Pope ditches Latin as official language of Vatican synod

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuscipeMeDomine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Latin wasn’t the only language St. John XXIII addressed in Veterum Sapientia so you’re right, there would be other languages that are recognized as immutable and continue to exist in that fashion, without regards to national borders. Syriac, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc. come to mind. .
Click to expand...
Esparanto? Again, 😃

The greatest danger to abandoning Latin is not loss of documentation, not in this day and age, but loss of meaning, as other languages change much more rapidly than Latin.
 
ProVobis said:
“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 that is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922
Click to expand...
I would imagine (although feel free to correct me) that “requires” isn’t used in a strict sense, since AFAIK there was no non-vernacular language in the earliest days of the Church. Maybe an easier way to understand would be that Latin is “fitting” for the Church because of those qualities. Similar to how because we sinned Christ was “required” and “had” to die on the Cross. He did “have to” because it was God’s plan, but it wasn’t strictly necessary. Same for Latin in the Roman Catholic Church. 🙂
 
🙂
ProVobis said:
Not MY opinion.

"

If he is, he has lots of company there. When Pope Benedict announced his resignation in Latin, it took a lady journalist outside the Vatican an hour later to figure it out for the public. (No, I’m not implying Pope Benedict was language challenged. He, like St. John Paul, were great linguists.)
Click to expand...
True, the last two popes were amazing polyglots. I am always awed by how fluently Pope Benedict speaks Latin, after years of study I find it difficult to put together a coherent sentence. Reading and hearing comprehension are much easier skills to master. Whatever language is used, this will be an interesting synod.
 
I thought we were moving toward a more internationalized Church, a Church not dominated by Italy and Europe, a Church with a thriving presence of African Cardinals, Eastern Catholics from India and elsewhere, Cardinals from the Americas. Latin is the ideal common language to level the playing field.
 
Pope Francis is a traditionalist. Surprised Latin was ditched!
 
CrossofChrist said:
I would imagine (although feel free to correct me) that “requires” isn’t used in a strict sense, since AFAIK there was no non-vernacular language in the earliest days of the Church. Maybe an easier way to understand would be that Latin is “fitting” for the Church because of those qualities. Similar to how because we sinned Christ was “required” and “had” to die on the Cross. He did “have to” because it was God’s plan, but it wasn’t strictly necessary. Same for Latin in the Roman Catholic Church. 🙂
Click to expand...
RIght. Don’t forget that Latin was the administrative language of the Roman Empire and was so since before Christ. In fact, Jesus’ name was inscripted on the cross in Latin, supposedly above His name in Greek and in Hebrew. But in any case Latin has its unique set of legal expressions, oportet (somewhere between must and should and behooves), *decet *(it is fitting, one should), *licet *(it is permitted, lawful), placet (it is pleasing), etc. One has to compare with other documents to determine force. In this case Pius XI says “sermonem suapte natura requirit universalem, immutabilem, non vulgarem.” (of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.) I really doubt if this is “required” in the same sense as you have presented, but it has added force because St John XXIII reinforces it in Veterum Sapientia.

bostonleadershipbuilders.com/0church/veterum-sapientia.htm
 
ProVobis said:
I know of at least two Protestant ministers who are/were well versed in Latin and perhaps Greek as well. Latin was taught just as much, if not more, in public schools.

As for the other bishops, I’m sure a few of them brought along some translation device or translators, even if they are somewhat versed in Italian.
Click to expand...
In reply to what I wrote, “Maybe the Pope heard that some of the Bishops at Vatican II knew less of what was going on than the Protestant observers since the Protestant observers had translators and the Bishops, some of whom knew little to no conversational Latin, had no translators.”

Actually, this was something that I learned in a class given concerning Vatican II.
 
In all honestly, I wonder if the official spoken language of the synod would have been in English if the Pope was fluent in English? I read somewhere that pretty soon, English will be the dominate language at the Vatican and in the Church (if it’s not already). Meaning most Bishops and priests know English vs. Italian, French, Spanish, etc.

I’m 37 years old; I will not be surprised to see in my lifetime a synod where English is the official spoken language; nor be surprised to see English become the working language at the Vatican.

Today, English is to the world what Latin was in the 1500s.
 
Elizium23 said:
Latin is the ideal common language to level the playing field.
Click to expand...
If enough people can speak it fluently enough to express their ideas, which I suspect is not the case for many people in attendance. I suspect the liturgies might be in Latin though.
 
OraLabora said:
If enough people can speak it fluently enough to express their ideas, which I suspect is not the case for many people in attendance. I suspect the liturgies might be in Latin though.
Click to expand...
I agree. Liturgies and final documents most likely in Latin; Italian will be the working language.
 
phil19034 said:
Today, English is to the world what Latin was in the 1500s.
Click to expand...
Not true. Classical Latin, which was codified by the genius of Cicero et al, and later Christianized by the Church, was never really a vernacular. It was (as Luke Henderson said on that video) BECAUSE it was no one’s native tongue that it remained as pristine as it is today. People who wrote in Latin did so mostly because they intended it to be serious and immortal. In fact, the founders of our country wrote the seal and the wording on the US dollar bill in Latin. They must have at least known English would not always be the only speaking language of the U.S.
 
ProVobis said:
I really doubt if this is “required” in the same sense as you have presented, but it has added force because St John XXIII reinforces it in Veterum Sapientia.

bostonleadershipbuilders.com/0church/veterum-sapientia.htm
Click to expand...
Well, Cardinal Arinze seems to imply something similar to what I said:

The Church in Rome used Greek from the beginning. Only gradually was Latin introduced until the fourth century when the Church in Rome was definitely latinized (cf. A.G. Martimort: The Dialogue between God and his People, in A.G. Martimort, ed.: The Church at Prayer, Collegeville, 1992, I, p. 161-165).

…

As was mentioned above, by the fourth century, Latin had replaced Greek as the official language of the Church of Rome.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/latinvernac.HTM

But yeah, obviously Latin is valuable.
 
I think this is kind of sad - the tossing out of Latin. It would be like Ireland or Wales tossing out their native language in order to modernize. But to be honest I can see why it is easier to converse in a modern language.

As for English, it seems like it’s the new Esperanto. More and more, it is used as a default where people are gathered who speak different languages. I don’t think there is really even that much of a connection with the UK or US or other English speaking nations anymore…
 
ProVobis said:
Not true. Classical Latin, which was codified by the genius of Cicero et al, and later Christianized by the Church, was never really a vernacular. It was (as Luke Henderson said on that video) BECAUSE it was no one’s native tongue that it remained as pristine as it is today. People who wrote in Latin did so mostly because they intended it to be serious and immortal. In fact, the founders of our country wrote the seal and the wording on the US dollar bill in Latin. They must have at least known English would not always be the only speaking language of the U.S.
Click to expand...
very true. But what I meant was that Latin used to be the language of academia, then it was replaced by French. Today it’s English (for better or worse)
 
CrossofChrist said:
As was mentioned above, by the fourth century, Latin had replaced Greek as the official language of the Church of Rome. [/INDENT]
Click to expand...
*Non disputandum. *

Latin became Christianized when it was made the official language of the Church, but it had been codified as the administrative language of the Roman Empire several centuries earlier (with the help of Greeks, of all people). By the 3rd or 4th century, words like “gratia” became “grace,” “oratio” became “prayer,” etc.

Some good books on the matter:

“Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages” by Joseph Solodow

“A Natural History of Latin” by Tore Janson

“Story of a World Language Latin” by Jurgen Leonhardt

(The latter two have been translated into English, btw.)
 
Timothysis said:
Perhaps he favored convenience over sentimentality?
Click to expand...
Will have to look up Francis’ quote, but I believe he characterized those that love the tridentine mass as sentimentalists. I believe he is trying to suppress some order from saying the tridentine mass. Again, will have to look into this further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top