Did God Really Intend For A Uniformed Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Image_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Volodymyr_988 said:
This Sinophile must insist that people remember that when Fr. Matteo Ricci went to China the Mass was said in Chinese using the Oracle Bone Characters as they were the normative for rituals.
Click to expand...
Can you explain? I thought the characters were written.

Were they pronounced in some archaic form of Chinese? In that case Fr. Ricci would seem to have acknowledged the importance of a sacred ritual language as opposed to the vernacular.
 
Cluny said:
This Sinophile must insist that people remember that when Fr. Matteo Ricci went to China the Mass was said in Chinese using the Oracle Bone Characters as they were the normative for rituals.

Thank you for this information, Volodymyr 988!👍 I did not know that.

So much for “The Mass has always been in Latin.”
Click to expand...
These are exceptions to the norm, and are born out of extraordinary circumstances. They are not the ideal.

Tell me, as an Easterner, what are your thoughts on Liturgical languages? Is Slavonic useless?
 
Cat, the best Scriptural proof is the use of Hebrew by the Jewish people. The idea of a liturgical language is as old as the Jewish custom to pray in a language that wasn’t used everyday. Although Hebrew was at one point the language of the people, Aramaic and Greek eventually became the tongue of the people, yet still, Hebrew was maintained.

In fact, the Jewish example points to the unitive aspect of a sacred language. Despite the diverse places that Jews live in and their diverse theological opinions, they can stil all share in Hebrew.

That actually mirrors Latin exactly, it was the language of the masses, but eventually became the liturgical language.
 
I’ve never seen this mentioned on the internet but it’s mentioned in TAN Books “A Practical Commentary to Holy Scripture” (which is an absolute GEM of a book, BTW) that the use of a unifying language was foretold in the OT by way of the tower of Babel being a symbol of a future unifying language. Just as all men spoke one language prior to Babel, latin has become a unifying language in the spirtual order; uniting all men in a new tower of babel reaching to heaven (the Church). But this one is pleasing to God unlike Babel.

Also, let’s not forget that according to V2 even the NO was to be in latin with SOME latin permitted but in no way mandated. So those who favor the vernacular are more or less basing their viewpoints on an errant implementation of V2 found in their experiences with the NO.
 
Cluny said:
Latin was only ever the language of the Roman Church and not of the Eastern Catholic Churches or the Orthodox.

Not true.

The Latin rite was celebrated in Slavonic for CENTURIES before Vatican II.

You might want to look up “Glagolitic rite” or “Glagolithic mass.”

**On the cross there were 3 languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

These 3 were made holy by the cross of Our Lord and his most precious blood.**

This was rejected by Pope St. Innocent who ordered copies of the liturgical and scriptural Slavonic books of Ss Cyril and Methodius placed on the altars of the major basilicas in Rome and had the Slavonic liturgy celebrated in his presence.

ALL languages were made holy by the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Click to expand...
Slavonic was used in the liturgy to evangelize the barbarians not because it is a sacred language.😉
 
**
This was rejected by Pope St. Innocent who ordered copies of the liturgical and scriptural Slavonic books of Ss Cyril and Methodius placed on the altars of the major basilicas in Rome and had the Slavonic liturgy celebrated in his presence.**

FORGIVE ME!

I meant to say Pope St. Nicholas, who was in schism at the time from Patriarch St. Photius, who sent Ss Cyril and Methodius to start with.

In answer to the question about my feelings about Slavonic–

ALL languages are appropriate for the Divine Liturgy, as long as it’s an accurate translation.

In reply to the person who said that Slavonic was used to convert the barbarians–

A language–as well as anything else–becomes sacred by its being used for a sacred purpose.
 
I’ve never seen this mentioned on the internet but it’s mentioned in TAN Books “A Practical Commentary to Holy Scripture” (which is an absolute GEM of a book, BTW) that the use of a unifying language was foretold in the OT by way of the tower of Babel being a symbol of a future unifying language.

No, it wasn’t. The book is wrong.

Just as all men spoke one language prior to Babel, latin has become a unifying language in the spirtual order; uniting all men in a new tower of babel reaching to heaven (the Church). But this one is pleasing to God unlike Babel.

You might want to compare this damfool notion with the Byzantine texts for the office of Pentecost, which are available on line.

(BTW–I’m not criticizing the use of Latin, or any other language. I’m criticizing an ATTITUDE towards Latin.)
 
This is what Blessed pope JohnXXIII states in his Apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia.

"The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe."

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
 
Cluny said:
I’ve never seen this mentioned on the internet but it’s mentioned in TAN Books “A Practical Commentary to Holy Scripture” (which is an absolute GEM of a book, BTW) that the use of a unifying language was foretold in the OT by way of the tower of Babel being a symbol of a future unifying language.

No, it wasn’t. The book is wrong.

Just as all men spoke one language prior to Babel, latin has become a unifying language in the spirtual order; uniting all men in a new tower of babel reaching to heaven (the Church). But this one is pleasing to God unlike Babel.

You might want to compare this damfool notion with the Byzantine texts for the office of Pentecost, which are available on line.

(BTW–I’m not criticizing the use of Latin, or any other language. I’m criticizing an ATTITUDE towards Latin.)
Click to expand...
Cluny, you should read a little about typology before you go spouting off infallible condemnations against authors whom you disagree with.
 
Cluny, you should read a little about typology before you go spouting off infallible condemnations against authors whom you disagree with.

Don’t you just HATE it when people dare to disasgree with you?

When there is a conflict between a theologian, and the teaching of the Church expressed in her prayers, I will go with the latter.
 
Just in case you were wondering, I’m not gone. I have been reading all the posts which have been enlightening. I will continue reading.
 
Cluny said:
Cluny, you should read a little about typology before you go spouting off infallible condemnations against authors whom you disagree with.

Don’t you just HATE it when people dare to disasgree with you?

When there is a conflict between a theologian, and the teaching of the Church expressed in her prayers, I will go with the latter.
Click to expand...
No I don’t hate it when people disagree with me but I do hate it when people think they can simply dismiss something without providing a shred of evidence to back their contrary assertion. Fact is you have not sided with the teaching of the Church as the Church has clearly adopted latin as it’s official language in liturgy and administration and has done so for centuries. Vatican II did not change this and it’s quite irrelevant what language the early Church used since the Holy Spirit has guided the development of the Church until the present day. Agree or disagree you have to live with the fact that latin is the official language of the Church.

You state you’re not criticizing the use of latin but an “attitude” towards latin. What in the world is that suppose to mean?
A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture:
The re-union of mankind in the Church. People of all tongues are gathered together in unity of faith in the Catholic Church; for all Catholics over the whole face of the earth are joined together in one faith, one hope, one love. This unity of spirit is expressed by the unity of faith and partly also by the unity of language (Latin), used by the Church. In the Catholic Church, therefore, which is governed by the Holy Ghost, the very opposite has taken place to that which took place in the City of Confusion. There, the speech of men was confounded, and they were scattered: in the Church, men of every land and every tongue are gathered together, in unity of faith and speech, by the Holy Ghost whom Jesus Christ sent on Whitsunday. On that day there were collected together many men of different countries, and yet they all understood the speech of the apostles, and 3000 of them became Christians. On that day was built a city which rests upon earth and reaches to heaven; in which men speak one tongue, and have one faith, and with which God is well pleased. That city is the Holy Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
I will point out that the typology is terribly mistaken. The Church is NOT the new Tower of Babel.

The Tower of Babel was created by man to reach to heaven.

The Chuch is God’s creation, with heaven coming down to us.
 
The_Prodigal said:
Can you explain? I thought the characters were written.

Were they pronounced in some archaic form of Chinese? In that case Fr. Ricci would seem to have acknowledged the importance of a sacred ritual language as opposed to the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Yes the characters were considered sacred. They would have been pronounced as Chinese was pronounced at the time, which would have varied from region to region as a vernacular. So, we have a case for the vernacular, yet using a sacred script. I’m not sure how that works for us English speakers. Could it be like using Elizabethan English written in the “Old English” script?
 
In that case Fr. Ricci would seem to have acknowledged the importance of a sacred ritual language as opposed to the vernacular.

A “sacred ritual language” comes into being by using it for sacred rituals.

But appealing to pagan religions for precedent is not a good idea.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
Yes the characters were considered sacred. They would have been pronounced as Chinese was pronounced at the time, which would have varied from region to region as a vernacular. So, we have a case for the vernacular, yet using a sacred script. I’m not sure how that works for us English speakers. Could it be like using Elizabethan English written in the “Old English” script?
Click to expand...
Father Ricci translated the Missal into oracle bone characters, then reading from that translation, celebrated the Mass in a 16th century Chinese dialect?

I’m skeptical. Can you provide a source or evidence for this claim?
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
Yes the characters were considered sacred. They would have been pronounced as Chinese was pronounced at the time, which would have varied from region to region as a vernacular. So, we have a case for the vernacular, yet using a sacred script. I’m not sure how that works for us English speakers. Could it be like using Elizabethan English written in the “Old English” script?
Click to expand...
English words were pronounced more “phonetically” the further back in time one goes. So-called silent e’s, for example, were generally pronounced at the time English spelling was being standardized.

The spelling itself has changed very little over time although reformers have tried to simplify it. The sounds of the spoken language have changed considerably.

So, in a way English speakers are using an archaic spelling system to pronounce contemporary words.
 
Cluny said:
it’s just that many feel that the symbol of having Mass all in one language better symbolizes and unites the Body of Christ.

Nevertheless, this was historically NEVER the case, though some people have that fantasy.

The very existence of the Eastern Liturgies, which have always been in a multiplicity of languages, disproves this notion.
Click to expand...
In the Latin Church it has always been in one language first greek then Latin until Vatican II ripped that away.
 
In the Latin Church it has always been in one language first greek then Latin until Vatican II ripped that away.

As has already been posted here, your statement is simply not true.

For centuries before Vatican II, the Western liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia. Look up “Glagolithic Mass/Rite.”

And as another pointed out, Matthew Ricci translated the Mass into Chinese and so celebrated it.
 
Cluny said:
In the Latin Church it has always been in one language first greek then Latin until Vatican II ripped that away.

As has already been posted here, your statement is simply not true.

For centuries before Vatican II, the Western liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic in certain dioceses of Croatia. Look up “Glagolithic Mass/Rite.”

And as another pointed out, Matthew Ricci translated the Mass into Chinese and so celebrated it.
Click to expand...
A minor exception to the norm which was brought about by unique circumstances…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top