Latin? In MY Mass?

[ElizabethPH]

When you say “univesal” there is no such thing as, “I come from the X Rite” or “X sui juris”. Universal means for all, everywhere. Therefore its false to say Latin is the universal language of the Church.

To say that universal is limited to 1 of 22 rites is an oxymoron. How can one be universal and yet only apply to 1/22nd of the whole?

It is universal in the Latin Church. . Not ALL the rites. Of course I understand that, but than again thank you for pointing it out. We are talking about Latin. We are talking about the Latin rite. Not the others.

 

[Brendan]

Question, what makes your needs as a visitor more important than the needs of the multitudes of locals who may not appreciate Latin? Isn’t that selfishness on your part that you want something you understand and that the locals themselves may not appreciate? Was the local church established for visitors or locals?

But the needs of the ‘multitudes of locals’ are not being violated. Rather it is an act of Charity.

Why would any local desire to see the visitor not being able to say the prayers together with them, especially when the Church has provided a solution that allows all to participate.

What it requries is that Catholics make some efforts prior, but that, of course simply increases the value of the Charity.

As far a the local Church, a parish, any parish is established for ALL Catholics, no one is somehow a ‘preferred’ attendee at Mass simply because they live locally or speak the language.

 

[malphono]

I really love how you guys always accuse people who don’t accept your view of Latin as Latin-haters even though when we’re not.

I’m not wasting my time with that except to say this: one gets the impression that it’s not Latin in particular that is despised: it’s all of the ancient and venerable traditional liturgical languages, isn’t it?.

No, its still not the administrative language of the Church as a whole, just of Rome. So if Rome will send out a decree to the entire Church, it would be translated to Latin, then from Latin to other languages. But that doesn’t mean the other Churches use Latin. It just means its the standard of Rome.

Argue until the cows come home, but it doesn’t change the facts. And tell me please, who here, or in any other thread in these fora, has suggested that any Church other than the Latin Church, uses (or has ever used) the Latin language for either liturgical or internal administrative purposes?

Of course you already knew that. You just have to say it in a way that defends your personal opinion on the matter.

Gotta love the attitude. Proves my point.

 

[ProVobis]

[Latin? In MY Mass?]

Definitely.

Because Latin is one of the sacred languages of the Cross (the others being Greek and Hebrew), it was ordered by Vatican II, decreed by Veterum Sapientia, specified to be studied by all priests (per Canon 249), and is the official language of the Church.

Convenience of all-modern language is not an excuse for any Catholic (or even Christian) not to memorize a few Latin prayers and responses.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

[Latin? In MY Mass?]

Definitely.

Because Latin is one of the sacred languages of the Cross (the others being Greek and Hebrew), it was ordered by Vatican II, decreed by Veterum Sapientia, specified to be studied by all priests (per Canon 249), and is the official language of the Church.

Convenience of all-modern language is not an excuse for any Catholic (or even Christian) not to memorize a few Latin prayers and responses.

Where do you get that Latin is one of the sacred languages of the Cross in addition to Greek and Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Latin from the Cross?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Where do you get that Latin is one of the sacred languages of the Cross in addition to Greek and Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Latin from the Cross?

Jim

The cross speaks enough.

“And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” (KJV,John 19; 19-20)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jesus through the cross spoke to the world.

“And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” (John 19; 19-20)

Well, the language of the Cross is love, which didn’t require words.

The sign Pilate made, was for the people who spoke Hebrew Greek and Latin. If Mandarin had been a common language of that time, he would’ve included Mandarin.

Also, it doesn’t having anything to do with what language the Mass is celebrated in.

Jesus instituted the Mass in Aramaic. If there is any justification for the Mass being in a foreign language, Aramaic would be it.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Where do you get that Latin is one of the sacred languages of the Cross in addition to Greek and Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Latin from the Cross?

Jim

The Titulus was in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Those are the sacred languages of the Cross, the ones that proclaimed Christ’s rightful place as King.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Titulus was in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Those are the sacred languages of the Cross, the ones that proclaimed Christ’s rightful place as King.

But it was ordered by a pagan, so how can it be sacred language?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Well, the language of the Cross is love, which didn’t require words.

By that reasoning, the liturgy doesn’t require any texts, modern language or not.

 

[ProVobis]

… so how can it be sacred language?

from Veterum Sapientia:

…
The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.
…
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

 

[malphono]

By that logic, the liturgy doesn’t require any texts, modern language or not.

Sounds like Mass in mime. Maybe that’s the solution for those whose skin crawls at the very thought of Latin (or any other of the ancient and venerable liturgical languages of the Church), being used for liturgical purposes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is universal in the Latin Church. . Not ALL the rites. Of course I understand that, but than again thank you for pointing it out. We are talking about Latin. We are talking about the Latin rite. Not the others.

Of course. I’m pointing out that the term “universal” is not appropriate. That is why I offered a correction that “it is the official language of the Latin Church,” which is more accurate. There is one Church, therefore we cannot say universal and mean only to part of the one Church.

I know its a play on semantics, but a lot of people here love playing on semantics just to push personal agendas. Its best we convey a clear and accurate language to avoid confusion or misconceptions.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course. I’m pointing out that the term “universal” is not appropriate. That is why I offered a correction that “it is the official language of the Latin Church,” which is more accurate. There is one Church, therefore we cannot say universal and mean only to part of the one Church.

I know its a play on semantics, but a lot of people here love playing on semantics just to push personal agendas. Its best we convey a clear and accurate language to avoid confusion or misconceptions.

Are these quotes from Veterum Sapientia plays on semantics?

…
Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
…

I believe in this context “catholic” indeed means “universal.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

By that reasoning, the liturgy doesn’t require any texts, modern language or not.

But the Mass is the highest form of prayer and worship by a community, which does require words.

Jim

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the needs of the ‘multitudes of locals’ are not being violated. Rather it is an act of Charity.

How is that an act of charity? Is it not more charitable to meet the locals at their level? How well adept are the locals to learning Latin? Does it fit their spiritual needs?

Why would any local desire to see the visitor not being able to say the prayers together with them, especially when the Church has provided a solution that allows all to participate.

What it requries is that Catholics make some efforts prior, but that, of course simply increases the value of the Charity.

As far a the local Church, a parish, any parish is established for ALL Catholics, no one is somehow a ‘preferred’ attendee at Mass simply because they live locally or speak the language.

I’m sorry, I just find it troubling that you claim that the use of the vernacular is selfish, but the use of Latin seems to be is what YOU need and what YOU want, not what the local Church wants. Did the Apostles push the gentiles to learn Hewbrew so they can say the early Liturgy in Hebrew? Or did the Apostles teach in Greek and said Liturgy in Greek? How did Latin came about? Was it not to cater to the local Latin populace? Why didn’t the Latins just adopt Greek which was used by more people in the Church at the time?

The pastoral concerns of a Bishop and a priest are the local, not the world. Your pastoral and spiritual needs are to be met by your own pastor of your own bishop in the diocese you belong. You have to understand that the Church is setup in locales, it has been that way since day one. One bishop is separare from another in jurisdiction and responsibility. Each is a shepherd of their own flock. They indeed look towards to cater to the spiritual and pastoral needs of their own flock, which does not include you because you belong to another flock. St. Ambrose said, paraphrased, “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” When you are a visitor, you follow the local customs and not push your own needs and wants.

 

[ProVobis]

But the Mass is the highest form of prayer and worship by a community, which does require words.

Thank you. That’s why the Church promulgates its liturgies in Latin “words.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not wasting my time with that except to say this: one gets the impression that it’s not Latin in particular that is despised: it’s all of the ancient and venerable traditional liturgical languages, isn’t it?.

You always say you’re not wasting your time with me but it seems you always reply to my posts, even misinterpret them and try to turn it against me.

Where did I despise Latin? Its all in your personal interpretation that I do. For you if one does not advocate an all-Latin Mass all the time, then they despise Latin. How silly is that? The Church doesn’t agree with you. The fact that she has been making efforts to update translations means its her interest to offer the vernacular whenever and wherever the people ask for it.

Argue until the cows come home, but it doesn’t change the facts. And tell me please, who here, or in any other thread in these fora, has suggested that any Church other than the Latin Church, uses (or has ever used) the Latin language for either liturgical or internal administrative purposes?

Gotta love the attitude. Proves my point.

Your does. Thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

Where did I despise Latin? Its all in your personal interpretation that I do.

Several other posters, including me, have that same interpretation. Why are you arguing against its usage and for liturgies to be in all-modern language?

 

[japhy]

I wonder why is there such an insistence that people remain oblivious to the Liturgy and simply memorize phrases to a foreign language just so they can follow along. Where’s the participation in that?

Who insisted that people “remain oblivious to the Liturgy”?