done.2û
Salvation dispensed in the Sacraments is none other than
that obtained through the instrumentality of the word of
the sermon:
God presents two things to us, a word and a sign...
greater power resides in a word than in a sign.21

This pronouncement, though spoken by a priest in a
wlsper....Let each Christian at Supper keep in the
forefront of his mind and pay heed to it alone and
above all else. For the words, as we hear them spoken by Christ to all of us who stand around. We
must each take them to ourselves and build on them.
...You must nourish your hungry hearts on this word
and put your confidence in this divine truth and
promise.22
The word, therefore, plays the essential role, since the
Sacraments are above all else a catechesis.The same was
affirmed of the Mass, - Its principal role was to in­
struct:

For at the last supper Christ instituted these words
and nothing else. He intended them to have only a
spiritual application, entirely devoted to the for­
giveness of sin, to the operation of gfàCê^ and to
the giving of divine help. He gave these words for
our use, and in order that human hearts, depending
on them by faith, might become strong to do every­
thing good, and to resist sin, death and hell.God
intended to operate through his word and work.23
Luther, therefore, ridicules the Catholic practice of
silent parts of the Mass:
What we deplore, in the servitude of the Church is
that the priests take every care nowadays lest any
of the laity hear these words of Chrlst.lt is as If
they were too sacred to be uttered to the common
people. For we priests have no more sense, as to
the terms which we call the words of institution,
than to arrogate them to ourselves alone. We say
them privately, and in such a way, that they do us
no good.24

He renews this complaint, and advocates the use of the
vernacular:

4

This pronouncement, though spoken by the priest in
a wisper, and please God that he would say it quite
loud, so that all hear plainly, and in their own
language.25
But I wish, that at the same time as he 'elevates'
the sign or sacrament openly before our eyes, he
would pronounce, in an audible and clear voice,the
words of the testament; and that he would do it in
the vernacular, whatever that may be, in order that
faith may be more effectively awakened. For why
should it be permissible to celebrate Mass in Greek,
Latin and Hebrew but not in German or any other lan­
guage ?26

But while showing himself partial to the vernacular, he
seems illogical in practice:

I have not the slightest wish to abolish the use of
Latin in Public Worship, for I am solely concerned
about our young people.27

{

If I could, and If Greek and Hebrew were as common
among us as Latin, and if we had as many splendid
tunes and hymns as we have in the Latin services,
I would make a rota of the Sundays, and use all
four languages in turn, German, Latin, Greek, and
Hebrew, for the celebrating the Lord's Supper, and
for the hymns and lessons.

Luther, - the champion of 'liberty* could not force the
vernacular as an absolute necessity
It was left to Calvin to formulate the Inevitable
conclusion of the 'purified' doctrine. In his tract on
the Last Supper he tells us:

To end the whole thing we shall understand in an
article that which could be otherwise distinguish­
ed, that is, that the devil has introduced a way of
celébrating the Last Supper without any doctrine.
And Instead of the doctrine, has introduced cere­
monies partly inept and without any use, and partly
dangerous. This is the principal that our Lord has
recommended to us to celebrate the Mystery with real
Intelligence. Therefore it follows that the substance
is found in the doctrine, and if it be taken away it
is only a cold ceremony without efficacy. This not
only is shown by Scripture, but also testified to by

5

the canons o£ the Pope In a sentence alleged to St.
Augustine wherein he asks whether the water o£ Bap­
tism without the word be a corruptible element,and
the word not so much that It be pronounced as under­
stood. This means that the Sacraments take their val­
ue from the word when It la understood,without this,
they are not worthy of the name of Sacrament.
Therefore, It Is necessary that there be an Intelli­
gible doctrine In the Mass, and that on the contrary,
the Mystery Is wasted, as if everything was made hid­
den, and nothing is understood.29
In reducing the Mass and Sacraments to nothing more than
mere spiritual "pedagogy," it is naturally demanded that
the words be intelligible, since the primary function of
the word is to communicate thoughts, which in turn "arouse"
religious sentiments; otherwise, they have no value. While
we do not read these precise words In the passages just
quoted, nevertheless, it follows as a logical conclusion.
This, therefore, resolved Itself ultimately into the Pro­
testant rejection of the Latin Liturgy, and demand for the
vernacular. It Is in this framework of heresy that Trent
took up the problem of the vernacular in the Liturgy.

The Council is first confronted with the problem when
dealing with certain abuses of Sacred-Scripture.30 Altho­
ugh this particular aspect does not directly pertain to
our subject at hand, nevertheless, some brief considera­
tion will furnish us a background for the later sessions
which followed.
On March 1, 1546, when the Fathers had assembled,
there was included on the agenda of the day, the enumera­
tion of the abuses of the Scriptures, and the manner in
which they could be remedied:

Itaque poterunt hodie patres dicere, qui et quales
abusus ipsi sint, deinde quomodo purgari et emendari
queant.
In the third point enumerated, there was included the In­
advisability of printing the Scriptures in the vernacular
because of the danger of misinterpretation by the unlearn­
ed:

Nihilominus tamen et utilius esset, quod non Impri­
meretur in vulgari, quia non omnibus datum est lec­
tura et interpretatio sacri codicis......... Forte Incede­
bant in errores pessimos.32

6

Some of the Fathers agreed with this suggestion:

D.S.Marci detestatus est versionem sacrae scripturae
in linguam maternam......... 33

D.Belllcastrensis dixit......... Sacra libri non trans­
ferantur in lingua vulgari....34
Others opposed the idea quoting how the Mass had been
translated into Glagolitic by Jerome:
D.Feltrensis....Nec tamen abusum habendum censeo,
quod sacri libri vernacula lingua legantur, cum
dives Hieronymus Illyrico idiomate missam ediderit.35

Two opposite camps were thus formed in this regard, and it
was in the plenary session of March 17, 1546, when a vital
discussion took place.
After concluding the business of the session without
any indication of the problem, a question was raised by
Cardinal Pececco, asking why the matter of vernacular
translations of the Bible had not been considered amongst
the abuses just treated.3? Did its ommlselon imply the
authorization of such translations?

Quibus abusibus lectis Illmus.D.Card.Glennensis ad­
monuit advertendum per Dnos deputatos, an translatio
bibliorum in linguam maternam sit concedenda.37

Cardinal Madruccio replied by strongly opposing the idea
that vernacular translations should be considered an abuse
asserting that our adversaries would be scandalized were
it known that the Fathers were desirous of depriving the
people of the Scriptures, which the Apostle had counselled
should never be removed from their mouths:

Illud autem est, ne umquam patiamur, versionem bibliorum in maternam linguam numerari inter abusus.Quid
enim dicent adversarii nostri lis, quibus vana prae­
dicant, si sciverint velle nos e manibus hominum eve­
llere sacram scripturam, quam qaepius Paulus Apostolus
numquam ab ore nostro separandum praecepit?38

Cardinal Pececco did not intend offense by claiming this
to be an abuse, but he merely inquired, since, de facto,
Spain had prohibited such a custom, and Paul II had con­
firmed this:

7

Non dixi ego, hunc esse abusum, sed proposui consid­
erandum patribus, an esset, quoniam sciebam In Hispan­
ia hac de re aliquando latas et observatas leges, quas
Paulus II conflrmasset.39

In reply, Cardinal Madrucclo stated that in matters of ex­
pediency, the Pontiffs can err, but the Apostle could not:
J
Paulus ille Pontifex et alii omnes Pontifices quandoIque possunt et poterunt errare, licet non dicam, eos
erasse: Pauli autem praeceptum errare non potuit.40
:
;
i

. '

-·

While no decision was rendered in this meeting, the future
sessions of the Fathers witnessed both numerous and heated
discussions. A long list of pros and cons were drawn up
and argued. Fr.H.Schmidt treats of these conciliar dis­
cussions in detai 1.41 Suffice it to say, in a decree of
the fourth session held on April 8,1546,42 Trent conclud­
ed the whole matter of abuses of the Scriptures by pro­
claiming, that amongst the Latin translations, the Vulgate
was declared as the authentic version:
Statuit et declarat, ut haec Ipsa vetus et vulgata
editio......... Pro authentica habeantur.......... 43

Whereas, nothing was declared which either forbade or prescribed vernacular translations. Her silence in this mat■
ter obviously indicated her neutral position. If anything,
i:
by prescribing that the Scriptures be subject to the con.■j
trol of ecclesiastical authority, It left to their discre­
tion the responsibility of judging whether or not a transIlation would be desirable.45a
, i

■I

'·

I
1
*
1
I;

g
r

fii

"

μ

Such, indeed, provides an Interesting background as we
see the Fathers take up the problem of the vernacular in
the Liturgy a few years later.
The Council first dealt with this specific problem In
Session XXII, De Sacrificio Missae, chap.8, canon 9. Here
the matter is debated in conjunction with the Theology of
the Mass, and hence dealt with from the dogmatic standpoint.
The decree promulgated on September 17,1562, takes into
consideration two series of deliberations:
a) the first occured after Session XIV, from December 3,
1551, untill January 24, 1552.44 However, the Council was
Interrupted without making any conciliar definition.
b) the second series took up the issue once again after
Session XXI, from July 19 to September 16, 1562.

1·
r‘ V
ΐ
jr

8

The heretical points of doctrine of the Reformers
concerning'the Mass and the Priesthood, were drawn up in
ten articles and submitted to the Fathers for their examl**
nation:

Examinatur articuli haereticorum de sacrificio missae
et sacramento ordinis......... In subsequent! sessione de
sacrificio missae et sacramento ordinis agendum est,
articuli ex libris haereticorum super ipsis missa et
ordine excerpti, de more hactenus observato theologis examinandi et discutiendi propositi sunt, die
scilicet jovis 2.mensis decembris 1551.45
It is article IX which is concerned with the vernacular
language, and which has as Its underlying tenet the Pro­
testant doctrine, (expressed in Art.1-3), that the Mass
Is not a sacrifice of the Cross, but only a memorial.
Therefore, in virtue of its essence, it must be intelli­
gible. To this there is added condemnation of the Roman
practice of saying the Canon In a Low voice. It is in this
framework of dogma, that the Fathers of Trent will there­
fore seek a condemnation of the Article which reads,
(as taken from Calvin):

Ecclesiae romanae ritum, quo secreto et submissa
voce verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum
esse; missamque non nisi in lingua vulgari, quam
omnes intelligant, celebrari debere; imposturamque
esse, certas missas certis sanctis attribuere.46
PREPARATORY WORK OF THEOLOGIANS

The first Theologian to speak (December 10) in this
conjunction was John Arze who raised an objection:
Art.IX haereticus quoque est, et contra traditionem
ecclesiae, ut Cassianus scribit de sacrificio missae
qui eam consuetudinem esse refert; Graeci tamen alta
voce consecrant: est igitur haec secunda pars damna­
nda tantum quoad ecclesiam latlnam de missis lingua
vulgari celebrandis.Nam et Graeci in eorum lingua
celebrant, idem Aethiopes faciunt et Moschovitae, ut
latina ecclesia latina lingua, quam omnes olim intelligebant, celebrat; ideo non usque adeo generaliter
haec pars damnanda est; semper enim apud omnes gentes
propria earum lingua missae celebratae fuerunt.Nunc
autem non expedit, ut vulgari lingua celebretur; id
tamen prohibitum non est.47
9

The Oriental rite* also celebrate in the vernacular with­
out such a practice having the slightest taint of heresy.
While condemning the Protestant thesis as heretical,there
is danger of including a condemnation of the Orientals as
well. To avoid this, the sentence must not be a universal
one - non usque adeo generaliter. Surely, in itself there
is no reason why the vernacular cannot be used. Its pro­
hibition is simply a matter of expediency.

On the following day (December 11), Josse Ravesteyn
offers his argument:
lam quantum ad alteram quaestionem attinet, utrum
missa debeat celebrari in lingua vulgari et populari,
duo argumenta protestantes in confessione suae fidei
apud Augustam edita, primum, inquiunt,Paulus praecipit
uti lingua intellecta populo in ecclesia. Sic enim
scripsit eplst.ad Corin.Cap.XIV....Et confirmari pos­
sent haec per sententiam b.Ambrosii qui interpretatur
illud eiusdem capitis....Considerandum Igitur duplex
esse, quod ad propositum negotium pertinet, genus of­
ficiorum quae in ecclesia apud populum celebrantur,
unum quod cum populo agitur ad ejus exhortationem,
consolationem et aedificationem, atque hoc certo in
ea omnino lingya fieri convenit, quam populus intelllgit,.....Alterum est genus officiorum et ministeri­
orum, quae ab ipso sacerdote tanquam populi interces­
sore et advocato apud Dominum Deum aguntur inter Deum
4 et sacerdotem pro populi salute, qua si hactenus cog­
nita sunt populi, ut intelligat pro se fieri suppli­
cationem. .. .Nlhi 1 plus refert populum tenere quibus
verbis flat illa supplicatio et oblatio, quam referr­
et reum scire quibus verbis ejus salutem commendaret
judici patronus....Et interim retinetur Ipsis divini­
ssimis et sacratissimis mysteriis per sublimioris
linguae majestatem sua reverentia, cujus rei rationem
semper ab ecclesiae exordio maximam habuisse veteres
patres perspicuum est....^8

Here he presents the Protestant thesis which supports it­
self on the texts of St.Paul and the Ambroslaster, which
seem to favor the vernacular. However, he makes a twofold
distinction in the Mass. Ha speaks of the first part,
(Foremass) which is concerned with the edification and
consolation of the people. This must be understood; and
to be understood, it suffices that explanations be given
to the people. The Epistle, Gospel, and Creed belong to
this part of the Mass:
10

I

Ad hoc genus referenda sunt....Epl stola,evangel1 urn et
symbolum fidei, quae in ecclesiis Latinis bene ordi­
natis, postquam recitata sunt lingua latina, populo
per tractatus populares et vulgares, saltem dominicis
exponi so1en t.49

St Paul does not forbid the speaking in languages, but he
does require explanations. After these parts are read in
Latin, they must be explained. Obviously, Ravesteyn is
here referring to the traditional sermon as prescribed
by the Lateran Council.

In the second part of the Mass,50 which corresponds
more or less to the Canon, - neither is the question of
the vernacular, nor explanations in the vernacular, con­
sidered. It is sufficient here that the people know what
the priest is doing in their name, without necessarily
understanding the actual words with which he does It.
"The Intelligence of the Mass is realised in the words
which the priest, as minister, pronounces, and which the
faithful comprehend In his person."51 Ravesteyn also adds
the idea that reverence for the sacred mysteries demands
a sublime language.

On December 12, Martin Olaveus suggests that the Fa­
thers prescribe a law whereby in Solemn Masses, the Gos­
pel and lessons will be explained to the people:
Deinde monuit Patres ut ederent legem, qua in missis
solemnibus semper aliqui Interpretarentur evangella
et lectiones In lingua vulgari, ut adversariis re­
sistere possimus, qui tantum urgent, ut lingua vul­
gari missae celebrentur, ut populus intelligat.52

In this we see a renewal of Ravestyns idea regarding the
first part of the Mass which must be understood, and which
is fulfilled by the traditional sermon.55
Bartholomew Miranda speaks on December 29. He wants
to retain Latin, but does not want Art.IX to be condem­
ned "as the others."

Alii quoque articuli haeretici suht: sed IX non debet
ut alii, damnari de celebratione missae in lingua vul­
gari; licet canon semper debeat latina lingua et se­
creto dici, ob mysteria magna, ut Basilius docet.Alia
etiam debent lingua latina legi, sed in concione de­
clarari: in quo major fructus offertur populo.Quae
declaratio necessaria est, et in ecclesia fieri debet.54
11

Obviously, he hoped to avoid the possibility of offending
the Orientals which J.Arze had already considered.There­
fore he suggests that the vernacular should not be quali­
fied as heretical* Like Ravesteyn, he takes up again the
distinction between the Canon of the Mass, which must be
read In Latin; and the readings in the first part of the
Mass which should be read in Latin first, and then ex­
plained to the people in a sermon.

In the General Assembly which convened on January 2,
a report of the deliberations of the Theologians was given
to the Fathers. Nothing of importance was said, although
all unanimously judged that all the proposed articles be
condemned as heretical I
Die sabbati 2. eiusdem mensis Januarii, hora 21.cele­
bratur congregatio generalis, in qua legatus retulit
patribus ea, quae acta fuerunt post congregationes
theologorum.........Qui in examinatione articulorum suprascriptorum nihil notatu dignum animadverterunt: sed
omnes unanimiter articulos omnes proposltios haere­
ticos judicarunt.55

This meant an absolute rejection of the thesis that the
vernacular is necessary, and implication that it would not
be used, · hence, Latin would be retained. However, in this
general anathemization, certain observations were made whi­
ch give it a different shading:
J
Ut tamen quibusdam patribus satisfiet, haec minutula
ex sententiis ipsorum theologorum excerpta fuerunt.56
The first was concerned with the Oriental Rites. Since the
Orientals have a custom of using a language other than
Latin, some of the Fathers felt that a general application
of this condemnation should be avoided:

In IX art. - Quidam non putat expedire,damnare hunc
articulum generaliter;; sed tantum quoad ecclesiam romanam et lati nam; cum Graeci.Aethiopes, et quaedam
aliae nationes contrarium observent.57

or else, the Article should not fall under the same title
of heresy as the others:
Vel quod non damnetur sub censura aliorum articulorum.56

The second observation was concerned with the didactic
part of the Mass. It was recommended by some, that the
12

/

Council prescribe that the Epistle and Gospel always be
explained in the vernacular during public Masses:

Et quidam vellet statui a s.synodo, quod in missis
publicis semper aliqui Interpretarentur epistolam
et evangelium in lingua vulgari.59
All the Fathers do not agree to the first point mentioned
above. Two want the condemnation of the Article as under·*
stood by the Protestants, but in such a way as to exclude
the Orientals from the scope of the anathema:

Bishop of Agram:
IX.non videtur generaliter damnandum de lingua vulga­
ri, quia in multis locis, ut est in sua diocese, mis­
sae eorum lingua celebrantur, quam dicunt esse b.Hi­
eronymi: et placeret constitui ut celebrans declara­
ret lingua vulgari, quae latina dicit.60
Bishop of Placentia:
Art.omnes propositos haereticos conset....Et In IX
advertatur ne ecclesia orientalis damnetur.61

Others, ask for a lesser qualification than that of her­
esy, though they are not all in agreement as to the man­
ner.
The Bishop of Vienne suggests that the note of heresy
be replaced by that of "false.**

IX. l.pars haeretica, 2. falsa, 3. idem.....62
The Bishop of Granada, while suggesting the article
be condemned as "false," implies that the matter is in
itself disciplinary, since the Church could decide other­
wise:

Art.Ix etiam falsus est, licet Ecclesia possit con­
trarium statuere.63
The Bishop of Prense says that the phrase In the Art­
icle about the vernacular, does not seem worthy of cond­
emnation since many churches have the opposite practice:
In art.IX tamen non videtur damnandum, quod dicitur
de lingua vulgari, cum multae ecclesiae contrarium
observent.64

The Archbishop of Gaudlx said that Art.IX must not be
13

condemned as the others, because it could be allowed that
the vernacular be used at Mass in some places, basing
their argument on St.Paul,1 Cor.XIV.
IX art.non est damnandus, ut alii, quia posset con­
cedi, ut lingua vulgari aliquibus in locis celebra­
retur, argumento eorum, quae Paulus dicit 1.Cor.XIV.65

The Archbishop of Palermo does not want the practice
of explaining the Gospel (referring to the sermon) im­
posed as a decree:

r

Notatio autem in III. VII. et IX.Art.placet, non ta­
men quod statuantur interpretandum in missis evangeHum lingua vulgari. 6

;

The Archbishop of Casteliana recommends that there be
a better adaptation of what is said in Art.IX.,concerning
the vernacular. He is obviously referring to a revision
of the wording of the Article:
Alii etiam art.omnes haeretici sunt, sed melius ap-

I
:

4

I

tetur quod dicitur in IX de lingua vulgari.0'

The sum and substance of the above views of the Fathers
surely indicate, that while the majority were in favor
of a condemnation of Article IX, some objected to the form
in which it was expressed, since the privileges of certain
Jchurches were not taken into consideration, nor was It made
clear enough that the insistance of retaining Latin was
merely a contingent prescription.

J
I
,
*
e
I
.

A committee was appointed to draw up a formula accord­
ing to the observations made. Article IX becomes Canon 11,
which is framed in these words:
XI.Si quis dixerit, ecclesiae romanae ritum,(quo se­
creto et submissa voce verba consecrationis profer­
untur, damnandum esse,) missamque non nisi in lingua
vulgari celebrare debere......... A.S.68

j„
iI
ί

;
I'
I II
If

It is here clear that the Protestant error is condemned
under anathema, and is therefore a dogmatic matter.^9
However, it cannot be claimed that the Canon speaks dog­
matically of Latin as the language of the Liturgy.This is
explicitly brought out by the Chapter of Doctrine (Chap.
IV) which gives the reasons for the retention of Latin in
the Liturgy, and qualifies them as "maxime convenit."
This should leave no room to doubt,but that the question

14

of language is in itself a mere disciplinary matter.
The reasons given are: l)”the sacredness of Latin**

Hac enim secreti ratione et maiestas huius eneffabilis mysterii rectius servatur, et populus excit­
atur ut de eo reverentius et maiori cum devotione
coget.Lingua enim Latina, quae In titulo crucis
Domini tamquam quoddam divinum Instrumentum est con­
secrata, mysteriis missae in occidentali ecclesia
celebrandis, maxime convenit......... 70
2) "the common language used for the Sacrifice of Unity.«
Quae cum tot gentes magna diversitate sermonis dis­
tinctas et frequentissime inter se communicantes
brevi terrae spatio complectatur uno profecto ser­
mone, qui omnibus conmunis est, In peragendo hoc com­
munionis sacrificio uti debuit.71
3) "the safe and established expression of faith in an era
when Protestantism was replacing Latin by the vernacular,
because of heretical motives:

Praesertim cum hoc ratione plurimis incommodis obviam
eatur, quae in tanta evulgatione et tam varia trans­
lationum in mysteriis fidei diversitate nasci pos­
sent.
The Doctrina concludes by implicitly adopting the distinc­
tion between those parts of the Mass which should be un­
derstood, viz.,Epi stle and Gospel, - and prescribes ex­
planations of these in the sermon:
Quod si quae intersit, omnibus nota (ut veteris et
novi testamenti lectiones quae in missa recitantur)
et per concionatores debent saltem diebus festis
populo declarari, quemadmodum in illis omnibus ecc­
lesiis fit,quarum pastores officiis suis non desunt.73

These, then, are the motives which moved the Church to
adopt Latin, and to retain it in the West. No one can at­
tempt to claim that these arguments are based on the fact,
that its necessity flows from the essence of the Mass; nor
that the vernacular was rejected because it was bad in it­
self. On the contrary, the Church made this decision sim­
ply because it was feasible, and because the circumstances
of the times warranted it.74

However, this Chapter IV, and Canon XI, never received
a definitive sanction by the Fathers, because an epedemic
interrupted the sessions of the Council.
15

It was not untill· ten years later that the Council was
able to resume Its work. Nevertheless, the first series
of these deliberations have great value in helping us to
see what the final decision intended.

SECOND SERIES OF DELIBERATIONS

The Council renewed its sessions in 1362. Before be­
ginning any deliberations on the Mass, a petition had
been addressed by the Emperor Ferdinand to the Legates of
the Council, requesting,amongst other concessions, the
permission to intersperse vernacular chants with Latin
chants during Divine Worship:

13. Fortasse permittendum, ut liceat alicubi Latinis
canticis vernaculos fideliter versos intermiscere.75
We must not overlook the fact that the Emperor found him­
self, at this time, in the midst of a religious war.It
would seem, therefore, thkt such a request had the obvious
end of softening the tense atmosphere of this 'Reforma­
tory* period. -Fully aware of Trents former attitude in
the matter of vernacular, Ferdinand was careful to present
his petition in a way as to avoid some of the objections
previously made against its use:

■i

14. Utrum in cultus divini et sacramentorum administratione liceret alicubi Latinis cantionibus vernaculis
etiam aliquas pure et fideliter versas pro populi de­
votione intermiscere, suo tamen loco et tempore quae
conveniant, nec profanant divina illa et arcana bibit­
orum mysteria.76

Here an entirely new problem is posited. For the first
time, the vernacular is associated with chant.But, as was
to be seen In the response of the Legates, it mattered
little whether the vernacular was concerned with chants or
other Liturgical formulas. The petition was denied, since
it was felt that the sacred character of the texts would
thereby be tainted. However, pastors would be allowed to
give useful explanations in the vernacular, after the di­
vine functions. On Sundays, they could preach a homily.
Though at the same time, the Legates were willing to con­
cede that if the Council so wished, permission for the
vernacular could be given:

Non debet immutari mos antiquissimus, quoniam viles­
cerent Ista recitata in lingua populari: sed parochi
Ipsis poterunt explicare populo ea, quae expediuntur
16

post celebrata divina officia.At fiat homiliarium ali­
quod vulgare per singulas Dominicas.SI tamen ita syn­
odo videbitur ut Ista, quae pertinent ad res sacras,
possint lingua vulgari componi.77
Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Council for
its-final decision.

When the Council met, it began anew its discussions on
the Mass.The contents of Art.IX which became Canon XI,
and which was examined in the first series of deliberati­
ons, is now presented in the form of questions. Art.9 is
concerned with the vernacular, and reads:

9.An missa nonnisi in lingua vulgari, quam omnes
intelligent, celebrari debeat.79
Amongst the Theologians who examined this particular
question, we have the following reports:
Caesar Ferrantius, while favoring the Latin, makes it cle­
ar that translating the Mass in the vernacular Is not bad
in itself. However, the dangers and inconveniences involv­
ed do not warrant the vernacular, and he quotes examples
in history to prove his point:

Missam lingua vernacula traduci non est simpliciter
malum, sed ob inconvenientia, quae Inde evenire pos­
sunt, Gregorius VII epist.ad ducem Hungariae id vetat,
et Orlgenes hom.20.ln Oseam declarat,verbum Dei etiam
non Intellectum, dummodo cum fide percipiatur,fructum
operari.Justinianus autem in Novella 137 videtur con­
trarium dicere, cui Paulus favet cum linguam non in­
tellectum nihil operari etc. Respondit,Justinianum
loqui de more graeco. u
John de Valentia replied that the vernacular must not be
used, but the celebrant must explain the Gospel to the
people, - obviously referring to the homily:

Ad 9. respondit non esse lingua vulgari missam ce­
lebrandum; sed a celebrante parocho debent verba
Evangelil populo declarari.81
Francis De Sanctio does not favor the vernacular in the
Mass because he thinks it Is a profanation to the sacred
texts. As regards the words of l.Cor.14,16, St.Paul Is
here referring to the sermon, or in his time, the danger
of profanation did not exist. In any case, the Pope could
decide otherwise if he considers It expedient:
17

Ad.9.articulum respondi t, tai ssam lingua vulgari non
esse celebrandum sed aut latina, aut graeca, aut hebraea....Et ad l.Cor,14,16, quod opponunt haeretici
quod necesse est, ut adstantes in ecclesia audiant,
quae dicuntur, etc.,respondit Paulum Intelllgere de
praedicante verbum Dei, vel quia eo tempore is mos
erat, cum omnes essent tamquam religiosi et pii,ne­
que erat periculum irreverentiae,ut esset nunc...
posset tamen Pontifex Max.statuere contrarium,sicut
i udicaverit expedire.
Anthony Grossutus refuses the vernacular, but gives no
explanation:

Ad 10.(9) articulum respondit, missam non esse vul­
gari sermone celebrandum; caeremoniae autem in ecc­
lesia retinendae suntj.83
If we compare these observations of the Theologians
with those formulated in 1551,1552, we find that they are
practically Identical. The Protestant motive for demanding
the vernacular is still uppermost in their minds. They
therefore renew their previous demands that:
1) Mass must be celebrated in Latin,and not the vernacular.
2) A sermon in the vernacular will suffice for the people.
3) Thls is purely a disciplinary matter,therefore, the
Church could decide to use any language.

i
It Is clear after the lapse of these ten years, that
nothing new was added to the cause of the vernacular. If
anything, the Theologians seem more positive In reitera­
ting their main idea, that in principal, they have noth­
ing against the vernacular; that their choice of the La­
tin language was due merely to the reasons enumerated, which took into consideration the circumstances of the
times which required a retention of Latin in the West.

Prior to the deliberations of the Fathers, there ap­
peared a commentary on the Articles by one of the members
of the Assembly, - Christopher of Padua. In regard to Art.
9, he presents an argument hitherto unmentioned, and which
In retrospect, seems to have had some Influence on the
final deliberations. His ideas are:
Where there was only one language amongst a peoples, it
would be normal to celebrate the Liturgy In this language,
which was at the same time, the vernacular. But when, thr­
ough a process of development, there evolves an unknown
and literary language, it is the literary language which
Is more noble and suited to the dignity of the mysteries.
18

I

As for St.Pauls injunction that we speak in an intelligi­
ble language, his reference here is to the sermon, not to
liturgical formulas. Furthermore, this has been a long­
time custom in the Western Liturgy. To make a change would
iverthrow a tradition. Besides, devotion would be diminis­
hed by using the vernacular. The missal used by the people
would only serve to distract them from the Liturgical ce­
lebration. Lastly, the only essential la that the people
should know what is happening, and be able to join them­
selves to it. God looks at the affections of the heart,
rather than to the ideas of the mind, which are sometimes
erroneous. In brief, Christopher would retain Latin be­
cause of its advantages over the vernacular, principally,
that of respect and mystery:
Ad nonum (articulum): missa non nisi lingua vulgari
quam omnes intelligent, celebrari debeat, respondeo,
quod non est dubium, quod dicta sit aliquando missa
materna lingua, ubi non est nisi una lingua....Ex suo
igitur genere non est malum. Sed magis congruit liter­
al! sermone dici quam vulgato,ubi duae sunt linguae,
propter majorem tanti mysterii dignitatem.Sed tu di­
ces: Quomodo respondebit populus "Arnen" ut dicit Ap­
ostolus. .... si non Intelligit, quid dicat.Dicas, quod
loquitur de praedicatione, non de divino officio....
non est nunc hic mos Immutandus; quod fieri non pos­
set absque antiquae ecclesiae perturbatione, periretque devotio. Nam omnes missal e emerent et legemt ev­
angel! um et missam totam ante; postea cum legeretur,
non attenderent. Satis sit sacerdotem in personae
ecclesiae offerre et celebrare, populum autem devo­
tione et pure fide adesse....Deus magis animum spec­
tat quam intelligent!am eorum.
Based upon the observations of the Theologians, a dogma­
tic exposition drawn up in four chapters,and followed by
twelve canons, - was submitted to the Fathers. The second
paragraph of Chapter IV (De ritibus et caeremoniis,quae
in missae celebratione adhlbentur)85 deals directly with
the question of languages, and reads:
Lingua etiam latina, qua missa in occidentali eccles­
ia celebrantur, maxime congruit, si quidem ea pluri­
bus nationibus communis est,neque videtur esse dubi­
tandum, quin, si,missae vulgari cuiusque gentis idiomate peragerentur, divina mysteria minori reverentia
colerentur.Esset etiam magnopere periculosam, ne va­
rii in multis translationibus errores nascerentur,qui
facerent, ut fidei nostrae mybteria, quae simplicia
19

sunt, viderentur esse diversa. Cum autem in missa
quaedam sint,quae ab omnibus debeant intelllgi,veluti
lectiones et evangelia; ea per illos, qui curam ani­
marum exercent, saltem dominicis aliisque festis
diebus populo declarentur, ut In illis omnibus ecc­
lesiis fieri consuevit, in quibus earum pastores
officio suo non desunt.86

The Theologians state here their reasons for prescribing
the retention of Latin. The then current circumstances
which would bring disrespect to the Sacred Mysteries,and
the danger of error, - motivated this decision. They also
distinguish between those parts of the Mass which should
be intelligible, and which is handled by the traditional
sermon.
Article IX now becomes Canon 10, which is a repeat,
word for word, of Canon XI of the first series of delib­
erations in 1552. It reads:

10.Si quis dixerit,missam nonnisi in lingua vulgari
celebrari debere: anathema sit.8?
However, the phrasing of the dogmatic expose, and the
Canon, met with a storm of opposition.
While all the Fathers agreed to retain Latin,thereby
to refute the errors of the Protestants, - as the outcome
proved, some felt that the attack against the vernacular
was too general and too excessive.
The Patriarch of Jerusalem opposed the Canon and pro­
poses another which would simply prohibit the celebration
of Mass in any language without the authorization of the
Church.

10.non placet; dicatur: "si quis dixerit absque ca­
tholicae ecclesiae auctoritate in uno vel alio idiomate missas celebrari debere: anathema sit."88
The Archbishop of Zara objects to the Canon about not
saying Mass in the vernacular. Neither could he blame the
custom in vogue in Dalmatia, where the Gospel is read in
the vernacular after the Latin:

Multa in canones, et praesertim in eo de non dicenda
missa In lingua vulgari; se non improbare tamen morem
in Dalmatia, ut post latlnum evangel i um sublidatur
etiam vulgare, ut illae nationes magis Instruantur.
Quoad doctrinam placeret fieri, ita tamen ut potius
20

videatur explicare nostra, quam ea confirmare aut
aliena refeller.89
The Bishop of Velgia criticises the reasons for re­
taining Latin, and then asks that those who celebrate Mass
in the vernacular should not be condemned, since Mass is
celebrated in the Holy Land in every tongue:

In 4 cap.ratio quare missa latina lingua celebranda
sit, non videtur bona, neque damnandi qui vulgari
lingua celebrant. Et in ecclesia Hierosolymitana,
sancta sepulchri celebrantur missae qualibet lingua
quae est sub coelo.90
The Bishop of Calatnone does not want those condemned
who say Mass in the vernacular:

Neque damnandi sunt, qui in alta voce canonem preferrent, vel missam lingua vulgari celebrarent. 91
The Bishop of St.Asaph states simply, that the reasons
for condemning the vernacular are not good enough:
Neque ratio de lingua vulgari damnanda videtur bona,
et tibi non debent omnia intelligi videtur falsum,
quia Evangelium et multa alia debent a populo intel­
ligi ... .Neque sub anathemate damnari debet, quod
canon alta voce dicatur.92

In these observations we can see the reaction of
those whose views were broad enough to embrace the Uni­
versal Church. What about the Orientals in this instance,
were they irrevernt in celebrating the Mysteries in the
vernacular? Should they be suspected of heresy? Was this
ancient tradition merely tolerated by the Church? Such a
condemnation was entirely too general,(if not ambiguous)
and would consequently include the Oriental Rites. Where­
as, the Chapter only concerned itself with the West. Here,
then, was the discrepancy! Perhaps, this would explain why
the Bishop of Niems does not want the Canon to come under
anathema, and at the same time, asks that the law for us­
ing Latin be specifically restricted to certain countries,
thereby making it clearer:
Can.10.non est anathemate damnandus,et exprimatur
quod missa sola lingua latina celebranda sit,prae­
sertim in Italia,Gallia,Hispania, et declaretur quod
nos non sacrificium anathemate damnandi sunt, cum
aliqui sint erronei,aliqui scandolosi....93

21

Speaking on the same day, the Bishop of Nemosla adds the
thought, that the above remark was the expression of an
expert on the situation, since he had been accustomed to
deal with Protestants in his own diocese, and although he
had been offered certain favors by them, - with conditions
attached - and amongst these, that they be allowed the
use of the vernacular in Mass, he refused to grant the
slightest concession. Yet, despite all this, he still does
not wish to see an anathema pronounced against Canon 10:
Circa canonem de non dicanda missa in lingua vulgari
dixit se hoc expertum esse in diocesi sua cum haere­
ticis, qui bona eius ecclesiae occupata restituere
offerebant cum quibusdam conditionibus, quarum haec
erat praecipua, ut missa diceretur in lingua vulgari,
quod tamen ipse noluit.94
Did the lack of preciseness in the Chapter of doctrine
make the Bishop of Niems foresee a condemnation, - pure
and simple, - of the vernacular?

On the other hand, a certain number of Fathers refer­
red to as the "ultra-Latinists" by H.Schmidt,95 who seem­
ed to canonize Latin, expressed themselves in a way as to
reject the vernacular entirely:

I

Canones placent; sed in 10. nonnisi non placet,ne
concedatur lingua vulgari esse celebrandas missas,
et in 9. non videntur damnandi qui alta voce canonem
proferunt, i ramo approbandi et laudandi.96

And so, too, was an identical observation made by the
Archbishop of Reggio. For him, the word nonnisi must be
struck out:
Canones placent; 9 et 10. simul ponantur; neque da­
mnandus qui dicat missam nonnisi lingua vulgari cele­
brandam, et deleatur nonnisi, ne id concedi videatur.97
The Bishop of Mylopotamos seeing the Mass as a sacri­
fice of expiation, felt that its very essence demanded a
sacred language:

Missa itaque est sacrificium expiatorium....et latina
voce celebranda et canon secreto proferendus.^®
A certain number of the Fathers request a reshuffling
of the Articles. The Bishop of Lavant:
22

Et de 8.9. et 10.posset fleri unus.99
As was also suggested by the Bishop of Reggio

Others suggest that Canon 10 be better revised to
correspond with the Chapter of doctrine.

So the Bishop of Sorrento:
Canones placent, sed correspondeant ordini doctrinae;
9,10, et 11. possent aptari etc.l-θθ
The Patriarch of Aquila:
Canon.....10 melius consideretur, quia non concordat
doctrine.iOl

Others recommend that if the Chapter of doctrine is
retained, let it be more brief and clearer:
The Bishop of Cava:
Canones placent; in 10. et 11. placent notationes
factae. Doctrina omittatur si ponitur, fiat brevior,
dilucidior, et placet, quod dixit Jadrensis.102

The Bishop of Calahorra suggests that the passage of
doctrine on the matter of Latin language be ’’melius con­
siderentur. ”

Et in 4.cap. de lingua latina et submissa voce melius
considerentur.

This debate finally resulted in a revision of the
texts of the Canon and Chapter. Canon 9 is now formulated
by uniting it with the last Article, and is censured as
heretical in these words:
Canon 9.- Si quis dixerit, ecclesiae Romanae ritum,
quo submissa voce verba consecrationis proferuntur,
damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam ce­
lebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendum esse vino in
calice, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem:
anathema sit.^·®^
It is quite clear here, that a dogmatic question Is In­
volved. But by no means is it concerned with the verna­
cular itself. In this Canon, three points of Catholic
practice are grouped together, which are indifferent in

23

themselves, and In no way essential to the Mass, but which
were denied by the Protestants for dogmatic reasons, viz.,
a) The vernacular is demanded by the nature of the Mass.
b) Since the words must be heard, they cannot be said In
a low voice.
c) The mixture of wine and water was not instituted by
Christ, but by a ’foreign* element, therefore, it must
be suppressed. (This is unquestionably a denial of the
authority of the Church in matters Liturgical. Which is
likewise discernible in the first two demands.)

Although the commission considered the question of the
vernacular from the dogmatic aspect, it never intended to
condemn the practice of the vernacular as such, but only
the thesis which declared it necessary! There is no theo­
logical nexus between the Mass and language! Per se, the
Mass is indifferent to any particular language.Hence, the
condemnation is hurled only against those who would demand
the use of the vernacular through the Protestant convic­
tion! 105 This Is also to be seen in the Chapter of doc­
trine, (Chap. VIII) which precedes the Canons, and which
reads:

I

Caput octavum.--Etsi missa magnam contineat populi
fidelis eruditionem, non tamen expedire visum est
patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur.
Quamobrem, retento ubique cuiusque ecclesiae antiquo et a sancta Romana ecclesia probato ritu, ne oves
Christi esuriant, ne parvuli panem petant et non sit
qui frangat eis: mandat s.synodus pastoribus et sin­
gulis 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 sacrificii mysterium aliquod
declarent, diebus praesertim dominicis et festis.106

The Council concedes the point that the Mass has a
didactic role, - that it contains a teaching. But NOT In
virtue of Its essence, as the Protestant thesis declared!
The Mass is not a sermon, therefore, the vernacular is NOT
demanded by its nature. The Sacrament and Sacrifice will
always remain what they are despite the language which Is
used. The Dogma always remains intact. Yet, at the same
time, while this dogmatic point Is clarified, it does not
follow that the vernacular must be rejected, and Latin
must be preferred. Its choice is a matter of discipline.
And in this Instance, - expedire visum patribus - it was
a matter of concrete circumstances, (the contemporary dan­
ger of Protestantism), which prompted the Fathers of Trent

to decide that it was not expedient hic et nunc, to ce­
lebrate Mass in the vernacular, - passim - as each one
wishes, or arbitrarily.10?

In taking this stand, the Council refrains from men­
tioning any of the reasons in favor of Latin, or against
the vernacular. (Which resembles the decision concerning
the translations of the Scriptures.) It simply now pre­
sents the conclusion of its first affirmation, this is why
- guamobrem - the ancient rite of each Church, approved
by the- Holy Roman Church, will be retained.
In the revised text submitted to the Fathers on Sept­
ember 5, (which is quoted above), the phrase 'Omnium ec­
clesiarum matre et magistra" was not Included, but only
added in the edition which was read in Solemn Session on
September 17.1θθ
In this is to be seen the affirmation
that the Roman Church is the supreme legislator, who alone,
and in the last analysis, can approve Liturgical Rites
both in the East and West. Thus, the whole question of
Rites and languages used in the Church, is settled in this
one sentence. Condemnation of the Oriental Churches is th­
ereby avoided, and at the same time, a rebuke is aimed at
the Protestant revolt against "Authority."

After upholding this Catholic Tradition, the Fathers
took measures so that the Liturgy would exercise its fun­
ction of teaching In as far as possible:
"Quamobrem" is here extended to Include their princi­
pal concern, - 'ne oves Christi esuriant, neve parvuli
panem petant, et non sit qui frangat eis.' The Council
would not see the faithful neglected, and therefore, co­
mmands, - mandat - pastors and all those who have the care
of souls, to explain to the people not only the sense of
the formulas read at Mass - ex lis quae in missa leguntur,
allquid exponant; but also the theology of the Mass, tak­
ing one or the other mysteries of the Sacrifice - atque
inter cetera, sanctissimi huius sacrificii mysterium ali­
quod declarent. Since it was the essence of the Mass which
was attaked by the Protestants, and since this was the sub­
ject of many of the discussions during the deliberations,
emphasis is logically focused on this Central act. Such
explanations is taken to mean the tradtlonal sermon which
is prescribed during the Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
So important is this task, that should those responsible be
impeded, someone must replace them.^-θ^

25

It was on September 17,1562, that the dogmatic expo­
sition and Canon finally received the definitive approval
of the Council in the XXII Session, The texts of both re­
mained the same, with the exception of the additional wo­
rds added in the exposition and mentioned above: "omnium
Ecclesiarum matre et magistra."

With regard to the administration of the Sacraments,
here too, Trent revealed a similar attitude.

Fully aware of the riches contained in the Sacraments,
and endeavoring to enable the people receive them with
greater reverence and devotion, it was prescribed that ex­
planations should be given before their administration,
and these may be in the vernacular. There was no question
but that Latin would remain in the Rituals.
In Session XXIV (De Reformatione) September 5,1363, a
text was drawn up as Canon 8, wherein the Council embodied
these ideas.HO
While all the Fathers agreed that such explanations
would be valuable, yet some could see serious objections
to the phrasing of the text.Hl The Protestant attitude
towards the Sacraments was still uppermost in their minds.
They therefore sought a clarification.

Accordingly, the text was -revised and definitively
adopted in Solemn Session on November 11, 1563, which
reads:
Canon septimus.--Ut fidelis populus ad suscipienda
sacramenta maiore cum reverentia atque animi devo­
tione accedat; praecipit sancta synodus episcopis
omnibus, ut non solum, cum haec per seipsos erunt
populo administranda, prius illorum vim et usum pro
suscipientium captu explicent, sed etiam idem a sin­
gulis parochis ple prudenterque, etiam lingua verna­
cula, si opus sit et commode fleri poterit, servari
studeant, juxta formam a sancta synodo in catechesi
singulis sacramentis praescribendam, quam episcopi
In vulgarem linguam fideliter verti atque a parochis
omnibus populo exponi curabant.Π2

Thus ends an interesting episode in the annals of the
Council of Trent. And thus were established the reasons
why the Church has carefully preserved the Latin language
as her Liturgical language in the West. No one, therefore,
can say that the vernacular Is intrinsically evil in It­
26

self, nor that its use in the Mass and Sacraments is an
impossibility! On the contrary, in clarifying the issue,
the Council has left to the Church a criterion for future
action, should it ever be necessary to change existing
Rites and languages!

27

NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE

See H.Schmidt, Liturgie et Languë~Vulgalre,(Romae
1950). J.Froger, "Le Concile de Trent a-t-il prescrit
de donner des explications en langue vulgaire pendant les
ceremonies liturgiques?” Ephemerides Liturgicae, 78, Fasc.
2 & 3 (Roma 1959).
2
See H.Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent 1,
trans, by E.Graf, (St.Louis,Mo. 1957) passim.
3
See J.Jungmann, A Survey of Public Worship, (Colle­
geville,Minn. 1957) 29.
4
See Hefele-Leclerq, Histoire Des Conciles, 7,2,
(Paris 1916) 74.
5
See M.Luther, Werke.krltische Gesammtausgabe, 19
(Weimar 1930) 74.
6
See L.Godefroy, "Langues Liturgiques" PTC 8 (1925)
2585.
I
7
See Mourret-Thompson, History of the Catholic Church,
5 (St.Louis,Mo. 1930) 149.
8
See M.Luther, "Freedom of a Christian” (trans.from
Weimar ed.of Luthers works, 7, 12-19, 20-38) by B.L.Woolf,
Reformation Writings of Martin Luther 1 (London 1952) 362.
9
See Ibid.. 364.
10
See "Pagan Servitude” (Weimar ed.6, 484-496, 497-573)
trans. B.L.Woolf, op. cit.. 1, 231.
11
See "Freedom of a Christian" op, cit.. 1, 368.
12
See "The Lords Supper and Order of Divine Service,"
(Weimar ed. 19, 72-78) trans. B.L.Woolf, op. cit.,2, 325.
13
See "Pagan Servitude," op. cit.. 1, 230-231.
14
See Ibid.. 234.
28

j

ς

15

See Ibid.

16

See Ibid.. 235.
17

See Ibid.. 236

18

See Ibid.

19
See Ibid.. 248

20
See Ibid.. 262-263.

21
See Ibid.. 240.

22
See ’’Sermon on Receiving properly the true and
sacred Body of Christ,” (Weimar ed. 7, 792-805; 9, 640 ff)
trans. B.L.Woolf, 2, 104-105.
23
See Ibid.. 106.
24
See "Pagan Servitude,” op.cit.. 1, 237.
25
See "Sermon on Receiving properly the true and
sacred Body of Christ," op. cit.. 2, 104.
26
See "Pagan Servitude,” op, cit.. 250-251.
27
See "The Lords Supper and Order of Divine Service,"
op. cit.. 2, 318-319.
28
See Ibid.. 319.
29
See Jean Calvin, "Petit Tracte de la Sainte Cene de
Nostre Seigneur,” Corpus Reformatorum, 33. (joannis Cal­
vin! Opera,5) (Geneva 1591) 57-59.
30
See Concilium Tridentinum, Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum^ Tractatuum. (ed.Goerresiana, Friburgl Brlsgoviae 1901) 5, 21, 28-40.
31
See Ibid.. 5 22, 5-6.
32
See Ibid.. 5 22, 31-39.
33
See Ibid.. 5 25, 31-34.
34
See Ibid.. 5 25, 41-43.

29

35
See Ibid.. 5 25, 10-15.
36

See Ibid.. 2 331, 15-28. Pallaviclno, Historia Del
Concilio Di Trento, 1, 6, 12, n.5 (Naples 1757) 452-453.
37
See”Cone.Trid.” op, clt., 5^30, 28-29.
38
See Ibid.. 5 30, 32-36.
39
See Ibid.. 5 31, 9-11.
40
See Ibid.. 5 31, 12-15.
41
See "Liturgie et Langue Vulgaire,” op. cit..85-95,
42
See "Conc.Trid." op, cit.. 5 91, 33-92.
43
See Ibid.. 5 91,36; 92, 1-2.
43a
"Nor is It forbidden by the decree of the Council
of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue.”
Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu. A.A.S. 35(1943) 309.
N.C.W.C. trans. 14.
44
Since the Gorres-Gesellschaft edition does not con­
tain the deliberations which come after Sess.XIV, we have
recourse to A.Theiner, Acta Genuina SS.Oecumenici Conci­
lii Tri dentini . 1 (Zagrab,Croatlae 1874) 602-650.
45
See Ibid.. 1, 602 A.
46
See Ibid.. 1, 603 A. H. Schmidt, op. clt., 99-100,
points out that the very choice of the terms in phrasing
the Article, viz.,......... debere....non nisi....quam omnes
intelligent, makes it quite clear that the Protestant
theory which demands the vernacular as essential to the
nature of the Liturgy, is here being considered by Trent,
The Council is not concerned with the attitude of some
Catholics who favored the vernacular merely as an access­
ory advantage.
47
See Theiner, op. cit.. 1, 611 A.
48
See J.Le Plat, Monumentorum ad Historiam Concilii
Tridenti ni. 4 (Louvanii 1784) 357-359.
49
See Ibid,. 358.

30

50

1

I
i

I

!
J

See H.Schmidt, op. cit..102-104, He uses the term
’•subjective** and 'Objective·’ in dividing the two aspects
of Worship. This latter is the opus operatum which is the
Eucharist, and which the protestants tried to destroy.
51
See H.Schmidt, op, cit.. 103.
52
See Thelner, op. cit., 1, 617 A.
53
R.Schmidt, op, clt.. 104*105, considers the report
of John Delphius made on December 17, which Thelner 1,
622, states as follows: "IX et X etiam haeretici aunt;
caeremoniae enim in ecclesia retinendae sunt, ut Paulus
docet 1 Cor.11 de velatis mulieribus etc. Item habetur
ex 15 Math, et 4 ad Galatas." Art.X states "In celebra­
tione missarum omnes caeremoniae vestes et externa signa
irratabula impietatis esse magis quam officia pietatis."
It seems as though Schmidt Is straining in attempting
to interpret here, a relationship between the vernacular
and the texts quoted. Delphius seems only concerned with
ceremonies. See. J.Froger, op, cit,. 100.
54
See Thelner, op, clt.. 1, 633 B.
55
See Ibid.. 1» 635 A.
56
See Ibid.. 1, 635 B,
57
See Ibid.. 1, 636 A.
58
See Ibid.. 1, 636 A.
59
See Ibid,
60
See Ibid.. 1, 637 A.
61
See Ibid.. 1, 639 A.
62
See Ibid.. 1, 637 B.
63
See Ibid.. 1, 638 B.
64
See Ibid.. 1, 641 A.
65
See Ibid.. 1, 643 B.
66
See Ibid., 1, 638 A. H.Schmidt, op«clt. 108, in31

f
I

terprets this suggestion to mean that the Archbishop wants
the Mass retained in its Latin form, - pure and simple.
This seems to be forcing a thought not at all intended.
67
See Theiner, op, cit., 1, 644 B.
68
See Ibid.. 1, 646 A.
69
The Protestant doctrine concerning the language
used during the Mass is condemned as heretical, expressly
and without restriction. We must admit, then, that it Is
dogmatically inexact to bind the essence of the Mass to
the vernacular, in such a way that the Mass does not ex­
ist unless it is celebrated in a language all understand.
We must see in this Canon XI, besides a disciplinary
measure or positive law, a revealed truth. If the Mass
were to be linked to a determined language (vernacular
or Latin), we would have to learn it from Scripture or
Tradition. This is not the case. The Protestant thesis
then, must be condemned as going against revealed re­
ligion. H.Schmidt, op. cit.. 111-112. But, to others, the
dogmatic point at issue is simply the divinely given
authority of the Church, which has established the prac­
tice of not using the vernacular, - has not erred in that
matter, and is attacked implicitly by the Protestants in
the error that is here condemned. A.Michel, Ami du Çlergi
(1953) 37.
70
See Le Plat, op. cit., 4, 394.
71
See Ibid.
72
See Ibid.
73
See Ibid.
74
It is unfortunate that what the Fathers had to say
about the dogmatic expose, is not available.
75
See Le Plat, op. cit., 5, 265.
76
See Ibid., 267.
77
See Ibid.. 387.
78
See Gorres-Gesellschaft, op. cit., 8, 718-750.
79
See Ibid.. 719, 15. Art.8 reads "An ecclesiae Ro-

32

manae ritus, quo secreto et submissa voce verba consecra
tionis proferuntur, damnandus sit.**
80
See Ibid.. 741, 5-11.
81
See Ibid.. 743, 5-7.
82
See Ibid.. 743, 35-36; 744, 1-8.
83
See Ibid.. 745, 2-3.
84
See Ibid.. 13, 713, 1-41.
85
See Ibid.. 8. 753, 24-45.
86
See Ibid.. 753, 34-45.
87
See Ibid.. 755, 1.
88
See Ibid.. 755, 21-22.
89
See Ibid.. 3. 385, 14-17.
90
See Ibid.. 8. 766, 20-22.
91
See Ibid.. 768. 25-26.
92
See Ibid.. 771, 37-39.
93
See Ibid.. 780, 2-5.
94
See Ibid.. 3. 393, 5-9.
95
See "Liturgie et Langue Vulgaire," op.cit..137-138
96
See"Gorres-Gesellschaft."op, cit.. 8, 756, 26-27.
97
See Ibid.. 758, 12-13.
98
See Ibid.. 761, 6-8.
99
See Ibid.. 773, 20-21.
100
See Ibid.. 757, 29.
101
See Ibid.. 755, 32.
102
See Ibid.. 760, 40.
33

103
See Ibid., 780, 19-20.

104
See Ibid.. 912, 10-13.
I
!
I
!

ίH

105
It is to be noticed that the word nonnlsi is supplanted in this revision by the word tantum - which
clearly indicates the mind of Trent, that ''anyone who
says that the Mass must be celebrated in the vernacular
ONLY, would be heretical!"

106See"Gorres-Gesellschaft,"

op. cit.. 8. 911, 17-23.

107

See J.Froger, op. clt.. fasc.3, 181-183, where he
*
treats in detail the interpretation of the word, "passim."
1108
See"Gorres-Gesellschaft," op, cit., 8. 961. Mansi,
33.
109
J.Froger, op. clt.. passim, concludes his thesis
I
that Trent refers here to the traditional sermon to be
preached at the traditional time during Mass. The Count
cil gives no indications in any of its deliberations,
that it intended that this prescription be interpreted
to mean, "explanations should take place during the cour­
se of the Mass."
110
See "Gorres-Gesellschaft," op, cit.. 9. 752,49.
753.
Ill
See Ibid.. 808-949.
112
See Ibid., 981, 40. 982.

34

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REFERENCES OF
THIS WORK
AAS.................... Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Rome.

I
I

ACW..........Ancient Christian Writers, edlt.J.Quasten
and J.C.Plumpe. Westminster,Md.
ANF.................. .Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo and New York.

I

. ......................... Corpus Chrlstlanorum.Ser.Latin. Turnhout.

I

1

CSEL................. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latin­
orum. Vienna.

DACL......·..Dictionnaire d*archeologie chrétienne et de
liturgie. Paris.
jyjC,,................ Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique.Pari s.

EC...................... Enciclopedla Cattolica. Vatican City.
EL....... ............... Ephemerides Liturgicae. Rome.

. ......................... Florl legium Patri stlcum. Bonn.
CCS.................... Die griechtschen chrlstllchen Schrlftsteller.
Leipzig.
MELV................. Monumenta Eucharistica et Llturgica Vetusti­
ssima. edlt.J.Quasten. Bonn.
PG......................Migne. Patro logia Graeca.

PL......................Migne. Patrologia Latina.
. ........................ Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realcyklopadle der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart.
TU.................... Texte und Untersuchungen.

35

Leipzig.