Why has Latin been chosen like the liturgic language of the Holy See?


#1

You might know that I am an admirer of Israel (in many senses, specially because maybe all my time is used for mirare ad one of his daughters). But not be afraid! To be emebelessed with the ideation of follow the Mossaic Law just has shown me earlier the via Crucis. I am shinningly impressioned by the respect I must have towards the Holy See. I see well that I must adopt her historic life and it is so such as because I admire the jewish ethos rewarding Hebrew that I do this question.

I know the historic datum: After take Georgia, Armenia and Ethiopia the Church took the heart of Rome - this is incredible, first it was taken the heart of Japhet (Aryans used to live at Caucasus, aren't them Caucasians?), second it was taken the heart of Ham (Ethiopia) when will be pursuit take the heart of the fleshful Semites - but that is a different thread - I know that Rome was the maxime conquest of the Holy Church - the question of Pilatos: What is truth? was finally responsed.

You see: I am student at History BA and I am specially linked at my heart to make this kind of archeologics
My question is not about data but about the life that beats behind them. What is the charisma that Latin shows?
For example:I know that Jews speak Hebrew since Moses spread it among them but that which is to me interesting is the fact that v gr Hebrews terms for property don't affect the object - such as in latin I say: Ego sum servum Dei (of Deus) - and they are neither an independent term - such as in English I say I am citizen of the United States. In Hebrew it is said: I am bat mitzvah - I am a daughter of THE Commandement - and the affected thing is not the object - mitzvah - but the subject - bat means no "daugther" but "daughter" of. This is indeed eloquent on the issue that we must gave ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Christ (or in the Jewish case, to the Mossaic Law), Hebrews says it well because in Hebrew the very real word representing the subject is affected by the genitive case) Using aristotelic term: I am not seeking the efficent cause (the Church conquered Rome and Rome conquered the Church) I am seeking the formal cause: Why is the spirit that beats under to have chosen Latin as the language par excellence of the Western Catholic Church?

I think the explanation that follows: Romans were the masters of the Laws. Such grey as the stone of their building their heart was grey. They were THE obeyding people - who were awarded with the Largest Empire - not as their more hurried brothers - the Greeks. Even this lead them by perverted vias - like the love to coitus more ferarum - they finally accepted to offer their heart to the Holy Spirit - while most of the children of Israel didn't.
But I think that this is the way of think of an individualistic man... and regarding to the facts of civilisation it can be said that what Aristotle said: When a man habits without someone else so he is a God (an angel maybe) or he is a beast... I suspect that I could be a beast.
I wanna your answers on this topic

A final question: I have not any book about Ecclesiastic Latin, is one about Classic Latin okey?
:thumbsup:


#2

What? You could have just said why does the church speak Latin.


#3

I suposse that there is a reason for put a space belove the title :p


#4

[quote="Archedreamer, post:1, topic:289323"]
I am not seeking the efficent cause (the Church conquered Rome and Rome conquered the Church) I am seeking the formal cause: Why is the spirit that beats under to have chosen Latin as the language par excellence of the Western Catholic Church?

[/quote]

I think this is the heart of your question, but I think it may be lost in the avalanche of prose! It's a very good question, and I hope someone has answer.

[quote="Archedreamer, post:1, topic:289323"]
like the love to coitus more ferarum

[/quote]

This is the only part that I really understand. :D


#5

Latin is the language of the "Latin Church" for the same reason that Greek is the language of the Greek Orthodox or Aramaic is the language if the Syriac Church. It is the language that was spoken in the region where the Church was established. I don't really know why the church languages have not changed as the popular languages changed but suspect it has something to do with the wealth of writings in the old languages.

[quote="Archedreamer, post:1, topic:289323"]
A final question: I have not any book about Ecclesiastic Latin, is one about Classic Latin okey?
:thumbsup:

[/quote]

I understand that Ecclesiastic Latin is similar enough to Church Latin that you should have little problem. The main differences are pronunciation (Church Latin is has an Italian accent) and language updates to Church Latin to accommodate a changing world (e.g. there is now a word for "computer" that obviously would be lacking in Classic).


#6

Latin was the language of the Western Roman Empire (incl. Rome) so the Mass was done in Latin. Greek was the language of the Eastern Empire (incl. Constantinople) so the Divine Liturgy was done in Greek.

As the vernacular languages evolved, it was found useful to have the languages of Liturgy and Theology not change with the change in usage and meaning of words, so Latin and Greek were maintained in order to better express unchanging truths in unchanging language.

God Bless


#7

I'm actually reading a book about this right now. I'll summarize what it says:

The Greek language lost influence in Rome during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and an elevated style of Latin (not colloquial) replaced the Greek liturgy in a century long process culminating with Pope Damascus in the late 4th century. It was not actually the common language of the West (lots of Celtic, Germanic, and Greek speakers) at the time but in a short period of time it became the language of prayer in the West, nonetheless. The Roman mindset was very conservative and fluency in Latin declined in late antiquity the rites were preserved.


#8

[quote="Archedreamer, post:1, topic:289323"]
Why is the spirit that beats under to have chosen Latin as the language par excellence of the Western Catholic Church?

[/quote]

I don't think there is anyone around to know why. St. Paul was first given credit for spreading Christianity into Rome but according to a PBS documentary, he found a "significant" number of Christians already there in Rome. Latin spreads fast, I guess.


#9

Because Latin was the language in Rome where the Church is. Many things we see in Church today was borne out of practicality. Often it is not something that they decided to do to make something look more special, but just it was the most practical way to do it.


#10

[quote="Rich_C, post:7, topic:289323"]
I'm actually reading a book about this right now. I'll summarize what it says:

The Greek language lost influence in Rome during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and an elevated style of Latin (not colloquial) replaced the Greek liturgy in a century long process culminating with Pope Damascus in the late 4th century. It was not actually the common language of the West (lots of Celtic, Germanic, and Greek speakers) at the time but in a short period of time it became the language of prayer in the West, nonetheless. The Roman mindset was very conservative and fluency in Latin declined in late antiquity the rites were preserved.

[/quote]

Could you make a recommendation on the one you are reading? I might like to read it.

Thanks!


#11

[quote="bilop, post:6, topic:289323"]
As the vernacular languages evolved, it was found useful to have the languages of Liturgy and Theology not change with the change in usage and meaning of words, so Latin and Greek were maintained in order to better express unchanging truths in unchanging language.

[/quote]

I think this is the answer to the reason why God has directed the Church the direction it has gone, albeit through historical forces. Latin evolves at a snail's pace over centuries as opposed to vernacular languages where 300 years make reading difficult and twice that requires translation.


#12

On the other hand, Jews use Hebrew as their liturgical language (if the transpolation of the concept is right) and there is a community whitin Hebrew is spoken - the State of Israel. Further, it is the de frame of the most litteral branche of Judaism - Orthodox Judaism - considering that Conservative and Reform Jews use to have more affections towards the USA. I use compare Orthodox Jews with Reformed Christians.
The case of Judaism is that because they have a religiosity based on History and Culture, not like ours'one which is more linked towards the Heavenly Kingdom and thus is better for us to speak an eternal language?


#13

I read once that there are 4 sacred languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin; these were likely all spoken by Christ. Multi-linqual was quite common in 1st century palestIne.


#14

It is my understanding that Latin is considered a pure language. Meaning slang has not creeped into it and it has remained true through out the ages.

I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this and who said it so-----:shrug:


#15

Latin has plenty of slang, and plenty of it has crept in, all down the ages. If you don't believe me, take a look at medieval student drinking songs from Paris. Not exactly pure!

We just don't use the slang bits for Mass, that's all.


#16

[quote="horselvr, post:14, topic:289323"]
It is my understanding that Latin is considered a pure language. Meaning slang has not creeped into it and it has remained true through out the ages.

I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this and who said it so-----:shrug:

[/quote]

Latin as a written language was basically codified by Cicero and other classicists. It wasn't quite the spoken language of the Roman Empire, which was Vulgar Latin and the VL morphed later into the Romance languages (Spanish, Italian, French). The differences between Classic Latin and the Vulgar Latin were summarized in the Appendix Probi, a document which was found around the 3rd century or so. The Church Christianized the Classic Latin into Ecclesiastical Latin where it gave new meanings to such words as oratio ("prayer"), gratia ("grace"), and so forth. The only major changes to CL and EL over the years involved inserting spaces between words (supposedly by Irish monks) and introducing lower-case letters to the Latin alphabet. Italian pronunciations were set by Pope Pius X, I believe.


#17

[quote="Mintaka, post:15, topic:289323"]
Latin has plenty of slang, and plenty of it has crept in, all down the ages. If you don't believe me, take a look at medieval student drinking songs from Paris. Not exactly pure!

We just don't use the slang bits for Mass, that's all.

[/quote]

Precisely. At one point, every fishmonger and prostitute in Rome spoke perfect Latin! We may not have much use for the lowbrow bits at Mass, but otherwise it's exactly the same language.


#18

[quote="tafan, post:13, topic:289323"]
I read once that there are 4 sacred languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin; these were likely all spoken by Christ. Multi-linqual was quite common in 1st century palestIne.

[/quote]

Probably not Latin. They didn't need it. Romans in Jerusalem at that time spoke Greek. This is evidenced by one of the signs at the temple entrance which is preserved to this day that forbids non-Jews from entering the temple grounds. The sign is in Greek.


#19

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:18, topic:289323"]
Probably not Latin. They didn't need it. Romans in Jerusalem at that time spoke Greek. This is evidenced by one of the signs at the temple entrance which is preserved to this day that forbids non-Jews from entering the temple grounds. The sign is in Greek.

[/quote]

So why was the inscription ordered by Pilate written in Latin, as well as Greek and Hebrew? Seems like a waste of time on his part, no?

Doesn't seem like the Greek sign is much of an argument. Many non-Germans understand a "Verboten" sign.


#20

[quote="ProVobis, post:19, topic:289323"]
So why was the inscription ordered by Pilate written in Latin, as well as Greek and Hebrew? Seems like a waste of time on his part, no?

Doesn't seem like the Greek sign is much of an argument. Many non-Germans understand a "Verboten" sign.

[/quote]

It is his and the Roman's native tongue. Why do the signs in Chinatown have Chinese when only a small minority of Americans (or Canadians in my case) speak and even read Chinese? Just because Pilate put a sign in Latin doesn't mean Jesus speaks Latin. I mean, from where he is he can't even read the sign (or maybe he can, he is God after all ;) )


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.