Latin: Divisive or Unitive

  • Thread starter Thread starter holyfamily1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Greek alphabet terrifies people who haven’t learned it
Then again, it comes almost naturally in the study of mathematics, even in high schools. Phi and theta are used in trigonometry with no one making a federal case against them. Of course, if you were to tell them it’s Greek, they’d go bonkers. :eek: Seems to be some kind of unnecessary mental block there.
 
I am a bit confused. Accents in Greek are pitch accents, unlike the Latin stress accent. Latin requires no guide whatsoever – if the penultimate syllable is long, it is stressed. If it is short, the antepenult is stressed. I have never met a single student who has had a problem with this, even if they did not learn Latin with macrons.
We all learn that Greek accents were originally pitch accents but nobody-not-obody actually pronounces them that way. In fact, I think we know they weren’t pitch accents by the Hellensitic period, and they’re certainly not today. You are right, however, that Greek accentuation is sometimes arbitrary. It is, however, marked on the word itself–unlike Latin. So prose comp is harder, but reading is never hard.

As for Latin vowel length, it’s not generally marked, although some early textbooks do it. Most students ignore it, but it’s exceedingly rare for a student to read a passage and not get many of the longs and shorts wrong, which inevitably involves getting some accents wrong too.
This is why Greek is more difficult. The morphology is objectively more complex, requiring more memorization. Latin requires only four principal parts for verbs; Greek requires six. While totally irregular verbs occur in Latin (fero, sum, volo), many more occur in Greek, and there are more verbs with unconnected principal parts.
It varies across the language. Greek has two extra principle parts, Latin has an extra case. I’m not sure about the number of irregular verbs. My brain has trunks full of them in both languages. I think a lot of these differences go away if you focus on the Vulgate versus the Greek Bible. Greek tends to come off harder because knowing it means reading a much wider dialectical and historical range. Homer isn’t the Lesbian Greek of Sappho and neither are Byzantine Greek. Latin’s more constricted.

I would concede, however, that Greek vocabulary is harder than Latin for an English speaker. Now and then you get something that you know from medicine or science, but mostly, as Steve Martin said, “Those French have a different word FOR EVERYTHING!”

Lastly, if anyone is choosing between them—and both is not an option—I’d recommend the Greek. From a Christian perspective, there’s a lot more good stuff in Greek than Latin, notwithstanding a few important Latin authors. And the same goes for non-Christian literature. Latin literature started late and almost all the good stuff was written within a period of maybe 200 years. It’s a teacup. Geek literature is an ocean.
 
Ha.

Well, that’s one good thing about classics. After a year of Greek and Latin prose composition, PHP held no terrors!
 
Ha.

Well, that’s one good thing about classics. After a year of Greek and Latin prose composition, PHP held no terrors!
Well, FWIW, I did some google searches

LATIN - 561 million hits
GREEK - 136 million hits

LATIN LITERATURE - 22.3 million hits
GREEK LITERATURE - 21.8 million hits

So you better start PHPing real soon. 😃
 
I’m sure some people will get offended if I state the very obvious, but alot of clergy and laity in many areas want no part of the the Latin Mass, and the reasons have nothing to do with them not liking Latin. Every survey we see seems to confirm the disturbing reality that in most places, the Catholic Church is for all intents and purposes a very liberal institution. Plain and simple, in alot of places, the traditional views held by those who attend the Latin Mass is what is really frowned upon by modern progressive Catholics.
Certainly the news media had a lot to do with it. According to them, Vatican II changed the language of the Mass to English and everyone thought it was a good thing.

Aside from English how often do they even call it the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”? Typically they show a couple of short clips with the priest facing the people and/or people receiving communion. That’s about it. So what are Catholics and non-Catholics supposed to believe other than the Mass is a meal?
 
If Latin works for the US $1 bill and U.S. seal, it can certainly work as a uniting factor for the Church. 🙂
Most people don’t know and don’t care that “E pluribus unum” means “From many, one.”

Most americans only speak one language (around 55% are monolingual); and most of those speak only English.

The mass exclusively in Latin is divisive - it would result in a lot of defections to Orthodoxy and to groups like the “Old Catholics”… Those defecting to Orthodoxy only sinning in schism; those defecting to the OC’s would be into a mire of female priests, pro-homosexual deviant priests, pro-contraception priests, and other heresies and quasi-heresies. (The OC liturgy is essentially the same as the english side of your English/Latin missal.)

It was divisive in the 50’s…
 
I’m sure some people will get offended if I state the very obvious, but alot of clergy and laity in many areas want no part of the the Latin Mass, and the reasons have nothing to do with them not liking Latin. Every survey we see seems to confirm the disturbing reality that in most places, the Catholic Church is for all intents and purposes a very liberal institution. Plain and simple, in alot of places, the traditional views held by those who attend the Latin Mass is what is really frowned upon by modern progressive Catholics.
I guess I’m the exception to the rule (?). I would be described by others as a “progressive Catholic,” and I love Latin. I love that TLM is becoming more popular. I love the Latin that’s included in the OF.
 
Most people don’t know and don’t care that “E pluribus unum” means “From many, one.”
“Multis” is more toward “many.” “Pluribus” is the superlative form, and it could easily be translated as “all” here.

There is also the “Annuit coeptis/novus ordo seclorum” printed on the bill. That loosely means “He (God) favors our undertaking/ New order of ages”. But interestingly enough,when the words “In God We Trust” were added in English in the 50’s, the atheists went bonkers.

But I agree, most don’t know and don’t care. Probably a good thing. 🙂
Most americans only speak **one **language (around 55% are monolingual); and most of those speak only English.
If that much. Have you checked the latest reading scores of Americans?
 
Aside from English how often do they even call it the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”? Typically they show a couple of short clips with the priest facing the people and/or people receiving communion. That’s about it. So what are Catholics and non-Catholics supposed to believe other than the Mass is a meal?
It is both a meal and a sacrifice. The meaning of the mass is contained in the mass itself, notably in the institution narrative. It is easier to understand this if the mass is in your native language.
mire of female priests, pro-homosexual deviant priests, pro-contraception priests, and other heresies and quasi-heresies
Sometimes I wonder if some Catholic traditionalism isn’t just a convenient peg to hang up one’s hates.
Most people don’t know and don’t care that “E pluribus unum” means “From many, one.”
Still fewer realize the motto is probably derived from lines in the Appendix Vergiliana’s short poem the “Moretum,” in which a man and his female African slave (and presumed mistress) make a garlic pesto together—the many colors of the mix running into one. Make of that what you will.
“Pluribus” is the superlative form
Pluribus is the comparative form, derived from plus, not the superlative. The superlative would be plurimis.
 
It is easier to understand this if the mass is in your native language.
Now we’re back to a circular argument again. If this were true, why doesn’t the news media report it as both a sacrifice (at Calvary) and a meal? Certainly one would think they consult English Catholics (who understand the Mass so well :rolleyes:) for their information.
 
My opinion is that a bunch of lay people have opinions that they think matter. 😃

No disrespect intended, but it will NEVER be up to the lay people what happens in the liturgy.
 
Now we’re back to a circular argument again. If this were true, why doesn’t the news media report it as both a sacrifice (at Calvary) and a meal?
I can’t remember the last time the “news media” provided an explanation for the mass. Your must have better TV stations where you live.

But it’s certainly true the Vatican II re-emphasized the meal part of the ritual. This corrected the post-Reformation emphasis on it as a sacrifice. Inasmuch as Luther and his confreres asserted it was only a meal, Catholic theology tended to emphasize the point of disagreement. That laypeople tended to be spectators not participants and the wine reserved for priests—both of which were not true in earlier centuries—added to the sense that it was a sacrifice going on “up there,” not a meal to which all Christians were invited.

In seeking to preserve the forms and understandings of Tridentine Catholicism, “conservatives” here—as so often—are seeking to “conserve last week” not the earlier and deeper traditions of the church.
 
No, it’s a comparative as an intensifier—“from very many.”
That seems to work. Better than “more many” or (if superlative) “most many.”

Speaking of intensifiers, is there a better translation of “Per IPSUM, et cum IPSO, et in IPSO” than “Through Him and with Him and in Him”? In the Polish Mass, I notice that they render it as “Przez Chrystusa, z Chrystusem i w Chrystusie.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top