Why the Mass in Latin?
#41
(06-15-2011, 03:34 AM)mikemac Wrote: Okay in my first post in this thread I mistakenly referred the Celts of Europe as Gaelic speaking people.  I should have said Celtic speaking people or Gallic.  But like I said on the second page of this thread it just doesn't make sense to me that the early Gallic, Brythonic, Gaelic and even the Celts of Anatolia could not understand each other.  St Jerome, who visited Ancyra (modern-day Ankara) in 373 AD, likened their language to that of the Treveri of northern Gaul where he spent some time.  Yeah no harm no foul devotedknuckles but the wikipedia page for Ogham does say "The largest number of scholars favours the Latin alphabet as this template".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogham
Doing research on the fly?

Most alphabetic scripts have a single common source. Greek, Semitic, Indic, and other scripts all come from the Phoenician alphabet. That means that Greek (and the Latin alphabet which is directly from a form of Greek), Arabic, Hebrew (modern and ancient), Latin, Cyrillic, Devanagari, etc are all from a single source.

However, for Latin, the conduit for this was Greek. Latin's writing system is directly from a Greek alphabet (note, Greek had several writing systems in the past and the one which we know as Greek now is not the basis for Latin; I forget the name of the other Greek alphabet used for Latin).

Also, Greek was used in the Roman empire extensively. Many Romans were also native Greek speakers. Greek had the status for the Romans that Latin had for Medieval and Modern Europe. It was Greek that was used to communicate with people in Judea, Egypt, Rome, and of course, Greece.

Greek only fell when the Roman empire split. Latin as a language had no special significance to the Church until later in history.

Celtic languages were widespread, and although they were very different from their modern Celtic languages, they were not used much in the Church. This is why France, Spain, Italy and other nations speak languages that are from Latin, even when there was no compelling reason for people to use that language after the Empire fell. It was a language that was apparently willingly adopted by Celtic people.

Quote:I wasn't trying to say that Latin was used in the liturgy because the Celtic Europeans could understand it.  Believe it or not my first post was intended to be in line with number 1 of the OP of this thread.  I had previously read that there were similarities between Latin and Gaelic.  So before posting I did a search for "similarities between Latin and Gaelic" and found many more web sites besides the Scottish one that I quoted from.  But then again, my error, I used Gaelic and not Celtic languages for my search.  Mea culpa.  :)
Gaelic is not anything like the Celtic languages of the time period in question. The features of Gaelic as we know it were not found in the first centuries AD. They were Indo-European languages and similar in nature to other Indo-European languages of the time, but other than that, comprehension was acquired after study, or, a common language was used.

Quote:But when I do a search for "similarities between Latin and Celtic languages" I get similar results.   :shrug:

Of course you will.

Research similarities between Sanskrit and Greek and Latin. It is the same basic subject. Celtic languages will have the same connections.
Reply
#42
(06-14-2011, 10:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 11:33 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 08:43 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 12:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 08:45 PM)Petertherock Wrote: 4. Mass is said in Latin because a universal Church requires a universal language. The Catholic Church is the same in every clime, in every nation, and consequently its language must be always and everywhere the same, to secure uniformity in her service.

IMO, no other reason is necessary.

For whoever, like myself, does not understand Latin - neither did the Apostles fully understand why Our Lord suffered and was crucified - yet they believed.
In like manner, we do not need to understand all the intricacies of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to do as we were commanded and be participants at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This point seems to ignore the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Latinise them all, I say!

I thought you were for amalgamation?  Good to know for certain you're a deceiver.  Screw this, byzantize the Latin Church!  Our liturgy is more beautiful and reverent, anyway, you'll learn to love God better!

Actually, I was being facetious.
Reply
#43
(06-14-2011, 10:32 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: The Byzantine rites definitely do need some "Latinizations," or, more aptly, Catholicizations.
This is really farfetched and wrong.

Orthodoxy is not defined by what is associated with the Latin rites. The rites reflect a universal Church.

Look at the average Latin rite mass and you'll see how you are filtering results.

Quote:I also feel that since the FIlioque expresses the fullness of Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, it ought always to be added to the Nicene Creed, no matter the rite of the person saying it.
The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Quote:There is another idea which, if not heretical, is at least contrary to definitive doctrine, namely, that the Epiklesis is somehow necessary for validity, and that the Words of Institution alone do not effect transubstantiation. In my opinion, major prostrations ought to be mandated in adoration of Christ present in the consecrated species immediately after the Words of Institution are pronounced over each.

It is not by man's power that Transubstantiation takes place.

And your statements are in contractidiction to what the Latin church publishes to be believed:

Quote:1333 In corde celebrationis Eucharistiae habentur panis et vinum quae, per Christi verba et per Spiritus Sancti invocationem, corpus et sanguis Christi fiunt. Ecclesia, mandato Domini fidelis, in Eius memoriam, usque ad reditum Eius gloriosum, agere pergit id quod Ipse Suae passionis egit pridie: « Accepit panem... », « Accepit calicem, ex genimine vitis repletum... ». Panis et vini signa, cum corpus et sanguis Christi arcano modo efficiuntur, creationis etiam significare pergunt bonitatem. Sic in Offertorio, gratias agimus Creatori propter panem et vinum, 307 fructum « operis manuum hominum », sed etiam prius « fructum terrae » atque « vitis », Creatoris igitur dona. Ecclesia in gestu Melchisedech, regis et sacerdotis, qui protulit « panem et vinum » (Gn 14,18), propriae suae oblationis perspicit praefigurationem.

CCC Wrote:1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." the signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,152 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.
Reply
#44
(06-15-2011, 08:51 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Actually, I was being facetious.

Ok, I apologize for calling you a deceiver, then.
Reply
#45
(06-14-2011, 11:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Absolutely ridiculous.  St. Photios died in the peace of communion with Rome

St. Photius? Don't be ridiculous. The man, although brilliant on many levels, was an enemy of the Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:"That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.

And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her."
Reply
#46
(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I see no reason to think that Photius lived a particularly holy life after he ended his rebellion against ecclesiastical authority.

I never said he lived a particularly holy life, I said he died in communion with Rome, reconciled to the Church.  As such, it is right to recognize him as a saint, since we know from Scripture that God rewards equally those who arrive at the 11th hour as he does those who arrive at the 1st, or, in Augustine's case, the 3rd or 4th.
Reply
#47
(06-15-2011, 09:06 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I see no reason to think that Photius lived a particularly holy life after he ended his rebellion against ecclesiastical authority.

I never said he lived a particularly holy life, I said he died in communion with Rome, reconciled to the Church.  As such, it is right to recognize him as a saint, since we know from Scripture that God rewards equally those who arrive at the 11th hour as he does those who arrive at the 1st, or, in Augustine's case, the 3rd or 4th.
I see no reason to believe he reconciled with the church. Unless there is something which states otherwise.

And, What about Gregory Palamas who was never in the Church to begin with, was an open schismatic and produced very questionable theology regarding the essence of God?
Reply
#48
(06-15-2011, 07:00 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: I don't see where this trad vs Eastern Catholic debate is getting us. Both trads and Eastern Catholics have received shabby treatment in the past. Why do we want to beat each other up while church liberals laugh? 

No kidding.
Reply
#49
(06-15-2011, 09:10 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 07:00 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: I don't see where this trad vs Eastern Catholic debate is getting us. Both trads and Eastern Catholics have received shabby treatment in the past. Why do we want to beat each other up while church liberals laugh? 

No kidding.

You guys are right, it's probably not gonna lead us anywhere. It's just a typical thread derailment.
Reply
#50
(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: In Greek, the filioque means the Holy Spirit is proceeding from two sources. 

The Council of Florence, in both the Greek text and the Latin text, made it clear that "[The Holy Spirit] proceeds from both [the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and one spiration" (Denzinger 691).

Are you able to read the whole Greek text of what you posted?  I don't know Greek, so I can't.  Ultimately, in Greek, and in English, the filioque is best expressed by saying through the Son, not from the Son.  From the Son is heretical in Greek and English in a way that it is not in Latin.  What would have been heretical would be if the Latin were to say ex Filio rather than filioque.  Filioque implies that the Spirit's procession from the Son is subordinate to his procession from the Father.

(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: Further, they would have signed anything because they were under Byzantine imperial pressure to gain military help from the West against the Islamic onslaught. 

And you imagine that there was no imperial pressure at Nicaea, Ephesus, or Chalcedon?

At the first 7 ecumenical councils, the military force was in Constantinople, so the Byzantines would not have needed to supplicate a foreign power because of their own military weakness as they did in Florence.  The circumstances are entirely different.

(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: Ultimately, though, the end remains the same.  We are fully Catholic as we are, therefore nothing you can give us can make us more Catholic than we already are.  Any and all Latinizations are completely unnecessary, unhelpful and, most importantly, uncharitable.

The addition of the Filioque better expresses Catholic dogma that its omission.

It better expresses it in Latin.  But, there is nothing in the Creed about the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, the Assumption, etc., etc.  The Creed without the Filioque perfectly expresses fundamental Catholic dogma.  As Rosarium said, it doesn't have to express every last detail of defined Catholic doctrine.

(06-15-2011, 06:14 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: St. Augustine whored himself out for a large portion of his life, and was a heretical Manichaen after that.  Certainly you don't accept him as a saint who was a bad example for most of his life while rejecting St. Photios for the same thing?  It doesn't matter how they lived their lives, if they reconciled with God and the Church and died in a state of grace, they are saints.

St. Augustine and Photius' situations are not similar at all. Augustine clearly converted from his sinful past and became a saintly man.
Even if Photius died in communion with the church, there's nothing which points to the fact that he reconciled with God and the Church. Just because there is a possibility doesn't mean he should be venerated in my opinion.  :shrug:

As for Palamas, he was anti-Latin and did not reconcile with the church in any way that I know of either.

Listen to what you just said.  "Even if Photios died in communion with the Church, there's nothing which points to the fact that he reconciled with God and the Church."  How can you be in communion with the Church and not reconciled to her?  You're either in the Church or you're not, there's no middle ground.  Isn't that what people here like to say?

(06-15-2011, 07:00 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: I don't see where this trad vs Eastern Catholic debate is getting us. Both trads and Eastern Catholics have received shabby treatment in the past. Why do we want to beat each other up while church liberals laugh? 

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but you made a false dichotomy.  Latins don't have a monopoly on traditionalism.  Most Eastern Catholics are trads.  Except for the Ruthenians (j/k).  In fact, if the Consecration of Russia ever takes place, there would be, overnight, exponentially more trad Catholics of the Byzantine rite than there are currently in the Roman rite.  The Byzantine rite is inherently traditional.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)