Is Latin superior than other languages?

[StTommyMore]

This is the thing:all who are vehemently opposed to any inclusion of the vernacular are placing themselves in opposition to Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document form an council, and as such, an exercise of the Magisterium. Understand this carefully: I am not saying that there is something wrong with the Extraordinary Form, but there does seem to be a problem with those who attend the EF exclusively, simply because they implicitly reject Vatican II. This is because the aforementioned conciliar document called for the inclusion of the vernacular in the liturgy. At the same time, those who call for an abrogation of the Latin, and its removal completely are also implicitly at odds with Vatican II, because the very same document that calls for inclusion of the vernacular also calls for a preservation of the Latin. Thus we have two forms of the Liturgy. We are only in line with the Council, and therefore the Church, if and only if we accept that both Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are both licit and valid, and we stop bickering over which one is “better”! "Nuff said.

 

[Timothysis]

If he had his way the Bible would be back in Latin too;

It has been my experience here that those who call for the return to Latin are more taken with the language itself than with the ability to celebrate a liturgy where the priest and entire congregation are actually aware of where they are and what they are doing.

It is a curious thing to me that one would propose learning to parrot the words of a liturgy without being conscious or knowledgeable about what it is that one is actually saying. True faith is a commitment of the intellect; how, in the name of good fortune, can one honestly commit their intellect when they are simply repeating over and over words, phrases and sentences that they do not comprehend?

Imagine that someone decided one day to read Marcel Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past. Would anyone suggest that you begin a course to study French for the next 3 to 4 years before they could even begin to tackle the text, and then still spend countless hours of research to determine the precise meaning , or would you simply buy an English translation? Is it really unreasonable to think it beneficial to read, speak and act in a language that you know and understand?

There was a poster here once who went on and on about the deficiencies in the “novus ordo” Mass, yet said in the end that if it was said in Latin, then he wouldn’t have a problem with it.

There was another who declared that the Roman Rite was written by St. Peter himself, in Rome, in Latin.

Lastly, one poster said that new “evidence” has been uncovered that suggests that Jesus actually spoke Latin at the Last Supper.

As I said before, I personally think that many are taken more with the language of the liturgy than with the liturgy itself.

 

[ProVobis]

Are we going to go back and put the Bible back into Latin too so only the Scholarly can read it and the ordinary salt of the earth will need to have someone explain it for them when they try to read it at home.

There had been a Latin Bible prior to the Latin Vulgate which is now used. No need to go BACK to anything. And perhaps we do need more scholars to explain it to us rather than using existing iconoclastic translations, whose meanings are already far removed from the original. Do you want to read a Bible which has pretty language or one which speaks the truth as the Council of Trent defined? (You can have both actually. )

And it is true that Greek was used very early on but then the Eastern Church has a slightly longer substantial history than the Roman Rite. That said, liturgy in Latin could very well have been around much longer than before 300 AD. You need to remember Latin had no spaces, had no lower cap letters, no “J” or “U” which would have been the vernacular of that period. We’d need a Latin scholar or historian to tell us when exactly the Latin became not the vernacular of the period.

 

[StTommyMore]

T

And it is true that Greek was used very early on but then the Eastern Church has a slightly longer substantial history than the Roman Rite. That said, liturgy in Latin could very well have been around much longer than before 300 AD.

This is conjecture. To make this assertion, you would need some form of evidence.

 

[malphono]

Then I take it you are for Classical Greek being the official language of the Church since that’s what the New Testament was originally written in

No, it wasn’t. The NT was written in Koine Greek, which is still used liturgically by the Greek Orthodox Church and, to a lesser extent, by the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Churches.

 

[ProVobis]

Get real guys the last supper was not spoken in latin.

It wasn’t spoken in English either, thank God.

And for you Latin bashers, let’s face it. Had Vatican II said that English was to be preserved in the Roman Rite, you’d be all bent out of shape at an all-Polish or all-Vietnamese Mass. (You probably feel much discomfort even at the thought, I bet.) But because the Church chose to retain Latin, you’ll go out of your way to find all kinds of loopholes and excuses not to use any Latin at all in the liturgy. Doesn’t say much about your love for the Church, in my opinion.

 

[malphono]

When most of the Catholics in Rome spoke Greek as a first language, the liturgy was in Greek.

It was really only the “upper crust” in Rome that spoke Greek as a “first language” and who brought classically educated Greek slaves to be teachers. The commoners spoke Latin.

When those generations had passed away and most Catholics in the city of Rome spoke Latin as a first language the pressure was on, to make a liturgy in the vernacular.

By the time Latin was made a liturgical language, Latin was still spoken in Rome, although mainly by the “upper crust” who had forsaken Greek. The Romance Languages had already begun to take shape, so the language of the commoners had already become the prototype of Italian (or, in the provinces, French, or Portuguese, or Catalan, or Provençale, or Occitan, or Spanish)

 

[StTommyMore]

It was really only the “upper crust” in Rome that spoke Greek as a “first language” and who brought classically educated Greek slaves to be teachers. The commoners spoke Latin.

By the time Latin was made a liturgical language, Latin was still spoken in Rome, although mainly by the “upper crust” who had forsaken Greek. The Romance Languages had already begun to take shape, so the language of the commoners had already become the prototype of Italian (or, in the provinces, French, or Portuguese, or Catalan, or Provençale, or Occitan, or Spanish)

Do you have an academic source? Remember, Wikipedia is not an academic source.

 

[InquisitorMax]

It is a curious thing to me that one would propose learning to parrot the words of a liturgy without being conscious or knowledgeable about what it is that one is actually saying. True faith is a commitment of the intellect; how, in the name of good fortune, can one honestly commit their intellect when they are simply repeating over and over words, phrases and sentences that they do not comprehend?

I’ll call this one “The laity are too stupid to learn Latin” argument.

(Even though it’s mostly the same prayers every Sunday and translations are easily available. And Latin words are a component of modern English)

 

[malphono]

Do you have an academic source? Remember, Wikipedia is not an academic source.

Only my own years of study which, of course, (particularly in these highly erudite internet circles), counts for nothing.

But anyway, let’s turn the question around: do you have such a source to contradict it? And remember, Wikipedia is not an academic source.

 

[StTommyMore]

Only my own years of study which, of course, (particularly in these highly erudite internet circles), counts for nothing.

But anyway, let’s turn the question around: do you have such a source to contradict it? And remember, Wikipedia is not an academic source.

You are making the assertion, therefore it is your responsibility to provide evidence. Are you seriously expecting me to provide evidence to prove a negative, which cannot be done logically? Sorry but the authority of one who is essentially anonymous does not carry much weight.

 

[InquisitorMax]

I believe that God does not want to be a MYSTERY to us and he sent his SON among us so he would be known to us through CHRIST who also did not speak latin. Our religion should be as natural to us as breathing and anything that places a barrier between us and God should be avoided.

Our rite is, its essence, mysterious. google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=roman+catholic+mass+mystery

We don’t fully comprehend God; we can’t. We are currently incarnate: another barrier.

I find it stupefying the assertion that Christ, the Son of God, did not speak Latin, living as he did in Roman-occupied Judea.

 

[malphono]

You are making the assertion, therefore it is your responsibility to provide evidence. Are you seriously expecting me to provide evidence to prove a negative, which cannot be done logically? Sorry but the authority of one who is essentially anonymous does not carry much weight.

You are free to believe what you wish. Frankly, I really don’t care.

Believe it or not, (and again I don’t care one way or the other), I didn’t pull it out of thin air. And BTW, anonymous or otherwise, I’m not “on trial” here, so I have the obligation to “prove” or “provide evidence for” absolutely nothing.

Funny thing, though, I had a feeling it was a mistake to inject anything into this thread. And so it was.

 

[thirddec]

Our rite is, its essence, mysterious. google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=roman+catholic+mass+mystery

We don’t fully comprehend God; we can’t. We are currently incarnate: another barrier.

I find it stupefying the assertion that Christ, the Son of God, did not speak Latin, living as he did in Roman-occupied Judea.

apologies I meant as in his normal day to day living and of course im just having an educated guess but i will look it up fast for you the internet is a great thing.

 

[thirddec]

jesuscentral.com/ji/historical-jesus/jesus-firstcenturycontext.php
•Language: The common language in the Roman Empire was Greek. However, at the time it was common for Jews to also use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. Jesus’ every day language was Aramaic.

jerusalemperspective.com/default.aspx?&tabid=27&ArticleID=1604
The land of Israel was under the influence of Greek culture from the time of its conquest by Alexander the Great at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. Although scholars have divergent views regarding the influence of Hellenism on religious works, literature and everyday life in first-century Israel, it is generally accepted that the Greek language was used by many of the inhabitants.

Latin was also used to some extent in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus. For example, John 19:20 and a few manuscripts of Luke 23:38 record that the sign above the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and the names of the Roman legions which served in the land were sometimes inscribed in Latin over wells and on garrison buildings. Apparently, however, Latin was used only by the Romans for matters of army administration. Civil administration was conducted entirely in Greek, and inscriptions written by non-Jews that have been found in Israel are all in Greek.

answer-islam.org/Jesusspoke.html
What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a “second language”?

"The answer is almost certainly yes. The more difficult question, however, is whether he taught in Greek. Are any of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved for us only in Greek nevertheless in the original language in which he uttered them?

"That Aramaic was the language Jesus normally used for both conversation and teaching seems clear. Most New Testament scholars would agree with this. But did he also speak Greek? The evidence already recounted for the use of Greek in first-century Palestine provides the background for an answer to this question. But there are more specific indi- cations in the Gospels themselves.

“All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate” (p.61).

Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

We know that Jesus preached in Aramaic, but one thing must be stated. The Jews new Aramaic but however, Greek was also a widespoken language and replaced Aramaic around Jesus time!!

HAVE FUN GUYS MAKES GREAT READING
If I had to bet which language being spoken in the last supper I wouldn’t be thinking LATIN.

and yes i’m being childish; I feel a gloat comming on

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been lurking here and didn’t really want to get involved in this discussion, because there are too many interesting things happening all over CAF. You can’t get involved in all. But I did see two posts that I thought I could share some light on.

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

It was true that St. Thomas More said this. However, it is also true that his Franciscan superior commanded him to remain silent on this question and never think this thought again. Thomas obeyed. Many people don’t kow that Thomas More was a Brother of Penance, known today as the Secular Franciscan Order and much of what he did and said was very carefully scrutinized and governed by the Minister of that order. In those days, the Ministers had a much more hands-on approach than they do today. The SFO supported the translation of the scriptures, because Francis had encouraged translating and even dramatizing the Nativity and the Passion. That’s how we get the Christmas crèche, the Christmas and Passion play, and the Stations of the Cross as we know them today. These parts of the scriptures were translated by friars and role played-by the laity. More’s statement was dangerous, because it could be interpreted that translating was wrong. That’s not what he meant. His concern was non-biblical scholars and non-theologians interpreting the scripture. He was right about that. Later, he would clarify his statement. The point is that More is not a good reference, because this statement was out of compliance with his superiors.

Our rite is, its essence, mysterious. google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=roman+catholic+mass+mystery

I find it stupefying the assertion that Christ, the Son of God, did not speak Latin, living as he did in Roman-occupied Judea.

This is not as outrageous as it may sound. Let’s look at the mystery of the Incarnation. Let’s use Duns Scotus. Jesus is truly human. That’s a dogma. He is like us in all things but sin. That too is a dogma. Therefore, he had the same limitations and needs that all men have that are not a result of sin. That’s what Scotus said.

Not knowing a language is not a result of sin. It’s a cultural situation. Jesus had a very interesting human background. He was born in Judea and taken to Egypt as an infant. We do not know how long he lived in Egypt or where in Egypt he lived. It is probable that he lived near the border, just out of Herod’s reach, and among the Jews who lived on the other side of the border. We do know that there were Jewish communities there.

His family returns to Palestine. We don’t now how old he was. However, we know that he went to Egypt sometime between his birth and second birthday. Let’s assume that he was close to two-years old when he went to Egypt. That’s the age when children are learning to speak. They engage in echolalia. The people that lived around him spoke the local language, not Latin. Latin would not have been his first language or even his second language.

We also know that he returns to Palestine, but to Galilee, not Judea. He is raised among the Nazarenes, which was Mary’s clan. We’re not too sure about Joseph. But we do know some things about the Nazarenes. They spoke Aramaic and they also had a dialect of their own. They were very poor and about 70 miles north of Jerusalem. The Romans were based in Jerusalem and they were not very interested in the outlying regions The likelihood that Jesus had much contact with them is unlikely, until he was old enough to travel beyond Nazareth. We don’t know how often Jesus went to Jerusalem. How often did Jesus interact with the Romans is open to guesswork.

We also have to look at the other side. The Romans did not stoop down to speak the language of the people they conquered. They were very much like the English. They invaded and you had to learn their language and their ways. I’m using the English on purpose, because their manner of colonization is very similar to that of the Romans.

If we look at what happened to the English colonies in the Americas, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Palestine, the elite learned the language. The common man continued to speak the local language. The merchant usually learned enough of the language to conduct business.

Let’s apply this to Jesus and his times. He was not a member of the elite. Rule out a good education that would allow him to learn Latin fluently. However, he was the son of a craftsman. Craftsmen are part of the merchant class. It is very possible that father and son (Joseph and Jesus) spoke enough Latin to do business. This would mean that he may not have known enough Latin to preach a sermon or make a speech. But he would know enough to carry on a simple conversation. We see this in his exchange with Pilate. It’s a question and answer session. Pilate’s questions are straightforward and so are Jesus’ answers.

Aside from the theological reasons for this exchange, there is the human element. Pilate may have spoken some Hebrew, but probably did not speak Aramaic. Jerusalem did not speak Aramaic. Jesus probably spoke fluent Hebrew, because the Torah is still taught in Hebrew. He probably did not speak Latin like Cicero. However, he knew enough Latin to understand Pilate and to respond clearly enough to make himself understood.

Those are my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF

 

[otjm]

Sure. Because Latin is a dead language, yet simple, sonorous and musical. We don’t have over 1500 years of Chinese Catholic liturgy. We do have a Latin one. Chinese has no bearing on European culture. Latin does. A very significant one.

Really, it’s funny. A church decides to bin 1500 years of culture and start from year 0. As a result of an initial massive change and some loosely worded documents, the idea gets about that lay people, never mind priests, can be creative too with the central, sacred rite.

Then conservatives start complaining about irregularities while liberals say “Well, it’s still technically within the rules”.

I think the dancing at Mass I’ve seen online has done it for me. And the local variations I see in my area.

If priests and lay people think that the Mass is about them and what they want, the result will be banality, irregularity and occasional infamy.

Mass should not be a reflection of local interests. It should transcend them.

Al of which has to do with rubrics, not language.

 

[At_Trent]

Of course Latin is supreme.

The angels speak it, the devil hates it, and it makes it easy to indicate which species woodpecker we are talking about.

 

[StTommyMore]

You are free to believe what you wish. Frankly, I really don’t care.

Believe it or not, (and again I don’t care one way or the other), I didn’t pull it out of thin air. And BTW, anonymous or otherwise, I’m not “on trial” here, so I have the obligation to “prove” or “provide evidence for” absolutely nothing.

Funny thing, though, I had a feeling it was a mistake to inject anything into this thread. And so it was.

Wow that was charitable Anytime you make an assertion, you should be prepared to back it up with something other than your word.

 

[StTommyMore]

Of course Latin is supreme.

The angels speak it, the devil hates it, and it makes it easy to indicate which species woodpecker we are talking about.

Ummm right. Latin is a human language, devised by humans. Angels speak it? You have any kind of document to back this up? Actually, it is my understanding that the Song of the Serphim was first recorded in Hebrew!