Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

[TEPO]

Ecclesiastical Latin, unlike Classical, vulgar, Midievil, and Rennaisance Latin is the only form of Latin that has never “died”… It hasn’t because it’s the language that all Catholic Liturgies and Dogmas are written in. So in a way, it’s the only language that is guaranteed by God to never die -because the Church will live forever.

But What exactly is language to begin with? It seems to me, that words are reshaped first into accents, and then over the years become so far removed that a whole new dialect is born. It’s born through people who have seperated either through common ideals or through race segregation.

So I’m curious about the significance of the Catholic Latin Mass which uses a dialect of Latin spoken exclusively by Gods Holy Church, and has never been a national language. So if it’s not a national language then it can only be a religious language… So is it Gods language?

Also, is it possible that language may influence action? In other words, if a language was formed and shaped by a particular race, say French for example -if I were to learn French, is it possible that I would “act” more French? Likewise, if I were to learn Latin, would I act more “Catholic-ish”…?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I did not realize your God guaranteed that Latin in any form would never die. If it is God’s language then I do wonder what kind of person would think Jesus ever used it in his day to day life here in the flesh.

 

[CarloMagnus]

Ecclesiastical Latin, unlike Classical, vulgar, medieval, and Rennaissance Latin is the only form of Latin that has never “died”… It hasn’t because it’s the language that all Catholic Liturgies and Dogmas are written in. So in a way, it’s the only language that is guaranteed by God to never die -because the Church will live forever.

But What exactly is language to begin with? It seems to me, that words are reshaped first into accents, and then over the years become so far removed that a whole new dialect is born. It’s born through people who have seperated either through common ideals or through race segregation.

So I’m curious about the significance of the Catholic Latin Mass which uses a dialect of Latin spoken exclusively by Gods Holy Church, and has never been a national language. So if it’s not a national language then it can only be a religious language… So is it Gods language?

Also, is it possible that language may influence action? In other words, if a language was formed and shaped by a particular race, say French for example -if I were to learn French, is it possible that I would “act” more French? Likewise, if I were to learn Latin, would I act more “Catholic-ish”…?

English is not your first language, is it?

We, as Christians, especially Catholics, are called upon to uphold tradition. That tradition is built upon a slow progress that is carefully mediated and, perhaps, even at times be influenced by the hand of God, through means sometimes never understood.

Language:
The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

If you’re looking for a more philosophical understanding of what Language is, then I would need some more time to think about it thoroughly. Since the beginning of time, humanity needed to find ways of communication. Perhaps it was due to the migrations of the many different tribes; each with their own experiences, that the languages that we have today exist as they do.

I can hardly say that God has a language, since it was He who created speech to begin with. What service does it do our highest King of Kings to stick by one tongue, when he can speak them all?

Language does not influence action. I’m sure there are plenty of bad people in France just as much as there are more bad people in the U.S. (I’m counting according to the number of population in the U.S.). If you want to be more Catholic, just study what it means to be Catholic and you’ll find your answer. You have variety of selections: From history to philosophy, heck, even theology.

I did not realize your God guaranteed that Latin in any form would never die. If it is God’s language then I do wonder what kind of person would think Jesus ever used it in his day to day life here in the flesh.

We’re all called in keeping with our traditions. And each people carry different traditions according to the different experiences they have. That’s how we know that the Coptics are Coptics and the Greeks are Greeks and the Latins Latins. To me, it’s all a part of increasing the glory of God. Differences are good, so long as people don’t try and mesh together for the foolish notion of “unity”.

-Karl

 

[TEPO]

I did not realize your God guaranteed that Latin in any form would never die. If it is God’s language then I do wonder what kind of person would think Jesus ever used it in his day to day life here in the flesh.

Surely you’re not claiming that Jesus could not speak Latin any less than Chinese, Arabic or any other language that has ever existed or will exist in the future. But that’s beside the point, which is that Gods Holy Church writes her Doctrines and Truths in Ecclesiastical Latin, and as long as the Church exists, there will be those who will learn to interpret these things in their original language.

So what then are we to believe about the Latin language, and the fact that the Latin Mass is still guarded so closely by thousands of Catholics who refuse to let go --even though it is uncommon. What sort of personality develops from fluently spoken Latin…? The world has not seen this kind for a thousand years, that is -outside the Church.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Gods Holy Church writes her Doctrines and Truths in Ecclesiastical Latin, and as long as the Church exists, there will be those who will learn to interpret these things in their original language.

I’m not sure there’s anything preventing the Church from using a different language. I don’t see it happening, but I don’t think there is any guarantee of the strength you’re talking about.

So what then are we to believe about the Latin language, and the fact that the Latin Mass is still guarded so closely by thousands of Catholics who refuse to let go --even though it is uncommon. What sort of personality develops from fluently spoken Latin…? The world has not seen this kind for a thousand years, that is -outside the Church.

I think you may be putting a bit too much importance on the language here. I mean, Latin is a wonderful thing, but given that there are plenty of terrible and great personalities that spoke Latin as well as that didn’t, I can’t see this sort of claim holding up. I can see language possibly shaping modes of thought, though as of now I can’t imagine how other than some vague “the grammar structure of how one links words together may affect how one links the corresponding concepts together,” but I don’t think this necessarily works with a “Catholic Language” causing one to be more Catholic.

For one thing, the language predates the Church, so there’s no reason that I am aware of to think that such effects, if they even exist at all for any language, would cause a person to be more Catholic rather than, say more Roman. (I realize you’re saying the language changed, but it’d be hard to say to what extent such changes would matter if the basic structure stayed more or less the same - and even so, the language originated from “normal” Latin, and so you would expect some of that influence to stick around - if, again, such influence even exists.)

Also, the phrase “God’s Language” seems a bit strong even if all the rest is true. We use Latin, and we can assume that God is okay with that since He allowed it to happen, but I am not aware of this originally having any religious significance whatsoever. Practical significance, sure, and significance because it’s the language spoken in the place where the Church is centered, fine, but to call it God’s Language to me seems to imply that God specifically favors it and desired its use (which, true or not, does not appear to be evident from what we know), if not that it is somehow the language God speaks - which probably doesn’t make much sense at all.

 

[TEPO]

English is not your first language, is it?

We, as Christians, especially Catholics, are called upon to uphold tradition. That tradition is built upon a slow progress that is carefully mediated and, perhaps, even at times be influenced by the hand of God, through means sometimes never understood.

Language:
The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

If you’re looking for a more philosophical understanding of what Language is, then I would need some more time to think about it thoroughly. Since the beginning of time, humanity needed to find ways of communication. Perhaps it was due to the migrations of the many different tribes; each with their own experiences, that the languages that we have today exist as they do.

I can hardly say that God has a language, since it was He who created speech to begin with. What service does it do our highest King of Kings to stick by one tongue, when he can speak them all?

Language does not influence action. I’m sure there are plenty of bad people in France just as much as there are more bad people in the U.S. (I’m counting according to the number of population in the U.S.). If you want to be more Catholic, just study what it means to be Catholic and you’ll find your answer. You have variety of selections: From history to philosophy, heck, even theology.

We’re all called in keeping with our traditions. And each people carry different traditions according to the different experiences they have. That’s how we know that the Coptics are Coptics and the Greeks are Greeks and the Latins Latins. To me, it’s all a part of increasing the glory of God. Differences are good, so long as people don’t try and mesh together for the foolish notion of “unity”.

-Karl

Well, whether or not language effects action I can’t say for sure… But, language in a historical sense tends to develop through groups of people who stick together for many years, who interbreed and develop language alterations based on their own “style”. Each language tells a story about what they are or were like based on how their words correlated. The French language for example derives from Romantic Latin, the word Romantic deriving from the word Roman -also it is formally known as Vulgar Latin… Now it’s also said that the French are are a romantic people’s, as in romance, but there is also said to be a great deal of vulgarity within the French language. Now this gives us an implication about how the French speak and act, in a very simplistic and derogatory way in comparison to those who spoke “Classical Latin”.

So what can be said of the Classical Latin speaking peoples…? People such as the doctors of the Church? What were they like? If their language was of a higher “class” than most modern languages, and “sounds” better to God then that language should be held as the standard for all Catholic prayer. …But if it’s just a tradition, then why’s it worth fighting for?

 

[TEPO]

My questions are honest by the way. I take pride in keeping things as simple as I can in order to help myself decide on what is or isn’t the honest truth.

 

[Carefree_T]

Well, the Old Testament as we have it and as we’ve had it since the Apostles was written in Greek (Septuigent [LXX]), and the vast majority of the New Testament was written in Greek. And before the Great Schism, all the Church outside of the Latin church was Greek (which was most of Christendom). “Before 1054” (as that date is arbitrary) “God’s language” could have been said to be Greek. After, in the Roman Catholic position, the “Greek Churches” “fell away” from the Apostolic Church, Latin dominated [Western] Christendom. So, from the Roman Catholic point of view, Greek was the predominant language of Christendom for 1021 years (“1054” - 33A.D.) and Latin the predominant language of Christendom for 958 years (2012A.D. - “1054”). So if God “has” a language, it would be Greek based on a purely historical (i.e. argumentum ad antiquitatem) assessment of the culture of Apostolic Christianity from the Roman Catholic perspective.

Problem is, assigning any particular language to GOD, who is I AM, sets a boundary on Him to within the language’s cultural borders. One of Islam’s faults lies in its insistence that Arabic is the language of God because the Qur’an was [mostly] written in Arabic, and Arabic is (coincidentally?) the perfect language to convey the nuances of Mohammad’s prophesying in the Qur’an. But the Arabic language only goes as far as the borders of Mohammad’s warriors, making Islam a local religion. Catholicism is not a local religion by definition (katholicos = universal!), so God does not “have” a language of our world (i.e. does not favor one). For making “His language” Latin, even in just an ecclesiastical sense would be to put a human cultural boundary on GOD. God’s Language is any language that opens any particular man’s heart to Christ, be that particular man’s language a native African tribal dialect or English the World Language.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Many points have already been addressed here, but a few more to add:

Ecclesiastical Latin, unlike Classical, vulgar, Midievil, and Rennaisance Latin is the only form of Latin that has never “died”… It hasn’t because it’s the language that all Catholic Liturgies and Dogmas are written in. So in a way, it’s the only language that is guaranteed by God to never die -because the Church will live forever.

Latin has not always been the language of the Church. The first four ecumenical councils took place in the Greek-speaking world and the written documents that came from them (most famously, the Nicene Creed) were put forth in Greek. Other posters have mentioned the Greek scriptures; there are no Latin scriptures.

So I’m curious about the significance of the Catholic Latin Mass which uses a dialect of Latin spoken exclusively by Gods Holy Church, and has never been a national language. So if it’s not a national language then it can only be a religious language… So is it Gods language?

A few issues here: first, Ecclesiastical Latin doesn’t have a birthdate. It evolved from the Late Antique Latin spoken in the Roman Empire just like any other language does. At best we can say relatively confidently that it has remained more or less the same since the time of the total standardization of the liturgy in the middle ages, and only remained the same because it gradually lost its secular usefulness.

Also, is it possible that language may influence action? In other words, if a language was formed and shaped by a particular race, say French for example -if I were to learn French, is it possible that I would “act” more French? Likewise, if I were to learn Latin, would I act more “Catholic-ish”…?

That’s an open academic/psychological question. It is certain that the development of theological thought differed in the early church depending on the language being used. As I mentioned earlier, most of the great theology of the early church was discussed and promulgated in Greek. Greek was actually a much more specific and articulate language when it came to philosophy and theology since the Greeks had a great history of philosophy, which continued in Roman times. Latin terminology for complex philosophical subjects was far less precise, and doubtlessly caused Latin theology to develop along different (though not necessarily contradictory) lines. It wasn’t until the time of St. Augustine that the Latin language really saw theology of the same quality as what had been going on in the Greek-speaking world for decade before.

The point in all this is that language does have a tangible impact - that does NOT necessarily mean that one is inherently “better” or “preferred by God.” It does mean that we must be careful in translating any text to take these linguistic issues into account.

Hope this was helpful.

EDIT- Also, don’t forget that Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome have kept liturgical traditions from a myriad of languages.

 

[Cat]

IMO, if God uses a “language,” it is pure mathematics, which is what He uses to create everything in the universe. Everything in the universe can be ultimately reduced to mathematics.

Math is even more universal than Latin, because there is no variation with math. It is the same in every culture, and it has remained pure and true from the beginning of creation.

And it is beautiful and high above most human understanding. To this day, there are mathematical conundrums that are not understood by even the most brilliant humans, and as soon as those are solved, others will manifest themselves.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If one wants to be strict about it, Aramaic is “God’s language” because that’s what Jesus spoke! So the Maronites have one up on all of us.

 

[OraLabora]

IMO, if God uses a “language,” it is pure mathematics, which is what He uses to create everything in the universe. Everything in the universe can be ultimately reduced to mathematics.

Math is even more universal than Latin, because there is no variation with math. It is the same in every culture, and it has remained pure and true from the beginning of creation.

And it is beautiful and high above most human understanding. To this day, there are mathematical conundrums that are not understood by even the most brilliant humans, and as soon as those are solved, others will manifest themselves.

As a scientist I’m pretty much inclined to agree with this. I’ve worked in chemistry, physics and computer science. They all boil down to math. IMHO some of that math is so complex only God could understand it but I digress

I also don’t think God uses language to read the hearts of men. He’s way above that.

I would say no for Latin. No matter how much I love it or love Gregorian chant or love (especially and OF Mass where I can hear it) a Mass in Latin.

The 22 other sui juris Churches in communion with Rome would probably be inclined to agree

And within the Roman Church, I think there are relatively newly evangelized parts of the world for which Latin is an obstacle to God, not a pathway to God, because they come from cultures and languages that, unlike Western European languages, don’t have any common roots with Latin.

Which is no doubt why the Holy Spirit guided the bishops at Vatican II to approve the use of the vernacular in liturgies. They probably didn’t expect though, that most Western European-derived cultures would be so quick in dumping Latin, and that is a great shame.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin has not always been the language of the Church. The first four ecumenical councils took place in the Greek-speaking world and the written documents that came from them (most famously, the Nicene Creed) were put forth in Greek. Other posters have mentioned the Greek scriptures; there are no Latin scriptures.

You forget the Vetus Latina, an older version of the Bible, of which many books were updated by St. Jerome to bring them up to par with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. St. Paul might have written Romans in Latin but all of the original NT works have all been lost. Not to mention that before Gutenberg, most things were handwritten and we all know how rare good handwriting can be. So one copy of something is barely reliable.

A few issues here: first, Ecclesiastical Latin doesn’t have a birthdate. It evolved from the Late Antique Latin spoken in the Roman Empire just like any other language does. At best we can say relatively confidently that it has remained more or less the same since the time of the total standardization of the liturgy in the middle ages, and only remained the same because it gradually lost its secular usefulness.

The Church Christianized the codified grammar and vocabulary of Cicero and other classicists in the BC era. It was used because of its practicality in the early documents, and words like “oratio” became “prayer,” “Deus” became the true God, “gratia” became “grace” and so on. I wouldn’t call it God’s language but it worked for the Church and it gave Roman Christians an important bond and identity.

The point in all this is that language does have a tangible impact - that does NOT necessarily mean that one is inherently “better” or “preferred by God.” It does mean that we must be careful in translating any text to take these linguistic issues into account.

Yes, but in many case, the language is basically untranslatable and meanings better kept preserved in the ancient languages, like “Sabaoth,” “Kyrie eleison,” “Hosanna,” “clementissimus,” etc.

 

[ProVobis]

IMO, if God uses a “language,” it is pure mathematics, which is what He uses to create everything in the universe. Everything in the universe can be ultimately reduced to mathematics.

Math is even more universal than Latin, because there is no variation with math. It is the same in every culture, and it has remained pure and true from the beginning of creation.

And it is beautiful and high above most human understanding. To this day, there are mathematical conundrums that are not understood by even the most brilliant humans, and as soon as those are solved, others will manifest themselves.

I’d agree with that.

As I’ve often said, you may not learn much theology from studying math or physics, but you sure can learn how to measure possible error.

 

[ProVobis]

Which is no doubt why the Holy Spirit guided the bishops at Vatican II to approve the use of the vernacular in liturgies. They probably didn’t expect though, that most Western European-derived cultures would be so quick in dumping Latin, and that is a great shame.

But didn’t the same Holy Spirit inspire Veterum Sapientia several months prior to Pope John’s convening of the council?

…

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages **a primary place **must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language **united so many nations **together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a **bond of unity **for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

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 for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

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."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[OraLabora]

But didn’t the same Holy Spirit inspire Veterum Sapientia several months prior to Pope John’s convening of the council?

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

Well yes and that’s why Latin is still the “official” language of the Western Church and serves as the root for much of its documentation (though much is in Italian as well), and as the base language for the liturgy. I am certainly not disputing that at least for the Western Church.

But we are a fallen species and there are parts of the world where Latin has no cultural significance, which makes it a difficult language for use in the liturgies there; proper pronunciation is difficult and understanding even more so; my mother tongue is French so Latin isn’t a huge obstacle for me, but I can assure you it is for, say, Koreans. Alas it is also becoming more so for Westerners as well as the teaching of Latin has been dropped from almost all educational curricula.

The last time people were able to understand each other in foreign languages they did not otherwise know was at Pentecost. So in our imperfect world we have to adapt!

 

[ProVobis]

but I can assure you it is for, say, Koreans.

I wouldn’t put it past them. Supposedly they study Advanced Calculus and three different alphabets at an early age. And judging by the low reading scores, the U.S. has a problem with one alphabet.

 

[OraLabora]

I wouldn’t put it past them. Supposedly they study Advanced Calculus and three different alphabets at an early age. And judging by the low reading scores, the U.S. has a problem with one alphabet.

Be that as it may, their English is horrible. I can’t imagine Latin would be any better. I can say this with a degree of certitude. I worked with them for many years (engineers, scientists and managers) and travelled extensively in South Korean over a 10 year period.

 

[porthos11]

Sheesh. Everyone knows God’s language is King James English.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I would think linking God to a specific language would be cultural imperialism of the worst kind.