MASS NOT CELEBRATED IN ANY LIVING LANGUAGE, from "The Catholic Church Alone The One True Church of Christ, 1903 Copyright

We have said that the Catholic Church to-day celebrates the Holy Sacrifice in nine different languages; but the reader must not understand from this that the language in any one case is the vernacular.  The Greeks, it is true, speak Greek; but so different is the spoken language from that of the liturgy, the latter being the ancient classic Greek, that there is scarcely a man in the congregation who understands one word of it.  The same may be said of the Armenian, the Ethiopic, or any other of the nine specified.  The Copts, for instance, are so little skilled in the Coptic used in the Mass that it has been found necessary to print the rubrics of their Missals in Arabic, the present language of those regions, for the benefit of the clergy; for neither the clergy nor the people are much versed in the language used in the sacred offices.  And since it is an indisputable fact that there is not to be found in Christendom a single instance of a priesthood celebrating the Holy Sacrifice in the language of the day, how is it that we of the Latin Church are called to task so often for celebrating in an unknown tongue?  Why not call the Greek Church to task?  Why not call the Armenian Church to task?  Why not call the Russian Church to task?  And yet, if there is reprehension deserved anywhere, those people deserve more than we do, for the most illiterate of our congregation know far more about our liturgical language, of which there are translations in every prayer book, than the educated of the nations we have mentioned know about theirs.  Ask a Nestorian or a Copt to roll you off only a few short sentences of the liturgical Syriac or Coptic; he could as easily tell you his thoughts in the language of the Celestial Empire.  Nor is the practice of celebrating the Divine Service in a tongue unknown to the people without precedents in ancient and modern times.  The Jews always celebrated the praises of Jehovah in "the language that the prophets spake," namely, the ancient Hebrew.  This was so far above the reach of the people that it was found necessary to supply them with translations in the shape of the so-called Targums, in order that they might know something of what was being done; and that this custom is yet kept up by the modern Jews in their synagogues is proved by innumerable witnesses.  We may even quote the Mohammedans in illustration.  It well known in what veneration those people hold the Koran, which is to them what the Bible is to Christians.  It is written in the purest Arabic; and so much afraid are they of it becoming common that no one is allowed to attempt a translation of it into the Arabic spoken by the people.  This pure Arabic is a dead language to the masses.  Another example in the point may be cited from the Hindoos, who allow none but the Brahmin's to read the Veda, on account of the great respect they have for the language in which it is written.  The Hindoos carry this reverence so far that they will not allow some of their minor ministers so much as even to listen to the reading of the book, or to speak of it.  The same is the case with the language known as the Bali, a half-sister of the Sanskrit, which long since ceased to be spoken; yet is is the liturgical language of Ceylon, Bali and Madura, and of a great part of the Java and Indo-China.  It is also the religious language of all the Japanese who profess Lamaism.  We have, therefore, clearly shown that if precedent be wanted for what is styled "a strange, unmeaning discipline," the most critical mind can be satisfied by looking into the pages of antiquity and examining the religious customs of any ancient people.  In nearly every case the liturgical language will be found different from that in use among the common people.

The chief reason why Protestants find fault without use of a language not understood by the people is, as far as they themselves are concerned, very rational, but, as far as Catholic are concerned, highly absurd.  A Protestant goes to Church to utter a few prayers, or at least to hear the minister utter them, and nothing more.  His service is essentially prayer, and nothing but prayer.  Such is not the case with the Catholic.  His service is something higher and greater than mere prayer--it is a sublime Sacrifice; and as the sacrifice may be offered in entire independence of prayer, it matters but little whether the shared prayer takes in it be little or great, provided everything else is duly ordered.  For this reason some of the ablest spiritual writers have said again and again that one of the most efficacious ways of hearing Mass is to watch the actions of the priest at the altar with great attention from beginning to end, and to look as little as possible at the prayer-book.  A person who could do this without distraction would reap incalculable spiritual fruit from it, and would, without a doubt, be assisting at Mass in the strictest sense of the words. - Page:  619, "The Catholic Church Alone The One True Church of Christ, 1903 Copyright, Rev. Henry Dodridge, D.D.; Rev. Henry Edward Manning, D.D.; Rev. F. Lewis of Granada; Rev. Stephen Keenan; Rev. Bernard Vaughan, S.J., Rev. Thomas N. Burke, O.P.; Introduced by Rev. M.A. White, O.S.A., Catholic Educational Company, New York, Philadelphia