God doesn't speak Latin

[jco2004]

Does anybody deny that, for many and varied reasons, Latin does have a special relationship in the Church (it is still the ‘official’ language and has been for centuries?)

If you mean “the western church”, no I don’t deny it. If you mean The Church, I certainly do. Joe

 

[iamrefreshed]

Latin is part of the Tradition of the West, not the East.

Latin is not part of the early Tradition of the West even.

Limited in space, limited in time, it is not universal or Catholic.

Though, by all means, enjoy your tradition.

And you enjoy yours. BTW, it wasn’t me who started this thread baiting us Roman Catholics. But peace be with you anyway.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How many illiterate people want to go to the Latin Mass? Is this really a problem? And if they do want to go to the Latin Mass, then they obviously feel they get something out of it. THEY HAVE A CHOICE!

Hey people, MASS IN THE VERNACULAR HAS NOT BEEN ABOLISHED! IT IS STILL THE USUAL SITUATION!

Can we stop pretending that the 1962 Latin Mass is the only Mass in the Church?

Can you speak for the future?

Just a few posts up we get the statement that the HS is leading the Church back to her !] language Latin, and that there will be more, not less Latin.

I know that there must be millions of illiterate Latins (from poverty and the expansion of Latin missions. I do not imply the Latin church spreads illiteracy. Quite the contrary). What of them?

 

[jco2004]

Isa Almisry;2724308:

God spoke to the prophets in Hebrew, and inspired their translators in Greek. God made man spoke Aramaic (and maybe in His childhood Coptic), and his Chruch spoke Greek. At the Ecumenical Councils the 72 nations agreed on Greek texts.

The Greeks may have been ignorant of Latin,but the Latins were not ignorant of Greek.

You obviously have not read any Church history. Joe

 

[anthony022071]

Cornelius indeed has a good chance of speaking Latin, and also probably Greek.

Being a centurion of the Roman Empire,and head of the Italian Cohort,he definitely would have been a Latin speaker,and it may have been his mother tongue.

As the Hellenists are mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, and the first patriarch of Jerusalem St. James wrote in Greek, we know that the Church definitely used Greek.

I’m not denying the wide-spread use of Greek in the church. I’m denying the idea that the church in Rome did not also use Latin,the mother tongue of the Roman Empire.

In PARTICULAR, it seems the lower classes spoke Greek, particularly the Hebrews (the core of the Early Church) as the inscriptions in Latin are restricted to rich contexts (marble, etc.).

Are you unaware of all the Latin graffiti from those times,or of all the pre-Christian Latin writers? And the inscriptions are not limited to wealthy persons. There are many inscriptions other than those on monuments,and by people of the middle or lower classes. Even in Pompeii,where the proportion of people of Greek ancestry would have been higher than that of Rome,the graffiti is in Latin.

As the posts and links show, the number of Greeks and others outnumbered the old Latin stock in Rome. Only later, as the progeny from the colonies came, did Latin become dominant.

I highly doubt that. Greek was mainly cultivated among a minority of well-educated people,like French was in 18th century England,or like Latin itself during the Middle Ages.

 

[VociMike]

No, I’m not being naive at all. Think about it: if each and every priest had, for the entire past 40 years, simply hued to the rubrics and NOT attempted to stamp his own ego all over the Mass, we wouldn’t be having all these arguments.

Sure. If there is never need for reform then the Church won’t have need to reform.

I quite agree, if the Mass hadn’t been folded, spindled and mutilated after Vatican II, the 1962 Mass would have faded from memory. But the water has long since passed under that bridge.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And you enjoy yours. BTW, it wasn’t me who started this thread baiting us Roman Catholics. But peace be with you anyway.

I had no intention to “bait” anyone. And to underline that, I waited until the friends of Latin had their long awaited day.

I heard a lot of strange things about Latin (including arguing with a Polish Latin who insisted that Christ spoke Latin and the Bible was written in it). And history has shown us Orthodox when odd things go on in Latin, like the filioque, eventually it will come knocking on our door.

I must confess, I still don’t understand how a TLM in English would be less a TLM. And I haven’t seen an answer yet.

I’ve been to one at a Wester Rite Orthodox priest. I can’t see how Latin would add to it (besides perhaps some pieces here and there to link it to an undenible extensive, if not eternal, history).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Salve

You obviously have not read any Church history. Joe

Was that directed to me, or Anthony?

 

[Walking_Home]

The Orthodox are the Catholics.

Btw I’m listening to EWTN, and the panal on this, someone just mentioned how the Eastern Churches (uniate, Orthodox) have not have the problems the West has.

Imagine. We have vernacular Divine Liturgies, and still no problems.

---

I have not listened to this in EWTN—but from what has been said before it most likely deals of the problems the West has had since the “Spirit of Vat II” took over.

By the way–Patriarch Alexy II sees the return of the Mass as positive and places great importance in strongly adhereing to tradition. I am pretty sure Patiarch Alexy II knows what language the Mass is said in.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180953

Rome, August 30, Interfax - Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia has greeted the recent decree of Pope Benedict XVI providing more freedom to celebrate the ancient Latin Mass.

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum that provides more freedom to use the pre-Vatican II Missal ‘is a positive fact,’ Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia said to comment on the Roman Catholic Church reintroducing her ancient liturgical form.

‘We strongly adhere to the tradition. Without being faithful to her liturgy the Russian Orthodox Church would have failed to survive persecutions in 1920s and 1930s,’ the Russian primate told the Italian daily Il Giornale a few days ago after celebration liturgy in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin.

The patriarch opined that the pope’s decision might contribute to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches, the daily said.

 

[elzoro]

:

No, I’m not being naive at all. Think about it: if each and every priest had, for the entire past 40 years, simply hued to the rubrics and NOT attempted to stamp his own ego all over the Mass, we wouldn’t be having all these arguments.

This is simply NOT TRUE, because in the N.O.:

A totally vernacular Mass (ICEL) is "hued to the rubrics "

Mass facing the people and not God is “hued to the rubrics”

Altar girls is “hued to the rubrics”

Gutting the Church is “hued to the rubrics”

forbidding kneeling is “hued to the rubrics”

Communion standing and in the hand is “hued to the rubrics”

removing the tabernacle from the church is “hued to the rubrics”

shaking hands and hugging during the Kiss of Peace" is “hued to the rubrics”

Need I go on?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2725345:

Cornelius indeed has a good chance of speaking Latin, and also probably Greek.

Being a centurion of the Roman Empire,and head of the Italian Cohort,he definitely would have been a Latin speaker,and it may have been his mother tongue.

As the Hellenists are mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, and the first patriarch of Jerusalem St. James wrote in Greek, we know that the Church definitely used Greek.

I’m not denying the wide-spread use of Greek in the church. I’m denying the idea that the church in Rome did not also use Latin,the mother tongue of the Roman Empire.

In PARTICULAR, it seems the lower classes spoke Greek, particularly the Hebrews (the core of the Early Church) as the inscriptions in Latin are restricted to rich contexts (marble, etc.).

Are you unaware of all the Latin graffiti from those times,or of all the pre-Christian Latin writers? And the inscriptions are not limited to wealthy persons. There are many inscriptions other than those on monuments,and by people of the middle or lower classes. Even in Pompeii,where the proportion of people of Greek ancestry would have been higher than that of Rome,the graffiti is in Latin.

As the posts and links show, the number of Greeks and others outnumbered the old Latin stock in Rome. Only later, as the progeny from the colonies came, did Latin become dominant.

I highly doubt that. Greek was mainly cultivated among a minority of well-educated people,like French was in 18th century England,or like Latin itself during the Middle Ages.

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

the shephard of Hermes, written in Rome, addressed to Clement I, was written in Greek.

Attic was cultivated, Koine spoken. Allen’s Vox Latina mentions the influence of Greek and how Cicero conceded to the vulgar classes influence in this.

The situation was more like Franks in France, who were Latinized.

 

[Walking_Home]

Can you speak for the future?

Just a few posts up we get the statement that the HS is leading the Church back to her !] language Latin, and that there will be more, not less Latin.

I know that there must be millions of illiterate Latins (from poverty and the expansion of Latin missions. I do not imply the Latin church spreads illiteracy. Quite the contrary). What of them?

---

I have known people who were illiterate–yet could converse in both English and Spanish. Being illiterate did not diminish their capability of learning to communicate in a second language.

 

[anthony022071]

You obviously have not read any Church history. Joe

I’ve read much church history. The clergy in Rome definitely knew Greek,but the clergy in Greece do not seem to have been strong on Latin. If they had been,there would not have been the communication problems between the East and West that led to the schism. The Eastern churches seem to have ignored the writings of the early Latin fathers simply because they were in Latin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

I have not listened to this in EWTN—but from what has been said before it most likely deals of the problems the West has had since the “Spirit of Vat II” took over.

By the way–Patriarch Alexy II sees the return of the Mass as positive and places great importance in strongly adhereing to tradition. I am pretty sure Patiarch Alexy II knows what language the Mass is said in.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180953

Rome, August 30, Interfax - Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia has greeted the recent decree of Pope Benedict XVI providing more freedom to celebrate the ancient Latin Mass.

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum that provides more freedom to use the pre-Vatican II Missal ‘is a positive fact,’ Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia said to comment on the Roman Catholic Church reintroducing her ancient liturgical form.

‘We strongly adhere to the tradition. Without being faithful to her liturgy the Russian Orthodox Church would have failed to survive persecutions in 1920s and 1930s,’ the Russian primate told the Italian daily Il Giornale a few days ago after celebration liturgy in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin.

The patriarch opined that the pope’s decision might contribute to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches, the daily said.

The return to tradition is a good thing. I just don’t see why it’s joined at the hip with the language question.

If you scroll down your link to #9, you’ll see my first post of the issue.

 

[Walking_Home]

The return to tradition is a good thing. I just don’t see why it’s joined at the hip with the language question.

---

Apparently Patriarch Alexy II doesn’t have a problem with it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

Apparently Patriarch Alexy II doesn’t have a problem with it.

The Patriarch has bigger fish to fry with the Vatican.

On that thread I stated my ideas on #9 and following.

I’m not sure of what the latest in the ROC on Slavonic versus Russian.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

I have known people who were illiterate–yet could converse in both English and Spanish. Being illiterate did not diminish their capability of learning to communicate in a second language.

I was addressing the missal “solution.”

I don’t think anyone will be doing much communicating in Latin. I remember stories of how much was done during the recent conclave.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’ve read much church history. The clergy in Rome definitely knew Greek,but the clergy in Greece do not seem to have been strong on Latin. If they had been,there would not have been the communication problems between the East and West that led to the schism. The Eastern churches seem to have ignored the writings of the early Latin fathers simply because they were in Latin.

Yes, the filioque would have come up much sooner.

Actually, I seen things on Augustine among the Orthodox writers, which is odd, since he admits his Greek was poor, and in general his ideas (and their application in the West) are at odds with Orthodoxy. And St. Cyprian is a favorite.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Patriarch has bigger fish to fry with the Vatican.
On that thread I stated my ideas on #9 and following.

I’m not sure of what the latest in the ROC on Slavonic versus Russian.

---

Yes he does—but he did say the return of the Mass (which is in latin) contibutes to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches. So in truth—it does affect the bigger fish that are to be fried.

“The patriarch opined that the pope’s decision might contribute to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches, the daily said.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

Yes he does—but he did say the return of the Mass (which is in latin) contibutes to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches. So in truth—it does affect the bigger fish that are to be fried.

“The patriarch opined that the pope’s decision might contribute to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches, the daily said.”

Your link shows my post on this. I agree, I just disagree (with the posters here) why.