Having your own missal: a 35-year tradition?

[At_Trent]

Back in the day of the Latin Mass, (before the English Mass Came) I had grown up with the Latain Mass, and oddly enough, it’s just like a child who grows up in a household with Spanish and English. I really did know what they were saying in Latin. I grew up with it back then.

Yes we had our own Missal. We took them to Mass every Sunday. Then years later, “The Church” started to Print them in “paper back” booklets. Maybe lasting for 4 months or so. Then new ones would come out and be put in the pews. I believe this is when the English Mass was New to the Church.

I also remember the “Singing Nuns” and their songs…who could forget them? There words are not in English (not all of them) and I still remember the songs and yes I understood them back then, still do, as I sing them.

Thanks for sharing those memories and thoughts

 

[MarkThompson]

Back in the day of the Latin Mass, (before the English Mass Came) I had grown up with the Latain Mass, and oddly enough, it’s just like a child who grows up in a household with Spanish and English. I really did know what they were saying in Latin. I grew up with it back then.

Yes we had our own Missal. We took them to Mass every Sunday. Then years later, “The Church” started to Print them in “paper back” booklets. Maybe lasting for 4 months or so. Then new ones would come out and be put in the pews. I believe this is when the English Mass was New to the Church.

I also remember the “Singing Nuns” and their songs…who could forget them? There words are not in English (not all of them) and I still remember the songs and yes I understood them back then, still do, as I sing them.

Right, your remembrances sound very much like what other people of that epoch recall – everyone had a missal and dutifully followed along at Mass. I’m more curious about the era before the 1940s and ‘50s, when it seems that personal missals were far rarer if not banned outright. Sadly there aren’t very many centenarians on CAF! Do you have any information about what things were like during, say, your grandparents’ childhood?

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, I do believe we go to Mass to get something. Fr. John Riccardo said that Protestants go to give God praise (as if they have anything to offer

They have their whole beings to offer.

I know this is off topic, but believe it or not, there are protestants who live their whole lives in a way that they believe is pleasing to God, even if though are unknowingly in error and I believe God takes note of that.

 

[MissRose73]

I have my father’s missal that is nearly 60 years old (a black Father Stedman missal) that he would have gotten for either his First Communion and/or Confirmation. I have used it at EF Masses even though the English translations for the Epistle and the Gospel are slightly different now. Everything else seems to be the same like the Gradual, Introit etc in terms of the translations.

I have a missal that I got for my own first Communion about 30 years ago that I got from a family member as a gift. I still have it.

I have no idea if any of my older relatives had missals or not. Some of them grew up poor / lower middle class so buying a missal was low on the list of things to have compared to having the basic needs of clothing, food and shelter.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, I do believe we go to Mass to get something. Fr. John Riccardo said that Protestants go to give God praise (as if they have anything to offer), but we go there to receive God.

Mass is about giving thanks and praise to God, with and through his Son, Jesus. While receiving Jesus in the Eucharist is great, that’s not why Mass exists and Mass is a complete action in and of itself as long as the priest receives Communion.

 

[Corki]

This is not at all true. Pius XII explains in Mediator Dei:
The sacred liturgy is, consequently, the public worship which our Redeemer as Head of the Church renders to the Father, as well as the worship which the community of the faithful renders to its Founder, and through Him to the heavenly Father. It is, in short, the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.
What you are getting at is perhaps closest to being true of the Canon of the Mass and the sacrament of the Eucharist – though, even there, the Mass speaks of “meum ac vestrum sacrificium” – which is where the sacrifice element comes to the fore. But the Mass is quite a bit more than the Eucharistic Sacrifice alone. Your view makes me think of these remarks of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s which Shawn Tribe posted just today at NLM:
For a certain kind of text-book theology, what mattered in the sacraments and likewise in the Eucharist, was essentially their validity, and therefore the moment of consecration… everything else was being considered as beautiful ceremonies, interesting… but not as the reality in which the Eucharist has its concrete existence. It was thus necessary to discover anew that the Liturgy is not just a collection of ceremonies which aim to give length and solemnity to the consecration.
Just so, we ought to recall (or, if necessary, discover anew) that the bare fact that the Eucharistic Sacrifice primarily takes place between the priest and God does not, then, imply that the entire Mass from start to finish is, or ought to be, an exclusive affair of the priest’s to conduct with God, which the people may be permitted to look at if they’re lucky.

Yes it would, wouldn’t it.

I may have phrased it awkwardly.

The idea that Mass is where we all join together in the same actions and verbal prayers - priest, servers, and laity alike - is a fairly new notion. The older tradition was for a community to join together but with different roles and expectations. All of the people are there to join spiritually with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but not by doing and saying all the same things. Lay participation was closer to meditative rather than verbal prayer.

It is not entirely unlike our current tradition of Eucharistic Adoration. Some people will be praying the Rosary, some will be reading their Bibles, some will be meditating on sacred art, some will be simply placing themselves into the arms of Jesus. But all will be joining in the communal act of Eucharistic Adoration. (I know, it’s not a perfect analogy)

And it’s not at all troubling or sad. It is worship that transcends language.

 

[Corki]

That would be a good argument for praying the Rosary during Mass.

I know this is a criticism that gets thrown at the older form of the Mass but it never really bothered me. As long as the person was joining their Rosary prayers to the prayers of the priest, I am fine wiht it.

 

[At_Trent]

I know this is a criticism that gets thrown at the older form of the Mass but it never really bothered me. As long as the person was joining their Rosary prayers to the prayers of the priest, I am fine wiht it.

It is indeed possible to do so.

** The Eucharistic Rosary : Meditations taken from the prayer book With God
by Fr Francis Xavier Lasance , Benziger Brothers 1911

                                   The First Joyful Mystery
                                     The Annunciation

O Jesus, born of Thy Father from all eternity; filled with an incomprehensible love for men, Thou didst become man in the operation of the Holy Ghost, humbling Thyself to such a degree to take the form of a servant. The same charity hath prompted Thee to perpetuate, in the Eucharist, this mystery of annihilation and love, even improving on it by becoming the food of our souls.
Divine Jesus, we adore Thee in these unfathomable abasements, and we beg of Thee, through the intercession of Thy Holy Mother, a deep and heartfelt humility.

                             The Second Joyful Mystery
                                      The Visitation

Divine Saviour, from the womb of Mary, wherein Thou didst become incarnate, Thou breathest fourth sanctity into John the Baptist and benediction on the whole house of Elizabeth. From the Host wherein Thou dwellest, Thou spreadest all over the world the influence and grace of Thy love throughout the whole Church.
O divine Jesus, full of love and kindness, we adore Thee, and we beg of Thee, through the intercession of Thy Holy Mother, perfect charity toward our neighbors.

                           The Third Joyful Mystery
                           The Nativity of Our Lord

O King of kings ! Poor indeed, yet most lovely in the crib of Bethlehem, Thou callest the simple and the poor to be Thy first adorers: poorer and no less amiable to the eyes of the faith in the Sacrament of thy love, Thou art still delighted to see around Thy person the humble and the little.
O Jesus, in Thy destitution we adore Thee, to Whom belong all the treasures of the God- head, and we beg of Thee, through the intercession of Thy Holy Mother, detachment of the goods of this world.

                            The Fourth Joyful Mystery
               The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Thou offer Thyself with perfect obedience and love to Thy Father, through the hands of the high priest, as the Victim that is to be immolated on the Cross ; every day also Thou offerest Thyself upon the altar by the hands of the priest, with the same obedience and love as our Victim always sacrificed and always living.
O sweet Victim, we adore Thee and we beg of Thee, through the intercession of Thy Holy Mother, the spirit of obedience and sacrifice.

                          The Fifth Joyful Mystery
               The Finding of Our Lord in the temple

O Jesus, Thou withdrawest and leavest Joseph and Mary in tears to do the work of Thy Father; but Thou fillest them with joy when they find Thee in the midst of the Doctors amazed at Thy knowledge and wisdom. Veiled in the Eucharist, Thou impartest there divine teachings, and Thou fillest with joy those who seek Thee with their whole heart.
O hidden God !, we adore Thee and we beg of Thee, through the intercession of Thy Holy Mother, the grace of seeking Thee with a lively and persevering faith in the Sacrament of Thy love.**

 

[roadsend]

That would be a good argument for praying the Rosary during Mass.

There are still folks who pray the Rosary during Mass, especially when the “music ministers” are performing.
I have done so myself and have noticed several others doing the same.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Right, your remembrances sound very much like what other people of that epoch recall – everyone had a missal and dutifully followed along at Mass. I’m more curious about the era before the 1940s and ‘50s, when it seems that personal missals were far rarer if not banned outright. Sadly there aren’t very many centenarians on CAF! Do you have any information about what things were like during, say, your grandparents’ childhood?

I think you kind of missed the point of what was being said by NetSet. If you grow up around Latin you start to learn it (especially when its being used a lot). Those who know Latin really do not need a missal for anything except the canon of the mass, the secret, and maybe one of the communion verses since the remainder of the mass and the proper’s used are audible. Now if you believe it’s unlikely that the faithful learned by heart the canon of the mass, then me thinks you might be assuming too much especially since memorizing the canon would have played a pivotal role in the practice of their worship unlike today (since we are spoiled and have our own personal missals).

Furthermore Latin in the Church was very common back in those days and in the days that preceded them. Even poor people knew how to speak or understand enough Latin to attend a mass unlike today where even the educated priests hardly know enough to even say in Latin one of the short prayers found in the Mass.

:twocents:

 

[Phemie]

I think you kind of missed the point of what was being said by NetSet. If you grow up around Latin you start to learn it (especially when its being used a lot). Those who know Latin really do not need a missal for anything except the canon of the mass, the secret, and maybe one of the communion verses since the remainder of the mass and the proper’s used are audible. Now if you believe it’s unlikely that the faithful learned by heart the canon of the mass, then me thinks you might be assuming too much especially since memorizing the canon would have played a pivotal role in the practice of their worship unlike today (since we are spoiled and have our own personal missals).

Furthermore Latin in the Church was very common back in those days and in the days that preceded them. Even poor people knew how to speak or understand enough Latin to attend a mass unlike today where even the educated priests hardly know enough to even say in Latin one of the short prayers found in the Mass.

:twocents:

Being able to respond ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’ does not mean one understands Latin. Anyone who hears something often enough can repeat it. I can sing “Siyahamba” with the best of them but I don’t for a minute claim that I understand Zulu. I can even sing some songs in Innueamun and again, I don’t have a clue what I’m singing, I’ve just listened to the song so often I can reproduce the sounds.

That’s not to say that nobody understood Latin, just that being able to say the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei does not mean that one understands what one is saying.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Being able to respond ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’ does not mean one understands Latin. Anyone who hears something often enough can repeat it. I can sing “Siyahamba” with the best of them but I don’t for a minute claim that I understand Zulu. I can even sing some songs in Innueamun and again, I don’t have a clue what I’m singing, I’ve just listened to the song so often I can reproduce the sounds.

That’s not to say that nobody understood Latin, just that being able to say the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei does not mean that one understands what one is saying.

Yes I understand that thank you. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I didn’t understand this by accidently putting or instead of *and * in my original statement. It should have read: **Even poor people knew how to speak *and *understand enough Latin to attend a mass **

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes I understand that thank you. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I didn’t understand this by accidently putting or instead of *and * in my original statement. It should have read: **Even poor people knew how to speak *and ***understand enough Latin to attend a mass

I suppose that depends on what you mean. I don’t understand any German beyond “Ich bin ein Berliner,” but I could “attend a mass” in German. I know what is is going on at the various points, and in short order I could pick up on things like “Und mit deinem Geiste,” which is apparently, the German for “And with your ghost.” In that sense, anyone can “attend” a Mass in Latin.

But if your hypothesis is that in the good old days most people could sit and listen to, say, an Epistle read out loud in Latin and know what was being said, I think you will find that there is no evidence that that is true. And this would be doubly so at most Masses, since the Epistle, like most everything else, would be read inaudibly. Or consider, too, something like the Gradual. It would either be read silently, or it would be sung by a choir or schola. As someone who knows Latin and Gregorian chant, I can safely say that I find it virtually impossible to just pick up the words of a sung melismatic Gradual from hearing it. Give it it a try yourself as an exercise: listen to this recording of the Gradual for this coming Sunday, and see how many of the words you can pick out. Without a missal or some other adequate aid, one’s hopes of praying the Mass rather than just praying at Mass just aren’t very good.

In 1959, Canon J.B. O’Connell – an astute observer whom you may know best as the prelate who took up the mantle of Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, or as the editor of the Roman Martyrology – painted the state of affairs at a typical Mass this way:
The priest celebrated “his” Mass at the altar, taking no account of anyone except the server; and the people “heard” their Mass, while, for the most part, saying their private prayers, or just saying and doing nothing at all, being physically present with the minimum of attention and intention demanded by the moral theologians to fulfil the obligation of “hearing Mass.”
Sounds great, right?

 

[ProVobis]

Being able to respond ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’ does not mean one understands Latin.

Phemie, but doesn’t that sort of miss the point? I can say “hallowed be Thy Name” all day long but will I ever truly understand it? I probably will understand it if it’s further defined or presented with a new dimension, so to speak. Perhaps the phrase “sanctificetur nomen tuum” or “święć się imię Twoje” (or whatever it is in French) or even if I see some picturial representation may help but the point is that in many cases we need different views or several word possibilities to really comprehend the meaning where one view is insufficient. A side-by-side Latin-English or Latin-French I think is a vast improvement to the vernacular alone, if for no other reason we have to force ourselves to see how the vernacular is derived. We might see a 2-dimension map of the world as a completely understandable and beautiful commodity, but unless one sees a true trajectory in 3-or 4-dimensions he can’t hit the moon with the rocket.

 

[JaMc]

Wow, this says a lot and is really embarrassing to me. How can anyone expect Catholics to have known … well, anything about morality before they were allowed to understand the Mass? This has me shaken. How could we have been going for centuries upon centuries with normal people, regular people, having absolutely no opportunities to understand the most important event of the entire human sphere. How was this even possible? I’m greatly confused…

Additionally, since most peasants were often too afraid to take Communion, what did anyone actually get out of God from Mass before missals? This is disgusting!

I doubt that a medieval peasant would be able to read his own language anymore than he’d be able to read Latin. Someone educated enough to read his own language would also likely be able to read Latin, since back then, Latin was a core element of a basic education - it was a universal language of scholars, such that someone at a university in France would be able to read something from a scholar in Italy.

A good follow-up question would be WHY were most peasants afraid to receive communion? I would venture that it was because they were taught morality, that they should not receive communion in a state of mortal sin, and they took that teaching very seriously. Also, depending on how far back you go, the Sacrament of Penance wasn’t always as easy as going to Confession - it was a fairly long, drawn-out process.

Being able to follow along with the prayers in the Mass in a Missal is nice and helpful, but, with good catechesis, a person unable to do so could still be taught the meaning of the Mass and good morals.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

I suppose that depends on what you mean. I don’t understand any German beyond “Ich bin ein Berliner,” but I could “attend a mass” in German. I know what is is going on at the various points, and in short order I could pick up on things like “Und mit deinem Geiste,” which is apparently, the German for “And with your ghost.” In that sense, anyone can “attend” a Mass in Latin.

But if your hypothesis is that in the good old days most people could sit and listen to, say, an Epistle read out loud in Latin and know what was being said, I think you will find that there is no evidence that that is true. And this would be doubly so at most Masses, since the Epistle, like most everything else, would be read inaudibly. Or consider, too, something like the Gradual. It would either be read silently, or it would be sung by a choir or schola. As someone who knows Latin and Gregorian chant, I can safely say that I find it virtually impossible to just pick up the words of a sung melismatic Gradual from hearing it. Give it it a try yourself as an exercise: listen to this recording of the Gradual for this coming Sunday, and see how many of the words you can pick out. Without a missal or some other adequate aid, one’s hopes of praying the Mass rather than just praying at Mass just aren’t very good.

Thank you Mark for your response.

Like I said, most of the Mass is audible so I was in no way saying that there wasn’t a time during the Mass where the faithful wouldn’t be able to understand what was being said by the priest. Secondly I get your point about the gradual but I’m confused about something. If people can understand what they are singing then why can’t they understand what they are hearing? Sure it’s not something you’re going to be able to pick up right away but like I said earlier, if picking up these things and training yourself to listen for them was an indispensable practice for being able to understand what was going on, then how is it not possible that this ability might have been common place for people back then? For example would it be right for me to assume that the proper way for riding a horse was not common knowledge amongst people in the old days because it’s not common knowledge amongst people in our present time?

In 1959, Canon J.B. O’Connell – an astute observer whom you may know best as the prelate who took up the mantle of Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, or as the editor of the Roman Martyrology – painted the state of affairs at a typical Mass this way:
The priest celebrated “his” Mass at the altar, taking no account of anyone except the server; and the people “heard” their Mass, while, for the most part, saying their private prayers, or just saying and doing nothing at all, being physically present with the minimum of attention and intention demanded by the moral theologians to fulfil the obligation of “hearing Mass.”
Sounds great, right?

Sadly Mark I feel that this could be applied to the state of affairs at a typical Mass even today. Although I do wonder where this myth that “silence = nonparticipation” came from? If it’s not a myth then I better tell people in the adoration chapels to start talking more because if they remain silent they’re not really participating in adoration!

 

[At_Trent]

listen to this recording of the Gradual for this coming Sunday, and see how many of the words you can pick out.

I was too distracted by all the angels flying around

 

[At_Trent]

I think if the truth were known, most clergy who speak against Latin are doing so because they are just too lazy to learn it or use it.

Same with the laity. If one doesn’t understand the EF or can’t follow along, it’s simply a lack of effort. Folks with reading disorders or the like, understandable. But for most of us, if we don’t understand or can’t participate in the EF, then it’s simply because we don’t want to.

And that’s fine, there are vernacular OF’s aplenty. But it just seems silly some would put forth so much effort to convince the Catholic world that a Latin Mass is too hard to understand, when in fact so much less effort is required to do so.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you Mark for your response.

Like I said, most of the Mass is audible so I was in no way saying that there wasn’t a time during the Mass where the faithful wouldn’t be able to understand what was being said by the priest. Secondly I get your point about the gradual but I’m confused about something. If people can understand what they are singing then why can’t they understand what they are hearing?

Do they, in fact, understand what they are singing? Do the members of a schola singing Gregorian chant really understand what they are singing or do they just sing words? I’m not saying they don’t but consider this: Céline Dion’s first English album was a hit but she didn’t understand anything but ‘yes’ and ‘no’. She had to do an intensive study of the language to know what she was singing.

A local harmony group sings “Gaudete!” None are Catholic and I know none of them understand Latin. Yet they do a great job on that beautiful song.

 

[Phemie]

I think if the truth were known, most clergy who speak against Latin are doing so because they are just too lazy to learn it or use it.

Same with the laity. If one doesn’t understand the EF or can’t follow along, it’s simply a lack of effort. Folks with reading disorders or the like, understandable. But for most of us, if we don’t understand or can’t participate in the EF, then it’s simply because we don’t want to.

And that’s fine, there are vernacular OF’s aplenty. But it just seems silly some would put forth so much effort to convince the Catholic world that a Latin Mass is too hard to understand, when in fact so much less effort is required to do so.

I think there is a great difference between understanding what is happening at Mass and understanding the language in which it is celebrated. If I attend an OF Mass in Japanese I’m not even going to be able to make one audible response but I’ll still know what’s going on and I’ll be participating in my own way. It should be the same if one attends an EF Mass. We know what is going on. That in no way means we understand the language.