dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-546469/How-English-know-disappearing—replaced-Panglish.html
And that’s perhaps a good thing. I wouldn’t say that it is declining in studies, though.
But French and Spanish are descendants of Latin too.
So you’re saying that all one has to do is to attend one Mass and he’ll be able to learn what 21 Church councils and all major papal encyclicals taught?
You were making a point that there are many Latin words today. That doesn’t mean doctors, lawyers, and everyday people are well versed in Latin. They are well versed in these Latin terms.
How many of the 1 billion Catholics in the world know about all those? How many of all the Catholics who ever lived know about all the knowledge the Church teaches are their current time?
No one is expected to. But you seem to think that because Latin can’t be learned as quickly as something people are taught at home means that one shouldn’t bother with the Latin? Even if you can pick up a few phrases or simple prayer I would say you’re doing good enough. It’s not like you are required to converse with every checkout person in your grocery store in Latin.
I’ve read your articles about the development of “panglish,” but please note that I never said that English would not change. I said that change is a normal part of any living language and should not be seen as corruption. One of the articles mentioned that the language of Shakespeare is disappearing. Well, I’m sorry to inform you that the language of Shakespeare disappeared a long time ago. It developed into what we speak today, which, by the way, Shakespeare would hardly recognize. Indeed, Mark Twain, dead barely a hundred years, would have trouble understanding much of the English we use today. So, there really is no need to inform me that language is changing. I’ve been aware of it for quite some time. My point is that change is not a bad thing and certainly not a corruption. It’s a development. Somewhat similar to what happened in the Church, at least in my opinion, when the exclusive and elitist use of Latin in the liturgy gave way to venacular languages across the world and allowed people to hear the sacrifice of the mass in their own tongue. It wasn’t a corruption of the liturgy, but a development which, on the whole, I think has been a positive one.
Really? You would say there are more people studying Latin today than there were, say, 200 years ago? What makes you think that?
So are you saying the document is worthless?
Speaking of Shakespeare, did you also know they tried to translate his works into other “vernaculars”? Talk about insulting classic literature. Where’s the beauty of his language in other languages?
I wasn’t around 200 years ago but I do see more of it today than 30-40 years ago. (Perhaps the current Pope has a lot to do with it?)
Well, we could say the same thing about many authors, but then again, reading War and Peace in English is better than not reading it at all.
This is true if it’s understood properly. When we say that the Liturgy is the foundation of Catechesis we mean the entire Liturgical life of the Church, not just the celebration of the Mass/Divine Liturgy. We’re referring to the Liturgical Cycle, the celebration of all seven Sacraments and a certain number of “sacramentals” (e.g. burying our departed brethren), and the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. We must understand all of these together in order to be properly catechized. It is here that the Scriptures, the great mystery of our salvation, are proclaimed and celebrated, and that we actually enter into that mystery. This is why we must be attentive to and during all the Liturgical services (not just at Mass). This is also one of the great things about the opening of the Liturgy of the Hours among Roman Catholics so that it can now be celebrated by lay people as well as religious and clergy. I personally would love to see at least Matins and Vespers restored in every Roman parish in the country, at least on the weekends, if not daily.
Did I?
And what is the value of something you merely memorize and speak? The point of prayers are not memorization. That is why I said Liturgy is the foundation of Catechisis as is taught by the Church. When we pray the Mass, the prayers should not only be giving praise to God, but the words itself should provide meaning and teaching to us. When we pray the Our Father, through it we learn the following:
LOL. In my experience in Vancouver’s Chinatown, I can tell you that the Chinese use a LOT of Latin in their medicine…at least on the packaging!
Yes, but look at the niche in the marketplace a company like Cliff’s Notes found. They made a killing “translating” (and summarizing) English literature into English.The interesting thing about Shakespeare is that he was probably using a more vulgar version of the English of his day. I learned from a friend of mine, who learned from one of his university professors, that the English of Shakespeare would’ve been roughly equivalent to today’s Southern (U.S.) dialect; which makes things very humorous when you try reading Shakespeare in a Southern drawl. It certainly was not the high English of its day, nor was it in any way academic.
Catholics do not say that, never said that. It is a rationalist statement claiming the faith is community development through the liturgy.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html