Why use Latin?

[puzzleannie]

Originally Posted by wed2catholic

I. I just don't understand why. If you don't speak Latin, how could you learn anything or get anything (other than Communion) out of Mass? W

the same way you get something out of any Mass you attend. You already know the prayers, the actions, the responses and what is going on, no matter what language is being used, and you carry along, if you need it, a pocket missal with the readings and other prayers in your own language as an aide to memory. The Mass is the Mass whether or not you are even listening the reality does not depend on your comprehension.

[ProVobis]

I think the new English translation is not something that has been required because of the changes in English.

Like the meanings of "gay," "ghost," "spirit," and other words haven't changed meanings? And that's just in 40 years. And FWIW, check out Old English and Middle English.

http://www.1066andallthat.com/englis...f_prologue.asp

http://www.1066andallthat.com/englis...view_video.asp

And fewer and fewer are understanding Shakespeare.

So English definitely changes and will continue to do so. Panglish is already predicted within 100 years.

Rather it has been mandated by Rome (not required by any objective standard) because the competent authority has judged that a completely different method of translation ought to have been used in the first place.

Yes but the same legitimate authority set it up in the first place. What's to stop the next legitimate authority, competent or not, from changing it again in 40 years because people don't like or understand this translation? Other vernacular texts are being changed as well, by the way. Do you or anyone else know the reasons for that?

I don't quite understand or think I can answer your "true" vernacular question. I merely wanted to state that by the time Latin became the predominant worship language in the West, vulgarized forms of the language had already appeared evidenced partially by national borders. To what extent the many illiterates understood Latin in the 3rd or 4th century, I don't know, but certainly in 400 years their own first-language vernaculars (beginnings of Spanish, Portugese, Italian, French, etc.) had to have changed somewhat.

[Spirithound]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Like the meanings of "gay," "ghost," "spirit," and other words haven't changed meanings?

Yes but the same legitimate authority set it up in the first place. What's to stop the next legitimate authority, competent or not, from changing it again in 40 years because people don't like or understand this translation? Other vernacular texts are being changed as well, by the way. Do you or anyone else know the reasons for that?

I don't quite understand or think I can answer your "true" vernacular question. I merely wanted to state that by the time Latin became the predominant worship language in the West, vulgarized forms of the language had already appeared evidenced partially by national borders. To what extent the many illiterates understood Latin in the 3rd or 4th century, I don't know, but certainly in 400 years their own first-language vernaculars (beginnings of Spanish, Portugese, Italian, French, etc.) had to have changed somewhat.

Of course English changes. That doesn't mean it was the impetus behind the new translation. Every time this topic comes up, the reason for the new translation is always given that the Holy See wants a more literal translation, not the dynamic paraphrase that was originally given. FWIW, I don't recall ever hearing the word "gay" at Mass.

I was not aware of other languages' texts also being changed, thank you for informing me. I hardly think the reason is that the people did not like or understand the text, or we might be observing quite different Magesteria...

You have indeed answered my question about "true" vernacular. You sell yourself short, friend.

[laszlo]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Personally I think Latin was hardly ever a true vernacular in the liturgy. My reasoning is that if it were, its meanings would have been corrupted through time as is common with national languages such as those used in Protestant services. In 40 years, the English in the Mass requires changes already.

The Latin was introduced in place of the Greek in the 380's. We know nothing about the first translations, and how many versions changed before the recent Canon crystallized.

In fact the bishop was in charge for the Canon before the Council of Trident and the reform of St Pius V, and there were different canons from diocese to diocese.

For technical reasons teh world was slower than now, but this cannot be constructed as principle.

[wed2catholic]

"Perhaps you are working under the impression that the readings and homily would be in Latin-- they would not."

Yes, I was working under that impression; good to know--this makes more sense.



"Perhaps you are also operating under the assumption that the Church did not have bible translations in the language of the people, which is an incorrect assumption."


This is also an assumption I have or had; I am not sure at what point the Bible began to be translated into other languages (after Latin).

"Also, the literate of the era read and wrote Latin and would have been able to read either. Latin was not only the language of the Church but of university, the law, and science."

Yes, I understand this; I just wanted to know how the common people would have heard and learned anything about Christ, but if the homily and readings were in the common vernacular, then that would explain it.


"I think maybe you are operating under some misconceptions about the Church and its past."[/quote]

This is very possible; that is why I am asking questions--to have these cleared up.

[wed2catholic]

Originally Posted by Spirithound

Starting at the end again....cuz I like that... The Bible is absolutely a vital part of being a Catholic! In fact, most of the Catholics around this forum will let you know that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible! But of course the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, not Latin, so a translation had to be done somewhere along the way. Happily and unfortunately, there were other translations later on too. Unfortunate when the translation didn't come out real great, happy when it did. The Douay-Rheims, for example, was the first good Catholic English translation, and it came out 2 years before the King James Version.

Now before this, Bible-making was literally writing it out by hand. This made having books a super-luxury item, so basically none of the congregation could have had a Bible, or any other book, so they never bothered to learn how to read. Consider even today's situation; reading is a leisure activity. Well, when you're tending the farm all day, you have even less leisure, so even if someone had the idea that he might like to learn to read, he really wouldn't have even had time for it, unless he was a priest. So, if nobody is going to read it, why bother to translate the Bible? The printing press was the thing that really started the ball rolling on this.

As for how a curious person could learn about Jesus going to a Latin Mass? Well, they wouldn't...not their first time at least. You see, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not primarily designed to be a teaching mechanism. It is where we re-present the One Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary to God the Father. There is a homily right after the Gospel, but that would not be in Latin, because that is the teaching portion. The time for learning has always been in a class or discussion outside of Mass, like RCIA, or other catechism series.

By comparison, I don't think you would learn much about what the Church teaches simply by attending an English-language Mass either. Compare it to the Anglican or Lutheran services, and you have many of the same structures and prayers, and yet those same prayers mean very different things in those communities.

The Church is indeed reeling now from several decades of terrible catechesis, but I wouldn't blame that on Latin.

The part about reading for leisure makes sense; I am also glad to hear that the homily was not done in Latin--did not know this.

I have learned things from English-speaking Mass (more about Jesus in general than about what the church specifically teaches--although I have figured some of that out from the prayers), but I cannot speak for other people.

[atassina]

Originally Posted by wed2catholic

"Perhaps you are working under the impression that the readings and homily would be in Latin-- they would not."

Yes, I was working under that impression; good to know--this makes more sense.



"Perhaps you are also operating under the assumption that the Church did not have bible translations in the language of the people, which is an incorrect assumption."


This is also an assumption I have or had; I am not sure at what point the Bible began to be translated into other languages (after Latin).

"Also, the literate of the era read and wrote Latin and would have been able to read either. Latin was not only the language of the Church but of university, the law, and science."

Yes, I understand this; I just wanted to know how the common people would have heard and learned anything about Christ, but if the homily and readings were in the common vernacular, then that would explain it.


"I think maybe you are operating under some misconceptions about the Church and its past."

This is very possible; that is why I am asking questions--to have these cleared

up.[/quote]

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin of the common people.

[carletoncath]

I'd have to do a little search to find a great paper written on this, but because Latin is a "dead" language we are able to be quite precise about the meaning of words therefore the same message is continually conveyed, the language is set apart as sacred for worship, not the profane common everyday language of the highways and byways, the priest could be from anywhere in the world and offer Mass anywhere also. Being an english speaker it really isn't that hard to understand the Latin, so much of our language can be seen to be derived from it, I admit to taking it for two years in high school because of my interest in science, I'm a nurse now, but that was thirty years before I joined the Church, additionally the Missals are divided into a column in Latin and one in English so with time you just naturally learn the Latin with a bit of interest.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by laszlo

When the Church decided to keep the Latin regardless that it ceased to be the language of the education (in the XVI Century)

I know, in the field of Mathematics, you still needed to publish your dissertation in Latin in the 1820's (XIX Century). [http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=7402] So I don't think it died out nearly as early as you think.

I attended public school and Latin was offered both in my High School and in the University. This was in Oregon, in the Wild West, out where we wear cowboy boots, ride horses, and rope cattle. Where Latin is King