Traditional Catholics

[Layman]

I was told by others that 1924 was the last missal before the 1956(?) one where Holy Week was edited subtractively, with (name removed by moderator)ut by Fr. Bugnini. Guess they got the date wrong.

I’d like to hear that old rite. If our Mass can change so drastically I don’t see why we can’t also change back, locally, to an older rite. Less is sometimes more but more often, more is more.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

More prayers,
More feasts,
More devotions,
More luxurious vestments,
More sermons about Hell,
More ascetisim,
More scripture,
More chant,
More Latin,
More incense,
More candles,
More fun!

 

[ProVobis]

…The entire New Testament is in Greek originally.

The oldest that we have of the OT is in Greek but that doesn’t mean the originals, which have been lost or destroyed, had all been in Greek in the same writing (or spoken) style throughout. (Compare with the various writing styles of those writing here, all in English, but much different writting styles.) The actual originals may have been in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, depending on the audience, I would think.

I agree with your other points.

 

[malphono]

1924 missal?

The last editio typica before 1962 was from 1920.

 

[malphono]

I’d like to hear that old rite.

With the exception of Holy Week, you would likely not notice any difference between the 1920 and 1962 Missals. The main differences were in the calendar (primarily the classification of feasts) and a handful of very minor rubrics. With the exception of the inclusion of S Joseph in the Canon, there’s really very little else.

For better or worse, (and for the most part – with the exception of the timings, among a few other things – my opinion is that it was for the worse, but that’s something for another thread), the “revised” Holy Week rites came into full force in 1955 and were included in the 1962 editio typica.

 

[Pregustator]

I was told by others that 1924 was the last missal before the 1956(?) one where Holy Week was edited subtractively, with (name removed by moderator)ut by Fr. Bugnini. Guess they got the date wrong.

I’d like to hear that old rite. If our Mass can change so drastically I don’t see why we can’t also change back, locally, to an older rite. Less is sometimes more but more often, more is more.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html

More prayers,
More feasts,
More devotions,
More luxurious vestments,
More sermons about Hell,
More ascetisim,
More scripture,
More chant,
More Latin,
More incense,
More candles,
More fun!

Well, compare the 1920 typical edition with the 1962 and see if you are able to spot any differences. I am not aware that Pius X’s revisions “added” anything to the previous edition. In fact, his apostolic constitution Divino Afflatu, which affects Pius’s liturgical revisions, abolished the Psalter of Pius V, reforming and simplifying the breviary. The notion that the Holy See was just adding and adding things from Pius V until Vatican II is an erroneous one. Revisions to the typical edition were mostly corrections and clarifications, rubrical adjustments, and the like. But it wasn’t a case of just adding things on with the view that “more is more”, or more absurdly still, that “more is more traditional”. Obviously, something new added-on that wasn’t there before is not traditional. It is an innovation.

 

[malphono]

This is a valuable website. Thanks. If one does the Latin-Latin comparisons between the 1960 and the New Mass, he can easily see that they are recognizable (to each other).

Yes, as a whole, I suppose that’s true, despite the fact that there are parts which are, at best, just barely recognizable. OTOH, there are several things that are so far removed from one another that I’d say the word “recognizable” would be a stretch.

 

[Layman]

Holy Week is central to the Church year. If that website is right, the alterations were pretty drastic and paved the way for more.

If a rite can change so drastically, so quickly, then who can say ‘nay’ and be heeded when a progressive priest sits out the distribution of Communion, for example?

If such can be done illicitly I don’t see why a parish could not attempt the old liturgical year according to the 1920 missal. That would be a treat.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t the “Jesus didn’t speak Latin” proposition commonly used in the “Anything But Latin We Want The Vernacular” argument with regard to the Roman Rite. Is that’s what’s being argued here? I’m a bit lost.

Yes, as much as the “Jesus spoke Latin” is used by the “anything and everything must be in Latin” crowd.

Really, if Jesus’ spoken language on earth is such a big deal, I’m wondering why there isn’t a long list of Catholics asking for canoncial transfer to the Maronite Church? Lets have Mass in Aramaic and get it done with!

 

[ProVobis]

Lets have Mass in Aramaic and get it done with!

Not a bad idea as long as it’s not translated in any way, shape, or form.

But don’t we already have that Mass? youtube.com/watch?v=NnqbaIy5vQc

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’d agree as long as it’s not translated in any way, shape, or form.

If there was a Maronite parish in my area I would have gone a long time ago. Chaldeans also use Aramaic but I believe its a more modern Aramaic than that was used in 1st century Galilee.

But don’t we already have that Mass? youtube.com/watch?v=NnqbaIy5vQc

Yup, that is why I was asking why people aren’t requesting for transfer to the Maronite Church if they truly believe that its very important to worship in a language that Jesus spoke on earth. The Maronites use Aramaic and the Chaldeans use a form of Aramaic as well.

 

[malphono]

If there was a Maronite parish in my area I would have gone a long time ago. Chaldeans also use Aramaic but I believe its a more modern Aramaic than that was used in 1st century Galilee.

No. The Chaldeans and the ACoE use what is known as “Eastern Aramaic” or “Assyrian.” The Syriac CC and OC and the Maronites use what is known as Western Aramaic or “Syriac.” They are simply two major dialects of the same language. Neither is “modern” and neither is the same dialect used in “1st century Galilee” or anywhere else in Palestine. That dialect is commonly called “Palestinian Jewish Aramaic” and is still used in a few very small villages in southern Syria that are Greek Orthodox. Those are the only villages in the world where Aramaic is used in the Byzantine liturgy.

I will add here that it is exceedingly rare to find a Maronite liturgy done in Aramaic. Such is, unfortunately, essentially non-existent in North America or, for that matter, anywhere in the diaspora. Even in the Patriarchal Territories, it’s nearly unheard of these days.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. The Chaldeans and the ACoE use what is known as “Eastern Aramaic” or “Assyrian.” The Syriac CC and OC and the Maronites use what is known as Western Aramaic or “Syriac.” They are simply two major dialects of the same language. Neither is “modern” and neither is the same dialect used in “1st century Galilee” or anywhere else in Palestine. That dialect is commonly called “Palestinian Jewish Aramaic” and is still used in a few very small villages in southern Syria that are Greek Orthodox. Those are the only villages in the world where Aramaic is used in the Byzantine liturgy.

I will add here that it is exceedingly rare to find a Maronite liturgy done in Aramaic. Such is, unfortunately, essentially non-existent in North America or, for that matter, anywhere in the diaspora. Even in the Patriarchal Territories, it’s nearly unheard of these days.

The Chaldean Priest in our area told me that they use Aramaic. And through my own research as I was curious about the claim I did encounter the term “neo-Aramaic” which was said to be used by Chaldeans.

 

[malphono]

The Chaldean Priest in our area told me that they use Aramaic. And through my own research as I was curious about the claim I did encounter the term “neo-Aramaic” which was said to be used by Chaldeans.

There are several regional sub-dialects of so-called “neo-Aramaic” that are used as a vernacular, but they are not used liturgically.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are several regional sub-dialects of so-called “neo-Aramaic” that are used as a vernacular, but they are not used liturgically.

I just tried to reconcile what my googling came up with to what the Chaldean priest told me. To be specific with what I was told, the priest told me that they use Aramaic, the language of Jesus, for liturgy.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread for this. If you think the priest is mistaken PM me I’ll give you his email address and you can ask him.

 

[Javl]

Where in the Gospels is that? Thanks.

In John 1:1. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[malphono]

I just tried to reconcile what my googling came up with to what the Chaldean priest told me. To be specific with what I was told, the priest told me that they use Aramaic, the language of Jesus, for liturgy.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread for this. If you think the priest is mistaken PM me I’ll give you his email address and you can ask him.

The priest is not mistaken. Neither am I. We (the priest and I) have said the exact same thing. Please reread my earlier [post=7253547]post[/post].

 

[Vince1022]

That’s debatable. It’s certainly very different. Even just the text, never mind the way it is now commonly said. See the link in my signature for a side by side comparison.

Different, yes. Debatable, no. Unless you can show otherwise?

 

[Vince1022]

The only proper resolution is that in the mind of of the Pope and in the reality, there are three forms of the Masses

Nope. Not Catholic teaching.

 

[Vince1022]

According to the Gospel of St. John, the inscription above the cross was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so that everyone could read and understand. Pilate talked to the crowd as well as Christ. Maybe he spoke in all three languages at that time as well. A lot of people, even uneducated, do speak multiple languages, after all.

One other thing a “conquering” empire does is to force its currency (basis of trade) as well as language. And don’t we have something in the Gospels about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s? If so, isn’t it reasonable to presume that those exchanging Roman coins understood at least a little Latin? But you can draw your own conclusions. It’s possible that no one in Pilate’s court spoke Latin, but what are the odds?

I agree with you. I never claimed no one in Pilate’s court (nor Pilate himself) spoke only Latin.

I was responding to Egoist’s post that implied (at least) that Pilate spoke Latin, and so therefore Jesus spoke Latin. Egoist has not responded.

 

[Vince1022]

According to the Gospel of St. John, the inscription above the cross was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so that everyone could read and understand. Pilate talked to the crowd as well as Christ. Maybe he spoke in all three languages at that time as well. A lot of people, even uneducated, do speak multiple languages, after all.

One other thing a “conquering” empire does is to force its currency (basis of trade) as well as language. And don’t we have something in the Gospels about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s? If so, isn’t it reasonable to presume that those exchanging Roman coins understood at least a little Latin? But you can draw your own conclusions. It’s possible that no one in Pilate’s court spoke Latin, but what are the odds?

Yes, of course. That doesn’t mean Jesus spoke Latin.