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)
(10-05-2011, 01:28 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: No, completely correct. The Council of Trent had no intentions of limiting its definition of the nature of the Mass to the Roman rite; it used the term "Mass" discuss the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the same in every Catholic rite.

By that logic, because the council was conducted in Latin, Latin is the liturgical language of every rite in the Church.  Obviously, a council held by the Latin Church will use Latin.  No one in their right mind construes this to mean Latin terms and customs become the standard for non-Latin rites.  You are plainly wrong on this one.
Reply
(10-05-2011, 12:46 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 12:33 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: :shrug:

The use of Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, Syriac or even the vernacular tongue in the different rites of the Church has nothing to do with the Apostles.

Either way, I was talking about the mutual enrichment of Latin and Greek.

It's not specifically about the Apostles, but which preceded which?  The Greeks also brought Christianity to the Slavs, so you find Greek words in the Slavonic liturgy but no Slavonic words in the Greek liturgy.  In a sense, perhaps it is that if the Greek liturgy were to adopt Latin words, that would imply the liturgy which the Latins received was imperfect.  But the Latins (or whoever received it) can't improve upon it in this sense, because they received it, they didn't create it.  In the same sense that we can't take what God made and make it better.

But be it Greek, Latin or Slavonic, neither language is godly inspired in itself. The Apostles themselves, not to mention Christ, spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Perhaps we should have sticked to it so to stay closer to the real thing? The disappearance of Aramaic in Greek and Latin would seem to imply that such a liturgy was imperfect to begin with, according to your reasoning.

Either way, that was not the point I was trying to make. All I was saying is that it's not fundamentally wrong if Greek were to adopt Latin terms regarding ecclesiastical vocabulary. Not that it's needed but, also, not that it's wrong in and of itself.

The resistance I'm seeing from you stems for that endless suspicion of all things Latin that seems to be at the heart of every Easten Christian (Catholic or Orthodox) that I happen to encounter.
Reply
Neither,
I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass over what I have experienced of the Catholic DL.
Reply
(10-05-2011, 05:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 01:28 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: No, completely correct. The Council of Trent had no intentions of limiting its definition of the nature of the Mass to the Roman rite; it used the term "Mass" discuss the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the same in every Catholic rite.

By that logic, because the council was conducted in Latin, Latin is the liturgical language of every rite in the Church.  Obviously, a council held by the Latin Church will use Latin.  No one in their right mind construes this to mean Latin terms and customs become the standard for non-Latin rights.  You are plainly wrong on this one.

That's not an accurate description of what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that it is accurate to use the term Mass--the definition of which is the unbloody renewal of Christ's Sacrifice--to refer to the Sacrifice regardless of the rite in which it is celebrated. I implied nothing about the language in which the Eastern liturgies should be celebrated.
Reply
(10-05-2011, 01:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 05:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(10-05-2011, 01:28 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: No, completely correct. The Council of Trent had no intentions of limiting its definition of the nature of the Mass to the Roman rite; it used the term "Mass" discuss the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the same in every Catholic rite.

By that logic, because the council was conducted in Latin, Latin is the liturgical language of every rite in the Church.  Obviously, a council held by the Latin Church will use Latin.  No one in their right mind construes this to mean Latin terms and customs become the standard for non-Latin rights.  You are plainly wrong on this one.

That's not an accurate description of what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that it is accurate to use the term Mass--the definition of which is the unbloody renewal of Christ's Sacrifice--to refer to the Sacrifice regardless of the rite in which it is celebrated. I implied nothing about the language in which the Eastern liturgies should be celebrated.

If by accurate, you meant that the DL can be correctly defined by using the term mass, I agree.  Certainly someone not familiar with the Eastern rites will know that we refer to them as divine liturgies, so to refer to them as a mass isn't factually incorrect.  But you did also say that it was 'the proper term' which I interpreted as you saying that mass should be the preferred term irrespective of rite.  If that's not what you meant, ok.  If that is what you meant, you are incorrect because we already call it divine liturgy, and there is nothing incorrect in that terminology, so there is no compelling reason for us to call it mass instead.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)