Why no more Latin?

[mercygate]

siamesecat:

The forum isnt why I wont make my confirmation, but it did play a part in it.
I dont know if i will ever believe again…it will take a miracle to bring me back I think. But unless I feel the church has made positive steps in certain areas I will never be Catholic. I dont believe the church will ever accept gay marriage or contraception, as those are key parts of it. So I probably will not come back to it. But by positive steps that could actually happen I mean things like allowing women to be priests which I do not think goes against church teachings. But I doubt I will ever find a church in which I believe everything which is why I think that if for some reason i feel there is a god watching over me i will be a deist.

We’ll be here waiting with a big hug if you ever come to understand that the “backward” positions the Church champions are, in fact, rooted in the very nature of man, of creation, and of the universe and that the “positive steps” which seem good to you now are on a par with Eve’s unfortunate assessment of the apple. The next time I recite the fifth joyful mystery of the Rosary, it will be for you.

 

[Jacksquat89]

deogratias:

There are always other alternatives. If our parents had aborted us, you and I, we of course could not be having this conversation at all.

I never really thought that was a good arguement, because thats the same as saying, if they never met…, if they left each other before your coneception…( ), etc. I never really understood how you could use that to argue gainst abortion. I guess it works as a to try to get the person to feel guilty.

 

[Therese_Martin]

General reminder:

Please keep the discussion on the topic of Latin in the Church and please remember charity in the discussion. If the thread continues to drift, or if the conversation unravels into bickering, the thread will have to be locked. Thanks!

 

[Jacksquat89]

General reminder:

Please keep the discussion on the topic of Latin in the Church and please remember charity in the discussion. If the thread continues to drift, or if the conversation unravels into bickering, the thread will have to be locked. Thanks!

Do you actually have to read all of this stuff? That kinda stinks. Hope you get paid for that.

 

[agname]

siamesecat:

My argument may be lost on you considering your reason why you’re against it is because god is…and I’m an atheist…but if you want to try and debate it with me…my instant messenger is siamesecat1414…my email is snailgirl4@aol.com. strangeminds.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7928&mode is an essay i wrote about gay marriage and why i think it should be legal. I forgot my procreation argument though…so you’d have to talk to me about that. Like I said, without a real religious background I can only use my own morals and what your god says means nothing to me.

I just scanned your report. There are several huge holes within your reasoning. For example, first…the church and state are not completely separate (separation as defined by Atheists…ie religious context) within this country. Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles…and our laws are forged upon them. Our inalienable rights are given to us by God…not government. Second, moral and racial issues are not equivalent. Third, there is zero evidence that gay couples are more committed. Fourth, there is proof that children of heterosexual couples are more psychologically sound…and stable. The function of “sex” in nature is in order to “procreate.” We are to propagate our species in the hopes of extending our longevity. In our civilized society let me make the distinction, “responsible propagation.” “Pleasure” is only an added bonus to sex, it’s not the primary function. At this point, I will also now explain why homosexuality is abnormal. Ladies and gentleman, homosexuality is not normal. Homosexuality is abnormal. Abnormal being, “deviant from the norm.” Does that mean homosexuals should be discriminated against? No. Does, that mean homosexuals should be scorned? No. But, I do find it absurd when individuals try and act as if homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. I’m sorry, it’s “abnormal.” I’ve always found it amusing when people try to rationalize to me that homosexuality is normal. They begin to go into this long dissertation about how there are various animal species that exhibit “homosexual behavior.” I’m sorry, first off they don’t exhibit “homosexual behavior.” These species exhibit “bisexual
behavior.” If there were quote a “homosexual exhibiting” species, they would be extinct. That’s right, extinct. Remember what I said earlier about the function of sex is to prolong the longevity of our species through procreation? Homosexual species don’t propagate – they can’t – it’s against their biological function. Euthanasia, murder, cannibalism, the eating of one’s feces…all occur within the wild. As humans, we have the pleasure of having logic, rational thought, the ability to reason. Wild animals do not possess this ability. If you allow one abnormal marriage…you will have to allow others. This includes an incestious marriage and bestiality.

 

[agname]

mango_2003:

Can someone please explain to me why Latin isn’t the normal language at Mass anymore? I realize that Latin is still spoken at special Masses…but why not at a normal one?

I love Latin and would love to be able to attend a Latin Mass. Since I’m a (pseudo)Protestant, I don’t know most of the responses in English…but since I’ve been in Choir my entire life, I know them in Latin…heh.

~mango~

I love Latin as well. I believe it should be used more often…for its historical context…and the poetic flair to the language.

 

[agname]

siamesecat:

My argument isnt foolproof…but no ones really is. I trust my own morals that I am against murder and undecided on abortion but leaning towards pro-life. I am pro-gay marriage and contraception for other reasons. I trust my judgement as I am not a person who wishes to hurt other people. I dont believe in god, but if there was one, i think he would share my values because they seem like values a loving, kind, and forgiving god would want. I know many of you disagree with me, but Im not telling people to go out and kill each other because they think its morally right. I dont know how to explain it anymore, but Im going to go with how I feel on this one.

Interesting…but, greatly flawed.

Atheists have always intrigued me – or as I call them “cafeteria atheists” – atheists that pick and choose what they believe – contrary to logic – that I will soon explain. So, what’s next? Are atheists going to sue our legal system saying that our laws infringe upon their beliefs? After all, I don’t understand how an atheist can honor our legal system but still profess to be atheist. I once had an argument with an atheistic friend of mine over religion and our legal system. My friend told me that “Stealing was bad, everyone knew that.” But, I asked him “Why is stealing bad?” He said because “there was a victim.” I asked him “define a victim.” What if in the robber’s mind he’s thinking that he’s just handing out swift justice…the person is getting what they deserved…after all, they didn’t have a security system. My friend couldn’t answer the question. Wouldn’ a true atheist embrace Darwinism? So I posed the question – From where did our laws originate? What’s the basis of our laws? It’s illegal to commit homicide --Thou shalt not kill – does it sound familiar? Or, how about – Thou shalt not steal. It’s illegal to shoplift or rob one of his / her goods. Religion played a pertinent role in the formation of our laws and our moral beliefs. So…how can one be an an atheist and believe stealing, etc., is malevolent?

To be atheist you would have to embrace Darwinism…natural selection to the fullest. An Atheist wouldn’t have a problem with murder. It’s survival of the fittest.

As older adults often say…you’re going through a phase…which is normal. Your stance on various issues are not supported by logic, etc.

 

[deogratias]

Jack - no way the limited amount of moderators can read all the “stuff” as you call it. They depend on us, the members to call to their attention anything we consider a breech of forum rules, thread drift or deterioration, mean-spiritedness, etc. etc. (Evidently someone did report this thread)

In that case they will read through that particular thread, make a determination if an individual post(s) should be deleted; if a thread should be closed; in some cases they may delete the entire thread; or as in this case issue a warning which the next few posters ignored

 

[mercygate]

Thanks to another forum on Catholic Answers Forums, my husband and I, who will be travelling in the Detroit area this weekend, will attend a Novus Ordo Latin Mass at Assumption Grotto on Sunday!

Sadly, seminarians in my diocese are no longer required to study ANY Latin at all; graduates of the past decade or so can’t even sing the Agnus Dei. A music major knows the Ordinary of the Mass better than most young priests today. This is cultural self-genocide.

 

[deogratias]

Sadly, seminarians in my diocese are no longer required to study ANY Latin at all; graduates of the past decade or so can’t even sing the Agnus Dei

That’s unfortunate - as late as April of this year the Holy father made a statement about this.

In regard to the study of history, the Holy Father stressed that “a solid knowledge of Latin and Greek is absolutely indispensable, without which access to the sources of the ecclesiastical tradition is precluded.”

Only with their aid is it possible, even today, to rediscover the richness of the experience of life and of faith [over] 2000 years," he said.

SOURCE
Seminarians Should Know History, Latin and Greek, Says Pope (Zenit 20/4/04)

In 1962, Pope John XXIII promulgated his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, in which he lamented the decline in Latin education that had already taken place, and decreed that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, if it has deteriorated anywhere, be thoroughly restored. Seminaries, said Pope John, must continue to teach Latin and demand competence of its students in the language, lest they, through ignorance of the language, be unable to attain a full understanding of doctrine.

The Second Vatican Council clearly taught that Latin was to be retained in the life of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, stated that the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (36.1) Both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have reiterated the need for priests to be well-versed in Latin.

Source
Adoramus Bulletin
adoremus.org/0400-Johansen.html

I don’t know how they pull this off - not teaching it - since it is required by Canon law

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also **well versed in **latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

Source

Code of Canon Law