But wouldn’t the idea that there exist three sacred languages necessarily lead to the idea that we should not use other languages for sacred purposes?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.
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.
What exactly do you mean by “sacred” in regard to a language?But wouldn’t the idea that there exist three sacred languages necessarily lead to the idea that we should not use other languages for sacred purposes?
If God has indeed given us sacred language, why would we even want to make use of something which is not, by its nature, sacred?
Well, I’m not the one who first used the term “sacred language” and I do not really know what was originally intended by the term. I interpret it to mean set apart for a sacred purpose, by its very nature. Otherwise, all language has the capacity to become sacred, by its use for sacred purposes. If this were the meaning intended, there would be no use in naming three specific languages.What exactly do you mean by “sacred” in regard to a language?
It’s not the words so much but the grammar and inflection that matter plus a certain amount of churchness, if there is such a word. Polish is my first language and, though the words are far from cognates of the Latin, the inflection is retained, certain verbs understood, the subjunctive is alive, thus making translations of Latin into Polish much easier. But then Polish is a descendant of Old Church Slavonic, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that it fits the Church liturgy better. Those who think all vernaculars are equal in that respect are very much disillusioned. There was a reason why Trent did forbid the vernacular everywhere.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!
I’m womering how a language would be set apart for a sacred purpose " by it’s very nature". I can see that a language could be deemed as such’ but that any particular language is intrinsically sacred.Well, I’m not the one who first used the term “sacred language” and I do not really know what was originally intended by the term. I interpret it to mean set apart for a sacred purpose, by its very nature. Otherwise, all language has the capacity to become sacred, by its use for sacred purposes. If this were the meaning intended, there would be no use in naming three specific languages.
We have Hispanic and Anglo children in a Religious Ed program. We are learning the Ave Maria in Latin, Spanish and English. Latin is universal for the church. It brings cultures together.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.
The differences are profound. If you would like to learn about them follow links provided in post #43So from what I gather there’s not really any profound or theological reason why Latin is prominent, its more or less just a long established tradition. I understand official church documents being published in Latin as a matter of precision of meaning given linguistic variables inherent to vernacular languages. But mass being conducted in Latin seems to be just a tradition without any intrinsic superiority of value.
One day I would very much love to find a high and reverent mass, with the priest facing the alter and not the people, conducted in English. Such masses seem to not exist anywhere, which is a shame. It makes me want to attend Eastern-rite Divine Liturgy instead.
Heck I’d even be cool with a mass like that in Latin, with maybe a prominent TV screen displaying the English translation in subtitles throughout the mass. Such things seem taboo in the Catholic world however.
This is how I understand it. Latin is a “dead” language. That means it is no longer growing or changing. The meaning of the words remain the same within itself. Words in a “live” languages are constantly changing their meanings along with subtle variations of meanings. But, completely and totally off the subject: As a singer I love to sing in Latin. It is so easy to make beautiful sounds.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.
Helen, every now and then the Vatican does add words to the official Latin vocabulary, which I believe it maintains. (A lot of proper names with their declensions too.) But you’re right, the meaning of most words hasn’t changed since the Church Christianized the language in the early centuries.This is how I understand it. Latin is a “dead” language. That means it is no longer growing or changing. The meaning of the words remain the same within itself. Words in a “live” languages are constantly changing their meanings along with subtle variations of meanings. But, completely and totally off the subject: As a singer I love to sing in Latin. It is so easy to make beautiful sounds.
Indeed. And when Latin was adopted for the liturgy in the West, it was the vernacular too. Regrettably, in Rome, the imperial see, the Latin was always highfalutin, and that’s when the tradition of short responses by the faithful came about in the West: besides the patricians, barely any among the plebeians spoke such a sophisticated Latin properly.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.
I didn’t realize that but it makes sense.Helen, every now and then the Vatican does add words to the official Latin vocabulary, which I believe it maintains. (A lot of proper names with their declensions too.) But you’re right, the meaning of most words hasn’t changed since the Church Christianized the language in the early centuries.
Touch of reverse snobbery perhaps.Indeed. And when Latin was adopted for the liturgy in the West, it was the vernacular too. Regrettably, in Rome, the imperial see, the Latin was always highfalutin, and that’s when the tradition of short responses by the faithful came about in the West: besides the patricians, barely any among the plebeians spoke such a sophisticated Latin properly.
Christus natus est!
I think you can find this in the Anglican Use Mass.One day I would very much love to find a high and reverent mass, with the priest facing the alter and not the people, conducted in English. Such masses seem to not exist anywhere, which is a shame. .
Maybe Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance languages came from. But not Classical Latin, which the ordinary guy in the street couldn’t conjugate or decline if his life depended on it. Read that last book I presented in an earlier post to show how words were morphed into today’s languages.And when Latin was adopted for the liturgy in the West, it was the vernacular too.
It’s true, but I should have been made it clearer that the high literary Latin was particular to the city of Rome, in a way, the vernacular of the new sponsors of the Church. In other parts of the West, the Vulgar Latin, the vernacular, was adopted in their liturgies, which could be remarkably different form that used in the imperial city.Maybe Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance languages came from. But not Classical Latin, which the ordinary guy in the street couldn’t conjugate or decline if his life depended on it.
Do you have texts to show this?It’s true, but I should have been made it clearer that the high literary Latin was particular to the city of Rome, in a way, the vernacular of the new sponsors of the Church. In other parts of the West, the Vulgar Latin, the vernacular, was adopted in their liturgies, which could be remarkably different form that used in the imperial city.
I believe the video screen thing is anathema to the nature of the Mass. The Mass is personal by nature. Christ is a person, the priest is a person. We even speak of a priest being “in persona Christi”. The screen is not a person, it has no eyes or face or soul, no direct communication.So from what I gather there’s not really any profound or theological reason why Latin is prominent, its more or less just a long established tradition. I understand official church documents being published in Latin as a matter of precision of meaning given linguistic variables inherent to vernacular languages. But mass being conducted in Latin seems to be just a tradition without any intrinsic superiority of value.
One day I would very much love to find a high and reverent mass, with the priest facing the alter and not the people, conducted in English. Such masses seem to not exist anywhere, which is a shame. It makes me want to attend Eastern-rite Divine Liturgy instead.
Heck I’d even be cool with a mass like that in Latin, with maybe a prominent TV screen displaying the English translation in subtitles throughout the mass. Such things seem taboo in the Catholic world however.
In addition to this, the Catholic faith is a historical faith. As a matter of historical fact, Latin was used throughout the Western Church from about 400 until 1965. Many of us like the feeling that we are closely tied to our Catholic foreruners and to the historical Church. I believe maintaining that tie is also theologically important, not just personally edifying. One way to maintain the historical continuity and to help people appreciate the historical depth of our Faith is through the use of Latin.From the Baltimore Catechism
Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?
A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:
To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;
That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;
To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations