M
mosher
Guest
Bob Kay:
I and the person bring up the objection could not help but be compelled to agree with him. Sloth is not an excuse for a persons inability to make intelligible something as important as the faith. Further it would profit them much to learn Latin for many other more “practical” reasons.
This response always reminds me of a friend that was at the seminary with me. This very position was expressed to him and I found his reply well met. He said that in worldly affairs we will study for months and years to learn what we need to get a single certification or license but when it comes to the faith none are willing to learn anything. If we can study six months to get a drivers license we sure can take the time out of our life to become proficient in Latin.Just what we need right now: another layer of (Latin) unintelligibility!
Why not go further and have the homilies in Latin as well. Then neither the speaker nor the congregant would understand.
Few people even with formal Latin training—I speak from experience—can be functional with Latin syntax especially when it must go into complex mental constructs, as in any common linguistic interchange.
99.9% of our people and of those in my travels understand and find the current vernacular liturgical language and approach meaninful.
Bob Kay
I and the person bring up the objection could not help but be compelled to agree with him. Sloth is not an excuse for a persons inability to make intelligible something as important as the faith. Further it would profit them much to learn Latin for many other more “practical” reasons.