What is the point of using Latin?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I must say that as an Eastern Catholic, but one who was raised as a Roman Catholic, I find the majority of Roman Catholic’s arguments in favor of Latin to be very insulting. As has been pointed out here many times, Latin is not the language of the Universal Church, but only one particular (i.e. sui juris) Church, albeit the largest of the sui juris Churches. Other particular Churches have their own “sacred” languages that are appropriate to them. One would not expect Latin to supplant the Greek used among the Byzantine Churches of the Greek speaking world, nor the Church Slavonic of the Byzantine Churches of the Slavic world. Nor would one expect Latin to replace Ge’ez, Coptic, Syriac, etc. Likewise, the tradition (small “t” tradition) of a “sacred language” is one that simply does not exist in the East. For us (at least among the Byzantines) all language is sacred because of the fact that God himself chose to become incarnate among us and speak in human language in general. If we really want to speak of a “sacred language” we should be speaking of Aramaic as a sacred language because only then would we be uttering the actual words uttered by Christ.

The notion that Latin is somehow “more precise” than any other language is simple-minded. Anyone who has ever studied a small amount of linguistics and philosophy knows that all languages carry a certain inherent ambiguity, especially when speaking of God. Why? Because when we are speaking of God we are dealing with infinite mystery, a divine Person (or rather a communion of three divine Persons) Who can never be fully “figured out” on an intellectual level nor explained in human words. Human language, be it Latin, Greek, Slavonic, German, English, Russian, Cantonese whatever, can only give us vague approximations of the divine Mystery. But there does come a time when all we can do is stand in awe-filled silence before God and simply glorify Him. If you do not think so, then simply read St. John of the Cross.

Historically Latin is the language of only a few Church Fathers. The majority of the Church Fathers spoke and wrote in Greek, although many of their writings today only exist in Latin translations (e.g. the writings of Origen). The documents of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, upheld by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, were all written in Greek, and the deliberations at the Councils themselves were all in Greek. These Councils were key in forming the Church as we know it today. (Greek, by the way, is also a very ambiguous language. If you do not think so, then study the multiple meanings of the word “homoousios”).

As for the writings of Aquinas and the use of Aristotelian philosophy, this is again a moot point. For much of the Greek-speaking Church the writings of Plato were much more influential than those of Aristotle. Augustine himself, if memory serves me correctly, was more of a neo-Platonist than an Aristotelian. Again, these are merely philosophical systems that give us an approximation of the divine Mystery. They can and do err, they have only a limited use. I remember reading, I believe in his autobiography, that Archbishop Fulton Sheen himself claimed that someone needed to do with Buddhist, Toaist, and Confucionist philosophy what Aquinas did with Aristotelian philosophy, i.e. baptize it and reveal in it the “spermata Logoi”, the “Seeds of the Word”.

Aquinas’ theology itself is only one way of doing Roman Catholic theology. It is certainly not the only way. Aquinas isn’t the only Doctor of the Church, nor is he the only theologian that had an amazing theological system. St. Bonaventure was certainly his equal in both holiness and intellectual ability. He was also Aquinas’ good friend, despite the fact that they often disagreed (e.g. Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, Bonaventure did. Aquinas did not believe Christ would’ve become incarnate if man had not fallen, Bonaventure did.). Personally I believe that Aquinas would be horrified at the way in which many of us have dogmatized not only his theology, but also his theological system. After all, at the end of his life he himself quit writing because he realized just how far his own words missed the mark of the Divine Reality! Ought we not also to follow his example and humbly admit how far our own words and languages miss the mark?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

After all that I have said above, however, I would like to point out that I am totally in favor of maintaining Latin within the Latin tradition(s), although not to the exclusion of the vernacular languages. I personally see no problems jumping from one language to another during the Mass. From experience I can tell you that most congregations hardly even notice the shift once they are used to it. My own parish does things primarily in English, but we have frequent jumps to Greek and Arabic, especially during the repeated parts of the Divine Liturgy. I don’t see why this same approach cannot also be adopted by the Holy Church of Rome. In fact it has. So I guess I don’t understand the resistance among the faithful. But then again, it’s not my battle to fight I guess.

 

[StTommyMore]

“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.

I have not once denied this…I am just willing to admit that the vernacular also has its place in the Liturgy, as does the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi, Phillip.

Pope John XXIII did address languages other than Latin in Veterum Sapientia.

The wisdom of the ancient world, enshrined in Greek and Roman literature, and the truly memorable teaching of ancient peoples, served, surely, to herald the dawn of the Gospel which Gods Son, "the judge and teacher of grace and truth, the light and guide of the human race,"1 proclaimed on earth.

Such was the view of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In these outstanding literary monuments of antiquity, they recognized man’s spiritual preparation for the supernatural riches which Jesus Christ communicated to mankind "to give history its fulfillment."2

Thus the inauguration of Christianity did not mean the obliteration of man’s past achievements. Nothing was lost that was in any way true, just, noble and beautiful.

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values **especially the Greek and Latin languages **in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

As for being insulted, I can appreciate that. I personally felt insulted when certain Polish documents were rendered into English by amateur translators and I can imagine only too well when Italians feel insulted when their operas are translated into other languages. I think Easterners have every right to feel the same when Greek or Syriac or other worship languages are translated into other languages.

 

[malphono]

I must say that as an Eastern Catholic, but one who was raised as a Roman Catholic, I find the majority of Roman Catholic’s arguments in favor of Latin to be very insulting. As has been pointed out here many times, Latin is not the language of the Universal Church, but only one particular (i.e. sui juris) Church, albeit the largest of the sui juris Churches.

That is true, yet we of the East and Orient are faced with Latin nonetheless. For example, what language was the CCEO promulgated in? I know you see where I’m going, so I’ll leave it at that rather than risk derailing this thread.

Other particular Churches have their own “sacred” languages that are appropriate to them. One would not expect Latin to supplant the Greek used among the Byzantine Churches of the Greek speaking world, nor the Church Slavonic of the Byzantine Churches of the Slavic world. Nor would one expect Latin to replace Ge’ez, Coptic, Syriac, etc. Likewise, the tradition (small “t” tradition) of a “sacred language” is one that simply does not exist in the East. For us (at least among the Byzantines) all language is sacred because of the fact that God himself chose to become incarnate among us and speak in human language in general.

Again, tangential to this thread, but isn’t that last sentence a contradiction of sorts to what preceded it?

The notion that Latin is somehow “more precise” than any other language is simple-minded. Anyone who has ever studied a small amount of linguistics and philosophy knows that all languages carry a certain inherent ambiguity, especially when speaking of God.

Yes, all language is limited. Always has been and always will be. But I don’t think “precision” in that sense is exactly the point. As the world has become “smaller” (transportation, communication, etc), the Roman Church, especially, has become increasingly polyglot, and there needs to be a standard, particularly in liturgy. (This also affects the East and Orient, CC & OC, mainly but not exclusively, in the diaspora, but that’s extraneous to this thread.)

 

[ProVobis]

I have not once denied this…I am just willing to admit that the vernacular also has its place in the Liturgy, as does the Church.

There is value in vernacular in the readings, of course, but we’re getting into murky waters when the vernacular and actual liturgy is concerned. If we see that the Holy Sacrifice is between the priest and God for our benefit, then the issue of language is between him and God and should be EXACTLY as the Church promulgated it in Latin for everyone. If, however, we want to make it all about ourselves, then of course the natural tendency is to demand that the priest use only words that are immediately recognizeable to ourselves. I always hear the “In English please” phrase wherever I go. I’m merely stating the psychology here; I don’t know if this is the rightful place of the vernacular in the liturgy itself. One must ask first: is it God-centered or people-centered?

 

[StTommyMore]

There is value in vernacular in the readings, of course, but we’re getting into murky waters when the vernacular and actual liturgy is concerned. If we see that the Holy Sacrifice is between the priest and God for our benefit, then the issue of language is between him and God and should be EXACTLY as the Church promulgated it in Latin for everyone. If, however, we want to make it all about ourselves, then of course the natural tendency is to demand that the priest use only words that are immediately recognizeable to ourselves. I always hear the “In English please” phrase wherever I go. I’m merely stating the psychology here; I don’t know if this is the rightful place of the vernacular in the liturgy itself. One must ask first: is it God-centered or people-centered?

The correct way to handle this is to go back to Sacrosanctum Concilium, of course, which called for an introduction of the vernacular into the Liturgy, while preserving the Latin (and other sacral languages). The Church is still working on finding the equilibrium.

 

[malphono]

The correct way to handle this is to go back to Sacrosanctum Concilium, of course, which called for an introduction of the vernacular into the Liturgy, while preserving the Latin (and other sacral languages). The Church is still working on finding the equilibrium.

Who has been working on finding an “equilibrium?” Aside from a handful of rare parishes and abbeys, the score card has read Liturgical Language 0 for the past 40-some years. And aside from those same rare parishes and abbeys, it still does today.

 

[StTommyMore]

Who has been working on finding an “equilibrium?” Aside from a handful of rare parishes and abbeys, the score card has read Liturgical Language 0 for the past 40-some years. And aside from those same rare parishes and abbeys, it still does today.

Do not sell short the Holy Father’s commitment to expanding the EF. As long as the EF remains available, the Latin is being preserved.

 

[crazzeto]

Do not sell short the Holy Father’s commitment to expanding the EF. As long as the EF remains available, the Latin is being preserved.

I understand that the Latin Mass has exploded in the Metro-Detroit area. Makes me a little jelouse, I live in Raleigh NC where Latin Mass is available but far more modestly. There is growth however, everywhere and it is nice to see. I see a bright future with Latin, Venacular, Eastern and even the Very modern all being available forms of worship. All tied through the unity of belief, as the Church has always been.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

The baseline is not meant for the People. Keeping Latin as the standard ensures there is one language that we would translate from. But that is not to say that we should force Latin on those who cannot appreciate it. I have worked with online companies who would publish the same website in many different languages. The baseline is english because the owners of the company are American. But why force english on a website clearly targeting the Chinese market? Fact is how many here actually have an appreciation for Latin? Does anyone know Latin in a deeper sense other than what the Missal, which is a translator? If we cannot appreciate the Latin for more than what the translation in the Missal tells us, then its clear that the use of Latin for the laity is very limited. Its very useful for the Church, those who keep the documents. But to those who rely on translations, then the reality is the worth is in the vernacular.

 

[malphono]

Do not sell short the Holy Father’s commitment to expanding the EF.

I don’t. I’m very thankful for summorum pontificum and PP Benedict XVI’s efforts.

As long as the EF remains available, the Latin is being preserved.

Yes, I know. And how does the ratio of 1 EF vs 100+ OFs spell “equilibrium”? But this isn’t about EF vs OF anyway. What about the ubiquitous OF? What does the EF have to do with that? As I said earlier, aside from that small handful of parishes and abbeys, there is no “equilibrium” in the use of the liturgical language, no matter how one slices it. Which is why the score card is absurdly skewed in favor of vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

I have worked with online companies who would publish the same website in many different languages. The baseline is english because the owners of the company are American. But why force english on a website clearly targeting the Chinese market?

You then should know the difference between assembler, FORTRAN, COBOL, C, Java, Unix, etc. and realize that each language has its own nuances and usage, though in the end the computer can only understand one’s and zero’s. My first program was on a breadboard using nine transistors and I doubt if the current JSEE people would even know what those are but that’s not the point here.

If you were to hear the priest say “This is My Body for the English-speaking people out there,” wouldn’t you question the validity of that Mass? But isn’t that what can easily be PERCEIVED by those who hear terms like the English Mass, or the Spanish Mass, the Portuguese Mass, etc? When you use the term “vernacular” don’t you, Constantine, actually mean English? What if your only choice was a Mass in Polish and you know they don’t want anything to do with English? (I’ve been in that spot, so it does exist.)Would you accept attending there or will you be screaming up and down to have it in English? Wouldn’t you then realize it indeed might be better if it were in Latin?

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t. I’m very thankful for summorum pontificum and PP Benedict XVI’s efforts.

Yes, I know. And how does the ratio of 1 EF vs 100+ OFs spell “equilibrium”? But this isn’t about EF vs OF anyway. What about the ubiquitous OF? What does the EF have to do with that? As I said earlier, aside from that small handful of parishes and abbeys, there is no “equilibrium” in the use of the liturgical language, no matter how one slices it. Which is why the score card is absurdly skewed in favor of vernacular.

I never said more work did not need to be done. I am fortunate in that I can attend a Latin High Mass 3 out of four weeks during the academic year. There is also a parish about 45 mins away form my home that offers it once a month. But realize that this is something that I grew into. My first TLM I struggled with, and I will admit that my conversion to Catholicism would have been much less likely had there been no OF. I think the key point here is we must be optimistic rather than pessimistic. Since Summorum Pontificum, the EF has been more and more common. Also, for parishes where it is not celebrated, it takes time to institute it. A priest needs trained in the rubrics. Missals must be obtained (which is no small expense), and the parishioners have to desire it. What use is going through the effort of setting it up if it will only be attended by a handful of parishioners. Do not worry, the TLM is here to stay. We must be patient.

 

[malphono]

I never said more work did not need to be done. I am fortunate in that I can attend a Latin High Mass 3 out of four weeks during the academic year. There is also a parish about 45 mins away form my home that offers it once a month. But realize that this is something that I grew into. My first TLM I struggled with, and I will admit that my conversion to Catholicism would have been much less likely had there been no OF. I think the key point here is we must be optimistic rather than pessimistic. Since Summorum Pontificum, the EF has been more and more common. Also, for parishes where it is not celebrated, it takes time to institute it. A priest needs trained in the rubrics. Missals must be obtained (which is no small expense), and the parishioners have to desire it. What use is going through the effort of setting it up if it will only be attended by a handful of parishioners. Do not worry, the TLM is here to stay. We must be patient.

Yes I know, and no, I’m not worried. (Impatient, maybe, but that’s something else and does not bear on this thread.)

Anyway, all of that is still not the point. At the risk of redundancy, this isn’t about EF vs OF. What about the ubiquitous OF? What does the EF have to do with that? As I said earlier, (twice now), aside from that small handful of parishes and abbeys, there is no “equilibrium” in the use of liturgical language in the OF, no matter how one slices it. Which is why the score card remains absurdly skewed in favor of vernacular.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You then should know the difference between assembler, FORTRAN, COBOL, C, Java, Unix, etc. and realize that each language has its own nuances and usage, though in the end the computer can only understand one’s and zero’s. My first program was on a breadboard using nine transistors and I doubt if the current JSEE people would even know what those are but that’s not the point here.

If you were to hear the priest say “This is My Body for the English-speaking people out there,” wouldn’t you question the validity of that Mass? But isn’t that what can easily be PERCEIVED by those who hear terms like the English Mass, or the Spanish Mass, the Portuguese Mass, etc? When you use the term “vernacular” don’t you, Constantine, actually mean English? What if your only choice was a Mass in Polish and you know they don’t want anything to do with English? Would you accept attending there or willl you be screaming up and down to have it in English? Wouldn’t you then realize it indeed might be better if it were in Latin?

I’ve attended Mass in Cantonese when I was in Hong Kong. If it was a case of me visiting an area then why should I complain? I’m a visitor.

If I’m going to live in an area, I then should make the effort to find Masses in my language (I eventually found more English Masses in Hong Kong, and even a Filipino one) or if I am indeed going to live in that country then learn the local language. Besides, if I can use a Missal to translate Latin to English, why not use an English Missal to follow the Mass in Cantonese? Same banana.

 

[ProVobis]

Do not worry, the TLM is here to stay. We must be patient.

Latin is not just the TLM. The OF was promulgated in Latin as well, and priest is free to use as much Latin in the Mass as he desires. And maybe if he did just that, the Mass wouldn’t sound so much like a narrative or a commentary.

 

[StTommyMore]

Latin is not just the TLM. The OF was promulgated in Latin as well, and priest is free to use as much Latin in the Mass as he desires. And maybe if he did just that, the Mass wouldn’t sound so much like a narrative or a commentary.

This is just me and my preferance, but I would like to see a Mass where the Penitential Rite and Liturgy of the Word is done in the vernacular, the Kyrie in Greek, and the entirety of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, including the Creed, in Latin

 

[Damase]

This is just me and my preferance, but I would like to see a Mass where the Penitential Rite and Liturgy of the Word is done in the vernacular, the Kyrie in Greek, and the entirety of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, including the Creed, in Latin

I could get behind a program like that. If anything ought to remain in Latin, it is the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Do you honestly think St Thomas and St Dominic were not well able to communicate effectively in their vernacular languages as well as Latin? That Latin was anything other than a second language for them, that their respective vernaculars (Italian and Spanish) were not their first languages?

St Teresa of Avila was perfectly well able to write in her vernacular language of Spanish - as far as I know she never wrote in Latin. And her contribution to Catholic scholarship in the area of mysticism was not impaired one iota by the fact that she did so.

Frankly, saying that we can communicate with or understand the saints better by knowing or using Latin is as illogical as saying that we can communicate with or understand Christ or God the Father better by knowing or using Latin. Surely too many completely illiterate peasants such as Joan of Arc have become saints for us to hold such a snobbish and wrongheaded idea.

The saints, like Christ and God the Father in whose presence they are happily residing, totally transcend mundanities such as time, place AND language.