God doesn't speak Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isa_Almisry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn;t it past everybody’s bedtime? It is half past midnight here. How would I say that in Latin or Elvish?
 
Scotty_PGH said:
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!
Click to expand...
In the 4th century the mass at Rome was translated from the Chruch’s language into the verncacular.

From Greek into Latin.
 
Scotty_PGH said:
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).
Click to expand...
And the justification for the effort?

Would you express your love for your spouse in a language not yours?
 
Dauphin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I doubt highly that was her intention. Maybe a slip of the tongue. I’m sure she will mend her speech.
 
Scotty_PGH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Piety by cue card. How nice.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Can you please show me where I sneered at her humble grasp of Faith.

the quote buttom won’t go all the way back, so no, but the issue I believe was whether she believed the priest changes the Eucharist (I don’t think she so believes) and that it’s just bread (she knows it’s not).
Click to expand...
So in other words—you accused me of something I didn’t do.
 
anthony022071 said:
Hello
Click to expand...
Isa_Almisry said:
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
Click to expand...
Your first link shows 500 BC., long before the situation of the 1st cent.
Your second shows the plebs in Rome:

by Caesar’s time, ca. 46 B.C., there were 500,000 living off the grain dole in Rome.
Many were ex-slaves (freedmen, liberti), with **non-Italian **
heritages

the Italians in Rome:

**various ethnic **groups, other than Greeks, living in Italy, with partial Roman citizenship rights

and the slaves in Rome:

More than 1.5 million slaves brought to Rome between 200 and 150 B.C.
-Agricultural slaves replaced free citizen-commoners as casual labor or tenant farmers on country estates.
-Agricultural slaves often used in the herding industry.
-Slave revolts:

135-132: Sicily (Syrian and Cappadocian slaves prominent)
73-71: Campania and central Italy (Spartacus Slave Revolt)
fear on the part of the Roman ruling classes of disorders
csun.edu/~hcfll004/pressure.html

Your last link talks of Latin in the North of Italy. What of Central Italy.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I didn’t want to post this until the Traditional Latin mass followers had their day. Since by now September 14 has come and gone, I’ll post now.

First, I don’t have anything against the Tridentine mass. Our Western Rite Orthodox use the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is basically the same, and I am fine with that (though I’m Arab and Eastern Rite).

I don’t have anything against Latin, or any liturgical language, per se, except when its appeal is smells and bells. It has to go farther.​

It seems —from what has transpired in this thread–the above has gone out the window or maybe was never really part of the picture to begin with.
Click to expand...
 
KathleenElsie said:
👍

The other great thing about those nifty little Missals is you can get one in just about any language so their does not have to be an English, Spanish, Polish and any other of the hundreds of languages at Masses around the country to make everyone feel at ease.
Click to expand...
So everyone can be equally unconfortable in a language not theirs.
 
Walking_Home said:
Well JKirkLVNV—VatII–SC and the Popes themselves in a way do give us an idea of God’s Active Will. SC says Latin is to be retain as do the Popes. This would imply God’s Active Will. Now the incorporation of the vernacular to the extent that it has—that is more of God’s Permissive Will.
Click to expand...
Can we get that ex cathdra (using a Greek word).
 
Walking_Home said:
Let me ask you this. When a person enters the Orthodox Church–are they allowed to bring with them their beliefs and traditions and incorporate them into Orthodoxy. Or is part of conversion is leaving that life behind and internalizing what it is to be Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Adopting the Orthodox phronema.

Which is why we look at all the fine print on this Eastern lung thing.
 
Walking_Home said:
Isn’t it also true—that bishops are chosen only from the un-married clergy. So the Orthodox also have the tradition of celibate clergy.
Click to expand...
We have celibate priests too.

We just don’t mandate it. If God so calls him, then as St Paul said, “as he called you.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top