Praying in Latin

[Melchior_1]

I don’t remember what metaphysics means** but you’re overthinking this.** Latin is no longer evolving like other languages. The meaning of words in Latin no longer change over time. This is due to historical circumstances, that’s all.

I shouldn’t “overthink” things? Instead, should I should remain ignorant of what is being said for my own protection?

Latin has gone on being a liturgical language for Roman Catholics for so long, without piety ever leading to its rebirth as a spoken language, that I think think this “shield” (good word for it) will never be lost. If in some hypothetical future Latin becomes a vernacular, then I hope that a distinction is retained between the liturgical form and the vernacular form. I understand that’s how Greek liturgies evolved and it seems to have worked for them.

Latin used to be a vernacular, was there a distinction then?

And the Greeks did just fine with their vernacular? Good to know that the vernacular alone isn’t the cause of problems.

 

[ProVobis]

the words always mean the same.

In whose language? What’s your reference point?

 

[Melchior_1]

The Church made Latin immutable and all Popes since Pope Victor I have recognized this, though Cicero and other classicists get some credit for codifying its vocabulary and grammar. It’s still a matter of belief in the faith (for example, transubstantionem), understanding not so much. Attempting to understand the supernatural will only prove frustrating.

Immutable yes, however within the minds of people it might not be so. Again, like I said, those receiving the language will dictate how it is interpreted.

Perhaps the immutableness stems to the words of the language, but not the inherent language itself. Transubstantiation is immutable, and written in English the English definitions become immutable.

Also, if everyone gave into the frustration when attempting to understand the supernatural, we’d have no Doctors of the Church It’s healthy to question things, Thomas did and he’s the Patron Saint of India due to traveling there after he received his Answer.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin used to be a vernacular, was there a distinction then?

Vulgar Latin was a vernacular, and it evolved into modern day Romance languages. Ecclesiastical Latin, or Classic Latin for that matter, was never considered to be a street vernacular, AFAIK.

 

[Melchior_1]

New translations come out because our modern language changes, while the source language remains the same.

Therefore we can use the source language of the Bible at Mass, as the reasoning you’ve given for Latin can apply to other dead languages.

The Church composed the liturgy to be simply and clearly understood.

If it’s so easy to understand, why do people say that having in the vernacular is so complicated?

And if it’s so easy, I shouldn’t have to reference and read three or four different books to figure out what the priest is saying.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps the immutableness stems to the words of the language, but not the inherent language itself. Transubstantiation is immutable, and written in English the English definitions become immutable.

Fair point. Half of English words are Latin-based but that doesn’t mean such words as “honor,” “color,” etc. will always preserve the same meaning so I can’t agree with you.

 

[Rich_C]

I shouldn’t “overthink” things? Instead, should I should remain ignorant of what is being said for my own protection?

Thinking and overthinking are different things. The distinction can be fuzzy. Usually someone else has to point it out to me when I’m overthinking.

Latin used to be a vernacular, was there a distinction then?

It was adopted in the liturgy at precisely the time in European history when most people spoke something else (Greek, Celtic, or Germanic languages) so you have to nuance this claim a lot, and not think of it as comparable to say, the use of the vernacular today.

And the Greeks did just fine with their vernacular? Good to know that the vernacular alone isn’t the cause of problems.

You overlooked my “high/low” point here.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the earliest surviving Greek liturgies used a “high vernacular” that would have sounded to ancient Greek-speaking Christians much like Shakespear or the Douay-Rheims bible sounds to modern English-speaking Christians. I think that is also a good example of protecting the liturgy by elevating is above the common language that worked well for the Greeks.

 

[Melchior_1]

Vulgar Latin was a vernacular, and it evolved into modern day Romance languages. Ecclesiastical Latin, or Classic Latin for that matter, was never considered to be a street vernacular, AFAIK.

There’s “never considered” in the sense “it’s never been used” and “never considered” in the “it was never an official rule, but people spoke the language anyway”.

It’s fun talking about languages and what not, and getting into metaphysical discussions about the merits thereof. But there is a part of me that also thinks;

Is it REALLY that big of a deal if the Mass is said in the vernacular? I mean, seriously? It’s a language. If the words are said and the priest does everything he should do, who cares?

Mass is Mass, right?

 

[ProVobis]

If it’s so easy to understand, why do people say that having in the vernacular is so complicated?

Because vernacular presupposes a consensus of opinion among translators. Thus it becomes more complicated than it needs to and never gets resolved. Leave Shakespeare alone. Leave the Italian operas alone. Leave the Mass alone. Leave Scripture alone. Problem solved.

 

[Rich_C]

Therefore we can use the source language of the Bible at Mass, as the reasoning you’ve given for Latin can apply to other dead languages.

This is already the case, in fact. The only Bible the Church authoritatively takes as its source for translations is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. That’s what we hear at Mass (EF).

If it’s so easy to understand, why do people say that having in the vernacular is so complicated?

I don’t know why people say that. I don’t say that. Ask them.

And if it’s so easy, I shouldn’t have to reference and read three or four different books to figure out what the priest is saying.

People just have to read one: the missal. What other books are you reading?

 

[Abba]

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.

…
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 agree with this, my prayers are sometimes interrupted by the thought - God already knows all this. This interruption sometimes happens when I am praying for the needs of people and I get into the details. God already knows. Yet, we pray as such to Our Father and we also praise Him and we contemplate the mysteries of the rosary. When we do, we receive peace, blessings and answers to our prayers if it is good for our salvation and those for whom we pray. I haven’t thought much about this but off the top of my head prayer allows us to communicate with God and it is good for us to pray not because God needs information. I think praying allows us to communicate with God and the angels and saints and aside from that it is good for us. Often times we just are in the presence of God and no words not even thoughts in infused prayer are necessary. But, language is necessarily for us and our spiritual advancements just as our thoughts are, aside from gifts God may give us.

As for the tears of joy after receiving a sacrament or spiritual experiences that God gives to us as gift - our prayers and faith help us to grow spiritually and to receive these gifts. Now, I am not saying that we receive spiritual gifts and blessings because of our prayers and the practicing of our faith - God gives gifts to whomever He pleases (e.g. Saint Paul as he was on his way to persecute some Christians) but certainly we receive blessings and spiritual gifts when we practice our faith and pray.

So, if Latin is a language that is complementary to prayer and the sacred and there are those who are willing to make the effort to learn and pray with the Latin language then I would say by all means. Why would it not help? We need all the help we can get to remove our thoughts when we pray to the sacred and holy.

I think a question that would be interesting to answer is: Is Latin a language that by its very structure and composition richer than others for the contemplation of the sacred and holy and spiritual. I do not know much Latin - just some ejaculations and prayers my grandmother and aunts and uncles would say and pray. In other words, does Latin facilitate the learning, searching and understanding of the spiritual more so than another language.

I cannot answer that question accurately and precisely because I do not know enough Latin to make the evaluation but I am inclined to think just from my exposition to the language that it is more so than other languages. At the very least it appears to me to be complementary. Greek was once upon a time preferred due to its exactness but Latin can elevate the thoughts to the spiritual realm. I would say Greek is better for science and Latin for the expression of faith.

Before I am attacked - I really hope that I am not, I am expressing my thoughts here to my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, I just want to note that back on page five I think it was there seem to me to have been talk of language and culture as if they are two separate things - they are not. Language encapsulates culture and precisely as a culture evolves the language evolves they are linked together.

It is special the Latin has been the traditional language of the Catholic Church and the Church needs a language and it contributes to its unity. I really like Latin and praying certain prayers in Latin and it does help my focus because it my faith language and that already helps to put me in a spiritual mode for a lack of a better word. I do not know enough about the language nor command it enough to appreciate how it compliments the spiritual and sacred but I can notice by the words that exists in the language that it may very well serve more than other languages for this purpose.

Finally, I want to say that because this is the language that has been used by the Church for centuries and it is the Official Language of the Catholic Church (with no distinction that I have noticed in regards to the eastern churches - see quotation of Pope John Paul the Great below) I can see how Satan and his demons would not like Latin as it has a spiritual history. Also Latin is a rich and most beautiful language and some of the most beautifull and extraordinary poems ever written were written my monks in Latin.

fisheaters.com/latin.html
DEVIL ESPECIALLY HATES PRAYERS IN LATIN, SAYS A PRIEST KNOWN AS ‘ROME’S EXORCIST’
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1842528/posts

Pope John Paul II Recommends Wider use of Latin

VATICAN, Feb 21, 02 – Pope John Paul II has recommended the use of Latin in the Roman liturgy and in seminary training.

In a message to a conference being held at the Salesian University in Rome, the Holy Father emphasized that Latin remains the official language of the Catholic Church, and expressed his desire that “the love of that language would grow ever strong among candidates for the priesthood.” The Pope’s message itself was written in Latin, and read by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State.

The conference to which the Pope addressed this message was commemorating the 40th anniversary of Veterum Sapientia, the apostolic constitution in which Pope John XXIII wrote of the importance of Latin as an important part of “the patrimony of human civilization.” Pope John Paul underlined the same message, pointing out that the use of Latin “is an indispensable condition for a proper relationship between modernity and antiquity, for dialogue among different cultures, and for reaffirming the identity of the Catholic priesthood.” latincatholic.tripod.com/id18.html

Traditional Prayers,
Creeds, and Ejaculations
fisheaters.com/prayers.html#requiem

My two cents. :twocents: duly deposited.

Peace.

Abba

 

[Abba]

P.s.

A language is not just a different way with different sounds to communicate the same thing in the say way. :nope: A language in it’s totality and specific use offers a window for viewing reality. One language may magnify something more than another. People live with a different perception of reality than others according to their language and culture. That’s one of the great thing about learning languages - we get to appreciate the perception of reality that is unique to the language. I think Latin emphasizes the spiritual and there is a lot to be said for it being the official language of the Catholic Church - just that would make it an unpleasant language to demons - never mind the prayers and Masses that have been said against them in Latin

 

[ConstantineTG]

New translations come out because our modern language changes, while the source language remains the same. Also, I would not compare translating the scriptures and the liturgy too closely. The divinely-inspired words merit constant exegesis in every generation. The Church composed the liturgy to be simply and clearly understood. It’s not quite the same process, I think.

Also, your misuse of sarcasm makes you sound less intelligent than you are.*

*edited for charity

I try to match my conversation level with the target audience

In whose language? What’s your reference point?

I dunno, you tell me. Isn’t this the creed of the pro-Latin crowd? Who’s reference is it that the Latin never changes meaning? Every person needs to have the Latin translated in their Missal of their vernacular. It still is being translated.

 

[Rich_C]

I try to match my conversation level with the target audience

I have a beautiful new wife, a decent job, a fridge full of cold Boh to share with my buddies, and I get to assist at the “most beautiful thing this side of Heaven” every Sunday. It’s time I stopped letting an Internet creep get a rise out of me and got back to all that. Later.

 

[OraLabora]

The only Bible the Church authoritatively takes as its source for translations is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. That’s what we hear at Mass (EF).

Not quite. Officially the Church uses the Nova Vulgata since 1979. Of course at the EF the older texts would still be in use. There are differences in spelling and structure. For example in Ps 94:

Vulgate

Quia in manu ejus sunt omnes fines terrae

Neo-Vulgate

Quia in manu eius sunt profunda terrae.

Immutable indeed.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have a beautiful new wife, a decent job, a fridge full of cold Boh to share with my buddies, **and I get to assist at the “most beautiful thing this side of Heaven” every Sunday. **

So do I. But regarding the bolded, it’s in English.

It’s time I stopped letting an Internet creep get a rise out of me and got back to all that. Later.

CTG is a reasonable chap who replied with a good nature barb, and you respond like so.

But then again, applying your earlier reasoning regarding shielding people through the use of language; if you responded in Latin with such a statement, he’d be none the wiser so it’d be less bad to insult him in such fashion.

 

[TrueLight]

Wow. I stay away from this thread for a day and look what it turned into.

See what happens when the gentle presence of a woman is absent?

Alright, alright. Maybe not that gentle.

 

[una_fides]

Latin is not imposed as the unifying language for the entire Catholic Church - just the Latin Catholic Church. Latin is not used in concelebrating according to any Eastern Rite.

And…? That in no way disproves or provides any evidence refuting my statement. Here was what I said:

popes disagree with you my friend. No other language in that regard can boast the same unifying effect with Rome as Latin.

Please tell me what language is more effective at uniting one with Rome. If there is no other specific language that does, then do you concede the point?

 

[una_fides]

Right, that is why we have over 30,000 Reformation churches, schismatics like the Old Catholics and Sedevacantists. Because Latin is so unifying.

This coming from someone who is not in union with Rome… Just wanted to point that out that you still have your religious status as Orthodox hidden for some reason. Hopefully you are considering uniting with Rome. Obviously in the mean time Latin would not make much sense to you. Your obvious anti-Roman bias is manifest through your mentioning the 30,000 Protestant denominations, as if they are somehow a legitimate off-shoot of the Roman Catholic Church and that the Roman Church is somehow the cause of their heresies. I’m familiar with the Orthodox arguments as I myself considered the eastern Churches when I was in my process of conversion.

So the sede’s retain Latin? They also believe they are in union with the real Rome that they think disappeared (vacant seat) since before or at Vatican II.

Citing the Protestants actually disproves your argument entirely, and reaffirms what popes have said concerning Latin being a safeguard against the corruption of doctrine. The first thing the Protestants threw out was Latin! Even when the liturgy was retained, disdain for Latin always existed among protestants because it was so closely married with Rome, and prayer in Latin was essentially openly professing union with the pope!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Please tell me what language is more effective at uniting one with Rome. If there is no other specific language that does, then do you concede the point?

Your pushback on this point suggests a level of indifference toward the fullness of the Catholic Church, East and West. Latin never was a liturgical language in the Eastern traditions.