Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/46

 ZJLTIH

23

ZJLTIH

BBOse that we speak of the Latin Church. The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the Catholic bodv wluch obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic or Schismatic), which rep- resent the other four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them. The Latin patriarchate has always been considerably the largest. Now, since the great part of Eastern Christendom has fallen into schism, since vast new lands have been colonized, conquered or (partly) converted by Latins (America, Australia, etc.), the Latin part of the Catholic Church looms so enormous as compared with the others that many people think that every one in communion with the pope is a Latin. This error is fostered by the Anglican branch theory, which supposes the situation to be that the Eastern Church is no longer in com- munion with Rome. Against this we must always remember, and when necessary point out, that the constitution of the Catholic Church is still essentially what it was at the time of the Second Council of Nicsa (787; see also canon xxi of Constantinople IV in 869 in the ''Corp. Jur. can.", dist. xxii, c. vu). Namely, there are still the five patriarchates, of which the Latm Church is only one, although so great a part of the Eastern ones have fallen away. The Uniate Churches, small as they are, still represent the old Catholic Chris- tendom of the Rast in union with the pope, obeying him as pope, though not as their patriarch. AH Latins are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Latins. The old frontier passed just east of Macedonia, Greece (lUyricum was afterwards claimed by Constantinople), ana Crete^ and cut Africa west of Egypt. All to the west of this was the Latin Church.

We must now add to Western Europe all the new lands occupied by Western Europeans, to make up the present enormous Latin patriarchate. Throughout this vast territory the pope reigns as patriarch, as well as by his supreme position as visible head of the whole Church. With the exception of very small remnants of other uses (Milan, Toledo, and the Byzantines of Southern Italy), his Roman Rite is used throughout, according to the general principle that rite follows the patriarcmite, that local uishops use the rite of their patriarch. The medieval Western uses (Paris, Sarum, and so on), of which people at one time made much for controversial purposes, were in no sense really independent rites, as are the remnants of the Gallican use at Milan and Toledo. They were only the Roman Rite with very slight local modifications. From this conception we see that the practical disappearance of the Gallican Rite, however much the archaeologist may regret it, is justified by the general principle that rite should follow patriarchate. Uniformity of rite through- out Christendom has never been an ideal among Catholics; but uniformity in each patriarchate is. We see also tliat the suggestion, occasionally made by advanced Ani^licans, of a Uniate Anglican Church with its own rite ami to some extent its own laws (for instance with a married clergy) is utterly opposed to antiquity and to consistent canon law. England is most certainly part of the Latin patriarchate. When Anglicans return to the old Faith they find themselves subject to the pope, not only as head of the Church, but also as patriarch. As part of the Latin Church England must submit to Latin canon law and the Roman Rite just as much as France or Germany. The eomparison with Eastern Uniates .rests on a miscon- ception of the whole situation. It follows also that the expression Latin (or even Roman) Catholic is quite justifiable, inasmuch as we express by it that we are not only Catholics but also members of the Latin or Roman patriarchate. A Uniate on the other hand is a Byaantine, or Armenian, or Maronite Catholic. But a person who is in schism with the Holy See is not,

of course, admitted by Catholics to be any kind of Catholic at all.

Adrian Fortescue.

Latin Langfuage, Use of, in the Liturgy. See Liturgy.

Latin Literature, Christian. — Early Centuries. — The Latin language was not at first the literary and official organ of the Christian Church in the West. The Gospel was emnounced hy preachers whose language was Greek, and these continued to use Greek, if not in their discourses, at least in their most important acts. Irenffius, at Lyons, preached in Latin, or perhaps in the Celtic vernacular, but he refuted heresies in Greek. The Letter of the Church of Lyons concerning its martyrs is written in Greek; so at Rome, a century earlier, is that of Clement to the Corinthians. In botn cases the language of those to whom the letters were addressed may ^ve been designedly chosen; never- theless, a document that may be called a domestic product of the Roman Church — ^the *' Shepherd" of Hermas, was written in Greek. At Rome in the middle of the second century, Justin, a Palestinian philosopher, opened his school, and suffered martyr* dom; Tatian wrote his ''Apologia" in Greek; at Rome in the third century Hippolytus compiled his numerous works in Greek. And Greek is not only the lanjguage of books, but also of the Roman Christian ii^ scriptions, the greater number of which, down to the third century, are written in Glreek. The most an- cient Latin document emanating from the Roman Cliurch is the correspondence of its clergy with Car- thage during the vacancy of the Apostolic See»follow- ing on the oeath of Pop>e Fabian (20 January, 250). One of the letters is the work of Novatian, the first Christian writer to use the Latin language at Rome. But even at this epoch, Greek is still the official lan- guage: the original epitaphs of the popes are still com- posed in G reek. We have those of An terns, of FabiaD^ of Lucius, of Gains, and the series brings us down to 296. That of CorneUus, which is in Latin, seenis to be later than the third century. In Africa Latin was always the literary language of Christianity, although Punic was still used for preacliing in the time of St. Augustine, and some even preached in the Berber lan- guage. These latter, however, had no literature; cultivated persons, as well as the cosmopolitan popu- lation of the seaports used Greek. The oldest Chris- tian document of Africa, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, was translated into Greek, as were some of the works of Tertullian, perhaps by the author himself, and certainly with the object of securing for them a wider diffusion. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Feli- citas, originally written in Latin, were translated into Greek. In Spain all the known documents are writ- ten in Latin, tut they appear very late. The Acts of St. Fructuosus, a martyr under Valerian, are attrib- uted by some critics to the third century. The first Latin Christian document to which a quite certain date can be assigned is a collection of the canons of the Council of Elvira, about 300.

Side by side with literary works, the Church pro- duced certain writings necessary to her life. In this category must be placed the most ancient Christian documents written in Latin, the translations of the Bible made either in Africa or in Italy. Beginning with the second century, Latin translations of techni- cal works written in Greek became numerous — trea- tises on medicine, botany, mathematics, etc. These translations served a practical purpose, and were made by professionals; consequently tney had no literary merit, and aimed at an almost servile exactitude re- sulting in the retention of many peculiarities of the original. Hellenisms, a very questionable feature in the literary works of preceding centuries, were fre- quent in these translations. The early Latin versions of the Bible had the characteristics common to all