God doesn't speak Latin

[Isa_Almisry]

SOME of us understand what is going on quite well. . .when it is said in Latin, as well as in English or other languages.

the gnostics also only worried about some.

 

[anthony022071]

I’m not sure about the reference to Corinth. Is it trying to discredit the Greek? Too bad. Greek was spoken in Antioch, Jerusalem (a article in Biblical Archaeology a few years back was showing how the number of inscriptions indicate it was spoken more than previous thought in Palestine) and Alexadria.

Peter was probably in Rome even before Paul got to Antioch as well. And the first Gentile converts to Christianity,the centurion Cornelius and his household,more than likely spoke Latin.

There are many posts there that show that yes, the idea that the Roman Church spoke Latin at the time is anachronism. They spoke Greek.

You’re telling me about anachronism?
It doesn’t make historical or logical sense to say that the church in Rome,especially the Italian Gentile members of the lower classes,didn’t speak Latin. You may as well deny the existence of the Latin language at that time altogether.

And as I’ve said before,there were Latin translations of the scriptures even before Jerome’s translation.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then it is unfortunate that he wished to abandon his heritage and the traditions of that Church in favor of adapting to a society that despises heritage and tradition.

He raised all his children to be Orthodox.

All their grandchildren were baptized Orthodox.

Those who objected, I have never seen their children nor grandchildren in church. I think I know why.

He abandoned nothing, adapted nothing, despised nothing.

I do not think he has any reason to fear Our Lord’s dread judgment seat.

Those who wanted to continue the Divine Liturgy in a language they did not understand might have to explain what happened to their children.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

So really Isa Almisry—why your interference in how we in the Catholic Church pray.

FILIOQUE.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Anyway, I think the point has been made that the key to understanding the Liturgy is not an understanding of the language of the Liturgy. The role of the laity in the Mass is to spiritually unite themselves in prayer to the prayer of the priest- this is not accomplished solely through understanding the language the Mass is said in.

Worship is not a spectator sport.

 

[Caesar]

Lets not drag the Filoque issue into this…

 

[Caesar]

Worship is not a spectator sport.

My point exactly.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, JKirk, as I said earlier, (pointing out that we already in the extraordinary rite HAVE the readings in Latin AND the vernacular), the changes you listed indicate that what you want is a hybridized, ‘semi Latin’ Novus Ordo mass. So you do have an aversion to the Latin Mass itself as it is currently, validly offered, and what you want to do is change it to conform to the ordinary rite as much as possible.

Thing is, you already have exactly what you want. You have the N.O. You have a valid “Latin” N.O. which is the ordinary rite in Latin.

But there are many of us who would like to have in addition to the above–which we fully acknowledge as perfectly valid Mass!!–what we ALWAYS had, which was unlawfully ‘removed’ from us; the extraordinary form of the Mass. Which does not require further changes as the ‘changes’ which Vatican II envisoned for the then ‘ordinary’ Latin Mass have already come into place. . .vernacular readings, ‘vernacular’ hymns in their proper place, choirs to sing or say the responses.

Not all of “us” acknowledge what you do. Many want the Pauline Rite done away with.

Secondly, I think when the Council was talking about a reform of the Mass, it was the Tridentine they were thinking of. The Fathers of the Council may not agree with me that all I outlined needed to be examined (and I’m not arrogant enough to think that I represent the whole of the Church, though I’d be willing to bet my thoughts on value of the vernacular would be viewed with sympathy by the majority of the laity, at least), but I’m pretty sure they were talking about the Tridentine.

Finally, I don’t want the TLM to become the Novus Ordo. As much as I love the Mass that brought me into the Church, I agree with then Cardinal Ratzinger: I don’t think that the Latin Rite of the Church can exist with two “competing” rites (esp. with the arguments that are going on!). So, realistically, which should prevail? I firmly, FIRMLY believe that it should be the Tridentine (that’s right, you heard it here). But that doesn’t mean that the Tridentine couldn’t be altered. It could be offered in both Latin and the vernacular. We don’t have to have the readings in Latin in either (it seems to be beside the point, as it were, since the readings are for the instruction of the faithful). We could have one confietor, the people could make the responses, etc. None of this changes the essential, ontological nature of the Tridentine Mass.

AND they are two very different Masses. Comparing the prayers clearly shows that the Tridentine translated would not be “what I already have”,ie., a hybridized Novus Ordo.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
So really Isa Almisry—why your interference in how we in the Catholic Church pray.

FILIOQUE.

---

So you started this thread with your objection to latin—now you are including the filioque.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Latin acts as a verbal ‘veil’ over the sacred mysteries. This is best articulated in yesterday’s homily.

And that part of the homily was illogical. He implied that the Holy Spirit had lead us beyond the use of the iconostasis and that He had lead us to the use of Latin. Using the same “logic,” it could JUST AS EASILY be argued that the Holy Spirit has now lead the Church beyond Latin!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

Hello

I’m not sure about the reference to Corinth. Is it trying to discredit the Greek? Too bad. Greek was spoken in Antioch, Jerusalem (a article in Biblical Archaeology a few years back was showing how the number of inscriptions indicate it was spoken more than previous thought in Palestine) and Alexadria.

Peter was probably in Rome even before Paul got to Antioch as well. And the first Gentile converts to Christianity,the centurion Cornelius and his household,more than likely spoke Latin.

I’m still not sure what Paul has to do with it.

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

There are many posts there that show that yes, the idea that the Roman Church spoke Latin at the time is anachronism. They spoke Greek.

You’re telling me about anachronism?
It doesn’t make historical or logical sense to say that the church in Rome,especially the Italian Gentile members of the lower classes,didn’t speak Latin. You may as well deny the existence of the Latin language at that time altogether.

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.). 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.

And as I’ve said before,there were Latin translations of the scriptures even before Jerome’s translation.

Yes, and a large number of the manuscripts come from outside Italy.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

So you started this thread with your objection to latin—now you are including the filioque.

I was just asked why I care at all, and I answered. That’s all.

 

[Dauphin]

And that part of the homily was illogical. He implied that the Holy Spirit had lead us beyond the use of the iconostasis and that He had lead us to the use of Latin. Using the same “logic,” it could JUST AS EASILY be argued that the Holy Spirit has now lead the Church beyond Latin!

Really? The Traditional Latin Mass was abrogated, was it?

 

[Walking_Home]

And that part of the homily was illogical. He implied that the Holy Spirit had lead us beyond the use of the iconostasis and that He had lead us to the use of Latin. Using the same “logic,” it could JUST AS EASILY be argued that the Holy Spirit has now lead the Church beyond Latin!

---

Not quite JKirkLVNV. Our Pope is currently guiding the Church back to more use of Latin. So in essence the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church back to Her language. It doesn’t seem to be in God’s plan for Latin to be eradicated.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Latin is part of Tradition. Tradition is part of the Catholic faith.

I love both.

 

[Walking_Home]

So you started this thread with your objection to latin—now you are including the filioque.

I was just asked why I care at all, and I answered. That’s all.

Quote=Isa Almisry
When my old parish switched to English from Russian/Slavonic, there were those (all recent members) who said they did not want to abandon the language of their grandparents (which they did not speak). An elder, whose father was one of the founders said "I don’t care what language my grandfather prayed in. I care what language my grandchildren will pray in."

Quote=Walking_Home
So really Isa Almisry—why your interference in how we in the Catholic Church pray. Pray your way in the Orthodox Church and let us pray our way—whether its in Latin or the vernacular​

That does seem to be the case. You brought up the example of the elder–to which I responded as to why would you then interfere based on your example. Then you came back with the filioque.

Let the Orthodox be Orthodox—Let the Catholics be Catholic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

---

Not quite JKirkLVNV. Our Pope is currently guiding the Church back to more use of Latin. So in essence the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church back to Her language. It doesn’t seem to be in God’s plan for Latin to be eradicated.

Interesting. This is exactly how this originally came up.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Latin is part of Tradition. Tradition is part of the Catholic faith.

I love both.

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.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Quote=Isa Almisry
When my old parish switched to English from Russian/Slavonic, there were those (all recent members) who said they did not want to abandon the language of their grandparents (which they did not speak). An elder, whose father was one of the founders said "I don’t care what language my grandfather prayed in. I care what language my grandchildren will pray in."

Quote=Walking_Home
So really Isa Almisry—why your interference in how we in the Catholic Church pray. Pray your way in the Orthodox Church and let us pray our way—whether its in Latin or the vernacular​

That does seem to be the case. You brought up the example of the elder–to which I responded as to why would you then interfere based on your example. Then you came back with the filioque.

Let the Orthodox be Orthodox—Let the Catholics be Catholic.

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.

 

[VociMike]

And the illiterate? What do they do? Or perhaps they don’t count?

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?