In final interview, liberal Cardinal says Church '200 years out of date'

MSNBC ^ | 09/02/2012 | Reuters

[Iscool]

The early Church’s liturgy was in Greek. The western Church switched to Latin gradually in the second or third century. Several of the Eastern Catholic Churches use Greek to this day.

That seems to contradict some of the self-proclaimed Catholic experts in this thread...

[Iscool]

Latin was the language of the Church of Rome.

Greek was the language of the church of Jesus Christ...That is why the New Testament scriptures were written in Greek...

It would seem most Romans in that era and area would have spoken Greek...

[Iscool]

I think it may come down to everybody doing Christianity in Chinese.

Hope not...I can't even do the chopsticks let alone the language...

[Iscool]

Why don’t you address the absurd nonsense that Christ and the Apostles would know nothing of Latin.

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Why don't you leave biblical truth out of your pontifications...You should leave the bible to people who are qualified to discuss it...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Same with me. Even Chinese checkers is beyond me.

[RobbyS]

And there are hundreds of millions who do not.

[RobbyS]

Aramaic was probably the first language, The reason why Stephen and the other deacons waschosen to care for the needs of the Greek-speakers in the Church. Palestine was a bi-lingural country, where Greek was the language of the city, trade and culture, Aramaic/Hebrew were the languages of the country folk and worship. The Gospel was spread by means of Greek. Which is why only Matthew seems to have been written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Of course, it spread is all directions, as the legends of the activities of the Apostles attest.

[RobbyS]

In any case, the Chinese Christians seem to be more steadfast than we are. Christianity offers something valuable to the people there, just as it did to the people of the Roman Empire.

[MDLION]

Iscool:”Like I said, a study of the scriptures will lead a Christian away from your ‘Church’”

Like I said, that very Church gave you the ‘scriptures’”

[BillyBoy]

>> While you are correct that the Council of Trent standardized the Roman Mass in the 16th Century, the elements of the Mass in Europe, e.g., the prayers of the daily office, the chants of the Mass (developed in 7th-10th centuries) were all in place. <<

True, but that's also true of all modern liturgies in apostolic churches, whether they use the Tridentine Mass or not. The basic "structure" of the Mass has changed little in 1000 years. You can go a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Lutheran Sunday service (whatever they call theirs, I've been to both) and you'll recognize most of the responses ("Let us lift up our hearts"/"We lift them up to the Lord") and where you are in the Mass without looking at the church missal, because the general structure is the same (Liturgy of the Word/Homily/Liturgy of the Eucharist, etc.)

>> Other contemporaneous rites, like the Sarum Rite or the Ambrosian Rite were more similar to the Tridentine Rite than not, and would probably be quite acceptable to the devotee of TLM. <<

There are also liturgical rites around back then (now defunct) that had nothing to do with the Tridentine rite (again, aside from the basic structure of the Mass), such as the Mozarabic Rite, and they were perfectly valid expressions of Catholicism in western Chrisitianity, so it seems odd for the Tridentine Mass advocates to take the tone that is HAS TO be their style of liturgy or its "false" Catholicism. Again, I see a real comparison to the "King James only" Bible snobs. The King James translation is a beautiful translation and quite poetic but the idea that is the ONLY valid Bible for Christians is absurd.

>> Those of us who cherish the Tridentine Rite prefer the solemnity of the rite, the strict attention to the rubrics of the Mass, the beauty of the prayers, and the sacredness of the music. <<

That might be a very valid point, in that many of the post-Vatican II masses have become watered down and lost some of their solemnity and reverence. But I don't hear this argument from the Tridentine Mass fan club. I hear "if it's NOT in the Latin language, it's phony Catholicism!!" whining as their main argument.

>> In addition, because priest and congregation tend to be conservative, the sermons tend to uphold our values: family, the sacredness life, personal responsibility: these sermons are heavy on the teaching of the theology of Catholicism and lack the superficiality and touchy-feelyness of many modern homilies. <<

That might be a tendency, probably because priests who use the Tridentine Mass are more conservative and traditional in their spiritual life, so they likely are in their public lives as well. I would say it probably has to do more with region... most Chicago area priests would buy into the "social justice" model, whereas most priests from say, rural Kansas, would teach Catholic morality. Also, clinging to a Council of Trent era Mass because it's more "traditional" makes little sense because many liturgical rites are even older and have deeper roots in ancient Christianity. For example, most of the eastern liturgical rites have differed little from the 8th century, and they're often in the vernacular language. This also shows the service does not "need" to be a dead language to preserve its ancient structure and traditions.

>> most of the Catholics that I know who have opted for the TLM do not deny the validity of the Novus Ordo; it is just that the Novus Ordo Mass tends to leave us unfulfilled. <<

Interesting. I've never been to a Tridentine Mass in my life, and grew up the post-Vatican II modern Mass, but the people I've met who regularly go to a Tridentine Mass all tell me that the modern Mass is not the "true" Catholic Church and the "Vatican II Catholics" are indistinguishable from protestants, etc., etc. I think there's a valid point to be made that many of the Vatican II changes created a bland, boring Mass that lives people unfulfilled (and certainly, many of the "modern" Catholic Churches I've been to have very dull Masses). But much of that has been addressed with the new English translation of the Mass that was implemented last year, and the truth is that there are many types of liturgical styles in the history of Catholicism, it shouldn't be a "Tridentine only" club. Also, I think a lot of this is people who grew up with the Tridentine Mass believing its the only "real" Mass because they were used to it as a kid. For Catholics under the age of 60, that's not the case, we didn't "grow up" with people speaking Latin in church, and neither did the early Christians.

>> However, most of us do attend Novus Ordo Mass when the TLM is unavailable, as on holydays when we are working and away from our home parishes. <<

I believe the actual name of the modern Mass is the "Mass of Pope Paul VI" I wouldn't mind attending a Tridentine Mass service sometime, but I think it's foolish for anyone to cling to one of type of liturgical service and claiming its the definitive style of worship and everyone else has to use it. I currently attend a Byzantine-rite liturgy, which is far older than the Tridentine-rite, but I certainly wouldn't claim all Catholics need to go to my style of liturgy.

[paterfamilias]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I am a bit older than you. The Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form or “EF”)was the Mass of my childhood, and we switched to the current Ordinary Form (”OF”)when I was in high school.

With great anticipation for the changes of Vatican II, we made all the same arguments about the Mass being the same world over, and the language not mattering, but here is the reality.

Before Vatican II, when in a foreign country, the Mass was exactly the same world over, with the only exception that the Epistle and Gospel (both first read in Latin) were read in the language of the country (as was the priest’s sermon. As a boy, I had no problem following the Mass in French Canada or in Rome. I used my missal to read the Proper readings, and only “missed” the sermon.

Nowadays, even with some facility in the local language and using a missalette, I get lost in the vernacular Mass when said in a foreign language.

Romance languages are hard enough for me, but the one time I went to a Roman Catholic Mass in Greece, I had no idea where I was! (That is, until we got to the Kyrie - in Greek as we have done- and then the Our Father -said in Latin.

I am glad that Pope Benedict has freed the localities to use the EF Mass; it is growing by leaps and bounds worldwide.

While I have been to very many very beautiful and very reverent OF Masses, I still prefer the EF Mass, and I am thankful that I rediscovered it some 8 months ago.

[LadyDoc]

Actually, Latin was not commonly spoken in that area: the local language was Aramaic and the “lingua franca” for travelers and business folks was Greek, the legacy of the Hellenic civilization started by Alexander the Greek.

They probably knew Hebrew, because the prayers were in Hebrew, but not for everyday use, especially in the rural areas or in Galilee, which was full of non Jewish people. Also Galilee was under a Herod, not under Romans directly.

So yes, they were under Rome, but it’s not like the government was full of Italians. Rome ruled via local people.

Originally, one of Herod’s sons was place in charge of Judea, but he was no good, so the Romans replaced him with a Roman administrator in 6 AD...

Christ and some of the apostles might have known some Latin, but it would probably be their third language.

People forget that you use different vocabularies for different things. So someone might be able to talk about crime/civil problems with the Roman soldiers, or speak Greek or Latin to sell their fish. But to speak Theology, like Jesus did to Pilate, you would need the language that includes philosophical terms and concepts in the basic language, i.e. Greek. The conversation part “are you king of the Jews”/”What do you mean by king” is Socratic style of questioning. Pilate knew this and got annoyed that he didn’t have a dumb zealot but a guy who could badger terms with him as if he knew philosophy...

Of course, Pilate, who didn’t know Aramaic, might also have used a translator.