Why is the Latin Form Superior?

[Jason_Firestone]

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.

I did mean couldn’t. Thanks

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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.

I personally never call the EF the Latin Mass because it actually has Latin, Greek, and some Hebrew in it.

[bibledrb]Luke 23:38[/bibledrb]

I personally prefer Latin in the Liturgy because I feel it helps point to the cross; It takes me mentally to Calvary. I feel that Latin -the language- will always be superior to the venacular because the Church has made Latin its own by giving us Ecclesiastical Latin, and because the Church itself has deemed it superior to the vernacular.

There are many other reasons for why I prefer Latin, but why beat a dead horse.

The Contemporary Church and Latin

Vatican II:
“The use of Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 36)

“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 54)

Pope Paul VI:
“We want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for the new lead them to the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the Latin Church.* To them we say that it is absolutely clear that Latin must be held in high honor***…”** (Address to Latinists, 1968)

“…take away the language that transcends national boundaries and possesses a marvelous spiritual power and the music that rises from the depths of the soul where faith resides and charity burns – we mean Gregorian Chant – and the choral office will be like a snuffed candle; it will no longer shed light, no longer draw the eyes and minds of the
people.” (Sacrificium Laudis, 1966)

Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities:
“Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the vernacular the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” (Doctrina et
Exemplo, 1965)

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship:
“For liturgical celebrations sung in Latin, Gregorian Chant, as the music proper of the Roman liturgy, should have pride of place, all other things being equal.” (General Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours, 1971)

“Pope Paul VI has expressed often, and even recently, the wish that the faithful of all countries be able to sing at least a few Gregorian Chants in Latin (for example, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). In compliance, this Congregation has prepared the enclosed booklet Iubilate Deo, which provides a short collection of Gregorian Chants.” (Voluntati
Obsequens, 1974)

Code of Canon Law (1983):
“The Eucharistic Celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been approved.” (c.928)

“The program for priestly formation is to m ake provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language…” (c. 249)

Pope John Paul II:
“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” (Dominicae Cenae, 1980)

“If, there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly.”—Saint Augustine.

 

[Vico]

They look awesome, too bad they aren’t in Communion with Rome. I pray for it!

Now here is a photo of Syrian Catholics:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Yusuf III Younan, Patriarch of the Syrian Catholic Church of Antioch

 

[patrick457]

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”.

You also have to remember that even then, Greek was still used to some extent in Rome, especially perhaps during the period of the Byzantine papacy (537–752), when Byzantine influence in Rome was the strongest; the language definitely was used in other areas, like Benevento. (Note that in papal Masses, the Gospel is usually proclaimed both in Latin and in Greek.) And also, that during the Carolingian period there was the fad of saying the Gallo-Roman liturgy translated in Greek (missa graeca).

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Christ didnt speak spanish, greek or korean either.
It made sense to continue to use latin since it was a dead language that could not change meaning the words will stay the same forever. You do not have to speak fluent latin to understand the latin mass. I think there are priests who say the mass in latin who do not speak it fluently today. If you can learn the propers in English or spanish you can learn them easily in Latin. After a while they are just “words” and you do not realize you are saying latin because you now understand them. The readings are re-read in English before the sermon anyway.

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.

 

[anp1215]

It’s simply a matter of personal preference. Feel free to attend whichever Mass (or Divine Liturgy, or Qurbana, etc.) you want, so long as it’s in Communion with Rome.

I do enjoy a Latin Mass occasionally, but would not want to attend one every week. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[ProVobis]

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”.

I wouldn’t say Latin replaced Greek as the Greek liturgy was never abrogated. By the 3rd century the Church Christianized the Latin language, which had been codified by Cicero and other classists, and it served to subsume the rest of the Roman Empire. Cicero, a pagan who had lived before Christ, apparently inspired several early Church fathers with his civil morals and philosophy. I should read some Tertullian though.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

You seem to know this stuff. Was Greek more common than Hebrew in Judea? I know Greek was more common in Antioch and Asia Minor where Saul/Paul started spreading the Word, although I’m sensing that there were many bilingual and perhaps even trilingual people living there as well.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

You seem to know this stuff. Was Greek more common than Hebrew in Judea? I know Greek was more common in Antioch and Asia Minor where Saul/Paul started spreading the Word, although I’m sensing that there were many bilingual and perhaps even trilingual people living there as well.

I don’t know that, but do recall that the major version of the Bible of the Jews was the Septuagint. Mostly a Greek translation of the Hebrew, but some texts possibly originally in Greek, others for which the Hebrew is lost, some differences in the texts as well.

The Septuagint was widely disseminated and was the version quoted by Our Lord and the writers of the New Testament (i.e. when the Hebrew and the Septuagint disagree and the New Testament quotes the differing verse, it usually follows the Septuagint).

The Septuagint is the version adopted by the Church.

So all that argues for a large Greek speaking Jewish communited around the time of Our Lord’s presence in the flesh on earth.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Let’s not forget also that the Council of Trent made an infallible declaration that the Latin Vulgate Bible (of St. Jerome) is sacred and canonical. The council Fathers did not declare that for the Greek or Hebrew texts, but for the Latin text.

• PAX

 

[patrick457]

You seem to know this stuff. Was Greek more common than Hebrew in Judea? I know Greek was more common in Antioch and Asia Minor where Saul/Paul started spreading the Word, although I’m sensing that there were many bilingual and perhaps even trilingual people living there as well.

According to one study (which I quoted at length in another thread a while ago - sorry about that), Aramaic steadily began to gain ground in Palestine at the beginning of the Hellenistic age (around 330 BC) because of its importance in Persian imperial administration and the commercial contacts which went with it. Hebrew was still maintaining itself despite this: it was still possible to write original literature in Late Biblical Hebrew, and it continued so down to the first century. Meanwhile the colloquial form of Hebrew, the basis of Middle Hebrew, was also taking hold in certain quarters.

Hebrew might have declined much earlier were it not for the help it gained, paradoxically, from Greek. The arrival of Greek, and the total swing in the political balance that accompanied it, substantially reduced the value and attractiveness of Aramaic, especially from the viewpoint of social, cultural and commercial leadership. In the Western Diaspora (the Alexandrian Jewish community, for example) Greek quickly became dominant in Jewish life and little sign remains of profound contact with Hebrew or Aramaic. Of the two, it is probably that Aramaic was much the more prevalent, the Jewish migrants having come from Aramaic-speaking previous homes. The Diaspora in Mesopotamia, meanwhile, remained as a reservoir of influence for Aramaic.

Greek also made enormous headway in Palestine, but it is clear that Semitic languages retained a strong hold. The distinctions commonly made by some people, that ‘the upper classes’ spoke this language, the ‘lower’ another, are much too simplistic to be of any use: language competence probably varied almost personally, hence wide generalizations cannot be made. Partly because of this, and partly for lack of detailed knowledge, we cannot create an exact language map of Palestine in our period. Greek was probably strong in the Galilee and the north, and also in the coastal towns; but there is also adequate evidence for considerable knowledge of Greek in Judaea; the Herodian families, after all, were completely Hellenized. As for Aramaic and Hebrew, boundary lines are equally hard to draw, but it is generally agreed that Aramaic was strong in northern areas like the Galilee, while the main concentrations of spoken Hebrew were in the Judaean countryside; but no doubt there were pockets of Hebrew elsewhere, and a considerable representation of Aramaic even in the south.

The anti-Hellenic Maccabean revolt does not seem to have carried with it any explicit overtone of linguistic nationalism; on the contrary, the Hasmonean governments continued the use of Greek in external and internal policies, and this is reflected in the histories of their times. It was indeed typical of the anti-Hellenic cultural reaction that it expressed itself linguistically in Greek: it is so with Josephus and other works of Jewish apologetics, as well as various other writers from other areas (like Egypt and Phoenicia).

To quote:

The conquest of the East (Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia) by the koine was swift and far-reaching. All governmental administration used Greek, and in commerce Greek made the most remote markets accessible, from Bactria on the Indian border to the far west of the Mediterranean - a wider world, in fact, than that which Aramaic had made accessible under the Persians. Because of the centrality of Greek for administration and commerce, and because of the extremely high development of Greek learning, science and culture, Greek was the language of education. In much of the East literacy came to mean literacy in Greek, and the native languages, though still existing, were the languages of those who did not read or write. In Jewish society in Palestine the importance of Hebrew and Aramaic literature, and the close connection of it in the religion, prevented this relation from coming to pass. But even so Greek made rapid strides and its connection with education, with administration and with international commerce made the acquisition of it desirable for persons aspiring to distinction and leadership. In a period during which little is known of the history of Palestine, around 259-257 B.C.E., the Zenon Papyri give a vivid picture of the Jew Tobias, his family and its position, through the Greek correspondence in which they engaged.[sup]1[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup] On all this see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 1, pp. 58ff; and the summary of the linguistic situation in V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 30ff.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

You seem to know this stuff. Was Greek more common than Hebrew in Judea? I know Greek was more common in Antioch and Asia Minor where Saul/Paul started spreading the Word, although I’m sensing that there were many bilingual and perhaps even trilingual people living there as well.

**There is some comment about exactly what you are asking towards the beginning of the PBS Frontline special, “From Jesus to Christ”. Haven’t watched it in a very long time, but I seem to remember them talking about this question. **pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/

:manvspc:

 

[patrick457]

The Septuagint was widely disseminated and was the version quoted by Our Lord and the writers of the New Testament (i.e. when the Hebrew and the Septuagint disagree and the New Testament quotes the differing verse, it usually follows the Septuagint).

Mostly true, but there are also instances where the Scripture quotations do not follow the Septuagint. For instance, there are places in which Scriptural quotations and allusions as given by the Evangelists match more with the (proto-)Masoretic text or with possible Aramaic targumim, translations/paraphrases of Scripture into Aramaic. In Mark 4:29, for example, you have this quotation: “But when the fruit yields itself, immediately he sends out the sickle, for the harvest has come.” The reference is to Joel 3:13: “Send out a sickle, for harvest has ripened.” Mark’s therismos renders the Hebrew qatzir literally here, compared to the LXX’S trygētos (“vintage”).

Of course, we don’t know for sure whether Jesus Himself used the Greek translations when preaching; it could also easily be the case that when the Evangelists write about Jesus quoting Scripture, they mostly just employed something that is readily available to them - and something that is more familiar to their audience as well - rather than translate the whole thing from scratch.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks, Patrick, NYC, EAD, and Jason. Yes, I’ve watched a couple of those great PBS documentaries (*The Roman Century in the First Century *and Peter and Paul) and am watching your suggestion.

 

[tshark1963]

I’ve been told that in the jewish language one word may mean several different things, depending on the way it’s used in the sentence. I wonder if this might be the case for latin.

 

[couponfit]

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 . . . )

I agree, not superior, but beautiful, and worth maintaining for those who feel a personal calling to use the ef. On a positive note, I agree with the vatican to request diocese to operate a latin service for those pre-vatican II catholic who feel comfortable and called to such a mass.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ve been told that in the jewish language one word may mean several different things, depending on the way it’s used in the sentence. I wonder if this might be the case for latin.

Certainly. Take the word secuncum, which can either be the adjective “second,” or the preposition “according to.” Or take the sentence “Malo malo malo malo,” which, humorously, means “I’d rather be in an apple tree than a bad man in adversity.” Then, too, there are tons of words with just a range of related meanings, or literal and figurative senses, and so on.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I’ve been told that in the jewish language one word may mean several different things, depending on the way it’s used in the sentence. I wonder if this might be the case for latin.

Ha! In Hebrew one sentence can have several meanings simultaneously

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks, Patrick, NYC, EAD, and Jason. Yes, I’ve watched a couple of those great PBS documentaries (*The Roman Century in the First Century *and Peter and Paul) and am watching your suggestion.

Should read “The Roman Empire in the First Century.”

Resurrexit!

 

[BertBlyleven]

A couple thoughts. I hear very often that Jesus did not speak Latin. Considering Jesus is divine, lived in a Roman province, and interacted with Romans, He probably could speak Latin (even if He never once spoke it) and certainly did understand it. For Romans Latin would’ve been their primary language, though they likely learned Greek first. Officials would’ve likely known Aramaic as well. But I digress…

The issue at hand is not so much a Latin vs vernacular issue. The use of the vernacular in the 1960s came at the time of a widespread idea of liturgical progressivism. Things need to be changed, we need to be heading towards something, etc. The Eastern Churches were often cited as beacons for the vernacular, but the Eastern Churches never did so out of a desire for change, for they have always held to antiquity and exercised prudence with the Liturgy. This is why in the 60s and 70s all these new ideas and theologies on what the Mass is started to emerge; the tongue (among other things) changes and therefore the Mass changes. Fortunately most of this has died off with the 60s and 70s. What is my point? My point is that the language issue is more complicated than it may seem, and we cannot clearly distinguish between how the language affects the Mass and how the other things affect Mass; there are too many independent variables. If it really were about language, the Missal of 1965 would still be around, or better yet the Gregorian Rite in the vernacular.