As I said to tee, I may be reading to much into it.
Thanks for sharing that story brotherhrolf. And you may have given the best simple reason that the Church retains latin.
Brennan, thank you so much for pointing me to the right document. It answers all my questions. And it has really given me a lot of food for thought.
Yes, Veterum Sapientia is a really good document. Clear and makes a lot of sense. And also too bad some portions of Liturgicam Authenticam were not heeded such as retaining Latin in the liturgy. But then again, there were loopholes where one could get by that.Brennan, thank you so much for pointing me to the right document. It answers all my questions. And it has really given me a lot of food for thought.
Frankly I’m startled that John XXIII had to write it. It looks like some of the things we blame VII for had already begun to appear.
Sure has been an eye opener for me reading it. There seems to be somewhat of a warning in the Popes words that would have eliminated the much discussed “misinterpretation of VII”, if it had been heeded.
Perhaps he did plead “stop the council”.
There is no hard evidence that Pope John said “Stop the Council!” However it would make sense in the light of the fact that initially no long-range plans were made for the Council members, board and room wise. Costs were starting to mount and the members seemed to be carrying their own individual agenda, which the Pope had not put on top of his list.Frankly I’m startled that John XXIII had to write it. It looks like some of the things we blame VII for had already begun to appear.
Sure has been an eye opener for me reading it. There seems to be somewhat of a warning in the Popes words that would have eliminated the much discussed “misinterpretation of VII”, if it had been heeded.
Perhaps he did plead “stop the council”.
I don’t think that’s “uninformed.” Why would you disagree with this proposition? What other reason would Tertullian or Minucius Felix have for writing in Latin rather than in the more sophisticated Greek? (Actually I think Tertullian did write some stuff in Greek, but we have lost them.) Augustine, of course, was lazy in school and never learned much Greek, so there were good reasons why he used Latin. . . .
Hi Bob, We’ll probably never know if he said it perhaps. It would make a good topic. Feel free to start one
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia seems similarly uniformed:
Hi Edwin, yes, that last paragraph has kind of clouded my intent of asking the questions. But fair enough. It was indeed a logical choice to go with latin, being in wide use at the time.
Hi JKirk, there is that statement haunting me again lol.
So perhaps the answer MIGHT be to have one rite offered in both the Latin and the vernacular, along the lines of 8:00 AM Tridentine in Latin; 9:45 Tridentine in English (or whatever the vernacular happens to be). That way, every base is covered. Tourists who don’t speak the local language can go to the Latin Mass, while the locals (many of whom probably very much like Mass in their language) can go to the vernacular Mass.
Then again John XXIII had elevated Montini to the Cardinal position, which Pius XII had refused to do. And Montini went on to become Paul VI and the rest is history. But we have been blessed to have John XXIII’s Missal which has been preserved in its original form and Latin language all these years. Which is a miracle in itself if you think about it.
It may be fine but it says a lot about them. Those that insists on having things only in their own culture care nothing for other cultures. They don’t want to get involved with anything that would be more universally accepted if it requires any extra effort on their part. Let’s face it, learning a new language takes effort, especially if one feels there is no benefit from it. If the effort results in more money or friends, then they would have no problems adapting to a new language. But Mass, why should they? God understands baby talk as far as they’re concerned and there are no other people they wish to befriend. Hardly Catholic/Universal in my opinion.
The whole idea of justifying Latin on the basis of vagranti parishoners strikes me as odd in the extreme, and utterly devoid of an idea of “home parish.”Then again John XXIII had elevated Montini to the Cardinal position, which Pius XII had refused to do. And Montini went on to become Paul VI and the rest is history. But we have been blessed to have John XXIII’s Missal which has been preserved in its original form and Latin language all these years. Which is a miracle in itself if you think about it.
It may be fine but it says a lot about them. Those that insists on having things only in their own culture care nothing for other cultures. They don’t want to get involved with anything that would be more universally accepted if it requires any extra effort on their part. Let’s face it, learning a new language takes effort, especially if one feels there is no benefit from it. If the effort results in more money or friends, then they would have no problems adapting to a new language. But Mass, why should they? God understands baby talk as far as they’re concerned and there are no other people they wish to befriend. Hardly Catholic/Universal in my opinion.
Now I have to go to work and learn still another computer language. Later.
What’s the alternative? For the Church to switch to the current most widely-spoken language every hundred years? Seriously, lay out an alternative for us.
The church retains Latin as a matter of not only tradition but also of control of purity of information. While the rest of the world has taken the Bible into various translations, interpretations, amplifications, simplifications on and on ad nauseum - the church has insured that the original information stays as close as possible to its intended meaning. Douay-Rheims is so accurate because it remains the closest translation from the Latin Vulgate and compared exhaustively to the Greek etc etc. Jerusalem Bible I feel follows closely and there is a Spanish version which also ranks with the D-R and Jerusalem, that is the Nacar-Colunga. The base for these outstanding and time honored translations is Latin. Now, as far as Latin being a dead language, I believe that this is a vicious attack which began I don’t know when, to undermine its use by the Catholic church world-wide. I firmly believe that it is the “regulatory language” of the catholic church. I’ll give an example which may or may not have any meaning to you all: An american priest officiating a Spanish mass, was using the prayer, “Lord wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin”. When he said it in Spanish it came out, " …and cleanse my sin" abluere meum peccatto (I’m not an expert). Where “from my” would be “de meum”. Like I said, I’m no expert but I see the importance to have recourse to the original intent of the prayer. And that is where Latin comes into play and needs to remain in saecula saeculorum.
That is precisely what I would add. Sure, Jerome “changed” Latin in certain ways, but it was mainly because a) he was translating into more common speech - thus really just hastening the rate at which spoken language becomes allowed in written form (eg. the split infinitive is now allowable i.e. proper English) - and b) he had to work with concepts not easily expressible in the language into which he was translating. I think Augustine’s discussion of our language describing the Trinity encapsulates this very well. He says we need words to describe the incomparable and ineffable, so we pick something that does part of the job and we decide to understand it in a proper sense. By using “persona” to indicate the persons of the Trinity the Church was not trying to change Latin, she was just trying to find a way to use it for her particular needs.
History once again. The East was not wracked by barbarian invasions the way the West was. The eastern Roman Empire did not collapse and had the habit of paying off the barbarians to go elsewhere. When the western Roman Empire collapsed after 450 AD, it was every culture for itself. Charlemagne united the Carolingians into the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD. He was seeking to restore that which had gone before. Latin makes perfect sense in that case. In the meantime, the Irish who had been spared barbarian invasion until the Vikings sent missionaries into Scotland and England carrying the Word of God in Latin. Alcuin of York (who was a Saxon) had been taught by Irish missionaries. Alcuin used his talents to help Charlemagne. Latin was the medium.