The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) Thread

On the contrary! The Church regards three, and only three, languages as sacred. These, as referred to several times in Sacred Scripture (Luke 23:38, John 19:20, Apocalypse 9:11), are Hebrew, Greek, and Latin: “This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.”

Rev. Msgr. George Moorman comments in The Latin Mass Explained (1920):​

“It is curious to note that the three foremost dead tongues-the Hebrew, the Greek and the Latin-were employed at the crucifixion for the inscription fixed above the thorn-crowned Head: ‘Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.’ These were the languages chosen to tell the great truth to the whole world. So today, in the commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, in the Mass, these three languages are still employed. The greater part of the Mass is said in Latin. The Kyrie Eleison is Greek. Vestiges of the Hebrew are found in the words, Alleluia, Amen, Hosanna.”

And in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Aesthetically Explained (1902), Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr explains:​

The Latin language is consecrated by the mystic inscription attached to the Cross, as well as sanctified by the usage of nearly two thousand years, and hence it is most closely interwoven with the primitive Roman Catholic liturgy of the holy Sacrifice. The inscription on the Cross : "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews," was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (John 19.19, 20). These were the three principal languages of that epoch, and by divine dispensation they were, so to say, destined and consecrated on the Cross for the liturgical use of the Church.... In the first centuries these three languages were employed predominantly, if not exclusively, in the liturgical service....

....From the beginning of Christianity the sublime mystery of the Mass was celebrated, the sacramental means of grace were administered, God was glorified, men were sanctified and led to salvation in this language. It is without doubt elevating and inspiring to offer sacrifice and pray in the very language and in the very words, whose forcible yet sweet tones once resounded in the mouths of the primitive Christians and our forefathers in the dark depths of the Catacombs, in the golden areas of the ancient basilicas, and in the sumptuous cathedrals of the Middle Age. In the Latin language of divine worship innumerable saints, bishops and priests of all times have offered sacrifice, prayed and sung; in it the most magnificent liturgical formulas are composed, prayers of incomparable beauty.... Should not this ancient Latin language of divine service, so venerable and hallowed in its origin and use, be extremely dear and precious to us, so that we would not for any price give it up or be deprived of it at the celebration of Holy Mass?

...The Latin language is better suited than the languages of different countries to the celebration of divine worship, not only because it is very perfect, but furthermore because, as a so-called dead language, it has the incomparable merit of being at the same time unchangeable and mysterious. The genius of the Latin language possesses great perfection : it is distinguished for its dignity and gravity, clearness and precision, for its richness and euphony. It is, therefore, often difficult to render the complete sense, and still more difficult, and sometimes utterly impossible, to bring out in a translation the beauty, the strength, the dignity, the unction, the depth and the wealth of thought of the original Latin....

....As a so-called dead language, it is unchangeable, while the languages of the people undergo constant improvement and remodelling, and are ever liable to go on progressing and altering. What would become of liturgical books, if, with time and the changes of the vernacular, they were subjected to perpetual change and reconstruction? ...

t would be impossible to preserve and maintain uniformity of divine worship at different times among even one and the same people, much less throughout the world. All these inconveniences are obviated by the use of an unchangeable language for divine worship.... Since the Latin language has been withdrawn from daily life, from the ordinary intercourse of mankind, since it is not heard on the street or in the market-place, it possesses in the eyes of the faithful a holy, venerable, mystic character.... The celebration of this mystic Sacrifice fittingly calls for a language elevated, majestic, dignified and consecrated; religious sentiment demands this, and the Latin tongue answers this requirement. Just as the silent saying of the Canon, so also the use of a sanctified cult language, different from that of profane intercourse, points to the unfathomable and unspeakable depth of the mystery of the altar, and protects it against contempt and desecration. The majesty of the divine worship depends, indeed, chiefly on the devout, dignified and reverential demeanor of the celebrant; but the liturgical language contributes also its share thereunto, and a foreign language is suitable, in a measure, to veil the defects and repulsive routine of many a priest, and to prevent them from appearing so glaring....

...As a universal language of worship, Latin is an admirable means not only of presenting, but also of preserving and promoting the unity and harmony of the Church....

...The unity of the liturgy for all time and place can be perfectly maintained only inasmuch as it is always and everywhere celebrated in the same language. By the introduction of the various national languages, the uniformity and harmony of Catholic worship would be imperilled and, in a measure, rendered impossible. How beautiful and sublime is that uniform celebration of the Holy Sacrifice in the Catholic Church from the rising to the setting of the sun! Thus every priest is enabled to celebrate Mass, over the whole world, no matter what country he visits....

...The unity of the liturgical language and of the divine worship in the Church is, therefore, a very efficient means for preserving the integrity of faith.... [T]he more fixed, unchangeable and inviolable the liturgical formula of prayer is, the better it is adapted to preserve intact and to transmit unimpaired the original deposit of faith. Therefore, all the primitive liturgies proclaim and prove that our faith is in perfect harmony with that of the first ages of the Church.

...Unity of liturgical language and the consequent uniformity of divine worship form, finally, a strong bond for uniting indissolubly the churches dispersed all over the world, among themselves and with their common centre the Roman Church.... The bond of a universal language of worship, which embraces the head and the members of the Church, supports and promotes everywhere the unity and the common life and operation of the Church. History confirms this; for it proves that a difference of liturgies, that is, the introduction of national languages into the liturgy, frequently gave or threatened to give rise to heresy and schism....

[T]he use of the Latin as the common language for divine worship harmonizes perfectly with the essence, the object and the workings of the Catholic Church.... he constitutes but one family of God, one kingdom of Christ, a kingdom not of this world, but exalted above every nation of the earth. Therefore, it is proper that the Church, when celebrating divine worship, when offering the divine Sacrifice, should make use not of the language of some one single country or nation, but of a language that is universal, consecrated and sanctified. Thus at the altar it is a figure of the heavenly Jerusalem, where all the angels and saints in unison (una voce) sing their "Holy, holy, holy" and Alleluja.
Yes, that's what Ive always understood. The three languages our Lord spoke in his lifetime. One question: is it called Hebrew or Aramaic?


Catholic forum members who attend TLM:

What is your position on attending the New Mass if and when TLM is unavailable?

Do you consider the New Mass to be valid?
My position:

It is not a sin to miss Mass due to great distance or other serious excusing circumstances. It is a sin, however, to attend the Novus Ordo.

The “New Mass” of Paul VI is an evil rite ecause it contains a heretical definition of the Mass; it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecumenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated; its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics; it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

On validity: the Novus Ordo is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration of the words of Christ in the consecration formula. (This has become somewhat of a moot point now anyways, because these days practically all Novus Ordo masses are being celebrated by clerwho were consecrated by bishops who themselves were consecrated under Paul VI’s 1968 New Rite of Episcopal Consecration which IS definitely invalid! Invalid bishops=invalid priests=invalid Mass.)

Furthermore, I hold that it is also a sin, objectively speaking, to assist at an otherwise valid traditional Latin Mass that is offered in union with the modernist false “pope” and his hierarchy. So for example, I would not attend Masses offered under the auspices of the Society of St. Pius X, even though their priests are valid in most cases, because I could not in good conscience assist at a Traditional Latin Mass that is offered “together with Thy servant Bergoglio, Our Pope” (UGH!) because to me it is a lie, it is a sacrilege, and it is grievously offensive to Almighty God.​


Yes, that's what Ive always understood. The three languages our Lord spoke in his lifetime. One question: is it called Hebrew or Aramaic?
I found this quote...

“It is a common misconception that the Jews of Christ's time spoke Hebrew. They did not. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian
captivity in 538 B.C., they were speaking a form of Syriac, sometimes called Aramaic, as their vernacular. Hebrew had become a sacred
language, not a vernacular, reserved for religious services and the teaching of the rabbis, much as Latin came to be used in the Roman
Catholic Church. (Hebrew is related to Syriac in somewhat the same way as French to Italian. They have a common ancestor, but the speaker of one would not easily understand the other.)

The question sometimes arises: what language did Christ speak? It seems most reasonable to think that He spoke Syriac as a vernacular,
but used the sacred language Hebrew in the synagogues where He taught among the rabbis. Again, at the Passover it is most reasonable to think that he used Hebrew for the Seder, which was a sacred service for the Jews.”

Haydock’s commentary on Douay-Rheims Bible for the gospel of John 19 verse 20 reads:

Ver. 20. As there were probably many Gentiles at Jerusalem at this time, on account of the festival day, this inscription was written in three different languages, that all might be able to read it. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxiv. in Joan.) — It was written in Hebrew, on account of the Jews, who glorified in the law of God; in Greek, on account of the wise men of all nations; and in Latin, because of the Romans, who at that time commanded almost every nation of the earth. (St. Augustine, tract. 118. in Joan.)

So it would appear that Our Lord ordinarily spoke Aramaic (also called “Syriac”) as His vernacular. He also spoke Hebrew, Greek, and probably Latin on occasion (of course, being God, He obviously knew EVERY language).

The reason those three languages are sacred though isn’t just due to Our Lord’s having spoken them, but because those languages were on inscription that hung over Our Lord upon the Cross... Holy Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary made present.

All three sacred languages are incorporated in the Church’s liturgy (The Kyrie for example is Greek, the frequent Amens and Alleluias are Hebrew...)
Last edited:
Yes, that's what Ive always understood. The three languages our Lord spoke in his lifetime. One question: is it called Hebrew or Aramaic?

Aramaic is a different language from Hebrew, but there are a lot of similarities. I've also studied Arabic, and I can hear the similarities in the Aramaic used compared to Arabic in "The Passion of the Christ" for instance. Both can be written with the same alphabet, or Aramaic can be written in what is called Syriac.

Hebrew was a dead language at the time of our Lord, much like Latin is today. The everyday language would've been Aramaic, or Koine Greek, the dialect of Greek from Attic Greek from Athens after Alexander the Great conquered the known world.

It is highly debated whether or not Latin would've been spoken by our Lord (I lean towards maybe not.). It wasn't until the 300s that Latin became the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire, before that it was Greek. There were Greek colonies in Southern Italy (Archimedes lived in Syracuse, Sicily), and even as far as Spain. The New Testament was written in Greek. Aramaic Primacy is the debate in academic circles about whether or not Aramaic or Greek was the language the New Testament was written in first. Good arguments are made by both sides.

Latin is the Language of the Church for a variety of reasons:

1. They started using Latin because everyone understood it around the 300s, so everyone could use it in the Church.

2. They kept using Latin because eventually no one understood it, so no one could change it and distort it.

3. It was the language of Rome, where St. Peter was martyred so that language gets "primacy of place" so to speak.
It is highly debated whether or not Latin would've been spoken by our Lord (I lean towards maybe not.).

This theory, as I understand it, is maintained mainly by the inference that our Lord spoke to Pontius Pilate in Latin, and that it was one of the three languages in which the INRI was rendered above the cross. Specious?

Lavabis Me

This theory, as I understand it, is maintained mainly by the inference that our Lord spoke to Pontius Pilate in Latin, and that it was one of the three languages in which the INRI was rendered above the cross. Specious?

This theory is bolstered by the fact that even though Latin was not the Lingua Franca of the entire Roman Empire, it was absolutely the language of Roman law throughout the empire; all legal proceedings were in Latin. There is also Christ's exchange with the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13.

Along these lines we can also consider Paul's invoking of the civis Romanus sum in Acts 22. Paul, being a Pharisee, was a learned man, knew and probably interacted with "doctors of the law", who in turn would have most certainly studied Roman law to understand that which they could and could not comply. If you couple that with Christ's exchanges with Pharisees and doctors (Lk 2:46, 5:17), it's not a stretch to assume he was familiar with the language which had almost three generations' worth of time to percolate through the area, at least from the standpoint of Roman law and interaction with Roman soldiers.

Lavabis Me

He knew every language in the world but he only deigned to conduct his ministry on Earth in those three languages
Of course as God he knew every language; the question, as I read it, was did he use Latin, and if so, why isn't stated that he did? So we have to determine if an itinerant preacher in 1st century Palestine would have been familiar with Latin to the point where his using it would have gone unremarked in the historical record.

If Latin was in spare use, then Jesus' suddenly speaking the language surely would have been noted, as their would have been at least mild surprise on the part of those present. Since their is no mention of that, we have to examine whether he would have in a position to be familiar with it in his human capacity. I think the instances and circumstances noted above are strong indicators that he could very easily have used Latin without it needing to be specifically remarked that he did.