»

On Latin and Circumflubbergation

Heralding the swift-rising dawn of the New Translation, I’m making an extra college-sized effort to post on the Liturgy this and next week. My thesis is no secret: To label ourselves Traditional Catholics or Charismatic Catholics or Your Word Here Catholics in regards to the Liturgy is not helping the Church. Of course, of course; there are many wonderful species the Catholic genus might have. But when it comes to the Mass, they must be staid. Why? Because the Holy Mass is the thing itself. It is that which we attend, not that which attends to us. It is a gift from God that we do not give ourselves. There are no charismatic masses. There are no traditional masses. There is the Mass, and we must pray it. (Of course, there are different rites, but these are given by the Holy Spirit through the Church, not made by our own preferences.)

That all being said, indulge me in a brief aside. (a.k.a feel free to skip.) There is a habit amongst us, well, human beings, to – upon hearing an opinion contrary to our own – perform the most remarkable maneuver I’d hereby like to christen as ‘circumflubbergating’. Circumflubbergating (as I smugly slay the squiggly red line with the Add to Dictionary button, adding this puppy to the noble ranks of ‘destupidification’, ‘suckage’ and ‘badassery’) is a unique method of fooling both oneself and one’s audience into the belief that you’re doing anything besides regurgitating eternally held opinions. It is feigned thought. It is a rant in the dress of an argument. Circumflubbergation can be seen in trolling, debating and in the infamous compliment sandwich. The circumflubbergater has something he wants to say, he reads the title of an article, post or video, deems it an appropriate place to regurgitate that which he wants to say, and then develops the following structure:

1. Great post/article/book/video explaining why we need to take another look at the Liturgy.
2. The Novus Ordo is heretical (600 words of explanation why).
3. Thanks for such an insightful post/article/book/video.

I do it all the time. Unfortunately, I have been guilty of circumflubbergating where circumflubbergating does the most damage; the Abortion debate. So be careful of that, as we tread the ground where so many get so touchy, and so understandably. Let’s think, respond, and in general behave like the brilliant, good-looking individuals we are.

Now then, Latin. Should we be praying the Mass in Latin?

Once again, the arguments on either ‘side’ avoid the argument. Before we get to the Church documents – which in the end, are all that should really matter to the Catholic – let’s tackle some stupidities that have cropped up in this too-long debate.

First of all, the emotional appeal for the use of Latin must cease. There is nothing magical about Latin. (Necessary-Walker-Percy-fan-aside: Well, there is, but only insofar as it is a language at all.) The common argument that “Latin is the language most of our Saints prayed in!” might spark some upwelling of passion in the pious breast, but if you’re like me, you can’t help but think, “So?” Europe is the continent most of our Saints prayed in. Should we move? Similarly, the argument that Latin is the rich, historic language of the Church is not an argument at all. If the Church had adopted Latin as its language in the eighties, would the language deserve no consideration? Does of the age of something really matter?

I hold that the age of the Latin language is a ridiculous argument to make for the use of Latin, simply because it is backwards. Rather, the age of Latin points to the fact that there must be some inherent value within the language itself, that it might last this long. Latin should not be extolled because it is historic, anymore than dinosaurs should – ok, bad example, dinosaurs are innately awesome – any more than monarchy should be extolled because it is historic. But because Latin has such a history, we may safely assume there is something about the language itself worth diving into. So the most common arguments for the use of Latin aren’t arguments at all; they are mere indicators of a good argument.

Pope Paul VI hasn’t been helpful. His hyperbolic description of Latin as the “language of the angels” is just plain misleading. It’s not the language of angels.

So what is it about the Latin language that has merited it such a historic weight? Well the beautiful thing is I can use an example right from the New Translation! Currently, we say “one in being with the Father” in our recitation of the Nicene Creed. We are about to use the delicious Latin cognate “consubstantial”. The first is the standard English hodge-podge of Germanic and Latin, and requires the multiplication of words to arrive at the meaning. We use an order of abstract words — ‘in’ ‘with’ and ‘the’ — to create a coherent meaning. The Latin cognate allows us to say what we mean — of one substance — in one word. “Consubstantial.” If the use of Latin cognates allows us precision in our language, how much more does Latin itself allow us to say less and mean more!

And indeed, this is the case. When we say ‘”We praise…” we are translating the Latin that simply says “Laudamus”. Latin allows us to say less and mean more.  So there does seem to exist some inherent value within the language itself.

Here, take a break.

On the other hand, Rome has spoken. The use of vernacular has been deemed a good thing. (And honestly, I thank God that the Gospels — in particular — are translated into the vernacular.) But again, there are defenses of the vernacular that don’t do it any good. A common one being “I can’t understand Latin .” This amounts to the argument: “I don’t understand what Holy Water is for, let’s not use it.” Learn the Latin. It seems to me that the vernacular is a beautiful thing, most particularly in the cases of the parts of the Mass that change with every mass; i.e the readings. Everything else – thanks to the universality of the Mass – can be learnt in the Latin, and thus the precision of the ancient language can be employed.

Bad arguments aside, what are we left with? A Church that extols the use of Latin as a beautiful way of praying – because of the language itself – while accepting the use of the vernacular as good and worthy of the Liturgy. The position of the Church is not any Traddyness, nor any Modernism, but a sensible catholicism. Hear her speak:

36. § 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

§ 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…

- Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

And then:

Pastors of souls shall carefully see to it that the faithful, more particularly the members of lay religious associations, also know how to say or to sing together in the Latin language those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertains to them, especially with the use of simpler melodies.

Instruction on the Liturgy, Congregation of Rites, 16 October 1964

And finally, for Blessed Pope John Paul II

The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned.

Do we obey? This is going to require follow-up, but the post is already a few sizes too massive for our Internet-brains, so I will desist. Think about though: Latin is a beautiful, effective thing. The vernacular is a beautiful and often necessary thing. The two do not exclude each other.

  • enness

    Thank you. Crappy arguments abound and it’s hardly disloyalty to Holy Mother Church to point out when somebody is trying too hard and ends up not making any sense.

    • Ianmduggan

      i think your writing made some good points. i have to say tho some people may love the latin mass because it sound nice or whatever reason. a big and very smart reason is the fact that the church is universal so it makes scence to have a language that is stuck to one place or country. im pretty sure the bible even says something about not speaking in tongues because men dislike eachother for simple things like some one speaking a different language. so weather it was greek or klingon for all i care the point is that the church uses a universal language. how nice is it if i went to china or russia and met some one who no english and saw they were catholic, i could say dominus vobiscum and they would say Et cum spiritu tuo. or how it use to be where any priest around the world could go anywhere and easily keep his duties cuz they all knew latin! and would it be better to fallow the mass of all the popes and saints or change because of a few? who have allowed so much modernism into all of it. note the fact that why would you need to change such a big part of the mass anyway? there was nothing wrong with it! it changed because they gave into all the people who thought it was old or couldnt understand or see the priest or what he was doing! so it changed for the people, and we know the church doesnt and shouldnt change to suit the people the people should change to suit GOD! i except all the english masses and the people but i think its really sad for catholics to bash the latin mass its like bashing all the saint who loved it greatly. and there is a very great and important reason to use it.

      • Steve

        The Latin Mass comes with a commensurate spirituality.
        The Latin Mass built Western Civilization.
        The Latin Mass defeated the Mohammedans.
        The New Mass does none of the above.

        If the Apostles passed down anything of worth, it was the Mass.

        • http://secularcatholic.blogspot.com/ Jared Dale Combista

          Wait…what? You laud the Latin Mass before moving on to demonizing the “New Mass,” then you move on to speaking in general about the Mass being passed down by the Apostles? Paradox.

          The so-called “New Mass” may also be celebrated in Latin, so technically, it may still be a Latin Mass. You must be talking about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The term “Latin Mass” is too vague.

  • Cal-J

    Circumflubbergation. I love you, man. And organize your posts.

    • Cal-J

      Can you organize them retroactively?

      • Cal-J

        And make the categories stand out more?

  • Karyn

    Actually, the arguments for Latin that you disregard make sense to me. I love the idea of saying prayers in the language that my patron saint would have prayed in. And the fact that it’s historical, yes, that does appeal to me – seeing the Church’s traditions and language stretch through time. I even have a special veneration for Europe because of her cathedrals and holy places. I think there’s something wonderful about having a “holy language” – the Hindus have Sanskrit, the Jews Hebrew, the Koran is supposed to only be read in Arabic, why should our Mass not have a “special language”?

    That said, I agree that the vernacular should be used. I just wish that my church would add some Latin (even one little prayer in Latin!) and I am teaching my children their prayers in both languages.

    • Kleshas and Tanhas

      Going along the idea of “holy languages,” Catholicism as the initial sect of Christianity-I think we owe it to the Catholic identity to keep the original language. It’s practical to stay close to what we know…

      http://kleshasandtanhas.wordpress.com/

    • Marc

      I agree, it’s just that these are incidental attributes that make Latin great, and not inherent attributes.

    • Arnobius of Sicca

      You realize of course that the original liturgical language of the Church was Greek right? That Pope Victor I decreed the use of the vernacular Latin permissible right? So if we were to have our Mass in a Holy Language, why not Greek?

      There was a great reductio ad absurdum once written called “The Society of Saint Pius I” which is a good skewering of the Traditionalist attack.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts

      • Karyn

        Okay, Greek over Latin, whatever. I just like the idea of a “holy language” and at this point, Latin has a stronger foothold in our tradition. Plus Saint Francis would have sung in Latin – and that makes me feel happy when listen to our Latin psalms. Yes, it’s emotional – so what?

  • Post Vatican II

    As one who has studied a bit of Church History and never learned much Latin, Latin was adopted as the “official” language of the Church primarily because Martin Luther actually translated the Bible into *gasp* German so everyone could understand it. For those who argue that “it was the language my saint prayed in.” That’s nice. Our Savior prayed in Aramaic and Hebrew. My favorite saint prayed in Italian & Latin. I still have no burning desire to learn Aramaic, Hebrew, Italian or Latin, although I did learn some Italian for a trip to Italy several years ago, but not because of my saint. I do not mind Latin phrases in Mass and actually enjoy it, and attending the Latin Rite Mass held in my diocese every week is on my bucket list as soon as I find someone else willing to attend with me. It will be like attending Mass at St. Paul’s Basilica when I visited Italy, I understood little but knew when to stand, sit, and kneel which one thing I love about our Universal Church, and above all knew the mystery and miracle happened on the altar.

    • Pattsce

      It’s comments like “because Martin Luther actually translated the Bible into *gasp* German so everyone could understand it” that cause me to post what I did post. Catholics aren’t afraid of people reading the Bible. Catholics are afraid of the Church becoming a cheap, mundane thing that television (Rightly) mocks—which is Exactly what happens when you put influence and decisions in the hands of the people—and it’s Exactly what happened with Protestants. Here’s the thing: this religion and the way it works is not for You. You are blessed to be a part of It. But it is for God.

      This is one thing that the Muslims absolutely get right. When you become a Muslim, you put your head to the ground, and you beg to get it right. Learning Arabic is just the bare minimum. It’s not just “nice.” It’s the kind of humility and yearning I wish people in our religion actually had.

  • Pattsce

    I kind of agree with Karyn here. Just because there’s not something inherently divine about Latin doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter if it’s used or not. Which is what I think your argument effectively amounts to. I agree that there’s nothing Wrong with not using Latin, but I do think it’s unfair to frame the debate in the way you do. For example, you ignore these arguments:

    One, using Latin makes people more stoic and reverent. The American Catholic church absolutely lack stoicism and reverence. I’ve seen some masses that are disgraceful because they are so happy-clappy. People feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves when they are faced with something so ancient and so different (not to mention so beautiful). There’s nothing Wrong with a Catholic church that doesn’t display the most beautiful or ancient artwork it can find. But it is Better when they do. English, for most people, is the language of everyday use. Mass is not an everyday event. Choosing a language (or anything) that is separate and not ordinary is an appropriate way to elevate the event.

    Second, Latin makes people learn the mass and be more spiritually active in it. Changing things “for the people” often lowers the quality of the thing. I go to a Latin Novus, for example, and I pay more attention to it than I ever did at an English mass. For the reasons mentioned in my first point, it forces me upward; I can’t just zone out to some ordinary, boring talking. You are required to learn the meaning of the words and the ceremony itself. I’m simply a little tired of the “we have to make sure the people can be a part of it!” argument. It is true that the Church has a responsibility to include those who come to it. But it is Not the responsibility of the Church to Change and make it more accessible for those people. Church is inclusive because it is eternal and special, not because it’s able to be relevant. And being aesthetically relevant can be just as bad as being topically or politically relevant.

    And third, there Is value in respecting something historic. There is a virtue in holding on to something traditional. Does that mean that it is Wrong when things change? No. It just means that there is something good about honoring the ways that came before us. It connects us to something the precedes us. This connection is something seriously lacking in the modern world.

    These aren’t arguments for why Latin MUST be used, but they are arguments for why it might be a good idea to include it. In an attempt to take the middle ground here it sounds like you’re instead just strawmanning. There’s of course nothing inherently worse about English (or whatever the local tongue is), but that’s not the whole argument. Our religion is special, enormously unique in the Western world. We have to be active in keeping it that way, in elevating it upwards. Including Latin is just one way of doing that.

    • Pattsce

      I apologize if my posts frames it as if you are saying that Latin should never be used. I know you aren’t arguing that (obviously). I just thought it was appropriate to bring up prudential arguments that you didn’t really address. I simply think it might be wise if we forced more Latin on American churches, and the position you’re advocating here would rarely result in that. American churches are in bad shape, and I think the language does have just a little to do with it. For some of the reasons you mention in your post actually: “I can’t understand Latin” for example. That attitude is just so common, especially in this country. It simply should not exist in the Church; the Church should be different. People are incapable of doing things they don’t like or don’t understand because they’re constantly coddled by accommodating change. This (ironically?) needs to change.

      • Pattsce

        post*

    • Anonymous

      I understand what you’re saying. It’s just that I view these benefits of Latin as incidental, not as the value of Latin itself. You are absolutely right, Latin does provide a sense of stoicism and reverence. But why? It seems to be because it is the historic language of the Church. There’s nothing wrong with this view, but it amounts to the following argument: “Latin should be used in the Mass because the Church has historically used Latin in the Mass.”

      But obviously that’s no argument at all. i’m trying to show why Latin has INHERENT value, not merely pick its INCIDENTAL value out as its raison d’etre. Does that makes sense?

      Otherwise, you bring up some excellent points, and am — as you pointed out in your second comment — in no way opposed to the use of Latin in the liturgy.

      • Pattsce

        I don’t think it amounts to “Latin should be used in the Mass because the Church has historically used Latin in the Mass.” I think that’s misrepresenting it a bit. It more amounts to “Latin should be used in the Mass because Latin makes the Mass more special and separate, which in turn elevates the religion and causes its members to be better. It does so in part because Latin has been used historically in the Mass.”

        WHY Latin does this is an interesting question, but it’s ultimately an irrelevant one. We use special language when we want to make things special. When we appoint the President of the United States, we make our language as lofty as possible, and we add as much pomp as we can. It is not an everyday thing, nor should we act like it is. When we are being polite and proper, we pick very specific words, and not because those words are inherently more valuable or communicate meaning better.

        These same rules should be applied to the Mass. We can have life teen masses that really help the kids understand what’s going on and help them to get more interested. Really jazz it up. Great. We could also have dumbed down language and music for all of our country’s inauguration ceremonies so the masses understand and are more interested. Fine. Do these things elevate the mass or these ceremonies? No. Would either of these things be “wrong” necessarily? No. Will both ultimately have serious negative effects? Absolutely.

        Aesthetics matter. A lot. I don’t quite understand how people don’t see language as a part of this.

  • Kleshas and Tanhas

    I agree with your points about Paul VI and the emotion appeal of Latin. However, one of these points happens to bring about the change and one is the result of the change. I think its a thin line between the before and after and what actually had an impact on the actual change. The emotional appeal of Latin did not directly bring about the change. It was no doubt an immediate reaction to the change and can easily be mistaken for a cause when popes and rites suggest that we are praying in the same language that Europeans did. (At that, I would point out that the Mass as a prayer, which was celebrated in Latin, does constitute as a form of saints partaking in Latin-speaking at some point or another in their lives.)
    I think that the mistake in this argument is to presuppose that the changes are due to Latin’s supremacy over English. I prefer the vernacular at times, and the Latin (now that I had my socks blown off two weekends over here in Philly!) at others, but like you said,”The Holy Mass is the thing itself. It is that which we attend, not that which attends to us. It is a gift from God that we do not give ourselves.”
    That being the quality of the Mass, I am just as curious as you are in how the revisions are to be made without condoning all the past-celebrated Masses in the “wrong” vernacular.
    I understand that the changes are getting us closer to a more literal meaning (which is kinda goofy for anyone that has taken any level of Latin-each word has like five different words to explain it: ago-any other fundamental word that saw a lot of usage in spoken word and in Scripture,)
    BUT how is this change any different from Vatican II, from which we are now moving away from? Is this revision to be revised later? Slightly suggestive of impermanence; a rarity in that Catholic realm of dogma and doctrine.

    http://kleshasandtanhas.wordpress.com/

  • DeusVult

    I am afraid you are ignorant of the main reason why Latin ought to be used exclusively. A Latin Mass does not allow for improvisation.

    • Marc

      No Mass allows for improvisation. Moronic priests allow for improvisation.

    • Rose

      Not entirely true. I’ve heard the story of one priest who was so fed up with parishioners begging for a “real” Mass that, being quite skilled in Latin, he offered one for them. Completely in Latin. Including the homily and announcements. I don’t think he was improvising but, with skills like that, it would be quite possible.

      • DeusVult

        A single anecdote does not a trend demonstrate. And by your own admission, your anecdote is not really evidence of improvisation. However, I can give you multiple examples of liturgically illicit practices that occur each and every NO Mass in numerous locations. This is very, nay, extremely rare at the TLM.

        • Rose

          I was not trying to demonstrate a trend. Rather, I was commenting on your choice of wording that the having Mass in Latin “does not allow for improvisation.” While it didn’t happen in that case, it could have. Plus, you never specified TLM… a NO celebrated in Latin is still a “Latin Mass.”

          • DeusVult

            Please excuse my inartfully worded comment. The TLM does not allow for improvisation. “Does not allow” does not mean “it cannot happen”. The nature of the NO and the so-called fruits and spirit of VII encourage improvisation. A partly English and partly Latin NO is itself an improvisation. The prior English translation for the NO was an improvisation. Now people are complaining about a more accurate translation. Oh well. None of this is going to cure the cancer eating away at the Church. We will have to wait for the Chastisement.

  • Gzilla16

    that picture of a T-Rex flying an F-22 Raptor is amazing!

    • Marc

      my all time favorit Calvin and Hobbes strip

  • Jay E.

    *claps and dances while chanting the Te Deum* Brilliantly balanced post. The voice of reason! Or, should we say – Vox rationis?

  • Benjamin Baxter

    It isn’t a question of “language of the angels.” It’s a question of identity in the Rite. It is a helpful distinctiveness, which is exactly how we should combat worldliness.

    I consider it something similar to why we shouldn’t repeal the discipline against priests marrying. It isn’t what the world needs to see right now — why tear down the roof when it’s raining?

  • Tom

    You are a good writer. Hey, lots of people don’t know this–maybe you do and maybe you don’t–but if you precede a personal pronoun with a preposition you have to change the case, not just in German and Latin, but in English! When you write “There is a habit amongst we” I lose it altogether, I cannot read on. I plead with you to get this straight, so I can enjoy your wonderful style, which I really do appreciate.

    • Marc

      so it’d be ‘us’, correct?

  • Paula

    I have so much to say about Latin that I think it’s best I don’t say anything at all lest I spend the remainder of the evening typing. I’ll just leave it with this…

    1. I often think of the “appropriate language for Mass” issue as follows. In the Old Testament, the Lord’s punishment for the construction of the Tower of Babel was for everyone to speak different languages so they could not understand one another. In the New Testament, there is, I think, a “redemption” story of Babel, for we have another account of people speaking different languages and being potentially unable to understand either each other or the Good News. This story is that of the Pentecost. The redemption, however, did not come in the form of uniting everyone under a common tongue (as they had been before). Rather, the Lord, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, had the apostles (the very predecessors of our Mass-giving priests) reach these people *by speaking to each in his own language.*

    2. I have heard priests trying to explain the Latin of the Mass and Greek of the New Testament/early Church Fathers… it’s all a mess. If we congregants are really to be able to appreciate these ancient languages and if we are really to be convinced that their usage is a valuable contribution to the Mass, we need teachers (i.e. priests) who have been better prepared and really know their stuff.

    3. Some say that the new translation of the Liturgy gets us closer to the Latin and that’s why we should be excited. In many cases, I agree. The use of “and with your spirit” is clearly a better a rendition of “et cum spiritu tuo” than “and also with you” is. However, I’m just baffled at how often (though not in this post or the comments which follow) the term “consubstantial” is hailed as a good example. The fact that “consubstantial” is a Latinate word in English (directly derived from “consubstantialis”) does not in any way make it better than using “one in being”. “Consubstantialis” in Latin *means* “one in being”. There’s no real improvement in using “consubstantial” except that it just *sounds* more like the Latin (a.k.a. more fancy). Is that really a good reason for making a change to the Liturgy?

    4. People really need to understand where words come from in order to appreciate them in the context of Scripture or the Mass. For example, “charity”. The ancient Greek concept of χαρις (whence our English “charity”), that is, of expecting a favor from someone for whom you have done something good (i.e. “one good turn deserves another”), was not just the social contract under which this civilization functioned – it’s also plain gut instinct. But this is precisely *the opposite* of the Christian notion of charity, in which doing something nice for someone else is, number one, motivated by selfless love (i.e. a desire for the good of the other), and, number two, done without any anticipation of repayment. In other words, to live out true Christian charity we have to actively work against our human nature. We have to (at every moment with every person we encounter) make a choice to show charity: “caritas” (to use ecclesiastical Latin) is an act of the will. Now, wouldn’t that make for an interesting homily when the word “charity” comes up in the readings? This, I believe, is how Latin and Greek should be making their appearances in the Mass.

    Now onto something a little different. I’m a little concerned about all the division there seems to be among Catholics right now (especially between the traditional and modern camps). Firstly, is not the Catholic Church another name for the Universal Church? Why, then, are there divisions in a Body which is to be one? Secondly, am I the only one who feels like many significant changes instituted by Vatican II are constantly under attack? The last time I checked, these Vatican Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. It’s Him making the changes, not us. So why are the changes contested or why are some people trying to revert back to pre-Vatican II ways of doing things?! That’s basically like telling the Lord He doesn’t know what He’s doing!

    • AMDG

      On your last point- I want to comment that many people do attack VII for a number of reasons. But something that is important to remember is that many of the changes to the Mass post-VII were not actually instituted or mandated by VII at all. Many priests and even bishops seemed to feel VII gave them free rein to do whatever they wanted in “their” Masses and they took that supposed liberty and ran with it. Many of these things became the norm in the U.S., and I’m sure other places as well, and a lot of us are fed up with them. As many have stated, the liturgy does not belong to us, it belongs to God and was given to us as a gift. We do not get to do with it as we please. So many of the “changes” contested are not really changes at all and when people complain about post-VII things, often they’re using it more as a timeline to state when the changes took place and not to state that they came directly from the council documents. When some of us are trying to “revert back to pre-Vatican II ways of doing things” we’re not trying to ignore the council fathers, or the Vatican, or the Holy Spirit, we’re simply trying to renew some of the solemnness and reverence in the Mass that has been lost post-VII (again, I’m using this to denote a certain time frame- like BC and AD). The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is exactly that, holy, and ought to be treated as such, no matter the rubrics or the language used.

  • http://sainteasy.blogspot.com Paige Deaner

    I think the best argument for a Latin Mass is in the songs. Listen to Ave Maria or Te Deum or Panis Angelicus or Ave Maris Stella. Then listen to “Eye Has Not Seen” or “You Are Mine” tell me they say anything. All those old, traditional hymns convey real, theological Truths. The new hymns are full of touchy-feely crap that doesn’t really convey anything. They’re like the musical equivalent of Buddy Christ

  • Taylor

    I know this is an old post, but I think you miss the idea of sacred languages–every major religion has one. The Jews didn’t worship in Aramaic, after all. Latin may still be our Church’s official language but it’s all but gone in the majority of Novus Ordo Missae Holy Sacrifice. Which is against the Vatican II docs.

    Also, if you think and read about Latin as the “iconostasis of the West”, you might find it interesting.

    Peace be with you!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X