LATIN
22
LATIN
>»,
mus"; (3) the cursus veLox^ "gloriam perducamur."
So great was their influence over the language that the
cursus passed from the prayers of the liturgy into
some of the sermons of St. Leo and a few others, into
papal Bulls from the twelftli to the fifteenth century,
and into many Latin letters wi-itten during the Middle
Ages. Besides the prayers, hymns make up the most
vital thing in the Liturgy. From St. Hilary of Poi-
tiers, to whom St. Jerome attributes the earliest, down
to Leo XIII, who composed many hymns, the number
of hymn writers is very great, and their output, as we
learn from recent research, is beyond computing.
Suffice it to say that these hymns originated in popu-
lar rhythms founded on accent; as a rule they were
modelled on classical metres, but gradually metre gave
way to beat or number of syllables and accent. (See
Hymnody and Hymnology.) Since the Renaissance,
rhythm has again given way to metre; and many old
hymns were even retouched, under Urban VIII, to
bring them into line with the rules of classical prosody.
Besides this liturgy which we may style official, and which was made up . of words of the Mass, of the Breviary, or of the Ritual, we may recall the wealth of literature dealing with a variety of historical detail, such as the " Pereginatio ad Loca sancta " formerly at- tributed to Silvia, many collections of rubrics, orcfines, sacramentaries, ordinaries, or other books of a reli- gious bearing, of which so many have been edited of late years in England either by private individuals or by the Surtees* Society and the Bradshaw Society. But the most we can do is to mention this brilhant liturgical efflorescence.
Devdomnent in Theology. — Wider and more varied is the field theology opens up for ecclesiastical Latin; so wide that we must restrict ourselves to pointing out the creative resources which the Latin we speak of has given proof of since the beginning of the study of speculative theology', i. e., from the writings of the earliest Fathers down to our own day. More than elsewhere, it has here shown how capable it is of ex- pressing the most deUcate shades of theological thought, or the keenest hair-splitting of decadent Scholasticism. Need we mention what it has done in this field? The expressions it has created, the meanings it has conveyed are only too well known. Whereas the major part of these expressions were legitimate, were necessary and successful — iranssubstarUiatio, forma, materia, indudduum, accidens, appetitus — there are only too many that show a wordy and empty formal- ism, a deplorable indifference for the sobriety of ex- pression and for the purity of the Latin tongue — a^eitas, futuritio, beatificativum, tenninatio, actuulitas, hceccei- tas, etc. It was by such w^ords as these that the language of theology exposed itself to the iibes of Erasmus and Rabelais, and brought discredit on a study that was deserving of more consideration. With the Renaissance, men's minds became more difficuU to satisfy, readers of cultured taste could not tolerate a language so foreign to the genius of the classical Latin- ity that had been revived. It became necessary even for renowned theologians, like Melchior Cano in the preface to his " Loci Theologici ", to raise their voices against the demands of their readers as well as against the carelessness and obscurity of former theologians. It may be laid down that about this time classic correctness began to find a place in theological as well as in liturgical Latin.
Present Position. — Henceforth correctness was to be the characteristic of ecclesiastical Latin. To the ter- minology consecrated for the expression of the faith of the Catholic Church it now adds as a rule that gram- matical accuracy which the Renaissance gave back to us. But in our own age, thanks to a variety of causes, some of which arise from the evolution of educational programmes, the Latin of the Church has lost in quan- tity what it has gained in Quality. Latin retains its ftlace in the Liturgy, and rightly so, the better to point
out and watch over, in the very bosom of the Church,
that unity of belief in all places and throughout all
times whicji is her birthright. But in the devotional
hymns that accompany the ritual the vernacular alone
is used, and these hymns are gradually replacing the
liturgical hymns. AH the official documents of the
Church, Encyclicals, Bulls, Briefs, iiistitutions of
bishops, replies from the Roman Congregations, acts
of provincial councils, are written in Latin. Within
recent years, however, solemn Apostolic letters ad-
dressed to one or other nation have been in their own
tongue, and various diplomatic documents have been
drawn up in French or in ItaUan. In the training of
the clergy, the necessity of discussing modern systems,
whether of exegesis or philosophy, has led almost
everywhere to the use of the national tongue. Man-
uals of dogmatic and moral theology are written in
Latin, in Italy, Spain, and France, but often, save in
the Roman universities, the oral explanation thereof is
given in the vernacular. In German- and English-
speaking countries most of the manuals are in their
own tongue, and nearly always the explanation is in
the same languages.
Cooper, Word Formation in the Roman aermo plebeitu (Boa- ton and London, 1895)- Harnack, Geschichte der allckrisUichen Literatur (Leipzig, 1904); Schanz, Geaehichte der rumiachen Literatttr, III (Munich, 1896); Duchebne, Histoire ancienne de VEglise, I (Paris, 1906); Koffmane, (jeaofcicA/e dea Kirchenla- teins (Breslau, 1879, 1881); Monceaux, Histoire litliraire de VAfrique chritienne (Paris, 1901-05); RoNScn. Jtala und Vid- gata (2nd ed. Marburg, 1875); Word8Worth, Sandat ajtd White, Old Biblical Latin Texta (Oxford, 1883-88); Coh- DAMiN, De TertuUiano . . . prcecipuo Christiana linqvux artifice (Lyons, 1877); Bataro, Le latin de aaint Cyprxen (Paris, 1902): Ga:LZER, LatinilA de aaint J^6me (Paris, 1884); Idem, Histoire du latin du III* au VJJ^ aii-cle in Revue IntemcUiimal de V Enaeignement (Paris, 1908); Ri:oNiER, De la latiniU dea aer- mons de aaint Augtiatin (Paris, 1886); Deqert, Quid ad morea ingeniaque A/rorum cognoscenda con/erant aancti A uguatini aer- monea (Paris, 1894): Ebert, Geaehichte der Chriaileben Littera- tur (Leipzig, 1874, French tr., Paris, 1883); Cabrol, Introduc- tion aux etudes liturgique^ (Paris, 1906); Chevalier, Poiaie liiurgujue du moyen Oge (Paris, 1893); Schwane, Hiatoire dea Dogmes, V, VI, French tr., Degert (Paris, 1904); Simler, Dea Sommes de th^ologie (Paris, 1871); Zell, Commentatio de lati- nitate atxuliose colenda (Freiburg, 1870); Guibert, Le Latin dana les arminairea (Paris, 1909).
Antoine Degert.
Latin Ghurch. — The word Church (ecclesia) is used in iU first sense to express the whole congregation of Catholic Christendom united in one Faith^ obeying one hierarchy in communion with itself. This is the sense of Matt., xvi, 18; xviii, 17; Eph., v, 25, 27, etc. It is in this sense that we speak of the Church without quali- fication, say that Christ founded one Church, and so on. But the word is also constantly applied to the various individual elements of this union. As the whole is the Church, the universal Church, so are its parts the Churches of Corinth, Asia, France, etc. This second use of the word also occurs in the New Testa- ment (Acts, XV, 41; II Cor., xi, 28; Apoc., i, 4, 11, etc.). Any portion then that forms a subsidiary unity in itself may be called a locid Church. The smallest such portion is a diocese — thus we speak of the Church of Paris, of Milan, of Seville. Above this again we group metropolitical provinct^s and national portions together as unities, and speak of the Church of Africa , of CJaul, of Spain. The expression Church of Rome, it should be noted, though commonly applied by non- Catholics to the whole Catholic body, can only be used correctly in this secondary sense for the local diocese (or possibly the province) of Home, mother and mis- tress of ail Churches. A German Catholic is not, strictly speaking, a member of the Church of Rome, but of the Church of Cologne, or Munich-Freising, or whatever it may be, in union with and under the obedience of the Roman Church (although, no doubt, by a further extension Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church for the patriarchate).
The word is also used very commonly for the still greater portions that are united under their pa- triarchs, that is for the patriarchates. It is in tnis
