Quo Primum

[ProVobis]

So what could it this “vulgar tongue” be?
Back in the Apostles time the “vulgar tongue” in Italy was Latin.

Anything to discredit Church Latin.

There was the Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance language descended. It was a form of Latin different from the Latin Cicero, Caesar, and others used to write in.

But you do bring up a point as archaeologists have discovered that Latin was indeed used by the early Church and this could have been Vulgar Latin. Furthermore there was an earlier Latin Vulgate (Vetus Latina), the origin being unknown but could have been written by the Greeks themselves.

But regardless, Trent thought it was a bad idea to have the vulgar or vernacular EVERYWHERE. Latin wasn’t mentioned, though it was understood it was to be the liturgical language of the Roman Rite. It wasn’t until 400 years later that some forces decided to rush the all-vernacular into the liturgy EVERYWHERE despite Veterum Sapientia and Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Fr. David posted in 2011 on this forum: “Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation.”

The Church had developed the Old Church Slavonic language for use in the liturgy as well.

 

[JerryZ]

Anything to discredit Church Latin.

There was the Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance language descended. It was a form of Latin different from the Latin Cicero, Caesar, and others used to write in.

But you do bring up a point as archaeologists have discovered that Latin was indeed used by the early Church and this could have been Vulgar Latin. Furthermore there was an earlier Latin Vulgate (Vetus Latina), the origin being unknown but could have been written by the Greeks themselves.

But regardless, Trent thought it was a bad idea to have the vulgar or vernacular EVERYWHERE. Latin wasn’t mentioned, though it was understood it was to be the liturgical language of the Roman Rite. It wasn’t until 400 years later that some forces decided to rush the all-vernacular into the liturgy EVERYWHERE despite Veterum Sapientia and Vatican II.

Oh! I am sorry perhaps you misunderstand me, in Latin “Vulgo” means the “People” so in the USA the “Vulgar Language” would mean “English”. It is NOT a disparaging term.

The Romans were a “late” arrival on the world history stage. Greek had conquered the ancient world and was the “Lingua Franca” of the day much like today it is English.
It was so prevalent that the Egyptian Empire adopted it as their main language and was commonly used by everyone.
Read in my previous comment, how because of this, 700 years before Jesus was born. The religious leaders of the people of Israel were “forced” to embark in the translation of the OT.

They “the Romans” were pragmatic instead of forcing all the conquered people to “learn Latin”. They allowed the status quo and instead adopted Greek as the transactional language with their conquered lands. But Latin was the language used by the countrymen of Italy in the vicinity of Rome. Not the whole peninsula was like that though.
Sicily which though in Italy for example, because they had been a Hellenic colony 1000 years before Rome was founded, used mostly Greek as was most of the South of Italy.

There was no “High Latin” and Vulgar or “Low Latin” rather, Latin was used as the main spoken language in Rome and central parts of Italy.
Greek was used in Southern Italy and various Gaelic dialects were used in the Northern parts of Italy.

Because Rome was the Capital of the Empire and many delegations had semi permanent headquarters there, as a result there was a large contingent of people in Rome that used Greek, these were of course high ranking officials from their respective lands. So you have this dichotomy outside of Rome the “Vulgar Language” was Greek, in Rome the “Vulgar Language” was Latin but because the large presence of foreign dignitaries most of the “High Class” spoke Greek.
The Roman Senate though was transacted strictly in Latin.

…

 

[malphono]

Fr. David posted in 2011 on this forum: “Even during the time of Trent the Mass of the day was celebrated in other languages. In Bosnia and Dalmatia it was celebrated in Slavonic. In Calabria and Sicily it was celebrated in Greek. In Bohemia it was celebrated in Czech. All of these were by papal dispensation.”

Was not the Greek in parts of Sicily and Calabria used in the Italo-Greek Rite? I seem to think the Latin Rite there was in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

They “the Romans” were pragmatic instead of forcing all the conquered people to “learn Latin”. They allowed the status quo and instead adopted Greek as the transactional language with their conquered lands. But Latin was the language used by the countrymen of Italy in the vicinity of Rome. Not the whole peninsula was like that though.
Sicily which though in Italy for example, because they had been a Hellenic colony 1000 years before Rome was founded, used mostly Greek as was most of the South of Italy.

Not saying that you’re wrong but I recommend these three books to those reading the forum:

Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages
Book by Joseph B. Solodow

Story of a World Language LATIN by Jurgen Leonhardt

A Natural History of Latin by Tore Janson

 

[Vico]

Was not the Greek in parts of Sicily and Calabria used in the Italo-Greek Rite? I seem to think the Latin Rite there was in Latin.

I think that is correct.

 

[thistle]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. May I ask one more thing. In some Rites other than the Latin Rite what differences were/are there in the form of the Mass apart from using a different language?

By the way it is an SSPX guy and not a priest I am talking to. He seems to be a bit of a fanatic. He refuses to recognise the CCC or the 1983 code of Canon law.

 

[pnewton]

By the way it is an SSPX guy and not a priest I am talking to. He seems to be a bit of a fanatic. He refuses to recognise the CCC or the 1983 code of Canon law.

This is rather serious, as the authority to establish canon law is an essential element of papal authority. Is he schismatic, meaning he does not recognize the authority of the current or last few popes?

 

[Vico]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. May I ask one more thing. In some Rites other than the Latin Rite what differences were/are there in the form of the Mass apart from using a different language?

By the way it is an SSPX guy and not a priest I am talking to. He seems to be a bit of a fanatic. He refuses to recognise the CCC or the 1983 code of Canon law.

There are several other Eucharistic liturgies used in the Catholic Church, including the eastern:

Antiocene:
Divine Liturgy of St. James
Byzantine:
Divine Liturgy of St. Basil The Great
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
Armenian:
Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory (Basil)
Alexandrian:
Divine Liturgy of St. Basil The Great (Coptic)
Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril (Mark)
Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory of Naziansus
Chaldean:
Divine Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari
Divine Liturgy of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia
Divine Liturgy of Mar Nestorius

Byzantine, without consecration:
Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

Latin:
Ordinary Form
Extraordinary Form
Ambrosian (Milan)
Mozarabic (Spain)
Bracarensis (Portugal)
Carthusian
Anglican Use

 

[ProVobis]

By the way it is an SSPX guy and not a priest I am talking to. He seems to be a bit of a fanatic. He refuses to recognise the CCC or the 1983 code of Canon law.

That’s interesting too, because didn’t AL cite the “necessity” clause in the newly promulgated code as justification for his consecration of the four bishops? But this goes a little off-topic, I know.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. May I ask one more thing. In some Rites other than the Latin Rite what differences were/are there in the form of the Mass apart from using a different language?

By the way it is an SSPX guy and not a priest I am talking to. He seems to be a bit of a fanatic. He refuses to recognise the CCC or the 1983 code of Canon law.

That’s not really a fringe view for the SSPX. Their website advises Catholics to reject the CCC (since it is based on the “innovations” of Vatican II) and certain parts of the 1983 CIC.

archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q14_new_catechism.htm
archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q8_1983_code_of_canon_law.htm

 

[thistle]

I gave up with this SSPX guy I was debating with.
I asked him if he stood by his claim that the FORM (not the content) of the Mass is DOCTRINE. He said yes.
I asked if DOCTRINE applied to all 24 Churches that comprise The Catholic Church. He will not answer. I added that if he was right and it is doctrine then it would mean Masses in other Rites where the FORM of the Mass is different from the Latin Rite would be invalid. Again he would not answer.
He simply asked what I was doing debating in an SSPX thread. I repeated my question about doctrine applying to the whole Catholic Church but he simply came back and asked me if I would like an apple.

Interestingly, nobody else in that SSPX thread would answer my question either when I laid it open.
I went back and told him I would pray for him.

 

[otjm]

That’s interesting too, because didn’t AL cite the “necessity” clause in the newly promulgated code as justification for his consecration of the four bishops? But this goes a little off-topic, I know.

He attempted to use the necessity clause, and they have been doing so ever since; it makes for such a mind-bending dichotomy. They want to cite the law, while refusing to recognize the authority of the lawgiver to interpret what he - the law giver - meant. Another aspect of Alice in Wonderland.

 

[otjm]

There are several other Eucharistic liturgies used in the Catholic Church, including the eastern:

Antiocene:
Divine Liturgy of St. James
Byzantine:
Divine Liturgy of St. Basil The Great
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
Armenian:
Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory (Basil)
Alexandrian:
Divine Liturgy of St. Basil The Great (Coptic)
Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril (Mark)
Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory of Naziansus
Chaldean:
Divine Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari
Divine Liturgy of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia
Divine Liturgy of Mar Nestorius

Byzantine, without consecration:
Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

Latin:
Ordinary Form
Extraordinary Form
Ambrosian (Milan)
Mozarabic (Spain)
Bracarensis (Portugal)
Carthusian
Anglican Use

As you are far more knowledgeable than I, can you give a few of the differences between, say, the EF and some of those you mention? I know one - the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, and John Paul 2 sorted out an issue which you might mention. Thanks!

 

[otjm]

I gave up with this SSPX guy I was debating with.
I asked him if he stood by his claim that the FORM (not the content) of the Mass is DOCTRINE. He said yes.
I asked if DOCTRINE applied to all 24 Churches that comprise The Catholic Church. He will not answer. I added that if he was right and it is doctrine then it would mean Masses in other Rites where the FORM of the Mass is different from the Latin Rite would be invalid. Again he would not answer.
He simply asked what I was doing debating in an SSPX thread. I repeated my question about doctrine applying to the whole Catholic Church but he simply came back and asked me if I would like an apple.

Interestingly, nobody else in that SSPX thread would answer my question either when I laid it open.
I went back and told him I would pray for him.

Nobody ever said with a straight face that logic has any value…

 

[ProVobis]

He attempted to use the necessity clause, and they have been doing so ever since; it makes for such a mind-bending dichotomy. They want to cite the law, while refusing to recognize the authority of the lawgiver to interpret what he - the law giver - meant. Another aspect of Alice in Wonderland.

Either that or by trying to deny the current canon law they (those who are doing it) are just overdramatizing or baiting for negative reaction. I think deep inside they know which current law is in effect.