At what point did the Church become so "Renaissance/European"?

[ProVobis]

Also, consider this

"1. All the requisites for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice have been selected with especial care, and nothing has been adopted but what has been found best suited unto this end. This applies also to the language in which the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated; for the liturgical language should correspond to its liturgical object. The Mass considered in itself could assuredly be celebrated in any language, but by the Providence of God the Latin language has become, and still continues to be of all languages the most widely diffused for divine worship.1 The very ancient practice of the Church of celebrating Mass in the West, not in the living language of the country, but in a dead language, that is, in Latin, for the most part a language unintelligible to the people, has since the twelfth century to the present epoch been frequently made the subject of attack.2 Such attacks originated principally in an heretical, schismatical, proudly national spirit hostile to the Church, or in a superficial and false enlightenment, in a shallow and arid rationalism entirely destitute of the perception and understanding of the essence and object of the Catholic liturgy, especially of the profoundly mystical sacrifice. In the attempt to suppress the Latin language of the liturgy and to replace it by the vernacular, there was a more or less premeditated scheme to undermine Catholic unity, to loosen the bond of union with Rome, to weaken the Catholic spirit, to destroy the humility and simplicity of faith. Therefore, the Apostolic See at all times most persistently and inflexibly resisted such innovations; for it is an invariable principle of the Church never to alter the ancient liturgical language, but inviolably to adhere to it, even though it be no longer the living language spoken or understood by the people. The Church likewise, when introducing the Roman liturgy among newly converted nations, has for many centuries permitted the Latin language only.3 She excommunicates all those who presume to declare the vernacular to be the necessary or the only permissible language for the liturgy;4 she stigmatizes as impertinent effrontery for any one to censure or combat the retention of the Latin language for divine worship. 5 This is just; for, as St. Augustine remarks, “to question what the united Church practices as a rule is the most daring madness.”6 In all such general decrees and usages appertaining to divine worship, the Church is directed and preserved from injurious blunders by the Holy Spirit.7 Instead of censuring the Church on account of her practice, that has endured more than a thousand years, of conducting her liturgical worship in a dead language, we should rather acknowledge and admire her supernatural wisdom; she counts her experiences by centuries: ours we can enumerate only by days."

"2 Opponents of the Latin language of worship were, as a rule, heretics, schismatics and rationalistic Catholics; for example, the Albigensians, the so-called Reformers, the Jansenists, the Gallicans, the Josephites, the so-called German and the Old Catholics."

more on

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/language_gihr.pdf

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

But was it the only one? This we know from John 19:19-20:

19 ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 20 τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.

19 Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum : Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum. 20 Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.

19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

Was it the only language? of course not. Was it the common language? of course.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Not in dispute. From Fr. Nikolaus Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass | The Language Used in the Celebration of the Holy Mass:

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Thanks.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Thanks.

It was a response to your statement about the Church not having one language but one needs to recognize the nature of those languages.

Again: "1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian. With the exception of Romanian, all these languages used in the liturgy have for a considerable time no longer been the living languages of the people, but only dead languages."

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

He wrote his letter to the Romans (as will all his letters) in Greek ...

That doesn't mean the originals were written in Greek. According to the source I posted above (in #21)

"...
The original books of the New Testament, in their various languages, have been lost. We do not have the original manuscripts from any of the books of the Bible. For the New Testament, the oldest extant copies of each book are in Greek (with occasional words or phrases in Aramaic). But this fact does not warrant the conclusion that each book was originally written in Greek. There is much evidence to the contrary..."

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Was it the only language? of course not. Was it the common language? of course.

Pointless argument when the inscription was written in three languages (as indicated in scripture itself) so everyone could understand.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

It was a response to your statement about the Church not having one language but one needs to recognize the nature of those languages.

Again: "1. Latin, 2. Greek, 3. Syriac, 4. Chaldaic, 5. Arabian, 6. Ethiopian, 7. Glagolitic, 8. Ruthenian, 9. Bulgarian, 10. Armenian, 11. Coptic, 12. Romanian. With the exception of Romanian, all these languages used in the liturgy have for a considerable time no longer been the living languages of the people, but only dead languages."

I probably should have noted this earlier, but it slipped my sieve of a mind Anyway, here goes:

• Nos.3 & 4 - There are 2 major dialects of Syriac. One is generally called "Western" (aka "Syriac" used by the Syriac OC/CC and the Maronites, and the other "Eastern" (aka "Chaldean" or "Assyrian"), used by the Chaldeans and the ACoE. The differences are mainly in pronunciation.
• No. 5 ("Arabian") is non-existent. He probably means "Arabic" but that was never a liturgical language as such.
  
• No. 6 is properly called "Ge'ez"
  
• No. 7 (Glagolitic) is, as I recall, a variant of Old Slavonic, and is the one non-Latin language that was used by the Roman Church after Trent (limited to parts of Dalmatia).
  
• No. 8 is another that is non-existent. The Ruthenians speak a variety of Slavic languages but the liturgical language as such is Old Slavonic.
  
• No. 9 is again not properly a liturgical language, but is probably the closest to Old Slavonic of all the Slavic vernaculars.

[manualman]

Originally Posted by theink

I've noticed and frankly have become annoyed by the split in our Church.

There seems to be those who want the Church to "return" to their Orthodox ideal of Catholicism, which would include more Latin, chanting, pipe organs, dramatic candles and decorations.

Then there are those who are happy with a post Vatican II Church.

My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the "middle east" walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?

If the "post Vatican II" changes among the catholic population as a whole in matters of liturgy, fidelity and theology bore ANY resemblence at all to what was ACTUALLY approved at Vatican II, there wouldn't BE any of this controversy and division today. The traditionalist movement is largely a reaction to the Trojan horses that were snuck into catholicism in the NAME of Vatican II, but actually are utterly unrelated to and unsupported by the council.

PLEASE, if you THINK you know what Vatican II was all about, get the actual documents (available in English) and READ them. You will be shocked and appalled at the distortions/lies you've been told about them for 40 years now.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by malphono

I probably should have noted this earlier, but it slipped my sieve of a mind Anyway, here goes:

• Nos.3 & 4 - There are 2 major dialects of Syriac. One is generally called "Western" (aka "Syriac" used by the Syriac OC/CC and the Maronites, and the other "Eastern" (aka "Chaldean" or "Assyrian"), used by the Chaldeans and the ACoE. The differences are mainly in pronunciation.
• No. 5 ("Arabian") is non-existent. He probably means "Arabic" but that was never a liturgical language as such.
  
• No. 6 is properly called "Ge'ez"
  
• No. 7 (Glagolitic) is, as I recall, a variant of Old Slavonic, and is the one non-Latin language that was used by the Roman Church after Trent (limited to parts of Dalmatia).
  
• No. 8 is another that is non-existent. The Ruthenians speak a variety of Slavic languages but the liturgical language as such is Old Slavonic.
  
• No. 9 is again not properly a liturgical language, but is probably the closest to Old Slavonic of all the Slavic vernaculars.

Thanks for the information. It's good to know which are considered liturgical languages.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

That doesn't mean the originals were written in Greek. According to the source I posted above (in #21)

I suppose there are some scholars that suggest Paul's letters were written in some language other than Greek. I've never heard of or read any of them, nor come across any such idea in Biblical Commentaries (Jerome, Harper's, Collegeville) or any notes in any Catholic Bible. Still, it could be the case, I suppose. The Catholic Church seems to accept the most likely scenario, that the whole New Testament was originally written in Greek (see e.g. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm section IV.B)

[Aramis]

Glagolitic is a writing system for Slavonic. It is not a language.

Slavonic is written with three alphabets: Glagolitic, Cyrillic, and Latin. Many confuse the name of the writing form for a separate language, because it also refers to a culture which originated the writing form.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

(see e.g. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm section IV.B)

I have enough books on the matter, most of them written by Greek scholars so guess what. Do you have a particular excerpt from this which you could produce to illustrate your point?

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

I have enough books on the matter, most of them written by Greek scholars so guess what. Do you have a particular excerpt from this which you could produce to illustrate your point?

Just the one I noted.

[Cat Herder]

Originally Posted by theink

My question is how did the Church go from 12 guys from the "middle east" walking in sandals with long hair and donkeys to Latin, chanting, and pipe organs?

Just to make something clear (although I do not think you intended to ask the following)...

That's kind of like asking how the United States of America went from wigged Continental Congressmen on horseback with muskets to, well...



The point being that the USA did not somehow cease to be the USA by getting rid of the wigs, horses and muskets in favor of something more modern. Ditto with the Catholic Church losing sandals and Aramaic in favor of Ecclesiastical Latin and pipe organs.