Praying in Latin

[una_fides]

Interesting - Reverence? Incense? Bells? Periods of silence? Communion at the rail? None of these have anything to do with language, and all can be found in plenty in Masses in English, Spanish, Japanese or Hindi. I know, because I have attended such Masses in different languages.

Did you intentionally leave out the part about Gregorian Chant? The music that Vatican II said is most suitable for the celebration of the Mass and should be given first place in the liturgy? At my first TLM, it was the chant that drew out my experience more than anything else and literally almost brought tears to my eyes. I had no clue whatsoever what was being said. All I knew was that it was so beautiful, heavenly, and worthy of worship to Almighty God.

And you seem to be saying that the more familiar one becomes with the Latin - ie the more fluent and therefore vernacular-like it becomes to you - the better your experience.

I’m actually saying the exact opposite. The words themselves do not communicate all the meaning. The Latin language has a certain beauty and elegance to it, and its liturgical heritage and its uniquely sacral character are able to effect a realization that ordinary vernacular language is unable to communicate. The heavenly nature of the language is able to immediately elevate one’s heart and mind to the things of God and clearly communicates the other-wordliness of God whose ways are so much higher than ours.

Communicating to God in a way so similar to how you would with a young sibling is markedly different than when doing so in a sacred tongue set apart solely for the worship of God. That’s where learning the Latin language is able to help move one even further though private prayer and devotions and to being able to pray along in parts of the liturgy in Latin instead of through your own native tongue as you pray the prayers from your missal. If you do not understand the Latin chant at first, as it was said earlier on this thread, you do not need words to communicate with God, and through this sacred chant, your soul is effectively facilitated to be able to pray and meditate on God.

 

[una_fides]

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.

How is that in any way relevant to what I said and the point I made? I can just as easily say that your arguing with me shows your disdain for Latin and Rome. If you have no evidence to put forward to support your clams, just say so. No need to build more straw men.

 

[una_fides]

Let’s be fair.

Pope Benedict XVI has omitted the filioque at Masses celebrated with patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

It’s a two way street.

Absolutely. He did so to show respect to their liturgical traditions. There is nothing wrong to pray the Creed in such a way, since that was its original form, as long as one still correctly believes that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father filioque, whether the word is said or not. It is certainly a two way street. Unfortunately those on this thread who seem to have a certain disdain for the Latin language and oppose its increased usage are unwilling to let Roman Catholics encourage other Roman Catholics to pray in their own liturgical language. Perhaps their intentions for doing so is that they would prefer them to adopt their own liturgical traditions and move further and further away from their traditions. If that’s not the case, then they should be arguing in support of Latin rite Catholics to rediscover their spiritual and liturgical heritage and identity rather than promoting their own liturgical customs such as prayer in the vernacular and demonstrating a certain angst towards the Roman Pontiff.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I can just as easily say that your arguing with me shows your disdain for Latin and Rome.

Given your responses, that is what you have obviously assumed, which (i) was never stated, (ii) never inferred even in the slightest and (iii) cannot be further from the truth.

You have made statements regarding, nay asserting, the universality of Latin usage in the entire Catholic world. Simply stated (once again), that is only true of the Latin Catholic Church and not of the entire Catholic Church.

Is the Divine Liturgy or Holy Qurbana ever recited in Latin? When the Pope corresponds officially with the prelates of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is that correspondence written in Latin?

Your unsubtantiated charge of disdain for Rome, or for the Latin language / usage, is offensive not to me, but to the blood of Martyrs of recent memory who, while being Eastern Catholic, gave their very lives for their allegiance to the Church.

My posts were simply intended to clarify that your exuberance for Latin, with its claims of universal application to the entire Catholic Church, should be rightly qualified as pertaining to the Latin Catholic Church only. I tried to do so in a lighthearted manner on occasion, with use of images that should have prompted some due consideration, and never resrted to personal attack or insult. So, frankly, your reaction does your claim and credibility a grave disservice.

I suppose now I’ve been bullied back into the EC subforum, where us uneducated renegades and false Catholics belong …

P.S. I suppose my signature line escaped notice, or was assumed to be a sarcastic usage of Latin on my part

 

[una_fides]

We’re getting into some metaphysics now, as the “immutable-ness” of the language isn’t inherent to the language itself, but it exists in the minds of those who don’t know what is being said. You have already agreed that people can take liberties with the language, but it apparently matters less when a priest throws additional things into a Latin Mass (OF or EF) because most folks won’t understand what is being said.

Once the ignorance is overcome and people begin to understand Latin, then it becomes no different than the vernacular because that “shield” of not knowing is no longer there. What happens then?

It’s still quite different if a priest were to ad lib a prayer in Latin rather than in the vernacular language of the people. No one speaks Latin anymore, so made up words are going to be extremely unlikely to be noticed, and as a result priests lose their incentive for making up the prayers. From their perspective, what purpose would they have to make something up if no one gets it? When the priest is praying up there at the altar in Latin, he is praying between himself and God. In contrast, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, when a priest is praying versus populum it is almost as if he is dialoguing with the people who become his focus, and when he makes up liturgical innovations including changing the prayers to fit his own warped theology, it’s as if he is putting on a show for all to see and hear. Latin and ad orientem worship change the game entirely.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Absolutely. He did so to show respect to their liturgical traditions.

… and to the traditions of those Eastern Catholic Churches who are also in Communion with him. That seems to be overlooked quite often.

 

[una_fides]

Given your responses, that is what you have obviously assumed, which (i) was never stated, (ii) never inferred even in the slightest and (iii) cannot be further from the truth.

You have made statements regarding, nay asserting, the universality of Latin usage in the entire Catholic world. Simply stated (once again), that is only true of the Latin Catholic Church and not of the entire Catholic Church.

Is the Divine Liturgy or Holy Qurbana ever recited in Latin? When the Pope corresponds officially with the prelates of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is that correspondence written in Latin?

Your unsubtantiated charge of disdain for Rome, or for the Latin language / usage, is offensive not to me, but to the blood of Martyrs of recent memory who, while being Eastern Catholic, gave their very lives for their allegiance to the Church.

My posts were simply intended to clarify that your exuberance for Latin, with its claims of universal application to the entire Catholic Church, should be rightly qualified as pertaining to the Latin Catholic Church only. I tried to do so in a lighthearted manner on occasion, with use of images that should have prompted some due consideration, and never resrted to personal attack or insult. So, frankly, your reaction does your claim and credibility a grave disservice.

I suppose now I’ve been bullied back into the EC subforum, where us uneducated renegades and false Catholics belong …

P.S. I suppose my signature line escaped notice, or was assumed to be a sarcastic usage of Latin on my part

Sorry but you are way off here. Don’t blame me that you are reading things into what I said. My point was simply that if someone wants to pray in a language that has a unifying effect with Rome then the language of choice would be Latin. Nothing more or less. You drew your own false connections in your mind that caused your own scandal. I’m honestly tired of people on here making false accusations as to what has been said or what is being said. It would serve well to first ask questions before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Quick run through:
I said:

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

You replied:
*

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.

My response was simply to point out that this did not disprove my statement not that I did not agree that those statements you made were true or that I had a problem with those facts. Just that they were not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

I never implied that ridiculous notion that Eastern Churches had to adopt Latin in order to unify themselves with Rome. Why you keep reaching to draw these connections and then argue against them is beyond me.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It would serve well to first ask questions before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

How imperious of you to suggest. Like I said, I’ll now crawl back into the cave reserved for the ECs here.

 

[ProVobis]

Vulgate

Quia in manu ejus sunt omnes fines terrae

Neo-Vulgate

Quia in manu eius sunt profunda terrae.

Immutable indeed.

I don’t think this is what immutable means. This is not like changing the meaning of the the word “gay.”

Besides even in the Vulgate there were two versions of the Pater Noster. The Church could easily switch to the other one for official use in the Mass. Yes, the meaning would be somewhat changed and the Latin changed but “quotidianum” still means “quotidianum.”

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Benedict XVI has omitted the filioque at Masses celebrated with patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

This issue was covered in much detail in the Eastern forum and I thought some of the posts there were excellent. It seems that the Latin and Greek nuances of “proceeds” were such that in the Latin the “filioque” was theologically correct and the Greek was better without it. One would just have to learn the Latin and the Greek to see this more clearly, I suppose.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This coming from someone who is not in union with Rome…

Who’s not in union with Rome? Last time I checked, my bishop is in union with his Metropolitan, who is in union with his Patriarch, who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. So it is not me, is it you?

Just wanted to point that out that you still have your religious status as Orthodox hidden for some reason.

Where does it say it is Orthodox? And who’s hiding? Are you calling the three-bar cross “hiding”?

Hopefully you are considering uniting with Rome.

On the contrary, I am united with Rome but I’m questioning it.

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.

Are they not? Where did Protestantism off-shoot from? Certainly not Orthodoxy, certainly not the non-Chalcedonians, certainly not the Assyrian Church of the East. Where did the Protestants break from?

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.

Curiously the Orthodox believe the Pope vacated the seat of the Patriarchate of Rome because of heresy. I guess their claim is as legit as the sedes.

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!

So do you say the Eastern Churches aren’t united because they never used Latin.

 

[Zosimus41]

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!

Thanks for the post!

 

[Zosimus41]

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

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?

How did this post turn from thank yous to arguments and name calling?

 

[Rich_C]

How did this post turn from thank yous to arguments and name calling?

It’s my fault.

I’m sorry to everyone that I blew my top at Constantine yesterday. It’s frustrating when you try to listen to people’s objections, follow their line of reasoning, and put together a logical argument, to get sarcasm and condescension in reply, as if you weren’t even worth correcting in charity. He wasn’t the only one, just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I see I’m not able to contribute to this thread, so I’m bowing out. You guys “win.”

 

[ProVobis]

Every person needs to have the Latin translated in their Missal of their vernacular.

Not really.

Yesterday I was observing my 2-yr old great nephew, who speaks about 5 words, watching “Peter Pan” for probably his 10th time. It could have been in Hebrew and he would have understood it just the same. The visuals (of the animation in this case) held his focus and made him understand.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t think this is what immutable means. This is not like changing the meaning of the the word “gay.”

Besides even in the Vulgate there were two versions of the Pater Noster. The Church could easily switch to the other one for official use in the Mass. Yes, the meaning would be somewhat changed and the Latin changed but “quotidianum” still means “quotidianum.”

Well be that as it may, we’re still playing with spellings, the structure of sentences, the translation, etc.

After all the Vulgate was still the translation of a translation, and is still being reinterpreted by scholars. Same with Gregorian semiology, our interpretation of the ancient chants is still evolving as ancient manuscripts are studied. I can even show examples where an antiphon was changed twice in the space of 2 years in 2008-2010.

So as one can see the Vulgate is not static and set in stone, and even this “dead” language is subject to re-interpretation.

 

[ProVobis]

After all the Vulgate was still the translation of a translation, and is still being reinterpreted by scholars. Same with Gregorian semiology, our interpretation of the ancient chants is still evolving as ancient manuscripts are studied. I can even show examples where an antiphon was changed twice in the space of 2 years in 2008-2010.

So as one can see the Vulgate is not static and set in stone, and even this “dead” language is subject to re-interpretation.

Yes, but in the terms of the ancient languages and nuances, including the Vetus Latina, which preceded St. Jerome’s Vulgate. Translations into modern languages can only (further) remove from their true meanings. Translations of Cicero’s De Officiis (“On Civic Duties,” the first book printed after the Gutenberg Bible) are living proof of that. They even have some made-up stuff, like him talking about balanced budgets, spreading all over the internet. Makes one wonder about the qualifications of translators in general.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, but in the terms of the ancient languages and nuances, including the Vetus Latina, which preceded St. Jerome’s Vulgate. Translations into modern languages can only (further) remove from their true meanings. Translations of Cicero’s De Officiis (“On Civic Duties,” the first book printed after the Gutenberg Bible) are living proof of that.

But we do not even have the cultural context of the Vulgate anymore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I must say publicly that Rich C is a bigger man than I am and I am humbled by his humility.

 

[LilyM]

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

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?

None. But then I would say none is less effective either. Unity is not a matter of common language as our Eastern brothers amply demonstrate. Nor did the Apostles find it necessary to speak any but their own vernacular on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is no less capable now than it was on that day of ensuring that the polyglot multitudes understand regardless of which language is spoken.

I would simply say Latin has one advantage, if you can truly view it as such, in that it is equally foreign to all. But then ancient Egyptian is no less advantageous in that regard. Please understand that I am not saying that this is the only advantage.

And Latin has a historical resonance for all Europeans, not just Catholics. But I feel more than sufficiently connected with my history without having to speak the same language that my ancestors did. Just as I feel sufficiently connected to the roots of modern Australia as both inhabited by its Aboriginals from time immemorial and settled by Brits in 1788 without either speaking Any Aboriginal language or using English in the same way as they did in 1788.