Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by porthos11

Sheesh. Everyone knows God's language is King James English.

Didn't St. Paul write the King;s James Bible in Latin? Or was that the Catholic version?

God's Universal language is Love.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Didn't St. Paul write the King;s James Bible in Latin? Or was that the Catholic version?

Oh, brother! <-- Do they even have a smiley for that?

[IbnFiktur]

Originally Posted by TEPO

I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, when my whole point is that Ecclesiastical Latin is both non-cultural and non-national in every way... In fact my point revolves around the concept of that entire language "deriving" from both Latin and Greek combined. Because that's exactly what it is. But at the same time, it is neither. Does that make any kind of sense?

Yes and no... I see where you're coming from, but I think you need to soften your claim. Like OraLabora said, it is good that we have Ecclesiastical Latin as a sort of base language of the Roman pontiff. However, I think you go too far when you make the following claims:

-You claim that ecclesiastical Latin is a "combination" of Greek and Latin. That's simply not true. There are some Greek influence and loan words, but it is very clearly Latin.
-You claim that we need to somehow refute the claim that Greek is the "base language" of Christianity. I don't think we need to do any such thing. Greek was, in fact, the predominant language of Christian thought in the early Church, for well over 400 years in fact. Latin theology eventually gained some traction in the 5th century, and Western Europe thus began to make its own contributions to Christianity.
-You seem to claim that modern Ecclesiastical Latin developed in the very early years of the Church. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for that claim, and see no reason to try to make the language as old as the Church aside from trying to construct a linguistically triumphant polemic.
-You claim that Ecclesiastical Latin is "non-cultural." Every language is cultural. Ecclesiastical Latin developed according to the culture of the Western churches.

My argument is essentially that there is no "base" language for Christianity. Ecclesiastical Latin suits the purpose of a pontifical language just fine, and as a common denominator. There is no need to take the claim further than that by implying that our Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic brothers are missing out on something.

I hope that makes what I'm trying to say more clear. I do see where you're coming from, and like OraLabora I agree that it is very beneficial to have a pontfical language which is more resistant to linguistic changes than secular languages, but I see no reason to see it as any more than that, nor to use it to make an argument against the Orthodox.

[OraLabora]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Okay, but no where is the Church saying everyone needs to be life-long proficient in Latin or even speak it fluently or eloquently. What are we talking about, a few Latin phrases and prayers spread over a few minutes on a Sunday morning in a spiritual environment? A lot of religions (or meditation techniques, for that matter) in the world use something other than their vernacular in their worship; I'm sure they don't require the highest proficiency in those languages.

I still think it would be cultural imperialism. Trust me their pronunciation would be horrible no matter how hard they tried. St. Benedict forbade monks from intoning psalms or doing readings if they couldn't to it in a manner that edifies the listener.

I would rather see them do the liturgy well in their own language (which they manage very eloquently as a matter of fact, and in which they take great pride) than mangle the Latin just to satisfy our urge to impose it on them.

Maybe, a very BIG maybe, they could do a good job with the Latin in monasteries or religious communities but I think the average diocesan priest there would struggle with it.

If language is a pathway to evangelization fine, but in this instance I think it would be an obstacle to evangelization.

The good thing about Latin is its uniformity. The bad thing about Latin is its uniformity... I don't think it's realistic to expect its universal application to all liturgies in all locations unfortunately because the wider Church is simply far to diverse. And that's a good thing. When I took my 19 y.o. son to lunch at the World Oblate's congress in Rome a few years ago, his eyes opened when he saw so many cultures in the refectory.

Now, we did manage to pull off liturgies in Latin and that worked well and better than the vernacular liturgies (different languages each day, Latin was Thursday), but then we were all Oblates of a very liturgically-proficient order; in fact the organizing committee for the next Congress in 2013, on which I sit, decided unanimously to have all liturgies in Latin at the next congress save for the readings and homilies. But that makes sense because there will be so many language groups in one setting that we did need a common language. But that's a different need than for a small newly-formed parish in say, an Asian town or African village.

Just trying to be realistic here. I don't think one size can fit all peoples in all circumstances.

[TEPO]

"Ecclesiastical differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments."

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

...so as this new language was created using both Greek and Latin, it became even more so a combination of the two when the early Church began to understand and express new Greek concepts in Latin. This is why Ecclesiastical Latin is held as something special - It's actually neither Latin or Greek but rather it's a thought out and developed language that was created during a very influential moment in time.

[IbnFiktur]

Originally Posted by TEPO

"Ecclesiastical differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments."

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

...so as this new language was created using both Greek and Latin, it became even more so a combination of the two when the early Church began to understand and express new Greek concepts in Latin. This is why Ecclesiastical Latin is held as something special - It's actually neither Latin or Greek but rather it's a thought out and developed language that was created during a very influential moment in time.

Ecclesiastical Latin was not a "new language." It is very much Latin with some hellenistic influence. Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin are NOT mutually incomprehensible. Greek and Ecclesiastical Latin ARE mutually incomprehensible.

This new language was not "created." It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century. Writers like Augustine (who simply did not enjoy learning Greek as a child, if the Confessions are to be believed) attempted to adapt to the great shortfall of philosophical language in their own vernacular by adapting some Greek words.

Again, my points still stand. Ecclesiastical Latin developed, it was not invented. And it developed starting about 400 years following the founding of the Church. It continued developing, probably up until the time of Thomas Aquinas. There is no reason to elevate it to this platform of somehow being the base language of the Church throughout history. That's simply not the case, and claiming that it is simply widens the rift between Catholics and Orthodox.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by TEPO

That's good because it prevents the Orthodox from claiming that Greek is the base language of Christianity

The Orthodox would never make such a claim. The Orthodox are not hung-up on languages. They would keep the language within their Church as part of their own tradition but would not impose such restriction on other Churches. They know and understand the faith can be transmitted in many languages.

[IbnFiktur]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

The Orthodox would never make such a claim. The Orthodox are not hung-up on languages. They would keep the language within their Church as part of their own tradition but would not impose such restriction on other Churches. They know and understand the faith can be transmitted in many languages.

TEPO: this is the attitude we should take as well, and is in fact the attitude that Rome does take in recognizing the validity of Eastern Catholic traditions and liturgies. Not to mention the fact that Rome recognizes the validity of the early ecumenical councils.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

TEPO: this is the attitude we should take as well, and is in fact the attitude that Rome does take in recognizing the validity of Eastern Catholic traditions and liturgies. Not to mention the fact that Rome recognizes the validity of the early ecumenical councils.

To relate an experience, we in the Eastern Catholic Churches update each of our own English translations as frequently as we need to. The Liturgy, the faith needs to be understand by people today. Using a language foreign to a populace, or even a version of a language that is archaic (past forms of English for example) is not helpful for the common man. We have bishops, priests, theologians, monks, etc. who work on this and preserve the faith for the rest of us. But they also need to keep the faith relevant to the common man in the present.

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

Yes and no... I see where you're coming from, but I think you need to soften your claim. Like OraLabora said, it is good that we have Ecclesiastical Latin as a sort of base language of the Roman pontiff. However, I think you go too far when you make the following claims:

-You claim that ecclesiastical Latin is a "combination" of Greek and Latin. That's simply not true. There are some Greek influence and loan words, but it is very clearly Latin.
-You claim that we need to somehow refute the claim that Greek is the "base language" of Christianity. I don't think we need to do any such thing. Greek was, in fact, the predominant language of Christian thought in the early Church, for well over 400 years in fact. Latin theology eventually gained some traction in the 5th century, and Western Europe thus began to make its own contributions to Christianity.
-You seem to claim that modern Ecclesiastical Latin developed in the very early years of the Church. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for that claim, and see no reason to try to make the language as old as the Church aside from trying to construct a linguistically triumphant polemic.
-You claim that Ecclesiastical Latin is "non-cultural." Every language is cultural. Ecclesiastical Latin developed according to the culture of the Western churches.

My argument is essentially that there is no "base" language for Christianity. Ecclesiastical Latin suits the purpose of a pontifical language just fine, and as a common denominator. There is no need to take the claim further than that by implying that our Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic brothers are missing out on something.

I hope that makes what I'm trying to say more clear. I do see where you're coming from, and like OraLabora I agree that it is very beneficial to have a pontfical language which is more resistant to linguistic changes than secular languages, but I see no reason to see it as any more than that, nor to use it to make an argument against the Orthodox.

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

Ecclesiastical Latin was not a "new language." It is very much Latin with some hellenistic influence. Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin are NOT mutually incomprehensible. Greek and Ecclesiastical Latin ARE mutually incomprehensible.

This new language was not "created." It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century. Writers like Augustine (who simply did not enjoy learning Greek as a child, if the Confessions are to be believed) attempted to adapt to the great shortfall of philosophical language in their own vernacular by adapting some Greek words.

Again, my points still stand. Ecclesiastical Latin developed, it was not invented. And it developed starting about 400 years following the founding of the Church. It continued developing, probably up until the time of Thomas Aquinas. There is no reason to elevate it to this platform of somehow being the base language of the Church throughout history. That's simply not the case, and claiming that it is simply widens the rift between Catholics and Orthodox.

So you're saying that the Latin Mass is not Traditional?

[IbnFiktur]

Originally Posted by TEPO

So you're saying that the Latin Mass is not Traditional?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you're asking if the Tridentine Mass is traditional, then yes, I suppose I would say it is, insofar as a 400-year-old rite is "traditional." However, it's simply false to claim that the Tridentine Mass is as old as the Church itself. It was standardized in the 16th century.

The Tridentine Mass is a tradition (and a relatively young tradition)... ONE tradition, among many in the rich history of our Church's traditions, which include masses, councils, synods, and theological writings of a beautify and wide variety of languages. Mass in Latin is an older tradition, but it would be false to say that it is as old as the Church itself. In fact the liturgy was largely unstandardized until Charlemagne exerted efforts to standardize worship throughout his empire in the early middle ages.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

The Orthodox would never make such a claim. The Orthodox are not hung-up on languages. They would keep the language within their Church as part of their own tradition but would not impose such restriction on other Churches. They know and understand the faith can be transmitted in many languages.

Not hung up on languages, eh?

Then you may want to explain this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwKCsVbk8f4

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by IbnFiktur

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you're asking if the Tridentine Mass is traditional, then yes, I suppose I would say it is, insofar as a 400-year-old rite is "traditional." However, it's simply false to claim that the Tridentine Mass is as old as the Church itself. It was standardized in the 16th century.

The Tridentine Mass is a tradition (and a relatively young tradition)... ONE tradition, among many in the rich history of our Church's traditions, which include masses, councils, synods, and theological writings of a beautify and wide variety of languages. Mass in Latin is an older tradition, but it would be false to say that it is as old as the Church itself. In fact the liturgy was largely unstandardized until Charlemagne exerted efforts to standardize worship throughout his empire in the early middle ages.

This time argument of yours that you've been using here has nothing to do with me. I have full faith in the living Magesterium. I don't care what language was first, I only care about Truth, which which is incomplete in Orthodoxy.

But your claims Ecclesiastical Latin are contrary to the Catholic encyclopedia, which is usually taken as a trustworthy source.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Not hung up on languages, eh?

Then you may want to explain this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwKCsVbk8f4

What does the secular Parliament have anything to do with the Church?

[IbnFiktur]

Originally Posted by TEPO

This time argument of yours that you've been using here has nothing to do with me. I have full faith in the living Magesterium. I don't care what language was first, I only care about Truth, which which is incomplete in Orthodoxy.

But your claims Ecclesiastical Latin are contrary to the Catholic encyclopedia, which is usually taken as a trustworthy source.

I'm not sure what your problem with my argument is. What I'm saying is that the Church has had a number of linguistic and liturgical traditions over the course of its 2000-year history. If you are looking for the Church's earliest traditions, you do need to take time into account. What exactly is your problem with my argument?

Also, I just read the article on New Advent and find nothing in it contradictory to what I have said. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me? Or perhaps reading looking for what you want to see? I have said the church Latin developed over time in the Latin-speaking world starting in about the 5th century. The catholic encyclopedia says pretty much the exact same thing.

You are also disregarding the Church's acceptance of Eastern liturgies and Greek ecumenical councils. If you would like to simply agree to disagree that's fine, but please don't simply disregard my arguments by telling me that you have faith in the Magisterium (you think I don't?) and claiming that my ideas are contradictory to a book you read without telling me exactly what is contradictory.