Why does Latin have such a special place in the Church when Jesus spoke Aramaic?

[thecoach]

Does the story of Pentecost sound familiar to you?

geez if you use that as a basis for the use of latin, the RCC should be speaking numerous languages as the official one.

 

[thecoach]

and it seems there is no good answer to the OP

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s proof that Peter spoke Latin, not that we should be using Latin.

 

[thiscatholickid]

I’ve often wondered about this.

Because we are Roman Rite. Our mother church is in Rome.
In Rome they speak latin.

And ultimately because the Roman Church just said so.
(and they said it in Latin)

 

[BobP123]

That’s proof that Peter spoke Latin, not that we should be using Latin.

You’re right about one thing. One person doesn’t and can’t decide what language should be used within a culture or community or the Catholic Church.

Wrong. The first Christians spoke Aramaic. Mike you know this.

Maybe but look to whom St. Paul’s epistles were directed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In those days, no doubt many people were speaking many languages. And we have today many Latin works in classic literature. How can one claim Christ or any of His apostes knew absolutely nothing in Latin? Were they all ignorant? Did they all not know anyone who spoke Latin? Are we absolutely sure Christ didn’t speak to Pontius Pilate in Latin? Or to the Roman soldiers?

Even the Latin words in the local languages (Aramaic, Coptic, etc) show they came via Greek.

We have works of hieroglyphic literature, but we can assume the Lord (according to the flesh) and the disciples knew nothing of it.

We have no reason to think that Christ or His Apostles knew any Latin. None. It was not spoken widely in the East at all (I’m not sure about the amount of Latin inscriptions in the East. They exist, but how much I never have investigated: you see more Greek). Yes, they were ignorant Acts 4:13.

Since the courts in Palestine were used to dealing with people who spoke no Latin, we have no reason to believe Pilate spoke Latin to Christ.

And how is it that archaelogists have now found evidence that some of the early Masses were indeed (at least partially) in Latin?

Evidence where and when.

But whether true or not, Latin eventually caught on and became popular enough to help flourish the Mass in Africa and other places. Whether it was mandated or not probably didn’t have much to do with it. Language is usually developed over a long period so it probably isn’t an overnight thing where one Pope simply says “Forget what you have learned. Speak only in Latin from now on” and make it stick universally.

North Africa was at the time THE area of Latin: the Latin Fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc.) all hailed from there, and it was a North African, Victor who introduced Latin into the Roman mass.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

snickers Oh, how I love Orthodox revisionism! The only Romans that even read Greek were wealthy patricians, as Greek was the language of the philosophers in an around the Aegean peninsula. The common Roman, to which no doubt St. Peter would’ve had greater access, spoke the more culturally diffuse and dynamic Vulgar Latin. This is reflected in the less rigid style of ecclesiastical Latin when viewed in relation to the more artificial Classical.

Snickers yourself.

The study on the catecomb inscription (in particular the Jewish ones) in Rome are overwhelmingly in Greek. Latin appears only infrequently, and then only on marble, an expensive material indicating high status. Latin was the language of the ruling elite (all official business had to be conducted in it) and a minority of plebs who remained instead of settling in the coloniae throughout the empire.

The Itala or Vetus Latina shows that it/they were ad hoc translations from the Septuagint, to largely bilingual congregations. In the martyrdom of Perpetua, when she talks to those in heaven, they speak Greek. The writings of Hipplytus show Greek was the original langauge of the mass, all the early Fathers from Rome wrote in Greek (the Shepard of Hermas specifically tells Pope Clement to publish it in Rome, and it is in Greek) According to Jerome Pope Victor (189) from North Africa introduced Latin in the Roman Church.

The influx of slaves, etc. into Rome overwhelmed the native Latin population. Only as populations returned from the colonies (like North Africa) did Latin become the common language again of the capital, as shown by inscriptions, etc.

Your classical authors all bemoan the presence of the Greeks and other orientals and their effect on the common Latin, but even Cicero admitted he had to follow some of the commoner solecisms: they were too overwhelming. Allen’s Vox Latina, reconstructing Classical pronunciation refers to the Greek inscriptions in Rome, etc.

I’m afraid that your snickers betrays another example of Latin revisionism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does the story of Pentecost sound familiar to you?

Yes it does. So can we say St. Peter spoke Elamite (Acts 2:9) too?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

well…it would be more accurate to say that St. Mark translated Peter’s works into Greek. Peter probably knew enough Greek to get by (anybody doing business during that era used Greek) but he did not write it, and that’s why Mark translated for him.

Deacon Ed

His Epistles are in Greek.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s proof that Peter spoke Latin, not that we should be using Latin.

Nope. Says the Apostles. For all we know Thomas could have been the Apostle speaking Latin.

And of course, there’s still the problem that the verse that supposedly indicates Latin doesn’t say that: vistors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes (the vast majority of their inscriptions are in Greek, so for all we know, that is what language that is indicated here).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because we are Roman Rite. Our mother church is in Rome.
In Rome they speak latin.

And ultimately because the Roman Church just said so.
(and they said it in Latin)

When I was there they spoke Italian. And a lot of English.

Ah, Rome has spoken. Always the final answer.

And those whose mother church is not Rome?