Latin and You. Wherein Fr. Z Rants

[babochka]

I have to say that I think people either skimmed the article, are just responding to posts, or whatever, but the main thrust of the matter was that Catholic priests in the Latin rite, who outright vow (i.e. swear to) being ‘fluent in Latin’ when they take their vows or professions, are NOT fluent and are in danger thereby of losing a very important dimension and part of their patrimony. And this affects not just them, but the rest of us as well.

Did you and I read the same article? I did not consider that to be the main thrust of the article.

The main point of the article is that the retention of Latin is critical to the identity of Latin Rite Catholics.

The following is all that I could find regarding your point, but it does not say that priests need to be fluent in Latin nor does it say that individual priests take a vow to that effect. Frankly, this gives the impression that priests are habitually lying regarding their Latin skills.

First, there is the matter of ordinations to the priesthood. During the rite of ordination, someone stands up and attests before God and man that the ordinands are properly formed. However, 1983 CIC can. 249 requires – it does not suggest – that all those to be ordained be very well skilled in Latin. But they aren’t. So, the person making the attestation is not telling the truth, at least on that point. A small point? NO! It’s not a small point. Language is central to who we are in every sphere of life. So, language is important in the Church.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Forget Latin unless you are a historian or theologian or professional liturgist. We are better off. Studying Koine Greek if we have the where with all.

 

[stpurl]

Oh really? You mean in a home, reclining at table, and with the services corresponding in many ways to those of the Jewish people --the people whose priests were all male, who wore costly vestments, used a sacred language, and had an elaborately stylized ritual of worship with particular attention paid to the sacredness of God?

 

[stpurl]

Source please.

 

[stpurl]

Why don’t you ask him? Where did he ever say or imply that this should be done? Do you think you know more about the Mass than a Catholic priest does?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’ve sung in or accompanied Latin oratorios.

I’m jealous, most of the ones I find are usually Italian or German. I was looking at Handel’s Susanna and I couldn’t figure out some parts and it was in English. I’m hoping to translate the librettos into Latin one day so the texts will look cleaner.

 

[FOG]

Why don’t you ask him? Where did he ever say or imply that this should be done? Do you think you know more about the Mass than a Catholic priest does?

Calm yourself. It’s known as a rhetorical question.

 

[stpurl]

Calm yourself, please. If I were upset, I would have ‘bolded’.

 

[dochawk]

The Greeks, not being fluent in Latin and not understanding its syntactical differences, assumed that the Latins were implying that the Spirit was somehow created by the Father.

A better explanation would be ht the Latins, not having an inadequate understanding of Greek, made an inappropriate translation.

A competent translation would have qualified the latin verb for each object, rather than just adding an object. (and this begs the question of the appropriateness of such a unilateral change to the creed in the first place . . .)

The Latins tried to explain this, but it fell on deaf ears.

The greeks tried to explain this to the Latins, which fell on deaf ears . …

 

[Emeraldlady]

Source please.

In 155AD Justin Martyr in his First Apology, a letter to the Roman Emperor correcting lies going around about what Christians were doing, describes the early Mass this way.

“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

It describes an interactive dialogue between assembled brethren, leader and deacons “offering hearty prayers in common” and then “we salute one another with a kiss” before the Eucharistic prayers and communion.

 

[FiveLinden]

He did not say the LITURGY had Latin for the original language.

Are you saying that is not what he meant by those words? What else could he possibly have meant? He is arguing about the use of Latin in the liturgy. It’s the topic of discussion. He makes a claim about the original language? Could we say he was discussing his tropical fish? The Epistle of Clement? Why the Pope (old one) wears red shoes? Of course not. He was talking about what he was talking about. Latin. He was wrong. His enthusiasm overcame what he undoubtably already knew -that the Latin Mass is itself a translation of written material, interpreted from memories of earlier spoke words. He can have any opinion he like about Latin as far as I am concerned, but he should stick to facts.

 

[stpurl]

Could you please not chop a snippet of a post simply because you feel he ‘must have meant the liturgy was originally in Latin’? I’m not trying to tell you what ‘you mean’, why do you insist on saying Father Z said ‘Latin is the original language of the liturgy’ when he said no such thing?

 

[stpurl]

I think you must have been confused. When I asked for “source please” it was in reference to Jim’s post of this Because Jews of that time generally spoke the words if prayer in the Temple and Synagogues, not chant as something closer to Gregorian Chant only in Hebrew, That didn’t happen

Jim

So I really don’t know why you repeated an earlier post which had nothing to do with my request for a source.

 

[Bonaventurian]

As a parishioner of his, he can be quite severe at times. He’s scolded us for not responding loud enough in the Mass, and you can see him get visibly frustrated when people make errors in the liturgy. He’s a good priest, but his zeal for the Latin Mass is very apparent in person too.

 

[stpurl]

So yes, I am saying that what you posted is not what he meant. The overall tone that I sense from the somewhat over the top rhetoric and the judgmental attitude of your post surprises me; I would have thought a lay Catholic even if he disagrees with a priest would be more respectful, especially since there have been so many condemnations of people who supposedly are disrespectful to, oh let’s say Father James Martin, in their remarks about him.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Fuerza:

priest’s saying that Jesus spoke Latin, I cant’s say what he was thinking, but I doubt there are many who actually believe this

There have actually been three priests mention this. I only spoke to one about it. He insists that Jesus did indeed speak Latin. He bases this on The Passion of the Christ…

LOL - he bases this on a film.
I don’t need a Mel Gibson movie to confirm that Jesus is omniscient.

Forget about speaking Latin.
Jesus knows what Latin speakers are thinking.

 

[13pollitos]

I am sorry to hear this.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think you must have been confused. When I asked for “source please” it was in reference to Jim’s post of this Because Jews of that time generally spoke the words if prayer in the Temple and Synagogues, not chant as something closer to Gregorian Chant only in Hebrew, That didn’t happen

Jim

So I really don’t know why you repeated an earlier post which had nothing to do with my request for a source.

Modus tollens. It is legitimate to prove a negative by providing evidence of absence. Hence we can conclude that chanting did not form an important part of the early liturgy because it wasn’t described by the early Fathers like Justin Martyr in their accounts.

It’s now incumbent on you to prove otherwise.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

No, the only language that will protect the faith and the faithful is the language called Love!

So who decides the language of “Love!”? We can plainly see today that the language of “Love!” changes with the culture, so we need the Church, which happens to have Latin as it’s official language, to guide us in what the language of love really is. Unchanging Latin, at least which should be known by our priests, keeps the Church from following the fads of the culture.

He honestly believes that Latin is “Jesus’s language” and “the Language of God”.

You’ll have to show in the article where he says that, though Latin is the official language of the Church and we do call the Church, “Holy Mother Church”.

It’s closer, in that it’s in the vernacular with a free standing altar and the laity can participate in serving as EMHC’s and Lectors.

Do you think they sang Gregorian Chant back in the first century of Christianity ?

There may have been a free standing altars but they still all did their best to face East, the priest was ad orientem, lectors were a minor order not for women and it was due to the Church’s understanding of the True Presence that the priest came to be the only one to handle the Host.

They certainly didn’t sing anything like songs from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Early Christians sang psalms in responsorial and antiphonal chant and yes then Gregorian Chant.

 

[FOG]

So who decides the language of “Love!”?

I think God does, but some might say Father Z does.