The Latin Language And Catholicism

[kafka]

"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."

[There is an instructive part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word. This is to instruct the people, so it is fitting that this part of the Mass be in the common tongue so people may understand what is being instructed. The prayers of the oblation are directed God yet the laity participate in this prayer so it is fitting that they understand the prayer and respond. The Apostles understood the One Consecration of Jesus Christ and although their is the sacrificial aspect to the One Consecration Christ was speaking to those present: Take and eat, for this is my Body, Take and drink, this is the cup of my Blood. So it is fitting that the laity understand that the Consecration Christ's gift of his Body and Blood to them.

"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."

[It is not necessary for priests to celebrate the Mass in different countries. This is a circumstance (consequence in moral theology). So my opinion is that the good consequence of the laity understanding the Mass in their own language outweighs the bad consequence of a priest being unable to celebrate in another country which opportunity may not ever happen in a priests lifetime. If he is a missionary or assigned to another country he should be well versed in their language or learn it. The identity of the Mass is in the Eucharist (Consecration and Communion). It is Jesus Christ present under the appearance of bread and wine which unites us, not a language.]

"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."

[This is not the case. The Roman Missal has been translated in many different languages under the authority of the leaders and this has not caused confusion. A universal language is not a preventive of schizm. Schizm and heresy is the free knowing choice of a human person. The use of a language cannot prevent this from happening. Not even grace may prevent schizm or heresy since God's grace does not force free will.]

"…. 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"

[The mysteries of the faith are understood, read, meditated upon, lived, died for, by many of the lay faithful all over the world everyday until the Second Coming. The mysteries of the faith transcend ever language. Any language whatsoever is not essential to the mysteries of the faith, the language may only serve the mysteries of faith by expressing them in a less than perfect way. A language is a means to an end. It has no substance in and of itself. The Latin language is not necessary or even essential to the Catholic Faith.

The mysteries of the Faith are primarily lived by the lives of the Faithful, and secondarily taught by the faithful on earth, just as the Primary source of the mysteries of Faith are the actual Deeds wrought by God in salvation history (the salvific death of Jesus being the greatest) and secondary source is the Word of God (Sacred Scripture) which proceeds from the Deeds of God.]

Edited September 2, 2010 by kafka

[mommas_boy]

[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 [b]universal, immutable, and non-vernacular[/b]."


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.
[/quote]

This is currently a topic on much discussion at the Catholic School where I teach. Many of the teachers are up in arms about the pastor's decision to include Latin parts in an English Mass. I find myself trying hard to defend the decision. I understand why the Church needs a universal and immutable (unchanging) language, but why does the Church need one that is non-vernacular? Is it precisely because non-vernacular means universal? That is, by having a language that no one uses, the Church is not "playing favorites"?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1284006615' post='2170714']
This is currently a topic on much discussion at the Catholic School where I teach. Many of the teachers are up in arms about the pastor's decision to include Latin parts in an English Mass. I find myself trying hard to defend the decision. I understand why the Church needs a universal and immutable (unchanging) language, but why does the Church need one that is non-vernacular? Is it precisely because non-vernacular means universal? That is, by having a language that no one uses, the Church is not "playing favorites"?
[/quote]
That would be part of it, certainly. I've heard the argument that Latin doesn't favour one culture over another. Non vernacular also reinforces immutable, in my mind. A vernacular language is constantly affected by words taking on new connotations... think "fag", "retarded", etc..
Also, and this is speculation, I'm assuming that a vernacular language could be considered to seem less dignified because of its being taken for granted in everyday life. Use of a language with which we're not familiar could be said to provide a certain dignity by shaking us into paying attention, so to speak.