Can the Latin mass speak to all?

[Nesrad]

But it is not, by nature, superior to any other language. That notion makes very little sense and has no basis in historical reality.

Again, incorrect. Latin is merely a language that the Church adopted because it was expedient. It continues to be expedient.

What makes Latin more majestic than Italian, or Chinese, or Swahili, or Navajo, or German, or Prussian, or Gothic, or Old Norse, or Tocharian, or Hebrew?

No language is intrinsically worthy of prayer. That makes no sense because languages have no intrinsic properties, but rather are entirely dependent on the persons using them.

Dear sir,

My ideas simply come from Blessed John XXIII, whom you seem to contradict from beginning to end. Perhaps you should read Veterum Sapientia. Allow me to repeat a few key sentences:

“Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all… the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular… It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.” (John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia)

I’ll let the readers decide who’s right: you or Blessed John XXIII.

 

[Baelor]

Dear sir,

My ideas simply come from Blessed John XXIII, which you seem to contradict from beginning to end. Perhaps you should read Veterum Sapientia. Allow me to repeat it

Nesrad, you are acting foolish. The Popes do not say things that are not demonstrably true.

If John XXIII said that Latin was by nature suitable etc., then those words must be interpreted in the correct way. Can you interpret them, or does your knowledge of Latin and Church teaching extend only to parroting documents that you do not understand?

Sapentia veterum traditione doctrinas ecclesiae partim sustinente aliquantum intuenda est, sed non servi antiquiis sumus. Lingua latina historica et non deducta ab caelis. Cur hanc nimio cupidine amas?

Please stop repeating a document. What I am saying is not necessarily in contradiction to the encyclical; I am offering an interpretation of said document in accord with reason and history. If you disagree, explain my error.

 

[Nesrad]

Nesrad, you are acting foolish.

Please refrain from name calling.

You can interpret away almost anything the Church says if you like, that doesn’t change what she really said.

Sapentia veterum traditione doctrinas ecclesiae partim sustinente aliquantum intuenda est, sed non servi antiquiis sumus. Lingua latina historica et non deducta ab caelis. Cur hanc nimio cupidine amas?

Nimio cupidine ain? Non dubito quin ipsum Sanctum Patrem ut nimium studiosum linguae latinae crimineris, quippe qui decrevit ut ipsae ‘doctrinae’ tuae in seminariis latine tantum docerentur.

 

[Baelor]

I will do what you have not, which is to understand the document you posted.
SV:

Siquidem non sine divino consilio illud evenit, ut qui sermo amplissimam gentium consortionem sub Romani Imperii auctoritate saecula plurima sociavisset, is et proprius Apostolicae Sedis evaderet (3) et, posteritati servatus, christianos Europae populos alios cum aliis arto unitatis vinculo coniungeret.

My translation:

And accordingly not without counsel [roughly assent or providence] it happened, that the speech [language] which had united the very great partnership of peoples under the authority of the Roman Imperium through very many centuries, this [language] both came out as the special language of the Apostolic Seat and, having been guarded for posterity, joined the Christian peoples of Europe with each other [alios cum aliis] in a firm bond of unity.

This directly precedes your quotation. That is, the historical nature of Latin makes it suitable to Catholicism, not the structure of the language itself.

As an aside, the encyclical mentions “Neque hoc neglegatur oportet, in sermone Latino nobilem inesse conformationem et proprietatem; siquidem loquendi genus pressum, locuples, numerosum, maiestatis plenum et dignitatis (4) habet, quod unice et perspicuitati conducit et gravitati.”

This unique (“unice”) structure, of course, developed historically as well, and there is no reason that it cannot be paralleled or exceeded by another language.

The real quotation that disproves your claim is the following:

Etenim Ecclesia, ut quae et nationes omnes complexu suo contineat, et usque ad consummationem saeculorum sit permansura…, sermonem suapte natura requirit universalem, immutabilem, non vulgarem.

These reasons – universality, immutability, non-vernacular-ness – for preserving Latin within the Church have nothing to do with Latin as a language.

Immutability is important:

Si enim catholicae Ecclesiae veritates traderentur vel nonnullis vel multis ex mutabilibus linguis recentioribus, quarum nulla ceteris auctoritate praestaret, sane ex eo consequeretur, ut hinc earum vis neque satis significanter neque satis dilucide, qua varietate eae sunt, omnibus pateret; ut illinc nulla communis stabilisque norma haberetur, ad quam ceterarum sensus esset expendendus.

Translation:

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

In other words, Latin is a good language because it is dead. This is a historical development. Latin, if it were still in use, would be unsuitable because it would be mutable, as the encyclical states explicitly after that quotation.

You are wrong, quod erat demonstrandum demonstratum est.

 

[Monkey1976]

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy the continuity that Latin gives us in the Roman Church. I take great comfort in the fact that St. Augustine, St. Benedict, St. Joan of Arc, or St. Maximilian Kolbe could walk right in to the EF Mass at which I’m assisting and know exactly what’s going on. We pray the Mass in union with all of the saints throughout history. In the Roman Rite, most of those saints prayed the same Mass in life that we now pray as the EF. I take great comfort from the continuity given to us by having a common language through so much of the history of the Roman Church.

That said, I believe that the Latin Mass - meaning the EF - can indeed speak to all.

 

[Nesrad]

In other words, Latin is a good language because it is dead. This is a historical development. Latin, if it were still in use, would be unsuitable because it would be mutable, as the encyclical states explicitly after that quotation.

You’re implying that the historical context of a language is not part of its “nature”, whereas the author himself uses the phrase: “suae sponte naturae,” “intrinsically (sponte) by its own nature.” Your demonstration doesn’t show how you can interpret the document in a way that Latin is, by its nature, no better than any other language than the Church, as you implied in your earlier post.

Furthermore, I don’t see how your demonstration has shown that Veterum Sapientia can be interpreted in a way that makes Latin no more “majestic” than any other language, as you stated in your earlier post.

You are wrong, quod erat demonstrandum demonstratum est.

Let’s let the readers decide, shall we.

 

[Baelor]

Non dubito quin ipsum Sanctum Patrem ut nimium studiosum linguae latinae crimineris,

Criminatus nihil Sancti Petri. Intellego quae in Sapientia Veterum dixerit, ut ante narravi.

quippe qui decrevit ut ipsae ‘doctrinae’ tuae in seminariis latine tantum docerentur.

Sed quae decrevit? Re manifesta scio, te verba Papae non intellegere.

 

[Baelor]

You’re implying that the historical context of a language is not part of its “nature”,

Hence the necessity of defining “nature.” I am simply translating the Pope’s use of “nature” to modern-day parlance, where it generally refers to characteristics that are intrinsic rather than acquired.

whereas the author himself uses the phrase: “suae sponte naturae,” “intrinsically (sponte) by its own nature.”

And that nature clearly refers to the historical development of Latin, which has made Latin a language about which the following can be said:

“It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.”

The Pope does not use “nature” nilly-willy; he uses it to refer to a historical reality that has made Latin suitable for the Church’s purpose. The document does not describe Latin as intrinsically more reverent or anything.

Your demonstration doesn’t show how you can interpret the document in a way that Latin is, by its nature, no better than any other language than the Church, as you implied in your earlier post.

It does perfectly, because “natura” must be understood as “historical development” and “nature” cannot be the English translation of the “natura” described in the document because they mean different things; this, of course, is a reason for preserving Latin – it is dead and consequently immutable.

Furthermore, I don’t see how your demonstration has shown that Veterum Sapientia can be interpreted in a way that makes Latin no more “majestic” than any other language, as you stated in your earlier post.

The encyclical does not state that Latin is no more majestic than other languages, and consequently any interpretation of the text itself will lead to the same conclusion that I drew. Perhaps you should read the document that you keep citing?

Furthermore, as I said, the Popes do not say things that are not demonstrable. I ask you again, what makes Latin more majestic than other languages (a claim not supported by the encyclical, mind you)? Can you even answer?

Let’s let the readers decide, shall we.

Yes, let them – I would be curious to hear their thoughts.

 

[ProVobis]

Until you prove cause, this is obviously a fallacy of correlation.

Which is why Latin is the universal language of the Church, because no one else speaks it. But it is not, by nature, superior to any other language. That notion makes very little sense and has no basis in historical reality.

Very little sense, you say?

Well, when it took them over an hour to figure out that the Pope renounced his resignation in Latin, I’d say we have a little problem with communication.

Does the Tower of Babel ring a bell?

 

[otjm]

Plus isn’t it a little ironic that the use of Latin orginally intended to help the people understand Mass now become some liturgical language people can’t understand?

Not any more so than changes in other language.

Latin was not the original language; Aramaic was; however, aramaic was ony spoken in a relatively small area. Greek therefore quickly became the “common” language of the Church; and a couple of hundred years later, due to the power of the Romans and their military spread, Latin became the common language.

That, however, was not the language of the Church; it was the language of the Roman part of the Church, as other languages became the language of choice for what we call the Eastern Churches.

And if one looks at the groth and change of English - for example, go back and read Chaucer - it sounds foreign to most people who first read it.

Then go back and read Beowolf. Good luck without the guidance of someone who knows and understands it.

I am not suggesting that Latin be done away with any more than I would suggest that the Maronites stop using Aramaic and Arabic in the Divine Mysteries. They don’t, however, use only those two languages.

Part of the Church practice froze in time; the fact that it has thawed does not mean that what was frozen was necessarily the best. It may have been, or it may not have been. Arguments can be made for both sides, but the reality is that Church has seen fit to use the local languages in the Mass.

 

[Nesrad]

Hence the necessity of defining “nature.” I am simply translating the Pope’s use of “nature” to modern-day parlance, where it generally refers to characteristics that are intrinsic rather than acquired.

I could translate “natura” by “ice cream sandwich” and that wouldn’t make it so.

The encyclical does not state that Latin is [snip] more majestic than other languages

It does state that Latin is “full of majesty,” and if you consider other languages to be just as majestic insofar as Veterum Sapientia is concerned, you’re turning the document into a farce.

what makes Latin more majestic than other languages (a claim not supported by the encyclical, mind you)?

What you’re saying is: “Yes, Latin is majestic, but no more than any other language, so any language can be used instead of Latin.” That turns the encyclical into a useless document. What’s the point in saying a language is majestic if all languages are majestic?

 

[otjm]

The mass was in Latin for 1960 years and the catholic church was never stronger, the vernacular mass is a new innovation.

Well, actually, no. The Mass was in multiple langauges and although it may go by a different name (e.g. Divine Mysteries) it is still in different languages.

And the Roman rite was very early on in Greek - which is the language the Gospels were written in.

So it is not a new innovation in any sense of the word. It may be new in the Roman rite, but not in the Church itself.

 

[Baelor]

I could translate “natura” by “ice cream sandwich” and that wouldn’t make it so.

Exactly. I am just saying that the connotations of “ice cream sandwich,” like those of “nature,” make both words unsuitable as translations of “natura.”

It does state that Latin is “full of majesty,”

But it does not state that Latin is more majestic than other languages.

and if you consider other languages to be just as majestic insofar as Veterum Sapientia is concerned, you’re turning the document into a farce.

Why? Why would saying that the document does not claim something that the document does not claim be problematic in any way? As the document clearly states, and as I explained, the reasons for retaining Latin are universality, immutability, and non-vernacular-ness. None of these involves majesty, which is mentioned as a bonus.

Your statement is simply untenable. I believe that you know this, otherwise you would have explained how it is made a farce by a belief in reality.

I also believe that you should answer my question, asked to you twice with no response: By what metric is a language majestic or not majestic? I believe that you recognize that the question is difficult, if not impossible, to answer, which is why my questions have fallen on apparently deaf ears. I furthermore believe that you recognize that I am correct when I state (as I have many times) that the encyclicals do not state that which is not demonstrable/determinable, and thus it is simply intellectually sterile to read an encyclical and believe that its contents are true by virtue of being an encyclical, when the reverse causality is in fact present (assuming the encyclical’s statements are correct).

What you’re saying is: “Yes, Latin is majestic, but no more than any other language, so any language can be used instead of Latin.” That turns the encyclical into a useless document.

I never once said that. Can you please quote me?

 

[otjm]

About “understanding” the Mass, there are a few things that need to be said:

1. It is not necessary to understand the Mass to fully benefit from its graces.
2. Modern Catholics see no problem with not understanding Mass when travelling in a foreign country, but they have a nutty when they can’t understand the Latin mass.
3. Catholic schools should teach Latin, and adults should learn it by taking evening classes. So many people are ready to learn foreign languages, but they totally neglect the language of the Church, which is their own language.

Your 1) may be true, but it is not an argument against the vernacular; there is no reason for ignorance about the Mass, whether it is in Latin or the local language.

Your 2) - please provide your surveys supporting this comment. Having spoken with people who have traveled abroad and asked their comments about attending Mass in another language, the most prevalent comment I have heard comes to “It is like going to a Mass in Latin - I can’t understand either of them” - which hardly supports your comment.

Your 3); Latin used to be taught in both Catholic and public schools; well before Vatican 2 it started dropping off the radar. Latin is again being taught, but not widely, for the same reason that it was losing ground before Vatican 2 - other languages are in demand.

Latin is an excellent base for studying English - and I can speak to that as I took both Latin and Homeric Greek in high school and Latin in college. However, as a high school course it simply has to compete with other languages, and I seriously doubt it will ever be mandatory.

 

[Nesrad]

Why? Why would saying that the document does not claim something that the document does not claim be problematic in any way? As the document clearly states, and as I explained, the reasons for retaining Latin are universality, immutability, and non-vernacular-ness. None of these involves majesty, which is mentioned as a bonus.

What’s the point of mentioning that Latin is majestic (even as a “bonus”) if it’s no more majestic than other languages?

I also believe that you should answer my question, asked to you twice with no response: By what metric is a language majestic or not majestic?

I’m not in the habit of answering loaded questions, but here goes. Latin is majestic for the same reason Beethoven’s 5th symphony is majestic. Now, tell me why the 5th symphony is majestic, and you’ll have your answer.

 

[otjm]

When the Mass started being said in Latin, the common folk actually spoke Vulgar Latin which is quite different and not necessarily mutually-intelligible with literary Latin.

A parallel can be made with Hebrew. When our Lord walked the earth, most Jews barely understood their liturgical language, but they didn’t switch to Aramaic or Greek, and our Lord didn’t have anything to say about that.

Uh, the Septuagint was written in Greek…

 

[Nesrad]

Your 1) may be true, but it is not an argument against the vernacular; there is no reason for ignorance about the Mass, whether it is in Latin or the local language.

It wasn’t an argument against the vernacular, I was aiming to show that not understanding the Mass isn’t sufficient reason for rejecting Latin.

Your 2) - please provide your surveys supporting this comment. Having spoken with people who have traveled abroad and asked their comments about attending Mass in another language, the most prevalent comment I have heard comes to “It is like going to a Mass in Latin - I can’t understand either of them” - which hardly supports your comment.

Please provide the names and addresses of those people you have spoken to, then I’ll provide the surveys asked for.

Your 3); Latin used to be taught in both Catholic and public schools; well before Vatican 2 it started dropping off the radar. Latin is again being taught, but not widely, for the same reason that it was losing ground before Vatican 2 - other languages are in demand.

Latin is an excellent base for studying English - and I can speak to that as I took both Latin and Homeric Greek in high school and Latin in college. However, as a high school course it simply has to compete with other languages, and I seriously doubt it will ever be mandatory.

This is what Veterum Sapientia is decrying. Catholic schools shouldn’t make Latin compete with other languages.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Wrong. The Church has decided that the use of Latin is to be preserved, which necessarily implies that some people must learn Latin, especially ordained deacons and priests, and preferably anyone who has the intellectual ability. This is what Blessed John XXIII decided, and this is the law of the Church. Pretending that learning Latin isn’t necessary is not doing the Church any favours.

Pro Vobis vs Pro Multis. It is not necessary that all learn Latin, I think this was pretty clear.

 

[Baelor]

What’s the point of mentioning that Latin is majestic (even as a “bonus”) if it’s no more majestic than other languages?

Because the author felt that it was majestic. The fact that Latin is immutable does not mean that no other language is immutable. The fact that Latin is non-vernacular does not mean that no other language is non-vernacular. The fact that Latin is universal does not mean that no other language is, was, or will be universal.

I’m not in the habit of answering loaded questions, but here goes.

It is not a loaded question. Do you know the definition of a loaded question?

Latin is majestic for the same reason Beethoven’s 5th symphony is majestic. Now, tell me why the 5th symphony is majestic, and you’ll have your answer.

It is not my job to provide your answers for you. I assume by your non-answer that you recognize the difficulty in defining a concept like “majestic.”

I assume by your silence that you recognize the correctness of all my other points.

 

[Nesrad]

Pro Vobis vs Pro Multis. It is not necessary that all learn Latin, I think this was pretty clear.

Yes, it was, sorry about that. But an unqualified “not all” is equivalent to “nobody” because anyone could include himself in the category of those who need not learn it. I think every Catholic who can learn Latin should learn it. Of course there’s room for interpretation on the word “can.”