Re: [tied] Re: Historical impications of Romanian ecclesiastical te

--- m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> The Greek word [basilica GK]got earlier in Latin

language with

> the meaning of
> `special
> kind of (monumental) building`. When Constantine the
> Great gave Pope
> Miltiades a palace on the Lateran hill as a
> residence and began
> building
> a church later called the Basilica of St. John at
> the Lateran (313 a.
> D.),
> the term had all reasons to acquire the new meaning
> in vernacular.
> From
> the IV-th century, "basilica" is attested with this
> new meaning.
> Not many years after this moment, the First
> Ecumenical Council in
> Nicaea
> decided that churches should be called with another
> formula of Greek
> inspiration, "ecclesia kyriakos" (325 a.D.). This
> time it was an
> official
> formula and should have been imposed by clergy. The
> word didn't made
> it
> into Balkan Romance.
> It would be very tempting to say that Balkan
> Romance split up from
> the
> rest of Romance-speaking world between these two
> dates, but it would
> be
> obviously too naive. In fact, the word "basilica"
> got some popularity
> with the new meaning, and intervention of
> ecclesiastical authorities
> in
> order to impose the "right" word for `church`
> couldn't be imposed over
> night in vernacular language. Thus, the official
> version managed to
> impose itself after some good decades.
> Out of that, it failed to impose itself in those
> regions where there
> was no Latin strong organized clergy.

*****GK: One wonders why the earlier word became
popular here, but not the later. Would a secular
(political) authority have more impact on
consciousness in these areas?******

>
> > [...] The standard Latin term was ALWAYS
> "ecclesia".
>
> Only after Nicaea. Up till then, the word meaned
> `assembly` and
> incidentally `religious (Christian) assembly` (if I
> recall correctly).

*****GK: Agreed. And thanks for the clarifications.
But this raises an even more significant issue. As you
have just said, and you are quite right, "ecclesia" in
Christian parlance did mean "congregatio fidelium". It
is so used in the Gospels and in the Epistles. And
that meaning of the word does exist in most other
Romance languages (at least the major ones: I'm not
sure about the smaller ones you've mentioned.)
Question: does Romanian have this word in the earlier
sense?******

>
> > [...] The circumstances under which it was
> borrowed are obscure.
>
> Well, not so obscure after all. :-)

*****GK: Agreed.******

>
> > I won't let my imagination work overtime here. I
> would just say that
> > this one word suggests that the Proto-Romanians
> had little if any
> > dealings with either Roman or Greek clergy during
> the postulated
> early
> > times of their alleged conversion (3/4 cs.)
>
> ... or even prior to that moment, but this is
> another story.

******GK: Let's look at this now if you don't
mind.*****

The word

> shows actually something more: not only post-Nicaean
> clerks had little
> power to impose their official denominations, but
> also that Romanians
> got Christianized early and naturally, at the base
> level of uneducated
> people who accept a fate they feel appropriated to
> their spirit.

*****GK: If so, they would have had the "ecclesia"
word in the other sense mentioned above.****

> It shows also that at the end of the IV-th century,
> when "ecclesia"
> got general elsewhere, linguistical contact between
> Balkan Romance and
> Western Romania was in decline.
>
> > PS> This is just an initial point. I'm rather
> interested in this
> issue
> > and hope to get some enlightenment from my
> Romanian friends. I hope
> they
> > won't be too dismayed by my playing the continued
> advocatus diaboli
> > role either.
>
> No problemo. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com