Peter & Paul Established Latin as the Ligurgical Language in Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul_Folbrecht
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul_Folbrecht

Guest
I heard this statement made by John Salsa (scripturecatholic.com) on Relevant Radio yesterday.

I find this, well, extremely interesting. As someone who prefers the Tridentine rite and understands all the benefits of a liturgical language, I was not aware that the use of Latin in the Mass extends to the first Pope!

Note that Mr. Salsa is not someone who would be considered a “traditionalist” and, at least in any other matter I’m familiar with, I’ve found his research to be impeccable. I didn’t do any checking up on him - if he said it I have to believe there is evidence of such in the historical record of the Church.

Good to know, anyway.
 
You weren’t aware of it because it isn’t true. The language of the liturgy in Rome was Greek until the third century.
 
jimmy said:
You weren’t aware of it because it isn’t true. The language of the liturgy in Rome was Greek until the third century.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s what I’ve always heard.

Is it possible both were in use?

I wonder if it is possible Mr. Salsa was talking about Latin for Church communication, etc., but not the liturgy.

But it didn’t sound like it. I think I’ll write him.
 
St. peter established Latin as the language of the church in 50 AD. Even then the Mass was said in Latin and has continued to this very day, despite what the Newchurchers are doing. Things may have been written in Greek, but that does not mean the official language of the church was greek.
 
well, I am not precisely sure of the dates, but I found that info in the catholic encyclopedia. but it figures when you know that he established the See in Rome. The mass was said in latin at that time also.
 
Spanner said:
well, I am not precisely sure of the dates, but I found that info in the catholic encyclopedia. but it figures when you know that he established the See in Rome. The mass was said in latin at that time also.
Click to expand...
Could you please find it again an either cite the passage you found this information in or copy and paste it to this thread?
 
Spanner said:
well, I am not precisely sure of the dates, but I found that info in the catholic encyclopedia. but it figures when you know that he established the See in Rome. The mass was said in latin at that time also.
Click to expand...
I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia

“Strange though it may seem, it was not at Rome that the building up of ecclesiastical Latin began. Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. It was much the same in Gaul at Lyons and at Vienne, at all events until after the days of St. Irenæus.”

So I am not sure where you got your information.
 
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on my source. It wasn’t the encyclopedia, but a notation on the website of Our Lady of the Rosary, www.olrl.org/new_mass , entry number 9, “Why the Mass in Latin”. it says the following: " Latin was the language used by St. Peter when he first said Mass at Rome. It was the language in which that Prince of the Apostles drew up the Liturgy which, together with the knowledge of the Gospel, he or his successors the Popes imparted to the different peoples of Italy, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, and Poland." There is more there if you want to read further.
 
The material at olrl.org should provide citations if it does not. Many will discount it as the site is of a ‘traditionalist’ bent.

However, as I said, John Salsa most definitely is not. Has anybody done any searching at his site (scripturecatholic.com)?

(Oh - by the way - whether it was Latin or Greek, the early Church was using a liturgical language. And, also by the way, whether or not that aspect of liturgy developed early or not doesn’t mean much, since it did develop in Christ’s Church, and was the norm for at least 1300 years.)
 
Spanner said:
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on my source. It wasn’t the encyclopedia, but a notation on the website of Our Lady of the Rosary, www.olrl.org/new_mass , entry number 9, “Why the Mass in Latin”. it says the following: " **Latin was the language used by St. Peter when he first said Mass at Rome. It was the language in which that Prince of the Apostles drew up the Liturgy **which, together with the knowledge of the Gospel, he or his successors the Popes imparted to the different peoples of Italy, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, and Poland." There is more there if you want to read further.
Click to expand...
Whomever wrote this copy had to be inventing as he went along.

That’s a sad thing about the internet. State something people will want to believe and it will spread quickly whether it is true or not.
 
Spanner said:
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on my source. It wasn’t the encyclopedia, but a notation on the website of Our Lady of the Rosary, www.olrl.org/new_mass , entry number 9, “Why the Mass in Latin”. it says the following: " Latin was the language used by St. Peter when he first said Mass at Rome. It was the language in which that Prince of the Apostles drew up the Liturgy which, together with the knowledge of the Gospel, he or his successors the Popes imparted to the different peoples of Italy, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, and Poland." There is more there if you want to read further.
Click to expand...
Your source doesn’t cite any of its claims, and it’s obviously an amateur’s website (based on design). The Catholic Encyclopedia however does have a list of works cited (just as any reputable encyclopedia should).
 
From what I have read, the people who comment on the subject claim there is no direct evidence of what language the liturgy was in, in Rome.

The reason it is presumed to be Greek, is that most official church documents, writings, etc. from that time were in Greek, and there was more Greek than Latin in the populous, and so the deduction is ‘therefor the liturgy must have been in Greek’.

On the other hand, there does not seem to be evidence of when, if there was a transition from Greek to Latin, that transition happened – Scholars differ as to the date widely, while acknowledging it is eventually at least in Latin.

So, it is also possible to say that it was in Latin from the beginning, and some scholars do say this – though this appears to be at least currently, a more minority view.

All of the above am just repeating what I have read so far, I do not know the subject well.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
The material at olrl.org should provide citations if it does not. Many will discount it as the site is of a ‘traditionalist’ bent.

However, as I said, John Salsa most definitely is not. Has anybody done any searching at his site (scripturecatholic.com)?

(Oh - by the way - whether it was Latin or Greek, the early Church was using a liturgical language. And, also by the way, whether or not that aspect of liturgy developed early or not doesn’t mean much, since it did develop in Christ’s Church, and was the norm for at least 1300 years.)
Click to expand...
At the time the early Church was using vernacular languages, not liturgical languages. Latin and Greek were the vernacular languages of the time. Had Christ appeared in Palestine in the 19th century, and Peter and Paul of the time moved to London, they’d have probably celebrated the liturgy in English.

There’s nothing sacred about either Latin or Greek. They’re merely traditional. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about.

Who cares what language the liturgy is celebrated in? They’re merely words.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
At the time the early Church was using vernacular languages, not liturgical languages. Latin and Greek were the vernacular languages of the time. Had Christ appeared in Palestine in the 19th century, and Peter and Paul of the time moved to London, they’d have probably celebrated the liturgy in English.

There’s nothing sacred about either Latin or Greek. They’re merely traditional. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about.

Who cares what language the liturgy is celebrated in? They’re merely words.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand what sacred is, or what it means by saying that. Something sacred is set aside for God. The more something is dedicated and set aside for God, the holier it is.

Whether it’s a language, an object – person, place, or thing, this is what determines its holiness.

Latin, because it has been set aside for God in the liturgy and language of the Church, so very greatly, for so very long, is quite sacred and holy.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
At the time the early Church was using vernacular languages, not liturgical languages. Latin and Greek were the vernacular languages of the time. Had Christ appeared in Palestine in the 19th century, and Peter and Paul of the time moved to London, they’d have probably celebrated the liturgy in English.

There’s nothing sacred about either Latin or Greek. They’re merely traditional. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about.

Who cares what language the liturgy is celebrated in? They’re merely words.
Click to expand...
Both Latin and Greek have advantages that make them highly suitable for liturgy, they are very precise languages.

Because both the nouns and the verbs are modified according to the subject, it becomes very clear exactly who is being talked about. English is rather bad for that.

Also, since Eccelsial Latin and Kione Greek are ‘dead’ languages, the meaning of words does not change over time, so the Liturgy remains more true to it’s composed meaning.

Just look at all the hoopla over the use of ‘men’ in the liturgy, not an issue with Latin 🙂
 
Shin said:
You don’t understand what sacred is, or what it means by saying that. Something sacred is set aside for God. The more something is dedicated and set aside for God, the holier it is.

Whether it’s a language, an object – person, place, or thing, this is what determines its holiness.

Latin, because it has been set aside for God in the liturgy and language of the Church, so very greatly, for so very long, is quite sacred and holy.
Click to expand...
So why are scientists allowed to use the “sacred and holy” language of Latin?

And when a secular musician or group performs a piece in Latin, are they profaning the Church?

And why do secular schools teach a “religious” language, and read secular works written in Latin? (From what I understand, until quite recently, most schools did require some proficiency in Latin and also Greek for graduation.)

Has the Church itself stated that Latin is “sacred and holy?”
 
I just spoke with my husband, who has done some undergraduate work in linguistics.

Did you know that there is a committee in the Vatican to “update” the language of Latin? You know–add words like “computer” and “internet” etc.

So apparently the language does allow for modernity and changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top