Is Latin superior than other languages?

[ConstantineTG]

This is an old argument of the Reformers.

Cardinal Arinze paints the true picture here.

Well, if we’d go by with what you underlined, then it isn’t Latin we should be using, its Aramaic. Or at the very least, Greek, which was the language used to baptize the pagan gentiles, the group we belong to.

We can certainly inherit the same faith in a language we can appreciate better. The faith has always adopted and incultured from the beginning. It was never kept the same exact way on the outside. Thats the beauty of the Truth, it can be expressed in many different ways, in different contexts, but still maintain the same essence. That is why we have 6 Liturgical Rites today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sure, those are excuses. And good ones.

Here’s another one: How does a mass become popular from a standing start, if it’s not part of a church’s normal schedule e.g. 10am on Sunday morning vs. 6.30pm on a Sunday evening? And has to move about, like an orphan child?

So, traditionalists have a number of problems:

People don’t know this Mass;
It’s not being taught in schools;
In parishes where it exists, it can be marginalised.

And yet, in the few years since the Motu Proprio and with very little hierarchial enthusiasm and indeed some opposition, it seems to be growing.

I wonder what would happen if a major Catholic newspaper simply printed a side-by-side translation of the new, newer and old rites?

If you have a bad experience about it, then I feel for you. However, don’t think that its the same way everywhere. I don’t see the problems people here have been complaining about here in our Archdiocese. Yet these claims that people will flock in droves to the Latin Mass has never happened. There is a stable parish with a regular schedule with full support of the Bishop. Yet its a “niche market”, for lack of a better term. People are not unaware of the Latin Mass. Yet its not their choice to go there. The Vatican has responded to the needs of that people, and that need today is a Liturgy that is relevant to the everyday man. Which includes being in a language one can understand.

 

[ProVobis]

Cardinal Arinze has also publicly said that the vernacular Mass would not be going away (he laughed at the assertion).

vernacular
c.1600, “native to a country,” from L. vernaculus “domestic, native,” from verna “home-born slave, native,” a word of Etruscan origin. Used in English in the sense of Latin vernacula vocabula, in reference to language.

A particular vernacular is not sustainable over a long period of time, though some Eastern vernaculars have held up pretty well. That was Pope John’s point. You may think I’m splitting hairs here but I believe the 1970 English in the liturgy is going away this fall, to be replaced by still another vernacular? I know people down my block are very much up in arms about it too, even though I never see them in church. Goes to show, people generally dislike change of any kind. But the Church measures its time by centuries and millennia; we measure ours by months and years. Say all you want about your vernacular but the Latin stays, even if understood only by the “elite.” Otherwise we’ll have confusion worse than the Tower of Babel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A particular vernacular is not sustainable over a long period of time, though some Eastern vernaculars have held up pretty well. That was Pope John’s point. You may think I’m splitting hairs here but I believe the 1970 English in the liturgy is going away this fall, to be replaced by still another vernacular? I know people down my block are very much up in arms about it too, even though I never see them in church. Goes to show, people generally dislike change of any kind. But the Church measures its time by centuries and millennia; we measure ours by months and years. Say all you want about your vernacular but the Latin stays, even if understood only by the “elite.” Otherwise we’ll have confusion worse than the Tower of Babel.

I think the effort will always be to a higher “form” of the vernacular. One addresses a meeting of business people differently than one addresses ones friends in a pub over a beer. The t-shirt not withstanding, I doubt many Catholics view Jesus as their “homie.”

Yes, I believe you are splitting hairs. English is one vernacular in the context which we are discussing. The differences in the English spoken throughout the world probably will not impact the Mass, as we are not inviting God to hop in the lift, come up, and we’ll throw a couple of shrimp on the barbie, but not to park His lorry in the fire lane.
And I never said the Latin would not stay. Latin is the official langauge of the Church (which permits its liturgies to be celebrated in a number of vernaculars).

 

[ProVobis]

The differences in the English spoken throughout the world

I guess it’s what we call it. I was just looking over the Croatian rosary. It is quite recognizable to one who is fluent in Polish; yet we identify them as two different vernaculars.

On the other hand, we seem to call English anything from Chaucerian English to Ebonics, though we both know many, if not most, here wouldn’t be able to have the slightest clue as to what they’re saying or writing in those languages. Even in the current Mass, we have words most don’t understand. What’s “hallowed” mean? Is that really easier to understand than “sanctificetor”? Or “trespasses” where “debita” could easily work better. Or “one in being with the Father” which isn’t even close to “consubstantialem”? Even the ICEL gave up and simply used the Latin cognate here. Didn’t have much of a choice given that it’s an important piece of Christian doctrine.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I guess it’s what we call it. I was just looking over the Croatian rosary. It is quite recognizable to one who is fluent in Polish; yet we identify them as two different vernaculars.

On the other hand, we seem to call English anything from Chaucerian English to Ebonics, though we both know many, if not most, here wouldn’t be able to have the slightest clue as to what they’re saying or writing in those languages. Even in the current Mass, we have words most don’t understand. What’s “hallowed” mean? Is that really easier to understand than “sanctificetor”? Or “trespasses” where “debita” could easily work better. Or “one in being with the Father” which isn’t even close to “consubstantialem”? Even the ICEL gave up and simply used the Latin cognate here. Didn’t have much of a choice given that it’s an important piece of Christian doctrine.

First, I think you underestimate the knowledge level of the average Catholic. They may not be able to articulate the Hypostatic Union or the doctrines related to the Holy Trinity, but I’m pretty sure that even those subjected to the most liberal and progressivist agenda understand “hallowed” and “trespass” and if asked on a test to loosely define “hallowed,” “trespass,” “debita”, “sanctificetor”, or “consubstantialem,” they’d be able to nail the first two, possibly associate “debita” with “debt,” but probably fade on “sanctificetor,” and be utterly lost on “consubstantialem.”

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about translation (I was going to write you a private letter after the other thread closed)." If even “hallowed” and “tresspassed” have to be translated for some (and I doubt many who’ve have at least rudimentary catechism), how much more the Latin? And the silliness about copyrights aside (public domain, anyone? The Mass and the prayers of the Church are centuries old), all of it has to be explained and to explain, it has to be translated, even if only loosely (in a verbal explanation, which doesn’t trouble itslef over copyright). My point is that translation is inevitable. “Consubstantialem” has been translated in slightly different ways, but all the translations are basically “one in being with” or “of the same substance with.” People use that to understand that part of the creed and if “consubstantialem” is all they have, it’s going to have to be explained. I’d be willing to bet that thereafter, if one could slow down and freeze frame the thought processes of at least thoughtful and attentive Catholics when saying the Creed as it will be in the new translation, most people will be thinking “Consubstantial=one in being with” or “Consubstantial=of the same substance with.” They aren’t going to simply think “consubstantial.” Why? Because they’re going to attach meaning, a definition to that word and that meaning, that definition, certainly are not going to be in Latin. When they’re asked by the unknowing “What does consubstantial mean?”, they aren’t simply going to say, "It’s from the Latin “consubstantialem.” They may start like that, but they’re going to go on to say, “It means Jesus is one in being with the Father, of the same substance of the Father.” The Latin will always have to be translated, even if only in the mind of the hearer. And if the essential, important doctrine which “Consubstantialem” is meant to represent, to portray, to convey, to name (really, to symbolize abstractly a concrete Truth) can ONLY be represented, conveyed, named by “consubstantialem,” then we will never understand it in even a rudimentary way (as it’s a mystery, we cannot fully encompass it anyway).

 

[umairmalik]

Very nice topic!!! I really like this discussion!!! Thank you so much for a great post!!!
Change Your Life

 

[StTommyMore]

First, I think you underestimate the knowledge level of the average Catholic. They may not be able to articulate the Hypostatic Union or the doctrines related to the Holy Trinity, but I’m pretty sure that even those subjected to the most liberal and progressivist agenda understand “hallowed” and “trespass” and if asked on a test to loosely define “hallowed,” “trespass,” “debita”, “sanctificetor”, or “consubstantialem,” they’d be able to nail the first two, possibly associate “debita” with “debt,” but probably fade on “sanctificetor,” and be utterly lost on “consubstantialem.”

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about translation (I was going to write you a private letter after the other thread closed)." If even “hallowed” and “tresspassed” have to be translated for some (and I doubt many who’ve have at least rudimentary catechism), how much more the Latin? And the silliness about copyrights aside (public domain, anyone? The Mass and the prayers of the Church are centuries old), all of it has to be explained and to explain, it has to be translated, even if only loosely (in a verbal explanation, which doesn’t trouble itslef over copyright). My point is that translation is inevitable. “Consubstantialem” has been translated in slightly different ways, but all the translations are basically “one in being with” or “of the same substance with.” People use that to understand that part of the creed and if “consubstantialem” is all they have, it’s going to have to be explained. I’d be willing to bet that thereafter, if one could slow down and freeze frame the thought processes of at least thoughtful and attentive Catholics when saying the Creed as it will be in the new translation, most people will be thinking “Consubstantial=one in being with” or “Consubstantial=of the same substance with.” They aren’t going to simply think “consubstantial.” Why? Because they’re going to attach meaning, a definition to that word and that meaning, that definition, certainly are not going to be in Latin. When they’re asked by the unknowing “What does consubstantial mean?”, they aren’t simply going to say, "It’s from the Latin “consubstantialem.” They may start like that, but they’re going to go on to say, “It means Jesus is one in being with the Father, of the same substance of the Father.” The Latin will always have to be translated, even if only in the mind of the hearer. And if the essential, important doctrine which “Consubstantialem” is meant to represent, to portray, to convey, to name (really, to symbolize abstractly a concrete Truth) can ONLY be represented, conveyed, named by “consubstantialem,” then we will never understand it in even a rudimentary way (as it’s a mystery, we cannot fully encompass it anyway).

I tend to agree. In addition having an official vernacular translation prevents an erroneous understanding, though it by no means guarantees it. At the same time, having the Mass in Latin is in no means an impediment to faith. One does not have to understand what “Hoc est enim corpus meum” means, as long as they understand the significance of the words in the context of the Mass. Of course, I have an ideas about how I would like to see the liturgy that have not been adapted by the Church, but I think would be a good compromise for those who appreciate the Latin and those who prefer the vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I tend to agree. In addition having an official vernacular translation prevents an erroneous understanding, though it by no means guarantees it. At the same time, having the Mass in Latin is in no means an impediment to faith. One does not have to understand what “Hoc est enim corpus meum” means, as long as they understand the significance of the words in the context of the Mass. Of course, I have an ideas about how I would like to see the liturgy that have not been adapted by the Church, but I think would be a good compromise for those who appreciate the Latin and those who prefer the vernacular.

Oh, I quite agree with this. I think we might have avoided this entire mess if we had simply pruned the old Mass here and there of needless repetition, etc., and then been allowed to have it in the vernacular. Every parish could have taken their Mass schedule and divided it into Latin masses and vernacular masses with the exact same “form of the Rite,” as it were. It would have saved a lot of heartache and anger.

I’ve no problem with Latin, I love Latin and would love to become better versed in it. I simply do not believe that it is ontologically sacred (it has come to have a sacred use, however) and I don’t believe it is superior (because language is symbolic).

 

[StTommyMore]

Oh, I quite agree with this. I think we might have avoided this entire mess if we had simply pruned the old Mass here and there of needless repetition, etc., and then been allowed to have it in the vernacular. Every parish could have taken their Mass schedule and divided it into Latin masses and vernacular masses with the exact same “form of the Rite,” as it were. It would have saved a lot of heartache and anger.

I’ve no problem with Latin, I love Latin and would love to become better versed in it. I simply do not believe that it is ontologically sacred (it has come to have a sacred use, however) and I don’t believe it is superior (because language is symbolic).

My idea is that the Penitential Rite, The Liturgy of the Word, and the Creed be in the vernacular (using the cycle of readings from the Novus Ordo), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin’ Lets be honest who does not prefer Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: misere nobis" over “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” Communion would be kneeling and on the tongue, and after the final blessing,the Last Gospel would be read (in the vernacular, so that those who do not know Latin can meditate on the profound mysteries contains therein. But I guess this is a pipe dream unless I get appointed the proper curial comittee.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My idea is that the Penitential Rite, The Liturgy of the Word, and the Creed be in the vernacular (using the cycle of readings from the Novus Ordo), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin’ Lets be honest who does not prefer Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: misere nobis" over “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” Communion would be kneeling and on the tongue, and after the final blessing,the Last Gospel would be read (in the vernacular, so that those who do not know Latin can meditate on the profound mysteries contains therein. But I guess this is a pipe dream unless I get appointed the proper curial comittee.

“Lets be honest who does not prefer Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: misere nobis” over “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” Communion."

Well, since you asked…ME! I would prefer the whole of the Mass offered in my parish church, beginning to end, to be in English. Liturgically, I understand the need for Latin at international gatherings, etc., but I don’t go to those terribly often. What I meant was, for example, the 4:00 PM Vigil Mass at St. Cuthbert’s-on-Thames would be in English, the 5:30 Vigil Mass would be a low Mass in Latin, the 6:30 AM Sunday Mass would be a low Mass in Latin, then the 8:00 in English, then the 9:30 in Latin, perhaps the Solemn High Mass, and so forth (the above is based on my own parish schedule, except we don’t the 5:30 Vigil, and we have many more Masses on Sunday, 8 in all). I do agree with the kneeling and Communion on the tongue. I actually think that the Last Gospel should be chanted, in either Latin or English. It is so beautiful.

 

[StTommyMore]

“Lets be honest who does not prefer Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: misere nobis” over “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us” Communion."

Well, since you asked…ME! I would prefer the whole of the Mass offered in my parish church, beginning to end, to be in English. Liturgically, I understand the need for Latin at international gatherings, etc., but I don’t go to those terribly often. What I meant was, for example, the 4:00 PM Vigil Mass at St. Cuthbert’s-on-Thames would be in English, the 5:30 Vigil Mass would be a low Mass in Latin, the 6:30 AM Sunday Mass would be a low Mass in Latin, then the 8:00 in English, then the 9:30 in Latin, perhaps the Solemn High Mass, and so forth (the above is based on my own parish schedule, except we don’t the 5:30 Vigil, and we have many more Masses on Sunday, 8 in all). I do agree with the kneeling and Communion on the tongue. I actually think that the Last Gospel should be chanted, in either Latin or English. It is so beautiful.

I do not believe the intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium was for the elimination of Latin from the Liturgy altogether, so I still hold that at least parts of the Mass should be in Latin. no matter what our personal preferences are.

 

[ProVobis]

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about translation (I was going to write you a private letter after the other thread closed)."

I agree that you and I disagree. I have nothing against explanations in the vernacular (as required by the Council of Trent, incidentally), but I do have a problem with iconoclastic translations which distort doctrine altogether. And if you were to fully understand the process of copyrights and plagiarism issues, I’m sure you’d agree with me there.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I do not believe the intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium was for the elimination of Latin from the Liturgy altogether, so I still hold that at least parts of the Mass should be in Latin. no matter what our personal preferences are.

I know that Sacrosanctum Concilium did not intend it either, but I think it is perfectly fine that there exists an all-vernacular Mass, as it exists by the proper authority (no council can bind a pope on disciplinary matters and even the dogmatic declarations of a council require the ratification of the Pope) and I think it’s ok to prefer it, given a choice (which we essentially possess). My point was that we might have avoided all of this internecine liturgical warfare had we simply adopted what I suggested.

In my parish, everything is in the vernacular, except for the ordinary parts, which are sung in Latin.

 

[DrSharkey]

Everybody knows that the language we will all be speaking in Heaven is Gaelic…

 

[Michael_Saenz]

As a resident of Southern California, I assure you that I would very much welcome the undoing of the so called “bilingual mass”, that is Spanish/English. Latin would have easily satisfied this and brought the church congregation together as one during our great Eucharistic celebration.

 

[zdon011]

Short answer: YES
But really, there are many advantages to knowing and using Latin. Stability and all that.

 

[garyfigurski]

The Church used Latin because Rome was the seat of the Papacy, and Latin was the common language of the Romans.

Back then, virtually everyone in what is now Italy spoke Latin. It was the common speech, and the leaders of the church used that language.

Over time, it was adopted as the official language of the church, and it remained so for many centuries. There is absolutely nothing sacred about Latin, it is NOT God’s language.

The Latin Rite, for many centuries, was the ONLY church with apostolic succession that did not use the common language of the areas where it existed. The Latin Rite continued using an archaic language, that nobody except church leaders actually used, in spite of the fact that this left the laity completely cut off from the words of the Mass, etc.

This changed with the Second Vatican Council, and it was a very long overdue change.

Yes it was the common language of the people at the time, and became the language of the Church. If the changes in that after Vatican II were long overdue is a matter of opinion.We as members of the Church should ALL have mass in a language we can ALL understand and pray the Mass with anyone in the world, as it used to be. Thus a common language. There ARE pros and cons to this.

 

[laszlo]

Seeing that there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations today, I would say STM was dead-on right.

Did you ever meditated on the philosophical thesis that God is immense and incomprehensible to us as a whole. May be many of that 20,000 Christian denominations have some little segment of the truth, which leads some people to God, who wants to embrace everyone.

The temptation that we are like God and we know good and evil is from the Adversary.

John 1:7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes it was the common language of the people at the time, and became the language of the Church. If the changes in that after Vatican II were long overdue is a matter of opinion.We as members of the Church should ALL have mass in a language we can ALL understand and pray the Mass with anyone in the world, as it used to be. Thus a common language. There ARE pros and cons to this.

I don’t understand what you mean by the sentence “We as members of the Church should all have mass in a language we can all understand and pray the mass with anyone in the world, as it used to be.” One major reason venacular languages were allowed to be used in the liturgy was precisely because people were not able to understand and pray the mass. The fact is that it was never true that all people understood the Latin used in the liturgy, so I’m not sure what you mean by saying “as it used to be.” It never used to be the way you think it was. Venacular languages were introduced to promote understanding of the liturgy and common prayer. Secondly, since the sacrifice of the mass is not dependent upon which language is used, it is possible now to pray the mass with anyone in the world. It is the sacrifice at the altar itself which unites us in prayer, not the language the priest intones.