2dly—In order to preserve the purity of her faith, and a greater conformity in her public worship in all countries, and to avoid the various alterations and corruptions which the living languages, spoken in different places, are liable to in every century, the church wisely judges, that as there is but one true faith, there should be but one common language for all the faithful, spread over the different nations of the world, to commune with each other in the profession of one and the same faith, and in the exercise of the same religious duties.
3rdly—Another good effect and advantage that arises from this point of ecclesiastical discipline, is, that the same priest can perform the public church offices in all places where he travels; and a Catholic is never at a loss to join with those of his own religion, and assist at the public worship of God, whithersoever he may have occasion to go, since he meets with the same Mass and Liturgy, in the same words, abroad, which he was accustomed to near at home; whereas, if the divine service was to be performed in the maternal language of every country, and to be translated into as many different tongues as the ignorant people understand and speak in the different provinces, there would be nothing but a Babel of confusion, and a man of one country would be at a loss to serve God on the Lord's day in another country.
As to any inconvenience that may seem to attend this ecclesiastical discipline, it is no way material, especially when compared to the great advantages that arise from it; nor does it affect the substance of religion; neither is it a prejudice to the illiterate, who do not understand the Latin; for though they may not perhaps understand the particular form of prayers, which it is only the priest's office to offer to God, for and in the name of the congregation, yet they know them at least as to the substance, and may find the meaning of every thing fully explained in their manuals. They are taught from their childhood to accompany the officiating priest through every part of his function, with proper and suitable prayers, and are frequently instructed in the nature, the benefit, and the ends for which the Mass is offered, and in the manner of assisting thereat with attention and devotion, which is sufficient to concur in and partake of the sacrifice, though the people should neither hear nor cite the same prayers with the priest.
The very seeing of the priest was more than God was pleased to require in the old law; for we read, (St. Luke, 1. 10,) that the whole multitude of the people were praying without, when Zacharias went into the temple to burn incense; and (Levit. xvi. 17.) it was expressly ordered, that there should be no man in the tabernacle, or temple, when the high-priest went with the blood of the victims into the sanctuary to make atonement, which is a clear proof that it was not necessary for the people to hear and understand the particular form of prayers, that the priest offered to God for them in the sacrifices at which they assisted. Moreover, we find that after the Babylonian captivity, nay, even in our Saviour's time, the public service of the Jewish synagogue was performed in the old Hebrew language, though it was not understood by the common people, who only spoke the Syriac, (Nah. viii. 13,) into which the scriptures were not then translated from the Hebrew.
But does not the sacred scripture condemn this practice? No: far from condemning, it authorises it, as appears from what has been already said. As to the text of St. Paul, (1 Cor. xiv.) the apostle does not speak one word, in that whole chapter, of the liturgy of the church, which at Corinth was in Greek, and consequently in a known language. He treats of the miraculous gift of speaking all tongues, which was communicated by the Holy Ghost to the first believers; and he cautions the Corinthians against all confusion and disorder in the use of this miraculous gift at their pious meetings and assemblies, by directing them, that if they spoke with tongues, it should be done by two, or at most by three, and that one should interpret the meaning of the words. In short, the apostle only blames the abuse of the gifts of tongues, which some of the Corinthians were guilty of, by affecting, out of ostentation, to make extemporary prayers, and to preach and exhort, at the same time, all or any of them together, in tongues utterly unknown, which, for want of an interpreter, could be of no edification to the rest of the faithful. But when it is done in proper circumstances, without confusion, and when the sense of the words is expounded by an interpreter, the apostle does not reprehend, but permits and orders the speaking in tongues that are not commonly understood, as appears from the 5th and 29th verses. Now the faithful have the public liturgy and church offices interpreted in their ordinary prayer books; and their pastors are commanded by the Council of Trent, (Sess. 22. chap. 8,) to explain to them the mysteries contained in the Mass, and to teach them to accompany the priest with suitable prayers and devotion adapted to every part of it.