From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: Bible translations, or Does God Speak Latin?
Keywords: Catholic, Latin, Bible
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:21:28 GMT

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>
>>>Are you nuts?  Where the hell is the beauty in hearing someone babble
>>>gibberish at you and sitting there bored for an hour while he does it,
>>>with his back turned to you all the time?  How the hell am I supposed
>>>to gain enlightenment if I can't understand what the hell is being said?

As somebody who went through the transition from Latin to Italian and,
slightly later to English, I'd like to rewind the discussion a bit:

(a) I had a reasonable understanding of the Mass and the various other
    religious functions I used to attend, being Italian, and I concur
    that Latin held a fascination that neither the Italian nor the
    English mass had.

(b) It is true that keeping religion mysterious was the Roman Catholic
    Church's strongest weapon, as too many of the followers realised
    that what was babble in Latin remained babble in the vernacular,
    irrelevant to modern day conditions and pretty absurd in lots of
    respects.

(c) It is also the case that I'd find an hour in church pretty boring
    even if it was in High Martian with subtitles, specially since it
    is rather repetitious from one Sunday to the next and from one
    year to the next; I guess many of my friends I left behind in Italy
    felt that way, whereas Roman Catholics in South Africa kind of
    enjoyed the role of politically active minority, so they found
    the Church a rallying point.

The new Roman Catholic catechism reflects some of the changes the RCs
had to undergo to keep up with social growth, but I think when they
chose to make the rituals more accessible they reduced the impact these
rituals had on people's religion (I didn't phrase that well, but I
think the meaning is moderately obvious).

[ ... omitted ... ]

>Provided the hearer understands it, yes.  Other than that, I see no
>spiritual value in hearing someone make mouth noises at me, no matter
>how beautiful if I don't understand what they're saying.  English is
>also a rhythmic and lyrical language, particularly when it comes to the
>consonant combinations; read Poe's poems.  

I think you're being too literal (I'm sure there's a better word for it),
typically, I know of people who appreciate opera without much understanding
of the lyrics (I don't like opera as a norm), while I love Enya's Gaelic
ramblings in "Shepherd Moons" even though I have no clue as to its meaning;
likewise there's a brief exchange in "Rings of Bright Waters" (a movie
about otters) in Gaelic (Scottish, I'd hazard) which almost revolutionised
my perceptions about language :-)

As for the lyricism in any language, I agree with you it is present, and
I'll accept what is obviously a more educated understanding, but you can't
project Poe's lyricism onto the RC Canon by simply translating Latin
(which I guess had grown in poetic value over more than a thousand years
until Pope Gregorius froze it in what may well have been its most
powerful format (all this is speculation, of course)) into the various
vernaculars.

As for the reasons for the Church to have bowed down to social pressure,
I have no idea what they might be, but I have long ago declined to
believe those the Church itself offered.

Ite, missa est.
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...