Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

Latin is the sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the language set apart for official and liturgical use. It used to be the only language used in its rites.

What may irk some people is the claim that this makes it a better choice for Mass. You may not like Latin but it’s still the official, sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t understand the opposition to it. The priest is offering the Mass, to God. We’re not offering it and it’s not been offered to us. It’s not like a play, where the action is directed towards the public.

So our understanding it all is not the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Hesychios]

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?

There is no superior language.

There is only tradition.

 

[Tsuwano]

Latin is the sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the language set apart for official and liturgical use. It used to be the only language used in its rites.

What may irk some people is the claim that this makes it a better choice for Mass. You may not like Latin but it’s still the official, sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t understand the opposition to it. The priest is offering the Mass, to God. We’re not offering it and it’s not been offered to us. It’s not like a play, where the action is directed towards the public.

So our understanding it all is not the be-all-and-end-all.

If it is only the priest who offers the mass, then what need does he have of a congregation? Why must I be there at all? Why can’t I simply videotape the mass and watch it at my liesure? The answer is because, as you said, the Mass is not a play in which a passive audience watches the action taking place on the stage. The Liturgy calls for the participation of all believers and is most certainly a sacrifice, a sharing of bread and wine, a meal, when all are participating in it. The action is not directed to the public, but springs forth from the faith of the public, as you put it, or from the community of believers. It is appropriate for such a communal act to take place in the language of the people who, together with their priest, offer that sacrifice. This doesn’t mean Latin has no place in the Liturgy, but it does mean that the language of the people also plays a role and should not be ignored. Latin is not sacred because it was spoken by Jesus, but merely because it is the traditional language of the Church. Latin is not God’s language. It is a human language like all the others, separate only because the it served as the communal language across a diverse empire. It became the Church’s language only because it was useful, not because it was holy.

 

[FAB]

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.

I will concede your point that Latin was spoken, but not that it is sacred as a result of being posted on the crucifix. If anything it makes the point that it was a venacular laguage. Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were the three major languages. The sign itself by Ceasar was ment as an insult to prove that he had supreme power, adding a lessser language would have added to the insult.
By your augument as well, Greek and Hebrew should be considered sacred, afterall the original language of all of the New Testement, and even the Old Testament translation was Greek.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Calling Latin the language of Angels and etc. is rubbish, it makes it seem like all the other languages are lower. Whilst it’s got a certain grandeur about it, and it’s a lovely language. It’s all relative. Quoting papal opinions is redundant. Some people seem to have some kind of misguided sentiment over it.

Latin appears to be able to convey information much better than English in regards to literary work, and especially with interpreting scriptures, but unless your life revolves around transliteration, it shouldn’t really concern you.

 

[InquisitorMax]

If it is only the priest who offers the mass, then what need does he have of a congregation? Why must I be there at all? Why can’t I simply videotape the mass and watch it at my liesure?

You can do both, but being present fulfills the Sunday obligation. Also, we are there for our own sanctification. If we were not, however, the Mass could still be offered. Therefore, the congregation is not essential to it. Whether you understand what’s being said or not does not impinge on its primary goal; to propitiate and worship God.

In the distant past, going to Mass on a Sunday had to be made obligatory, as many people hardly went at all. We can assume the Masses prior to that were still valid, worthy Masses.

Latin also helps stop amateurs getting creative. It helps with quality control. It’s hard to extemporise in a foreign language; easier just to say it as written.

 

[laszlo]

Latin is the sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the language set apart for official and liturgical use. It used to be the only language used in its rites.

Tempora mutantur and we mutamur in illis. The approved languages of the Roman Catholic church are the variety of vernacular translations, only the definitive typical edition is in Latin now. For Roman Catholics Roma locuta causa finita.

The Eastern Catholic rites are Roman Catholics and the language of their liturgy is diverse, not Latin since 1599.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There is no superior language.

There is only tradition.

Amen!

 

[ProVobis]

There is no superior language.

According to Veterum Sapientia, this is not so.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. 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. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

 

[laszlo]

Latin also helps stop amateurs getting creative. It helps with quality control. It’s hard to extemporise in a foreign language; easier just to say it as written.

It is an interesting statement. Lating prevented any adlibits because:

• the majority of the priests were unable to do so
• the majority of the faithful did not understood it.
• most part the traditional mass was /is recited in inaudible voice.

And this is the point of the new rite: we, the faithful are not infant anymore, God wants us to listen and understand. The psychology proves that to listen (as preparation for understanding) is important for the babies too, may be even for the fetus. No tradition can deny us the benefit of the listening.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Tempora mutantur and we mutamur in illis. The approved languages of the Roman Catholic church are the variety of vernacular translations, only the definitive typical edition is in Latin now. For Roman Catholics Roma locuta causa finita.

The Eastern Catholic rites are Roman Catholics and the language of their liturgy is diverse, not Latin since 1599.

I do not wish to derail this thread, but I must correct this. Eastern Catholics are NOT Roman Catholics. We are members of sui juris (self-governing) Churches which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers of the First Millenium before the separation. We have our own theology, our own spirituality, our own disciplines, our own hierarchy, etc. We are NOT Roman Catholics who celebrate Mass funny. Please read the document of Vatican II on the Eastern Catholic Churches, and any/all of the post-Conciliar documents on Eastern Catholics.

As to the OP, Latin is no more a sacred language than it is a universal one. In the East Latin is NEVER used and never has been. The East itself has no concept of sacred languages. For those Eastern Christians of the Byzantine Tradition we return to certain recensions of the Greek or Slavonic Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for our translations because we recognize those recensions as best expressing our Faith. For example, the Romanian Orthodox and Catholic Churches are constantly revising their Romanian translation of the Divine Liturgy to better reflect the spoken language of the day. When doing their revisions they always look at a recension of the Greek version of the Divine Liturgy. This is just one example, however.

One could also look at the Maronites who return to the Syriac version of their Liturgy. Or how about the Coptics, who make the translations of their Liturgy from the original Coptic language edition. There are also the Ethiopians, who’s Liturgy was originally celebrated in Ge’ez, I believe. Many of these Churches now celebrate in the spoken language of their region, i.e. Arabic.

So again, we can see that the East has no concept of a sacred language. The very fact that God the Son became incarnate, walked among us, and spoke in human words renders all language sacred, in much the same way as all the waters of the world have been made sacred because Christ was baptized in those waters. Perhaps this is why the East is so insistent on guarding one’s tongue.

 

[ProVobis]

If it is only the priest who offers the mass, then what need does he have of a congregation?

What if he has a multi-lingual congregation? Why restrict Mass to only those who understand that particular vernacular? It only seems nations are being pushed rather than trying to please God. Nationalism I believe is what’s called man-centered liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

The East itself has no concept of sacred languages.

They were addressed in Veterum Sapientia.

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.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

They were addressed in Veterum Sapientia.

Quoting a Roman document is hardly a source for Easterners, even Eastern Catholics. Plus this is simply the opinion of one bishop. Not to mention that in the East ALL vernacular languages flourished as the languages of the Liturgy, beginning with Greek, then moving on to Slavonic with the translations of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Today pretty much every language of the world is used for the celebration of the Divine Liturgies of the East and Orient. So again, the concept of (a) “sacred” language(s) simply does not exist in the East.

 

[malphono]

The Eastern Catholic rites are Roman Catholics and the language of their liturgy is diverse, not Latin since 1599.

[post=7672339]Phillip Rolfes[/post] has already addressed the first clause, but I feel obliged to address the second.

I have no idea what the reference to the year 1599 is supposed to mean, but the fact of the matter is that the Eastern and Oriental Churches have NEVER used Latin as a liturgical language.

 

[malphono]

we can see that the East has no concept of a sacred language.

That’s true but the same is also true of the West, arguments about Latin being “sacred” notwithstanding. OTOH, the East and Orient does respect its ancient and venerable liturgical languages. As I’ve said several times in other threads, while the issue of language may not be exactly the same in the East and Orient Churches as it is in the Latin Church, it does exist. And the fact is, as we both know, it’s not all-vernacular-all-the time.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s true but the same is also true of the West, arguments about Latin being “sacred” notwithstanding. OTOH, the East and Orient does respect its ancient and venerable liturgical languages. As I’ve said several times in other threads, while the issue of language may not be exactly the same in the East and Orient Churches as it is in the Latin Church, it does exist. And the fact is, as we both know, it’s not all-vernacular-all-the time.

I believe even in Romania they occasionally use some Greek.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I will concede your point that Latin was spoken, but not that it is sacred as a result of being posted on the crucifix. If anything it makes the point that it was a venacular laguage. Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic were the three major languages. The sign itself by Ceasar was ment as an insult to prove that he had supreme power, adding a lessser language would have added to the insult.
By your augument as well, Greek and Hebrew should be considered sacred, afterall the original language of all of the New Testement, and even the Old Testament translation was Greek.

Um, wait. I never said that Latin was sacred because it was inscribed. Other posters may have said that (I don’t remember any such posts but I could easily have missed them). . . but I never said that. I know it is difficult to keep track of posters and who said what, so I hope you understand I’m not trying to insult you when I simply note that I did not make the argument you said I was making.

From what I understood by your post, you were actually specifically stating that Latin was not a written language at 'the time of the crucifixion and was NOT inscribed on the crucifx. I merely provided the Scriptural documentation that it was indeed written. That’s all.

This is a very interesting topic and I’m grateful for all the posts because there is much to learn and appreciate.

 

[ProVobis]

Not to mention that in the East ALL vernacular languages flourished as the languages of the Liturgy, beginning with Greek, then moving on to Slavonic with the translations of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. Today pretty much every language of the world is used for the celebration of the Divine Liturgies of the East and Orient.

That may be but if I go to attend a Ukranian Mass, for example, I would expect Ukranian to be spoken (and sung) there. The Italian principle of “Traduttore, tradittore” I believe still holds. Translations can be and are offensive to many. If I grow up loving the opera, how can someone tell me that it’s so much better in English and it makes more sense to have it all in English? Would you tell the Polish in this country that unless they sign their national anthem in English, they can’t sing it at all?

 

[Cristiano]

That may be but if I go to attend a Ukranian Mass, for example, I would expect Ukranian to be spoken (and sung) there. The Italian principle of “Traduttore, tradittore” I believe still holds. Translations can be and are offensive to many. If I grow up loving the opera, how can someone tell me that it’s so much better in English and it makes more sense to have it all in English? Would you tell the Polish in this country that unless they sign their national anthem in English, they can’t sing it at all?

It is “Traduttore, traditore”. BTW thanks for giving proof that Latin is superior to the other languages but second to Italian.