Latin...why?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622621' date='Aug 9 2008, 02:02 PM']The use of Latin in the Western Church's liturgy is a human custom, which is important in a very limited way, but which is not an integral tradition of the Roman Church, any more than Old Church Slavonic is an integral custom of the Ruthenian Church, or the Greek language is in connection with the Greek Orthodox Church.[/quote]
You cannot compare languages in other Churches with Latin in the Latin Church, because each Church has its own traditions. Each Church will place emphasis on different traditions. For example, in the East, there are icons, and in the West, there are statues. The East does not need to place its emphasis on statues just because the West does, and the West does not need to place its emphasis on icons just because the East does. Icons and statues are both different ways of expressing the same faith. Similarly, the East places emphasis on the vernacular, while the West places emphasis on our sacred language, Latin, which is a sign of unity in the Latin Church.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622625' date='Aug 9 2008, 02:07 PM']It only expresses the unity of the Church if you limit the Church to the Roman Church, which I do not do.[/quote]
It expresses the unity of the universal Church. That doesn't mean that other Churches have to use Latin to express the unity of the Church. But that is how the Latin Church expresses the unity of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622630' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:11 PM']It expresses the unity of the universal Church.[/quote]
I completely disagree. Latin has absolutely no importance to me whatsoever as a Ruthenian Catholic.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622630' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:11 PM']That doesn't mean that other Churches have to use Latin to express the unity of the Church. But that is how the Latin Church expresses the unity of the Church.[/quote]
Latin is not integral to any Church, not even to the Roman Church, which only began using that language in the 4th century.

Faith in the Holy Trinity is [b]integral[/b] to Christian life and worship, but the Latin language is not.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622630' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:11 PM']But that is how the Latin Church expresses the unity of the Church.[/quote]
At most it expresses (or expressed at one time) the unity of the Western Church, but that is it. That said, I do not consider Latin to be the language of the Church universal, but only of those Western Church's which use the Roman Rite.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622627' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:10 PM']You cannot compare languages in other Churches with Latin in the Latin Church, because each Church has its own traditions. Each Church will place emphasis on different traditions. For example, in the East, there are icons, and in the West, there are statues. The East does not need to place its emphasis on statues just because the West does, and the West does not need to place its emphasis on icons just because the East does. Icons and statues are both different ways of expressing the same faith. Similarly, the East places emphasis on the vernacular, while the West places emphasis on our sacred language, Latin, which is a sign of unity in the Latin Church.[/quote]
The language of worship is not a divinely revealed truth, so I am free to compare languages in any way I see fit. My Church used Slavonic, but now uses English, which is fine with me, because the use of Slavonic does not ensure the salvation of any man. The same can be said about the use of the Latin language, which is merely a human custom that can be completely dispensed with for the good of the salvation of souls.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622636' date='Aug 9 2008, 02:17 PM']Latin is not integral to any Church, not even to the Roman Church, which only began using that language in the 4th century.

Faith in the Holy Trinity is [b]integral[/b] to Christian life and worship, but the Latin language is not.[/quote]
We will have to disagree. I believe Latin is integral to the tradition of the Latin Church. It is not just a language that people used to speak. It has become something more than that in the Latin Church. It is a Liturgical and spiritual tradition, and a sign which expresses important truths of the faith.

Of course, there is a difference between the Holy Trinity and the use of Latin. The two things cannot be compared. The Holy Trinity is the center of our faith. The use of Latin is just one way to express the faith, but it is not part of the faith itself.

Nevertheless, I don't believe you can limit the importance of tradition to matters of doctrine. Each particular Church has its own way of expressing the faith. There is not one single way to express the faith, but it is important for each Church to preserve its own unique ways of expressing the faith. The Byzantine Church should not get rid of Byzantine vestments just because nobody dresses that way any more, and the Latin Church should not get rid of Latin just because it is no longer the vernacular language. These kinds of Liturgical traditions cannot be confused with the faith itself, but they are important to the preservation of the faith, because by holding on to the Liturgical and spiritual traditions we have received, we are strengthened in our duty to maintain Divine Tradition, that is, Divine Revelation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622627' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:10 PM']For example, in the East, there are icons, and in the West, there are statues. The East does not need to place its emphasis on statues just because the West does, and the West does not need to place its emphasis on icons just because the East does. Icons and statues are both different ways of expressing the same faith. Similarly, the East places emphasis on the vernacular, while the West places emphasis on our sacred language, Latin, which is a sign of unity in the Latin Church.[/quote]
Your comparison falls flat, because the use of icons in worship is a dogmatic truth proclaimed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council against the iconoclastic heretics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622645' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:26 PM']We will have to disagree. I believe Latin is integral to the tradition of the Latin Church. It is not just a language that people used to speak.[/quote]
Yes, we shall have to disagree.

P.S. - The use of the word "integral" is most inappropriate, since it carries the meaning that something is "incomplete" without it. I do not believe that the Roman Church is incomplete when Latin is not used. Belief in the Holy Trinity is integral to Christian life and worship, while the use of Latin (or Greek, or Slavonic, etc.) is not.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

I meant "integral" [i]to the Latin Church[/i], but not integral to the Universal Church, and not integral to the Catholic faith. If the Latin Church were without the Latin language, then I think the Latin Church would be without the complete Latin tradition. In that case, the Latin Church would still possess the Catholic faith entirely, but it would have lost an essential part of the [i]Latin/Roman[/i] tradition.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622645' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:26 PM']Nevertheless, I don't believe you can limit the importance of tradition to matters of doctrine. Each particular Church has its own way of expressing the faith. There is not one single way to express the faith, but it is important for each Church to preserve its own unique ways of expressing the faith. The Byzantine Church should not get rid of Byzantine vestments just because nobody dresses that way any more, and the Latin Church should not get rid of Latin just because it is no longer the vernacular language. These kinds of Liturgical traditions cannot be confused with the faith itself, but they are important to the preservation of the faith, because by holding on to the Liturgical and spiritual traditions we have received, we are strengthened in our duty to maintain Divine Tradition, that is, Divine Revelation.[/quote]
If the wearing of Byzantine vestments harmed the laity's grasp of the mystery of the Logos made man, then I would be in favor of dispensing with the use of those vestments. That said, it is clear that vestments don't really get in the way of the mystery (in fact they are quite innocuous), so I think that your comparison is a weak one.

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1622492' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:35 PM']You do know trolling is rude and frowned upon, right? [/quote]

And funny! Especially when people at me!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622655' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:41 PM']I meant "integral" [i]to the Latin Church[/i], but not integral to the Universal Church, and not integral to the Catholic faith. If the Latin Church were without the Latin language, then I think the Latin Church would be without the complete Latin tradition. In that case, the Latin Church would still possess the Catholic faith entirely, but it would have lost an essential part of the [i]Latin/Roman[/i] tradition.[/quote]
The Latin language is not integral even to the Roman Church, because that would mean that use of the vernacular would be impossible. That which is integral to a thing is necessary to it, i.e., the thing in question cannot exist without it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622659' date='Aug 9 2008, 02:47 PM']If the wearing of Byzantine vestments harmed the laity's grasp of the mystery of the Logos made man, then I would be in favor of dispensing with the use of those vestments. That said, it is clear that vestments don't really get in the way of the mystery (in fact they are quite innocuous), so I think that your comparison is a weak one.[/quote]
I would say it is also clear that the use of Latin does not harm the laity's grasp of the mystery of the Logos made man.

There are Missals, catechesis, etc. in the vernacular language. It is not necessary for the Mass to be completely in the vernacular.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622667' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:53 PM']And I don't think the use of Latin harms the laity's grasp of the mystery of the Logos made man.

There are also Missals, catechesis, etc. in the vernacular language. It is not necessary for the Mass to be completely in the vernacular.[/quote]
Language is not a vestment. If I went to a lecture that was carried out in a language that I did not understand (e.g., Chinese), I would get absolutely nothing out of that talk, because I would not understand what is being said. In the 4th century the Latin Church translated its Greek liturgy into Latin so that the common people could understand what was being done.

[Era Might]

The Mass is not a lecture, it is a prayer to God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622673' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:59 PM']The Mass is not a lecture, it is a prayer to God.[/quote]
All the more reason for it to be understandable.