At what point did the Church become so "Renaissance/European"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theink
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theink

Guest
I’ve noticed and frankly have become annoyed by the split in our Church.

There seems to be those who want the Church to “return” to their Orthodox ideal of Catholicism, which would include more Latin, chanting, pipe organs, dramatic candles and decorations.

Then there are those who are happy with a post Vatican II Church.

My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the “middle east” walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?
 
the Church has different liturgical expressions in the East and the West… neither is wrong. Both are Catholic… there are Eastern Catholics as well. (like Eastern Orthodox but with the Pope)

however even the Byzantine style of worship isn’t quite what the Apostles practiced, imo. The Church has evolved over time… but it’s the doctrine that matters, not whether the worship is Eastern style or Western style 🙂 as long as it’s theologically correct and reverent, it is not wrong. The music style, etc, is fine as long as its appropriate for Mass (reverent)
 
theink said:
I’ve noticed and frankly have become annoyed by the split in our Church.

There seems to be those who want the Church to “return” to their Orthodox ideal of Catholicism, which would include more Latin, chanting, pipe organs, dramatic candles and decorations.

Then there are those who are happy with a post Vatican II Church.

My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the “middle east” walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?
Click to expand...
Way too broad a question. You’re asking for a comprehensive history of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, right?

so…really…what’s your question/comment? Thanks.
 
One can see the evolution of the liturgy in the writings of the Apostles and their immediate followers; the Apostolic Constitutions have a nearly full late 3rd C liturgical text in book VIII (§2), and a rubrics only one from the early 3rd in an earlier book (Bk II §7).

By the 4th century, most of the liturgical praxis was fixated; the orders of Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Deaconess, Subdeacon and Reader were all in common use. The non-ordained orders of confessors and virgins existed, as well. (Bk VIII §3)

In Rome, similar liturgy was still used; the transition was being made to latin, as the vernacular of Rome, at the time. Likewise, the Byzantines had transitioned already to Greek, and Egyptians to Greek and Coptic. The Roman Canon itself dates to the 4th C or earlier, as can be seen by the ca 407 writings on the canon by Pseudo-Ambrosius.

By 500, Rome was almost exclusively using the latin, and the EF going populace would recognize the prayers, if not their order.

newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm is a good source for much more detail on the Roman Mass’s history.
 
In addition to what Aramis has posted, it bears pointing out that the liturgy and traditions developed differently in Spain (including what would be Portugal), in Gaul, in western north Africa/Sicily and in northern Italy from what was known in central Italy. One example easy to research is that Milan was a Metropolitan See in it’s own right, and had a different liturgy from Rome (the liturgy of the Milan region and northern Italy has transformed over the centuries to be very similar to the Mass of Rome and was mostly suppressed but survives in the city itself).
 
The official language of the Church from the beginning was Greek., as it was the language of the Europe. Latin on Christ’s time survived only for the elite, and the literature; the Church was the church of the poor.

The West changed the language to Latin after Diocletian divided his empire. The Western Church followed it about 100 years later, making the Latin as the official language, St Damasus pope ordered the Mass to be celebrated in Latin, St Jerome translated the Vulgata.

The chant (adapted from the Jewish practice) was present from the beginning for the Psalms. Until St Ambrose (337-397) the Church was suspicious against the hymns, those were considered gnostic; only St Gregory I (around 600) ordered wide use of them. (Interestingly for the Mass pope St Pius V again restricted the usage of hymns)

The polyphony and the pipe organ was adapted only through the renaissance (13th Century)

Any change was strictly opposed by the traditionalists. This is good, the truth is always the balance between the opposing views
 
theink said:
My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the “middle east” walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?
Click to expand...
Organic and unifying development of the Church Christ founded, in spite of political and national conflicts as well as religious persecutions.
 
Originally Posted by theink
My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the “middle east” walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?
Click to expand...
Broad though it may be, it is an interesting observation.

The picture we have from the Gospels is of an Almighty God incarnate amongst–as the OP points out–Middle Eastern men and women, himself a poor and humble man. He gathers unto himself a small band of men who ultimately share with him his final Pasch, the Church’s first Eucharist. They gather in a room provided by a friend and humbly break bread and share wine. Christ commands them that as often as they gather in such wise to do this, to do it in his memory.

As the years pass after Christ’s departure from their midst, that Eucharist is celebrated in a similar ritual meal fashion by the Apostles with their Churches, in a way more like the Last Supper than unlike it. The Agape is born, which precedes the Eucharist.

Fast forward to November 18, 1626: the humble and martyred Peter’s successor of that day, Pope Urban VIII, is consecrating with a solemnity to surpass the court of the Roman emperors, the vastest and grandest ecclesiastical edifice in all the world (a far cry from the Upper Room or the catacombs) in the context of a Eucharist (no longer called that) that in no wise resembles, externally, either Christ’s Last Supper or the early Christian Agape/Eucharist.

Well, we know of course that there’s alot of history between those two moments that, if we review it, explains the development of the liturgy and of the Christian Church and its government, offices, architecture, art and other externals and accidentals.

But it may be an interesting excercise to actually just allow those two moments to stand side-by-side for a moment–the Last Supper and the Eucharist of the Apostolic era, and the pontifical ceremonies and liturgy consercrating Saint Peter’s Basilica–with everything in between those two moments gutted-out. Are we looking at a stereopticon? Or are we looking at two completely unrelated images?

If it were possible to transport the Apostles and a handful of early Christians to the Rome of Urban VIII for the consecration of St. Peter’s, what, I wonder, would they make of it all? Of the edifice, itself? Of the high and imperial tenor of the complicated liturgical celebration? Of the idea of Peter’s successor as head of the Church of Rome being borne aloft a worshipful and cheering crowd on a throne beneath a canopy, fanned by ostrich feathers, surrounded by armed troops, banner-bearers, and other “apostles” richly draped in scarlet, purple, and ermine?

What would be the reaction of the Apostles to the sight, I wonder? The reaction of the early Christians? Would they recognize, in any of it, Christ’s Last Supper, or their Eucharist? Would they be utterly bewildered? Would they imagine that they were observing, not a Christian bishop at a Christian worship site, but perhaps a Roman Emperor or an Egyptian Pharoah presiding in a pagan temple at a pagan worship ceremony? Would they be appalled when they realized they were seeing a Christian Eucharist in progress, and a bishop, not a pharaoh?

Contrarily, if Urban VIII and his court or his cardinals were to be transported to an agape of the early Church, would they be able to comprehend what they were observing? Would they know that they were witnessing the Holy Mass? And once they did recognize it, would they be appalled and scandalized by what they saw: the relative informality, the lack of ceremony or solemnity, the lack of palls and corporals and purificators, the lack of exquisite vestments and lace, the absence of six candles and a cross, or of incense, or of Latin? No altar, for that matter! At least, nothing they would recognize as one.

I really do believe that if Christians of the Apostolic era could see a Mass of the 17th century in St. Peter’s Basilica, they would be scandalized by it and appalled by the magnificence. Likewise, I believe that if Catholics of the 17th Century were to witness the Agape/Eucharist of the the early Church, they would likewise be appalled and scandalized by the informality of it all.

But the 21st century Church will insist that the one experience was as valid and as good as the other, that we are merely talking about two different modes of expressing the same sacrifice, in two very different eras. I wonder if Christians of either of those eras, however, would be able to agree with that sentiment.
 
Hesychios said:
One example easy to research is that Milan was a Metropolitan See in it’s own right, and had a different liturgy from Rome (the liturgy of the Milan region and northern Italy has transformed over the centuries to be very similar to the Mass of Rome and was mostly suppressed but survives in the city itself).
Click to expand...
Actually, the Ambrosian Rite survives in the Archdiocese of Milan (including that part which is in Ticino, now part of Switzerland).
 
What a Solemn Pontifical High Mass was like in Rome in the 17th Century doesn’t tell us anything about what a weekday Mass was in tiny Alpine Caoria during the same time period, either.
 
I suppose when we all return to wearing caftans and sandals and celebrate the Eucharist in an upstairs room of the local Motel 6 we can start fighting about the appropriate sandal style and caftan color! I can hear it now; the traditonal caftan versus the latest from Nordstrom’s, Birkenstock sandals or Walmart? Do they make snow-proof sandals?

Sorry, couldn’t resist!
 
laszlo said:
The official language of the Church from the beginning was Greek., as it was the language of the Europe.
Click to expand...
But the beginning of the Church was not European (an anachronism, of course, when referring to the first century A.D.). The original members of the Church likely spoke Aramaic along with Greek and/or Hebrew.
laszlo said:
The West changed the language to Latin after Diocletian divided his empire. The Western Church followed it about 100 years later, making the Latin as the official language, St Damasus pope ordered the Mass to be celebrated in Latin, St Jerome translated the Vulgata.
Click to expand...
It is highly likely that Latin became the “common tongue” before Diocletian, in the western parts of the Roman Empire, as we know from Popes’ burial sites earlier in the third century having Latin (not Greek) inscriptions. St. Jerome did not translate the “Vulgata” – his translation of the Scripture became known as the “Vulgate.”
 
Vince1022 said:
It is highly likely that Latin became the “common tongue” before Diocletian, in the western parts of the Roman Empire, as we know from Popes’ burial sites earlier in the third century having Latin (not Greek) inscriptions. St. Jerome did not translate the “Vulgata” – his translation of the Scripture became known as the “Vulgate.”
Click to expand...
Latin was around many centuries before Christ. The Latin alphabet was around many centuries before Christ so you would find many Latin inscriptions in that same time. Whether it was a “common tongue,” a second language, vernacular, a national language is really a matter of semantics. The Romans conquered the Greeks, yet retained a lot of the Greek alphabet, art, philosophy, and science. What percentage was spoken and where it was spoken is a highly debatable topic; we will never know for sure because we don’t have recorded sounds from that period. The illiterates (not intended to offend anyone here) were probably more responsible in vulgarizing the Latin into what we call today the Romance languages, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, inter alia. This vulgarization of Latin had already been well underway in the early centuries. It is highly unlikely that Latin was the primary spoken language of much of the western world by the 3rd century, although many of the words were somewhat recognizable to most.

St. Jerome didn’t merely “translate” scripture. He consolidated the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic with the help of language scholars who took into account all the cross-referencing done throughout scripture to provide some consistency, fluency, and organization. While accuracy and precision of meaning almost always deteriorates with any translation and paraphrasing, the fact that Vulgate took into account and made sense out of all the cross references made it highly acceptable for the Christian world. It has, of course, been very well preserved to this day so we do owe the early scholars for their hard work on that. (And of course, all the monks who spent countless hours copying them throughout the centuries. 🙂 )
 
ProVobis said:
Whether it was a “common tongue,” a second language, vernacular, a national language is really a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...
No, it’s a matter of history and fact.
ProVobis said:
the fact that Vulgate took into account and made sense out of all the cross references made it highly acceptable for the Christian world.
Click to expand...
No, only to the Christian world that used Latin.
 
For the majority of the Christian world, the two languages were greek and latin. There are others but in the grand scheme of things these are by far the majority spoken.

As far as the Church needing a unifying language - I think it was very important. Especially in those days with hardly any communication.

Secondly the chant in latin is beautiful and we need to recover it.

Last but not least having a unifying language is something that helps the church greatly. I would have thought in our day and age, with high rates of tourism, travel, emigration keeping a uniform liturgy would have made as more sense today than in earlier days.

Br. Paul
 
Vince1022 said:
No, it’s a matter of history and fact.
Click to expand...
When you read different accounts which one do you accept as fact? There were a lot of untruths spread about World War II simply by presenting films in the wrong sequence so I imagine the likelihood of 100% accuracy of events reported in the third century is practically nil. However, where corroborated, the accuracy improves. And much of it, especially written, is corroborated.
No, only to the Christian world that used Latin.
Click to expand...
Especially after the Church made it its official language.

By the way, does anyone know in which language St. Paul wrote his letters to the Romans?
 
BrotherPaulMary said:
For the majority of the Christian world, the two languages were greek and latin. There are others but in the grand scheme of things these are by far the majority spoken.

As far as the Church needing a unifying language - I think it was very important. Especially in those days with hardly any communication.

Secondly the chant in latin is beautiful and we need to recover it.

Last but not least having a unifying language is something that helps the church greatly. I would have thought in our day and age, with high rates of tourism, travel, emigration keeping a uniform liturgy would have made as more sense today than in earlier days.

Br. Paul
Click to expand...
Agreed. As to your last sentence, I would say it’s even more important today to have that uniform liturgy as the internet now presents us with a myriad of vernaculars and translations and arguments which are difficult even for the most educated to comprehend. Many of us can’t even understand our own vernaculars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top