God doesn't speak Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isa_Almisry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, if the Church wants to grow and convert people then it has to have vernacular Mass too otherwise people will not convert due to lack of understanding. If all Masses were in Latin, it would be an injustice to those who might otherwise have converted. (Like me)
Can you think about what you just wrote please? You do realize that the Church received billions of converts in the centuries before Vatican II, right?

I’m really worried about how many NO people I see who treat Latin like it’s a Calculus problem. I do not buy this argument for a minute. I don’t know if it’s stubborn laziness or outright dishonesty. Not only are you not required to memorize the liturgical phrases (though i’s almost impossible not to after just a handful of Masses), BUT there are nifty little missals that spell everything out for you with an English translation right next to it. And guess what? Millions of Catholics (and many saints) lived very meaningful, participatory liturgical lives and they were illiterate!

So please stop crying about how Latin is a turn-off. The vernacular is the innovation! Vatican II did not call for Mass in the vernacular. In fact it is the vernacular that requires the indult, not the other way around!
 
If you’re going to protest the use of Latin at Mass, please be honest enough to admit it’s because of your personal preference, not any inherent difficulty in understanding (which is quite easy with the smallest amount of effort).
 
Panis, -is m. bread

nom. panis
gen. panis
dat. pani
acc. panem
abl. pane

Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.

Give us today our daily bread (Our Father).

Panem coelestem accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo.

I will take the Bread of heaven, and call upon the Name of the Lord. (Communion of the Priest).
Wow… Latin’s more complicated than I imagined…

I still don’t see where the Eucharist is referred to simply as bread. I see a part of the Pater Noster which doesn’t refer explicitly to the Eucharist, and I see the Eucharist called “bread of Heaven” much like it’s called “bread of angels” or “bread of life” - not just “bread”.
 
Well that part of the Pater Noster could be seen as foreshadowing the Eucharist.
Matthew 6:11 makes that clear:

Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie

Give us this day our Superessential Bread.
 
If you’re going to protest the use of Latin at Mass, please be honest enough to admit it’s because of your personal preference, not any inherent difficulty in understanding (which is quite easy with the smallest amount of effort).
Why? <Lot’s of people don’t understand Latin and that’s a perfectly valid reason for desiring the Mass in the vernacular. Further, with the TLM, it’s not simply a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of HEARING. Latin is no more easy to understand for a non-speaker than any other language would be.
 
“Panem coelestem” = “Bread of Heaven” according to my missal. Therefore, my statement stands; the Church never refers to the Eucharist simply as “bread”.
I Corinthians 11:26

Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiatis, donec veniat.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He come.
 
I Corinthians 11:26

Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiatis, donec veniat.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He come.
Alright; you win. It still isn’t common to call it simply “bread”. This is generally viewed as irreverence or even a denial of transubstantiation.
 
Why? <Lot’s of people don’t understand Latin and that’s a perfectly valid reason for desiring the Mass in the vernacular. Further, with the TLM, it’s not simply a matter of understanding, it’s a matter of HEARING. Latin is no more easy to understand for a non-speaker than any other language would be.

Yet–as I said prior–I have known illiterate people who can speak and understand both --English and Spanish. They were able to learned by hearing and were able to communicate in the second language. All it took was effort and a desire to do it.
 
Can you think about what you just wrote please? You do realize that the Church received billions of converts in the centuries before Vatican II, right?

I’m really worried about how many NO people I see who treat Latin like it’s a Calculus problem. I do not buy this argument for a minute. I don’t know if it’s stubborn laziness or outright dishonesty. Not only are you not required to memorize the liturgical phrases (though i’s almost impossible not to after just a handful of Masses), BUT there are nifty little missals that spell everything out for you with an English translation right next to it. And guess what? Millions of Catholics (and many saints) lived very meaningful, participatory liturgical lives and they were illiterate!

So please stop crying about how Latin is a turn-off. The vernacular is the innovation! Vatican II did not call for Mass in the vernacular. In fact it is the vernacular that requires the indult, not the other way around!
Hey hey - you are rude. I do not speak Latin. I do not understand Latin. It has nothing to do with personal preference. It has everything to do with understanding. If I was learning German, and somebody was talking to me in German and meantime I was given the script in English. I would not be able to track the language because I do not understand the semmantics and the phonology of the German language. I would have EXACTLY the same problem with Latin. Argue with that smart guy!
 

Yet–as I said prior–I have known illiterate people who can speak and understand both --English and Spanish. They were able to learned by hearing and were able to communicate in the second language. All it took was effort and a desire to do it.
Bingo! 👍
 
Hey hey - you are rude. I do not speak Latin. I do not understand Latin. It has nothing to do with personal preference. It has everything to do with understanding. If I was learning German, and somebody was talking to me in German and meantime I was given the script in English. I would not be able to track the language because I do not understand the semmantics and the phonology of the German language. I would have EXACTLY the same problem with Latin. Argue with that smart guy!
I had an easier time memorizing the few liturgical Latin phrases I encounter at Mass than I did trying to understand that post. And please, don’t play the rude card – it makes you look like a quitter with no sound reasoning behind your arguments. I’m just being honest and asking you to do the same.
 
The extensive number of Greek inscriptions, the complaints of Latin writers of the number of Greeks (and orientals in general), the spreading thin of the Latin stock in the colonies are matters of history.

Greek was never the primary language of the city of Rome.
As far as small numbers of Romans in the colonies (if that’s what you mean),that would stand to reason. But in the city of Rome the native Italians were not outnumbered by Greeks. It was in parts of southern Italy that the Greeks were dominant. But their language was not dominant. Even in Pompeii,the graffiti is in Latin.

The links talk of the specifics, and they point to a predominence of Greek outside of government and, perhaps, cultivated intelligensia.

No historian or archaeologist in his right mind is going to claim that Greek was predominant in the city of Rome or in Italy.

orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/index.html
csun.edu/~hcfll004/pompeii.html
orbilat.com/Languages/Latin_Vulgar/Texts/Pompeii_Graffiti.html
 
I had an easier time memorizing the few liturgical Latin phrases I encounter at Mass than I did trying to understand that post. And please, don’t play the rude card – it makes you look like a quitter with no sound reasoning behind your arguments. I’m just being honest and asking you to do the same.
What didn’t you understsand about the post?
 

Yet–as I said prior–I have known illiterate people who can speak and understand both --English and Spanish. They were able to learned by hearing and were able to communicate in the second language. All it took was effort and a desire to do it.
Look, Walking, we can agree to disagree about Latin. I don’t care what you think about it and you obviously don’t care what I think. What I object to is this idea that the Mass HAS to be in Latin or that the Mass is BETTER in Latin. That is patently a matter of taste or of history or of any number of other things. What it isn’t is this, a part of the deposit of the faith. It’s not dogma,it’s not doctrine, there is no indication as Dauphin implies that it is the ACTIVE Will of the Holy Spirit that the Church uses Latin, any more than I could imply that it’s the Holy Spirit’s active will that the Church use only vernacular languages. One can be a perfectly orthodox Catholic without a whit of Latin or the desire to learn it. When you mention effort and desire, that’s fine if you’re talking about Christ’s narrow way. But that shouldn’t be confused as being Latin.
 
Oh, wow. So Mass had no meaning all those centuries it wasn’t in the vernacular?
Not as much as it could have.

Ad Corninthios Epistua I Sanctii Pauli Apostoli

1 Sectamini caritatem, aemu lamini spiritalia, magis au tem, ut prophetetis.
2 Qui enim loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur sed Deo; nemo enim audit, spiritu autem loquitur mysteria.
3 Qui autem prophetat, hominibus loquitur aedificationem et exhortationem et consolationes.
4 Qui loquitur lingua, semetipsum aedificat; qui autem prophetat, ecclesiam aedificat.
5 Volo autem omnes vos loqui linguis, magis autem prophetare; maior autem est qui prophetat, quam qui loquitur linguis, nisi forte interpretetur, ut ecclesia aedificationem accipiat.
6 Nunc autem, fratres, si venero ad vos linguis loquens, quid vobis prodero, nisi vobis loquar aut in revelatione aut in scientia aut in prophetia aut in doctrina?
7 Tamen, quae sine anima sunt vocem dantia, sive tibia sive cithara, nisi distinctionem sonituum dederint, quomodo scietur quod tibia canitur, aut quod citharizatur?
8 Etenim si incertam vocem det tuba, quis parabit se ad bellum?
9 Ita et vos per linguam nisi manifestum sermonem dederitis, quomodo scietur id, quod dicitur? Eritis enim in aera loquentes.
10 Tam multa, ut puta, genera linguarum sunt in mundo, et nihil sine voce est.
11 Si ergo nesciero virtutem vocis, ero ei, qui loquitur, barbarus; et, qui loquitur, mihi barbarus.
12 Sic et vos, quoniam aemulatores estis spirituum, ad aedificationem ecclesiae quaerite, ut abundetis.
13 Et ideo, qui loquitur lingua, oret, ut interpretetur.
14 Nam si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea sine fructu est.
15 Quid ergo est? Orabo spiritu, orabo et mente; psallam spiritu, psallam et mente.
16 Ceterum si benedixeris in spiritu, qui supplet locum idiotae, quomodo dicet “ Amen! ” super tuam benedictionem, quoniam quid dicas nescit?
17 Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis, sed alter non aedificatur.
18 Gratias ago Deo, quod omnium vestrum magis linguis loquor;
19 sed in ecclesia **volo quinque verba sensu **meo loqui, ut et alios instruam, **quam **decem milia verborum in lingua.
20 Fratres, nolite pueri effici sensibus, sed malitia parvuli estote; sensibus autem perfecti estote.
21 In lege scriptum est:
“ In aliis linguis et in labiis aliorum
loquar populo huic,
et nec sic exaudient me ”,
dicit Dominus.
22 Itaque linguae in signum sunt non fidelibus sed infidelibus, prophetia autem non infidelibus sed fidelibus.
23 Si ergo conveniat universa ecclesia in unum, et omnes linguis loquantur, intrent autem idiotae aut infideles, nonne dicent quod insanitis?
24 Si autem omnes prophetent, intret autem quis infidelis vel idiota, convincitur ab omnibus, diiudicatur ab omnibus,
25 occulta cordis eius manifesta fiunt; et ita cadens in faciem adorabit Deum pronuntians: “ Vere Deus in vobis est! ”.
26 Quid ergo est, fratres? Cum convenitis, unusquisque psalmum habet, doctrinam habet, apocalypsim habet, linguam habet, interpretationem habet: omnia ad aedificationem fiant.
27 Sive lingua quis loquitur, secundum duos aut ut multum tres, et per partes, et unus interpretetur;
28 si autem non fuerit interpres, taceat in ecclesia, sibi autem loquatur et Deo.
29 Prophetae duo aut tres dicant, et ceteri diiudicent;
30 quod si alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, prior taceat.
31 Potestis enim omnes per singulos prophetare, ut omnes discant, et omnes exhortentur;
32 et spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiecti sunt;
33 non enim est dissensionis Deus sed pacis.
Sicut in omnibus ecclesiis sanctorum,
 
The ad libbing could be dealt with by a very simply adherence to the rubrics. We don’t have to sacrifice the vernacular Mass to achieve that.
I’m sorry I do not understand how allowing the Mass in Latin is sacrificing the Mass in the vernacular.:confused:
 
Hey hey - you are rude. I do not speak Latin. I do not understand Latin. It has nothing to do with personal preference. It has everything to do with understanding. If I was learning German, and somebody was talking to me in German and meantime I was given the script in English. I would not be able to track the language because I do not understand the semmantics and the phonology of the German language. I would have EXACTLY the same problem with Latin. Argue with that smart guy!

Linnyo----I would never insult you by saying you do not have the ability to learn a second language. It would only take some effort and desire. I just don’t understand why a person would want to place limits on themselves.

Learning the parts of Mass in Latin does not require that you become an expert latinist.
 
Not as much as it could have.

Ad Corninthios Epistua I Sanctii Pauli Apostoli

1 Sectamini caritatem, aemu lamini spiritalia, magis au tem, ut prophetetis.
2 Qui enim loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur sed Deo; nemo enim audit, spiritu autem loquitur mysteria.
3 Qui autem prophetat, hominibus loquitur aedificationem et exhortationem et consolationes.
4 Qui loquitur lingua, semetipsum aedificat; qui autem prophetat, ecclesiam aedificat.
5 Volo autem omnes vos loqui linguis, magis autem prophetare; maior autem est qui prophetat, quam qui loquitur linguis, nisi forte interpretetur, ut ecclesia aedificationem accipiat.
6 Nunc autem, fratres, si venero ad vos linguis loquens, quid vobis prodero, nisi vobis loquar aut in revelatione aut in scientia aut in prophetia aut in doctrina?
7 Tamen, quae sine anima sunt vocem dantia, sive tibia sive cithara, nisi distinctionem sonituum dederint, quomodo scietur quod tibia canitur, aut quod citharizatur?
8 Etenim si incertam vocem det tuba, quis parabit se ad bellum?
9 Ita et vos per linguam nisi manifestum sermonem dederitis, quomodo scietur id, quod dicitur? Eritis enim in aera loquentes.
10 Tam multa, ut puta, genera linguarum sunt in mundo, et nihil sine voce est.
11 Si ergo nesciero virtutem vocis, ero ei, qui loquitur, barbarus; et, qui loquitur, mihi barbarus.
12 Sic et vos, quoniam aemulatores estis spirituum, ad aedificationem ecclesiae quaerite, ut abundetis.
13 Et ideo, qui loquitur lingua, oret, ut interpretetur.
14 Nam si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea sine fructu est.
15 Quid ergo est? Orabo spiritu, orabo et mente; psallam spiritu, psallam et mente.
16 Ceterum si benedixeris in spiritu, qui supplet locum idiotae, quomodo dicet “ Amen! ” super tuam benedictionem, quoniam quid dicas nescit?
17 Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis, sed alter non aedificatur.
18 Gratias ago Deo, quod omnium vestrum magis linguis loquor;
19 sed in ecclesia **volo quinque verba sensu **meo loqui, ut et alios instruam, **quam **decem milia verborum in lingua.
20 Fratres, nolite pueri effici sensibus, sed malitia parvuli estote; sensibus autem perfecti estote.
21 In lege scriptum est:
“ In aliis linguis et in labiis aliorum
loquar populo huic,
et nec sic exaudient me ”,
dicit Dominus.
22 Itaque linguae in signum sunt non fidelibus sed infidelibus, prophetia autem non infidelibus sed fidelibus.
23 Si ergo conveniat universa ecclesia in unum, et omnes linguis loquantur, intrent autem idiotae aut infideles, nonne dicent quod insanitis?
24 Si autem omnes prophetent, intret autem quis infidelis vel idiota, convincitur ab omnibus, diiudicatur ab omnibus,
25 occulta cordis eius manifesta fiunt; et ita cadens in faciem adorabit Deum pronuntians: “ Vere Deus in vobis est! ”.
26 Quid ergo est, fratres? Cum convenitis, unusquisque psalmum habet, doctrinam habet, apocalypsim habet, linguam habet, interpretationem habet: omnia ad aedificationem fiant.
27 Sive lingua quis loquitur, secundum duos aut ut multum tres, et per partes, et unus interpretetur;
28 si autem non fuerit interpres, taceat in ecclesia, sibi autem loquatur et Deo.
29 Prophetae duo aut tres dicant, et ceteri diiudicent;
30 quod si alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, prior taceat.
31 Potestis enim omnes per singulos prophetare, ut omnes discant, et omnes exhortentur;
32 et spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiecti sunt;
33 non enim est dissensionis Deus sed pacis.
Sicut in omnibus ecclesiis sanctorum,
Ok… honestly, what’s with all the Latin? 😛
 
Really? Even with a Missal in their hands? Was the entire church struck by a plague of blindness for so many centuries?
Uh, up until the invention of the printing press, there was no way they would have a missal in their hand. And not until perhaps the 18th century, could the masses read it.

This hit me at my niece’s baptism, Lutheran, and it also showed me how dated (ie. novel, recent, etc), Protestantism is.

One of the baptismal promises is to put the scripture in the child’s hand. Until the printing press and mass litracy, ie. over 1500 years after the Church’s founding, could sponsers even make such a promise. The handing of the Faith over to the next generation had to depend on other things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top