Spiritus, Spiritus . . .

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why do you suppose the "Church" selected Latin to be the language of the Saints? Why not the actual language that Jesus spoke . . . Wouldn't it be the most moving of all possible experiences to hear Jesus' actual words when we hear the words of the consecration. Lets all have an "Aramaic Mass" church.

Oh yeah, now I remember . . . Jesus is just a sideshow in a Latin Mass church!

The bible was first translated by St. Jerome into Latin, some 400 years after Christ, because it was the vernacular in his part of the world at that time.

How many times has our Church community piled a heaping dose of "Theology" on traditions with such simple beginnings?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 13, 2003


The Popes have answered your question.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

Hello, Leon. Did you conduct the inquiry I suggested in the "Lost our focus" thread?

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.


Jake's quotes are what popes in the 20th century think about Latin. The reasons it got instituted that way were more pragmatic.

The early church translated the mass into the local languages, Greek, then Latin, Coptic, etc. Aramaic didn't become prominent because no one spoke Aramaic. The rise in prominence of the Latin rite and Roman civilization spread this language as the main one of the church. Later, with the decline of the Roman empire, Latin remained the language of the educated in Europe, as well as the language of the church. It remained that way up until now.

It would be incorrect to say that Latin was chosen as a universal language originally, it was just the vernacular of the mass that survived, and in the language of Rome and the center of the church. It later became praised AS a universal language, though, when the benefits of this were realized. The church has now seen fit to return to having the mass in the vernacular, the same as was done in the early church. Most people think having the mass said in their native tongue is a good idea, there are some who dislike it because of tradition or difficulty of understanding the mass in other countries, etc.

On this forum in particular there's BOUND to be some nut saying that changing back to the vernacular is the Devil's work, but then there are nuts everywhere.


-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 13, 2003.

A quick couple of questions, Frank. Are you suggesting that the prayers, spoken in the vernacular at the Novus Ordo Mass, are an exact translation of the prayers spoken in Latin at the Tridentine Mass? What I'm asking is are you saying the the only difference between the two Masses, as far as the prayers go, is the the language being used?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 13, 2003.

Oh yeah, now I remember . . . Jesus is just a sideshow in a Latin Mass church!

You just described every Roman Catholic church in the world from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great until 1969.

Sideshow, huh?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

I love sideshows. We must never knock the better sideshows for attacting customers.

You are making this forum a sideshow, Jake. You are the Big Geek Exhibit; a boneless wonder giving sermons to the vertebrate Catholic. Have you picked any fights with Tom Thumb, or the Elephant Man today? You like helpless opponents, don't you?

How can somebody who gets himself hung out to dry every day stiffen up his boneless bag and return to the scene of yesterday's crime? Another day, another pointless sermon!

Good grief, Jacob! Open up your own church if you don't care for Christ's original. We know you hate a Novus Ordo Mass. Just don't sign the check for that collection basket; the bishop won't ask you for anything anymore. Leave us to our ''heresy'' and the seven sacraments.

You can make your own; and give them all Latin names. Aptismusbay, Firmacionisconay, Enitentiuspay, etc., etc., ad auseanay. You are hereby His Holiness Acobusjay I; and remember, Sic transit gloria, Papa!

As for me, I say, ''Ave, Heresias, and quo vadis eclessia?'' Nothing like heresy to whack your neighbor in the head with / --Ciao, Jock.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.



-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

Wow, Eugene. Keep it up. As Jake observed,

You people continue to be a great asset toward winning souls (including one vocation so far!!!)from the Novus Ordo pseudo-religion into Traditional Roman Catholicism.

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

I mean to keep it up. You may speculate all you like about your ''harvest'' of souls from out of here. Who am I to rain on your parade? I'm only a faithful Catholic.

The wonder of it is you never realised:

That our people don't compete with or denigrate the Holy Mass of Trent, when the bishops are obeyed. I believe the Latin Mass is a VERY holy worship offered God; and many excellent Catholics serve Him in it.

I'm not a divider. I just believe in the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. He guards our faith. I never have cause to speculate ''how many so called traditionals'' have we pulled into the mainstream Church today, by giving Jake and Jaime the strawberry in this forum. I don't operate that way. I have faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

Hi Regina,

I may be missing your point to Frank. I'm sure there are some subtle difficulties with the latin to English translation, but difficulties also must have existed in in translations from oral aramaic to greek/koine and eventually to latin as well. Why is Latin considered so important to making the Mass meaningful or correct. I'm not on the offensive here, just want to understand your perspective. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), November 13, 2003.

Hello Leon,

You wrote:

"Lets all have an "Aramaic Mass" church."

We have one already. It's called the Maronite Rite of the Catholic Church. I could mention the Chaldean and Syrian Rites' use of Aramaic, but they're just not as cool as the Maronites!



-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 13, 2003.


I didn't imply ANYTHING about the RITE of mass, that's just your personal agenda clouding your interprtation of what you read. The question from Leon was on the *language* of the mass, no more, no less. That's what I addressed, the reason for the *language* of the mass, no more, no less.


-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 14, 2003.


If I misunderstood your post I'm to blame and I apologize. I thought I was asking a question(s) relevent to the topic. If I wasn't, all you needed to do was say so. Was the "personal agenda" jab really neccessary? Is it neccessary for you to find problems where none exsist? Why? If you thought I was trying to start trouble by asking those questions, you were wrong, and it was *your* interpretation clouded by your hatred for me which made you see it that way. (See how unfair that is? You never said or even implied that you hated me. I've no right to make such assumptions about you.)

Maybe the best way to deal with this is to stop assuming that every question is loaded and every statement has some double-meaning? Maybe if we don't understand each other we can just ask for clarification before we jump the gun?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Why is Latin considered so important to making the Mass meaningful or correct. I'm not on the offensive here, just want to understand your perspective

Hi, Jim, and thanks. I hope I can explain.

Latin is important for a few reasons. First, it unites us as Catholics not only in Faith but in language. If one happens to live in a largely populated Spanish-speaking city or town, for instance, chances are a Mass where only Spanish is spoken will be one's only choice. This leaves those who speak English only divided, or left out. Of course there are also situations where a variety of non- english masses are offered at a parish (all but Latin, of course) simply because it's "politically correct."

Now, what about the argument that Latin leaves out people who don't speak Latin? Anyone going to a Traditional Mass can bring his own missal (with translations in the language he speaks) and follow along. If the priest speaks English and the massgoer only speaks spanish, he'll be unable to follow the Homily, but that would be true for me, too, if I went to a Traditional Mass in Italy, Spain, or anywhere else where the priest gives a homily in a language unfamiliar to me. That's when I'd pull out my Rosary or Stations of the Cross booklet. No loss.

Second, since certain words in Latin can not be translated exactly in the vernacular, Latin preserves the meaning of the prayer and doctrine and safeguards them from error. Preserving latin prevents incorrect translation which will promulgate incorrect meaning. The loss of the meaning could undermine doctrine. For example, no matter how one may try, the latin "pro multis" simply does not mean "for all" in english.

Interesting tidbit about Latin, which has nothing to do really with the topic at hand: When Giuseppe Sarto (the future Pope Pius X) was in Rome voting for who would be the next Pope, he was nervous about meeting a French Cardinal whom he respected deeply. He didn't speak French, the Cardinal didn't speak Italian. How did they communicate? In Latin.

Do I propose that we all learn to speak latin fluently? Of course not. But I am saying that we can better unite our prayers with the priest and those around us if we're all speaking (silently) the same language. One Faith, one language, one body.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Shame on you, Eugene!! For using ad homimem attacks like there's no tomorrow and for intentionally insulting people for the "fun" of it!

You need to learn how to keep your mouth shut if you can't defend your beliefs with reason and logic but must resort to name-calling. Didn't your mother ever teach you any manners?

What you said to Jake earlier in this thread was acid. Whether or not you disagree with him makes no difference. You need to start controlling your temper and your malicious impulses.

For the love of Christ, man, change your behavior at least in this!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.

First, Psyche projects his own martyr complex on Skoobouy. Now he's showing off his best grand-standing techniques against Eugene. Eugene, when will you learn to keep your mouth shut!? HAHAHA!

I know that the purpose of the forum isn't mere entertainment, but...



-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

You're right, Psyche,
I'm having fun with some people. It's a fault; and believe me, you're not the first to criticise me for that.

I sometimes think Jake has fun, too; bringing the buffoon pics and replying in one-line zingers, etc.,

It may seem irreligious to some like yourself. You have no faults that need criticism, so you can act as referee or judge. Now, if you'd go over some of our threads and order Jake to be nice, we will know you're being impartial.

Elevated as our dicsussions here can sometimes be, and even holy; I'm still convinced that our forum has a place for irony and well-aimed barbs, when the recipient deserves them. Don't you care for the Road Runner/Wiley Coyote cartoons? I do.

Once or twice I've explained to stiff-collared folks who have problems with me, that our forum really isn't a gathering of angels with pink wings and golden harps. No; and not the holy sanctuary either. It's a forum. Nothing so sacred. In fact, I like to compare it to a fast tennis match. Bang, bang--OUT OF BOUNDS! Great fun if you play well and mind the rules. The rules of the game; not of Victorian courtship.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

Eugene just isn't as clever as Jake, thats all.

-- Blaha (trautre@jirultz.com), November 14, 2003.

"Great fun if you play well and mind the rules. The rules of the game; not of Victorian courtship."

Or a downtown bar...


-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

Eugene just isn't as clever as Jake, thats all.

jake is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

I sometimes think Jake has fun, too; bringing the buffoon pics and replying in one-line zingers, etc.,

You'll have to ask jake if he has "fun" with regard to his "zingers."

But as for the pics, I can tell you no "fun" is to be gotten anymore than one can have "fun" showing pictures of aborted babies. The pics just illustrate a particular point we're trying to make. You think it's "fun" to be able to easily find an over abundance of priests/bishops insulting the dignity of their vocation/causing scandal/attempts to corrupt the faith? It's anything but "fun", Gene. It's heartbreaking. If you laugh at those pics, I assure you, you're the only one who thinks they're funny.

Once or twice I've explained to stiff-collared folks who have problems with me, that our forum really isn't a gathering of angels with pink wings and golden harps. No; and not the holy sanctuary either. It's a forum. Nothing so sacred.

Agreed, but as long as "Catholic" hangs on the cyber-doors of this forum, don't you think we have a responsibility to behave as Catholics at all times? Especially for the sake of those fallen away from the faith, opposed to the faith, etc.? That's what I meant when I said "Catholics are leaders" in a recent post. We have the truth, we belong to the truth. Our Church and our Faith are the only absolute truths this world has.

To paraphrase St. Benedict "People learn more by example."

Emerald has asked JFG for help in understanding many, many times. Each time, in return, he has been insulted and dismissed. Is this the example we want to show the world, that that's how Catholics behave? Now obviously any good Catholic lurking would dismiss the constant ad hominem attacks and feel nothing but pity for the repeat offenders of posts of that sort. But what about those with some pre-conceived idea that Catholics are mean-spirited and hateful? They need only look at JFGs and some of your posts for confirmation of their suspicions.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

Dear Regina:
I always behave as a Catholic here. I put up with your contention that we have a ''pseudo- Church! Now; I never called the mass of Trent a ''pseudo-Mass.'' I have called you a liar, and I had cause.

Let me be an honest catholic, Regina. You can be whatever you wish. Saint John the baptist called Herodias a sinner. They had his head for it. I'm following in his footsteps. I guess you wouldn't call him a good Catholic. Then again; he wasn't very nice to some people.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.


Since protestant churches are so biblical then why don't they say their "services" in Aramaic? Why don't they read the gospel in the original Hebrew and Greek? Why, because they like using English because they can use whatever words they want to get their point across since it is hard to translate well from Hebrew and Greek to English.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

leon, i agree. if schismo are so traditional, where is the greek and aramaic?

also, somebody posted some quotes from popes of the past:

For 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 XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922).

well, latin can't be it. why? latin is no longer universal. Testing shows that I am in the top 10% of air force officers and top 1 % of the nation in studies. i dont have a clue as to speaking ANY latin. hardly a 'universal' language, then, is it?

“The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947).

this is ridiculous. popes throughout history have recognized that the sole sign of unity shown by catholics should be the eucharist. why would you cheapen that unity in Christ by assuming that latin is what holds the church together? are you implying that God doesnt speak english? or french? that God only helps those who speak latin?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 15, 2003.

Hi Regina,

And thank you for your answer. I can see your point about certain problematic translations and Latin being a way to preserve universal accuracy in the liturgy. While I remember the Latin mass in the early 60's, it wasn't around long enough in my lifetime for me to have developed an attachment to it. When it changed I remember my parents being enthusiastic about it, but my grandmother wasn't quite sure she liked it at first. Still it never became an issue for my family.

As far as attending other foreign language masses, you could still use your English translation missal as a guide regardless of the language spoken. I don't have a missal anymore and recently attended a Polish language mass, (translationless) and found that I was able to follow along simply by paying attention to what was going on. With the exception of the language, (I couldn't say the words) everything else was familiar.

Regards, Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), November 16, 2003.

Actually, if you wanted to have a "universal language", the church should probably pick English. It's the second language of the world already.

But then people will say "no, you need a DEAD language so the meanings of words don't change". You then could say that this is an erroneous assumption, anything the church defines can be clarified as necessary, and any words that have *no translation* into English aren't likely to be fully understood anyway.

How about it, dump Latin and declare the mass be said in English!


-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 16, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ