The Latin Language And Catholicism

[kafka]

I know some will not agree with this, but I think this blog will benefit some here at the phorum. It is good also to read the comments posted by others in supposed refutation and the responses:

I have some degree of familiarity with the Latin language. I spent just over five years translating the entire Clementine Vulgate Bible from Latin into English (http://www.sacredbible.org/). I’ve also translated Unam Sanctam from Latin into English (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Unam-Sanctam-index.htm), and from time to time, as needed, I translate sections of various Church documents or the writings of Saints from Latin for use in my theology writings. Now I don’t know Latin as well as persons who, in past centuries, had Latin as their first language, or at least as their daily language. But I understand Latin better than the vast majority of other Catholics.

It is disconcerting to me when I hear (or read) other Catholics speaking about Latin as if it were better than other languages, or as if Latin were necessarily to the Catholic Faith, or as if the Mass is necessarily better whenever Latin is used. This type of exaltation of the Latin language is unjustifiable, and at times borders on idolatry.

Is Latin inherently better than other languages?

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/latin-catholicism/

[Luigi]

I agree wholeheartedly with ronconte, the writer of the Improperium Christi blog.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Luigi

[Guest Terra Australia]

It is worth going back to Vatican II on this one. Sacrosanctum Concilium actually states that: "[i]The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin Rites, with the exception of particular cases.”[/i] (36) Similarly, the Church still prescribes that all priests learn Latin.

Benedict XVI, wrote in this Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:
[i]“Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant[/i].[i]” (Sacramentum Caritatis[/i], 62).

Why? As the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Sovereign Pontiff recently pointed out, [b]"the Latin language still holds primacy of place as that language which, based on principle, the Church prefers,[/b] even though she recognizes that the vernacular can be useful for the faithful. In the present concrete situation, liturgical celebrations in Latin have become rather rare. Hence, a motivation for using Latin is because in the Papal Liturgy (but not only in the Papal Liturgy), Latin should be safeguarded as a precious inheritance of the Western liturgical tradition. Not by chance did the Servant of God, <A href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm">John Paul II recall that: [indent]“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself” ([i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html"]Dominicae cenae[/url][/i], n. 10)."

[/indent]Latin remains the Church's official language - vernacular texts are checked against it, not English or some other language. In fact the Latin of liturgy was not in fact the vernacular current at the time. Rather its enduring use by the Church reflects its univeral and hieratic characteristics.

[Nihil Obstat]

Pope Pius XI (Officiorum Omnium, 1922): "The Church - precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time - of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Pope Pius XII (Mediator Dei): "The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine."


IMO, there's nothing inherent about the Latin language itself that makes it special, but rather its unique history and role in the Church. For that reason it deserves a certain pride of place within the Roman Church.

Here's a long one; read if it interests you:
Pope John XXIII (encyclical Veterum Sapientia, 1962): [spoiler]The Pope spoke of the special value of Latin which had proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity and which had proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe. He continued: "Of its very nature, Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favour any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin's formal structure. Its concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression. For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws. She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another. The Church - 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. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single language 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 would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would also 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. 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. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity. There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value of the language and great literature of the Romans. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech. The use of Latin has recently been queried in many quarters, and many people are asking about the mind of the Apostolic See in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored. So many people, unaccountably dazzled by the marvelous progress of science, are taking it upon themselves to oust or restrict the study of Latin and other kindred subjects. Yet, the greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to man's nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build - cold, hard, and devoid of love. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely. Professors of the sacred sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Since Latin is the Church's living language, it must be furnished with new words that are apt and suitable for expressing modern things, words that will be uniform and universal in their application and constructed in conformity with the genius of the ancient Latin tongue."[/spoiler]


I'm not going to link to the source because it's dedicated to the Bayside prophecies, which, if I am not mistaken, are condemned by the Church. Since, however, the quotes I selected are actually from encyclicals and letters, there's nothing wrong with using them.

[MithLuin]

Yes, I agree that it is very important for the Church to have one universal language. Historically, that has been Latin, so it makes sense to keep that. Our theology and liturgy (and official communications, though that impacts your average Catholic rather less) are written first in Latin, and then later translated to the various languages.

I have no problem with giving Latin a pride of place, and of using it, particularly in international situations where the vernacular of the people is a mixture of many different languages.

But it is also important to recognize that most people don't actually know Latin. So, there are cases where the vernacular is certainly appropriate. The 'Three Languages' heresy was the misguided notion that if a language didn't appear on the cross when Jesus was crucified, it couldn't be used for liturgy. That's a heresy, and is best avoided!

I guess I think that readings and homily should always be in the vernacular, as should any songs/prayers that are meant to be 'instructive'. Rote stuff that can be memorized can certainly be in Latin - responses, [i]Salve[/i], etc. But the more Latin used, the more instruction needed, so there does need to be pastoral attention to that. Basically, people can use as much Latin as they like, as long as you get a side-by-side translation to the vernacular for your 'average' person to follow along.

And the 'Kyrie' should be in Greek .

[sixpence]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283230082' post='2165780']
Pope Pius XI (Officiorum Omnium, 1922): "The Church - precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time - of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Pope Pius XII (Mediator Dei): "The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine."


IMO, there's nothing inherent about the Latin language itself that makes it special, but rather its unique history and role in the Church. For that reason it deserves a certain pride of place within the Roman Church.
[/quote]

Hey! This is the first time I have heard a reasonable, common-sense argument from the "Latin special" phatmassers. I am inclined to agree with it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Its really simple if you think about it, its because Latin doesn't CHANGE Think of the evolution of words in English - gentleman used to mean a man with an established family who held property, now it simply means someone who may have manners. The word gay has been usurped by the homosexual movement. This doesn't happen in Latin, so what a Latin text meant 1500 years ago is still what a Latin text means today.

[kafka]

The Latin language is good and useful for the Church, but the point is that it is not necessary or inherent to the Catholic Faith and it should not in itself be over-exalted or idolized. And I think it is good for the devout faithful to learn some of the Latin prayers and the Chants and for the OF to retain some of the ancient prayers in the Latin or Greek like Pope Benedict teaches.

The same tendencies are found in some Catholics who strongly support the Latin form of the Mass, the EF. They think this form is necessary and inherent to the Catholic Faith and they tend to idolize and over-exalt the EF. But little do they consider that the form of the first Mass was a modified Paschal Supper. Little do they know that the form of the Mass is subject to the temporal authority of the Pope and Bishops and may be reformed, changed, parts of it may be dispensed as they see fit. Little do they consider that the Latin Mass has been reformed by many different Popes throughout salvation history: Pius V, Pius X, Pius XII, and more.

The Eucharist (consecration and communion) and in my opinion the offertory of the bread and wine (not the prayers accompanying the offertory) are doctrine and cannot be changed but the forms accompanying these are reformable in accord with the authority Christ granted to the leaders of the Church. The decisions to reform the Mass are also guided by the Spirit even though they are fallible, temporal decisions and these decisions will never lead the Faithful astray because the Spirit protects and guides these decisions. The Church is indefectible.

Edited August 31, 2010 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1283262730' post='2165854']
Hey! This is the first time I have heard a reasonable, common-sense argument from the "Latin special" phatmassers. I am inclined to agree with it.
[/quote]
Glad I could help then. I'm usually fairly reasonable.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

Latin was the language of education and society when the Church was most powerful (in terms of influence of government) during the Medieval and Middle Ages. If one was educated, one spoke Latin. Latin was the language of the universities and the Churches.

As someone previously mentioned, Latin might be prefered because it doesn't change. Because Latin is a dead language, there is no chance for corruptions to occur. In any modern language, meanings change and new words are invented.

That being said, Mass in Latin, French, English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Polish, Russian, Hebrew, etc. is the same. The same miracle is being preformed. The bread and wine become Christ's body and blood during the Mass in any language. To say that one form of the Mass is 'more valuable' is like saying those who go to one form or another get more brownie points with God.

The new English translation of the Mass--to be offically implemented in Advent 2011--is a nearer translation to the Latin text used for years. My theology professor explained Vatican II wanted Mass to be more widely understood, and since no one speaks latin... But think about it: Don't we get more out of something if we understand it??

Mon Dieu vous benisse!

[KnightofChrist]

Latin is a monument of the Catholic Faith. Its use and the honor of its use is obedience to the 5th commandment. Because it is part of Sacred Tradition. Those who wish to rip down monuments of the Catholic Faith have always been kin to heresy.

Edited August 31, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Guest Terra Australia]

I would dispute that most traditionalists 'idolise' the Extraordinary Form, or the use of Latin. All they are actually suggesting is that as a Church of tradition, we should treasure that tradition. Actually more than a few popes (including our current one) have suggested that a pope does not have unconstrained powers to change the words of the liturgy (whether in Latin or in English). The origins of the Mass are much debated - its unfortunate that many of the historical claims on which the revision of the liturgy in the 1960s were based have subsequently been found untrue - but in any case its origins go well beyond the 'paschal supper'.

In terms of understanding what is being said, if you are taught its meaning properly and then hear that reinforced week in week out you absorb its meaning, no matter what language it is in. Immersion and absorption are good ways of learning a language! In the medieval period, there is a lot of evidence that everyone, be they peasant or prince, had at least a smattering of Latin. That's probably why VII did not in fact urge the widspread use of the vernacular - what has happened in practice is certainly not what the Council fathers had in mind if you read the texts.

In terms of the readings, the older form of the Mass actually facilitated understanding of those too by virtue of using a smaller selection of texts (particuarly for the saints) that everyone could then learn. But there are certainly arguments in favour of the much wider selection of texts used in the new lectionary, and for saying them in English.

It is all a matter of balance - and the tendancy of some to regard any use of Latin as spiritually dangerous is just wrong.

[little_miss_late]

I agree with this, from the blog linked in the original post:

[quote] Some persons speak as if the Mass were somehow holier or more solemn in Latin than in the vernacular (e.g. English). They attend a Latin Mass and the use of Latin seems to make the Mass more mysterious. Why? because they don’t know much Latin. They can’t quite understand what is being said, and so the Mass seems more distant and difficult to discern. This may give the impression, to some persons, of holiness. But holiness is not obscurity. [/quote]

When I was a kid, all my Jewish friends learned Hebrew. Admittedly there is a lot of variation in terms of how much of the services are in Hebrew depending on what kind of temple you are in, but even the Reform kids learn some Hebrew. Just because a language isn't part of your everyday life doesn't mean you can't learn enough to be familiar with the small fraction of that language that you would use in prayer.

kafka, I hear what you are saying about idolatry. I went to Mass with a friend over the summer at her parish and was very put off by some of what I saw there.

[Nihil Obstat]

I like the way the FSSP priests in my diocese do it- he'll read the Gospel over in English before he goes into his homily. Best of both worlds. I don't know if that's the norm or not, having no exposure to other TLMasses in other diocese or with other priests.

[Nihil Obstat]

St. Alphonsus Liguori's take:

St. Alphonus Liguori, in writing on this issue states: “The innovators contended that mass should be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue: Luther left this matter to the choice of the celebrant (lib. De form. Missae.) but the Catholic Church has, for several reasons, ordained the contrary: for, (St. Robert) Bellarmine justly observes (de missa c. 11) that the oblation of the mass consists more in the act which is performed, than in the words: since, without offering him in words, the very action by which the victim, Jesus Christ, is presented on the altar, is a true oblation. For the consecration, the words are, indeed, necessary: but these are said, not to instruct the people, but to offer the sacrifice. And even the words of oblation are not directed to the people, but to God, who understands every language. Even the Jews, in their public functions, used the Hebrew language, although it had ceased to be their vulgar tongue after the Babylonian captivity. Besides, it has been always the custom in the east to celebrate in the Greek or Chaldaic, and in the west, in the Latin Language: this custom existed after these languages ceased to be commonly understood in the western nations.

The use of the Latin tongue was necessary in the west, in order to preserve the communication among the churches: had not this custom existed, a German could not celebrate in France. Besides, it frequently happens that the words of one language cannot express the full force of certain phrases in another tongue: hence, if in different countries, mass were celebrated in different languages, it would be difficult to preserve the identity of sense. The use of the common language was also necessary for the constant uniformity in the rite prescribed by the Church in the administration of the sacraments, and as a preventive of schisms in the Church: great confusion would arise from the translation of the Roman missal into the language of various countries. Hence, the Bishops of Grance unanimously supplicated Alexander VII., in 1661, to suppress a translation of the Roman missal (to be used by the celebrant) into the French language, which was published by Doctor Voisin, in 1660. On the 12th of January, in the same year, the Pope condemned it.

…. Besides, if the priest of every country were to celebrate in the vernacular language, they would not be able to communicate with each other in different nations. Moreover, it is not right that the people should hear, every day, the mysteries of our faith in the vulgar tongue, without an explanation from the minister of religion, accommodated to their capacity.” – Exposition and Defense of all the points of Faith discussed and defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Dublin 1846, Pg. 302-303

My source: [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/latina.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/latina.htm[/url]