The Use of the Vernacular

One of the most forceful speeches arguing for the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was given by Maximus IV Saigh, the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch (who it is reported to write to the Pope, addressing him as the Successor of Peter in Rome, and signing his letter as the Successor of Peter in Antioch).


“It appears to me that the almost absolute value which is attributed to the Latin Language in the liturgy, in instruction and in the administration of the Latin Church presents a kind of anomaly for the Eastern Church; for without doubt Christ spoke to his contemporaries in their own language. He used a language which was understandable to all his hearers, namely Aramaic, when he celebrated the first Eucharistic sacrifice. The apostles and disciples acted likewise. It would never have occurred to them that the celebrant in a Christian assembly should read the passages of scripture, should sing the psalms, should preach or break the bread, using a different language than that of the congregation. Paul himself says explicitly, ‘If you bless with the spirit [i.e. in an unintelligible language], how is one who is present as an outsider to say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not understand what you are saying? You may give thanks well enough, but the other is not edified…In church I should prefer to speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in [unintelligible] tongues’ (1 Cor 14:16-19). All the reasons one can bring forward in favor of the untouchability of Latin – a liturgical language, but a dead one – must give way before this clear, unequivocal and precise reasoning of the Apostle. The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living languge since it is intended for men and not for angels. No language can be untouchable…”

Quoted in Theological Highlight of Vatican II by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger “to show that the discussions could produce profound insights.

Fr. Ratzinger also notes that “it was not uncommon that glowing panegyrics in favor of Latin were themselves delivered in labored pidgin Latin, while the most forceful advocates of the vernacular could express themselves in classical Latin.”