Troubled by Vatican II liturgical reform!

[Cristiano]

Yes, I mean other then the fact that the word “liturgy” cosmes from Greek?

The word “Mass” comes from the Latin.

Etymologies don’t even prove diddly squat.

I just asked for a source.

If you were to study introductory books on the history of the western liturgy you would learn a lot and see why some statements might sound obvious to some poster familiar with the history of the first few centuries after Christ.

I really like “A Short History of the Western Liturgy” by Theodor Klauser. You can easily find used and online.

 

[prettiefly]

You’re better off reading some books than asking this question on a forum. The question can’t be addressed adequately.

I recommend:

• Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century by Romano Amerio
• Cranmer’s Godly Order: The Destruction of Catholicism Through Liturgical Change by Michael Davies
• Pope John’s Council by Michael Davies
• Pope Paul’s New Mass by Michael Davies
• The Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
• Liturgical Shipwreck - 25 Years of the New Mass by Michael Davies
• The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr.
• Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Ralph M. Wiltgen
• Heresy of Formlessness by Martin Mosebach
• Partisans of Error (St. Pius X Against the Modernists) by Michael Davies

An excellent list of books - OP, you are on the right track~

 

[clem456]

Greek was “the language” of the Roman Empire. Latin was the language of the Roman upper class and government.

Ok, I’m just confused on how sometimes the Latin is considered the authentic liturgical language, and how it came to be considered as such, when it was not spoken in the early Church liturgy. or was it?

 

[Armyvet007]

I don’t think this proves the point. Etymology has nothing to do with it.

Etymology has nothing to do with a discussion concerning the history of the languages used in the Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

Two questions:
Do you have a source that Greek was the only liturgical language in the beginning?
and
Do you have a source that there was scandal when Latin began to be used?

Indeed. No scandal.

The inscription above the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Thus our liturgy, which has all three languages.

To me the attempted translation of a strong and meaningful word like Sabaoth was a scandal.

 

[Armyvet007]

Ok, I’m just confused on how sometimes the Latin is considered the authentic liturgical language, and how it came to be considered as such, when it was not spoken in the early Church liturgy. or was it?

Sorry for the confusion. I highly suggest you find a couple of books that focus on the history of the early Church. I’ve tried to respond to your above several times, but I’ve had to erase those responses because my limited knowledge on the subject creates confusing responses. The best I can do is to say that the language used in the liturgy evolved from Aramic, Hebrew, Greek into Latin gradually over time. That Latin became “the” language several hundred years after Christ; and its status as “the” langauge for the liturgy mirrors the rise of Latin as “the” language for the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

I might be a little confused here. In the nascent Church was Latin used? Latin was the language of the Roman Empire.

Indeed it was. Archaelogists have found Latin was used in the liturgy, though it probably had a different script.

According to a recent PBS documentary, St. Paul was supposedly surprised when he found a significant number of Christians already in Rome when he arrived there.

 

[roadsend]

Ok, I’m just confused on how sometimes the Latin is considered the authentic liturgical language, and how it came to be considered as such, when it was not spoken in the early Church liturgy. or was it?

Latin is the authentic liturgical language of the Latin Rite Church.
There is evidence that many languages were actually used very early in Church history including Latin, Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, Armenian and probably others.
We don’t even know what language Jesus used at the last supper, but most folks guess that Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek or a combination of these were used.
We do know for certain that the three languages of the Cross were Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
It really doesn’t make much difference since the Church teaches that Latin is the official language of our Latin Rite and the only scandal I am aware of on this subject is that so many Catholics out there have never experienced the beauty of our solemn Latin liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, I’m just confused on how sometimes the Latin is considered the authentic liturgical language, and how it came to be considered as such, when it was not spoken in the early Church liturgy. or was it?

Latin became the official language of the Church after the Church Christianized the codified grammar of Cicero and other pre-AD classicists. Thus words such as oratio became “prayer,” gratia became “grace” and so forth. This form of Latin is what we call Ecclesiatical Latin today and it’s been used in its immutable form in the liturgy and Church documents since about the third century or so. The other form of Latin then was the Vulgar Latin, which morphed eventually into the Romance languages, mostly Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese.

 

[Stylites]

JER7177: I am not sure I would strongly recommend any of the books cited by ImmaculataFides above. They represent a rather decided view with regard to the liturgical reforms (they are opposed), sometimes seeming to imply bad faith on the part of scholars, liturgists, bishops, priests, and learned lay people, as well as at least naivete on the part of two popes. I note that the “Ottaviani Intervention” is cited by the SSPX as one of their legions of reasons to condemn the Council and remain at odds with the Church. I don’t want to impugn the authors of the works mentioned, by the way, or ImmaculataFides. Una Voce, the organization over which Michael Davies presides, is recognized by the Church and, while holding particular views toward the liturgy, is certainly a good faith organization.

I don’t have off-hand any particular works to cite regarding the history of the liturgical reform (which is fascinating), but I would encourage you to look for them. One thing to mention is that it started long before most people think–long before the Council, in fact! Our current Missal, which is a wonderful effort on the part of scholars, liturgists, bishops, priests, and learned lay people, as well as two popes, represents the latest chapter in that long history of the Church trying to bring its most cherished treasure-the Eucharist–to the Faithful! And I would echo Pfaffenhoffen above: It was a terrible scandal when the ancient prayers were translated from the Greek! But thank goodness that the Church was willing to be faithful–ever faithful–to its mission of bringing the Eucharist to the Faithful! Where would any of us be if the Church had demurred?

Excellent post.

 

[ProVobis]

Where would any of us be if the Church had demurred?

Imagine what it would be if the Church hadn’t stuck to its original sacred languages. Ever heard of corruption of word meanings when translated?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

The idea that a Greek etymology for “liturgy” proves the liturgy was first in Greek is a huge logic fail. Think about it. There are many explanations possible. One could be that the Greek word liturgy was applied among Greeks and Latins picked it up and now we all use it, but the liturgy was referred to by other words as well.

“Mass” is Latin. “Qurbono” I think is Syriac or Aramaic. Doesn’t prove anything.

Many, many medical terms are based in Latin and Greek, though they actually refer to concepts developed by modern Italians or Brits or Japanese, etc.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Two questions:
Do you have a source that Greek was the only liturgical language in the beginning?
and
Do you have a source that there was scandal when Latin began to be used?

What I said it is true. I have no patience to look for sources:
I found this in Google but I did not read it (it says that the primitive language was hebrew!!!):
calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/christian-worship-in-the-first-century/

There was no revolt on passing to latin but some resistance! As when there is change… But not a “scandal” as i said!

 

[ProVobis]

(it says that the primitive language was hebrew!!!):

So, according to your logic, if it’s a scandal to translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin, then the scandal becomes compounded at least 500 times when it’s translated (with possible errors) into various modern languages, perhaps even more so since modern languages aren’t even languages of the cross, right?

But then the question is whether it was really translated or did St. Paul give the Christian Romans their own liturgy? Or maybe one of the other Apostles beat him to the punch?

All that said, 2147 to 4 Vatican II bishops voted on the document to preserve Latin in the liturgy so I don’t understand where you guys are going with this.

 

[Windmill]

The book list given above is pretty good, but I’d also avoid the Great Facade. One of the authors, Thomas Wood, has recanted his involvement with that book. That should tell you something.

If I had to add two books, they would be these two:

Reform of the Roman Liturgy

Reform of the Reform (Kocik)

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

So, according to your logic, if it’s a scandal to translate Hebrew to Greek to Latin, then the scandal becomes compounded at least 500 times when it’s translated (with possible errors) into various modern languages, perhaps even more so since modern languages aren’t even languages of the cross, right?

But then the question is whether it was really translated or did St. Paul give the Christian Romans their own liturgy? Or maybe one of the other Apostles beat him to the punch?

All that said, 2147 to 4 Vatican II bishops voted on the document to preserve Latin in the liturgy so I don’t understand where you guys are going with this.

I understand.
It is people like you that causes trouble.
In the post before yours I said that the word “scandal” was badly used and I explained.
But, because you like to fight and not to discuss, you just dumped on the word “scandal”.

As for all the other considerations, as much patience with you as you have with others. None.

 

[ProVobis]

In the post before yours I said that the word “scandal” was badly used and I explained.
But, because you like to fight and not to discuss, you just dumped on the word “scandal”.

Yes, after rereading your posts, I found that you did recant and I apologize.

You provided an interesting link, by the way.

 

[sacredcow]

Getting back to the original post, what exactly is “whitewashed” about the liturgy with the vatican II reforms? Was the last supper “whitewashed” because there were no vestments, bells, incense, pipe organs, etc.? I had the privilege in college of doing a semester long study of the development of the Mass from the jewish Meal Prayer all the way up to our present rite. What was beautiful to see is that all the core elements remain. Some parts of the Mass were added (the creed) or revised over time, but the core structure remains. I ask you this: which is more beautiful, A cathedral Mass with all the embellishments, or the Masses celebrated in concentration camps in secret with a single grape and simple bread? Is the latter “whitewashed?”

What core elements of the eucharistic liturgy did Vatican II remove? Language used in liturgy does not rise to the level of dogma. Our eastern Maronite brothers have been using aramaic for 2000 years, never latin, and their rites are valid and licit.

 

[ProVobis]

What core elements of the eucharistic liturgy did Vatican II remove? Language used in liturgy does not rise to the level of dogma.

Nor is it infallible. However, Ecclesiastical Latin by definition is Catholic.

Our eastern Maronite brothers have been using aramaic for 2000 years …and their rites are valid and licit.

And beautiful.

 

[sacredcow]

Nor is it infallible. However, Ecclesiastical Latin by definition is Catholic.

And beautiful.

yes!! Anyone who has not heard it, do yourself a favor and buy a cd recording of a maronite liturgy. It’s the closest thing you will hear to what the last supper sounded like. Aramaic is just a beautiful, simple language that has almost a musical quality in itself. Very calming to listen to.