Praying in Latin

[jeannetherese]

It’s important for communication to be practical. 500 years ago, we didn’t have thousands of competing channels of communication telling people what to believe. Now we do have communication of all kinds, the majority of it is counter to Christianity. Catholics need to understand the faith amidst all that babel. Part of that is iunderstanding the happenings at Mass. This doesn’t detract one bit from the use of Latin for those who want it. It simply suggests practicality.

Latin is beautiful, and I love singing it, and if you like praying it wonderful…but the Church needs to communicate directly and forcefully with people, without the confusion of an obsolete language…

Hi clem456.
I appreciated your emphasis on communication in this post. It got me thinking about mass as catechesis.
The gesture language of the mass (genuflection, gesture of offering, gesture of epiclesis. lavabo etc.) is a rich source of catechesis. So also is the artwork as discussed in so many CAF threads. The use of Latin might also be discussed as a form of catechesis.
I wonder if these catechetical forms might be seen as communicating directly and forcefully through their form?

 

[JReducation]

While there were heroes among the clerics (like Gomez, Burgos and Zamora), there were also abusers. Jose Rizal’s novels writes some of the bad experiences with the friars. It is a mixed bag as it is today (and as it is from the beginning).

Nothing is ever perfect, as we know it. However, the fact still remains that these three orders did more good for the indigenous people than the colonizers, despite the fact that they had their own problem children. One always has to look at the big picture and realize that there are always going to be exceptions, but the question is what is the norm? The norm with the colonies was that the Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans were strong advocates for the indigenous people.

Hi clem456.
I appreciated your emphasis on communication in this post. It got me thinking about mass as catechesis.
The gesture language of the mass (genuflection, gesture of offering, gesture of epiclesis. lavabo etc.) is a rich source of catechesis. So also is the artwork as discussed in so many CAF threads. The use of Latin might also be discussed as a form of catechesis.
I wonder if these catechetical forms might be seen as communicating directly and forcefully through their form?

I believe that there are many elements in the mass that are catechesis in themselves. However, when I think of language as catechesis, I think of wording, not Chinese, English or Latin. When I think of Latin, I see it has history, which is not catechesis, but no less important either. Catechesis is often missed, when one does not understand history.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

So I have wondered, to use the conversation about missionaries as a vehicle with which we swerve back on topic, how much… I’m looking for the right word… friction (???) the use of Latin caused in, for example, evangelizing Japan?

Again, using the Japanese as an example. They had a vastly different culture from the Europeans who came to evangelize them. The Japanese see the example of holy men, are ready to accept the Gospel, and then they walk into a liturgical service which uses a completely foreign language. What effect did this have? Was there any issues surrounding the use of the non-native tounge in the liturgy?

How was it dealt with? Or was it a non-issue?

-Tim-

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Latin has bugs of its own. In fact it caused a major system crash with the Filioque

Some might argue that that is a feature and not a bug.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Again, using the Japanese as an example.

From my experience working in Japan, I would share that they are among the most spiritual people you could meet. One would think that spiritual people would be open to a compelling spiritual message.

We do have contributors on CAF who are Christians in Japan. From other circles, I also know that Orthodoxy has taken root there. In fact, it was often my only viable option for Sunday observance while traveling on business for extended periods in certain parts of the country. Yet, they are still far outnumbered by Catholics and Protestants.

I’m not sure that anything can be drawn from liturgical language. Protestants (who have preached in Japanese consistently) roughly equal the number of Catholics in the country at present.

It will be interesting to see if Orthodoxy grows significantly, as the more Eastern orientation and style of worship may speak more to cultural Japanese spirituality - remains to be seen, but I would guess that may prove to be true. Some of my Japanese colleagues attended Orthodox services with me, and were quite taken by it, including those who had exposure to Catholicism.

Just saying, but Japan might be a challenged example for a number of reasons.

 

[JReducation]

So I have wondered, to use the conversation about missionaries as a vehicle with which we swerve back on topic, how much… I’m looking for the right word… friction (???) the use of Latin caused in, for example, evangelizing Japan?

Again, using the Japanese as an example. They had a vastly different culture from the Europeans who came to evangelize them. The Japanese see the example of holy men, are ready to accept the Gospel, and then they walk into a liturgical service which uses a completely foreign language. What effect did this have? Was there any issues surrounding the use of the non-native tounge in the liturgy?

How was it dealt with? Or was it a non-issue?

-Tim-

It really depended on the community. The Jesuits and the Franciscans used Japanese more than Latin. Latin was reduced to the parts of the mass that were said by the priest to himself. It was gradually introduced over many years.

We have to remember that the largest missionary groups were Dominicans, Jesuits and Franciscans. These three powerhouses had many indults and dispensations when it came to mission work.

Just to offer a simple example. When St. Maximilian Kolbe took the Conventual Franciscans to Japan, he wrote back to the friars in Poland who were to follow after him, not to brother wearing habits, because the mission was to Christianize Japan, not to make it Roman Catholic. This was a very important letter. Because St. Maximilian and the early Franciscans have always made a distinction between being Christian and being Catholic. It all began with St. Clare who told Francis that his mission was to covert Catholics to Christianity.

It does not mean that Catholicism is not Christian. It means that many Catholics place greater value on Catholic practices than on Christian virtue. Men like St. Maximilian realized that the goal was not to teach the Japanese Latin, to dress in Roman Catholic garb or practice Roman Catholic devotions, these would come in time. The goal was to preach Jesus Christ and holiness. That which is necessary to sustain the faith will follow.

As we know from the Christian communities in Asia, Latin did catch up.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

From my experience working in Japan, I would share that they are among the most spiritual people you could meet. One would think that spiritual people would be open to a compelling spiritual message.

We do have contributors on CAF who are Christians in Japan. From other circles, I also know that Orthodoxy has taken root there. In fact, it was often my only viable option for Sunday observance while traveling on business for extended periods in certain parts of the country. Yet, they are still far outnumbered by Catholics and Protestants.

I’m not sure that anything can be drawn from liturgical language. Protestants (who have preached in Japanese consistently) roughly equal the number of Catholics in the country at present.

It will be interesting to see if Orthodoxy grows significantly, as the more Eastern orientation and style of worship may speak more to cultural Japanese spirituality - remains to be seen, but I would guess that may prove to be true. Some of my Japanese colleagues attended Orthodox services with me, and were quite taken by it, including those who had exposure to Catholicism.

Just saying, but Japan might be a challenged example for a number of reasons.

I don’t doubt anything you say about the modern Japanese.

To be clear, my question had to do with evangelization of any given culture using a liturgical language which was not native. I was not asking about use of a non-native liturgical language in a modern cultures which may have had Christianity present for some time and are used to non-native speakers, but rather what affect the use of a non-native liturgical language had on missionary work when these, or any other culture was first evangelized.

Francis Xavier entering Japan in 1549 was my example. I apologize if I wasn’t clear. How did missionaries deal with a liturgical language which people couldn’t understand when Christian worship - the Mass - was first intruduced?

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

It really depended on the community. The Jesuits and the Franciscans used Japanese more than Latin. Latin was reduced to the parts of the mass that were said by the priest to himself.

I guess this should come as no surprise really. Japanese, being a mora-timed language, is not as easily code-switched with Latin as, for example, Spanish or Italian, which are syllable-timed. Or even with English, which is stress-timed, although with a certain amount of effort, I suppose, one’s ears could get accustomed to such code-switching. (see post #740)

That said, it’s good to hear the Church is making an effort to incorporate Latin into the liturgy. I imagine it’s not easy to take different texts in different languages and try to blend them in nicely into the same liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nothing is ever perfect, as we know it. However, the fact still remains that these three orders did more good for the indigenous people than the colonizers, despite the fact that they had their own problem children. One always has to look at the big picture and realize that there are always going to be exceptions, but the question is what is the norm? The norm with the colonies was that the Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans were strong advocates for the indigenous people.

But also Bro. JR, do not forget that perception also is another thing. Innocent or not, these missionaries came with the conquistadors. To most indigineous people they don’t see the difference between a Spaniard with a sword from a Spaniard with a Crucifix.

Also in the case of the Philippines, the decision to Christianize the islands came from the Spanish Monarchy, not the Church. Conquistador Miguel Lopez de Legaspi came with the decree to colonize and Christianize the islands decades after Magellan’s expedition. Religion was indeed used as a tool to conquer lands. We also see that too in Rus when St. Volodomyr the Great sought a religion to unite his people and adopted the faith of Constantinople. The entire kingdom was baptized along with him. And we have to admit that a number of those conversions were forced. Volodomyr was a prince and conqueror and prior to his baptism he killed a lot of people.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I imagine it’s not easy to take different texts in different languages and try to blend them in nicely into the same liturgy.

In a tradition in which the entire Divine Liturgy is chanted, we still to this day struggle with adapting melodic patterns that were beautifully set to Church Slavonic into modern vernacular, even in vernaculars of Slavic origin. The need to do so forces the very issue you raise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some might argue that that is a feature and not a bug.

Even back then we have sales people

 

[ProVobis]

In a tradition in which the entire Divine Liturgy is chanted, we still to this day struggle with adapting melodic patterns that were beautifully set to Church Slavonic into modern vernacular, even in vernaculars of Slavic origin. The need to do so forces the very issue you raise.

I was wondering about that. Does the priest have a lot of flexibility in this regard or are there strict guidelines when code-switching? (I’ve only attended the Maronite liturgy.) Somehow I have this feeling that some Westerners will start crying “Abuse!” when and if the texts aren’t followed to the littera.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I was wondering about that. Does the priest have a lot of flexibility in this regard or are there strict guidelines when code-switching? (I’ve only attended the Maronite liturgy.) Somehow I have this feeling that some Westerners will start crying “Abuse!” when and if the texts aren’t followed to the littera.

Golden rule = the text is the text (as you would expect for sundry reasons) - the chant pattern has to be adapted as best as possible, given the text.

In other words, we don’t do “abuse”

A few generations ago, this would have been a simpler task for our cantors, who were trained first in melodic patterns, and in the art of adapting those patterns to varying texts. That would create some variability in practice, as cantors in different parishes might adapt differently in spots. Nowadays, uniformity is stressed, so we look for a setting coming from an approved source.

 

[malphono]

ProVobis;9825783:

I was wondering about that. Does the priest have a lot of flexibility in this regard or are there strict guidelines when code-switching? (I’ve only attended the Maronite liturgy.) Somehow I have this feeling that some Westerners will start crying “Abuse!” when and if the texts aren’t followed to the littera.

Golden rule = the text is the text (as you would expect for sundry reasons) - the chant pattern has to be adapted as best as possible, given the text.

In other words, we don’t do “abuse”

I wish I could say the same for the Maronites, but sadly, what is currently in vogue (in Arabic as well as he various diasporal languages) is just the reverse. IOW, the “text is the text” except when they decide that “standardized” (IOW even that is not exactly authentic) chant melody takes precedence and then the text has to be “adapted” to fit. This is essentially what was (and continues to be) done throughout the entire missal. Maddening to say the least.

A few generations ago, this would have been a simpler task for our cantors, who were trained first in melodic patterns, and in the art of adapting those patterns to varying texts. That would create some variability in practice, as cantors in different parishes might adapt differently in spots. Nowadays, uniformity is stressed, so we look for a setting coming from an approved source.

Ah yes, I remember those days too. The idea of “uniformity” is one thing, but what we are now experiencing is a stress on “conformity” instead. A whole other ball of wax, and one made of a far more caustic material than mere beeswax.

 

[una_fides]

Sorry I’ve been away lately and unable to respond to posts until now…

St. Francis never said such a thing.

I read that he did. I don’t have the source handy, but if I can locate it, I will be sure to share. I think the key here is that worship in the Catholic Church is meant to reflect heaven, not “the nakedness of the Cross.” Countless popes and saints of the Church have chimed in on this matter. I am in no way snubbing or putting down any religious community that feels that austerity is beneficial for them, but I would also like to point out that a lot has changed in widespread liturgical practice since Vatican II in that regard. The Traditional Franciscans who continue the practices of the Franciscans as prior to Vatican II are a great example of what I’m talking about here in regards to worshiping God in a most outwardly beautiful way that resembles the way the God himself has outlined worship for us and in which the Church herself through many popes and even through the documents of Vatican II itself describe the nature of the liturgy, which is to uplift the soul to heaven through Gregorian Chant and also by retaining Latin in the liturgy. There is a clear distinction that needs to be made regarding poverty of spirit as opposed to poverty in worship. The average Catholic, especially today, has greatly lost the sense of the sacred, and I believe that the new liturgical movement rooted in a reform of the reform and following Rome’s direction in regards to Summorum Pontificum and the pope’s stated desire that the TLM be offered in every parish will accomplish this liturgical renewal and restoration. A huge part of that is building beautiful Churches that look like the heaven to which the liturgy is supposed to direct us, just as our eastern brethren have in their beautiful Churches and liturgical traditions as well. Here is a site for the Traditional Franciscans that I referenced: tradvocations.blogspot.com/2008/05/franciscans-of-immaculate.html
All that said, I don’t want to get into a long debate regarding the ascetics in Church, since that is off topic, but if someone would like to start a separate thread on that particular topic, I think that would be a great discussion. But tying this all back in to the use of Latin in prayer and in the liturgy, Latin by its very nature as being a sacred language, consecrated on the holy Blood-stained Cross, elicits a sense of reverence and awe and elevates the mind to the things of God and that is something so desperately needed and lacking in the mainstream Church today, but which is starting to change and be corrected in more and more places, and Lord-willing the tides will keep turning, and Vatican II’s actual documents on the liturgy can begin to be implemented in the mainstream Church as they were written and intended.

 

[una_fides]

Everything that you have mentioned above has been approved by the Church. Even if its beginning was less than ideal, once the Church says that it is permissible, our argument is over. Authority has spoken.

JR, I agree that we cannot say that a particular practice the Church approves is illicit or evil in and of itself, but I just because the Church in her prudential judgment says something is permitted does not mean that it is automatically good and beneficial for everyone or that abuses and bad teachings don’t also add to corruption of something that is licit. Also we can rightfully say that while something may be permitted that based on the results it is less than ideal, and that God deserves only our best and nothing less. There are countless examples in history where the Church or individual popes have erred in prudential judgments and even a case of a heretical pope who arguably embraced Arianism and who was certainly excommunicated by his successor. The point is that there is nothing wrong with pointing out facts regarding particular problems and abuses that have come about as a result of the loosing of permissions and argue humbly and as is our right to that the Church should fix these abuses and lessen these permissions which have done much harm to the faithful and have resulted in a loss of faith by millions.

 

[una_fides]

Can we get back to praying in Latin? That was more interesting.

We know that classical languages are rarely taught in high schools and colleges. So, I find it interesting when I see someone using a Latin prayer book, without the English translation on the opposite page. I’m often tempted to ask, “Why are you saying prayers that you do not understand when they have been translated for your benefit?”
…
One has to be very good at Latin to understand all 150 psalms or have an excellent memory, which is not me. Don’t ask me what Psalm 115 says. I have to look for it. I can read the Psalter because I had four years of Latin in the seminary. Otherwise, I’d be lost with a Latin breviary. It may as well be in Russian, which I don’t speak.

I think you bring up a good point or question. Why should someone pray in Latin if they can’t understand what it is they are saying? What does this accomplish? If the goal of prayer is simply to understand every single word someone says, then I would agree that in that case praying in any foreign language would not accomplish that end. But praying in Latin is different. First, regarding understanding, the more one prays in Latin, the more he is able to understand what he is praying. More and more words begin to make sense, and you are able to pick up on it and you can eventually master the language through hard work and dedication, which when done for the purpose of pleasing God is obviously going to be very meritorious. I know personally that in FSSP seminaries and others where they learn Latin, they pray the breviary in Latin from the beginning, and instruct them to pick up on whatever they can. I know from personal experience as well as from the experiences of others that they find this very beneficial and that their soul is able to pray and communicate to God in a very special way without having to know every word that one is praying. Meditation, a higher form of prayer that leads to contemplation, is also quite similar such as when praying the rosary and not thinking about the words one is saying.

In addition, there are also many other reasons and benefits to praying in Latin detailed on this website such as the fact that praying in this language helps unite one in a special way to the rest of the Roman Church, with popes, and with countless saints throughout the ages who also prayed those same words in that same language. Obviously studying Latin is tremendously beneficial, and praying in Latin only helps someone to be able to pick up on the language all the more.

 

[una_fides]

::Website Update::

The Praying in Latin website has been recently updated and more pages of prayers have been added as well as additional content throughout the site

https://sites.google.com/site/prayinglatin

 

[choliks]

I am all for praying in Latin if it brings you closer to God. In fact, If only i have access to resources, I’d want to learn (not just memorizing prayers) Latin myself as a third language.

I’m just wondering, if prayer is an encounter with God, like a meeting of two friends, or of the Lover and the beloved, how would they communicate? If the language is not familiar to the one praying, how would they speak to each other?

 

[JReducation]

I think you bring up a good point or question. Why should someone pray in Latin if they can’t understand what it is they are saying? What does this accomplish? If the goal of prayer is simply to understand every single word someone says, then I would agree that in that case praying in any foreign language would not accomplish that end. But praying in Latin is different. First, regarding understanding, the more one prays in Latin, the more he is able to understand what he is praying. More and more words begin to make sense, and you are able to pick up on it and you can eventually master the language through hard work and dedication, which when done for the purpose of pleasing God is obviously going to be very meritorious. I know personally that in FSSP seminaries and others where they learn Latin, they pray the breviary in Latin from the beginning, and instruct them to pick up on whatever they can. I know from personal experience as well as from the experiences of others that they find this very beneficial and that their soul is able to pray and communicate to God in a very special way without having to know every word that one is praying. Meditation, a higher form of prayer that leads to contemplation, is also quite similar such as when praying the rosary and not thinking about the words one is saying.

In addition, there are also many other reasons and benefits to praying in Latin detailed on this website such as the fact that praying in this language helps unite one in a special way to the rest of the Roman Church, with popes, and with countless saints throughout the ages who also prayed those same words in that same language. Obviously studying Latin is tremendously beneficial, and praying in Latin only helps someone to be able to pick up on the language all the more.

I have to admit that this has never been our experience. Since our foundation in 1209, anyone who could not pray in Latin, did not pray the breviary, but prayed the Office of the Paters or the Office Office of the Passion which St. Francis wrote in Italian for those who did not know Latin.

In modern times, after 1800, everyone had four years of Latin before entering the novitiate. By the time you started to pray the breviary, which was as a novice, you were at least able to translate in your head. You had to pass eight examinations during those four years. Today, this is still the case, unless you understand Latin, you cannot pray in Latin.

We don’t see Latin as a unifier. To us the unifying force is the liturgy itself, the fact that around the world, since 1209, Franciscans have been saying the same office and the same mass as one family. Unity in diversity was somethng that both founders stressed so as not to standardize the order and make it so structured that it resembled the Latin Church or the monastic life. Francis and Clare were not for uniformity in dress, language, apostolates, culture, or customs. They insisted tha the unifying factor was always Francis. He is the Patriarch. We approach God as his sons and daughters.

During the last 40 years, this has not been a real issue for us. We have been protected from this. Those houses that had men who know Latin well enough, use the same breviary as the rest, but in Latin. When it is not possible, because someone does not know enough Latin, you use the local language, just as we did in 1209.

Back then you traded the breviary for the Office of the Paters or the Office of the Passioin which was intentionally written in Italian and translated to French, Spanish and German, later to English.

We see this discussion as one that is not important. The unity is through the liturgy, not the language. We taught all of our Secular Franciscans the same way. Today, there are about 600,000 of them and they have no hunger for Latin. There are individuals who do,but not as an order. The few individuals who hunger for it can certainly use it in private or with others who understand it. One of their mandates is to spread this spirit to the laity around them, focus on the liturgy, not on the language.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV