Is Latin superior than other languages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
InquisitorMax said:
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.
Click to expand...
At the time of Christ, within the Roman Empire, the lingua franca was Greek, not Latin. Even the Epistle to the Romans was written in Greek, because during the first century, in the Mediterranean world, Greek was the closest thing there was to a universal language.
 
StTommyMore said:
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!
Click to expand...
ya just gotta trust me on this one 🙂
 
RyanBlack said:
At the time of Christ, within the Roman Empire, the lingua franca was Greek, not Latin. Even the Epistle to the Romans was written in Greek, because during the first century, in the Mediterranean world, Greek was the closest thing there was to a universal language.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. When they open up a Classics or Mediterranean studies curriculum in universities, it usually involves programs in both Greek and Latin, and most of it is Latin. There were many Romans whose writings are still being studied. I have several of those writings. Science, philosophy, math, etc. have Greek scholars to turn to.
 
ProVobis said:
I doubt it. When they open up a Classics curriculum in universities, it usually involves programs in both Greek and Latin, and most of it is Latin. There were many Romans whose writings are still studied. I have several of them. Science, philosophy, math, etc. have Greek scholars to turn to.
Click to expand...
I stand by the claims I have made, which I learned in my New Testament and Church History courses. At the time of Christ, Greek was more widespread throughout the Mediterannean world, to the extent that all of the New Testament, including the Epistle to the Romans, was written in Greek, and to the extent that it was often used by the elite, even in the western parts of the Empire where Latin was the prevailing language of the people. However, it is certainly the case that Greek was far more widespread in the easthern areas of the Empire, where it had been spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. BTW, I am very much aware of the fact that there were many Romans who wrote in Latin whose writings are still studied.
 
Actually, you’re both right. Latin and Greek were to that era what Spanish and English have become to the 21 st century, the two most spoken languages in the world. Don’t tell me that there are more Chinese speakers. We know that. But you don’t find as many people speaking Chinese outside of China as you do English and Spanish. That was the same case with Latin and Greek.

We’re not too sure if the original version of the Epistle to the Romans was written in Greek. The copy that we have is in Greek. It may not be the letter written by Paul. It appears to have been written by a scribe, probably a disciple of Paul. The Greek is impeccable. Paul’s other letters have all kinds of grammatical and spelling mistakes, which suggest that the writer was not a native speaker. The letter to the Romans, on the other hand, is perfect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
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 …
Click to expand...
Yes, two gospelists thought enough of Latin to include it in the Gospels.
Apparently, however, Latin was used only by the Romans for matters of army administration.
Click to expand...
Latin has been used for millennia in international law, anatomy, and science. And the basis for the US government finds its roots in the Roman empire. So they must have gotten something right.
 
JReducation said:
We’re not too sure if the original version of the Epistle to the Romans was written in Greek. The copy that we have is in Greek. It may not be the letter written by Paul. It appears to have been written by a scribe, probably a disciple of Paul. The Greek is impeccable. Paul’s other letters have all kinds of grammatical and spelling mistakes, which suggest that the writer was not a native speaker. The letter to the Romans, on the other hand, is perfect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
That St. Paul used scribes-as far as I know-is not disputed by scholars. On the other hand, I’ve never heard it suggested that St. Paul might have originally written the Epistle to the Romans (or any of his letters that are included in the Canon of Holy Scripture) in any language other than Greek. Furthermore, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the Epistle to the Romans should be grouped with Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles, which are believed by many to have not been written by St. Paul, but rather, by disciples of his. What I was taught in my New Testament courses is that the Epistle to the Romans is among those books of the Pauline Corpus that are believed by virtually all scholars as being genuinely composed by St. Paul.
 
RyanBlack said:
That St. Paul used scribes-as far as I know-is not disputed by scholars. On the other hand, I’ve never heard it suggested that St. Paul might have originally written the Epistle to the Romans (or any of his letters that are included in the Canon of Holy Scripture) in any language other than Greek. Furthermore, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the Epistle to the Romans should be grouped with Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles, which are believed by many to have not been written by St. Paul, but rather, by disciples of his. What I was taught in my New Testament courses is that the Epistle to the Romans is among those books of the Pauline Corpus that are believed by virtually all scholars as being genuinely composed by St. Paul.
Click to expand...
It is believe to be a Pauline composition. But this does not mean that he is the person who put the pencil to the paper.

I’m not a NT scholar. I’m a Ascetic and Mystical Theologian. When we went through seminary we studied two-years of scripture and we moved on. There are too many courses to cram into four years for an M.Div. Afterward, when you go for the advanced theology degrees, you focus on your area. Scripture is an area of its own. The rest of us don’t ask the scripture scholar who wrote what, when, where and why. We’re interested in the message. Then we run with that.

In theology, like medicine, you trus tthat your colleagues know their business.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
It is believe to be a Pauline composition. But this does not mean that he is the person who put the pencil to the paper.

I’m not a NT scholar. I’m a Ascetic and Mystical Theologian. When we went through seminary we studied two-years of scripture and we moved on. There are too many courses to cram into four years for an M.Div. Afterward, when you go for the advanced theology degrees, you focus on your area. Scripture is an area of its own. The rest of us don’t ask the scripture scholar who wrote what, when, where and why. We’re interested in the message. Then we run with that.

In theology, like medicine, you trus tthat your colleagues know their business.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Br.,

Thank you. I’m well acquainted with how an M.Div. works. I have one, and a Th.M. Two of my NT professors are among the most respected scholars from their generation. They taught that it is virtually universally accepted by NT scholars that the Epistle to the Romans, together with 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon were in fact authored by St. Paul. Opinions vary with respect Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, two gospelists thought enough of Latin to include it in the Gospels.

Latin has been used for millennia in international law, anatomy, and science. And the basis for the US government finds its roots in the Roman empire. So they must have gotten something right.
Click to expand...
The fact that Two of the evangelists noted what languages were written on the sign means nothing as far as assigining some kind of divine status to Latin. Methinks you are enamored with the language, and will grasp at anything to prove some kind of superiority
 
Yesterday I seen all the threads that were clearly a push on the Latin Mass and I finally decided it was time to enter this discussion. I did my usual ; answering from my own beliefs and sense on the matter ; using only what I felt to be correct and what little information and experience I had as I’m not a theologian or Scholar but im reasonably bright. As always when i’m taking a stand now I often wonder am I arguing this for personal reasons and could I be standing in the way of something Christ actualy wants in his Church. When I get there my only answer is to pray the Rosary and wait for an answer.
Well I believe I got the answer this morning so I felt like sharing it with you guys.

I’m about to go on a journey for a week ( break ) and was looking at what to pack. I noticed a pile of books stuffed in the beside locker with the rest of the junk so I checked to see if there was one that I hadn’t finished. I found a small collins latin english dictionary.
I though what an intresting time to stumble on that but it can heardly be a for or against just a cue so I was prompted to go for my usual 3 message by opening the book at 3 random spots and pick the first word my eyes light on in each. Here is the english version of the 3 words

Unnatural--------Dictatorship----------Together

I thought the first 2 were so on but I thought the 3rd didn’t fit so I began to thing the finding the dictionary was the first message and therefore leave out the together but this didn’t sit well with me either. I tried a few ideas to make sense of it and in the end left it and got on with things. As I washed the dishes a little later it came to me what I believe it means

Unnatural- Listening to Mass in latin would not be in the natural tongue of the
audience and the whole experience would be unnatural for much of
the concregation now. Also yesterday I said in some reply that our
religion should be as natural as breathing to us and in another thread
I’ve started about loving God the Father I was also thinking the same about
him, he wants our love for him to be just as natural just as easy and just as
insticntively easy as breathing.

Dictatorship - Again I felt that although I can understand why some people may gain a
lot from the Latin mass and it should be made available widely enough
for these people it should not be at the expense of others. There was some
answers in threads suggesting that people should just have to learn Latin.
that Latin mass should have priority if the parish were short staffed and this
may not have been the intent of the writer it was clearly seen as
the underlying idea. NOT ALL latin mass supporters were in this mold.
I think we need to be carefull tat we are not trying to push our agenda so
hard that we are trying to Dictate to others.

Together - The word I thought of leaving out but couldn’t turned out to be the most
important in my mind. In this world of trouble and strife ; where there rages
civil unrest through so many nations and organisations we the catholic
church have a duty to stay together. We cannot let our individual
preferances and personal ideas become a source of friction when none
is needed. We need to work together to ensure that everyone can
WORSHIP CHRIST IN THE MASS in the way they feel most comfortable
and natural to them. If a parish has the resources to be able to put on the
Latin mass I say why not, providedit is done in a way that retains Unity and
commitment to the mass for all. As far as those people who maybe have
pushed some of the Mass service so far as to make me cringe at times.
Those are good people who may be on the right track too but made a few
mistakes. Like anything its a learning process getting the balance right.

Even as I write this I wonder if there is too much of me in here so you guys are free to interpret the 3 words too. Just pray first that you do it in The Spirit. 🙂
 
StTommyMore said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your post is great. It really sums up all this bickering in a “nut shell” The “beef” that most people have with the Mass today is the form it took, is not what Vatican II intended!! From what I get form the documents is, the N.O Mass should be the EF form of the Mass and the Latin mass should be the OF of the mass. Everyone read the documents of Vatican II before you make “out of touch” statements! Getting tired of hearing Vatican II all the time when what we have today WAS NOT IT’S INTENT.
 
The assertion was: Jesus did not speak Latin.
My reply was: I find it strange to think that Christ, the son of God, did not speak Latin, in Roman occupied Judea, while at the same time being able to converse learnedly with rabbis in the temple as a 12(?) year old.

I didn’t assert that that he only or mostly spoke Latin. I’m responding to the tired proposition that: “We need not retain Latin because Jesus didn’t speak it” or some non-sequitur like that.

Like, 1500 years of thunder, fire and sword (real organic development, baby!) thrown out like the beautiful vestments the old faithful tried to rescue from skips.

All I’m getting from this thread is a tendency toward ABL: “Anything But Latin”. Which, given it’s history in the Roman Catholic Church, and that this is supposed to be a forum about traditional Roman Catholicism, is both sad and disturbing.

**This is directed to anyone interested in the old rite:
  1. Currently, the OF has been re-translated (for the xth time) to make it more faithful to the Latin original,.
  2. To avoid all this palaver, the new rite could just have been said in Latin or the old rite said in the extant translation in English. But no.
  3. If you’re going to hear a new rite mass in Latin, you might as well go to an old rite Mass. The prayers are lovely and have a tone of beseeching and humilty that is well suited to a supplicant people in awe of a powerful God. Masses tend to be quiet and solemn. If they have chant, beautiful.**
 
At_Trent said:
here it is, here’s the proof !
watchman-news.warn-usa.com/zao-mirror/why-do-angels-speak-latin-part-i/
watchman-news.warn-usa.com/zao-mirror/why-do-angels-speak-latin-part-i/why-do-angels-speak-latin-part-ii/
Click to expand...
The problem starts with the title: Angels does not speak. The speach, the voice, the sound, the vibration of the air belongs to the body. Tangel has no bodies, they are pure spirit.

Angels communicate through ideas, not through words. Ideas are above any language, above the words,
 
This is because the aforementioned conciliar document called for the inclusion of the vernacular in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
Not quite. It allowed for it (as had the Council of Trent, if you want to be technical about it) but it certainly didn’t force a Latinless liturgy.

Let’s review that part of the SC document:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
  1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.
Click to expand...
My comment is this: as the sermons had already been in the vernacular, where in the more literate and already Catholic-established countries has the mother tongue in the liturgy been of greater advantage than Latin? Where would we even be today if we didn’t have the Sunday obligation and communion? Even so, today the largest denomination in the US is/are ex-Catholics and over 1,000 Catholics in Mexico are leaving the church DAILY. While it’s certainly welcome to hear of a few vernacular converts in Asia and Africa, people leaving the Church should be a major concern, I would think.
 
ProVobis said:
Not quite. It allowed for it (as had the Council of Trent, if you want to be technical about it) but it certainly didn’t force a Latinless liturgy.

Let’s review that part of the SC document:

My comment is this: as the sermons had already been in the vernacular, where in the more literate and already Catholic-established countries has the mother tongue in the liturgy been of greater advantage than Latin? Where would we even be today if we didn’t have the Sunday obligation and communion? Even so, today the largest denomination in the US is/are ex-Catholics and over 1,000 Catholics in Mexico are leaving the church DAILY. While it’s certainly welcome to hear of a few vernacular converts in Asia and Africa, people leaving the Church should be a major concern, I would think.
Click to expand...
Try this…read my whole post. Perhaps then you will see that I made no suggestion for a Latinless Liturgy. And since the council did allow for the vernacular: STOP CAMPLINING ABOUT IT! The use of the vernacular has been approved by the Church, so I guess your call for an exclusive Latin Liturgy, with no vernacular at all, isn’t really in line with the Magisterium, is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top