Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

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

Boy, am I tired of reading the word Pharisee in relation to traditionalism. I also take exception to your stating that somehow any Latin Mass was, or ever is, absent the Son of Man.

What is a Mass, except formality and symbols and symbolic acts? Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of people doing whatever they feel, in a room. I argue for Latin, for the reasons stated. The only argument for the vernacular is that the congregation can understand the operation. And it’s a weak one, in the context of a sacred, mysterious rite.

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.

And that’s the nub of it: The laity are somehow deprived if they’re not busy doing things at Mass. Even if the priest is traditionally the one offering the sacrifice. And they can pray along at a Latin Mass just as well.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Catholics do not say that, never said that. It is a rationalist statement claiming the faith is community development through the liturgy.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

The thesis is: Lex credendi ==> lex orandi.

I’m failing to see the correction in the quote you posted. It says in short that the Liturgy is the explicit proclamation and celebration of the Faith that we hold. How is it not, therefore, the foundation of catechesis? We don’t change our Liturgies to better reflect “dogma”. We return to the Liturgies over and over again, as we return to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, in order to shed further light on the dogmas of the Church. Perhaps this is not part of the Roman tradition (although I always thought it was, being raised Roman Catholic), but it is most certainly a part of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

 

[uxordepp]

Boy, am I tired of reading the word Pharisee in relation to traditionalism.

I actually wanted to say this very thing myself. The Pharisees are greatly misunderstood.

Actually our priest not long ago said that he’d love to have MORE Pharisees in his parish!

 

[otjm]

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

Cardinal Gibbons apparently considered the Eastern rite Churches to be essentially non-existent or irrelevant, or else he was an ignoramus. The universal Church has never had a universal language. What malarkey.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Cardinal Gibbons apparently considered the Eastern rite Churches to be essentially non-existent or irrelevant, or else he was an ignoramus. The universal Church has never had a universal language. What malarkey.

Maybe he meant the universal Roman Church, which is all over the world? Latin was the ‘Lingua Franca’ of our Church. A simple language, beautiful for singing, full of historical significance.

“Eastern Catholics use their vernaculars, therefore this excuses the Roman Church dropping Latin” argument is a poor one. It’s messing with the brand. It results in banal, local variations, which in time can lead to heresy.

 

[otjm]

Maybe he meant the universal Roman Church, which is all over the world? Latin was the ‘Lingua Franca’ of our Church. A simple language, beautiful for singing, full of historical significance.

“Eastern Catholics use their vernaculars, therefore this excuses the Roman Church dropping Latin” argument is a poor one. It’s messing with the brand. It results in banal, local variations, which in time can lead to heresy.

If he meant the Roman church, then apply the name “universal” to it would border on redundancy; it would be like saying the
world-wide" Roman Church.

Latin is not the lingua franca of our Church unless by Church you mean the Roman rite; it is the lingua franca of the Roman rite. And it may well be the language that Rome uses when addressing the Eastern rites, but you can bet your booties it gets translated out of Latin when they use the document. I don’t question that some of their scholars may be versed in Latin; that is not the same as using Latin within their Churches.

He may have been made Cardinal, but one should not take that as a guarantee that everything he says is correct.

The Eastern Churches have a history of being treated as the red-headed step child of the “proper and correct” Church - that is, the Roman rite, and that treatment was standard operating procedure in the US for an abysmal length of time. There have been times where the enemies of the Roman rite have been better treated than fellow member Churches of the one Universal Catholic (and not necessarily Roman) Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m failing to see the correction in the quote you posted. It says in short that the Liturgy is the explicit proclamation and celebration of the Faith that we hold. How is it not, therefore, the foundation of catechesis? We don’t change our Liturgies to better reflect “dogma”. We return to the Liturgies over and over again, as we return to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, in order to shed further light on the dogmas of the Church. Perhaps this is not part of the Roman tradition (although I always thought it was, being raised Roman Catholic), but it is most certainly a part of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

Amen! The Liturgy should express our beliefs accurately. If a non-Catholic cannot get what Catholics believe from the Liturgy, then there is something wrong with the Liturgy. Every word of every prayer should be theologically sound. That is why the Liturgy is catechetical. You can learn from it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It results in banal, local variations, which in time can lead to heresy.

You mean like the ruckus the Filioque introduced? Not that I’m saying its heresy, but given that it was necessary to add it because what was originally written in Greek didn’t make much sense in Latin that in necessitated the Filioque to be used in the Latin translation, shows how ordinary a language Latin is and like any other languages, has its weaknesses.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Since Italian is the best modern language (IMHO), and it is closest to Latin of all languages, I would say yes Latin is superior to all other languages!

Also, Latin is such a concise language, and all the best hymns and writings are in Latin, so I say yes yes absolutely:thumbsup:!

 

[InquisitorMax]

Latin is not the lingua franca of our Church unless by Church you mean the Roman rite; it is the lingua franca of the Roman rite. …

Yes, that’s what I mean. The Roman Church using Latin seems entirely appropriate to me. What has Eastern Catholicism go to do with Rome dropping Latin in 1970?

 

[InquisitorMax]

You mean like the ruckus the Filioque introduced?

No, I don’t mean that. I mean what’s regularly asked in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum: “Such-and-such was done at mass. Is it right?”

Standard reply: We must have more cathechesis!!

Which the old rite, by its texts and the way it’s said, would help supply.

 

[otjm]

Yes, that’s what I mean. The Roman Church using Latin seems entirely appropriate to me. What has Eastern Catholicism go to do with Rome dropping Latin in 1970?

The Roman rite did not drop Latin in 1970. It still uses it. However on the parish level it is used infrequently or not at all. Some of that has to do with the bishops; some to do with the pastors, and to an extent, some has to do with the folks in the pews. That, in large part, has to do with an over-reaction, one engendered by the introduction of the vernacular. Gradually, we are seeing some use of Latin (and Greek, with the proper acknowledgement of the Kyrie), and I suspect over time we will see more.

For those who want the Mass entirely in Latin -whether in the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form, it has made very slow inroads. B16 said he expected as much in his letter accompanying the use of the EF. And while there has been enthusiasm in some places concerning the spread of the Mass in Latin, the statistics seem to indicate that it is a very small minority of places world wide that have the Mass in Latin. Perhaps the (alleged) review of the issue after the three year introductory period will be enlightening as to where it will go from here. I say alleged, because I do not know if it was specifically planned, or only alluded to.

Even assuming that some bishops have been recalcitrant in permitting (let alone encouraging) the use of the EF, even where it has been promoted it has not been more than a small minority of parishes that have it on a regular basis. Some people are dead set against it; some are for it, and for many in the middle, it is simply a non-matter; that is, it simply is not of interest; not that they are against it, but the have no interest.

Time will tell whether more Latin will be used in the OF; either as a gradual reintroduction of it as time passes and the pastors with agendas retire or die off, or a more encouragement comes from Rome, or direct orders. It appears that the current Pope is not one to give so many direct orders, but then, again, time will tell.

 

[laszlo]

Boy, am I tired of reading the word Pharisee in relation to traditionalism. I also take exception to your stating that somehow any Latin Mass was, or ever is, absent the Son of Man.

The Pharisee were the traditionalist in Jesus time, whether you like it or not. They kept the tradition and lost the Son of Man for the sake of the Law

So were the Arians: keeping the ‘there is only One God’ principle, w/o understanding the fulness of the truth, revealed by Jesus: the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Today some traditionalist lost the faith in the living Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the Liturgy

The common is the restriction of the truth, the lack of understanding of the fulness of the Truth.

What is a Mass, except formality and symbols and symbolic acts?

The bloodless sacrifice of Jesus, even if the celebrant is only presider, and the main emphasis is the human success. Our actions are minor related to the mystery of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

What has Eastern Catholicism go to do with Rome dropping Latin in 1970?

Rome continued writing and still writes official documents in Latin. The new Mass was promulgated in Latin. As was the Jubilate Deo, Nova Vulgata and the 1984 CCL. It was more the bishops who took advantage of the loophole and extended the limits of the vernacular to exclude Latin altogether, clearly against the intentions of Vatican II to preserve Latin in the Latin Rite liturgy.

 

[otjm]

Yes, that’s what I mean. The Roman Church using Latin seems entirely appropriate to me. What has Eastern Catholicism go to do with Rome dropping Latin in 1970?

Rome did not drop Latin in 1970 or at any other time. It approved the use of the vernacular, and rightly or wrongly it presumed that some Latin would be used in the Mass (and with a nod to the Greek - the Kyrie) as Rome saw fit to allow a much greater use of the vernacular.

Much has been said that the use of the vernacular has led to some of the abuses in the Mass; but that is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument with no proof other than the passage of time, and further ignores any and all other matters impacting the issue.

You may well wish to have Latin in the entire Mass, and I have no bone to pick with you on the matter; would that it were as available as aspirin. If nothing else, the result would show who wants all Latin and who wants the vernacular, and the issue would resolve itself. Such has not happened; and if the letter from Benedict 16 is read with no blinders on, he expected that the all-Latin Mass would not become ragingly popular.

Then, separating from the issue of the Mass all vernacular and all Latin, is the issue of using some Latin in the OF. It seems to be very gradually changing in some areas, and ;over time I would suspect it will be come more widespread, if for no other reason than that the bishops, priests and laity who have disdained Latin will have moved on; either to retirement or judgement. I would suspect that a whole lot of people would not have a major issue with the introduction of the Kyrie in Greek, the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin, and debatably, the Pater Noster and Credo, particularly if it were not a constant.
Some want Latin, some don’t, and a whole lot really are not of any particular opinion, a fact that often gets lost in discussions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, I don’t mean that. I mean what’s regularly asked in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum: “Such-and-such was done at mass. Is it right?”

Standard reply: We must have more cathechesis!!

Which the old rite, by its texts and the way it’s said, would help supply.

My point there is that the Filioque is a good example that Latin is not the perfect language that everyone claims it to be. Its not more precise as any other language. If it is so precise, then there would have been a way to express that line of the Creed in Latin to convey the same meaning it does in the Greek understanding, without having to add more words. It shows the language itself has shortcomings.

There is no such that as a more precise language. The words that developed in every language came out of the use of that language by the culture that uses it. Latin just seems more precise than today’s English because the Western faith developed in a Latin speaking culture where all the terminologies were made in Latin. Case in point, in Chinese, there are specific words for every sibling in your family as to whether they are male or female and in which birth order they are in relation to you. So you wouldn’t call your 1st oldest sister the same as your next oldest sister, etc. Thats very precise. Does that mean Chinese is more precise than English? Those words came out of their cultural need to give respect to those older than them. That is not the case in English speaking cultures. So its not a question of precision of language but a necessity of use that bore out specific terms. Earlier English speaking people would have come up with more precise language if they had the need for it. As modern culture has taught us, inventing words isn’t that hard.

 

[Cactus]

I think it’s a wonderful language that has been invaluable in promoting unity in the Church. It’s numeric system is, however, very cumbersome. I’m amazed at what they were able to accomplish technically and logistically with such a clumsy system.

 

[InquisitorMax]

The Pharisee were the traditionalist in Jesus time, whether you like it or not. They kept the tradition and lost the Son of Man for the sake of the Law

So were the Arians: keeping the ‘there is only One God’ principle, w/o understanding the fulness of the truth, revealed by Jesus: the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Today some traditionalist lost the faith in the living Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the Liturgy

The common is the restriction of the truth, the lack of understanding of the fulness of the Truth.

The bloodless sacrifice of Jesus, even if the celebrant is only presider, and the main emphasis is the human success. Our actions are minor related to the mystery of the Mass.

How have traditionalists today lost the Faith? I’d say they’re quite keen on it.

I don’t fully understand what you’re saying here. e.g. “The bloodless sacrifice of Jesus, even if the celebrant is only presider, and the main emphasis is the human success. Our actions are minor related to the mystery of the Mass”

So the actions are not so important and the priest is only a presider? Without the actions, there is no Mass. Without a priest, there is no mass.

If there are actions, they should be beautiful, express our intention directly and be done the same thoughout the organisation. Even McDonalds gets this idea; some local variation but a standard kept to. And they’re a franchise (owner controlled). The Church is centrally controlled.

I want to be able to go to a Roman Catholic mass and be sure I’m getting the best available, done according to the rules and preferably the one which helped sanctify previous generations of my family. I can’t get that currently. I go to different churches and wonder at the things I’m seeing.

‘Letting people use local language and customs in a religious rite helps retain continuity and fidelity of worship.’ See how stating it like that reveals how illogical it is?

The TLM is not widely available? Well, it’s hard to come back from almost nothing, in 4 years. Especially when: a) Most Catholics are oblivious to it b) Many that are aware of it don’t understand it c) Those that are aware of it and understand it sometimes find themselves having to work against clerical and lay opposition; opposition to the Mass of their forefathers!

It’s a wonder it’s getting more popular at all.

 

[ProVobis]

You may well wish to have Latin in the entire Mass, and I have no bone to pick with you on the matter; would that it were as available as aspirin. If nothing else, the result would show who wants all Latin and who wants the vernacular, and the issue would resolve itself.

Oh sure, just give them what they’re used to and the matter will resolve itself.

I didn’t want to learn English but felt I had no choice. But as they say, do as the Romans do.

One thing I wish they had done in the pre-Vatican II days was to START teaching Latin much earlier than high school. We got ourselves too lazy to the point that we started not caring too much for English grammar either.

I just noted in just outside local college community, they opened up a private school where they now teach Latin in the third grade… Brick by brick.

 

[FAB]

Rome continued writing and still writes official documents in Latin. The new Mass was promulgated in Latin. As was the Jubilate Deo, Nova Vulgata and the 1984 CCL. It was more the bishops who took advantage of the loophole and extended the limits of the vernacular to exclude Latin altogether, clearly against the intentions of Vatican II to preserve Latin in the Latin Rite liturgy.

It should be pointed out that this is not “a new mass” it is a revised translation of the existing mass, which was called to be done 10 years ago just not for English, but for all all languages. The is no loop hole in the VII documents, it calls for the mass to be celebrated in the vernacular along with the other changes that were made.

Latin is the official language of the Church for practical. Thousands of documents written over 100’s of years which still need to be read, if for no other reason for the the benefit of historical understanding. But even as the official language it is not the only language used.