Why is the Latin Form Superior?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Balian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Balian

Guest
As a new Catholic I’m quite confused about the controversy there seems to be regarding the use of Latin in Mass. Actually before converting, I did have occasion to attend a Latin Mass. I thought it was beautiful but of course didn’t understand any of it since I have never studied Latin. Had I been born a cradle Catholic and grew up in the Church when Latin was commonly used, I can understand how I might be unhappy with the change to modern languages. But I wasn’t and so for me it isn’t an issue. Actually I suppose I’d rather understand what is being said instead of having to learn Latin.

Here is why I don’t understand the feeling that Latin Mass is somehow superior. Christ did not speak Latin. To my knowledge none of the original Apostles spoke Latin. At the time of Christ the official language of Rome was Koine’ Greek not Latin. I assume that Latin became the official language of the Church in Constantine’s time although I’m not completely certain. But anyway, do those who subscribe to the idea that Latin Mass is a superior form simply oppose the idea of using the languages normally spoken today because they just don’t like change? I really just don’t understand why it i so controversial.
 
It’s not really about Latin. It’s about the Mass itself.

I would say from the traditional side read the Ottaviani intervention (can be googled) or Work of Human Hands by Fr. Cekada. (he is a sedevacantist but the book is an impersonal scholarly look at the Mass). From the pro-new Mass folks, others can give you suggestions.
 
Balian said:
At the time of Christ the official language of Rome was Koine’ Greek not Latin.
Click to expand...
Then why did Cicero, who was a scholar of Greek, do his most powerful writings to Roman citizens in Latin? And why did Pontius Pilate have the inscriptions on the cross written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?

Not only that but archaelogists have now found that Latin was used in the liturgy in 1st century.

In any event, we know English wasn’t spoken then.
 
newyorkcatholic said:
They look awesome, too bad they aren’t in Communion with Rome. I pray for it!
Click to expand...
There is a Syriac Catholic Church-Same liturgy and language, just Catholic!!!

Here in St. Louis I was able to attend a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy, which was rather similar. I felt like I was warped back to the first or second century!
 
At the risk of being blasted, I would say it isn’t superior. It is beautiful, it is holy, it is wonderful – but it is not superior to any other beautiful, holy and wonderful manifestation of our faith which is in obediance to our Holy Mother the Church.

(And, like every other Catholic who has been around for multi-decades, I’ve seen some really bad Latin Masses, as well as really bad Masses in other languages . . . although must say that in most cases the Latin Masses were at least making an effort to be reverential . . . )
 
newyorkcatholic said:
It’s not really about Latin. It’s about the Mass itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the important point. The differences are much deeper (and therefore more subtle) than the language. And no one has claimed that Jesus spoke Latin at the Institution of the Eucharist. However, it is important to remember that the official language of the Church is Latin and will remain so.
  • PAX
 
We have to look at what context you’re saying that in. Remember, the Eastern Churches use Arabic, Slavonic, Greek, and even Aramaic, and Latin is not superior to them! However in the Roman Rite, Latin is the official language of the sui iuris, Latin Church. That alone makes it superior, imho.
 
IrishAm said:
At the risk of being blasted, I would say it isn’t superior. It is beautiful, it is holy, it is wonderful – but it is not superior to any other beautiful, holy and wonderful manifestation of our faith which is in obediance to our Holy Mother the Church.
Click to expand...
You will not be blasted as what you say is what the Church teaches, i.e. that no form of any Mass (OF, EF, Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy) is superior to any other form of the Mass.

The Mass is the Mass. You are free to prefer one style over the other if it feeds your spiritual side better, but that should be as far as it goes.
 
from Veterum Sapientia, written in 1962:
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable.** Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority.** Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.
Click to expand...
But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
Click to expand...
Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.
Click to expand...
In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.” It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Click to expand...
 
Balian said:
As a new Catholic I’m quite confused about the controversy there seems to be regarding the use of Latin in Mass. Actually before converting, I did have occasion to attend a Latin Mass. I thought it was beautiful but of course didn’t understand any of it since I have never studied Latin. Had I been born a cradle Catholic and grew up in the Church when Latin was commonly used, I can understand how I might be unhappy with the change to modern languages. But I wasn’t and so for me it isn’t an issue. Actually I suppose I’d rather understand what is being said instead of having to learn Latin.

Here is why I don’t understand the feeling that Latin Mass is somehow superior. Christ did not speak Latin. To my knowledge none of the original Apostles spoke Latin. At the time of Christ the official language of Rome was Koine’ Greek not Latin. I assume that Latin became the official language of the Church in Constantine’s time although I’m not completely certain. But anyway, do those who subscribe to the idea that Latin Mass is a superior form simply oppose the idea of using the languages normally spoken today because they just don’t like change? I really just don’t understand why it i so controversial.
Click to expand...
A Latin mass tends to exactly follow the form of the Mass, the English form not so much. Latin is the language of the Church, you will notice the Catechisms of the Catholic Church for example is only perfect in Latin. The language of Rome was Latin however the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean was Koine Greek which is why there were three languages on the Cross, Latin the language of the Empire, Koine Greek the working language and Hebrew the language of the Jews. Latin is superior to modern languages, however the languages of the Eastern Churches are also very much worthy of respect.
 
Esrb99 said:
You can always go to a Syriac Orthodox Church- they speak Syriac, the form of Arimaic that Jesus and his apostles would have spoken 👍

http://www.nadamelchurch.org/nadamafiles/images/catholicose_ordination2.jpg
Click to expand...
Not exactly, since Syriac is an Eastern Aramaic dialect, while the Galilean Aramaic (already extinct) which Jesus and the disciples would have spoken, is of the Western Aramaic family. In fact, the only surviving Western Aramaic language today is Western Neo-Aramaic, spoken in three Syrian villages. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Then why did Cicero, who was a scholar of Greek, do his most powerful writings to Roman citizens in Latin? And why did Pontius Pilate have the inscriptions on the cross written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?

Not only that but archaelogists have now found that Latin was used in the liturgy in 1st century.

In any event, we know English wasn’t spoken then.
Click to expand...
I think that what he meant was that in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, Greek was more common than Latin (which had more of a stronghold in western areas) - a survival of the days of Alexander the Great’s empire.
 
There is nothing “superior” about Latin. It sounds more beautiful to some Western ears, because it has more vowels, (and thus is better for music, and not as awkward as English). The Lord of the universe could care less what language one uses. There is some evidence that Jesus was conversant also with Greek and Latin, which would have been the languages of scholars and the educated, in the centers and larger towns, in the Galillee, during the Roman occupation.
 
Jason_Firestone said:
It sounds more beautiful to some Western ears, because it has more vowels, (and thus is better for music, and not as awkward as English). The Lord of the universe could care less what language one uses.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say, especially with the awkwardness of English. However, I don’t want to make this a Homer vs Vergil issue, but wasn’t the language used in the creed (because of translation difficulties with procedit and filioque) one of the causes for some early disagreements within the church?

By the way, I think you meant “could NOT care less.” It’s awkward, I know. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Not only that but archaelogists have now found that Latin was used in the liturgy in 1st century.
Click to expand...
The language of the liturgy in the Roman church was not originally Latin, but Greek. The church in Rome used Greek from the beginning. Only gradually was Latin introduced until the fourth century when Latin replaced Greek as the official language of the church of Rome. The shift didn’t really begin until Tertullian who wrote his theology extensively in Latin, and is even called “the father of the latin church”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top