Is Latin superior to the venacular?

[Brendan]

(Trent said that it did not seem prudential at that time to switch to the vernacular, but Trent did not preclude the Church from allowing the Mass in the vernacular in the future).

I think you misuderstand Trent. The anathema (which would be infallible and universal), condems those who hold that the Mass should be in the vernacular ONLY.

This anathema does not prevent the Church from promulgating a vernacular Mass, only that the Mass will be normative in the Sacred Languages.

The biggest risk of this anathema actually falls to bishops who attempt to prohibit the normative (Latin) Mass from being said (or perhaps a pastor who attempts to prohibit his associate from saying the normative (N.O.) Mass in Latin). This is also reenforced in that they would also incur the Sin of Disobedience.

The only affect towards the laity would be those who claim that the Latin Mass is no longer Valid.

 

[rr1213]

Latin is the language of the Western Church, the Mass for centuries has been said in Latin and all official documents are in Latin. So yes, in a sense it is a ‘holy’ language and superior to the vernacular.

Absolutely. In fact, the Scripture readings, Homily and Announcements should be in Latin also.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think you misuderstand Trent. The anathema (which would be infallible and universal), condems those who hold that the Mass should be in the vernacular ONLY.

This anathema does not prevent the Church from promulgating a vernacular Mass, only that the Mass will be normative in the Sacred Languages.

The biggest risk of this anathema actually falls to bishops who attempt to prohibit the normative (Latin) Mass from being said (or perhaps a pastor who attempts to prohibit his associate from saying the normative (N.O.) Mass in Latin). This is also reenforced in that they would also incur the Sin of Disobedience.

The only affect towards the laity would be those who claim that the Latin Mass is no longer Valid.

I don’t question any of the above at all, Brendan. My claim is simply that Trent didn’t preclude the Church in the future from allowing the vernacular Mass nor did it preclude anyone from expressing the hope that the Mass might be in the vernacular.

 

[AlexV]

Again, fantasy, reality.

The REALITY is that Latin has been all but banned in huge swaths of the Roman Rite.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Again, fantasy, reality.

The REALITY is that Latin has been all but banned in huge swaths of the Roman Rite.

And that’s wrong, it shouldn’t be.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t question any of the above at all, Brendan. My claim is simply that Trent didn’t preclude the Church in the future from allowing the vernacular Mass nor did it preclude anyone from expressing the hope that the Mass might be in the vernacular.

Your statement carried the implication that the teaching of Trent was meant only for that particular time. “Trent said that it did not seem prudential at that time to switch to the vernacular,”

That would be an incorrect reading of an anathema.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Your statement carried the implication that the teaching of Trent was meant only for that particular time. “Trent said that it did not seem prudential at that time to switch to the vernacular,”

That would be an incorrect reading of an anathema.

I regret not being more clear.

 

[johnnykins]

Again, fantasy, reality.

The REALITY is that Latin has been all but banned in huge swaths of the Roman Rite.

It’s not been “banned” at all. Any priest can say the NO Mass in Latin at any time. What is true is that it’s not said in Latin - in whole or in part - with any significant regularity.

 

[AJV]

The fact that those 3 languages were affixed to the very instrument of our redemption does indeed make them sacred. They are known, and have been known, as sacral languages down through the centuries.

You prefer the vernacular? Good. Go tell your bishops to translate that Breviary that’s now 20+ years out of date, or the 1974 Missal texts that are still used 30+ years later…go fix your vernacular mess, in other words.

People can argue for Latin on the basis of it not being subject to change or a dead language, but saying that it is holier because it was on the cross ……… Wouldn’t it be better to recite the words of consecration in the language Christ Himself used at the Last Supper at its Institution?

This three language thing is a very interesting one, because it played a very great part in the early controversies as I mentioned on another thread on the same topic with regard to Cyril and Methodius. It was condemned in A.D. 794 and again in AD 815 by various synods (mind you, they kept the Latin liturgy). Equally though it was proposed by many- St. Isidore for one:

The sacred languages are three: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and are the most distinguished throughout the whole earth. For it was in these languages that Pilate wrote the Lord’s legal case on the cross. Thence, it is also because of the obscurity of the Ηοly Scriptures that a knowledge of these three languages is necessary, so that one can refer to the others when the text of one language gives rise to doubt about a name or a translation.

Yet Greek is considered an especially splendid language among the rest of the nations. For it is more resonant than Latin and all other languages. Its variety is divided into five components: first, the ΚOINH, i.e., “mixed” or “common,” which everyone uses; second, the Attic, namely, the language of Athens, which all Greek authors have used; third, the Doric, which the Egyptians and Syrians have; fourth, the Ionic; and fifth, the Aeolic. … There are several distinguishing characteristics in the observation of the Greek languages; their language is thus divided

and also found favour in Middle Ages in mystical commentaries on the Mass. But it should be noted that no Pope after John VIII in denying permission for the vernacular ever used this argument. St. Cyril polemically referred to it as the “three language heresy” and you can find his writings in Lavrov’s book. As I had posted in the other thread, John VIII addressed the 3 language argument in his letter:

We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language [for we are moved by sacred authority to praise the Lord, not in 3 languages only, but in every tongue according to the tenor of the precept "*Praise ye the Lord all you nations and laud him all you peoples

". And the Apostles full of the Holy Spirit spoke in all languages the wonderful works of God. Hence Paul when blowing the celestial trumpet teaches us that that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Of this too, he admonishes us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians that speaking with tongues we ought to edify the Church. Nor is it in anywise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory

Hebrew gets barely a passing mention in the Mass at the Sanctus. Barely a few words. (Alleluia doesn’t count because it is Latinised from Hallelujah.) Even Greek is restricted typically limited to the Kyrie and Holy Week

If people really want to observe the new saints feasts (not to say that they can’t because propers are typically limited to a closing prayer and the hagiographic reading) or say the correct Magnificat antiphons every 2 out of 3 years, etc. they can definitely go and read the Latin in the Liturgia Horarum. The fact that they are praying in an intrinsically sacred language would doubtless be good, no?

 

[AlexV]

No excuse for not translating liturgical texts after 20+ years. None whatsoever.

 

[rwoehmke]

Latin IS superior for expressing doctrinal, theological complexities. That’s something any linguist will tell you. Latin doesn’t change, so we don’t have to have tedious “for all/for many” debates all the time. Latin avoids the bloody strife language can cause in some countries (in Belgium, it famously united Catholics of both Dutch and French persuasions).

Finally, Latin…along with the 2 other languages of the Rite (Hebrew, Greek) was a language pinned to the Cross. Because of the Cross, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew ARE inherently more sacred languages, and the Church has always esteemed them as such…until She learned better about everything in c. 1965.

Hence, a sacral language. The traditional Roman Rite has daily words from Latin, Greek (Kyrie, eleison), Hebrew (Alleluia, Amen, Sabaoth).

It had always bothered me that Latin seemed to be preferred by many. It has occurred to me, however, that in science and in measurements there is always a “standard”; something unchangable and constant which can be refered back to and used to “standardize” ones means of measuring. Having all the basic documentation in Latin leaves us with a standard to refer to when questions arise about translations into the vernacular, particularly when the vernacular is a language that continues to evolve. One can always go back and determine if perhaps a new or better translation might be needed. Latin may not be superior in direct communication between individuals in a particular country, but it is very useful.

Aside from that there is a certain beauty to the sung Latin in our history. One does not need to understand it to enjoy it as it pleasantly tickles ones ears.

 

[mercygate]

Latin is the vernacular of the 5th Century. So the Latin Mass was originally the vernacular Mass: a vulgar upstart of a liturgy.

Latin inherently more sacred? Nah.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important, and as others have noted, stabilizing. Latin IS still the official language of the Mass and the official language of the Vatican State.

I’m teaching my 6th grade CCD class the Pater Noster, Ave Maria and Gloria Patri in Latin. We would all do well to know the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin.

 

[rr1213]

Latin is the vernacular of the 5th Century. So the Latin Mass was originally the vernacular Mass: a vulgar upstart of a liturgy.

Latin inherently more sacred? Nah.

Exactly. Just like most of the Scriptures were written in the vernacular for their time as well…the language of the Hellenistic World…Greek.

Geez, Mercygate, you almost sound like a Reformation Protestant here. Sure that your Anglican roots aren’t showing?

 

[mercygate]

Exactly. Just like most of the Scriptures were written in the vernacular for their time as well…the language of the Hellenistic World…Greek.

Geez, Mercygate, you almost sound like a Reformation Protestant here. Sure that your Anglican roots aren’t showing?

Heh, heh. Why shouldn’t my Anglican roots show? Nobody ever told me I should cashier the part of my Anglican heritage that was truly Catholic (except for a couple of nouvelle catholique types who think JP-2 & B-16 are too catholic for the Catholic Church). Heck. I learned ALL of my liturgical Latin and my Gregorian chant singing in Episcopal Church choirs.

 

[AlexV]

There’s a huge difference. In the fifth century, the entire civilized Western world considered Latin a lingua franca. Latin had a universal resonance. It was also quickly becoming not the vernacular but the language that tied the world to the tradition of ancient Rome: as the empire fell in the fifth century, and languages started to branch off of Latin, Latin remained stable for a long list of duties.

 

[kleary]

Greetings,

Does anyone here know of any papal documents (or whatever else) which hold Latin in a higher esteem than the venacular? I’ve heard arguments for and against this but I’m curious to know what the church hierarchy have to say about it. A friend of mine said to me that Latin is no longer necessary in the modern church, and that, intrinsicly, it isn’t any more holy or superior than the vencular. Any thoughts?

Pax Tecum,
Rocco

Any “dead language” is superior to a living language because a living language changes over time. A dead language does not change".

Example-

100 years ago if you asked someone “What’s up?” they would look up and say, “clouds, sun, sky- oh look an airplane!” Now if you say that today you would get a totally different answer.

Or, if you said the word “aint”- well that was not a word back then so anyone hearing you say that would wonder what you were saying- until most recently, “Ain’t ain’t a word because it ain’t in the dictionary” sister Irma told our class (however it is today!)

200 years ago if you asked someone, “Would you like a hot dog?” they would look at you like you were crazy.

And if you do not think it is necessary “due to the modern world” you just try travelling abroad- I have been to Romania and the Phillipines- and oh how I wish the language of the Mass was still Latin- of so I would have felt right at home.

Imagine going to any country in the world and having the language of the Mass being the same- everywhere- all in Latin in every Catholic Church everywhere in the world. you would feel pretty much united with those in the foreign country now wouldn’t you?

Ken

 

[mosher]

You do go on about the Breviary, Alex.

The fact that those three langauge were affixed to the very instrument of our redemption does NOT make them sacred, any more than writing the Holy Name of Jesus in Sanskrit renders Sanskrit a sacred language.

Latin is sacred because we imbue it with sacredness and because it’s been used to write and talk about sacred things. God hasn’t imbued it with sacredness. It was simply the language of the Empire into which Christ was born, died, rose again, and ascended back to the father.

I would have to disagree with the reasoning here. This is like saying that Mary isn’t special because any young Hebrew woman could have been chosen. However the reality is what it is. I had never considered this point but it is compelling to me. However I would say that it is a total of 4 languages and not only 3 (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and Latin).

Also, as a person who is quite attached to the Liturgy of the Hours it also pains me that it has not been properly re-translated as of yet.

Also Sacredness is not something that is applied to something by designating it Sacred by the work of man but rather it is intrinsic to it or has been given that character by Divine Decree. We only recognize that sacredness.

Latin is the vernacular of the 5th Century. So the Latin Mass was originally the vernacular Mass: a vulgar upstart of a liturgy.

Latin inherently more sacred? Nah.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important, and as others have noted, stabilizing. Latin IS still the official language of the Mass and the official language of the Vatican State.

I’m teaching my 6th grade CCD class the Pater Noster, Ave Maria and Gloria Patri in Latin. We would all do well to know the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin.

I agree that we should all know the basic liturgical and para-liturgical usages of Latin as is emphasized by the Church. However, I think to simply say that Mass was put into the Latin as it was the vernacular of the day is to minimalize the historical context of why it was put into that form. The formal movement of Latin as the common form of the liturgy found its genesis with the reforms of Constantine in the 4th century when he ordered the codification of the liturgy. While this liturgical unity quickly broke-up into the more natural liturgical pluralism in the Western Church what did remain was the use of Latin as the language that united all the various Rites in the Western Church. I find it interesting that this was the only thing that remained of his reforms. It seems that Latin has an intrinsic dignity that makes it naturally suitable to worship. This may find its root in the opinion that was pointed out that it was one of the languages that was found within the context of Sacred Scripture (limited but there). As a lay musician there also seems to be an internal dignity to Latin that disposes it to being sung more so than its children languages or even others. I also find it interesting that learning Latin also assists a person to think in an ordered manner which is a characteristic that is not often found in other languages. In fact linguistically speaking it is a superior language in many respects and especially in the transmission of philosophy and theology.

 

[Brendan]

Imagine going to any country in the world and having the language of the Mass being the same- everywhere- all in Latin in every Catholic Church everywhere in the world. you would feel pretty much united with those in the foreign country now wouldn’t you?

Ken

Been there, done that.

I used to travel internationally for work. I would usually seek out the local Latin (NO) Mass on Sundays.

I could understand, follow and respond and that was very comforting (didn’t get too much out of the homilies though )

A lot of cities seem to go out of their way to be inhospitiable to traverlers like myself and only offer the local vernacular.

Not exactly a Christian way to treat a foreigner.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Absolutely. In fact, the Scripture readings, Homily and Announcements should be in Latin also.

HOMILY? IN LATIN? That seems a little crazy… especially with consideration to the amount of latin knowledge in the pews… its one thing for prayers and chants to be in latin but the homily? That should remina vernacular for sure. Its mean to steer and shepard the people on the Word of God just pronounced, is it not?

 

[BobP123]

HOMILY? IN LATIN? That seems a little crazy… especially with consideration to the amount of latin knowledge in the pews… its one thing for prayers and chants to be in latin but the homily? That should remina vernacular for sure. Its mean to steer and shepard the people on the Word of God just pronounced, is it not?

Mean? It sounds like a good motivation to learn some Latin to me.