Why the Mass in Latin?
#31
(06-14-2011, 09:53 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 07:08 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Mikmac u roughy up the alphabet so obviously u were speaking about the written word
anywY look I've lived in the gealtacht I to to tlm
u cannot understand Latin if u understand gealic. They are two mutually intelegibke languages
learn gealic or Latin e ough to udersta d either the. See for yourself
I'm no mskin  it up
sip

He's confusing Gaelic with Gaulish.  Julius Caesar sent messages to his commanders in Greek during the Gallic wars, because at the time Gaulic and Latin retained a high degree of mutual intelligibility. 

Could you cite a source for that? I just looked through De Bello Gallico and wasn't able to find what you're saying in it.
Reply
#32
(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!

The Byzantine rites definitely do need some "Latinizations," or, more aptly, Catholicizations. The liturgical veneration of schismatic heretics like Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus is completely unacceptable. The same goes for the liturgical veneration of all post-schism Orthodox "saints".

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.

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.
Reply
#33
Let the Eastern Rite do their thing and let the Western Rite return to the Latin Mass that served it so well for many centuries.
Reply
#34
(06-14-2011, 10:32 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(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!

The Byzantine rites definitely do need some "Latinizations," or, more aptly, Catholicizations. The liturgical veneration of schismatic heretics like Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus is completely unacceptable. The same goes for the liturgical veneration of all post-schism Orthodox "saints".

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.

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.

Absolutely ridiculous.  St. Photios died in the peace of communion with Rome, I don't know how St. Gregory Palamas is a heretic, and Mark of Ephesus is not venerated in any Eastern Catholic Church that I'm aware of.  The Filioque is completely unnecessary and makes no sense in Greek, so we won't be inserting it into our Creed when if we professed it, we would be professing a heresy (not that the Latins profess a heresy, but that what we understand by it, you rightly condemn as heresy).  You could always return to your original practice of professing the Creed without the Filioque, you know, the one that the Pope had plaques made in Greek AND Latin, sans filioque, placed in public in Rome that are still there to this day?  But right, that wasn't an act of papal infallibility :)  As regards the epiklesis, you should have no problem with it since obviously the transubstantiation takes place by the power of the Holy Spirit and not the power of the priest himself.

Ultimately, you have to let it go.  The latinizations you want to happen will never take place.  We don't need them to be Catholic, we are fully Catholic already.  Nothing you can give us will make us more Catholic than we already are.
Reply
#35
(06-14-2011, 11:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: Absolutely ridiculous.  St. Photios died in the peace of communion with Rome, I don't know how St. Gregory Palamas is a heretic, and Mark of Ephesus is not venerated in any Eastern Catholic Church that I'm aware of. 

Photius spent much of his life fighting the Catholic Church. Not a very saintly example.

How was Palamas a heretic? He denied absolute divine simplicity. See Lateran IV for details. In addition, he died out of communion with the Catholic Church. How can someone who rejected Christ's Church be venerated as a saint?

I've known some Easter "Catholics" who pray to Mark of Ephesus. I don't know about the liturgical practices of the various rites, but I bet some parish celebrates his feast.

(06-14-2011, 11:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Filioque is completely unnecessary and makes no sense in Greek, so we won't be inserting it into our Creed when if we professed it, we would be professing a heresy (not that the Latins profess a heresy, but that what we understand by it, you rightly condemn as heresy).  You could always return to your original practice of professing the Creed without the Filioque, you know, the one that the Pope had plaques made in Greek AND Latin, sans filioque, placed in public in Rome that are still there to this day?  But right, that wasn't an act of papal infallibility :)

The Fathers of the Council of Florence--including the Greeks--didn't think the Filioque was unnecessary, let alone heretical when added to the Greek text of the Creed. See the authoritative Greek text of the infallible definition of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. 

[Image: a8dbd1038f.jpg]

(Taken from page 526 of the Taner-Alberigo Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, volume one.)

Underlined is the Greek equivalent of "ex Filioque procedit."

(06-14-2011, 11:36 PM)Melkite Wrote: As regards the epiklesis, you should have no problem with it since obviously the transubstantiation takes place by the power of the Holy Spirit and not the power of the priest himself.

Of course transubstantiation is effected by God--but God operates through the Words of Christ which the priest speaks over the each species. It is the Words of the Lord alone, irrespective of any prayer invoking the Holy Spirit, that constitute the form of the Eucharist.
Reply
#36
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.

What is this absolute simplicity doctrine?  I've heard rumors about it but don't know much.  Did the Lateran council define it after Palamas' death?  If so, certainly you can't accuse him of heresy for something that wasn't defined as such during his time.  I've never really understood this penchant of Latins for retroactive anathematization.

The Greek fathers of Florence didn't understand the Latin they were being given.  In Greek, the filioque means the Holy Spirit is proceeding from two sources.  Further, they would have signed anything because they were under Byzantine imperial pressure to gain military help from the West against the Islamic onslaught.  You really have a way of picking and choosing what facts you want to make an argument with.  You're kind of a cafeteria historian.

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.
Reply
#37
(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.

I see no reason to think that Photius lived a particularly holy life after he ended his rebellion against ecclesiastical authority.

(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: What is this absolute simplicity doctrine?  I've heard rumors about it but don't know much.  Did the Lateran council define it after Palamas' death?  If so, certainly you can't accuse him of heresy for something that wasn't defined as such during his time.  I've never really understood this penchant of Latins for retroactive anathematization.

Lateran IV was held in 1215; Palamas was not born until 1296.

(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: The Greek fathers of Florence didn't understand the Latin they were being given. 

Those who did not understand Latin were able to read the Greek text, a selection of which I posted above.

(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).

(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?

(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.
Reply
#38
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

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.  :)
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Pdj&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=similarities+between+Latin+and+Gaelic&oq=similarities+between+Latin+and+Gaelic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=6263066l6263066l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l109l109l0.1

But when I do a search for "similarities between Latin and Celtic languages" I get similar results.   :shrug:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=similarities+between+Latin+and+Celtic+languages&oq=similarities+between+Latin+and+Celtic+languages&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=446355l446355l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l113l113l0.1    
Reply
#39
(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.

Reply
#40
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? 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)