Articles
Did Jesus speak Latin?
Opinion | Articles | Chhotebhai | 02-Oct-2025
Readers will pardon me for asking another audacious question. They will also note that I often write in response to current issues. This time it is a riposte to an article “Reviving the Old Latin Mass would be a colossal mistake” published in Union of Catholic Asian News (UCAN) on 26th September, written by Robert Mickens the former editor of La Croix International. Rome.
The riposte is not to the article per se, but to the comments that it elicited. There were 26, 13 each for and against. Of the 13 “for” 5 were my own comments and another by an Indian Jesuit. Excluding these 6, from the western world there were just 7 for and 13 against. Of these some were downright abusive. What the dickens did Mickens say to stir up such a controversy?
This article is about the attempts to bring back the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) that was introduced by the 19th General Council of the Church (1545-63), held at Trent in Austria, from whence it gets its name. The TLM gave undue importance to external formats called rubrics. It was celebrated with the priest facing the altar, not the congregation. Since it was in Latin it was literally “Greek” to the faithful!
The Second Vatican Council (Vat II) from 1962-65 brought in radical changes to the liturgy that were a reflection of its changed self-understanding (ecclesiology). Among the two major changes was the celebrant facing the people in direct interaction and the use of the vernacular, making the liturgy far more meaningful and participative. This was called the Novus Ordo (NO), the New Order of the Mass. So why do people oppose what makes eminent sense?
Mickens says that this pro-TLM movement is led by traditionalist/ retrodox Cardinals Raymond Burke and Robert Sarah. They were arch critics of Pope Francis and are now trying to turn the screws on Pope Leo. Mickens rightly links liturgy to ecclesiology. He laments that “The implementation of Vat II and its doctrinally rich decrees and teachings was not handled well”.
That is the crux of the problem – ignorance. These retrodox cardinals and their followers have exploited this ignorance to generate a phobia, “”The true Catholic Church is in danger”. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Mickens describes the pre-Vat II church as one that “saw itself as a perfect society, fortified as an unassailable city on a hill, with no need of interaction with the world outside”. It was both isolated and insulated; a church of rules and regulations, not of genuine concerns for peoples’ aspirations or sufferings. Internally it was clericalist, misogynist, patriarchal, moralistic and highly regimented”. Do we want to revert to that?
Proponents of the TLM are nostalgic about its "sacredness, solemnity, and silence that touch the body, soul, and mind." This is stretching it. We can experience all that in the NO as well, though it may not always be possible in large congregations. However, in smaller groups and during retreats, it is certainly accessible.
Mickens reasserts that liturgy is not limited to smells (incense) and bells (rituals). It is about the new ecclesiology (see the chart below). He also distinguishes between the Latin language and the TLM. Latin remains the “official” language of the Church, as are its texts. Even the NO can be celebrated in Latin, if the congregation understands the language.
To divert a bit, recall the rich tapestry of Pope Leo’s inaugural Mass. The First Reading was in Spanish, the responsorial psalm in Italian, the Second Reading in English, the gospel in both Latin and Greek and the Prayers of the Faithful were in Portuguese, French, Arabic, Polish and Chinese. This is the true meaning of the word “catholic” – universal. Hence it was reaching out to all humanity. How tragic if this Mass had been celebrated in Latin with the Pope showing his back to the world!
To put things in perspective I am quoting some of the caustic comments against Mickens’ article. They are indicative of how deep the rot is: - Your time is almost over/ We will not allow our heritage to be usurped. Leo will die one day, as will you/ You are like Judas/ the Catholic Church has become a nationalistic, ecumenical mess (whatever that means)/ Vat II and the new Mass is a new religion/ Vat II is Jewish not Christian/ The Church is hopelessly lost and insane/ What earlier generations held sacred remains sacred …
From the above two things become clear. One is that these commentators know precious little about Church history. Secondly, they are terribly judgemental, like the Pharisee who pompously proclaimed “God I thank you that I am not like … this tax collector” (Lk 18:11).
Let’s also take a look at the Council of Trent by which the retrodox swear. It was a reaction to Luther’s Reformation in 1517; convened by Pope Paul III. As Cardinal Fernesse he had 5 children from concubinage. The council began with five cardinals, 31 bishops, and 48 theologians. It ended 18 years later with 176 bishops, during the tenure of 4 popes. Among its various recommendations was that heretics should be burned at the stake! If today’s retrodox, who question ecclesial authority, are considered heretics then they too should meet the same fate. Perish the thought. Do they realize that they are literally playing with fire?
In contrast look at Vat II (1962-65) that was attended by over 2500 bishops and theologians. From a judgemental church it became a pastoral one. It promulgated two Dogmatic Constitutions, two Pastoral Constitutions, 9 Decrees and 3 Declarations. This is where ecclesiology (the changed self-understanding of the Church) comes in to play. This in turn affects its attitude towards other Churches, religions, science etc. The Table below contrasts the two scenarios. Where do we stand? Imagine the intolerance and hatred in the world if we had stuck with pre-Vatican II ecclesiology?
| PRE-VATICAN II | POST VATICAN II |
1 | There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” – St Cyprian of Carthage, 3rd century | All can be saved by God’s grace, even agnostics and atheists (cf LG 16) |
2 | Rome has spoken, the chapter is closed; “Roma locuta est causa finite est” – St Augustine, 5th century | The Church should avail of the laity’s prudent advice (LG 37) |
3 | A Roman/ Latin Church - actions like genuflection | Emphasis on the Local Church – culture, mother tongue (LG 36) |
4 | Church Militant/ Triumphant – arrived at its destination, superior to others, saved already | It is the initial budding forth (LG 5), not yet in full bloom. It is a pilgrim in a foreign land (LG 8) |
5 | It is sacred, divine | It is composed of human and divine elements (LG 8) |
6 | It is a holy church, a holy people | It embraces sinners in her bosom (LG 8) |
7 | It is a repository of truth | Many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure (LG 8) |
8 | It is uniform and universal | “The Church has no wish to impose rigid uniformity in matters that do not involve the faith … Rather she respects and fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples” (SC 37) |
9 | On obedience: “Anyone who disobeys an authority is rebelling against God” (Rom 13:2); “Slaves be obedient to your masters” (Eph 6:5) | You have the right to form labour unions and even to go on strike (GS 69) |
10 | On marriage/ family; “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1 ff) | The family is the Domestic Church (LG 11) |
11 | Paternalistic attitude: Father | “The laity have Christ for their brother … they also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry” (LG 32) |
12 | Women: They are expected to keep quiet (cf 1 Cor 14:34); “The head of woman is man” (1 Cor 11:2) | Women have equity with men (GS 9). They even have the right to choose their own husbands (GS 29) |
13 | Pagans and idolaters are going to hell | “The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions” (NA 2) |
14 | Evangelization: Missionary zeal was strongly motivated by the belief that the unbaptised were going to hell, hence they sometimes tried to justify the means for the end | “Man’s response to God in faith must be free. Therefore no one is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against their own will” (DH 9). There should be no coercion (DH 11) |
Abbreviations used are for the Latin starting words of the various documents:
LG: Lumen Gentium - The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - 21/11/1964
GS: Gaudium et Spes - The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World – 28/10/1965
SC: Sacrosanctum Concilium – Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy – 4/12/1963
NA: Nostra Aetate – Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions – 28/10/1965
DH: Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious Freedom – 7/12/1965
These are the official teachings of the Church. As such, one cannot claim to be Catholic if one wilfully rejects them. Typically, there are two types of Catholics who tend to reject or underplay Vat II. The first are those who in the name of “Tradition” feel that Vat II is contrary to the faith. There is a saying: “Tradition is the living voice of the dead, while traditionalism is the dead voice of the living”. The other group is the one that feels threatened by this new ecclesiology, particularly the fraternal relationships espoused by the Council. The powerful feel that they will lose their power and exalted status, hence the great sabotage of Vatican II by keeping people ignorant of its teachings.
This is not a battle over liturgy but for the very mind and soul of the ecclesial community? Ironically again, these very same retrodoxers would have had no voice and been condemned to hell by pre-Vat II standards. So let them not cut their noses to spite the face of the Church.
It is in this light that we can revert to my original question – “Did Jesus speak Latin”? The answer is a resounding “No”. His native tongue was Aramaic, a Syro-Hebrew dialect. He would also have known Hebrew as he was fluent with the Jewish scripture. His last anguished cry was in Hebrew, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” (Mat 24:47), which was a quote from Psalm 22:1. Ironically, the inscription on the cross abbreviated as INRI was Latin for “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (Jn 19:19).
Lastly, why go back 400 years to Trent? Go back 2000 years to Jerusalem. We are familiar with Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper. It was erroneous artistic licence (Dan Brown please note). How could there be a blue sky at supper time? The Jews never sat at a table, they reclined around it. The artist needed the apostles to “face the camera”, so positioned it that way. In all probability the apostles reclined around the table with Jesus at the centre. He would not have shared his body and blood with his back to his disciples. He was not passing a baton in a relay race. Nor would he have spoken in Latin or any other language alien to his disciples.
No disciple is greater than his master (Mat 10:24). So forget Trent and Rome. Return to Jerusalem.
The writer is the Convenor of the Indian Catholic Forum. Views expressed in the article are personal.
Leave a comment
