What is the point of using Latin?

[Wesley7]

Latin is one of the original languages of the Church. That’s the point of using Latin

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s a serious question, why do people here think that tradition cannot be transmitted by any other language? Wouldn’t a new generation appreciate the tradition better in a context (both verbal and action) that is suited to them? And should tradition always be something thats old and antiquated? Is there no room to incorporate the new with the old?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Latin is one of the original languages of the Church. That’s the point of using Latin

One of the? Aramaic and Greek preceeds Latin, why not fight for those languages instead?

I agree with some of the reasons why the Roman Church should use Latin, but this is not one of them. Antiquity actually leads to irrelevance rather than establishing a baseline. Take scripture as one example. When the new testament was written, a lot of what is meant by the writters were applicable to the people of that time. That is why as time goes by we have more and more Bible-only groups sprouting. The original context is lost without tradition and the personal interpretations multiply like rabbits in spring. A claim of antiquity isn’t really a good reason.

 

[ProVobis]

from Veterum Sapientia

…Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7…

 

[ConstantineTG]

But Pope John Paul II has praised the inculturation and use of native tongue in the East. What makes the West any different from the East?

From Orientale Lumen:

1. As I have pointed out at other times, one of the first great values embodied particularly in the Christian East is the attention given to peoples and their cultures, so that the Word of God and his praise my resound in every language. I reflected on this topic in the Encyclical Letter Slavorum Apostoli, where I noted that Cyril and Methodius “desired to become similar in every aspect to those to whom they were bringing the Gospel; they wished to become a part of those peoples and to share their lot in everything”;(20) “it was a question of a new method of catechesis.”(21)

In doing this, they expressed an attitude widespread in the Christian East: “By incarnating the Gospel in the native culture of the peoples which they were evangelizing, Saints Cyril and Methodius were especially meritorious for the formation and development of that same culture, or rather of many cultures.”(22) They combined respect and consideration for individual cultures with a passion for the universality of the Church, which they tirelessly strove to achieve. The attitude of the two brothers from Thessalonica is representative in Christian antiquity of a style typical of many churches: revelation is proclaimed satisfactorily and becomes fully understandable when Christ speaks the tongues of the various peoples, and they can read scripture and sing the liturgy in their own language with their own expressions, as though repeating the marvels of Pentecost.

At a time when it is increasingly recognized that the right of every people to express themselves according to their own heritage of culture and thought is fundamental, the experience of the individual Churches of the East is offered to us as an authoritative example of successful inculturation.

From this model we learn that if we wish to avoid the recurrence of particularism as well as of exaggerated nationalism, we must realize that the proclamation of the Gospel should be deeply rooted in what is distinctive to each culture and open to convergence in a universality, which involves an exchange for the sake of mutual enrichment.

For the bolded in red, I’d just like to remind those who will say, “okay so lets have the entire Liturgy in Latin and the songs in the vernacular,” that the ENTIRE Liturgy is sung in the East.

 

[ProVobis]

VATICAN CITY, FEB 22, 2006 (VIS) - At the end of the general audience, the Pope addressed a greeting in Latin to students at the faculty of Christian and Classical Literature of the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome.

“My predecessors rightly encouraged the study of [this] great language,” said the Pope in Latin, “in order to achieve a better understanding of the sound doctrine contained in the ecclesiastical and humanistic disciplines. In the same way, we encourage the continuation of this activity, so that as many people as possible may perceive the importance of this treasure and attain it.” VIS 060222

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not arguing against Latin. Lets just not take Latin for something that it isn’t meant to be. Faith can be transmitted regardless of Latin, tradition can be upheld regardless of Latin. Wrong notions like “Latin is important because of its antiquity” or “Latin as a language of prayer is more efficacious” is dangerous belief. I agree that Latin has its value in our Church, lets take the words of the Popes and Bishops for it. But let is not add our own opinions. I think thats the problem that happens a lot, the reason is twisted and suddenly we have a distorted view than what the Church herself intends.

 

[ProVobis]

From the SC authority of Vatican II:

**
36. § 1. Linguae latinae** usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Note: This is not a suggestion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

From the SC authority of Vatican II:

Note: This is not a suggestion.

Preserved doesn’t mean “use exclusively”

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul in 1969:

"…But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

 

[Robert_Burns]

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.

The Latin isnt spoken to you. It is used by the Priest as he offers The Sacrifice of the Mass to GOD for you. GOD understands it ( and yes this is said Tongue in Cheek) So GOD is the one being addressed in Latin.

Now in order to understand a Latin Mass - if you plan on attending many of them - I suggest you invest in a Missal that has English on one side and Latin on the Other. This makes it simple to follow as the English side describes what the Priest is saying and Why and includes the Epistle and holy Gospel in English as well.

Hope this helps…

Pax

 

[At_Trent]

Here’s a serious question, why do people here think that tradition cannot be transmitted by any other language? Wouldn’t a new generation appreciate the tradition better in a context (both verbal and action) that is suited to them? And should tradition always be something thats old and antiquated? Is there no room to incorporate the new with the old?

My question is why buck the system that has worked for centuries ? I mean, do we have to change EVERYTHING pre-VII ?

You raise an important point. Why, if it was good enough for centuries, is it not good enough for modern times ? This new generation doesn’t need to be catered to. They are not unique, other than they live in a very secular world. It is precisely for that reason the old way should be embraced. The Cure d’Ars was handed a village that resembled Vegas and straightened it out

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope Paul in 1969:

But using the vernacular in the Liturgy doesn’t mean Latin will disappear in the Church. These are the misconceptions about it. Preservation doesn’t have to mean all Latin all the time. And the use of the vernacular doesn’t have to mean that Latin is being totally replaced.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin isnt spoken to you. It is used by the Priest as he offers The Sacrifice of the Mass to GOD for you. GOD understands it ( and yes this is said Tongue in Cheek) So GOD is the one being addressed in Latin.

Nicely put.

I would add to your last sentence: “…as EXACTLY the way the Church prescribes.”

 

[ProVobis]

My question is why buck the system that has worked for centuries ?

Good point.

One thing to remember: we measure by months and years. The Church measures by centuries and millennia.

 

[Dymphna82]

I love the Latin. It reminds me of how old the Church is and how rooted we are. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.

 

[mick321]

The point of using Latin - within the context of the Liturgy - is that it not be forgotten.

A common language is an essential feature - a touchstone - of every culture. It promotes unity and fellowship among the members.

As a consequence of its time in history, place of origin and direction in which it spread across the earth, Latin became its official language of the Church. By the grace of God, it has been maintained through centuries of persecution and handed down to us along with the Holy Scriptures.

Ecclesiastical Latin was developed specifically for use in the Roman Catholic Church. Its simplicity, stability, precision and formality make it uniquely suited for the Ordinary of the Mass and the much of the Divine Office.

The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy - offered by a skilled priest - is unmatched in its substance, reverence, elegance and style. For the worship and glorification of God, nothing even comes close.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My question is why buck the system that has worked for centuries ? I mean, do we have to change EVERYTHING pre-VII ?

You raise an important point. Why, if it was good enough for centuries, is it not good enough for modern times ? This new generation doesn’t need to be catered to. They are not unique, other than they live in a very secular world. It is precisely for that reason the old way should be embraced. The Cure d’Ars was handed a village that resembled Vegas and straightened it out

But what are we trying to preserve really? Again, not that I’m saying we should get rid of Latin completely, I’m against that as well. But are we missing the point if we think that the faith cannot be transmitted in any other language? In the East they have always been successful with inculturation and the vernacular, what makes the West different if we are transmitting the same faith?

I got this by reading Orientale Lumen, and this is what Pope John Paul II has to say about tradition, highlights are mine:

Tradition is the heritage of Christ’s Church. This is a living memory of the Risen One met and witnessed to by the Apostles who passed on his living memory to their successors in an uninterrupted line, guaranteed by the apostolic succession through the laying on of hands, down to the bishops of today. This is articulated in the historical and cultural patrimony of each Church, shaped by the witness of the martyrs, fathers and saints, as well as by the living faith of all Christians down the centuries to our own day. It is not an unchanging repetition of formulas, but a heritage which preserves its original, living kerygmatic core. It is Tradition that preserves the Church from the danger of gathering only changing opinions, and guarantees her certitude and continuity.

When the uses and customs belonging to each Church are considered as absolutely unchangeable, there is a sure risk of Tradition losing that feature of a living reality which grows and develops, and which the Spirit guarantees precisely because it has something to say to the people of every age. As Scripture is increasingly understood by those who read it,(23) every other element of the Church’s living heritage is increasingly understood by believers and is enriched by new contributions, in fidelity and in continuity.(24) Only a religious assimilation, in the obedience of faith, of what the Church calls “Tradition” will enable Tradition to be embodied in different cultural and historical situations and conditions.(25) Tradition is never pure nostalgia for things or forms past, nor regret for lost privileges, but the living memory of the Bride, kept eternally youthful by the Love that dwells within her.

 

[LilyM]

The point of using Latin - within the context of the Liturgy - is that it not be forgotten.

If something is that important, there should be no danger whatsoever of its being forgotten.

We still study Chaucer and Shakespeare in their original language, do we not? In spite of the fact that the English language has moved on hugely since their times?

We don’t force our students to CONSTANTLY use Chaucerian or Shakesperian English, or go to the trouble of producing other texts in their language and then re-translating them into modern English just to ‘keep the historical.cultural bond among English-speakers alive’ or some such drivel.

The fact that we don’t go to these extremes doesn’t prevent us from reading and appreciating (with suitable guidance) the texts or the language thereof.

Tell you one thing - just recently I listened to an interview with a linguist who spoke about a project undertaken in the US to perform all of Shakespeare’s plays, but pronounce the words as would have been done in his time. The mere doing so brought out new resonances and meanings in the plays.

Which is all well and good for Shakespeare - but do you imagine for a second we can revert to the Latin pronunciation of the time of Pius V? Or the time of whoever initially translated the liturgy from Greek into Latin? Of course we can’t. And much is inevitably lost in the fact that we can’t do so.

So all the efforts to cement the liturgy into one form for all time, like a fly trapped in amber, don’t amount to a hill of beans. We’ve lost crucial nuances of the original language in which they were composed, even if we speak the same words today.

 

[rebecca123]

It’s not possible to comment on the situation in China unless you’ve lived there for a good number of years and had some experience . Watching a video and “following” information is only so accurate. You would have no idea what people go through .