Why the Mass in Latin?
#21
(06-14-2011, 01:32 AM)mikemac Wrote: I'm not talking about the written word.  If spoken Latin words sounded similar to the same spoken words in a Gaelic language they'd be able to understand the Latin Mass when they heard it.

Well, as a matter of fact they don't even sound anything alike. I assume you know what Latin sounds like. Now here are links to radio stations that broadcast in Scots Gaelic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radionangaidheal/

And Welsh:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiocymru/

If you take the time to listen, you will discover that Gaelic and Welsh sound nothing alike and neither sounds anything like Latin.
Reply
#22
(06-14-2011, 12:23 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: If you take the time to listen, you will discover that Gaelic and Welsh sound nothing alike and neither sounds anything like Latin.

This is not really logical. The idea that Latin was used in the liturgy because the Celtic Europeans could understand it is not logical either.

The modern forms of the language are quite different from the forms used back then. Using Irish as an example, its modern form is very, very different from the form used in the 3rd century (this would be called "Primitive Irish").

The Celtic languages as spoken back then are more different from modern forms than Latin is to Spanish.

Now, this language form the few records of it (it was written, but not in the Latin script) lacked many features found in modern Irish. It was an earlier Indo-European language. We can assume that other Celtic languages from which Primitive Irish was born were also similar. Because of this, they were sufficiently similar to other Indo-European languages to make learning them easier. Yes, they did not "sound" the same, but they had a very common structure.

So using modern Irish or related languages to compare it to what we know as Latin is not a valid way to show that they are completely different.

Now, for the liturgy, Latin was not used under centuries after the founding of the Church. Celtic languages were never used for it, although Irish was used in Ireland, the language of literacy and learning was Latin (and Greek). Native knowledge of Latin was not fundamental. That it was widely taught and known was. Like in the modern day, more people speak Mandarin than English, but Mandarin is not used as a common language.

I am not a scholar on Irish, but I have studied its modern forms (to be able to speak it) and its history including Old Irish. Primitive Irish is not something one can learn to speak.
Reply
#23
People back then didn't need to understand the language of the liturgy, especially those parts pertaining exlcusively to God.

The more educated classes did but the normal populace, including some nobility, didn't.
Reply
#24
(06-13-2011, 12:39 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 1. Latin was the language used by St. Peter when he first said Mass at Rome. It was the language in which that Prince of the Apostles drew up the Liturgy which, together with the knowledge of the Gospel, he or his successors the Popes imparted to the different peoples of Italy, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, and Poland.

I don't doubt that St. Peter's first Mass at Rome was said in Latin at all.  Latin is similar to both Gaelic and Greek.

Contrary to popular modern belief the Gaelic speaking people of Europe would have had to understand Latin because there are many similarities between Latin and Gaelic.  Old Irish, dating from the sixth century, used the Latin alphabet.  Gaelic is now recognize as an Indo-European language but in reality Gaelic is one of the oldest languages on the face of the planet.  The Galacians from the Bible were Celtic Gaelic speaking people.  A form of Gaelic was spoken in what is now called the country of Turkey up until the 14th century.  The Celts of north western Europe did not come into contact with Germanic people until about 250 BC.  The Celtic world at that time was Europe.  The modern country of Germany was at one time part of the Celtic world.  I have read that there is a connection between the ancient Romans and the ancient Celts.

English is a Germanic language.  English is one of the newest languages on the planet.  Just 500 years ago the English spoken then is barely distinguishable from modern English.  Germanic people were still saying bar bar bar centuries and possibly a millennium or two after the Gaelic language was well established.  History has been rewritten for centuries.  These days history seems to be rewritten on a daily basis.  It's not too hard to understand why I got bounced from the Skadi Germanic online community forum when I posted in the thread that asked the question "Is Scotland Germanic?"  :)

These days with DNA studies we can still see the distribution of Celtic people throughout Europe.  Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup is past from father to son down through the centuries.  The Celtic Y haplogroup is R1b.  This R1b (Y-DNA) national distribution map in percentage of population shows the distribution of Celtic DNA throughout Europe today.  Note up to 40% in Nordic countries, 40% in Iceland, up to 50% in Germany and 80% in western France and northern Spain and Portugal.  Obviously 80% in the middle and western British Isles with still 70% in the eastern part of the British Isles.  By the way, British is a Celtic name, not an English name.  Millions of people on this planet have Celtic Gaelic speaking origins and don't even realize it.  Their ancestors would had to have been able to understand the Latin language.  Note that even though the DNA studies are scientific this map seems to show the R1b Y haplogroup spreading westward into Europe from the middle east around where Mount Ararat is. 

[Image: R1bmap.JPG]

Again note from the map above that the R1b Celtic Y haplogroup for Iceland is 40%.  The Nordic Y haplogroup is I, commonly referred to as the Viking DNA.  But yet the I Y haplogroup for Iceland is just 30% seen from the link below.  This brings to mind the myth, story or whatever you want to call it of the legend of the earliest travel from Europe to North America by Brendan and a number of monks from Ireland.  I have recently read that this story of Brendan and the monks is in the Icelandic sagas.  Hmmm, I wonder why we hear so much about Lief but not much about the earlier Brendan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distri..._Y-DNA.svg

Like I say history has been rewritten for centuries.  I won't link to the source of these quotes below because it says "the Indo-European, or as it is now called, the Aryan class."  As far as I'm concerned that is laughable but the page does have some good quotes.  Ironically it is on a Scottish web site.  If you want to find it do a search for "similarities between Latin and Gaelic".  The page is titled "The Gaelic language".

Quote:That it has relations to the Semitic languages cannot be denied, but these are no closer than those of many others of the same class. Its relation to both the Greek and the Latin, especially the latter, is very close, many of the radical words in both languages being almost identical. Natural objects, for instance, and objects immediately under observation, have terms wonderfully similar to represent them. Mons, a mountain, appears in the Gaelic Monadh; Amnis, a river, appears in Amhainn; Oceanus, the ocean, in Cuan; Muir, the sea, in Mare; Caballus, a horse, in Capull; Equus, a horse, in Each; Canis, a dog, in Cu; Sol, the sun, in Solus, light; Salus, safety, in Slainte; Rex, a king, in Righ; Vir, a man, in Fear; Tectum, a roof, in Tigh; Monile, a necklace, in Muineal. This list might be largely extended, and serves to bring out to what an extent original terms in Gaelic and Latin correspond. The same is true of the Greek, but not to the same extent.

At the same time there is a class of words in Gaelic which are derived directly from the Latin. These are such words as have been introduced into the srvice of the church. Christianity having come into Scotland from the European Continent, it was natural to suppose that with it terms familiar to ecclesiastics should find thier way along with the religion. This would have occurred to a larger extent after the Roamn hierarchy and worship had been received among the Scots. Such words as Peacadh,sin; Sgriobtuir, the scriptures; Faosaid, confession; aoibhrinn, mass or offering; Caisg, Easter; Inid, initium or shrove-tide; Calainn, new year’s day; Nollaig, Christmas; Domhnach, God or Dominus; Diseart, a hermitage; Eaglais, a church; Sagart, a priest; Pearsa or Pearsoin, a parson; Reilig, a burying place, from reliquiœ; Ifrionn, hell; are all manifestly from the Latin, and a little care might add to this list. It is manifest that words which did not exist in the language must be borrowed from some source, and whence so naturally as from the language which was, in fact, the sacred tongue in the early church.

But besides being a borrower, the Gaelic has been largely a contributor to other languages.

Just in like manner, but arising from a much closer relation, do relics of the Celtic language appear in the Greek and Latin. The fact seems to be that a Celtic race and tongue did at one time occupy the whole of Southern Europe, spreading themselves from the Hellespont along the shores of the Adriatic, and the western curves of the Mediterranean, bounded on the north by the Danube and the Rhine, and extending to the western shores of Ireland.

I would like to add to this last paragraph in the above quote.  The ancient Celtic world was not "bounded on the north by the Danube and the Rhine" because at the time there was nobody there to bind them.  At that time the Celtic world extended north of the Danube and the Rhine.  An ancient Celtic tribes map will verify this.  Danube is a Gaelic name.  The Hellespont is the passage of water between Asia Minor and Europe around where Constantinople use to be, now Istanbul.  I have already shown that the Celtic world extended and originated east of the Hellespont.

I think this clearly shows that the Gaelic speaking Celts of Europe would had to have understood the Latin language.


LOL...see he went to Rome...and tried to convert Romans by using....something else....Inuit perhaps?



LOL
Reply
#25
(06-14-2011, 01:32 AM)mikemac Wrote: I'm not talking about the written word.  If spoken Latin words sounded similar to the same spoken words in a Gaelic language they'd be able to understand the Latin Mass when they heard it.

We so often hear from Protestants that Latin has been used in the liturgy so the faithful would not be able to understand it.  But that is not true, they could understand it.

The Brits of Strathclyde (Brythonic) merged with Scotland (Goidelic) so they must have been able to understand each other.  In 271 a confederation of Celtic tribes descended into Italy.  Juleus Ceasar fought against a confederation of Celtic tribes in the Gallic Wars.  Those different Celtic tribes must have been able to communicate with each other.  I have read there were Irish that went to the continent to fight against the Romans in the Gallic Wars.  "In Post-Roman Britain Goidelic and Brythonic seem to have been of roughly equal status, with several Goidelic loan words in Brythonic and several Brythonic loan words in Old Irish. There is historical evidence of Irish in what are now Wales and England, as well as of Brythonic in Ireland, during this period. There is also archaeological evidence of substantial contact between Britain and Ireland in the Pre-Roman period and of Roman period contact."  "In writings from Ireland, the name Cruthin, Cruthini, Cruthni, Cruithni or Cruithini (Modern Irish: Cruithne) was used to refer to the Picts and to a group of people who lived alongside the Ulaid in eastern Ulster."  The Celts were not isolated from each other and they could obviously understand each other.

You have a very naive understanding of linguistics.
Reply
#26
(06-14-2011, 07:08 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Mikmac u roughy up the alphabet so obviously u were speaking about the written word
anywY look I've lived in the gealtacht I to to tlm
u cannot understand Latin if u understand gealic. They are two mutually intelegibke languages
learn gealic or Latin e ough to udersta d either the. See for yourself
I'm no mskin  it up
sip

He's confusing Gaelic with Gaulish.  Julius Caesar sent messages to his commanders in Greek during the Gallic wars, because at the time Gaulic and Latin retained a high degree of mutual intelligibility.  However, gaulish is about as similar to modern Gaelic as proto-Germanic is to modern German.  His confusion is due to the fact that he doesn't understand the process of linguistic differentiation and amalgamation.
Reply
#27
(06-14-2011, 08:43 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 12:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 4. Mass is said in Latin because a universal Church requires a universal language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in her service.

IMO, no other reason is necessary.

For whoever, like myself, does not understand Latin - neither did the Apostles fully understand why Our Lord suffered and was crucified - yet they believed.
In like manner, we do not need to understand all the intricacies of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to do as we were commanded and be participants at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This point seems to ignore the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The whole article ignores the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Reply
#28
(06-14-2011, 11:33 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 08:43 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 12:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 4. Mass is said in Latin because a universal Church requires a universal language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in her service.

IMO, no other reason is necessary.

For whoever, like myself, does not understand Latin - neither did the Apostles fully understand why Our Lord suffered and was crucified - yet they believed.
In like manner, we do not need to understand all the intricacies of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to do as we were commanded and be participants at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This point seems to ignore the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Latinise them all, I say!

I thought you were for amalgamation?  Good to know for certain you're a deceiver.  Screw this, byzantize the Latin Church!  Our liturgy is more beautiful and reverent, anyway, you'll learn to love God better!
Reply
#29
(06-14-2011, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 11:33 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 08:43 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 12:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 4. Mass is said in Latin because a universal Church requires a universal language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in her service.

IMO, no other reason is necessary.

For whoever, like myself, does not understand Latin - neither did the Apostles fully understand why Our Lord suffered and was crucified - yet they believed.
In like manner, we do not need to understand all the intricacies of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to do as we were commanded and be participants at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This point seems to ignore the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Latinise them all, I say!

I thought you were for amalgamation?  Good to know for certain you're a deceiver.  Screw this, byzantize the Latin Church!  Our liturgy is more beautiful and reverent, anyway, you'll learn to love God better!

Uh-oh...are we heading toward the Great Schism, Part II?
Reply
#30
(06-14-2011, 10:02 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 11:33 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 08:43 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 12:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 4. Mass is said in Latin because a universal Church requires a universal language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in her service.

IMO, no other reason is necessary.

For whoever, like myself, does not understand Latin - neither did the Apostles fully understand why Our Lord suffered and was crucified - yet they believed.
In like manner, we do not need to understand all the intricacies of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to do as we were commanded and be participants at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This point seems to ignore the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Latinise them all, I say!

I thought you were for amalgamation?  Good to know for certain you're a deceiver.  Screw this, byzantize the Latin Church!  Our liturgy is more beautiful and reverent, anyway, you'll learn to love God better!

Uh-oh...are we heading toward the Great Schism, Part II?

Nah, just giving vetus some of his own medicine.  He can give it, but can't take it.  The moment anyone gives him some of his own back, you're branded a heretic or schismatic or some other nonsense.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)