Latin in pre Vat 2 Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

on_the_hill

Guest
How much Latin was used in the Mass before Vatican 2?
Were the Readings and Gospel in Latin?
The Responsorial Psalm?
Did the congregation respond in Latin, or their vernacular, or did they not respond aloud?
I assume hymns were sung in the vernacular. Or were there no hymns sung by the congregation?
 
I was there. The priest spoke in Latin and we responded in Latin. A missal was available that had the Latin and English on the same page. We knew what we were saying. We sang all the hymns.
 
40.png
on_the_hill:
Were the Readings and Gospel in Latin?
Yes, though I think they were read in the vernacular before the homily and after the gospel.
The Responsorial Psalm?
There was no responsorial psalm like in the OF. Instead there was a gradual, and it was in Latin. The congregation gave no responses.
It is also worth noting that the Gradual never disappeared. It is still an option for the Ordinary Form, as given in the Roman Gradual, although the more familiar Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary is now more commonly used.
 
How much Latin was used in the Mass before Vatican 2?
The whole mass was in Latin, except the homily/sermon. And of course the “Lord have Mercy / Christ have Mercy” was in Greek.
Were the Readings and Gospel in Latin?
There was only 1 Reading and the 1 Gospel reading, were both in Latin. Then, typically, the priest would read them in the vernacular during his homily/sermon. However, that wasn’t a requirement, but many priests did do it. Additionally, many people in the 20th century had missals so they could following the readings in the vernacular. I’m not sure when the missals started becoming affordable after the printing press, but many Catholic families would own at least one copy because the Missal also had prayers for home, etc.

But you also have to remember that the reciting of the scriptures in Mass is done so for 3 reasons:
  1. The first and foremost reason, is as prayers to God and to give God praise for His Word
  2. The 2nd reason to to proclaim it to the pagans, so that the Word of God can touch the pagans not present at the Mass through supernatural means. When the Word of God is proclaimed at Mass, the Holy Spirit is at work at that exact moment, which is why it is better to chant the readings than to simply speak them… because sung/chanted prayer is more powerful that spoken prayer
  3. The last reason, is for the people in the pews. However, we Catholics are supposed to be reading the scriptures anyway, it should not be the first time we hear them. As a good priest once said, the Mass is not a Bible study. We should be coming to Mass having already read the scriptures and be ready to receive the Holy Spirit when the reading are being proclaimed.
The Responsorial Psalm?
there were no “responsorial psalms” in the old Mass. There was a gradual (scripture selection which was usually a psalm) that was chanted by the schola (during the High and Solemn High Masses), but the “responsorial psalms” was created for the Mass of Paul VI. At a low mass, it would be read in Latin by the priest.
Did the congregation respond in Latin, or their vernacular, or did they not respond aloud?
Depends. The General Instructions for the Mass required only the Altar Servers to respond, not all the people. However, in many parishes, the people would respond with the Altar Servers in Latin. But the lines the people would respond to were typically the easier ones (like “And with your spirit”) and repeated at every mass. There were also booklets / prayer cards that had the Vernacular and Latin next to one another (just like many parishes have missal booklets in pews today)
I assume hymns were sung in the vernacular. Or were there no hymns sung by the congregation?
Hymns were only sung before mass started and after mass ended, not during the mass. And yes, they were often in the vernacular. But sometimes there might be a famous Latin one like Ave Maria.
 
Yes, though I think they were read in the vernacular before the homily and after the gospel.
To be clear, the vernacular reading of the readings wasn’t “before the homily” it was at the beginning of the homily or sermon.
 
It was pretty much all in Latin.
Thank God the change was made to allow the Mass to be said in other languages, including English. It made things a lot easier to understand.
 
Actually, it was a bit confusing. Because you had to keep looking back and forth in the Missal.
 
We all got used to it. After a while, since nothing changed, it became more and more easy.
 
The funny thing is that when you actually speak with the people in the pews, especially the ones who say, “thank goodness the Mass is now in a language I understand” and you ask them then about what is said and what it means. . .and they really actually don’t understand all that well.

A lot of this is due to how ambiguous all the ‘modern’ (i.e. post mid 20th century) documents are. Check out the ‘mission statement’ etc on a modern website for the parish of St. Millenius, and see that even if all the words used are pretty much on an 8th grade level, they are all so open-ended and broad that a person could ‘understand’ a lot of things by them that aren’t at all what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Jesus (and the ECF, not to mention the Popes of even the 19th century) never had mission statements about being on a faith journey and being inclusive and proactive, but just about every parish today has those, all saying the same broad points, but all interpreted in a great many different ways!!!
 
But when the change came to having everything in English, it made it easier to follow what was going on during Mass, right?
 
Since the Pope seems to be good with what is said during Mass, it works for me.
The main thing is that we give praise and glory to God as we prepare for communion. 🙏🙏🙏
 
I don’t follow. Everyone knew what was going on. The mass was the mass and was the same mass. There was no mystery. Catechesis was more thorough with the Baltimore Catechism. Dissidents who came into the Church in the late 1960s did everything they could to wreck good catechesis.
 
English. It made things a lot easier to understand.
Did it though? Then why has belief in the central truths of Mass dramatically dropped since? Why did reverence decrease? Why did liturgical abuses become more common? Why did the pews empty?

It seems to me, the problem is, along with the switch to the vernacular, the prayers rich in content were gutted so that there is simply less there to understand. Likewise, a lot of the non-verbal actions, signs, and symbols–including the very use of Latin itself which communicates something–were discarded and/or replaced–de jure or de facto as the case may be–with things that communicated something else. Then there is the music, vestments, architecture, etc. typically accompanied with each that tend to communicate different things.

Despite being in the vernacular, there are many less helps to understanding the true significance of what is going on. The new Mass requires a much stronger faith and spiritual sense to truly understand it. Not everyone is at that level yet.
 
Last edited:
Your opinion. And you are welcome to it. I respectfully disagree.
 
It the Mass is the Mass, then why be so concerned about having Mass said in a language that most in this country understand?
Or having the Mass said in spanish, french, italian, german, or whatever the native tongue of a country.
Whether we praise God in Latin or English, it should not matter.
God speaks all languages.
 
Let’s make it easy for you and me.
You attend Mass in Latin. You like it. More power to you.
I like the changes brought about by Vatican II, including allowing for Mass to be said in my native tongue.
We are both Catholics. Let us both praise and give glory to God. That is what is important.
You will not change my mind on this issue. And I know I cannot change yours.
Enough said. Go in peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top