What is the point of using Latin?

[Geremia]

Wow! That catechetical text pretty much sums up the answers to my objections. I must find this Catechism.

Here you go: Baltimore Catechism

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The question on the table is “What is the point of using Latin?”

There are no questions about exorcisms, the language of the angels, or the language of scripture.

What you think about the other poster is irrelevant. Keep it to yourself.

If you have run out of possible answers to the question, then simply move on to something else that’s interesting. Do not discuss each other or go off-topic.

You may ONLY answer that question.

Thank You

Thomas Casey

 

[Geremia]

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?

The question of whether the Catholic faith can be transmitted not only by any other language than Latin but also with any other philosophical or theological system than that of St. Thomas Aquinas is a very important one. Can we really understand and transmit uncorrupted the doctrine of the transubstantiation without using the Aristotelian language of matter and form? Can we express the same doctrinal truth with culturally varying philosophical language? The answer is no. Read, e.g., Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”

 

[StTommyMore]

The question of whether the Catholic faith can be transmitted not only by any other language than Latin but also with any other philosophical or theological system than that of St. Thomas Aquinas is a very important one. Can we really understand and transmit uncorrupted the doctrine of the transubstantiation without using the Aristotelian language of matter and form? Can we express the same doctrinal truth with culturally varying philosophical language? The answer is no. Read, e.g., Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”

The Aquinas issue is completely off-topic. Latin in the liturgy is a purely aesthetic issue. Personally, I feel that idea that God prefers Latin over other languages is completely without merit

 

[Damase]

The Aquinas issue is completely off-topic. Latin in the liturgy is a purely aesthetic issue. Personally, I feel that idea that God prefers Latin over other languages is completely without merit

Maybe God doesn’t prefer Latin, but surely it has to mean something if the Church, His Bride, were to expressly prefer it. And she does. The perennial teaching of the Popes and ecumenical councils has reaffirmed that Latin is the normative language for the Roman Rite. Veterum sapientiae pretty explicitly expresses that the Church doesn’t want to preserve Latin solely for aesthetic reasons; her reasons are also historical (it preserves a link to the the time of Christ, the language of the Fathers, and of the greatest theologians; the only language of comparable standing is Greek) and theological (since it is a static language, it preserves doctrine from the vagaries of semantic shift, etc.).

 

[ConstantineTG]

The question of whether the Catholic faith can be transmitted not only by any other language than Latin but also with any other philosophical or theological system than that of St. Thomas Aquinas is a very important one. Can we really understand and transmit uncorrupted the doctrine of the transubstantiation without using the Aristotelian language of matter and form? Can we express the same doctrinal truth with culturally varying philosophical language? The answer is no. Read, e.g., Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”

I think its a moot point to discuss Catholic faith in general because it has been transmitted in many other languages outside the Roman Church. That is why I ask about tradition, because the Roman Church would have its own traditions and therefore the point of Latin would be evident within it. We all know the faith has been successfully transmitted via Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic, etc. But what of Latin traditions? Can they only be transmitted via Latin?

My opinion here is that keeping everything in writing at the top level needs to be in Latin. It should be the baseline. But for the laity, a great majority not knowing Latin, why keep things like the Mass in Latin? Make the Mass in Latin for those who want it, but don’t force those who do not to only receive it in Latin.

 

[StTommyMore]

Maybe God doesn’t prefer Latin, but surely it has to mean something if the Church, His Bride, were to expressly prefer it. And she does. The perennial teaching of the Popes and ecumenical councils has reaffirmed that Latin is the normative language for the Roman Rite. Veterum sapientiae pretty explicitly expresses that the Church doesn’t want to preserve Latin solely for aesthetic reasons; her reasons are also historical (it preserves a link to the the time of Christ, the language of the Fathers, and of the greatest theologians; the only language of comparable standing is Greek) and theological (since it is a static language, it preserves doctrine from the vagaries of semantic shift, etc.).

It has value because of its universality, but the fact remains that the Church uses Latin out of historical coincidence. Everyone who keeps insisting that Latin is intrinsically holy is missing the boat. The Church moved to Latin because it was the language of the people in the west. That is all.

 

[ProVobis]

My opinion here is that keeping everything in writing at the top level needs to be in Latin. It should be the baseline. But for the laity, a great majority not knowing Latin, why keep things like the Mass in Latin? Make the Mass in Latin for those who want it, but don’t force those who do not to only receive it in Latin.

There appears to be a contradiction here. Either there is a baseline (as you call it) or there isn’t. If people realize that the Latin is the authentic version (like a gold standard) and they can try to understand for themselves in another language, that is one thing. But when you have created a Mass environment FORCING the Latin out, sooner or later people will have abandoned that baseline completely and undesired, perhaps even heretical, (mis)understandings become the new standards. There are philosophical, psychological, and even (accoustical) physical issues about languages at play here and I think everyone needs to be aware of them. Sounds are very important in our lives.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church moved to Latin because it was the language of the people in the west. That is all.

International law, anatomy and many scientific theories have been preserved in Latin as well. Also people generally perform better on their SATs having studied Latin. Perhaps there is more to the Latin language than just an arbitrary figurehold.

 

[StTommyMore]

International law, anatomy and many scientific theories have been preserved in Latin as well. Also people generally perform better on their SATs having studied Latin. Perhaps there is more to the Latin language than just an arbitrary figurehold.

Lets see…Latin has influenced a number of languages, which would aid in vocabulary. Latin in universal, so it has use in international gatherings. Hardly anything supernatural going on here. I am not saying that Latin should disappear, and I am not saying it has no value. But in the context of the Mass, the adaption of the vernacular was a good thing.

 

[malphono]

It has value because of its universality, but the fact remains that the Church uses Latin out of historical coincidence. …The Church moved to Latin because it was the language of the people in the west. That is all.

Not exactly. By the time Latin supplanted Greek as the liturgical language in the West, the Romance vernaculars were already well on their rise.

But in the context of the Mass, the adaption of the vernacular was a good thing.

A matter of opinion, to be sure.

 

[Damase]

But in the context of the Mass, the adaption of the vernacular was a good thing.

Okay, this is where I am unwilling to make the leap. Latin may not be handed-down out of heaven by God; its status as the language of Christianity in the west may have been the result of historical circumstances.

But just because Latin isn’t divinely inspired doesn’t mean that the Church should abandon its use in the liturgy. Latin belongs in the liturgy for all the reasons that it is the language of the Catholic Church—it is universal, historical, static. Its use sets the liturgy apart from the everyday and allows it to enter into a liturgical time that transcends time and nationality.

And in any case, now more than in any time in history, people are well-equipped to be hearing Mass in Latin. Education is widely available for those who wish to learn the Latin language. Literacy rates in first-world countries are very close to 100%, so following along in a missal with Latin on one side and one’s vernacular language on the other would be no problem for most people.

 

[johnnykins]

I’m sure many of the following have been mentioned, but I really didn’t want to review the entire thread:

1. Vatican II calls for Latin to be preserved
2. Latin remains the language of the Universal church official documents
3. Latin is the language of the Latin Rite
4. Latin is the original language of the present Latin Rite Masses
5. The use of Latin at Mass is a demonstration of our unity, and avoids the multiplicity of languages in multi-lingual group settings
6. The greatest liturgical music ever written was written for Latin
7. Latin is beautiful (beauty is not to be underestimated!)
8. Latin was the common language of the Mass (Latin Rite) for about 1600 years; it’s use connects us to our ancestors
9. Latin is dead and the meanings of its words fixed thereby allowing for greater precision and sureness of expression than living languages where meanings morph
10. Many people are brought closer to God for a variety of reason by its use; for many it engenders an aura of mystery and worship that is missing in the vernacular

Note, I am not against the use of the vernacular, I do see the use of Latin, however.

 

[ProVobis]

Everyone who keeps insisting that Latin is intrinsically holy is missing the boat.

But it seems God did have a purpose for Latin.

From John 19:

19 Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum : Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum. 20 Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

But in the context of the Mass, the adaption of the vernacular was a good thing.

But it shouldn’t be at the exclusion of the Latin. The readings had always been in Latin AND the vernacular, on Sundays at least. The Latin gave/gives the vernacular some authenticity.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I’m sure many of the following have been mentioned, but I really didn’t want to review the entire thread:

…

1. Latin was the common language of the Mass (Latin Rite) for about 1600 years; it’s use connects us to our ancestors

Dear friend, this is one of the strongest arguments I know. Communicating with St. Dominic or St. Thomas Aquinas in the Litany of the Saints feels somewhat disconnected in English, for example, but in Latin you know they can ‘hear you’. St. Thomas wrote the entire Summa Theologiae in Latin, and St. Dominic certainly knew it in order to start off as a canon regular (as he did). Talking to our ancestors, the saints, prophets, and martyrs and asking their prayers in Latin connects us to an ancient past. Modern English isn’t even 400 years old in its spelling, pronunciation, and grammar, and we’re expected to connect with Spaniards and Latin-speakers from 1200 A.D. with this English!

I like the link to all the saints who died for this beautiful, flowery liturgical language. The first thing the reformers did (before killing said martyrs) was run away from Latin as fast as possible. They treated the Church as if no human beings had lived before 1517.

 

[StTommyMore]

The reason for the three languages on the Cross:

• Hebrew: It took place in Jerusalem
• Greek: It was the common trade languge
• Latin: It was part of the Roman Empire

Don’t look for the extraordinary when the merely ordinary will suffice

 

[StTommyMore]

Dear friend, this is one of the strongest arguments I know. Communicating with St. Dominic or St. Thomas Aquinas in the Litany of the Saints feels somewhat disconnected in English, for example, but in Latin you know they can ‘hear you’. St. Thomas wrote the entire Summa Theologiae in Latin, and St. Dominic certainly knew it in order to start off as a canon regular (as he did). Talking to our ancestors, the saints, prophets, and martyrs and asking their prayers in Latin connects us to an ancient past. Modern English isn’t even 400 years old in its spelling, pronunciation, and grammar, and we’re expected to connect with Spaniards and Latin-speakers from 1200 A.D. with this English!

I like the link to all the saints who died for this beautiful, flowery liturgical language. The first thing the reformers did (before killing said martyrs) was run away from Latin as fast as possible. They treated the Church as if no human beings had lived before 1517.

Um, so the Saints only know Latin???

 

[ProVobis]

“Latin still remains the main liturgical language of the Church. In Sri Lanka we made a mistake in abandoning the language of our worship altogether.” - Archbp. Ranjith, made Cardinal last month.

 

[crazzeto]

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).

@the cathedral they do the readings in both Latin & English, then the homily is in English alone.

As you state the point of language is so that the faithful can celebrate everywhere in a single language. Further, the point to us today is several fold.

First - The current English translation does have a propensity to ofuscate some of the theology. I’m not knocking the OF, just stating a plain fact of where the English translation is currently weak. Thankfully this will be addressed soon.

Second - It is the oldest surviving form of worship in the Western Church (as the Greek is now fully dead). The core of the Mass truely dates back to St. Gregory the Great, with some additional prayers mandated by Popes over the centuries. Incidently, I love the prayers at the end of the Latin Mass.

Third - Heritage, there’s an ever more real connection to the communion of saints when you realize that your worshiping in exactly the same way as all western christendom from Pope Gregory the Great forward (excluding protestants).