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

[Revert_43]

But will it stop the ongoing corruption of the English language, especially among the illiterates, as there will be fewer and fewer NATIVE English speakers per projections?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

 

[christosdavid]

Yes thank you! But that’s one of my points. All these little things , the stuff ICEL left out in the translation, the changes to the GIRM, the changes in the Lectionary, the de-emphasis on traditional Catholic things all add up. And because of the summation of these things people the the EF is more reverent.

This article is a good summary

adoremus.org/0496LiturgicalReform.html

Also, as OraLabora, pointed out the OF can be celebrated in Latin, that certainly helps people that feel that the OF breaks with tradition.

My point is that Catholicism is Scripture and Tradition and the EF preserves much of the Tradition that has been lost which is why there is this rift. Using Latin is the most obvious part of the the Traditions lost, but Latin is only one of a number of Catholic Traditions that have been lost in moving from the EF to the OF.

Im sorry that you feel the church has somehow betrayed your liturgy.

I dont feel that way. I was born in '75 and have always had a post VII OF liturgy. That is my catholicism as a gen Xer.

The fact that it is in an English translation doesnt really bother me, I can always go to a special service which has TLM if I wish it.

I seriously considered going simply to improve my latin, but rethought it as Im there to worship God, not focus on latin studies.

God understands English. He understands it in the Scriptures and teaches us, the vulgate (any of them) is interesting and preserves some very ancient formulae and texts of Scripture, so does the EF but it is a long way from necessary, or by some divine right the most reverent form of the mass.

Reverence is only one quality. others include intelligibility, or theological correctness.

the reformed (advent) mass in the creed, using consubstantial is a good step for theology but a backward one for clarity to those uncatechised.

one step forward, two steps back…

 

[Revert_43]

Im sorry that you feel the church has somehow betrayed your liturgy.

I dont feel that way. I was born in '75 and have always had a post VII OF liturgy. That is my catholicism as a gen Xer.

The fact that it is in an English translation doesnt really bother me, I can always go to a special service which has TLM if I wish it.

I seriously considered going simply to improve my latin, but rethought it as Im there to worship God, not focus on latin studies.

God understands English. He understands it in the Scriptures and teaches us, the vulgate (any of them) is interesting and preserves some very ancient formulae and texts of Scripture, so does the EF but it is a long way from necessary, or by some divine right the most reverent form of the mass.

Reverence is only one quality. others include intelligibility, or theological correctness.

the reformed (advent) mass in the creed, using consubstantial is a good step for theology but a backward one for clarity to those uncatechised.

one step forward, two steps back…

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

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 am more and more convinced that it is laziness and falling standards in education.

These days things have to be accessible, user-friendly and something we can relate to. Literacy has never been so high (especially in the western world) but people are apparently not capable of using a missal. We have been taught for several decades now that Latin is difficult and therefore we shouldn’t bother with it. That liturgy should be something we can relate to, rather than something lofty that your average Joe can’t understand. People are used to having everything easy and can’t imagine making an effort for God and engaging in worhip that actually demands something of us, like the EF mass or the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Another thing, related to the falling standards in education, is that many people have an irrational fear of foreign languages. This attitude is more prevalent in some countries than in others. Please don’t take offence Americans (and other native English speakers who make a minority here) but generally you tend to do badly at the foreign language thing. I guess Latin is scary when you are not really required to properly learn a foreign language and be able to speak it. (Btw, it is not necessary to be able to speak Latin to follow the EF mass. Just by observing it is obvious what is going on. It is the mass.)

Of course, the EF mass is so much more than a question language. But that is a somewhat different question.

 

[rben20]

nice evasion.

I feel sorry for the Latin that it only has extremists to care for it. After all, Ive continually proclaimed “I like Latin” and have only been attacked as if Im not “one of them” the “you” that make up its adherents.
…

Now THAT is ignorant statement, almost venomous. I feel sorry for many people who push their opinions on others. You do realize by that same logic the Roman Catholic Church would be seen as “extremist,” they after all more than any other have called for the preservation of Latin and use of it? We are simply passing on tradition as received and listening to the Church. That is not extremism…that is just being a good Catholic.

Why so much opposition to Latin?

The Devil hates Latin.

It’s true. I’ve heard that in exorcisms the possessed react violently to the language. The possessed will even speak latin when they have no prior knowledge of latin to begin with.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure I understand your question.

It was actually a rhetorical question. I’m just saying fewer and fewer will understand or even appreciate the new translation going forward. Wasn’t the language of Shakespeare quite popular at one point? Yet how many read his works today? Athough the word “gay” is probably the most obvious one, the meanings of many English words just become quickly corrupted over time. All’s one has to do is to look at the etymology of many words borrowed from the Latin, Greek, or French.

 

[TrentCath]

Now THAT is ignorant statement, almost venomous. I feel sorry for many people who push their opinions on others. You do realize by that same logic the Roman Catholic Church would be seen as “extremist,” they after all more than any other have called for the preservation of Latin and use of it? **We are simply passing on tradition as received and listening to the Church. **That is not extremism…that is just being a good Catholic.

Amen!

 

[Revert_43]

Now THAT is ignorant statement, almost venomous. I feel sorry for many people who push their opinions on others. You do realize by that same logic the Roman Catholic Church would be seen as “extremist,” they after all more than any other have called for the preservation of Latin and use of it? We are simply passing on tradition as received and listening to the Church. That is not extremism…that is just being a good Catholic.
.

I Agree. This is a from previous post in this thread, it has been totally ignored.

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.”

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

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.”

It is always good to quote from official documents and remind the pro-liturgical reform crowd that what they actually support has nothing to do with what the council intended. Interesting how this fact gets lost in the whole ‘argument’.

 

[ProVobis]

I Agree. This is a from previous post in this thread, it has been totally ignored.

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.”

Indeed. And the SC was just a short time after Pope John XXIII issued his Veterum Sapientia decrees. This (VS) encyclical had been applauded and effectively banned vernacular in the liturgy.

 

[zab]

Indeed. And the SC was just a short time after Pope John XXIII issued his Veterum Sapientia decrees. This (VS) encyclical had been applauded and effectively banned vernacular in the liturgy.

Stating that the Latin language is to be preserved is not equivalent to banning the vernacular. If the vernacular in the liturgy was effectively banned then I do not see how we would still be allowed to have the Mass in the vernacular.

 

[TrueLight]

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?

So what I’m saying is that it seems mankind itself has become much more secular and less spiritual. There was a time when people would respect churches, or a crucifix. I’ve seen reports of how when the first Exorcist came out, people ran out of the theater crying and frightened. That would never happen now.

We have become more skeptical , more cerebral . Mysteries are not so mysterious to us anymore.

That’s one reason why the Latin mass, in all its mystery, has fallen out of favor.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s true. I’ve heard that in exorcisms the possessed react violently to the language. The possessed will even speak latin when they have no prior knowledge of latin to begin with.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the devil be more afraid of Latin than English or French?

Now it would make sense to me if the Priest feels more empowered by using the Latin.

The Devil is afraid of God.

 

[TrueLight]

Another thing, related to the falling standards in education, is that many people have an irrational fear of foreign languages.

 

[rben20]

That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the devil be more afraid of Latin than English or French?

Now it would make sense to me if the Priest feels more empowered by using the Latin.

The Devil is afraid of God.

To my understanding the rite of exorcism was originally in Latin for the Latin Rite or Roman Catholic Church. The evil spirits are just afraid of God and their ministers

 

[rben20]

Stating that the Latin language is to be preserved is not equivalent to banning the vernacular. If the vernacular in the liturgy was effectively banned then I do not see how we would still be allowed to have the Mass in the vernacular.

And that is the great question isn’t it? We say one thing but do differently. That is why I myself just stick to the tradition of the Church before the VII council as we have yet to see what is correct and what is not…and more often than not it is incorrect. The OF still hasn’t gotten the chance it deserves.

 

[zab]

And that is the great question isn’t it? We say one thing but do differently. That is why I myself just stick to the tradition of the Church before the VII council as we have yet to see what is correct and what is not…and more often than not it is incorrect. The OF still hasn’t gotten the chance it deserves.

1. The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin Rites, while maintaining particular law.

§ 2.** However, since the use of the vernacular not infrequently may be of great benefit to the people either in the Mass or in the administration of the Sacraments, or in the other parts of the Liturgy, a wider use may be made of it especially in the readings and instructions [to the people], in certain prayers and sung texts, according to the norms on this matter to be set forth in detail in the chapters following.**
§ 3. With due regard for such norms, it pertains to the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in article 22, § 2, in consultation, if the case arises, with Bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language, to make decisions regarding whether and to what extent the vernacular language is to be used. Their decisions are to be approved—that is, confirmed—by the Apostolic See.

from:
FIFTH INSTRUCTION
“FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION
**OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY **
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
(*Sacrosanctum Concilium, *art. 36)
***Liturgiam authenticam ***
ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES
IN THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY

 

[christosdavid]

And that is the great question isn’t it? We say one thing but do differently. That is why I myself just stick to the tradition of the Church before the VII council as we have yet to see what is correct and what is not…and more often than not it is incorrect. The OF still hasn’t gotten the chance it deserves.

its been 40 years, longer than Jesus ministered on earth.

The devil doesnt just hate Latin, he also hates Hebrew and koine Greek. What language do you suppose Paul was speaking when he exorcised the girl in Philippi? probably not latin.

the only people I see conserving the latin are extrmists, sorry, there may be some more balanced people out there but rejecting ecumenical councils (also in latin) is not my idea of being a faithful catholic.

 

[christosdavid]

So what I’m saying is that it seems mankind itself has become much more secular and less spiritual. There was a time when people would respect churches, or a crucifix. I’ve seen reports of how when the first Exorcist came out, people ran out of the theater crying and frightened. That would never happen now.

We have become more skeptical , more cerebral . Mysteries are not so mysterious to us anymore.

That’s one reason why the Latin mass, in all its mystery, has fallen out of favor.

seems that secularism started at the enlightenment a few hundred years ago when the latin was widely spoken by all, including voltaire and other antagonists of the catholic faith.

It was also round at the time of the reformation. Luther and Calvin said their masses in Latin after all.

its more likely that ignorance and unbelief are behind the reasons we wouldnt be over scared by the exorcist. Im fairly sure it was released after the latin mass had already finished as the ordinary means of worship. 1973 is well after 1965.

 

[TrentCath]

its been 40 years, longer than Jesus ministered on earth.

The devil doesnt just hate Latin, he also hates Hebrew and koine Greek. What language do you suppose Paul was speaking when he exorcised the girl in Philippi? probably not latin.

the only people I see conserving the latin are extrmists, **And what exactly do you mean by extremist? May I also point out that you are commiting a logical fallacy, you are making the assumption that all extremists are bad ergo as supposedly all those that defend latin are extremists they must be wrong and therefore you tarr them all and the use of Latin in the church with the brush of ‘extremism’. I’m sure the teaching of Jesus Christ seemed pretty extreme to the Jews and the Romans, as did many of the encyclicals issued on ‘no salvation outside the church’, the punishing of herectics and so on, should we also reject them? sorry, there may be some more balanced people out there but rejecting ecumenical councils (also in latin) is not my idea of being a faithful catholic. ** Because clearly the Fratenity of St Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ The King The Sovereign Priest are extremists mmm? And as for denying ecumenical councils not even the SSPX do that, they merely disagree with its non-infallible parts, whilst you on the other hand appear to have forgotten the section of the document it produced that was posted above which states ‘1. The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin Rites, while maintaining particular law.’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art 36). Is that document also wrong or penned by extremists then? Both Pope John Paul II (through his creation of Ecclesia Dei) and Pope Benedict XVI (Through his Motu Propio and subsequent note on how said document was to be interpreted) have defended the Extraordinary form and thereby the ‘conserving of Latin’. So I cannot see how could you make the statement that '…the only people conserving Latin are the extremists.'