Why so much oppostion to the "L" word (latin)

[christosdavid]

As opposed to English which only has a short history of changing?

Still is; in fact I heard it’s the third most popular “foreign” languages studied in the universities.

Yes, English also changes, but as a living language the dictionary can keep up with new definitions, connotations and even new words.

but only really studied by those doing an arts degree. The Latin + Greek approach of modern sciences (biology, medicine) is just the same. Its not real Latin and many people anachronistically think it is.

The real part of my post, however, was to hope the spiritual arrogance being attached to the Latin language is understood for what it is.

God crowns his own gifts. irrespective of language.

I think its fine for people to worship using the EF, TLM or even if they arent schismatic at the SSPX. But to take it a step further and say others are less spiritual for not using latin is a jump too far.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin has a very long history of changing.

As opposed to English which only has a short history of changing?

Latin used to be the scholars language at university. Used for a considerable legnth of time.

Still is; in fact I heard it’s the third most popular “foreign” language studied in the U.S. universities. Not so much in the U.K. universities; no shocker there.

Most of all, Jesus, the Apostles and early church probably didnt speak much latin either.

Wasn’t one of them a tax collector who needed to know some Roman law? But even if they didn’t speak much Latin, the inscription on the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Not English.

The Latin couldnt keep up, it is an ancient language. There are no ways of inventing new words that can become part of the real development of hte language

That’s quite a claim, considering that half of the English vocabulary has Latin roots.

It is all of Grace.

Did you know the singular form of the Roman gratias was Christianized to mean “grace”? So much for not adapting.

Reading through the conciliar documents from V2 is very entertaining from a modern Latin perspective. names that are Latinized to fit etc

So what are you saying, that it’s a joke because it’s written in Latin?

 

[christosdavid]

As opposed to English which only has a short history of changing?

Still is; in fact I heard it’s the third most popular “foreign” language studied in the U.S. universities. Not so much in the U.K. universities; no shocker there.

Wasn’t one of them a tax collector who needed to know some Roman law? But even if they didn’t speak much Latin, the inscription on the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Not English.

That’s quite a claim, considering that half of the English vocabulary has Latin roots.

Im not suggesting that it is impossible to learn latin, either classical or ecclesiastical.

What I reacted to was the expression that Latin somehow makes a person more spiritual.

God understands English as much as Latin, Greek or Hebrew (which are also availiable to learn, although the Israelis have had the same difficulty with hebrew as it was a dead language - resurrected. Modern Hebrew would be foreign to real Hebrew speakers).

If we are going to have to learn a whole new language for our spiritual life then the universal language in Jesus’ time was koine Greek. Jesus, the Apostles and even the church in Rome spoke Greek.

Kyrie eleison is Greek, the fact that its still there demonstrates its antiquity.

Quodvultdeus doesnt mention Latin as one of the things a Catholic has to believe in to be saved.

Do you think Latin makes a person more spiritual?

 

[ProVobis]

Latin has a very long history of changing. /QUOTE]

As opposed to English which only has a short history of changing?

Latin used to be the scholars language at university. Used for a considerable legnth of time./QUOTE]

[/quote]

was Christianized to mean “grace”? So much for not adapting.

Reading through the conciliar documents from V2 is very entertaining from a modern Latin perspective. names that are Latinized to fit etc /QUOTE]

So what are you saying, that it’s a joke because it’s written in Latin?

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[christosdavid]

An interesting thing happened at the EF I attended last Sunday. Just before the final “Dominus vobiscum” the priest mentioned something that was supposed to take place immediately after Mass in English. But everyone just looked puzzled. It turned out everyone is so used to the Latin no one understood him in English.

Just so you don’t call this an abuse, he frequently signals for the congregation to stand, sit, or rise. Although sometimes he inserts an English command, I think he finds his gestures to work better.

By the way, the gospel is generally read in English after it’s read in Latin. Personally I think the two readings of the same gospel added understanding.

So English is the real language of understanding rather than Latin, hence the homily being in English.

 

[christosdavid]

christosdavid;8137720:

Latin has a very long history of changing. /QUOTE]

As opposed to English which only has a short history of changing?

Latin used to be the scholars language at university. Used for a considerable legnth of time./QUOTE]

[/quote]

was Christianized to mean “grace”? So much for not adapting.

Reading through the conciliar documents from V2 is very entertaining from a modern Latin perspective. names that are Latinized to fit etc /QUOTE]

So what are you saying, that it’s a joke because it’s written in Latin?

It not meant to be a joke, but it is entertaining. But only coz I actually like Latin.

This thread seems very defensive. Perhaps if trad catholics didnt come accross as arrogant there would be more sympathy for them.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Cider]

Excuse me? Who is being defensive?

Pot meet kettle

 

[christosdavid]

I said, “I like Latin”, and “Its ok to worship in the EF, TLM, and if youre not schismatic then the SSPX”

But I disagree that Latin makes one more spiritual, which I notice all subsequent posters have also avoided.

BTW the Eastern Catholics dont use Latin but theyre sacraments are all valid and licit. Are they less spiritual for not using Latin?

This is the kind of spiritual arrogance I am protesting about.

 

[christosdavid]

I can almost hear the crickets and tumbleweed…

Providence doesnt go backwards, only forwards, it follows the timeline given by God that we travel along.

Hebrew is dead, koine Greek is dead, Latin is dead, even French is no longer the lingua franca, English is the new world language. you should be happy, you are native speakers!

 

[Revert_43]

Do you think Latin makes a person more spiritual?

The difference between the OF and EF are much bigger than the language. People say “the Latin Mass” because the language easiest to and most obvious thing to focus on.

I think this comment from James Hitchcock’s booked sums it pretty nicely
“The official Roman Catholic liturgical changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, and the changes in Episcopalian worship contained in the 1974 Prayer Book were not for the most part intended to be radical, although in certain ways they did mark momentous departures from traditional practice, especially in the official language”

Here are a few examples.

The EF Mass has the reputation as being more reverent than the OF, it certainly outwardly and verbally expresses more things that are considered traditionally Catholic; Incense, Mary and the Communion of the Saints as well as Latin.

When ICEL translated the texts in the 70s they used an equivalency model model that, IMO, caused much these language problem. Read Father Zs blog wdtprs for excellent examples of this. Here’s one

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/google-translator-v-lame-duck-icel-collect-27th-sunday/

ICELs translation are not aesthetically pleasing to traditionalists . This is one of the reasons why many people in this forum prefer the EF over the OF. This is also why people prefer the Monastic Diurnal (or other pre VII forms of the Divine Office) over the LoTH, the post VII language is mind numbing. The new translation is a welcome change this Advent.

In addition to the language changes there is less focus on Mary and the Saints. Read the prayers before and after it’s becomes pretty clear that this was the case. The Confetior and the Canpn are a good examples. Mary and the community of Saints are pretty core traditional Catholic beliefs. Also, why were the Leonine Prayers completely removed after the Mass?

Also the rubrics of the EF Mass are well defined. Among the the changes in the OF are lots of options that have complicated the Mass.

Finally, Vatican II did not call for the complete change from Latin to the vernacular SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM states

“36, (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rite.”

So why was Latin replaced?

I’m sure others on this forum can list other differences between the EF and the OF that go beyond the language. The “Latin Mass” is a loaded term, it’s not just about language. Let’s not trivialize.

 

[christosdavid]

The difference between the OF and EF are much bigger than the language. People say “the Latin Mass” because the language easiest to and most obvious thing to focus on.

I think this comment from James Hitchcock’s booked sums it pretty nicely
“The official Roman Catholic liturgical changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, and the changes in Episcopalian worship contained in the 1974 Prayer Book were not for the most part intended to be radical, although in certain ways they did mark momentous departures from traditional practice, especially in the official language”

Here are a few examples.

The EF Mass has the reputation as being more reverent than the OF, it certainly outwardly and verbally expresses more things that are considered traditionally Catholic; Incense, Mary and the Communion of the Saints as well as Latin.

When ICEL translated the texts in the 70s they used an equivalency model model that, IMO, caused much these language problem. Read Father Zs blog wdtprs for excellent examples of this. Here’s one

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/google-translator-v-lame-duck-icel-collect-27th-sunday/

ICELs translation are not aesthetically pleasing to traditionalists . This is one of the reasons why many people in this forum prefer the EF over the OF. This is also why people prefer the Monastic Diurnal (or other pre VII forms of the Divine Office) over the LoTH, the post VII language is mind numbing. The new translation is a welcome change this Advent.

In addition to the language changes there is less focus on Mary and the Saints. Read the prayers before and after it’s becomes pretty clear that this was the case. The Confetior and the Canpn are a good examples. Mary and the community of Saints are pretty core traditional Catholic beliefs. Also, why were the Leonine Prayers completely removed after the Mass?

Also the rubrics of the EF Mass are well defined. Among the the changes in the OF are lots of options that have complicated the Mass.

Finally, Vatican II did not call for the complete change from Latin to the vernacular SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM states

“36, (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rite.”

So why was Latin replaced?

I’m sure others on this forum can list other differences between the EF and the OF that go beyond the language. The “Latin Mass” is a loaded term, it’s not just about language. Let’s not trivialize.

your post seems to say that the differences are within the EF anf OF forms rather than with the language.

I f thats the case why would truelight suggest that one could loose spirituality if there’s less latin? Perhaps her naivity has laid open your real opinion and you dont like to hear it. latin = spirituality. less latin = less spiritual.

the sacraments and Holy Spirit are what give humanity holiness, this is irrespective of language.

 

[Revert_43]

So making some pretty bold and uncalled for assumptions.

I know minimal Latin and I attend the OF form of the Mass.

Why, exactly, are you here?

 

[christosdavid]

So making some pretty bold and uncalled for assumptions.

I know minimal Latin and I attend the OF form of the Mass.

Why, exactly, are you here?

coz ive studied heaps of latin and disagree that spirituality comes from a language. (in this example)

Why am I here? very good philosophical question to which only God’s decrees from eternity past have any answer…

I feel that the assumptions were made on the other side and if the original writer were to help answer the critique then the others wouldnt need to breach the gap for her.

God causes and sustains spirituality, he does it in spite of the difficulty of communicating with humans. the answer has nothing to do with EF or OF, they are both valid forms.

 

[TrentCath]

The difference between the OF and EF are much bigger than the language. People say “the Latin Mass” because the language easiest to and most obvious thing to focus on.

I think this comment from James Hitchcock’s booked sums it pretty nicely
“The official Roman Catholic liturgical changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, and the changes in Episcopalian worship contained in the 1974 Prayer Book were not for the most part intended to be radical, although in certain ways they did mark momentous departures from traditional practice, especially in the official language”

Here are a few examples.

The EF Mass has the reputation as being more reverent than the OF, it certainly outwardly and verbally expresses more things that are considered traditionally Catholic; Incense, Mary and the Communion of the Saints as well as Latin.

When ICEL translated the texts in the 70s they used an equivalency model model that, IMO, caused much these language problem. Read Father Zs blog wdtprs for excellent examples of this. Here’s one

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/google-translator-v-lame-duck-icel-collect-27th-sunday/

ICELs translation are not aesthetically pleasing to traditionalists . This is one of the reasons why many people in this forum prefer the EF over the OF. This is also why people prefer the Monastic Diurnal (or other pre VII forms of the Divine Office) over the LoTH, the post VII language is mind numbing. The new translation is a welcome change this Advent.

In addition to the language changes there is less focus on Mary and the Saints. Read the prayers before and after it’s becomes pretty clear that this was the case. The Confetior and the Canpn are a good examples. Mary and the community of Saints are pretty core traditional Catholic beliefs. Also, why were the Leonine Prayers completely removed after the Mass?

Also the rubrics of the EF Mass are well defined. Among the the changes in the OF are lots of options that have complicated the Mass.

Finally, Vatican II did not call for the complete change from Latin to the vernacular SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM states

“36, (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rite.”

So why was Latin replaced?

I’m sure others on this forum can list other differences between the EF and the OF that go beyond the language. The “Latin Mass” is a loaded term, it’s not just about language. Let’s not trivialize.

I agree with this completely, mainly because I said much the same thing

 

[Revert_43]

I agree with this completely, mainly because I said much the same thing

Great minds…

 

[TrentCath]

your post seems to say that the differences are within the EF anf OF forms rather than with the language.

I f thats the case why would truelight suggest that one could loose spirituality if there’s less latin? Perhaps her naivity has laid open your real opinion and you dont like to hear it. latin = spirituality. less latin = less spiritual.

the sacraments and Holy Spirit are what give humanity holiness, this is irrespective of language.

I don’t see see truelight suggesting that latin = spirituality and less latin =spirituality, perhaps you should re-read what truelight wrote?

Most likely what is meant is that perhaps some people thesedays are unable to see past the fact that it is in Latin and recognise that the sacrifice of Calvary is being renewed in an unbloody manner, that they have the opportunity to receive their risen Lord and Saviour and that a mass is infinitely more pleasing to God than any amount of penance or prayers. Rather if people cannot at the first or second attempt cannot understand some of what is going on they give up and go ‘its not for me’. (and that is no a criticism direct or otherwise of anyone who has posted here)

As I and others have said on here, I don’t think many if any Traditional Catholics would say that the Mass of Ages is better just because it is in Latin rather we would be point to the greater reverence and worship throughout it to support our preference for it.

 

[Paxvobis]

One of my grandmothers, who raised Catholic in the 50s and now attends a WomynPriest congregation, has a particular dislike for the Latin Mass.

“Nobody said it wasn’t beautiful, but nobody understands whats going on. They’re not connected! The Liturgy is the work of the people. It’s not a liturgy!” she said.

When I pointed out he fact that there are Latin to English books she said “You shouldn’t have your nose in a book!”

I have come to the conclusion that considering she lived in the pre-Vatican II and must have known that people did know what was going on, her problem with the Latin Mass is less about the Mass itself and more about what it represents to her. To her it represents the conservative, “repressed” world of her childhood. That runs contrary to the “spirit of Vatican II” and the whole WomynPriest mentality. Some people feel more ‘liberated’ since Vatican II (although that’s not true).

And yes, the old Mass is more transcendent and ancient. But that’s a good thing! Since when was it bad for the Mass to evoke the metaphysical?

 

[christosdavid]

That is a good point. Anyone care to explain why Latin was perfectly fine back then but not for now? Is it just a matter of people not being used to it? Is it because of the me generation? Is it because human beings have become less spiritual?

I’m refering to the question where people have become less spiritual and therefore the Latin is not used.

Perhaps its a difference of interpretation. would you care to enlighten me?

 

[christosdavid]

And yes, the old Mass is more transcendent and ancient.

really, 1962 is ancient?

 

[TrentCath]

I’m refering to the question where people have become less spiritual and therefore the Latin is not used.

Perhaps its a difference of interpretation. would you care to enlighten me?

I did explain this above.