Pope ditches Latin as official language of Vatican synod

[SuscipeMeDomine]

From Reuters:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - In a break with the past, Pope Francis has decided that Latin will not be the official language of a worldwide gathering of bishops at the Vatican.

A cardinal made the announcement at the start of the first working day of the two-week assembly, known as a synod, where about 200 Roman Catholic bishops from around the world are discussing themes related to the family…

Italian, the lingua franca of the Vatican, would become the synod’s official language, he said.

More at news.yahoo.com/pope-ditches-latin-official-language-vatican-synod-171337016.html

 

[ProVobis]

This probably won’t make any difference to 98% of Catholics who don’t understand either Latin or Italian. Translation errors will still occur.

It’s a Pope’s prerogative to write in any language he wishes (Pope JPII wrote in Polish and Pope Benedict wrote in French) but 500 years from now, most of what went on will be extinct if it’s not recorded in Latin.

 

[Origen52]

This probably won’t make any difference to 98% of Catholics who don’t understand either Latin or Italian. Translation errors will still occur.

It’s a Pope’s prerogative to write in any language he wishes (Pope JPII wrote in Polish and Pope Benedict wrote in French) but 500 years from now, most of what went on will be extinct if it’s not recorded in Latin.

Interesting opinion. Why do you think only the latin texts will stand?

I would add that 98% of the clergy lack the proficiency in latin to engage in meaningful dialogue. It is one thing to recite the liturgy, or read latin texts, and quite another to express one’s ideas. But no matter which language is used, latin or Italian, I think there will be a need for extensive translation.

I wonder if Pope Francis’ latin is a bit lacking. He is a wonderful man and greatly loved by Italians, but in two years his Italian has not improved. I like to think that as myself, he is language challenged. It’s nice to think the pope and I have something in common.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Ixnay Atinlay in Ynodsay.

See? Latin’s not that hard.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting opinion. Why do you think only the latin texts will stand?

Not MY opinion.

“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time … of its very nature requires a language that is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs.” Pope Pius XII

“The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine.” Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947, Sec. 60

“Latin is the immutable language of the Western Church.” Pope John XXIII

A lot of good wisdom there. But that said, I can understand why in Italy they speak Italian just like we discuss things in English on CAF. If the Pope feels it expedites matters, then by all means, have it in Italian. I wonder, though, how more powerful a statement like “smoke of Satan,” for example, would have had had Pope Paul officially recorded it in Latin. (It was said in Italian.)

I like to think that as myself, he is language challenged.

If he is, he has lots of company there. When Pope Benedict announced his resignation in Latin, it took a lady journalist outside the Vatican an hour later to figure it out for the public. (No, I’m not implying Pope Benedict was language challenged. He, like St. John Paul, were great linguists.)

 

[CB_Catholic]

This probably won’t make any difference to 98% of Catholics who don’t understand either Latin or Italian. Translation errors will still occur.

It’s a Pope’s prerogative to write in any language he wishes (Pope JPII wrote in Polish and Pope Benedict wrote in French) but 500 years from now, most of what went on will be extinct if it’s not recorded in Latin.

Nonsense. We have texts in ancient Greek and Hebrew that the Bible has been translated from. We have been able to preserve and read ancient Egyptian, medieval European languages, numerous other ancient languages. We certainly will be able to read 21st century Italian, esp. with our ability to preserve almost everything written with our technology.

 

[ProVobis]

We certainly will be able to read 21st century Italian, esp. with our ability to preserve almost everything written with our technology.

Really? Chaucer or even Shakespeare is that easy for modern English speakers that we need Cliff’s Notes to understand it? Italian is just as mutable as any other modern language. Except for perhaps Italian opera.

 

[phil19034]

Nonsense. We have texts in ancient Greek and Hebrew that the Bible has been translated from. We have been able to preserve and read ancient Egyptian, medieval European languages, numerous other ancient languages. We certainly will be able to read 21st century Italian, esp. with our ability to preserve almost everything written with our technology.

The advantage of documenting everything in Latin is that the meaning doesn’t change over time. In “living languages” words can develop different meanings based on new patters of speech.

When translating from Latin the real meaning is cemented in the Latin text. Sure, someone may mistranslate it; but then it can be corrected. With living languages, it’s harder (not impossible) to do.

 

[Ignatius]

Interesting opinion. Why do you think only the latin texts will stand?

Because the longevity of modern languages is about 500 years. The purpose of using Latin is that the language doesn’t change and will be the same 1000 years from now of 1000 years in the past.

Here is some Olde English: *Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. þa cwæð he, “Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon.”
*Hyge sceal þy heardra, heorte þy cenre, Mod sceal þy mare þy ure mægen lytlaþ. Her ligeþ ure ealdor eall forheawen, God on greote. A mæg gnornian Se-þe nu fram þys wig-plegan wendan þenceþ. Ic eom frod feores; fram ic ne wille Ac ic me be healfe minum hlaforde,
Be swa leofum menn, licgan þence.
Here is what it sounded like:
wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/noa/audio.htm

 

[phil19034]

The article seems to imply what language will be used during the synod.

However, it’s quite possible and quite likely that the official documents will be written in Latin once the synod is over.

 

[Razanir]

Really? Chaucer or even Shakespeare is that easy for modern English speakers that we need Cliff’s Notes to understand it? Italian is just as mutable as any other modern language. Except for perhaps Italian opera.

Chaucer’s a different language. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, we speak Modern English. Shakespeare, on the other hand, should be intelligible to modern readers. It’s called Early Modern English for a reason. The difficulty starts as words having slightly different meaning that today. From there, it’s just been compounded for so long that there’s a nocebo effect of people having a tough time with it because they expect to.

Example:

“But soft! what light though yonder window breaks/ it is the east and Juliet is the sun.” (R&J II.2.2-3)

Almost every word is still used today exactly as it is here. The only two exceptions: “Yonder” sounds antiquated, but most people should still know what it means. “But soft!” is an EModE interjection comparable to “Wait!” or “Hold on!” today. Again, it’s a small sample. But I’ve done analysis on the language of Shakespeare before, and found that much of it is Modern English. It might be more flowery and poetic, but the language is very much the same.

 

[Neofight]

Its all Greek to me!

 

[zerocrossing]

Because the longevity of modern languages is about 500 years. The purpose of using Latin is that the language doesn’t change and will be the same 1000 years from now of 1000 years in the past.

Here is some Olde English: *Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. þa cwæð he, “Rihtlice hi sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon.”
*Hyge sceal þy heardra, heorte þy cenre, Mod sceal þy mare þy ure mægen lytlaþ. Her ligeþ ure ealdor eall forheawen, God on greote. A mæg gnornian Se-þe nu fram þys wig-plegan wendan þenceþ. Ic eom frod feores; fram ic ne wille Ac ic me be healfe minum hlaforde,
Be swa leofum menn, licgan þence.
Here is what it sounded like:
wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/noa/audio.htm

I agree in principle that Latin is a good choice because of its stability.

However, “Old English” (a.k.a. Anglo-Saxon) is from the pre-Norman Conquest era - about 1000 years ago. The English language was radically altered by the Conquest, not only in vocabulary but also in morphology. Languages do change over time, but most languages do not undergo as radical a change as English did. As a consequence of the conquest, English dropped nearly all its remaining declensions and adopted a French/Latinate vocabulary to supplement (and sometimes conquer) its core Germanic vocabulary. It became essentially a different language.

English from 500 years ago (a.k.a. “Early Modern English”) comes to us after the vocabulary and morphological changes that took place during the “Middle English” period… and also after Caxton set up the printing press in London, thus codifying written English. The written form of Early Modern English is fundamentally the same as the written form of current English. There are some differences in vocabulary, some differences in spelling, and some differences in the use of the apostrophe. But that is about the extent of it. It’s not a radically different language, and it’s not very difficult at all to read once you get the hang of it.

Again, I agree that Latin is a good choice. I just wanted to clarify the timeline of changes to the English language.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s called Early Modern English for a reason. The difficulty starts as words having slightly different meaning that today.

Depends on what you mean by “slightly.” The word “gay” definitely has different meaning than it did 40-50 years ago; in fact today’s youth only knows the 2014 definition of it. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples, especially in our new age of texting and acronyming, etc. going forward.

On top of that you have different English in the U.K. and U.S., for example. It may not be all that evident if you were to stay there overnight but having lived there in the U.K., I can say over time it’s more than slightly different. I’ll bet Spanish (and Italian, for that matter) is somewhat different as well between countries which speak it.

 

[zerocrossing]

Depends on what you mean by “slightly.” The word “gay” definitely has different meaning than it did 40-50 years ago; in fact today’s youth only knows the 2014 definition of it. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples, especially in our new age of texting and acronyming, etc. going forward.

On top of that you have different English in the U.K. and U.S., for example. It may not be all that evident if you were to stay there overnight but having lived there in the U.K., I can say over time it’s more than slightly different. I’ll bet Spanish (and Italian, for that matter) is somewhat different as well between countries which speak it.

There are strong differences in spoken English. Spoken English is constantly in flux.

Aside from a few spelling and punctuation variations, though, standard written English is fundamentally the same in the US and the UK, and has been for centuries. 17th, 18th, and 19th century writers are more long-winded than we are, but they are writing the same standard English.

There are, of course, differences once you go outside of standard written English, but in non-fiction writing those differences are based more on subculture (and writing competency) than on nationality.

Again, I’m pro-Latin, but English is how I make my living, so I can get a bit pedantic about it.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Maybe the Pope heard that some of the Bishops at Vatican II knew less of what was going on than the Protestant observers since the Protestant observers had translators and the Bishops, some of whom knew little to no conversational Latin, had no translators.

 

[randomusername]

English is still changing rapidly. Meanings are changing the whole time. The differences between American English, Australian English and British English are quite large and there seem to be more and more differences appearing, rather than less. Other languages are much the same. Only extinct languages, such as latin, can retain the same meaning for thousands of years.

 

[pnewton]

This probably won’t make any difference to 98% of Catholics who don’t understand either Latin or Italian. Translation errors will still occur.

It’s a Pope’s prerogative to write in any language he wishes (Pope JPII wrote in Polish and Pope Benedict wrote in French) but 500 years from now, most of what went on will be extinct if it’s not recorded in Latin.

If everything has always been in Latin, then what evidence is there in existence that anything not written in Latin will not continue to exist? the very nature of the first premise precludes the existence of evidence one way or another.

 

[ProVobis]

If everything has always been in Latin, then what evidence is there in existence that anything not written in Latin will not continue to exist? the very nature of the first premise precludes the existence of evidence one way or another.

Latin wasn’t the only language St. John XXIII addressed in Veterum Sapientia so you’re right, there would be other languages that are recognized as immutable and continue to exist in that fashion, without regards to national borders. Syriac, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc. come to mind.

But that said, to all those who are cheering this on, I hope you’re as forgiving when our next Pope insists all future synods and documents and liturgy be in Church Slavonic, for example. That could happen, no?

Maybe the Pope heard that some of the Bishops at Vatican II knew less of what was going on than the Protestant observers since the Protestant observers had translators and the Bishops, some of whom knew little to no conversational Latin, had no translators.

I know of at least two Protestant ministers who are/were well versed in Latin and perhaps Greek as well. Latin was taught just as much, if not more, in public schools.

Having translators does help, however, even for the most learned in Latin. We all follow at different speeds. I know because, while I understand much of Polish, I’m quite slow in picking up on the nuances and such. OTOH, I don’t need English to understand the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

The article seems to imply what language will be used during the synod.

However, it’s quite possible and quite likely that the official documents will be written in Latin once the synod is over.

I’m confident Msgr Gallagher has already done so.

If everything has always been in Latin, then what evidence is there in existence that anything not written in Latin will not continue to exist? the very nature of the first premise precludes the existence of evidence one way or another.

Latin wasn’t the only language St. John XXIII addressed in Veterum Sapientia so you’re right, there would be other languages that are recognized as immutable and continue to exist in that fashion, without regards to national borders. Syriac, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc. come to mind.

But that said, to all those who are cheering this on, I hope you’re as forgiving when our next Pope insists all future synods and documents and liturgy be in Church Slavonic, for example. That could happen, no?

Maybe the Pope heard that some of the Bishops at Vatican II knew less of what was going on than the Protestant observers since the Protestant observers had translators and the Bishops, some of whom knew little to no conversational Latin, had no translators.

I know of at least two Protestant ministers who are/were well versed in Latin and perhaps Greek as well. Latin was taught just as much, if not more, in public schools.

As for the other bishops, I’m sure a few of them brought along some translation device or translators, even if they are somewhat versed in Italian.