English should supplant Latin as Church’s official language‽

[Geremia]

America magazine: Ave atque Vale: The case for replacing Latin as the official language of the churchLatin, not English, is the official language of the Church. From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?
A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:

1. ]To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;]That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;*]To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.

 

[Ahimsa]

America magazine: Ave atque Vale: The case for replacing Latin as the official language of the church
Latin, not English, is the official language of the Church. From the Baltimore Catechism:

Is that infallible dogma?

 

[bpbasilphx]

The very question posed in the Baltimore Catechism, as well as its answer, is based on a false assumption–namely that the Roman Church is the sum total of the Catholic Church.

At the time it was composed, most bishops in the USA had not even heard of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The cultural clash when they started showing up is an epic tragedy that need not concern us here.

Furthermore, Italian seems to be the day-to-day language of the State of Vatican City.

 

[palmas85]

The very question posed in the Baltimore Catechism, as well as its answer, is based on a false assumption–namely that the Roman Church is the sum total of the Catholic Church.

At the time it was composed, most bishops in the USA had not even heard of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The cultural clash when they started showing up is an epic tragedy that need not concern us here.

Furthermore, Italian seems to be the day-to-day language of the State of Vatican City.

Really? And the source for this rather remarkable claim about the bulk of the US Bishops? I find it rather odd based on the encyclical Orientalium Dignitas, issued in 1894 which expanded a similar encyclical, Demandatam, issued in 1794:

While true that more than a few Latin Rite Priests took it upon themselves to try to gain converts from Eastern Churches, to say that most Bishops in the US had never even heard of the Eastern Churches I would think is just flat out wrong and is quite frankly more than a little insulting and prejudicial… I would suppose that even in those days Bishops knew how to read and were familiar with the above encyclicals. I somehow doubt that only the Pope knew about these things.

Of course having read more than a few of your postings it does appear that you do have some issues with the Latin Rite itself.

 

[ovidio]

Most people in the the so-called English speaking countrys can’t speak English correctly. They wouldn’t even agree on translations. So, that would be out of the question.

 

[stuart12]

as i am scottish, i know the above statement to be true

 

[Ace86]

Latin will forever remain the official language of the Catholic Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Is that infallible dogma?

Ahimsa:

No, but it’s extremely smart practice. and, The burden of proof should rightly be on those wishing to change the Church’s Official Language from Latin to English, to show that the change is necessary, and to show that the change will not do more harm than can be done by the present situation.

The Catholic Church, esp. in America, has had 45 years of “change for changes’ sake”. A lot of which was neither necessary nor wise. I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I’d like to see a LOT LESS of that, and a lot more stability (“Stability for stability’s sake”?).

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Latin will forever remain the official language of the Catholic Church.

Ace:

Latin SHOULD remain the Official Language of the Catholic Church.

The reason it may not is that so many educated Catholics (including myself) DON’T speak, read or write Latin. I can follow a TLM using a St. Joseph’s bilingual Missal, but, aside from a few of the prayers & the Pater Noster, I can’t follow the Latin without using the English Translation. From what I’ve heard, there are a lot of Bishops & Priests (esp. in the USA, who aren’t any more literate in Latin than I am), and, at least in the LA Archdiocese, they’ve decided not to do anything about that.

If Bishops, Priests & Laity don’t learn Latin, at least well enough to participate in and understand a LATIN Novus Ordo, Latin will stop being the official language of the Catholic Church.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[bpbasilphx]

Really? And the source for this rather remarkable claim about the bulk of the US Bishops? I find it rather odd based on the encyclical Orientalium Dignitas, issued in 1894 which expanded a similar encyclical, Demandatam, issued in 1794:

---

**My source? Here is one. Read it.

cin.org/clash1.html

The story is typical.

Here’s an excerpt:**

The news that the Ruthenian community of Shenandoah had organized to establish a parish of its own and would soon receive the service of a married Ruthenian or “Greek” Rite priest quickly provoked the local Polish and Irish Catholic clergy to anger. In various ways they tried to discourage the enthusiasm of the faithful by admonishing that the Holy See and the American government would never allow a married priest to settle in the United States. This effort to undermine the Ruthenian Catholic community enjoyed some initial success since the faithful in Shamokin, Excelsior and Hazleton, Pennsylvania, hesitated to commit themselves entirely to the cause of a Greek Catholic church in Shenandoah.

Meanwhile Father Voliansky had left Europe in November of 1884. After his arrival in New York he and his wife stayed in Jersey City, New Jersey for a few days and then proceeded to Shenandoah. He arrived at his place of assignment on December 10, 1884. From the onset, as he describes in his brief memoir “Recollections from By- Gone Years”, Father Voliansky’s missionary work was very difficult.

Despite the fact that this foreign, married priest had received a very joyful and enthusiastic welcome from the Ruthenian community of Shenandoah, the local Polish Catholic priest, the Reverend Joseph Alex Lenarkiewicz, refused permission to him for the use of Saint Casimir Church as a temporary place of worship. Undaunted, Father Voliansky simply decided to discuss the matter with the local RomanRite ordinary, the Most Reverend Patrick J. Ryan, Archbishop of Philadelphia (1884-1911). The new pastor was undoubtedly confident that his credentials from Metropolitan Sembratovich were in order and that the Roman Catholic Hierarch would lend assistance and concede whatever permissions he needed. A tragedy was in the making.

Upon his [Father Voliansky’s] arrival at the Philadelphia Chancery, Father Voliansky was met and interviewed by the Reverend Ignatius Horstmann, Vicar General of the Archdiocese. Voliansky was summarily refused personal access to the Archbishop and was forbidden to exercise his priestly ministry on account of his married status. He was also denied any jurisdiction [authority] from the Archbishop to serve the Ruthenian Catholic faithful within the confines of the Archdiocese for the same reason. His credentials from the Metropolitan in Europe were ignored, there was simply no room in America for a married priest.

 

[a_pilgrim]

While true that more than a few Latin Rite Priests took it upon themselves to try to gain converts from Eastern Churches, to say that most Bishops in the US had never even heard of the Eastern Churches I would think is just flat out wrong and is quite frankly more than a little insulting and prejudicial… I would suppose that even in those days Bishops knew how to read and were familiar with the above encyclicals. I somehow doubt that only the Pope knew about these things.

And how much sadder and more shameful the story becomes if, in fact, these Latin bishops were, as you propose, fully aware of the Eastern Churches and yet, despite this knowledge, they still proceeded to commit the atrocities against their fellow (albeit Eastern) Catholics that the undeniable facts of history tell us did, indeed, occur!

 

[weepixie71]

in the beginning the Catholics spoke greek and some spoke latin. i was taught that when the Catholic Church chose its language, latin was chosen because it was most popular worldwide, atleast what they knew of worldwide, usage.

most religions had their own languages. especially the egyptians and other pagans.
it was ecclesiastical latin that was made by the Catholic leaders to lesson the confusion. to this day it is still used. “Ecclesiastical Latin” is still the Catholic language. we just dont use it as often is all. hopefully with the tridentine mass gaining popularity that will soon change.

 

[I_Believe]

And how much sadder and more shameful the story becomes if, in fact, these Latin bishops were, as you propose, fully aware of the Eastern Churches and yet, despite this knowledge, they still proceeded to commit the atrocities against their fellow (albeit Eastern) Catholics that the undeniable facts of history tell us did, indeed, occur!

No, what is sad is that the OP is about an absurd article suggesting Latin be discarded by the Latin Church, and someone decided that since we have the audacity to discuss a topic that pertains to the Roman Catholic Church, in a forum dedicated to the discussion of Roman Catholicism, we should have an out of nowhere guilt trip cast upon us.

 

[I_Believe]

It all gets down to lack of effort.

Ave a = ah e= ay as in hay v = v

Ave - Ah vay

It’s not rocket science. How many times must one hear Dominus vobiscum to understand it means The Lord be with you ? Twice ? Three times ?

Want to hold a conversation in Latin ? Yes, you have your work cut out for you. Want to learn enough to pray Holy Mass ? Not all that hard.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=168384

 

[bpbasilphx]

Of course having read more than a few of your postings it does appear that you do have some issues with the Latin Rite itself.

---

**I have no issue with the Latin Rite itself in either form.

I have an issue with individual Latin Rite Catholics (many of whom post here) who seem to think that the Latin Church is the entire Catholic Church, or that Eastern Catholics aren’t real Catholics, and the more their liturgical praxis resembles that of the Latin Church, the more perfect it is.

This last attitude accounts for many Latinizations forced upon different Eastern Catholic Churches over the centuries. The Synods of Diamper and Zamosc are cases in point.

Other examples are the Papal encyclicals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries forcing clerical celibacy on Eastern Catholic priests in the USA, forbidding them to Confirm at the baptism of infants, and suppressing the authentic Eastern practice of infant Communion.**

---

i was taught that when the Catholic Church chose its language, latin was chosen because it was most popular worldwide, atleast what they knew of worldwide, usage.

---

**You were taught incorrectly, weepixie.

It was the only literary (that is, written) language IN WESTERN EUROPE. But Western Europe was not the whole of the Catholic Church, much less of Christianity.**

 

[Aramis]

Sadly, Father Bishop Basil is not reading the right sources.

Examine the wording of the canons of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plenary councils of Baltimore, and you quickly find that they were aware of and in fear of the diversity of rites. They even forbade the Domincans, Carmelites and Cistersians to use their own Monastic missals even in private. In the 1st Plenary Council, they forbade the use of any missal except the Missale Romanum within the united states, under penalty of anathema! (Such a prohibition violated the papal charters of the Domincans and Carmelites, and also the Council St. Patrick called in Ireland, which was upheld by the Pope, and matched by a council in the east.)

The very fact that Ruthenian, Melkite, and Ukrainian priests were arriving intending to use their non-Roman liturgies was a violation of Canon 3 of 1st Plenary Boston. (Which was eventually overturned by HH Pius IX. He specifically aimed to allow the Monastic Rites of the West, but also allowed by the same instrument all catholic rites.

The Eastern Catholics didn’t receive much acceptance until much later… When HH Pius X ordered they be permitted their own overlapping jusrisdictions, rather than be subjected to Roman Bishops’ interference. HH Pius XI installed them. Over the objections of the US bishops.

 

[ProVobis]

“English should supplant Latin as Church’s official language”

And who would force this? Seems as if Latin hasn’t hurt the Church for most of its existence. English, on the other hand, has gone through many changes in a much smaller length of time. It has certainly not been time-tested to keep official Church doctrine in English. And we certainly don’t need any more committees, such as the ICEL, to try to teach us doctrine. Keep Latin as the Church’s official language and keep as much Latin in the liturgy as possible.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No English should not supplant Latin as the Church’s official language. There would be too much confusion. I don’t speak Latin fluently, but the Church is right in keeping the official language as Latin.

 

[damooster]

With the English language having just celebrated the word “Web 2.0” as its one millionith word the other day, I say keep Latin the official language of the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

Ahh, the arrogance of us Americans.

“We should change the official language of the Church and, of course, it is only right that it should be changed to our language.”

I don’t think we need to worry about this happening anytime soon.