Is Latin superior than other languages?

[Tsuwano]

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.

Yes, I understand all of this. I was responding to a post which seemed to imply that it is only the priest who offers the sacrifice of the mass and that a community of believers is not necessary. One reason people stopped going to mass in the distant past and that it was then made obligatory, is because the people did not feel that they were a part of the liturgy or even necessary for it. I understand that a priest may offer the sacrifice of the mass by himself, but he does it as a representative of the people of God and so, spiritually speaking, the priest never offers the mass alone. Stopping amateurs from getting creative is not a very good reason for keeping Latin as the sole language in which the liturgy may be offered. Creative amateurs will, after all, be creative in Latin just as they have been in other languages.

 

[Hesychios]

According to Veterum Sapientia, this is not so.

Well, if I believed the document was stating that Latin is superior to other languages then I would say Veterum Sapientia is wrong and for that reason it’s author would be discredited.

No professional linguist would agree with that notion, and people who insist upon it are making an idol of language.

This is just another quirk of human nature, like ‘King James only-ism’.

However that is not exactly what it is saying, and if I read it right he actually states that Latin is *one such *language, not the only one, better for one type of use. While I think it can be said that other languages can be better for other types of usage.

That does not make a language superior.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Latin is the superior language for the Latin Rite. I like to travel a lot and the ability to understand the Mass wherever I go would be absolutely appreciated. As to our Eastern Catholic brethren I hope they retain their mother tongues so they can remain true to themselves. It would be a tragedy if our brothers were assimilated into the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Tsuwano]

Latin is the superior language for the Latin Rite. I like to travel a lot and the ability to understand the Mass wherever I go would be absolutely appreciated. As to our Eastern Catholic brethren I hope they retain their mother tongues so they can remain true to themselves. It would be a tragedy if our brothers were assimilated into the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t understand why you hope our Eastern Catholic brethren may retain their mother tongues in their worship so they can remain true to themselves, but you would deny the same hope for your East Asian bretheren who speak Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Tagalog, and a whole host of other languages. Though they may be members of the Roman Catholic Rite, their mother tongues are not Latin. Wouldn’t you like these people to remain “true to themselves” as well?

 

[laszlo]

The TLM the Latin and the soto voice for most part of the Mass was and is useful because it eliminated the adlibits at least made it hidden for the faithful. This made the appearance of unity in the Church. In any case when either the language became vernacular (like for the Leo XIII prayer: in Hungary only the St Michael archangel part was prayed at least from the 40’s till it was prayed)l or the voice was audible (no one enforced the uniform pronunciation) the unity was lost

The TLM is good for the very small minority of the people who read/learn the text and recite/think parallel with the priest and do not need their ears for participation. For the rest of us the question remains whether the apparent unity worth more than the understanding and participation for the majority. The Church decided that this later is the more important and extreme minority despises the Church for it.

I believe our pope found the resolution: Let that minority find/raise priests who celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, but do not let the minority enforce their wishes to others. Some bishops resists even this moderate resolution, setting artificial obstacles, hopefully the coming clarification of the Summorum Pontificium will will resolve this resistance.

The parallel existence of the two rites is definitely useful.

 

[InquisitorMax]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29#Mass_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Nothing there about the laity being offering the Mass A Roman Catholic priest can offer a Mass for himself or the Holy Souls, for example. He can say it Latin. He can use ancient texts with beautiful prayers which eloquently express our faith. He can, by what he does, cathecise even those who can’t read: he can face the orient, give Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, say important prayers quietly, in a foreign, sonorous language; all giving the impression, even to the ignorant, that this is something special.

For those who want to go deeper, the Latin texts offer a great deal to do over the liturgical year; something different every day, including hymns. Instead of having some pop song repeating vain thoughts in your head, you can have the Kyrie, Credo and the Agnes Dei; immune to mutation by your subconscious, as it’s a foreign language

As for what Easterners do, I care not. We’re talking about Roman Catholicism, here. The argument “The Mass is said in other languages so we can drop Latin” is a bad one.

What is most troubling is that hundreds of years of development of a great Mass were dropped, suddenly, and rushed translations were put out.

What’s strange is the resistance to Latin and the old rite in the Roman Church. It’s like a teenager resolutely refusing to do what his parents did. Even if it’s good.

What is false is the idea that Latin stops people participating. I call this the “The laity are lazy and/or stupid and/or weak of faith” argument: If we don’t use small words, they’ll apostasise. It’s patronising.

“I want the Mass in my own language”: I think the greater needs of the Church trump this; Latin would help stop national Churches developing and local creativity e.g. “The Lord Is With You” instead of “The Lord Be With You”.

 

[Tsuwano]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29#Mass_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Nothing there about the laity being offering the Mass A Roman Catholic priest can offer a Mass for himself or the Holy Souls, for example. He can say it Latin. He can use ancient texts with beautiful prayers which eloquently express our faith. He can, by what he does, cathecise even those who can’t read: he can face the orient, give Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, say important prayers quietly, in a foreign, sonorous language; all giving the impression, even to the ignorant, that this is something special.

For those who want to go deeper, the Latin texts offer a great deal to do over the liturgical year; something different every day, including hymns. Instead of having some pop song repeating vain thoughts in your head, you can have the Kyrie, Credo and the Agnes Dei; immune to mutation by your subconscious, as it’s a foreign language

As for what Easterners do, I care not. We’re talking about Roman Catholicism, here. The argument “The Mass is said in other languages so we can drop Latin” is a bad one.

What is most troubling is that hundreds of years of development of a great Mass were dropped, suddenly, and rushed translations were put out.

What’s strange is the resistance to Latin and the old rite in the Roman Church. It’s like a teenager resolutely refusing to do what his parents did. Even if it’s good.

What is false is the idea that Latin stops people participating. I call this the “The laity are lazy and/or stupid and/or weak of faith” argument: If we don’t use small words, they’ll apostasise. It’s patronising.

“I want the Mass in my own language”: I think the greater needs of the Church trump this; Latin would help stop national Churches developing and local creativity e.g. “The Lord Is With You” instead of “The Lord Be With You”.

One thing to point out is that Latin didn’t stop national Churches from developing when it was the dominant language in the Church before. Why do you think every major city in the United States had German, Irish, Italian, or Polish parishes, each community separate in its own little parish cocoon, until very recently? National parishes were more of a problem with Latin that they are without.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Latin is the superior language for the Latin Rite. I like to travel a lot and the ability to understand the Mass wherever I go would be absolutely appreciated. As to our Eastern Catholic brethren I hope they retain their mother tongues so they can remain true to themselves. It would be a tragedy if our brothers were assimilated into the Roman Catholic Church.

Retaining “mother tongues” is not a concept in the East. The Liturgy is always delivered in a language that people can understand.

If you like to travel a lot then bring an OF English Missal. If you have a Latin-English Missal for TLM, why can’t an English Missal for the OF serve as a translator for whatever vernacular is in use?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t understand why you hope our Eastern Catholic brethren may retain their mother tongues in their worship so they can remain true to themselves, but you would deny the same hope for your East Asian bretheren who speak Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Tagalog, and a whole host of other languages. Though they may be members of the Roman Catholic Rite, their mother tongues are not Latin. Wouldn’t you like these people to remain “true to themselves” as well?

Fully agree. Many Asians and Africans do not have languages that are rooted in Latin. Thus Latin is hard to understand. Remember language translation is not just word-for-word translation, there’s a lot more that goes into it to convey the same meaning in another language.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I don’t understand why you hope our Eastern Catholic brethren may retain their mother tongues in their worship so they can remain true to themselves, but you would deny the same hope for your East Asian bretheren who speak Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Tagalog, and a whole host of other languages. Though they may be members of the Roman Catholic Rite, their mother tongues are not Latin. Wouldn’t you like these people to remain “true to themselves” as well?

The Church>man

You argument is similar to “Why wont you let homosexuals be true to themselves.”

 

[ProVobis]

National parishes were more of a problem with Latin that they are without.

Can you provide evidence for this?

 

[ProVobis]

…but you would deny the same hope for your East Asian bretheren who speak Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Tagalog, and a whole host of other languages.

I don’t think I would go to any Asian doctor who didn’t know what *oculus dexter *or brachium means or consult with any lawyer who didn’t know what habeas corpus or pro bono meant. But if a Vietnamese priest knows transubstantion, then I’ll attend his Mass.

 

[Wildkit]

Having been a member of the Paulist Choir years ago in Chicago, our director made a remark about the songs we sang in Latin and how it seemed like Latin was made to be song. I concurred then, and as the OP question for this post, certainly for singing, I still feel it is the best there ever was! The vowels, the syllables, the inflections were seemingly made to be song for the glory on our Lord!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I don’t think I would go to any Asian doctor who didn’t know what *oculus dexter *or brachium means or consult with any lawyer who didn’t know what habeas corpus or pro bono meant. But if a Vietnamese priest knows transubstantion, then I’ll attend his Mass.

Precisely, many jobs especially legal and scientific use chunks of Latin

 

[Tsuwano]

The Church>man

You argument is similar to “Why wont you let homosexuals be true to themselves.”

How so? Please explain.

 

[Tsuwano]

Can you provide evidence for this?

Go to any major city in the United States and you will find churches that were once the representative church of various immigrant groups. The Cathedral in New York is not called St. Patrick’s for nothing. Most of these churches were built and served their representative national groups when Latin was the only language of the Church. To claim, as one poster did, that Latin, if it should once again become the only language used for Catholic liturgy, would prevent national churches from developing is to ignore history. Latin did not prevent national churches from developing in the past, so I seriously doubt it would serve that function in the future.

 

[Tsuwano]

I don’t think I would go to any Asian doctor who didn’t know what *oculus dexter *or brachium means or consult with any lawyer who didn’t know what habeas corpus or pro bono meant. But if a Vietnamese priest knows transubstantion, then I’ll attend his Mass.

Well, you would probably have a difficult time finding a doctor in Japan where western medicine was introduced in the German language and where German still takes precedence over Latin in medical schools. As for a Vietnamese priest knowing what transubstantiation means, I would assume that whether the mass was in Latin or not. Isn’t that just common sense?

 

[Tsuwano]

Precisely, many jobs especially legal and scientific use chunks of Latin

Yes, and many jobs don’t.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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?

I can’t speak to your question regarding our Eastern brethren, but I can say this: during Lent, my parish has been making greater use of Latin – singing the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus, in particular. While I don’t know all the words, I know what is being sung. More importantly, I was struck last Sunday by a strong sense of connection to the Church throughout the ages – it was moving to think that I was hearing the same words that were spoken and sung at Masses a thousand or more years ago.

Hmm…maybe I should start going to a Tridentine Mass…

Peace,
Dante

 

[InquisitorMax]

To claim, as one poster did, that Latin, if it should once again become the only language used for Catholic liturgy, would prevent national churches from developing is to ignore history. Latin did not prevent national churches from developing in the past, so I seriously doubt it would serve that function in the future.

I think I said it would help prevent national churches developing. And by national churches I mean churches which start to ignore the Vatican and what the Pope wants. Nationalistic churches. Churches which start to deviate from the text because of ‘organic development’: little local changes which morph into dancing around the altar and ‘The Lord Is With You’.

I didn’t mean churches attended mainly by Polish or German people.

The vernacular means the local language. And if you don’t speak it, then the idea of the vernacular helping the laity participate is negated. You have to get a translation. Which is what they had in the old days, anyway! And, with Latin being a simple language, and ‘dead’, it was both simple to learn and resistant to misinterpretation and change.

Quite handy if you want to transmit the faith and your rites, uncorrupted!