Is Latin superior than other languages?

[UnityofTrinity]

I’ve heard many said the reason why Catholic Churches have Mass in Latin is because Latin is the Sacred language. But if God did indeed created man equal to one another, why would He made one language superior than the other? Wouldn’t this seperate us from our Eastern bretherens or our Middle Eastern bretherens?

 

[SouthpawLink]

A great encyclical by Pope John XXIII on Latin: papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The Church used Latin because Rome was the seat of the Papacy, and Latin was the common language of the Romans.

Back then, virtually everyone in what is now Italy spoke Latin. It was the common speech, and the leaders of the church used that language.

Over time, it was adopted as the official language of the church, and it remained so for many centuries. There is absolutely nothing sacred about Latin, it is NOT God’s language.

The Latin Rite, for many centuries, was the ONLY church with apostolic succession that did not use the common language of the areas where it existed. The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

I would say that latin as the language of the Church has kept us together as a people. Someone here once said that if you want to disperse or assimilate a people, take their language away.

Latin is not holier than other languages. It’s just our language, and it’s disuse is one of the contributing factors to where we now find ourselves as a Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church used Latin because Rome was the seat of the Papacy, and Latin was the common language of the Romans.

Back then, virtually everyone in what is now Italy spoke Latin. It was the common speech, and the leaders of the church used that language.

Over time, it was adopted as the official language of the church, and it remained so for many centuries. There is absolutely nothing sacred about Latin, it is NOT God’s language.

The Latin Rite, for many centuries, was the ONLY church with apostolic succession that did not use the common language of the areas where it existed. The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

oh pishtosh.

Number 1: The homily and the readings were done in the vernacular before Vatican II.
So for the Scripture readings and exegis there was the ‘vernacular’ already in place.

Number 2: You ARE aware we are having a ‘new’ translation of the Mass coming into play in November 2011, right? One reason we are having that is because the ‘older’ one is (gasp!) not strictly accurate to the LATIN original. And because of the flaws and inaccuracies two generations have received INADEQUATE understandings of the liturgy.

HAD THE MASS REMAINED as it was, with the Latin for the majority and the ‘vernacular’ for the readings/homily. we would not have had so many misunderstandings, because the Latin itself is not the problem, the attempts to make Latin into ‘vernacular’ language by giving a non-literal translation that sounded more like 'normal regular everyday speech" was the problem.

as it is I tend to chortle at the people wailing how ‘unintelligible’ Latin is and how they glory in 'knowing what is going on" because it’s in ‘their language.’

Because come November they are gonna be stumbling all over themselves saying the ‘old’ words and having to READ THE MISSAL to LEARN the new.

Oh my my my my my. Reading the missal to look at ‘new’ words instead of the ‘old’ ones.

How remarkably SIMILAR to reading a missal and looking from the Latin ‘heard’ to the English, or French, or Spanish, or whatever translation.

And furthermore, we now have generations of people brought up with the ‘vernacular’ Mass who pride themselves on understanding what is being said and done.

So if that’s the case, why fear Latin and the Mass in Latin? They are doing and saying the same thing in Latin as you hear in English etc. Just because you ‘hear’ “Pater Noster” right after the big old Amen, how hard is it to think, “Our Father”?

I have to wonder how many people SAY they love the OF because they 'understand what is being said" but when it comes right down to it, they’re just droning on by rote because if suddenly they didn’t have a reference point of hearing an “our father who art”, they would be lost because they hadn’t paid attention to what was going on or what was being said.

I guess we’ll be finding out in November though. . .

 

[lbishaw]

The Latin Rite, for many centuries, was the ONLY church with apostolic succession that did not use the common language of the areas where it existed. The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

I never felt cut off during Mass in the 50’s and early 60’s because I had my missal and right there in front of me was the English translation. Just like folks today memorize their Mass prayers in their vernacular I memorized my Mass prayers in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve heard many said the reason why Catholic Churches have Mass in Latin is because Latin is the Sacred language. But if God did indeed created man equal to one another, why would He made one language superior than the other? Wouldn’t this seperate us from our Eastern bretherens or our Middle Eastern bretherens?

Isn’t that enough reason? The inscriptions on the cross were in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. That’s what God chose and it’s good enough for me.

 

[uxordepp]

As one who grew up entirely with a vernacular Mass, I can tell you that language has very little to do with understanding. Sad, but true. I’ve worked in lay-ministry plenty long enough to know that one only understands what one wants to understand. Many of the saints are testament to the fact that knowing Latin was not entirely necessary to understanding the Faith.

Having a language, such as Latin, set apart for worship is not that unusual. In the East, they use Old Church Slavonic. The Jews use Hebrew. Maronite Catholics use Aramaic!

I have to laugh when I hear people mutter about how using Latin for Mass makes it unintelligible to the followers.

When Latin was used for Mass, it was also quite widely taught in schools. And long before Vatican II, missals were printed with Latin on one page and the vernacular on the other.

My F-I-L, a convert, said that he really appreciated being able to go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and being able to follow along with his missal.

 

[ProVobis]

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

It’s a good thing Agatha Christie, an Anglican at that, didn’t think so.

 

[SouthpawLink]

The Church used Latin because Rome was the seat of the Papacy, and Latin was the common language of the Romans.

Back then, virtually everyone in what is now Italy spoke Latin. It was the common speech, and the leaders of the church used that language.

Over time, it was adopted as the official language of the church, and it remained so for many centuries. There is absolutely nothing sacred about Latin, it is NOT God’s language.

The Latin Rite, for many centuries, was the ONLY church with apostolic succession that did not use the common language of the areas where it existed. The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

Pope Paul VI called Latin the language of the angels:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?

Furthermore, Latin was used in universities during the Middle Ages, and saw some continued use in the early modern period (and currently lives on in law, science, medicine, etc.). Latin was the official language of the Hungarian Parliament until 1846 (and of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until 1795).

Before Vatican II, there were numerous editions of Latin-English Sunday missals (Fr. Stedman - My Sunday Missal, Fr. Hoever - I Pray the Mass, St. Joseph Daily Missal, St. Andrew Daily Missal, etc.). It would seem that only extreme poverty or illiteracy were genuine reasons for the laity to not have known what was going on at Holy Mass each Sunday.

And even the Second Vatican Council said, “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” and that “care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 36.1, 54).

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul VI

It appears there was either a contradiction or was misinterpreted. Pope Paul VI also said this in that same document:

"…But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor…"

And later adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

Unfortunately, the faithful were not taught these chants, and it is rare to hear any music from this collection sung in parishes today.

Its Latin selections, since they form a minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant, would allow us to finally fulfill the provision of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which said that “steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them” (§54).

This is reiterated in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

Latin is not superior to other languages.

It is however superior to other languages for use in the Latin rite of Mass because quite simply the rites original language is Latin and has been ever since there has been a latin rite.

Similarly Greek is superior when you are talking about the Greek rites.

And then on a wider scale knowledge of Latin opens up access to the spirit of centuries of our predecessors in the faith who wrote predominantly and often exclusively in Latin.

Quite simply Latin the language of our ancestors in the faith and ignorance of the language of our ancestors has the effect of cutting us off from them to a large degree. This is no small thing given the importance of preserving continuity from our times all the way back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. To lose this continuity is to lose our Catholic identity.

And contrary to the claims of some people the laity in all times understood quite a bit of ecclesiastical Latin which should surprise no one when you consider that from birth to death they encountered the language on a daily basis.

 

[OraLabora]

as it is I tend to chortle at the people wailing how ‘unintelligible’ Latin is and how they glory in 'knowing what is going on" because it’s in ‘their language.’

If you limit the debate to those of Western European descent, I’d be inclined to agree with you. But the Church has long outgrown those boundaries, and is now established in such places as East Asia, Korea being an example I am familiar with and similarly China and Japan. Now when I traveled to Korea I would have loved for the Mass to have been in Latin as Korean is completely foreign to me. But then if Korean is completely foreign to me, imagine how Latin sounds and reads to Koreans. First of all it is written in foreign (to them) characters, making a missal with side-by-side translation difficult. The sounds will be completely different than what they are used to. In short, Latin would be a major obstacle.

The real “spirit” of Vatican II was for the use of the vernacular to be allowed when Latin could present an obstacle, as would be the case in my Korean example. Unfortunately, in the West, a certain amount of laziness set in and Latin is no longer taught in schools. Being of French mother-tongue, I have no trouble following the Mass in Latin or reading Latin and getting most of it (in fact I chant it in a choir), but that’s not the case for all anymore.

 

[FAB]

Isn’t that enough reason? The inscriptions on the cross were in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. That’s what God chose and it’s good enough for me.

The inscription on the cross was Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew, Latin was not yet devloped for a number of centuries.

The early mas was celebrated in first those three language and then slowy into the venacular of latin as it became the common tongue, then later in the romance laguages. Only the Roman church held onto Latin. There is nothing sacred about it.

The new translation is not because the previous one was flawed. The translators used a dinamic way to translate, approved by Rome at the time. The new translation is a more percise translation, also required by Rome. Not only the English version, but for all languages.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I beg to differ, Fab. The languages of the inscription on Christ’s cross most certainly included Latin. Wherever did you get the idea it did not or that Latin was not sufficiently developed for a written language?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here is the relevant citation from John 19:18Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst. [19] And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. [20] This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Note: Hebrew, Greek, and LATIN.

 

[ProVobis]

Most likely inscription on cross:

 

[RyanBlack]

Isn’t that enough reason? The inscriptions on the cross were in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. That’s what God chose and it’s good enough for me.

Actually, it was chosen by Pilate.

 

[ProVobis]

Unfortunately, in the West, a certain amount of laziness set in and Latin is no longer taught in schools.

True about the laziness and that extends to declining math, reading, and science scores as well.

But universities are teaching Latin and Greek again:

users.ipa.net/~tanker/universa.htm

users.ipa.net/~tanker/universb.htm

users.ipa.net/~tanker/universc.htm

And if these kids get it, why can’t all Catholics?

youtube.com/watch?v=HZHRCuEjpbA&feature=related

(body parts song at 9:38)

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, it was chosen by Pilate.

In that case God didn’t write the Bible either.