Praying in Latin

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

My main reason for my opinion is that one be able to enter into spontaneous prayer.

One is not able to do this with only a superficial knowledge of a language.

What is being suggested here is that people learn a set of prayers by rote rather than by actually knowing the language in question.

On this point, like many others, we will just have to disagree.

 

[una_fides]

I believe in God.

Nice dodge there. Do you believe in the Church’s teaching on holy water. Do you believe that holy water is able to drive away evil through the power of Christ? Do you believe that it is able to dispel demons and sickness? Do you believe that the use of holy water is also able to wash away venial sins?

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.

If you believe that healing, forgiving sins, and driving away evil spirits are “magical” then yes guilty as charged. These are all things that Christ himself did on earth and through his power he is able to do through the pious use of holy water.

The way you described it, yes .
I was merely explaining the Church’s teaching on this matter, so you are essentially saying you think the Church’s teaching is superstitious. Your qualm is not with me. I’m just the messenger.
ConstantineTG;9695859:

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

Then you are calling the Church’s teaching on holy water ridiculous.

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

lol. Please read my post HERE where I cited the Church’s teaching regarding teachings contained within papal encyclicals. If you only accept ex cathedra Church teachings and think everything else is up for grabs, then in all sincerity we need to be having a different discussion.

Actually there is, thou shalt not worship false idols.

This is like trying to stretch a rubber band around an elephant. How is God using water to bring about a spiritual reality somehow idolatry? No one is worshiping the water here. Do you believe that venerating saints and relics is idolatry as well?? This is the traditional Catholic forum, so if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings then we really won’t be getting anywhere in this discussion until other underlying issues could be addressed, but unfortunately that would be well outside the realm of this thread. I would be happy to discuss other issues with you via PM or if you want to start another thread on one of these topics.

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.

Actually so far the Latin haters camp has tried that at least twice so far on this thread, yourself included. Yours was in this same post when you asked me where the Church defined something ex cathedra (Love your use of Latin btw! Kind of inavoidable when discussing Catholic topics isn’t it! )

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.”

religionandspirituality.com/view/post/11805071965300/Vatican_exorcist_says_Devil_hates_Latin/
Pretty sure I don’t support the “religion and spirituality” website and that they would constitute a non-partisan third party source.

As I had suggested before, all this and more can be found on the Why Pray in Latin section of the website which is the topic of this thread.

 

[una_fides]

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

How was that a “big change”? Can you please cite what I said previously that has changed? I think at best you may find that you may have misunderstood something I wrote. I keep writing over and over on here that no one proposed that eastern Catholics must learn prayers in Latin yet for some odd reason you keep accusing me of doing so…

You’ve already agreed that it would not hurt them. I still don’t know what the hang up is to accept that it could even benefit an eastern Catholic if he wanted to learn a few common Latin prayers in order to show his fidelity and unity with Rome, which is the mother of all other Churches and be able to pray together in the same language with other Latin Rite Catholics around the world. The only reason someone would think that this would be harmful is if he either has difficulty accepting the authority Roman Church or fears that perhaps someone in the east could somehow lose his own identity by relating to his mother Church, which is obviously an absurd idea. It’s really hard to understand why all the animosity towards the Church’s language that popes have spoken of so highly. If you think proposing this hypothetical is somehow advocating that eastern Catholics need to or should therefore all start praying in Latin, then you are mistaken. The argument is limited to only saying that it’s not an evil or bad thing when anyone of his own free will chooses to do so.

 

[una_fides]

It does not however, mean liturgical prayer has to be exclusively in Latin.

Agreed. To think that would be ridiculous. Who made this argument?

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 have any evidence to support your view or any Church teachings at all that says that Latin is no more efficacious than any other language and that Latin can also be a hindrance when it does not have “cultural significance”?

Are you familiar with papal teachings on the Latin language? Here’s one I’ve already cited earlier:

"Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. (Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962 A.D.)

Here’s the post with a list of some good ones.

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 … Holy water is water that has been blessed. No more, no less.

Here is the link to the traditional blessing of holy water (in English for your reading pleasure). Let me know whether it fits within your understanding of sacramentals. Please understand that you are proposing arguments that fall under the spirit of vatican ii break with tradition theology on the Traditional Catholic forum.

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.

And God uses water to convey his supernatural powers. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Jesus used mud and spit to heal a person’s eyes and give sight to the blind. God used the handkerchiefs of St Paul to expel diseases and evil spirits from people (Acts 19:11-12). Yes sweaty handkerchiefs! Even St Peter’s shadow was able to produce healing as well (Acts 5:15). This is the Catholic faith as has always been believed and understood from the earliest days and continues unbroken to the present. Our God is more powerful and he uses matter to accomplish the supernatural. He became man, took on human flesh. He turns bread and wine into his actual Body and Blood. God has no problem with matter. He makes it holy and sacred as it was intended from the beginning. It is the error of Gnosticism to think that matter is evil and that God cannot use it as a vehicle by which he can bring about supernatural realities. I strongly suggest reading up on the Church’s traditional teaching regarding sacramentals and relics. You can start with your Baltimore Catechism!
**Question: **What is holy water?
**Answer: **Holy water is water blessed by the priest with solemn prayer to beg God’s blessing on those who use it, and protection from the powers of darkness.
catholicism.about.com/od/baltimorecatechism/f/Question_301_BC.htm

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on holy water that should also help: newadvent.org/cathen/07432a.htm

 

[una_fides]

My main reason for my opinion is that one be able to enter into spontaneous prayer.

One is not able to do this with only a superficial knowledge of a language.

What is being suggested here is that people learn a set of prayers by rote rather than by actually knowing the language in question.

I’m confused, why would someone learning prayers in Latin somehow stop them from being able to enter into spontaneous prayer? I mean it’s not like learning Latin somehow stops people from being able to pray in their native tongue if they so chose. They would also be able to spontaneously offer up a prayer they’ve learned and understand in Latin. I do this all the time. I’m particularly fond of this one, which is part of the divine office:
*
Deus+in adjutorium meum intende*, *
Domine ad adjuvandum me festina*

O God, come to my assistance
O Lord, make haste to help me

Even if, let’s say hypothetically the person did not even know what every single word meant but they knew that in that prayer they were asking and invoking God’s help as they made the Sign of the Cross on themselves, that prayer could still be quite efficacious could it not? You may argue that it would be more if they understood every word, but I would add that understanding words themselves is not the same thing as praying from the heart. One is able to attach his intentions to Latin prayers just as much as in a native tongue. And you could pray an Ave Maria as you fall on your knees begging the Blessed Virgin’s help for your particular problem. The many added benefits of doing so in Latin have already been explained on this thread and are explained on the praying in Latin website, but just to reiterate for practical example, there is an added comfort one gets when he knows he is praying in the language that unites him in a very special way with the Church throughout the world, with popes and saints throughout the ages, and with God who admires that person’s devotion to his Holy Catholic Church.

If you don’t want to pray in Latin or encourage others to do so, no one is twisting your arm, but when you come on the Trad forum and try to discourage others from praying in Latin you are actually only causing your anti-traditional side all the more harm since it only makes us want to pray in Latin all the more! We know of the opposition to tradition. That’s why we call ourselves Traditional Catholics because we accept the teachings of the Church as they have always been understood and handed down throughout the centuries, and we agree with our popes that our Latin language is most certainly "a treasure** of incomparable worth**."

 

[una_fides]

you are misinterpreting what “consecrated” means

Sorry missed this one above. I’m going with the dictionary definition of the word. You?
It means “to make sacred.” The Latin word consecrat- from the verb consecrare. The root of the word is sacer, which means sacred.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice dodge there. Do you believe in the Church’s teaching on holy water. Do you believe that holy water is able to drive away evil through the power of Christ? Do you believe that it is able to dispel demons and sickness? Do you believe that the use of holy water is also able to wash away venial sins?

Its not a dodge. Do you believe that the Holy Water acts autonomously once is has been imbued with the prayers?

If you believe that healing, forgiving sins, and driving away evil spirits are “magical” then yes guilty as charged. These are all things that Christ himself did on earth and through his power he is able to do through the pious use of holy water.

So you believe that water forgives sins?

I was merely explaining the Church’s teaching on this matter, so you are essentially saying you think the Church’s teaching is superstitious. Your qualm is not with me. I’m just the messenger.

Then can you point me to where the Church teaches these things? CCC? Vatican document? Teaching of a Pope, saint, monk, etc?

Then you are calling the Church’s teaching on holy water ridiculous.

I’m calling the beliefs of some people about the Holy Water ridiculous. And it is because it doesn’t coincide with what the Church actually teaches.

lol. Please read my post HERE where I cited the Church’s teaching regarding teachings contained within papal encyclicals. If you only accept ex cathedra Church teachings and think everything else is up for grabs, then in all sincerity we need to be having a different discussion.

Actually I’m one who doesn’t believe anything is ex cathedra.

This is like trying to stretch a rubber band around an elephant. How is God using water to bring about a spiritual reality somehow idolatry? No one is worshiping the water here. Do you believe that venerating saints and relics is idolatry as well?? This is the traditional Catholic forum, so if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings then we really won’t be getting anywhere in this discussion until other underlying issues could be addressed, but unfortunately that would be well outside the realm of this thread. I would be happy to discuss other issues with you via PM or if you want to start another thread on one of these topics.

Idolatry is not just about direct and obvious worship. If you assign powers to something or someone other than God then it is idolatry. And yes, I’ve seen people idolize relics, statues, icons, even the saints themselves. If our concept of what we do is misguided and goes beyond what is right, then we commit sin.

Actually so far the Latin haters camp has tried that at least twice so far on this thread, yourself included. Yours was in this same post when you asked me where the Church defined something ex cathedra (Love your use of Latin btw! Kind of inavoidable when discussing Catholic topics isn’t it! )

Like I said, I am not a Latin hater. I only object to ridiculous claims such as those made on the website. Superstition has no place in Catholicism. I’ve reminded a lot of my Traditionalist friends that Traditionalism has a lot going for it, why do they have to resort to such ridiculous claims?

religionandspirituality.com/view/post/11805071965300/Vatican_exorcist_says_Devil_hates_Latin/
Pretty sure I don’t support the “religion and spirituality” website and that they would constitute a non-partisan third party source.

As I had suggested before, all this and more can be found on the Why Pray in Latin section of the website which is the topic of this thread.

But again, I just find this the “I believe in it therefore it must be true” kind of websites. Not just because it is on a website somewhere therefore it must be true.

 

[OraLabora]

Here is the link to the traditional blessing of holy water (in English for your reading pleasure).

You know there’s really no need for sarcasm. It pulls the debate down into the mud.

 

[una_fides]

You know there’s really no need for sarcasm. It pulls the debate down into the mud.

C’mon. Lighten up. I think you are reading “bitter sarcasm” where lighthearted humor and conversational ease was intended. No hard feelings on my part. Was the link helpful at least?

 

[ProVobis]

Church’s teaching regarding teachings contained within papal encyclicals.

For the record, if you were referring to Veterum Sapientia, know that it is an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of decree by a Pope. It has the same weight as, for example, *Quo Primum *(1570) or *Missale Romanum *(1969).

And FWIW, “By their nature, they are addressed to the public.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution

 

[OraLabora]

C’mon. Lighten up. I think you are reading “bitter sarcasm” where lighthearted humor and conversational ease was intended. No hard feelings on my part. Was the link helpful at least?

Sorry, I’m a bit touchy these days due to some stress in my personal life.

For Latin: I believe it is the root language for the Roman Church, and should continue to be so. I agree that the editio typica of the liturgy should be in Latin. I also agree that the Latin liturgy should be in living use; after all I sing in a schola and am a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada, and we promote the use of Latin in the liturgy. It is part of our patrimony, and the corpus of chant accumulated over the ages has great poetic beauty and is worthy of living preservation, not just as a historical curiosity. The abbey to which I belong as oblate agrees and uses Latin and chant in the liturgy: Lauds, Vespers are fully in Latin except for readings and intercessions. The Mass uses the Gregorian propers and ordinary with French plainchant for the rest. The other hours use Latin hymns but French psalmody, and the Marian antiphon at Compline is in Latin. This, on a daily basis.

But we have to avoid cultural imperialism and avoid elitism. The Church is a broad tent and all are part of it from an illiterate farmer in the developing world all the way to the pope. One thing about a sacramental faith is that indeed it doesn’t require literacy in any language, let alone Latin, for God to distribute His graces.

As for holy water, it has no magical properties. It isn’t even required for valid baptism. It is a sacramental. It doesn’t save; only God does. It is a reminder of our baptism. It’s power comes from its ability to reinforce our faith in God. Its action is spiritual, not metaphysical (from the CCC):

1667 "Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy."171

The characteristics of sacramentals

1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops’ pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).

1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless.Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God."174

 

[una_fides]

Do you believe that the Holy Water acts autonomously once is has been imbued with the prayers?

Holy water as with other sacramentals operates both ex opere operantis Ecclesiae (from the working of the Church) and “ex opere operantis” (from the action of the doer). Thus the efficacy would depend on the prayer of the Church and the dispensation of the one using the holy water.

So you believe that water forgives sins?

Water does not forgive sins. God forgives the sins of those who properly dispose themselves to that forgiveness. Sacramentals when properly used dispose a soul to grace and can remit venail sins. This does not occur “magically” as you have so insinuated. This occurs through the prayerful disposition of the one employing the sacramental.

For more on sacramentals: fisheaters.com/sacramentalsintro.html

Then can you point me to where the Church teaches these things? CCC? Vatican document? Teaching of a Pope, saint, monk, etc?

If I show you, would it matter? Are you familiar with lex orandi lex credendi? It essentially means the way the Church prays is the way she believes.
Here is the link I posted earlier for the text to the blessing of holy water (in English ): awakentoprayer.org/old_blessing_of_holy_water.htm

St Theresa of Avala’s holy water prayer:
Lord, by this holy water and by Thy Precious Blood, wash away all my sins.
Domine ab aqua sancta et ab Sanguine Pretioso Tuo omnes peccatis meis elue. (translation mine).

Here’s something more (brief) on St Theresa of Avala and holy water: catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=20

I’m calling the beliefs of some people about the Holy Water ridiculous. And it is because it doesn’t coincide with what the Church actually teaches.

Please cite actual Church teaching then that demonstrates otherwise. So far I’ve provided you with the Church’s teaching on sacramentals and holy water.

Actually I’m one who doesn’t believe anything is ex cathedra.

Then we need to be having another discussion. We won’t be able to get anywhere by me citing authoritative Church sources if you have a selective acceptance of Church teaching.

Idolatry is not just about direct and obvious worship. If you assign powers to something or someone other than God then it is idolatry. And yes, I’ve seen people idolize relics, statues, icons, even the saints themselves. If our concept of what we do is misguided and goes beyond what is right, then we commit sin.

Where are you getting your definition of the word idolatry? Perhaps you are thinking of another word or concept? Here is the definition of the word: “the worship of a physical object as a god” www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolatry
It is important that we use words correctly in order to properly convey their meaning. Also the power that works through the holy water or other sacramentals comes from God. It is God’s power, not the power of water itself.

I’ve reminded a lot of my Traditionalist friends that Traditionalism has a lot going for it, why do they have to resort to such ridiculous claims?

Because these authoritative teachings of the Church, which make perfect sense when researched humbly, prayerfully, and without bias, are the same teachings the Church has handed down through her tradition and practice, and traditionalists wish to continue practicing and believing the faith as it has continually been practiced and believed.

But again, I just find this the “I believe in it therefore it must be true” kind of websites. Not just because it is on a website somewhere therefore it must be true.

This was a news report from an unbiased third party source that had no stake in the argument. What reason would you have to doubt its veracity? It sounds more like you have the bias that is unwilling to accept things when evidence is presented and yet you are producing no contrary evidence or any evidence or reason to question the sources.

 

[una_fides]

As for holy water, it has no magical properties. … It is a sacramental. … It’s power comes from its ability to reinforce our faith in God. Its action is spiritual, not metaphysical

Based on the text from the blessing of holy water would you at least agree that the element of the water itself that is blessed becomes the instrument by which God’s power flows to dispel evil?

From the traditional blessing of holy water:
“I exorcise you [water] so that you may put to flight all the power of the Enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that Enemy with his apostate angels: through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ … O God, Who for the salvation of mankind has built Thy greatest mysteries on this substance, water, in Thy kindness hear our prayers and pour down the power of Thy blessing + into this element, made ready for many kinds of purifications. May this, Thy creature, become an agent of divine grace in the service of Thy mysteries, to drive away evil spirits and dispel sickness, so that every- thing in the homes and other buildings of the faithful that is sprinkled with this water may be rid of all uncleanness and freed from every harm …” awakentoprayer.org/old_blessing_of_holy_water.htm

 

[una_fides]

For the record, if you were referring to Veterum Sapientia, know that it is an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of decree by a Pope. It has the same weight as, for example, *Quo Primum *(1570) or *Missale Romanum *(1969).

And FWIW, “By their nature, they are addressed to the public.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution

Great point. Thanks!

 

[una_fides]

Since we have been discussing a lot about sacramentals I would like to tie this back into the specific topic of the thread. The more we discuss this, the more it seems to jump out that the Latin language is a lot like a sacramental. As was pointed out, sacramentals have been made instruments of God’s power through the prayer of the Church and the disposition of the person(s) employing their use. Latin is similar in that it has been blessed (“consecrated,” made sacred) by the Church through its constant usage by the holy see, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and its effectiveness also depends on the disposition of the individual. Thus, if someone is praying in Latin for the wrong reasons, such as solely to make himself look good, for example, then the ability for the language to have its full effects for that person would be diminished. Whereas, if someone is piously and faithfully praying in Latin for all the right reasons, the language would have the ability to further dispose one to receive God’s graces, much like a sacramental.

There is nothing “magical” about it, but there is certainly something sacred and beautiful that comes out through praying in Latin, and there can be no doubt that souls that do so out of a desire to fulfill the wishes of our holy father, to experience the beauty, to infuriate the devil, to deepen prayer life, and to unite with the saints and faithful around the world in the Church’s mother tongue are disposing themselves to receive great graces and blessings from God.

 

[TimothyH]

I had a lesson in prayer once from a monk, the novice director at a Cistercian monastery, a man who taught other monks how to pray formally seven hours a day, and how to pray constantly throughouth their lives.

The one thing I learned from him and from the writings he recommended is that as one advances in prayer, it becomes a state, not an act. Prayer becomes a constant awareness of God’s presence and a state of constant communication, of dialog with God. Oral or formal prayer is only a very small part of that for those who are advanced.

For a monk who prays constantly, or anyone else who has advanced in prayer and the spiritual life, what language they use is a moot point, because language can never express the longing in the heart for the presence of God.

-Tim-

 

[mangy_dog]

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!

I would hope that wisdom would come with being a “forum elder”.

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of Peter, he emphasized and encouraged catholics everywhere to learn one or two prayers in Latin. His emphasis continues even today.

Latin is more efficacious in the liturgies of the mass and more efficacious in exorcisms. I’m sure that it is more efficacious in many other aspects of catholic life of prayer and life of the spirit.

No one posted this thread to have an argument. They posted it for the benefit of all catholics that wish to take advantage of it. Plain and simple.

But you have turned it into a point of contention.

Aquiesce anima mea in Deus salus mea.

 

[clem456]

I would hope that wisdom would come with being a “forum elder”.

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of Peter, he emphasized and encouraged catholics everywhere to learn one or two prayers in Latin. His emphasis continues even today.

Latin is more efficacious in the liturgies of the mass and more efficacious in exorcisms. I’m sure that it is more efficacious in many other aspects of catholic life of prayer and life of the spirit.

No one posted this thread to have an argument. They posted it for the benefit of all catholics that wish to take advantage of it. Plain and simple.

But you have turned it into a point of contention.

Aquiesce anima mea in Deus salus mea.

For clarity’s sake, can you define what you mean by “efficacious”

 

[TimothyH]

I would hope that wisdom would come with being a “forum elder”.

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of Peter, he emphasized and encouraged catholics everywhere to learn one or two prayers in Latin. His emphasis continues even today.

Latin is more efficacious in the liturgies of the mass and more efficacious in exorcisms. I’m sure that it is more efficacious in many other aspects of catholic life of prayer and life of the spirit.

No one posted this thread to have an argument. They posted it for the benefit of all catholics that wish to take advantage of it. Plain and simple.

But you have turned it into a point of contention.

Aquiesce anima mea in Deus salus mea.

There is a point of contention.

The contention is whether the Holy Father’s comments vis a vis Latin was meant for the members of Eastern Churches who have never used Latin.

When the Holy Father says that it is good for people to know prayers in Latin, he is speaking to Latin Catholics only, not to Byzantine, Melkite, Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar or members of other Eastern Catholic Chruches who have never used Latin.

That’s the point of contention, whether the Popes comments are for all Catholics or just Latin Catholics.

Walk into one of these Churches and start pushing Latin and the best you can hope for is to be politely ignored. It’s extremely insulting to them. I would think that Catholics who call themselves traditional would respect the traditions of these Churches, rather than stating that they have to adapt the traditions of the Latin Church.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Thus, if someone is praying in Latin for the wrong reasons, such as solely to make himself look good, for example, then the ability for the language to have its full effects for that person would be diminished.

I agree with this. Praying the Church-prescribed Latin (or Greek, for that matter) prayers is one thing. And there are many such prayers in the Church’s treasury, including the Roman Mass itself. Being creative in Latin just to be praying in Latin is another thing, though it doesn’t mean the prayer is necessarily insincere.