The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Vigilante, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5603 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 61 guests, and 457 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,738
Posts411,940
Members5,603
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: StuartK] #391848 03/05/13 11:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Otsheylnik Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
You have every right to argue that it did and then it took it out and it didn't matter, but you seem to want to deny that this is what happened.


My argument--and that of every reputable liturgical historian, Orthodox and Catholic--is the Old Roman Rite (the source of the Canon Missae, later carried down into the Romano-Frankish rite and thence to the Tridentine rite) never had an explicit descending epiclesis. So there never was one to remove.

The argument that lack of this or that, or the presence of something else, makes one rite better than another also puts me in mind of Taft's analogy of rite to language: some languages have articles, others don't. Removing articles from those that have them, or adding them to those that don't, doesn't improve anything, but simply causes that language to cease to be itself.


Who is reputable? Taft and Vassa Larin, and anyone else who shows up at Orientale Lumen, but not Fortescue, Congar, etc?

The problem is where the Old Roman Rite begins...it is the explicitly eastern rites obviously used in Justin Martyr's period in Rome? Is it Hippolytus's? Is it only the later version re sans explicit epiclesis? The basic problem is that you seem to want to define the Roman rite as beginning from about the sixth century, whereas I take Roman rite to be whatever rite was used in Rome at whatever time; and pre-sixth century, these appear to have had an explicit epiclesis.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Otsheylnik] #391855 03/06/13 01:05 AM
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,157
Fr. Deacon Lance Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
The main "deformity" of the "traditional" Roman rite is it's lack of an explicit epiclesis.


How about main "difference"? What if a Latin liturgical scholar said the main "deformity" of the Byzantine rite is it's lack of an implicit epiclesis?

Whatever the earlier Roman rite had, and we cannot be sure hat it had, the Roman Canon was good enough for St. Gregory the Great and St Nicholas Cabasilas it should be good enough for modern Orthodox.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: ajk] #391858 03/06/13 01:47 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
reputable-isn't that a weasal word?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Searched the link and "reputable" is not found, not listed as a weasal word.
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Btw, I can't remember which Latin grammarian said Latin didn't need an article. He was proved wrong, of course, in that Late Latin adapted one, and all the Romance languages have them

In that link, however, generalizations and non sequitur statements are listed as weasal words.

But back to "reputable" -- an article What Are Weasel Words? does not list it either and even concludes:
Quote
For writers, review your own writing and try to remove weasel words wherever you can or back them up with solid, useful, quantifiable information. Not only will your writing be stronger, but it's easier to brand yourself as a reputable source of information for which your readership will return.
[emphasis added]

If it matters so much:
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by StuartK

The argument that lack of this or that, or the presence of something else, makes one rite better than another also puts me in mind of Taft's analogy of rite to language: some languages have articles, others don't. Removing articles from those that have them, or adding them to those that don't, doesn't improve anything, but simply causes that language to cease to be itself.


Quote
Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat Our language does not require an article
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (c. 35 – c. 100), Institutio Oratoria "Institutes of Oratory", Bk I Chap. 4. Sect. 19

When Quintilianus wrote this already the frequency of ille had moved it from strict demonstrative use, used by all the literary languages that grew out of Latin for their article. Ironically, a more literary use in Latin, "ipse", which continued in Medieval Latin, survives only in dialect like Sardinian. Likewise all adopted unum as the indefinite article. Thus it follows, sequitur, that Latin speakers belied Quintilianus boast, and didn't agree with Fr. Taft's generalization. Especially as Romanian, one of the more Latin of the Romance languages, adapted several articles.

Last edited by IAlmisry; 03/06/13 01:50 AM.
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: RussianCath] #391860 03/06/13 02:03 AM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Roman Interloper Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by RussianCath
Also, Brother in Christ, Roman Interloper, please do not presume to speak for traditionalist Catholics when you criticize them all for being no-nothings-I know for a fact that this is not true, knowing many myself. Some unfortunately, are like that, but NOT all.


I'm not presuming to speak for them for two reasons:

1. I used to be one. There is no question of presumption; I've seen it all first hand and I've participated in it. I don't say that they're "know-nothings", however, merely that they are liturgically ignorant (and for the most part blissfully so).

2. To make an observation of a faction's characteristics is not to presume to speak for it.

The simple fact of the matter is that most traditionalist Roman Catholics are woefully ignorant of liturgical history and development, and in that observation I include those who presume to try to teach others how the development of the Roman Rite unfolded. They heavily rely upon disinformative tracts, pamphlets, and other shallow polemical works, not to mention misinformation related to one another ad nauseam via word-of-mouth.

Quote
If you wish to criticize both the Roman Traditionalists and the old Roman Liturgy for its "deformity", the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, please be fair and criticize the Russian Old Believers as well, who are also devoted to their old, "deformed" liturgy-and in some places even kept alive the use of the "deformed" Roman Canon in the Russian Old Rite-or, criticize the Armenians, who love the additions that came to their Liturgy from the Roman practice.

The Roman Canon is ancient, the prayers surrounding it are beautiful and raise one to God, no matter how "recent" they are in Church history compared to some prayers in the Eastern Liturgies.


I'm not talking about the Roman Canon or the "old" Roman Rite. I thought that was clear. I was talking about the previous form of the Roman Rite, contained in the Missal of 1962, but more broadly about the so-called "Tridentine" form of the Roman Rite. That is hardly the same thing as the ancient Roman Rite. The Tridentine form of the Roman Rite was the canonization of a Rite whose beauty was lost beneath ages of Gallican barnacles and penitential excesses. The "Old" Roman Rite disappeared a long time ago.

I can't speak to the liturgy of Russian Orthodox "Old Believers"; I haven't the slightest idea who they are or what that involves.

Quote
I've attended old Roman "High Mass" many times in my life and was nothing short of impressed by the attentiveness, devotion, and ACTIVE participation of the faithful, all singing the Liturgy together-it was just like the faithful singing the Liturgy together in a fervent eastern church. I said to myself, no wonder there was such stubborn opposition to the supression of this rite when the Novus Ordo came out.


I've seen the same on very rare occasions, the exception to the rule. But that's neither here nor there, in any event.

Quote
I often hear critisism after critisism of tradtional Catholics for their ignorance, lack of liturgical spirit, etc...and nothing but praise for Eastern Catholics & Orthodox-yet, having done the Church rounds myself, I OFTEN find what everyone is criticizing the trad. Romans for, the Easterners are doing as well and worse. I've seen everthing from faithful totally ignoring what was going on in the Liturgy due to having to light 5 million candles(I'm exaggerating of course) and venerating EVERY icon in the Church, to standing or sitting absolutely silent and not muttering the slightest response to anything the priest has sung, letting the choir do EVERYTHING, to sitting down in a corner of the Church for a "chat" about how life is treating you right as the priest is about to distribute the Holy Mysteries-this last was in a ROCOR church too, I couldn't believe it!


But you seem to be criticizing the practices of worshippers in attendance at the liturgy as opposed to the liturgy, itself. I don't fault liturgies for the way people behave at them. In any event, I'm not sure lack of uniformity of worshipful behaviour is necessarily a bad thing.

Quote
So, please, don't be so quick to criticise-we ALL need reform in some ways, and perhaps some more beautiful prayers can be added to the Roman Liturgy in the future (I wish the Monogenes Hymn would be added!), but the Roman Liturgy is still after all these centuries nourishing the Roman faithful-don't fix what ain't broke.


But it is broken, and the Vatican has advanced an effort to repair the damage. My concern is that the approach of the "trads" is not, perhaps, the best way to do it. In the sense of recapturing a sense of reverence, okay...not that I'm convinced that the "reverence" of the do-wop, hula-hoop era is the sort of reverence we want to restore, but rather a more profound reverence that restores in the minds and hearts of the people the essential notion that the liturgy is truly the work of the people. That goes far beyond "shushing" in church and wearing your best hat and making a perfect sign of the Cross upon genuflecting as holy water droplets fall on your perfectly-polished loafers.

Once again, I haven't suggested that Catholics mimick the Orthodox, only that there is much in Eastern liturgy that can be instructive as we attempt to repair our Roman Rite. Much more than can even be found in our pre-Vatican II past.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: StuartK] #391861 03/06/13 02:12 AM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Roman Interloper Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by StuartK
Actually, Russia is becoming more "traditionalist", in the sense of nostalgically longing for a vanished (and generally non-existent) past; this appeals to the sensibility of Latin traditionalists, who likewise long for a vanished (and generally non-existent) past; this allows them to overlook the reality of life in Russia today, which is generally the antithesis of Christian.


You got it. Well said.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Fr. Deacon Lance] #391862 03/06/13 02:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Otsheylnik Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
The main "deformity" of the "traditional" Roman rite is it's lack of an explicit epiclesis.


How about main "difference"? What if a Latin liturgical scholar said the main "deformity" of the Byzantine rite is it's lack of an implicit epiclesis?


By removing or deemphasising the epiclectic character of the anaphora, the Roman rite represents a western tendency towards a shallow pneumatology. That's the problem. As one Roman catechist described it to me, you could catechise on the Mass without ever mentioning the Holy Spirit. In this the Liturgy's representation and role in Trinitarian union is neglected and obscured.

Last edited by Otsheylnik; 03/06/13 02:22 AM.
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Fr. Deacon Lance] #391863 03/06/13 02:22 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
The main "deformity" of the "traditional" Roman rite is it's lack of an explicit epiclesis.


How about main "difference"? What if a Latin liturgical scholar said the main "deformity" of the Byzantine rite is it's lack of an implicit epiclesis?

Whatever the earlier Roman rite had, and we cannot be sure hat it had, the Roman Canon was good enough for St. Gregory the Great and St Nicholas Cabasilas it should be good enough for modern Orthodox.

That's like saying we should swallow Ex Quo
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14exquo.htm
and Pastor Aeternus because we previously could humor the more extravagant claims of Rome before its archbishop crossed the line to become supreme pontiff.

Since the "supreme pontiffs" haven't seen fit to leave well enough alone:
Quote
That in the Liturgy the Invocation should occur after the words of Institution is only one more case of many which show that people were not much concerned about the exact instant at which all the essence of the sacrament was complete. They looked upon the whole Consecration-prayer as one simple thing. In it the words of Institution always occur (with the doubtful exception of the Nestorian Rite); they believed that Christ would, according to His promise, do the rest. But they did not ask at which exact moment the change takes place. Besides the words of Institution there are many other blessings, prayers, and signs of the cross, some of which came before and some after the words, and all, including the words themselves, combine to make up the one Canon of which the effect is Transubstantiation. So also in our baptism and ordination services, part of the forms and prayers whose effect is the sacramental grace comes, in order of time, after the essential words. It was not till Scholastic times that theologians began to discuss the minimum of form required for the essence of each sacrament.
The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
and has made an issue of it/neglected its liturgics, well, we're not dealing with the situation of the days of St. Gregory the Great. I'm inclined to go with St. Nicholas' minimum approach, but those who approved the WRO DL have found otherwise, so I'll defer to their authority and judgement.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Roman Interloper] #391865 03/06/13 03:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
J
JDC Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
merely that they are liturgically ignorant (and for the most part blissfully so).


And that it stopped at ignorance is a fact for which we must persistently thank God. Surely there is little more horrible than a church full of liturgical experts. In fact, let us all pray in earnest that this time of ignorance may yet lapse back into a time of indifference, when people may simply pray without fussing endlessly about the possibility that they're doing it wrong.

I am all for liturgical excellence, but the fact that any significant part of the Catholic faithful have moved from obliviousness to ignorance as concerns the liturgy is proof of a massive failing on the part of their shepherds.

Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
But it is broken, and the Vatican has advanced an effort to repair the damage. My concern is that the approach of the "trads" is not, perhaps, the best way to do it.


In fact, going on about this at all is rather like complaining that your taxi driver did a poor job on your appendectomy.

Last edited by JDC; 03/06/13 03:42 AM.
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: JDC] #391868 03/06/13 04:12 AM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Roman Interloper Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Touche'.


Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: IAlmisry] #391875 03/06/13 12:14 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Quote
Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat Our language does not require an article
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (c. 35 – c. 100), Institutio Oratoria "Institutes of Oratory", Bk I Chap. 4. Sect. 19

When Quintilianus wrote this already the frequency of ille had moved it from strict demonstrative use, used by all the literary languages that grew out of Latin for their article. Ironically, a more literary use in Latin, "ipse", which continued in Medieval Latin, survives only in dialect like Sardinian. Likewise all adopted unum as the indefinite article. Thus it follows, sequitur, that Latin speakers belied Quintilianus boast, and didn't agree with Fr. Taft's generalization. Especially as Romanian, one of the more Latin of the Romance languages, adapted several articles.
Thanks for the quote and source.

Instead of a backward inference from the derivative (modern) Romance languages to Latin to see how it evolved, let's look at present day usage showing the actual culmination of the alleged adaptation of the articles. Go to the Vatican website and take your pick. For instance The Light of the East :
Quote
1. The light of the East has illumined the universal Church, from the moment when "a rising sun" appeared above us (Lk 1:78): Jesus Christ, our Lord, whom all Christians invoke as the Redeemer of man and the hope of the world

Now, light up the Latin with its corresponding, needed articles, ORIENTALE LUMEN:
Quote
1. Orientale Lumen, quo ex tempore sol nobis comparuit “oriens ex alto” (Luc. 1, 78) nempe Iesus Christus noster Dominus, quem cuncti Christiani invocant hominis Redemptorem spemque orbis, universalem collustravit Ecclesiam.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus appears to have been prophetic.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: ajk] #391884 03/06/13 07:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Quote
Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat Our language does not require an article
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (c. 35 – c. 100), Institutio Oratoria "Institutes of Oratory", Bk I Chap. 4. Sect. 19

When Quintilianus wrote this already the frequency of ille had moved it from strict demonstrative use, used by all the literary languages that grew out of Latin for their article. Ironically, a more literary use in Latin, "ipse", which continued in Medieval Latin, survives only in dialect like Sardinian. Likewise all adopted unum as the indefinite article. Thus it follows, sequitur, that Latin speakers belied Quintilianus boast, and didn't agree with Fr. Taft's generalization. Especially as Romanian, one of the more Latin of the Romance languages, adapted several articles.
Thanks for the quote and source.

Instead of a backward inference from the derivative (modern) Romance languages to Latin to see how it evolved, let's look at present day usage showing the actual culmination of the alleged adaptation of the articles. Go to the Vatican website and take your pick. For instance The Light of the East :
Quote
1. The light of the East has illumined the universal Church, from the moment when "a rising sun" appeared above us (Lk 1:78): Jesus Christ, our Lord, whom all Christians invoke as the Redeemer of man and the hope of the world

Now, light up the Latin with its corresponding, needed articles, ORIENTALE LUMEN:
Quote
1. Orientale Lumen, quo ex tempore sol nobis comparuit “oriens ex alto” (Luc. 1, 78) nempe Iesus Christus noster Dominus, quem cuncti Christiani invocant hominis Redemptorem spemque orbis, universalem collustravit Ecclesiam.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus appears to have been prophetic.

LOL. No, the Vatican has just been shown emulative: ever since the "Renaissance" it has adopted the norms of usage dictated by the likes of Marcus Fabius Qunitilianus, an artifice even before his day.

And that's not even pointing out the fact of the Vorlage: the mother tongue of the author of Lumen Orientale, Polish-not a Romance language-doesn't have articles. Quite different from those who learned their Latin from their mothers' tongue.

One need to infer back from the Romance languages: we have the texts in Latin which document the development.

Last edited by IAlmisry; 03/06/13 07:28 PM.
Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: IAlmisry] #391900 03/07/13 12:19 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
LOL. No, the Vatican has just been shown emulative: ever since the "Renaissance" it has adopted the norms of usage dictated by the likes of Marcus Fabius Qunitilianus, an artifice even before his day.

And that's not even pointing out the fact of the Vorlage: the mother tongue of the author of Lumen Orientale, Polish-not a Romance language-doesn't have articles. Quite different from those who learned their Latin from their mothers' tongue.

One need to infer back from the Romance languages: we have the texts in Latin which document the development.


But for all the laughing, the articles weren't present, were they? "emulative" -- How did you learn to speak? "Vorlage...Polish" -- as I see it you're making our (JPII for Polish and me and Quintilianus for Latin) point: "Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat Our language does not require an article." And note, from the website what's missing:

Orientale Lumen (May 2, 1995)
[English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Spanish]

Consider the (Der das des Dem das Die ...) German Luther's
"Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum."
aliter dictum "95 Theses", in 31 October 1517 article-less Latin.("It was not until January 1518 that friends of Luther translated the 95 Theses from Latin into German...")

There is some evidence of Latin usage developing articles as it evolved into the various Romance languages. That tells me the Romance languages wanted articles. Like branches of the Latin tree they, but how did the trunk and main shoot continue?

Evidence abounds of a present day Latin usage and understanding that does not show, does not require, the article. What is the Late Latin evidence then for the article adaptation and how did it continue thereafter, even to the present? Show the necessity, the need, the requirement, the overwhelming usage that Latin adapt an article to disprove "Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat" and have the non removed from your sequiturs.


Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Slavipodvizhnik] #395142 06/02/13 12:42 AM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10
R
Robert Pauly Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10
The Popes after Vatican II, especially John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, realize the Church needs to learn from all aspects including and most especially the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

This is because of isolation and ignorance of the 'Western or Roman Rite' that had cut itself away from its 'Eastern' siblings that caused a rivalry that is ongoing to this day.

If this 'rift' can be healed the problems from the past can be learned from to prevent another 1054 Schism that caused the East and West to be isolated from each other when it was desperately needed, most especially seen during the Crusades when the Muslims took over the Holy Land and needed help protecting the land from invasion.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: Slavipodvizhnik] #395149 06/02/13 12:52 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
8IronBob Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Well. At least within the last two or three decades, there has been a much larger acceptance between the East and West in terms of each others' traditions and customs. There are some Westerners like me that have found better faith in the Byzantine tradition over time, and I'd say I have a lot in common with Pope Francis when it comes to having this understanding and passion for the East. Heck, I feel that I was able to pick up on Church Slavonic way, way better than I was able to catch on to Latin. Wow, now I'm starting to believe that I was baptized and Confirmed in the wrong Rite if I somehow feel that I'm more in line with Eastern Spirituality. All in all, as I am Catholic as it is, I'm sure that there should be that full union between West and East, and that we find true unity with one another.

As the hymn goes "This new commandement, I give to you, that you love one another as I have so loved you." - We have just become so divided since 1054 to present day, that we need to get back to what made Christianity what it was from the earliest Church. We were taught this during the Feast of the Holy Fathers of the First Nicene Council a few weeks ago, and we should have that reminder of how we were united, and that we would never face this divide and secularism as a result. Where have those teachings gone from modern society? I'll never know.

Re: Role of the Catholic Church [Re: ajk] #395168 06/03/13 11:23 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
IAlmisry Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
LOL. No, the Vatican has just been shown emulative: ever since the "Renaissance" it has adopted the norms of usage dictated by the likes of Marcus Fabius Qunitilianus, an artifice even before his day.

And that's not even pointing out the fact of the Vorlage: the mother tongue of the author of Lumen Orientale, Polish-not a Romance language-doesn't have articles. Quite different from those who learned their Latin from their mothers' tongue.

One need to infer back from the Romance languages: we have the texts in Latin which document the development.


But for all the laughing, the articles weren't present, were they? "emulative" -- How did you learn to speak? "Vorlage...Polish" -- as I see it you're making our (JPII for Polish and me and Quintilianus for Latin) point: "Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat Our language does not require an article." And note, from the website what's missing:

Orientale Lumen (May 2, 1995)
[English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Spanish]

Consider the (Der das des Dem das Die ...) German Luther's
"Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum."
aliter dictum "95 Theses", in 31 October 1517 article-less Latin.("It was not until January 1518 that friends of Luther translated the 95 Theses from Latin into German...")

There is some evidence of Latin usage developing articles as it evolved into the various Romance languages. That tells me the Romance languages wanted articles. Like branches of the Latin tree they, but how did the trunk and main shoot continue

With articles-the indefinite article already appears in Cicero, and the definite article (or rather, definite articles-because Cicero didn't consecrate the usage, various devices were made use of) abounds, starting in the Classical Age and increasing until the Renaissance, where such usage was prescribed.

Originally Posted by ajk

Evidence abounds of a present day Latin usage and understanding that does not show, does not require, the article.

Same in English. Read the head lines.

Originally Posted by ajk

What is the Late Latin evidence then for the article adaptation and how did it continue thereafter, even to the present? Show the necessity, the need, the requirement, the overwhelming usage that Latin adapt an article to disprove "Nostra lingua articulum non desiderat" and have the non removed from your sequiturs.

Read pre-Renaissance Latin not done in slavish imitation of normalized Ciceronian usage.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3