Who here wants to be a 3rd Century Catholic?

[bear06]

Dr. Bombay:

Mass was said in Greek in the Roman Church until the 4th Century. The change to Latin was certainly not a change to the vulgar language of the day, as some misinformed “liturgists” would have us believe, since most of the lower classes knew little or no Greek or Latin.

As for the OP’s comments about those who wish to return everything to the “primitive church”, we have only to look at Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei:

The Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII “…wicked movement…”

Cardinal Newman also warned that to reverse the course of an existing development is not a development but a corruption.

Mediator Dei - great document! Not everything should be reinstated. That said, not everything from the ancient was bad. The Church, of course, is out guide in these matters.

 

[Kikero]

The question you pose is a dandy and even well thought out but not well reasoned IMO. Your almost likening 3rd century church theology to 3rd century medicine in relation to todays standards, as if we’d time travel back to the days of the unwashed and leachings by rolling back the “progressive” movement a bit. Without specifics of the “propaganda” you speak of it is difficult to form a response.

Aquinas appealed to the ‘Philosophical mind’ and solidified much in the way we way we come to think of the nature of God and our relationship to Him. To imply he had little understanding compared to today is a gross overstatement. On the contrary the greater part of what we “understand” of God and man sits upon the shoulders of this giant. Again without specifics it’s difficult to continue so I’ll have to speculate and postulate.

There is a recent “advancement” in the Church that does away with kneelers in the pews. While the early church tended not to even have pews or benches I think I’m safe in saying attendants did their fair share of kneeling during mass. Perhaps sore knees are the very reason kneelers came about. Aquinas taught that what the body does so the mind follows. That it was important to kneel because the very act was humbling. But in the wonderous age of enllightened beings, as we are today, more and more the mass is performed minus those humbling kneelers. Seems to me we could do with a little less “enlightenment” and a little more of the old ways in that respect.

St. Francis didn’t speak so much to the philisophical aspect of the believing community as the “child” in us. He brought us back to a simpler understanding and helped to wash away the confusion that comes from being “overeducated and learned” regarding theology. In the days of aristocratic excess, because of St. Francis, we began to see the wealthy renounce their ways and return to a simpler faith.

We live in a day when nearly everyone has some degree of education and our living standards for the poor surpass those of the kings of old. And while this is not a bad thing, it has lent a trend in which now the laity are ‘over thinking and parsing’ the teachings of our fathers. And so as in times of old there is a confused and straying elemement within the church. I for one would not mind seeing a return to a simpler faith. We are not children but it seems to me a childs faith would be more desirable then one bogged down by incompatible philosophies.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

Mass was said in Greek in the Roman Church until the 4th Century. The change to Latin was certainly not a change to the vulgar language of the day, as some misinformed “liturgists” would have us believe, since most of the lower classes knew little or no Greek or Latin.

As for the OP’s comments about those who wish to return everything to the “primitive church”, we have only to look at Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei:

The Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII “…wicked movement…”

Cardinal Newman also warned that to reverse the course of an existing development is not a development but a corruption.

But are those matters discussed by Pope Pius (a great pope) in this passage matters of faith and morals? I don’t see it as much as an important question as to whether we still use black as a mourning color (I like black) or how the altar is positioned (doesn’t matter to me, though I prefer the square ones, which you could always shove against the wall), but a question about papal authority (and within the timeframe of his reign, he was certainly entitled to dictate such things). Did HH think he could bind his successors forever over a matter of discipline, ie, a liturgical color or the position of the altar? I doubt it, because he was too smart a pope.

I agree that you cannot appeal to “archaeologism” very logically as a Catholic, because that’s a denial of the Church’s ability to, in the time and circumstances in which she finds herself and will always find herself, govern the discipline of the Mass. She’s always had the authority and right to do that. I think that what that pseudo-synod atttempted to do is probably what the Campellites/Stoneites (Church of Christ) did: they wanted to take the Church back to her early purity, ie, do everything precisely by the New Testament, no choir, no instruments, no “reverends,” baptism by immersion (their take on it), etc. That mindset was rightly condemned by the Pope. Don’t you imagine, in the context, of Mediator Dei, that rather than saying, “Black vestments are here to stay, ex cathedra, anathema sit!”, Pope Pius was saying, “Look, it’s not right to cast back to the ancient Church as an appeal against black vestments and altars against a wall or reredoes or statues of the saints.” In that context, yes, it’s wrong. BUT (and ya knew it was coming, Doc) reception in the hand! No one is appealing (as far as I can see) for a ban on reception on the tongue based on how the Apostolic or Patristic Church distributed Holy Communion. One does hear “Well, it was an Apostolic/patristic practice,” but that’s usually posited against those who say it was irreverent (while the Church had not grasped all that she would, to paraphrase the OP, the Apostles and the Fathers cannot be accused of irrevrence and if the Church permits it, it is, by definition, not an abuse) or against those who revise history so as to say that communion in the hand never took place rolleyes: ) or those who say that the Blessed Sacrament was never abused UNTIL people started receiving in the hand (again, with the ). What I mostly hear it as is a defense against the charge of “novelty” and “innovation” (not that novelty and innovation don’t happen, they do, and they should be squashed like a bug).

As for the Newman quote, I’d have to read the larger context, but surely he wasn’t denying the authority of the Church to govern the discipline of the Mass, either. Would a better example not have been the “developing” understanding of papal infallibility that inevitiably gave rise to Vatican I’s declaration of it as a dogma, which Newman lived through? Newman believed in papal infallibility, but didn’t think it was an opportune time for the declaration of it. Personally, I think it should have been done at the Council of Jerusalem, but that’s just me.

I find it ironic that this is quoted from the camp that will appeal back to Trent, but not to Vatican II since then, or the Apostolic Age before then! These same people (obviously, not you, Dr. Bombay) decry the creation of the 5 New Mysteries by Pope John Paul II, Divine Mercy Sunday, etc, and yet bemoan the loss of the Leonine Prayers. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want people invoking the Apostolic Church, then don’t invoke the Trentian one. Seems to me, they’re all of a piece: the Catholic piece, as is Vatican I and Vatican II and the Council of Nicea and the Council of Jerusalem. **If **it’s wrong to scream,“Apostolic!!! Patristic!!!”, then it’s equally a bad idea to scream,“Trent!”

 

[rwoehmke]

Surely you have all hearc the phrase “Two steps forward and one step back.” True progress is not just moving forward and never reaching back. Sometimes somes things good and wonderful, even useful, are left behind and in time one realizes that was maybe unnecessary or even a mistake. After the last Council we kind of dropped a lot of private devotional things, maybe by accident maybe on purpose, but now looking back some are re-emphasizing some of them because they are useful to growth in holiness. We no longer have “Forty Hours” but it is back even stronger in the form of Perpetual Adoration, the rosary is making a come back. Who knows maybe the every Friday evening Way of the Cross may revive, Tuesday evening Mother of Perpetual Help seems to be still lost in the past, the Easter Vigil came back early on and seems to be firmly established once again. As you say, however, all things past do not necessarily have value, but I cannot help but believe that our Bishops as a group will exercise good judgement in retreiving past values and getting rid of innovations that have no validity. I wouldn’t want to go back to the 3rd Century Church because like our larders time has given us a much richer horde of good things to choose from. thumbsup:

 

[Deacon_Ed]

MusicMan:

What language was the Mass in during the 3rd Century? Aramaic? Greek?

At the beginning of the 3rd century the Liturgy (the term “Mass” won’t be used for at least another four centuries) was in Greek. Latin began to be used in Rome near the middle of the 3rd century and was in common use there in the 4th century. Aramaic/Syriac was also in use in the Middle East.

Were the Gnostics still around or had they been crushed in the desert as heretics?

The Gnostics were still around – in fact, they’re still with us today!

I think this would be a cool time to be a Catholic with the Mass being at its early beginnings and traditions yet to be developed. We’d even have an answer on how to actually pronounce the Kyrie!

I don’t think there’s much doubt about how to pronounce the Kyrie eleison – but whether or not the pronunciation we use today is what the early Church used is another question. Our pronunciation today is certainly accurate, but it’s closer to modern Greek than the Koine/Attic Greek that was used during the time of Christ.

Deacon Ed

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

But are those matters discussed by Pope Pius (a great pope) in this passage matters of faith and morals? I don’t see it as much as an important question as to whether we still use black as a mourning color (I like black) or how the altar is positioned (doesn’t matter to me, though I prefer the square ones, which you could always shove against the wall), but a question about papal authority (and within the timeframe of his reign, he was certainly entitled to dictate such things). Did HH think he could bind his successors forever over a matter of discipline, ie, a liturgical color or the position of the altar? I doubt it, because he was too smart a pope.

No, PP XII was not trying to bind his succesors. He was merely warning them, a voice crying in the wilderness, if you will.

In that context, yes, it’s wrong. BUT (and ya knew it was coming, Doc) reception in the hand! No one is appealing (as far as I can see) for a ban on reception on the tongue based on how the Apostolic or Patristic Church distributed Holy Communion. One does hear “Well, it was an Apostolic/patristic practice,” but that’s usually posited against those who say it was irreverent (while the Church had not grasped all that she would, to paraphrase the OP, the Apostles and the Fathers cannot be accused of irrevrence and if the Church permits it, it is, by definition, not an abuse) or against those who revise history so as to say that communion in the hand never took place rolleyes: ) or those who say that the Blessed Sacrament was never abused UNTIL people started receiving in the hand (again, with the ). What I mostly hear it as is a defense against the charge of “novelty” and “innovation” (not that novelty and innovation don’t happen, they do, and they should be squashed like a bug).

Fine. I’ll concede Communion in the Hand is not an abuse. It did, however, start out as an abuse. As did girl altar boys. If an abuse becomes so widespread that the Church, in her pastoral charity, feels it necessary to approve the abuse, so as to regularize the activity, what does that say about said activity to begin with? What gets under the skin of people like me is the prideful disobedience that exists in so many of these actions. The saints had so much humility and, in many cases, suffered much under obedience. We won’t serve in the 21st Century Church. How sad.

As for the Newman quote, I’d have to read the larger context, but surely he wasn’t denying the authority of the Church to govern the discipline of the Mass, either. Would a better example not have been the “developing” understanding of papal infallibility that inevitiably gave rise to Vatican I’s declaration of it as a dogma, which Newman lived through? Newman believed in papal infallibility, but didn’t think it was an opportune time for the declaration of it. Personally, I think it should have been done at the Council of Jerusalem, but that’s just me.

I find it ironic that this is quoted from the camp that will appeal back to Trent, but not to Vatican II since then, or the Apostolic Age before then! These same people (obviously, not you, Dr. Bombay) decry the creation of the 5 New Mysteries by Pope John Paul II, Divine Mercy Sunday, etc, and yet bemoan the loss of the Leonine Prayers. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want people invoking the Apostolic Church, then don’t invoke the Trentian one. Seems to me, they’re all of a piece: the Catholic piece, as is Vatican I and Vatican II and the Council of Nicea and the Council of Jerusalem. **If **it’s wrong to scream,“Apostolic!!! Patristic!!!”, then it’s equally a bad idea to scream,“Trent!”

Oh, don’t make me dig out the Newman quote! Fine, I’ll do my best.

So much of the appeal to the “Apostolic Church” in recent years has been done to justify discarding ancient and venerable traditions and devotions and/or as a cover for vandalizing sanctuaries. People have been hurt to see their Church, their “Rock” change so drastically. And even the most wild-eyed progressive will concede that the changes in the Church over the past 40 years have been drastic. Whether for good or ill, I suppose history will be the judge. And, ultimately, God.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

No, PP XII was not trying to bind his succesors. He was merely warning them, a voice crying in the wilderness, if you will.

Fine. I’ll concede Communion in the Hand is not an abuse. It did, however, start out as an abuse. As did girl altar boys. If an abuse becomes so widespread that the Church, in her pastoral charity, feels it necessary to approve the abuse, so as to regularize the activity, what does that say about said activity to begin with? What gets under the skin of people like me is the prideful disobedience that exists in so many of these actions. The saints had so much humility and, in many cases, suffered much under obedience. We won’t serve in the 21st Century Church. How sad.

Oh, don’t make me dig out the Newman quote! Fine, I’ll do my best.

So much of the appeal to the “Apostolic Church” in recent years has been done to justify discarding ancient and venerable traditions and devotions and/or as a cover for vandalizing sanctuaries. People have been hurt to see their Church, their “Rock” change so drastically. And even the most wild-eyed progressive will concede that the changes in the Church over the past 40 years have been drastic. Whether for good or ill, I suppose history will be the judge. And, ultimately, God.

I think what you say about “we won’t serve” is very true. Equally sad, in my opinion, are those Catholics who constantly pick at Holy Mother Church as she negotiates her way through the questions of the times, either internal or external. Prayerful obedience is virtue, whether it’s a “progressive” or a “traditional.” Both should be simply Catholic and both can take their positions to such extremes as cease to be that.

 

[MarkInOregon]

palmas85:

I have heard so much about the primitive church, the ancient vernacular mass, how pure and how holy it all was, and I have to wonder. Just what is everyone talking about?

I mean, if you read Acts and Corinthians you see that the early church not only had problems but MAJOR problems. I mean do we really want to go back to the Agape and all that?

Some of the best minds in History thought about, prayed over and contemplated the doctrines of Catholicism and Christianity for generations. What are we supposed to do, just toss it all in the trash can and start over?.

Looks llike a losing proposition to me.

Glad we don’t have any major problems in the Church today like those poor early Catholics did.
Doesn’t the Church in every age have problems? Even major problems?

When ideas like this are thrown out there–what is usually implied is that all changes in the Mass up to some point–often the TLM–were good changes–but any change after that is well just plain bad–and well you can’t have it both ways. Changes I like good changes I don’t bad. It doesn’t work like that.
I’m pretty sure the Mass will change further. Some of the Changes I may like and some I may not. I do know the Lord will always come to us at the Mass–outside of that its all open to change.
As for being a second or third century Catholic – I don’t believe we know much about their liturgical practices–but I guess I wouldn’t know any different–so it wouldn’t bother me.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

OK, does anybody know if Pius XII was a visionary?

I am sorry, but reading Mediator Dei really put me off my lunch! He essentially described the state of the Roman Church to-day, and then denounced it! It is shameful that we should be able to look back at any Pope’s pronouncements and have to wonder how they fit in.

I find myself wondering if Our Lady’s various prophesies on the Church are beginning to come true.

If only the world would do penance!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Servus Pio XII:

OK, does anybody know if Pius XII was a visionary?

I am sorry, but reading Mediator Dei really put me off my lunch! He essentially described the state of the Roman Church to-day, and then denounced it! It is shameful that we should be able to look back at any Pope’s pronouncements and have to wonder how they fit in.

I find myself wondering if Our Lady’s various prophesies on the Church are beginning to come true.

If only the world would do penance!

That’s what we have to do with all pronouncements and prophecies: wonder, ponder, contemplate what they mean and “how they fit in.” Again, I think it is a mistaken reading to say that Mediator Dei is positively prohibiting changes to the liturgical life of the Church. Pius XII seems to have been saying that you cannot appeal to “antiquarianism” to have a more “pure” Church. If anything, he seems to be saying that it IS the Church, in every day and age, that has the authority to govern the liturgy, etc. He didn’t seem to be saying that “never this, or never that,” or even “always this and always that.” AND he may have seemed to have described the state of the Church in the western world. No one can argue that isn’t the case, as it so obviously is, but that isn’t the whole of the Church. To think that if we bring back Latin and a pinch more incense is akin to putting a bandaid on brain tumor.

I’ve never heard anyone claim that he was a vissionary in the terms you seem to mean, ie., like Sister Lucia or Saint Bernadette, etc., though he did say he saw the sun dance in the sky when he proclaimed the Assumption and if there was ever a sober man, it was Pius XII.

Indeed, if only the world would do penance and experience a conversion of heart. Make no mistake, I believe that souls are falling into hell like the leaves from a tree. But I also believe in the much mocked “springtime.”

 

[bear06]

Servus Pio XII:

OK, does anybody know if Pius XII was a visionary?

I am sorry, but reading Mediator Dei really put me off my lunch! He essentially described the state of the Roman Church to-day, and then denounced it! It is shameful that we should be able to look back at any Pope’s pronouncements and have to wonder how they fit in.

I find myself wondering if Our Lady’s various prophesies on the Church are beginning to come true.

If only the world would do penance!

What’s the saying? Everything old is new again? You’re right on the money when you say that he describes the Church today. He’s also describing the Church of hundreds of years ago. People seem to think that the Church was perfect until 40 years ago. That’s why I think some are historically challenged. If life was so perfect, why was Mediator Dei written?

 

[palmas85]

MarkInOregon:

Glad we don’t have any major problems in the Church today like those poor early Catholics did.
Doesn’t the Church in every age have problems? Even major problems?

When ideas like this are thrown out there–what is usually implied is that all changes in the Mass up to some point–often the TLM–were good changes–but any change after that is well just plain bad–and well you can’t have it both ways. Changes I like good changes I don’t bad. It doesn’t work like that.
I’m pretty sure the Mass will change further. Some of the Changes I may like and some I may not. I do know the Lord will always come to us at the Mass–outside of that its all open to change.
As for being a second or third century Catholic – I don’t believe we know much about their liturgical practices–but I guess I wouldn’t know any different–so it wouldn’t bother me.

I don’t think any of the problems we have now are of the same magnitude as the problems of the Church in Corinth.