Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

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

Can you back up this statement? I thought it was because they simply didn’t have to go. Like, I think that’s the case today, also. People don’t know it’s a mortal sin, so they don’t go.

They were right, of course. They could attend Mass, but they weren’t necessary for it.

What’s happening now, with all the lay involvement, is distracting. I wonder if people really have the idea that, unless you have lay readers, EMHCs, a congregation and servers, you can’t have a Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Maybe I’m missing something here but didn’t the Church of England and Lutheranism use their own languages and develop their own theologies, while it was always easy to identify the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church by its Latin? Sure there were “ethnic” communities – I know because I belonged to a Polish community – but we knew the difference between Catholic and non-Catholic services and used the same worship, except for the homily. Even (or especially) during the war, soldiers from both sides put down their rifles for an hour because God and the Mass was more important than their own country.

 

[ProVobis]

As for a Vietnamese priest knowing what transubstantiation means, I would assume that whether the mass was in Latin or not.

The word transubstantiation (sorry for the earlier misspelling, my bad) comes from the Latin trans+sub+stare so I can’t see how you get around the Latin. You try to explain it by the Real Presence or whatever tools you like and you’ll end up with the wrong understanding or non-belief, which is quite common in the English language I understand.

 

[laszlo]

One can spread and keep the religion through political power or through the heart of the people. The later is stronger.

The Christianity in Europe in the first millennium accommodated to the previous customs, feastivities, language. This was the reason e.g. why pope Damasus changed the original greek/koine to the that time vernacular Latin.

We had to face the fact that the second millennium’s missionary movements in Europe were mostly through the political power, and thus was week, they lost for the reformation.

The Jesuits in the 17th Century had blooming missionary movement in the far East. This died immediately when the pope forbade the accommodation to the local cultures, the far Eastern people were not willing the accept the Western tradition, languages.

Today Africa is the fastest growing segment of the Catholic Church, and I guess with far different liturgy and customs from ours.

God wants the hearts of people, not the forms.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and many jobs don’t.

You’re right. But many jobs do require some other international tools like mathematics, currency exchanges, musical notations, spreadsheets, engineering designs, computer language, etc. to be effective. And if you think English is going to be the next worldwide phenomenon, think again. There is talk of foreigners (further) corrupting the language into something more like Panglish where it will be increasingly more and more difficult to communicate. The Church is probably quite aware of this. While there’s a great chance Latin meanings won’t change.

 

[ProVobis]

The Christianity in Europe in the first millennium accommodated to the previous customs, feastivities, language. This was the reason e.g. why pope Damasus changed the original greek/koine to the that time vernacular Latin.

By the time Christianity started flourishing in the West (I believe it was under Pope Victor), Latin had already been vulgarized into several Romance languages which defined national borders. While Latin was probably more easily recognizeable in those Romance countries than among the Germanic barbarians, Latin was becoming less and less of a national language. Yet it held up pretty well over 1600 years, I must say, enough to please many hearts.

 

[malphono]

The Jesuits in the 17th Century had blooming missionary movement in the far East. This died immediately when the pope forbade the accommodation to the local cultures, the far Eastern people were not willing the accept the Western tradition, languages.

It seems to me that the “Chinese Rites” controversy had far less to do with language than it did with what is often called “inculturation” today. Had it been language only, the outcome may well have been far different. If I recall correctly, the Jesuits had attempted to introduce native local (and decidedly non-Christian) practices into the liturgy. Quite a big difference from simply doing a “vernacular” translation.

 

[laszlo]

By the time Christianity started flourishing in the West (I believe it was under Pope Victor), Latin had already been vulgarized into several Romance languages which defined national borders. While Latin was probably more easily recognizeable in those Romance countries than among the Germanic barbarians, Latin was becoming less and less of a national language. Yet it held up pretty well over 1600 years, I must say, enough to please many hearts.

The problem is not national pride, it is the understanding. Even for the priest a second language learned in the teenage years or later lacks the primary memories and emotions. A human being is body with the instincts, anima (laya, heart) with the emotions, and spirit with the intellect and will. Jesus Christ became full man, with body-anima-spirit, and He wants us as full man. The second language Latin excludes the hearts and the body. This is why until St Pius X people did not participated in the Mass at all, and even after that the majority was present only and many found it satisfactory to arrive to the end of the sermon and leave immediately after the communion of the priest. The Church became abstract, far away from the full life.

Also this why the Catholic Church lost Asia, and the rapid development in Africa started only after 1970.

 

[InquisitorMax]

I think when one gets into ‘hearts and feelings’ one leaves reasoned debate behind. It would be great if there was some way to convey religious awe to people, which didn’t rely on formality and symbols, but there isn’t. We have to use ordered, ritual behaviour and symbols and language is a symbol system. To go to a free-form Mass is a contradiction in terms.

The very fact that it’s an ancient, ‘dead’ language helps convey the idea that the Mass is extra-ordinary; you’re not in the mundane any more.

In the old rite, a lot of the Mass is directed away from the congregation. They don’t really need to understand it all. The sermon is still in their home language. So are the readings.

The Mass text is largely the same every time, so you’re not exactly missing out if it’s not in Hindi.

 

[laszlo]

I think when one gets into ‘hearts and feelings’ one leaves reasoned debate behind. It would be great if there was some way to convey religious awe to people, which didn’t rely on formality and symbols, but there isn’t. We have to use ordered, ritual behaviour and symbols and language is a symbol system. To go to a free-form Mass is a contradiction in terms.

Exactly this was the mistake of the pharisee: they kept the formality and the symbols, and lost the reality: the Son of Man

In the old rite, a lot of the Mass is directed away from the congregation. They don’t really need to understand it all. The sermon is still in their home language. So are the readings.

Probably you do not know that before the XXI Ecumenical council the majority of the masses were celebrated without sermon or any reading at all. Nothing was left for the people.

 

[ProVobis]

Nothing was left for the people.

I don’t understand this at all. People were encouraged to pray the Mass. High decibel levels and standing around the altar aren’t necessary to do this.

 

[Tsuwano]

Maybe I’m missing something here but didn’t the Church of England and Lutheranism use their own languages and develop their own theologies, while it was always easy to identify the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church by its Latin? Sure there were “ethnic” communities – I know because I belonged to a Polish community – but we knew the difference between Catholic and non-Catholic services and used the same worship, except for the homily. Even (or especially) during the war, soldiers from both sides put down their rifles for an hour because God and the Mass was more important than their own country.

Actually, the Church in England (before it became known as the Church of England after it’s break with Rome) used Latin in the same way that other European Churches used Latin. The use of Latin did not prevent the break with Rome or the increasing awareness of a national Church on the part of the people of England. The Church in German also used Latin. It was only with the growing desire of people to be able to read and understand the Gospels that scholars, very much against the will of Church authorities, began translating scripture in venacular languages. The exclusive use of Latin in the Church did not prevent the dissolution of the Church into Catholic and Protestant halves and may, in fact, have been a large part of why the Church split as it did. Latin was not a language which unified, but rather, because of it’s exclusive use in liturgy and in scripture, promoted the break up of the Church.

 

[Tsuwano]

The word transubstantiation (sorry for the earlier misspelling, my bad) comes from the Latin trans+sub+stare so I can’t see how you get around the Latin. You try to explain it by the Real Presence or whatever tools you like and you’ll end up with the wrong understanding or non-belief, which is quite common in the English language I understand.

Many words from European languages have their roots in Latin, but that doesn’t make the word a Latin word. It simply means it has a Latin root. It is also not an argument for using Latin in the liturgy. Quite frankly, if you try to explain the concept of transubstantiation in any language, including Latin, you are bound to run into problems.

 

[Tsuwano]

You’re right. But many jobs do require some other international tools like mathematics, currency exchanges, musical notations, spreadsheets, engineering designs, computer language, etc. to be effective. And if you think English is going to be the next worldwide phenomenon, think again. There is talk of foreigners (further) corrupting the language into something more like Panglish where it will be increasingly more and more difficult to communicate. The Church is probably quite aware of this. While there’s a great chance Latin meanings won’t change.

English is already a worldwide phenomenon. I should know, I make a living teaching English to Japanese. As for foreigners corrupting the English language, well, that’s just nonsense. The corruption you are talking about is called growth in other circles and is a sign that the language is a living language which has mass appeal. It is also a normal function of language to accept foreign words and concepts into itself. The foreign word then becomes a word of that language. Take the word Tsunami, for example. Originally Japanese, this word is now quite well known and frequently used in the English language. It has become an English word in the same way that Rodeo has become an English word. In the same way, in fact, that many Latin words have become Latin words. This isn’t a sign of corruption or disentegration, but of development. Such a growth doesn’t make it more difficult for people to communicate, but actually makes it easier. If you wanted a tortilla in Mexico but didn’t know the word for it, how would you ask for one? You would have to describe it. Now that the word has become an English word, commonly used and understood in English, our communciation with our Mexican seller of tortillas has become much easier.

 

[Tsuwano]

By the time Christianity started flourishing in the West (I believe it was under Pope Victor), Latin had already been vulgarized into several Romance languages which defined national borders. While Latin was probably more easily recognizeable in those Romance countries than among the Germanic barbarians, Latin was becoming less and less of a national language. Yet it held up pretty well over 1600 years, I must say, enough to please many hearts.

But Latin hasn’t held up pretty well for over 1,600 years. It isn’t used as a national language in any country, including Rome. Hardly anyone speaks it or studies it. The Vatican is the only state in which Latin is recognized as an official language. Latin is most often characterized as a “dead” language. This isn’t to say that Latin hasn’t influenced modern languages. It most certainy has. But to say it has held up well for a millenium and a half . . . well, that’s just wishful thinking. If the Church should decree that only Latin will be used in the Catholic liturgy from now on, I would happily attend mass and use Latin, but I believe it would be a mistake and would create much more confusion on the part of the faithful around the world than it would resolve.

 

[Tsuwano]

It seems to me that the “Chinese Rites” controversy had far less to do with language than it did with what is often called “inculturation” today. Had it been language only, the outcome may well have been far different. If I recall correctly, the Jesuits had attempted to introduce native local (and decidedly non-Christian) practices into the liturgy. Quite a big difference from simply doing a “vernacular” translation.

Your understanding is correct to a point, but it requires clarification. It is true that the Jesuits in their missions, not only in the Far East, favored a practice of adapting themselves to the local context in which their missions developed. This included adopting local dress and customs and seeking ways to explain the Gospels in ways and with terms that local people would understand. This was called inculturation and, in fact, is the missiology most favored by missionaries today. Some of the practices introduced may have been non Christian, but I’m not sure how you define that term. Some of the practices may have been non Western, but that hardly makes them non Christian. This was, in fact, part of the argument which continues today. How are local Churches to make the Gospel and its meaning and the liturgy their own? European Churches have long favored the use of the organ in liturgical music. It it a non Christian practice to use an instrument other than the organ in liturgies in Africa?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

How many words in the Latin Mass are in today’s dictionaries? True that many Latin terms are in use today and retained in original Latin. But they have been absorbed into the modern day vernacular. Not that people are going back and learning Latin itself to to able to understand these terms. There are many words in today’s America that originated in French and Spanish. Does that mean you can just throw any American into the middle of France or Spain and they’ll be okay?

 

[laszlo]

Many words from European languages have their roots in Latin, but that doesn’t make the word a Latin word. It simply means it has a Latin root. It is also not an argument for using Latin in the liturgy. Quite frankly, if you try to explain the concept of transubstantiation in any language, including Latin, you are bound to run into problems.

The problem is not by the technical terms of the theology, which intentionally are far away from the everyday life to emphasize the mistery, which is beyound our understanding.

The problem is with the everyday words. If you hear the word Theos, it is just word, even Deus initiates little emotions, but for one who grew up in religious environment in the US the word God is full with the emotions of the childhood. So is Lord, instead of Dominus; repent, instead of penitentia; sin, instead of culpa. Same is the context of the sentences being familiar of just the series of lifeless words.

 

[ProVobis]

Many words from European languages have their roots in Latin, but that doesn’t make the word a Latin word.

They are called cognates and they don’t always work to precision. The word substance for example isn’t used normally to address the Deity. We use it in our daily lives for a host (bad word, I know) of things. So, for that and other reasons, it makes sense that the word consubstantial will be reintroduced into the Creed.

It simply means it has a Latin root. It is also not an argument for using Latin in the liturgy. Quite frankly, if you try to explain the concept of transubstantiation in any language, including Latin, you are bound to run into problems.

The “problem” is one of mystery and it’s better left at that without trying to confuse people with some modern redefinitions and innovative words. (Even accident comes from the Latin, by the way.)

The Mass was never meant to teach all doctrine but what it has better be right and the same for everyone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Mass was never meant to teach all doctrine but what it has better be right and the same for everyone.

Actually, it is. The Liturgy should be the foundation of Catechisis. Catechism classes are supplements, not the source of Catechisis. What we do during Liturgy should always affirm what we believe in, and in fact teach us those beliefs if we do not know already.