OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:40:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Not Douay English Speaking Orthodox?  (Read 3215 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,406



« Reply #90 on: December 20, 2013, 10:34:35 PM »

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

This has been said several times in the course of this discussion, so it's time to give it the qualification that it needs. It is true that there are differences between the MT and the DSS where the LXX appears to translate the latter rather than the texts which contributed to the former. But far more common are places where the MT and DSS agree, and the LXX disagrees with both. And as a rule these appear to be simple mistakes in the LXX translation.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #91 on: December 20, 2013, 10:56:34 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #92 on: December 20, 2013, 11:27:06 PM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

There is a very good reason why English speaking Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version of the Bible. The Douay was not a translation from the original Greek text, but was from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Obviously the Greek text is the one with authority in the Orthodox Church, so it makes sense that we would use a translation from the Greek text rather than one from Latin. Besides, the Latin translation contained several translation errors that led to some of the most important doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The Augustinian doctrine of original sin comes from an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. The correct translation is "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --" But the Latin translation used for the Douay is, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."  The mistake of translating the Greek "eph ho" to mean "in whom" when a more correct translation would be "because" or "in that," led Augustine to develop the concept that all inherit guilt from Adam. St. John 15:26 "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" The Greek word translated "proceeds" in this verse is "ekporeuetai" and in the Creed is "ἐκπορευόμενον"  which means to proceed from one source of origin. That would rule out the filioque clause in both the Biblical text and the Creed. However, the Latin text of the Creed and John 15:26 uses the word, "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator, thereby opening the way for the filioque.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #93 on: December 20, 2013, 11:53:09 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.

The LXX is the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians because that is the translation always used by the Church and quoted in the New Testament. Besides, we do not know that the Masoretic text is the original Hebrew. The LXX is at least 400 years older than the Masoretic text. It may very well be a translation from more authentic texts than the Masoretic text. In any case the Church determines the canon of the Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Church has determined that the canon of the Old Testament is the LXX version. At the time that the Jews prepared the Masoretic text they were intensely anti-Christian as Peter Schafer's book Jesus in the Talmud shows. It is not inconceivable that they instinctively favored a Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 that used the words "young woman" instead of virgin due to their prejudice against Christianity. Besides in many languages "young woman" means virtually the same as virgin. For example in German one speaks of the Jungfrau Maria which literally means young woman Maria.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #94 on: December 21, 2013, 12:05:43 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today 
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today.

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

The Church in Rome worshiped in Greek for several centuries before it switched to Latin. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek. The fragment of Papias in ca. 140 does refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew as having been written in Hebrew (probably Aramaic), but there is no account of any other New Testament book having been written in any other language but Greek.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #95 on: December 21, 2013, 12:06:09 AM »

St Matthew used a non-Septuagint version of the OT. This in reference to the verse "Out of Egypt have I called my Son". St Sophronius' life of St Matthew says that he saw the Hebrew version of the OT among the Nazarene (Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking) Christians, but that's lost to us now. I don't think that version was the Masoretic, either, but it shows that it's more that just the Septuagint and Masoretic texts floating around back then, and not just the LXX has authority in our Church (well the LXX now has the most authority).
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #96 on: December 21, 2013, 12:10:42 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 12:19:52 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #97 on: December 21, 2013, 12:13:08 AM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,032



« Reply #98 on: December 21, 2013, 01:02:43 AM »

St Matthew used a non-Septuagint version of the OT. This in reference to the verse "Out of Egypt have I called my Son". St Sophronius' life of St Matthew says that he saw the Hebrew version of the OT among the Nazarene (Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking) Christians, but that's lost to us now. I don't think that version was the Masoretic, either, but it shows that it's more that just the Septuagint and Masoretic texts floating around back then, and not just the LXX has authority in our Church (well the LXX now has the most authority).

The New Testament quote of Malachi is the same way. He may have used a multiplicity of texts, it's very possible Matthew didn't write his Gospel all at once, and probably traveled around a lot, so he had to use different textual sources. That, or Matthew used a source that was lost. Even the LXX doesn't perfectly line-up with Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,032



« Reply #99 on: December 21, 2013, 01:04:42 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris

The New Testament Greek text of the King James/New King James is the Reformation era Greek text compiled by Erasmus; Novum Testamentum Omne.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 01:12:31 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #100 on: December 21, 2013, 01:34:20 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris

The New Testament Greek text of the King James/New King James is the Reformation era Greek text compiled by Erasmus; Novum Testamentum Omne.

You are right. The Greek text used for the King James/New King James was the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus. However, he relied heavily on Byzantine texts so it would be the closest to the Greek text used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,062


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #101 on: December 21, 2013, 05:57:47 AM »

You are right. The Greek text used for the King James/New King James was the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus. However, he relied heavily on Byzantine texts so it would be the closest to the Greek text used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches.

That wasn't really the reason why he used the Byzantine texts. The manuscripts of that text-type were the only ones which he could find with the deadline that he had.

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:58:36 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,409


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #102 on: December 21, 2013, 10:52:54 AM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #103 on: December 21, 2013, 12:40:36 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,062


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #104 on: December 21, 2013, 01:21:05 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

I was too lazy to look up his name, but I supposed it was the 1850's translation that was based on just one manuscript. That's just bad scholarship.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 01:21:29 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,466



« Reply #105 on: December 21, 2013, 01:23:02 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #106 on: December 21, 2013, 03:52:21 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.

It means I took the two words and combined them into one:

Lancelot Brenton > Branceton

It's the same process as the one that gave rise to "brunch", a blend of "breakfast" and "lunch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #107 on: December 21, 2013, 03:59:46 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.

It means I took the two words and combined them into one:

Lancelot Brenton > Branceton

It's the same process as the one that gave rise to "brunch", a blend of "breakfast" and "lunch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend

There are at least three translations of the LXX version of the Psalms. Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston publishes one as does Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, and New Skete. The New Skete version is in modern English. The others are in more traditional Elizabethan English. The Jordanvill version also has the traditional prayers said after each Kathisma.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #108 on: December 21, 2013, 04:03:15 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 04:06:46 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,062


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #109 on: December 21, 2013, 04:35:05 PM »

A lot of Roman citizens, and even some consuls and governors, only spoke Greek. Many Roman citizens in the East didn't speak Latin. Besides, letters were sent to other churches as well and they wouldn't have been able to read Latin. Greek back then was what English is for us today.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 04:36:26 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,466



« Reply #110 on: December 21, 2013, 05:02:12 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical
you need to read history more and trust in your own logic less.

btw, what do you take for the basis of your assertion that St. Paul was speaking to "native Romans."  And, btw, what was a "native Roman"?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:05:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
WPM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,238



« Reply #111 on: December 21, 2013, 05:46:08 PM »

Well, a lot of different countries speak the common lingua franca of English. Maybe English as a secondary language.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:46:54 PM by WPM » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #112 on: December 21, 2013, 06:18:44 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point. 

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical


At that particular point in history Greek was the international language. Any educated person would understand Greek. All theology, even in the West was written in Greek. Tertullian who died in 220 was the first major Latin Father.

I want to comment on the quotes from Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyprian at the bottom of your post. You have taken them both completely out of context. St. Ireanaeus was writing in France to a Western audience. It was only natural that he would hold up the only Apostolic see in the area as the example for all to follow. St. Irenaeus did not hesitate to admonish the Pope when he went too far and threatened to break Communion with the Churches in Asia Minor over the Pascha controversy. 
St. Cyprian did not hesitate to publicly disagree with Pope St. Stpehen on the matter of Baptism administered outside of the Church and even rewrote his "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" to make it clear that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter and that no Bishop can claim to be the "Bishop of Bishops." Supporters of the papacy are very good at taking statements completely out of context to support their beliefs. The fact is that none of the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the Pope as having the authority given him by the 1st Vatican Council during the age of the Ecumenical Councils, the canon of which make it clear that the Pope had no universal jurisdiction and like all other Bishops was bond to obey the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.  During the age of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor only. He did not have universal jurisdiction. He did not have the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, and certainly did not have the authority to make infallible statements on the doctrine of the Church. In the ancient Church the pope was "first among equals" and had no more authority than the Ecumenical Patriarch has in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 06:19:56 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 21, 2013, 06:34:06 PM »

However since tarsus was a a Greek city

Cilician

Quote
He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish.

Not really. Aramaic was a local language of Jews in Palestine due to Assyrian legacy. Unless his parents had been recent emigrants he, as a Hellenised Hebrew would not speak it most likely. At least before he moved to Palestine.

Quote
However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin

Really? His parents were from Rome? How do you know that? Was Rome city where they spoke Aramaic on the streets?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 257


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #114 on: December 21, 2013, 11:41:32 PM »

... especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Paul was a native of Tarsus, not of Rome. Where did you read that his parents were actual Roman citizens from Rome? He and his parents were merely Roman citizens. That does not require them to be from Rome.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #115 on: December 22, 2013, 07:10:53 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,032



« Reply #116 on: December 22, 2013, 07:44:57 PM »

Quote
And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact.

Actually, some Roman Catholics after and during the Reformation were steadfast to claim, against Protestants, that the Latin Vulgate version was superior to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 07:46:47 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,406



« Reply #117 on: December 22, 2013, 09:18:12 PM »

Quote
And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact.

Actually, some Roman Catholics after and during the Reformation were steadfast to claim, against Protestants, that the Latin Vulgate version was superior to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Well, to the surviving Greek and Hebrew, at any rate. None of this has anything to do with the lousiness of the Douay as a translation, no what text it translates.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #118 on: December 22, 2013, 09:58:38 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 10:22:52 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #119 on: December 22, 2013, 11:22:40 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #120 on: December 23, 2013, 12:40:57 AM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.

I am not privy to what considerations led to the Novo Ordo Mass, but I do know that it lacks the majesty and beauty of the old Tridentine High Mass. I agree that it should have been translated into the language understood by the people, but that has always been the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in my opinion they went too far and threw out too much of the old practices and lost the sense of the sacred.
What modernism? The Orthodox Church has suffered terrible persecution during most of its history from Jews, Romans, Muslims, Communists and now from secularists, but it never changed its doctrine or forms of worship.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #121 on: December 23, 2013, 02:56:08 AM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #122 on: December 23, 2013, 02:58:37 AM »

P.S....It does not help that there are so many ultramontanists in the right wing, whether mainstream or more far right of the Latin Church. Even from a medieval view they are fighting with fact. Dante, for example, would just love to have a chance to attack the Pope getting too much power, even if he though the only successor of Peter was the Bishop of Rome.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #123 on: December 23, 2013, 12:10:55 PM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in schism. It is Rome that went into schism. Your other arguments are right, but through them you attack the foundation of modern Roman Catholicism, which is scholasticsm.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #124 on: December 23, 2013, 03:32:11 PM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in schism. It is Rome that went into schism. Your other arguments are right, but through them you attack the foundation of modern Roman Catholicism, which is scholasticsm.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the SSPX uses very Scholastic arguments in his justification for its actions. Actually one I found annoying, even as a big fan of Thomas Aquinas was their Scholastic justification about whether one should give money to beggars. Basically it went on and on about prudence and how it is more important to take care of our own family and financial need before giving foolishly to beggars. That not every one who asks deserves it. True enough--we should take care of our family before giving to others. But there was not even a mention of giving to beggars being a corporeal work of mercy and that those who do it with a compassionate heart to a great act of charity, taking compassion of those in need. Nothing about it. It hardly mentioned it was good and while it did not take the modern American Protestant approach to not giving to beggars it did pretty much say it was imprudent and all that, using a very scholastic manner to justify it. I understand saying give with prudence and good judgment, but I have always done so. I give what I can give and do it because it is simply the right thing to do. I do not go and give out hundred dollar bills. I usually give a couple dollars or maybe a five. Anyway the SSPX uses a very scholastic manner in moral questions and theological questions like this--including it's justification of it's rebellion from Rome.

But of course there does have to be a legal argument for that, since according to their canons they are at least flirting with schism from the Pope. It has to be a legal argument in that case since it is a matter of canon law. One of their problems they admit is they have no objective canonical jurisdiction.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,062


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #125 on: December 23, 2013, 03:39:54 PM »

Quote
However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome

Do you have a source for this one?
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #126 on: December 23, 2013, 05:26:00 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.

I am not privy to what considerations led to the Novo Ordo Mass, but I do know that it lacks the majesty and beauty of the old Tridentine High Mass. I agree that it should have been translated into the language understood by the people, but that has always been the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in my opinion they went too far and threw out too much of the old practices and lost the sense of the sacred.
What modernism? The Orthodox Church has suffered terrible persecution during most of its history from Jews, Romans, Muslims, Communists and now from secularists, but it never changed its doctrine or forms of worship.

I have been thinking about your arguments. There is one fundamental flaw. In Roman Catholicism, the Pope holds all power. There is no authority within Roman Catholicism to overrule the decisions of the Pope. Therein lies your problem. A Pope like Paul VI can throw out all most all old Roman traditions and make radical changes in Catholic worship and there exist no authority to over rule his decisions. No one has that kind of authority within Eastern Orthodoxy. Thus what happened to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church could not happen to us.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #127 on: December 23, 2013, 08:33:09 PM »

Yes, Father....one reason I am considering Orthodoxy. I very much like the culture of the West, at least historically. I am not very familiar with Byzantine culture or even historic Russian culture. For example I suppose I shall always be fond of Italian art, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare. But of course I think many Orthodox Christians are and Orthodox Christianity is not really Eastern but universal. It just happens to be geographically eastern for various reasons of historic events. One reason I do not think any race or people are superior, at least in any way that matters in the end. The idea that Christianity is a "white, European religion" is not only foolish, but shows a clear historical ignorance. And as for the great beauties that Western Europe gave us, like Dante, sure it is very much Roman Catholic, but even an atheist can appreciate The Divine Comedy, so I think an Orthodox Christian can.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #128 on: December 23, 2013, 11:36:34 PM »

Yes, Father....one reason I am considering Orthodoxy. I very much like the culture of the West, at least historically. I am not very familiar with Byzantine culture or even historic Russian culture. For example I suppose I shall always be fond of Italian art, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare. But of course I think many Orthodox Christians are and Orthodox Christianity is not really Eastern but universal. It just happens to be geographically eastern for various reasons of historic events. One reason I do not think any race or people are superior, at least in any way that matters in the end. The idea that Christianity is a "white, European religion" is not only foolish, but shows a clear historical ignorance. And as for the great beauties that Western Europe gave us, like Dante, sure it is very much Roman Catholic, but even an atheist can appreciate The Divine Comedy, so I think an Orthodox Christian can.

You should be aware of the fact that not all Eastern Orthodox are Eastern. I am an American convert from Protestantism. My ancestors came from the British Isles.
Neither do all in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church follow the Eastern or Byzantine Liturgy. The Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia, and the North American Archdiocese under Antioch both have Western Rites. Because I am Antiochian, I am most familiar with the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese, although I am a Byzantine Rite Priest. The Antiochian Western Rite uses two Liturgies. The Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Liturgy of St. Gregory which is the Tridentine pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Mass, both with a few minor changes to bring them into conformity with Orthodox theology. You can download the official service book of the Antiochian Western Rite at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allmercifulsavior.com%2FLiturgy2%2Fsasb.pdf&ei=IgW5UuGfE4aF2AWY2oCwCw&usg=AFQjCNE1H9MUpRvc1QPY1BnSLVlksw3kmw&sig2=pWeDUnZwqr9tuZ9IoznpMA

You can read about the Antiochian Western Rite at http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #129 on: December 25, 2013, 01:45:38 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 01:46:47 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,319


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« Reply #130 on: December 25, 2013, 09:51:12 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 09:52:43 AM by wainscottbl » Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #131 on: December 25, 2013, 01:34:16 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #132 on: December 25, 2013, 07:10:34 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,555



« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2013, 07:19:32 PM »

The original language should always be most important.

You may have difficulty getting many Orthodox to agree with you on that.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2013, 07:51:25 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.207 seconds with 71 queries.