What is the point of using Latin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriousOrder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
What are we trying to destroy ?

The pope who called VII gave us Veterum Sapientia. Why do popes only get quoted when it supports something that pushes tradition to the side ?

Latin isn’t going away, no matter how loud the howls get.
 
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.
???

Are you responding to my post #37? If so, you may wish to get some sleep and read it again. Feel free to revise and extend your remarks as you may deem appropriate.

I live in the USA. Concepts like freedom of speech and freedom from forced religious observance are largely accepted as cultural norms. As such, I make no case to force anyone observe any particular religious tradition, to use any particular language, or to speak at all. Nor do I wish to suppress the use of any vernacular language, at any time, anywhere in the world.

My point is that there is a proper time and place for the use of the official language of the Catholic Church within the Liturgy of the Catholic Church. As examples, I offer the Ordinary of the Mass and parts of the Divine Office.

Happy Holidays.
 
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.
I think this drives home your point, but I still have my copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Spring Books, London. Doesn’t have a copyright date but I believe this particular edition was printed around 1958. Comes without notes of any kind. As I’m reading various pages, I can see that there’s no way students today would read it without Cliff’s Notes or a ton full of other notes. Every other word has to redefined in order to make sense, even though the words themselves look somewhat familiar. But there’s a danger here as well, and with cognates especially so. If it’s too familiar we tend not to look at the meanings any further. We think we understand it and that’s good enough for us. But is it always? We see the word “gay” in old literature, for example, and what comes to mind isn’t what the author at that time intended.

I suspect this was true of Latin in the early centuries as well where those speaking in the Romance languages recognized many of the Latin words better than the Anglo-Saxons, for example. They might have had some trouble with precise meanings of the words.But as time went on, however, the Church (and international law and anatomy, for that matter) managed to preserve the original Latin meanings pretty well, in spite of the changing business language climate around them. Latin served as a gold standard in many respects. (Is it a coincidence that Latin appears to have lost its supporters about the same time gold was decoupled from the currency in the 60’s and 70’s?)

The main thing is that the Church has determined that Latin was best suited to preserve its documents and much of the liturgy, including the new Mass. Of course, Vatican II “allowed” vernacular but that wasn’t exactly new either. Sermons, explanations, and clarifications in the local tongues had always been used by the bishops and priests since Christ. Conversions require a vernacular. But why do we need to babelize into hundreds of different vernaculars something as sacred as the liturgy and something the Church has put a lot of work into to preserve the truth? Are we that set in our ways that the Mass has to be all about us, how the priest must face us, that he must speak in our language only, etc.?

I could go on and use computer languages as analogies but I’ll save that to another day, another thread.
 
I got this by reading Orientale Lumen, and this is what Pope John Paul II has to say about tradition, highlights are mine.
But how do you read this document in light of Veterum Sapientia and Vatican II and the authority of the Church? Perhaps you took it out of context? Didn’t Pope John II challenge us to read such documents in light of tradition?
 
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?
The meaning of “inculturation” as used in the above sentence is not clear to me.

And, as I have said umpteen times, it’s not all-vernacular-all-the-time.
 
I would caution those who disparage ANY form of the Liturgy (OF or EF) because it is not the celebration that they prefer. Mass is not about you or I, it is about God. Both forms are valid, and both are licit. If you prefer one over the other, that is fine, but if you hold one as being superior simply because it is the one you prefer, then you come dangerously close to the golden calf. From (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Outwardly, the people remain completely attached to the same God. They want to glorify the God who led Israel out of Egypt and believe that they may very properly represent his mysterious power in the image of a bull calf. Everything seems to be in order. Presumably even the ritual is in complete conformity with the rubrics. And yet it is a falling away of the worship of God to idolatry. This apostasy, which is outwardly scarcely perceptible, has two causes. First there is the violation of prohibition of images. The people cannot cope with the invisible, remote, and mysterious God. They want to bring him down into their own world, into what they can see and understand. Worship is no longer going up to God, but drawing God down into one’s own world. He must be there when he is needed, and he must be the kind of God that is needed. Man is using God, and in reality, even if he is not outwardly discernible, he is placing himself above God. This gives us a clue to the second point. The worship of the golden calf is a self-generated cult. When Moses stays away for too long, and God himself becomes inaccessible, the people just fetch him back. Worship becomes a feast that the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed on itself: eating, drinking, and making merry.
Spirit of the Liturgy*, pp 22-23. Accept both form of the Mass, but to claim that one is objectively better than the other for such and such a reason is starting to tread on dangerous ground. It is becomes the worship of the Mass, rather than the worship of he who gave us the Mass.
 
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?


Language conveys a sense of togetherness or separateness… ** 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…

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 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!



… 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!
👍

Impressive. Thank you for sharing !

The Empire of Christ is little spoken of today, but it has very important significance to understanding the Church and her proper authority and role in, among, and over the nations. Christ is King, and further He is the King of Kings (i.e., an Emperor). Even the words empire, emperor, peace - all these stem from Latin (Imperium, Imperator, Pax). Authority understands the necessity and importance of understanding in communication, discipline, and order ; if it does not, it risks losing the very authority it has. In English Common Law countries, we say,

" Ignorance of the law is no excuse ! "
  • Maxim of Law
Yet no one rails against this, even though today people are most licentious and rebellious, but even they realize the important necessity of that Truth : one cannot even be effectively licentious or rebellious without understanding the logic of that dictate, and this is at the core of real (or realized) civilization : civilization requires legal props and sacrifices by and for its citizens owing to its precariousness. All civilization detests ignorance, as ignorance is a threat to civilization. Civilization is a burden, but a burden that bears fruit that not only eases the vexation of civilization itself, but improves life overall and in greater abundance ; furthermore, civilized societies are at peace with themselves, and usually their neighbours, and the more disciplined (i.e., civilized) the society, the less threatening other societies are to it, for such societies can defend and secure themselves, even against societies much larger and numerically stronger than theirs. This is why and how the Romans ruled the world, and it is also why and how America succeeds far beyond in influence what would seem appropriate to her. Civilization produces immense benefits, and these benefits can he shared and distributed in such a manner as to keep, and spread, the peace. It begets the ability to do justice when wrongs are done, and though nothing can ever change the fact something wrong was done, certainly the ability to make amends for that wrong goes a long way to restoring and maintaining the peace.

So the Society of Christ chooses one language of authority, and uses it universally, as is her right. Seeing as this society is universal, its logical she should furnish her children with a common tongue, that they may be united in and by it. This common tongue, though equally burdensome upon all (it being foreign to each one’s mother tongue), nonetheless produces the advantage of permitting universal communication and understanding amongst a great diversity of peoples. So, as ever, civilization has its burdens (education in a new language), and requires discipline, but it always begets a reward, a benefit : a common tongue for all, proper to each and every subject. Now this benefit, a common language for us, can hardly be measured against its cost (education), for even in the process of learning that new language, one is bound to learn various other but interrelated things that can and likely will be useful in daily life. So the cost is small compared to the gain, the benefit provided.

The laity, being less likely to require a full understanding of the Latin language, are asked only to know it insomuch as it is necessary to perform their Christian duty and offer proper and solemn worship, pleasing to God ; however, more is asked of the Church’s rulers, largely for the sake of their flocks, to which each has a special duty to serve, and for the sake of the Church overall. The Church is not Babylon, and in her there should be no semblance thereof. Confusion, we are taught, is always of the devil, and confounds societies and threatens them ; therefore, it is not only prudent, but just, that the Church would take those reasonable and necessary steps to safeguard herself and her children from their enemies. Cohesion is vitally important to any organization, whether large or small, and furnishing a single language safe for use by all is a bulwark and bastion that protects the organization itself. Sometimes this singular language is had by signs and symbols, customs and practices, etc., that lend themselves adequately for the requirement of the organization, such as general rules and guidelines ; nonetheless, without even these the organization could not effectively exist or long last.

Pax,
Tim
 
But how do you read this document in light of Veterum Sapientia and Vatican II and the authority of the Church? Perhaps you took it out of context? Didn’t Pope John II challenge us to read such documents in light of tradition?
And I do not see anything in what I’ve read and shared as anything against tradition. I just think its a better definition of what tradition is coming from a Pope, rather than the usual “lets use this Mass becuase its 400 years old, and lets use this language because its 1000 years old.” Tradition doesn’t always mean antiquity.

Here’s a good analogy. Here in Canada they declare some buildings and structures as heritage buildings. It means they have historical significance and you cannot tear down the building. But that doesn’t mean you can’t fix it, maintain it, remodel it, and update it. You don’t have to live with 1920s heating in a heritage home, you can update it to use brand new high-efficiency heating. Same with Church tradition. You can take a tradition and update it for today, while maintaining the core essence of that tradition and what it means to our faith. Ultimately tradition is an expression of faith, if that expression is lost today then what use is it? That is why our traditions should be living, capable of incorporating the new with the old while keeping it the same tradition.
 
What are we trying to destroy ?

The pope who called VII gave us Veterum Sapientia. Why do popes only get quoted when it supports something that pushes tradition to the side ?

Latin isn’t going away, no matter how loud the howls get.
Did you read what I have quoted? There no pushing away of tradition, in fact it supports the keeping of tradition, but not in the way most people here would interpret the way of keeping tradition means. That is why I have quoted it, its a beautiful statement from the Pope saying that traditions are kept and they are kept anew.

And why do you always keep saying that Latin is going away. I’m not suggesting that Latin is going to go away nor do I want it to go away. You’re spinning my words. The new can be incorporated with the old to make the traditions living. It doesn’t mean Latin is going to be removed.
 
And I do not see anything in what I’ve read and shared as anything against tradition. I just think its a better definition of what tradition is coming from a Pope, rather than the usual “lets use this Mass becuase its 400 years old, and lets use this language because its 1000 years old.” Tradition doesn’t always mean antiquity.
Here’s a good analogy. Here in Canada they declare some buildings and structures as heritage buildings. It means they have historical significance and you cannot tear down the building. But that doesn’t mean you can’t fix it, maintain it, remodel it, and update it. You don’t have to live with 1920s heating in a heritage home, you can update it to use brand new high-efficiency heating. Same with Church tradition. You can take a tradition and update it for today, while maintaining the core essence of that tradition and what it means to our faith. Ultimately tradition is an expression of faith, if that expression is lost today then what use is it? That is why our traditions should be living, capable of incorporating the new with the old while keeping it the same tradition.
I’m not so sure that analogy works in your favor.

That’s we call a “landmark building” or one that is part of a “historic district” in the US, and the building’s character may not be changed. Yes, it may be (actually must be) maintained, and certain renovations are permitted, but anything structural must be approved by the “Landmarks Preservation commission” (or whatever name is used in a particular jurisdiction). And they never permit an exterior renovation that changes the character of the structure or even, in the case of a “historic district,” of the entire neighborhood.

OTOH, most interior renovations are permitted, but those that change the interior character of the structure are often not advisable since they may well have a negative effect on the value of the property. Yes, improving the heating system or installing central air conditioning, e.g., would be fine, and so would updated plumbing and a new kitchen, etc. But say, e.g., a Victorian townhouse has a marble fireplace, wainscotting, oak woodwork, and tin ceilings in the formal parlor. The new owner wants to rip it all out and subdivide the parlor into two sleek, modern rooms of indeterminate purpose. Oh, it would probably be allowed, but if it was done, the value of the building to a potential buyer would be severely diminished. How much value would there be in a Victorian townhouse with an incongruous interior?
 
I’m not so sure that analogy works in your favor.

That’s we call a “landmark building” or one that is part of a “historic district” in the US, and the building’s character may not be changed. Yes, it may be (actually must be) maintained, and certain renovations are permitted, but anything structural must be approved by the “Landmarks Preservation commission” (or whatever name is used in a particular jurisdiction). And they never permit an exterior renovation that changes the character of the structure or even, in the case of a “historic district,” of the entire neighborhood.

OTOH, most interior renovations are permitted, but those that change the interior character of the structure are often not advisable since they may well have a negative effect on the value of the property. Yes, improving the heating system or installing central air conditioning, e.g., would be fine, and so would updated plumbing and a new kitchen, etc. But say, e.g., a Victorian townhouse has a marble fireplace, wainscotting, oak woodwork, and tin ceilings in the formal parlor. The new owner wants to rip it all out and subdivide the parlor into two sleek, modern rooms of indeterminate purpose. Oh, it would probably be allowed, but if it was done, the value of the building to a potential buyer would be severely diminished. How much value would there be in a Victorian townhouse with an incongruous interior?
Sure, you can’t change everything. But you do incorporate what is relevant today with the past. You update the kitchen and the heating so you have modern amenities, but still carry the timeless beauty of the character of the home. And that is what I was saying. I was never advocating any complete change, but it seems to some people that you can only do either the black or the white, either keep the tradition as is or completely change it. If you keep the tradition as is, then it becomes stagnant and irrelevant. If you completely change it, its not tradition anymore. People have to see the whole spectrum of colors in between the white and black and figure out that there is a proper way somewhere in the middle.
 
Sure, you can’t change everything. But you do incorporate what is relevant today with the past. You update the kitchen and the heating so you have modern amenities, but still carry the timeless beauty of the character of the home. And that is what I was saying. I was never advocating any complete change, but it seems to some people that you can only do either the black or the white, either keep the tradition as is or completely change it. If you keep the tradition as is, then it becomes stagnant and irrelevant. If you completely change it, its not tradition anymore. People have to see the whole spectrum of colors in between the white and black and figure out that there is a proper way somewhere in the middle.
Which rather takes us right back to the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” and its throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water mentality, doesn’t it? Those who continue to follow that path (and they are legion) sometimes give lip-service to “tradition” but most of even those wouldn’t know tradition if it bit them. In practice, what was done by that crowd was precisely a complete change. The hermeneutic of rupture. It’s what they wanted, and what they still want. And some of the clearest evidence of that is their abhorrence and near-total rejection of Latin in practice.
 
I think this drives home your point, but I still have my copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Spring Books, London. Doesn’t have a copyright date but I believe this particular edition was printed around 1958. Comes without notes of any kind. As I’m reading various pages, I can see that there’s no way students today would read it without Cliff’s Notes or a ton full of other notes. Every other word has to redefined in order to make sense, even though the words themselves look somewhat familiar. But there’s a danger here as well, and with cognates especially so. If it’s too familiar we tend not to look at the meanings any further. We think we understand it and that’s good enough for us. But is it always? We see the word “gay” in old literature, for example, and what comes to mind isn’t what the author at that time intended.
At the same time we’re well aware of the fact that the word ‘gay’ hasn’t always had the meanings that it has now, and that its use in the sense of ‘homosexual’ is of very recent origin. So seeing it in a text written 80 or 300 years ago we understand that they won’t be using it in that sense.
I suspect this was true of Latin in the early centuries as well where those speaking in the Romance languages recognized many of the Latin words better than the Anglo-Saxons, for example. They might have had some trouble with precise meanings of the words.But as time went on, however, the Church (and international law and anatomy, for that matter) managed to preserve the original Latin meanings pretty well, in spite of the changing business language climate around them. Latin served as a gold standard in many respects. (Is it a coincidence that Latin appears to have lost its supporters about the same time gold was decoupled from the currency in the 60’s and 70’s?)
But Latin wasn’t what I’d call a ‘dead’ language by any means for long long after the fall of the Roman Empire - it was a second and international language, true, but still in essence a living, breathing and altering one, for many scholars and scientists, and churchmen of the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance.
The main thing is that the Church has determined that Latin was best suited to preserve its documents and much of the liturgy, including the new Mass. Of course, Vatican II “allowed” vernacular but that wasn’t exactly new either. Sermons, explanations, and clarifications in the local tongues had always been used by the bishops and priests since Christ. Conversions require a vernacular. But why do we need to babelize into hundreds of different vernaculars something as sacred as the liturgy and something the Church has put a lot of work into to preserve the truth? Are we that set in our ways that the Mass has to be all about us, how the priest must face us, that he must speak in our language only, etc.?
But laity have, then as now, often required translations into the vernacular of their Latin Missals, Books of Hours, Bibles etc etc. For as long as there has been an English language there have been English translations of at least portions of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament.

And, then as now, laity would then rely on those vernacular translations to accurately reflect the meaning of the Latin text rather than perfecting their Latin so as to thoroughly comprehend the original.

And then, as now, the translations can’t always translate properly. Do you really think less was lost by the translation of the Latin Vulgate into the English Douay-Rheims Bible than into the English Jerusalem or New American Bibles? I seriously doubt that 17th-century English was any better a vehicle for capturing the meaning of 4th-century Latin than 20th-century English. Yet those who are less-than-proficient in Latin equally relied on each of these imperfect translations.
 
From what I’ve read so far I can see that some of us get the reason why Latin is still relevant today as always while others don’t get …“it”.

I , for one, being the simpleton that I am, feel that Latin is the official langauge of Catholicism since time immemorial - for whatever that reason may have been.

Exorcisms are effectively done in Latin.
Pope Benedict XVI encouraged all catholics to [learn a few prayers in Latin] when he first rose to the throne of Peter.
If only the prefaces and cannons are said in Latin, with the Gospel and sermon being said in the vernacular…then, what is the big deal with returning to the fullness of our beautiful and glorious tradition?

Truly I must be a simpleton…'cause I just don’t see how any other language (other than Hebrew or Greek) could’ve been chosen by our Lord to be the sacred language of the Catholic Church.
 
It is the language of our origins as the Church Universal!!!

Katolikos…not English nor any other “popular” language today.
 
OTOH, most interior renovations are permitted, but those that change the interior character of the structure are often not advisable since they may well have a negative effect on the value of the property. Yes, improving the heating system or installing central air conditioning, e.g., would be fine, and so would updated plumbing and a new kitchen, etc. But say, e.g., a Victorian townhouse has a marble fireplace, wainscotting, oak woodwork, and tin ceilings in the formal parlor. The new owner wants to rip it all out and subdivide the parlor into two sleek, modern rooms of indeterminate purpose. Oh, it would probably be allowed, but if it was done, the value of the building to a potential buyer would be severely diminished. How much value would there be in a Victorian townhouse with an incongruous interior?
So everyone who loves a period exterior similarly loves a period interior?

Not me. And I suspect not a good percentage of people who’ve had to live in one. Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip hate Buck House, for starters. There’s only so much they’ve been able to do with it to make it comfortable.

I personally lived in an Edwardian (turn-of-the-1900s) house for a few years. Obviously the kitchen was entirely updated, but a lot of it, including much of the bathroom, was kept in period if not actually original. It was a very mixed blessing to say the least.

I loved the high decorative ceilings and the huge bathtub on the one hand. On the other, the (original) tiles in the bathroom were a very dingy colour scheme, but I had to put up with them because they would have been too costly to replace. The small windows and un-open-plan interior meant it didn’t get a heck of a lot of sun, even in the misnamed ‘sun-room’. Altogether there was more to dislike than like about trying to live a modern life in a house which wasn’t designed for one.
 
Which rather takes us right back to the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” and its throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water mentality, doesn’t it? Those who continue to follow that path (and they are legion) sometimes give lip-service to “tradition” but most of even those wouldn’t know tradition if it bit them. In practice, what was done by that crowd was precisely a complete change. The hermeneutic of rupture. It’s what they wanted, and what they still want. And some of the clearest evidence of that is their abhorrence and near-total rejection of Latin in practice.
Yes, sure, someone did something wrong. But is that justification enough to say that to prevent mistakes, better keep everything the same exact way it was for the last hundreds of years? At the risk of becoming irrelevant? The reason we introduce new bits is to keep it relevant, but keeping the foundation of the tradition the same. Introducing new things doesn’t mean destroying the old completely. Incorporation is the key to relevance, not replacement.
 
So everyone who loves a period exterior similarly loves a period interior?

Not me. And I suspect not a good percentage of people who’ve had to live in one. Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip hate Buck House, for starters. There’s only so much they’ve been able to do with it to make it comfortable.

I personally lived in an Edwardian (turn-of-the-1900s) house for a few years. Obviously the kitchen was entirely updated, but a lot of it, including much of the bathroom, was kept in period if not actually original. It was a very mixed blessing to say the least.

I loved the high decorative ceilings and the huge bathtub on the one hand. On the other, the (original) tiles in the bathroom were a very dingy colour scheme, but I had to put up with them because they would have been too costly to replace. The small windows and un-open-plan interior meant it didn’t get a heck of a lot of sun, even in the misnamed ‘sun-room’. Altogether there was more to dislike than like about trying to live a modern life in a house which wasn’t designed for one.
But in relation to the tradition of the Church, a completely modern design would have lost its connection to the past and to the root of the tradition, just as a completely antiquated structure isn’t livable today. We must maintain the connection to the past but at the same time introduce new elements to keep it relevant today. This is why Latin isn’t something that you completely throw out, it connects us with the roots of our Church. But at the same time, pushing for all-Latin all-the-time makes the Church today irrelevant to many. There should be a balance where we can keep the Latin, but at the same time make the Church relevant to today’s generation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top