Why Latin?

[ALoveDivine]

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.

 

[ProVobis]

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

 

[ProVobis]

From Veterum Sapientia (Wisdom of the Ancient Church)

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

 

[CB_Catholic]

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.

I grew up with the EF and though it is a part of my fond childhood and young adult memories, I do not wish to worship at an EF Mass. I also prefer the Mass in my own tongue (and yes, I do understand the EF). However, I have learned in life that our great and good God spiritually nourishes everyone according to their needs. 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. We run the danger then of acting against the Holy Spirit, who knows what is best for us.

The thing to do is to accept that different people have different spiritual needs and God has provided for them in the Catholic Church, whether it’s the EF in Latin, the OF in the vernacular, or whatever. We should respect their choice and their right to worship in the way that suits them the best.

God bless you.

 

[LaurieRo]

I agree with alovedevine. It could have been me writing it. I’m having a hard time finding a mass in the Phoenix area that doesn’t have it infiltrated through out. I’ve started saying the English words in a loud whisper so I know what’s being said. And as a way I feel I can participate. Latin alienates me. What about new Catholics? Another language to learn ? Yikes! Just learning to be a Catholic in general is overwhelming without adding a dead language.
LaurieRo

 

[jilly4ski]

I agree with alovedevine. It could have been me writing it. I’m having a hard time finding a mass in the Phoenix area that doesn’t have it infiltrated through out. I’ve started saying the English words in a loud whisper so I know what’s being said. And as a way I feel I can participate. Latin alienates me. What about new Catholics? Another language to learn ? Yikes! Just learning to be a Catholic in general is overwhelming without adding a dead language.
LaurieRo

You are having trouble finding a parish that doesn’t use Latin? I am not sure you are looking very hard, since most people have to look hard to find a parish that does use any Latin (oh and the Kyrie is not Latin, that is Greek). Second, if you are responding in a loud whisper, then you know exactly what is being said, since it is the same thing, just using the English words instead of the Latin words (and why in a loud whisper instead of a soft whisper?).

I have grown up in a vernacular parish, but always loved it when we sang hymns in Latin (Tantum Ergo, etc), and used the Agnus Dei (Latin) and the Kyrie (Greek). When I went to college, the monks sometimes used the Latin Credo, Gloria, and Hosanna, which was nice. My favorite Mass, is a NO in Latin, though I do not get to attend very often, and usually attend a NO in the vernacular (though for Advent we used a sung Kyrie in Greek, rather than the English “Lord, have mercy”).

 

[adamhovey1988]

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.

This is only true in the Western Church in the East they used traditionally Syriac and Greek. The reason Latin was used historically was because it was a common language and the church has even invented scripts for languages and unified them so they can be used all over that part of the world a good example of that is Old Church Slavonic

 

[ProVobis]

Latin alienates me. What about new Catholics? Another language to learn ? Yikes!
LaurieRo

How about Spanish? They predict that within a decade the majority of Catholics in the U.S. will be Hispanic. And don’t forget the Poles. Or the Franco-phones for that matter.

 

[Augustine]

This is only true in the Western Church in the East they used traditionally Syriac and Greek. The reason Latin was used historically was because it was a common language and the church has even invented scripts for languages and unified them so they can be used all over that part of the world a good example of that is Old Church Slavonic

Even in the West the language of the Church was Greek. Only in the 3rd century did Latin start to become dominant in the West. Yet, St. Athanasius thought of changing the language of the liturgy to Latin preposterous.

Christus natus est!

 

[ProVobis]

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”?

Ecclesiastical Latin (Church Latin by definition) is not easily translatable into most modern languages, and it is authoritative, especially where Canon Law and the liturgy are concerned.

BTW, I don’t exactly agree with your premises either as Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew) were used to identify Christ on the cross. It was the administrative language of the Roman Empire, in spite of not being the vernacular in much of the Empire at the time of Christ. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find the Latin the Church Christianized ever being the street language of the R.E.

.

 

[Neofight]

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

I am absolutely certain the writers of the BC did not mean to, but the claim doesnt, in my opinion, speak of the power of the Holy Spirit, who can put the correct words into the mouths of men evangelizing.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Another beautiful thing about Latin is that it’s one of the 3 holy languages, which are Latin, Greek, and Aramaic. As scripture teaches us, when Our Lord was crucified, the words on the cross were written in Latin, Greek and Aramaic. Unfortunately I don’t speak very much Latin, but it’s neat that the men who do learn latin, can go write to the source to read the writings of the Saints and Popes throughout time without the involvement of a translator.

 

[ProVobis]

I am absolutely certain the writers of the BC did not mean to, but the claim doesnt, in my opinion, speak of the power of the Holy Spirit, who can put the correct words into the mouths of men evangelizing.

RIght, it only took 40 years to put the correct words into the liturgy, and most like me still see many flaws of the translations, including the transparency of the subjunctive, so important in prayer. I guess one can claim that the English had to be corrected as it’s being used to translate into the more remote vernaculars where Latinists would be hard to find. Even then evangelization is not an exact science and not taught everywhere the same.

Be that as it may, I understand they use quite a lot of Gregorian chant in Africa.

 

[Gertabelle]

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.

Thanks to all who have shared thoughts so far. I’m finding this really interesting.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

From Veterum Sapientia (Wisdom of the Ancient Church)

I love Latin and wish it were more available but it is certainly not universal nor immutable. And the main problem is that it still must be intepreted precisely because it is not universal.

 

[Evan]

Latin was the language of the educated up until about 1850 or thereabouts. I looked into the dissertation my adviser wrote, in English. I looked at his adviser’s dissertation, in English. I looked at his dissertation. In Latin. The universal language, if you wanted an international readership, you wrote in Latin.

That has changed recently, English has taken over that spot with the advent of Television.

It has the advantage that information written in that language does NOT change with the change in fashion so accurate translations can be made into living languages where words meanings change (sometimes rapidly).

Look at the word gay (a person engaged in joyous activity), fag (a small piece of wood for burning) or marriage (a union for the purpose of procreation), or woman (a female human) or worship (honor given to those who are worthy of it). All these words have changed meaning in the last 100 years.

 

[ProVobis]

I love Latin and wish it were more available but it is certainly not universal nor immutable. And the main problem is that it still must be intepreted precisely because it is not universal.

But that is not what St. John XXIII says.

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

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.

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.

Non-vernacular

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.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 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."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

However, your argument does have some merit IMO. But it becomes a circular argument. In effect, Latin is not universal because we might have created languages like English and Spanish to seem more universal. But we haven’t proved St. John XXIII to be wrong. Latin is really no less universal than it has been for many centuries. Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, St. Thomas More wrote in Latin where they could have easily have written in vernacular of the day, but it probably wouldn’t have had the same scholarly audience.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Even when it was more highly used it was Eurocentric. China, Japan, India, Africa, etc, it came with the colonists and missionaries.

 

[JerryZ]

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.

…

 

[ALoveDivine]

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.