Why Latin?

[JerryZ]

Thanks for all the replies. To be honest I still don’t see the point. I get that the meaning of words change with vernacular languages and all that, but its not like scripture was written in Latin, it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So again, I’m not seeing why Latin is the chosen language. And this is the Catholic church, not the ROMAN Catholic church. We are bigger than the Latin Rite.

I’m glad most parishes use the vernacular language. In my eyes its far more important that the faithful be able to understand and participate in the liturgy. Thank God for Vatican II. That said I love the high and reverent nature of the EF mass, as well as how the priests face the alter. I wish the EF could be done in English.

Actually yes you are partially correct, however the bulk of the Old Testament was written in Classical Hebrew, the sacred language, a couple of Books were written originally in Biblical Aramaic.
At the time of Christ most of the Jewish population had lived under domination for more than 300 years.
They had been displaced from the land of Israel and most of those living “abroad” could NOT understand either Hebrew or Aramaic and the Septuagint or LXX as was and IS also known was a translation of all the Old Testament (Hebrew + Aramaic) as well as some books that had been originally written in Greek with them in mind.

The New Testament, was written mainly in Greek some was written in Aramaic, however the letters that St. Paul wrote TO THE ROMANS I would argue quite strongly were written in Latin.
Of course we cannot be 100% sure since we do NOT have the originals we have copies of copies. And translations were not unheard of. See the case of the LXX the whole Old Testaments was a translation from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek
How difficult would have been to translate a single letter to Greek to make the message available to the other Christian communities?

The reasons for this belief I expounded in previous post, I will not repeat them again.

However if St. Paul had to write today the “Letter to the New Yorkers” I can assure you, it would NOT be written in neither Greek nor Latin.
(snide remark removed for fear of reprisals) Where is that rock???

…

 

[ProVobis]

The mere thought that Latin was not the language spoken in Rome at the time of Jesus is preposterous and lacks any credibility.

Latin WAS the language of the Romans. Since it’s foundation in 753 BC and in fact the name Latin comes from the name by which the inhabitants of Rome identified themselves. “Latini”.

Greek was an important language, used in commerce all over the known world and the Romans used it, but only the ruling class spoke Greek. Still Latin was their native language.

In Rome there were 2 classes of citizens “Patrizi” and “Plebei”.
The ruling class was constituted exclusively by members of the “Patrizi” class.

The rest of the population constituted “la Plebe” and all of them both Patrizi and Plebei were “Roman citizens”. All spoke Latin.

Now unless anyone here can prove that St. Paul and St. Peter went to Rome to evangelize the Patrizi class, whom were the only ones that could presumably speak Greek then I will suggest to you, that they evangelized in Latin to the “Plebe”.

Let’s make an analogy that perhaps can clear up the misconception.

A messiah is born in China in an area that speak Mandarin Chinese. He makes up Apostles and he sends them to New York the worldwide capital of the “American Empire”.

What language do you expect the Apostles to use when trying to evangelize the New Yorkers"?

Precisely the same scenario. Rome WAS the Capital of the Greatest Empire known to man at the time of Christ. Do you actually believe the locals would be forced to learn Greek? They CONQUERED the whole known world!
If any one lived or died was by the will of the Romans.

…

You shouldn’t be so hard on the Greeks. After all they gave us geometry and Greek mythology.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m glad most parishes use the vernacular language.

Christ Himself worshiped in Hebrew, which was not a vernacular language. Historically most religions chose to worship in other than street language. (Hebrew, Arabic, Pali, Sanskrit inter alia.) Until the 60’s, Protestantism was the only major religion to use vernacular in worship. Latin Catholics have now seemingly lost their identity since one would be hard pressed to find differences between Lutheran and Catholic services. But whatever makes Latin Catholics happy I guess. Many if not most still don’t understand the Mass.

 

[exnihilo]

I watched the video of Midnight Mass said by Pope Francis this year at St. Peter’s. The Mass was said in Latin. Since it was in Latin I was able to understand it and better enter into it. Had it been in another language other than English I would not have understood as well. I did study Latin and have taken the time to familiarize myself with the text of the Mass. So I would have an advantage over many others. But anyone can do this. Having a language for the Church can be a great benefit.

 

[clem456]

I’m having a hard time understanding what the big deal is with Latin in the Church. Especially confusing is this notion of Latin being the “language of the Church”. As far as I know, the earliest Christians did not speak Latin, but rather Greek for the most part and Aramaic. In fact I believe the church in Rome originally spoke Greek as well, not Latin. On top of that, our eastern brothers and sisters speak a variety of different languages in the liturgy, and not Latin. So what exactly is the big deal with Latin? And how, given the above, can Latin possibly be construed as “the language of the Church”?

I’ve attended mass in Latin, and quite frankly I don’t find it edifying at all, only confusing. I can’t understand a single thing that’s being said, and I don’t for the life of me see why any parish uses Latin. Since the earliest Christians, and our eastern brothers and sisters, have used the vernacular language in the liturgy, why are many parishes in the Latin rite still hung up on using Latin? I just can’t for the life of me see the point.

It’s good to point out that Latin’s universality may have more value as the official language of the Latin Church, than as the language of liturgy. By official, I mean the standard default language of Church documents. As another poster pointed out, it’s good to have the official expression of the institution in an immutable language, as it cannot be muddled by translations.

Latin is not a blessed language per se, it simply became the language of the Church by practical application. It could have been any other language. If the Church were developing today and looking for a universal language, the official language would almost certainly be English.

 

[clem456]

Christ Himself worshiped in Hebrew, which was not a vernacular language. Historically most religions chose to worship in other than street language. (Hebrew, Arabic, Pali, Sanskrit inter alia.) Until the 60’s, Protestantism was the only major religion to use vernacular in worship. Latin Catholics have now seemingly lost their identity since one would be hard pressed to find differences between Lutheran and Catholic services. But whatever makes Latin Catholics happy I guess. Many if not most still don’t understand the Mass.

True, many may still not understand the Mass, but it is certainly a waaay higher percentage than when Latin was used.
The Church needs to say the Mass and express the faith simply, plainly and clearly. There are many other voices clamoring for our souls in today’s culture. Simplicity and clarity of expression are much needed.

 

[AttendeDomine]

So if one person prefers to worship at the EF and finds it meets their spiritual needs, I really have to say that is great–I cannot put my needs and preferences on them. And the reverse is true. Worship is a gift from God, so I cannot look at another person and say my way is better than yours. Conversely, they should not look at how I worship and say their way is better than mine.

I sympathize with this, and I really think you say it with the best of intentions.

But this business about making our own feelings and emotions and preferences and likes and dislikes a sort of rule of faith always makes me nervous. Our appetites are not a valid spiritual barometer, and the merits of the EF aren’t simply an emotional high that can be achieved worshiping in that particular context.

I think folks who are a sort of “apologist” for the EF hardly do so for reasons that are subjective. Their arguments do not necessarily amount to “oh, but this is so pretty.” To that end, I’d encourage you to read a couple of articles about this HERE and HERE.

I encourage you to read them, not so that you will be convinced of a particular position — but just so that you can understand where the other side might be coming from. This isn’t so much about preferences as it is about the spirituality a particular form of the Latine Rite consists of, coupled with an objective analysis of its merits.

 

[clem456]

I sympathize with this, and I really think you say it with the best of intentions.

But this business about making our own feelings and emotions and preferences and likes and dislikes a sort of rule of faith always makes me nervous. Our appetites are not a valid spiritual barometer, and the merits of the EF aren’t simply an emotional high that can be achieved worshiping in that particular context.

I think folks who are a sort of “apologist” for the EF hardly do so for reasons that are subjective. Their arguments do not necessarily amount to “oh, but this is so pretty.” To that end, I’d encourage you to read a couple of articles about this HERE and HERE.

I encourage you to read them, not so that you will be convinced of a particular position — but just so that you can understand where the other side might be coming from.

Why do you feel that worship in the vernacular is pandering to appetites any more than worship in Latin?

 

[ProVobis]

If the Church were developing today and looking for a universal language, the official language would almost certainly be English.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but isn’t that what the Anglican Church is trying to do?
(I apologize to those who feel offended, but I’m trying to make a point here.)

BTW, there have been many PAYING fans of the Italian operas and Shakespeare et al all over the world who enjoy hearing those in the writers’ language, though many do not understand the texts in that language. Perhaps it’s the non-verbal language they enjoy as well as the SOUNDS of the text?

.

 

[ProVobis]

Why do you feel that worship in the vernacular is pandering to appetites any more than worship in Latin?

Wasn’t that the way the Protestants were able to sell their heresies a few centuries ago?

Please give some credit to all those Popes (and monks) who tried to preserve the Church documents, scripture, and liturgy in Latin so as not to corrupt their meanings.

 

[Augustine]

Ecclesiastical Latin (Church Latin by definition) is not easily translatable into most modern languages…

Not really. I can read Latin easily, since about half of the words are identical in my first language, Portuguese, just one among the five Romance languages. Italian is even closer to Latin than Portuguese or Spanish, but Romanian is the closest.

Christus natus est!

 

[Augustine]

Until the 60’s, Protestantism was the only major religion to use vernacular in worship.

Actually, the Orthodox Churches have always used the vernacular.

Christus natus est!

 

[Augustine]

Another beautiful thing about Latin is that it’s one of the 3 holy languages, which are Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.

There’s no such a thing as a holy or sacred language in Christianity. These were certainly the major original liturgical languages, but, when their use was started, they were the vernacular languages.

Christus natus est!

 

[ProVobis]

There’s no such a thing as a holy or sacred language in Christianity. These were certainly the major original liturgical languages, but, when their use was started, they were the vernacular languages.

Depends on what you mean by “started.” Latin has been in existence since 700BC or so. When it became codified by Cicero, Caesar et al it became the administrative language of the Roman Empire, no longer a true vernacular. The Catholic Church adopted the vocabulary and grammar, adding words like “gratia” (grace), “oratio” (to mean prayer) inter alia, as they Christianized the language. But Classical Latin remained and the earlier Latin forms (Vulgar Latin) evolved into the Romance languages we know today.

Some books I highly recommend to read if anyone’s interested in linguistics and history of Latin:

A Natural History of Latin, by Tore Janson

*Story of a World Language - Latin *, by Jorgen Leonhardt

Latin Alive- The Survival of Latin in English and Romance Languages, by Solodow

 

[babochka]

Until the 60’s, Protestantism was the only major religion to use vernacular in worship.

The history of Eastern Christianity tells a different story.

Saints Cyril and Methodius translated the Divine Liturgy from Greek into Slavonic in the 9th century. They were opposed in their work by German (Latin) Bishops in the region, but their work and liturgy were ultimately approved by the Pope himself. One might argue that Church Slavonic is an elevated, liturgical form of the language, and so it is today. At the time that the services were translated, however, it was simply the language spoken by the people, so that they could understand.

A perspective on this phenomenon is found in this article:

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110209_lingua_en.html

In the course of history a wide variety of languages has been used in Christian worship: Greek in the Byzantine tradition; the different languages of the Eastern traditions, such as Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and Ethiopic; Paleo-Slavic; the Latin of the Roman rite and of the other Western rites.

Found in all these languages are forms of style that separate them from the “ordinary” or popular language. Often this separation is the consequence of linguistic developments in the common language, which then are not adopted in the liturgical language because of its sacred character.

Interestingly, this is not true of Latin in the Roman Rite:

However, in the case of Latin as language of the Roman liturgy, a certain separation has existed since the beginning: Romans did not speak in the style of the canon or of the prayers of the Mass. As soon as Greek was replaced by Latin in the Roman liturgy, a highly stylized language was created as a means of worship, which an average Christian of Rome of late antiquity would have had difficulty in understanding.

Most Orthodox and Eastern Catholics were celebrating the Divine Liturgy in vernacular languages prior to the 1960s.

Here’s one example:

 

[andrewstx]

Actually, the Orthodox Churches have always used the vernacular.

Christus natus est!

But they use church versions of the languages. Church Greek in Greece instead of modern Greek… And Church Slavonic instead of Russian.

 

[babochka]

But they use church versions of the languages. Church Greek in Greece instead of modern Greek… And Church Slavonic instead of Russian.

They do now, but when those services were written in Greek and translated into Slavonic from Greek, they were not “church versions”, they were simply the languages spoken by the people.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

There’s no such a thing as a holy or sacred language in Christianity. These were certainly the major original liturgical languages, but, when their use was started, they were the vernacular languages.

Christus natus est!

Ah, more than major original liturgical languages, they are the sacred languages.

St. Isidore of Seville teaches, “There are three sacred languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. These three languages were used by Pilate to write the charge ”King of the Jews” against the Lord on the cross.”

It’s exciting stuff for sure! Check out more info here: catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=49760

 

[babochka]

Ah, more than major original liturgical languages, they are the sacred languages.

St. Isidore of Seville teaches, “There are three sacred languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. These three languages were used by Pilate to write the charge ”King of the Jews” against the Lord on the cross.”

It’s exciting stuff for sure! Check out more info here: catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=49760

Well, that is his opinion and he’s not the only one, but history has taken a different view.

The oldest known Eucharistic prayer is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which was and is in Aramaic. Apparently the early Church did not know about the three sacred languages.

Sts. Cryil and Methodius called this the “trilingual heresy” - the idea that is only proper to worship God in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Pope Adrian in their time disagreed with this idea and wholeheartedly endorsed their work of translating sacred texts into the vernacular.

Pope Benedict explained it well in this address:
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090617.html

in 867 the two brothers travelled to Rome. On the way they stopped in Venice, where they had a heated discussion with the champions of the so-called “trilingual heresy” who claimed that there were only three languages in which it was lawful to praise God: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The two brothers obviously forcefully opposed this claim. In Rome Cyril and Methodius were received by Pope Adrian ii who led a procession to meet them in order to give a dignified welcome to St Clement’s relics. The Pope had also realized the great importance of their exceptional mission. Since the middle of the first millennium, in fact, thousands of Slavs had settled in those territories located between the two parts of the Roman Empire, the East and the West, whose relations were fraught with tension. The Pope perceived that the Slav peoples would be able to serve as a bridge and thereby help to preserve the union between the Christians of both parts of the Empire.** Thus he did not hesitate to approve the mission of the two brothers in Great Moravia, accepting and approving the use of the Slavonic language in the liturgy. The Slavonic Books were laid on the altar of St Mary of Phatmé (St Mary Major) and the liturgy in the Slavonic tongue was celebrated in the Basilicas of St Peter, St Andrew and St Paul.**

Here is an interesting interview with a Serbian Orthodox Archbishop on the subject of vernacular languages. He particularly goes into why the Russian Church can continue to use Church Slavonic, while the Serbian and Bulgarian Churches began the process of putting the liturgy into their own languages a century ago.

An excerpt, though the whole interview is worth reading.
ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2009/04/metropolitan-amfilohije-on-translation.html

I do not understand how one can “deify” a language, whichever it may be: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or Church Slavonic. Every language is a vessel that must be sanctified by God’s holy things. On the other hand, it is very important to create authentic translations, like the ancient translators, and not simply philological ones! Those who know the ancient Greek and Old Slavonic translations can sense their inner kinship, their deep fidelity to the Biblical word in all things. They do not have the poetic license characteristic of today. In such manner, on the one hand one must humble oneself before the ancient languages and, on the other, understand that a language that has been immersed in the conciliar elements of the Church is sanctified and draws people to the evangelical experience.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

It appears as if St. Isidore of Seville was wrong on this count.

The oldest known Eucharistic prayer is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which was and is in Aramaic. Apparently the early Church did not know about the three sacred languages.

Sts. Cryil and Methodius called this the “trilingual heresy” - the idea that is only proper to worship God in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Pope Adrian in their time disagreed with this idea and wholeheartedly endorsed their work of translating sacred texts into the vernacular.

Pope Benedict explained it well in this address:
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090617.html

Ah, looks like we’re talking about different things. I would never suggest that translating scripture into the vernacular, or liturgy done in the vernacular is wrong/immoral/forbidden. I said that there are 3 sacred languages and Latin is one of them.