7 Replies to “Now We Need the Ecclesiastical Version”

  1. Yes, we need an ecclesiastical version, but we do not need one with competing music. The choice of background music is thoroughly inappropriate: Allegri's Miserere is an exquisite piece, but its context is Tenebrae of Holy Week, a most somber and penitential liturgy. Moreover, the juxtaposition of the classical pronunciation of the text with the ecclesiastical pronunciation of the music is perplexing. Perhaps you are not supposed to notice the music, but it is loud enough that it competes with the text. Is not the text itself strong enough to stand on its own?

    I would comment, further, that it is quite questionable to read a sacred text against "background music." The music was not meant to be background, but to be listened to for its own sake. Indeed, in the liturgy, the rubrics specifically forbid the use of even accompaniment for the chants of the priest. We hear, sometimes, the rosary and other prayers, broadcast with electronically generated background music that has no merit of its own; how can this add anything of value? Rather it adds to a legitimate prayer the atmosphere of a soap opera, though soap operas use better music. At least this is music of value, but it impinges badly upon a most wonderful text that deserves to stand on its own.

    The use of classical pronunciation raises a question: is it being used because that would have been the pronunciation of the original vulgate text, or is it being used just to provide the text for school children who study Latin in classical pronunciation? If the former, then the question remains, is this the pronunciation of St. Jerome. it is the pronunciation of classical poetry but perhaps not of the vulgar Latin, which is presumed to be the language of St. Jerome. I am not qualified to answer this question, but it might deserve an answer.

  2. If this is the same thing that was posted on NLM, then I don't understand it at all. It's a program that is suppose to be "a non-profit, donor-driven, interdenominational ministry committed to the mission of reaching poor and illiterate people worldwide with the Word of God in audio," then how does a Latin version really help?

    Are there a lot of poor, illiterate people who speak a dead language in one of two pronunciations?

    If I donated a lot of money in order to help the poor and illiterate hear the word of God and then learned my money was used to make a version for CITIZENS OF ANCIENT ROME, I'd certainly never donate to them again.

  3. I kind of like that the reading has background music, but I would have rathered it was just musical so it would not compete with the words of the narrator. I would also prefer the ecclesiastical pronounciation instead.

    I bought the NT audio book and they are wonderful. So a latin and greek version would be awesome…. though niche.

  4. It burns, it burns! Please, ecclesiastical.

    And, I agree – no reducing Allegri or Palestrina or Byrd or Bach or such to background music.

  6. Some distinct oddities in the pronunciation, moreover; odd both in classical and ecclesiastical pronunciation. One is the repeated use of the glottal stop in between vowels. I don't know of any evidence that that's what the Romans did at any time.

    The other is the use of a diphthong [ɛɪ] for orthographic e. Again, I doubt there's any evidence for that in any variety of Latin except present-day anglophone Latin.

    Altogether an odd exercise. The question that came to mind as I was listening was: why?

Comments are closed.