Latin...why?

[IrishSalesian]

Im not saying that Latin should be barred out, or that it should be the only language in the Church, or liturgies. My thought for all is this. What does it matter what language is spoken, during the Mass, or anyother Church based forum, when the bottom line is salvation. If we are trying to save our souls, and the souls of others, those who are to be priests through the sacraments, why does it matter what language it is? Im not looking for "it is the 'language of the church' either. Im curious. I love the latin language it is beautiful. I want to know why it matters so much to so many.

[faithfulrock3r]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1619090' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:34 PM']Im not saying that Latin should be barred out, or that it should be the only language in the Church, or liturgies. My thought for all is this. What does it matter what language is spoken, during the Mass, or anyother Church based forum, when the bottom line is salvation. If we are trying to save our souls, and the souls of others, those who are to be priests through the sacraments, why does it matter what language it is? Im not looking for "it is the 'language of the church' either. Im curious. I love the latin language it is beautiful. I want to know why it matters so much to so many.[/quote]
well you basically answered your own question, i think. I like Latin because it is a beautiful, ancient language that has been prayed for thousands of years by people around the world, despite their ethnicity or native language. It is a perfect example of the timeless, universal nature of the church. And yes, it is the lingua ecclasiae

[thicke]

In my mind the problem comes in translation. As you mentioned, Latin is the official language of the Church. That means that rituals are first published in Latin, then translated into the vernacular. Here in the US, we can the how something could end up being poorly translated. Keep in mind the liturgy is about Jesus, not about us. We have a duty to get it right. So the issue of poor translations could be solved one of two ways, use Latin or properly translate it to the vernacular. Some say the best option is to use Latin.

[thessalonian]

The thing about languages that are commonly used is they change over time. Also when one translates truth is lost in the translation and the varying meanings of words make understanding the Mass in it's fullest truth more difficult. The same goes with scriptural translations. Thus when the Mass is translated in to English something is lost in the translation and over time the meaning is also confused by the changing of the meanings of words. Latin does not have this creaping meaning problem because it is a "dead" language. I.e. it is not used really anywhere in common speach.

[Theosopher]

I think it adds an air of grandeur and transcendence to the ceremony.

You're right that the important thing is the Sacraments, but presentation is important too. When the Blessed Eucharist is presented in the context of a whole lot of whooping and rock music and other garbage, He is not presented in a solemn and dignified way and thus I think we lose some of the majesty and transcendence of the Event.

Let me make an analogy. Let us suppose I go into Court to argue a case. What is important is what I say - the words I use, the legal citations I have, and in theory I should win the case if I can persuade the Judge I am right on the law with the legal references and cases to back me up. However, if I come into the Courtroom wearing flip flops, boardshorts, and no shirt, I can tell you right now I'm likely going to lose the case (and probably be put into jail) no matter how good of an argument I give. It's in the presentation.

[Aloysius]

1. unity of prayer throughout the world, a powerful symbol of the Church's unity
2. the mystery of the liturgy is symbolized by it and the people are challenged to go ever deeper into the prayers of the liturgy as they seek to understand them
3. the language is not ordinary, emphasizing that what is going on is extraordinary (lol pun not intended)
4. as a dead language it has certain benefits of not having changing meanings for words
5. english translators (and many other translators) always have crazy agendas as can be seen by the disastrous ICEL translation of the past 40 years (thankfully about to be fixed)

[Fidei Defensor]

The only real reason to use latin is tradition, with a little t. There is no actual binding reason other than people's preference for a long standing tradition.

[Aloysius]

except for the reasons I listed, which are the same reasons Old Church Slovak is used, the same reasons Greek is used, the same reason Aramaic is used... the same reason Hebrew was used by the Jews in Jesus' time though they spoke Aramaic regularly and the same reason Hebrew is still used by Jews.... it's nearly the same reason classical Arabic is used in Islam (though that is slightly different as they believe it is absolutely necessary to retain because they claim that is how God Himself spoke out the Koran)... using a sacred language is an important spiritual tool that enriches the liturgical prayer.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1619415' date='Aug 6 2008, 04:29 PM']The only real reason to use latin is tradition, with a little t. There is no actual binding reason other than people's preference for a long standing tradition.[/quote]

Latin does serve a practical purpose by maintaining a consistent and objective basis for understanding theology and philosophy (since language and the nuanced meanings of words in Scripture and early Christian writings is so important in these fields) and for having a common neutral source from which all our rites and sacraments can be translated into vernacular languages. It is a tradition, but it's very important in helping us remain faithful to Tradition.

That said, laypeople are much more engaged in the life of the Church when we worship at Mass and receive the sacraments in our native tongue. Latin being a dead language makes it perfect for being the "language of the Church," but the fact that it's dead means few people understand it. If our minds are not engaged, our hearts and actions will most likely not be engaged either. While translations are never perfect, even the Latin is a translation from the Hebrew and Greek that our Scriptures were originally written in and the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. We have bishops and theologians who are charged with keeping the translations faithful to the Latin as vernacular languages change over time. I believe it's best for them take care of translations, which empowers us to fulfill our vocation to holiness and evangelizing the secular world.

Edited August 6, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1619444' date='Aug 6 2008, 02:01 PM']Latin does serve a practical purpose by maintaining a consistent and objective basis for understanding theology and philosophy (since language and the nuanced meanings of words in Scripture and early Christian writings is so important in these fields) and for having a common neutral source from which all our rites and sacraments can be translated into vernacular languages. It is a tradition, but it's very important in helping us remain faithful to Tradition.

That said, laypeople are much more engaged in the life of the Church when we worship at Mass and receive the sacraments in our native tongue. Latin being a dead language makes it perfect for being the "language of the Church," but the fact that it's dead means few people understand it. If our minds are not engaged, our hearts and actions will most likely not be engaged either. While translations are never perfect, even the Latin is a translation from the Hebrew and Greek that our Scriptures were originally written in and the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. We have bishops and theologians who are charged with keeping the translations faithful to the Latin as vernacular languages change over time. I believe it's best for them take care of translations, which empowers us to fulfill our vocation to holiness and evangelizing the secular world.[/quote]
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that it's mostly a matter of opinion as to why latin is used, nothing the Church has a completely binding stance on.

[JMJmom]

[quote name='faithfulrock3r' post='1619098' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:43 PM']well you basically answered your own question, i think. I like Latin because it is a beautiful, ancient language that has been prayed for thousands of years by people around the world, despite their ethnicity or native language. It is a perfect example of the timeless, universal nature of the church. And yes, it is the lingua ecclasiae [/quote]


Well said - in addition for me personally, maybe because it is ancient, as is the mass, it is very mystical and lifts me to a whole different level whether I understand it or not. The first time I heard Latin in the mass was at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Not understanding a word of it I was moved to tears along with others in my group. I have since been actively trying to learn as much of it as I can. It's just beautiful. I don't understand why some people oppose it.

[mortify]

Because the Devil hates Latin.

[dominicansoul]

Because no matter where I travel, I will understand the Mass if it is in Latin. If it's in Swahili, it will take much more of an effort...

[Deb]

I don't know. Latin is beautiful and people love tradition. Now, we know the gospels weren't written in Latin so if we really are worried about translation, maybe Mass should be in Greek. I think that in todays world, it will be much easier to draw people to the Catholic Church if they can understand what is said to begin with.
Maybe some of God's children are still "stiff-necked" and just don't like change. (please don't stone me for saying that)

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1619535' date='Aug 6 2008, 06:02 PM']Because no matter where I travel, I will understand the Mass if it is in Latin. If it's in Swahili, it will take much more of an effort...[/quote]

I'd beg to differ. Well, perhaps you personally will understand it everywhere, but 99% of laypeople will understand it nowhere. No matter how great it sounds on paper, it simply isn't practical and it really isn't even right. Latin was instituted as the language of the Church when it was also the language of most Catholics. Today there is no language common to most Catholics, and Latin is spoken by none, so it's perfect when cultural neutrality is needed. But for the daily practice of the faith, we need to use our vernacular languages.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1619589' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:16 PM']I'd beg to differ. Well, perhaps you personally will understand it everywhere, but 99% of laypeople will understand it nowhere. No matter how great it sounds on paper, it simply isn't practical and it really isn't even right. Latin was instituted as the language of the Church when it was also the language of most Catholics. Today there is no language common to most Catholics, and Latin is spoken by none, so it's perfect when cultural neutrality is needed. But for the daily practice of the faith, we need to use our vernacular languages.[/quote]

Before Vatican II, Catholics knew Latin well enough. Why did we let it disappear? And, according to the Vatican II documents, it was NEVER supposed to disappear from our worship. Pope Benedict wants to start it up again, get Latin back into the way we worship God...vernacular is okay, but after 40 years, 75% of Catholics do not even know what's happening during the Mass (ie. they don't know the Eucharist is Lord. I find this incredibly ironic, seeing that they are supposed to "understand" it better since it's now in their own language.) Compare that with the Mass before Vatican II. My father and mother weren't intellectual scholars, and yet, they prayed and worshipped God for decades in Latin. And I can say pretty much without any need of statistics, their generation of Catholics knew their faith and show the greatest reverence to God during the Holy Mass. How much that has to do with the Latin, I don't know...but Latin sure did the job! If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it? I think you said it best when you said "today there is no language common to most Catholics." What Latin did, was, it kept a language common to us Catholics, and we no longer have that today. Now we are all divided and we worship God in non-uniformed ways...we stick our own language in the Mass, we stick our own "cultural additions." It's just not the same as it was...and perhaps it shouldn't be that way...we should all be uniformed in our worship of God.

[Aloysius]

you don't need to be fluent in Latin to deeply understand the Liturgy in Latin... and it often brings a deeper level of meditation into it when you do not understand it by hearing alone, but rather understand the action going on and follow along the prayers through a missal.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1619631' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:06 PM']you don't need to be fluent in Latin to deeply understand the Liturgy in Latin... and it often brings a deeper level of meditation into it when you do not understand it by hearing alone, but rather understand the action going on and follow along the prayers through a missal.[/quote]
I agree, latin is a beautiful language. When I used to be Catholic, the very few times I went to latin mass were the best in terms of my ability to be deeply connected with what was supposedly happening.

[mortify]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1619739' date='Aug 6 2008, 07:12 PM']I agree, latin is a beautiful language. When I used to be Catholic, the very few times I went to latin mass were the best in terms of my ability to be deeply connected with what was supposedly happening.[/quote]

Friend, you have bigger things to worry about than why Latin is important!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1619623' date='Aug 6 2008, 07:56 PM']Before Vatican II, Catholics knew Latin well enough. Why did we let it disappear? And, according to the Vatican II documents, it was NEVER supposed to disappear from our worship. Pope Benedict wants to start it up again, get Latin back into the way we worship God...vernacular is okay, but after 40 years, 75% of Catholics do not even know what's happening during the Mass (ie. they don't know the Eucharist is Lord. I find this incredibly ironic, seeing that they are supposed to "understand" it better since it's now in their own language.) Compare that with the Mass before Vatican II. My father and mother weren't intellectual scholars, and yet, they prayed and worshipped God for decades in Latin. And I can say pretty much without any need of statistics, their generation of Catholics knew their faith and show the greatest reverence to God during the Holy Mass. How much that has to do with the Latin, I don't know...but Latin sure did the job! If it wasn't broken, why "fix" it? I think you said it best when you said "today there is no language common to most Catholics." What Latin did, was, it kept a language common to us Catholics, and we no longer have that today. Now we are all divided and we worship God in non-uniformed ways...we stick our own language in the Mass, we stick our own "cultural additions." It's just not the same as it was...and perhaps it shouldn't be that way...we should all be uniformed in our worship of God.[/quote]

From what I've gathered about the culture of the Church before Vatican II, many Catholics were only showing up to Mass, and prayed rosaries during the entire liturgy because they couldn't follow what was happening, and laypeople didn't offer responses at Mass (which is the same today when I attend the local Tridentine Rite... about the only thing laypeople say is "Et cum spiritu tuo"). Most laypeople were going through the motions. Why do you think parishes "featured" 20 minute Sunday masses? Why was Vatican II even convened, if everything was so hunky dorey back in the day? There were clearly problems, hence the council.

Celebrating our liturgies and sacraments in vernacular languages can also help emphasize the uniformity of our worship. Through the variety of language and culture, we know it is the same Mass and the same sacraments in every place and time. Even Jesus spoke in the language of common Jews rather than the language of educated Roman citizens. We are not like Muslims, who believe Arabic is the only holy language. We must treasure our Latin tradition, but we don't need to expect every Catholic to learn the Latin in order to fully participate in a liturgy. It really is best appreciated when discovered rather than imposed, just as everyone here who loved Latin has discovered it on their own rather than having it forced upon them with no breathing room.

I think we should bring back some Latin, but let's allow that breathing room for a layperson or non-Catholic to experience the faith in their own language, and let's keep the translations as faithful to the Latin as possible.

Edited August 7, 2008 by LouisvilleFan