Why a "dead" language?

[johnnydigit]

fyi, the Vatican is the only country in the world that still uses Latin.
-it is the headquarters of our Catholic Church.
-it is roughly 2000 years old.
-the significance of Latin words and phrases remain in tact, and will remain in tact forever. some significance can be lost in translation. it is like a rock, a cornerstone, that remains undefiled.
-it sounds beautiful when read and sung, to me.
-it portrays a sense of sacredness and holiness, to me.

“the devil hates Latin…” “he speaks to me in Italian, i speak to him back in Latin…” - Fr. Amorth

 

[JRKH]

We can probably all agree, that our purpose on this earth is to seek eternal life with God after this tour is done.

That being said, why would we want to pursue the most important purpose for our existience, by adhering to a dead, foreign language to do so?

Does it not make more sense, to evangelize the nations in their native tongues? Is that not what the Holy Spirit provided to the Apostles?

This has probably been mentioned already but…
Since Latin is the official language of the Church, and all documents are written in that language, how can you call it a dead language?

Peace
James

 

[JReducation]

This has probably been mentioned already but…
Since Latin is the official language of the Church, and all documents are written in that language, how can you call it a dead language?

Peace
James

Actually Pope John XXIII called it a dead language. But he wanted to preserve it because it serve a pastoral purpose. Since it is not the language of any nation on Earth, it is a language that shows no preference for any culture and no national identification with any other sovereign country except the Vatican.

BTW the official language in the Vatican is Italian. Everyone who works in the Vatican must speak fluent Italian and everything is done in Italian. Only documents for the universal Church are written in Latin.

Latin is the legal language of the Vatican, not the national language. As a sovereign nation, its official language is Italian.

Latin is only used for writings that go out to the Western Catholics. All documents that go out to the Eastern Catholics are written in Greek, Russian and Syriac. Even the encyclicals are translated into those languages before they leave the Vatican. There is a special office for the Eastern Churches that takes care of this, so that the Eastern Catholics receive encyclicals and other papal communications at the same time that we do in the language of the local Catholic Church.

JR

 

[Lapell]

Well, why would using Latin in the Latin Rite make less sense than using Old Slavonic (not Russian) in the Russian Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

 

[JReducation]

Well, why would using Latin in the Latin Rite make less sense than using Old Slavonic (not Russian) in the Russian Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

No one is saying that it doesn’t make sense. What is being said is that it is not necessary. There is a difference.

One thing that I learned in the missions was that we had to be very sensitive to the use of Latin among the indigenous people, because they did not use European language period.

I was in South America, the indegenous people do not speak Spanish. They speak Quichua. They only use Spanish when they go among the white people of South America (yes there are white Hispanics )

They were very opposed to European languages, because they have always felt that the Europeans tried to wipe out their culture using religion to do so. They have long memories, what can I tell you.

Our friars celebrated the liturgy in Quichua with Quichua music and beatiful hymns that were translated into Quichua.

This ties in with St. Francis and and St. Bonaventure’s teachings on the seamless coat of many colours.

JR

 

[Lapell]

Maybe the surprising thing is that we don’t use much Greek (except in Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison) or much Hebrew (except for “Amen”, “Hosanna”, “Sabbaoth” and “Alleluia” -which the Hebrews used to write " 'Allelu Yah ") ! Since the Old Testament was written in Old Hebrew and the New in Old Greek, that’s the surprising thing in my view…

 

[Lapell]

No one is saying that it doesn’t make sense. What is being said is that it is not necessary. There is a difference.

One thing that I learned in the missions was that we had to be very sensitive to the use of Latin among the indigenous people, because they did not use European language period.

I was in South America, the indegenous people do not speak Spanish. They speak Quichua. They only use Spanish when they go among the white people of South America (yes there are white Hispanics )

They were very opposed to European languages, because they have always felt that the Europeans tried to wipe out their culture using religion to do so. They have long memories, what can I tell you.

Our friars celebrated the liturgy in Quichua with Quichua music and beatiful hymns that were translated into Quichua.

This ties in with St. Francis and and St. Bonaventure’s teachings on the seamless coat of many colours.

JR

I only read the 1st page before writing what I did. In their case, I can see it can make sense… unless… Let’s see!.. What if you used Quichua AND Latin? … Well, I suppose you tried that also and it was not well received either?

 

[JRKH]

Actually Pope John XXIII called it a dead language. But he wanted to preserve it because it serve a pastoral purpose. Since it is not the language of any nation on Earth, it is a language that shows no preference for any culture and no national identification with any other sovereign country except the Vatican.

BTW the official language in the Vatican is Italian. Everyone who works in the Vatican must speak fluent Italian and everything is done in Italian. Only documents for the universal Church are written in Latin.

Latin is the legal language of the Vatican, not the national language. As a sovereign nation, its official language is Italian.

Latin is only used for writings that go out to the Western Catholics. All documents that go out to the Eastern Catholics are written in Greek, Russian and Syriac. Even the encyclicals are translated into those languages before they leave the Vatican. There is a special office for the Eastern Churches that takes care of this, so that the Eastern Catholics receive encyclicals and other papal communications at the same time that we do in the language of the local Catholic Church.

JR

Thank you for that clarification.
Permit me to put another point forth, and again forgive me if this was already covered.
One of the reasons for using latin, I have heard, precisely because it isn’t in common usage and therefore the words, terms, expressions, grammer etc. are not subject to changes over time due to cultural infuluences.
Is this true?

Peace
James

 

[JReducation]

I only read the 1st page before writing what I did. In their case, I can see it can make sense… unless… Let’s see!.. What if you used Quichua AND Latin? … Well, I suppose you tried that also and it was not well received either?

Sometimes you have to allow people time to feel comfortable before you take it to another level. In many places such as Africa, Asia and South America our anscestors made some big mistakes. They tried to force Catholicism on the native populations without first winning them over.

Some of the diaries that I’ve read by early Franciscan and Dominican missionaries to the Americas describe how the friars of both orders tried very hard to evangelize through charity and by serving the needs of the natives and how the European laity undid everything that the friars were trying to accomplish. They conquered and abused the local people all in the name of King and God.

It made it difficult for the friars to develop some credibility when the lay people were not cooperative.

This often happens today too. The laity is often more of an obstacle to evangelizing those whe do not know Christ than they are a help. Too many lay people are very demanding and rigid in their approach to faith. This does not help to draw non Catholics or non believers into dialogue or make them want to listen to what we have to offer.

I’m not sure if I’m saying it clearly.

JR

 

[Lapell]

I certainly enjoy the works of the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt using the Latin text, especially the Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum Iohannem. Somehow the words sound especially meaningful… :angel1: :heaven: :harp: :hug3: :hug1:

 

[laudamus_te]

I’ll add that I can’t imagine the Holy Father referring to ANY Mass as the “Babel Mass.” Can you?

Well, he called it a “banal, on-the-spot fabrication,” so why not?

 

[JReducation]

Well, he called it a “banal, on-the-spot fabrication,” so why not?

I think you misunderstood what he is referring to. He is not speaking about mass in the language of the faithful. He is speaking about the abuses.

Big difference. The Pope does often celebrate mass in the language of the faithful. At a rescent Congress of American Marian Youth, he celebrated the entire mass in English for the teens that came. He format was the exact same format as he uses when he celebrates mass in Latin.

Also, the Good Friday Liturgy and the Easter mass at the Vatican the services were multi-lingual. The proper was in Latin, the sermon in Italian and the readings in vaious languages as were the prayers of the faithful.

Who would call that Babel?

JR

 

[japhy]

I think you misunderstood what he is referring to. He is not speaking about mass in the language of the faithful. He is speaking about the abuses.

No, Ratzinger was speaking about the liturgy that came out of the Consilium after the Council. See here:
What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

 

[laudamus_te]

Also, the Good Friday Liturgy and the Easter mass at the Vatican the services were multi-lingual. The proper was in Latin, the sermon in Italian and the readings in vaious languages as were the prayers of the faithful.

Who would call that Babel?

JR

I’d call it confusing and unnecessary. How much simpler to just use Latin, with the exception of the sermon which should obviously be in Italian, and let the various people of differing nationalities and language use missals with their native translation.

 

[agr4028]

I’d call it confusing and unnecessary. How much simpler to just use Latin, with the exception of the sermon which should obviously be in Italian, and let the various people of differing nationalities and language use missals with their native translation.

Or, he could have just said it all in Italian

 

[Scott_D]

“The Church teaches Her priests Latin, but it’s not required of the laity to learn Latin.”

Forgive my ignorance, but is that the case world over? I’ve talked to some priests here in Maine and that is decidedly not the case, unless it is a recent change via the pope. The last time I talked to a priest about Latin they were not required to take it. Contrast that with a priest I talked to who was ordained in the early '60’s. He said even the math texts were in Latin!

My wife is a Byzantine Catholic and their masses were in old Slavonic. That has been giving way to English. The biggest difference between that and the Latin rite are that neither the music nor the mass was changed. The chants, though in English, still sound otherworldly. The current N.O. mass does lose something with the use of pop music drivel. It just can’t compare to the majesty of Gregorian Chant. I feel lifted up when I listen to it. On the other hand, my kids can sing the music from a N.O. mass from the earliest ages. That is a good way to teach them to pray.

 

[laudamus_te]

Or, he could have just said it all in Italian

Why? What about all those present who don’t understand Italian?

 

[Lhhs]

"The last time I talked to a priest about Latin they were not required to take it.

My son is discovering this too.
As a Latin student, he routine goes up to different priest and starts Talkin’ Latin . . . and the priest really have no idea what he is saying.

I’ve always taught him that all priests Know Latin . . but evidentally I was informing him incorrectly

 

[Lhhs]

Why a “dead” language? :

I thought Latin was a language that is Alive, in that it “lives” on its form without changes to the meaning of the words:shrug:

 

[JReducation]

I’d call it confusing and unnecessary. How much simpler to just use Latin, with the exception of the sermon which should obviously be in Italian, and let the various people of differing nationalities and language use missals with their native translation.

I didn’t find it confusing at all. As to necessary, I think the idea was to ensure that as many people as possible would hear the Word of God in their languages.

You said that he should not celebrate the liturgy in Italian, butyou agree to an Italian homily. What’s the difference? Follow it in the missalette. It’s easier to follow the prayers in Italian than it was to follow the homily. The homily is not in a missalette.

JR