Praying in Latin

[TimothyH]

These kinds of threads drive me nuts.

I’m not against praying in Latin, quite the contrary I chant the LOTH in Latin every day, at least Lauds and Vespers in Latin.

However, the Church evolves and the cultural reality we live in evolves as well. In our own culture, Latin is fast losing steam as more and more people forget it and fewer and fewer schools teach it. I never had formal instruction in Latin. What I learned, I learned from chanting it in a schola, and from its vague similarities to French.

To suggest that everyone pray in Latin though, is ridiculous. Not everyone is educated enough or scholarly enough to learn it. The Church is also growing tremendously in places where Latin has no significance. I agree that imposing Latin in these circumstances amounts to cultural imperialism.

There’s no harm in learning simple prayers in Latin of course but by no means should this be implied to be some kind of “superior” form of prayer… as if God has limitations on His ability to hear our prayers (which He reads from our hearts anyway).

Those quotes from Pius XI, John XXIII and Dom Gueranger don’t specifically mention private prayer. Moreover, they are from an era when, at least in the West, Latin was still widely taught.

For those who can, preserving Latin in the Liturgy is a fine thing and I support it 110%, in fact I work towards it:

Latin OF Mass

But to suggest that private prayers (and all Liturgical prayer) should be exclusively in Latin just doesn’t fit today’s realities, and I certainly hope that the OP doesn’t mean that.

Bah!

Once again you have brought practical arguments about the real world into an extremely important discussion about an irrelevant topic.

I’m sick of this. From now on, I am going to write all my powershell scripts in Latin, just to make you mad.

-Tim-

 

[Mike30]

Latin, Latin, woe is me
It killed the Romans, now it’s killing me.

Old school rhyme for those studying Latin.

These type of threads always turn into this battle. Totally illogical and actually pretty spiteful and hate filled. I know that many people that post on this forum do not attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass or the Ordinary Form for that matter, being members of one or the other Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. So for them to to loudly protest and point out that in their Churches Latin isn’t the language used, to me seems devisive at best. I mean why even bring it up? I would assume that the average poster on this particular forum is well aware of that information and isn’t trying to push, how was it worded, cultural Imperialism? Whatever that may mean in todays world.

Then you have the Latin haters. And yes, you know who you are and you know that you do. I have seen way too many posts from you guys to think any differently.

Why can’t we accept the post for what it was, namely a link to some information that some people might find interesting and useful.

The other stuff is really irrelevant.

 

[Faithdancer]

What has got up your nose? I’m pretty sure the members of the 22 other Churches have never used nor see the need to use Latin.

Praying in Latin is no more efficacious than praying in any other language!

If praying in Latin has the effect, in that individual who is praying in Latin, of inducing greater concentration, focus, a sense of spirituality, etc, then it is indeed more efficacious to pray in Latin for that individual.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree that imposing Latin in these circumstances amounts to cultural imperialism.

Can’t the same argument be made for those who insist only English be allowed in the liturgy and public prayers, allowing for nothing else? The percentage of those trying to “impose” even a small amount of Latin is far, far smaller.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If praying in Latin has the effect, in that individual who is praying in Latin, of inducing greater concentration, focus, a sense of spirituality, etc, then it is indeed more efficacious to pray in Latin for that individual.

True. But that claim shouldn’t be made in a way that it seems that it applies to all. For me, chanting in English works better than Latin. But that is for me, I cannot guarantee or claim that it will work for anyone else.

 

[OraLabora]

Can’t the same argument be made for those who insist only English be allowed in the liturgy and public prayers, allowing for nothing else? The percentage of those trying to “impose” even a small amount of Latin is far, far smaller.

I can’t speak for the Anglophone world, as I live in a French area and mostly go to Mass in French.

But like with all linguistic groups, I imagine, there are Francophones and Anglophones who: are open to Latin, don’t want to have anything to do with Latin, who think “what’s Latin”?, who want everything to go back to being Latin, and every other viewpoint in between.

I imagine the poor bishops get dizzy trying to accommodate all these different preferences.

Or maybe they don’t and just do what seems to best suit their dioceses as they interpret it.

At least in our urban areas, many many immigrants with different linguistic backgrounds. Some common language is bound to be necessary given the shortage of vocations and priests capable of speaking the mother tongue of every immigrant in the nave. Once upon a time that language used to be Latin. I’m sorry to say it isn’t anymore. I’ve gotten over it, sort of, except that like many I’m still tilting at windmills with a Gregorian schola and with my involvement with the Gregorian Institute of Canada, hoping against all odds that Latin (and the smattering of Greek and Hebrew) aren’t completely lost to the Western Church. But I think the practical reality is that in the US, English and Spanish will be the lingua franca of the liturgy, French and English in Canada.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We shouldn’t idolize Latin. Latin is a language, which means it is man made. As St. Stephen charged the Jews of idolizing the man made temple in Jerusalem, let us not make the same mistake of idolizing a language.

 

[OraLabora]

We shouldn’t idolize Latin. Latin is a language, which means it is man made. As St. Stephen charged the Jews of idolizing the man made temple in Jerusalem, let us not make the same mistake of idolizing a language.

I look at it from the point of view of patrimony. The Church has a rich collection of texts and music written/composed in Latin. Actually not really composed in Latin as the Gregorian melodies are largely adapted to biblical texts. However Gregorian chant is intrinsically linked to Latin.

This patrimony needs to be preserved, and scholars and theologians need to understand Latin to be able to interpret the texts.

If the Church had instead selected say Hebrew or kept Greek, it would be the same. We must preserve our history. But as you say we mustn’t idolize the language.

 

[ProVobis]

Once upon a time that language used to be Latin. I’m sorry to say it isn’t anymore.

They might have said the same thing during the Reformation period.

During the early centuries, Vulgar Latin was the vernacular, from which the Romance languages developed. Ecclesiastical Latin was maybe man-made but it was codified by Cicero, whose moral code was adopted by the early Church fathers and whose vocabulary was Christianized by the Church. EL has obviously withstood the test of time in the West when French, Spanish, Italian, and later Germanic, could easily have become the lingua franca of the Catholic liturgy but didn’t. The Reformers, however, were able to exert their influence away from Latin in favor of translations. Not surprising that there are over 30,000 leaderless Christian denominations and over 200 copyrighted English Bibles today. Goes to show the Catholic Church can’t live on modern translations alone.

 

[archangel04]

This, of course, would only apply to the Roman Church because Latin is not the language of the other 22 Churches that make up the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the info I think most of us here now know this after being told repeatedly by the Eastern crowd

 

[archangel04]

Anyone else here surprised by the Latin criticism comments? Just makes me want to learn Latin that much more!!!

 

[archangel04]

Latin, Latin, woe is me
It killed the Romans, now it’s killing me.

Old school rhyme for those studying Latin.

These type of threads always turn into this battle. Totally illogical and actually pretty spiteful and hate filled. I know that many people that post on this forum do not attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass or the Ordinary Form for that matter, being members of one or the other Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. So for them to to loudly protest and point out that in their Churches Latin isn’t the language used, to me seems devisive at best. I mean why even bring it up? I would assume that the average poster on this particular forum is well aware of that information and isn’t trying to push, how was it worded, cultural Imperialism? Whatever that may mean in todays world.

Then you have the Latin haters. And yes, you know who you are and you know that you do. I have seen way too many posts from you guys to think any differently.

Why can’t we accept the post for what it was, namely a link to some information that some people might find interesting and useful.

The other stuff is really irrelevant.

Oh they know who they are, and most of them could care less about going to a Latin mass, yet oddly they are constantly in the TC forum. Hmm interesting.
Good post by the way!

 

[ConstantineTG]

They might have said the same thing during the Reformation period.

During the early centuries, Vulgar Latin was the vernacular, from which the Romance languages developed. Ecclesiastical Latin was maybe man-made but it was codified by Cicero, whose moral code was adopted by the early Church fathers and whose vocabulary was Christianized by the Church. EL has obviously withstood the test of time in the West when French, Spanish, Italian, and later Germanic, could easily have become the lingua franca of the Catholic liturgy but didn’t. The Reformers, however, were able to exert their influence away from Latin in favor of translations. Not surprising that there are over 30,000 leaderless Christian denominations and over 200 copyrighted English Bibles today. Goes to show the Catholic Church can’t live on modern translations alone.

But those leaderless denominations isn’t lacking in language, they are lacking in Apostolic leadership brought by the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles. Language has nothing to do with it. It wasn’t just language they denied, it was tradition, history and the leadership that Christ himself established in the Apostles.

 

[TimothyH]

Anyone else here surprised by the Latin criticism comments? Just makes me want to learn Latin that much more!!!

We are not surpised the the Latin criticism comments becauase there are no Latin criticism comments on this thread to be surprised at.

People have said that Latin it is not the sole language of prayer, that it is not the universal language of the Church, and have pointed out that the article cited in the OP is not official Church teaching, but there are no criticisms of Latin on this thread.

There are accusations of criticism, and accusations of “Latin haters” but there is no criticism of Latin on this thread.

-Tim-

 

[A_G]

New website for praying in Latin full of countless prayers and resources:
sites.google.com/site/prayinglatin/

Explains why to pray in Latin, how to pray in Latin, and has sections with many prayers, meditations, as well as audio. Definitely worth checking out and forwarding to anyone who may have interest!

Thank you very much for posting this. I absolutely love the Traditional Latin Mass, Gregorian Chants, praying in Latin, etc… it’s in our (RC) history. A difficult yet beautiful language.

It is the official language of the Holy See.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you very much for posting this. I absolutely love the Traditional Latin Mass, Gregorian Chants, praying in Latin, etc… it’s out history and tradition. A difficult yet beautiful language.

It is the official language of the Holy See.

You probably don’t know this but while it is the “Official” language of the Holy See, the working language of the Holy See is Italian. I would think the reasons are obvious.

My own Mass preference is the OF Mass… in Latin

But I recognize that this is a personal preference, and not in any way shape or form mandatory for a Mass to be beautiful. In fact some of the Masses that reached me the most were simple OF, spoken Masses in French, in particular the 7 am weekday Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal. Quiet Masses, only 25 minutes long, with a handful of regulars. Go into the church in the dark, come out of the church at sunrise with the city waking at your feet (for those who don’t know the locale, the Oratory is on the northwest flank of Mount Royal offering a splendid view of the city below). In particular when the rector was presiding and would give one of his short, incisive, one or two sentence homilies that would stick with you all day. Alas a job change means I can no longer attend.

God reaches us in many ways and in many languages. Latin words to Gregorian chant to me is pure poetic beauty. But I have to recognize that’s not for everyone.

 

[ProVobis]

Language has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with religion, politics, and literature. Someone who doesn’t understand English may enjoy Hamlet in Chinese or Polish but he won’t really be reading Shakespeare in the words that he so carefully chose for his works, would he? And I’ve heard some pretty good translations in Polish, which happens to be my first language. It’s just not the same. Language does make a difference. Didn’t Latin vs Greek lead to early Church disunity?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It has everything to do with religion, politics, and literature. Someone who doesn’t understand English may enjoy Hamlet in Chinese or Polish but he won’t really be reading Shakespeare in the words that he so carefully chose for his works, would he? And I’ve heard some pretty good translations in Polish, which happens to be my first language. It’s just not the same. Language does make a difference. Didn’t Latin vs Greek lead to early Church disunity?

The disunity was in the Latin and Greek culture, not language. Also a number of other things, I haven’t seen anything from the Fathers of the Church back then that points to language being a source of friction. There is a long list of everything else, but language is not one of them. The Church has always spoken in many languages. We’ve always concentrated on the Roman empire but we forget that the Apostles made it further away from the Empire and the faith was taught to many who knew little to no Greek or Latin.

 

[IbnFiktur]

The disunity was in the Latin and Greek culture, not language.

Disclaimer: I agree with your overall point of not idolizing a language.

That said, it is clear that language did play a role in the development of somewhat different theologies between East and West in the early Church. I would argue that the role of language is equal to or greater than the role of culture. Greek simply has more ways of talking about theological concepts. Latin-speakers were sidelined for four centuries in the development of theological thought because translating Greek theological texts into Latin was virtually impossible… Latin just didn’t have the philosophical range of vocabulary for it.

Which is once again a great reason not to idolize a language. Greek, in many ways, can be considered a “superior” theological language.

 

[ProVobis]

Which is once again a great reason not to idolize a language. Greek, in many ways, can be considered a “superior” theological language.

That’s really pushing it, unless you consider Greek Mythology also superior to Virgil.