Latin to vernacular languages

[otjm]

Classical Latin was not simply an erudite form of Vulgar Latin. The differences were extraordinary, even so to the point that many linguists consider them to be separate languages. The closest (though probably not the best) modern example of which I can think would be Modern Standard Arabic and the various regional forms of Arabic.

Well, that is not what I was taught whne I was taking Latin in college; but then, or course, that was back in the dark ages…

I alos took Classical Greek, and some koine; there was an obvious difference between the two, but certainly not so much that one could not distinguish what was being said (or written, since we read and translated, and did not take it as a spoken language - the same with the Latin I took). I think you overstate the case. But then, that is just my opinion, from my own experiences of what I was taught.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The unchanging quality of the non-vernacular has a certain appeal, but I think its a false appeal. I think it makes sense to preserve the original of any text in the original language. That is the best way to preserve the original meaning. So copies of the original Latin can be preserved and used to make new translations, and so forth. But saying the liturgy in Latin does not prevent confusion over the meaning of the liturgy, because people still need to translate the Latin into their vernacular (even if only mentally) to know what they are saying. Even if they learn to speak Latin, the same issue of understanding what the Latin really means arises, just as it would with a vernacular or a translation. So preserving the Latin as the official text makes sense, but using Latin in the Mass does little (if anything) to ensure the faithful have the same understanding.

I suppose some might say that using words that would mean the correct thing if properly understood is more important than whether the faithful really understand, but I don’t think the Mass works that way.

To translate from the Latin to the vernacular on your own is one thing. And you are correct that even if you learned the Latin you would more than likely still translate in your mind to yourself. Now let us look at all the changes in the English vernacular over the last 30 years. You have people that are specking English to each other and have no idea what the other is saying.

A example would be that’s cool.

now are we talking the temperature or the aesthetic of something? With the use of a Language such as Latin we no longer have that problem as the meaning of the words no longer take new meanings and uses.

I will stick to using English,as it’s the only language i speak, Is a poor language for the test of time as to mean words have multiple meanings and depending on the usage the same word can be pronounced differently (read) you also have words that are pronounced the same but spelled differently and with different means(read - red) ( right- write). I pick Latin for the liturgy.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The worst part of the argument that a non-vernacular language is superior to the vernacular, is that Latin was the vernacular when it was adopted.

Fr. Lang hits the nail on the head:

'This was not an adoption of the “vernacular” language in the liturgy, given that the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were remote from the idiom of the common people.

‘It was a strongly stylized language that an average Christian in Rome of late antiquity would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low by the standards of today…’

When the Roman church switched to the Latin language in its liturgy, it must be noted that it was definitely not switching to a vernacular language. Scholarly articles that detail the development of medieval Latin make a point of distinguishing between what one might call “written Latin” (which was not strictly written as it would also be employed for feats of rhetoric) and “vernacular Latin.” Rome did not adopt that vernacular but the stylized, written version of the language. Though it’s not an exact parallel, one might consider the idea of having a liturgy in Shakespearean English - it is “modern English,” i.e. our native language, but there are matters of diction and syntax that pose serious challenges to those not well-exposed to the particular use of the language. Yet this is the option chosen by Rome, not the vernacular.

Now, this does not mean “so we shouldn’t have the vernacular,” just as the facts of other vernacular uses or the greater comprehension of Latin in the early Church do not mean “we must use vernacular.” It is simply one piece of evidence to weigh in the discussion of whether the Latin church, at a new point in history and with a far larger deposit of tradition with which to grapple, should be employing modern vernaculars in its liturgy.