Latin and You. Wherein Fr. Z Rants

[stpurl]

Father Z did not claim that the ‘original language was Latin’, though.

I call strawman here.

 

[FOG]

For the benefit of Father Z, I’ll reference the Clementine Vulgate:

Galations 3:28:
Non est Judæus, neque Græcus: non est servus, neque liber: non est masculus, neque femina. Omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Jesu.

(There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.)

I guess we could add “Roman nor Coptic, nor Eritrean, nor Ethiopian, nor Maronite, nor Syrian, nor Syro-Malankara, nor Armenian, nor Albanian Greek, nor Belarusian Greek, nor Serbian, nor Croatian, nor Greek Byzantine, nor Hungarian Greek, nor Italo-Albanian, nor Macedonian Greek, nor Melkite Greek, nor Romanian Greek, nor Russian Byzantine, nor Ruthenian, nor Slovak Greek, nor Ukrainian Greek, nor Chaldean, nor Syro-Malabar” (I think I got all churches in Communion with Rome).

I think Father Z might be just a tad off the mark!

 

[OraLabora]

But his point is that we are the Latin Rite, not Hebrew or Greek Rite. And the Latin goes all the back to Cicero.

Perhaps we have outgrown being the “Latin” Church and it would be more accurate to say we are the Western Church? Or even the World Church? Especially now that the Anglican-use has been admitted to the “Latin” Church. Eventually other cultures will start to permeate into the practices of the Church, and that includes language.

In any event I feel that those of us using Latin-derived languages (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French) can still lay claim to upholding the “Latin” Church!

I don’t think that Fr. Z is unaware that many prayers and texts were translated into Latin from other languages. The fact that not all Catholic writings were originally in Latin does not mean that the language does not have high value though.

I’m sure he is aware, but conveniently leaves it out…

Of course Latin has high value in the Church. A huge patrimony of work, especially music, in Latin has been accumulated over the years. It is important to preserve it. But sometimes I think people like Fr. Z border on idolatry of the language. And I say this as someone who chants the Divine Office in Latin every day. It helps me stay in tune for our Gregorian schola, but also acts as a sort of meditative tool in the Office so I can tune out the world and better absorb the psalm/reading in French, my mother tongue; I use an antiphonary that has Latin and French side-by-side. Latin was simply the lingua franca of the day. It isn’t even in day-to-day use at the Vatican anymore, business is conducted in Italian.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Very well Fr. Let us be Latin Rite Catholics using a pure Latin Rite, not an Ecclesiastical Latin Rite which is bastardised from the Latin language. Want to be a purist - go for it. Every Missal will need to be re-written.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Going to be unpopular probably saying this but Fr Z would be better off getting from behind his computer and Amazon wish list and finding somewhere he can actually minister to people (and not just those who want to go back to pre VII days).

 

[stpurl]

Whoa.
As I pointed out earlier, a lot of people who didn’t bother to read the entire article seem to think Father Z is ignorant of the history of the Church, or is 'trying to bring people 'back to pre Vatican 2", etc. etc.

He isn’t.

And if you don’t care for reading him. . .don’t. But don’t make rather offensive judgments over what you ‘think’ he should be doing ‘instead’. He has a superior who seems perfectly satisfied with what he is doing, why not let his supervisor determine what Father Z ‘should do?’

 

[OraLabora]

Very well Fr. Let us be Latin Rite Catholics using a pure Latin Rite, not an Ecclesiastical Latin Rite which is bastardised from the Latin language. Want to be a purist - go for it. Every Missal will need to be re-written.

Don’t give the Vatican ideas! Actually they actually tried this; according to some liturgical nerds I know, the Vatican wanted Solesmes to change all of the antiphons and biblical texts from the Vulgate to the Neo-Vulgate. Fortunately nothing ever came of it. Virtually all of Gregorian chant would have to be re-written, and many melodies reworked to make them fit. It would be a Herculean task that would take until the Second Coming to complete.

He has a superior who seems perfectly satisfied with what he is doing, why not let his supervisor determine what Father Z ‘should do?’

In which diocese is he incarnated? Or is he religious?

 

[ProVobis]

I’m sure there are some documents written in Italian, French English, Polish etc. But certainly they don’t expect these to be understood two thousand years from now. Heck Shakespeare is not that easy to read as it once was.

 

[FiveLinden]

Father Z did not claim that the ‘original language was Latin’, though.

I call strawman here

Indeed those were his very words. Read the link.“For your Cult, Code and Creed, you are enslaved to translations, which do not provide the riches of the original content”.

 

[AngelusDomini]

I have read enough of Fr Z’s articles in print and online to make this judgement. I still read his pieces just to see how out of touch he still is. To be honest any priest who has a begging list (amazon wish list) which he keeps pushing whilst travelling to lovely locations in Europe needs a kick up the backside and a reality check.

 

[ProVobis]

Bastardized? What are you talking about? The Church has Christianized the language creating words such as gratia for grace. The grammar has basically been the same since Cicero.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Ecclesiastical Latin is different from Classic Latin. Those with an education in Classic Latin even find it difficult to follow the Latin Mass as it’s like a different dialect.

 

[AngelusDomini]

From ewtn.com
‘Ecclesiastical Latin refers to the pronunciation and usages of Latin by the Catholic Church. In some respects, such as pronunciation, it differs from the Latin spoken by Caesar, Seneca and Cicero, called Classical Latin. Classical Latin is what classics departments in major universities teach, and is also the Latin taught on language tapes, unless Ecclesiastical Latin is specified.‘

 

[Peeps]

As a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, I would say–with respect–that in the limited amount of time that most of us have to “study,” it would be better for many Catholics to study the Bible (with the help of Catholic study guides like Jeff Cavin’s “Great Adventure”) and the Catechism and read up on Church apologetics, rather than spending a lot of time learning Latin. Most Catholics get taken down by teenage Evangelical Protestants when it becomes obvious that the Catholic has no idea what they believe or why they believe it.

If you have more time or can make more time to study than most of us, then go for all of it!

 

[angel12]

As a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, I would say–with respect–that in the limited amount of time that most of us have to “study,” it would be better for many Catholics to study the Bible (with the help of Catholic study guides like Jeff Cavin’s “Great Adventure”) and the Catechism and read up on Church apologetics, rather than spending a lot of time learning Latin. Most Catholics get taken down by teenage Evangelical Protestants when it becomes obvious that the Catholic has no idea what they believe or why they believe it.

If you have more time or can make more time to study than most of us, then go for all of it!

^^^^^^
This. This. This.
I would love to learn Latin. I’d also like to take up piano again, have a large rose garden, read all my unread kindle books, and trace my family tree back to Edward III.

However, with the time I have, prioritizing is a must. The Bible and other spiritual reading come way ahead of anything on that list. I don’t see Latin helping me get to Heaven.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see Latin helping me get to Heaven.

Heaven is Bach’s Mass in B minor.

 

[ProVobis]

If you’re okay with waynee, weedee, weekee go for it.

 

[dochawk]

Of course lost on Fr. Z is the fact that Latin is itself a translation from texts in their original languages, with respect to sacred texts, i.e. the Bible.

That, and that the switch to Latin by the Archdiocese of Rome was because it was adopting the vernacular to replace the liturgical language of the Church (greek)!

The idea that you can only have Mass in Latin, is something out of the Middle Ages.

And fairly late at that–prior to Trent, Latin was not universal in the western church! (neither was the liturgy uniform from diocese to diocese. Some even used the same liturgy as in the East, some used the local vernacular, etc.).

Fr. Z is entitled to his opinion. I cannot understand the mania for Latin, unless it is some misplaced notion of nostalgia for a time that is gone and can never return

I refer to it as, “a past that never was.” . . .

The only reason that Latin was chosen was that it was the most universal communication of the day.

No.

Just, no.

Over the third and fourth centuries, the Archdiocese of Rome gradually changed the liturgy to the local vernacular (or at least a formalized dialect–even the classic latin writings of Cicero, Caesar, etc. were not in “street latin”).

Jesus and (most of) the disciples likely spoke little more Latin than needed to obey Roman soldiers.

The use of latin for academic pursuits followed, rather than influence, church teaching.

And the Latin goes all the back to Cicero.

The Roman republic goes back another seven centuries or so before that, and Latin was spoken by the roman tribes before that (although it doubtless changed after them . . .).

(most of which, by the way, tend to be built on absurd assumptions that Latin enthusiasts believe the Last Supper was conducted in Latin,

As Fr. Nils used to express his frustration about those who thought that Jesus spoke Latin: “What would He have done with Latin? Cussed out Roman Soldiers?”

“For your Cult, Code and Creed, you are enslaved to translations, which do not provide the riches of the original content”.

He’s at least partly right there: the translation of the Creed from Greek to Latin didn’t just lose some of the “riches of the original content”, but was a significant factor in the Great Schism . . .

Bastardized? What are you talking about? The Church has Christianized the language creating words such as gratia for grace.

Uhm . . .that’s kind of what “bastardized” means . . . the irregular becoming the norm . . .

hawk

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Ecclesiastical Latin is different from Classic Latin. Those with an education in Classic Latin even find it difficult to follow the Latin Mass as it’s like a different dialect.

Um, no. I had four years of Classic Latin and I don’t “find it difficult to follow the Latin Mass” via a missal. The only thing I have to be careful of is the pronunciation when I answer in Latin as it’s different from how I was taught.

Do you personally have trouble following the Mass in Ecclesiastical Latin?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This priest seems to have lost touch with people. I have absolutely no use in learning a dead language and neither do 99% of Catholics.