Brother Alexis Bugnolo
bob
Some days ago I responded to a post from Johannes Patruus regarding
"Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar", by Brother Alexis Bugnolo, editor/webmaster
of the Franciscan Archive, which also published/posted the grammar. In my
letter I objected to what I considered the antisemitic content of Bugnolo's
note on the phrase "perfidus Iudaeus".
Since that time I have corresponded with Bugnolo andwith a member of the
Franciscan community at Convento San Francisco in La Paz, Bolivia. The
results of that correspondence are worth promulgating - both for
thoroughness and for fairness.
First my letter to Alexis Bugnolo:
Lucius Alter Fratri Alexi s.p.d.
In tuo libro nuncupato "Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar" invenitur caput
nominatum
A NOTE ON THE LATIN PHRASE perfidus Iudaeus, cui sensus et argumentum, ut
mihi videtur, et caritati et rationi desunt.
And thus without identical causes, hatred has no
> heritage.
Haec sententia est argumentum infelix ad quaestiones conscientiae dubias
pertinens. Odium, non sine haereditate, memoriae posteris traditur. Verba
imprudentia et rationes sine caritate, quae memoriam odiorum conservant,
bellum omnium contra omnes gerunt ut errores melius obliiviscendosve
corrigendosve recordemur potius quam vincula misericordiae communia quae, ut
plurimi putant, ad nos in imagine Dei ligandos pertineant.
The rejection of the Jewish
> Messiah by the Jews was thus aptly described in the liturgy and ecclesiastical
> texts as an act of treachery disbelief. The term perfidus Iudaeus thus refers
> properly, in a Catholic context, to the individual, who adopting or retaining
> the Law and its observances after the Ascension of Christ, rejected Christ's
> claims to be the Son of God unreasonably and unjustly.
Illae priores sententiae, quarum me graviter paenitet, sunt tua doctrina sed
nullum mihi est dubium quin Ecclesia, cuius doctrina sapientiaque in spiritu
caritatis et misericordiae omnibus aevis et omnibus hominum erroribus
superstare debent, hanc Scripturae interpretationem a se reiiciat.
> That the Jewish Nation endures to this day the effects of the sin of their
> forebears, especially of the rabbis, who to cement their rejection of their
> own Messiah, excluded inspired books of the Old Testament (Wisdom, Maccabees,
> etc.), and composed over the centuries a commentary on the Law, the Talmud,
> which reinterpreted the accepted meaning of the Moses and the Prophets in an
> anti-Christian manner, is an undoubted fact, testified to by the history and
> events of the last 2000 years: they remain without prophets, revelation,
> without a Temple, without any possibility of fulfilling the proscriptions of
> the Law. Many Jews have fallen into superstition and diabolism, through the
> practices of the kabbalah: belief in the non-existence or non-eternity of
> Hell, of reincarnation, in the ontological superiority of the racial Jew to
> the non-Jew, are commonplace.
Et quid dicatur de discipulis qui divisionem praeter unitatem serunt?
If the Church and Her representatives would ever forget the sin of the
Jewish
> People of old, who rejected their own Messiah, it would be a most tragic
> offense against His brethren according to the flesh. Moreover, it is the very
> central dogma of Christianity, that the God of Israel became a Jew to save
> both Jew and Gentile. Thus, to exclude the Jewish People from salvation would
> be an extreme offence against the Divine Mercy.
Hac ratione mihi videris melior causarum dubiarum disceptator quam filius
Sancti Francisci. Dono verborum, quoniam tu odium vetus et ignorantiam
odiosam conservas, magnopere abuteris. Recte dixisti Christum Iudaeum factum
esse, sed ego tibi Dominum in Templo, qui sit pax et caritas, sanguinem
pristinum pro lege Abraham et Moysis et ab manu sacerdotis Iudaaei fudisse
dico.
Haec verba Sancti Thomae tibi commendo:
ut per rivulos, non statim in mare, eligas introire, quia per
faciliora ad difficiliora oportet devenire. Haec est ergo monitio mea et
instructio tua. Tardiloquum te esse iubeo et tarde ad locutorium accedentem;
conscientiae puritatem amplectere. Orationi vacare non desinas; cellam
frequenter diligas si vis in cellam vinariam introduci.
Valetudinem tuam fac ut cures.
Dabam Fidepoli (Urbe Sanctae Fidei Sancti Francisci).A.D. VIII Kal. Dec.
His response:
> Lucius Alter Fratri Alexi s.p.d.
>
> In tuo libro nuncupato "Ecclesiastical Latin
> Grammar" invenitur caput
> nominatum
> A NOTE ON THE LATIN PHRASE perfidus Iudaeus, cui
> sensus et argumentum, ut
> mihi videtur, et caritati et rationi desunt.
>
> And thus without identical causes, hatred has no
> > heritage.
>
> Haec sententia est argumentum infelix ad quaestiones
> conscientiae dubias
> pertinens. Odium, non sine haereditate, memoriae
> posteris traditur. Verba
> imprudentia et rationes sine caritate, quae memoriam
> odiorum conservant,
> bellum omnium contra omnes gerunt ut errores melius
> obliiviscendosve
> corrigendosve recordemur potius quam vincula
> misericordiae communia quae, ut
> plurimi putant, ad nos in imagine Dei ligandos
> pertineant.
Verae sententia! Sed argumentum meum est "sine causis
identicalibus odio non est causa vigens hereditaria"
non "sine causis identicalibus odio non est
hereditas", quoniam in lingua anglica "heritage"
equivocat.
>
> The rejection of the Jewish
> > Messiah by the Jews was thus aptly described in
> the liturgy and ecclesiastical
> > texts as an act of treachery disbelief. The term
> perfidus Iudaeus thus refers
> > properly, in a Catholic context, to the
> individual, who adopting or retaining
> > the Law and its observances after the Ascension of
> Christ, rejected Christ's
> > claims to be the Son of God unreasonably and
> unjustly.
>
> Illae priores sententiae, quarum me graviter
> paenitet, sunt tua doctrina sed
> nullum mihi est dubium quin Ecclesia, cuius doctrina
> sapientiaque in spiritu
> caritatis et misericordiae omnibus aevis et omnibus
> hominum errores
> superstare debent, hanc Scripturae interpretationem
> a se reiiciat.
>
Gatis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > That the Jewish Nation endures to this day the
> effects of the sin of their
> > forebears, especially of the rabbis, who to cement
> their rejection of their
> > own Messiah, excluded inspired books of the Old
> Testament (Wisdom, Maccabees,
> > etc.), and composed over the centuries a
> commentary on the Law, the Talmud,
> > which reinterpreted the accepted meaning of the
> Moses and the Prophets in an
> > anti-Christian manner, is an undoubted fact,
> testified to by the history and
> > events of the last 2000 years: they remain
> without prophets, revelation,
> > without a Temple, without any possibility of
> fulfilling the proscriptions of
> > the Law. Many Jews have fallen into superstition
> and diabolism, through the
> > practices of the kabbalah: belief in the
> non-existence or non-eternity of
> > Hell, of reincarnation, in the ontological
> superiority of the racial Jew to
> > the non-Jew, are commonplace.
>
> Et quid dicatur de discipulis qui divisionem praeter
> unitatem serunt?
Non est divisio intra Christianibus et Judaeis nisi
fides in Christo: quapropter est semper penes
voluntatibus Judaeorum tollere hanc divisionem per
acceptare Christum Iesum Salvatorem Unicum
universalem.
>
> If the Church and Her representatives would ever
> forget the sin of the
> Jewish
> > People of old, who rejected their own Messiah, it
> would be a most tragic
> > offense against His brethren according to the
> flesh. Moreover, it is the very
> > central dogma of Christianity, that the God of
> Israel became a Jew to save
> > both Jew and Gentile. Thus, to exclude the Jewish
> People from salvation would
> > be an extreme offence against the Divine Mercy.
>
> Hac ratione mihi videris melior causarum dubiarum
> disceptator quam filius
> Sancti Francisci. Dono verborum, quoniam tu odium
> vetus et ignorantiam
> odiosam conservas, magnopere abuteris. Recte dixisti
> Christum Iudaeum factum
> esse, sed ego tibi Dominum in Templo, qui sit pax
> et caritas, sanguinem
> pristinum pro lege Abraham et Moysis et ab manu
> sacerdotis Iudaaei fundisse
> dico.
>
Quomodo intentiones meas judicas: nemo possit
judicare cor hominis nisi Deus.
Mihi est timor quod perdita est fides tua in Christo,
Magistro unico et Salvatore unico de genere humano.
Frater Alexis
I would note that he refers to himself here and elsewhere as a brother. He
claims to have taken private vows under Canon 1192: łA vow is public if it
is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful Superior; otherwise, it is
private.ł
My correspondent at Convento San Francisco writes:
> This would imply that that the man has no religious superior, and is therefore
> on his own.
My correspondent further writes:
> Private Vows means they made, not publicly, as in a religious community, but
> instead were made either alone or before a priest. He is choosing of his own
> free will to live the Rule of St. Francis and to call himself a Franciscan.
> The Rule, however, is a Rule for living the Gospel within a religious order.
> Although I suppose he can follow some parts of it (owning nothing of his own,
> fasting, etc.), a large part of the Rule dictates how the order is to function
> and how the brothers are to relate to one another. One person does not an
> order make.
Regarding Bugnolo's claim to being a "consecrated person of private vows",
"under the jurisdiction of the Most Reverend George Coleman, Roman Catholic
Bishop of Fall River, Massachusetts", this is a misleading status. The
Archbishop of Fall River is by no means to be construed as a religious
superior. My correspondent writes:
> This just reiterates the same. He make private vows and has the approval of
> his local ordinary to live as a łconsecrated person of private vows.˛ He is
> choosing to live the Rule (or portions of it) that was approved for St.
> Francis in 1223.
Bugnolo tells us that "...he is a former member of the Franciscan Friars of
the Immaculate (a reform of the OFM Conv...."
Of this my correspondent writes:
> The important word is łformer.˛ He was a (I think I read simply professed)
> member of a pontifical institute ( http://fi-mariaonline.org/ffi/ ) but has
> now left them and is living on his own.
He then goes on to write:
> I have only spent two days looking into this, but it appears that it is the
> personal web page of a man who has taken vows on his own and is choosing to
> call himself a Franciscan.
>
> To be fair, there are countless Franciscan orders, congregations, institutes,
> etc., not only in the Roman Catholic Church but also in the Anglican and
> Lutheran Churches. Beyond all these professed members, there are countless
> people who feel attracted to St. Francisą way of living the Gospel and who
> choose to call themselves Franciscans. They want to associate themselves with
> St. Francis ‹ although not in an organized group. We sometimes call these
> people łFourth Order Franciscans.˛ (Francis founded three orders, so those
> wanting to call themselves Franciscan but who cannot fit into any of the
> existing groups are naturally łFourth Order˛ people. There is no real
> Franciscan Fourth Order.) It appears that łBro.˛ Alexis falls into this
> category.
>
> All the best to you. Peace and all good.
In another post my Franciscan correspondent wrote to me:
> It is unfortunate, but the reality is that anyone can set up a web site
> claiming to be łCatholic˛ or łFranciscan˛ and then put on that web site
> anything they wish.
Hence it would seem that Bugnolo is a freelancer and that neither he nor his
Website fall under the supervision or authority of the Franciscan provincial
or the Archbishop of Fall River, which diocese, I must confess, has, in the
wake of Bernard Law, enough problems of its own without the intrusion of an
aberrant wannabe who professes bigotry and spurious theology in the name of
Francis, Bonaventure and Jesus Christ.
The cathedral in my town is manned to this day by Franciscan Friars.
Archbishop Lamy, during construction, ran out of money for the building
fund. When he couldn't raise the required amount among the Catholic
population, he went to the Jewish community, where he found not only the
money necessary for completion, but also a great generosity, charity and
humanitas. To this day there is, near the sanctuary of the cathedral, a Star
of David to commemorate the friendship, generosity, and good will of the
Jewish community.
Beyond this I have little to add to the Bugnolo debacle.
Bob
Mark Johnson
>Some days ago I responded to a post from Johannes Patruus regarding
>"Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar", by Brother Alexis Bugnolo, editor/webmaster
>of the Franciscan Archive, which also published/posted the grammar. In my
>letter I objected to what I considered the antisemitic content of Bugnolo's
>note on the phrase "perfidus Iudaeus".
>Since that time I have corresponded with Bugnolo andwith a member of the
>Franciscan community at Convento San Francisco in La Paz, Bolivia. The
>results of that correspondence are worth promulgating - both for
>thoroughness and for fairness.
In English, if you could. This isn't a question of learning Latin, but
of understanding (or misunderstanding) Catholic/Greek teaching on the
old and new Covenant. I can't believe you even think this belongs in
this ng. But since you insistently raised the issue - let me respond,
as people on Usenet do.
>>The rejection of the Jewish
>> Messiah by the Jews was thus aptly described in the liturgy and ecclesiastical
>> texts as an act of treachery disbelief. The term perfidus Iudaeus thus refers
>> properly, in a Catholic context, to the individual, who adopting or retaining
>> the Law and its observances after the Ascension of Christ, rejected Christ's
>> claims to be the Son of God unreasonably and unjustly.
And what's more, not merely rejected The Promised Messiah, but
conspired to murder Him, unjustly, and refused to confess His
Resurrection from the dead. By denying the God of the old Covenants,
they continued to place themselves outside of that covenant, which
they had broken. The Covenant continues. And what Jews who dare . . to
convert, are even called . . . . . non-Jews by the 'true believers'
who reject Our Lord, and Savior.
It's as if to criticize Jewish converts, other Jews give the sense
that Jewishness is something one adopts as a mere philosophy, and
something that can be denied by censure.
>> That the Jewish Nation endures to this day the effects of the sin of their
>> forebears, especially of the rabbis, who to cement their rejection of their
>> own Messiah, excluded inspired books of the Old Testament (Wisdom, Maccabees,
>> etc.), and composed over the centuries a commentary on the Law, the Talmud,
>> which reinterpreted the accepted meaning of the Moses and the Prophets in an
>> anti-Christian manner, is an undoubted fact
That's why the OT given us by The Church is reliable, and those which
would rewrite things, not just the Protestant, may not be considered
so.
>> People of old, who rejected their own Messiah, it would be a most tragic
>> offense against His brethren according to the flesh. Moreover, it is the very
>> central dogma of Christianity, that the God of Israel became a Jew to save
>> both Jew and Gentile. Thus, to exclude the Jewish People from salvation would
>> be an extreme offence against the Divine Mercy.
They have excluded themselves. But those who do not, who convert to
Catholicism, are treated badly by those who won't. That's a problem
that need to be addressed - head on! It's a very serious matter. It
leads the enemies of a 'racialist nation', if some Jews perceive
themselves as such, to proclaim, I think prematurely, the dangers of
Zionism and a powerful Jewish state which would force itself on the
unwilling (a far cry from anything imaginable today).
>I would note that he refers to himself here and elsewhere as a brother. He
>claims to have taken private vows under Canon 1192: łA vow is public if it
>is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful Superior; otherwise, it is
>private.ł
. . .
>My correspondent further writes:
. . .
>> To be fair, there are countless Franciscan orders, congregations, institutes,
>> etc., not only in the Roman Catholic Church but also in the Anglican and
>> Lutheran Churches.
Get serious. Lutheran Franciscans? Franciscan orders that don't even
recognize the papacy?
That is, not Franciscans - but just as Anglicans want to _call_
themselves Catholic, without actually being Catholic, so some want to
_call_ themselves Franciscan, without being so. I think your
'correspondent' meant to say just that - in any language.
>> Beyond all these professed members, there are countless
>> people who feel attracted to St. Francisą way of living the Gospel and who
>> choose to call themselves Franciscans. They want to associate themselves with
>> St. Francis ‹ although not in an organized group. We sometimes call these
>> people łFourth Order Franciscans.˛ (Francis founded three orders, so those
>> wanting to call themselves Franciscan but who cannot fit into any of the
>> existing groups are naturally łFourth Order˛ people. There is no real
>> Franciscan Fourth Order.) It appears that łBro.˛ Alexis falls into this
>> category.
>> All the best to you. Peace and all good.
>In another post my Franciscan correspondent wrote to me:
>> It is unfortunate, but the reality is that anyone can set up a web site
>> claiming to be łCatholic˛ or łFranciscan˛ and then put on that web site
>> anything they wish.
>Hence it would seem that Bugnolo is a freelancer and that neither he nor his
>Website fall under the supervision or authority of the Franciscan provincial
>or the Archbishop of Fall River, which diocese, I must confess, has, in the
>wake of Bernard Law, enough problems of its own without the intrusion of an
>aberrant wannabe who professes bigotry and spurious theology in the name of
>Francis, Bonaventure and Jesus Christ.
It's not bigotry to simply remind one of Church teaching. The Jews are
not 'fine as they are'. They need to be converted. And those who
criticize, mock and slander those who do, need to be taken to task for
such diabolical behavior. No question. There's no question about that.
Again, I don't agree with warnings about Zionism, and a Jewish
'take-over' in the region. Right now, they are under the sword, from
every side. And it's not fair to them, or to accuse them of what might
be in their future. Land for peace is literally a non-starter, when
they have no more land to give away - assuming they really could have
afforded to lose what they already have lost. The greatest charity,
now, is to reject 'ecumenism', and the heresy of indifferentism, and
applaud those Jews who have converted to Catholicism, now and
historically, and encourage so many more to follow their example - no
matter what heresies and unbelief they may encounter at the local
'Catholic' parish (in a real sense, that's as beside the point as it
was, historically, when regions fell into heresy, but others did not).
>The cathedral in my town is manned to this day by Franciscan Friars.
>Archbishop Lamy, during construction, ran out of money for the building
>fund. When he couldn't raise the required amount among the Catholic
>population, he went to the Jewish community, where he found not only the
>money necessary for completion, but also a great generosity, charity and
>humanitas. To this day there is, near the sanctuary of the cathedral, a Star
>of David to commemorate the friendship, generosity, and good will of the
>Jewish community.
That isn't a trade one can make. One doesn't take the money of a
freemason, say, of the local shrine or club, and then say to them -
you, particularly, because of your financial contribution, need no
longer convert to Catholicism. You have, in other words, purchased . .
. your indulgence, and literally a ticket to Heaven, or so one is led
to believe. And that's not how God does things. Now it's one thing to
honor a contribution, with a plaque, or an ongoing friendship. But
friends care about each other, too. They don't lie to each other,
particularly about something which is more important than anything
else in this life - namely, the salvation of your eternal soul.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Johannes Patruus
Cognitor Arcani, & manifesti:
tu judicabis inter servos tuos
circa id, in quo erant inter se dissidentes.
(Alcoranus 39:46, tr. Marracci)
Johannes
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com...
John Sullivan
greatest commandment of them all is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself", with the implication of "Love thine enemy".
I don't see much evidence of love in this post.
And, yes, it is definitely off-topic in this grouop.
In message <ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com>, Mark Johnson
<1023...@compuserve.com> writes
>>claims to have taken private vows under Canon 1192: ³A vow is public if it
>>is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful Superior; otherwise, it is
>>private.³
>
>. . .
>
>>My correspondent further writes:
>
>. . .
>
>>> To be fair, there are countless Franciscan orders, congregations,
>>>institutes,
>>> etc., not only in the Roman Catholic Church but also in the Anglican and
>>> Lutheran Churches.
>
>Get serious. Lutheran Franciscans? Franciscan orders that don't even
>recognize the papacy?
>
>That is, not Franciscans - but just as Anglicans want to _call_
>themselves Catholic, without actually being Catholic, so some want to
>_call_ themselves Franciscan, without being so. I think your
>'correspondent' meant to say just that - in any language.
>
>
>>> Beyond all these professed members, there are countless
>>> people who feel attracted to St. Francis¹ way of living the Gospel and who
>>> choose to call themselves Franciscans. They want to associate
>>>themselves with
>>> St. Francis ‹ although not in an organized group. We sometimes call these
>>> people ³Fourth Order Franciscans.² (Francis founded three orders, so those
>>> wanting to call themselves Franciscan but who cannot fit into any of the
>>> existing groups are naturally ³Fourth Order² people. There is no real
>>> Franciscan Fourth Order.) It appears that ³Bro.² Alexis falls into this
>>> category.
>
>>> All the best to you. Peace and all good.
>
>>In another post my Franciscan correspondent wrote to me:
>
>>> It is unfortunate, but the reality is that anyone can set up a web site
>>> claiming to be ³Catholic² or ³Franciscan² and then put on that web site
--
John Sullivan
Please note that any disclaimer on email to me does not
apply, because I have not agreed with it. If your lawyers
disagree, please ask them to study the law of contract.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com...
>> bob <por...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> In English, if you could. This isn't a question of learning Latin, but
>> of understanding (or misunderstanding) Catholic/Greek teaching on the
>> old and new Covenant. I can't believe you even think this belongs in
>> this ng. But since you insistently raised the issue - let me respond,
>> as people on Usenet do.
>Dic: O Deus Conditor Coelorum, & terrae,
> Cognitor Arcani, & manifesti:
> tu judicabis inter servos tuos
> circa id, in quo erant inter se dissidentes.
>(Alcoranus 39:46, tr. Marracci)
>Johannes
Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
It included a note which was a _criticism_ of Islam, particularly the
historicity of the Koran. I see you've tried to quote this,
previously, on this latin ng, in defense of Islam. And you guys are,
essentially, left to insist, purely insist that - "Now it is obvious
that the book of Esther can not be trusted as a book revealed by God .
. . "
[http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6j72jn%24gra%40usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu]
So, just to keep the context, let me restate what I had written:
And what's more, not merely rejected The Promised Messiah, but
conspired to murder Him, unjustly, and refused to confess His
Resurrection from the dead. By denying the God of the old Covenants,
they continued to place themselves outside of that covenant, which
they had broken. The Covenant continues. And what Jews who dare . . to
convert, are even called . . . . . non-Jews by the 'true believers'
who reject Our Lord, and Savior.
It's as if to criticize Jewish converts, other Jews give the sense
that Jewishness is something one adopts as a mere philosophy, and
something that can be denied by censure.
>> which reinterpreted the accepted meaning of the Moses and the Prophets in an
>> anti-Christian manner, is an undoubted fact
That's why the OT given us by The Church is reliable, and those which
would rewrite things, not just the Protestant, may not be considered
so.
>> both Jew and Gentile. Thus, to exclude the Jewish People from salvation would
>> be an extreme offence against the Divine Mercy.
They have excluded themselves. But those who do not, who convert to
Catholicism, are treated badly by those who won't. That's a problem
that need to be addressed - head on! It's a very serious matter. It
leads the enemies of a 'racialist nation', if some Jews perceive
themselves as such, to proclaim, I think prematurely, the dangers of
Zionism and a powerful Jewish state which would force itself on the
unwilling (a far cry from anything imaginable today).
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>In message <ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com>, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> writes
>>bob <por...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> the Law and its observances after the Ascension of Christ, rejected Christ's
>>>> claims to be the Son of God unreasonably and unjustly.
>>And what's more, not merely rejected The Promised Messiah, but
>>conspired to murder Him, unjustly, and refused to confess His
>>Resurrection from the dead. By denying the God of the old Covenants,
>>they continued to place themselves outside of that covenant, which
>>they had broken. The Covenant continues. And what Jews who dare . . to
>>convert, are even called . . . . . non-Jews by the 'true believers'
>>who reject Our Lord, and Savior.
. . .
>>>money necessary for completion, but also a great generosity, charity and
>>>humanitas. To this day there is, near the sanctuary of the cathedral, a Star
>>>of David to commemorate the friendship, generosity, and good will of the
>>>Jewish community.
>>That isn't a trade one can make. One doesn't take the money of a
>>freemason, say, of the local shrine or club, and then say to them -
>>you, particularly, because of your financial contribution, need no
>>longer convert to Catholicism. You have, in other words, purchased . .
>>. your indulgence, and literally a ticket to Heaven, or so one is led
>>to believe. And that's not how God does things. Now it's one thing to
>>honor a contribution, with a plaque, or an ongoing friendship. But
>>friends care about each other, too. They don't lie to each other,
>>particularly about something which is more important than anything
>>else in this life - namely, the salvation of your eternal soul.
>I was always under the impression that the New Testament said that the
>greatest commandment of them all is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
>thyself", with the implication of "Love thine enemy".
Of course. But you don't mean that, yourself. See:
>I don't see much evidence of love in this post.
Now it's one thing to honor a contribution, with a plaque, or an
ongoing friendship. But friends care about each other, too. They don't
lie to each other, particularly about something which is more
important than anything else in this life - namely, the salvation of
your eternal soul.
>And, yes, it is definitely off-topic in this grouop.
And yet - here you are, commenting. And you have to expect I would
reply, being Catholic, and all that.
You know, there really is a connection between The Church, and the
present and recently historical use of Latin, and not just ecclesial
Latin. There wouldn't be a latin ng, in 2003, if it weren't for the
historical existence of the Roman Catholic Church. There wouldn't be
much of a society - period - if you want to take the broad view.
Peace.
Johannes Patruus
> "Johannes Patruus" <JPat...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com...
> >> bob <por...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> In English, if you could. This isn't a question of learning Latin, but
> >> of understanding (or misunderstanding) Catholic/Greek teaching on the
> >> old and new Covenant. I can't believe you even think this belongs in
> >> this ng. But since you insistently raised the issue - let me respond,
> >> as people on Usenet do.
>
>
> >Dic: O Deus Conditor Coelorum, & terrae,
> > Cognitor Arcani, & manifesti:
> > tu judicabis inter servos tuos
> > circa id, in quo erant inter se dissidentes.
> >(Alcoranus 39:46, tr. Marracci)
>
> >Johannes
>
> Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
> Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
Yes, that's the chappie, though his name seems to be subject to some
spelling variation.
> It included a note which was a _criticism_ of Islam, particularly the
> historicity of the Koran.
More than a note! For each section of the text, he supplied "Refutationes".
Johannes Offtopicus
Edward Casey
> "Johannes Patruus" <JPat...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:ba6csvk59l6ge0bl1...@4ax.com...
> >> bob <por...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> In English, if you could. This isn't a question of learning Latin,
but
> >> of understanding (or misunderstanding) Catholic/Greek teaching on the
> >> old and new Covenant. I can't believe you even think this belongs in
> >> this ng. But since you insistently raised the issue - let me respond,
> >> as people on Usenet do.
>
>
> >Dic: O Deus Conditor Coelorum, & terrae,
> > Cognitor Arcani, & manifesti:
> > tu judicabis inter servos tuos
> > circa id, in quo erant inter se dissidentes.
> >(Alcoranus 39:46, tr. Marracci)
(On topic):
Say: O God, Founder of the heavens and the earth,
Knower of both what is secret and what is evident:
You will judge among your servants
About that in which they disagree among themselves.
This is as universal and unexceptionable as the Pater Noster.
>
> >Johannes
>
> Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
> Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
The same, with possible spelling corrections to the author's name.
>
> It included a note which was a _criticism_ of Islam, particularly the
> historicity of the Koran. I see you've tried to quote this,
> previously, on this latin ng, in defense of Islam.
Whether it's in defense of Islam or not you have absolutely no way of
knowing. To my knowledge all of Johannes' postings from Marracci's version
have been without any comment whatsoever.
And you guys are,
> essentially, left to insist, purely insist that - "Now it is obvious
> that the book of Esther can not be trusted as a book revealed by God .
> . . "
>
[http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6j72jn%24gra%40usenet.srv.cis.pitt.e
du]
The book of Esther doesn't mention God.
Jews convert to Christianity, Christians convert to Judaism, sometimes
Jews even convert to Islam. Mormons convert to Secular Humanists,
Buddhists convert to Sikhism, Jains convert to Aryan supremacists,
Christine Jorgensen and George Bernard Shaw converted to Feminism,
vegetarians convert to carnivores (Atkins dieters) etc. This is their
right in non-theocratic nation states.
It's clear to me at least that you don't know the territory yet. Have a
look at these:
"Der Stern der Erlösung," Franz Rosenzweig (there is a masterful
translation by William Hallo)
"Judaism despite Christianity" Franz Rosenzweig and Eugen
Rosenstock-Huessy (letters between the eastern and western fronts circa
1916 C.E.)
"Judaism," "Christianity", ("Islam" forthcoming) Hans Küng, Tübingen
theologian (I think he considers himself Catholic)
Let's get back on topic,
Eduardus
John Sullivan
<1023...@compuserve.com> writes
>>I was always under the impression that the New Testament said that the
>>greatest commandment of them all is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
>>thyself", with the implication of "Love thine enemy".
>
>Of course. But you don't mean that, yourself.
Oh yes I do.
> See:
>
>
>>I don't see much evidence of love in this post.
>
>Now it's one thing to honor a contribution, with a plaque, or an
>ongoing friendship. But friends care about each other, too. They don't
>lie to each other, particularly about something which is more
>important than anything else in this life - namely, the salvation of
>your eternal soul.
What I do with my "eternal soul" is my business, and none of yours.
If you really do love your neighbour, you will leave him/her alone and
not try to convert him to your particular brand of mysticism.
>
>
>>And, yes, it is definitely off-topic in this grouop.
>
>And yet - here you are, commenting.
Yes, I'm trying to get you to shut up.
>And you have to expect I would
>reply, being Catholic, and all that.
I would expect you to expend your energies trying to get your church to
come into the modern world and start treating all humans as equals. This
is the year 2003, not 1003.
bob
> From: Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com>
> Reply-To: 1023...@compuserve.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:00:08 -0800
> Subject: Re: Brother Alexis Bugnolo
>
> In English, if you could. This isn't a question of learning Latin, but
> of understanding (or misunderstanding) Catholic/Greek teaching on the
> old and new Covenant. I can't believe you even think this belongs in
> this ng.
Bugnolo wrote his remarks not in a textbook of or treatise on theology or
hermaneutics, but in his book, Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar. As to whether
or not it belongs in this news group, the original notice, as indicated, was
for a Latin grammar. Regardless of this, however, you are singularly
unqualified to be either arbiter elegantiae or propugnaculum doctrinae.
> And what's more, not merely rejected The Promised Messiah, but
> conspired to murder Him, unjustly, and refused to confess His
> Resurrection from the dead.
You should get the staffing of your gospels in order: I recall a mob,
Caiphas, Pilate, and Jesus. I also have little recollection of hereditary or
racial guilt, sins of the father visited on the children scapegoating, etc,
as elements of Christian doctrine. Regarding the history of antisemitic
ideology in Christianity, you should perhaps familiarize yourself with the
Pauline-Petrine controversy on the relationship of new and old law, and
then, perhaps, to broaden your perspective and give yourself a little depth
in your understanding, you should perhaps continue with an excursion into
the Origen - Africanus controversy. You might even consider gaining a little
knowledge concerning the development of medieval Christian stereotypes of
Jews, the history and dynamics of persecution, and so forth. Above all you
should delve into the patristic tradition. There is much there to add
balance to your viewpoint.
"We have been taught that Jesus Christ is God's first born, and beyond that
said that He is the Word in whom every nation shared. And further we have
said that those who lived according to reason are Christians, even though
they have been thought atheists: as Socrates and Heraclitus did among the
Greeks, and men like them, and among the Jews Abraham, Ananias, and Azarias,
Misael, and Elias, and many others too numerous to name...(Justin Martyr,
Apologia XLVI, my translation).
"... Plato took from our teachers his assertion that God, who changed
hitherto formless matter, created the world. These were the words of Moses,
the first prophet... by the Divine Word all the world was made from that
substance spoken of previously by Moses. (op. cit., LIX)
"...And the...discourse on the Son of God in the Timaeus, in which Plato
writes: , "In the form of a cross he placed him in the universe," is derived
similarly from Moses..." (op. cit., LX)
Justin, who, incidentally, was not an armchair speculator, as his title
'Martyr" evidences, had a somewhat more inclusive notion of Christ and the
Christian message than do you, followed in the footsteps of the great
Greeks, especially the stoics, in designating Jesus as Logos Spermatikos.
> That's why the OT given us by The Church is reliable,
I would refer you to the history of the Coda to Daniel, which occurs in the
Septuagint and in the Douay version, but which has no extant Hebrew or
Aramaic original from which it might be derived. This Coda, now known to be
a much later - probably spurious addition - is an interesting chapter in the
formation of canons. The previously referenced controversy between Origen
and Africanus is an important document bot only for the understanding of the
processs of canonicization, but also for the development of both
antisemitism and reasoned response to it in Christian scholarship.
> They have excluded themselves.
If we are to reread Justi, Origen himself on the nature of creation, and the
Cappadocian recension under the two Gregories, as well as the writings of
Gregory of Nyssa on the apokatastasis, we will fid a very different and very
carefully reasoned position. No one is excluded.
> Get serious. Lutheran Franciscans? Franciscan orders that don't even
> recognize the papacy?
Shocking, isn't it? You should familiarize yourself with the Franciscan
positions surrounding the matter of the Bull Sunt inter nonnullos. The early
Franciscan challenge (Dolcanites et al. to Papal authority, ecclesiastical
worldliness, etc. is a refreshing intrusion into an otherwise dreary
subject.
> That is, not Franciscans - but just as Anglicans want to _call_
> themselves Catholic, without actually being Catholic, so some want to
> _call_ themselves Franciscan, without being so. I think your
> 'correspondent' meant to say just that - in any language.
No, that is not what he "meant" to say. Again, you should read some of the
literature on Anglicanism and familiarize yourself with the varying Roman
positions on Anglican succession, vis a vis the Henrican, the Edwardian, and
the Elizabethan communions. Also, you might, for a more recent viewpoint,
consider John Paul II's outreach to anglicans. Beyond that, for a more
comprehensive treatment of current Catholic attitudes toward sprituality,
the quest for truth, etc., I will refer you to Fides et Ratio. Simplicity
may, in some instances, be a virtue, but not when it requires us to prattle
on in the manner of simpletons. Here are some recent papal excerpts, which,
I think, exhibit more breadth and depth than do you:
Nosce te ipsum »
1. Fieri quidem potest ut, tam in Orientis orbe quam in Occidentis solis
plaga, iter quoddam dignoscatur quod, progredientibus saeculis eo usque
hominum genus perduxerit ut cum veritate paulatim congrediatur seque cum
illa componat. Hoc quidem iter sic explicatum est ‹ neque aliter accidere
potuit ‹ intra prospectum quendam singularis hominum conscientiae: quo
namque plenius res orbemque cognovit homo, eo magis ipsemet cognoscit se
unica in sua natura, eodemque tempore instans fit interrogatio de
significatione rerum suaeque ipsius exsistentiae. Quidquid se nobis obicit
veluti cognitionis nostrae argumentum, hanc ipsam ob causam evadit vitae
nostrae elementum. Admonitio illa Gnwqi seauton in superliminari inscripta
erat Delphis in templo, principalem ut veritatem testificaretur quae minima
omni homini sumenda erat regula quicumque inter res creatas se extollere
cupiebat veluti « hominem » scilicet « sui ipsius cognitorem ».
Candidus intuitus veteres in annales luculenter aliunde demonstrat, variis
in orbis regionibus multiplici humano distinctis cultu, exsistere eodem
tempore principales illas interrogationes quibus vita designatur hominum:
Quis egomet sum? Unde venio? Quoque vado? Cur mala adsunt? Quid nos manet
hanc post vitam? Haec quaesita reperiuntur in sacris Israelis scriptionibus,
at insunt etiam scriptis Veda necnon Avesta; detegimus ea in operibus
Confutii atque Lao-Tze, quemadmodum in praedicatione virorum Tirthankara
ipsiusque Buddhae; exsistunt similiter ex Homeri carminibus ac tragoediis
Euripidis et Sophoclis, perinde ac philosophicis in Platonis et Aristotelis
tractatibus. Hae nempe interrogationes sunt quae ex illa communi profluunt
inquisitione de sensu ipso quo numquam non hominis animus inquietatur: ex
responsione vero, quae talibus redditur rogationibus, directio pendet quae
vitae humanae est imprimenda.
3. Multiplices sunt facultates quibus uti potest homo ut veritatum
cognoscendarum foveat progressionem, unde exsistentiam suam humaniorem
reddat. Inter has philosophia eminet, quae recta adiuvat ut et interrogatio
ponatur de vitae sensu et ei responsio iam adumbretur: quapropter unum ipsa
reperitur nobiliorum hominis munerum. « Philosophiae » vox Graecam ad
originem « sapientiae amorem » designat. Etenim nata philosophia est atque
eo tempore enucleata quo coepit se ipsum homo interrogare de rerum causis
finibusque. Diversis quidem formis modisque demonstrat philosophia ad ipsam
hominis naturam pertinere veritatis cupiditatem. Innata est eius menti illa
proprietas ut de rerum percontetur causis etiamsi responsiones paulatim inde
redditae in formam quandam ingrediuntur quae diversas cultus humani species
inter se complere manifesto ostendit.
Impulsio vehemens illa, quam ad efformationem progressionemque culturae in
orbe Occidentali adhibuit philosophia, facere haud debet ut obliviscamur
quatenus ipsa quoque pervaserit vias etiam humanae vitae concipiendae ex
quibus Orientalis etiam vivit orbis. Cuique enim populo nativa est atque
pristina sapientia quae, tamquam verus animi culturarum thesaurus, eo tendit
ut exprimatur et rationibus potissimum philosophicis maturetur. Quam sit hoc
verum inde etiam comprobatur quod principalis quaedam philosophicae
scientiae figura, nostris etiam temporibus, deprehendi potest in iis
postulatis quibus leges Nationum et civitatum informantur ad socialem vitam
moderandam.
His quidem consideratis rebus, quemadmodum confirmavimus theologiae esse
sinceram cum philosophia necessitudinem redintegrare, ita similiter iterare
debemus philosophiae pro cogitationis bono et progressu recuperandam esse
cum theologia necessitudinem. Reperiet in ea non singulorum hominum
cogitationem, quae, quamvis alta locuplesque sit, unius personae tamen
limitibus et lineamentis circumscribitur, sed communis cogitationis
divitias. Theologia namque in veritate perquirenda, sua natura, nota
ecclesialitatis (123) sustentatur itemque Dei Populi traditione cum
multiformitate sapientiae et culturarum in fidei unitate.
Sedes Sapientiae iis qui sapientiae vestigandae dependunt vitam portus sit
tutus. Ad sapientiam iter, quod est postremum sincerumque omnis scientiae
propositum, ab omnibus impedimentis expediat intercedendo Ea quae, Veritatem
parturiens eandemque in corde servans, in sempiternum tota cum humanitate
ipsam communicavit.
Datum Romae, apud S. Petrum, die XIV mensis Septembris, in festo
Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis, anno MCMXCVIII, Pontificatus Nostri vicesimo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not bigotry to simply remind one of Church teaching. The Jews are
not 'fine as they are'. They need to be converted.
I will repeat to you what I wrote to Alexis Bugnolo:
Hac ratione mihi videris melior causarum dubiarum disceptator quam filius
Sancti Francisci. Dono verborum, quoniam tu odium vetus et ignorantiam
odiosam conservas, magnopere abuteris. Recte dixisti Christum Iudaeum factum
esse, sed ego tibi Dominum in Templo, qui sit pax et caritas, sanguinem
pristinum pro lege Abraham et Moysis et ab manu sacerdotis Iudaaei fudisse
dico.
Haec verba Sancti Thomae tibi commendo:
ut per rivulos, non statim in mare, eligas introire, quia per
faciliora ad difficiliora oportet devenire. Haec est ergo monitio mea et
instructio tua. Tardiloquum te esse iubeo et tarde ad locutorium accedentem;
conscientiae puritatem amplectere. Orationi vacare non desinas; cellam
frequenter diligas si vis in cellam vinariam introduci.
Think about it.
>
> That isn't a trade one can make. One doesn't take the money of a
> freemason, say, of the local shrine or club, and then say to them -
> you, particularly, because of your financial contribution, need no
> longer convert to Catholicism. You have, in other words, purchased . .
> . your indulgence, and literally a ticket to Heaven, or so one is led
> to believe. And that's not how God does things.
What illogical drivel! You apotheosize non sequitur and misinformation.
> But
> friends care about each other, too. They don't lie to each other,
> particularly about something which is more important than anything
> else in this life - namely, the salvation of your eternal soul.
Scarcely able to account for the vagaries of my own animula blandula, I
would consider it the height, or perhaps, the abyss of folly to to assume
that task for others.
I don't know how old you are, but your mode of argumentation, along with its
unsubstantiated vitriol, reveals an immaturity, an kind of intellectual
regression and atrophy which, I would hope, but must seriously doubt will be
remedied by time and experience.
Grow up, read and understand, learn a little more. Ignorance is not man's
birthright, although there will always be those who so espouse it.
Bob
Mark Johnson
>In message <bqfcsvo4jabl3rdm7...@4ax.com>, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> writes
>>>I was always under the impression that the New Testament said that the
>>>greatest commandment of them all is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
>>>thyself", with the implication of "Love thine enemy".
>>Of course. But you don't mean that, yourself.
>Oh yes I do.
No. I pointed you to what you said, immediately afterward:
>>>I don't see much evidence of love in this post.
>>Now it's one thing to honor a contribution, with a plaque, or an
>>ongoing friendship. But friends care about each other, too. They don't
>>lie to each other, particularly about something which is more
>>important than anything else in this life - namely, the salvation of
>>your eternal soul.
>What I do with my "eternal soul" is my business, and none of yours.
So - where's the love? It's just words to you. You don't mean it.
So - to "Oh yes I do", you really say - Oh no I don't.
>>>And, yes, it is definitely off-topic in this grouop.
>>And yet - here you are, commenting.
>Yes, I'm trying to get you to shut up.
So if someone disagrees - they should be censored?
You sound like a college professor.
>>And you have to expect I would
>>reply, being Catholic, and all that.
>I would expect you to expend your energies trying to get your church to
>come into the modern world and start treating all humans as equals. This
>is the year 2003, not 1003.
It seems like the time of the Emperors, if you ask me, with barbarism
around the world, 'clever' Islamic and pagans schemes in the UN,
nothing but corruption in state funded enterprises, and a 'gung-ho'
army in the US and Britain, at least, seemingly able to conquer
anywhere in the known world, and pressed into the service of
'democracy'. It's a time when an absolute right by the father is
replaced by an absolute right, but by the mother, to kill her own
children, and when the perversion of the court is not only known to
the populace, but popularly promoted so that it might be seen almost
as a virtue, in court.
Seems, in short, like everything old, is 'new' again. The Church,
instead, was new, and is new, in the face of everything that is old.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>> Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
>> Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
>The same, with possible spelling corrections to the author's name.
I'm curious why people here seem to know so much about this. Is it
just because it's a latin text? surely, there are many other other
latin texts.
>> essentially, left to insist, purely insist that - "Now it is obvious
>> that the book of Esther can not be trusted as a book revealed by God .
>> . . "
>>
>[http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6j72jn%24gra%40usenet.srv.cis.pitt.e
>du]
>The book of Esther doesn't mention God.
Umm . . . the thing is, the Book of Esther is canonical Scriptures.
"For Haman the Ag'agite, the son of Hammeda'tha, the enemy of all the
Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur,
that is the lot, to crush and destroy them"
Remember, in Esther: "slew seventy-five thousand of those who hated
them".
That's quite a few.
>> They have excluded themselves. But those who do not, who convert to
>> Catholicism, are treated badly by those who won't. That's a problem
>> that need to be addressed - head on! It's a very serious matter. It
>> leads the enemies of a 'racialist nation', if some Jews perceive
>> themselves as such, to proclaim, I think prematurely, the dangers of
>> Zionism and a powerful Jewish state which would force itself on the
>> unwilling (a far cry from anything imaginable today).
>Jews convert to Christianity, Christians convert to Judaism, sometimes
>Jews even convert to Islam. Mormons convert to Secular Humanists,
>Buddhists convert to Sikhism, Jains convert to Aryan supremacists,
>Christine Jorgensen and George Bernard Shaw converted to Feminism,
>vegetarians convert to carnivores (Atkins dieters) etc. This is their
>right in non-theocratic nation states.
It's an abuse of free will. But free will can be abused. Islam, on the
contrary, would not allow that. Neither does Communism. Under
Christendom, one didn't have to be Catholic. But it was encouraged,
quite obviously.
>"Judaism," "Christianity", ("Islam" forthcoming) Hans Küng
You NOT serious. Hans Kung?
>Let's get back on topic,
>Eduardus
This is precisely the topic you're eager to discuss, for some reason.
And permit me to correct you if I think you are wrong. I, personally,
think you need to take this to the religious ngs. I'm not going to
discuss the Sacraments on the dSLR group or the council of Trent on a
group devoted to computer database theory. Still, there's the
unmistakable debt owed by scholars of whatever variant of Latin to the
civilization of Christendom, based on fidelity to the papacy.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>> And what's more, not merely rejected The Promised Messiah, but
>> conspired to murder Him, unjustly, and refused to confess His
>> Resurrection from the dead.
>You should get the staffing of your gospels in order: I recall a mob,
>Caiphas, Pilate, and Jesus.
And a mob eager to find one way, and carrying on the conspiracy
recorded in Scriptures. The Temple leadership was offended by God, for
a long time, before He overturned the tables in that last week. They
lied about Him, tried to fool Him, and lied about Him after He Rose
from the dead.
>I also have little recollection of hereditary or
>racial guilt, sins of the father visited on the children scapegoating, etc,
>as elements of Christian doctrine.
Original sin, itself, is hereditary. And the Jews, historically,
killed many people - but by God's design (which means they were
right). As for 'racial guilt', well . . my point was apparently
Judaism just isn't racial or hereditary. It seems that a Jew who dares
to convert to Catholicism, is deemd by certain other Jews practically
a non-person, and certainly not a Jew. It's as if Judaism is like a
suit, you put on in the morning, or can forget to take on a trip.
>knowledge concerning the development of medieval Christian stereotypes of
>Jews
Based on what? Grabs for power, and promotion of heresy? Remember, The
Church is Israel in that those covenants, then, are fulfilled in that
of The Church, if not necessarily the insitutional church of today,
which is in ruins.
>the history and dynamics of persecution
The Jews killed many, many people. Book of Esther - remember? The Jews
persecute those Jews who dare convert . . to Catholicism. That's just
wrong.
I wish you could say - that's just wrong.
>and so forth. Above all you
>should delve into the patristic tradition. There is much there to add
>balance to your viewpoint.
By which you mean:
>Justin, who, incidentally, was not an armchair speculator, as his title
>'Martyr" evidences, had a somewhat more inclusive notion of Christ and the
>Christian message than do you
How so? What 'inclusion' do you find - in your own words? Elaborate if
you like.
>but which has no extant Hebrew or
>Aramaic original from which it might be derived. This Coda, now known to be
>a much later - probably spurious addition - is an interesting chapter in the
>formation of canons.
Well, the Prots complain of three sections, correct? What are you
referring to?
>> They have excluded themselves.
>If we are to reread Justi, Origen himself on the nature of creation, and the
>Cappadocian recension under the two Gregories, as well as the writings of
>Gregory of Nyssa on the apokatastasis, we will fid a very different and very
>carefully reasoned position. No one is excluded.
There is no salvation outside The Church. And particularly you find a
hatred of The Church - and that salvation - in those Jews who would
slander, malign, scorn, mock other Jews who would dare to convert to
Catholicism. That's the 'careful reasoning' you're faced with. That's
the reality.
>> Get serious. Lutheran Franciscans? Franciscan orders that don't even
>> recognize the papacy?
>Shocking, isn't it?
Ridiculous. What you meant:
>> That is, not Franciscans - but just as Anglicans want to _call_
>> themselves Catholic, without actually being Catholic, so some want to
>> _call_ themselves Franciscan, without being so. I think your
>> 'correspondent' meant to say just that - in any language.
>No, that is not what he "meant" to say.
Sure it was.
>Again, you should read some of the
>literature on Anglicanism and familiarize yourself with the varying Roman
>positions on Anglican succession
There is NO Anglican succession. In fact, one wonders if meeting in a
bar really was an apocryphal story.
>the Elizabethan communions. Also, you might, for a more recent viewpoint,
>consider John Paul II's outreach to anglicans.
When he was himself, and had his faculties, he was an ardent proponent
of ecumenism, which while formally warning against indifferentism,
that bit was always ignored. He said to watch out for that. But, in
essence, that's all he was preaching. Popes can be wrong, too. You
certainly wouldn't quarrel with that, historically.
>the quest for truth, etc., I will refer you to Fides et Ratio. Simplicity
>may, in some instances, be a virtue, but not when it requires us to prattle
>on in the manner of simpletons.
But that is the nature of 'modernism', isn't it? simplistic
explanations wrapped up in ambiguous jargon.
>I will repeat to you what I wrote to Alexis Bugnolo:
Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject.
Please. Show some integrity.
>> That isn't a trade one can make. One doesn't take the money of a
>> freemason, say, of the local shrine or club, and then say to them -
>> you, particularly, because of your financial contribution, need no
>> longer convert to Catholicism. You have, in other words, purchased . .
>> . your indulgence, and literally a ticket to Heaven, or so one is led
>> to believe. And that's not how God does things.
>What illogical drivel! You apotheosize non sequitur
Yeah - of course. That isn't a trade one can make. You can't buy your
way into Heaven.
And as I wrote:
>> friends care about each other, too. They don't lie to each other,
>> particularly about something which is more important than anything
>> else in this life - namely, the salvation of your eternal soul.
>Scarcely able to account for the vagaries of my own animula blandula, I
>would consider it the height, or perhaps, the abyss of folly to to assume
>that task for others.
Neither you nor I composed the Vulgate. Neither you nor I were
Apostles. Neither you nor I fought the barbarian invasions, or the
later invasions by Islam - and won (see, they DO know victory, in
France - just long, long ago). Neither of us created anything to do
with Catholicism, historically. So the question becomes a matter of
Faith, and a look at the historical record. In asking, which is the
one, true Faith, I find the answer is self-evident. You . . are still
desperately looking for an alternative, any alternative.
>I don't know how old you are, but your mode of argumentation, along with its
>unsubstantiated vitriol, reveals an immaturity
Speak for yourself.
"illogical drivel! You apotheosize non sequitur", etc., and see below,
and the generally condescending tone suggesting someone eager to
translate not Latin, but his own inability.
>regression and atrophy which, I would hope
But you don't . . hope. You seek an alternative to Catholicism - which
offers hope - any alternative, as long as you don't have to confess
that hope, and that Church outside of which there is no salvation.
>Grow up, read and understand, learn a little more. Ignorance is not man's
>birthright
Your birthright is to choose God and His Church, and salvation. You
can do it in Latin, or French. You can do it without seeing, and
without hearing. But you have to see and hear that much, at least.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Johannes Patruus
> "Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
> >> Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
>
> >The same, with possible spelling corrections to the author's name.
>
> I'm curious why people here seem to know so much about this. Is it
> just because it's a latin text? surely, there are many other other
> latin texts.
It's just that I've got a copy of it sitting on my bookshelf, though outside
of academic libraries copies are something of a rarity:
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=185489070
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=26889779
It would also be nice to have the twelfth-century translation by Robert of
Ketton (Robertus Ketenensis) which is paraphrased into "Ciceronian Latin"
according to Thomas E. Burman in his article:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/sawyer/islam/burman.html
although the only copy I'm aware of is in the British Library.
Search for author = "Ketenensis" in the online catalogue:
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/blpc.html
Robert's version was utilised by Nicholas of Cusa in his
"Cribratio Alkorani":
http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/CAI-12-2000.pdf
Johannes
bob
> From: Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com>
> Reply-To: 1023...@compuserve.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:33:01 -0800
> Subject: Re: Brother Alexis Bugnolo
>
> And a mob eager to find one way, and carrying on the conspiracy
> recorded in Scriptures. The Temple leadership was offended by God, for
> a long time, before He overturned the tables in that last week. They
> lied about Him, tried to fool Him, and lied about Him after He Rose
> from the dead.
This is anachronistic, anhistorical drivel which betrays a lackof
understanding of the period, the sociolinguistics of the terminology, and
the very history of the nexus of relations and viewpoints which you parrot.
> Original sin, itself, is hereditary.
You obviously haven't read Cassian, and, incidentally, this statement of
yours is in itself reflective of the vast chasm of doctrinal understanding
which separates Eastern schismatics from the church of Rome.
> And the Jews, historically,
> killed many people
So what. So did Neanderthals.
> It seems that a Jew who dares
> to convert to Catholicism, is deemd by certain other Jews practically
> a non-person, and certainly not a Jew.
I am amazed at the breadth of your understanding - about as expansive as the
cloaca of a fruit fly. Not only do you pontificate on a religious tradition
with which you exhibit a scant familiarity, but above and beyond this you
speak as an authority on Jewish values and socioreligious attitudes.
> The Jews killed many, many people.
Irrelevanyt. Non sequitur. Tu quoque.
> How so? What 'inclusion' do you find - in your own words? Elaborate if
> you like.
I gave you Justin's own words, and, incidentally, in his philosophical
writing John Paul II hearkens back to the example and witness of Justin.
> Well, the Prots complain of three sections, correct? What are you
> referring to?
The coda exists only in Greek. It was the subject of much ancient
controversy. Yuu will find the texts of Origen and Africanus in Migne. If
you read them you might understand the problem somewhat more clearly, but,
since you seem to have a problem with English, I sincerely doubt that Greek
would be of much service to you.
> There is no salvation outside The Church. And particularly you find a
> hatred of The Church - and that salvation - in those Jews who would
> slander, malign, scorn, mock other Jews who would dare to convert to
> Catholicism. That's the 'careful reasoning' you're faced with. That's
> the reality.
No. Unfortunately there is no careful reasoning in any of that. It's just
more of your ignorant prattling.
> Sure it was.
Egad! The frontiers of your presumption are breathtakingly broad. Now you
know the mistaken intent of an individual with whom you have never had any
discourse!
> There is NO Anglican succession.
As I wrote previously, you should familiarize yourself with the legal issues
surrounding, from the Roman point of view, the three early stages of
anglican profession: Henrican, Edwardian, Elizabethan, and the role of Pole
in shaping elements of that understanding. To belch nays into the darkness
will not illuminate your profound ignorance on the matter.
> When he was himself, and had his faculties, he was an ardent proponent
> of ecumenism
I read his last encyclical. It seemed lucid. I've read the texts of recent
addresses. No problem. I've seen him, heard him. A little halting. Easily
fatigued, but still sharp.
> But that is the nature of 'modernism', isn't it? simplistic
> explanations wrapped up in ambiguous jargon.
FIdes et Ratio is a document of almost Aristotelian clarity and seriousness
which may very well be remembered as one of the great systematic
philosophical formulations of the late twentieth century. As for simplistic
explanations and ambiguous jargon, you might do well to examine your own
writing.
> Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
> familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
> English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng. Don't
> hide behind Latin to conceal your ignorance of the subject.
I am, and with Greek also, and with the Latin and Greek Patristic
traditions. And those traditions are essential to an adequate and serious
understanding of the matter at issue here. The discussion of Bugnolo began
here on the Latin newsgroup because of a reference to his Ecclesiastical
Latin Grammar in which he discusses the term perfidus Iudaeus.
> You can't buy your
> way into Heaven.
Nor will any amount of whining turn a poor argument into a good one.
> Neither you nor I composed the Vulgate. Neither you nor I were
> Apostles. Neither you nor I fought the barbarian invasions, or the
> later invasions by Islam - and won (see, they DO know victory, in
> France - just long, long ago). Neither of us created anything to do
> with Catholicism, historically. So the question becomes a matter of
> Faith, and a look at the historical record. In asking, which is the
> one, true Faith, I find the answer is self-evident. You . . are still
> desperately looking for an alternative, any alternative.
>
The Vulgate is a translation, not a composition. As far as fighting the
barbarian invasions, replying to you and to Bugnolo is just that. And you
shouldn't generalize or universalize your own ignorance >I DO CREATE MY OWN
UNDERSTANDING OF CATHOLICISM, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF MY
WELTANSCHAUUNG. And I accept responsibility for my views withoud slithering
into a bloodclot in the five wounds of Christ. Faith is no excuse for
ignorance or for bigotry. WHat you call faith is intellectual torpor and
atrophy.
> But you don't . . hope. You seek an alternative to Catholicism - which
> offers hope - any alternative, as long as you don't have to confess
> that hope, and that Church outside of which there is no salvation.
No. I live in the world and have no need of salvation, whether it be in or
outside the church. I don't even believe in god. Shocking, isn't it?
> Your birthright is to choose God and His Church, and salvation.
My birthright is reason and conscience.
Bob
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:40hdsvsno52b7ifrv...@4ax.com...
>> "Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus
>> >> Universus: 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy ?
>> >The same, with possible spelling corrections to the author's name.
>> I'm curious why people here seem to know so much about this. Is it
>> just because it's a latin text? surely, there are many other other
>> latin texts.
>It's just that I've got a copy of it sitting on my bookshelf, though outside
>of academic libraries copies are something of a rarity:
> http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=185489070
Or bookfinders would get you there, too. It does seem as if the online
book searches all seem to wind up at one or two or three of the same
dealers.
You know, while it's not in Latin, is fairly easy to come by from the
antiquarians - Alzog, Universal Church History, in 4 vols. Heck, the
footnotes, alone, sometimes run two full pages (which is a lot of fine
print). But, you can learn a lot. There's much to learn.
>Robert's version was utilised by Nicholas of Cusa in his
>"Cribratio Alkorani":
> http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/CAI-12-2000.pdf
>
>Johannes
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>> And a mob eager to find one way, and carrying on the conspiracy
>> recorded in Scriptures. The Temple leadership was offended by God, for
>> a long time, before He overturned the tables in that last week. They
>> lied about Him, tried to fool Him, and lied about Him after He Rose
>> from the dead.
>This is anachronistic, anhistorical drivel which betrays a lackof
>understanding of the period, the sociolinguistics of the terminology, and
>the very history of the nexus of relations and viewpoints which you parrot.
Of course. But you might want to say what that is, specifically - if
you'd so deign. Then I can reply, specifically.
It works better that way. You'll see.
>> Original sin, itself, is hereditary.
>You obviously haven't read Cassian, and, incidentally, this statement of
>yours is in itself reflective of the vast chasm of doctrinal understanding
>which separates Eastern schismatics from the church of Rome.
Original sin, itself, is hereditary. We inherit the guilt and the
effects of Adam's sin. The guilt is ours, but the price, the
sacrifice, has been made, by God, Himself. The Life and Passion. And
the Resurrection. So all might choose Heaven. But the ill effects
remain, and encourage us to choose, badly. So we need, absolutely
need, God and His Church, His grace, His Sacraments. As von Hildebrand
wrote, we must transform ourselves in Christ.
Since you brought it up.
>> It seems that a Jew who dares
>> to convert to Catholicism, is deemd by certain other Jews practically
>> a non-person, and certainly not a Jew.
>I am amazed at the breadth of your understanding - about as expansive as the
>cloaca of a fruit fly. Not only do you pontificate on a religious tradition
>with which you exhibit a scant familiarity, but above and beyond this you
>speak as an authority on Jewish values and socioreligious attitudes.
But that complaint just isn't convincing. It even seems hysterical, as
if you have nothing of substance to offer. To be clear, in this, it
seems that a Jew who dares to convert to Catholicism, is deemed by
certain other Jews practically to be a non-person, and certainly not a
Jew.
And I said that made it appear, at any rate, that it's as if Judaism
is like a suit, you put on in the morning, or can forget to take on a
trip.
>> The Jews killed many, many people.
>Irrelevanyt. Non sequitur.
But what doesn't follow exactly? Here's the context of that:
---------------------------------------------------------
>the history and dynamics of persecution
The Jews killed many, many people. Book of Esther - remember? The Jews
persecute those Jews who dare convert . . to Catholicism. That's just
wrong.
I wish you could say - that's just wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
And I wish you would. Because it's just wrong.
>> How so? What 'inclusion' do you find - in your own words? Elaborate if
>> you like.
>I gave you Justin's own words, and, incidentally, in his philosophical
>writing John Paul II hearkens back to the example and witness of Justin.
But I asked what 'inclusion' do you find?
You had 'included':
--------------------------------------------------------
"... Plato took from our teachers his assertion that God, who changed
hitherto formless matter, created the world. These were the words of
Moses,
the first prophet... by the Divine Word all the world was made from
that
substance spoken of previously by Moses. (op. cit., LIX)
"...And the...discourse on the Son of God in the Timaeus, in which
Plato
writes: , "In the form of a cross he placed him in the universe," is
derived
similarly from Moses..." (op. cit., LX)
----------------------------------------------------------------
And what 'inclusion' did you find, in this? That's all I'm asking.
>> Well, the Prots complain of three sections, correct? What are you
>> referring to?
>The coda exists only in Greek. It was the subject of much ancient
>controversy. Yuu will find the texts of Origen and Africanus in Migne. If
>you read them you might understand the problem somewhat more clearly, but,
>since you seem to have a problem with English, I sincerely doubt that Greek
>would be of much service to you.
Well, again, the Prots complain of three sections. If you don't mean
that, to what do you refer, instead?
>> There is no salvation outside The Church. And particularly you find a
>> hatred of The Church - and that salvation - in those Jews who would
>> slander, malign, scorn, mock other Jews who would dare to convert to
>> Catholicism. That's the 'careful reasoning' you're faced with. That's
>> the reality.
>No. Unfortunately there is no careful reasoning in any of that. It's just
>more of your ignorant prattling.
But, specifically, in what way? Sure, I obviously disagree with you.
But perhaps you have no resort to a reasonable argument, and would
prefer not to be asked for one? So if I did . . ask for one?
>> Sure it was.
>Egad! The frontiers of your presumption are breathtakingly broad.
Somebody's here, at any rate.
>> There is NO Anglican succession.
>As I wrote previously, you should familiarize yourself with the legal issues
>surrounding, from the Roman point of view, the three early stages of
>anglican profession: Henrican, Edwardian, Elizabethan, and the role of Pole
>in shaping elements of that understanding.
There is NO Anglican succession. The rebellion began, they say - in a
pub. The priesthood was deemed unholy and irrelevant. For a time, it
was purely a secular matter - priests need not apply. No, the Church
of England really split, completely, from not just the idea of a
priesthood, but in that very era, from The Church, itself. It was, in
fact, the Church of England that later forced the Irish to the cliffs,
and even other Prots to found a nation in the colonies.
There is NO Anglican succession. I think it's you who could stand to
read up on that period. Learn something.
>> When he was himself, and had his faculties, he was an ardent proponent
>> of ecumenism
>I read his last encyclical. It seemed lucid.
He hasn't. It's been the complaint, for many, many years, that the
Pope is not himself, and that whoever manages to get his signature,
that day, is able to get their document out - not that it matters at
the parishes, worldwide.
>> But that is the nature of 'modernism', isn't it? simplistic
>> explanations wrapped up in ambiguous jargon.
>FIdes et Ratio is a document of almost Aristotelian clarity and seriousness
>which may very well be remembered as one of the great systematic
>philosophical formulations of the late twentieth century.
You're serious, aren't you?
"From the teaching of the two Vatican Councils there also emerges a
genuinely novel consideration for philosophical learning."
As opposed to theology?
"The ultimate purpose of personal existence, then, is the theme of
philosophy and theology alike. For all their difference of method and
content, both disciplines point to that 'path of life' "
But wait, it gets better:
"which, as faith tells us, leads in the end to the full and lasting
joy of the contemplation of the Triune God."
No, you don't see a problem with that? Greatest document ever written,
is it? Now, theology, sure. Philosophy? There's been lots of
philosophies. Not a few utterly reject "contemplation of the Triune
God." Don't zone out when you read these things. Concentrate. Read the
words, sentence after sentence after sentence. Think about what the
words mean. The ultimate purpose is the theme? The ultimate purpose is
to choose God, freely. Philosophy points to a 'path' which, "as faith
tells us", leads to . . No, lots of philosophies do not.
>understanding of the matter at issue here. The discussion of Bugnolo began
>here on the Latin newsgroup because of a reference to his Ecclesiastical
>Latin Grammar in which he discusses the term perfidus Iudaeus.
I realize that. I've pointed out that Jew attacks Jew, those who would
convert, rightfully so, to the new Temple, and the continuing
covenant, of The Roman Catholic Church. That is the continuation of
prophecy, of Scriptures, and outside of which there is no salvation.
>> You can't buy your way into Heaven.
>Nor will any amount of whining turn a poor argument into a good one.
You said it.
>The Vulgate is a translation, not a composition. As far as fighting the
>barbarian invasions, replying to you and to Bugnolo is just that. And you
>shouldn't generalize or universalize your own ignorance >I DO CREATE MY OWN
>UNDERSTANDING OF CATHOLICISM
So does the Prot. It doesn't make either of you, right. If you confess
God, and particularly the God of the covenants, you do confess
Justice. If you confess Catholicism, you certainly confess conscience,
and natural law.
>WELTANSCHAUUNG. And I accept responsibility for my views withoud slithering
>into a bloodclot in the five wounds of Christ. Faith is no excuse for
>ignorance or for bigotry.
I could say, neither is hatred and vice. We are all fallen. We all
have our crosses, and our excuses, and our dead ends. I think you're
on one. And you think you're so smart - you won't listen.
And I think you should.
>WHat you call faith is intellectual torpor and atrophy.
Because it won't excuse your behavior, your vices, your greed and
pride? You force me to guess, here. But I think it's a reasonable
guess.
There is no substitute for the Faith. Lots are offered. They are all a
dead end, tacky, cheap, and no more than dust.
As I wrote, and I think it's clear, at this point:
>> But you don't . . hope. You seek an alternative to Catholicism - which
>> offers hope - any alternative, as long as you don't have to confess
>> that hope, and that Church outside of which there is no salvation.
>No. I live in the world and have no need of salvation
But you do. You won't live forever. Grow up.
>outside the church. I don't even believe in god. Shocking, isn't it?
Rather stale, frankly. But you do keep on with the subject. And me,
well - being Catholic - I just thought I'd lend a contrary opinion to
yours. So . . there.
>> Your birthright is to choose God and His Church, and salvation.
>My birthright is reason and conscience.
>Bob
Right - to choose God and His Church, and salvation. Reason demands
that. And conscience cries out for it.
Peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------
People don't go to church, but they feel better that it's there.
- Sir Humphrey, Yes Prime Minister, The Patron of the Arts
Edward Casey
[...]
>
> Look, again, this is not about Latin. And I've said I'm not so
> familiar with Latin. This is about the issues, here. And you can use
> English, and also, perhaps, post this to the appropriate ng.
[...]
It had better be about Latin or at least in Latin, otherwise it doesn't
belong in this newsgroup. You ride in here with both guns blazing and
startly whacking everyone over the head with Aquinas, or more accurately
with his SSPX interpreters. Either get back on topic or get the hell out
of here.
Eduardus
Edward Casey
Learn about medieval Toledo. Do it of your own free will, don't listen to
me.
>
>
> >"Judaism," "Christianity", ("Islam" forthcoming) Hans Küng
>
> You NOT serious. Hans Kung?
Quite serious. The man positively breathes the spirit of ecumenical
pacificity. If by chance he has been excommunicated by this time, do not
be too much troubled by this. Joseph Wittig was also excommunicated but
twenty years later the Roman church was glad to acknowledge the error or
its ways.
>
>
> >Let's get back on topic,
> >Eduardus
>
> This is precisely the topic you're eager to discuss, for some reason.
> And permit me to correct you if I think you are wrong. I, personally,
> think you need to take this to the religious ngs. I'm not going to
> discuss the Sacraments on the dSLR group or the council of Trent on a
> group devoted to computer database theory. Still, there's the
> unmistakable debt owed by scholars of whatever variant of Latin to the
> civilization of Christendom, based on fidelity to the papacy.
You're projecting. I have absolutely no desire to hash over these matters
with someone who knows so little about them. Anyway, congratulations on
your last sentence, it's smack on topic and half true. All of modern
Latinity, such as it is, owes a debt of gratitude to the Roman church,
particularly for its services between the 5th and 15th centuries. I wish
it had saved even more of the manuscripts but I guess the baby had to be
changed and first things first.... But I would correct your sentence to
read "Still, there's the unmistakable debt owed by scholars of whatever
variant of Latin to the civilization of Christendom, based on fidelity to
Jesus." Nowadays we will have to leave Latin to the tender mercies of the
professors.
Eduardus
Btw, be assured that if you reply to anything here that is even a hair's
breadth off topic, you may have the last word.
bob
> From: Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com>
> Reply-To: 1023...@compuserve.com
> Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:44:07 -0800
> Subject: Re: Brother Alexis Bugnolo
>
I've not included any of your last post. I see no point in so doing.
Additionally I will write no more to you on this matter. If you feel
comfortable with the level of you discourse, it would seem that neither
rational argument nor even Jesus Christ himself will sway you. Besides, I
have no ambitions toward proselytizing.
Perhaps you hsould join Brother Bugnolo in his community: the two of you
share a lot: narrow mindedness, irrationality, ignorance, an unjustified
feeling of religious superiority, and an overweening pride. You are both
small minded, bigoted wannabes operating in the absent visibility of an
impenetrable fog: a new and lamentable twist on the old notion of the cloud
of unknowing. You should at least try flying on instruments.
Bob
Mark Johnson
>> >"Judaism," "Christianity", ("Islam" forthcoming) Hans Küng
>> You NOT serious. Hans Kung?
>Quite serious. The man positively breathes the spirit of ecumenical
>pacificity. If by chance he has been excommunicated by this time, do not
>be too much troubled by this. Joseph Wittig was also excommunicated but
>twenty years later the Roman church was glad to acknowledge the error or
>its ways.
If he were to blatantly state that there is no difference between
Catholic and Protestant, that would be wrong. If he were to state that
there is no difference between 'reform' and Protestantism, he would be
right. As for Kung,
"When Rome finally acted in 1980, it only declared that Kung could no
longer call himself a “Catholic” theologian. He was not excommunicated
for his heretical teachings, nor was he suspended."
[http://www.fatima.org/library/cr57pg19.html]
And it's good to see that Gruner is finally discovering the obvious in
his crusade - see the closing paragraph, there.
>> group devoted to computer database theory. Still, there's the
>> unmistakable debt owed by scholars of whatever variant of Latin to the
>> civilization of Christendom, based on fidelity to the papacy.
>You're projecting. I have absolutely no desire to hash over these matters
>with someone who knows so little about them.
And prefers, perhaps, to see Kung for what he wrote in the light of
Catholic orthodoxy. You seem to adopt the standard of heterodoxy.
There is no 'middle ground', between those. I think we both know that.
>Anyway, congratulations on
>your last sentence, it's smack on topic and half true. All of modern
>Latinity, such as it is, owes a debt of gratitude to the Roman church,
>particularly for its services between the 5th and 15th centuries. I wish
>it had saved even more of the manuscripts but I guess the baby had to be
>changed and first things first.... But I would correct your sentence to
>read "Still, there's the unmistakable debt owed by scholars of whatever
>variant of Latin to the civilization of Christendom, based on fidelity to
>Jesus."
Fidelity to The Church founded by Jesus. You perhaps consider that . .
. controversial, as well. But that debt wouldn't otherwise be owed.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:dajdsv08kd6mrok67...@4ax.com...
>It had better be about Latin or at least in Latin, otherwise it doesn't
>belong in this newsgroup. You ride in here with both guns blazing and
>startly whacking everyone over the head with Aquinas, or more accurately
>with his SSPX interpreters.
And what about his SSPX and Catholic 'interpreters'? Do they disagree
with your . . interpreters . . by any outside chance? What could you
POSSIBLY mean by that, in all fairness?
>Either get back on topic or get the hell out of here.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>I've not included any of your last post. I see no point in so doing.
Only Usenet, 'bob'. Reply, don't reply. Up to you.
>Additionally I will write no more to you on this matter. If you feel
>comfortable with the level of you discourse, it would seem that neither
>rational argument nor even Jesus Christ himself will sway you.
But . . 'bob' . . . that is God and His Church that I keep mentioning
to you, and getting such grief from you for it. Let's be honest.
>Besides, I have no ambitions toward proselytizing.
You should say that into a mirror. You very much intend to evangelize.
But I would argue you propose an alternative to God and His Church,
that simply will fail.
>Perhaps you hsould join Brother Bugnolo in his community: the two of you
>share a lot: narrow mindedness, irrationality, ignorance, an unjustified
>feeling of religious superiority, and an overweening pride.
That's just you, 'bob'. And we both know it.
I'm not saying I'm perfect. But to call Catholicism 'narrow minded',
'ignorant', and just so on, is very transparent, 'bob'.
>You are both
>small minded, bigoted wannabes operating in the absent visibility of an
>impenetrable fog: a new and lamentable twist on the old notion of the cloud
>of unknowing. You should at least try flying on instruments.
Last word, then, 'bob'. You gonna choose your way - always the 'better
way'. And I'll choose God and His Church. I'd encourage you to do the
same. But you have chosen, and badly.
Peace.
Edward Casey
> >It had better be about Latin or at least in Latin, otherwise it doesn't
> >belong in this newsgroup. You ride in here with both guns blazing and
> >startly whacking everyone over the head with Aquinas, or more
accurately
> >with his SSPX interpreters.
>
> And what about his SSPX and Catholic 'interpreters'? Do they disagree
> with your . . interpreters . . by any outside chance? What could you
> POSSIBLY mean by that, in all fairness?
scripserat Marcus:
Et quid dicendum de societate sua Sancti Pii Decimi atque interpretibus
ecclesiae Romanae? Numne dissideant ab interpretibus tuis aliquo casu
remoto? Quidnam illo significare possis, omni aequitate abs te adhibita?
Cui rei non respondebo quoniam id non facere pollicitus sum. Rem autem
revolvam si de his rebus Latine disceptare inceperis.
vale quam Latinissime et pacem veram tibi exopto.
DL Farnworth
"Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote in message
news:vseo6q9...@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in
message
| news:dajdsv08kd6mrok67...@4ax.com...
|
| [...]
|
otherwise it doesn't
| belong in this newsgroup. You ride in here with both
guns blazing and
| startly whacking everyone over the head with Aquinas,
or more accurately
| with his SSPX interpreters. Either get back on topic
or get the hell out
| of here.
|
| Eduardus
|
A Google search on this Mark Johnson reveals a
logorrheic presence in predominantly religious
newsgroups (a long-winded bunch, believe you me),
apparently devoted to a schismatic Catholicism similar
to that espoused by Mel Gibson in his new
sadomasochistic film.
Also to antisemitism. And to antimasonism. Also to
blood. "Drops." Apparently they rejoice in the
slow, deliberate trickle of every savory drop. Like
Tertullian.
And like Tertullian he can't agree with anybody. Forced
from one extreme to another, T finally dies a
schismatic even from Montanism.
There's no winning an argument with these guys. The
flare of debate is their lifeforce. Illi taciturnitate
tabescere.
Mark Johnson
>A Google search on this Mark Johnson reveals a
>logorrheic presence in predominantly religious
>newsgroups (a long-winded bunch, believe you me),
>apparently devoted to a schismatic Catholicism similar
>to that espoused by Mel Gibson in his new
>sadomasochistic film.
You've got to be kidding. Gibson took his film from Scriptures, and
then apparently even modified some scenes to mollify critics.
You exaggerate, wildly, to defend your obvious distaste with
Catholicism, as found literally in the NT. As for long-winded, you
haven't been reading some of the replies I've gotten, in this very ng.
You're very selective in your criticism - are you not? You shouldn't
do that. Be fair. Be balanced. Be reasonable. I am.
>And to antimasonism.
You mean opposing freemasonry? The Church has been very clear on the
matter. Do you disagree?
>Also to
>blood. "Drops." Apparently they rejoice in the
>slow, deliberate trickle of every savory drop.
You lost me, here. What, again? Catholics do rejoice in The
Resurrection, and honor deeply the Crucifixion. Some of the most
precious holy relics are from those hours, from the cloak, to the
thorns on the 'crown', to pieces of the Cross.
>And like Tertullian he can't agree with anybody. Forced
>from one extreme to another, T finally dies a
>schismatic even from Montanism.
Ultramontanism, even. But saying the Pope is always right is what
'reformists' have done, only when the Pope seems to support their
agenda. When he does, you will find no greater ultramontanists. It's a
heresy, btw. When he doesn't, well . . . then 'Rome just needs what's
bringin up to date', don't you know?
>There's no winning an argument with these guys.
Why must you always win? What if you're wrong? Pride is the enemy of
learning, and learning is possible. Oh, no, he didn't just say _that_!
>flare of debate is their lifeforce.
Standing up for Catholicism. I'm Catholic. And this is Usenet. Welcome
to it, finally. Now you know where you are.
You shouldn't be surprized. If people here would criticize The Church,
I might criticize them, specifically, where I could ever get them to
talk specifics.
Btw - you left out all the evolutionism, threads, since you were
running down some sort of twisted list, there. Just - to mention it.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:228fsv4rt8eqnj7ul...@4ax.com...
>> >It had better be about Latin or at least in Latin, otherwise it doesn't
>> >belong in this newsgroup. You ride in here with both guns blazing and
>> >startly whacking everyone over the head with Aquinas, or more
>> >with his SSPX interpreters.
>> And what about his SSPX and Catholic 'interpreters'? Do they disagree
>> with your . . interpreters . . by any outside chance? What could you
>> POSSIBLY mean by that, in all fairness?
>scripserat Marcus:
In English, please. This isn't about Latin. This is about arguments
over 'reform' in the institutional church of the present day, where
people no longer study latin in the pontifical academies or
seminaries. And this is something that has just been argued, in
English, in many messages back and forth, on an ng supposedly devoted
only to the study of latin.
But the legacy of latin is owed to that institutional church that
present 'reform' wants so deperately to toss aside and disown.
Don't you agree with that?
Peace.
bob
Lucius Alter Eduardo sal.
Scripseras:
> Cui rei non respondebo quoniam id non facere pollicitus sum. Rem autem
> revolvam si de his rebus Latine disceptare inceperis.
Verborum egeo et rationem offendere nolo. At tamen hoc narrabo:
Apud Gregorium Magnum (in libro "Moralia in Iob, XXXI) legamus de rhinocero
indomito et de superbia arrogantiaque illus bestiae. Petrus Abaelardus, in
Sermone XXIV eodem modo narrat, sed Papa et philosophus bestiam ab amore
puro domaturam docent. Mihi autem de rhinocero nostro desperandum.
Apud scriptores mediaevales hic rhinoceros indomitus, cum haeresia frueretur
et agros voluptatum domesticarum vastaret, erat allegoria superbiae
effrenatae. Idem rhinoceros ad praesepe pueri Christi una cum bovibus
asinisque dicitur venerare noluisse.
Cum religionem quondam didiceram ad universitatem, exemplo dierum meorum
apud monachos in monasterio buddhisto conabar ad meos discipulos
stimulandos, at frustra laborabam. Discipuli mei, quoniam me levitare et
volare nequivissem, quoniam rumpere lignos ictu capitis nequivissem, illas
traditiones buddhistas et veritatis eguisse et ad nullam rem attinuisse
constituerant. Suae rationes etiam mihi sunt mysterium.
Et cum rhinocero et cum fatuis relinquor.
Valeas.
bob
Lucius Alter Eduardo sal.
>
> sed Papa et philosophus bestiam ab amore
> puro domaturam docent
Legas "sed...bestiam amore puro domituram iri docent.
Valeas.
Edward Casey
Anglice, amabo. Hic non agitur de lingua latina. Hac disputatione de
emendatione ecclesiae tralaticiae hodiernae, in qua homines Latinae non
diutius student in academiis pontificalibus neque in seminariis. Et hoc
est aliquid modo hic valde concertatum, Anglice quidem, multis in nuntiis
ultro citroque missis, coram gregalibus qui simulant se esse deditos
studio huius Latinitatis. Sed consuetudo Latinitatis a maioribus tradita
debetur ipsi ecclesiae tralaticiae quam "emendatores" qui nunc sunt tam
pertinacissime abicere et repudiare volunt.
Nonne assentiris?
pace fruaris.
Edward Casey
"bob" <por...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BBED4E8D.624F%por...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Lucius Alter Eduardo sal.
>
> Scripseras:
>
> > Cui rei non respondebo quoniam id non facere pollicitus sum. Rem autem
> > revolvam si de his rebus Latine disceptare inceperis.
>
> Verborum egeo et rationem offendere nolo. At tamen hoc narrabo:
>
> Apud Gregorium Magnum (in libro "Moralia in Iob, XXXI) legamus de
rhinocero
> indomito et de superbia arrogantiaque illus bestiae. Petrus Abaelardus,
in
> Sermone XXIV eodem modo narrat, sed Papa et philosophus bestiam ab
amore
> puro domaturam docent. Mihi autem de rhinocero nostro desperandum.
Audire non posse videtur. Sed satis temporis nobis erit desperandum multo
serius. Non tam jucundum est verba eius Latine convertere conari quam
jocorum sed omnes viae ad Romam ducunt, quae non uno die aedificata fuit.
Festinemus lente.
>
> Apud scriptores mediaevales hic rhinoceros indomitus, cum haeresia
frueretur
> et agros voluptatum domesticarum vastaret, erat allegoria superbiae
> effrenatae. Idem rhinoceros ad praesepe pueri Christi una cum bovibus
> asinisque dicitur venerare noluisse.
>
> Cum religionem quondam didiceram ad universitatem, exemplo dierum meorum
> apud monachos in monasterio buddhisto conabar ad meos discipulos
> stimulandos, at frustra laborabam. Discipuli mei, quoniam me levitare et
> volare nequivissem, quoniam rumpere lignos ictu capitis nequivissem,
illas
> traditiones buddhistas et veritatis eguisse et ad nullam rem attinuisse
> constituerant. Suae rationes etiam mihi sunt mysterium.
Quo attentius artibus visualibus incumbunt eo surdiores fiunt.
>
> Et cum rhinocero et cum fatuis relinquor.
>
> Valeas.
>
Tu quoque robustissime valeas. Si indesinenter ei Latine responderimus,
mox compertum habebit quae sint hic argumenta consentanea.
Mark Johnson
>Anglice, amabo. Hic non agitur de lingua latina.
Have it your way. Remember, this wasn't about studying Latin. It was
about people attempting to bully someone who reminded them of Catholic
dogma - in any language - and corrected their misrepresentations of
the Faith.
Mark Johnson
>Tu quoque robustissime valeas. Si indesinenter ei Latine responderimus
It wasn't, here, any effort to understand or study Latin so much as it
was a few who preferred to misrepresent Catholicism - in any language.
Someone actually suggested, with a 'straight face' as they say, that a
Catholic take a look over the works of . . . Hans Kung. Enough said.
Peace, or is that - pax?
Edward Casey
> "Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Anglice, amabo. Hic non agitur de lingua latina.
>
> Have it your way. Remember, this wasn't about studying Latin. It was
> about people attempting to bully someone who reminded them of Catholic
> dogma - in any language - and corrected their misrepresentations of
> the Faith.
>
> Peace.
>
Praevaleas demum. Memento hoc non fuisse super studio Latinae sed de
hominibus qui aliquem de dogmate ecclesiae Romanae admonentem, quavis
lingua, picturamque falsam Fidei emendantem procaciter lacessere
tentabant.
Pax tecum.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
> discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
> to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
>
> [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Unum indicium mundi in peius ruentis est cives qui inter vera et mendacia
internoscere nesciunt. Aliud est idem ne operam quidem in re ponentes qui
credent cuicumque rei aures audire aveant.
[Calvinus Thomas, die quarto mensis Septembris, anno bis millesimo salutis
nostrae]
Edward Casey
Hic non tantum fuit ullus conatus Latinam intellegere neque illi linguae
studere quantum illi pauci qui malebant doctrinam ecclesiae Romanae
detorquere, quavis lingua. Aliquis re vera suasit vultu graviori quidem,
veluti locutio fert, ut assectator ecclesiae Romanae opera Ioannis Küng
perstringat. Verbum sat.
Pax tecum aut shalom fortasse, nonne?
Mark Johnson
>> Have it your way. Remember, this wasn't about studying Latin. It was
>> about people attempting to bully someone who reminded them of Catholic
>> dogma - in any language - and corrected their misrepresentations of
>> the Faith.
>Praevaleas demum.
The thread that won't die, I suppose. Last word.
>> One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
>> discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
>> to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
>> [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
>Unum indicium mundi in peius ruentis est cives qui inter vera et mendacia
>internoscere nesciunt. Aliud est idem ne operam quidem in re ponentes qui
>credent cuicumque rei aures audire aveant.
Thank you for that. Cal, in Latin.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
Daniel Hoehr
Edward Casey wrote:
> vale quam Latinissime et pacem veram tibi exopto.
Is "vale" the imperative of "valeo" here or is it "farewell"?
Daniel
Mark Johnson
>Edward Casey wrote:
>Is "vale" the imperative of "valeo" here or is it "farewell"?
>Daniel
There's DH. Sorry, guy, but I think I'm taking an interest in Latin.
I'd ask for some references on this - but I know you don't read.
Peace - or pax?
Edward Casey
"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3FC89F4D...@myrealbox.com...
It's both. Valere means: to be well, to be in good health, to be able, to
be equal to, to be powerful, to be strong, to be effective, to prevail, to
be efficacious, to be good for, to have influence, to be worth, to cost,
to mean, to signify, to have great weight, to amount to, and probably many
other things.
Si vales bene est, ego valeo.
DL Farnworth
Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
Skimming through several missives, I found screeds
against Jews, Masons and the present Roman Catholic
hierarchy. And apparently endless disagreements. Hence
"schismatic," "antisemitic," "antimasonic" and "can't
agree with anybody."
But the torture murder of his cult hero interests me
more.
In Mad Max, Mel G. came home to find his wife raped,
tortured and dead. In a sequel he fought and killed a
leather duo in a cage. Tortured with a car battery in
another flick, he was disemboweled and castrated
(unconvincingly) in Braveheart. And got his toes mashed
in Payback. But he still managed to burn, stomp,
mutilate or murder his opposition. Shades of Dick
Francis. The guy's a sadomasochist.
Now in The Passion, leather boys rough up a weak but
secretly divine hero. Lots of beefy, sweaty bodies.
Whips, knives, torture. Blood dripping, tears rolling.
Helplessness, ugly brutality. Finally a criminal
execution that rises to exaltation. Anyone would say,
"Perfect for the S/M trade."
But the movie was made for people like Mark. And if he
likes that sort of thing, it raises questions about his
social skills, about his sexuality, about what neurosis
crimped his consciousness to make him a closet Gimp.
He writes "Peace" when he's really a bully. And not
particularly bright at that: he parrots cliches ("Be
fair. Be balanced. This is Usenet. '[R]eformists.'")
because he can contribute nothing original.
But what need? He torments others to elicit torment in
return. That's his pattern: Mark is a sadomasochist
too.
Wait. I was wrong. There is some Latin here. I in
malam crucem, carnifex.
dlf
bob
>
> Tortured with a car battery in
> another flick, he was disemboweled and castrated
> (unconvincingly) in Braveheart.
AIAZW ADONIN...
> Now in The Passion, leather boys rough up a weak but
> secretly divine hero. Lots of beefy, sweaty bodies.
> Whips, knives, torture. Blood dripping, tears rolling.
> Helplessness, ugly brutality. Finally a criminal
> execution that rises to exaltation. Anyone would say,
> "Perfect for the S/M trade."
> But the movie was made for people like Mark.
Homo, amicus, dum in seminario est, in morbum mentis incidit ut de
vulneribus Christi, veluti mihi dixerat, somnios furiosos insanosque
somniaret. Flagello catenaque immodice utebatur, praesertim catena, ut femur
contagione magna propter restrictionem fluxionis sanguineae contaminaret.
Seminarium pro valetudinario reliquit, et valetudinarium pro televisione
theatroque, ubi iam ad maiorem dei censorisque gloriam laborat.
Tota Dei creatio est scaena.
Vale
Mark Johnson
>The "twisted" Google search was for "102334.12" in
>Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
>help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
That's clever. Look, I can't understand WHY you insist on continuing
this if you think it's inappropriate to a latin ng.
But you obviously feel the need to say something - here. So allow me
to comment, as well.
>Skimming through several missives, I found screeds
>against Jews
Then you don't know how to read.
>Masons
Not a screed - simply Catholic teaching, for centuries, against
freemasonry.
>and the present Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Which is supposed to be the continuation of that, previous, "Catholic
hierarchy", as you put it.
>And apparently endless disagreements.
Such as right here, even. How could that be?
>"schismatic
Accused by such by . . schismatics and heretics, of course. That's
usually how it works, historically.
>"antisemitic
If by anti-semitic you mean someone who has defended Israel in
practically even message I've posted on the subject, but who still
can't understand the hatred of some Jews for other Jews who dare to
convert to . . Catholicism.
>"antimasonic
Definitely opposed to masonry. Did I hit too close to home, for you?
>But the torture murder of his cult hero interests me
>more.
Namely:
>In Mad Max, Mel G. came home to find his wife raped,
>tortured and dead. In a sequel he fought and killed a
>leather duo in a cage. Tortured with a car battery in
>another flick, he was disemboweled and castrated
>(unconvincingly)
I believe they were going for drawn and quartered. You have a problem
with . . Braveheart, not on its merits as a film, but because you
think what history is behind it ought not to be studied? or something?
>Francis. The guy's a sadomasochist.
>Now in The Passion, leather boys rough up a weak but
>secretly divine hero.
If you say so. I didn't realize the film had ever been threatrically
released.
>But the movie was made for people like Mark.
I can only imagine what a film might be if it were made for "people
like" - youououou.
>He writes "Peace" when he's really a bully.
Don't project, DL. I'm not the one carrying-on, here. That's just you.
You're the bully.
>And not particularly bright at that: he parrots cliches ("Be
>fair. Be balanced.
Be fair. Be balanced. Be reasonable.
>This is Usenet.
Glad I was the one to let you know, then.
>[R]eformists.
Why, "[R]"?
>But what need? He torments others to elicit torment in
>return. That's his pattern: Mark is a sadomasochist
>too.
No, that's not true. I don't much take to being abused as you attempt,
here. I don't like being bullied. I don't like seeing others bullied.
You'll discover all that about me, DL. In fact, it's right there, in
groups.google - in tens . . of thousands . . . of messages.
All ya have to do, is read.
Peace.
-----------------------------------
Because, you jackass, it allows us to
meditate more fully on the life of Christ.
[Tony Miller, msgid:slrnaqn78...@callisto.jtan.com]
Mark Johnson
>> But the movie was made for people like Mark.
>Homo, amicus, dum in seminario est
Gee, 'bob'. Speak English. You wanna talk about this so bad. It's got
nothing to do with latin.
So tell me what's on your mind. And perhaps I might comment.
You know you wanna.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Evertjan.
> Gee, 'bob'. Speak English. You wanna talk about this so bad. It's got
> nothing to do with latin.
So you disqualify yourself in this NG, Mark.
Either Latin is the subject,
or the [any] subject is discussed in Latin.
Sic.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Daniel Hoehr
gratias tibi ago.
linguam Latinam in schola abhinc multos annos didici et deinde raro
usus sum. in scholam transferre a lingua Latina in Germanum didici (in
Germania habito). nunc meam linguam Latinam reficere et emendare studeo.
> Si vales bene est, ego valeo.
ego etiam ("me too"?)
Daniel
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote on 30 nov 2003 in alt.language.latin:
>> Gee, 'bob'. Speak English. You wanna talk about this so bad. It's got
>> nothing to do with latin.
>So you disqualify yourself in this NG, Mark.
The issue concerns what people would falsely represent as Church
teaching, not the language they use to do so.
You know that.
Peace.
Johannes Patruus
> The issue concerns what people would falsely represent as Church
> teaching, not the language they use to do so.
Maybe you would enjoy reading Rama P. Cooramaswamy's hatchet-job on Vatican
II entitled "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition", links to which are
on this page:
http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/books.htm
Or maybe not.
Johannes
Edward Casey
tibi tanto gaudio est, licet tibi responsa privatim mittere, non mihi
autem quaeso, nam inscriptio tua a capsula mea cursuali rejicietur.
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:4majsvcujnf05rkea...@4ax.com...
> "DL Farnworth" <knd....@spoof.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The "twisted" Google search was for "102334.12" in
> >Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
> >help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
>
> That's clever. Look, I can't understand WHY you insist on continuing
> this if you think it's inappropriate to a latin ng.
[...]
Evertjan.
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>
>>Mark Johnson wrote on 30 nov 2003 in alt.language.latin:
>
>>> Gee, 'bob'. Speak English. You wanna talk about this so bad. It's got
>>> nothing to do with latin.
>
>>So you disqualify yourself in this NG, Mark.
>
> The issue concerns what people would falsely represent as Church
> teaching, not the language they use to do so.
Ricgt, so Latin is a perfect choice to choose in this Newsgroup(NG).
btw, because you left out my argument, Mark:
"Either Latin is the subject,
or the [any] subject is discussed in Latin."
If this subject [or any other for that matter] is discussed in this NG,
it is perfectly reasonable to do that in(!) Latin.
> You know that.
Perhaps if you do not like that, because your Latin is not upto it, you
can discuss it somewere else. The ideosyncrasies of the(?) church are not
at stake if you say "It's got nothing to do with latin" but the
netiquette of this NG. [On the other hand, if you want to speak Dutch or
English, no one can prevent(!) you from doing so. But openly disaprooving
of someone speaking Latin here is bad netiquette.]
> Peace.
Pax tecum.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:8j3ksv87r0p30r63p...@4ax.com...
>> The issue concerns what people would falsely represent as Church
>> teaching, not the language they use to do so.
>Maybe you would enjoy reading Rama P. Cooramaswamy's
Well, if you are so sure of 'reform', perhaps you'd care to read over
a few I suggest, myself:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/Books.htm
And believe me when I say that list could be twice as long. And I'll
likely update it, soon. There's a lot out there criticizing the
'devastated vineyard', and what led to that destruction.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>Perhaps if you do not like that, because your Latin is not upto it
I don't know why you have to be so silly, other than some desire to
feel 'superior'. I said, here, that I don't know the language and
rely, instead, on translations of others. I thought it might be
worthwhile to learn. But I had said, in the thread, that I didn't
think it was necessary because of those translations. Others have
translated the latin into local languages, for you.
>can discuss it somewere else. The ideosyncrasies of the(?) church are not
>at stake if you say "It's got nothing to do with latin"
It doesn't, unless you simply argue with, essentially, 1000
translators over a period of millenia. And that's just not reasonable.
What you want to say is that translation isn't possible. And if so, I
would point you to translations already made of just the very things
I've posted to this very ng. Translation is possible.
>English, no one can prevent(!) you from doing so. But openly disaprooving
>of someone speaking Latin here is bad netiquette.
Or how about telling someone that slamming The Church is bad, and that
Catholics might prefer to criticize such a critic? How 'bout that? And
where better to find a Catholic, than on an ng putatively devoted to
the study of latin? the study of which is owed to the preservation of
ecclesial latin by that very Catholic Church. I suppose it's just as
in politics, isn't it? You can't watch a weather report and not see a
lib criticize George Bush, or the 'other party'. So I suppose those
who don't much like The Church would take any opportunity, where they
imagine no one would contradict them, to criticize Catholicism in
favor of some sort of old heresy, made 'new' again.
Peace.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jim: I'm sure a tremendous number of people will want to attend his funeral.
Sir Humphrey: To pay tribute to a great man.
Jim: Yeah, and to make sure he's dead.
- Yes, Prime Minister, A Diplomatic Incident
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:4majsvcujnf05rkea...@4ax.com...
>> "DL Farnworth" <knd....@spoof.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >The "twisted" Google search was for "102334.12" in
>> >Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
>> >help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
>> That's clever. Look, I can't understand WHY you insist on continuing
>> this if you think it's inappropriate to a latin ng.
>Iterum iterumque procul ab argumento principe erravisti, Marce. Si rixari
>tibi tanto gaudio est,
I take it you disagree. But the 'quarrel', as I understand your
reference, is not something I raised. It's something I would, rather,
correct. If people would slam The Church, in any language, expect
Catholics to say something to the contrary. It's only reasonable.
That's why I say it's got nothing to do with latin. If people would
rather take this over the religious ngs, then wouldn't that seem the
proper course?
Edward Casey
> "Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:4majsvcujnf05rkea...@4ax.com...
> >> "DL Farnworth" <knd....@spoof.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >The "twisted" Google search was for "102334.12" in
> >> >Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
> >> >help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
>
> >> That's clever. Look, I can't understand WHY you insist on continuing
> >> this if you think it's inappropriate to a latin ng.
>
> >Iterum iterumque procul ab argumento principe erravisti, Marce. Si
rixari
> >tibi tanto gaudio est,
>
> I take it you disagree. But the 'quarrel', as I understand your
> reference, is not something I raised. It's something I would, rather,
> correct. If people would slam The Church, in any language, expect
> Catholics to say something to the contrary. It's only reasonable.
> That's why I say it's got nothing to do with latin. If people would
> rather take this over the religious ngs, then wouldn't that seem the
> proper course?
Colligo te dissentire. Sed "rixam" si recte intellego designationem tuam,
ipse non suscitavi. Potius rem emendare vellem. Si homines, quapiam lingua
usi, ecclesiam reprehenderent, sperato asseclas illius ecclesiae
contradicere. Nihil est nisi rationale. Ideo dico rem nihil ad Latinitatem
attinere. Si homines haec omnia ad greges religionibus addictos
transferant, nonne hac via et ratione res bene evaderet?
Paul McKenna
Oh for crying out loud how many times do you have to be told? If you want to
discuss religeous matters in this NG then please do it in Latin, if you
can't or won't then take your thoughts to a place where they would be more
welcomed.
Mark Johnson
>> Or how about telling someone that slamming The Church is bad, and that
>> Catholics might prefer to criticize such a critic? How 'bout that? And
>> where better to find a Catholic, than on an ng putatively devoted to
>> the study of latin? the study of which is owed to the preservation of
>> ecclesial latin by that very Catholic Church. I suppose it's just as
>> in politics, isn't it? You can't watch a weather report and not see a
>> lib criticize George Bush, or the 'other party'. So I suppose those
>> who don't much like The Church would take any opportunity, where they
>> imagine no one would contradict them, to criticize Catholicism in
>> favor of some sort of old heresy, made 'new' again.
>Oh for crying out loud how many times do you have to be told? If you want to
>discuss religeous matters in this NG then please do it in Latin
Grow up, already. In fact, I just noted that someone else wrote
entirely in English, and not a single one took the time to chastize
him for the question or reply.
If you wanna talk about these matters, and not the study of Latin,
might I suggest you be a man about it, and take it to the appropriate
religious ng - where you will find . . me.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>> I take it you disagree. But the 'quarrel', as I understand your
>> reference, is not something I raised. It's something I would, rather,
>> correct. If people would slam The Church, in any language, expect
>> Catholics to say something to the contrary. It's only reasonable.
>> That's why I say it's got nothing to do with latin. If people would
>> rather take this over the religious ngs, then wouldn't that seem the
>> proper course?
>Colligo te dissentire
Thanks again, for that. And I think they understood the English, as
well. Again - if people would rather take this over the religious ngs,
then wouldn't that seem the proper course?
_I_ would think so.
Peace.
Edward Casey
>
> Thanks again, for that. And I think they understood the English, as
ngs,
> then wouldn't that seem the proper course?
>
Ob id iterum tibi gratias ago. Insuper puto eos versionem Anglicam
intellexisse. Namque itero: si malitis vos haec ad fora religionibus
addicta transferre, nonne haec via ac methodus magis apta videatur?
> _I_ would think so.
Ego quoque. Habeas res tuas.
Daniel Hoehr
Paul McKenna wrote:
> "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:0v4lsv8lpjod1nh0h...@4ax.com...
<snip Mark Johnson's braying>
> Oh for crying out loud how many times do you have to be told? If you want to
> discuss religeous matters in this NG then please do it in Latin, if you
> can't or won't then take your thoughts to a place where they would be more
> welcomed.
Marcus et suus genus dicendi in foro de ecclesia romana
(alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic) non favorabilis sunt. causam
imaginari potes. disceptare non vult sed insultare vult.
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
Evertjan. wrote:
> Perhaps if you do not like that, because your Latin is not upto it, you
> can discuss it somewere else.
linguam latinam non intellegit nisi interpretationem legit. Marcus
etiam in foro de ecclesia romana scribit et omnes offendit. disceptare
Johannes Patruus
> linguam latinam non intellegit nisi interpretationem legit. Marcus
> etiam in foro de ecclesia romana scribit et omnes offendit. disceptare
> non vult sed insultare vult.
Eheu, ille igitur hanc admonitionem non intelleget -
"Voca ad viam Domini tui per sapientiam et paraenesim pulchram,
& discepta cum eis cum [verbis], quae sint optima [idest modestissima]."
(Alcoranus 16:125, tr. Marracci)
[paraenesis - http://tinyurl.com/x8hd]
Johannes
Christmas to be abolished:
http://www.noahide.com/xmas.htm
Rummy's scoop:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
Daniel Hoehr
Johannes Patruus wrote:
> "Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:bqfv29$21ku8s$1...@ID-82123.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>>linguam latinam non intellegit nisi interpretationem legit. Marcus
>>etiam in foro de ecclesia romana scribit et omnes offendit. disceptare
>>non vult sed insultare vult.
>
>
> Eheu, ille igitur hanc admonitionem non intelleget -
>
> "Voca ad viam Domini tui per sapientiam et paraenesim pulchram,
> & discepta cum eis cum [verbis], quae sint optima [idest modestissima]."
> (Alcoranus 16:125, tr. Marracci)
censeo me hanc admonitionem intellegere. id tenere in posterum
conabor. fortasse exemplum pro illo sim.
> [paraenesis - http://tinyurl.com/x8hd]
gratias tibi ago!
> Johannes
>
> Christmas to be abolished:
> http://www.noahide.com/xmas.htm
>
> Rummy's scoop:
> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
Daniel
bob
Scripserat Daniel:
>
> Marcus et suus genus dicendi in foro de ecclesia romana
> (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic) non favorabilis sunt. causam
> imaginari potes. disceptare non vult sed insultare vult.
Scripserat Iohannes:
> Eheu, ille igitur hanc admonitionem non intelleget -
>
> "Voca ad viam Domini tui per sapientiam et paraenesim pulchram,
> & discepta cum eis cum [verbis], quae sint optima [idest modestissima]."
> (Alcoranus 16:125, tr. Marracci)
Recte scripsistis, sed Ovidius, qui nobis de voce divina vatis nobis dicit
(at sacri vates et divum cura vocamur;/ sunt etiam qui nos numen habere
putent. [Amores III.ix.17-18]), de ultimo studio Marci Fili Iohannis
scripsit:
ille caput viridi fessum submisit in herba,
lumina mors clausit domini mirantis formam:
tum quoque se, postquam est inferna sede receptus,
in Stygia spectabat aqua. (Met. III.dii-dv)
Et ex plurimis viris doctis nec deum nec vatem suum mentiri posse scimus.
Valeatis.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:dqfmsvgk347jnssj0...@4ax.com...
>> Thanks again, for that. And I think they understood the English, as
>> well. Again - if people would rather take this over [to] the religious
>> then wouldn't that seem the proper course?
This is how it read:
=================================================
"Richard Sere" <richar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BBF02883.3A69D%richar...@cox.net...
> I need help with # 7 in Bradley's Arnold Lesson XXVI.
> The sentence reads:
. . .
Sometimes it's helpful to add a phrase in order to bring the English
=================================================
Now, see, if it's alright to use English in this case, then you have
no complaint with my request that you, and particularly others, would
use English after they slammed the Catholic Church; or - as I
suggested - take it over to the religious ngs, which some seem
unprepared to do.
Peace - or pax?
Edward Casey
> Now, see, if it's alright to use English in this case, then you have
> no complaint with my request that you, and particularly others, would
> use English after they slammed the Catholic Church; or - as I
> suggested - take it over to the religious ngs, which some seem
> unprepared to do.
Videdum quaeso, si jure hoc in casu lingua anglica adhibeatur, tum nihil
conqueri debes de petitione mea qua tu et potissimum alii sermone Anglico
uterentur, postquam ecclesiam Romanam saeve reprehendissent vel ut
suaseram, rem ad fora quaestionibus religiosis dicata transferant, quod
aliqui facere nolunt.
Edwin Menes
other language on a topic dealing with Latin, or post in Latin on any
topic you want.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:1fqnsvgi6c6srakh1...@4ax.com...
>> Now, see, if it's alright to use English in this case, then you have
>> no complaint with my request that you, and particularly others, would
>> use English after they slammed the Catholic Church; or - as I
>> suggested - take it over to the religious ngs, which some seem
>> unprepared to do.
>Videdum
And again. And I'll look it over. But . .
You know, if _you_ want to propose Rahner, or 'Beeks' or whoever,
again I wish you'd try to argue your case in the Catholic ng. It would
be more appropriate.
Thanks.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>You somehow missed half the message. It was: post in English or any
>other language on a topic dealing with Latin
This does to the extent that people should be posting these complaints
about Catholicism to, I think, the Catholic ngs. And I'll be there, at
that point, to reply.
That's reasonable, isn't it?
Peace.
Edward Casey
>
> And again. And I'll look it over. But . .
>
> You know, if _you_ want to propose Rahner, or 'Beeks' or whoever,
> again I wish you'd try to argue your case in the Catholic ng. It would
> be more appropriate.
Iterumque. Quas res inspiciam. Sed...
Scin' tu, si opera Rahneri commendare velis, Beeksive vel cuiuscumque
gentium, itero, velim quaestionem arguas in grege Universali. Magis
idoneum enim esset.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:2j5osvc1mlpfejp50...@4ax.com...
>> And again. And I'll look it over. But . .
>> You know, if _you_ want to propose Rahner, or 'Beeks' or whoever,
>> again I wish you'd try to argue your case in the Catholic ng. It would
>> be more appropriate.
>Iterumque. Quas res inspiciam. Sed...
Just keep going with this. I would suggest that if you would propose
heretical writings, and such, that you not do so, here, but over in
the Catholic ngs, where they could be discussed.
Peace.
Menippos
May I make a small imposition on your clearly very valuable time?
Edward is translating your bullshit into Latin. Why don't you simply
learn Latin and then you can participate like everyone else? We
would unfortunately, of course, be deprived of the charm of your
crusading presence for a number of years, but there is always
the hope that most of us would be dead by the time you return.
In the meantime I urge you to get laid. It will cure your penchant
for proselytizing and maybe the schism in your asshole as well.
It is fools like you who make me bear the cross of excommunication
lightly and joyously.
Galileanly yours,
Menippos
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
><2r2psvoomh3icgnhd...@4ax.com>...
>>"Edward Casey" <ej...@cpinternet.com> wrote:
>>>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2j5osvc1mlpfejp50...@4ax.com...
>May I make a small imposition on your clearly very valuable time?
>Edward is translating your bullshit into Latin.
Okay then. And if you, yourself, feel the need to dump on Catholics, I
suggest you take it over to the Catholic ngs. You might find some
Catholics, there, one or two, maybe not more than that, willing to
reply constructively to your considered critiques.
Peace.
Johannes Patruus
> The "twisted" Google search was for "102334.12" in
> Groups. Returned ca. 31K hits. That tells me Mark can't
> help but talk. Hence, "logorrheic."
>
> Skimming through several missives, I found screeds
> against Jews, Masons and the present Roman Catholic
> hierarchy. And apparently endless disagreements. Hence
> "schismatic," "antisemitic," "antimasonic" and "can't
> agree with anybody."
"An unrestrained tongue is a sign of conceit and folly."
"A fool multiplieth words."
"Incontinence of speech is a fruitful source of contention."
(Francis Spirago, "The Catechism Explained", Tan Books, p.514)
"Nam homo creatus est infirmus."
(Alcoranus 4:28)
Johannes
Daniel Hoehr
gaudeamus igitur!
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
bob scripserat:
nunquam Marcum Filium Iohannis appellatum cum Ovidio ibidem vidi. Sed
verba vatis et verba tua me delectant.
tuus
Daniel
> Valeatis
DL Farnworth
caritatis, eo etiam qui aurum plumbo emere volebat.
Nec religionem ullam oppugnabam quae aliis solacium,
aliis semitam ad virtutem offert.
Iacet, puto, media religione veneratio, qua et honores
dis statim demus simul et liberationem sentiamus. In
Metamorphoseon libris Apulei incolae, ni fallor,
cuiusdam oppidi Thessalici Lucio necis reo apud
populumque convicto subito cachinnatione inridebant cum
iudicium eius iocum esse repperit, quam deo suorum
eodem nomine Ioco appellato hostiam quotannis
immolabant, qua eruptione, opinor, levabant intentionem
ex oneribus vitae tollendis genitam.
Inde, si recte rem habeo, persistet religio veneratiove
utique quoniam nos omnes pugna cotidiana aliquando
vinciamur necesse est. Mors, inquit Lucilius iunior,
non una venit sed quae rapit, ultima mors est.
Praeterea eo magis veneratione opus est qui doloris
recipiendi causa dolorem det, nam dolore continenter
accepto et levationem semper desiderat. Qua re
forsitan iurgator noster praecipue in religione fixus
sit. Et fortasse miser amicus tuus liberationem
venerationis, quae interdum gratia a Deo data esse
dicitur, nunquam sentire poterat.
Mark Johnson
I agree. That's why you might find people would disagree with you, but
in the appropriate forum. Then you can discover if the opinion you
just have to share is worth sharing at all. I would take this over to
the Catholics ngs. Doesn't that seem reasonable? Aren't you just
practically unable to . . . restrain yourself from offering an
opinion?
Peace.
bob
Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
>
> nunquam Marcum Filium Iohannis appellatum cum Ovidio ibidem vidi. Sed
> verba vatis et verba tua me delectant.
Fabula Ovidiana narratur de Narcisso et de amore sui qui, ut, veluti umbra
in regno Ditis, imaginem suam in aqua Stygia amaret, eum tantopere cepit.
Marcus noster, Filius Iohannis, qui nec rationis nec dialogi praeter sonum
vocis suae fatuum eget, est Narcissus interretialis. Est masturbatio mentis.
Valeas.
Daniel Hoehr
bob wrote:
> Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
pax et salus tecum
proportionem inter Marcum noster et Narcissum dispicio. Marcum a foro
de ecclsia romana (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic) scio et ibi
nemo eum serio considerat. multi eum saccaverunt, alii de illo et
stupore eo modo cavillantur. exempli gratia, Marcus praeclarissimus
noster paginulam suam de novo ordo missae, quem "iiritum" appellat, in
forum de ecclesia romana semper mittit. vide:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
hic ioci sunt:
http://www.geocities.com/yymjcath/AssNote.html
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
et hic Antonii Pistoris (Tony Miller's) commentariolum serium de
genere disceptandi eo est:
http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/
Sodalicium Miratorum Marci Filii Iohannis sodales novos semper accipit.
valeas
Daniel
bob
Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
>
> exempli gratia, Marcus praeclarissimus
> noster paginulam suam de novo ordo missae, quem "iiritum" appellat, in
> forum de ecclesia romana semper mittit. vide:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
>
> hic ioci sunt:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yymjcath/AssNote.html
> http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
>
> et hic Antonii Pistoris (Tony Miller's) commentariolum serium de
> genere disceptandi eo est:
>
> http://home.jtan.com/~ircd_/meetmarkjohnson/
>
> Sodalicium Miratorum Marci Filii Iohannis sodales novos semper accipit.
Suos anulos usque http://www.stjosephplacentia.org/rcath-l/val_mass.ht
secutus sum, ubi hoc inveni:
> We are told that we cannot tamper with these words because they are the "form"
> of the sacrament. Yet, one asks, where did these words come from? If we look
> at scripture we find that the words of institution are listed in Matthew,
> Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians. Let¹s look at the words we find in these
> various books6:
>
> Matthew 26:26-28
>
> hoc est corpus meum This is my body
> Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testaménti, qui pro multis effundétur in
> remissiónem peccatórum This is my blood of the new covenant, it will be
shed
> for many for the forgiveness of sins
>
> Mark 14:22-24
>
> hoc est corpus meum This is my body
> Hic est sanguis meus novi testaménti, qui pro multis effundétur. This is my
> blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many.
>
> As you can see, the words in scripture are different from those found in the
> Tridentine rite. How, then, can they say that the Pauline Mass (Mass of Paul
> VI) "changes" the words of institution? However, their big objection is not so
> much the change of all the words, as the specific change of "for many" (pro
> multis) to "for all." How is this change justified? In the Greek, the word
> that is used is polus (polus) which means "many, much, large." How then is the
> change justified?
> To answer that we need to look at what Jesus was about to undergo. Did Jesus
> die on the cross only for the elect, or did he die for all?
De articulis "pro multis" et "pro omnibus" et de ratione qua Paulus VI usus
est ad verba consecrandi mutanda disceptare nolo. Alterum argumentum est: id
ad significationem verborum in linguis pristinis.
Id Matthaei Marcique quod Hieronymus ex Graeco transtulit Graece legitur:
to peri pollon ekchunnuomenon... (Matth.)
to ekchunnuomenon hyper pollon... (Marcus)
ho polus In lingua Graeca significationem verbi Latini quod dicit "vulgus"
tenere potest: hic sensus apud Epicurum et Phrynichum invenitur, et apud
Eunapium 'ho polus' illud verbum Graecum quod dicit 'ho exairetos' opponit.
Nostra lingua Latina, ut Hieronymus rectissime intellexit, similem usum
conservat: verbum quod dicit 'multi' significationem alterius verbi quod
dicit 'vulgus' tenet, aut sicut anglice dicitur "the multitude, the masses
or the mass of men, the common man, (veluti inter verba polus et exaireton
apud Eunapium invenimus). Progressio igitur ab 'pro multis' ad 'pro omnibus'
non est via inter Scyllam et Charybdem.
Quamvis haec expositio alia argumenta pro missam Pauli VI inritam non
faciat, tale non fuit meum propositum. Multae quaestiones de disputationibus
religiosis, praesertum de disputationibus inter Christianos, si
significationes verborum rerumque grammaticarum quae ad linguas priscas
pertineant ab quaerentibus investigarentur, nonnullae quaestionesve
difficultatesve esse controversiosas desinerent.
Hanc ob rem hortatus sum ut Marcus Filius Iohannis Patrologiae et Graecae et
Latinae studeat.
Cura ut valeas.
Mark Johnson
>> We are told that we cannot tamper with these words because they are the "form"
>> of the sacrament. Yet, one asks, where did these words come from?
Scriptures and Tradition.
What you need to do is take a look at:
http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm
That's what you need to do.
Look, 'bobbbb', if you wanna discuss all this - and I know you do -
why not take this to the appropriate forum?
Peace.
DL Farnworth
eum."
(Estne tussis?)
Daniel Hoehr
bob scripserat:
Argumentum "defensorum traditionis catholicae" [TM] est: Ecclesia
Romana addocet verbas consecrationis per traditium et auxilium
tutelamque sancti spiritus retentati esse. Censeo hoc significationem
verbarum neque verbas per se referre. Ceterum censeo significationes
articulorum "pro multis" et "pro omnibus" in illo contextu aequales
esse.
> Alterum argumentum est: id
> ad significationem verborum in linguis pristinis.
>
>
> Id Matthaei Marcique quod Hieronymus ex Graeco transtulit Graece legitur:
>
> to peri pollon ekchunnuomenon... (Matth.)
> to ekchunnuomenon hyper pollon... (Marcus)
>
> ho polus In lingua Graeca significationem verbi Latini quod dicit "vulgus"
> tenere potest: hic sensus apud Epicurum et Phrynichum invenitur, et apud
> Eunapium 'ho polus' illud verbum Graecum quod dicit 'ho exairetos' opponit.
Etiam lingua Graeca Novi Testamenti ad linguas Hebraicam Aramaicamque
pertinet cum auctores evangelii Graecum Vetus Testamentum legissent,
Septuagintam appellatur, cuius lingua elementa Hebraicae Aramaicaeque
tenebat.
Lege Daniel XII:ii:
"verabbim mishene admat-aphar jakitsu
ellaeh lechajje olam ve'ellaeh lacharaphot ledireon olam"
Septuaginta transponit Verbum Hebraicum "rabbim", quod referit omnes
mortuos, cum verbo "polloi". Hoc exemplum demonstrat significationem
verbi "omnes" cum verbo Graeco "polloi" transpositum esse.
> Nostra lingua Latina, ut Hieronymus rectissime intellexit, similem usum
> conservat: verbum quod dicit 'multi' significationem alterius verbi quod
> dicit 'vulgus' tenet, aut sicut anglice dicitur "the multitude, the masses
> or the mass of men, the common man, (veluti inter verba polus et exaireton
> apud Eunapium invenimus). Progressio igitur ab 'pro multis' ad 'pro omnibus'
> non est via inter Scyllam et Charybdem.
Tecum concordo.
> Quamvis haec expositio alia argumenta pro missam Pauli VI inritam non
> faciat, tale non fuit meum propositum. Multae quaestiones de disputationibus
> religiosis, praesertum de disputationibus inter Christianos, si
> significationes verborum rerumque grammaticarum quae ad linguas priscas
> pertineant ab quaerentibus investigarentur, nonnullae quaestionesve
> difficultatesve esse controversiosas desinerent.
>
> Hanc ob rem hortatus sum ut Marcus Filius Iohannis Patrologiae et Graecae et
> Latinae studeat.
Linguam Hebraicam oblivisci non debet
> Cura ut valeas.
Valeas!
Daniel
--
"since you seem to have a problem with English,
I sincerely doubt that Greek would be of much
service to you."
- bob to Mark Johnson on alt.language.latin
Message-ID: <BBEC7FE8.6221%por...@ix.netcom.com>
bob
Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
> Etiam lingua Graeca Novi Testamenti ad linguas Hebraicam Aramaicamque
> pertinet cum auctores evangelii Graecum Vetus Testamentum legissent,
> Septuagintam appellatur, cuius lingua elementa Hebraicae Aramaicaeque
> tenebat.
>
> Lege Daniel XII:ii:
>
> "verabbim mishene admat-aphar jakitsu
> ellaeh lechajje olam ve'ellaeh lacharaphot ledireon olam"
Novum Testamentum et Septuaginta lingua Graeca nominata koine utuntur, eadem
lingua multarum fabularum hellenisticarum.
> Septuaginta transponit Verbum Hebraicum "rabbim", quod referit omnes
> mortuos, cum verbo "polloi". Hoc exemplum demonstrat significationem
> verbi "omnes" cum verbo Graeco "polloi" transpositum esse.
Recte scripsisti. Ut mihi videtur, sunt plurima verba quae facta sunt
haereditates communia, veluti fraterna, inter illas gentes cultusque
humanitatesque quae non procul ab litoribus Maris Nostri ortae sint. Apud
Herodotum de generationibus Aegyptiorum sacerdotum legere possumus.
Navigulum parvulum Graece legitur BARIS, sed BARIS etiam est verbum
Aegyptium. Tuum exemplum est huic disputationi aptum quoniam, quamvis versio
Aramaica Novi Testamenti ab temporibus apostolicis non extet, rectissime
Iesum discipulosque lingua Aramaica et Graeca (forsitan Latina) usos esse
intellegimus. (Novum Testamentum Aramicum quod extat est nuperior versio
linguae ec ramo Syriaco.) Ut igitur apud scriptores Novi Testamenti usus
semiticosque hellenisticosque inveniamus non debet esse rem mirabilem: in
templis Iudaeorum quondam legatue Graece nomen esotericum "AION". Licet
gentes et reges inter se bella pro causis consuetis et pro rationibus
solitis gerebant, vita spiritus, ut iam puto, et suae necessitates, fluxione
molliori movebant.
> Linguam Hebraicam oblivisci non debet
Abhinc plurimos annos linguam Hebraicam cum sacerdote Iudaeo ex Societatis
Iesus, sed, eheu, maioris partis oblitus sum.
Argumenta de forma et de intentione sacramentorum et rituum et orationum
longam et violentam historiam habent. Est proprium religionum paganorum ut
forma intentioni aequetur. Veluti tu mentionem fecisti, apud Christianos
difficultas non est facilis persolutu. Iacobus de Molay, ultimus dux Equitum
Templi ab rege francogallico, Philippo Bello confessionum audiendorum per
bella crucis ante proelio, quamvis milites sacerdotibus eguissent, accusatus
est. Apud Russos persecutionem Credentium Veterum invenimus qui novis
ritibus uti negaverint. Talium causarum gratia, ut veteres credentes digitis
idoneis in signum crucis faciendum non uterentur, Novi Credentes fratres
suos quos, quoniam novos ritus non conservarent, sicuti haereticos
damnarent, ad plurima milia mortuorum ceciderunt. Sacerdos senex mihi dixit
se ad Proelium Tuberis (anglice "Battle of the Bulge'), antequam sacerdos
futurus fuisset, confessionem militis morientis ultimam audiise. Hic
sacerdos etiam dixit magistrum suum in Societate Iesus hanc confessionem in
oculis Dei et coram Ecclesiam fuisse ritam validamque. Ille magister hoc
casu intentionem statuigue celebrantis formaeque sacramenti ob necessitatem
in articulo mortis superstetisse docuit.
Gratias tibi ago ob epistulam tuam de qua mihi nil est disputandum.
Cura ut valeas.
bob
Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
> ec ramo Syriaco
Legas 'ex' pro 'ec'.
> quondam legatue Graece
Lege 'quondam legatur Graece'
Valeas.
Daniel Hoehr
bob scripserat:
>
> Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
>
>>Etiam lingua Graeca Novi Testamenti ad linguas Hebraicam Aramaicamque
>>pertinet cum auctores evangelii Graecum Vetus Testamentum legissent,
>>Septuagintam appellatur, cuius lingua elementa Hebraicae Aramaicaeque
>>tenebat.
>>
>>Lege Daniel XII:ii:
>>
>>"verabbim mishene admat-aphar jakitsu
>>ellaeh lechajje olam ve'ellaeh lacharaphot ledireon olam"
>
>
> Novum Testamentum et Septuaginta lingua Graeca nominata koine utuntur, eadem
> lingua multarum fabularum hellenisticarum.
Septuagintam a Iudaeibus hellenisticibus in Alexandria scriptam est,
si rectus sum.
>>Septuaginta transponit Verbum Hebraicum "rabbim", quod referit omnes
>>mortuos, cum verbo "polloi". Hoc exemplum demonstrat significationem
>>verbi "omnes" cum verbo Graeco "polloi" transpositum esse.
>
>
> Recte scripsisti. Ut mihi videtur, sunt plurima verba quae facta sunt
> haereditates communia, veluti fraterna, inter illas gentes cultusque
> humanitatesque quae non procul ab litoribus Maris Nostri ortae sint. Apud
> Herodotum de generationibus Aegyptiorum sacerdotum legere possumus.
> Navigulum parvulum Graece legitur BARIS, sed BARIS etiam est verbum
> Aegyptium.
Adhuc in lingua Germanica "Barke" dicimus.
> Tuum exemplum est huic disputationi aptum quoniam, quamvis versio
> Aramaica Novi Testamenti ab temporibus apostolicis non extet, rectissime
> Iesum discipulosque lingua Aramaica et Graeca (forsitan Latina) usos esse
> intellegimus.
Cum Iesus discipulique casti Iudaei essent, censeo eos etiam linguam
Hebraicam intelexisse.
> (Novum Testamentum Aramicum quod extat est nuperior versio
> linguae ec ramo Syriaco.) Ut igitur apud scriptores Novi Testamenti usus
> semiticosque hellenisticosque inveniamus non debet esse rem mirabilem: in
> templis Iudaeorum quondam legatue Graece nomen esotericum "AION". Licet
> gentes et reges inter se bella pro causis consuetis et pro rationibus
> solitis gerebant, vita spiritus, ut iam puto, et suae necessitates, fluxione
> molliori movebant.
>
>
>>Linguam Hebraicam oblivisci non debet
>
>
> Abhinc plurimos annos linguam Hebraicam cum sacerdote Iudaeo ex Societatis
> Iesus, sed, eheu, maioris partis oblitus sum.
Liguam Hebraicam in Universitate Castra Bonna, Germania ("University
of Bonn, Germany"), quo studui theologiae catholicae, didici.
> Argumenta de forma et de intentione sacramentorum et rituum et orationum
> longam et violentam historiam habent. Est proprium religionum paganorum ut
> forma intentioni aequetur. Veluti tu mentionem fecisti, apud Christianos
> difficultas non est facilis persolutu. Iacobus de Molay, ultimus dux Equitum
> Templi ab rege francogallico, Philippo Bello confessionum audiendorum per
> bella crucis ante proelio, quamvis milites sacerdotibus eguissent, accusatus
> est. Apud Russos persecutionem Credentium Veterum invenimus qui novis
> ritibus uti negaverint. Talium causarum gratia, ut veteres credentes digitis
> idoneis in signum crucis faciendum non uterentur, Novi Credentes fratres
> suos quos, quoniam novos ritus non conservarent, sicuti haereticos
> damnarent, ad plurima milia mortuorum ceciderunt.
Recte scripsisti. Historia plenus sanguine vulneribusque ob argumenta
de rebus religionibus.
> Sacerdos senex mihi dixit
> se ad Proelium Tuberis (anglice "Battle of the Bulge'), antequam sacerdos
> futurus fuisset, confessionem militis morientis ultimam audiise. Hic
> sacerdos etiam dixit magistrum suum in Societate Iesus hanc confessionem in
> oculis Dei et coram Ecclesiam fuisse ritam validamque. Ille magister hoc
> casu intentionem statuigue celebrantis formaeque sacramenti ob necessitatem
> in articulo mortis superstetisse docuit.
Non censeo Deum meum confessionem abnutare cum sacerdos perfectus
abest. Confido quod Deus meus ad paenitentiam meam spectat neque ad
consecrationem viri qui audit confessionem meam.
Pergravem est ut libres divinos non solus, si pote sit, in suis
linguis pricipalibus sed etiam in suis contextibus archetypis legendos
esse. Frequenter in suis contextibus politicis historicisque
religionibusque non dicent quod nos hodie intellegunt. Verba in suis
contextibus de suis principalis significationibus dicunt. Et
significationes pricipalis discere debent et transferre has in lingua
nostra hodierna et in cogitando hodierno.
> Gratias tibi ago ob epistulam tuam de qua mihi nil est disputandum.
Nonnullae difficultes in lingua Latina habeo. Nunquam scribere in
lingua Latina tempto. Abhinc plurimos annos in scholam transferre a
Latina in linguam Germanicam didici, sed non scribere in Latina.
Censeo adhuc me Latinae studere. Hoc exercitatio bona est et me
delectat.
Daniel Hoehr
scribo:
> Hoc exercitatio bona est et me delectat.
lege "haec" pro "hoc".
DH
bob
Lucius Alter Danieli sal.
> Cum Iesus discipulique casti Iudaei essent, censeo eos etiam linguam
> Hebraicam intelexisse.
Iesus praesertim qui in templo cum doctis disputaret. Sed Lingua Hebraica
etiam erat lingua ritualis. Aramaica et Graeca erant linguae francae.
> Non censeo Deum meum confessionem abnutare cum sacerdos perfectus
> abest. Confido quod Deus meus ad paenitentiam meam spectat neque ad
> consecrationem viri qui audit confessionem meam.
Origenes et postea Sanctus Gregorius Nyssae salutem et misericordiam Dei
universales esse putabant ut illo argumento ad finem dierum et Sathanas et
Iudas ad amplexum divinum redirent. Haec opinio apud nonnullos perseverat.
Sacerdos orthodoxus mihi dixit se cognovisse anum quae ab septimanam ad
septimanam accendere candelam votivam. Hic sacerdos rogavit cur votivam
accenderet. Mulier se id facere ad salutem animae Luciferi adiuvandam et ad
dolorem eius mulcendum respondit.
> Nonnullae difficultes in lingua Latina habeo. Nunquam scribere in
> lingua Latina tempto. Abhinc plurimos annos in scholam transferre a
> Latina in linguam Germanicam didici, sed non scribere in Latina.
> Censeo adhuc me Latinae studere. Hoc exercitatio bona est et me
> delectat.
Scribendo discimus.
Vale.
Daniel Hoehr
bob scripserat:
> Origenes et postea Sanctus Gregorius Nyssae salutem et misericordiam Dei
> universales esse putabant ut illo argumento ad finem dierum et Sathanas et
> Iudas ad amplexum divinum redirent. Haec opinio apud nonnullos perseverat.
> Sacerdos orthodoxus mihi dixit se cognovisse anum quae ab septimanam ad
> septimanam accendere candelam votivam. Hic sacerdos rogavit cur votivam
> accenderet. Mulier se id facere ad salutem animae Luciferi adiuvandam et ad
> dolorem eius mulcendum respondit.
Quod illa mulier facit caritas vera est aut superstitio vera, aptum
quaesito.
Sacerdos quondam mihi dixit exorcizare optimum esse confessionem
canonicum. In existentia vera Satanae credere non possum sed credo ut
persona Satanae imago mali esset. Sed Ecclesia Romana adhuc docet
Satanam in persona exsitere. Nonnumquam difficultes accipere quod una
sancta nostra docit nobis habeo.
valeas