Official Language of the Roman Catholic Church

Well of course Ecclesial Latin is the language of the Catholic Church, and all monks and higher members of the clergy would need a knowledge of this Latin.

It would be used for ceremonial purposes on occasion, but nowadays most verbal communication, either between members of the church or at mass are done in the vernacular. Most catholic texts are also printed in the vernacular.

During the medieval period and in early modern Europe, this was not the case and Latin was used at mass although those attending could get texts that were translated in the vernacular. But in modern times a variety of languages are used to communicate in the Catholic Church, but Latin still does remain its official language.

If I'm not mistaken, masses used to be held in Latin, with the priest's back to the congregation, till the 1960s. Now, it's all in English, but with the exploding Hispanic population in the US, diocese now offer masses in both languages.

There are three languages - greek, hebrew, latin.
This was the reason why my country Bulgaria chosed to become orthodox country instead of catholic. Slavic language was not biblical, how can we learn religion, if we dont read on our own language?
During 9 century, there was battle between Byzantium, and the new German kingdom, to win the slavic countrys on there site.
The two brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius, were send as emissaries in the slavic countrys alongside with there students, to teach the slavic country orthodox religion, and glagolic alphabet (which after only a few years was changed new, the cyrilic, used even today).

The official language of the Holy Roman Church is the Latin language, whether for liturgical purposes such as Holy Mass and Divine Office, whether for official documents such as encyclicals or catechisms.

It's true that the knowledge of Latin has sharply declined amongst the clergy since the Second Vatican Council but it's still required as part of the priestly formation and it's slowly returning to its proper place due to the increase in numbers of traditional clergy.

tjadams said:

If I'm not mistaken, masses used to be held in Latin, with the priest's back to the congregation, till the 1960s.

Click to expand...

The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) almost went into oblivion after the Pauline liturgical reform of 1970 that fabricated a new liturgy closely resembling the protestant anglican and lutheran services. The fact, though, is that the TLM couldn't be abolished in the first place according to liturgical law, as a commission of cardinals "found out" in 1984. So, largely due to the traditional resistance within some sectors of the Church, the Mass never actually disappeared and is slowly gaining ground to the modernist liturgy.

I know this from first hand experience since I attend the TLM at a small chapel.

sturm said:

There are three languages - greek, hebrew, latin.
This was the reason why my country Bulgaria chosed to become orthodox country instead of catholic. Slavic language was not biblical, how can we learn religion, if we dont read on our own language?

Click to expand...

Preaching isn't done in Latin in the first place. The evangelization of new peoples is done according to the local languages as often as possible. The language used for Holy Mass (like Latin, Greek or Church Slavonic) is especially set apart from the vernacular since the primary purpose of liturgy is the public act worship due to God and not exactly catechesis. The part reserved for that is the sermon which is done in the vernacular.

Furthermore, the Bulgarians were evangelized by St. Cyril and St. Metodius, as you pointed out, both of them having been sent from the See of Constantinople. The fact that Bulgaria sided with the Eastern schismatics was not due to issues of language but of political (and ecclesiastical) convenience. A tragedy indeed.

I found an interesting link here. It explains a lot.
http://www.catholiclatinmass.org/traditional-latin-mass.html

Bellarmine said:

Preaching isn't done in Latin in the first place. The evangelization of new peoples is done according to the local languages as often as possible. The language used for Holy Mass (like Latin, Greek or Church Slavonic) is especially set apart from the vernacular since the primary purpose of liturgy is the public act worship due to God and not exactly catechesis. The part reserved for that is the sermon which is done in the vernacular.

Furthermore, the Bulgarians were evangelized by St. Cyril and St. Metodius, as you pointed out, both of them having been sent from the See of Constantinople. The fact that Bulgaria sided with the Eastern schismatics was not due to issues of language but of political (and ecclesiastical) convenience. A tragedy indeed.

Click to expand...

That is true, yet bulgarian khan (still khan, not tzar), send a message to the catholic church with many questions regarding, the life of a christians, the pope returned all the answers, but you know how diplomacy with the Byzantineempire is. They tend to be very persuasive, they offered lands, etc.
The students of Cyril and Methodius came here, some of them were made archbishop's, even one of them Climent of Ohrid, made the cyrilic, an easy version of Cyril and Methodius glagolic alhpabet, cyrilic is used today by the slavonic countrys.
Why do you think it was a tragedy, the exeptance of orthodox faith rather then catholic?

applebuilder said:

So the majority population of the vatican (including the Pope) converse in Italian?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I believe french is also popular due to diplomatic reasons.

sturm said:

Why do you think it was a tragedy, the exeptance of orthodox faith rather then catholic?

Click to expand...

Because the orthodox faith is a schismatic faith.

Bellarmine said:

Because the orthodox faith is a schismatic faith.

Click to expand...

I cant agree. Im an orthodox, and i never considered becoming catholic.

Latin is as Bellarmine said the official language of the Holy See and the Vatican City State, but the working language of the Vatican is Italian. Given its location in Rome, the Vatican’s use of Italian makes perfect sense. As for Latin though, fewer and fewer seminarians and priests today are familiar with it as in the past, and lay people seldom study it; but official church documents are still published in Latin.Although knowledge of Latin is not emphised as it once was (pre-Vatican council of the 60s) it is still part of the studies of any candidate for the priesthood. And of course, any serious scholar who wishes to understand the great thinkers of the church, such as Augustine or Aquinas, needs a good working knowledge of the language. As the Papal Latinist, Reginald Foster, O.C.D., puts it: “You cannot understand Saint Augustine in English. He thought in Latin. It is like listening to Mozart through a jukebox.”

To answer the original question about “what language monks use” in day to day activities, the answer is the vernacular, the language of their country. I believe the questioner meant currently (that saves a lot of chit chat about the past) and in the United States.

Since all monks are not priests knowledge of Latin is not now nor ever was a requirement for entering the monastic life. In the commonness of monastic thought there is great diversity and you will find that some emphasize communal prayer and express it through Latin chants. However daily business is conducted in English. As an aside, I have a friend who said he could count on one hand the monasteries in the U.S. that were ethnic and spoke in the tongue of an eastern rite. But that is another category altogether. He also told me he knew of a monastery in the U.S. that spoke only Russian. They were preparing themselves to move their community to Holy Mother Russia when the cold war ended. I am not to sure about that. When my friend said, as he often did, that he could ‘count on one hand’ he meant it quite literally as one is all he had. So I was never sure if what he said added up.

I am curious as to why you asked the question. Were you thinking of signing up? Was the though of having to study Latin putting you off? Or are you looking for a place to immerse yourself in the language? Or maybe it’s because you are, as the rest of us here on Historum are, just plain curious.

sturm said:

I cant agree. Im an orthodox, and i never considered becoming catholic.

Click to expand...

Ah, I understand that. Nevertheless, I can only pray you do consider it someday. Theology and history can prove to you the lamentable reasons for the eastern schism and who in fact is the true Church of Our Lord, but ultimately conversion is also a grace of God as you know.

If you wish, you can PM me and we can talk about it since this is a bit off-topic. I'll keep you in my prayers, sturm. Take care.

I was born, baptized Catholic and a former alter boy & even taught in a Catholic school. But as I grew older, my experiences and view of the church totally changed. I might have a molecule of Catholicism left in me, but I want nothing to do with that cloistered organization now.

How I answer that question depends on if you are Catholic or non-catholic.
And if you are mono-lingual or bi-lingual.
My best rely would conform to the culture you already have and which Catholic culture you wished to study. Yes, there is more than one. The Church is not as monolithic as some people think.
It's a great question and I would like to give a great answer. It would help me if I had a few more details.
the phrase "Church head in Rome" makes me assume you are not catholic.

oops. You got your second post up before I got mine up. Ok I know a little more now but I still need to know more.

applebuilder said:

Sorry to veer off topic, but if I were to choose a language to learn in the hopes of understanding the more advanced aspects of Catholicism (from the Church Head in Rome), what form of Latin or which of its substrates would I benefit most from? To my understanding the original Classical had similar but varying dialects throughout the world and from that group emerged the Vulgar, which would later become French, Italian and so on. Ecclesial evolved exclusively within the Church, so what are the major differences between it and the Classical. Is it merely a change in the sounds and pronunciation of the language or are entire meanings rewritten? Would I gain from learning a more basic form of latin in order to gain a greater general insight into a larger collection of languages, or are they so varying that such an aim is unrealistic and I should therefore opt for either Ecclesial Latin or Italian in order to fulfill my original goal?

Click to expand...

I'll just pull a bit out of a post I made in another older thread:

None of this [Classical and Medieval latin] of course is to be confused with Ecclesiastical Latin, which was, and still is, the Latin used by the Catholic Church that is distinguished with a much reduced vocabulary, a much simplified syntax, and some lexical differences. In fact, Ecclesiastical Latin is really quite similar to Vulgar Latin.

Click to expand...

Here is the thread with full post

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=6182

Oh and I recommend learning: Classical Latin. It's quite easy actually.