Author Topic: Is the Roman Catholic church ever going to turn its altar tables back around?  (Read 38878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Hi I'm New

Why not go all the way and return to the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great and St James?

By the way once a year we EO do have the ancient Liturgy of St James the Apostle where the liturgy is conducted in front of the iconostasis outside the nave doors and the bishop faces the people. The bread and wine is distributed separately.. But this is only done once a year on the feast day of St James (Agios Ikovos)and in the presence of a Bishop.

The Liturgy of St Mark is believed to be the oldest Liturgy yet it has been adapted to suit the Ethiopian Church tradition. We don't use this one in the Eastern Orthodox Church anymore, but St John Chrysostom and St Basil have compiled something very similar.

In Peace
Kosmas
« Last Edit: July 14, 2005, 12:08:23 PM by Fr Chrysostomos »
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Quote
Why not go all the way and return to the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great and St James?

Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used?  The Western eucharistic canon is certainly older than the Byzantine, and both liturgies were not codified until the middle ages anyway (the Byzantine Rite as we know it today dates to the 15th century in its final form).

Anastasios
« Last Edit: July 14, 2005, 01:37:21 PM by Anastasios »
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Silouan

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
  • Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas
Quote
Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used?

Not only that but it needs to be in Greek as well, since that is the language of the Oecumenical Throne. 

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
The ecumenical throne? What a great church! :)

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Are you suggesting that the Roman Church start using a liturgy it never used? The Western eucharistic canon is certainly older than the Byzantine, and both liturgies were not codified until the middle ages anyway (the Byzantine Rite as we know it today dates to the 15th century in its final form).

Anastasios

My Dear Friends,
 
The Liturgy as described by the St Pauline in the NT was kept in all the primitive Churches. Then extra prayers and hymns were added along with greater respect for the body and blood of the Lord. This made the Liturgy longer and longer. What was lost in this development was perhaps the simplicity of just hearing hymns and psalms a fe prayers and then partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. But what was gained was much more when there was Gospel and Epistle readings and the rich Glorification of God .

The Roman Church used Greek in the Liturgy. The tomb stones of Popes and official writings of the Popes were all written in Greek before the 4th century. The Liturgy of St Clement of Rome was written in Greek. And if you see the surviving manuscripts you will see that it was similar to the Liturgy of St Irenaus. Although primitive in form, the Liturgy was very similar to that of the Greek Liturgies of Byzantium, Alexandria and Jerusalem.


Quote
"...probably by the neglect of preaching, which is an anomaly in its history, and hardly less probably by its adherence to a Greek liturgy long after the Christians of Rome had ceased to understand Greek familiarly. At such a moment St Hippolytus proves himself a reformer. His historical elucidations of the period, therefore form an admirable introduction to Cyprian, and will explain the entire independence of Roman dictation, with which he maintained his own opinion against the Church and its bishops. --- (AnteNicean Fathers vol 5).

Quote
The Pauline Norm being born in mind, we shall best comprehend this Clementine liturgy, as to its primitive claims, by taking the testimony of Justin, writing in Rome to the Antonines A.D. 160. Referring to the Apology in our first volume, we observe that the order kept up in his day was this: —
1. Prayers for all estates of men.
2. The kiss of peace.
3. Oblation of bread and wine.
4. Thanksgiving.
5. Words of institution.
6. The prayer ending with Amen.
7. Communion.

Now, a century later, we may suppose the original of this Clementine to have taken a fuller shape; of which still later this Clementine is the product. Bear in mind that the early Roman use was (Greek) borrowed wholly from the East; and, comparing the testimony of Justin with the Pauline Norm, ... this norm in Rome was augmented by the Eastern uses, and so preserves a true name in that of the first Bishop of Rome, who accepted it from Jerusalem or Antioch"
REV. ROBERT
ERNEST WALLIS, PH.D.
---- AnteNicene Fathers vol 7.ÂÂ  


- Fr Chrysostomos

« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 11:09:00 AM by Fr Chrysostomos »
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
That liturgy may have been in Greek but it was never the DL of St John Chrysostom.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Kosmas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Well ST John Chrysostom did not invent his Liturgy out of the blue there had to be a model they all refered to.
«Ουδείς εκών κακός» Σωκράτης

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,621
Well ST John Chrysostom did not invent his Liturgy out of the blue there had to be a model they all refered to.

Really? Would that be the liturgy of, say, the Diddache?

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
And if you see the surviving manuscripts you will see that it was similar to the Liturgy of St Irenaus. Although primitive in form, the Liturgy was very similar to that of the Greek Liturgies of Byzantium, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

However, you must keep in mind that all the liturgies of that time were more similar to each other than any of them are to any of the modern-day liturgies. The Eastern liturgies developed in one direction, the Latin ones in another. And in point of fact, the extant Roman liturgy resembles the liturgy of the 4th century much more than the Byzantine one does.

Offline arjuna3110

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Sabbas, even though I'm investigating Orthodoxy, I'm a practicing Catholic;  and I must object to parts of your post:


Sorry if I was somewhat snotty in my last post but seriously every RC church I have been to in the Midwest faces north.

So what?  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.  That is the direction that matters to us.



Quote
Also for the regular Joe Schitz Roman Catholic the norm for Novus Ordo is facing the congregation, at least in America.

"Schitz"?  I'm reading this phonetically.  If this is a joke, it's not funny.

As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.  It is Jesus, come amongst us. 



Quote
As for the American Roman Catholic churches bishops, the chaos and bad relations with the Vatican: this is a big problem and has been for a long time.

In some ways, yes.  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).


Quote
You have outspoken priests and bishops who want more liturgical reforms and have no problem allowing their priests to perform wild masses, such as the one featured in a previous post, in which priests dance and process around like buffoons and have their congregation clap and sing! In fact I found some good pictures of what Augustine mentioned: clown masses!!!! You can find more info on this here http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8_1E95ADT1sJ:www.catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp%3Ftopic_id%3D5000+clown+masses&hl=en If this does not spell out what is wrong with the American Catholics, these clown masses originated in America and only spread to other countries later, than I do not know what does.

Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.  I have never seen a clown Mass.  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.  But, for all that, it is the Mass.  There are the readings.  There is the Eucharist.  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.


Quote
What is really sad is that many really do believe that more reform is necessary to increase church attendance and create 'Christian Unity'.

Who are you talking about?  In what place?  In what decade?  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.

And as for the Latin Mass . . .  <sigh>.  It was before my time.  I knew people who missed it dearly.  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).  But the fact remains:  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church. 

In sum, Sabbas:  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church. 

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
Sabbas, even though I'm investigating Orthodoxy, I'm a practicing Catholic;ÂÂ  and I must object to parts of your post:


So what?ÂÂ  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.ÂÂ  That is the direction that matters to us.



"Schitz"?ÂÂ  I'm reading this phonetically.ÂÂ  If this is a joke, it's not funny.

As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.ÂÂ  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.ÂÂ  It is Jesus, come amongst us.ÂÂ  



In some ways, yes.ÂÂ  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.ÂÂ  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.ÂÂ  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.ÂÂ  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.ÂÂ  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).


Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.ÂÂ  I have never seen a clown Mass.ÂÂ  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.ÂÂ  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.ÂÂ  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.ÂÂ  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.ÂÂ  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.ÂÂ  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.ÂÂ  But, for all that, it is the Mass.ÂÂ  There are the readings.ÂÂ  There is the Eucharist.ÂÂ  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.ÂÂ  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.ÂÂ  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.ÂÂ  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.


Who are you talking about?ÂÂ  In what place?ÂÂ  In what decade?ÂÂ  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.ÂÂ  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).ÂÂ  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.

And as for the Latin Mass . . .ÂÂ  <sigh>.ÂÂ  It was before my time.ÂÂ  I knew people who missed it dearly.ÂÂ  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).ÂÂ  But the fact remains:ÂÂ  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.ÂÂ  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:ÂÂ  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.ÂÂ  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.ÂÂ  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church.ÂÂ  

In sum, Sabbas:ÂÂ  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.ÂÂ  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.ÂÂ  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.ÂÂ  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.ÂÂ  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.ÂÂ  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church.ÂÂ  


Quote
So what?  When Catholics go to Mass, we look to the tabernacle and to the altar and to the Eucharist.  That is the direction that matters to us.

I was making an observation not an accusation. I still have not discovered why they all face north? I wish their was someone here who could explain to me Roman Catholic architecture and how this practice came about.
Quote
"Schitz"?  I'm reading this phonetically.  If this is a joke, it's not funny.
Where I live we says Joe Schitz instead of Joe Schmoe.
Quote
As for saying Mass facing the people, it's not bad.  In fact, when it is done with the proper spirit, it is awesomely powerful and holy.  It is Jesus, come amongst us. 
The very end of Richard Wagner's opera "Parsifal" in which Parsifal takes hold of the Grail turns toward the people and blesses them is very powerful and "holy" too but I certainly would not consider it Divine Liturgy. Having the celebrant face the people completes the destruction of the Sacrificial character of the Mass which is already cut down in the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself. The celebrant is no longer Christ offering Himself to His Father and the Trinity for the remission of sins but the head of a banquet.
Quote
In some ways, yes.  In other ways, it would be nice if Rome would take our suggestions and not just our money.  However, the problem to which you refer is fast dying out.  JPII appointed quite a few conservatives to the episcopacy, and they are gradually taking power and appointing like-minded conservatives to the episcopacy . . . while the more liberal bishops seem to be dying off or retiring.  And, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict 16th, and he shall curb dissent with an iron fist in a velvet glove.  So, dissent among American Catholic bishops is likely to abate (but never to completely go away).
For the sake of Roman Catholics I hope you are right.
Quote
Sabbas, I have been Catholic for most of my life, 38 years, and I have attended Mass across a good portion of the U.S.: from New York to Colorado and mostly in the Midwest.  I have never seen a clown Mass.  Indeed, I did not know of the existence of the clown Mass till a few months ago when I saw a post at www.byzcath.org about one that was celebrated at an Anglican church in New York City.  About the freakiest that thing I have personally witnessed at a Catholic Mass was a nun giving the sermon.  Otherwise, I have seen Mass more or less following the norms of the novus ordo.  Yes, sometimes the church architecture is plain or downright ugly.  Yes, sometimes the hymns are goofy.  And, yes, it gets a little silly when everyone holds hands at the Our Father -- although there are plenty of people (like me) who decline to participate.  But, for all that, it is the Mass.  There are the readings.  There is the Eucharist.  And there really isn't the kind of wackiness which you referred to.  I'm sure it happens in some places: otherwise, the things you cited would not be cited.  Yet, they are the exceptions --in the extreme-- and not the norm.  The norm is the Mass according to the novus ordo.
One of the areas of modern Roman Catholicism I originally I intended to address were these abuses because I felt that the celebrating clergy at these events should be excommunicated but ended not even being disciplined which seems outrageous. Now I will go further and say that I am also appalled that no great action was ever taken to thwart the practice of having 'lay eucharistic ministers' and/or altar girls serving as well as the use of goofy hymns and guitars. These seem to be just terrible innovations as well though I admit not as bad as having clowns in the sanctuary.

I will now go even further and state that the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself is riddled with problems and though much of it resembles the Tridentine Mass it is in a drastic departure from all previous Liturgical forms even when celebrated properly (facing the Tabernacle, Gregorian chant, etc.)
The focus of the Tridentine Mass is the Sacrifice in the oblation of the Victim (Offeratory), immolation (doble consecration), and consummation (Communion). The Novus Ordo is a Memorial and Supper that is based on the form of a Jewish meal being broken into three parts: berakah or blessing of the gifts (presentation of the gifts), thanksgiving for gifts received (Eucharistic prayer), breaking and partaking of the bread.  So you see the Novus Ordo even without the scrapping of the traditional rubrics is not a Mass based in Tradition but something radically different. The scrapping of the rubrics is merely a part of the spirit behind the Novus Ordo which no longer is focused on Absolute Truth but on fallen humanity. What better way to inaugurate this new humanism than to pervert the Mass and have the celebrant face the people?

Quote
Who are you talking about?  In what place?  In what decade?  The 1960s radicals are reaching retirement age or are dying off.  Their proteges are complying with the rubrics or they are being quietly censured (or not so quietly, depending on the bishop).  Some parishes are liberal; some are conservative; but most are in the middle: trying to accommodate *all* the people of God while staying true to the novus ordo.
Considering that a lot of your bishops, archbishops, and even one cardinal, I know of, are radicals I think this is still an issue. Also I do not think the reform movement has waned as much as you think. The theology department at the Catholic University I attend was practically banging its head against the wall when they found out Cardinal Ratzinger was elected. I seriously think that within fifty years the Roman Catholic church is either going to have to return to Tradition or continue on its destructive path. Many seriously think the ordination of women is right down the corner. Here is one serious group interested in liturgical reform http://webelieve.cc/html/May2005.pdf Of course this is not to mention the weird stuff that passes for Roman Catholic theology these days. There are still a lot of fans of Teilhard de Chardin out there.

Quote
And as for the Latin Mass . . .  <sigh>.  It was before my time.  I knew people who missed it dearly.  And, there is a parish in my diocese where it is still offered (with the permission of the local bishop).  But the fact remains:  Vatican 2 happened, and the liturgy was changed, and Catholics just have to deal with it . Most do.  Indeed, more and more Catholics are like me:  people who only know the novus ordo Mass.  I hate to put it this bluntly, but the issue of the Latin Mass is yesterday's news.  The Catholic Church has changed, and it has moved forward with that change, and now that change is the norm: the way things are done in the Catholic Church. 
The Latin Mass is not before your time and I am willing to bet there is a parish, within an hour or two's drive from where you live, that serves the Latin Mass. More and more RCs are going back to the Tridentine Mass everyday. SSPX and FSSP continue to grow which would seem odd if the Latin Mass was yesterdays news. I mean come on! it has only been 35 years. More and more people are not satisfied with having the Liturgy of their forefathers and saints taken away from them. If the number of Latin Mass parishes continues to grow this may indeed become a bigger issue in the future.

Quote
In sum, Sabbas:  The Catholic Mass in the U.S. is not an ongoing liturgical catastrophe.  It's the Mass: the Word of God and the Eucharist.  Our hierarchs changed the liturgy, which was within their rights to do.  Most priests and parishes comply with the changes.  Yes, there are some outrages; I'm not defending those.  But most Masses in America are celebrated reverently and in accordance with the norms of the Catholic Church. 
As I have already mentioned the Novus Ordo constitutes a drastic departure from Tradition and can only continue to cause problems in Roman Catholic church. No matter how reverent the Novus Ordo is celebrated you cannot deny the changes were made for a reason that has nothing to do with Tradition.

If you want to look further into this issue I would recommend  "A Short Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci" http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/critical_study_of_the_new_mass.htm or reading the booklet "The Problem of The Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study" http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis3.htm#new_mass
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Not only that but it needs to be in Greek as well, since that is the language of the Oecumenical Throne.


For those not in the know, the Oecumenical Throne, is neither a French bistro, a sushi bar or a fancy pay toilet in california.

It refers to the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Just FYI.

Ian Lazarus
« Last Edit: July 19, 2005, 08:38:10 PM by Ian Lazarus »
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453

The Roman Church used Greek in the Liturgy. The tomb stones of Popes and official writings of the Popes were all written in Greek before the 4th century. The Liturgy of St Clement of Rome was written in Greek....





INDEED!!!  The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline yBeayf

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • /etc
Quote
The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!

Er, are you asserting that Greek was the original language of the people of the city of Rome? (It was a mixture of Etruscan and various Italic languages, of which Latin was the foremost, btw, or at least that's the earliest group of languages in the area we can pin down with any certainty) Or that the Roman republic was not in fact Latin-speaking?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 04:18:01 PM by Beayf »

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia
INDEED!!!  The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
You need to qualify this a bit. The original language of Rome in pre-empire times was not Greek, however with the expansion of the Roman Empire into territory formerly conquered by Alexander the Great, such was the legacy left by Alexander that Greek quickly became the common language in Rome as well. People came to Rome from all over the empire and they pretty much all spoke Greek in the East.

John

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania
INDEED!!! The West completely was duped by Charlemagne and the Franks into believing that Latin was the original language of the Romans !!!!
I do not think that the Roman Patriarchate could have been duped by Charlemagne. Latin and Greek were both languages of the Roman Empire. I also do not think that we can say that fidelity to the language of the Roman Republic had anything to do with using Latin in the Mass.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline sin_vladimirov

  • ANAXIOS!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 477
  • ICXC NIKA
Oh come on... it was Serbian... get it right next time will ya!

I am sick of you greeks trying to paint it your way.... LOL
Lord have mercy.

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
         
    The very exsitence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne`s lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagnes lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franko-Latins from the free East Romans . Frankish Emperor Louis II clearly support this with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I ( 867-885) that " we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city ( of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different language..."
    The Franko-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franko-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Latin "Papal dignity" since.
    Luitprand writes, " We Lombards , Saxons (of Germany) , Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians , Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempT ( for Romans and their Emperors) that when we become enraged with our ememies , we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious,deceitful, and indeed, evil. "
    Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to "Greeks" in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand , like all Franko-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman "serfs" and "villains" that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors , in the East, but only a bunch of " Greek heretics".
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline Esteban

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
Of course Greek was the first language of Rome! Doesn't that historical text by Virgil note that the ancestor of the Romas was Æneas, who, according to that other historical text by Homer, was taken away from the reach Achilles, because he was destined to be the king of the New Troy (i. e., Rome)?  ;D
"This life has been given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in vain pursuits."

--St Isaac the Syrian

Offline Sabbas

  • Drink from your own wells
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 503
  • St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania

 The very exsitence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne`s lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagnes lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franko-Latins from the free East Romans . Frankish Emperor Louis II clearly support this with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I ( 867-885) that " we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city ( of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different language..."
 The Franko-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franko-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Latin "Papal dignity" since.
 Luitprand writes, " We Lombards , Saxons (of Germany) , Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians , Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempT ( for Romans and their Emperors) that when we become enraged with our ememies , we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious,deceitful, and indeed, evil. "
 Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to "Greeks" in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand , like all Franko-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman "serfs" and "villains" that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors , in the East, but only a bunch of " Greek heretics".
Moses I completely agree with this but I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion. The decision to use Latin in the Mass was made more than 400 years before Charlemagne was born. Latin is just as Roman as Greek! I fail to see what the point is in debating what the original language of the Romans was considering that whether it had its origins in Greece or Italy it would have sounded little like Koine or Ecclesiastical Latin. The reprehensible actions of the Carolingian heretics should have no bearing on a discussion about the use of Latin in the Mass.
www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.

Offline Mo the Ethio

  • Proud Capitalist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Yeah , you`re right. Sorry my bad.
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Has anything been resolved on the topic "Is the Roman Catholic church ever going to turn its altar tables back around?".   Or did it just die a silent death?

JoeS   ::)