I read an interesting post the other day in which the author claimed that prayers in Latin are more efficacious than in the vernacular tongue.

It set me to wondering. When and at what point in time did a vernacular language suddenly become "the language of the angels?" When did this change take place?

Just fishing for a few comments on this idea that Latin somehow has been elevated to the language of Heaven sometime in the past. I would think that Hebrew or Aramaic would have better claims to this since Jesus spoke those languages.

The original languages of the Church were Greek and Aramaic, the language of the Jewish community in Judea and Galilee. As the Church spread outward from the Holy Land, it adopted Koine Greek as its liturgical and Scriptural language, as well as the language of all ecclesial correspondence. As Koine Greek was the second language of the Empire, and the lingua franca of trade, this served the Church's evangelical purposes well.

The Western half of the Empire, spoke Latin as its first tongue (supplemented by regional languages such as Gallic in Gaul and Hispania, Punic in Africa, Coptic in Egypt, and (later) Gothic along the northern and western borders. The Church of Africa, centered on Carthage, was using Latin liturgically, scripturally and administratively by the time of Tertullian in the third century. But Rome did not adopt Latin as the "lingua vulgaris" until the end of the fourth century, in the time of Pope Damasus I. By that time, Greek was already dying out in the West, but, ironically, written Latin was already diverging from spoken Latin, which was slouching into the proto Romance languages. Liturgical Latin, in particular, tended to follow antiquarian models and vocabulary (Jerome was, after all, a Ciceronian), which made it unlikely that many of "vulgar" could follow much of it (hence the replies of the people in the Old Roman Rite tended to be terse and epigrammatic, the better for the people to remember them. A similar phenomenon occurred in the East, where preachers began imitating classical rhetoric using Attic Greek (which nobody actually spoke). John Chrysostom was called "Golden Tongued" not because of his rhetorical flourishes, but because he spoke and wrote in simple, declarative sentences using everyday vocabulary that could be understood by the masses; hence, he became the most popular preacher of his day, and his sermons are still readable (in contrast to those of many of his contemporaries).

Why did the West decide that Latin ought to be a "lingua sacra" when the very concept of a lingua sacra was alien to Christianity? The only answer that satisfies is rampant clericalism: as the only people who could read and write Latin with any fluency, the Clergy became a cast set apart, essential in both the spiritual and the secular world. They liked it, and they promoted it.

Not only that, Latin (as far as the Church was concerned) was NOT spoken at Rome in the first century: it had become restricted, with all the Romans going out as colonii and Greeks being imported in for a variety of reasons, to the courts and government. Most of the populace spoke Greek, and Latin was not introduced into the Church at Rome until c. 185, when Pope St. Victor came from Latin North Africa. The process was not complete until SS. Pope Damasus and Jerome (neither from Rome IIRC) two centuries later.

It would seem 867 is the latest ante quem-when the Pope of Rome approved SS. Methodius and Cyril's Slavonic and condemn the three language heresy.

Btw, the author doesn't know what he is talking about.

I agree with Isa and would only point out that the same would apply to those who claim Koine Greek or Church Slavonic are entitled to some sort of efficacious status.

I would think that anything that lost its day-to-day use, but continued its sacred use would on some level become sacred of itself. And the longer it continued, and the further it diverges from the original vulgar use, the more sacred it would be.

I'd say the same thing goes for Old Church Slavonic, or Elizabethan English. Or the types and details in iconography borrowed from classical secular art, for that matter.

I think it would be naive to say that something inherent in the substance of the language makes it sacred, but certainly opting to use a sacred language can be a pious act, and perhaps may lend efficacy to a prayer in that way.

I can't say if the constant connection of a language to Our Lord and his Holy Mysteries has any effect on that language's perception by our evil adversaries, but I can think of at least one exorcist who did say that Latin was more powerful in exorcisms. Again I presume it is because of its constant sacred use and nothing particular to it specifically.

It is also entirely within the bounds of faith to consider that Our Lord may allow a special grace of efficacy to anything for His good pleasure.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The language spoken by all classes in Rome was overwhelmingly Latin. Greek was the original language of the Church in Rome (and there were several different congregations) was Greek, mainly because most of the Christians in Rome at that time were peregrini (foreigners). Latin colonists were, for the most part, not taken from Rome itself, but from the ranks of ex-legionaries, most of whom were recruited from among Italians (in decreasing numbers) or from the provinces (particularly Gaul and Hispania).

The Church in Rome continued to grow, but did not constitute a majority of the people until well into the sixth century (the Senatorial class in particular was stubbornly pagan). With the leadership of the Roman Church derived from Greek-speakers, the language of the Church in Rome remained Greek until a sufficient number of Latin converts existed to make a transition to Latin necessary. That's why we have to wait until the reign of Damasus I to formally make the change (which may have been ongoing in individual congregations for some time beforehand.

Stuart's correct: the Roman Church's liturgy was translated into Latin during the 4th century.

It might be true if prayers were spells.

Well, yeah. I kinda figured that inasmuch as the site is a Traddie site. You know, everything Catholic MUST be Roman and MUST be Latin.

I am going to remember that as it is a home run.

Christ is Risen!!

Gonna be a lot of surprised people in Heaven when the Lord lets them know there are no Latins or Romans or Greeks or Russians or any of the other labels we use to keep the "us vs. them" attitude so much a part of human nature. Just a lot of people the Lord knows so well since He's worked in their hearts to make them bridge builders, compassionate, other-directed.

Three surprises in Heaven: the people you didn't think would get there, are there; the ones you thought would be, aren't; and the biggest surprise is that YOU'RE there!

Bob

Wait a sec--Paul says in the Kingdom there is no free or slave, Greek or Jew, male or female. By process of elimination, the Kingdom must therefore be populated by hermaphordite Latins of indeterminate legal status.

Amen, amen, amen.

If we want to fill the world with Greek Catholics (as I do, anyhow), it's not going to happen by returning chauvinism for chauvinism.

What a ridiculous thought. Latin was a government legal language only. Constantine was a Roman and had no problems with Greek it seems. Like I once heard someone quote an old woman saying "One Hospodi pomilui is worth more than a hundred of your Lord Have Mercies"