Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; topcat54
In the 5c the worship was in Latin, which is a good practice for that very reason: less translations, less obfuscation.

Yes. An insistence on Latin in England... where the common language was Brythonic (Britons), Gaelic (Celts), and possibly Germanic (Anglo-Saxon)... No obfuscation there whatsoever.

No difference to the main point I made, though, that the RCC was in total control of all translations until the Protestant Reformation, with few notable exceptions. It is quite predictable that presbuteros would be translated in a way to justify their priesthood.

One must remember, the RCC preserved herself with all the power of empire, crushing all dissent with the force of the Roman state. Add to that the general illiteracy of the people, higher learning controlled by the RCC, She was largely taken at her word regarding the Word of God. Not because she was worthy of trust, but rather because there was no way to oppose her.

153 posted on 05/23/2008 8:06:55 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1; topcat54
Latin in England

Of course, precisely because of the multiplicity and poor development of the vernacular languages. The movement away from Latin is one of Vatican II worst mistakes.

154 posted on 05/23/2008 8:33:27 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson