Never denied Latin was the language of the Church. Never denied it was USED to pass on the deposit of the Faith, though I would say that “meant” is problematical. There is no evidence that God intended the Faith to be passed on in Latin (for the first 300 years, the language of the Church was Greek, particularly of the liturgy). The fact that it was passed on in Latin is a moral neutral and merely pragmatic (the Empire was, after all, Latin-speaking and it was through that Empire that the Faith was first spread), though again, Latin is rendered sacred by its USE. There is no reason why we may not have the Mass in the vernacular (which the same Church Blessed John XXIII lead allows).
Bl. John XXIII’s encyclical *Veterum Sapientia *isn’t evidence?
How would that lead the faithful to impiety? Just because you don’t like the Mass in Latin doesn’t mean it leads the faithful to impiety. What leads the faithful to impiety has to be based on evidence, not personal opinion.
Just as I am free to believe in the superiority of the Tridentine Mass to the Novus Ordo. I have to accept the Novus Ordo as valid and licit but I don’t have to like it.
Bl. John XXIII was saying Latin is also immutable and non-vernacular, not just universal. He explains why having a language that is universal, immutable and non-vernacular is important in explaining the Catholic faith.
So you know more than Bl. John XXIII and most of his predecessors? How is it you know more than hundreds of years of teaching by several Popes? No offense, but when it comes to choosing between you and even one Pope, I’ll choose the Pope.
We finally agree on something.
Well Kirk, let me pose a question to you. As an educator that teaches second language learners exclusively, you undoubtedly have more expertise than do many on this forum or than I do except from personal experience…
J Kirk has a history of dismissing anything he disagrees with as “personal opinion.” Thus, he doesn’t have to agree with Bl. John XXIII or any of his predecessors because it’s just their “personal opinions.”
To add my two cents: when you read the Koran it has to be in Arabic. Other than Arabic = not the Koran. Many of my friends can recite sura’s in Arabic, and during Ramadan read the Koran in Arabic, but they don’t know what it means. I myself could before I knew what it meant. In the Koran recitation competitions there are people who know the entire thing but not what it means. So sometimes (and I’m NOT saying that this is the case with Latin) “holy languages” can be taken to a bit of an extreme.
I rather imagine that we don’t, since it’s highly probable that you read that incorrectly as well (no offense).
To cite a relevant example of what Swiss Guard is talking about, let’s take an actual historical example:
Well Kirk, let me pose a question to you. As an educator that teaches second language learners exclusively, you undoubtedly have more expertise than do many on this forum or than I do except from personal experience…
I came to this country as a young boy and English was not my primary language. I knew a few words but as far as reading, writing, grammar or speaking more than a sentence or two, zip. Nada. . My Dad spoke English of course being in the Navy and my Mom could hold a conversation. But my brothers sisters and I were totally lost. I did however speak and understand enough Latin to be an altar boy because I had been one in the Philippines. Within a week of arriving here I was serving Mass because I knew the Latin responses and prayers, and I knew exactly what was going on at all times because of it. I was lost during the sermon, but hey, the sermon wasn’t the central part of the Mass anyway. And note, my family were the **ONLY **Pilipinos in the congregation, period.
So my question is, can you really argue that the vernacular Mass is better for everyone or just for those in whose language the vernacular happens to be in? For instance, a child who speaks only Visayan comes to your parish. Can he immediately become an altar server? True I don’t even think the servers say responses any more, but you can see my point. Or how about a group of children from central Mexico who only speak an Indian language? They are effectively frozen out completely unless the Mass happens to be in their language. If all you have are speakers of one language I can see some justification for the vernacular, but in areas where people speak more than one language it is a different thing entirely and is in fact divisive…
Having the Mass in Latin unified people and put everyone on the same page so to speak. Anyone from anywhere could pop into a Catholic Church anywhere, pray the common prayers and make the common responses with everyone else in the same language. You cannot do that now.
And yes I know that people will bring up the old ethnic parish thing, but they were primarily political, ethnic and social in nature. the Mass in them was still in Latin. The sermons and church business were in whatever language that congregation spoke.
As an aside, I learned English without the help of ESL classes. In mine and my brothers and sisters cases it was sink or swim.
We swam thankfully, or in my case managed to keep my head just above water.
Not addressing the comment about personal opinion at all but putting Latin on par with contraception which is a moral issue is a bit extreme, don’t you think?
Palmas, dear old friend, I thank you for your respectful questions and your respectful approach to the question. Please allow me to answer this over the weekend, when I can give it the answer it deserves, in greater detail. If they close this thread down, as I suspect they will, I’ll open another one and call your attention to it. I need to get to bed.Well Kirk, let me pose a question to you. As an educator that teaches second language learners exclusively, you undoubtedly have more expertise than do many on this forum or than I do except from personal experience…
I came to this country as a young boy and English was not my primary language. I knew a few words but as far as reading, writing, grammar or speaking more than a sentence or two, zip. Nada. . My Dad spoke English of course being in the Navy and my Mom could hold a conversation. But my brothers sisters and I were totally lost. I did however speak and understand enough Latin to be an altar boy because I had been one in the Philippines. Within a week of arriving here I was serving Mass because I knew the Latin responses and prayers, and I knew exactly what was going on at all times because of it. I was lost during the sermon, but hey, the sermon wasn’t the central part of the Mass anyway. And note, my family were the **ONLY **Pilipinos in the congregation, period.
So my question is, can you really argue that the vernacular Mass is better for everyone or just for those in whose language the vernacular happens to be in? For instance, a child who speaks only Visayan comes to your parish. Can he immediately become an altar server? True I don’t even think the servers say responses any more, but you can see my point. Or how about a group of children from central Mexico who only speak an Indian language? They are effectively frozen out completely unless the Mass happens to be in their language. If all you have are speakers of one language I can see some justification for the vernacular, but in areas where people speak more than one language it is a different thing entirely and is in fact divisive…
Having the Mass in Latin unified people and put everyone on the same page so to speak. Anyone from anywhere could pop into a Catholic Church anywhere, pray the common prayers and make the common responses with everyone else in the same language. You cannot do that now.
And yes I know that people will bring up the old ethnic parish thing, but they were primarily political, ethnic and social in nature. the Mass in them was still in Latin. The sermons and church business were in whatever language that congregation spoke.
As an aside, I learned English without the help of ESL classes. In mine and my brothers and sisters cases it was sink or swim.
We swam thankfully, or in my case managed to keep my head just above water.
Thank you for this eloquent explanation of why, for Catholics, Latin will always be a universal language.
I guess, by your reasoning, there is absolutely no point in ever using Latin. However, I feel that the fact that it was the traditional language of our liturgy for over a thousand years, coupled with the fact that the Second Vatican Council seemingly wanted it retained as a liturgical language, justifies its use. Perhaps not as the ONLY language used for Mass, but as one language that every church should sometimes use and expose its parishioners to. After all, why bother using a common language for international events if you do absolutely nothing to educate the average Catholic in it? If you remove Latin from the average Catholic’s experience, then why would it be of any use to them at a World Youth Day event or Papal Mass? I’ve found that the only way to understand and remember anything of a foreign language involves actually using it. And I never said God needed Latin, but the Church holds it in a special regard with some very practical benefits.*
I wasn’t trying to draw paralells between the Catholic use of Latin and the Muslim use of Arabic. You had stated that you found it bizarre that Muslims have to learn another language to access God, so I provided an answer based on what I had heard. It makes perfect sense to make Arabic mandatory if you feel that it has naunces and a special power that is completely lost in a translation - the language is integral to understanding the message itself.
Good nite old man take care
Hi Net. I have heard that too. In fact, I think I recall a time in the past where Joysong was trying to help clear up my confusion about that movement, and she knew a lot about it, so I would guess she is right either way on that one. I dont really want to know much more than I do about that movement, so I will take her word on it, that it may be proper use.
