Prayer Book services in the universities were done in Latin for centuries. It is the traditional language of Western Christendom. The loss of Latin has been a bad thing IMO.
There is the wrong idea that "a Latin Mass" is 100 per cent in Latin, sermon and all, and with the exception of the priest nobody understands anything. Nothing could be further from the truth .... When I was a boy in Germany it was like this: Sermon, Gospel, and songs were in German, naturally. So were most of the prayers. The Credo etc could be sung in German and in Latin. What was in Latin were lines like: "Dominus vobiscum - Et cum spiritu tuo!" Those lines recurred again and again, and everybody with an IQ above 25 knew what they mean. And when at the end of the "Latin Mass" the priest was chanting: "Ite, missa est!" everybody with an IQ above zero knew exactly: "The Mass is over now, we can go home!"
In short, what I like about the Latin Mass: Mystery Tradition Internationality So that I could feel at home in Kent, England - and in Perm, Russia.
Anglicans recite the Kyrie Eleison in English, or whatever the native language of the service is. I make the same point I made earlier. Reducing "Latin in Church" to exclusively songs is an uninteresting question. There's no contention there. Reciting creeds and common prayers in Latin carries the same issues I flagged earlier - it distances the church goers from God if they don't understand it. I understand you might know what the Nicene Creed means, but I presume you were raised and formed in a Catholic church. I first attended a real church service as an adult, I would have absolutely no way of deducing the meaning of the Nicene Creed, which means the service is clearly less effective in its designed purpose. So the question then is why do you use Latin in the service? Is it bringing people closer to God, or is it to inflate your pride and your ego? There are a very small number of people that receive the word better in Latin - for those people I have no issue with them attending a Latin service. Everyone else should read First Timothy and appreciate Paul cautioned us against bringing pride, ego and envy into church. Do whatever best helps you worship.
I didn't say nobody finds it interesting, I said it is uninteresting. As in it holds no curiosity. Suppose you ask a question with a known answer. Everyone gives an identical response. The question is intuitively solved. That is an uninteresting question by definition, nothing valuable was learned. I can only assume the question was of interest to you, hence why you asked it, but that doesn't mean the question itself is an interesting one. It only makes sense to talk about Latin used in church outside of very small niche use cases otherwise there's no reason to ask the question at all. Surely you want a thread that provokes a discussion, not one every member of this forum happily ignores? So when someone says "here are some reasons why I don't like the use of Latin in church" try not to silence any disagreement by narrowing the discussion to something people could only possibly support.
I think that for a lot of Catholics it is more than just a question of what language is used. The care for the rubrics and ceremonial that typically goes along with celebrating the Mass in Latin also often ensures that the liturgy will be reverent. The loss of such reverence in the celebration of typical (vernacular) Novus Ordo masses is a prime motivator here, as I see it. Had the Roman Catholic Church simply produced quality vernacular translations of the 1962 liturgy for official use (quality translations do exist), rather than create new rites altogether, this would not be the issue that it is today for many faithful Catholics. The ones performing the irreverent Novus Ordo masses can’t not know that they’re being done badly, ergo it must be deliberate. This must be true for the hierarchy as well. I suspect this will have the opposite effect over time than what Francis intends: either a large number of bishops will declare Francis’ criteria satisfied for there to be Latin masses in their dioceses, or you’ll see the traditional Latin Mass adherents simply leave.
As Article 24 sets forth: 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 & the Custom of the primitive Church, to have publick prayer in the Church, or to Minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood by the People. That said, clearly the language used is dependent on those in attendance. If it be English, then English ought to be used for the liturgy. If French, then French. If Latin were to resurge as a local or regional use, then clearly the principle would follow. Songs in other languages from the rest of the liturgy, while beautiful in their own right, are meaningless without translation offered in some form- and should not be common practice.
I think my postings are just not understood. It is as if I had posted just nothing. May some read my postings again? I never said that the sermon or the gospel should be kept in Latin.
I get it. Others seem to be missing the point. If we're going to rigidly apply Anglican Article of Religion #24 to contemporary Catholicism, it can just as easily be retorted that for much of the Church of England's history, the 1662 liturgy to many English people was a "foreign language service in English." More to the point, Article 24 was based on a historically inaccurate reading of both Jewish and Christian liturgical history. Liturgy in the vernacular has historically been the exception rather than the norm, and that includes 1st cent. Palestine.
I do appreciate Latin as a language of culture, and of history. I more than appreciate it, I love it, and consider it to be better than any modern language, indeed it is THE ideal language.This is why I have studied classical latin at university, and continue to treasure it as the language of elegance. I also appreciate art centered around the Latin language, such as Carmina Burana. And sometimes at our parish we have had canticles in the Latin, which I appreciated as well. However as @ZachT said, none of these things to me fall under the category of "Latin in the Church". If the question is, should the liturgy itself be in Latin, or is Latin a better language for the Divine Service? In that case I would say, no. The point of the liturgy is not to use "the best language" but rather to effect salvation, repentance, damnation, crucifixion, resurrection, in the congregant. The point of Christian worship is not dress-up, not role-play. It is to have the heart surgery of the soul. A deep excavation of that knot in the heart of every man. That's what I have in our parish and its 1928/1662 BCP liturgy. To a large extent this happens because I hear the words being said, and the words excavate my heart, convict and crucify (and resurrect) me. That to me is the heart of Christian worship: not a cultural role-play but a practical and actual engagement with salvation itself.
Anglican forum, Anglican Article of Religion, - poll asking about use in Church (unspecified to mean cotnemporary Roman Catholicism): context seems quite clear to declare the orthodox Anglican position. The 1662 may be classically high modern English, but it is recognizable and understandable as English to current hearers nonetheless. Language in the vernacular does not necessitate it being 'dumbed-down' to the simplest grammer and vocabulary possible, especially since edification and education are so often combined in both worship and the Christian life. Can you provide any sourcing that 1st c. Palestine did not use the common tongue (ie, vernacular) for worship in Christian worship, or that the Reformers were so inaccurate, since not only the English reformers, but also Luther, Calvin, and more, all felt the need to reform the liturgy into the common regional tongue?
We aren't missing the point. As I already said, we're trying to generate a discussion that is useful. If the thread was titled "Do you like the use of the Latin language in churches, excluding the sermon, the Gospel, and any other part of the official liturgy" this thread would have no replies, because the question is totally meaningless. What right thinking person would have a reason to oppose that? We can only have a useful discussion if we instead talk about the kind of Latin usage in churches that is actually contentious, and that people actually argue over. More to the point Silvan, you did say you think there is merit in the Nicene Creed and the Kyrie being spoken in Latin and Greek. We have responded. Othinel's, Stalwart's and my arguments don't just apply to sermons and gospel, in fact we never used the words sermon or gospel, perhaps you could read our posts again. All of our arguments also apply to creeds, prayers and every part of the liturgy in between. The purpose of the creeds and prayers is to understand God, to become better Christians, to come closer to God. That purpose is compromised if the participant has no idea what they're reciting.
That is precisely the condition that is being excluded. It's quite simple: one either likes Latin in church services, or one doesn't. I like it. Silvan likes it. That is fine. You and Stalwart apparently do not. That is fine also. No one's talking about forcing anybody to attend church services in a language they don't understand, and I'm genuinely puzzled why that objection would even come up, as it has nothing to do with the question. There's a lot of apparent obtuseness in some of the replies that's really not necessary, in my view.
Use in church absent any qualifiers would seem to presuppose that Latin is the novelty, not the norm.