/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>557745

Well, they don't anymore…

>>557745

The sermons and teaching were in local tongues obviously. As for the language of the mass, I don't think you understand how catholic mass used to work. The people couldn't hear the priest, that' wasn't the point. Until 1969, there was no concept of 'participation of the faithful', just like there's none even today in Easter rites. People were instructed to pray while the priest said the mass and adore the Blessed Sacrament during consecration. If you walk into a traditional catholic low mass with no choir, you will hear absolute silence.

>>557754

They still do sometimes a d they did for over a thoisand years

You can go to mass anywhere in the world, it doesn't matter the language, you know what's going on and that's good enough.

>>557756

So are you saying rhey couldn't even hear the priest? And either way they can't understand is language, you don't learn everything from street preaching

Also didn't the catholics kill the guy that translated the Bible to english and it was illegal for parents to teach their kids "Our Father" in english?

>>557756

If that were the case, wouldn't it be better to speak in tongues, since that IS a gift of the Holy Spirit?

>>557761

Do you know what speaking in tongues is? It's not Pentecostal babbling. It's speaking in a manner where people who speak various languages understand you. And I've never heard of that happening after Pentecost or anyone other than the Apostles doing it.

As St. Augustine said:

>"whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."(Tract. xxxii in Joan)

Also:

>Thus, tongues are a sign not for those who believe but for unbelievers" (I Cor. 14:22)

So why would anyone 'speaking in tongues' to an assembly of faithful Christians?

>>557760

Yes. they couldn't hear the priest while he was saying mass, they didn't need to, they didn't participate like people 'participate' today. They heard the homily of course.

You know why the Church was so strict? Because mistranslating a single word is dangerous. You know why it didn't let people debate about the Bible? Because if you treat the Bible as a literary text, you get a countless amount of interpretations ie countless possible heresies. It wasn't done because the Church was evil, it was done to protect the faithful. All Apostolic Churches have always had one single interpretation which was taught by the priests to the people.

>>557766

Well why didn't the catholic church translate it into english then? They have now but took them a long time

>>557832

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations

I suppose widespread illiteracy made these not as popular as today.

>>557745

Because if I met a Catholic from 500 or 1000 years ago we would not be able to understand each other, but we could pray together

>>557832

They did. But before the invention of the printing press, it was much more practical to simply have an authorised Latin version that everyone could read and understand, than many different English versions that could easily have all kinds of bits slipped in. Remember, everyone who was literate in those times knew Latin.