Is Latin a holy language?

[pianistclare]

Then I guess we’d better shut down all the prayer intentions.
How in the world does anybody believe that God prefers one language over the other.
Are we Catholics called to instruct all the countries of the world in the Latin?
Really? Makes no sense.

 

[MtnDwellar]

only in exorcist mumbo jumbo land

What is “mumbo jumbo land”?

 

[MtnDwellar]

Then I guess we’d better shut down all the prayer intentions.
How in the world does anybody believe that God prefers one language over the other.
Are we Catholics called to instruct all the countries of the world in the Latin?
Really? Makes no sense.

The actions you propose weren’t suggested by any poster.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Father Chad Ripperger, Catholic exorcist and author, stated the following in a homily:

It (Latin) is also more efficacious than any profane language because of the fact that it is a sacred language. And by virtue of it being sacred, it is in the eyes of God, more precious and therefore more meritorious.

 

[Elizium23]

Veterum sapientia

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

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

Sacred sciences to be taught in Latin

1. In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, "must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts."16 For apart from the fact that it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith, it also serves in no slight measure to prune away useless verbiage.

Hence professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.

 

[ProVobis]

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:

    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.

 

[ProVobis]

Per Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France,

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

 

[ProVobis]

Unless I am truly confused, the Church does not teach that the Mass is celebrated in an unholy language when it is celebrated in English.

I was raised on the Latin Mass. I never regarded it as holy so much as mysterious. I don’t think it seems logical to say that there is a moral equivalence between mysterious and holy. I went to a Latin Mass several years ago. I never want to go to one again. I don 't think that means I am a linguistic bigot, so much as a person who just wants to understand every word of the prayers he is uttering.

Maybe “holy” isn’t the right word but when translating from Latin to English you have:

LOSS OF SUBJUNCTIVE
LOSS OF INFLECTION
LOSS OF GENDER RELATIONSHIPS
LOSS OF EMPHASIS (IPSUM especially)
LOSS OF DEMONSTRATIVE PRECISION (everything translating into “this”)
LOSS OF MYSTERY (IMO)
DIFFERENT VIBRATION (borrowed from Bill Murray’s line)

No, I don’t think Latin is equivalent to English.

 

[ProVobis]

I always thought Jesus spoke Aramaic. Was that not the reason the movie The Passion of the Christ was in Aramaic?

The movie was in Aramaic and Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

How in the world does anybody believe that God prefers one language over the other.

Christ worshipped in a non-vernacular.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Christ worshipped in a non-vernacular.

I doubt if Christ worshipped in Latin or Greek. Hebrew maybe. More likely Aramaic, which is not used by the Church except as an occasional inclusion.

If Latin prayers are more efficacious as some claim (I’m a bit cynical), I suppose the devil has a memory of 1500 years (or more) of being exorcised in Latin, prayed against in Latin, and the Mass intoned in Latin. So he probably doesn’t like it.

 

[Medawlinno]

A few points…

The historic Jesus would have spoken the Galilean dialect of Aramaic as his native tongue. He would have probably used some Hebrew in worship and was, like many people in that area of the world, probably somewhat conversant in Koine Greek (the “English” of it’s time). Since he lived in a Roman occupied country, I’m sure like everyone else he would have heard Latin here and there as well, but probably would not have been conversant in it. If, as a child, he lived in Egypt for a time, it’s quite possible he could have also picked up a bit of Coptic as well (but whether any of it was remembered in adulthood may be another story).

Latin, one must remember, was THE language of learning in most of Europe and so it was considered to be of higher status than any local vernacular. As such, it was felt that translations of Latin texts in the a local vernacular would somehow profane the original. Since Latin was the language of learning, it was used to translate the Bible from Greek. It’s probably in this process that it came to be regarded as “holy” - Latin is no more holy than any other language spoken on the planet.

I have a hard time explaining this concept to some of my Coptic acquaintences; since Coptic survives today as mainly a liturgical language (though it’s slowly being dragged into the 21st century as an everyday language), most Copts seem to regard it as somehow a holy language, but it’s simply just late Egyptian.

 

[Ignatius]

I doubt if Christ worshipped in Latin or Greek. Hebrew maybe. More likely Aramaic, which is not used by the Church except as an occasional inclusion.
.

Actually, the Syriac Catholic Churches use Aramaic and some of the Maronite liturgy is in Aramaic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those who insist that the Mass be in holy Latin should also insist that the Bible be available only in holy Latin. That way everybody would know nothing about the Mass and the Bible because nobody (except the most erudite scholars) know any Latin.

 

[jbp]

As far as I am aware we do not actually posses any literal originals of any book of Holy Scripture. We do though have the decree of the Council of Trent which declared that no error is contained in the vulgate translation. This is a higher degree of surety than granted anywhere else.

I concur. If the Church DEFINES that it is, then it is. remember, the bible exists because the Church DEFINED WHAT IT IS. the authority of the Church predates the bible.

 

[jbp]

I understand the history of how Latin became the church language: the church was (and is) centered in Rome, and with evangelization it became prudent to have a common liturgical language. However, I have met a lot of Catholics who believe that the mass should still be in Latin and who treat Latin as if it is a holy language.

Latin certainly feels spiritual, and I even like to pray in Latin. I know that the feeling is mostly due to cultural exposure (especially with Hollywood. ) I just don’t see any logical reason for it to be a holy language. I know that I partially like it because of continuity: many of the saints prayed in Latin.

I think that Hebrew (or Aramaic-Hebrew) would be a better candidate for a holy language. I also like to pray in Hebrew. However, I also understand the early Christian-Jewish schism, and that early Christians didn’t want to be identified with the Jews after the fall of the temple. So, I can understand why the early church eventually switched to Latin.

My question is whether Latin has any special holy property, or if it is simply a matter of tradition (little “t”) and what makes it special?

the latin language itself is not intrinsically holy. it is not holy per se. it just happens to be the adopted official language of the Church by force of history and circumstances. it has the added benefit of being a dead language. like the dead, it doesn’t move, it no longer evolves and is therefore stable in its meanings. try reading the original shakespear or understand its meaning - very hard because the language had changed and evolved since then. or medieval english which is unintelligible.

stability of meaning is helpful because you don’t want people believing something different simply because the meaning of a word has changed.

 

[Elizium23]

Those who insist that the Mass be in holy Latin should also insist that the Bible be available only in holy Latin. That way everybody would know nothing about the Mass and the Bible because nobody (except the most erudite scholars) know any Latin.

Circular reasoning. Nobody will understand because nobody understands it. Whose fault is that? The schools and parents and parishes who allow their faithful and children to be ignorant. Classes were taught in Latin for hundreds of years. Latin is not the hardest language to learn. Small Roman children learned it natively all the time. The children at the school in my parish learn all their prayers in Latin and then take up intensive study of the language and become fluent over their years of attendance. So it is not out of reach for anyone. The question is one of education, and this has been lost BECAUSE the Mass was translated to the vernacular, BECAUSE the Bible was translated, that nobody sees a need anymore.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Circular reasoning. Nobody will understand because nobody understands it. Whose fault is that?

Nobody’s.

It’s nobody’s fault that Latin is a dead language. But to hear someone like you talk it should be alive on everyone’s tongue so that we can all got to Mass and read the Bible in Latin.

Get real.

 

[ProVobis]

I doubt if Christ worshipped in Latin or Greek. Hebrew maybe. More likely Aramaic, which is not used by the Church except as an occasional inclusion.

Hebrew would make more sense since Scripture up to that point had been in Hebrew, perhaps translated into Greek. I have my doubts on Greek or Latin as the Greco-Roman religion was mostly pagan delving into mythology among other things.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin is no more holy than any other language spoken on the planet.

And yet the world has little problem with English being the “sacred” language of the Anglicans. Go figure.