Ecclesiastical Latin - What's the Big Deal ?

[I_Believe]

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia seems similarly uniformed:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

Scroll down to the section on langauge.

Hi JKirk, there is that statement haunting me again lol.

Actually, this, from the same site, is what got me going on this. Especially the part on Jerome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm

[brotherhrolf]

What is missing in this discussion is history. You can make all the points you want about the eastern churches but the simple fact remains is that the eastern half of the Roman empire was more or less intact until the end of the Middle Ages.

Latin was a unifying force in the west. The chaos which followed the collapse of the western Roman empire starting from the withdrawal of the legions from Britain in 410 until the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire around 800 is staggering. Vernacular? Ostrogoth? Visigoth? Vandal? Hun? Frank? Anglo-Saxon? Norse?

What about the role of the monasteries in keeping the Church alive? Or all those precious Latin documents that the monks in Ireland kept and then returned them to the European continent before the Norse really took their toll?

Have you considered modern English? Do you know how many Latinate words were added to our vocabulary in the 1500's?

If I went to Europe today, how many languages would I have to know in order to fully participate in Mass? I would not have a problem if I went to a TLM nor would any European coming here.
I would say that Mass in the vernacular is fine for those who speak that language. I could go to any Mass in Europe and be able to fully participate in Latin. I would go through the motions in any other language - just like the large number of French tourists who don't speak English and ride the Mississippi paddlewheelers and stop in my cathedral parish.

[JKirkLVNV]

Originally Posted by brotherhrolf

What is missing in this discussion is history. You can make all the points you want about the eastern churches but the simple fact remains is that the eastern half of the Roman empire was more or less intact until the end of the Middle Ages.

Latin was a unifying force in the west. The chaos which followed the collapse of the western Roman empire starting from the withdrawal of the legions from Britain in 410 until the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire around 800 is staggering. Vernacular? Ostrogoth? Visigoth? Vandal? Hun? Frank? Anglo-Saxon? Norse?

What about the role of the monasteries in keeping the Church alive? Or all those precious Latin documents that the monks in Ireland kept and then returned them to the European continent before the Norse really took their toll?

Have you considered modern English? Do you know how many Latinate words were added to our vocabulary in the 1500's?

If I went to Europe today, how many languages would I have to know in order to fully participate in Mass? I would not have a problem if I went to a TLM nor would any European coming here.
I would say that Mass in the vernacular is fine for those who speak that language. I could go to any Mass in Europe and be able to fully participate in Latin. I would go through the motions in any other language - just like the large number of French tourists who don't speak English and ride the Mississippi paddlewheelers and stop in my cathedral parish.

So perhaps the answer MIGHT be to have one rite offered in both the Latin and the vernacular, along the lines of 8:00 AM Tridentine in Latin; 9:45 Tridentine in English (or whatever the vernacular happens to be). That way, every base is covered. Tourists who don't speak the local language can go to the Latin Mass, while the locals (many of whom probably very much like Mass in their language) can go to the vernacular Mass.

[BobP123]

What made me think about it, was after reading Veterum Sapientia, I read Sacrosanctum Concilium. The latter was written soon after the death of John XXIII. I need more time to compare the two, but initially, I'm left with the impression that I would be reading a much different Sacrosanctum Concilium if John XXIII had lived to see the close of the council. There are some sections of that document that seem ambiguous.

Then again John XXIII had elevated Montini to the Cardinal position, which Pius XII had refused to do. And Montini went on to become Paul VI and the rest is history. But we have been blessed to have John XXIII's Missal which has been preserved in its original form and Latin language all these years. Which is a miracle in itself if you think about it.

If I went to Europe today, how many languages would I have to know in order to fully participate in Mass? I would not have a problem if I went to a TLM nor would any European coming here. I would say that Mass in the vernacular is fine for those who speak that language.

It may be fine but it says a lot about them. Those that insists on having things only in their own culture care nothing for other cultures. They don't want to get involved with anything that would be more universally accepted if it requires any extra effort on their part. Let's face it, learning a new language takes effort, especially if one feels there is no benefit from it. If the effort results in more money or friends, then they would have no problems adapting to a new language. But Mass, why should they? God understands baby talk as far as they're concerned and there are no other people they wish to befriend. Hardly Catholic/Universal in my opinion.

Now I have to go to work and learn still another computer language. Later.

[Isa Almisry]

Originally Posted by BobP123

Then again John XXIII had elevated Montini to the Cardinal position, which Pius XII had refused to do. And Montini went on to become Paul VI and the rest is history. But we have been blessed to have John XXIII's Missal which has been preserved in its original form and Latin language all these years. Which is a miracle in itself if you think about it.



It may be fine but it says a lot about them. Those that insists on having things only in their own culture care nothing for other cultures. They don't want to get involved with anything that would be more universally accepted if it requires any extra effort on their part. Let's face it, learning a new language takes effort, especially if one feels there is no benefit from it. If the effort results in more money or friends, then they would have no problems adapting to a new language. But Mass, why should they? God understands baby talk as far as they're concerned and there are no other people they wish to befriend. Hardly Catholic/Universal in my opinion.

Now I have to go to work and learn still another computer language. Later.

The whole idea of justifying Latin on the basis of vagranti parishoners strikes me as odd in the extreme, and utterly devoid of an idea of "home parish."

How is it that the East saw fit to translate the Divine Liturgy in all the local languages, including Latin, but Rome could only have it in Latin? Even in the early Irish Church, the DL was in Latin, though Irish is only remotely related.

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by I_Believe

Well, ok, but why does the Church retain it ? I mean, if that's all there is to it, and it's a dead language as some say, what gives ?

What's the alternative? For the Church to switch to the current most widely-spoken language every hundred years? Seriously, lay out an alternative for us.

BTW, one of the great benefits of the long Latin legacy is the musical tradition of the universal Church. You had stable, universal texts for 1500 or more years that composers could work with. Compare the results with the vernacular fragmentation we now have, coupled with bad and/or changing translations ("shifting sands") and decide under which situation the music which is pars integrans of the liturgy fares better.

[mangy dog]

Originally Posted by I_Believe

Well, ok, but why does the Church retain it ? I mean, if that's all there is to it, and it's a dead language as some say, what gives ?

And that doesn't explain the Church Fathers work on Ecclesiastical Latin does it ?

The church retains Latin as a matter of not only tradition but also of control of purity of information. While the rest of the world has taken the Bible into various translations, interpretations, amplifications, simplifications on and on ad nauseum - the church has insured that the original information stays as close as possible to its intended meaning. Douay-Rheims is so accurate because it remains the closest translation from the Latin Vulgate and compared exhaustively to the Greek etc etc. Jerusalem Bible I feel follows closely and there is a Spanish version which also ranks with the D-R and Jerusalem, that is the Nacar-Colunga. The base for these outstanding and time honored translations is Latin. Now, as far as Latin being a dead language, I believe that this is a vicious attack which began I don't know when, to undermine its use by the Catholic church world-wide. I firmly believe that it is the "regulatory language" of the catholic church. I'll give an example which may or may not have any meaning to you all: An american priest officiating a Spanish mass, was using the prayer, "Lord wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin". When he said it in Spanish it came out, " ...and cleanse my sin" abluere meum peccatto (I'm not an expert). Where "from my" would be "de meum". Like I said, I'm no expert but I see the importance to have recourse to the original intent of the prayer. And that is where Latin comes into play and needs to remain in saecula saeculorum.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

[Andreas Hofer]

Originally Posted by Contarini

From your later post I get a better sense of what you are talking about. But this doesn't negate the fact that they used Latin because it was the vernacular. The same thing happened when English began to be used for theological purposes--it happens in any language.

That is precisely what I would add. Sure, Jerome "changed" Latin in certain ways, but it was mainly because a) he was translating into more common speech - thus really just hastening the rate at which spoken language becomes allowed in written form (eg. the split infinitive is now allowable i.e. proper English) - and b) he had to work with concepts not easily expressible in the language into which he was translating. I think Augustine's discussion of our language describing the Trinity encapsulates this very well. He says we need words to describe the incomparable and ineffable, so we pick something that does part of the job and we decide to understand it in a proper sense. By using "persona" to indicate the persons of the Trinity the Church was not trying to change Latin, she was just trying to find a way to use it for her particular needs.

There is yet another reason for the differences between classical and ecclesiastical Latin, though, and that is "operator error." Once we got to the Middle Ages Latin, though widely used, was nonetheless just Europe's predominant second language. So people made mistakes that slowly became regularized, or they used Latin in a way that while grammatical allowable was not idiomatic: they thought in terms of their mother tongues and thereby introduced modes of speaking different from classical use.

[brotherhrolf]

Originally Posted by Isa Almisry

How is it that the East saw fit to translate the Divine Liturgy in all the local languages, including Latin, but Rome could only have it in Latin? Even in the early Irish Church, the DL was in Latin, though Irish is only remotely related.

History once again. The East was not wracked by barbarian invasions the way the West was. The eastern Roman Empire did not collapse and had the habit of paying off the barbarians to go elsewhere. When the western Roman Empire collapsed after 450 AD, it was every culture for itself. Charlemagne united the Carolingians into the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD. He was seeking to restore that which had gone before. Latin makes perfect sense in that case. In the meantime, the Irish who had been spared barbarian invasion until the Vikings sent missionaries into Scotland and England carrying the Word of God in Latin. Alcuin of York (who was a Saxon) had been taught by Irish missionaries. Alcuin used his talents to help Charlemagne. Latin was the medium.

[JFonseka]

The Latin is much richer than English and therefore there is less errors in exegeting.

English is pretty much derived from Latin. Latin is cooler anyways.

[I_Believe]

Originally Posted by VociMike

What's the alternative? For the Church to switch to the current most widely-spoken language every hundred years? Seriously, lay out an alternative for us.

BTW, one of the great benefits of the long Latin legacy is the musical tradition of the universal Church. You had stable, universal texts for 1500 or more years that composers could work with. Compare the results with the vernacular fragmentation we now have, coupled with bad and/or changing translations ("shifting sands") and decide under which situation the music which is pars integrans of the liturgy fares better.

There is no alternative IMO. I was just trying to bring out some thoughts such as your own

[I_Believe]

Originally Posted by mangy dog

The church retains Latin as a matter of not only tradition but also of control of purity of information. While the rest of the world has taken the Bible into various translations, interpretations, amplifications, simplifications on and on ad nauseum - the church has insured that the original information stays as close as possible to its intended meaning. Douay-Rheims is so accurate because it remains the closest translation from the Latin Vulgate and compared exhaustively to the Greek etc etc. Jerusalem Bible I feel follows closely and there is a Spanish version which also ranks with the D-R and Jerusalem, that is the Nacar-Colunga. The base for these outstanding and time honored translations is Latin. Now, as far as Latin being a dead language, I believe that this is a vicious attack which began I don't know when, to undermine its use by the Catholic church world-wide. I firmly believe that it is the "regulatory language" of the catholic church. I'll give an example which may or may not have any meaning to you all: An american priest officiating a Spanish mass, was using the prayer, "Lord wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin". When he said it in Spanish it came out, " ...and cleanse my sin" abluere meum peccatto (I'm not an expert). Where "from my" would be "de meum". Like I said, I'm no expert but I see the importance to have recourse to the original intent of the prayer. And that is where Latin comes into play and needs to remain in saecula saeculorum.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Good example of the problem with venacular. Thanks.

[brotherhrolf]

Originally Posted by JFonseka

The Latin is much richer than English and therefore there is less errors in exegeting.

English is pretty much derived from Latin. Latin is cooler anyways.

English is not derived from Latin. It is a branch of the Germanic family of languages. All of our Latinate words were added during the Elizabethan period and beyond because educated people of the period could speak, write, and read Latin.

I grew up with the TLM. By the time I got to high school and took Spanish, the cognates (words that have a common origin) fairly jumped off the page. Here's cognate you should recognise:

Pater (Latin), vater (German), father (English) Thus, if you read along in English with the TLM, it wouldn't be strange. You'ld see all sorts of cognates.