Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

[IbnFiktur]

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.

I feel very much the same way, so again, what is your problem with what I am saying?

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.

Yes, this is called the Hellenization of the Roman Empire. It happened across the Roman world, and affected Classical Latin… There was no such thing as Churh Latin before the church! You’re completely misreading the article and treating “Ecclesiastical Latin” as an indiviual language with a fixed start date when it was officially laid out. That is not what happened. Shouldn’t it be obvious that Church Latin would not develop in the Roman Empire’s literature before Christ was even born? Hellenization was an entirely Roman phenomenon that affected the entire language. So again, what exactly are you saying? The section of the article you are quoting is describing the development of the Latin language as a whole while the empire experienced significant cultural Greek influence.

(also, see the post above me)

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?

Please don’t construct straw men. You know very well I did not mean to insinuate that the councils weren’t Catholic, I was referring to the language in which their decrees were promulgated. I’m not referring to the Greeks as a people, I’m referring to the Greek-speaking world, which undoubtably put forth the most theology and Church doctrine in the first four centuries of the Church than anything else. Based on that fact, I believe we should be cautious about treating Latin as somehow superior to any other language.

 

[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.

Well, that’s just strange. They made-up so many new “words” they just couldn’t stop themselves -so one day they decided to invent a new “name” for their so called “new language”… Yeah, no I don’t think so.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Sir, this is truly going nowhere. I charitably encourage you to consider your viewpoint carefully, read the truly excellent New Advent article free of your personal bias, and think logically about the argument you are making. It truly doesn’t make sense. Blessings, I’ll be leaving the thread.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not sure why it seems strange to you, TEPO. Neither “Ecclesiastical” nor “Vulgar” are part of the name of the language – they describe its function or social context of usage. You should read up on diglossia when you have the chance. For some time the Classical and the Vulgar forms of the language would likely have existed in a diglossic relationship to one another, with the Classical being reserved for certain official uses (as it had an official orthography and standardized pronunciation), and the vulgar being used in the streets by non-elites. Then, starting at some point in history, the vulgar speech of particular regions begin to be codified according to local usage, leading to the development of regional dialects, and from there the modern Romance languages (“Proto-Romance”, which linguists hypothesize as the ancestor shared by the modern Romance languages, may have been one of these regional dialects that gained a certain prestige while surrounding dialects died out).

 

[TEPO]

Sir, this is truly going nowhere. I charitably encourage you to consider your viewpoint carefully, read the truly excellent New Advent article free of your personal bias, and think logically about the argument you are making. It truly doesn’t make sense. Blessings, I’ll be leaving the thread.

You’ve agreed with Mark that there is no such thing as “Ecclesiastical Latin”, when the term itself is listed in the trustworthy Catholic Encyclopedia. That’s a shame.

 

[IbnFiktur]

You’ve agreed with Mark that there is no such thing as “Ecclesiastical Latin”, when the term itself is listed in the trustworthy Catholic Encyclopedia. That’s a shame.

Do you speak Latin??? I’ve taken college courses on classical Latin. I can just as easily read Virgil as I can a missal. They are NOT separate languages. It was NOT an intentionally created language. There is NOTHING in the (again, truly excellent) New Advent article to suggest otherwise. Please take a linguistics course.

I’m convinced your trolling at this point (successfully apparently, since here I am again ) but seriously I implore you to research linguistics if you are truly passionate about this. You will find that reality is not nearly as simple as you are suggesting.

 

[TEPO]

Do you speak Latin??? I’ve taken college courses on classical Latin. I can just as easily read Virgil as I can a missal. They are NOT separate languages. It was NOT an intentionally created language. There is NOTHING in the (again, truly excellent) New Advent article to suggest otherwise. Please take a linguistics course.

I’m convinced your trolling at this point (successfully apparently, since here I am again ) but seriously I implore you to research linguistics if you are truly passionate about this. You will find that reality is not nearly as simple as you are suggesting.

You said this earlier: "This new language was not “created.” It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century."

…so they’re not seperate languages, but yet one is a “new” language according to you earlier. I point this out because you have made mistakes here just as well as I have. I’m not trying to cause problems, but you have been trying to debate me here when I have no position (or opinion) on this issue. The title of this thread is a question, so obviously I’m not claiming to be a professional, but you do claim this, but you still make mistakes. If you knew it wasn’t a seperate language then you should have said that sooner, but instead you let the whole conversation go out of control. I’m here to learn a little and to get people to think a little and to have fun while I’m doing it. So please stop taking this so darn seriously and lighten up a little.

 

[Alfonsus]

Ecclesiastical Latin to Classical Latin is no more new language as American English compared to Victorian English… It is the same language that evolved.

 

[Alfonsus]

You said this earlier: "This new language was not “created.” It developed as a result of the rise of Latin theology in the 5th century."

…so they’re not seperate languages, but yet one is a “new” language according to you earlier. I point this out because you have made mistakes here just as well as I have. I’m not trying to cause problems, but you have been trying to debate me here when I have no position (or opinion) on this issue. The title of this thread is a question, so obviously I’m not claiming to be a professional, but you do claim this, but you still make mistakes. If you knew it wasn’t a seperate language then you should have said that sooner, but instead you let the whole conversation go out of control. I’m here to learn a little and to get people to think a little and to have fun while I’m doing it. So please stop taking this so darn seriously and lighten up a little.

To be fair, from my perception reading the whole thread, I believe you is the one that let the conversation went out of control.

 

[Baelor]

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…

It is clearly not. It developed from a particular secular language and incorporated particular cultures and purposes into its vocabulary and grammar. Furthermore, it is Latin. It is not a separate language.

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?

It is not a derivation of Latin and Greek combined. It is Latin with Greek vocabulary thrown in because Latin lacked some technical vocabulary that was necessary.

Saying that it is Latin and Greek combined is exactly like saying that English and English and French combined because we have words like bon vivant and a la carte.

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."

Ennius was a poet, as were Vergil, Lucan, etc. The Greek “embellishments” were mostly vocabulary, like hymenaeus. The one exception of which I can think is the Greek accusative, used in Latin poetry on occasion. That hardly constitutes changing Latin, especially when such embellishments were used exclusively in poetry for archaizing purposes.

Furthermore, when you read Latin prose masters, you will find that they put in Greek words and expressions in Greek script without any transliteration. This indicates that Greek and Latin were indeed kept separate.

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 was not created; it developed organically.

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.

See above about why this is irrelevant and also taken out of context.

Well, that’s just strange. They made-up so many new “words” they just couldn’t stop themselves -so one day they decided to invent a new “name” for their so called “new language”… Yeah, no I don’t think so.

Words were invented over time and drawn into the language over time in order to describe things that could not be described with the current Latin vocabulary.

That is like saying that since we have had lots of new technological vocabulary in the last twenty years, we have invented a new language. No one would claim that because it simply is not true.

 

[TEPO]

Ecclesiastical Latin to Classical Latin is no more new language as American English compared to Victorian English… It is the same language that evolved.

Yes, that is a pretty good comparison. Thanks.

 

[TEPO]

To be fair, from my perception reading the whole thread, I believe you is the one that let the conversation went out of control.

And thank you sir for your two cents.

 

[TEPO]

It is clearly not. It developed from a particular secular language and incorporated particular cultures and purposes into its vocabulary and grammar. Furthermore, it is Latin. It is not a separate language.

It is not a derivation of Latin and Greek combined. It is Latin with Greek vocabulary thrown in because Latin lacked some technical vocabulary that was necessary.

Saying that it is Latin and Greek combined is exactly like saying that English and English and French combined because we have words like bon vivant and a la carte.

Ennius was a poet, as were Vergil, Lucan, etc. The Greek “embellishments” were mostly vocabulary, like hymenaeus. The one exception of which I can think is the Greek accusative, used in Latin poetry on occasion. That hardly constitutes changing Latin, especially when such embellishments were used exclusively in poetry for archaizing purposes.

Furthermore, when you read Latin prose masters, you will find that they put in Greek words and expressions in Greek script without any transliteration. This indicates that Greek and Latin were indeed kept separate.

It was not created; it developed organically.

See above about why this is irrelevant and also taken out of context.

Words were invented over time and drawn into the language over time in order to describe things that could not be described with the current Latin vocabulary.

That is like saying that since we have had lots of new technological vocabulary in the last twenty years, we have invented a new language. No one would claim that because it simply is not true.

It’s fine it’s fine it’s fine. Lets just say I got exactly what I deserved for even starting this stupid thread. I thought it would be fun, but my being dubious bit me right in the butt… As usual. :shrug:

…and yes, I said dubious!

 

[TEPO]

But in an educational light, what can be said about the language of Hebrew, which was used to construct the old testament in ancient times…? Were the words of that language as equally descriptive as Greek? Maybe there existed an underdevelopment of language that was similar to what we find in Latin -which might explain some of the harshness of tone used in the old testament… Is it possible?

Maybe it also would explain Jesus’ use of parables to the Aramaic speaking peoples…

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, maybe somebody answered this and I missed it, but what exactly is meant by ‘Gods language’? Are you trying to imply that God Himself thinks in Latin? Or merely that God, in His providence ordained that Latin would have a special role to play here on earth?

 

[TEPO]

Ok, maybe somebody answered this and I missed it, but what exactly is meant by ‘Gods language’? Are you trying to imply that God Himself thinks in Latin? Or merely that God, in His providence ordained that Latin would have a special role to play here on earth?

I’d like to know why the Latin Mass is so important to so many Catholics if the language itself is not superior or extra Holy in any way. If it were “special” to God, then we should all support it but if God doesn’t favor it then why should we.

According to pretty much everyone here, it’s nothing special at all, whatsoever.

 

[IbnFiktur]

I’d like to know why the Latin Mass is so important to so many Catholics if the language itself is not superior or extra Holy in any way. If it were “special” to God, then we should all support it but if God doesn’t favor it then why should we.

According to pretty much everyone here, it’s nothing special at all, whatsoever.

Ah, now I think I see what you’ve been asking…

The Latin Mass is important to Latin Catholics for the same reason that Greek Mass is important to Catholics of that rite… why Aramaic is important to Maronite Catholics… because it’s a tradition. The Latin Rite is one rite among many. It is not extra-holy. It can enhance the holiness of a Mass for the same reason that Greek and Aramaic can enhance the holiness of other rites’ masses… it brings Catholics closer to God because they feel a closeness to the language (not because God selected that language to be above others).

So again, Latin Mass is wonderful, but you should be careful not to describe it as “God’s chosen rite” or “God’s chosen language.” There are other traditional rites of other languages that make people feel just as close to God and their Catholic heritage as Latin.

Are we on the same page yet?

 

[TEPO]

It can enhance the holiness of a Mass for the same reason that Greek and Aramaic can enhance the holiness of other rites’ masses… it brings Catholics closer to God because they feel a closeness to the language (not because God selected that language to be above others).

How can one feel a closeness to a language that is not their native tongue. This feeling of holiness or closeness is what I’m trying to understand here. I tried to get into that mindset to experience this for myself, and I tried to create reasoning for it such as it being “Gods language”, but that wasn’t it.

So is it the “oldness” of these languages that draw people to it for some reason? I’d like to explore what and why this is.

 

[triumphguy]

How can one feel a closeness to a language that is not their native tongue. This feeling of holiness or closeness is what I’m trying to understand here. I tried to get into that mindset to experience this for myself, and I tried to create reasoning for it such as it being “Gods language”, but that wasn’t it.

So is it the “oldness” of these languages that draw people to it for some reason? I’d like to explore what and why this is.

There is a reason why Vatican II promoted the vernacular.

 

[Baelor]

I’d like to know why the Latin Mass is so important to so many Catholics if the language itself is not superior or extra Holy in any way. If it were “special” to God, then we should all support it but if God doesn’t favor it then why should we.

According to pretty much everyone here, it’s nothing special at all, whatsoever.

It is special. It is the language of the Church and has developed a vocabulary necessary for Catholic theology and philosophy. Few, if any, other languages have this property (and certainly there are not other official languages of the Church).