Praying in Latin

[una_fides]

I am not struggling with any comments coming from the popes.
…
Latin is not in any way beneficial for Eastern Catholics.

How would praying in a language not known or used be beneficial at all?

It is different for the Latin Church as Latin is known, in some cases, and is used.

Actually Latin is not known and used much in the Latin rite Church, and it was precisely for this reason that Pope Benedict made urging for all Catholics to learn the Church’s most common prayers in Latin. The reasoning he gives provides you with one answer to your question. He states that it is beneficial for “all Catholics” to learn these prayers so that when gathered together they may be able to pray together in the same language. To me this makes much practical sense. Does it not? If you had to pick a language for the whole Church to learn to be able to pray together wouldn’t it make sense that it would be the language of the Mother Church. The Church which holds the presidency over every other? The one that unites the flock together? So there is one reason given how it would benefit eastern Catholics. Does that mean they need to learn it? No. Are they in any way compelled to? No. Was I or was anyone else even on here trying to convince eastern Catholics to pray in Latin??? NO!! This whole argument was fabricated from its onset in an attempt to degrade the Latin language and downplay its significance. But why would someone want to do that? Seems like some people on here have an anti-Latin agenda.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I understand Brother. I should have used the little sarcasm smiley.

My point was, that in my times of most intense prayer, the times when I wept after having recieved the Eucharist, the time when I was on all fours hyperventilating and begging God for help, these were beyond language.

Our Father, who art in Heaven…

OK, yes, go ahead and argue.

But I see women coming up to venerate a relic of St. Jude at a novena, people who have children dying of cancer and kids who’s father’s have just abandoned them two weeks ago, and the tears in their eyes and the longing they have in their heart for help doesn’t have a language. The words we say in the prayers together and the the “O Salutaris” we sing have language, but it seems to me that some prayer is simply beyond any language.

-Tim-

I am with you you in this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually Latin is not known and used much in the Latin rite Church, and it was precisely for this reason that Pope Benedict made urging for all Catholics to learn the Church’s most common prayers in Latin. The reasoning he gives provides you with one answer to your question. He states that it is beneficial for “all Catholics” to learn these prayers so that when gathered together they may be able to pray together in the same language. To me this makes much practical sense. Does it not? If you had to pick a language for the whole Church to learn to be able to pray together wouldn’t it make sense that it would be the language of the Mother Church. The Church which holds the presidency over every other? The one that unites the flock together? So there is one reason given how it would benefit eastern Catholics. Does that mean they need to learn it? No. Are they in any way compelled to? No. Was I or was anyone else even on here trying to convince eastern Catholics to pray in Latin??? NO!! This whole argument was fabricated from its onset in an attempt to degrade the Latin language and downplay its significance. But why would someone want to do that? Seems like some people on here have an anti-Latin agenda.

Again, you need to look who the pope is speaking to when “all Catholics” is used.

Latin has never been and never will be used or even encouraged to be used by the Catholic Churches other than the Latin Church.

I am sorry that this seems to bother you but that is how it is.

 

[una_fides]

Interesting. Our Lord performed numbers of successful exorcisms in His day, I should think He was more ‘expert’ than all other exorcists put together. He certainly didn’t speak Latin to them. There’s no record of His speaking anything other than the vernacular tongue, in this case Aramaic, to them.

And our Lord established a Church that is universally under the authority of Peter. St Peter established the Church in Rome and gave her his authority. The Church of Rome adopted a universal language for her universal Church, and all her publications were put out in this language. The successors of St Peter who hold that authority given to them by Christ have countlessly defended and promoted the Latin language. This Church established a rite of exorcism to drive out evil spirits, and the experts this Church has put in charge have stated that they believe that Latin is more effective at driving away the demonic from their experience. It also makes sense. These demons have been driven out for a very long time by this language that they obviously must despise. Think about what this language represents. It represents the unity of Christendom, the see of blessed Peter. This is the language that the evil one so despises and wishes would cease to exist altogether. This language is as Pope Pius XII stated, “an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine” and what more does the devil want than to corrupt true doctrine? If you read the numerous statements by popes concerning Latin, I think the reasons that demons would hate and despise it so much becomes more apparent.

 

[una_fides]

The problem I have with the link posted is the preposterous claims about magical properties of Latin. … “The devil hates Latin.” I mean, c’mon. If that is not idolatry and superstition, I don’t know what is. … That is magic or superstition and has no place in the Catholic faith.

How about this statement? The devil hates holy water.

Apart from a purely academic usage, Latin is not a spoken language anymore other than in prayer. Obviously the devil is not gonna like that one bit (nor would he like those other things I stated in my last post) He is obviously going to do everything he can to belittle and extinguish its usage. Whose side are you on in this?

 

[una_fides]

Again, you need to look who the pope is speaking to when “all Catholics” is used.

Latin has never been and never will be used or even encouraged to be used by the Catholic Churches other than the Latin Church.

I am sorry that this seems to bother you but that is how it is.

I don’t know why you would think that would bother me at all. I hate having to keep repeating myself over and over again on here but this whole eastern thing was imposed on this thread. If eastern Catholics don’t want to pray in Latin that’s fine. I had only stated that even if one were to decide to do so, even if it was just to be able to pray with Latin Rite Catholics at large gatherings of the faithful, obviously that would not be harmful to their souls. Agreed?

 

[LilyM]

And our Lord established a Church that is universally under the authority of Peter. St Peter established the Church in Rome and gave her his authority. The Church of Rome adopted a universal language for her universal Church, and all her publications were put out in this language. The successors of St Peter who hold that authority given to them by Christ have countlessly defended and promoted the Latin language. This Church established a rite of exorcism to drive out evil spirits, and the experts this Church has put in charge have stated that they believe that Latin is more effective at driving away the demonic from their experience. It also makes sense. These demons have been driven out for a very long time by this language that they obviously must despise. Think about what this language represents. It represents the unity of Christendom, the see of blessed Peter. This is the language that the evil one so despises and wishes would cease to exist altogether. This language is as Pope Pius XII stated, “an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine” and what more does the devil want than to corrupt true doctrine? If you read the numerous statements by popes concerning Latin, I think the reasons that demons would hate and despise it so much becomes more apparent.

Those exorcists are not successors of Peter. They are not of the Magisterium. They share only in extremely limited circumstances (assuming they are all priests, possibly some are not) in the charism of infallibility.

The very fact of those who ARE of the Magisterium promulgating use of the vernacular means that they do not believe that Latin has any special power in and of itself over demons - certainly there are no magisterial pronouncements preferring Latin exorcisms to vernacular ones unlike, say, the marked precedence given to communion in the hand or male altar servers or the like.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t know why you would think that would bother me at all. I hate having to keep repeating myself over and over again on here but this whole eastern thing was imposed on this thread. If eastern Catholics don’t want to pray in Latin that’s fine. I had only stated that even if one were to decide to do so, even if it was just to be able to pray with Latin Rite Catholics at large gatherings of the faithful, obviously that would not be harmful to their souls. Agreed?

Big change from what has been said but yes I can agree that it would not be harmful to their souls.

The eastern thing was brought up because of the misinformation in this thread that all Catholics should pray in Latin and that this has been taught by the Church.

 

[una_fides]

Prayer from the heart has a universal language. God’s. We feel it; He understands it.

My use of Latin in the Divine Office is no more than an affectation. Aesthetics. But I admit it. It has no special power, other than the power to attract me, it’s for my own pleasure and to help keep my mind sharp … To suggest that because it’s in Latin and that makes it more efficacious, is treating Latin like a sort of talisman with magic powers, like some do with sacramentals. It isn’t putting Latin on a pedestal, it is putting ourselves on a pedestal that some how we feel superior because we can pray in Latin…

I really wonder, sometimes, why I come on the Trad forum. … Souls are in trouble, the world is burning, people are suffering, and we’re having discussions on whether or not it is better to pray in Latin… Thankfully while we’re busy doing the Pharisee “look at me” schtick, God is listening to the hearts of those who will taste the Beatitudes.

Prayer is more than just a feeling. Your argument is aimed at an emotional appeal, but a rational look at the facts demands more. You argue such as it’s the end of the world and people have hardships and problems so why bother learning to pray in Latin or even talk about it at all. It is precisely because of these problems and precisely because souls are in trouble that we should pray in Latin!

Praying in this language benefits us so much more than just a basic “attraction.” There is a much deeper spirituality involved that is also tied to the Eucharist, as Pope John Paul II himself admitted. It is precisely because we can’t do it alone that we need both Christ and his Body, the Church. The Latin language unites us with all those other faithful Catholics throughout the world. We can all pray together in union with the holy popes and saints in the same language they have prayed throughout the centuries. Such a visible and tangible union can bring such great consolations.

There is nothing at all prideful in wanting to pray in union with the pope or the Church and to accuse others of such a thing without full knowledge would be a sin. You cannot judge the hearts and intents of others. If you were referring to yourself as being proud and Pharisaical in your reasoning for praying in Latin, then I would ask that you please be cautious not to project your own intentions onto other sincere Catholics.

It pains me to see others hurling insults at people who have a sincere burning desire to follow Christ and his Church through her teachings and traditions that have been handed down to us by popes throughout the centuries. To hurl such insults and accusations at Catholics who wish to pray in the language in which popes both pray and have urged the faithful to pray is by extension also hurling those same insults at those popes themselves.

 

[una_fides]

Big change from what has been said but yes I can agree that it would not be harmful to their souls.

The eastern thing was brought up because of the misinformation in this thread that all Catholics should pray in Latin and that this has been taught by the Church.

Then your quibble is with the wording that the pope chose to use. Practically speaking though do you really need to worry about someone going onto the Pray in Latin website and seeing that “the pope urged all Catholics to pray in Latin” and then them get upset because they are eastern Catholics? The only ones going on the site in the first place are those who have an interest in Latin. There is really no need to bring it up in the first place. My argument from the very beginning is that there is no danger or harm that was somehow being prevented through thistle’s first comment that started this whole east / west thing.

 

[una_fides]

Those exorcists are not successors of Peter. They are not of the Magisterium. They share only in extremely limited circumstances (assuming they are all priests, possibly some are not) in the charism of infallibility.

The very fact of those who ARE of the Magisterium promulgating use of the vernacular means that they do not believe that Latin has any special power in and of itself over demons - certainly there are no magisterial pronouncements preferring Latin exorcisms to vernacular ones unlike, say, the marked precedence given to communion in the hand or male altar servers or the like.

I think you meant to type “on the tongue.” The Church does not give precedence to Communion in the hand. That is a special permission that was granted in order to try to reduce the scandal that was resulting from its widespread illicit use. (If you wish to further discuss CITH though, please start another thread.)

Lily, I think you may have misunderstood something somewhere because no one said that the statement “the devil hates Latin” was infallible, which would make it something that every Catholic had to believe by faith. You have the liberty to personally disagree, but to say that it’s not infallible is not an argument against its veracity. On the other side, the Magisterium has never said anything that indicates that the Latin language is not more effective at driving away evil and has never infallibly made any declaration to support your view as well. The actual evidence that supports this claim are expert opinions of exorcists that have performed many many exorcisms. What the Magisterium actually has said on this matter actually does seem to support such a view. Have you read the many papal declarations on the Latin language yet?

Here is one that may be of particular interest which came from the pope who convened Vatican II:

“the Latin language ‘can be called truly catholic.’ It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed ‘a treasure…of incomparable worth.’”

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “consecrate”? We use it all the time when referring to the blessed sacrament being “consecrated,” which means “to make sacred.” Bread and wine are made sacred when they are turned into the Body and Blood of our Lord. The pope here is saying that the Latin language has been made sacred. The word sacred has the meaning of being set apart as something holy. Certainly the devil is going to hate anything sacred. Obviously no other language has been in constant use by the Apostolic See, so it makes logical sense that Latin would thereby be more effective at driving away the demonic than an ordinary vulgar tongue. Again this is not de fide, so you can disagree, but if you do, it may be worthwhile or at least fair to also ask yourself whether you have any magisterial teachings that actually support your opinion.

 

[LilyM]

Yes I meant to say communion on the tongue of course.

No, the fact that it has not been said infallibly is not evidence against it.

However the mere fact that a Pope or Popes - or anyone - HAVE said it is equally not evidence for its truth. If that were the case, then the fact that the current Pope adores cats and Mozart means we should all forthwith prefer them to dogs and Beethoven!

And the Pope’s opinion that Latin has been somehow made sacred is meant to be taken just as that. If it were meant otherwise he (and his successors who would have been bound by it) would have forbidden the use of any other language - including Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, none of which have been so expressed to be so consecrated.

The Kyrie, the Alleluia and the word ‘Sabaoth’ would all have been abolished. The rights of Eastern churches to their particular languages would have been revoked.

In Papal teaching, as in any other, actions can speak much more loudly than words. And the lack of action in this instance, despite the fine rhetoric, fairly speaks volumes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you believe in holy water?

I believe in God.

That God can endow ordinary water with supernatural qualities as a result of a prayer being attached to it?

Holy water isn’t something supernatural. It is water that is blessed. Again, you are trying to assign magical qualities which is something the Church doesn’t do nor teach.

Or do you think that is “superstitious” too?

The way you described it, yes.

God uses matter to accomplish supernatural things. God consecrates matter, he makes it holy. If God can do this to physical matter, do you believe it “cultish” to think that he *could *also do this for a language? I think an unbiased mind would at least admit this to be a possibility.

I think an unbiased mind would this its ridiculous to even think that.

Please respond to this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9692161&postcount=63 Again notice the quote from a Pope who said that the Latin language has been “consecrated.”

Is that Ex Cathedra? Also, you are misinterpreting what “consecrated” means.

And certainly nothing in Church teaching contradicts this assertion either.

Actually there is, thou shalt not worship false idols. Even St. Stephen charged the Jews with idolatry for assigning magical properties to the temple, believing the temple can contain God.

Obviously we are not dealing with a matter that is de fide, but it is the expert testimony of those who deal with these things. You obviously reject their testimony, and in the process you are also essentially calling the Vatican’s chief exorcist “absurd,” “ridiculous,” an “idolator,” and one who promotes “cultish” views. You can have your own opinion and disagree whether Latin is more effective at driving away the demonic, but there is no need to demonize those who disagree with you. (pun intended)

I really find it funny that when something supports someone’s personal belief and interpretation, suddenly that person is an authority. But when you present something from age old Church Tradition and someone personally doesn’t agree with it, suddenly it’s optional belief because it was never pronounced de fide.

Second, where is the proof that the exorcist even made this claim? Its easy to say that he said it, but did he really say it? Or is this a case of, “its on a website promoting something I already believe in, therefore it must be true.”

 

[OraLabora]

Prayer is more than just a feeling. Your argument is aimed at an emotional appeal, but a rational look at the facts demands more. You argue such as it’s the end of the world and people have hardships and problems so why bother learning to pray in Latin or even talk about it at all. It is precisely because of these problems and precisely because souls are in trouble that we should pray in Latin!

Praying in this language benefits us so much more than just a basic “attraction.” There is a much deeper spirituality involved that is also tied to the Eucharist, as Pope John Paul II himself admitted. It is precisely because we can’t do it alone that we need both Christ and his Body, the Church. The Latin language unites us with all those other faithful Catholics throughout the world. We can all pray together in union with the holy popes and saints in the same language they have prayed throughout the centuries. Such a visible and tangible union can bring such great consolations.

There is nothing at all prideful in wanting to pray in union with the pope or the Church and to accuse others of such a thing without full knowledge would be a sin. You cannot judge the hearts and intents of others. If you were referring to yourself as being proud and Pharisaical in your reasoning for praying in Latin, then I would ask that you please be cautious not to project your own intentions onto other sincere Catholics.

It pains me to see others hurling insults at people who have a sincere burning desire to follow Christ and his Church through her teachings and traditions that have been handed down to us by popes throughout the centuries. To hurl such insults and accusations at Catholics who wish to pray in the language in which popes both pray and have urged the faithful to pray is by extension also hurling those same insults at those popes themselves.

I make a distinction between liturgical prayer and personal prayer. Personal prayer does not have to be in Latin.

Liturgical prayer does not have to be in Latin but it can be in Latin for various reasons. I pray liturgically in Latin.

But I’m a Roman Catholic, it’s part of my patrimony and it’s a part I think is important to preserve.

It does not however, mean liturgical prayer has to be exclusively in Latin. Nor does it mean that Latin is any more efficacious than other languages for Liturgical prayer in a Church that has moved well beyond its traditional boundaries to places where Latin has little or no cultural significance and in fact can be a hindrance.

Do you believe in holy water? That God can endow ordinary water with supernatural qualities as a result of a prayer being attached to it? Or do you think that is “superstitious” too? God uses matter to accomplish supernatural things. God consecrates matter, he makes it holy. If God can do this to physical matter, do you believe it “cultish” to think that he *could *also do this for a language? I think an unbiased mind would at least admit this to be a possibility.

You need to learn the difference between a sacramental and a sacrament. Holy water holds no magic powers. It is water that has been blessed as a reminder of our baptism. Our abbot gave us a very good talking to on this subject during the H1N1 crisis when holy water had been removed from all the fonts. One oblate in formation claimed this was ridiculous because nobody can get sick from holy water. The abbot gave her a polite but direct dressing down for mixing up a sacramental with a sacrament. Holy water is water that has been blessed. No more, no less.

I think it’s important to learn the difference. I see far too many people here use things like holy water or rosaries as a talisman with magic powers. This is contrary to the faith in fact it’s a danger to the faith and is a form of idolatry and superstition. Believing that holy water has supernatural powers is a danger to the faith. Only God has supernatural powers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Then your quibble is with the wording that the pope chose to use.

No quibble with the pope’s wording. The pope did not mean every Catholic. As I have said before and others have said elsewhere, one must look to the audience that the pope is addressing.

The pope was addressing the Latin Church so when he says “all Catholics” he means all Latin Catholics.

The quibble is with you and your inability to parse the statements of the Church and popes according to the audiences being addressed.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin is not in any way beneficial for Eastern Catholics.

How about Greek or Syriac, or some of the other ancient languages that were addressed, though not specifically, in Veterum Sapientia?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How about Greek or Syriac, or some of the other ancient languages that were addressed, though not specifically, in Veterum Sapientia?

I believe that this would depend on which tradition you are speaking of.

Yes we Byzantines do use Greek in our Liturgy but I believe that if any language would be put forward for private prayers besides the vernacular it would be Church Slavonic.

But IMHO using any language different from the one that a person thinks in (usually their native language unless they are totally immersed in an other one) in their private prayers is not beneficial.

 

[ProVobis]

t does not however, mean liturgical prayer has to be exclusively in Latin. Nor does it mean that Latin is any more efficacious than other languages for Liturgical prayer in a Church that has moved well beyond its traditional boundaries to places where Latin has little or no cultural significance and in fact can be a hindrance.

I see what you’re saying for the most part but I have to point out that the Church in its rich history chose its words carefully (“Sabaoth,” “clementissime,” “Kyrie eleison,” etc.) for use in its liturgy to make it as efficacious as possible for everyone. How can this be achieved with committees that revise translations every 20-40 years for targetted populations? The poetry (alliteration, rhyme, meter, etc.) all change and each retranslation only removes one further from the original, the new English translation notwhithstanding. It would be like Cliff’s notes upon previous Cliff’s notes in an attempt to rewrite Shakespeare in English or in Chinese. Sure they may understand the plot of Hamlet better but it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare, who wasn’t just about plots.

 

[una_fides]

However the mere fact that a Pope or Popes - or anyone - HAVE said it is equally not evidence for its truth. If that were the case, then the fact that the current Pope adores cats and Mozart means we should all forthwith prefer them to dogs and Beethoven!

And the Pope’s opinion that Latin has been somehow made sacred is meant to be taken just as that. If it were meant otherwise he (and his successors who would have been bound by it) would have forbidden the use of any other language - including Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, none of which have been so expressed to be so consecrated.

The Kyrie, the Alleluia and the word ‘Sabaoth’ would all have been abolished. The rights of Eastern churches to their particular languages would have been revoked.

In Papal teaching, as in any other, actions can speak much more loudly than words. And the lack of action in this instance, despite the fine rhetoric, fairly speaks volumes.

Lily, you are absolutely right to think that if the pope had mentioned in a personal correspodance that he personally favors Latin or the like then it would solely be his opinion and we would not thereby owe it our assent. However, the citations I have presented are from papal encyclicals, which is an authoritative magisterial document. While everything contained within is not infallible, it is an authentic presentation of the Church’s ordinary magisterium to which we owe our religious assent. Here is what the Church’s official concerning the authority of encyclicals:

“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis).

The rest of your argument doesn’t follow a natural progression. Just because the Latin language has been consecrated (made sacred) through its constant usage by the holy see, mother of all other Churches, doesn’t mean that other languages are thereby not also still efficacious. Language is the vehicle or instrument through which we elevate our hearts and minds to God. If hypothetically speaking God were to endow one language with a special usage that by no means somehow degrades or makes all other languages less useful or special in their own way.

 

[ProVobis]

But IMHO using any language different from the one that a person thinks in (usually their native language unless they are totally immersed in an other one) in their private prayers is not beneficial.

As my dad would always tell me, and no disrespect intended, this is just an excuse. With learning one can “think” in any terms imaginable, be it math, computers, whatnot. Polish was my first language. I didn’t “think” in English until I was taught a certain amount of vocabulary. The anti-Latin crowd apparently did a pretty good job of preventing any kind of learning in Latin terms. I went to school in the 60’s and know all this to be true. Given the chance, some people will learn and some won’t. But if they’re not given the chance, they never will learn.