Constantine moved the Roman capital to the Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire. That side of the Roman Empire still spoke Greek. Latin never became the vernacular in that half of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Rite grew from that side of the Roman Empire, the Churches that follow this Rite does not have an ounce of Latin in their history and tradition.
The Church is growing today in many places like Africa where they never spoke an ounce of Latin in their history. The Church has been in decline in Europe way before Vatican II. Goig vernacular is the right thing. The Gospel has to be proclaimed to all nations, not just those who can appreciate Latin.Look Guys I really do understand the desire of some people for the old Latin and I dont knock it but there seems to be an underlying spiritual snobbishness about it that somehow its better, each to their own I say, but don’t push it on the rest.
The Church in their wisdom changed it for good reason and just because a few people seem to be going a bit to far left of centre with Church services doesn,t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.
I haven’t been to any mass service that wasn’t respectfull even if it wasn’t straight laced but I did see the vidoe clips of those services that appear very left of base and it did make even me cringe a bit. But im 50 ish so I expect to find myself doing that more
… so from where was my Patron Saint? St. Augustine was an African and one of the best Latinists who ever lived.
Because Cranmer already did that, in English anyway, back in 1645 or so. And he was burned as a heretic. And who knows how many copyrights the Church of England held and still holds on those translations. But even if they are in the public domain, you wouldn’t want the Catholic Church to be accused of plagiarism, do you? Besides those Cranmer translations were poor (a Lutheran friend confirmed that for me), although the Anglicans swear by their pretty language. The translations in the hand missals for all I know had imprimaturs and copyrights as well (they differed slightly) but had not had permission by the Vatican to be ever used by the priest as part of the liturgy itself.
Does it follow that every African is St. Augustine? This is flawed logic. Cardinal Santos from the Philippines had perfect Latin. Doesn’t mean everyday Juan dela Cruz can speak Latin like he does.
[sarcasm]Makes you wonder how the Roman Catholic Church ever converted anyone who didn’t speak Latin, for 1500 years. That old Mass, so off-putting to sorcery-practicing native peoples.[/sarcasm]
Your despise for Latin is really showing.
That said, it would make sense that vernacular would be an advantage in converting and explaining but many do have the capability of following a Latin Mass if they set their minds to it. Or are you perhaps undermining their intelligence?
You have really no idea how its done. Seeing as my country was subjugated by the Spanish under the Spanish Inquisition and many were forced into the faith or face the consequences and wrath of the Spanish. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for the Inquisition that I am not Muslim today. But how they spread the faith hardly is something you’d be bragging about in a pro-Latin discussion.
So saying something that contradicts your stance is showing despise? I’m just throwing out facts here. There’s no disdain of any kind. Maybe you should stick to the topic instead of trying to discredit me by branding me a “Latin hater”. Last I checked its against the rules to make such unfounded and false statements against other users.
So is having an English menu in a Chinese restaurant undermining one’s intelligence to learn Chinese? The objective of the Church is to preach the Gospel to all nations. Having these people learn another language just to get the Liturgy is adding complexity to a faith that has so much to be taught already. Sure, anybody can learn it. But do you expect everyone to devout the time and energy to do so? Many especially from poor nations need to work 18-hour days just so they can have something to eat the next day. Even food for the next week is not guaranteed, they live day-to-day. Its not a question of intellectual capacity. Besides, people from the beginning should be devoting themselves to learning the faith and living it. The language isn’t even necessary for average, everyday people to appreciate, understand, practice and live the faith.
[sarcasm]So: they haven’t the capacity to learn it and they don’t need to, anyway? Therefore, they shouldn’t have it? Makes you wonder how anything gets done in these countries, at all. Like getting an education. Those poor people. So helpless. Especially those in former French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies.[/sarcasm]
Fair point. There is no more motivation today to learn Latin than there is to learn grammar, math, science or anything else that doesn’t relate to life preservation and sustinence. But you would hardly expect them to go to church once a week either, if they need that one hour or two to make ends meet. Not unless you’re going to pay them for going to church just to listen to your vernacular, which just as easily could be Latin if they didn’t understand the faith to begin with. If they didn’t know the Our Father, what better way would it have been to teach them the Pater Noster with real explanations of each line? It seems like any second grader would be able to follow that if it were done properly.
Again, I never said no one has the capacity to learn it. But we have many priorities in life, even living the faith should go before learning another language. We are not obligated to anyway, so why insist on it. What you are saying is not what the Church is doing.
I find that many of them do take time to go to church. In countries where people are mostly Catholics, there are enough Masses a day that there is really no good reason to miss Mass when one is healthy and able. On Sundays in the Philippines, you can find Masses as early as 5am and as late as 9pm. I can imagine other predominantly Catholic countries would be the same.
I have stayed out of this conversation after my last question was answered (thank you to the one who answered by the way). This ^ comment, however, got my I-just-woke-up brain in a fit. I shall attempt to rectify that, and, I apologize now if this is emotional.Aaaaargggh how much more do I have to suffer dear Lord. Some of the rubbish I’ve been forced to look at in order to try and maintain some common sense in this. Now learning latin is a sign of Devoutness according to a post above. Devoutness is prayer and fasting and the sacrements and good works and reading scripture and I should think God in his wisdom would rather people do more of this rather than waste time learning a DEAD language and for what to appease a group of elitist new fundamentalists who would bring us all back to medieval times rather than to when the vernacular was the original method of the church.
Christ preached a language the people understood he didnt ask them to learn a new one.
I wonder what Christ himself would say at the idea of presenting barriers to him and expecting the simple poor folks to learn to talk posh to understand him. The incident of the children comes to mind.
Oh please. You’re shooting your own credibility here. Christ respected His own language of worship, which was Hebrew. Guess what He would have done to iconoclastic translators inside the Temple at the time?
Hmm . . . the person who accused supporters of Latin of being elitist just pulled what I have always considered the most elitist move of all: Dismissing the issue and implicitly claiming victory. I really wish he would give some details and his solutions (and perhaps his analysis on how things go to be so bad), perhaps on another thread? I would gladly join in this afternoon.Lets face it ; the Church has bigger problems in todays age than Latin mass and if you want to waste the gift of the intelligence given you by God pushing this rather than helping the church really deal with whats important thats fine. I wont waste any more on this.
Shakes the dust of my sandals