Historical Question of Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter luciasclay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

luciasclay

Guest
In the latin mass as it has been celebrated over the centuries was the homily itself in the vernacular while the rest of the mass in latin ? Or was the homily also in latin ?
 
by the time I was in grade school, 50s, readings were repeated in English, and homily in English. It is my impression these changes where phased in early in the 20th c.
 
The people I know who had experienced the TLM before the changes said that the epistle and gospel were repeated at the pulpit in the vernacular, followed by the sermon in the vernacular. That may have been in English, or it may have been in another language. There were many ethnic parishes back then, so one could have heard the readings and sermon in Italian, Polish, German, or some language other than English.
 
My memory goes back to 1940. The Gospel was read in Latin then again in English [on Sundays and Holy days at least].

I didn’t get to weekday masses until the 50’s and don’t remember the practice then. I think it may have been only in Latin. I think it probably was only in Latin, since I recall that the weekday mass was often over in less than 10 minutes, which wouldn’t leave room for an English repeat.

Sermons were usually only on Sundays and Holydays. They were in English. I don’t remember ever hearing one on a weekday. By 1960 I seldom heard one even on Sunday. That may have been peculiar to the area I was in [just outside Boston].
 
Good info. What about prior to living memories ?

Going back through the centuries ? Has there generally always been a homily in the vernacular ?

I’m sure the readings were not always in the vernacular unless a church sanctioned translation was available. So that would be sometimes yes and sometimes no.
 
luciasclay said:
Good info. What about prior to living memories ?

Going back through the centuries ? Has there generally always been a homily in the vernacular ?

I’m sure the readings were not always in the vernacular unless a church sanctioned translation was available. So that would be sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims Bible has been available since 1610. The New Testament was completed in 1582, and the Old Testament was completed in 1610. So there has been an approved English Bible for almost 400 years. I do not know when the readings were first repeated in the vernacular, but lack of an approved translation has not been an issue for centuries.
 
luciasclay said:
In the latin mass as it has been celebrated over the centuries was the homily itself in the vernacular while the rest of the mass in latin ? Or was the homily also in latin ?
Click to expand...
The sermon has always been largely in the vernacular - canon law demanded in accordance with Trent that priests explain some aspect of doctrine, etc. to the people at the principal Sunday Mass and this was codified in the 1917 canon law.

At one point though in the 18th century, particular with doubt over the vernacular versions of the Bible being brought out, it was insisted that preachers quoting biblical texts should first pronounce it in Latin.

As regards the readings, it depends on locality. In some places there was a very strong contrary custom (e.g. Germany which was “graciously tolerated” in 1943) that provided for the reading in the vernacular in the proper places for the Epistle and/or the Gospel. This was recorded as early as the 18th century. Other places (e.g. Georgia, Armenia) were granted indults for such a custom

(By proper place, I mean where the Latin reading would occur, or immediately after as opposed to immediately before the sermon)

In other places local synods and councils legislated the rereading of the Gospel before the sermon. For example, the First Council of Baltimore did so for many of the territories of the United States.

In the 20th century with the growth of the Liturgical Movement it became customary in many locations to reread the Scripture before the sermon.
 
It would be pointless to have a homily in Latin if the laity did not understand Latin. The priest would be preaching to no one.
 
jpjd said:
It would be pointless to have a homily in Latin if the laity did not understand Latin. The priest would be preaching to no one.
Click to expand...
I fear that may be true in the vernacular at times. 😃
 
If we were to take a very long view of the history of “Latin Mass” and the homily, we would say that the homily was not an integral part of the Roman Rite until 1970. Preaching was done in the vernacular (thus answering the meat of the question), and it was often connected to the Sunday liturgy,but it was not like now where the homily is a mandated part of Sunday Mass. Instead, a sermon could have been given before Mass, after Mass, or at various times during Mass (even today you’ll often see priests in the EF remove their maniple - or much more rarely even the chasuble - during the sermon as an indication that the Mass is being interrupted at that point). Perhaps, however, the preaching might occur at a separate “service” at some other time in the day.
 
luciasclay said:
In the latin mass as it has been celebrated over the centuries was the homily itself in the vernacular while the rest of the mass in latin ? Or was the homily also in latin ?
Click to expand...
The homily when there was one, to the best of my knowledge has always been in the vernacular. The lone exception to that is some evidence that when Priests instruction at seminary was in Latin, the homilies would be in Latin or maybe at some upper level ecclesial Masses that involved no lay participation.
 
palmas85 said:
The homily when there was one, to the best of my knowledge has always been in the vernacular. The lone exception to that is some evidence that when Priests instruction at seminary was in Latin, the homilies would be in Latin or maybe at some upper level ecclesial Masses that involved no lay participation.
Click to expand...
I would go out on a limb and guess that a Latin sermon may have been preached to lay but Latinate students as well. Luther’s liturgical reforms included the desire that the remaining parts of the office and the “mass” be often in Latin for the sake of the boys, i.e. the grammar school students who could use the language. Within the boat, St. Thomas More’s family would have been able to easily comprehend a Latin sermon, so such audiences could have also received them. On the whole, howeveer, the rule was simply preach in a language your audience understands.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I would go out on a limb and guess that a Latin sermon may have been preached to lay but Latinate students as well. Luther’s liturgical reforms included the desire that the remaining parts of the office and the “mass” be often in Latin for the sake of the boys, i.e. the grammar school students who could use the language. Within the boat, St. Thomas More’s family would have been able to easily comprehend a Latin sermon, so such audiences could have also received them. On the whole, howeveer, the rule was simply preach in a language your audience understands.
Click to expand...
I think we agree here. If I’m not mistaken, quite a lot of the instruction given in the schools in Luthers day was in Latin anyway.
 
And let us note that the norm was for a sermon at Sunday Mass, rather than a homily. All homilies are sermons, but not all sermons are homilies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top