What is the point of using Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriousOrder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GloriousOrder

Guest
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. Since God has sanctified all human beings by creating and loving us enough to die for us, it seems that any language we use to address Him is absolutely holy, when spoken reverently. Is the focus on using Latin merely a long-standing tradition of worship, or is there a theological reason Traditionalists hold on to it?

To be honest, the title was going to be “What is the point of using Latin today?”, but I realised that would be chronological snobbery. If something is morally-right in A.D. 300 and A.D. 1300, it’s right in A.D. 2010. The point of this thread is to establish, in my mind, a reason for the use of Latin in any period. It is tempting to say there’s no point in using Latin today, since the congregation certainly doesn’t know it as a rule, and even many diocesan priests don’t seem to know it (strictly in my own experience). Should we not worship God in the same manner which at once glorifies and focuses on Him, but also allows every man in the pews to understand what’s going on?

I certainly cannot follow the collects, secrets, etc. when they’re spoken by the priest. One who does not grasp Latin can only follow the Kyrie, Gloria, and the other memorised prayers. As much as I deeply love Latin and have an emotional “fetish” for its use in Mass, my common sense tells me that hardly any regular parishioner (i.e. non-traditionalist average Catholic) would be able to fall into deep prayer when they don’t understand the Mass and have to keep flipping through a double-columned book the width of their arm.

😊
 
Have you ever been to a bilingual Mass?

The ones that I have been to usually consists of the prayers and readings in one language and then the same prayers and readings in another language. So for example, at a Spanish and English bilingual Mass, the Gloria is prayed in Spanish and then immediately prayed in English. While the Spanish speaking parishioners are reciting/singing the Gloria, the English speaking ones try to follow along with their translations but it’s difficult, and vice versa (the Spanish have a hard time with the English). However, when a prayer is recited in Latin, you definitely notice both groups of people reciting along because it’s a language both are familiar with.

In my opinion, this is one of the many reasons why the Church has retained Latin. I’ve had other situations where I was with Catholics from another ethnic background, and praying together in Latin really broke the language barriers.

You may not be familiar with Ecclesiastical Latin, but if you’re exposed to it enough, you’ll definitely learn it, just like anything else. Even the people that resist Latin with all their might know the Latin prayers. In regards to your comment about your concern over people not being able to pray while reading from a “double-columned” book, like anything, it takes practice. I was just baptized and confirmed in 2009. I only started attending the TLM a few months ago, yet I learned enough of the Latin to have to only refer to the missal for the Propers. And I didn’t study Latin rigorously, I simply learned the prayers through repetition.

Even the Second Vatican Council reiterated the importance of retaining Latin.
 
The Church retains her universal language (Latin) as the official language. This means that any document/liturgy that comes from Rome is in Latin and then to be translated by the appropriate authorities. This ensures universality and free from err because Latin is a dead language and not subject to change like other languages.

That previous poster brings up a great point and I’ve been to many bilingual masses and there are going to be more in this country so we better get comfortable with it. This is the reason why I stated that if/when I get married the Mass will be said in Latin (not sure if it will be EF or OF yet) because I have many relatives who only speak Spanish but the majority of my friends speak only English, this way there is no bias towards anyone and actually makes them look at the missal. Latin is part of our Catholic heritage and we should be proud of that it and should at least make it part of our OF Mass at every parish.
 
First of all you don’t have to know all of Latin to be able to follow the Mass in Latin. Ecclesiastical Latin, esp. the Mass parts, is very easy to learn.

So it becomes a sort of universal language. Anywhere, any country, where you go to Mass you can follow. I used to travel extensively around the world on business for years and really wished the Mass was in Latin everywhere. And it’s not an ordinary vs extraordinary form thing. I like the OF Mass, and would love for it to be offered in Latin everywhere; I have been to OF Masses in Latin, incidentally.

Typically though in a Latin Mass, the readings and homily are usually in the local language.

We have the bilingual Mass issue here in Canada (French & English).
 
I suppose the next question, then, is: why not use English as the universal language? It is truly universal today, as opposed to Latin. Obviously when compared to God, the congregation is not of importance in the Mass; still, common sense ought to reign. There’s the argument that Latin was defensible as a universal liturgical language in the A.D. 200’s and 300’s, but that’s because remnants of the classical world still remained around the average people. Wouldn’t it be best to consecrate a universal language that is most-understood by the largest number of human beings? If the point of one language across the Church is indeed unity, English would certainly fill that requirement, especially today.

Would Christ not have taught His wondrous prayer to the Father (on the Mount) in Hebrew? Does prayer in one’s native language not edify one’s soul, and allow one to pierce the ontological communication with God more perfectly? After all, we communicate with our beloved family and friends in our first language. Why should it not be so for the First Family we have, in Heaven? :confused:

Please remember that I am not debating whether the Church teaches this use of Latin, since Vatican II is clear that Latin ought to be used. I am asking this morally and philosophically, not to prove a point about Canon Law This or Constitution That. 🙂
 
GloriousOrder said:
I suppose the next question, then, is: why not use English as the universal language? It is truly universal today, as opposed to Latin. Obviously when compared to God, the congregation is not of importance in the Mass; still, common sense ought to reign. There’s the argument that Latin was defensible as a universal liturgical language in the A.D. 200’s and 300’s, but that’s because remnants of the classical world still remained around the average people. Wouldn’t it be best to consecrate a universal language that is most-understood by the largest number of human beings? If the point of one language across the Church is indeed unity, English would certainly fill that requirement, especially today.
Click to expand...
  1. As stated before, Latin is a dead language and free from changes. English, however, is constantly changing. Every year we add new words to the dictionary. Take a look at how English has evolved over time in the United States alone. We even speak a different form of English than the British do.
  2. Every document in Roman Catholic Church history would need to be translated to English.
  3. What happens if English is trumped as a more universal language in the future? Is the Church expected to retranslate everything to the new language?
  4. By your reasoning (and I’m not being sarcastic here), Mandarin should be the language of the Church as it is by far the most widely used language in the world; the combined number of native and second-language Mandarin speakers in the world doubles that of English native speakers and second-language speakers.
Would Christ not have taught His wondrous prayer to the Father (on the Mount) in Hebrew? Does prayer in one’s native language not edify one’s soul, and allow one to pierce the ontological communication with God more perfectly? After all, we communicate with our beloved family and friends in our first language. Why should it not be so for the First Family we have, in Heaven? :confused:
Click to expand...
Sure, we talk to our family and friends in our native tongue, but picture this: there are over 2.2 billion Catholics in the world. Imagine them uniting in prayer under one language. Now imagine the same 2.2 billion Catholics praying in the various different languages, separated by language.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on what makes sense to you. The Catholic Church has been around since Jesus formed it, and guided by the Holy Spirit, has determined that the unification qualities of Latin are what’s best for the Church and its flock.

Also, you seem to think that Latin cannot be learned in a manner that is natural to those who don’t know it. Just like everything else, learning Latin takes some practice. We Americans are a minority in the world in that the majority of those outside of our country do speak multiple languages, and they speak them fluently. By praying in Latin, I’ve discovered that I have more reverence for what I’m praying.
Please remember that I am not debating whether the Church teaches this use of Latin, since Vatican II is clear that Latin ought to be used. I am asking this morally and philosophically, not to prove a point about Canon Law This or Constitution That. 🙂
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with asking questions.
 
GloriousOrder said:
I suppose the next question, then, is: why not use English as the universal language? It is truly universal today, as opposed to Latin.
Click to expand...
Two reasons.

One, in many cultures using English has enormous negative cultural implications. Latin on the other hand is “neutral”. For example, where I live, in Quebec, trying to impose English as the liturgical language would be an unmitigated disaster for the Church. It would be the same in other parts of the world, where imposing English would be seen as cultural imperialism, whereas Latin is deeply embedded into the Church’s traditions and it creates a universal culture for the Latin Church.

Secondly, English is a dynamic and evolving language. Latin is a “dead” language. By being static and unchanging, the liturgy does not have to be updated (from a language POV) every couple of decades or so.
 
These arguments make sense. Something tells me this might not be so moving in Mandarin:

youtube.com/watch?v=sqwV9l-U8ds

A certain mystical light pervades such a ‘dead’ language, even though it sounds more alive than any tongue currently in use. 👍
 
GloriousOrder said:
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. Since God has sanctified all human beings by creating and loving us enough to die for us, it seems that any language we use to address Him is absolutely holy, when spoken reverently. Is the focus on using Latin merely a long-standing tradition of worship, or is there a theological reason Traditionalists hold on to it?

To be honest, the title was going to be “What is the point of using Latin today?”, but I realised that would be chronological snobbery. If something is morally-right in A.D. 300 and A.D. 1300, it’s right in A.D. 2010. The point of this thread is to establish, in my mind, a reason for the use of Latin in any period. It is tempting to say there’s no point in using Latin today, since the congregation certainly doesn’t know it as a rule, and even many diocesan priests don’t seem to know it (strictly in my own experience). Should we not worship God in the same manner which at once glorifies and focuses on Him, but also allows every man in the pews to understand what’s going on?

I certainly cannot follow the collects, secrets, etc. when they’re spoken by the priest. One who does not grasp Latin can only follow the Kyrie, Gloria, and the other memorised prayers. As much as I deeply love Latin and have an emotional “fetish” for its use in Mass, my common sense tells me that hardly any regular parishioner (i.e. non-traditionalist average Catholic) would be able to fall into deep prayer when they don’t understand the Mass and have to keep flipping through a double-columned book the width of their arm.

😊
Click to expand...
Have you ever wondered why there are more languages than one? We all have pink tongues, even if as the Indians say, they are sometimes forked. Why all this multiplicity of language for such a uniform appendage? Why has Esperanto failed so miserably?

The language we choose to use conveys more than just what the word signifies. If I say “Shanti, Shanti, Shanti” (think TS Eliot) you will get a very different impression than if I say “Peace.” In the one, you will have a sense a timeless mysticism, in other you will think “regugee from Haight Ashbury.” It will be worse if I am wearing a dashiki.

The language we use also shapes the way we think. I believe it a great loss for the world that Israel adopted Hebrew instead of Yiddish. Think of all the Yiddish words in common US parlance, like Oy vey, bagel, and (my favorite) tukkas. Now think of all the great Yiddish speaking comedians like Milton Berle and Phil Silvers. Ironic, slightly deprecating, not coarse, much like the context we still use the occasional Yiddish word to flavor speech. In contrast, how many Israeli comedians come to mind? Who knows the Isreali word for “kvetch?”

Language conveys a sense of togetherness or separateness. Sometimes, in a paradoxical way. If a madras clad, sallow northern man ventures to Cancun, he will be well on his way toward a memorable holiday if he greets the winsome dark eyed lassie on the beach with a garbled “Como estas, senorita?” than if he resorts to the more familar “what’s your sign, baby?” Perhaps the intent is similar, but the result, I wager, will be different. A foreign language can actually facilitiate unity!

When we pray in Latin, we are using a language that is perfectly formed to the idea that needs expression in Catholic worship. “Gloria in Excelsis” hits you like a cannon ball. Its English equivilent is quite a mouthful, and a bit obscure: is it glory, or God, that is highest? What is high glory, anyway?

When we pray in Latin, we are declaring our independence. and superiority to the mere nations. The Church is the empire to which all others must belong, or remain separate from at their peril. The French speak French not only to imitate Gerard Depardieu, but also because they think him better than Sylvester Stallone. Latin proclaims unity so loudly that even Uncle Sam lifted it for use on coins and other regalia: E pluribus unum.

The objection is raised that some do not understand it. This is the purpose of education, of course. But I wonder how forceful the objection really is. While it is true that not all can follow the collects verbatim, I wonder how many people follow the community prayers after the readings anyway, with their cumbresome importuning that all civil leaders everywhere respect civil rights, and so on. It is easy to tune out the things we hear all the time. My wife frequently does, and not because she does not understand me well enough. She undertands me too well!

Think about the mysteries we contemplate at mass. On the one hand, does anyone other than a theologian really understand “one in being with the Father?” But on the other, even medieval folks understood the Latin in the mass enough to make a joke of it: hocus pocus is “Hoc est corpus meus.” Not everyone who goes to a football game knows all the rules, that is why we have rule books and referees, but we still can figure out who is winning.

At a Latin mass, we understand the “name of the game.” It is the holy sacrifice before which every knee must bend. There never has been any misunderstanding about it. Latin proclaims the complete singularity of the sacrament, our kinship as members of the Church universal, in our own, not a borrowed, voice.

Deo Gratia!
 
GloriousOrder said:
These arguments make sense. Something tells me this might not be so moving in Mandarin:

youtube.com/watch?v=sqwV9l-U8ds

A certain mystical light pervades such a ‘dead’ language, even though it sounds more alive than any tongue currently in use. 👍
Click to expand...
I know this is really off topic (sorry to derail your thread a little bit), but there’s this DVD documentary at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC (I live 15 minutes away) that follows the Catholic “underground” in China. As you probably already know, Catholicism is allowed in China but under government supervision (and the government doesn’t acknowledge the primacy of the Pope). This documentary gets into the underground movement and it seems fascinating. I really want to pick it up soon.
 
OraLabora said:
Secondly, English is a dynamic and evolving language. Latin is a “dead” language. By being static and unchanging, the liturgy does not have to be updated (from a language POV) every couple of decades or so.
Click to expand...
Although formal English is mostly stable. Most new words are not considered formal until years after its introduction. Therefore they may not be worthy enough to use for prayers.
 
GloriousOrder said:
I suppose the next question, then, is: why not use English as the universal language? It is truly universal today, as opposed to Latin. Obviously when compared to God, the congregation is not of importance in the Mass; still, common sense ought to reign. There’s the argument that Latin was defensible as a universal liturgical language in the A.D. 200’s and 300’s, but that’s because remnants of the classical world still remained around the average people. Wouldn’t it be best to consecrate a universal language that is most-understood by the largest number of human beings? If the point of one language across the Church is indeed unity, English would certainly fill that requirement, especially today.

Would Christ not have taught His wondrous prayer to the Father (on the Mount) in Hebrew? Does prayer in one’s native language not edify one’s soul, and allow one to pierce the ontological communication with God more perfectly? After all, we communicate with our beloved family and friends in our first language. Why should it not be so for the First Family we have, in Heaven? :confused:

Please remember that I am not debating whether the Church teaches this use of Latin, since Vatican II is clear that Latin ought to be used. I am asking this morally and philosophically, not to prove a point about Canon Law This or Constitution That. 🙂
Click to expand...
There’s two schools of thought here. You’ve already heard one side. The other is that the faith has always been taught in the vernacular everywhere, and the Liturgy has been translated to the vernacular. When the Roman Church grew its territory, it was originally to places where people either already speak Latin or can easily understand Latin. Of course the age of exploration changed that as Roman Catholicism was brought to many parts of the world that were never touched by the Latin culture or language. So now the challenge is not only foreign words, but the whole language itself, structure included, is different.

The Eastern Churches (Catholics and Orthodox) has always been successful in translating Liturgy to different languages. I think its living proof that it can be done and should be done. I agree with keeping a baseline language such as Latin, but from there translate it to every language possible.
 
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?
Click to expand...
A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:
Click to expand...
To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
Click to expand...
That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
Click to expand...
To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.
Click to expand...
 
Wow! That catechetical text pretty much sums up the answers to my objections. I must find this Catechism. 😃
 
Consult this:
and this:
The [Baltimore Catechism (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/baltimore_catechism.pdf) says about Latin: Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?
A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:
To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.
 
Remember, we already shifted the scripture, liturgy, and writings of the Church to the vulgate once - that’s how we got Latin in the first place. Switching over from old language to new vulgate every era would be a huge undertaking that would unnecessarily risk introducing errors, corruption, and confusion into Church documents.

When Spanish translations and English translations conflict we just refer back to the Latin to find the answer. Failing that, we break out the Pre-Diaspora Hebrew or Koine Greek.

That is part of why excellent historical, literary, and linguistic scholarship is crucial to the upkeep of proper theology. Many generations in the past have witnessed what kind of a mess you get when a shadowy cabal of folks lacking proper scholarship in ancient history nor Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew decide to get together and publish their own “correction” of the Bible and an accompanying theology. It isn’t pretty.
  • Marty Lund
 
For any interested, after struggling along slowly with the famous Wheelock’s Latin, I came across an excellent Latin course:

Latina Lingua: Pars 1: Familia Romana (Text Book)
Hans Orberg
Hardcover $28.00 ($18.48 at Amazon.com) Paperback $18.00 ($12.24 at Amazon)

Be sure to also get the CD version
Lingua Latina: (PC/CD-ROM) Pars I: Familia Romana-Interactive CD Rom
$32.95 ($21.75 at Amazon)

The CD contains the same text as the book and is read aloud by a proficient speaker. It’s perfectly possible to just use the CD version. I just like having a text book for reading on the couch etc.

The course is based on the life of a Roman family in the 2nd Century, though the girl friend of the family’s runaway slave is a Christian who towards the middle of the course saves a sinking ship by praying to Jesus.

This is a “complete emersion” course- No English used in either the text or CD! This is not a problem at first, but as the material advances I found it well worth the money to purchase the following supplementary workbook which contains vocabulary translations and grammar lessons for each chapter

Lingua Latina: A College Companion based on Hans Orberg’s Latine Disco with Vocabulary and Grammar
Jeanne Marie Neumann
$27.00 ($17.82 at Amazon)

Pick up a good dictionary, and maybe a verb book, and you’re in business for under $90

This is not liturgical Latin, however, after ten or so chapters I found it rather easy to start following traditional prayers in Latin and then expanding my vocabulary.

There are a number of online sources for prayers in Latin and even the complete Latin Mass.

Anyone who would like to have the basic prayers and Rosary in Latin in MS Word format can send me a personal message with their e-mail address and I will reply with an attachment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top