www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Latin the language of the Church

I am new to posting.
I get a magazine called Faith and Family and in the Jan/Feb issue is an article called "Praying with the Pope in Latin" it says To introduce the new compendium of the catechism , Pope Benedict said that Catholics should memorize basic prayers in Latin to "help Christians faithful of different languages pray together, especially when they gather for special circumstances." The magazine then gave English and Latin for the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory be, the sign of the cross, Anima Christa, Angel of God, and Eternal Rest.
Too bad they did not include the Creed.

Dear Storyteller,

I agree, too bad they did not include the Creed. The ability for a diverse group of individuals to worship in a common language is also one of my reasons for endorsing Liturgical Languages.

that is all well and good for our Latin sisters and brothers, and it is obvious that it is to such that the mentioned work is addressed. it is pointless to say that one third of the Catholic communion (in communion with the Holy See) is non Latin,and oh, I know the Credo in Latin. the original language of the Church was Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire (both Rome and Constantinople), and the everyday language in the Vatican is Italian (take it from someone who knows Latin priests who have studied there). we can pray with the Holy Father in our respective vernacular, Slavonic, Aramaic, or whatever, and the LORD will hear us all.
Much Love,
Jonn

Actually, truth be told, 1/3 reflects only the overall population, not the number of churches. The last stat I saw indicated 21 autonomous (however one defines that) Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome. Of those, I believe that only the Ambrosian and the Latin church use ecclesiastical Latin as part of their tradition.

That means 2/21 of Catholic churches use Latin. So much for being the language of the Church!

Gordo

I'm sorry but the total number of Catholics in America who are supposed to be in communion with the Holy See in Rome is 69 million members. If non-Latin Catholics make up 1/3 that would mean that there are 23 million non-Latin Catholics in America and there would be no problem with dwindling numbers.

According to the Annuario Pontifico there are exactly 15,756,602 Eastern Catholics.

http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat06.pdf

Now, there are about 1,100,000,000 Catholics world wide.

Which means that all non-Latin Catholics put together, all 20 or so Churches only equal 1.43% of all Catholics.

The largest bodies are the Ukrainians, with 4 million and the Maronites, with 3 million.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how it could be construed that the non-Latin Catholics numbered over 300,000,000.

Corrections, please!

There are 23 sui juris Churches in the Catholic Communion: 1, the Latin Church, represents the West in its entirety and 22 Eastern Churches.

Yes, the largest among the Eastern Churches is the UGCC but at second is the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. The Maronites come third. The Melkites, the Romanians, and the Ruthenians follow.

So whatever the Latin Church does, all churches being equal, it only represents 1/23rd of the Total Catholic Faith? And if it is something that is unique to the Latin Church and developed in the second millennium, you could say that it only represents 1/46th of the Total Catholic Faith, regardless of the size and influence of the Latin Church?

My apologies to the Syro-Malabar Catholics!

Mea culpa!

Fair enough, but . . .

The Latin Church is technically composed of at least 176 particular Churches represented by almost every nation in the world.

However, in the Catholic communion of Churches, these "Western" national Churches are grouped as one, big, "particular Church" vis-a-vis the 22 Eastern Churches to constitute "the" Catholic Church! Never mind that there are archdioceses in the Latin Church that are even larger than the UGCC!

Sounds like memories of the Roman Republic - everyone is welcome to be called a Roman as long as they speak Latin. The Romans used this language as a tool to dominate their empire and used language for political purposes. Just some observations watching the HBO series "Rome." Can be compared to the Muslims using Arabic to aid in their expansion.

So does that mean that the venerable Gallican, Ambrosian and Mozarabic Churches are under the monicker of the "Latin Church"?

Gordo

Yes, those are all venerable rites but, in Latin terminology, they are not considered separate "Churches."

There is only ONE Latin Church, with several rites (including the Gallican, Ambrosian, etc.), an inverse to the Eastern Churches where there are many Churches under ONE rite, e.g., the Byzantine rite has the most number of separate Churches.

That explains he constant effort to re-educate Latins in the application of "rite" and "church" vis-a-vis the Eastern churches.

Thanks for the information.

Gordon

I think Latin riters know the difference between "rites" and "Churches."

The difference between Catholics using Latin and ER/Orthodox using Slavonic, etc, is that Latin has no cultural or ethnic ties for anyone and that makes it equally desirable for all.With Latin as the church language you could walk into any church in the world and worship;Japan, Peru,Poland,etc.
Not so for ER/Orthodox, and that,my dear, is a problem I see no good solution to.I'm not culturally affiliated with any ER/Orthodox culture and unfortunately have no inclination to immerse myself into these cultures.Nothing against them, no grudges or anything.I'm no yokel, I've been involved with different cultures professionally, personally, etc. since I was 3 years old, have travelled, have various levels of command of three languages and have family members and friends from different cultures and nations. It's a lot of work and I don't want to do it anymore.

Peace,
Indigo