Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

[IbnFiktur]

I don’t want to get too deep into this since I think we’re in agreement on the overall question, but a few things for the record:

You forget the Vetus Latina, an older version of the Bible, of which many books were updated by St. Jerome to bring them up to par with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. St. Paul might have written Romans in Latin but all of the original NT works have all been lost. Not to mention that before Gutenberg, most things were handwritten and we all know how rare good handwriting can be. So one copy of something is barely reliable.

St. Jerome’s Bible was more or less contemporary with Augustine… The point being again, there is no evidence of scriptures written in Latin in the first centuries of the Church. While it is theoretically POSSIBLE that Paul wrote the scriptures in Latin, not only is there no historical evidence to make us believe this to begin with, but there is also substantial reason to affirm that he didn’t he didn’t:

First, Paul was a resident of the Eastern Empire, whose lingua franca was Greek. Second, he was writing mostly (though not exclusively) to audiences in the Greek-speaking world. And finally, there would be internal evidence in the text itself to suggest translation from a Latin original, once again given how much more specific the Greek language is in matters of philosophy and theology. There is no such internal evidence.

It’s thus fair to say (and I think most historians Catholic and otherwise would agree) that Latin was sidelined as a language of theology for the first four centuries or so of Christianity. Latin doesn’t come to play a prominent role until Augustine and Jerome took up their pens in the Western Empire. For this reason, and others I’ve already outlined, it would be fallacious to suggest that Latin is “God’s language,” and we must in fact appreciate the effect that the various languages of our polyglot church have had on the theology of the church.

 

[ProVobis]

First, Paul was a resident of the Eastern Empire, whose lingua franca was Greek. Second, he was writing mostly (though not exclusively) to audiences in the Greek-speaking world.

He probably was but according to a PBS documentary, Paul found a significant number of Christians already there when he arrived in Rome. And it was commonly acknowledged that Vulgar Latin was the spoken language in that area. Also Saul took on his Latin name Paul (his father was a Roman citizen) so he certainly was no stranger to Latin or vice versa.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul

Archaeologists have found that Latin was indeed part of the liturgy in the first century. Information as to how much or who said the first liturgies in Rome is yet to be found.

 

[IbnFiktur]

He probably was but according to a PBS documentary, Paul found a significant number of Christians already there when he arrived in Rome. And it was commonly acknowledged that Vulgar Latin was the spoken language in that area. Also Saul took on his Latin name Paul (his father was a Roman citizen) so he certainly was no stranger to Latin or vice versa.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul

Archaeologists have found that Latin was indeed part of the liturgy in the first century. Information as to how much or who said the first liturgies in Rome is yet to be found.

PBS is a wonderful resource for casual learning, but I’m drawing most of my historical data from my academic work, which was in Byzantine history

One can be a Roman citizen and not speak Latin. There is no doubt whatsoever that Greek was the administrative language of the Eastern empire. One could jut as easily take a Latin name and not speak Latin. However, I don’t doubt that Paul SPOKE Latin; it is not evident that he wrote his letters in Latin, for the three reasons I outlined.

Please cite your source for the archaeological evidence, I’m genuinely interested, if somewhat skeptical. I find it difficult to believe that there could possibly have existed a standardized liturgy in the first century, much less that it was said in Latin, especially given that many early Christians were not from the elite (and therefore in most areas of the east wouldn’t speak any Latin, vulgar or otherwise).

I’d also hearken back to the evidence provided in my first post. Given that the first four ecumenical councils were in Greek, it is doubtful that Latin was considered to be of any special significance for some time.

Regardless, I think we are starting to stray from the original point (as interesting as this discussion is). I think we both agree that there is no specific human “language of God,” Latin or otherwise.

 

[ProVobis]

Be that as it may, their English is horrible. I can’t imagine Latin would be any better.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If one wants to be strict about it, Aramaic is “God’s language” because that’s what Jesus spoke! So the Maronites have one up on all of us.

But when God wrote on stone tablets, I think he wrote in Hebrew, did He not?

 

[ProVobis]

Regardless, I think we are starting to stray from the original point (as interesting as this discussion is). I think we both agree that there is no specific human “language of God,” Latin or otherwise.

Indeed. I had to cringe a little when I first saw the title of this thread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Archaeologists have found that Latin was indeed part of the liturgy in the first century. Information as to how much or who said the first liturgies in Rome is yet to be found.

Definitely the Bishops. Back then it was only the bishop who has the power to consecrate. It was only later when such ability was handed to the presbyter and the presbyter then became more known as a priest.

 

[TEPO]

Well this is good I think -that we’ve come to understand the purpose of the Church’s use of Latin in the light of “a Primary Place”. That’s good because it prevents the Orthodox from claiming that Greek is the base language of Christianity… If it were that way, the Church would surely have been charged as being culturally Greek. It’s just unfortunate that so many still consider the Church as a product of Latin speaking Rome, when the Church selected a Latin dialect that was never actually bound by any nation or culture, but rather was developed by using some parts of Latin origin with new words created by Greek concepts…

Ecclesiastical Latin is actually both Greek and Latin. It’s a universal language created for the purpose of unity because its both non-cultural and non-national according to Pope John. Wow, who would have ever thought…?

 

[IbnFiktur]

TEPO, I do believe you’re making too strong of a claim. Again, all our early theology and all our early councils WERE in Greek. We should not look down on our Orthodox brothers and sisters just because their liturgies are primarily in Greek. In so doing, we would be looking down on our own Eastern Catholic traditions as well as our own scriptures. We also must not minimize the achievements of the Greek-speaking world in early Christianity. The first 400 years of our Church’s theology are built upon it.

In other words, I would caution against a sort of Latin linguistic triumphalism. There are so many great issues that tragically separate us from our Eastern Orthodox brothers. There’s no need to add petty issues such as “whose language is better” to the list.

 

[TEPO]

TEPO, I do believe you’re making too strong of a claim. Again, all our early theology and all our early councils WERE in Greek. We should not look down on our Orthodox brothers and sisters just because their liturgies are primarily in Greek. In so doing, we would be looking down on our own Eastern Catholic traditions as well as our own scriptures. We also must not minimize the achievements of the Greek-speaking world in early Christianity. The first 400 years of our Church’s theology are built upon it.

In other words, I would caution against a sort of Latin linguistic triumphalism. There are so many great issues that tragically separate us from our Eastern Orthodox brothers. There’s no need to add petty issues such as “whose language is better” to the list.

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?

 

[triumphguy]

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]

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]

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]

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.”
**
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]

**“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.”
**
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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?