What is the point of using Latin?

[ProVobis]

English is actually universal. It is the most commonly used language on the internet. It is one of the official languages of the United Nations. It is an official language in at least one country on every populated continent save South America. Yeah, its pretty universal.

Probably not for too much longer. Chinese and Spanish are growing pretty fast on the internet. They are already each spoken more than English. Besides the internet is not the Church. Neither is the United Nations. Again English is not catholic PER VETERUM SAPIENTIA. Latin and Greek are.

By the way, what you call official may only be de facto official. Not quite the real thing.

Also, an irony of sorts here. The U.S. currency is considered the default currency of the world. Yet there is more Latin on a U.S. dollar bill than there is in most of the Catholic Masses. How did they let that happen?

 

[ProVobis]

Friends, I am rather confused about Latin and vernacular. In all honesty, it seems logical to me that the Mass ought to be in a language readily understood by all the parishioners observing the Holy Sacrifice.

According to what Cardinal Arinze said in 2006, there are other elements in play here:

"… Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth…"

 

[Geremia]

Absolutely - there are at least some Catholics today who spent the first 19 years or more of their life attending Latin Mass who will freely admit that they didn’t understand the Latin prayers at the time and can’t remember them today.

Even if they were true, one thing they would know very well is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a man-made invention; the use of a non-vernacular language rightfully preserves its sense of mystery and supernatural origin.

Someone needs a history lesson.

I do not appreciate the ad hominem attack.

When St Pius V promulgated the TLM, at the same time he ordered that various forms of Mass that had come into use in the 200 years prior to the Council of Trent be suppressed. Rites that were over 200 years old at the time of Trent, such as the Ambrosian, Bragan and Mozarabic, were allowed to continue alongside the TLM.

Sure different rites existed in Europe, but all of them in Europe (except the Moravian Slavs who used the vernacular with Pope John VIII’s permission, to prevent schism) used Latin.

These variants that were suppressed by Pius were perfectly legitimate and valid Catholic Masses prior to his ban on them, forms of liturgy being (as I’ve said all along) a matter of discipline rather than dogma. So there’s nothing wrong all with St Joan having attended one, as she lived in the century prior to Trent.

Yes she probably did, but I am saying it was in Latin, not the vernacular.

But they were nonetheless suppressed after Trent in the interests of greater (note not perfect) uniformity of liturgy.

I want to see your evidence that a humble fisherman from Galilee knew Latin.

Anything is possible with God, especially after the Pentecost when Holy Spirit gave the apostles the ability to understand the speak in diverse tongues.

I’ve never heard so much as a hint that St Peter did, and the idea is much more far-fetched than the idea that he didn’t.

As for Paul, did he not write to the Romans in Greek?

Yes

Why on earth would he do so, if he knew Latin?

There could be many reasons: his audience might have known Greek better, we might only have the Greek version of his letter that was translated from Latin, etc.

Again, where is your evidence that he knew Latin?

St. Paul was a scholar and a Roman citizen. This is an interesting article, too.

 

[ConstantineTG]

On the contrary. The word “catholic” means something that is UNIVERSAL. Latin, Greek, and some other Eastern languages are “catholic” per Veterum Sapientia. English is not catholic (nor Catholic, for that matter) and never has been.

Universality of our faith is the faith, not the language. In fact, it is a hallmark of our Catholicity that the faith can be transmitted in any and all languages as proven in the East.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Probably not for too much longer. Chinese and Spanish are growing pretty fast on the internet. They are already each spoken more than English. Besides the internet is not the Church. Neither is the United Nations. Again English is not catholic PER VETERUM SAPIENTIA. Latin and Greek are.

By the way, what you call official may only be de facto official. Not quite the real thing.

Also, an irony of sorts here. The U.S. currency is considered the default currency of the world. Yet there is more Latin on a U.S. dollar bill than there is in most of the Catholic Masses. How did they let that happen?

In the years leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, major efforts was made by China to train their people in English. I have went on business trips to China and we communicate by English. English will continue to be the language of commerce of the modern times, as was Greek during the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

There is really no basis to say that Chinese is becoming a worldwide language. Even though they are the most populous nation and there is a China-town in most countries, the use of the language has not spread beyond the Chinese themselves.

Besides, Chinese is not as universal as most people think. There are many localized dialects that is used heavily in distinct parts of China. Most of the people in that region may not speak even the national language Putonghua, or Mandarin. So even the Chinese themselves do not speak the same universal language.

 

[Geremia]

I want to see your evidence that a humble fisherman from Galilee knew Latin. I’ve never heard so much as a hint that St Peter did, and the idea is much more far-fetched than the idea that he didn’t.

Do you also not think St. John the Evangelist, being a fisherman, actually wrote the Gospel of St. John because a fisherman would be incapable of such profound theological thought? God divinely inspired the whole Bible.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you also not think St. John the Evangelist, being a fisherman, actually wrote the Gospel of St. John because a fisherman would be incapable of such profound theological thought? God divinely inspired the whole Bible.

Without looking it up in which language the Gospel of St. John was written, it would make more sense to write it in Greek. First, its more universal at the time, so more people can read and understand it. Second, John has been focused more in the Easter Roman Empire than in Rome where Peter was. John’s target audience would be Greek speakers.

Also, John was very young at the time of Jesus’ ministry. He would have been taught to read and write by Matthew or the other apostles and disciples who knows how to read and write. Something that St. Peter and the other older fishermen may not have learned. While the Apostles have been divinely inspired and have shown superhuman abilities from time to time as gifted by the Holy Spirit, most of the time they worked within their human capabilities.

 

[StTommyMore]

Do you also not think St. John the Evangelist, being a fisherman, actually wrote the Gospel of St. John because a fisherman would be incapable of such profound theological thought? God divinely inspired the whole Bible.

I think the point she is getting at is the simple fact that in the earliest days of the Church, everything was in Greek and Aramaic. Things switched to Latin to put it in the vernacular. I imagine the same kind of discussions happened then as are happening now: “Why is the Liturgy in such a vulgar language as Latin? It was always in Greek before, from the beginning!”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the point she is getting at is the simple fact that in the earliest days of the Church, everything was in Greek and Aramaic. Things switched to Latin to put it in the vernacular. I imagine the same kind of discussions happened then as are happening now: “Why is the Liturgy in such a vulgar language as Latin? It was always in Greek before, from the beginning!”

I would have guessed that such pettiness is a modern innovation

 

[LilyM]

Anything is possible with God, especially after the Pentecost when Holy Spirit gave the apostles the ability to understand the speak in diverse tongues.

Good point - why DID the Holy Spirit inspire the Apostles to speak in diverse languages if the necessity and benefits and unifying effect of using just one or two languages exclusively are so bleeding obvious?

Why did the Holy Spirit not simply guide the Apostles to speak in Latin and Greek only?

Why, in fact, was Pentecost exactly the sort of multicultural multilinguistic experience that you’re saying is so divisive and awful?

There could be many reasons: his audience might have known Greek better, we might only have the Greek version of his letter that was translated from Latin, etc.St. Paul was a scholar and a Roman citizen. This is an interesting article, too.

Romans whose vernacular (or at least daily) language was Latin knew Greek better? Of course they did, and writing a letter to the entire (very mixed, not just Jewish) Christian community of Rome in Greek makes perfect sense. By that logic it would be eminently sensible to write a letter to the entire Catholic community of Boston in French. It would ONLY be sensible for someone who ONLY knows French and not English, the lingua franca of Boston. By the same token it would ONLY be sensible for Paul to write Greek if he ONLY knew Greek.

You think Paul maybe wrote in Latin but it was translated into Greek? But Latin is the sacred unifying language par excellence, the one chosen by Christ Himself (can’t remember if those were your words or someone else’s), the one destined to be used by teh Church for centuries. Why on earth would the Holy Spirit be so incompetent as to allow the original Latin version to be lost so that we would have to rely on a possibly inferior re-translation via the Greek?

 

[StTommyMore]

I would have guessed that such pettiness is a modern innovation

Across the ages, human nature has been pretty much the same.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the point she is getting at is the simple fact that in the earliest days of the Church, everything was in Greek and Aramaic. Things switched to Latin to put it in the vernacular. I imagine the same kind of discussions happened then as are happening now: “Why is the Liturgy in such a vulgar language as Latin? It was always in Greek before, from the beginning!”

Even on this we don’t know that for sure. In fact most history books/articles are very vague and no two of them agree on this topic. Many of the differences can be attributed to the fact that the definition of what’s vernacular and what’s not was/is itself vague. And did they actually call it “vernacular” then? Seems as if the Romance languages had already been established to some extent so Latin was not probably foreign to them but it was not necessarily called their first language either.

Even today Latin is probably less foreign to those who speak Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, etc. than to the English. But remember too take away Latin (and Greek) and we’d probably be speaking a more Germanic language today.

 

[Layman]

Enter the Golden Calf. Your arguments are based on your own desires, in effect, to force all to worship in the way you prefer. The Liturgy is not to be what we wish, but within the parameters revealed through the Church. You are overstating the problem of liturgical abuse. This is not to say it does not occur, but that it is much less common than you seem to convey. If I were you, I would stop listening to ultra-tradtionalist sources, and listen instead to your local Bishop and the legitimate Magisterium.

You are overstating my position.

I am saying it’s crazy Latin was dropped as the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church, for the reasons mentioned. I highly doubt the Latin Mass could be forced on the R.C.Church, worldwide, at the moment.

**Though from a purely sociological point of view, it would be interesting to see what would happen if that was attempted. **

I don’t heed ultra-traditionalist sources. I’ve come to these conclusions by going to TLMs for about three years now.

My local bishop stopped a local TLM from happening, once. It’s a funny attitude: How can a Mass with a 500 year+ pedigree be wrong?

 

[Layman]

I don’t understand why the possibility that the earliest Masses were in Aramaic or Greek is pertinent to the Roman Catholic Church retaining Latin in its rites as much as possible.

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t understand why the possibility that the earliest Masses were in Aramaic or Greek is pertinent to the Roman Catholic Church retaining Latin in its rites as much as possible.

Because it means that Latin is not intrinsic to the Mass! It means that the language in which the liturgy is celebrated is not a matter of Dogma, and has no bearing on the universality of the Mass. It means that your obsession with the Latin is concentrating on the externals, and forgetting about the the reality of what is happening at the Mass.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Divorcing Latin from the Mass has had disastrous side effects. Symbolically, it said “Out with the old!” as a rule. Despite the true spirit of Vatican II specifically not allowing this heterodoxy, the spirit of deconstructionism nevertheless found lee-way given for questionable liturgical practices.

In practice, despite the theory and good intentions, replacing Latin with the vernacular reduced ancient prayer to mere words. The Mass lost every semblance of constancy — not the constancy itself, i.e. the Eucharist and the necessary apostolic succession — but nevertheless the seeming of ancient tradition.

Now, I’m not saying that the removal of Latin was a prime force in this, but it was by far the most noticeable factor.

 

[ProVobis]

Because it means that Latin is not intrinsic to the Mass!

Perhaps our definitions of “intrinsic” are different, but if the Mass is promulgated in a particular text having the words and meanings selected carefully, then those Latin texts are indeed intrinsic to the Mass. (Just like English is intrinsic to the US Constitution. )

It means that the language in which the liturgy is celebrated is not a matter of Dogma, and has no bearing on the universality of the Mass.

The language is the vehicle of delivering that dogma, and it is for everyone, not specific cultures, whether they understand it or not. Therefore, it is universal.

It means that your obsession with the Latin is concentrating on the externals, and forgetting about the the reality of what is happening at the Mass.

I say the obsession rests with those who insist and expect everything has to be translated properly for them. They therefore conclude they don’t need to understand Latin so therefore they will probably resist learning it.

 

[StTommyMore]

Perhaps our definitions of “intrinsic” are different, but if the Mass is promulgated in a particular text using words and meanings carefully, then those Latin texts are indeed intrinsic to the Mass.

The language is the vehicle of delivering that dogma, and it is for everyone, whether they understand it or not. Therefore, it is universal.

I say the obsession rests with those who insist and expect everything has to be translated properly for them. They therefore conclude they don’t need to understand Latin so therefore they will probably resist learning it.

I disagree. The Mass has been promulgated in English, and therefore MUST be accepted. The obsession is most definitely for those who refuse to accept the mass as promulgated, and insist that the Latin is superior, simply because they prefer it. It is those who obsess over Latin that are concerned with externals.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree. The Mass has been promulgated in English

No.

promulgate

1. To make known (a decree, for example) by public declaration; announce officially.
2. To put (a law) into effect by formal public announcement.

It was translated into several hundred vernaculars but the actual promulgation was delivered in LATIN, meaning everyone has to accept the Latin but given permission to hear approved translations.

 

[Layman]

… It means that your obsession with the Latin is concentrating on the externals, and forgetting about the the reality of what is happening at the Mass.

Without externals, there is no Mass.