• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Orthodox equivalent for Mass

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,452
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Never EVER use Google Translate for Latin or most languages actually. The grammar, pronunciation, everything is horrible.
And what's wrong with an Italianate reading of Latin?
I said everything is wrong, and the Classical pronunciation actually makes sense. Venny Veedee Veechee sounds wrong.
See, this is something that I will never understand about people who think themselves to love the classics. They have this idiotic tendency to fetishize the reconstruction of how a language might have sounded at one point in its development and from there claim that any living tradition for the recitation of that language must be "wrong". The Italianate reading of Latin is no more "wrong" for having palatized 'c' to 'ch' before 'i' and 'e', for example, than Classical Latin is "wrong" for having merged the 'ei' diphthong of Old Latin with long i. Was Cicero "wrong" in that he pronounced the Old Latin "duenos" as "bonus" or the Old Latin "honosis" (likely pronounced as honozis) as "honoris"? Was Caesar "wrong" for having pronounced neuter nouns like "saxom" as "saxum" and masculines like "filios" as "filius" or for having used an innovative plural genitive ending in the second declension by analogy to the first declension (such that the original "saxom" and "filiom" became "saxorum" and "filiorum")? Or perhaps, the reverse is true? Perhaps the Old Latins were "wrong" for not having changed their language into Classical Latin yet? Better yet, why even bother at all with Latin? Why not just fetishize reconstructed Proto-Indo-European and insist that anybody who doesn't pronounce "filius" as "dʰeh₁y-li-os" is saying it wrong?
I was expecting thisa kind of response. This is fallacious because this line of thinking quickly devolves into relativism and eventually nihilism. Why fetishize language at all? It's just disgusting sounds made by the flapping of our bacteria-covered, mushy organs making contact with tissue and exposed skeletal fringes, and the expansion and contracting of vocal chords. Actions are more important, and even that's relative when we all die in the end.

There needs to be a point for standards to be firmly planted, or the foundation will crumble and everything slides into aq vacuum ending in meaninglessness. Classical pronunciation coincides with the Golden Age of the Romans; just like formal settings prefer a higher, sometimes dated standard of English compared to "YOLO swag blaze it tho my points be on fleek". The Romans would consider Italianate pronunciation to be barbarian.
And Italianate pronouncers consider those Romans to be dead. 
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
216
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Amatorus said:
podkarpatska said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Never EVER use Google Translate for Latin or most languages actually. The grammar, pronunciation, everything is horrible.
And what's wrong with an Italianate reading of Latin?
I mention it because I was reminded of a dear and old friend of mine who is a Latin professor. His reaction to the film, Passion of the Christ  didn't deal with the violence and graphic portrayal of Christ's agony, but rather he cringed at the Italianate modern pronunciation of Latin. Not that I could quite figure out how  he knew the way it was spoken in the first century...he's not that old...
-Spend tons of money hiring historians and linguists recreating 1st-century Aramaic

-Don't bother using Classical prnounciation

I'll admit the "v" sounds better than "w" maybe that's why.
That would have been absurd since the only character in the whole movie who probably used something close to our reconstruction of the classical pronunciation would have been Pilate. Do you really think that the people on the streets would have spoken the same sociolect as Virgil or Cicero? I dare say that the reality is that they did not go far enough. Not only should they have used an Italianate pronunciation, but they should also have filled the speech of every Latin-speaking character who was not Pilate with solecisms and barbarisms. The aneurysms it would have given to all of the pseudo-classicists out there would have been worth it.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
216
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Never EVER use Google Translate for Latin or most languages actually. The grammar, pronunciation, everything is horrible.
And what's wrong with an Italianate reading of Latin?
I said everything is wrong, and the Classical pronunciation actually makes sense. Venny Veedee Veechee sounds wrong.
See, this is something that I will never understand about people who think themselves to love the classics. They have this idiotic tendency to fetishize the reconstruction of how a language might have sounded at one point in its development and from there claim that any living tradition for the recitation of that language must be "wrong". The Italianate reading of Latin is no more "wrong" for having palatized 'c' to 'ch' before 'i' and 'e', for example, than Classical Latin is "wrong" for having merged the 'ei' diphthong of Old Latin with long i. Was Cicero "wrong" in that he pronounced the Old Latin "duenos" as "bonus" or the Old Latin "honosis" (likely pronounced as honozis) as "honoris"? Was Caesar "wrong" for having pronounced neuter nouns like "saxom" as "saxum" and masculines like "filios" as "filius" or for having used an innovative plural genitive ending in the second declension by analogy to the first declension (such that the original "saxom" and "filiom" became "saxorum" and "filiorum")? Or perhaps, the reverse is true? Perhaps the Old Latins were "wrong" for not having changed their language into Classical Latin yet? Better yet, why even bother at all with Latin? Why not just fetishize reconstructed Proto-Indo-European and insist that anybody who doesn't pronounce "filius" as "dʰeh₁y-li-os" is saying it wrong?
I was expecting thisa kind of response. This is fallacious because this line of thinking quickly devolves into relativism and eventually nihilism. Why fetishize language at all? It's just disgusting sounds made by the flapping of our bacteria-covered, mushy organs making contact with tissue and exposed skeletal fringes, and the expansion and contracting of vocal chords. Actions are more important, and even that's relative when we all die in the end.

There needs to be a point for standards to be firmly planted, or the foundation will crumble and everything slides into aq vacuum ending in meaninglessness. Classical pronunciation coincides with the Golden Age of the Romans; just like formal settings prefer a higher, sometimes dated standard of English compared to "YOLO swag blaze it tho my points be on fleek". The Romans would consider Italianate pronunciation to be barbarian.
See, it's this attitude that prevents pseudo-classicists from enjoying Homer, Pindar, Sappho (what survives of her anyway), the Septuagint, the New Testament etc. Homer is filled with irregularities and conflicting morphology; he's not polished and refined like those who wrote in Classical Attic, they will say. Sappho's Aeolic dialect is so difficult to understand, and on top of that, it's psilotic! What rubbish that Sappho is! The authors of the New Testament use the verb ευχαριστω, which was routinely condemned by Atticizers since in Classical Attica, the phrase for giving thanks was «χαριν οιδα». How dreadful!

I am of the opinion that if the Holy Spirit could deign to allow the scriptures to be written in the vulgar tongue of the day, pseudo-classicists can humble themselves enough to recognize that languages inevitably change and that rather than dismissing works for not conforming to some set of classical linguistic idols they themselves have fashioned, they can instead recognize that works of literature should be assessed against the period in which they were written.

In the words of the classicist Clyde Pharr, who wrote an excellent textbook for learning Homeric Greek as well as an edition of the Aeneid, "In the first  place it is essential that we disabuse our minds of the once prevalent notion, long since exploded, but still more or less consciously held by many, that the Attic dialect is the norm by which all other Greek is to be judged... It was long maintained that Homeric Greek is irregular, crude and unfinished. Hellenistic Greek, which represents a later development of the language, has its differences; therefore Hellenistic Greek must be degenerate. Such an idea is utterly unscientific and ignores completely the modern historical point of view of the development and growth of languages. Any period which has given birth to literary productions of surpassing merit and artistic excellence is justified by its own works; it contains its own linguistic standards, and will richly repay those who take the trouble to study it."
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Warned
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
24,415
Reaction score
750
Points
113
Age
49
Location
Here
Faith
No
Jurisdiction
No
When I took a Latin class, I was taught the classical pronunciations of C and V. I still read that way today.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Never EVER use Google Translate for Latin or most languages actually. The grammar, pronunciation, everything is horrible.
And what's wrong with an Italianate reading of Latin?
I said everything is wrong, and the Classical pronunciation actually makes sense. Venny Veedee Veechee sounds wrong.
See, this is something that I will never understand about people who think themselves to love the classics. They have this idiotic tendency to fetishize the reconstruction of how a language might have sounded at one point in its development and from there claim that any living tradition for the recitation of that language must be "wrong". The Italianate reading of Latin is no more "wrong" for having palatized 'c' to 'ch' before 'i' and 'e', for example, than Classical Latin is "wrong" for having merged the 'ei' diphthong of Old Latin with long i. Was Cicero "wrong" in that he pronounced the Old Latin "duenos" as "bonus" or the Old Latin "honosis" (likely pronounced as honozis) as "honoris"? Was Caesar "wrong" for having pronounced neuter nouns like "saxom" as "saxum" and masculines like "filios" as "filius" or for having used an innovative plural genitive ending in the second declension by analogy to the first declension (such that the original "saxom" and "filiom" became "saxorum" and "filiorum")? Or perhaps, the reverse is true? Perhaps the Old Latins were "wrong" for not having changed their language into Classical Latin yet? Better yet, why even bother at all with Latin? Why not just fetishize reconstructed Proto-Indo-European and insist that anybody who doesn't pronounce "filius" as "dʰeh₁y-li-os" is saying it wrong?
I was expecting thisa kind of response. This is fallacious because this line of thinking quickly devolves into relativism and eventually nihilism. Why fetishize language at all? It's just disgusting sounds made by the flapping of our bacteria-covered, mushy organs making contact with tissue and exposed skeletal fringes, and the expansion and contracting of vocal chords. Actions are more important, and even that's relative when we all die in the end.

There needs to be a point for standards to be firmly planted, or the foundation will crumble and everything slides into aq vacuum ending in meaninglessness. Classical pronunciation coincides with the Golden Age of the Romans; just like formal settings prefer a higher, sometimes dated standard of English compared to "YOLO swag blaze it tho my points be on fleek". The Romans would consider Italianate pronunciation to be barbarian.
See, it's this attitude that prevents pseudo-classicists from enjoying Homer, Pindar, Sappho (what survives of her anyway), the Septuagint, the New Testament etc. Homer is filled with irregularities and conflicting morphology; he's not polished and refined like those who wrote in Classical Attic, they will say. Sappho's Aeolic dialect is so difficult to understand, and on top of that, it's psilotic! What rubbish that Sappho is! The authors of the New Testament use the verb ευχαριστω, which was routinely condemned by Atticizers since in Classical Attica, the phrase for giving thanks was «χαριν οιδα». How dreadful!

I am of the opinion that if the Holy Spirit could deign to allow the scriptures to be written in the vulgar tongue of the day, pseudo-classicists can humble themselves enough to recognize that languages inevitably change and that rather than dismissing works for not conforming to some set of classical linguistic idols they themselves have fashioned, they can instead recognize that works of literature should be assessed against the period in which they were written.

In the words of the classicist Clyde Pharr, who wrote an excellent textbook for learning Homeric Greek as well as an edition of the Aeneid, "In the first  place it is essential that we disabuse our minds of the once prevalent notion, long since exploded, but still more or less consciously held by many, that the Attic dialect is the norm by which all other Greek is to be judged... It was long maintained that Homeric Greek is irregular, crude and unfinished. Hellenistic Greek, which represents a later development of the language, has its differences; therefore Hellenistic Greek must be degenerate. Such an idea is utterly unscientific and ignores completely the modern historical point of view of the development and growth of languages. Any period which has given birth to literary productions of surpassing merit and artistic excellence is justified by its own works; it contains its own linguistic standards, and will richly repay those who take the trouble to study it."
I understand your point, but it's just the thought of having to read the same language in different morphologies and pronunciations and context seems absurd. I know in medieval times for example, scribes often used W's for V's and E's for AE's (not even mentioning ligatures) and completely forgot about long-short vowel distinction. I know the differences but to interpret it standardized and have a universal dialect is far more efficient. Why does the Vatican even bother using Latin as a formality anyway if it's been infected and changed so much over the centuries?Does it not create the illusion of a holy language anyway? Same with Orthodoxy; why not sing hymns in Modern Greek, Russian, Modern Standard Arabic, etc.? What point is tradition if you are going to stick to an arbritary point? At least Classical Latin or Greek is dignified by the achievements of the people at the time and peace and propserity and conquest; the Medieval dialect has nothing to it and it sounds like a mess. Plus it's aesthetically not as pleasing.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
podkarpatska said:
Cavaradossi said:
Amatorus said:
Never EVER use Google Translate for Latin or most languages actually. The grammar, pronunciation, everything is horrible.
And what's wrong with an Italianate reading of Latin?
I mention it because I was reminded of a dear and old friend of mine who is a Latin professor. His reaction to the film, Passion of the Christ  didn't deal with the violence and graphic portrayal of Christ's agony, but rather he cringed at the Italianate modern pronunciation of Latin. Not that I could quite figure out how  he knew the way it was spoken in the first century...he's not that old...
-Spend tons of money hiring historians and linguists recreating 1st-century Aramaic

-Don't bother using Classical prnounciation

I'll admit the "v" sounds better than "w" maybe that's why.
That would have been absurd since the only character in the whole movie who probably used something close to our reconstruction of the classical pronunciation would have been Pilate. Do you really think that the people on the streets would have spoken the same sociolect as Virgil or Cicero? I dare say that the reality is that they did not go far enough. Not only should they have used an Italianate pronunciation, but they should also have filled the speech of every Latin-speaking character who was not Pilate with solecisms and barbarisms. The aneurysms it would have given to all of the pseudo-classicists out there would have been worth it.
In any other Roman era movie, they all sound like upper class Brits....
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
216
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Amatorus said:
I understand your point, but it's just the thought of having to read the same language in different morphologies and pronunciations and context seems absurd.
We do that all the time. The British don't read English like Americans do, yet nobody would think that the there exist two separate languages. Even the way you speak will vary based on the context in which you are speaking (what linguists refer to as register). You would speak differently, for example, while having an audience with the queen of England than you would while speaking to a drinking buddy.

Amatorus said:
I know in medieval times for example, scribes often used W's for V's and E's for AE's (not even mentioning ligatures) and completely forgot about long-short vowel distinction.
Because that was how they read the language out loud. Nobody is arguing that misspellings are somehow to be regarded as correct (at least not if we use spelling as a tool to indicate the etymological history of a word).

Amatorus said:
I know the differences but to interpret it standardized and have a universal dialect is far more efficient.
A baseless assertion at best.

Amatorus said:
Why does the Vatican even bother using Latin as a formality anyway if it's been infected and changed so much over the centuries?Does it not create the illusion of a holy language anyway? Same with Orthodoxy; why not sing hymns in Modern Greek, Russian, Modern Standard Arabic, etc.?
In the case of Latin, I can proffer no answer, because idiotic bigots from the Renaissance who fetishized the Latin of Cicero undid centuries of its use and development as a literary koine in the West, ultimately killing it. In the case of Greek, however, the answer is because the literary Greek of the Church Fathers and of our hymnography survives (though badly injured by the katharevousa movement) as a distinct register of the Greek language.

Amatorus said:
What point is tradition if you are going to stick to an arbritary point?
That's precisely the opposite of tradition. That's preserving things like museum pieces.

Amatorus said:
At least Classical Latin or Greek is dignified by the achievements of the people at the time and peace and propserity and conquest; the Medieval dialect has nothing to it and it sounds like a mess. Plus it's aesthetically not as pleasing.
Nonsense. That you are ignorant of the accomplishments of the medievals speaks more of yourself than it does of them. Have you ever even read the Acritic Songs, for example? What makes them a mess? Simply because they don't look like Plato? What even makes you qualified to assess the artistic merit of a work like the Romance of Digenis Acritas, much less to dismiss it as a mess?
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
You're right, maybe it's an OCD-ish thing of mine. I did hear a song once in a distinctly Ecclesiastical pronunciation and it was beautiful and I think Classical would have sounded rough.
 

Aram

High Elder
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
610
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
wgw said:
The whole Mass vs. Liturgy. vs. Qurbono Qadisho vs. Soorp Badarak vs. Raza thing is a nominal distinction between different liturgical rites; they all refer to essentially the same thing.  Although if I had to pick one name, with apologies to my Syriac church, I would choose the Armenian "Soorp Badarak" as I like the sound.  :)

Note that the goal of my post is not to downplay the distinctions between liturgical rites, only to remark that all these names refer to the same sacramental service.
Soorp Badarak does not translate to Divine Liturgy. It means Holy Sacrifice.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
Aram said:
wgw said:
The whole Mass vs. Liturgy. vs. Qurbono Qadisho vs. Soorp Badarak vs. Raza thing is a nominal distinction between different liturgical rites; they all refer to essentially the same thing.  Although if I had to pick one name, with apologies to my Syriac church, I would choose the Armenian "Soorp Badarak" as I like the sound.  :)

Note that the goal of my post is not to downplay the distinctions between liturgical rites, only to remark that all these names refer to the same sacramental service.
Soorp Badarak does not translate to Divine Liturgy. It means Holy Sacrifice.
Indeed, just like Qurbono Qadisho.  Whereas Mass is derived from "Ite, missa est," literally, "Go, it is the dismissal."  Whereas the East Syriac "Raza" (used by assyrians in preference to Qurbana Qadisha) means "Mystery."  Eucharist for that matter is derived from the Greek for "Thanksgiving."  Yet all these terms refer to the same sacramental service.  Indeed the Armenian liturgy's remaining Anaphora of St. Athanasius is similiar to that of St. James, whereas the overall Armenian liturgical structure is skmewhat like the Byzantine Rite albeit with Armenian and some Latin influence (the Last Gospel, for example; the use of unleavened bread in the Armenian liturgy accordin to what I have read, and my experience tells me of the importance of caveat lector, is at least as old as, and possibly older than, the Roman use of the same).
 

Aram

High Elder
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
610
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
The Armenian Liturgy has a final gospel reading before the dismissal (John 1:1-14).
 

Reader KevinAndrew

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate
DeniseDenise said:
Amatorus said:
DeniseDenise said:
Amatorus said:
But I've never heard "I'm going to Divine Liturgy" in casual conversation. I've heard Orthodox people say they're going to mass, but is that simply wrong or slang in this case? Or just "I'm going to Church" plainly is better?

I don't know who you are hanging around....but lots of people say I am going Liturgy or Divine Liturgy.  I have never heard anyone use 'Mass' instead, but maybe that's a regional thing.
Well, they're the kind of people who consider all Churches equal and will go to a Protestant or RC church depending on what is most convenient, when and if they attend.
well then I wouldn't necessarily say 'I've heard Orthodox people say they're going to mass,' is accurate in describing things then...;)
In the Western Rite we refer to the service as the Mass. Sure, referring to it as the Divine Liturgy would technically be correct, but it would sound just as "off" as referring the Eastern Rite service as the Mass.
 

Reader KevinAndrew

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate
wgw said:
It is a shame "Ite, missa est" is no longer heard at the end of the Roman Rite usually (most priests use Eucharistic Prayer II with a different optional ending).
In the Antiochian Western Rite, we conclude all non-penitential Masses with Ite, missa est. / Deo gratias. If it is a penitential Mass (i.e. one held during Advent or Lent and not a feast day Mass) the dismissal is Benedicamus Domino. / Deo gratias.
 

Reader KevinAndrew

Sr. Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate
JamesRottnek said:
What is the 'Last Gospel' you referenced?
The Last Gospel is usually the Prologue in the Gospel according to St. John (there is about 15% of the time there's an exception). It is read after the Mass has ended and the Ite, missa est and response are completed. I'm not a liturgical historian, but my understanding is that this passage was read by the celebrant in the presence of the deacon, subdeacon and servers in the sacristy after the Mass was over. And then it somehow moved its way to the altar and was recited there in the presence of the congregation, after the dismissal and response was chanted.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Mesa, AZ
Reader KevinAndrew said:
JamesRottnek said:
What is the 'Last Gospel' you referenced?
The Last Gospel is usually the Prologue in the Gospel according to St. John (there is about 15% of the time there's an exception). It is read after the Mass has ended and the Ite, missa est and response are completed. I'm not a liturgical historian, but my understanding is that this passage was read by the celebrant in the presence of the deacon, subdeacon and servers in the sacristy after the Mass was over. And then it somehow moved its way to the altar and was recited there in the presence of the congregation, after the dismissal and response was chanted.
Hmm.  This is a really fascinating custom to me, for some reason.
 

wgw

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,816
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Cast adrift in a lifeboat of the SS Aurora
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox
The Last Gospel is used in the Armenian Rite; it also appears in some high church / Anglo Catholoc Anglican liturgical contexts.  It is almost de rigeur in the Latin Rite of the RCC, although if memory serves the Dominicans historically preferred to avoid it when celebrating their variant rite (which is different in subtle and interesting ways from the Roman Rite, for example, the use of the thurible).
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
362
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
wgw said:
The Last Gospel is used in the Armenian Rite; it also appears in some high church / Anglo Catholoc Anglican liturgical contexts.  It is almost de rigeur in the Latin Rite of the RCC, although if memory serves the Dominicans historically preferred to avoid it when celebrating their variant rite (which is different in subtle and interesting ways from the Roman Rite, for example, the use of the thurible).
There is no Latin Rite.  There is the Latin Church which has the Roman Rite and its various uses, the Ambrosian Rite, and the Mozarabic Rite.  The Last Gospel is not used in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Mesa, AZ
wgw said:
The Last Gospel is used in the Armenian Rite; it also appears in some high church / Anglo Catholoc Anglican liturgical contexts.  It is almost de rigeur in the Latin Rite of the RCC, although if memory serves the Dominicans historically preferred to avoid it when celebrating their variant rite (which is different in subtle and interesting ways from the Roman Rite, for example, the use of the thurible).
I've never seen this in any high-church Anglican service.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
704
Reaction score
60
Points
28
Location
Atlanta, GA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ACROD
Cavaradossi said:
In the case of Latin, I can proffer no answer, because idiotic bigots from the Renaissance who fetishized the Latin of Cicero undid centuries of its use and development as a literary koine in the West, ultimately killing it. In the case of Greek, however, the answer is because the literary Greek of the Church Fathers and of our hymnography survives (though badly injured by the katharevousa movement) as a distinct register of the Greek language.
Wisdom!

I was talking to my students a few months ago about Bishop Zacharia Ferreri's Hymni novi ecclesiastici, juxta veram metri et latinitatis normam ("New ecclesiastical hymns, according the true measure of meter and Latinity"), which Pope Clement VII (1523-34) had permitted to be used in the services of the Roman Church. The hymns lack any of the charm of the medieval hymnody, and are so puffed-up with pompous pagan references - for example, the Trinity is called Triforme Numen Olympi ("Triform Divine-Ruler of Olympus") - it is a scandal they were ever permitted in the Divine Office.

My personal favorite pseudo-classicist's bugaboo - getting bent out of shape over the use of the letter 'j' instead of 'i' in ecclesiastical Latin. There never seems to be the same foaming at the mouth over the use of both 'v' and 'u'.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
704
Reaction score
60
Points
28
Location
Atlanta, GA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ACROD
JamesRottnek said:
wgw said:
The Last Gospel is used in the Armenian Rite; it also appears in some high church / Anglo Catholoc Anglican liturgical contexts.  It is almost de rigeur in the Latin Rite of the RCC, although if memory serves the Dominicans historically preferred to avoid it when celebrating their variant rite (which is different in subtle and interesting ways from the Roman Rite, for example, the use of the thurible).
I've never seen this in any high-church Anglican service.
It probably only occurs in specifically Anglo-Catholic services which use the Anglican Missal or some such rather than the BCP. The Last Gospel was enshrined in the Tridentine Missal, though it had been in use for some time before. Basically, the Johannine Prologue was read at the end and could be displaced as part of a commemorated Mass impeded by a higher-ranking celebration. Certain feasts had proper Last Gospels as well, e.g., the third Mass of Christmas Day used the Gospel from the feast of Epiphany until Pope Pius XII's reforms in the mid-1950s. In Pope John XXIII's reform in 1960, the Last Gospel never changed, and it was dropped in practice according to the stop-gap rubrics in the mid-1960s and was completely removed in the 1969 Missal.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Cavaradossi said:
My personal favorite pseudo-classicist's bugaboo - getting bent out of shape over the use of the letter 'j' instead of 'i' in ecclesiastical Latin. There never seems to be the same foaming at the mouth over the use of both 'v' and 'u'.
The letter J is so odd. English is not my native language so J sounding like /dʒ/ just feels wrong.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Mesa, AZ
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
My personal favorite pseudo-classicist's bugaboo - getting bent out of shape over the use of the letter 'j' instead of 'i' in ecclesiastical Latin. There never seems to be the same foaming at the mouth over the use of both 'v' and 'u'.
The letter J is so odd. English is not my native language so J sounding like /dʒ/ just feels wrong.
Really?  What is your native language?
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
JamesRottnek said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
My personal favorite pseudo-classicist's bugaboo - getting bent out of shape over the use of the letter 'j' instead of 'i' in ecclesiastical Latin. There never seems to be the same foaming at the mouth over the use of both 'v' and 'u'.
The letter J is so odd. English is not my native language so J sounding like /dʒ/ just feels wrong.
Really?  What is your native language?
A cool one.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Mesa, AZ
Amatorus said:
JamesRottnek said:
Amatorus said:
Cavaradossi said:
My personal favorite pseudo-classicist's bugaboo - getting bent out of shape over the use of the letter 'j' instead of 'i' in ecclesiastical Latin. There never seems to be the same foaming at the mouth over the use of both 'v' and 'u'.
The letter J is so odd. English is not my native language so J sounding like /dʒ/ just feels wrong.
Really?  What is your native language?
A cool one.
Navajo?
 
Top