Posted on 03/27/2019 9:23:21 AM PDT by Salvation
That would make an excellent new thread.
The use of local language in spreading the gospel is essential regardless of the rest of the things we both don’t like bout V-2. Are you advocating going to the outback and saying mass in Latin to convert aborigines? One example of how ridiculous your criticism of this one narrow point is because you condemn any thing V-2 is illogical and unworkable.
How do you think the conversion of the Americas occured?
THIS CHANGED EVERYTHING, made mass communications possible, engendered the first-ever writing in many of the European vernacular languages and permanently altered the structure of society.
This change was not a denominational thing. Gutenberg was a Catholic German printing Bibles 75 years before the beginning of the Reformation.
So the idea that the Mass was in Latin because the priests wanted to keep poor people ignorant, is bogus and ahistorical. An interesting book to read on this is "The Stripping of the Altars," by Eamon Duffy. showing the vitality, literacy, and creative engagement of 15th century Catholic life in England.
LOL by force.
The spanish must have been effective preaching the wording latin. I think Montezuma went to the seminary in Madrid to learn it.
Present evidence the spanish said mass in latin and not spanish or indian languages with an indian intrerpreter or stop making crap up.
You area a pentecost denier admit it and cleanse yourself. And stop spinning and hypothesizing?
You are lazy and therefore take wild guesses. You are devoid of any history background or even common sense on how you would approach people and convert them, Your entire point belies centuries of the mission experience in a Africa and asia. and abut spain you are flat out wrong. Please remove your self from this discourse so the serious amounts us can proceed. here is something you didn’t take 5 minutes to ask your search engine. Before you apologize and walk away humbled, consider how dangerous not would be to be outnumbered in a land across the ocean and not learn the local language to make sure THEY are not plotting to kill you in your sleep.
FROM WIKI The European colonizers and their successor states had widely varying attitudes towards Native American languages. In Brazil, friars learned and promoted the Tupi language.[6] In many Latin American colonies, Spanish missionaries often learned local languages and culture in order to preach to the natives in their own tongue and relate the Christian message to their indigenous religions. In the British American colonies, John Eliot of the Massachusetts Bay Colony translated the Bible into the Massachusett language, also called Wampanoag, or Natick (1661–1663; he published the first Bible printed in North America, the Eliot Indian Bible.
awaiting your historical proof of a negative. Thank you for your time.
For you edification, the missionaries to the early Americas were primarily either French or Spanish; Latin was not their conversant language.
But both the French and the Spanish missionary priests offered their Masses in Latin, as did they in their homelands.
It is well known these missionaries learned the native tongue of the the people in order to evangelize them. And many of them suffered martyrdom for their efforts. They did not attempt to evangelize in Latin.
I am not a Pentecost denier; but you appear to be a reality denier; another "blessing" of Vatican II.
Thanx for making my point about no latin mass.
Bets wishes
You must have misread my post. Read it again.
Or is it some other negative you wanted me to prove?
Awaiting your clarification.
If I read your original ,post correctly you had two points: the impact of printing, which we agree on, was one.
But the second point was response to me about oppressing the poor and illiterate and putting things in languages they could not understand in the absence of education. Note: I was describing europe pre-printing.
To not acknowledge the bad quality of life for surfs and soldiers and their plight and how theywere seen by the aristocracy and kings, prices, orgs and cardinals and bishops is to deny the reality of their lives. And the right of succession, disease, and war held out little hope. Those populations are easy to control and at least manage. Work hard they ere told and be rewarded afterwards.
There are good histories of europe that describe life from Rome to the world wars. I am out of school decades so there might even be more. But to maintain wealth and power many rulers oppressed their subjects. If you explain things, put them in the common vernacular people will be educated and revolt or question. Can’t maintain your position with an uppity populace. It is a well accepted fact that all changed with universities, guilds and apprenticeship programs, printing and exploration.
Best wishes.
KINGS PRTINCES LORDS AND CLERGY
Thank you for posting this article on 4th Century Christian “House Churches.”
Thanks for the ping. The drawing looks more like a church than a house church.
Note: if you are describing most people not having books, and most books not being in their mother-tongue, you are indeed describing Europe pre-printing. This is the inescapable reality of a place and time whose most conscientious people, with infinite painstaking effort, produced books by hand-copying or at best by woodblock print.
But once you are talking about "oppressing the poor and illiterate, and putting these things in language they could not understand," you have left the objective facts of pre-print societies and ventured into the field of cynical assumptions, simply imputing the vilest of motives and leaving it at that.
Motives may be good, bad, or middling'; but whatever the motive, ALL people will do only what it is physically possible for them to do. You can't have the social characteristics of a print-rich society without print.
(And it goes deeper than that, cf. Marshall McLuhan.)
But in the 1400 years between Pentecost and the Printing Press,, the Christian Church in the West (a.k.a. the Catholic Church, as an institution) preached in the spoken vernacular (any of hundreds of European dialects) and wrote in the universal written language, Latin, as did everybody else. That includes Frankish chieftains arguing with the Celts over captives, commercial travelers from the Low Countries carrying bills of sale to Florence, or Jews on the Rhine telling stone-mason masters in Carrara how they wanted their marble cut.
The purpose was not to keep poor people ignorant, but to make their communication intelligible to the most people by using the only written language anyone knew.
And ... "keeping" poor people ignorant? Who faced off the Huns and Vikings and guarded the written Gospels with their blood?
Who sang the Pslams in the streets and precessions in the public square, and then illustrated them for all in glass and rood-screens and stone for the sake of those who had no books?
Who dug Europe out of ignorance by providing the one lighted path through the Dark Ages?
Workshops full of monks and nuns, writing and distributing writing -- and they were the sons and daughters of the fisher-folk of Iona and the linen-dyers of Siena. Draining swamps, building schools and cultivating medicinals wherever they went, praying for the rich and the poor and following the same Lord from Jerusalem to Ultima Thule and back.
These are our progenitors, yours and mine both, our spiritual and intellectual forebears. Honor your father and your mother.
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying they were held down by the aristocrats and the power of the church the strongest force in Europe for centuries. Not having books or education highly contributed as well as the power of the armies and sherriffs who worked for the upper class.
I am burned out, not that didn’t enjoy our discourse, but i recommend you read about the lives of europeans 400-177 AD.
Bets wishes.
.
I cheerfully accept your sincere good will and recommend you exactly the same.
already studied as my major. Thanx anyway. If you have a book showing the great treatment of serfs, soldiers, and the poor throughout those centuries , that can counter what I read in 3 years of college and since, glad to see it.
I was writing about the prevalence of writing in the only liturgical,literary and scientific language that existed in the West: Latin. I maintained that it was not motivated by the desire to oppress the poor, but the desire to communicate widely and intelligibly.
Now you're challenging me to show "the great treatment of serfs, soldiers, and the poor throughout those centuries," as if that was my thesis.
However, the lot of the poor depended on the crops, the tariffs, and the competence and goodwill of the leaders, then as now; and they did better at the hands of the just, and worse under the unjust. The just were more likely to be observing Christian Gospel norms, and the unjust never heard of such norms, or were ignoring them. Then as now. And these norms are what they and we hear every time we go to Mass.
A good indicator of the lot of the poor of medieval Christendom as contrasted to the poor of, say, the Golden Age of Egypt, or classical Greece or Rome,or medieval Islam is that the hundreds of monumental buildings of the Age of Cathedrals in Europe were the first in the history of the world to be built by paid artisans: that is to say, free men, not slave labor.
I suppose a stone-cutter's lot is never quite comfy. However, note that the stone-cutters who built the storage-cities of Ramses, the Parthenon or the Alhambra were slaves; the stone-cutters of Carrara were skilled craftsmen who received signed, enforceable contracts and were paid in metal currency, as you can read in records still extant.
Is that the history you read?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.