The Ecclesiastic Latin is not the language used in the
Bible or in
Ancient Rome (the pronunciation for example is strongly different) but
it's a language created when the latin was already substituted by
"vulgari eloquentia". It has *never* had a native speaker, never. For
this reason it's an artificial language (or better an artificial
"version" of latin) and for this reason it can have a translation of
modern words
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Language_materials).
It might be more accurate to call it an artificial dialect, rather
than a different language it its own right. Apart from differences in
pronunciation, and the lack of modern vocab in the ancient version,
the two are mutually intelligible, right (I don't personally speak
either, so I'm not sure)?