Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

How do you think the Mass came to be as it is today or in Trent from what it was at the Last Supper and the road to Emmaus?

Is it the case that we don’t actually know what the Mass was really like in the first 400 years of the church? I think I read that on here. It wasn’t written down until later. Then, you had standardisation. Then, in 1970, you had a lot of things changed, dropped or made optional.

I read an interesting thing, recently. The new mass can either be an organic development from the old one OR a return to the early years of the Church. It can’t be both.

I’d like priests to ‘Say the Black and do the Red’. I’ve heard even the new rite rubrics assume that it will be said ‘Ad Orientem’, as the priest is instructed to turn to the people, at some point. Stuff like that.

Just give me the product as described on the tin. If I hire a local mechanic, I don’t want him to get creative with my engine. Just change the oil.

 

[InquisitorMax]

[sarcasm]Oooh, ya got me there. Letters, certificates and … an ATM.[/sarcasm]

This is a funny forum. There doesn’t actually seem to be much enthusiasm for traditional Roman Catholicism in it. Of course, you have to define what you mean by traditional.

If it means whatever has been borrowed from any time in the past or some other Catholic rite and now put into the Roman one, then traditional = modern. And there we enter La-la land.

 

[laszlo]

Is it the case that we don’t actually know what the Mass was really like in the first 400 years of the church? I think I read that on here. It wasn’t written down until later. Then, you had standardisation. Then, in 1970, you had a lot of things changed, dropped or made optional.

I read an interesting thing, recently. **The new mass can either be an organic development from the old one OR a return to the early years of the Church. **It can’t be both.

There is no New Mass, only the Mass of all Ages: Christ presence, sacrifice, meal for us.

The new rite revived the Gallican rite from the first half of the second millennium. We do not know what was the rite in the first millennium, except for some particular places.

The new rite also unfortunately revived the uncontrolled status of the rite, what was the norm before the XIX Ecumenical council. This is against the explicit rule of the XXI Ecumenical council.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is it the case that we don’t actually know what the Mass was really like in the first 400 years of the church? I think I read that on here. It wasn’t written down until later. Then, you had standardisation. Then, in 1970, you had a lot of things changed, dropped or made optional.

I read an interesting thing, recently. The new mass can either be an organic development from the old one OR a return to the early years of the Church. It can’t be both.

I’d like priests to ‘Say the Black and do the Red’. I’ve heard even the new rite rubrics assume that it will be said ‘Ad Orientem’, as the priest is instructed to turn to the people, at some point. Stuff like that.

Just give me the product as described on the tin. If I hire a local mechanic, I don’t want him to get creative with my engine. Just change the oil.

Thing is, Mass evolved through “creativity”. Its a stretch to say that priests and communities never got creative with Liturgy in the past. Only today have people been over scrupulous because of access to documents. Everyone then became their own lawyer.

 

[MarkThompson]

[sarcasm]Oooh, ya got me there. Letters, certificates and … an ATM.[/sarcasm]

This is a funny forum. There doesn’t actually seem to be much enthusiasm for traditional Roman Catholicism in it. Of course, you have to define what you mean by traditional.

If it means whatever has been borrowed from any time in the past or some other Catholic rite and now put into the Roman one, then traditional = modern. And there we enter La-la land.

Your reply is baffling. You said Latin is “set apart for religious use,” and I just pointed out that that’s completely wrong. In fact, the further back in Church history you go, the less you will find that to be the case. Does “being traditional” require making up facts and playing make-believe? Seriously, go ahead and find me just one traditional reference that says Latin should be set apart just for religious use. It’s a secular language. Heck, Newton’s Principia Mathematica is in Latin.

 

[mark_avery]

I think Aramaic is “THE” language,but yes Latin is closer to god than the babel we read or write.

Latin is like Aromatic taste.MMmmm

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think Aramaic is “THE” language,but yes Latin is closer to god than the babel we read or write.

Latin is like Aromatic taste.MMmmm

If you want to argue it that way, God never wrote on stone tablets with Latin, Greek or Aramaic.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

As our colleague stated, the Acts of Pilate is a text that tells the story of Pilate’s conversion to Christ.

After the Lord’s resurrection, he was sent for by his wife, Claudia Procla, who had joined the believers in Jesus and who left him after he went back on his word that he wouldn’t harm Jesus.

He saw the Resurrected Christ in a field preaching to about 500 people (the number given in the NT). Christ came to him and put His Hands on him (Pilate, at this point, remarks that he could clearly see the nail-marks etc.). Our Lord then tells him, “Blessed are you, Pontius Pilate, for in the days of your governorship were fulfilled that which was foretold of Me.”

Pilate is later sent to Rome on the orders of Tiberius who demands of him an explanation of the events at Jerusalem with respect to Christ.

Tiberius refuses to accept Pilate’s explanation and sentenced him to death by beheading.

As Pilate kneels for the sword, he prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

His head is cut off and an angel takes it. At this, Claudia Procula dies of joy.

June 25th is the Ethiopian feast of Sts. Pontius Pilate and his wife Claudia Procula.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

Actually, St Thomas More clearly stated that he didn’t like the Bible in a language that the common people could understand for then every Tom, Dick and Harry would be giving their interpretation of scripture . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Whatever… If the Holy See uses it, it’s superior by definition. It’s certainly better than Germanic or Slavic languages.

I don’t follow why Latin is superior because Rome uses it. Which language was Rome going to use over the centuries - Tagalog?

In fact, there were two official languages of “Romania” or the Christian Roman people which are Latin and Greek. Yes, they were bilingual. One could make the argument when the West emphasized Latin and the East Greek - that is what got the Church into theological problems especially with the Church-dividing issue of the Filioque.

The Emperor St Justinian, although a Byzantine Emperor, was actually a Slav and Slavic culture began to weld its way into the Greco-Roman world of the time.

I’ve studied Latin for ten years and also the German and several Slavic languages. Latin makes for good liturgical prayer, as does Church Slavonic.

The principle, which I think is a good one, that the language used in worship should be dignified and not the “language of the streets” is what supports, in a number of quarters, the use of a language like Latin for purposes of worship and theological education.

The benefit of having a language that unites nations, as Latin did, is indisputable. The Ukrainian Kyivan Academy used Latin as its “lingua franca” until the late 19th century. This allowed students from all over Europe to go to the Kyivan Mohyla Academy to study. The Ukrainian Orthodox Academy trained all of its bishops and monastics in Latin which was deemed a “heretical language” for the longest time in Russia. Tsar Peter I loved it and always signed his name as “Petrus.” He respected Hetman Ivan Mazeppa because the Hetman could speak Latin and was immersed in European culture.

Most Eastern Churches have a “liturgical language” such as Slavonic and Aramaic and don’t use the language of the people.

Alex

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t follow why Latin is superior because Rome uses it. Which language was Rome going to use over the centuries - Tagalog?

In fact, there were two official languages of “Romania” or the Christian Roman people which are Latin and Greek. Yes, they were bilingual. One could make the argument when the West emphasized Latin and the East Greek - that is what got the Church into theological problems especially with the Church-dividing issue of the Filioque.

The Emperor St Justinian, although a Byzantine Emperor, was actually a Slav and Slavic culture began to weld its way into the Greco-Roman world of the time.

I’ve studied Latin for ten years and also the German and several Slavic languages. Latin makes for good liturgical prayer, as does Church Slavonic.

The principle, which I think is a good one, that the language used in worship should be dignified and not the “language of the streets” is what supports, in a number of quarters, the use of a language like Latin for purposes of worship and theological education.

The benefit of having a language that unites nations, as Latin did, is indisputable. The Ukrainian Kyivan Academy used Latin as its “lingua franca” until the late 19th century. This allowed students from all over Europe to go to the Kyivan Mohyla Academy to study. The Ukrainian Orthodox Academy trained all of its bishops and monastics in Latin which was deemed a “heretical language” for the longest time in Russia. Tsar Peter I loved it and always signed his name as “Petrus.” He respected Hetman Ivan Mazeppa because the Hetman could speak Latin and was immersed in European culture.

Most Eastern Churches have a “liturgical language” such as Slavonic and Aramaic and don’t use the language of the people.

Alex

:clapping: amen! Good post. You know your stuff.

 

[InquisitorMax]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_language

A sacred language, “holy language” (in religious context), or liturgical language, is a language that is cultivated for religious reasons by people who speak another language in their daily life.

and also
romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/2007/03/sacred-language.html

… The important point was made that, when the liturgical language of the Roman Rite changed from Greek to Latin in the early centuries, this was not an example of vernacularisation (as the likes of Bishop Trautman have claimed) – the aim was not to make the liturgy more understandable. After all, those speaking Gothic or Punic would not have found a Latin liturgy more ‘accessible,’ and the Latin that was used was highly stylised (see the structure of the collects, for example).

Fr Lang suggested that the Sacred Liturgy is not primarily about communication between priest and people…

The fact that the language was or is used in other areas doesn’t lessen its sacrality in our Church. “Set apart for religious use” was maybe a bad choice of words on my part. But I didn’t say exclusively. Sure, it’s used elsewhere.

What’s really funny-peculiar is what I will call the ABL tendency in this forum: “Anything But Latin”.

Hey! It’s the Roman Catholic Church, people!

And: When was creativity forbidden in the Mass? Was it ever officially allowed? It’s ludicrous to suggest that in the 1960’s a great discovery was made that our forefathers were basically too uptight about the rules. I’m guessing local variations were gradually clamped down on over the centuries as understanding of what a Mass actually is deepened.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t follow why Latin is superior because Rome uses it. Which language was Rome going to use over the centuries - Tagalog?

Tagalog was in a much purer form back then, naturally evolved from its Malay roots. Today’s Tagalog is rightfully referred to as Filipino because its already a mismash of Tagalog, Spanish and English.

 

[Tsuwano]

I think Aramaic is “THE” language,but yes Latin is closer to god than the babel we read or write.

Latin is like Aromatic taste.MMmmm

I always thought silence is the language closest to God.

 

[Tsuwano]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_language

and also
romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/2007/03/sacred-language.html

The fact that the language was or is used in other areas doesn’t lessen its sacrality in our Church. “Set apart for religious use” was maybe a bad choice of words on my part. But I didn’t say exclusively. Sure, it’s used elsewhere.

What’s really funny-peculiar is what I will call the ABL tendency in this forum: “Anything But Latin”.

Hey! It’s the Roman Catholic Church, people!

And: When was creativity forbidden in the Mass? Was it ever officially allowed? It’s ludicrous to suggest that in the 1960’s a great discovery was made that our forefathers were basically too uptight about the rules. I’m guessing local variations were gradually clamped down on over the centuries as understanding of what a Mass actually is deepened.

Really? Which poster has claimed that the liturgy should be allowed in any language other than Latin? From what I’ve read, posters aren’t opposed to Latin as a language which may be used to say mass. They are opposed to Latin as the only language in which mass may be said, believing the venacular language of the local community is the better language in which the populace should worship. Latin is a perfectly good language to use in the Vatican. I’m not sure it is the best language to use in Peoria.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Latin has historically been the language of educated people, note for instance how much Latin is still used in science

 

[ConstantineTG]

Latin has historically been the language of educated people, note for instance how much Latin is still used in science

So was Greek. In fact, there were more Greeks who still influence today’s world than Latins/Romans. Some of them were even Greek speaking Romans.

 

[Tsuwano]

Latin has historically been the language of educated people, note for instance how much Latin is still used in science

Historically this is true, but it isn’t so true in the modern world. This isn’t to say that people who speak Latin today aren’t intelligent, but rather to note that people are now able to become educated in their own language. There are probably more educated people in the world today who do not speak Latin than there are who do. I would also point out that the fact that in previous historical eras in Europe only educated people spoke Latin, is a good argument for having the mass said in the venacular; the language which common folk speak and understand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Historically this is true, but it isn’t so true in the modern world. This isn’t to say that people who speak Latin today aren’t intelligent, but rather to note that people are now able to become educated in their own language. There are probably more educated people in the world today who do not speak Latin than there are who do. I would also point out that the fact that in previous historical eras in Europe only educated people spoke Latin, is a good argument for having the mass said in the venacular; the language which common folk speak and understand.

And the fact that in the past, most people are uneducated, probably illiterate even in their own native language.

 

[InquisitorMax]

From what I’ve read, posters aren’t opposed to Latin as a language which may be used to say mass. They are opposed to Latin as the only language in which mass may be said, believing the venacular language of the local community is the better language in which the populace should worship. Latin is a perfectly good language to use in the Vatican. I’m not sure it is the best language to use in Peoria.

This may be the nub of it.

The proposal is that the many benefits of Latin do not outweigh the wish for (some of) the congregation to understand the texts of the mass.

This, despite the vernacular encouraging local invention.
And the fact that the Mass is not, in its purpose, a performance directed towards the congregation.

It’s a poor trade.