Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The Catholic Church created the concept that speaking in Latin elevated nonsense into wisdom. Some people still hold to that principle.
That's not it at all. Also, the Roman Catholic Church just continued on its practices, as a matter of mere tradition, from when it used to be the State Church of Rome since 383AD when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the State Religion.
According to history The Catholic Church persecuted people for translating and publishing the Bible in readable form when it first was printed and it persisted in holding mass in Latin for centuries when most of the congregation had no idea what was being said. Latin is just one of those useful nasty elite tricks to maintain discommunication and it remains so to dignify idiocies in a cloak of misunderstanding.
So, what of the translations of the New Testament into Anglo-Saxon and into Gothic? Did you know that, originally, the purpose of the Vulgate was to make the Bible available to the common people of Rome? The New Testament was already written in Greek and the Old Testament had been translated into Greek as far back as five centuries earlier, but up to the time of the translation of the Vulgate only parts of the Bible had been independently translated into Latin.
See
http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htmNotice the years from whence the quotes originate. The earliest there is from the 12th Century AD, whereas Christianity had existed since the 1st Century AD, was under persecution from Rome from the mid-1st Century until the early-4th Century, and was adopted as the State religion of the Roman Empire as of the late 4th Century. Times approaching the Reformation, the Catholic church increasingly became corrupt (hence a need for a Reformation).
Which is all irrelevant to the use of Latin which the overwhelming majority of adherents could not understand.
Is it now? You cannot see any possible link to having corrupt leadership making decisions which attempt to place a copyright upon Christianity in manners of saying "only this, only that" about things which are so far removed and otherwise extraneous to the Gospel as to be nearly incredible that such importance would be placed upon so trivial of things as the language in which is was to be conveyed?
If you consider the language of a book or religious service trivial when that language communicates nothing to the listener or reader your mind is far more peculiar than I imagined.
Fine, the word trivial is improper. Are you going to just nitpick my word usage or do you care to actually bother to attempt reading comprehension for a change?
Your comprehension of the use of trivial as nitpicking merely r-enforces my comment..
Hardly. The word "trivial" is improper, a more suiting word, in my rhetorical question,
"You cannot see any possible link to having corrupt leadership making decisions which attempt to place a copyright upon Christianity in manners of saying "only this, only that" about things which are so far removed and otherwise extraneous to the Gospel as to be nearly incredible that such importance would be placed upon so trivial of things as the language in which is was to be conveyed?",
would be either a repetition of the word 'extraneous' or the word 'irrelevant', since the Catholic church's former usage of Latin was extraneous to the Gospel, and for those who couldn't speak Latin it was prohibitive for the transfer of knowledge. Like a repetition of Babel, yet performed by the Catholic church when it was becoming corrupt so as to attempt a stranglehold, or a monopoly, upon Christianity itself.
13 Sep 2010, 8:39 pm
