C
Cormaria
Guest
What are the main arguments for using Latin in the liturgy instead of the vernacular language?
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Because Latin was never abrogated as the primary language for the mass. The vernacular is allowed but Latin is till the “first” language of the mass.
I will give you one reason that my father mentioned years ago when the vernacular was first introduced.
The Latin Mass was basically the same the world over. When He was in the Army in World War II Europe, He was in 4 different countries not counting England. It didn’t matter where He was, when He went to mass He could follow along because it was always in the same language. He couldn’t understand the sermons of course, but the prayers of the mass, the order of the mass etc were pretty much identical. This was a very good thing when you couldn’t carry around a missal with you.
Today with vernacular masses this is not the case.
Peace
James
I will give you one reason that my father mentioned years ago when the vernacular was first introduced.
The Latin Mass was basically the same the world over. When He was in the Army in World War II Europe, He was in 4 different countries not counting England. It didn’t matter where He was, when He went to mass He could follow along because it was always in the same language. He couldn’t understand the sermons of course, but the prayers of the mass, the order of the mass etc were pretty much identical. This was a very good thing when you couldn’t carry around a missal with you.
Today with vernacular masses this is not the case.
Peace
James
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, you mean beside the fact that the original documents of Vatican 2 call for the retention of Latin in specific parts of the Mass? IOW, a Mass entirely in the vernacular was never intended.
The main argument for the retention of Latin would be unity. If you’ll pardon the expression Latin is a lingua franca. . .many of the Romance language words are cognates of Latin and easily understood. Many terms which are esoteric and difficult to translate (cumbersome) or capable of misinterpretation (‘so-called’ unfriendly language such as ‘man and mankind’, or the term Ghost for the Holy Spirit) are much easier in Latin.
Latin will not change. Other languages do. Look at the word “gay” for example. Prior to say 1960, no one thought of it as anything other than ‘happy’. For most people today, “gay” automatically makes them think “homosexual”. So a Mass translated to the vernacular using the word gay, “the people became very gay at the sight” perhaps in 1960, would certainly be a scandal! And we don’t know WHAT other changes etc. will morph along in our languages. Keeping things helps remind us that the word had a specific meaning then that is different from its meaning today, and thus is more clear. Another couple of generations from now, most people will not even dream of using ‘gay’ for anything other than homosexual, and then they’ll backtrack and assume that all use of the word means that, even in books etc. written before the time the word was used in that way!
So Francois, Gustav, Kimiko, Vasily, Miguel, Cindy, Olaf, Pietro, Uhuru, Jorge, Chun-ho, etc., no matter what their vernacular language, can all understand “Dominus Vobiscum” (the Lord be with you) whereas most of them would not know the other’s languages.
The main argument for the retention of Latin would be unity. If you’ll pardon the expression Latin is a lingua franca. . .many of the Romance language words are cognates of Latin and easily understood. Many terms which are esoteric and difficult to translate (cumbersome) or capable of misinterpretation (‘so-called’ unfriendly language such as ‘man and mankind’, or the term Ghost for the Holy Spirit) are much easier in Latin.
Latin will not change. Other languages do. Look at the word “gay” for example. Prior to say 1960, no one thought of it as anything other than ‘happy’. For most people today, “gay” automatically makes them think “homosexual”. So a Mass translated to the vernacular using the word gay, “the people became very gay at the sight” perhaps in 1960, would certainly be a scandal! And we don’t know WHAT other changes etc. will morph along in our languages. Keeping things helps remind us that the word had a specific meaning then that is different from its meaning today, and thus is more clear. Another couple of generations from now, most people will not even dream of using ‘gay’ for anything other than homosexual, and then they’ll backtrack and assume that all use of the word means that, even in books etc. written before the time the word was used in that way!
So Francois, Gustav, Kimiko, Vasily, Miguel, Cindy, Olaf, Pietro, Uhuru, Jorge, Chun-ho, etc., no matter what their vernacular language, can all understand “Dominus Vobiscum” (the Lord be with you) whereas most of them would not know the other’s languages.
J
japhy
Guest
The Latin Rites (which includes the Roman Rite and the Dominican Rite) have a “proper” liturgical language, which is Latin. This language belongs to the Rite. A priest learning a Latin Rite should be able to celebrate it in its proper language (Latin) as well as, if so permitted (as in the case of the Roman Rite), his vernacular.
Using Latin in the Mass (whether completely – a rarity – or in parts) is good for many reasons. Here is one.
The language is universal, that is, not biased to a particular nation or peoples. There is no country whose language is Latin, so no country is “favored” when Latin is used in the liturgy. You could say that everyone has the same disadvantage.
But that is true: everyone has to humble themselves and relinquish their mother tongue for the sake of the whole. Because all the vernacular translations are (or are supposed to be) made from the Latin text, that means a person only needs to know the Mass in their vernacular (say, English) and in Latin, not English and Spanish and German and French, etc. A Chinese Catholic and a German Catholic could go to a Mass in Brazil and be able to understand and participate adequately if Latin is used. They would not necessarily be able to understand everything because some parts of the Mass would most likely be in the vernacular (like the readings and the homily and the Prayer of the Faithful) but they would be able to participate at least vocally in the rest of the Mass.
No one is expecting all Catholics to learn Latin. On the contrary, the only expectation is that Catholics learn a few simple chants, a few easy responses, and a couple lengthy prayers (the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Creed) in Latin. This comes down primarily to pronunciation, since they should already know what these words mean in their vernacular. Once upon a time, many Catholics did know these chants and responses, and the Church expected that knowledge to continue and blossom at and after Vatican II. Poor catechesis and abundant misinformation are the two primary culprits, in my opinion.
Using Latin in the Mass (whether completely – a rarity – or in parts) is good for many reasons. Here is one.
The language is universal, that is, not biased to a particular nation or peoples. There is no country whose language is Latin, so no country is “favored” when Latin is used in the liturgy. You could say that everyone has the same disadvantage.
But that is true: everyone has to humble themselves and relinquish their mother tongue for the sake of the whole. Because all the vernacular translations are (or are supposed to be) made from the Latin text, that means a person only needs to know the Mass in their vernacular (say, English) and in Latin, not English and Spanish and German and French, etc. A Chinese Catholic and a German Catholic could go to a Mass in Brazil and be able to understand and participate adequately if Latin is used. They would not necessarily be able to understand everything because some parts of the Mass would most likely be in the vernacular (like the readings and the homily and the Prayer of the Faithful) but they would be able to participate at least vocally in the rest of the Mass.No one is expecting all Catholics to learn Latin. On the contrary, the only expectation is that Catholics learn a few simple chants, a few easy responses, and a couple lengthy prayers (the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Creed) in Latin. This comes down primarily to pronunciation, since they should already know what these words mean in their vernacular. Once upon a time, many Catholics did know these chants and responses, and the Church expected that knowledge to continue and blossom at and after Vatican II. Poor catechesis and abundant misinformation are the two primary culprits, in my opinion.
D
Dgilomen
Guest
Both good points mentioned, but
- MOST of us are not world travelers. Even if I traveled 3 weeks out of the year, I would rather hear Mass in my native tongue 49 times and in a foreign language only three times than in a language that is foreign to me 52 times. Which leads me to…
- In the United States, Latin is not taught in public schools. It’s not even taught in many Catholic high schools. It is a “foreign” language to most of the population.
E
excelsus
Guest
The way I think of it is that Latin sounds ridiculously awesome to hear. It’s like music in spoken words.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Because Latin was never abrogated as the primary language for the mass.
**I assume by “the mass” you mean the Latin rite thereof.
However, for centuries before Vatican II, the Western Liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia.**
**I assume by “the mass” you mean the Latin rite thereof.
However, for centuries before Vatican II, the Western Liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia.**
J
japhy
Guest
And yet, we use so many words and expressions that either come from Latin or are direct Latin phrases. For example: “pastor”, “campus”, “quid pro quo”, “in vitro fertilization”, “status quo”, “etc.”, “i.e.”, “e.g.”. Not to mention the majority of the magical spells found in the Harry Potter series. Latin might be “foreign” to us, but it would appear we encounter it on regular basis everywhere but the Mass!
T
thunderballs75
Guest
This was certainly an extremely rare exception. And either way, Church Slavonic is still not even a vernacular.
Anybody that says Latin should not be used in every liturgy has no Church support for this. Vernacular can be used, but even Vatican II said that Latin should be preserved, that the whole mass can be said in Latin, and that only some parts of the Mass should be in vernacular. Although I may not necessarily agree with this approach, it is still what the Council said.
M
marchoi
Guest
Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II) 36: Latin ought to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Can’t think of a better authority than that…
P
PhilotheaZ
Guest
An added bonus: according to Father Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, the devil hates Latin!
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
My 2c worth:
Personally for me, the use of Latin reminds me that when I participate in the Liturgy of the Church, I am actually united with the whole Church in prayer across space and time. The celebrating community is wider than the people physically present, and it helps move me out of “parochialism”.
Personally for me, the use of Latin reminds me that when I participate in the Liturgy of the Church, I am actually united with the whole Church in prayer across space and time. The celebrating community is wider than the people physically present, and it helps move me out of “parochialism”.
J
James_Miller
Guest
If the Jews can study Hebrew which is much harder, Catholics should be able to spend a few hours in learning basic Latin,
I
I_Believe
Guest
Here’s one of my favorite arguments for retaining Latin in the Liturgy
heh, take a good look around.
C
Cat
Guest
What does “lingua franca” mean? Language of France? I don’t get this.
And why do you say “pardon the expression?” Are you making some kind of language joke? I don’t get it.
I wish people would not use Latin phrases without providing the translation for dense igmos like me.
You know, this is possibly one reason why people like me dislike Latin–because people show off with it. At least that’s how it appears to me when you say something in Latin and don’t tell the rest of us what you are saying.
Yes, do Latin in Mass. But have an interpreter nearby to repeat the phrases in the vernacular for the sake of those of us who are really, really dense when it comes to the “Foreign Phrases” category on Jeopardy.
C
Cat
Guest
This is really pushing it.
I use words because they are the proper word to use. My husband was a linguistics student in college, and he enjoys looking up the entymology (is that the correct term) of various words. I really don’t care what their origin is.
American English, from what I’ve heard, is a polyglot of foreign languages and cognates. Latin is just one of many.
As for "many"Latin phrases? A few dozen Latin phrases is not “many.”
Finally, I’ve not read Harry Potter and I really am not impressed by the use of Latin. All this says to me is that Latin is the language that witches use. I don’t know if that’s true or not. After all, Harry Potter is just fiction.
Hey, I’m not saying that the Mass should not include Latin! The Church says Latin should be retained, and that’s the only argument needed.
I’m just saying that proponents of lotsa Latin in the Mass should not present arguments that are pushing the bounds of reason.
The Church says it, we believe it, that settles it. OK?
Personally, I would prefer just a few Latin phrases, preferably in the music, to remind us all of our ancient heritage. If the entire Mass were in a foreign language, I would be in trouble. I really have a difficult time with any foreign languages, and I think a lot of Americans are the same way. It’s my personal opinion that there would be a “mass” exodus from the Mass if Latin were the only option.
J
JRKH
Guest
Frome Answers dictionary
** A medium of communication between peoples of different languages.**A mixture of Italian with Provençal, French, Spanish, Arabic, Greek, and Turkish, formerly spoken on the eastern Mediterranean coast.
When Latin was the norm there was ALWAYS an interpreter hndy. It was called the Missal. Most everyone would recieve one at some point in their growing up years. It contained the Latin on one half of the page and the english on theother half. very easy and convenient.
Even today if you go to a latin mass, there are usually “missalettes” avaivalbe at the doors so you can pray along in the vernacular.
Peace
James
J
japhy
Guest
It’s also completely possible for you, in between reading and replying to these posts, to fire up another browser window to look up the phrase (or use a paper dictionary, even!).
We’re not trying to be obtuse or elitist or anything like that; we’re not showing off. We’re just using common expressions of the language. Sometimes, believe it or not, it’s easier to say something in a foreign language.
Yeah, that won’t make people feel like they’re just dumb spectators at something that’s the priest’s job and doesn’t actually involve them at all. It makes sense to do (or even repeat) the Readings in the vernacular,
I would point out – and this is pure speculation on my part – that flooding the Mass with the vernacular has drastically reduced the amount of “preparation” that people
It’s etymology. And I’m interested in that too (along with many of my other siblings).
I’m sorry, but I didn’t have space in the margins for all the phrases I could have used. I could go on and on, but I thought I was making my point.
Yes, Latin is the language of witches, lawyers, doctors, and scientists.
Did it occur to you that (in the Harry Potter world) witches of all nationalities say these same spells? There’s no special French version of the reducto spell, or a special English version, or a German one. No, there’s one unified “sacred” (well, magical) language that they all use. I’d expect Rowling used Latin as the root for many of those spells for a couple reasons, one of which would be that readers would either recognize them or might actually be able to deduce their meaning from the context (an exercise in intelligence and growth of brain-power).
N
Newbie2
Guest
I think that the main argument, at least in the US, is that it is sick* reverent. The unity argument is a poor one, methinks; how can one be in union when one does not understand the words? IMHO, in order to get the fullness of mass, one should understand all the words, not just some. The argument that it used to be in Latin and everyone got along fine doesn’t hold much water nowadays.
Americans are lazy, for the most part. We won’t take the time to learn a new language if we don’t have to. I took a 2 credit course in ecclesial latin which was required for my Master’s degree, worked very hard at it, but I can’t say that I learned much at all.
OTOH, I’ve been to masses in Polish and Spanish. Didn’t understand a single word, but I could figure out what was going on. Made me pay attention, for sure.
Maybe that’s another argument; it makes one pay attention. 
*Sick in this sense meaning “awesomely”
Americans are lazy, for the most part. We won’t take the time to learn a new language if we don’t have to. I took a 2 credit course in ecclesial latin which was required for my Master’s degree, worked very hard at it, but I can’t say that I learned much at all.
OTOH, I’ve been to masses in Polish and Spanish. Didn’t understand a single word, but I could figure out what was going on. Made me pay attention, for sure.
Maybe that’s another argument; it makes one pay attention. *Sick in this sense meaning “awesomely”
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I don’t think anyone can fully understand the Mass, really. So I don’t think getting the fullness has much to do with understanding the Mass, but to do with being open to God’s presence and action at Mass. This presence and action of Christ at Mass remains the same, regardless of the unfamiliarity of the language, so I don’t think your argument stands either.
But the Mass is not just words, but it includes symbols and other rituals. If the words are unfamiliar, might not the other common symbols and rituals help foster a sense of community?
- Status