Apologetics for Latin

[JKirkLVNV]

Correct but it just so turned out that Latin has a precision that even English does not have. Because of the didactic nature of the liturgy such precision is necessary. This is why they pine away at trying to develop a perfect translation of the Liturgy. However, no matter how good they know that it will have flaws.

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend back at the seminary. He thought that it was odd that we would go to great lengths to educate ourselves for our professions or even to drive and do other worldly things but at the same time none seem to be willing to do the same for something far more important - their faith.

I also find this … interesting.

I spend a great deal of time educating myself in my faith, but this still makes no sense to me liturgically, in a “week end, week out” context of Sunday or daily Masses. And Latin isn’t absolutely essential to learning about the Catholic faith or being Catholic (it’s not a dogma nor a doctrine that we must accept de fide and we aren’t tested on our Latin for admission to the sacraments. One rather imagines that Latin will not loom large when God sits in judgment of us). You don’t have to know a scrap of Latin and yet you can become a saint.

Most people think in their native tongue, though they may have learned others, even Latin. It seems to me that it is entirely beneficial for people to be able to understand the words of the Mass. The argument that they can, anyway, if they follow the missal, falls a little flat if the translations which they are following are flawed and imprecise. God knows, with precision, what’s going on. He doesn’t need Latin. Why do we, if it’s not the language we use for speech or thought?

 

[mosher]

I spend a great deal of time educating myself in my faith, but this still makes no sense to me liturgically, in a “week end, week out” context of Sunday or daily Masses. Most people think in their native tongue, though they may have learned others, even Latin. It seems to me that it is entirely beneficial for people to be able to understand the words of the Mass. The argument that they can anyway, if they follow the missal, falls a little flat if the translations which they are following are flawed and imprecise. God knows, with precision, what’s going on. He doesn’t need Latin. Why do we, if it’s not the language we use for speech or thought?

Exactly but at the same time the need for precision in the Liturgy is paramount. Unfortunately this is not possible because moving from Latin to, say, English is very difficult if not impossible at times. This is expressed well in philosophy and theology when we always use certain terms in their original language because something significant is lost in the translation.

I would never argue that the use of Latin is for God’s sake but rather it is for our sake because it is we who need precision of language to be taught accurately. Also, there is something to be said about its aesthetically value and even something to be said about its symbolic value. There is much that can be said about the fittingness of the language to the Liturgy. And again there is the primacy of tradition which is also important to consider.

 

[LilyM]

JKirk,

Something that has not been brought up is that by its use in the liturgy and nowhere else (for most people), Latin has become something of a sacred language. To say something in Latin tends naturally to turn one towards God and worship. I find myself in the Novus Ordo (vernacular) mass mumbling “Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea.” I know exactly what it means, and it has a good bit more significance to me than “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” I speak English to lots of people; I speak Latin only to God.

• Liberian

Not true - my parents and sister studied medicine, another sister studied optometry and I’ve studied law and some ancient and medieval history. A fair to middling amount of latin creeps into all of these - scientific and technical terms as well as official state documents and monuments and so on. Not to mention that my father also took courses in horticulture on his retirement - most of the botanical terms were latin.

So no, I don’t associate latin particularly with prayer or the sacred. And neither did those who first took the decision to switch from Greek for divine liturgies - they did so BECAUSE it was the most common everyday internationally-understood language. Today it would very likely be English, Spanish or French for the same reasons.

I much more associate Italian with music, which is the only context in which I hear that particular language.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

How would you explain/defend the use of a “dead” language (Latin) to worship God to a Protestant?

I would imagine this was a common question for pre-Vatican II Catholics.

What makes the Latin language dead?

Well its not changing, evolving, moving on with new words and definitions.

How fitting then for it to be used in the worship of a God who…

doesnt change
evolve
move on
or gets new definitions

oh and btw…its pretty

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Exactly but at the same time the need for precision in the Liturgy is paramount. Unfortunately this is not possible because moving from Latin to, say, English is very difficult if not impossible at times. This is expressed well in philosophy and theology when we always use certain terms in their original language because something significant is lost in the translation.

I would never argue that the use of Latin is for God’s sake but rather it is for our sake because it is we who need precision of language to be taught accurately. Also, there is something to be said about its aesthetically value and even something to be said about its symbolic value. There is much that can be said about the fittingness of the language to the Liturgy. And again there is the primacy of tradition which is also important to consider.

But, Mosher, you’re arguing that we need to be precise. It isn’t precise if you don’t understand it! And it isn’t precise if you have to follow what you claimed to be faulty and imprecise translations.

I agree only to a degree with it’s aesthetic value. I don’t think it’s aesthetic value, when weighed in the balance scale, is worth more than the benefit of the people being able to understand the words. As for fittingness, I’m afraid that subjective opinion. I certainly don’t think it’s unfit, though I don’t think it’s any more fit than English or French. As for tradition, it’s tradition with a small “t” and, yes, that’s important, but again, in the weighing scale, I don’t think it’s as important.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

JKirk,

The main reason that I personally like Latin in the Mass is because it sets it aside as something different than just another everyday thing. I hear English everyday, but I only hear Latin in Mass on Sundays (except for in some of my history classes).

What do you think of that reason for using Latin? Not saying that it is necessarily more holy or that it is better to worship God, but that it sets Mass aside as something special because that’s the only place you hear it.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pax vobiscum!

JKirk,

The main reason that I personally like Latin in the Mass is because it sets it aside as something different than just another everyday thing. I hear English everyday, but I only hear Latin in Mass on Sundays (except for in some of my history classes).

What do you think of that reason for using Latin? Not saying that it is necessarily more holy or that it is better to worship God, but that it sets Mass aside as something special because that’s the only place you hear it.

In Christ,
Rand

I see it as a somewhat more valid argument that others I’ve heard, but again, when I stick it on a scale in my mind and weigh it, I don’t think it outweighs the benefits of the people hearing Mass in the language in which they speak and think.

See, Rand, words are symbols. The Latin has symbols like domine, calyx, crux, just as English has symbols like lord, chalice (which we admittedly derived from Latin), and cross.
Domine is no more sacred or holy than Lord, crux no more sacred than cross. They all refer to sacred things (ontologically sacred), but the words are not sacred without meaning attached to them. And we attach meaning, generally, in our own langauge. I think in English, even when I’m speaking Spanish. I think in English even when I say the Our Father in Latin. And I think it’s incredibly meaningful to say the Our Father or the Creed in English because I’m the one constructing meaning out of those symbols. I don’t get a chill when I think “Verbum caro factum est,” but I do when I think “And the Word was made flesh.” Because I constructed, in my mind, a profound meaning out of those symbols strung together.

Don’t get me wrong, Latin sounds cool!

 

[Todd_Easton]

God understands all languages; they are not an issue to Him. He is more concerned with what’s in our heart when we worship Him than what language is on our lips.

Protestants don’t seem to have a problem with using Hebrew and Greek in worship. For instance, *Amen *and Hallelujah were borrowed from Hebrew and Christ from Greek.

The inscription above His head on the Cross, “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews,” was in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. (John19:20) If Latin was so favored by God as to grace the Cross of Christ, should it not also have a favored place in our worship of Him?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The inscription above His head on the Cross, “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews,” was in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. (John19:20) If Latin was so favored by God as to grace the Cross of Christ, should it not also have a favored place in our worship of Him?

The inscription was placed there, in three languages, so that most of the people going by Christ’s cross would be able to read it. You cannot base the need for a liturgical language on that argument, indeed, it rather goes to support my argument that people should understand what’s being said (in this example, Pilate intended that people understand what he had written).

 

[ComradeAndrei]

A universal liturgical language has benefits that outweigh vulgar comprehension. Latin has been our liturgical language for century upon century and it is sad that we hardly use it anymore. People will understand at the least the Latin in the Mass if they care to, if they don’t care then they will not comprehend English any better. One can hear words and respond to them but not process them.

Maybe what Cardinal Arinze has said is a sign of what is to come. I’d love to see Latin used in Mass for practically everything (save the readings). Having to use Latin will also cut down on the annoying ad lib that some priests seem to think they need to add in to the Mass. I want to hear, “Ecce, Agnus Dei…” not “This is the Savior who redeemed all persons regardless of race, sex…” or other nonsense.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A universal liturgical language has benefits that outweigh vulgar comprehension. Latin has been our liturgical language for century upon century and it is sad that we hardly use it anymore. People will understand at the least the Latin in the Mass if they care to, if they don’t care then they will not comprehend English any better. One can hear words and respond to them but not process them.

Maybe what Cardinal Arinze has said is a sign of what is to come. I’d love to see Latin used in Mass for practically everything (save the readings). Having to use Latin will also cut down on the annoying ad lib that some priests seem to think they need to add in to the Mass. I want to hear, “Ecce, Agnus Dei…” not “This is the Savior who redeemed all persons regardless of race, sex…” or other nonsense.

A tightening up on the rubrics and then a strict adherence to them would solve a lot of problems. We DO seem to have a lot of priests who think they know better than the Church. I certainly hope people who want the TLM get it (and those who like Latin in the liturgy could attend there). I don’t want much of an increase in Latin in the Pauline Rite, for the reasons I’ve stated. And Comrade, with respect, I hardly think comprehension is vulgar.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

A tightening up on the rubrics and then a strict adherence to them would solve a lot of problems. We DO seem to have a lot of priests who think they know better than the Church.

Yes it would, and yes we do.

I certainly hope people who want the TLM get it (and those who like Latin in the liturgy could attend there). I don’t want much of an increase in Latin in the Pauline Rite, for the reasons I’ve stated.

That isn’t good enough. Latin cannot just be confined to the MR '62. Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite-which means the Novus Ordo as well. Since the Vatican says there is only one Roman Rite, and Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite, that doesn’t mean keep it for the older form and then ignore it in the newer form.

And Comrade, with respect, I hardly think comprehension is vulgar.

I didn’t say that comprehension is vulgar, what I meant was (and I do think my original wording is correct) that comprehension in the vulgar tongue does not justify getting rid of Latin. It doesn’t take much to start to comprehend the fairly simple and repeated Latin in the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass. Missals have translations, and that would be all we need.

The Second Vatican Council did not promote a vernacular only Mass. Pope John XXIII strongly taught the need for Latin in Veterum Sapientiae catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1160 . The Roman Rite should have a strong presense of Latin, and we do NOT have this. Why not? I don’t see where indiscriminate use of the vernacular has really helped anything.

Maybe if we saw a vast increase in attendance at Mass (which we don’t), and a new awakening of Catholic consciousness in people living a more faithful and staunchly Catholic life (which we don’t) because all this information is now available to the people in the vernacular, then we should still be using at least some Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes it would, and yes we do.

That isn’t good enough. Latin cannot just be confined to the MR '62. Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite-which means the Novus Ordo as well. Since the Vatican says there is only one Roman Rite, and Latin is to be preserved in the Roman Rite, that doesn’t mean keep it for the older form and then ignore it in the newer form.

I didn’t say that comprehension is vulgar, what I meant was (and I do think my original wording is correct) that comprehension in the vulgar tongue does not justify getting rid of Latin. It doesn’t take much to start to comprehend the fairly simple and repeated Latin in the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass. Missals have translations, and that would be all we need.

The Second Vatican Council did not promote a vernacular only Mass. Pope John XXIII strongly taught the need for Latin in Veterum Sapientiae catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1160 . The Roman Rite should have a strong presense of Latin, and we do NOT have this. Why not? I don’t see where indiscriminate use of the vernacular has really helped anything.

Maybe if we saw a vast increase in attendance at Mass (which we don’t), and a new awakening of Catholic consciousness in people living a more faithful and staunchly Catholic life (which we don’t) because all this information is now available to the people in the vernacular, then we should still be using at least some Latin.

But I fail to see how having the bulk of the Mass in Latin (as you propose, all, but the readings), can benefit the ordinary Catholic (such as me) in any growth of understanding of their faith. I see it having a limited aesthetic value, certainly, but I don’t think that outweighs the benfit (the “helpfullness,” as then Cardinal Ratzinger called it) of the vernacular Mass.

Put side by side, I think far more people would continue to attend an mostly-vernacular Mass with a little Latin than an all Latin Mass with the readings and homily alone in the vernacular. I bet the Vatican probably thinks so, too, despite the Holy See’s desire for an enhanced role for Latin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But seriously, Kirk, do you really think that you–and the majority of people today–are majorly more “stupid” than the peasants and the serfs and the illiterati who, over the past 2000 years, not only managed to understand their local dialects and patois, but also a couple of other dialects and usually at least one other language–and I mean to the degree of understanding that they could easily speak and comprehend and, if literate, could read and write as well? We are not talking the ‘elite’ here; we are talking people with no formal education, no specialized training, nada, zip, zilch.

Even 100 years ago men and women with no formal education who came to the U.S. from foreign countries were able to speak and understand not just their own language but that of English as well.

I have seen many studies which have shown that people who are exposed to other languages do better overall in comprehension of their own. Additionally, the sort of mental exercise involved in learning languages–even for us over 40 types, who (admittedly) have more difficulty when it comes to advanced knowledge, but not to repeated or rote phrases–which is what one would hear and read at Mass!–helps us retain if not enhance our mental abilities in all activities of living.

It’s a win-win situation.

 

[mosher]

But, Mosher, you’re arguing that we need to be precise. It isn’t precise if you don’t understand it! And it isn’t precise if you have to follow what you claimed to be faulty and imprecise translations.

I agree only to a degree with it’s aesthetic value. I don’t think it’s aesthetic value, when weighed in the balance scale, is worth more than the benefit of the people being able to understand the words. As for fittingness, I’m afraid that subjective opinion. I certainly don’t think it’s unfit, though I don’t think it’s any more fit than English or French. As for tradition, it’s tradition with a small “t” and, yes, that’s important, but again, in the weighing scale, I don’t think it’s as important.

For this very reason I am adamant that all Catholics should have to understand Latin as part of their catholic education - including the Eastern Catholics (because of Church documents). At the very least there should be a desire to understand Latin so that one can understand the Church better.

Also, we must consider that all those considerations that I have given along with the others that have been mentioned must be weighed as a while against not using Latin. However, the only negative is understandability. However, I argue that that is not a negative since it is something that should be taught or should be desired to learn.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

But I fail to see how having the bulk of the Mass in Latin (as you propose, all, but the readings), can benefit the ordinary Catholic (such as me) in any growth of understanding of their faith.

I’ll let Pope John XXIII’s comments stand as wholly superior to anything I could come up with.

I see it having a limited aesthetic value, certainly, but I don’t think that outweighs the benfit (the “helpfullness,” as then Cardinal Ratzinger called it) of the vernacular Mass.

In a society in which we have to compete with all sorts of gadgets and flashing lights etc. etc., you sometimes have to go to a lower common denominator. There are few people today who will do anything religious outside of Mass on Sunday, I suppose you have to get something into their minds if you only have them for that hr.

Put side by side, I think far more people would continue to attend an mostly-vernacular Mass with a little Latin than an all Latin Mass with the readings and homily alone in the vernacular. I bet the Vatican probably thinks so, too, despite the Holy See’s desire for an enhanced role for Latin.

Put side by side in front of people who mostly have very inadequate catechesis and very limited knowledge of the history of the Church, her Liturgy, her liturgical books, and practically everything else, I wouldn’t doubt that. That’s not saying much.

It is human nature to choose the easy path, and I have to give some kudos to them for caring enough to even show up. However, I’m not going to trust the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite to a majority vote of the ignorant.

 

[JoeMike]

How would you explain/defend the use of a “dead” language (Latin) to worship God to a Protestant?

I would imagine this was a common question for pre-Vatican II Catholics.

My aunt Carolyn, a pre V-II Catholic, can easily defend the use of Latin:

In 1954, she joined the Air Force and traveled all over Europe. With her Latin-English missal, she was able to understand what was going on at every Mass she attended, regardless of where she was.

If the vernacular had been in use for Mass at that time, she would have been lost.

As you know, “catholic” means “universal.” What could be more universal than Holy Mass being celebrated in exactly the same way all over the world?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The inscription was placed there, in three languages, so that most of the people going by Christ’s cross would be able to read it. You cannot base the need for a liturgical language on that argument, indeed, it rather goes to support my argument that people should understand what’s being said (in this example, Pilate intended that people understand what he had written).

The Big Grin at the end of my post was intended to show that I was not entirely serious in my response. But on second thought, perhaps there is something to what I said. I think you are correct about the literal sense of the Scripture passage about the inscription over Christ’s head on the Cross. But Scripture passages may have more than one sense. Suppose for a moment that the selection of languages for the inscription also refers in a mystical (prophetical) sense to the dominant liturgical language during the different ages of the true Church: first Hebrew, the principal language of the true Church in its infancy in Jerusalem; next Greek, the principal liturgical language of the true Church in its adolescence when it spread and became dominated by Gentiles; finally Latin, the principal liturgical language of the true Church in maturity.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Suppose for a moment that the selection of languages for the inscription also refers in a mystical (prophetical) sense to the dominant liturgical language during the different ages of the true Church: first Hebrew, the principal language of the true Church in its infancy in Jerusalem; next Greek, the principal liturgical language of the true Church in its adolescence when it spread and became dominated by Gentiles; finally Latin, the principal liturgical language of the true Church in maturity.

Interesting. In reality, the sign could only be read by the educated anyway in each of the respective languages, so it is not as if Pilate was too terribly concerned about “the People” having the sign in their own language-because most of them couldn’t read!

 

[Unfinished]

Introibo ad altare Dei.
Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta ad homine iniquo et doloao erue me.

Ahhh. Love it. Shall we do all the prayers at the foot of the altar?

Attend Latin Mass for…two months. Follow along in the missel and I promise you will walk away knowing a great deal of Latin.

Then, as JoeMike says, the Latin is universal throughout the entire world. I watched a video of a Latin Mass in France the other day, and guess what? I knew what was going on and what was said.

When I was in Japan, Germany, France, Finland, Kuwait or Iraq, if I could of found a Latin Mass it would of made me feel right at home.

I am no scholar, but there is something about the Latin. I had to learn something to serve at the Mass, not just movements. Whenever I hear Latin I instantly think of God. Every word of Latin just sounds like a prayer to me now, and I like that.