Mass being said in Latin

[stpurl]

May I direct your attention to the Vatican itself, on the website,
under “Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff”The Language of Liturgical Celebration.. Apparently the Church does indeed speak of Sacred Language and Latin in particular for the Latin rite Church.

 

[felsguy]

I think that is a pious sentiment, and I do not mean that disrespectfully, but I’ve never seen any doctrinal foundation for it.

 

[ralfyman]

They very likely did to communicate with those who spoke other vernacular languages. That’s the basis of a lingua franca.

Today, it’s no longer Latin but various forms of English and other languages.

 

[otjm]

it makes it much easier for a bunch of people who all speak different languages to have a common Mass, or for a person traveling to some other country with a different language to understand and follow Mass.

It is fairly uncommon for a mixed gropu[p of people to have Mass in a language they do not understand - with a possible exception of Europe, where there may be more tourists attending Mass than people of that given country.

There are a few Masses each year which may have two or three languages used; in my archdiocese it may be one reading in English, one in Spanish, and possibly one in Vietnamese. I can most likely count them on one hand. Within the four parishes near me, English is the largest number; then Spanish, then Vietnamese, and one in Tagalog; and there is one in Latin, attended by a bit fewer than 100 people regularly on Sunday.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

They very likely did to communicate with those who spoke other vernacular languages. That’s the basis of a lingua franca .

That’s debatable. Latin was used in urban centers and for some functions, such as government and legal administration. People who did not live in a city, did not have a job dealing with the government, the law etc had no need to use a “Lingua franca”. Even things like contracts were recognized if in the local language - they didn’t have to be in Latin - so somebody could make a shipping contract or a sales contract without needing to know Latin.

Also, because the culture of the times when Latin was used as a “lingua franca” was mostly oral, we don’t really know the extent to which the local language might have been used.

Some people probably spoke Latin in addition to other languages, a whole lot of people probably spoke Latin barely or not at all.

 

[ralfyman]

“Mostly oral” is the meaning of lingua franca, which is why the OT and the NT was translated using it. Before that, it was koine Greek. From there, throughout the centuries, portions of the Bible were translated into vernacular languages, and that gained substantially given developments in printing.

After that, the EF itself was translated into various vernacular languages. And today, even the readings and sermons in the EF are usually delivered in the vernacular.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am not sure what you’re trying to say, but the bottom line is many ordinary people in Europe and Asia did not go around speaking Latin, even during the days of the Roman Empire. If you choose to believe they did, feel free.

Also, at the EFs I attend, the readings are most certainly not “delivered in the vernacular”. They are read in Latin. If you want to know what the English is, you read it from your missal or worship aid. The homily is, of course, in the vernacular.

 

[27lw]

… when people act as though it’s quasi-heretical to give the mass in anything but Latin seems misinformed at best.

Well friend, read through these and see what you make of them.

“The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions — much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.” -Pope Saint Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudini, November 22, 1903

“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time… of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” -Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922

“The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.” -Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947

“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.” -Pope Saint John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962

“And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.” -Pope Saint John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962

“The use of Latin, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin Rites.” -Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium #36 , 1963

“The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety… we must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers which were your glory for centuries.” -Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, 1966

“The program for priestly formation is to make provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language; they are also to have a suitable familiarity with those foreign languages which seem necessary of useful for their own formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.” -1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 249

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs.” ~Pope Pius XII

“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” ~Blessed Pope John Paul II

 

[27lw]

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

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.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.”6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”7

Veterum Sapientia - Papal Encyclicals

 

[dochawk]

Jesus himself probably didn’t go around speaking Latin,

As our former priest quipped and annoyed those who insist he spoke Latin: “What would He have done with it? Cuss out the Roman soldiers?”



the population in roman ruled areas would, as you note, typically not be conversant in Latin. They would likely know enough words to follow simple orders from soldiers.

That’s true. And Latin was still the language of the world, if you could do language.

By 0, educated Romans and others who thought themselves important preferred the more high-falutin’ greek . . .

Today, it’s no longer Latin but various forms of English and other languages.

There are already british groups irritated that American English rather than British is taught internationally rather than British.

I suspect that in another hundred years, American English will will also have drifted, and “International English” will stay largely locked as mid to late 20th century English.

 

[Inbonum]

Some people also have the opinion that the Devil hates Latin and it’s somehow a specially holy language. That seems a little far-fetched to me.

I read that Latin isn’t literally holy but started being one of 3 “holy” biblical languages when st.Jerome translated Bible from Hebrew and Greek. By Jerome’s Vulgata Latin became liturgical language. In his time Latin was one of main languages people spoke and he translated it to conversational Latin which was known to everyone, that’s why his Bible is named Vulgata.

I love Latin because I love languages in general. Many words of different languages have it’s root in Latin. It helped me to remember words but I am far from being Latin expert.

 

[Jbrady]

Latin was used in urban centers and for some functions, such as government and legal administration. People who did not live in a city, did not have a job dealing with the government, the law etc had no need to use a “Lingua franca”. Even things like contracts were recognized if in the local language - they didn’t have to be in Latin - so somebody could make a shipping contract or a sales contract without needing to know Latin.

You are right about knowledge of Latin being restricted to a small minority of the population for most of the middle ages. Until sometime in the early 600s, Latin (and I don’t mean vulgar Latin) was still a vernacular everyday language. It died out earlier in Rome and Italy, but continued to be spoken in far flung outposts like Spain and the Balkans for another generation or so.

Yes, it was a lingua franca, and as far as making a shipping or sales contract in a Latin other than Latin, that was not done for quite some time. Practically the only people who know how to read, and even more so, to know how to write, were Latin-speaking clerics. There is a reason why our word “clerk” is derived from “cleric”.

On the other hand, not all clerics could speak, read or even understand Latin. For a good part of the middle ages, most didn’t, and they simply memorized the Mass and prayers. Books and writing materials were incredibly expensive and in very short supply.

The clerics who did read and write were almost entirely either choir monks or canons of cathedrals and collegiate churches, practically all of whom were born into noble families. Lay brothers and priests from the lower classes generally did not learn to read, and often did not know any Latin. And even most nobles could not speak or understand Latin unless they were involved in diplomacy.

Oddly, some of the lay brothers were trained to do the arduous task of copying books. They learned to draw the letters, and then copied letter by letter from the original to the copy, sometimes without being able to understand what they were writing. We know this is the case because of the types of mistakes they made when copying.

Literacy outside the clerical class did not begin to take of until the mid-eleventh century and the rise of the burgher class. Even then, it remained fairly limited until the introduction of paper in the 1300s. Paper was much cheaper than parchment. Books still had to be arduously copied by hand, though woodcut block-printing put prayer books within the budget of the burger class. The printing press with moveable type was a HUGE step forward, and many historians date the end of the middle ages with its invention.

 

[ralfyman]

A lingua franca is not what is commonly spoken by people but a bridge language. That is, it’s what two people who did not share a native language used when they had to communicate with each other. Examples from that time were Aramaic, then koine Greek, then Latin.

That’s why Aramaic was used during Jesus’ time, then koine Greek by more of his followers, then Latin.

Today, it is the vernacular, and in various cases, not even English.

 

[ralfyman]

Try the documentary series The Adventure of English which reveals that British English itself evolved numerous times and borrows from many other languages. There are points about that in this wiki entry, together with the phenomenon of different types of English worldwide:

World Englishes - Wikipedia

 

[Margaret_Ann]

There is a reason why our word “clerk” is derived from “cleric”.

I guess I’m a retail sales cleric then (sarcasm).

 

[Peeps]

But if worship includes, along with ‘knowing in my own language’ (ahem, Missals do have vernacular translations), a worship of the mysterious and unknowable, then Latin as the Church’s sacred language has indeed a preeminent place.

But…Latin ISN’T “mysterious and unknowable”!

It’s just one of many human languages, not even the most ancient language by a long shot! It can be translated (hence “Missals do have vernacular translations”) and known–people can study Latin and “know” what is being said and meant. KIDS can study Latin–little kids, not just older kids!–and “know” the language!

Futhermore, 80% of entries in an English dictionary are from Latin, 60^% of English words have Latin or Greek roots, and in the science fields (like mine–microbiology!), 90% of the words have Latin roots!

That’s hardly “mysterious and unknowable!”

If you want “mysterious and unknowable,” it would be better to use something like ancient Nordic runes that very few people in the world can “know” or translate.

Or “Old English”–the language used in “Beowulf”, although there are scholars who “know” that language and can translate it.

Or use the language of Bilbo Baggins-- from what I understand, Tolkein created entire languages for Middle Earth! However, I’m guessing that there are a lot of Tolkien fans who can easily translate and “know” the languages of Middle Earth, so it’s not really “mysterious and unknowable.”

There are probably languages from ancient civilizations that are still a puzzle to linguists and translators, e.g., some of the ancient Native American languages. I think there are monuments out in the American Western States that have markings that have never been translated–now THAT’S what I call “mysterious and unknowable.”

No, Latin is definitly not “mysterious and unknowable.” It’s just not the “heart language” of many people. Some people are blessed by a foreign language Mass, but others–well, we need all the help we can get to fully enter into worship and awe of Our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The Latin merely puts up a barrier for many of us.

All that being said, I think that the Latin Mass should be available in more places, especially in the United States, for people who love it and don’t require a “heart language” to fully participate in the Mass.

But I don’t think that a restoration of the Latin Mass will cause Catholicism, at least in the United States, to return to the vibrant state that it had before Vatican II. I personally think that in the U.S., we will see Christianity in all its forms (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) become smaller and less influential as secularism becomes more prevalent. It is my hope that this will be an impetus to unite Christians into One Holy Catholic Church again, but I doubt I will live to see it. And sadly, I think there will be a lot of persecution of Christians in the U.S. before this unification happens.

 

[Jbrady]

I guess I’m a retail sales cleric then (sarcasm).

You can bless the goods you sell!

Here is the entry from the Online Etymology Dictionary detailing how the word split and developed two different senses:

" clerk (n.)

c. 1200, “man ordained in the ministry, a priest, an ecclesiastic,” from Old English cleric and Old French clerc “clergyman, priest; scholar, student,” both from Church Latin clericus “a priest,” noun use of adjective meaning “priestly, belonging to the clerus”.

Modern bureaucratic usage is a reminder of the time when clergy alone could read and write and were employed as scribes and account-keepers by secular authorities. In late Old English the word also can mean “king’s scribe; keeper of accounts.” And by c. 1200 clerk took on a secondary sense in Middle English (as the cognate word did in Old French) of “man of letters, anyone who can read or write.”

This led to the senses “assistant in a public or private business” (c. 1500), originally a keeper of accounts, also “officer of a court, municipality, etc. whose duty it is to keep its records and perform its routine business” (1520s), and later, especially in American English, “a retail salesman” (1790). Meaning “an employee who registers guests in a hotel” is by 1879."

and:

" cleric (n.)

“a clergyman,” 1620s (also in early use as an adjective), from Church Latin clericus “clergyman, priest,” noun use of adjective meaning “priestly, belonging to the clerus;” from Ecclesiastical Greek klērikos “pertaining to an inheritance,” but in Greek Christian jargon by 2c., “of the clergy, belonging to the clergy,” as opposed to the laity; from klēros “a lot, allotment; piece of land; heritage, inheritance,” originally “a shard or wood chip used in casting lots,” related to klan “to break”.

Klēros was used by early Greek Christians for matters relating to ministry, based on Deuteronomy xviii.2 reference to Levites as temple assistants: “Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the Lord is their inheritance” (klēros being used as a translation of Hebrew nahalah “inheritance, lot”). Or else it is from the use of the word in Acts i:17. A word taken up in English after “clerk” shifted to its modern meaning.

 

[stpurl]

But liturgical or worship language is not a ‘heart language’. Check out the history not simply of Christianity but of just about any other (especially any ancient) worship. The language in the worship service was considered sacred.

Again, check out the Vatican.va website itself and the article I mentioned. I’m not just talking off the cuff or giving a personal opinion to say that the Church considers the liturgical Latin to be a sacred language.

 

[Peeps]

The language in the worship service was considered sacred.

Wait…that doesn’t make sense. Latin was used as a spoken language of business in ancient times. Secular literature is written in Latin.

So how can Latin be considered “sacred” if was/is used in many secular settings, including everyday life?

Are you referring to the actual “words”, the “liturgy” of the worship (the Holy Mass)? Are these words/liturgy what is considered “sacred?” If that’s the case, why would saying these words in another language negate the sacredness of the words/liturgy?

Forgve me for being taken aback–this strikes me as worship of language, or elevating language to the level of sacred liturgy.

 

[stpurl]

Liturgical Latin however is slightly different from the ‘vulgar’ tongue, even to its pronunciation.

And in the Eastern Churches like the Maronites, they use Aramaic for the Quiborno (hope I have that spelling right). I don’t think too many people speak Aramaic today.

Classical Greek is different I believe from modern Greek.

Just because we can read ‘old Latin’ in Caesar’s commentaries or in other books doesn’t turn it into something that can’t be used for worship, if that is the design of the Church. The Church has not, as yet (I’m not saying it can’t or won’t) set aside vernacular languages as sacred ones. It HAS done that for Latin. Again, did you look at the article I mentioned from the Vatican?