S
Salibi
Guest
Excuse me?
I never mocked Latin. I mocked your laughable perceptions of the language. Learn the difference between what Latin is and what you think it is.
Last edited:
- Status
A
angel12
Guest
The post to which you are responding made it very clear that it was the article being laughed at, not the Latin language. Wild allegations don’t do anything to draw people to your cause.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I agree with you completely here but the reason I mentioned the Blessed Name of our Lord was that I was responding to your comment that people have ordered vile acts in the Latin language. It was an example that people, sadly, use sacred things to commit vile acts.
I’m sorry but I am still do not understand the reasoning and do not think that article should be laughed at. I can understand there might be some who will have disagreements with it or contradictions or those choosing not to follow the devotional advise but it is full of quotes from saints and popes and a prayer to Our Lady, and so I see absolutely no good reason to laugh or make fun.
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
Salibi explained pretty clearly.
O
OraLabora
Guest
None of which are dogma, as far as I can tell. Otherwise the 22 other sui juris Churches in communion with Rome, would be in schism, which they aren’t.
They aren’t de fide either.
No. Orthodoxy means following all of the Church’s Traditions. Note the upper-case “T”. It means assenting to what the Church teaches today.
It of course should mean respect for small-t traditions but it doesn’t obligate an orthodox Catholic to follow them. And I do respect the Latin patrimony of the Church, I use it in my daily prayer life, because I can. It is by no means necessary.
Bottom line what’s necessary to be orthodox can be found in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and code of Canon Law. The latter says this about the language of the Mass:
As far as I’m concerned that settles it. Over and out.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. You response doesn’t make sense. I commented that quotes from saints and popes should not be laughed at. I did not say they were dogma. I’m bothered by the sense of anger over this and so I am, as I said, just going to agree to disasgree with you and move on.
God bless.
T
twf
Guest
St John XXIII does indeed teach that Latin was sanctified by the Church. It’s not magic and it’s not a sacrament, but the Church did quite deliberately set it aside for sacred use.
Of course Greek must have likewise been sanctified by the Greek Church, and Aramaic by the Syriac Church…using the same logic.
Note that I am all for Mass in the vernacular (though my preference is to have a little Latin).
Of course Greek must have likewise been sanctified by the Greek Church, and Aramaic by the Syriac Church…using the same logic.
Note that I am all for Mass in the vernacular (though my preference is to have a little Latin).
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Some here seem to treat it as such.
I think the issue is that while I can accept this statement because the sacraments were brought to us in Latin for so long, some seem to feel that Latin sanctifies the liturgy or our prayers, or that somehow the lack of Latin renders the liturgy deficient. That I take issue with. Latin can certainly embellish the liturgy and make it very beautiful because of the vast repertoire of sacred music written for it, but a language does not sanctify, God sanctifies. And to say that “the devil hates Latin”, does border on superstition.
P
prayinglatin
Guest
As I said in my last post–perhaps you missed the opening line and all that followed:
All of the ideas presented are all repetitions of the teachings of these popes, Saints, and the most experienced exorcists in the world. All of the things you laughed at and mocked were stated explicitly in those quotes and citations. You also mocked the idea that Latin is a sacred language. If Saint Dominic were to tell you that the Rosary is something sacred, and you laughed and mocked, you would no doubt be attacking all of the above including the thing that is sacred.
If an idea is wrong, then present a case, if not, then why do you persist in mockery and ad-hominem?
(“If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me?”)
You say these are misunderstandings of Latin. Perhaps you could elaborate on what the correct understanding of this language is according to Church teaching, and of course providing citations of popes or Saints would be helpful to support your case.
Last edited:
P
prayinglatin
Guest
The “article” was a website full of Church teachings from popes, Saints, and experienced testimony from exorcists. The laughter was clearly directed towards both their ideas and the concept that the Latin language is a sacred language, a fact that according to those papal teachings and history itself is an undeniable reality. It would be like laughing at a papal quote stating that a blessed Saint Dominic medal is a blessed object. You are mocking both the source: the pope, and the idea: that the medal is something blessed. Sure by a far extension you could be mocking the website that published the quote, but the ideas are the source of the mockery. If you want to argue facts, by all means, but mocking something holy is crossing a line that anyone with Catholic sense should be offended at greatly. Jesus overturned the tables in holy zeal because His Father’s house was to be treated with reverence.
Last edited:
P
prayinglatin
Guest
Or perhaps it is based on the testimony of the most experienced exorcists? Did you read all the citations?
Would you agree that the devil hates holy water? If so, why?
Would not the language used to expel him for the past 17-20 centuries in the Latin-Rite Church be cause enough for the devil’s hatred of it? Not to mention the language’s exclusive ties to the sacred.
Protestants accuse us of superstition because we believe in the power of holy blessed objects, relics, and the like. If we believe objects can be holy, I think the papal teachings that a language can likewise be something holy is not a hard pill at all to swallow.
Ah yes, but did God sanctify a language? … let’s see what’s been taught here:
“The Latin language…has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic see, the mother and teacher of all Churches.” – Pope St John XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, 1962.
“The Latin language was sanctified by the usage of nearly 2000 years” (Gihr).
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
As I said earlier, “over and out”.
I have nothing further to add.
This is all a Catholic need assent to.
I have nothing further to add.
B
Brendan
Guest
Jesus, being God, would have been able to communicate in any language that was required to fulfill His mission on Earth.
P
prayinglatin
Guest
You are quoting that the Church gives permissions for something. The fact that other languages are permitted, or the fact that woman altar servers are permitted, or that CITH is permitted, is nothing one needs to “assent to” other than that it is a reality that these things are currently being permitted. Permission only means it is not forbidden, as it was previously for 15-20 centuries. That’s it.
I think we would both agree that a reality that something is permitted is not the same thing as a positive teaching. I can permit someone to do something less than perfect or ideal but that does not mean I am telling him he must believe in the action as if the action were a dogma that required assent of faith.
On the other hand, when we have positive teaching of something as a fact that is solemnly promulgated by the Church’s Magisterium in an Apostolic Constitution, then it does require religious submission of will and intellect.
Lastly, we are not Protestants who take the Catechism as if it were the Bible and contains the entire sum of everything we ever need to know and no other truth exists beyond. They are sola Scriptura, but we are not sola catechismus. The catechism may be the starting point for many things, but when we dig deeper into let’s say why does that canon say the Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in Latin by default or by permission in another language? Why does it mention Latin like that? Where did Latin come from? What is its significance? That’s when we go and dig deeper and find the rest of the Church’s teachings on the subject, including all those aforementioned teachings and definitions earlier shared. Make sense?
PS, here is an article from Fr Z that contains the Church’s present teachings on Latin, including the teaching of Vatican II that says “the Latin language must be retained” for worship. http://www.madisoncatholicherald.or...-is-language-for-church-teaching-worship.html
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
I couldn’t tell you if it was this thread or another, but we’ve been recently told on this forum that latin is our official church language!Salibi:
I don’t think I have heard anyone do that nor did I see it anywhere in the article from Father Z.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Which is exactly what I have been doing. Did you miss the bit about my being a chorister in a Gregorian chant schola for past 17 years and my singing the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin Gregorian chant daily?
My beef is the claim that Latin has quasi-supernatural powers like scaring off the devil.
S
stpurl
Guest
Well, actually somebody better alert Cardinal Arinze if it is NOT, because he appears to state that it is, thus:
Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.
Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.
P
prayinglatin
Guest
That is great! God bless you.
Gotcha. So you agree with everything else that has been stated and only take issue with the degree of power or whether the Latin language itself has any power to ward off evil? Is that a fair summation?
If so, may I ask what is your opinion on the accounts of the exorcists provided?
And could you perhaps respond to my earlier question regarding at least us agreeing on the possibility that a language could be consecrated as something sacred and thereby have additional merit and power attached and given to it by God? Since we would obviously agree on objects being blessed and holy in themselves through the blessing of the priest, then do we at least agree that it is possible a language itself can be similarly blessed by God?
Last edited:
P
prayinglatin
Guest
Good point. If you read Church history they are always talking about the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers. They are the two sacred divisions of the holy Church east and West and correspond to the sacred languages that were inscribed on the Holy Cross.
D
dochawk
Guest
Wow.
I am a lawyer, but but that’s an amazing bit of misdirection: one who didn’t know better would likely read the “original” from the first sentence into “Latin as its official language” of the second, along with the third, and conclude that Latin was the original language of the Roman liturgy . . .
(and, now, this is not subject to “scholarly dispute” as suggested in a post above, any more than the sphericity or flatness of the Earth is subject to actual “scholarly dispute.”
- Status