The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL!
#91
(12-08-2009, 02:01 AM)CrusaderKing Wrote: ...Unfortunately, the author of this piece in Free Republic leaves out more than a few pertinent facts, the chief one being that in the first three centuries of the Church, Mass was offered, "on the run" because of persecutions. Consequently, there wasn't time for any type of stablility. Once Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, there was time for stability and development.  Latin was the vernacular until the fall of the Roman Empire, and that accident of history (the subsequent disuse of Latin by the people) wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence which is essential to the worship of God in the Mass.   
Not so.  In the Roman Empire 3 languages were equally common.  Latin was the language of gov't.  Greek was the language of commerce and the arts.  Hebrew was the language of religion.
Reply
#92
(12-08-2009, 03:32 AM)Carnivore Wrote: Not so.  In the Roman Empire 3 languages were equally common.  Latin was the language of gov't.  Greek was the language of commerce and the arts.  Hebrew was the language of religion.
I think you meant in ancient Israel. Hebrew was not the language of religion in Rome. The majority were pagans, not Jews. Additionally, the language of the arts was Latin: Horace, Ovid, Virgil, the Caesars, all of them wrote in Latin. Do you know why?  Because their audiences spoke Latin, it was the vernacular. Additionally, I might note that the language of trade was Latin. Trade and politics with nations also extended west!  That is why we have so much Latin influence in languages west of Rome, and very little Greek influence.
Thank you for your bizarre statement though, it gave me a chuckle. Hebrew the religious language of Rome?
Reply
#93
(12-08-2009, 04:31 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote:
(12-08-2009, 03:32 AM)Carnivore Wrote: Not so.  In the Roman Empire 3 languages were equally common.  Latin was the language of gov't.  Greek was the language of commerce and the arts.  Hebrew was the language of religion.
I think you meant in ancient Israel. Hebrew was not the language of religion in Rome. The majority were pagans, not Jews. Additionally, the language of the arts was Latin: Horace, Ovid, Virgil, the Caesars, all of them wrote in Latin. Do you know why?  Because their audiences spoke Latin, it was the vernacular. Additionally, I might note that the language of trade was Latin. Trade and politics with nations also extended west!  That is why we have so much Latin influence in languages west of Rome, and very little Greek influence.
Thank you for your bizarre statement though, it gave me a chuckle. Hebrew the religious language of Rome?
No, I meant Rome...

Thank you for your rude statement though.  It's what I expected...
Reply
#94
(12-08-2009, 04:31 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: Thank you for your bizarre statement though, it gave me a chuckle. Hebrew the religious language of Rome?

Yeah...I was getting a good laugh off that one too.


and don't forget folks...if you disagree with Mickey Mouse and prove him wrong...you're rude.
Reply
#95
(12-08-2009, 04:33 AM)Carnivore Wrote: No, I meant Rome...

Thank you for your rude statement though.  It's what I expected...
Glad to live down to your preconceived notions, mio amico.
Reply
#96
Quote:Additionally, I might note that the language of trade was Latin. Trade and politics with nations also extended west!  That is why we have so much Latin influence in languages west of Rome, and very little Greek influence.

Latin to the west of Rome, Greek to the east.
Reply
#97
(12-08-2009, 03:32 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-08-2009, 02:01 AM)CrusaderKing Wrote: ...Unfortunately, the author of this piece in Free Republic leaves out more than a few pertinent facts, the chief one being that in the first three centuries of the Church, Mass was offered, "on the run" because of persecutions. Consequently, there wasn't time for any type of stablility. Once Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, there was time for stability and development.  Latin was the vernacular until the fall of the Roman Empire, and that accident of history (the subsequent disuse of Latin by the people) wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence which is essential to the worship of God in the Mass.   
Not so.  In the Roman Empire 3 languages were equally common.  Latin was the language of gov't.  Greek was the language of commerce and the arts.  Hebrew was the language of religion.

What a foolish statement!  HEBREW was the "language of religion," huh?  I guess that's why the Romans wanted to wipe them from the face of the earth in 70 AD, to perserve their "language of religion."  If you knew a thing about actual history, you'd know that the vast majoriy of Romans at that time were pagans who exclusively spoke the Latin language, in matters of religion, arts or "government."  It was the "common tongue" of the day - in ALL manners of life.  Thanks for the good laugh, though -- Haha...Hebrew as the "language of religion" in pre-Christian Rome --  Ha, that made my morining!
Reply
#98
Carnivore wrote the following:

Quote:I have an idea of what a "traditionally-minded Catholic" is, but there is no separate rite or recension within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church or even the greater Catholic Church know as "Traditional Catholic" and that has me puzzled.  Is it like an "Old Catholic" or a "Polish National Catholic" that is not in perfect communion with the Pope?

Either you are woefully uninformed, or you are baiting.

The Old Catholic Church was a Jansenist schism.  Their leadership denied Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility.  It is now steeped in liberalism, its bishops ordaining women and other such madness.  Incidentally, the Modern Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is almost identical, in its general elements, to the modern reformed Old Catholic Missal.

The PNCC leadership teaches that the use of artificial birth control is the prerogative of the married couple.  At one point they were actually aligned with the Utrecht schism!

NOW Carnivore!  YOU name ONE heresy taught by Archbishop Lefebvre!  Careful though.  A lot of people on this forum have read almost  everything he's written, or said.  I've read my share.  Don't accuse him of saying something you never read.

To compare the SSPX, or anyone save the conclavists and perhaps the Feeneyites who call themselves traditional Catholics, to the Utrecht and PNCC schisms is intellectually dishonest, and sickeningly inaccurate.

Quote:Your comment "we hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church" also rings untrue in the wake of a comment that attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass is "sinful."  You don't seem to "hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church."  You seem to follow those you personally agree with while attacking those your personally dislike.

Just my observation.

Are you kidding?  Talk about grasping at straws!

It is not a doctrine of the Church that attending a wrecked liturgical rite could not, subjectively be sinful.

I would never raise my children in a Novus Ordo parish, and I would never, if I were a priest, celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae.  In each case I would consider myself a wrecker of souls, a wrecker of the Church.  I would be sinning.

The Church's hierarchy could never assuage my conscience by telling me that what is true is false, and that is the only thing they can do with the Novus Ordo!
Reply
#99
(12-08-2009, 04:35 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Yeah...I was getting a good laugh off that one too.

and don't forget folks...if you disagree with Mickey Mouse and prove him wrong...you're rude.

Not as good as the one I get from the OF Mass/attending/sinful display of abject ignorance...   :laughing:

NB: You haven't "proven" anything -- except perhaps your own ignorance about the Catholic Church...  :pazzo:
Reply
(12-08-2009, 01:42 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-08-2009, 04:35 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Yeah...I was getting a good laugh off that one too.

and don't forget folks...if you disagree with Mickey Mouse and prove him wrong...you're rude.

Not as good as the one I get from the OF Mass/attending/sinful display of abject ignorance...   :laughing:

NB: You haven't "proven" anything -- except perhaps your own ignorance about the Catholic Church...   :pazzo:

I thought this thread was meant to be funny or a joke? It seems it isn't; it was just your opening for your attacks on the people of this forum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)