Latin as the Liturgical Language (Fortesque, 1912)
Jun 11, 2019 15:24:40 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski likes this
Post by Pacelli on Jun 11, 2019 15:24:40 GMT -5
(The following is the entire section 4 of chapter III, “The Origin if the Roman Rite,” from The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Fortesque, Adrian, 1912. “pp. 128-130)
Latin as the Liturgical Language
In the first period the liturgical language of Rome was Greek. Greek was spoken by the Roman Christians. (As by those of all centres (Alexandra, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) for at the least the first two centuries. Clement of Rome writes in Greek; the earliest Catacomb inscriptions are Greek. There was no idea of a special liturgical language at that time; people said their prayers in their vulgar tounge. Latin was apparently first used by Christians in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), who was an African, is generally quoted as the first Roman to use it. Novatian (c. 251) writes in Latin; since about the third century this becomes the usual and then the only language spoken by Christians at Rome. When it replaced Greek in Church is disputed. Kattenbusch dates it as the liturgical language from the second half of the third century, Watterich, Probst, and Rietshel think that Greek was used till the end of the fourth century. In any case, the process was a gradual one. Both languages must have been used side by side during a fairly long period of transition. A certain Marius Victorinus Africanus, writing about 360 in Latin, still quotes a liturgical prayer in Greek. The Bible existed only in the Greek Septuagint for some time. The lessons were read in Greek at Rome, at any Rate on some days, till the VIIIth century, some pa slams were sung in Greek at the same time. Indeed, we still have Greek fragments in the Mass. Amalarius of Metz (+c. 857) and Pseudo-Alcuin still mention Greek forms. The creed at Baptism may be said in either Greek or Latin, at the convert’s discretion, according to the Gelasian Sacramentary.
But a change of language does not involve a change of rite; though it may be the occasion for modifications. Novatian’s references to the liturgy in Latin as well with the Greek Apostolic Constitutions, the Africans (Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc.) describe in Latin the same rite as the Greek Justin. It is quite possible merely to translate the same forms into another language, as the Byzantine rite has been translated into a great number without change. On the other hand, no doubt the genius of the Latin language eventually affected the Roman rite. Latin is naturally terse, austere compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. It would be a natural tendency of Latin to curtail redundant phrases. And this tenseness and austere simplicity are a noticeable mark of the Roman Mass. we shall see that some writers think that change of language was the actual occasion at which the Canon was recast.
Latin as the Liturgical Language
In the first period the liturgical language of Rome was Greek. Greek was spoken by the Roman Christians. (As by those of all centres (Alexandra, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) for at the least the first two centuries. Clement of Rome writes in Greek; the earliest Catacomb inscriptions are Greek. There was no idea of a special liturgical language at that time; people said their prayers in their vulgar tounge. Latin was apparently first used by Christians in Africa. Pope Victor I (190-202), who was an African, is generally quoted as the first Roman to use it. Novatian (c. 251) writes in Latin; since about the third century this becomes the usual and then the only language spoken by Christians at Rome. When it replaced Greek in Church is disputed. Kattenbusch dates it as the liturgical language from the second half of the third century, Watterich, Probst, and Rietshel think that Greek was used till the end of the fourth century. In any case, the process was a gradual one. Both languages must have been used side by side during a fairly long period of transition. A certain Marius Victorinus Africanus, writing about 360 in Latin, still quotes a liturgical prayer in Greek. The Bible existed only in the Greek Septuagint for some time. The lessons were read in Greek at Rome, at any Rate on some days, till the VIIIth century, some pa slams were sung in Greek at the same time. Indeed, we still have Greek fragments in the Mass. Amalarius of Metz (+c. 857) and Pseudo-Alcuin still mention Greek forms. The creed at Baptism may be said in either Greek or Latin, at the convert’s discretion, according to the Gelasian Sacramentary.
But a change of language does not involve a change of rite; though it may be the occasion for modifications. Novatian’s references to the liturgy in Latin as well with the Greek Apostolic Constitutions, the Africans (Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc.) describe in Latin the same rite as the Greek Justin. It is quite possible merely to translate the same forms into another language, as the Byzantine rite has been translated into a great number without change. On the other hand, no doubt the genius of the Latin language eventually affected the Roman rite. Latin is naturally terse, austere compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. It would be a natural tendency of Latin to curtail redundant phrases. And this tenseness and austere simplicity are a noticeable mark of the Roman Mass. we shall see that some writers think that change of language was the actual occasion at which the Canon was recast.