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

[ProVobis]

Maybe but that brings up interesting questions:

“…Now, what are the odds that each and every author, writing independently, would happen to write in the same language and always in Greek? Was every author of the New Testament fluent in reading and writing Greek? Did every Christian in every church understand Greek well? If not, then what reason would the authors have for writing in Greek only? Why would Paul, when writing to different cities, in different areas of the world, to people who spoke different languages, always write in Greek? Would he not rather write in whatever language was common to those he was addressing? Why would Mark, writing for the Christians of Rome, write in Greek? Would he not rather write to them in their own first language, Latin, a language he learned during his many years among them? Why would Matthew, writing for Christians who were of Hebraic descent and who were converts from Judaism, write in Greek? Would he not rather address them in their own language?..”

An interesting read here:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm

 

[malphono]

Maybe but that brings up interesting questions:

“…Now, what are the odds that each and every author, writing independently, would happen to write in the same language and always in Greek? Was every author of the New Testament fluent in reading and writing Greek? Did every Christian in every church understand Greek well? If not, then what reason would the authors have for writing in Greek only? Why would Paul, when writing to different cities, in different areas of the world, to people who spoke different languages, always write in Greek? Would he not rather write in whatever language was common to those he was addressing? Why would Mark, writing for the Christians of Rome, write in Greek? Would he not rather write to them in their own first language, Latin, a language he learned during his many years among them? Why would Matthew, writing for Christians who were of Hebraic descent and who were converts from Judaism, write in Greek? Would he not rather address them in their own language?..”

Yes, it is interesting. Paul was a Roman Citizen, and one would therefore surmise that he knew at least enough Latin to get by. He was, of course, a Jew from the Levant which means that he spoke Aramaic, and perhaps knew some Hebrew as well. And he was well-to-do, (else he he would not have been a Roman Citizen), which means that he spoke Greek, probably as a first language or at least bi-lingually with Aramaic. As far as I know, though, his letters were, with the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, all directed toward Greek-speaking peoples. But that one exception is interesting too, and goes to the fact that, while Latin may have been the common tongue in Rome, Greek was still considered the language of the educated. But the letter was written in Greek, and I can only suppose that it was so done because he was addressing the widest audience.

The funny thing is that Greek held on the same way for several centuries, and it was really only when Latin had become “corrupted” by the various vernacular variations that it was standardized for ecclesiastical use. From that, one can easily make the argument that there has always been a liturgical language that was not exactly the vernacular.

As for Matthew, he was a tax collector and so he probably knew at least some Latin, but his mother tongue was Aramaic. By all accounts, he wasn’t part of the elite or particularly well-to-do, so whether he knew Greek (at least beyond saying “Sorry, I don’t speak Greek”) is debatable. Taken together, it leads me to give credence to the theory of various biblical scholars as to the existence of an “Aramaic Matthew” (albeit lost) before the Synoptic Gospels as we know them. The Matthew we have would, by that theory, be at best a translation of the original.

 

[Warrenton]

The better question is “at what point did Europe become Catholic?” The Eurpoe that you see is the Europe that the Church created and sustained. The Europe she found was thouroughly pagan, in some areas quite violent, and as we would say nowadays, genocidal. The Church changed that, and the bulk of the people joined and supported her in the effort. The “renaissance” appearance of the Church rituals reflected the esteem in which the Europeans held their Church.

One reader questioned whether the early Christians and the renaissance clergy would have recognized each other. The answer is that they would have. The early Christians worked tirelessly to convert the Roman Empire (and other empires) to the faith. They would have rejoiced knowing they succeeded. Likewise, the renaissance clergy knew how few and oppressed the first Christians were, that is why they built such beautiful churches to commemorate them.

The Church today needs the strengths of all her history. Just as an older man cannot say he does not need the joy of his youth or the strength of his prime, so the Church cannot say she does not need the attributes of her past.

 

[Vince1022]

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.

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?

The Church never made Latin the official language of the whole Catholic Church. Only the Latin Rites.

St. Paul wrote in Greek.

 

[Vince1022]

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

Yes of course there are practical benefits to a common language. The simple fact remains is that the Catholic Church has never had one and only one language. There has always been a diversity. We can argue whether that’s good or not, but can’t get around the fact.

 

[Vince1022]

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.

Uniformity in liturgy is important, yes. Yet again, there have always been many Catholic liturgical Rites. Some would say Benedict XVI promoted the diversity of liturgical Rites by his unprecedented introduction of now two forms of Roman Catholic liturgical Rites…the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. So even the Pope recognizes (and has promoted) the diversity of liturgical Rites.

 

[Vince1022]

Yes, it is interesting. Paul was a Roman Citizen, and one would therefore surmise that he knew at least enough Latin to get by. He was, of course, a Jew from the Levant which means that he spoke Aramaic, and perhaps knew some Hebrew as well. And he was well-to-do, (else he he would not have been a Roman Citizen), which means that he spoke Greek, probably as a first language or at least bi-lingually with Aramaic. As far as I know, though, his letters were, with the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, all directed toward Greek-speaking peoples. But that one exception is interesting too, and goes to the fact that, while Latin may have been the common tongue in Rome, Greek was still considered the language of the educated. But the letter was written in Greek, and I can only suppose that it was so done because he was addressing the widest audience.

The funny thing is that Greek held on the same way for several centuries, and it was really only when Latin had become “corrupted” by the various vernacular variations that it was standardized for ecclesiastical use. From that, one can easily make the argument that there has always been a liturgical language that was not exactly the vernacular.

As for Matthew, he was a tax collector and so he probably knew at least some Latin, but his mother tongue was Aramaic. By all accounts, he wasn’t part of the elite or particularly well-to-do, so whether he knew Greek (at least beyond saying “Sorry, I don’t speak Greek”) is debatable. Taken together, it leads me to give credence to the theory of various biblical scholars as to the existence of an “Aramaic Matthew” (albeit lost) before the Synoptic Gospels as we know them. The Matthew we have would, by that theory, be at best a translation of the original.

We don’t know whether Paul knew Aramaic. As an educated Jew, he definitely knew Hebrew. He wrote his letter to the Romans (as will all his letters) in Greek because that was the “common tongue” of the empire at the time.

 

[roveau]

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?

Jesus and his disciples lived in a highly ritualistic society with temple worship in full swing, grand and dramatic architecture, great music, elaborate cermonies, scripture, emphasis on debate and scriptural studies, incense, sacrifice, and so on.

It was just a matter of time for our Church to develop it’s own traditions but from humble beginnings it did develop into what it has been for well over a thousand years. The Church developed from Rome and hence they spoke and wrote in Latin

I don’t see any ‘split’.

BTW the question is a bit different to your elaboration, so I just concentrated on part of your above text.

 

[ProVobis]

He wrote his letter to the Romans (as will all his letters) in Greek because that was the “common tongue” of the empire at the time.

But was it the only one? This we know from John 19:19-20:

19 ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 20 τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.

19 Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum : Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum. 20 Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes of course there are practical benefits to a common language. The simple fact remains is that the Catholic Church has never had one and only one language. There has always been a diversity. We can argue whether that’s good or not, but can’t get around the fact.

Not in dispute. From Fr. Nikolaus Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass | The Language Used in the Celebration of the Holy Mass:

1 Whether the Apostles celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the language of each individual nation or only in the Aramean (Syro-Chaldaic), Greek and Latin languages cannot be determined with certainty. In any case, from the first four centuries no liturgy can be shown composed in any other than the three languages of the inscription of the Cross. In the West, for example, in Italy, in Germany, in Spain, in France, in England, Latin was at all times the liturgical language. Toward the end of the ninth century Pope John VIII. (872882) permitted the Moravian Slavs, converted by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, to celebrate the liturgy in their (Slavonic or Glagolitic) native language, and that probably in order to prevent their apostasy to the Greek Schism. In the East also the Church later on permitted some schismatics and heretics, who had returned to the unity of the Church (for instance, the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians), to retain their native language in the liturgy. At present there are twelve languages used in the Catholic liturgy; namely, 1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian. With the exception of Romanian, all these languages used in the liturgy have for a considerable time no longer been the living languages of the people, but only dead languages. The united Roumanians alone make use of the living mother-tongue in the liturgy; this is not expressly permitted by Rome, but is merely tolerated. (Cf. Bartak, Versuch, die liturgische Sprache der Kirche vom dogmatischen, historischen und pastorellen Standpunkte zu beleuchten. Koniggratz, 1875.)

 

[ProVobis]

Also, consider this

"1. All the requisites for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice have been selected with especial care, and nothing has been adopted but what has been found best suited unto this end. This applies also to the language in which the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated; for the liturgical language should correspond to its liturgical object. The Mass considered in itself could assuredly be celebrated in any language, but by the Providence of God the Latin language has become, and still continues to be of all languages the most widely diffused for divine worship.1 The very ancient practice of the Church of celebrating Mass in the West, not in the living language of the country, but in a dead language, that is, in Latin, for the most part a language unintelligible to the people, has since the twelfth century to the present epoch been frequently made the subject of attack.2 Such attacks originated principally in an heretical, schismatical, proudly national spirit hostile to the Church, or in a superficial and false enlightenment, in a shallow and arid rationalism entirely destitute of the perception and understanding of the essence and object of the Catholic liturgy, especially of the profoundly mystical sacrifice. **In the attempt to suppress the Latin language of the liturgy and to replace it by the vernacular, there was a more or less premeditated scheme to undermine Catholic unity, to loosen the bond of union with Rome, to weaken the Catholic spirit, to destroy the humility and simplicity of faith. **Therefore, the Apostolic See at all times most persistently and inflexibly resisted such innovations; for it is an invariable principle of the Church never to alter the ancient liturgical language, but inviolably to adhere to it, even though it be no longer the living language spoken or understood by the people. The Church likewise, when introducing the Roman liturgy among newly converted nations, has for many centuries permitted the Latin language only.3 She excommunicates all those who presume to declare the vernacular to be the necessary or the only permissible language for the liturgy;4 she stigmatizes as impertinent effrontery for any one to censure or combat the retention of the Latin language for divine worship. 5 This is just; for, as St. Augustine remarks, “to question what the united Church practices as a rule is the most daring madness.”6 In all such general decrees and usages appertaining to divine worship, the Church is directed and preserved from injurious blunders by the Holy Spirit.7 Instead of censuring the Church on account of her practice, that has endured more than a thousand years, of conducting her liturgical worship in a dead language, we should rather acknowledge and admire her supernatural wisdom; she counts her experiences by centuries: ours we can enumerate only by days."

“2 **Opponents of the Latin language of worship were, as a rule, heretics, schismatics and rationalistic Catholics; **for example, the Albigensians, the so-called Reformers, the Jansenists, the Gallicans, the Josephites, the so-called German and the Old Catholics.”

more on

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/language_gihr.pdf

 

[Vince1022]

But was it the only one? This we know from John 19:19-20:

19 ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 20 τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.

19 Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum : Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum. 20 Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Was it the only language? of course not. Was it the common language? of course.

 

[Vince1022]

Not in dispute. From Fr. Nikolaus Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass | The Language Used in the Celebration of the Holy Mass:

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Thanks.

It was a response to your statement about the Church not having one language but one needs to recognize the nature of those languages.

Again: “1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian. With the exception of Romanian, all these languages used in the liturgy have for a considerable time no longer been the living languages of the people, but only dead languages.”

 

[ProVobis]

He wrote his letter to the Romans (as will all his letters) in Greek …

That doesn’t mean the originals were written in Greek. According to the source I posted above (in #21)

“…
The original books of the New Testament, in their various languages, have been lost. We do not have the original manuscripts from any of the books of the Bible. For the New Testament, the oldest extant copies of each book are in Greek (with occasional words or phrases in Aramaic). But this fact does not warrant the conclusion that each book was originally written in Greek. There is much evidence to the contrary…”

Was it the only language? of course not. Was it the common language? of course.

Pointless argument when the inscription was written in three languages (as indicated in scripture itself) so everyone could understand.

 

[ProVobis]

Was it the only language? of course not. Was it the common language? of course.

Pointless argument when the inscription was written in three languages (as indicated in scripture itself).

 

[malphono]

It was a response to your statement about the Church not having one language but one needs to recognize the nature of those languages.

Again: “1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian. With the exception of Romanian, all these languages used in the liturgy have for a considerable time no longer been the living languages of the people, but only dead languages.”

I probably should have noted this earlier, but it slipped my sieve of a mind Anyway, here goes:

Nos.3 & 4 - There are 2 major dialects of Syriac. One is generally called “Western” (aka “Syriac” used by the Syriac OC/CC and the Maronites, and the other “Eastern” (aka “Chaldean” or “Assyrian”), used by the Chaldeans and the ACoE. The differences are mainly in pronunciation.

• No. 5 (“Arabian”) is non-existent. He probably means “Arabic” but that was never a liturgical language as such.
• No. 6 is properly called “Ge’ez”
• No. 7 (Glagolitic) is, as I recall, a variant of Old Slavonic, and is the one non-Latin language that was used by the Roman Church after Trent (limited to parts of Dalmatia).
• No. 8 is another that is non-existent. The Ruthenians speak a variety of Slavic languages but the liturgical language as such is Old Slavonic.
• No. 9 is again not properly a liturgical language, but is probably the closest to Old Slavonic of all the Slavic vernaculars.

 

[manualman]

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?

If the “post Vatican II” changes among the catholic population as a whole in matters of liturgy, fidelity and theology bore ANY resemblence at all to what was ACTUALLY approved at Vatican II, there wouldn’t BE any of this controversy and division today. The traditionalist movement is largely a reaction to the Trojan horses that were snuck into catholicism in the NAME of Vatican II, but actually are utterly unrelated to and unsupported by the council.

PLEASE, if you THINK you know what Vatican II was all about, get the actual documents (available in English) and READ them. You will be shocked and appalled at the distortions/lies you’ve been told about them for 40 years now.

 

[ProVobis]

I probably should have noted this earlier, but it slipped my sieve of a mind Anyway, here goes:

Nos.3 & 4 - There are 2 major dialects of Syriac. One is generally called “Western” (aka “Syriac” used by the Syriac OC/CC and the Maronites, and the other “Eastern” (aka “Chaldean” or “Assyrian”), used by the Chaldeans and the ACoE. The differences are mainly in pronunciation.

• No. 5 (“Arabian”) is non-existent. He probably means “Arabic” but that was never a liturgical language as such.
• No. 6 is properly called “Ge’ez”
• No. 7 (Glagolitic) is, as I recall, a variant of Old Slavonic, and is the one non-Latin language that was used by the Roman Church after Trent (limited to parts of Dalmatia).
• No. 8 is another that is non-existent. The Ruthenians speak a variety of Slavic languages but the liturgical language as such is Old Slavonic.
• No. 9 is again not properly a liturgical language, but is probably the closest to Old Slavonic of all the Slavic vernaculars.

Thanks for the information. It’s good to know which are considered liturgical languages.

 

[Vince1022]

That doesn’t mean the originals were written in Greek. According to the source I posted above (in #21)

I suppose there are some scholars that suggest Paul’s letters were written in some language other than Greek. I’ve never heard of or read any of them, nor come across any such idea in Biblical Commentaries (Jerome, Harper’s, Collegeville) or any notes in any Catholic Bible. Still, it could be the case, I suppose. The Catholic Church seems to accept the most likely scenario, that the whole New Testament was originally written in Greek (see e.g. ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm section IV.B)