| Viewing Single Post From: New English Translation of the Mass | |
|---|---|
| Fortunatus | Tuesday, 7. April 2009, 21:42 |
|
Just goes to show how you can get two diametrically opposed views from the same basic facts, doesn't it? I read your post and conclude — purely from your own words — that the loose format of the early years eventually became "a loose form of unified service". Initially the prayers would be impromptu but as time passed and preachers and teachers became more aware of the values in e.g. the various epistles there would be some uniformity partly from this and partly from the fact that individual teachers would tend to return to themes and prayers that they had used before which seems reasonable human behaviour. The Mass evolved. The reference to Latin is, as I keep repeating, irrelevant. Eventually a series of synods and Councils pulled the various strands together and gradually unified them finally codifying them at Trent. Latin remained the language in which Church business was conducted because it was a universal language (and continued to be for centuries partly because it was the language of the Church and therefore of those who were educated, whcih I am prepared to admit is something of a circular argument!). It remains the official language of the Church to day essentially because a Universal Church needs a common language in which its official documents are promulgated. If you have this terrible hang-up about it being Latin, write to Benedict and suggest Esperanto or Ido instead. Or Pitman shorthand, if you like. |
 |
|
| New English Translation of the Mass · The Mass , Liturgy, Sacraments, Priesthood | |
12:10 PM Nov 25