Troubled by Vatican II liturgical reform! - Page 3

**ProVobis** · #31 May 5, '12, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdvdsj

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 · #32 May 5, '12, 5:38 pm

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 · #33 May 6, '12, 1:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadsend

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!!!):
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...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** · #34 May 6, '12, 4:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

(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 · #35 May 6, '12, 8:56 am

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 · #36 May 7, '12, 1:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

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** · #37 May 7, '12, 4:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

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 · #38 May 7, '12, 6:26 am

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** · #39 May 7, '12, 6:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacredcow

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.

Quote:

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

And beautiful.

sacredcow · #40 May 7, '12, 6:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProVobis

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.

roadsend · #41 May 7, '12, 7:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacredcow

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.

I have attended Maronite Liturgy and I completely concur.

Its beauty also saddens me because it reminds me of the beauty of our own Roman Mass that so many of our parishes threw into the sewer almost fifty years ago.

ImmaculataFides · #42 May 7, '12, 7:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I would like to respectfully ask if you were to provide a source for this. Thank you.

clem456 · #43 May 7, '12, 7:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks to you for your common sense.