Is Latin superior than other languages?

[InquisitorMax]

Re: noisy Vatican mass: It might just be because they’re Italians. I remember reading a biography of Padre Pio, I think, and I think I recall the congregation was noisy.

A relative mentioned to me that she was in a Polish church and a nun told people to ‘shush’. Or it was just a recording piped in over the sound-system. Every few minutes: “Sssshhh”. She said it worked.

Also, I think it could be the psychological effect of crowds in a very big building. They guys at the back think they can chat away. They’re kind of hidden or far enough away from retribution or the main action.

 

[JReducation]

Re: noisy Vatican mass: It might just be because they’re Italians. I remember reading a biography of Padre Pio, I think, and I think I recall the congregation was noisy.

LOL, there may be something to that too. Latins tend to be noisy. You get three in a room and it sounds like a debate on the senate floor. Hispanics, Italians, and Romanians are the loudest of the Latins that I met while in Europe. The French and Portuguese are Latins too; but they are not as loud. If you really want to see noise and excitement at mass you have to be in two places, Assisi on October 4 and Padua on June 13. On Oct 3rd, Assisi is in morning. That’s the night that St. Francis died. They celebrate the Transitus that night. For those who don’t know, the Transitus is the Franciscan version of the Good Friday liturgy. The story of the passing of St. Francis is read, the Gospel of John and his relics are venerated. Everyone files out in solemn silence. On the morning of Oct 4 is Francis’ entrance into glory. That’s a loud mass. The liturgy is beautiful and the excitement is contagious. If you’re looking for a quiet mass, that’s not the one to go to.

A relative mentioned to me that she was in a Polish church and a nun told people to ‘shush’. Or it was just a recording piped in over the sound-system. Every few minutes: “Sssshhh”. She said it worked.

Now that would be something worth hearing . . . a piped in Shhhshh

Also, I think it could be the psychological effect of crowds in a very big building. They guys at the back think they can chat away. They’re kind of hidden or far enough away from retribution or the main action.

At St. Peter’s I know that it’s slightly encouraged by the house staff. As the Pontiff is walking toward the door, at the end of mass, they begin the applause and the cheering. Then everyone perks up. The problem is that because they often have use metal folding chairs, those chairs are noisy and people push them out of their way to get a closer look at the Holy Father or they stand on them. So now you have the noisy chairs, the cheering, the clapping and the choir all going at the same time. Nonetheless, it’s worth every minute of it, just to attend a mass celebrated by the Pontiff. My last one there was December 24 at midnight. I loved it.;

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gregory_I]

I never said otherwise, but I do not believe in dumbing down the faith. Limiting it in such away results in poor catechesis. I guess rote memorization id fine for those who never progress past infant’s milk. But at some point you need to get to the meat.

ROte memorization can be a knife’s edge between spiritual life and death.

SUppose a Child was made to memorize a catechism by rote.

SUppose they go to college and are confronted with the idiotic existential arguments: WHo are you? Where did you come from? Why were you made?

Without batting an eyelash, this kid could say: God made me to love and serve him in this world and be happy with him forever in the next.

THat is enough to throw off the chains of heresy. Besides, faith is a gift, and our progression in it is a gift, it is entirely the grace of God working in us to will to go deeper. YOu can’t intellectualize yourself into faith, I learned that one.

If a person really cares about their faith, they will seek to know it. The guilty will choose to remain ignorant, and justice will be manifest in the end.

 

[StTommyMore]

ROte memorization can be a knife’s edge between spiritual life and death.

SUppose a Child was made to memorize a catechism by rote.

SUppose they go to college and are confronted with the idiotic existential arguments: WHo are you? Where did you come from? Why were you made?

Without batting an eyelash, this kid could say: God made me to love and serve him in this world and be happy with him forever in the next.

THat is enough to throw off the chains of heresy. Besides, faith is a gift, and our progression in it is a gift, it is entirely the grace of God working in us to will to go deeper. YOu can’t intellectualize yourself into faith, I learned that one.

If a person really cares about their faith, they will seek to know it. The guilty will choose to remain ignorant, and justice will be manifest in the end.

Memorization engages the intellect, but not the heart.

 

[Gregory_I]

THere’s no other way to learn though. ALl acts of learning are acts of memorization. Is all learning cheerless and heartless?

 

[JReducation]

THere’s no other way to learn though. ALl acts of learning are acts of memorization. Is all learning cheerless and heartless?

Having been an educator my whole life, I’ll have to disagree on this point. Memorization is part of all learning, but not the other way around. Memorization is the first step toward learning.

I remember when I was studying for my Bar Mitzvah. I had to memorize certain pieces of scripture. I didn’t learn anything about the Jewish faith from that process. I learned a piece of scripture. My knowledge of the faith came from experience.

Long before I became a Catholic I had a lot of information memorized. I learned by Catholic faith from my experience of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars. Their life, their love for their founder, their fidelity and their charity taught me the meaning of all those Catholic formulas.

This experience is what brought me into the Catholic Church and later motivated me to become a friar. The formulas didn’t do much for me.

I am reminded of Edith Stein. She too had the formulas, Christian and Jewish. Yet, she was an agnostic. It was reading the works of Teresa of Avila that helped her to learn the faith. When she finished reading Teresa’s Way of Perfection, Edith closed it and said, “This is truth.”
Looking at Teresa’s life and the fruit of her life gave meaning to the formulas.

I don’t think that memorization is the whole of learning. It’s only the first step.

I remember teaching theology to our novices and asking that question, “Why did God make you?” A novice gave me the Baltimore Catechism answer. When I challenged him to prove it using a coherent argument that did not involve a summary statement, he could not do so. As the year of novitiate progressed and he read more from the writings of Francis, Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Clare of Assisi, Leonard of Port Maurice and the other Franciscan Masters, he finally came back with a explanation for that statement, “God made me to love him, . . . etc” that was rooted in human experience and able to transfer from a concept to a way of life. I remember when he came to me and said, “I think I have the answer.” I gently encouraged him to tell me.

He said, “God made me to follow the Lord Jesus Christ by walking in the footsteps of our Holy Father St. Francis, living in absolute obedience, without property, so as to be free to bind myself to my brothers in a fraternity of love where God is central to our daily existence as is evidenced by our life of prayer, consecrated chastity and service to the Church.” Over the year, he had thought about the Baltimore Catechism summary statement and looked for its expression in his daily life. Once he found it, he then proceeded to organize it into language so that he could explain it. Real learning happens when you can connect the dots between the summary and your daily life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

A good dictionary is also needed, even if you think you already know the definition. And illustrations go a long way. There is a lot of truth to a picture being worth a thousand words.

 

[Genovefa]

Such an interesting thread!! I am new to this forum and am loving all this thoughtful discussion.

I personally can’t speak to anything regarding the Latin Mass. But I am an English teacher and in college I had an Anglican professor (secular university) for my History of the English Language course. I ended up writing a paper that traced the etymology of Tyndale’s English translation of The Beatitudes. My thesis was that up until that point, English just didn’t have the necessary vocabulary to communicate the concepts expressed in the Beatitudes.

For instance, you will find that prior to the early Renaissance, English did not have words for blessed and spirit. The closest they could come were “blood” and “espire” These two words gradually became “blessed” and “spirit”.

To put it simply, it took years of church influence for English to obtain the vocabulary even necessary to communicate the Gospel adequately. So, Latin (a far richer language) had to be used if only for this reason.

So, I can imagine the concern that the church had when the Bible began appearing in English. They probably feared that it would not be adequately translated or corrupted due to a lack of available English vocabulary. And, of course, several people lost their lives over that one. It wasn’t until King James "Authorized’ and English translation that people began to relax.

Anyway…so yeah, I believe that at one time Latin was a superior language. I don’t know if it still is, but I do know that English is a far better language than it used to be.

 

[ProVobis]

Anyway…so yeah, I believe that at one time Latin was a superior a language. I don’t know if it still is, but I do know that English is a far better language than it was.

I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with you but why do you think that? I’m curious. Many think Elizabethan English (with the Thees and Thous and possibly having fewer monophones) was far superior to 2011 English, which they predict will morph into Panglish within 100 years.

And let’s suppose there is no equal to Shakespeare. How can the translation of his works into Polish, for example, preserve their original meaning and beauty? Can a Polish-only speaker truly say he can understand Shakespeare by reading a translation?

 

[Genovefa]

By Elizabethan times, English had won its place among the great languages of the world. This was about the same time that you first have English translations of the Bible as well. My point was that prior to this, during the Anglo-Saxon and Middle English periods, English was a far different language than it is today. There was just not the vocabulary in the language to support the church’s teachings.

They closest they had to “blessed” was "blood’…which I actually think is a pretty cool connection.

Shakespearean English is Modern English, which is quite a rich language indeed.

And I agree, you certainly would not be able to translate Shakespeare and retain all his layered meanings. That is why I strongly oppose any of my students reading what I can “cheater” Shakespeare (“translated” into 2011 English).

I imagine some of the same thing happens when one translated the Bible from Hebrew/Greek into English. Certainly Latin was more capable of doing that in the first centuries of the church.

 

[ProVobis]

There was just not the vocabulary in the language to support the church’s teachings.

I’ll have to agree with you there. And it’s more than just the vocabulary, where multiple meanings can exist for almost each word. It’s also the thought flow (sentence structure) that’s difficult to capture from the Latin. Words have to be added or discared to make sense, even if it they have to distort the original meaning. When all is taken into account, perhaps 20-50% of the Latin/church meaning/culture/thought/beauty is lost in any translation. Sure it’s still the substance but it’s somewhat diluted, even if the translation is honest.

Latin was more capable of doing that in the first centuries of the church.

Perhaps where Latin (and I’d include some Eastern languages here as well) have a big advantage is that basically the scholars are keeping it/them alive. It’s not a national tongue so national superiority can’t be achieved by using it. Mathematics, anatomy, law, and science are like this too. The illiterates and half-literates aren’t much motivated in changing the meanings because it isn’t natural to them. So in a way it’s good that very few see Latin the way they see their more changing secular languages. But then perhaps God designed it that way.

 

[Genovefa]

And along the same lines, Latin might have a disadvantage because it isn’t changing much. But that could a plus too.

It is interesting to think about.

 

[JReducation]

And along the same lines, Latin might have a disadvantage because it isn’t changing much. But that could a plus too.

It is interesting to think about.

I think that the advantage to Latin is that it’s not changing. The disadvantage is also that it is not changing.

The advantage is that one can express concepts that have been around in their original language, without having to search for the right word. It’s there.

The disadvantage is that newer thoughts, even thoughts about ancient ideas and concepts, are processed in our language today. In other words, we think in our own language. Some of the wording and structure in our language does not exist in the ancient languages.

In the end, there is always going to be a challenge going from the older to the newer language or the other way around.

When I was going to school for my theology degree, my major was Mystical Theology. I wanted to write my dissertation on the Poverty of Francis of Assisi and It’s Influence in Teresian Detachment. It was very difficult, because Francis wrote in very bad Latin and a very primitive form of Italian. Teresa wrote in 16th century Spanish. I did finish the dissertation, but the reading and translating to modern Italian was a horrific exercise. I had to write it in Italian, because I was studying at one of the Pontifical schools in Rome and they require that you write everything in Italian. Latin is no longer the official language of the pontifical universities. They use Italian. Imagine, thinking in English, reading bad Latin, Spanish and old Italian and trying to analyze and express ideas in modern Italian.

Part of what makes translating and studying a work easier is when you can think in the language of the work. Most of us do not think in Latin, even when we know it. We process information in our own language or if you’re very experienced in another language, such as when you live in another country, you may be able to think in that language. The point is that when you think in a language, you not only comprehend the words, but you also comprehend the mindset that goes with it. This is what has made the translation of hte mass into English a challenge. The translations into the Romance languages are more faithful. People think that it’s because they belong to the same family. That’s only part of the truth. The other part of this is that these cultures share a common heritage, even if they speak four different modern languages. They share many life experiences with the original wirters. They understand not only the word, but it’s nuance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF