Anglicans hate Latin like the Modernists.

[Geremia]

From the Anglicans' 39 Articles of Religion[/url:

XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

[Daniel]

and the custom of the Primitive Church

But don't they sort of have a point here? The earliest Christian liturgies were prayed in languages that the people could understand. Hence the Latin. (Latin, up through the fall of western Rome, used to be the language that everybody understood... and even well into the middle ages it remained widespread.)

It wasn't until much later that Latin became regarded as a 'sacred language'. Not that there's anything wrong with Latin (it does have its advantages, after all), but I don't think there's anything particularly 'modernist' about using English per se. (Though it would be 'modernist' to promote English on the basis that 'prayer is directed at the people', or on the basis that 'the people are the ones offering Mass'.)

[Kreuzritter]

They do have a point. Think about how much worse this was when the common folk didn't even have missals with translations to help them out.

[abc123]

Interesting. This past Sunday I heard not only Ave Maria and Panis Angelicus sung in Latin but also the Sanctus and Gloria sung in the same tongue. I'd better inform father that Anglicans are supposed to hate Latin.

[Michael Wilson]

Depends on the "Anglicans"; as they range from "Broad Church" no sacrament types all the way to Solemn High Mass in Latin types.

[Vetus Ordo]

Latin was actually the common tongue of the people in the Western Roman Empire. There was nothing sacred about it.

When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, it was translated into the vulgar tongue of the masses. Hence, the Vulgata.

[TheReturnofLive]

Latin was actually the common tongue of the people in the Western Roman Empire. There was nothing sacred about it.

When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, it was translated into the vulgar tongue of the masses. Hence, the Vulgata.

While absolutely true, it has been Christian custom to retain small things as extremely important in the name of tradition out of a fear of losing the bigger picture - when you prevent modification to small things, you don't risk modification to bigger and more important things.

It's for this reason that the Fiddleback Chasuble is, in reality, nothing more than a slight modification of the ordinary dress of the Roman Empire which was slowly cut away over time.


















See:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/styles-and-tradition-in-chasuble-of.html

And on the topic of language,
And all the traditional liturgical Churches follow a similar mentality. The Copts still celebrate in Coptic, even though nobody speaks it anymore. The Slavs still celebrate in Slavonic, even though nobody speaks Slavonic. The Armenians celebrate in Classical Armenian, despite nobody speaking that old of a form of Armenian.

[TheReturnofLive]

It's also pretty ironic that the Anglicans and English speakers do the same thing by preserving King James Bible lexicon for prayers (Our Father, who "art" in Heaven, "hallowed be thy Name"

Glory "be" to the Father, and to the Son, and the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, "world without end" ["in Saecula Saeculorum", which doesn't translate to "world without end" - at least literally]).

It should also be said that the standardization of Latin was a pretty harsh transition, with a lot of fuss about it. Just read the letters Jerome received and responded to in regards to the Vulgate translation, including some word choices and source uses.

[Vetus Ordo]

Of course, there's nothing wrong with the use of sacred languages, per se. But we have to be careful to distinguish how this came about. It's mere usage.

Even those churches that use sacred language in the rites of the liturgy have already conceded the main point when making use of translations of the scriptures. After all, there's no point in reading them in a language nobody in the congregation understands. You're not reading the scriptures for God's benefit but for man's. That was also the underlying motif for Jerome's efforts in the Vulgate.

[Geremia]

It wasn't until much later that Latin became regarded as a 'sacred language'.

Hebrew, Greek, and Latin have been sacred languages since when they were nailed to the Cross (Jn. 19:20).

[TheReturnofLive]

It wasn't until much later that Latin became regarded as a 'sacred language'.

Hebrew, Latin, and Greek have been sacred languages since when they were nailed to the Cross.

Which is why we don't have any Hebrew liturgies (Aside from "Amen", "Hallelujah" and "Sabaoth") and why Latin didn't become the official standardized language of the Roman Church until the 4th century, but okay.

[Geremia]

Which is why we don't have any Hebrew liturgies

Jesus used Hebrew (a non-vernacular, sacred language) in the synagogue, not His vernacular Aramaic.

Fr. Gihr:

Up to the time of Christ and the Apostles, the ancient Hebrew was the language of the Patriarchs, the cult language, although no longer understood by the Jewish nation, who after the Babylonian Captivity made use of the Syro-Chaldaic [Aramaic] idiom.

Also, Christian liturgies not in Aramaic (Syro-Chaldaic), Greek, and Latin languages have always (except Romanian) used a "dead" language (cf. Gihr §32 fn. 1).

[TheReturnofLive]

Which is why we don't have any Hebrew liturgies (Aside from "Amen", "Hallelujah" and "Sabaoth") and why Latin didn't become the official standardized language of the Roman Church until the 4th century, but okay.

?

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-damasus-i/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Damasus-I

The Hebrew liturgies should be self explanatory. The only Hebrew liturgies that are in actual existence are those who have been translated into Hebrew because of the State of Israel's existence, which, to the anger of Orthodox Jews, rendered the Hebrew language as a vulgar language to be commonly spoken.

Also, what about Sacred Languages which didn't exist, but came into existence, like Slavonic, Ge'ez, Aramaic (debatable), Coptic, Classical Armenian?

[Tales]

Perhaps rather than whine about incomprehensible Latin, we should just teach Latin, the language of the Church which is the Body of Christ.  Everyone across the globe strives to learn English to make a buck, why not Latin?  People in continental Europe often can speak 3-8 languages, so it must not be such an insurmountable challenge.

The reality is that since 1517 the West has been on a suicidal satanic mission to obliterate all things tradition.

[Xavier]

Yes, foregoing Latin and giving up on Gregorian Chant was a huge mistake. Thankfully, there is a resurgence of interest in Latin today. http://prayinglatin.com/ As the link notes, even Vatican II actually said preference should be given to Latin in the Latin Church, and the vernacular should be used only very rarely. But what came after was something completely different, the total jettisoning of Latin, and predictable doctrinal confusion resulting from love of innovation, and loss of unity both in faith and of a sense of the Catholic Church's Universality.

"The Latin language must be esteemed a treasure of incomparable worth." Pope St. John XXIII, Apostolic Constitution: Veterum Sapientia, 1962

Veterum Sapientia is worth reading in full: "And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression ...

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23veterum.htm

Learning the basic prayers of our Tradition like the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, Gloria Patri and the Creed in Latin should be a basic requirement for all Roman Rite Catholics.

"Latin is Unifying and Universal

• It is fitting that a universal ("catholic") Church should pray in a universal language.
• The Latin language unifies all under one tongue thereby countering the havoc from the tower of Babel, and in a practical way it continues the gift of Pentecost by enabling people from all nations to understand and pray together in una voce (one voice) universally.
  Inhabitants of a country naturally desire immigrants to learn the county's language. In terms of identity, "Language is the most important cause of unity and feeling at home." "It brings people together–language." "Take away a language and people feel out of place." (Sensus Fidelium, 8/12/2014).
• "The Holy Spirit has 'gathered all the nations from out of the babel of tongues into the unity of faith.' Being formed of 'all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues,' she constitutes but one family of God, one kingdom of Christ, a kingdom not of this world, but exalted above every nation of the earth.'" (Fr Gihr, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
• "Precisely in the multiplicity of languages and cultures, Latin, for so many centuries the vehicle and instrument of Christian culture, not only guarantees continuity with our roots but continues to be as relevant as ever for strengthening the bonds of unity of the faith in the communion of the Church." (Pope Benedict XVI, Presentation of the Compendium, 2005)

...The Rosary, the greatest private devotion, was also originally prayed, taught, and handed down in Latin, and a regular practice of the Saints was to pray their devotions in their holy Church's mother tongue." https://www.prayinglatin.com/why-pray-in-latin/