How long has the Latin Mass, or Mass of the Latin been around?

[Famulus]

So how long has the Latin Mass been around as we know it today? Were there any Masses in Latin similar to the Tridentine Mass ( Like ones of similar form, not just a different Mass in Latin ) that predate the Council of Trent?

Thanks in advance.

 

[dochawk]

The Tridentine Mass is basically the pre-tridentine Mass of the archdiocese of Rome. It was in wide but far from universal use in the western church before Trent.

Some dioceses had their own, some used the Eastern Divine Liturgy, some used Latin, and some used the vernacular.

Rome didn’t switch to Latin until the third and fourth centuries; it used the universal language of the church, Greek, before that.

We have limited knowledge of the pre-Tridentine Mass, as the practice was to destroy the old Missals when new ones promulgated. That said, we know far more about the early Masses now than they did at the time of Trent–but we’re still not clear on which parts were the priest’s, and which were the people. Trent resolved doubt by assigning them to the priest.

Prior to Trent, what we now call “High Mass” was the norm. “Low Mass” began as a liturgical abuse to knock out more Masses, and thus stipends, per Monk. At Trent, though, it was codified as the norm.

 

[Famulus]

Thank you for your reply! I actually didn’t know we switched to Latin so early, ( I attend a Traditional Latin Mass ) so that’s really cool. Is one Mass or Liturgical practice better than the other in any way? They’re both beautiful, but is there one that’s objectively better than the other?

 

[ralfyman]

One booklet has been made available online:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/mass-history.htm

 

[JerryZ]

When the Bible was translated from Greek to Latin, the name it was given, was, the “Vulgate”, from the merriam-webster disctionary.

Definition of vulgate​

1 capitalized : a Latin version of the Bible authorized and used by the Roman Catholic Church

2 : a commonly accepted text or reading

3 : the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people

So if the apostles that roamed Rome in the 1st century wanted to capture followers from the common people they needed to speak Latin.
Slaves of the ruling class probably spoke Greek, but the ruling class themselves also needed to speak Latin since it was their mother tongue.
Remember, Latin was the “local” language in Rome while Greek was our equivalent of English in the modern world.
So I would venture, that mass was being offered in Rome both in Greek, Latin and possibly Aramaic as early as the 1st Century AD.
Peace!

 

[Bithynian]

So I would venture, that mass was being offered in Rome both in Greek, Latin and possibly Aramaic as early as the 1st Century AD.

Which wouldn’t surprise me given that things were so variable in the first centuries of the Church. But the official liturgical and ecclesiastical language of the Western Church was Greek up until Pope Damasus in the 4th century (although Pope Victor began initiating changes in the 2nd century).

The vast majority of Western Church writers wrote near exclusively in Greek: Hippolytus, Clement, Hermas, Caius, etc. I think our first extant Western ecclesiastic who wrote predominantly in Latin was Pope Victor.

 

[po18guy]

Subjectively, maybe. It’s a matter of personal preference. Objectively identical. In either case, we are offering the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ to the Father in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

 

[Maximian]

There’s an excellent book by Dom Alcuin Reid called The Organic Development of the liturgy which describes well how the form of the Mass developed very gradually over the centuries and was not subject to big changes until Vatican II.

It is a pity that the post Vatican II Mass, which was designed very much with the idea of the impact that the words might have on people, adopted words which illustrate the meaning of the Mass less well than the TLM does. . . .

 

[dochawk]

Is one Mass or Liturgical practice better than the other in any way?

It will vary by person.

I went to a Latin Mass once, which had a visiting Jesuit speaking about it.

I thought it was pretty, but felt no inclination to return.

I attended the Divine Liturgy by accident of circumstance, and was down to return again, and again, and finally join an Eastern parish. (got the other RC church’s Mass time wrong on a “sick kids, Mass juggling” Sunday, and noticed the BC church behind it was about to start).

They hymns of the Divine Liturgy echo through my head in a way the Mass never did. I go stark raving mad by the point that I haven’t attended for a couple of weeks, whether by sickness or attending RC for travel.

 

[JSRG]

JerryZ:

So I would venture, that mass was being offered in Rome both in Greek, Latin and possibly Aramaic as early as the 1st Century AD.

Which wouldn’t surprise me given that things were so variable in the first centuries of the Church. But the official liturgical and ecclesiastical language of the Western Church was Greek up until Pope Damasus in the 4th century (although Pope Victor began initiating changes in the 2nd century).

The vast majority of Western Church writers wrote near exclusively in Greek: Hippolytus, Clement, Hermas, Caius, etc. I think our first extant Western ecclesiastic who wrote predominantly in Latin was Pope Victor.

I think Tertullian precedes him by a little.

 

[GordonP]

I think our first extant Western ecclesiastic who wrote predominantly in Latin was Pope Victor.

I think Tertullian precedes him by a little.

Both Victor and Tertullian were African. Northern Africa was a hotbed of activity in the early Christian Era, rivaling or even surpassing Rome in significance as far as the spread of Christianity in the West is concerned. Later, Augustine would also come from Africa, as well.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

You should pick up the book ( Lex Orandi Lex credendi) it shows some of the direct changes made to the new mass. One of the worrisome things I have noticed, and that the book points out, is much of the more condemning language scripture versus we’re removed. In some instances, parts of versus were removed to omit some of the harder teachings of the church and scripture. I can’t remember the exact references, but I am sure that several had to do with homosexuality. I love a well done NO mass and attend one every Sunday. However, I personally think the Traditional Latin mass is better. It seems to be far more consistent, both in liturgy and orthodox teachings as a whole. Just my opinion.

 

[Maximian]

, I personally think the Traditional Latin mass is better. It seems to be far more consistent, both in liturgy and orthodox teachings as a whole. Just my opinion.

Surveys show a drop among Mass going Catholics in the belief in the Real Presence and the Mass as sacrifice. I believe this could be because these doctrines are less prominent in the NO than they are in the TLM

 

[Famulus]

It’s from the blatant irreverence towards the Eucharist. Mainly, Eucharist in the hand, and Eucharistic ministers. Only Priests used to be allowed to touch Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and now women wearing shorts and immodest clothing are handing Him out as if he were some kind of grocery store chip or cookie.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. "

They have no idea what or Whom they are touching and distributing, and it shows.

 

[ProVobis]

the official liturgical and ecclesiastical language of the Western Church was Greek up until Pope Damasus in the 4th century

Pagan worship was probably celebrated in Greek as well. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire spreading to Africa and such, the Latin Mass became prominent. The Roman Canon was written at that point in time probably.