God doesn't speak Latin

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2724308:

I didn’t want to post this until the Traditional Latin mass followers had their day. Since by now September 14 has come and gone, I’ll post now.

First, I don’t have anything against the Tridentine mass. Our Western Rite Orthodox use the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is basically the same, and I am fine with that (though I’m Arab and Eastern Rite).

I don’t have anything against Latin, or any liturgical language, per se, except when its appeal is smells and bells. It has to go farther.

Now, I saw a nun on EWTN say that “Latin is the love language of God speaking to His beloved the Church. We are just getting in on the conversation.”

A lovely thought, but also a silly one.

The Father doesn’t speak Latin.

The Son on earth didn’t speak Latin.

His mother didn’t speak Latin.

QUOTE]​

So you are binding the Holy Trinity and our Lords Mother–in that they cannot communicate to us in Latin.

Not saying that, just stating the fact that there is no evidence that it is their language of choice.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thanks Isa, I really appreciate your post. These are my feelings exactly. I have posted in other areas on the forum about the TLM. I would be totally lost. I believe that is why many of us didn’t convert earlier in life. We didn’t have a clue what was going on.

I’ve only been Catholic since Easter. I’m still trying to get everything in english.

First, congratulations.

Btw I also have the same feelings on those keep the Divine Liturgy in Slavonic, Greek, etc. If you don’t speak it in coffee hour, you shouldn’t be praying it upstairs. If you disagree, read Acts 2:6,11 over and over until you get it.

Btw this does NOT apply to parishes where all are immigrant Greeks, Polish masses for recent arrivals, etc.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;2724378:

Not saying that, just stating the fact that there is no evidence that it is their language of choice.

---

Well Isa Almisry–by saying that there is no evidence that it is their language of choice --you are still applying human limitation to our Most Holy Trinity and our Lord Mother who resides in heaven.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Isa Almisry;2724730:

---

Well Isa Almisry–by saying that there is no evidence that it is their language of choice --you are still applying human limitation to our Most Holy Trinity and our Lord Mother who resides in heaven.

“Our Lord Mother?” That’s a first.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The only real use of Latin today is in the Church, in its liturgy, canon law, pastoral documents, et cetera.

In that way, Latin is sanctified and therefore is in a way God’s language of love.

Of course, God does not “speak” nor does He have any practical need for any mortal language, but I think it’s fairly obvious the quoted nun is aware of that fact.

Why does it have any use in Liturgy? If you don’t say at coffee hour “Coffea Arabica cum lactem saccharemque”, you shouldn’t be saying Pater Noster either.

It is sanctified because the congregation doesn’t understand it? How is, for instance, English, not so sanctified? The masses said in it don’t have that effect?

I’m not so sure the nun was aware of it.

 

[stmaria]

Greek can not only be used all over the world, but has been used from the beginning of the Church. **Latin cannot make that claim even for Rome./**QUOTE]

So you know more than Pope John XXIII???

Pope John XXIII - Veterum Sapientia
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.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… 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… But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, 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…

Responsibility for enforcement

2.In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy Sees will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Even in the liturgy there should be Latin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Is there some move afoot to “sacrifice” the vernacular Mass?!?! Tell me about it, and I’ll work to defeat it.

And to say that all we need is a “very simple adherance to the rubrics” is to display an innocence about the reality of the last 40 years that borders on the perverse.

No, I’m not being naive at all. Think about it: if each and every priest had, for the entire past 40 years, simply hued to the rubrics and NOT attempted to stamp his own ego all over the Mass, we wouldn’t be having all these arguments.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree, it was a silly (but harmless) statement. But there are legitimate reasons for Latin, as testified by the fact that sacred languages are very common in religious settings.

I have become more and more convinced that one of the hidden benefits of Mass in Latin is to prevent the incessant ad-libbing of the Mass prayers that some priests feel is their right and/or duty. In Latin most priests wouldn’t be able to do that, and much more importantly, nobody in the congregation would “get it”, thus depriving the priest of most of his motivation.

I’m quite sure it goes on, because no one speaks the language the mass is being said in.

Btw my objection does not extend to an objection of the official text being in Latin for the Latin church, nor at masses in Rome where there are multiple languages (though the multiple languages is a better solution) nor alternating some hymns in Latin in a sense of diachronic solidarity (like the retention of Kyrie eleison).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Isa Almisry;2724386:

Greek can not only be used all over the world, but has been used from the beginning of the Church. Latin cannot make that claim even for Rome./

QUOTE]

So you know more than Pope John XXIII???

Pope John XXIII - Veterum Sapientia
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.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… 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… But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, 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…

Responsibility for enforcement

2.In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy Sees will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Even in the liturgy there should be Latin.

Oh, PLEASE, St. Maria, you “traditionalists” go on and on and ON about how popes can be wrong. You continually point out how popes have erred after the council when compared with “before” the council. On this point, which is clearly a matter of discipline (unless you want to argue that Latin as a sacred tongue was handed down by the Apostles as a matter of dogma or doctrine), certainly the pope can be wrong. As it happens, Blessed John XXIII ISN’T wrong, because the Church does need a common tongue. Those who prefer and advocate for the vernacular Mass, however, are equally NOT wrong, because as Pope Benedict has said, there are advantages to the vernacular Mass (and I think that being able to understand the language of the Holy Sacrifice is one of them).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does anybody deny that, for many and varied reasons, Latin does have a special relationship in the Church (it is still the ‘official’ language and has been for centuries?)

Church? capital C.

It has never had any status in the East, the four patriarchates, the Slavonic Churches (except those that went Latin).

Much of the Church’s work was done in Latin (eg. St. Cyprian) but that doesn’t distinguish it from Syriac, etc.

It does have a special status in the Latin church, and the Latin rite, which brings up the question why did the West not translate the Liturgies in the vernacular for a nearly two thousand years, after it was translated from the Greek into the vernacular Latin?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, if every priest had followed the rubrics that we have today. . .but as Pope Benedict XVI noted, there was a very sizeable number of clergy who ‘thought’ that the rubrics called for experimentation and change.

Further, if the actual documents for Vatican II had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would not have the vernacular Mass as most know it–“all” vernacular. We would have a Mass which had the main parts in it (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei etc) in Latin, which had many responses in Latin, etc.

Further still, if the actual documents had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would have had for 40 years what we have now–an ‘ordinary’ form (with some Latin and some vernacular) and an ‘extraordinary’ form --the Latin Mass.

What we have ‘now’ as of Sept 14th is a very clear step to what we ‘should have had’ in 1970 until today. And what we hope to receive, with the ICEL coming up, which will hopefully continue the strides already made in SOME parishes to institute the documents of Vatican II to have the ‘ordinary’ Mass include Latin with the vernacular, will hopefully restore the ‘ordinary’ Mass to its glory as now the extraordinary Mass has been restored to its glory.

Deo gratias!

 

[Walking_Home]

No, I’m not being naive at all. Think about it: if each and every priest had, for the entire past 40 years, simply hued to the rubrics and NOT attempted to stamp his own ego all over the Mass, we wouldn’t be having all these arguments.

---

I guess the naive comes in believing that the problems in the NO can be corrected. At least 2 Pope’s have worked on that – yet here we are. The Popes take one step forward–and some bishops, priests and laity push the Mass two step back.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I guess the naive comes in believing that the problems in the NO can be corrected. At least 2 Pope’s have worked on that – yet here we are. The Popes take one step forward–and some bishops, priests and laity push the Mass two step back.

Then I’m in good company: two popes (that’s real ones, not mini-ones sitting in their armchairs, dreaming of the day when they’ll step out on the loggia).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, if every priest had followed the rubrics that we have today. . .but as Pope Benedict XVI noted, there was a very sizeable number of clergy who ‘thought’ that the rubrics called for experimentation and change.

Further, if the actual documents for Vatican II had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would not have the vernacular Mass as most know it–“all” vernacular. We would have a Mass which had the main parts in it (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei etc) in Latin, which had many responses in Latin, etc.

Further still, if the actual documents had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would have had for 40 years what we have now–an ‘ordinary’ form (with some Latin and some vernacular) and an ‘extraordinary’ form --the Latin Mass.

What we have ‘now’ as of Sept 14th is a very clear step to what we ‘should have had’ in 1970 until today. And what we hope to receive, with the ICEL coming up, which will hopefully continue the strides already made in SOME parishes to institute the documents of Vatican II to have the ‘ordinary’ Mass include Latin with the vernacular, will hopefully restore the ‘ordinary’ Mass to its glory as now the extraordinary Mass has been restored to its glory.

Deo gratias!

I think there is a great deal of the Extraordinary Form that needs to be reformed as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You do? What would those things be?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m curious as to whether you have attended a TLM. In order to truly participate in the TLM, you must have a Missal, with both the Latin and the English. If you follow along in your Missal, you would find it very easy to participate.

I can understand how daunting it must seem to you. Raymond Arroyo made an interesting comment on “The World Over” last night on EWTN. He said that people in NYC pay $300 or more to go to the Metropolitan Opera and listen to people sing in other languages. The audience then reads the subtitles either on the back of the chair in front of them or on a screen above the stage, and they don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why would we have a problem with the Mass in Latin?

All I can say is give it a try before you make a judgment. I think you will be very surprised.

Mary

I’m sorry. I don’t go to Church for entertainment and amusement.

I went to a Latin mass decades ago, when we had to get a dispensation for it, for a medieval history class in a Latin school.

I question, if the Tridentine Mass was done, with all the reverence and pomp (I have no problem per se with pomp) but in English, would it be any less?

Is there something wrong with speaking with your Heavenl Father in your mother tongue? Reading parrallel missals is like passing notes in High School rather than expressing your deepest emotions to our Beloved Lord.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m sorry. I don’t go to Church for entertainment and amusement.

I went to a Latin mass decades ago, when we had to get a dispensation for it, for a medieval history class in a Latin school.

I question, if the Tridentine Mass was done, with all the reverence and pomp (I have no problem per se with pomp) but in English, would it be any less?

Is there something wrong with speaking with your Heavenl Father in your mother tongue. Reading parrallel missals is like passing notes rather than expressing your deepest emotions to our Beloved Lord.

I never use a missal in the NO Mass because I don’t have to: I know all the parts and responses that I’m supposed to make. I can’t imagine trading that for having to follow along in a “script.”
And no, the Tridentine would not be any less in the vernacular. I’ve heard the “Suscipe, Domine” in English and it’s lovely.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well I did read once or maybe was it twice, that the devil doesn’t particularly like it during exorcism, I do wonder why that is if it’s true, I think Fr Gabriel Amorth referred to this.

I don’t know what the nun meant, the only thing I would say that if everyone knew Latin, then when they travel Mass would be in the same language, other than that I don’t know.

So we gear the universal Church to the jet setters? No home parish?

I’ve been to exorcisms in Arabic, and the demons don’t seem to like that either. Same the Aramaic our Lord used in the NT.

 

[stmaria]

I think there is a great deal of the Extraordinary Form that needs to be reformed as well.

I can’t wait for your suggestions.You are going to tell us how a Mass that is over 1400 years old needs to be reformed? Go for it.

 

[anthony022071]

He did not set the Creed in Latin.

He didn’t set the creed in Greek for that matter. He didn’t set a creed at all.

Only after Romulus’ title of pontifex maximus was passed on from the Roman emperor to the Pope of Rome, did Rome get its Latin mass and Latin translation of the scriptures (under Damasus).

There were Latin translations of scripture from before the time of Jerome’s translation.

God spoke to the prophets in Hebrew, and inspired their translators in Greek. God made man spoke Aramaic (and maybe in His childhood Coptic), and his Chruch spoke Greek. At the Ecumenical Councils the 72 nations agreed on Greek texts.

The Greeks may have been ignorant of Latin,but the Latins were not ignorant of Greek.