L
larkin31
Guest
I am curious: if you are going to call language a “barrier,” then why not remove it?
- Status
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
The “American Catholic” was always a different species than any other Catholic because of the very nature of the United States. As a culture we highly value individualism, self determination, democracy, having a say in how things go, local control, value privacy, feel personal business is of no one’s concern, etc. Those are also things valued by mainstream protestant faiths. There has always been, and always will be, a certain dichotomy between the definition of “an American” and the definition of “a Catholic.” As democracy and Americanization has spread so has the “protestantization” of the Catholic Church.
N
Nostradennis
Guest
Well it was a “barrier” or 'break wall" if you will from the flood of change that has resulted since it’s removal. For that reason I would not have removed it.
V
Victorious
Guest
Correction: it is neither correct nor accurate to describe the Catholic Church as a denomination. She is not merely one dish on a buffet table, that you can take or leave as you choose: she is the true Church, one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, the only Church in which the faith resides in all its fullness. The Protestant denominations are sects (and even sects of sects), having split themselves off from the Catholic Church. I am sorry if it pains you to see her described in this way, but that is the claim that she herself makes, and there would be no point my being Catholic if I refused to accept it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Interesting. Sort of like the continuation of the old Roman Empire vs old British Empire type of conflict? Just a thought.
L
larkin31
Guest
Are you arguing that the subsequent changes were caused by this change over language?
Are you also claiming that there is no benefit to allowing English (or other native languages) in the Mass?
L
Layman
Guest
N
Nostradennis
Guest
As an agnostic, I was wondering what your perspective is on this topic?
P
ProVobis
Guest
If you don’t mind mistranslations and possible errors in theology, not to mention the banality and changeability of everyday conversational language, it’s borderline beneficial. But why not have the real thing?
But look at it this way, let’s say that one knows nothing about the Church but knows about the canons of Trent (no all-vernacular Mass), has read Veterum Sapientia, Vatican II, and Canon 249. Then put him in most of today’s OF Masses without any Latin in them. How could he possibly conclude that this is Catholic worship and not Protestant?
L
larkin31
Guest
This is your answer to my question?
N
Nostradennis
Guest
And this the answer to mine? Your responses have all the appearances of trolling.
L
larkin31
Guest
Is the Catholic Church capable of error in theology? I have never heard such a suggestion from a Catholic about the error-free nature of Latin translations versus more error-prone translations into other languages. Is this the present position of the Vatican toward use of Native languages in the Mass around the world? I am fairly certain that I have seen the imprimatur of esteemed cardinals on certain Biblical translations (I had posters here point me to them, in fact) deeming them to be free of error. Are you disagreeing and claiming that those Cardinals’ imprimaturs are in fact wrong?
This is an odd scenario. A Tibetan yak herder may not be able to tell the difference either. Native language use is not what differentiates Catholicism from Protestantism today. And even initially, it was not the only difference. It was not even the most important difference theologically. Historically, however, the Protestant use and printing and dissemination of Bibles in native language had enormously profound effects upon the advancement of European culture. Except for those who were killed for printing those things. They suffered mightily!
L
larkin31
Guest
Not at all. I am entirely sincere. What gives? You can’t handle a few honest and respectful questions from an agnostic?
Report me if you are going to smear me publicly as a troll. See what happens. Put your integrity where your mouth is.
P
ProVobis
Guest
They may be but that is not to say the meanings behind the English translations are the same as the meanings behind the Polish translations of the Mass, for example. (I can tell you that in fact, they’re not.) The bishops and committees do the best they can and I’ll take their word that they are free of error, but not everything can be accurately translated in certain languages, if at all. English has proven to be most difficult; that’s why they have to keep changing it in the Mass. Moreover, the 2007 SP, a very important document which freed the Latin Mass, has not even been translated to English on the Vatican website.
The Vatican has taken great pains to write its Latin texts; why not learn enough Latin to appreciate them? The prayers should be a piece of cake. Have been for well over 1600 years.
OTOH, the Catholic Church has been primarily responsible for developing Western civilization since its inception. They have many martyrs to show for it.
But I’m curious. You describe yourself as an agnostic. Why are you defending Protestantism?
L
larkin31
Guest
On this thread, I am not defending Protestantism. I am just curious about the argument that Latin is a more sacred and accurate language. I teach English for a living, and issues and claims around language are very intriguing to me. I asked on one thread for “approved” Catholic Bibles in English and was referred to a few. This is where I encountered the imprimaturs I was referring to.
At other times, since I was raised in a Protestant minister’s home (I am a pk), I jump in to “defend” Protestantism or Protestants from what I think are misrepresentations. But many many threads about Protestants or other Catholic theological issues I have no interest in and stay away from.
And yes, Catholicism has done much for the spread of benefits to Wester culture as well. And Catholic martyrs have been noble, indeed. My compliment to Protestants about printing is not to disparage Catholics, except that they should be at least a little ashamed of putting Bible printers to death. Fortunately, this is no longer done (in the West).
V
Victorious
Guest
The Church is not capable of erring in theology. As far as Latin translations, since we’ve been talking about the language of the liturgy in the Latin Rite, the Latin version of the liturgy (the Roman Missal, the breviary, etc.) is not a translation; it is the original.
Those last two sentences are a filthy lie, but I will deal with them shortly. As for the rest, we do not owe vernacular Bibles to the Protestants. There is this myth out there that Catholics sought to keep people from reading the Bible, and Protestants tried to put Bibles in the hands of the people. First of all, the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome was created in the late 4th century precisely to disseminate the Bible as widely as possible, Latin being then the universal language (anybody who could read, read Latin; those who could not read Latin could not read at all). Secondly, vernacular translations existed in all countries within the reach of the Church’s influence as long ago as the 7th century. There were 27 editions of the Bible in German before Luther came out with his (nine of them produced before he was born). Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Hungary and Portugal had vernacular Bibles. As far as translations of Scripture into English even Thomas Cranmer, the Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, admitted in 1540 that this did not start with Wycliffe (source: Where We Got the Bible, Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham):
So it is a lie that the Catholic Church has ever persecuted anyone for translating the Bible into a vernacular language. What she has always sought to suppress is erroneous and heretical translations. Wycliffe’s English translation, for example, was not published for the purpose of making the Bible accessible to the common folk, but to destroy their faith: Wycliffe, though a priest, was a heretic, and had a long history of attacking the Church and her doctrines.
This is an outrageous lie. It is you who ought to be covered in shame for believing it, and still more for spreading it. Shame on you, too, as a teacher, for cultivating an inexcusable ignorance that forms a fertile field for belief in such slanders. Name *one *Bible printer that the Church put to death.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Oh, but Eastern Liturgies has always been translated into different languages without any problems. That is the funniest thing about how this thread turns out is the Latin Defense Force coming in again with the same old preposterous claims. Thing is, it is Catholic to be using the vernacular, it was done that way in the first century and onwards.
Its more Islamic to adhere to only one universal language, Even the Jews were not so absolute, the LXX for example is in Greek.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Very good point!
L
larkin31
Guest
So, EVERYONE who could read ANYTHING in Europe ALSO could read Latin. Somehow, I just don’t buy that.
My, my, my.
You’d think that the Catholic Church was never accused of putting people to death before.
Not Wycliffe. He died “naturally,” then his body was exhumed by Church authorities, condemned, burned, and scattered. What are you reading?
William Tyndale.
And yes, his Bible translations were considered heretical. Obviously.
And yes, he was given up and executed. Famously.
I did not claim that he was the first to translate it. I did not claim that the CC never translated scripture.
L
Layman
Guest
You keep banging on about Eastern liturgies. This is the traditional Roman Catholicism sub-forum and we are discussing the Latin Rite. We propose that Latin should be retained for the rites of the Roman Church, and have given sound reasons for doing so.
The only sound argument for the vernacular is: ‘So the congreagation can understand the Mass more easily’. Even the parts which are not directed at them and which are translated in the missal anyway
- Status