PREFACE.

THE new Ritual contains a complete German liturgy for the administration of the Sacraments, and some other Ceremonies, according to the decrees of the first Synod of the Old Catholics of the German Empire (A.D. 1874).

Different customs have existed hitherto in Germany with reference to the use of the vulgar tongue in the administration of the Sacraments. The use of the Latin language was compulsory throughout, according to the direction of the Roman Congregation of Rites.

The Vicars-General of the diocese of Amiens enquired at Rome (A.D. 1867) whether, when sponsors had to answer questions at a Baptism, and were ignorant of the Latin language, the questions should (1) be put in the vulgar tongue, or (2) first in Latin, and then translated.

The Congregation answered both questions in the negative on the 31st August, 1867.

This direction could hardly be observed in a German diocese.

Even the provincial Council of Cologne (A.D. 1860) omitted from the prohibition "not to employ any other language than the Latin in the administration of the Sacraments," those parts of the Liturgy "in which some address had to be made, or some explanation given to those present."

This order of the provincial Council of Cologne corresponds with the ordinary directions in force in the archdiocese of Cologne. But in the new Ritual of the diocese of Paderborn the German language is used much more widely, as it contains a German translation to most of the prayers of the Roman Ritual. In the same way the Breslau Ritual con tains a German and a Polish translation of most of the prayers.

The Munich and the Passau Rituals order that before the Communion, when the communicants do not understand Latin, the words, "Ecce agnus Dei," and "Domine, non sum dignus," should be said in German; and the latter has at the end, or before most of the Latin prayers in the Baptismal Service, a German translation or paraphrase; in order that, as their holy mother Church has always desired, the faithful may be instructed in what takes place at the adminis

tration of the Sacraments, and in what is said by the Priest, as the servant of the Church, in ecclesiastical language.

Moreover, the Rituals of other dioceses, as well as those of Paderborn and Breslau, deviate from the Roman directions. For example, the Freiburg Ritual contains, after the Baptismal Service of the Romish Ritual, not only a full German translation of it, but also "a second German Formulary for the administration of holy Baptism in the Church," and an additional one for Private Baptism: similarly, in the case of other liturgical Acts. It also orders that only the "essential words of the Sacraments" shall be always said in Latin.

The German Rituals of Wessenberg and of Vitus Anton Winter, formerly much in use, contain, as is well known, not only "freely rendered" Formularies differing somewhat considerably from the Latin, but also the actual Sacramental Formula in the German language.

The following observations may serve to justify the principle upon which our German Ritual is compiled. It is certainly according to the spirit of the Catholic Church that, with regard to the essential constituent portions of the Liturgy, unity should continue on the one hand between the separate parts of the Church, and on the other hand between the present and the past; and that accordingly, at least in essentials, liturgical prayers and actions should be the same in all parts of the Church, and that those in customary use should not be altered without necessity. The only substantial reason that can be brought forward for the universal use of the Latin tongue in the services of the Western Church during many centuries, is that the unity of the Church, both in place and time, is thereby more prominently brought into view. This unity, however, should not grow into stiff monotony, and render such alterations impossible, as either would not interfere with true unity, or may be rendered necessary in many places by lapse of time and difference of nationality. Unity in essentials does not exclude a diversity in non-essentials. The Liturgy as a whole, the meanings of the prayers and the ceremonies, can be the same, even when the language employed in worship is different; and liturgical differences can exist as a fact inside the Catholic Church, even inside the Roman Catholic Church. The so-called Uniat Churches have their old Liturgies; the South Sclavonians, the old Sclavonic; the Church of Milan, her Ambrosian; and a Church in Toledo has retained her Mozarabic Liturgy. Not long ago

many dioceses in Germany and France had their particular Missals and Breviaries; and even after the Roman Missal and Breviary were substituted in their place, almost all separate dioceses and orders have retained their own Uses. The Ritual in use in the Cologne diocese differs slightly in the administration of the Sacraments and other ceremonial Acts from the Romish Ritual; and the above facts shew that, in reference to the use of the German language in the administration of the Sacraments, a great variety exists, notwithstanding all the endeavours to bring about uniformity in the Romish sense.

The reasons which are generally brought forward for employing a dead and unknown language in the Liturgy, can easily be proved untenable.

1. The first argument is this: that as the buildings of churches and the vestments of the clergy differ from those in secular use, it would therefore correspond to religious feeling, that a different language should be used in liturgical actions from the ordinary language of conversation. Here the fact is overlooked, that the impression which an unintelligible language makes is not a religious impression, and that a comprehension of the liturgical prayers, and in consequence a lively inward participation in the same on the part of persons present, is at any rate of much more importance than an indistinct veneration for mysteries.

2. The second argument is this: that a living language is liable to alteration, and that consequently in vernacular liturgical formularies the old expressions would from time to time require to have their places filled by new ones, and that thereby there would arise the danger of an alteration of the contents. This argument proves too much, as the same might be urged with still greater reason against the translations of the Bible and of the Catechism, than against the translation of the Liturgy. As the correctness of new translations of the Bible can be tested by comparison with the original, so it cannot be denied that vernacular liturgical formularies could be controlled by reference to the ancient Church formularies, as far as their essential character is concerned.

3. The apprehension that in giving up the Latin language, too much play (as regards the Liturgy) would be allowed to the subjective opinion of individuals, is groundless, because the liturgical Formulary drawn up in the vulgar tongue could be placed under the direction of the Church authorities as well as the Latin service.