Poll: Which ancient Liturgy do you prefer
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
13
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Ancient Liturgy Preference (only respond if you have attended both)
#31
(08-21-2011, 04:21 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 04:17 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I need to go there (St. Josaphats) again. Such a beautiful cathedral, and Bishop David is a good speaker.

I agree on both counts. I heard him sing the Liturgy on Christmas Eve. It was beautiful. I took a protestant friend. It was his first ever Catholic service in any Rite! He was suitably impressed.

Good. So now he is a UGCC member. Or not yet.  :pray:
Reply
#32
(08-21-2011, 04:24 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 04:21 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 04:17 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I need to go there (St. Josaphats) again. Such a beautiful cathedral, and Bishop David is a good speaker.

I agree on both counts. I heard him sing the Liturgy on Christmas Eve. It was beautiful. I took a protestant friend. It was his first ever Catholic service in any Rite! He was suitably impressed.

Good. So now he is a UGCC member. Or not yet.  :pray:

Not yet, but keep him in your prayers. His name is Jason.
Reply
#33
(08-21-2011, 02:35 PM)usque ad hilaritatem Wrote:
(08-20-2011, 04:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Doubtless the TLM.. I don't know what I'd do without the "Suscipe, sancte Pater," Offerimus tibi, Domine," and "Sucsipe, sancta Trinitas." The offertory as a whole is one of the most beautiful and theologically rich parts of the Mass, and there simply is no offertory in the Eastern liturgy.

Another thing that I prefer about the TLM is that holy Communion is distributed to the faithful under single species
I actually find the symbolism with intiction to be very beautiful. I wish Communion was distributed via intinction in the Latin Mass.

I agree.
Reply
#34
(08-21-2011, 04:52 PM)Peter J Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 02:35 PM)usque ad hilaritatem Wrote:
(08-20-2011, 04:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Doubtless the TLM.. I don't know what I'd do without the "Suscipe, sancte Pater," Offerimus tibi, Domine," and "Sucsipe, sancta Trinitas." The offertory as a whole is one of the most beautiful and theologically rich parts of the Mass, and there simply is no offertory in the Eastern liturgy.

Another thing that I prefer about the TLM is that holy Communion is distributed to the faithful under single species
I actually find the symbolism with intiction to be very beautiful. I wish Communion was distributed via intinction in the Latin Mass.

I agree.

Wasn't it done away with just to combat a heresy?

Is there ever a time in which it may possibly come back?
Reply
#35
(08-21-2011, 01:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: The distinct prayers of the Roman Mass, such as the collects, the offertory prayers, and the Canon, were composed after the liturgical language had already been changed to Latin. The original language for these prayers is Latin, not Greek.

(08-21-2011, 01:30 AM)Landelinus Wrote: By the time St John Chrysostom died in the fifth century, Latin had already become the liturgical language of Rome.  Doubtless Greek was used very early on but had been replaced by Latin long before any standardization of the Roman Liturgy (eg by St Gregory in the 6th century).  The nearly universal use of Latin  in ancient Western liturgies (Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, Celtic) is good evidence in my mind not only of an early adoption of Latin as a sacral language but also that the use of Latin acted as a symbol of the continuity of the Liturgical patrimony.


Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.
Reply
#36
(08-21-2011, 04:56 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 04:52 PM)Peter J Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 02:35 PM)usque ad hilaritatem Wrote: I actually find the symbolism with intiction to be very beautiful. I wish Communion was distributed via intinction in the Latin Mass.

I agree.

Wasn't it done away with just to combat a heresy?

I don't know of any time when intinction was specifically done away with, although of course it did cease when communion in both species was prohibited.
Reply
#37
(08-21-2011, 05:48 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.

Not really. I would have opposed the translation of the liturgical texts into Latin from Greek then, as well. I don't think that's exactly what happened, though. In the first couple of centuries, the liturgy was in a state of flux (though obviously the essentials and basic pattern remained constant). The change seems to have been less one of translation than it was one of the bishop needing to be able to understand the texts he was more or les ad-libbing. The strict formalization of the liturgy seems to have taken place after the transition from Greek to Latin.
Reply
#38
(08-22-2011, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 05:48 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.

Not really. I would have opposed the translation of the liturgical texts into Latin from Greek then, as well. I don't think that's exactly what happened, though. In the first couple of centuries, the liturgy was in a state of flux (though obviously the essentials and basic pattern remained constant). The change seems to have been less one of translation than it was one of the bishop needing to be able to understand the texts he was more or les ad-libbing. The strict formalization of the liturgy seems to have taken place after the transition from Greek to Latin.

The Greek Orthodox DL is not in the "vernacular," at least it wasn't until very recently.

It was in Byzantine Greek which no living Greek speaks nowadays.
Reply
#39
(08-22-2011, 01:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 05:48 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.

Not really. I would have opposed the translation of the liturgical texts into Latin from Greek then, as well. I don't think that's exactly what happened, though. In the first couple of centuries, the liturgy was in a state of flux (though obviously the essentials and basic pattern remained constant). The change seems to have been less one of translation than it was one of the bishop needing to be able to understand the texts he was more or les ad-libbing. The strict formalization of the liturgy seems to have taken place after the transition from Greek to Latin.

The Greek Orthodox DL is not in the "vernacular," at least it wasn't until very recently.

It was in Byzantine Greek which no living Greek speaks nowadays.

In the United States all Eastern Orthodox parishes use the vernacular, at least from what I can tell.
Reply
#40
(08-22-2011, 01:37 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 01:34 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(08-21-2011, 05:48 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes but that is beside the point. It is a bit disingenuous to criticize vernacular in the DL when the liturgy in Rome was in the vernacular as well. Considering the history of Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy it seems the practice of translating the liturgy into the vernacular is a long and venerable tradition.

Not really. I would have opposed the translation of the liturgical texts into Latin from Greek then, as well. I don't think that's exactly what happened, though. In the first couple of centuries, the liturgy was in a state of flux (though obviously the essentials and basic pattern remained constant). The change seems to have been less one of translation than it was one of the bishop needing to be able to understand the texts he was more or les ad-libbing. The strict formalization of the liturgy seems to have taken place after the transition from Greek to Latin.

The Greek Orthodox DL is not in the "vernacular," at least it wasn't until very recently.

It was in Byzantine Greek which no living Greek speaks nowadays.

In the United States all Eastern Orthodox parishes use the vernacular, at least from what I can tell.

Not in Greece, from what I gather.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)