The new and improved NO (I know the pig analogy)
#41
(10-05-2010, 05:31 AM)glgas Wrote: The Mass born in Aramaic (Las Supper), was extended in Greek. In the 4th Century the Western Church (Pope Damasus) changed  the language to Latin.

From that point up to the 16th Century the language of the scholastic communication all over the Western world was the Latin. The common people in Spain, France, Italy were able to guess the meaning of the Latin, especially  when the Latin words were pronounced according to their idioms.

I will add that while the common language of the Apostles was Aramaic, but the major "liturgical language" of the time was Greek. The Septuagint (which was quoted by the Apostles) was written in Greek, most of the earliest of Church Fathers wrote in Greek, many of the first liturgies were in Greek, the Ecumenical Councils were in Greek (note the Nicene Creed and the Filioque problem), etc.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06774a.htm
Quote:An obvious corollary of what has been said is that we had much better never speak of a "Greek Rite" at all. Like the cognate expression "Greek Church" it is a confused and unscientific term, the use of which argues that the speaker has a mistaken conception of the subject. What is called a Greek Rite will always be the rite of some city — Alexandria or Constantinople, and so on. If one wishes to emphasize the fact that the Greek language is used for it, that statement may be added. At Athens and Constantinople they use the Byzantine Liturgy; it may be worth while to add that they use it in Greek, since at St. Petersburg and Sofia they follow exactly the same rite in Old Slavonic. When people further distinguish "pure Greek" and "Græco-Arabic", "Græco-Slavonic" Rites, the confusion is greater than ever. By these last terms they mean rites translated into Arabic and Slavonic out of the Greek. Now, the evidence on the whole tends to show that every ancient rite in Christendom was first used in the Greek language; those of the Copts, Syrians, and Romans certainly were. So that if one calls the Russian service "Græco-Slavonic", one may just as well describe the pope's Mass as "Græco-Latin". It would then be enormously to the advantage of clear ideas if people would stop using this expression and would describe each rite by the name of its place of origin. The name Greek Rites, however, still too commonly used, applies to the three classical Eastern uses whose original forms in Greek are still extant. These are the parent rites of Alexandria and Antioch and the widely spread Byzantine Rite. The Alexandrine Liturgy, ascribed to St. Mark, is no longer said in Greek anywhere. It is the source of the Coptic and Abyssinian Rites. The Greek text, which was used by the Orthodox of Egypt down to the thirteenth century, will be found in Brightman's "Eastern Liturgies", 113-143; an English translation of the Coptic form follows, 144-188; the Abyssinian Liturgy, 194-244. For a further account see ALEXANDRINE LITURGY. The other parent rite of Antioch stands at the head of a very great family of liturgies. In the original Greek it is represented in two obviously cognate forms, that of the eighth book of the "Apostolic Constitutions" (Brightman, op. cit., 3-27; compare the fragments of the liturgy in the second book, ib., 28-30), and the Liturgy of St. James (ib., 31-68). Its place of origin was not Antioch but Jerusalem. Till the thirteenth century, the Liturgy of St. James was used throughout both patriarchates. It still survives in Greek among the Orthodox for two occasions in the year, on St. James's feast (23 Oct.) at Zacynthus (Zante) and on 31 Dec. at Jerusalem. Translated into Syriac it is used by the Jacobites and Syrian Uniats (text in English in Brightman, 69-110); with further (Romanizing) modifications it forms the Maronite Rite (a Latin version has been edited by Prince Max of Saxony: "Missa Syro-Maronitica", Ratisbon, 1907). The Chaldean Rite, used by Nestorians and Uniat Chaldees (Brightman, 247-305), appears also to be derived, if remotely, from St. James's Liturgy. The Byzantine Use is further derived from this, and the Armenian Liturgy from that of the Byzantines. So, except for the services of Egypt and her daughter-Church of Abyssinia, the Greek Liturgy of St. James stands at the head of all Eastern rites (see article ANTIOCHENE RITE).

St Jerome was commissioned in 382 by Pope Damasus I to translate the Greek church text to create the Latin Vulgate because of the need for a common and accurate (there were previous attempts in Latin) litugucal text. "At the Pope's request he prepared a revised text, based on the Greek, of the Latin New Testament, the current version of which had been disfigured by "wrong copying, clumsy correction, and careless interpolations." He also revised the Latin psalter." - http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=10

(10-05-2010, 05:31 AM)glgas Wrote: The Northern people did not understood the Latin, their language used different basic words, so with the reformation they left the Church and joined the denominations which allowed to use their native tongues. (the three exceptions are Bavaria, Poland and part of Hungary)

It was a temptation for the Southern people too to change to their own language, where the words have taste, but the Church strictly forbade any such movement. God stood with this restriction, not because that was perfect, but because that was the decision of His Church.

Do you have anything to back this? I've never heard language being a reason.

For example, the English have always considered themselves more independent from Rome (way before the Anglican split). Often oversimplified as revolving around divorce, King Henry VIII and England itself considered itself semi-independent of Roman authority and thus when Rome denied the request for a divorce, King Henry VIII refuse the Pope's authority to meddle in English affairs (not the actual right to divorce). This desire for independence was present since the Great Schism of 1054 when England attempted to remain an independent church jurisdiction setting up the See of Canterbury. It wasn't until the Norman Conquest of 1066 that the Roman Catholic Church gained administrative control over the English faithful. (BTW, the Church of England under King Henry was very Latin. The use of the Sarum Rite [the Latin liturgy developed in Salisbury in the thirteenth century] was in full force until Edward VI took the throne in 1547 and the introduction of the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549 [replacing the Sarum Missal, however the BCP was an English revision of the Sarum Rite with influences from a reformed Roman Breviary of the Spanish Cardinal Quiñones, and a book on doctrine and liturgy by Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne) After this BCP the fight between the Calvinists/Protestants and the Traditionalists (think Anglo-Catholic) began and has yet to stop.

1549 Book of Common Prayer: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp...P_1549.htm
Sarum Missal: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp.../index.htm

Or the acts of Martin Luther: His efforts were to reform the church and rid such acts as the "sale of indulgences". His original intent wasn't to separate at all. It wasn't until he met frustration that his followers joined him in separating from the Roman See. In fact, after formal seperation, Luther wrote the Patriarch of Constantinople (Orthodox) to gain validity of his beliefs. After being denied, Luther resulted in the creation of his own separate church.

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm
Quote:...
The Reformers had felt a certain kinship with the Orthodox since Rome considered both the Christian East and the Reformers to be heretics.  The Protestant Reformers often used Eastern Christianity for propaganda and polemics.  At the Leipzig Debate in 1519, Martin Luther, pressed to defend his view that the authority of the pope was not normative for Christian doctrine and life, cited the example of  "the Greek Christians during the past thousand years...who had not been under the authority of the Roman pontiff."[17]  The next year he declared that the Orthodox "...believe as we do, baptize as we do, preach as we do, live as we do."[18]
...
The most substantial of these overtures was the translation into Greek of the Augsburg Confession.[20]  Philip Melanchthon fathered the movement to bring an understanding between Wittenberg and the East.  He was entirely dedicated to this task.  He was a kind and gentle humanist with an irenic tendency and a desire to preserve or restore the unity of the Christian Church.  He expressed this desire in the Augsburg Confession, where he tried to show the true catholicity of the Lutheran Church.[21]
...
In 1558 (1559) Patriarch Joasaph II (1555-65) of Constantinople sent Deacon Demetrios Mysos to Wittenberg to gather first-hand opinions about the faith, worship, and customs of the Reformers.  It was there that Melanchthon and Mysos worked together on the Greek version of the Augsburg Confession.  This Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession had supposedly been sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch around 1558 through the Serbian Demetrios, but Korte find evidence that Demetios was killed in a rebellion in Wallachia and that Melanchthon's letter and this first copy translation of the Augsburg Confession never reached Constantinople. 
...
The period of the exchange of theological correspondence between Constantinople and Tübingen took place during the years 1574-1582.  On May 24, 1575, Gerlach personally presented to the Patriarch the Augustana Graeca (which the Lutherans had titled "a Confession of the Orthodox Faith") together with letters from Andreae and Crusius.[45]
...
The Reformers were already very sensitive to the accusation of being innovators, rather than traditionalists, having been harshly accused by the Roman Catholics.  If they were elated with Jeremias' first letter, which did not accuse them, as did the Roman Catholics of being innovators, this was not the case now.  One can imagine their disappointment upon receipt of this document from the leader of the Greek Church.  The outlook for any union or theological coalition against Rome was bleak.  The ancient Church had sided with Rome in rejecting the Lutheran faith as an "innovation."  Their only recourse was to convince the Orthodox otherwise, which became the basis of all succeeding correspondence coming out of Tübingen.[58]  The dialogue had taken a notable turn from seeking union to apologetics which continued throughout the remaining correspondence.  The bilateral agenda of the second exchange was restricted to six topics: filioque, free will, justification by faith and good works, sacraments, invocation of the saints, and monastic life. 


(10-05-2010, 05:31 AM)glgas Wrote: Vatican II understand the problem of the tasteless words, and allowed the usage of the vernacular. God stands with his Church' decision, not because it is perfect, but because this is the decision of His Church, and He promised to keep with that Church until the end of times.

Why do you consider Latin the choice of God? Is it because of Pope Damasus I's desire for a Latin Vulgate or some other reason?

I'm truly curious.
Reply
#42
(10-05-2010, 10:17 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: This is fascinating - I had never thought about there being a linguistic impetus for the Reformation, but it makes a lot of sense. I've decided to start learning Latin and been surprised how many words are similar in French, a language in which I'm fluent.

A lot of words are similar in English as well - that's why these languages are called Latin. :)
Reply
#43
(10-05-2010, 03:17 AM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(10-04-2010, 09:45 PM)Azurestone Wrote:
(10-04-2010, 09:30 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-04-2010, 09:28 PM)Azurestone Wrote: So is it the Latin that makes the Liturgy holy? If this is the case, are the equally ancient rites that were never in Latin less holy?

Some of you seem to be saying this considering taking one of the Triditine Rites and translating word for word (with everything else being equal) is somehow less fitting for God.

I don't follow. 

The use of a liturgical language has two advantages:

1) It makes the Universality of the Church plain
2) It protects the prayers from the inevitable language drift after translation

Are you are that Jews of Christ's time used a liturgical language as well?

The early Christians used a common language for their divine liturgies/masses based on their region(true). However, this does not follow that the language was necessarily one that could not be understood. Latin, Greek, Slavonic, etc. were all widely understood at the time the liturgies were created.

The patriarchal/metropolitan region used a given "liturgical language" to unite that region under an identical holy form of worship (true). However,    again, it doesn't necessarily follow that those languages were foreign to the regional inhabitants.

Today, all of the liturgical languages are barely understood. That is, in addition to the Latin, the Slavonic of the Ukranians and Russians, as well as the Greek of the Greeks (Catholic and Orthodox) are now in a dialect (fully) understood by few of the faithful.

Now, I do agree with you in that the use of these languages that have been with us since the beginning of early Christianity adds a mystical reverence to the liturgy. However, I disagree that the use of anything but this, necessarily makes the liturgy less reverent and fitting. Those functions come from the effort and focus of the faithful to make it so, for even a Latin Mass can be goofed to being unworthy of God. 

From the beginning of your assertion you have set up a false straw man for your argument.

"So is it the Latin that makes the Liturgy holy?"

Then you move as to glance over the actual history of the Latin Rite and why the use of this particular language has been preferred even as new languages appeared on the scene making yet another false argument.

"The early Christians used a common language for their divine liturgies/masses based on their region"

Ending with yet another false assertion.

"Today, all of the liturgical languages are barely understood."

To which you make your argument that language doesn't matter and it is the Church that must bend to the fad of the time. This is reckless and illogical thinking.

The fact is that you base your opinion on error and hence your conclusions are wrong.

Now I don't even need to reply.  :thumb:
Reply
#44
(10-05-2010, 05:31 AM)glgas Wrote: Vatican II understand the problem of the tasteless words, and allowed the usage of the vernacular. God stands with his Church' decision, not because it is perfect, but because this is the decision of His Church, and He promised to keep with that Church until the end of times.

If that's true why do the documents of Vatican II actually recommend that Latin be retained?  Do I need to post?
Reply
#45
(10-05-2010, 08:14 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-05-2010, 10:17 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: This is fascinating - I had never thought about there being a linguistic impetus for the Reformation, but it makes a lot of sense. I've decided to start learning Latin and been surprised how many words are similar in French, a language in which I'm fluent.

A lot of words are similar in English as well - that's why these languages are called Latin. :)

Meh, English is more Germanic than anything. 
Reply
#46
(10-05-2010, 08:17 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: Now I don't even need to reply.  :thumb:

Did you miss the rest?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)