Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

[IbnFiktur]

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]

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=rwKCsVbk8f4

 

[TEPO]

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]

Not hung up on languages, eh?

Then you may want to explain this.

youtube.com/watch?v=rwKCsVbk8f4

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

 

[IbnFiktur]

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.

 

[triumphguy]

We tend to forget that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, not Latin.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, or you wanted to do business, or write philosophy (or theology), or poetry you spoke Greek.

To speak Latin was to be considered vulgar - hence the Vulgate bible!

The BENEFIT of Latin is it’s a dead language and so not subject to change.

It is not inherently more beautiful or divine than any other language.

Our subversive Latin teacher in my all boys Catholic school used Catullus to teach us sex ed. Take it from me, Latin is not inherently refined or cultivated!

 

[ProVobis]

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

I’ll take that as a “I can’t explain it” then.

 

[IbnFiktur]

We tend to forget that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, not Latin.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, or you wanted to do business, or write philosophy (or theology), or poetry you spoke Greek.

To speak Latin was to be considered vulgar - hence the Vulgate bible!

The BENEFIT of Latin is it’s a dead language and so not subject to change.

It is not inherently more beautiful or divine than any other language.

Our subversive Latin teacher in my all boys Catholic school used Catullus to teach us sex ed. Take it from me, Latin is not inherently refined or cultivated!

Spot on

 

[ProVobis]

Our subversive Latin teacher in my all boys Catholic school used Catullus to teach us sex ed. Take it from me, Latin is not inherently refined or cultivated!

Well, Greek delved into a lot of mythology (too), so it’s not exactly a pure Christian language either.

To speak Latin was to be considered vulgar - hence the Vulgate bible!

This is totally false. There was a Greek Vulgate too, hardly what one would call vulgar.

We tend to forget that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, not Latin.

Romans were the conquerors. Roman law was followed in the Empire. Tough to see Greek being the main language spoken there. Or maybe I’m wrong and Greek is studied by the lawyers today and not Latin.

 

[TEPO]

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?

Well the problem with that is that I enjoy attending Charismatic Masses while sometimes I enjoy a good pious Latin Mass… So I’m not really sure why you assume I’m looking for these “early” traditions. You see, I have no problems with the outcome of Vatican II, because I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. I’m only curious why some people feel drawn to the Latin Mass exclusively so I started a thread on it, but the more I learned about language, the more passion I started to feel for Latin.

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.

Did you read the part where it says: " 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"… This is referring to Ecclesiastical Latin, in the third century before Christ.

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.

It’s unfortunate that you consider the counsels to be Greek, and not Catholic.. Herecy has gone wild on these forums lately. Tell me, why do you think God gave the counsels to the Greeks only, and not his universal Church…? That doesn’t seem to be in line with Catholic teaching.

You see how ridiculous that statement was…? That’s how I feel when you say that I have “disregarded the Churches acceptance of Eastern Liturgies”… I never have now did I?

 

[triumphguy]

Well, Greek delved into a lot of mythology (too), so it’s not exactly a pure Christian language either.

This is totally false. There was a Greek Vulgate too, hardly what one would call vulgar.

I agree: By vulgar they meant the accent (and idiom) of the lower class.

However Greek had the philosophical vocabulary to develop Christian theology

That’s why we use words like hypostasis, homoousios, kenosis, metanioia etc and not Latin terms for such theological concepts.

 

[triumphguy]

Romans were the conquerors. Roman law was followed in the Empire. Tough to see Greek being the main language spoken there. Or maybe I’m wrong and Greek is studied by the lawyers today and not Latin.

It is a historical fact that the ruling classes spoke Greek, wrote Greek, used Greek for politics, warfare etc. St. Paul spoke Greek and he was a Roman citizen.

How come Americans use English (sort of)?

The Romans re-wrote Greek myths as their own. They created the Legend that Rome was born out of the ashes of Troy. They adopted the Greek pantheon. They used Greek architecture, and they employed Greek tutors to teach their kids.

Just like Hollywood uses Brit actors for butlers, bad guys, and for roles requiring actual acting skills . And “House.”

And in Law they do use some Latin words (less than a hundred probably) but American Law is based heavily on British common law with some French civil law thrown in.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree: By vulgar they meant the accent (and idiom) of the lower class.

However Greek had the philosophical vocabulary to develop Christian theology

That’s why we use words like hypostasis, homoousios, kenosis, metanioia etc and not Latin terms for such theological concepts.

As I said, both Greek and Latin delved heavily into mythology centuries before Christ. I really hate to pit one against the other or one over the other. You could be right but then the Church Christianized Latin so that Deus became the true God and dei (plural) got dropped from the vocabulary, gratia was singularized from gratiae and became “grace” and so on.

Where Greek might have developed Christian theology, the Cicero’s De Officiis influenced the early Church fathers (Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome), especially in developing the Church’s moral code.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Officiis

 

[ProVobis]

but American Law is based heavily on British common law with some French civil law thrown in.

The general consensus is that American Law is based on Roman Law. Senatus, Cabinet, three branches of government, two parties, etc.

scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1978&context=facpubs

I know you live in beautiful Calgary but the $1 U.S. bill has E Pluribus Unum, Annuit Coeptis…Novus Ordo Seclorum written on it. The early fathers were very fond apparently of Latin, and the U.S. wasn’t a Catholic country.

How come Americans use English (sort of)?
[/QUITE]

“Sort of” is right. Americans seem to understand Spanish better than U.K. English.

 

[triumphguy]

The general consensus is that American Law is based on Roman Law. Senatus, Cabinet, three branches of government, two parties, etc.

scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1978&context=facpubs

I know you live in beautiful Calgary but the $1 U.S. bill has E Pluribus Unum, Annuit Coeptis…Novus Ordo Seclorum written on it. The early fathers were very fond apparently of Latin, and the U.S. wasn’t a Catholic country.

How come Americans use English (sort of)?
[/QUITE]

 

[dzheremi]

I am a linguist in my non-internet life, and this thread is a real hoot.

Latin was the norm for Western liturgies from about the 4th century, but the practice of using it in the Church dates back to the time of Pope Victor I (c. 189-199).

So if Latin were God’s language, it wasn’t at the beginning of the Church…not even the Western Church.

But I’m willing to say that Latin is God’s language. It is quite beautiful. I would grant the same to all of the languages of the world, though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll take that as a “I can’t explain it” then.

I actually can, I go to a Ukrainian Church remember? I know about their politics. But the question stands, what does political concerns have anything to do with the Church?

 

[TEPO]

I am a linguist in my non-internet life, and this thread is a real hoot.

Latin was the norm for Western liturgies from about the 4th century, but the practice of using it in the Church dates back to the time of Pope Victor I (c. 189-199).

So if Latin were God’s language, it wasn’t at the beginning of the Church…not even the Western Church.

But I’m willing to say that Latin is God’s language. It is quite beautiful. I would grant the same to all of the languages of the world, though.

Nope, it’s vulgar and it wasn’t until the 5th century. This is what I’ve been told. It explains why those goofy Western Catholics use it.

 

[MarkThompson]

…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.

It is a shame that this has not yet been pointed out, but the truth is that there is actually no such thing as “Ecclesiastical Latin.” People wrote in the Latin of their day, and to talk about religious- and Church-related concepts they invented or imported new words and phrases when necessary. But “Ecclesiastical Latin” is a different species of Latin only in the same way that “Mathematical English” or “Oratorical English” is a different species of English. There is, for instance, no such thing as translating a sentence from “Ecclesiastical” Latin into “regular” Latin. That’s because they are the same language. Latin, of course, changed substantially over its history, just like any other living language. In fact, it continues to change somewhat, which is why you are much more likely to see “cum” today where you would have seen “quum” 150 years ago. But this was true of what you would have called “Ecclesiastical Latin” as well. That’s because it was just, well, Latin, in which people wrote prayers and otherwise discussed religion.

 

[TEPO]

It is a shame that this has not yet been pointed out, but the truth is that there is actually no such thing as “Ecclesiastical Latin.” People wrote in the Latin of their day, and to talk about religious- and Church-related concepts they invented or imported new words and phrases when necessary. But “Ecclesiastical Latin” is a different species of Latin only in the same way that “Mathematical English” or “Oratorical English” is a different species of English. There is, for instance, no such thing as translating a sentence from “Ecclesiastical” Latin into “regular” Latin. That’s because they are the same language. Latin, of course, changed substantially over its history, just like any other living language. In fact, it continues to change somewhat, which is why you are much more likely to see “cum” today where you would have seen “quum” 150 years ago. But this was true of what you would have called “Ecclesiastical Latin” as well. That’s because it was just, well, Latin, in which people wrote prayers and otherwise discussed religion.

The sad part is that I started this thread with the hidden motive of proving that Latin is just an old tradition that means little in regards to our faith and Catholicism in general. But I was honestly expecting a lot more resistance in support pf it than what there is… There is so little resistance in fact it is saddening. I now find myself defending the very same tradition I came here to dismantle.