Is Latin superior than other languages?

[OraLabora]

Indeed and in this case the inspiration was clearly not that of the Gospel writers, but instead that of Pilate himself. The writers may have been inspired to record those words, thinking them prophetic; all 4 Gospel writers recorded this fact but I believe only St. John attributed the inscription to Pilate.

Pilate is has always been an enigmatic character to me. On the one hand he clearly senses the innocence of Jesus (though maybe not His divinity), but in the end was not courageous and gave into his fears of trouble and submitted to the crowd’s wishes. He doesn’t come across to me as an entirely evil man, but exemplifies rather human frailty and caving into self-interest.

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed and in this case the inspiration was clearly not that of the Gospel writers, but instead that of Pilate himself. The writers may have been inspired to record those words, thinking them prophetic; all 4 Gospel writers recorded this fact but I believe only St. John attributed the inscription to Pilate.

True, and Luke 23:38 also mentions Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Pilate is has always been an enigmatic character to me. On the one hand he clearly senses the innocence of Jesus (though maybe not His divinity), but in the end was not courageous and gave into his fears of trouble and submitted to the crowd’s wishes. He doesn’t come across to me as an entirely evil man, but exemplifies rather human frailty and caving into self-interest.

The Roman writer Tacitus (whose works I have studied) verified the brutality of Pontius Pilate against Christ:

allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm.

That said, I doubt if all the early scripture writers who supposedly were inspired by God, were all what we’d consider today to be perfect angels either. (Saul comes into mind.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

That languages which were used to inscribed the Titulus Crucis were used for practical reasons, nothing more. Latin was the language of the occupying Romans, Koine Greek the tounge of trade and commerce and thus very widespread, and Hebrew was the local tongue. The Romans were accustomed to writing out “indictment” notices that detailed the crimes of executed criminals. Further, the idea that the three languages were sacred as a result of their use on the Titulus Crucis was condemned by a Pope, either John VIII or Hadrian II, whichever also approved the use of the Slavonic tongue in the Liturgy by Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

No language is inherently or ontologically sacred, but becomes sacred through its use and association.

 

[ProVobis]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7566071#post7566071

 

[Judge_Mental]

If you drop Latin then you drop all the old hymns and prayers: 1500 years of history put in the cupboard and replaced with banal modern ones or translations. And then all the local language translations become urgent.

If the Orthodox or any other religion had done it you’d say they’d had a collective nervous breakdown. Just lost the plot. The Roman Church, dropping Latin? Incredible.

Fascinating to see priests trying the latest trendy thing but not the old rite. I also wonder if it would actually be less trouble to say the old rite and drop the EMHCs and lay readers and CITH. Just less bother.

 

[laszlo]

The Latin was the spoken and literary language of the Romans till the first Century BC. At that time the quick expansion made it necessary to change the official language to bilingual (Latin and Greek) which in turn means that the Latin survived only as Literary Language (Catullus, Ovidius, Cicecro, Horace, Virgil, Propertius, Plyny the younger, Tacitus and so on), and the Latin as sopekn language revived only through the 4th Century, when the Eastern and Western Empires were divided. From that time till the end of the first millennium the Latin was spoken and written language of the Western Christianity.

The Mass originaly was multilingual (Greek, Coptic, Syrian etc), Latin was not among the languages of the Mass, because only an elite spoke it. At the End of the 4th century AD pope Damasus decided to translate the scriptures to Latin (from Greek and Hebrew) and ordered it as the official language for the Mass for the Western World. The Eastern churches kept their multilingual nature, and in the 9th Century when the Slavic tribes were converted the Slavic became also official language of the Mass.

In the West until the 14th Century the Latin was the only written language in the majority of the Western world. It was first the English which felt the necessity of the vernacular, and John Wycliffe translated the Bible Almost certainly his translation was used in the Mass, the Church wanted the active participation.

In the 15th century the liturgy suffered the same crisis like today. The technology of the printed books provided the means, and everybody believed that they can make better worship than the traditional. The reformators entirely changed to vernacular and in response Rome restricted the language of the Liturgy to the Latin.

As a result England, Germany, Scandinavia, the half of Western Europe was lost to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church remained only in the countries which spoke the romance languages (Spain, France, Italy and under their influences; and also for political reasons in Austria and the countries under her influence: Hungary and partly Poland) In this countries the vernacular hymns helped to survive the Catholic Latin mass and through that the Catholic religion. *.

As the spoken languages even in the romance countries distanced from the Latin, the Mass lost the connection with the people. People were required only present. St Pius X felt that it is wrong and pushed the active participation. The consequence is the confusion today. We hope that is is temporary, but certainly the language will accommodate to the people. The Mass as a rite, words if not final value, it is for the people, and not the people for the mass.*

 

[surritter]

Please explain! There are Christians who consider Pontius Pilate a saint?? Is there evidence that he converted after the sordid events of Good Friday?

 

[laszlo]

Or may be that the Irish were suppressed by the English, and as a political resistance kept their religion different from England.

Sociological rules are statistical. The basic truth is that half of Western Europe was lost, and the almost all the lost countries speak non romance language. Please try to understand that the rules of the sociology are not as strict as for the physics.

 

[ProVobis]

If you drop Latin then you drop all the old hymns and prayers:

You drop Latin and over half the world would have to find another alphabet to use. Maybe Mandarin?

Good thing the Romans didn’t have copyrights on the alphabet.

 

[Timothysis]

Or may be that the Irish were suppressed by the English, and as a political resistance kept their religion different from England.

Sociological rules are statistical. The basic truth is that half of Western Europe was lost, and the almost all the lost countries speak non romance language. Please try to understand that the rules of the sociology are not as strict as for the physics.

Perhaps, but the notion that the loss of Latin led to the ascendancy of protestant theology and the falling away from the Church is not supported by any history that I, or Jharek, know of.

 

[ProVobis]

And then all the local language translations become urgent.

And very costly. Not to mention temporary at best. Ten points.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

It should be noted that the Church in Ireland used Latin from the time of St. Patrick right up until the recent preference for vernacular languages, to read St Patrick’s writings requires a knowledge of Latin not Gaeilge, Latin was not lost in Ireland until this century.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

And as the founders of the Irish Republic knew only to well with the adoption of the English language the Irish then went on to adopt to a large extent English culture, which is a culture influenced greatly by protestant not Catholic thought.

Padraig Pearse among others knew only to well that would be the result of adopting the English language which is why he worked so hard to promote a truly Irish education system and culture, a fight that has been largely abandoned and with it many of the things that made the Irish uniquely Irish.

Language is essential to the identity of a people, it is how what has gone on before is passed on to the next generation, if you lose that language you also lose all the wisdom and ways of those who went before you who can only speak to you in that language.

Latin is essential to the preservation of the unique identity and culture of those who worship using the Latin rite just as Irish was essential to the preservation of the ancient Irish culture and identity.

 

[ProVobis]

And as the founders of the Irish Republic knew only to well with the adoption of the English language the Irish then went on to adopt to a large extent ** English culture, which is a culture influenced greatly by protestant not Catholic thought. **

Which is probably why St. Thomas More condemned the translation of the Bible into English.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

It is not cultural supremacy to simply desire the preservation of your own. The Church can learn and must learn from what has happened in Ireland with the adoption of the English language. The disunity in the Church and the rapid spread of errors is partly a result of the strengthening of national divisions within the Church due to the adoption of vernacular languages.

I cannot speak for other nationalities but I have seen clearly in the English world a creeping in of protestant and modern ideas into the church and the the liturgy in English speaking countries, with protestant or modern English theologians phrases even been used word for word in many cases, this would be impossible if the liturgy was still in Latin.

And this again was forseen.

“A CHURCH that is universal must have a universal tongue, whilst a national church, or a church whose members speak one and the same language, and whose doctrines conveniently change to suit the times, can safely adopt the vernacular tongue in it’s liturgy.” Cardinal Gibbons Archbishop of Baltimore

 

[laszlo]

Perhaps, but the notion that the loss of Latin led to the ascendancy of protestant theology and the falling away from the Church is not supported by any history that I, or Jharek, know of.

Then start to make or find a map of the protestantized countries? How many of them understood easily the Latin?

Your knowledge, like everyone else’s is limited. One cannot argue: I never heard it, so that is not so.

Naturally the language of the Mass is not the exclusive reason, but a strong one. People wanted to participate and understand. The protestantism provided this understanding, the Latin Mass did not.

 

[Timothysis]

Then start to make or find a map of the protestantized countries? How many of them understood easily the Latin?

I imagine that at one time all western European countries “understood easily the Latin.” The suggestion that the loss of Latin equaled the loss of the Church is absurd. The rise of protestantism had as much to do about politics as it did religion.

Your knowledge, like everyone else’s is limited. One cannot argue: I never heard it, so that is not so.

I have no doubt that you are 100% correct about my knowledge. However, we cannot give credence to every out-of-left-field opinion when it is not supported by the learned opinions of authorities who have gone before us. That would include your assertion.

Naturally the language of the Mass is not the exclusive reason, but a strong one. People wanted to participate and understand. The protestantism provided this understanding, the Latin Mass did not.

Arguable. Luther simply wanted to replace one authority with another, himself. It wasn’t about people wanting “to participate and understand.” Luther had as much contempt for the illiterate peasant as any other arrogant, selfish lord of his day.

 

[ProVobis]

And this again was forseen.

“A CHURCH that is universal must have a universal tongue, whilst a national church, or a church whose members speak one and the same language, and whose doctrines conveniently change to suit the times, can safely adopt the vernacular tongue in it’s liturgy.” Cardinal Gibbons Archbishop of Baltimore

Indeed. And also by Dom Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, around 1840 AD:

"Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship. This in the eyes of the sectarians is a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing.

Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the heart of all enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond of Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. They consider it the most efficient weapon of the papacy. 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 cult than the Protestant people.

At every hour of the day divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. (It had been that) The faithful Catholic who assists leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart from 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 latter does not 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 destroying it, it would be well on its way to victory."

“All they had to do,” states Dom Gueranger, “was to substitute new books and new formulas, and their work was done.”

 

[laszlo]

I imagine that at one time all western European countries “understood easily the Latin.” The suggestion that the loss of Latin equaled the loss of the Church is absurd. The rise of protestantism had as much to do about politics as it did religion.
I have no doubt that you are 100% correct about my knowledge. However, we cannot give credence to every out-of-left-field opinion when it is not supported by the learned opinions of authorities who have gone before us. That would include your assertion.
Arguable. Luther simply wanted to replace one authority with another, himself. It wasn’t about people wanting “to participate and understand.” Luther had as much contempt for the illiterate peasant as any other arrogant, selfish lord of his day.

1./ The original language of the Western Mass was Greek, pope Damasus changed it to Latin in the end of the 4th Century. The Latin is not essential for the Mass or for the Catholic Church.

2./ I know nothing about you, only asked you to explain the fact that statistically significantly those countries were lost for the reformation which had difficulty to participate in the exclusively Latin liturgy. This question is actual today too, when 1-% of priests celebrates Latin Mass in average 100 attendance and 99 % of priest celebrates vernacular Mass in average 200+ attendance. Imho people want to hear and understand. It is easier to study in the environment of the 1500’s when less than 5% of the population was able to read. Why they chose the vernacular liturgy in Germany, England, Scandinavia etc if not for understanding.

3./ As you scolded me that I do not know nothing about your knowledge, please do not make presumptions about Luther’s internal knowledge, intentions, being. Be consequent.

 

[Tsuwano]

Latin is no more sacred than any other language. It is only because of tradition that Rome prefers to use Latin more than any other language. In fact, due to the fact that fewer and fewer people actually use Latin in their daily lives and do not use it to communicate, it is a decidedly inferior language to use. Now, the Church may decide to use it anyway, but that doesn’t make it superior. Neither does it make it holier than other languages. It simply makes it more traditional.