Praying in Latin

[drforjc]

I would simply say Latin has one advantage, if you can truly view it as such, in that it is equally foreign to all.

Well… I would note that at least the Romance languages, and to a great extent English, are closely enough descended from Latin that one can make a good deal of sense of Latin, especially Italian and Spanish. Reading through my Latin-English/English-Latin dictionary has really brought this home for me. The number of Latin words that are very close to their English equivalent was eye-opening for me.

 

[TimothyH]

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

Latin 'll do it to ya.

-Tim-

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

I was under the impression that it is a heresy if it is attempted to be translated into Greek.

 

[LilyM]

Well… I would note that at least the Romance languages, and to a great extent English, are closely enough descended from Latin that one can make a good deal of sense of Latin, especially Italian and Spanish. Reading through my Latin-English/English-Latin dictionary has really brought this home for me. The number of Latin words that are very close to their English equivalent was eye-opening for me.

Open a Greek-English/English-Greek dictionary some time. Plenty of our words are derived from that language too.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Open a Greek-English/English-Greek dictionary some time. Plenty of our words are derived from that language too.

“Give me a word, any word, and I show you it come from the Greek …”

WebMD - Better information. Better health.

 

[drforjc]

Open a Greek-English/English-Greek dictionary some time. Plenty of our words are derived from that language too.

Really, that’s the best rejoinder you can come up with, Lily?

AFAICT, this thread is primarily about the latin rite and why it uses latin as its official and primary liturgical language. And, apart from how much you like the vernacular, how some English words stem from Greek, is all you can muster?

We latin rite Catholics have a sacred language (when was the last time you saw a kid read the Torah in English at a bar mitzvah?), and we should preserve it against being lost.

I’m not against some vernacular in the liturgy, but, as Vatican II asked, the latin language should be retained, in a substantial amount.

 

[ProVobis]

Open a Greek-English/English-Greek dictionary some time. Plenty of our words are derived from that language too.

A lot of prefixes too. After the words have undergone transliteration, of course. Greek alphabet is still used in math and physics.

And FWIW, our numbering/decimal system was developed by Indian mathematicians. That way, the Greek π could finally be given a value.

But I digress.

AFAICT, this thread is primarily about the latin rite and why it uses latin as its official and primary liturgical language. And, apart from how much you like the vernacular, how some English words stem from Greek, is all you can muster?

We latin rite Catholics have a sacred language (when was the last time you saw a kid read the Torah in English at a bar mitzvah?), and we should preserve it against being lost.

I’m not against some vernacular in the liturgy, but, as Vatican II asked, the latin language should be retained, in a substantial amount.

Not to worry. They study Latin in Greece too.

 

[ProVobis]

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

But even if we did, translation into modern vernacular would still pose a problem. For example take the modern adage “choose between the lesser of two evils.” Supposedly this is attributed to Cicero’s line “Primum minima de malis.” (literally, “first the least of all evils” > “choose the least of all evils.” > “choose the lesser of two evils.”) Subtle difference perhaps but note the dynamics involved corrupting the true meaning of the original and taking on a new norm. I see the same in “Dominus vobiscum” (“Lord with you” > “Lord is with you” > “The Lord be with”) and “Sursum corda” (“Upwards hearts” > “Lift up your hearts”). One could probably find similar examples in Greek-English or Hebrew-English translations. “Sabaoth” comes to my mind.

There is usually a change in theology involved and it seems no one cares as long as they have some translation and it sounds good to them. How is this fair to the Catholic faith?

 

[una_fides]

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.

Then why did you put “Orthodox” in your title and then remove it? You said earlier you are an “Orthodox Catholic Christian” which indicates you are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and therefore not in union with Rome. If you are in union with the pope, then that’s great!

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

I didn’t think that specific cross represented a specific religion or sect, but I understand if you don’t want to post it right now. That’s totally fine.

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

I’m sorry to hear that. Perhaps we could start a thread with any of your specific concerns? I’d be happy to discuss with you hopefully in a more constructive and charitable/helpful way of course.

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?

Protestants are heretics that broke away from the Church. The fact they broke from Rome has no bearing on the veracity of Rome’s primacy. In fact, their breaking away only demonstrates the true nature of the Church from which they left and the necessity of her unity all the more.

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.

Interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in the same boat as the Sedevacantists. Both viewed the pope as heretics just in different times and as such both chose to break away from unity with Peter and form their own separate entities. The obvious difference is that the sede’s still acknowledge the supreme authority of a legitimate pope (they just don’t think one exists), whereas the Orthodox Churches reject his absolute authority and have a shaky understanding of the meaning of Peter as having the first place, but that’s a topic for another thread…

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

You said that. Not me. For the Western Church, Latin was a unifying feature that preserved the Church’s teachings from error and was able to help pass it down without alteration and in a particularly clear and concise manner. The Latin language provided and still provides a common shared identity for the Latin Church and helps unify her members with this shared bond connecting them with the Church’s tradition and patrimony.

What I’ve heard concerning the Eastern Churches in regards to their unity is that it completely depends on their bishop as to what their members believe and that it tends to fluctuate depending on who is in charge, and that there is no one to settle disputes between two Churches that disagree on a particular doctrine. Interestingly, in the early Church, the Church with the final authority that the eastern Churches would
appeal to was Rome, and once Rome had spoken to settle a matter, as St Augustine explained, “the case was closed.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then why did you put “Orthodox” in your title and then remove it? You said earlier you are an “Orthodox Catholic Christian” which indicates you are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and therefore not in union with Rome. If you are in union with the pope, then that’s great!

I am where I am, for now.

I didn’t think that specific cross represented a specific religion or sect, but I understand if you don’t want to post it right now. That’s totally fine.

There is really only a specific group that uses the 3-bar cross. If you don’t know, that is okay. But it doesn’t mean I am hiding something.

I’m sorry to hear that. Perhaps we could start a thread with any of your specific concerns? I’d be happy to discuss with you hopefully in a more constructive and charitable/helpful way of course.

I’m good. But thanks for offering.

Protestants are heretics that broke away from the Church. The fact they broke from Rome has no bearing on the veracity of Rome’s primacy. In fact, their breaking away only demonstrates the true nature of the Church from which they left and the necessity of her unity all the more.

I don’t see how their breaking away proves anything. Even cults and other Protestant sects have sub groups that break away from them. Does that legitimize the parent group?

Interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in the same boat as the Sedevacantists. Both viewed the pope as heretics just in different times and as such both chose to break away from unity with Peter and form their own separate entities. The obvious difference is that the sede’s still acknowledge the supreme authority of a legitimate pope (they just don’t think one exists), whereas the Orthodox Churches reject his absolute authority and have a shaky understanding of the meaning of Peter as having the first place, but that’s a topic for another thread…

You said that. Not me. For the Western Church, Latin was a unifying feature that preserved the Church’s teachings from error and was able to help pass it down without alteration and in a particularly clear and concise manner. The Latin language provided and still provides a common shared identity for the Latin Church and helps unify her members with this shared bond connecting them with the Church’s tradition and patrimony.

But there is more to the Church than the Roman Church. And again, you’ve discounted that if Latin is so unifying, why are there groups that break away from Rome in the first place?

What I’ve heard concerning the Eastern Churches in regards to their unity is that it completely depends on their bishop as to what their members believe and that it tends to fluctuate depending on who is in charge, and that there is no one to settle disputes between two Churches that disagree on a particular doctrine. Interestingly, in the early Church, the Church with the final authority that the eastern Churches would
appeal to was Rome, and once Rome had spoken to settle a matter, as St Augustine explained, “the case was closed.”

The Eastern Churches faith is secure and unified based on what the Apostles and the Fathers taught. It doesn’t depend on what a current bishop thinks or feels like. If his teaching is not consistent with what has been taught from the time of the Apostles, then his teaching is not authentic. You will see this in St. Paul’s Epistles, if anyone teaches a Jesus other than the one they are teaching, then that person is a false prophet. I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

 

[una_fides]

None. But then I would say none is less effective either.

So you still disagree with Rome. I’m saddened to hear this. Do you have divided loyalties with the Orthdox Church and Rome or something? I’m confused why you are arguing against Rome and also why you don’t just come out and admit this fact. Have you at least read the papal writings about Latin yet?? I’ve posted them on here many times and asked you but still no response.

Unity is not a matter of common language as our Eastern brothers amply demonstrate.

So you’re saying that the Greek language does not have a unifying effect for the Greek Churches? Seriously? We are the Latin Rite Church.

I would simply say Latin has one advantage, if you can truly view it as such, in that it is equally foreign to all.

It should not be and certainly does not have to be foreign to anyone. Don’t you at least find it interesting that every single Vatican II pope (Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II, and Benedict XVI) has promoted and encouraged the increased learning and praying of Latin? Let me ask you,

• Do you “hold high the torch of Latin”, as JP2 exhorted you to do? Or do you hold the Latin language in “high esteem” as this pope also said you as a member of the Church must do?
• Do you defend the Latin language, as Paul VI said the language deserves?
• Do you do all you can to “promote its study and use” as John XXIII said must be done?
• Do you urge other Latin Rite Catholics to learn the Church’s common prayers in Latin as Pope Benedict has insisted? And do you believe that the Latin language “continues to be as relevant as ever for strengthening the bonds of unity of the faith” as Pope Benedict recently said it does?

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.

Your very unfortunate disdain for Latin is really showing in this post. I’m sorry you don’t agree that the Latin language is the “most effective bond binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity” (Pope John XXIII). JP2 put it best in citing Cicero when he described the lack of a desire to learn Latin as “a shame.”

I honestly don’t see why the insistence to fight against Latin. It seems that ultimately there are two camps for Latin Rite Catholics regarding the Latin language. Those who are on the side of the Church and “hold high the torch of Latin” as a most effective bond among the faithful and a help to safeguard of the Church’s teachings, and there are those who oppose the Latin language and wish it would disappear.

Interestingly, Vatican exorcists including the chief exorcist report that the devil hates Latin as it is a sacred language that has been used by the holy Church against him for practically the Church’s entire existence and has been able to help keep the Church united amidst even the worst of storms and attacks. It’s safe to conclude that the same devil who would like to destroy the papacy and have it disappear would certainly want to do the same thing to its sacred language uniting people to it. The devil’s desire to destroy the Roman Church’s unifying language is undoubtedly linked with his desire to destroy the papacy itself.

When we realize these things we have to ask ourselves whether we will chose to defend the popes and their teachings or whether we will chose to oppose them.

 

[una_fides]

There is really only a specific group that uses the 3-bar cross. If you don’t know, that is okay. But it doesn’t mean I am hiding something.

No problem. Sorry, I wasn’t familiar with that specific group.

I don’t see how their breaking away proves anything. Even cults and other Protestant sects have sub groups that break away from them. Does that legitimize the parent group?

I think the point is that it doesn’t definitely prove anything either way, but we can certainly conclude that the devil is going to wage war against the true Church and would desire to get as many to break away from it as possible in order to try to minimize its voice in the world.

But there is more to the Church than the Roman Church. And again, you’ve discounted that if Latin is so unifying, why are there groups that break away from Rome in the first place?

The groups that break away from the Church also break away from Latin. The language can help in its own way to defend against these diabolical attacks and assaults, but the free will remains in those who have been deceived and have chosen to leave the unity of the Church. No language, no matter how beneficial it may be for the particular group to use is capable of changing someone’s free will or keep them from being able to be deceived.

The Eastern Churches faith is secure and unified based on what the Apostles and the Fathers taught. It doesn’t depend on what a current bishop thinks or feels like. If his teaching is not consistent with what has been taught from the time of the Apostles, then his teaching is not authentic. You will see this in St. Paul’s Epistles, if anyone teaches a Jesus other than the one they are teaching, then that person is a false prophet. I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

It’s definitely not a bad thing at all. It’s just not the full story. The Orthodox, as opposed to the eastern Catholic Churches, are lacking their final authority to determine and settle disputes between the particular Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the point is that it doesn’t definitely prove anything either way, but we can certainly conclude that the devil is going to wage war against the true Church and would desire to get as many to break away from it as possible in order to try to minimize its voice in the world.

Well, you can’t really just say this about the Catholic Church. As you said, it doesn’t prove anything either way. Protestant groups break apart all the time. None of the is legit.

The groups that break away from the Church also break away from Latin. The language can help in its own way to defend against these diabolical attacks and assaults, but the free will remains in those who have been deceived and have chosen to leave the unity of the Church. No language, no matter how beneficial it may be for the particular group to use is capable of changing someone’s free will or keep them from being able to be deceived.

But if Latin is unifying, they shouldn’t have thought of breaking away in the first place, right?

It’s definitely not a bad thing at all. It’s just not the full story. The Orthodox, as opposed to the eastern Catholic Churches, are lacking their final authority to determine and settle disputes between the particular Churches.

They have settled disputes just fine. Not too long ago the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch struck each other out from their respective dyptichs. This means they no longer consider themselves to be in communion with one another. All other Orthodox Churches refused to strike one or the other from their dyptichs and they facilitated the resolution of the issue between the two Churches.

 

[Melchior_1]

*Interestingly, Vatican exorcists including the chief exorcist report that the devil hates Latin as it is a sacred language that has been used by the holy Church against him for practically the Church’s entire existence and has been able to help keep the Church united amidst even the worst of storms and attacks. It’s safe to conclude that the same devil who would like to destroy the papacy and have it disappear would certainly want to do the same thing to its sacred language uniting people to it. The devil’s desire to destroy the Roman Church’s unifying language is undoubtedly linked with his desire to destroy the papacy itself.

When we realize these things we have to ask ourselves whether we will chose to defend the popes and their teachings or whether we will chose to oppose them. *

Cliff notes; those who do not share your perception of Latin are in league with the Devil.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Cliff notes; those who do not share your perception of Latin are in league with the Devil.

And here I am thinking that it was the name of Jesus Christ that exorcises the Devil. I guess St. Luke got it wrong in Acts when he said St. Paul said, “in the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to get out of her.” It should have read, “in this language I speak (which is Latin), I command you to get out of her.”

 

[LilyM]

And here I am thinking that it was the name of Jesus Christ that exorcises the Devil. I guess St. Luke got it wrong in Acts when he said St. Paul said, “in the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to get out of her.” It should have read, “in this language I speak (which is Latin), I command you to get out of her.”

And of course Our Lord got it equally wrong when He singularly failed to use Latin in any of His successful exorcisms - not to mention when He told His disciples that it was prayer and fasting, rather than the use of Latin, that was needed to drive out really stubborn devils.

I’d be interested to examine how fasting is emplayed among those exorcisst who also (and quite possibly coincidentally) use Latin - it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that they do more fasting - in which case their success may not be due to use of Latin at all.

 

[ProVobis]

in the Name of Jesus Christ

With some variations, most languages have kept the name, pronunciation, and spelling of Jesus Christus (or Jesu Christi) intact. Most proper names, for that matter, are recognizable regardless of language, devil or no devil.

 

[una_fides]

Cliff notes; those who do not share your perception of Latin are in league with the Devil.

Do you write attack ads for political campaigns or something because the way you guys misrepresent the opposing arguments is astounding sometimes. Any way we can actually have a discussion on the actual merits rather than the standard straw men arguments and continual misrepresentations of the opposing arguments? I would like to see one of you please actually respond to a papal quote or cite some other source of evidence supporting your perspective for a change. These things have been requested many times on this thread but so far the requests have been completely ignored and instead continue arguing against exaggerations and straw men take place.

The point being made was that if you are opposing Latin Rite Catholics to pray in Latin then you are opposing the will of all Vatican II popes and their authoritative writings on the matter that say that you are supposed to be doing the opposite. They all unanimously say that praying in Latin unifies the Latin Church with the faithful but most importantly with Rome itself, and to therefore oppose praying in Latin is to oppose unity with Rome and to oppose this distinct Catholic identity. I can understand why the Eastern Orthodox sympathizers would write such things since they do openly oppose the unity of the Roman Church as their Churches are not in union with the pope. I do wish those with those sympathies, however, would make them more open and apparent rather than just attacking those who wish to pray in Latin and then keep secret their underlying theological opposition to the papacy. Nevertheless, the ones that puzzle me the most are those who claim to be in union with the pope! The ones who claim to be Latin Rite Catholics and are opposing the teaching and authority of popes (though apparently unwilling to openly admit this fact) and are also opposing those who wish to be faithful to the Church, her teachings, and her traditions! It’s these modernist Catholics that bring to mind the images of wolves in sheep’s clothing. If it was a simple misunderstanding based solely on ignorance of Church teaching or the significance of the Latin language for the Latin Rite Church, then I could be understanding, but clearly at this point no one can claim ignorance at least not any form of invincible ignorance anyway, as the undeniable evidence right from the mouths of the vicars of Christ is right there on the website in the first post on this thread and has been repeated endlessly throughout. To all those who oppose Latin, I would ask for the sake of honestly and of full disclosure that you please be open about your intentions and your theological disagreements with the Church rather than keeping them a secret and then hoping to dissuade other faithful Latin Rite Catholics who wish to follow the Church from engaging in their Church’s liturgical and spiritual patrimony.

 

[una_fides]

But if Latin is unifying, they shouldn’t have thought of breaking away in the first place, right?

Latin is most certainly and unquestionably able to unify the Roman Church, as popes have repeatedly taught. The Eucharist is also able to unify the Church and obviously more so than any other element or aspect of the Church, since the Eucharist is literally Unity itself. The Eucharist is the Truth, since Christ is the Truth, and there is only one Truth and one unity with this Truth. But regardless of the compelling unity that the Holy Spirit provides to His Church through Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament, heresies still come. The issue is that once someone has chosen to rebel against Christ and his Church and then receives the Eucharist, he is repulsed by it and its unity, as it actually does further harm to his soul. It literally kills his dead soul even more and condemns it further and deeper into a state of mortal sin and a state of confusion and alienation from the Truth (1 Cor 11:27-30). The protestants and others who left unity with Rome then also opposed the unity of her universal language that united souls with the pope, who they then detested. Arguing that Latin was unable to keep heretics from leaving the Church or spreading their heresies proves nothing and would be like arguing that the Eucharist was not an effective means of unity since Protestants left. In reality, the unifying aspects in the Church seem to be what repelled the heretics away. Why do you think they hate the Latin Mass so much and want the Novus Ordo to look more and more like a protestant “worship” service? It makes sense if you think about it.

They have settled disputes just fine. Not too long ago the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch struck each other out from their respective dyptichs. This means they no longer consider themselves to be in communion with one another. All other Orthodox Churches refused to strike one or the other from their dyptichs and they facilitated the resolution of the issue between the two Churches.

Right, but how can they call together a General Council in order to settle a disputed teaching in question?

 

[ConstantineTG]

With some variations, most languages have kept the name, pronunciation, and spelling of Jesus Christus (or Jesu Christi) intact. Most proper names, for that matter, are recognizable regardless of language, devil or no devil.

I’m pretty sure the devil knows who “JHEE-ZAHZ” is. Spelling or pronunciation from a physical world has no bearing to spiritual beings.