Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh? Who’s talking only of Europe and only of conversions prior to the adoption of Latin?
 
edwest211 said:
Why bring in the Vandals, Goths or Visigoths for that matter? They are far less known to most people than Vatican II. I was raised in a mostly Slavic community. My first language was not English. I can read Russian if it’s translated from the Cyrillic. Ancient customs and even forms of dress survive in Eastern Europe. Not long after the fall of the Soviet Union, religion regrew in Russia and the Eastern Bloc, where, during the Cold War in some countries, it was tolerated as long it didn’t pose a threat to the Party.
Click to expand...
I only brought them up because I mentioned the 4th crusade. Quotes or historians of the time said that not even the Goths were as bad as the 4th Crusade.
 
dochawk said:
Europe of the Disparate tongues was evangelized before Rome switched to Latin, the vernacular at the time.
Click to expand...
Germanic Europe was Christianized after the fall of the Roman Empire. So I think Latin was already the norm. Same with Ireland.
 
For whatever reason though, life moved on. Life happens. Language is funny like that. And the church would have done better by matching it.
 
To me, this should be a time when the True Presence makes even more sense, rather than less. In light of Quantum Physics, the nature of matter is even more mysterious than ever. But when the Church relies on Aristotle’s philosophy to explain it, it sounds harder to believe than it should be. And not budging on this is a mistake. Aristotle is not God… or even a Christian.
 
Bartholo said:
Germanic Europe was Christianized after the fall of the Roman Empire. So I think Latin was already the norm. Same with Ireland.
Click to expand...
Again, no.

Common liturgically, yes, but not mandatory and universal until after Trent.

hawk
 
Are you asking me, because I mentioned this already. Hebrew had already evolved within the age of the Bible itself. They used to use a Canaanite script. The Hebrew we know now is from their Babylonian captivity. Below would be more of some of the characters in David’s day.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
So the issue for you with Latin, then, is that it’s static? (It isn’t entirely, by the way – Ecclesiastical and Classical forms demonstrate changes.)

As for Hebrew, why is it wise of Jews to continue using a language from the period of Babylonian captivity, which predates Latin, but it’s unwise of the Church to use Latin as its common language?
 
Modern Hebrew is different too. It uses vowel forms, and has numbers. But for the most part they use what they can to preserve a sense of ethnic heritage. The same can’t be said of Latin. Few of us are Roman. Or even European.
 
So again, if Latin were updated you’d be comfortable with it as the common language of the liturgy?
 
Not really, I don’t understand it. And I think other languages can accomplish the same thing. They’re just languages. I sympathize however with being disappointed with radical changes to liturgical forms themselves.
 
Was council of Trent a super council that made church history reborn at that time?
 
Biblical Hebrew is static.
What I mean is the Jews don’t translate the bible into modern Hebrew.
Whereas the Essenes did translate scripture into their version of Hebrew. Eg book of ISaiah found in cave one in Dead Sea scrolls.
 
Last edited:
straykat said:
Not really, I don’t understand it. And I think other languages can accomplish the same thing. They’re just languages. I sympathize however with being disappointed with radical changes to liturgical forms themselves.
Click to expand...
From my perspective, the issue isn’t as much about Latin as it is a common language for the liturgy. The consecration can be said in any language by a valid priest. But with a common language, there is no genuine difference between a Mass said in New York and a Mass said in Turkey. It has a binding force to it that connects all Catholics. I don’t see that as problematic.

That said, I took four years of Latin in high school and I genuinely appreciate the language. It’s been an invaluable gift to me when trying to decipher romance languages. And my husband still turns to me as his translator when we’re visiting ancient shrines. 🙂
 
I just showed you above it wasn’t (the Canaanite script). It had earlier forms. It’s only static now, 3000 years later, from our perspective. Besides that, even the Hebrews in their own time, were flexible enough to use Aramaic and then Greek heavily (and even called the LXX inspired Word of God in it’s time). I see no evidence that they were so dogged about it.

And even then, it still evolved further, for some mysterious reason. The interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is the most glaring example, pre and post Jesus.
 
You are equating writing system with language. Which isn’t true.
 
I’m sorry if I seem to be challenging you. I do agree with you language is fluid and was fluid. Hebrew did change.
All I was pointing out is that the Jews nowadays are also using an ancient language like Latin which isnt a vernacular language anymore.
 
It is different. It’s technically called “Archaic Biblical Hebrew” or “Paleo-Hebrew”. The Song of Moses is apparently one example (Exodus). While the Hebrew of the Prophets is different… and then Post Exile Hebrew different from that with Aramaic influence.
 
ratio1 said:
I’m sorry if I seem to be challenging you. I do agree with you language is fluid and was fluid. Hebrew did change.

All I was pointing out is that the Jews nowadays are also using an ancient language like Latin which isnt a vernacular language anymore.
Click to expand...
It’s OK 🙂 As for modern Jews, it’s more of a revived ancient language… with more modern additions (vowels). And they did their best to kind of “engineer” it into vernacular now (with TV/Newspapers… getting Jewish families to take on new Hebrew names, etc).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top