Posted on 07/30/2005 9:06:18 AM PDT by littlepaddle
encouraging the exodus of heretical individuals who excitedly threw-in with the schismatic lefevbre.
The same problem occurred pre-1962 as well, since the old Episcopal and Lutheran services bore an outward similarity to the old Catholic Mass, esepcially in "High Church" Lutheran and Episcopal circles. The problem is mentioned in several older apologetic books.
When SS Peter, Paul, Mark and others evangelized in Rome, they brought with them the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord, in Greek.
And your evidence for this is? What? The Pseudo-Apostolic Canons? How then do any Roman formularies quoted by the Fathers bear no resemblance to this supposed Liturgy of St. James?
Only very gradually were certain parts ever translated into Latin.
Which is of course why we find the whole Liturgy in Latin by the time of Pope St. Damasus, a mere 175 years at most after the start of the use of Latin by the Popes of Rome.
And some never were, at least not at St. Peter's.
St. Peter's is not the primary Church of the Pope. That is St. John Lateran. Why the obsession over St. Peter's? The Pope doesn't celebrate a different liturgy at St. Peter's, but the same Pontifical Roman Rite as he does elsewhere.
The reason for this is that Greek is more a language for theology, Latin for law. To see how this is so, simply try to translate "Theotokos" into Latin. Can't be done. "Mater Dei" is hardly a precise translation of "Theotokos".
Try "Deipara". Do you have anymore nonesense like this?
"'When SS Peter, Paul, Mark and others evangelized in Rome, they brought with them the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord, in Greek.' And your evidence for this is?"
Easy. The Council in Trullo, Canon XXXII and the liturgical use of Alexandria.
"We find the whole Liturgy in Latin by the time of Pope St. Damasus, a mere 175 years at most after the start of the use of Latin by the Popes of Rome"
News to me. Source please?
"'And some never were, at least not at St. Peter's.' St. Peter's is not the primary Church of the Pope. That is St. John Lateran. Why the obsession over St. Peter's? The Pope doesn't celebrate a different liturgy at St. Peter's, but the same Pontifical Roman Rite as he does elsewhere."
I can tell you that, quite obviously, the "Kyrie eleison"s are about as Greek as you can get. But interestingly, it was also not until many centuries had passed that the Great Doxology was translated from Greek to Latin. And, as kost50 has pointed out in another string, the Nicene Creed. All of this is common knowledge.
"'The reason for this is that Greek is more a language for theology, Latin for law. To see how this is so, simply try to translate "Theotokos" into Latin. Can't be done. "Mater Dei" is hardly a precise translation of "Theotokos".' Try "Deipara". Do you have anymore nonesense like this?"
Another person says try Genetrix. Neither really does the job.
Additional evidence Hermann as to the use of St. Peter (the Liturgy of St. James), is the liturgical use of Antioch, a see that St. Peter established.
I went with Alexandria for the sake of St. Mark the Evangelist, who brought the Roman liturgical use (The Liturgy of St. James) to that city along with the Roman paschalion. And how do we know about the Roman paschalion? We get that from St. Wilfrid of York's witness to it at the Synod of Whitby.
"In fact, if anything, having been deprived of that ancient Rite lo these many years just might have helped bring it back with a fresh awareness of its beauty and a new devotion to offering it as it was meant to be offered!"
"the pre-Novus Ordo REALITY was often far less than the IDEAL."
You are absolutely correct here on both accounts. As a 26 year old TLM person myself, the last thing I want to see happen is for the TLM to digress into the sad state of 1950's Americanist Liturgical Minimalism. Happily, most TLMs today are not repeating this error, with pastors taking a very conscious and active role in fostering liturgical devotion and participation in the old rite. Unfortuantely, I happen to live right now in a place where my only Indult available is done by a less than stellar diocesan priest (he rushes the Mass terribly, people don't sing any responses or chants, etc.) But, this is an isolated occurrence in today's TLM reality.
One more thing...
In this country we continue to have a monoglot linguistic heritage. As a fellow Latinist, Taxachusetts, you know well that because Americans in general refuse to learn/speak any other languages, that the Latin Mass was reduced to minimalism in the pre-conciliar years.
Most likely Greek. Greek was the main trade language of the Eastern empire. Pilate and Christ almost certainly both spoke it.
For your information, my parish home will probably be Anglican Rite. I recently compared a current English translation of the Tridentine (found on the web as a Latin/English parallel) with Rite I in the "Book of Divine Worship" which is used instead of the Roman Missal. The Eucharistic consecration in Rite I is an old English translation of the Tridentine.
By the way, it is common courtesy to ping someone when you talk about him/her.
I have no disagreement with that, brother.
My apologies for not having pinged you. Some other bird at FR has told me not to ping him at all.
Do as you like as to your rite. For me personally, the more distance from Anglicanism the better. It's much too influenced by Augustine of Hippo and Alcuin the Protodeacon at best. And at worst, it's still greatly influenced by the heretical Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer.
Citing a canon from the Council of Trullo as an accurate historical witness shows a major disconnect from historical reality. Trullo was wrong on the history of the Saturday fast in the West, was wrong on the history of clerical continence in the West, and in parts of the East for that matter (and to top things off tried to rewrite the meaning of the African Code), and yet we're supposed to believe that they are an accurate witness to the first century liturgy of Rome, whereas, say, St. Hippolytus and St. Ambrose's descriptions of the Roman liturgy, which show clearly that it wasn't derived from the Liturgy of St. James (itself a fourth-century product of the Bishops of Jerusalem which was only later attributed to St. James by legend), are not valid witnesses?
Another person says try Genetrix. Neither really does the job.
Well then, would you be so kind as to explain the meaning lost in translation? Deipara - "she who gives birth to God", is the exact equivalent, Deus being identical in meaning to Theos and pario to tiktein.
"Trullo was wrong..."
For Orthodox Christians, the Council in Trullo was God-inspired, and it is not open to being questioned. I refuse to discuss this with you any further since you refuse to show proper respect for the authority of the Church. When you show proper respect, I will discuss this with you. Not until.
"Deipara - "she who gives birth to God" is only half the loaf. The other half is that "tokos" also means to bear in the womb. Para does not include that part. And I may be wrong, but I think "tokos" also includes "she who conceives". Thus we have in "tokos", "she who conceived, bore in the womb, and gave birth to". That's a lot of meaning in just one word. But I will grant that Dei and Theo are equjivalent.
How can this Council be considered definitive when it was rejected by the Apostolic See?
"For Orthodox Christians, the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 was God-inspired, and it is not open to being questioned. I refuse to discuss this with you any further since you refuse to show proper respect for the authority of the Church."
What would you say to someone who told you that?
Para does not include that part.
It does.
pario peperi, partus (P. fut. pariturus), ere [2 PAR-], to bring forth, bear, give birth, drop, lay, spawn, produce
tiktô [Root !tek] ... I. to bring into the world; of the father, to beget, of the mother, to bring forth
The idea of "conceiving, bearing in the womb, and giving birth to" is implicit in the use of the word (pario or tikto) when applied to a mother. Obviously, since it can be applied to a father as well, the word itself does not carry this meaning.
""For Orthodox Christians, the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 was God-inspired, and it is not open to being questioned. I refuse to discuss this with you any further since you refuse to show proper respect for the authority of the Church."
What would you say to someone who told you that?
No Eutychian has yet attempted that line with me. It might fly in Armenia or in Egypt.
I would tell that person that the Orthodox Church does not recognize the "Robber Synod" as Orthodox, or him either.
The Catholic Church does not recognize the Synod in Trullo as Catholic. St. Bede calls it "reprobate". Why is he in the Orthodox calendar if Trullo is God-inspired?
"Why is [St. Bede] in the Orthodox calendar if Trullo is God-inspired?"
The Patriarchate of the West did not, at that time(7th century) accept, the authority of the Council in Trullo. In fact, in the 7th century, I'm not sure it was immediately accepted by all the eastern patriarchates either, but I may be wrong. No council is automatically accepted as authoritative by any jurisdiction in the Church. Instead, councils are recognized over time as being authoritative, sometimes quickly and sometimes not so quickly. The First Council of Nicaea, for example, took many years to be generally accepted as authoritative. It was a hard fought battle that cost the lives of thousands of people, especially in Egypt. And the bishops in the Patriarchate of the West were less than thrilled, at first, with the Second Council of Nicaea. But they finally came around.
But once a council is accepted as authoritative, that's it. There's no going back. The Council in Trullo has been accepted by the entire Church as authoritative. Only heretics (e.g. Eutychians, Nestorians, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants), reject it. Anglican Catholics, interestingly, accept it. Who knows, Old Catholics may also have finally decided to accept this as an authoritative council, but as to that, I don't know.
Going back to St. Bede the Venerable, he was hardly infallible. I know of no saint who was. Do you?
That's funny.
His name is spelled Lefebvre, but anyway.
From Lituriam Authenticam: 3. The liturgical renewal thus far has seen positive results, achieved through the labor and the skill of many, but in particular of the Bishops, to whose care and zeal this great and difficult charge is entrusted. ....
The real "black humor" here is the section of the quote dealing with the labor and skill of many, but in particular bishops, to whose care and zeal... etc.
Are these the very same enabler bishops who as shephards watched as thousands upon thousands of innocents were ravaged by wolves (eg priests as homosexual perverts and pedophiles) and stood by as liturgists diluted the Mass of Ages into nothing more than a "humanistic, but vernacular, gathering session" while devoted Catholics left the church in droves?
It is especially funny how entire dioceses are pleading guilty of complicty in civil charges and scandals as they dodge payments to victims by declaring bankruptcy and closing parishes? Yeah, how humorous. Add to this the desecration of hundreds of parish churches into worship spaces with the removal of anything bordering on sacredness, kneelers, and statues of St. Joseph, the Family Protector, and Mary the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. While tabernacles are removed to a side altars or side closets.
We now see less than 20% of the "faithful" attend Sunday Mass, fewer still even believe in the true presence. Vocations are at an all time low -- except in the Traditional Latin rite priestly seminaries which are bursting at the seams.
Yes, what a legacy the last forty years has brought...
And so very, very funny, huh?
I must be Carnac.
Accusing people falsely is calumny. People who repeatedly commit calumny (and do not repent) don't get to heaven, no matter how good they are are hugging and kissing during the sign of peace in the NO.
Here's another thing I know, you're going to do everything you can to avoid answering this challenge:
Now if you would like to make an argument that the NO more accurately reflects the faith of the Church[than the TLM] I'd be most interested to hear how you think it does.
So far I'm 2 for 2.
So the Orthodox Church is an infallible oracle of historical wisdom, such as the name of the composers of various liturgies?
When did Jesus make such a promise?
Maybe the Orthodox Church can turn its attention to straightening out the mess of chronology in Egyptology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.