Did God Really Intend For A Uniformed Liturgy?

[Image_of_God]

I am interested in learning Latin and for some reason I feel drawn to more traditional forms of worship. I don’t know why. And yet, I can’t help but think that I’m wrong about it. That the use of nonvernacular language is wrong and that Jesus didn’t intend it. Something I think I’m crazy and unnecessarily picky about liturgical worship. I don’t know. I just feel confused. I just want what I want to be in union with what God wants.

Can anyone help me in this confusion?

 

[Rawb]

It’s not that worship in the vernacular is wrong, it’s just that many feel that the symbol of having Mass all in one language better symbolizes and unites the Body of Christ. It also gives us a Sacred, family language in which we become familiar. Even if you don’t speak it fluently, it can still help you to communicate things to other Catholics.

Clear example. On Youtube I saw a video of the Ave Maria being sung. It was beautiful. Underneath people could comment on the video, and they had. The first comment was in English. The next in Spanish. The next two English, the third German. The next in Latin, and it went on and on. Latin united us as Catholics. I didn’t know what my brothers and sister of other countries were saying in their own language, but we ALL knew and loved the Ave Maria. We all understood that.

Another example is a story a member of this forum tells of being overseas during WWII in France. He was looking at a beautiful Church, dressed in his uniform. The priest came out and said something in French, but this man didn’t speak French. So the priest smiled and said “Introíbo ad altáre Dei”. The soldier responded with “Ad Deum qui lætíficat juventútem meam” (This is the prayer of the priest, and response from the server, at the foot of the altar in the Tridentine). The priest then, realizing this soldier to be Catholic, took the man on a tour of the Church (which I’m guessing took place with gestures and cognates).

It is not wrong to be drawn to Traditional Spirituality. It has been the nourshing Liturgy of the saints for over a thousand years before Vatican II, and our current Pontiff has said we are free to attend. How could it be wrong now, if it wasn’t wrong then? Rejoice in your heritage, don’t condemn it.

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

Beautifully put, RAWB.

A European holidaymaker’s perspective. Just an anecdote from my life: I have heard the 1970 rite Mass in French (which I can just about understand) in France and Morocco, in German (ditto) in Germany, in Catalan and Castilian (which I don’t understand) in Spain, in Portuguese in Portugal (ditto), in Maltese in Malta (ditto) and in Konkani in India (ditto). Of course it’s the Mass and you can see what is happenning during it, but we have lost, or rather mislaid, the binding cement of the Latin Church, which is the Latin language.

If the aim of the 2nd Vatican Council was ‘participation’, it did not properly anticipate the lack of the laity’s ability (those of us with only three languages or less) to ‘participate’ in a foreign language in this globalised world. Why did we ever sideline Latin?

Now, whenever I have the opportunity, I hear Mass in Latin as my ancestors did.

 

[Cluny]

it’s just that many feel that the symbol of having Mass all in one language better symbolizes and unites the Body of Christ.

Nevertheless, this was historically NEVER the case, though some people have that fantasy.

The very existence of the Eastern Liturgies, which have always been in a multiplicity of languages, disproves this notion.

 

[thistle]

I am interested in learning Latin and for some reason I feel drawn to more traditional forms of worship. I don’t know why. And yet, I can’t help but think that I’m wrong about it. That the use of nonvernacular language is wrong and that Jesus didn’t intend it. Something I think I’m crazy and unnecessarily picky about liturgical worship. I don’t know. I just feel confused. I just want what I want to be in union with what God wants.

Can anyone help me in this confusion?

Latin was only ever the language of the Roman Church and not of the Eastern Catholic Churches or the Orthodox.

Also Latin was the vernacular at the time.

 

[Cat]

How does the idea of a “uniform liturgy” gel with Scripture? Is there an apology in the Bible supporting the idea of a uniform language of worship on this earth?

Yes, there’s Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture and both are authoritative for Catholics. As an ex-Evangelical Protestant, I personally believe that the Bible supports EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church teaches, even if it’s subtle. I don’t believe that there are Catholic teachings that are not seen anywhere in the Bible. If it’s meant to be, it’s somewhere in the Bible, even if it’s just implied. So it’s my theory that if a uniform language is God’s plan for us, it is somewhere in the Bible.

These are just a few examples of Holy Scriptures which seem to indicate a respect for the languages of this earth rather than a “uniform language” on this earth–

Daniel 7: 14–And to Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Rev. 5:9–Worthy art Thou to take the book and to break its seals for Thou wast slain and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

This particular passage in Revelation is followed by verses in which all speak in a loud voice–“Worthy is the Lamb to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” The apostle heard them saying, “To Him Who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”

Would John have “heard them saying” these words in a single language? And if so, why Latin? Was that the language that he would have understood?

Isn’t it more likely that they were all speaking in their “every tongue,” and John HEARD them in his spirit rather than with his ears? Just as many of you do not speak Latin, but you understand what is being said anyway because it is the prayer of your heart and soul?

It just seems audacious to me to assume that the “language of heaven” is Latin. That means that the angels and the living creatures and the elders in Revelation 5: 11 were speaking Latin. I think this is simply a very big stretch. I think it’s more likely they were speaking a non-human language of heaven that we as humans cannot understand until we are like Christ. John was given a special gift to be able to understand (in his soul) this heavenly litany, just as through the ages, various saints and leaders in the Church have been privileged to get glimpses of heaven and understand the language spoken there.

It seems to me that an attempt to re-unify the languages is somewhat presumptuous, as the Lord Himself separated the languages in Genesis 11. That’s just my opinion, obviously.

Thank you for posting the arguments from Sacred Scriptures for a uniform language in the liturgy on earth.

 

[ibkc]

Cat,
Rejoice in your heritage, don’t condemn it.

Best advice ever given on the traditional forum. Short, sweet and to the point.

 

[Freshman88]

How does the idea of a “uniform liturgy” gel with Scripture? Is there an apology in the Bible supporting the idea of a uniform language of worship on this earth?

As you say, Scripture AND Tradition.

Scripture must always be interpreted within the context of the Church. You leave that context the second you start claiming that tradition doesn’t "gel’ with Scriptures. Be weary of personal interpretation. All you did was quote the bible, without any reference to actual Church teaching and that’s when we make mistakes, when we interpret not only outside tradition, but against tradition, like you just did.

Really what you’ve done is quetion the 2millenia of saints and clergy who lived this tradition. But I guess we know better, eh? I’m sorry, but that would be quite prideful.

 

[HarryVII]

On the cross there were 3 languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

These 3 were made holy by the cross of Our Lord and his most precious blood.

 

[ibkc]

I will also note that Christianity grew out of Judaism, which also has a sacred language: Hebrew. The concept of sacred language is very much a part of our culture and heritage as Catholics.

 

[Cluny]

Latin was only ever the language of the Roman Church and not of the Eastern Catholic Churches or the Orthodox.

Not true.

The Latin rite was celebrated in Slavonic for CENTURIES before Vatican II.

You might want to look up “Glagolitic rite” or “Glagolithic mass.”

**On the cross there were 3 languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

These 3 were made holy by the cross of Our Lord and his most precious blood.**

This was rejected by Pope St. Innocent who ordered copies of the liturgical and scriptural Slavonic books of Ss Cyril and Methodius placed on the altars of the major basilicas in Rome and had the Slavonic liturgy celebrated in his presence.

ALL languages were made holy by the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

 

[Cat]

Cat,
Rejoice in your heritage, don’t condemn it.

Best advice ever given on the traditional forum. Short, sweet and to the point.

What?

I don’t understand this post.

I didn’t “condemn” anything. I merely asked for a Scriptural apology for the idea of a uniform liturgy on this earth. I would appreciate someone posting it. Thank you.

 

[Cat]

As you say, Scripture AND Tradition.

Scripture must always be interpreted within the context of the Church. You leave that context the second you start claiming that tradition doesn’t "gel’ with Scriptures. Be weary of personal interpretation. All you did was quote the bible, without any reference to actual Church teaching and that’s when we make mistakes, when we interpret not only outside tradition, but against tradition, like you just did.

Really what you’ve done is quetion the 2millenia of saints and clergy who lived this tradition. But I guess we know better, eh? I’m sorry, but that would be quite prideful.

I conclude that I phrased my post badly. I did NOT intend to interpret any Scriptures, but only to post a few Scriptures that SEEM to go against the idea of a “uniform liturgy” on this earth.

I asked for clarification and the apology supporting such a doctrine of “uniform liturgy.”

I did NOT mean to pridefully assume that 2000 years of saints are wrong. If that’s the impression that you received from my post, then I did not express myself well.

I would appreciate it greatly if someone could post a Scriptural apology for the doctrine of the “uniform liturgy” on this earth. That’s all I meant to ask for. I am NOT attacking this doctrine, unless it is assumed by Traditionalists that asking questions is the same as attacking.

Thank you very much.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Latin was only ever the language of the Roman Church and not of the Eastern Catholic Churches or the Orthodox.

Not true.

The Latin rite was celebrated in Slavonic for CENTURIES before Vatican II.

You might want to look up “Glagolitic rite” or “Glagolithic mass.”

**On the cross there were 3 languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

These 3 were made holy by the cross of Our Lord and his most precious blood.**

This was rejected by Pope St. Innocent who ordered copies of the liturgical and scriptural Slavonic books of Ss Cyril and Methodius placed on the altars of the major basilicas in Rome and had the Slavonic liturgy celebrated in his presence.

ALL languages were made holy by the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

This Sinophile must insist that people remember that when Fr. Matteo Ricci went to China the Mass was said in Chinese using the Oracle Bone Characters as they were the normative for rituals.

 

[ibkc]

What?

I don’t understand this post.

I didn’t “condemn” anything. I merely asked for a Scriptural apology for the idea of a uniform liturgy on this earth. I would appreciate someone posting it. Thank you.

Cat,
Your post was worded as a demand and a challenge. You identified yourself as an “ex-evangelical Protestant” who still believes in the Bible as the last word. No, you did not phrase it like that. But that is a good paraphrase of what you said. You then went on to say that the idea of a sacred, liturgical language is “audacious.” But, it is the position of the Catholic Church that Latin is to be used within the Latin rite of the Church. (VII: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Par. 36). If you believe that if the Church holds a position, then it is in the Bible, and the Church does hold this position, then why do you think it “audacious”?

All that said, the use of liturgical languages in the Catholic Church - of which Latin is only one - is not a teaching. It’s a discipline, the same kind of thing as priestly celibacy, and it is a teaching that developed organically within Catholic culture, which (as I note above) sprang itself from Judaism, which also has a liturgical language. Are the Jews also “audacious” for continuing to use Hebrew?

There are churches in other rites of the Catholic Church who use Aramaic in their litugies. Are they “audacious”?

I’m sure some Scripture wonk can come up with some passages to support the use of liturgical languages, but I am not a Scripture wonk; I am a fairly simple, new Catholic who tries to follow orthodox teachings as best I can. I am not a “trad” even though I am in sympathy with them on many things; I attend a Novus Ordo mass where Latin is only used sparingly. For me, if the Church has held a position on something for centuries, then there are good reasons to do it, and since I do not believe God’s intentions for every single thing can be found in the pages of a single book, it does not matter to me whether there is Scripture to support every single thing. In fact, despite coming from a Protestant background myself, I find such a notion to be utterly ridiculous (and it was one of the things that drove me away from Christianity to begin with long ago.)

The biggest reason to have a uniform language is that it removes all doubt about what is being said and what it means. When multiple translations are used, it opens the door to people playing fast-and-loose with the wording of our mass. That opens the door to dissent. The fact that there has been more open, blatant dissent in the Catholic Church in the past 40 years, ever since a universal language was inexplicably abandoned in the West, is too much of a coincidence as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Cluny]

This Sinophile must insist that people remember that when Fr. Matteo Ricci went to China the Mass was said in Chinese using the Oracle Bone Characters as they were the normative for rituals.

Thank you for this information, Volodymyr 988! I did not know that.

So much for “The Mass has always been in Latin.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

These 3 were made holy by the cross of Our Lord and his most precious blood.**

This was rejected by Pope St. Innocent who ordered copies of the liturgical and scriptural Slavonic books of Ss Cyril and Methodius placed on the altars of the major basilicas in Rome and had the Slavonic liturgy celebrated in his presence.

I was gonna say!

Thanks for putting paid to this terribly silly argument. I can’t tell you the number of times its cropped up.

 

[Cat]

Cat,
Your post was worded as a demand and a challenge. You identified yourself as an “ex-evangelical Protestant” who still believes in the Bible as the last word. No, you did not phrase it like that.

**I never said in this post or anywhere else that I believe that the Bible is the “last word.” ** God help us, NO! If you care to waste time doing a search, you will find several posts by me stating that the doctrine of sola Scriptura was authored by the devil straight from the pit of hell. I believe I have used those strong words, or simliarly strong words.

But that is a good paraphrase of what you said.

No it isn’t. It’s a misinterpretation of what I said. If I gave you that impression, then I am the worst of writers and I apologize for being so inept at expressing myself. I gave you totally, absolutely the wrong impression and I’m sorry.

You then went on to say that the idea of a sacred, liturgical language is “audacious.”

**I did NOT say that the idea of as sacred, liturgical language is “audacious.” ** I said “It just seems audacious to me to assume that the “language of heaven” is Latin.” That is a whole lot different than making the claim that you are accusing me of. I stand by my opinion. I think that for earthly people to try to ascribe any earthly characteristics to heaven is rather audacious. We don’t what heaven is really like.

But, it is the position of the Catholic Church that Latin is to be used within the Latin rite of the Church. (VII: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Par. 36). If you believe that if the Church holds a position, then it is in the Bible, and the Church does hold this position, then why do you think it “audacious”?

I never said such a thing. As I said above, I never said that the use of Latin in the liturgy is audacious. I said that the idea of Latin as the language of heaven seems audacious to me. Big difference. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church has made any statement defining the “language of heaven,” have they?

All that said, the use of liturgical languages in the Catholic Church - of which Latin is only one - is not a teaching. It’s a discipline, the same kind of thing as priestly celibacy, and it is a teaching that developed organically within Catholic culture, which (as I note above) sprang itself from Judaism, which also has a liturgical language. Are the Jews also “audacious” for continuing to use Hebrew?

Of course not. But then, I never said what you accused me of saying.

And I apologize for not using the correct term “discipline”. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that I was using an incorrect term.

There are churches in other rites of the Catholic Church who use Aramaic in their litugies. Are they “audacious”?

Of course not. I never said such a thing as you accuse me of.

I’m sure some Scripture wonk can come up with some passages to support the use of liturgical languages, but I am not a Scripture wonk; I am a fairly simple, new Catholic who tries to follow orthodox teachings as best I can. I am not a “trad” even though I am in sympathy with them on many things; I attend a Novus Ordo mass where Latin is only used sparingly. For me, if the Church has held a position on something for centuries, then there are good reasons to do it, and since I do not believe God’s intentions for every single thing can be found in the pages of a single book, it does not matter to me whether there is Scripture to support every single thing. In fact, despite coming from a Protestant background myself, I find such a notion to be utterly ridiculous (and it was one of the things that drove me away from Christianity to begin with long ago.)

And I never, ever said that God’s intentions for every single thing can be found in the pages of a single book. NEVER!!!

The biggest reason to have a uniform language is that it removes all doubt about what is being said and what it means. When multiple translations are used, it opens the door to people playing fast-and-loose with the wording of our mass. That opens the door to dissent. The fact that there has been more open, blatant dissent in the Catholic Church in the past 40 years, ever since a universal language was inexplicably abandoned in the West, is too much of a coincidence as far as I’m concerned.

All I asked for was a Scriptural apology of the doctrine (sorry, I used this term instead of the more correct term “discipline”). I am NOT trying to disprove the idea, I just want to know what the BIBLE says about it! That’s not wrong!

As of yet, I have not received any Scriptural exigeses from anyone. Instead, I have received accusations of being a proponent of the detestable sola Scriptura and I have been accused of second-guessing my Church.

I apologize, but it’s this kind of thing that gives me a really bad taste in my mouth about Traditionalist Catholic culture. If this is what you are like, then I don’t want to be around any of you.

I will try to fight this attitude, because I know that most Traditionalist Catholic Christians are really nice people. But I really don’t like being accused of things that I never said and that I don’t believe. I don’t like that at all.

And I apologize again for posting such a dumb post that offended people, even though offense was the last thing on my mind and all I wanted, honest to heaven, was a few Bible verses and some explanation. Would it be best for me to avoid asking for any Biblical support of Traditionalist positions in the future? I didn’t realize that this would be offensive to traditionalist-leaning Catholics. Forgive me.

 

[ibkc]

All I asked for was a Scriptural apology of the doctrine (sorry, I used this term instead of the more correct term “discipline”).

Probably, Cat, your best bet is to ask this question in the Apologetics forum - that’s where the folks who are good at verse-slinging hang out. The use of Latin is not a traditionalist matter. It is a matter that concerns all the Church. There are plenty of people who know their Bible around here; if you don’t want to ask, I will, out of simple curiosity.

I apologize, but it’s this kind of thing that gives me a really bad taste in my mouth about Traditionalist Catholic culture. If this is what you are like, then I don’t want to be around any of you.

I will try to fight this attitude, because I know that most Traditionalist Catholic Christians are really nice people. But I really don’t like being accused of things that I never said and that I don’t believe. I don’t like that at all.

And I apologize again for posting such a dumb post that offended people, even though offense was the last thing on my mind and all I wanted, honest to heaven, was a few Bible verses and some explanation. Would it be best for me to avoid asking for any Biblical support of Traditionalist positions in the future? I didn’t realize that this would be offensive to traditionalist-leaning Catholics. Forgive me.

I forgive you, Cat. Will you forgive me?

I can’t speak for “Traditionalists” because as I noted in my prior post, I cannot be considered one by any stretch of the imagination. I attend a conservative Novus Ordo parish and don’t get to the TLM nearly as often as I’d like.

I will say this to you: Latin and contemporary vs. traditional music seem to be hot button issues for you. I’d like reassure you that you are probably not looking at any point in the future where you will never be able to find a parish that plays that beloved praise 'n worship music and never utters a word of Latin. Really.

 

[twf]

Cluny:
At the same time, many popes have spoke of Latin’s unique sacred character as it has been “consecrated” as the official language of the Catholic Church. I agree that Latin has never been the sole liturgical language of the Church…not even of the Latin Church; this is simply the historical reality. That being said, Latin has been given a special primacy by the Holy See. The Sacred Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and in Greek. The earliest Christians would have celebrated the Eucharistic liturgy in Greek and Syriac. Some of our Eastern brothers and sisters continue to do so. And even the Latin Church initially employed Greek. Regardless, the Church, through the power of binding and loosing entrusted to Her by Christ, has deemed Latin to hold a special place. Can anyone provide relevant quotes to back me up?
(BTW - I’ve even heard it say by exorcists that demons are particularly afraid of Latin as they realize Holy Mother Church has “consecrated” the language).