Significance of Latin in traditional Catholicism?

[symondhelly]

HI friends

Can any one give me answer what is the significance of Latin in traditional Catholicism? Is it because the church was established in Rome, or is there more to it than that?

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Church was not established in Rome but rather in Jerusalem. Greek was actually the lingua franca of the Church for most of its first three centuries. The Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of the Western Roman Empire and along with the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire signed the Edict of Milan which granted religious tolerance across the Empire in 313 AD.

So, both Latin and Greek were in use. Latin was more prevalent in the West and Greek in the East. The Western Empire was staggered by barbarian invasions - Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals (from whence we get the term vandal), Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Franks. Rome withdrew its legions from Britain around 410 AD because Rome itself had been vandalized - literally.

With the collapse of the Western Empire you see the beginnings of the development of feudalism. Everyone was far more concerned about their survival than Rome. Over in Ireland (where Rome never conquered), Irish monasteries kept alive writing (in Latin) and Roman “civilzation” while Britain was being sacked by Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The Irish monasteries were able to send out missionaries into Scotland and from Scotland down into Britain and eventually into Gaul (France). Latin was the language.

Sorry about the long history lesson, but it is important. The Eastern Empire survived until the Turks (Ottomans) captured Byzantium (Constantinople/Istanbul) in 1453 AD. Greek was always the primary language not Latin.

Latin is significant in traditional Catholicism because it was the language used by our ancestors - our western ancestors that is (looks around for Bishop Basil ), I am a calligrapher and illuminator and one of the most heartbreakingly beautiful books (The Book of Kells (the four Gospels) was written in Latin. There are oodles and oodles of manuscripts all in Latin. Latin was the language of the educated throughout the Renaissance and a surprising amount of English words are rooted in Latin courtesy of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. I have not even touched upon Gregorian chant, etc.

I grew up with the traditional Latin Mass and was an altar boy. I never had any problems with Latin and it is dear to my heart not to mention the fact that cognates leapt off the page and proved so helpful in my study of Spanish. Can I speak Latin? No. Anymore than I can speak Spanish but I can read Spanish fluently.

Latin connects me with my ancestors many of whom suffered greatly for their Catholic faith. Tradition means a lot to me as does knowing that if I had a time machine and could drop back into the Renaissance, I would be able to attend and participate in Mass.
Latin was a unifying force in the Church.

 

[Chatter163]

Veterum Sapientia

 

[ProVobis]

Veterum Sapientia

You beat me to it.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I can answer in one word: Universality

HI friends

Can any one give me answer what is the significance of Latin in traditional Catholicism? Is it because the church was established in Rome, or is there more to it than that?

 

[Lycorth]

Veterum Sapientia

Home run!

Great responses on this thread; brotherolf gave a fine explanation and like michealdaniels said, it’s a universal language. It’s universality is secured by the fact that Latin is a dead language and as such, does not change or adapt like living languages do. Ironically, Latin has in it more life because of this, but I digress.

Using Latin is a safeguard against accidental or deliberate abuse of the language used during Mass. It cannot take on slang meanings, it cannot be perverted by the whims of time or change. It’s a single language that anyone can learn, or at least learn for Mass, no matter where one lives. When Latin was the lingua franca of the Church, you could attend Mass in the Philippines or Poland or America or Brazil and you would be able to understand everything that was going on. There was no chance of a (Latin Rite) Mass being different somewhere, truly fulfilling the requirement of *catholicity *that a true and valid Mass must have.

Latin also elevates the Mass above the mundane by using a language we do not use for everyday discourse. I can hear talking in English all day long and am fine with it - but when I go to the timeless sacrifice of the Mass, it makes sense to elevate it above the usual and mundane. Otherwise, it seems just like everything else; this essential Protestantizing of the Mass has only watered-down the Mass in the same sense that Protestantism is watered-down and mundane.

There are only benefits to using Latin, and with missals printed in both Latin and the vernacular, there is no reason for anyone to have trouble understanding it.

 

[littlequestion]

I won’t try to argue the historical significance because I am not qualified to do that and several posters have already touched on the practical significance of having a universal language that is separate from worldly languages. We can easily appreciate that as Catholics when the Mass was always in Latin there was always someplace we could go, no matter where we were in the world, where something would connect with our soul in a familiar way even if we were in a foreign land completely unable to communicate and having culture-shock. It also helped us have a unique sense of solidarity among different ethnic groups and economic classes of catholics when facing the hostility of non-catholics who based their own solidarity on being only one race, ethnicity, or economic class.

Here is something else. Recently I was in a discussion about the significance of the phrase in English “world without end” which bothered me. I felt it was wrong, that it went to some external sense of raising the “world” which is not our focus to the level of “eternity”, but I could not articulate it and others argued that it was ok because it was actually the translation of “saecula saeculorum”…

Then someone went further and said that the actual translation is not “world without end” but more like “age of ages” and it does not exactly mean what “world without end” suggests. So, I was right! LOL without understanding it, somehow I stumbled across it…

Now this is a problem since I feel a “coup d’esprit” (really a “coup du Saint Esprit”) that I should not pray “world without end” and yet the prayer does appear over and over in Catholic prayer ritual. Well, Latin is the solution. I am training myself to pray “saecula saeculorum, amen” everytime the English would call for “world without end, amen” and so I am avoiding the spiritual confusion that I personally feel sensitive about, without having to defy even one word of Catholic prayer language.

That is why I love Latin! It really has become God’s own language for our souls.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is something else. Recently I was in a discussion about the significance of the phrase in English “world without end” which bothered me. I felt it was wrong, that it went to some external sense of raising the “world” which is not our focus to the level of “eternity”, but I could not articulate it and others argued that it was ok because it was actually the translation of “saecula saeculorum”…

Then someone went further and said that the actual translation is not “world without end” but more like “age of ages” and it does not exactly mean what “world without end” suggests. So, I was right! LOL without understanding it, somehow I stumbled across it…

Now this is a problem since I feel a “coup d’esprit” (really a “coup du Saint Esprit”) that I should not pray “world without end” and yet the prayer does appear over and over in Catholic prayer ritual. Well, Latin is the solution. I am training myself to pray “saecula saeculorum, amen” everytime the English would call for “world without end, amen” and so I am avoiding the spiritual confusion that I personally feel sensitive about, without having to defy even one word of Catholic prayer language.

That is why I love Latin! It really has become God’s own language for our souls.

From “A Primer of Eclesiastical Latin”

The prepositional phrase **in saecula seculorum **‘forever and ever’ is used with adverbial force. The use of the genitive of a word to limit another case of itself is a Hebraic idiom with intensifies the meaning.

 

[ProVobis]

There are only benefits to using Latin, and with missals printed in both Latin and the vernacular, there is no reason for anyone to have trouble understanding it.

The vernacular is only a crutch, the Latin in the Missal is the official thing. I’ve forced myself to read the Latin. Translation isn’t necessary if you think in Latin.

 

[mick321]

HI friends

Can any one give me answer what is the significance of Latin in traditional Catholicism? Is it because the church was established in Rome, or is there more to it than that?

Can anyone give me an answer as to the significance of Spanish to the Mexican American, French to the Quebecer, Portuguese to the Brazilian, Hebrew to the Israeli, Arabic to the Muslim?

The answer is the same in each case. Those are the traditional languages of unique cultures to which people wish to be associated.

Latin is an inherent feature of Roman Catholic Culture. Nothing less.

 

[ProVobis]

From Veterum Sapentia, here’s probably the best reason to keep Church documents and the Mass in Latin:

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. **It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. **Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I know this was implied, but I’ll say it explicitly anyhow. Latin is the language of the Latin Church(es) and is not universal. The Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) Churches have never had a tradition of any form of Latin. In the East the tradition has always been to celebrate the Liturgies and write theology in the language of the people. Yes there are liturgical languages such as Greek, Church Slavonic, Coptic, etc., but these languages are most frequently used along side, but not to the exclusion of the vernacular.

As to the argument that Latin is a dead language and not subject to change, I must state that vocabulary does change in the sense that it increases to fit modern developments. The first example that comes to mind is the development of the Latin for “computer.” To my knowledge the grammar is the only thing that doesn’t change.

Despite my love for Gregorian Chant, I personally prefer Greek and Arabic as languages. I also think that English is often undervalued by those of us who speak it as our native tongue. I’ve heard many different liturgies whose use of English enhanced the beauty and effect of the liturgy rather than detract from it.

 

[ProVobis]

The Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) Churches have never had a tradition of any form of Latin.

Too bad.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Too bad.

Why is that too bad? Was it too bad that Divine Revelation was originally written in Hebrew and Greek instead of Latin? Was it too bad that the Universal Church originally celebrated the Holy Mysteries in Greek (the language of the people) instead of Latin (also originally a language of the people)?

Latin language and theology is good, so far as it goes. But I would urge you to appreciate Greek language and theology on its own terms instead of comparing. I think you’ll discover an incredible richness in Byzantine and other Eastern theologies (not that Latin theology is lacking in its own richness) that can enhance the richness of Latin theology as well. But we must have humility in all things. No language, no matter how old, is capable of communicating the fullness of the mysteries of God. There comes a point when all tongues must be silenced before the awesomeness of God. :bowdown:

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< Why is that too bad? Was it too bad that Divine Revelation was originally written in Hebrew and Greek instead of Latin? Was it too bad that the Universal Church originally celebrated the Holy Mysteries in Greek (the language of the people) instead of Latin (also originally a language of the people)? >>>>>

The Chair of St Peter is in Rome. The Unity is in Orthodoxy not language. There are Valid Masses in several Languages but the Universal Magisterium alone can determine Orthodoxy. If the Chair of St Peter were still in Antioch and the Official Language of the Church were Greek instead of Latin it would change nothing.

The Holy Ghost understands all of them.

Pax

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

<<<< Why is that too bad? Was it too bad that Divine Revelation was originally written in Hebrew and Greek instead of Latin? Was it too bad that the Universal Church originally celebrated the Holy Mysteries in Greek (the language of the people) instead of Latin (also originally a language of the people)? >>>>>

The Chair of St Peter is in Rome. The Unity is in Orthodoxy not language. There are Valid Masses in several Languages but the Universal Magisterium alone can determine Orthodoxy. If the Chair of St Peter were still in Antioch and the Official Language of the Church were Greek instead of Latin it would change nothing.

The Holy Ghost understands all of them.

Pax

Consistency with Holy Tradition is what determines orthodoxy, not the Magisterium. The Magisterium cannot operate apart from the rest of the Body of Christ and certainly cannot operate apart from Holy Tradition. One also has to be clear on what one means by Magisterium. The Roman Curia is not the Magisterium.

The Chair of Peter remains equally in Antioch and Alexandria as it does in Rome. The only difference between the three is that Peter happened to die in Rome.

However we’re not discussing the accidents of history here, but whether or not Latin is a universal language. I maintain that it isn’t because it isn’t representative of the Universal Church, but only one part (however large it may be) of the Universal Church. The idea of a universal language is somewhat ridiculous. There are only languages of particular churches. The only “universal language” is God’s Logos, the Incarnate Word of God.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[malphono]

Was it too bad that the Universal Church originally celebrated the Holy Mysteries in Greek (the language of the people) instead of Latin (also originally a language of the people)?

The Holy Mysteries were never universally celebrated in Greek (not even in the East), and certainly not in the Orient. But it was so in Rome. At the same time, though, one must keep in mind that in Rome, while Greek was spoken, it was the language of the educated (should I say patricians?), not of the common people (should I say plebians?). The educated classes would, e.g., often have Greek-speaking slaves as teachers. It really wasn’t until about the 4th century that Latin became commonly used for the Holy Mysteries in Rome. By then, spoken Latin, at least, had started to break down into dialects. But that didn’t affect the Latin used for the Holy Mysteries: those texts were controlled so there was no worry of a change in meaning, which assured continuity and orthodoxy.

The point is that the idea of a liturgical language is neither far-fetched nor reactionary. And that is true in the East and Orient as well as in the West, for precisely the same reasons. Yes, there has traditionally been more use of local vernaculars in the East and Orient than in the West, but even so never (until the post-conciliar era) to the total (or near-total) exclusion of the standard liturgical tongue.

Anyway, despite the imprecision of the thread title, the discussion here is of the significance of Latin in the Roman Church. Given that, I will refrain from interjecting further on the philosophy or praxis of the East and Orient.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Holy Mysteries were never universally celebrated in Greek (not even in the East), and certainly not in the Orient. But it was so in Rome. At the same time, though, one must keep in mind that in Rome, while Greek was spoken, it was the language of the educated (should I say patricians?), not of the common people (should I say plebians?). The educated classes would, e.g., often have Greek-speaking slaves as teachers. It really wasn’t until about the 4th century that Latin became commonly used for the Holy Mysteries in Rome. By then, spoken Latin, at least, had started to break down into dialects. But that didn’t affect the Latin used for the Holy Mysteries: those texts were controlled so there was no worry of a change in meaning, which assured continuity and orthodoxy.

The point is that the idea of a liturgical language is neither far-fetched nor reactionary. And that is true in the East and Orient as well as in the West, for precisely the same reasons. Yes, there has traditionally been more use of local vernaculars in the East and Orient than in the West, but even so never (until the post-conciliar era) to the total (or near-total) exclusion of the standard liturgical tongue.

Anyway, despite the imprecision of the thread title, the discussion here is of the significance of Latin in the Roman Church. Given that, I will refrain from interjecting further on the philosophy or praxis of the East and Orient.

Hello Malphono!

Thanks for jumping in here. I was wondering what the tradition of our brothers in the Orient was with regards to language. I don’t remember, but I might have made a passing remark to the use of Coptic in the Coptic Church. The one time I went to Vespers at a Coptic Church I recall having heard English, Greek and Coptic! It was quite a wonderful experience.

I recognize the existence of “liturgical tongues” in the East. I’ve often thought that the Latin Church(es) should employ the same “economia” with regards to the use of the vernacular. I remember attending a Mass at Christendom College where there was a healthy amount of both Latin and English (along with the Greek “kyrie”). I don’t see why the Roman Church can’t implement this.

At my own parish we use Greek, Arabic and English. Jumping languages like that isn’t a problem for anyone who attends because the people are well catechized and they know their Liturgy. I don’t see why the Mass has to be either Latin or English. Why can’t it be both?

Thanks for the first part of your post. I wasn’t aware that Greek was only spoken by the educated.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[ProVobis]

But I would urge you to appreciate Greek language and theology on its own terms instead of comparing.

To appreciate the Greek language fully, one must first learn its alphabet. This goes for Arabic and Russian too, for that matter. The West has languages, which for the most part, use the Latin alphabet. Theoretically, Latin would be easier for them to learn than one which transliteration is required. (Even Kyrie Eleison is not true Greek, but transliterated Greek.)

I suppose, having studied physics and math, it would not be difficult for me to learn Greek since at least I’m familiar with its alphabet, but where would I have the incentive to apply it to areas such as theology, since the Latin is sufficient?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

To appreciate the Greek language fully, one must first learn its alphabet. This goes for Arabic and Russian too, for that matter. The West has languages, which for the most part, use the Latin alphabet. Theoretically, Latin would be easier for them to learn than one which transliteration is required. (Even Kyrie Eleison is not true Greek, but transliterated Greek.)

I suppose, having studied physics and math, it would not be difficult for me to learn Greek since at least I’m familiar with its alphabet, but where would I have the incentive to apply it to areas such as theology, since the Latin is sufficient?

Latin is not sufficient for theology. John Paul II urged all Roman Catholics to be “illumined by the light of the East” in his encyclical letter “Orientale Lumen”. In order to do serious graduate study in theology one is required to know both Greek and Latin. Greek is also necessary if one wishes to read the majority of the Early Church Fathers as well as the first Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Many people complain that much of the Latin nuances were lost when the Mass was translated into English. We could say the same about the translation of Scripture from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek into Latin.

I don’t mean this to be a commentary on which tradition is better, Eastern or Western. I merely wish to point out that Latin is not the universal language of the Church, it is simply the language of one particular Church. If one wants to have a better grasp of the entire catholic (yes I use the little “c” deliberately) Tradition then one has to study the theology of the East and Orient as well. The Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of 20 + particular churches, of which the Roman happens to be the largest.

Many of the great Latin theologians of the 20th Century mined the theological treasures of the Greek and Syriac Fathers to enrich their own Latin theology. One need only turn to such giants as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Jean Danielou, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI) and John Paul II to get a small taste of how much influence the Christian East has had over the theology of the West in the Church’s recent history. And this influence was sustained while still maintaining an authentic Latin theology.

If we want to speak of Traditional Catholicism, let’s embrace the fullness of Tradition that extends to both East and West! Why should we fear each other? :hug3: