Latin Mass Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter bzcal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bzcal

Guest
In the old Latin Mass: (i) was there a homily; (ii) if yes, was the homily in Latin; and (iii) was the preist facing the alter or parishoners during the homily? And what year did Mass in the English language become common practrice in the U.S.?
Thanks for your help.
 
Latin was the language of the Mass, not the homily. The priest faced the congregation usually from the same place where the Gospel was proclaimed (the left side of the altar as seen from the pews). Some priests would come down and walk the aisle as they preached. The vernacular in the entire Mass came into use a few years after Vatican II. This was not really authorized, since some parts of the Mass were supposed to remain Latin.😉
 
(i) was there a homily;
Yes

(ii) if yes, was the homily in Latin;
**No - it was in the vernacular **

(iii) was the priest facing the alter or parishoners during the homily?
**Facing the people **

And what year did Mass in the English language become common practice in the U.S.?
Where I lived it was either 1965 or 1966.
I remember specifically because I was training to be a server, and had learned all the latin responses and prayers, even had been “passed” by father to serve mass and between that day and my first mass as a server, the changed…:mad: Never served a single mass in Latin…🤷

Thanks for your help.
You are welcome
 
I’d like to add: Not only was the homily in the vernacular, so were the first and second readings, and the Gospel.

What I had forgotten was that the Latin Mass had the Final Gospel, which was in Latin, and was the first chapter of the Gospel of John. I remembered that one last Sunday, when I went to my first Latin Mass since the mid sixties!
 
odile53 said:
I’d like to add: Not only was the homily in the vernacular, so were the first and second readings, and the Gospel.
Click to expand...
In the older form of the Mass there was no “second reading”. There was an Epistle and a Gospel reading. Both were read in Latin and then re-read in the vernacular.
 
In older big churches, the priest would go up to an elevated ambo which is a few pews in. This way he can easily be heard at the back of the church.
 
Odie53,
As I recall there was only an Epistle, then the Gospel. There never was a “second reading”,
Unless you mean a second reading of both the Epistle and Gospel, in the vernacular. First readings were in latin.
 
bzcal said:
In the old Latin Mass: (i) was there a homily; (ii) if yes, was the homily in Latin; and (iii) was the preist facing the alter or parishoners during the homily? And what year did Mass in the English language become common practrice in the U.S.?
Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
There was sermon (rarely homily = something based on the readings) in the Sunday masses. No sermon, and not even vernacular reading in the weekday masses. The sermon was vernacular.

The vernacular was allowed first in 1964. It resulted in chaos (many priests used their own interpretative translations). The first vernacular Altar Missal was printed in 1970 (may be 1969)
 
The vernacular was allowed first in 1964. It resulted in chaos (many priests used their own interpretative translations). The first vernacular Altar Missal was printed in 1970 (may be 1969)
Click to expand...
That should be one typical edition Missal of 1970 and many, many vernacular (national language) versions of that one true Latin missal, versions which can be and are changed by bishops’ national conferences. And that brings up an interesting scenario. What if a simple change is made to the Dutch translation by the Dutch bishops? Are bishops in the U.S. bound to use/synchronize those changes in those dioceses where the Dutch vernacular is allowed? What if they don’t understand that Dutch and later find out it doesn’t mean what they thought it should mean? The bishop is ultimately responsible for the souls in his diocese regardless of what language they speak, after all.
 
Corki said:
In the older form of the Mass there was no “second reading”. There was an Epistle and a Gospel reading. Both were read in Latin and then re-read in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
A note concerning this vernacular that is used before the sermon. It isn’t one that has gone through any ICEL committees to my knowledge. I think all that is required is a imprimatur from a bishop. The English version that the priest uses may not be the same as in your Latin-English missal so if you try to follow it you might get lost.
 
ProVobis said:
That should be one typical edition Missal of 1970 and many, many vernacular (national language) versions of that one true Latin missal, versions which can be and are changed by bishops’ national conferences. And that brings up an interesting scenario. What if a simple change is made to the Dutch translation by the Dutch bishops? Are bishops in the U.S. bound to use/synchronize those changes in those dioceses where the Dutch vernacular is allowed? What if they don’t understand that Dutch and later find out it doesn’t mean what they thought it should mean? The bishop is ultimately responsible for the souls in his diocese regardless of what language they speak, after all.
Click to expand...
The typical edition of the new rite is Latin and Latin only. The vernaculars are national or language group editions (like in the case of English the ICEL translation for US, England Australia etc)

The practice for the nationality missals is interesting. My opinion is that related to their language the host bishop has no jurisdiction until they use a Missal approved for their language by the bishop conference and the Apostolic See. This means that they have some freedom to follow or not to follow changes. English communities in Holland or France can use the recent English missal until either the ICEL or the Apostolic See says otherwise. In other hand the Dutch or French bishop has no authority to forbid the usage of the new Missal after Advent 2011.
 
ProVobis said:
That should be one typical edition Missal of 1970 and many, many vernacular (national language) versions of that one true Latin missal, versions which can be and are changed by bishops’ national conferences. And that brings up an interesting scenario. What if a simple change is made to the Dutch translation by the Dutch bishops? Are bishops in the U.S. bound to use/synchronize those changes in those dioceses where the Dutch vernacular is allowed? What if they don’t understand that Dutch and later find out it doesn’t mean what they thought it should mean? The bishop is ultimately responsible for the souls in his diocese regardless of what language they speak, after all.
Click to expand...
If my understanding of the process is correct, I would presume that the USCCB ties the missal in whatever language for public use in the US to the edition currently approved by the respective bishops’ conference (and, of course, recognized by Rome).

For example, AFAIK, (and Benedictgal, please correct me if I’m wrong), currently in the US, the approved Mexican version of the Novus Ordo is used for Spanish-language Masses. So, (given my presumption above), if there were to be a revision to that edition, that revision would be required in the US. Again given my presumption, the same should apply to any language. As I see it, that would be the most logical way to deal with the issue.
 
malphono said:
If my understanding of the process is correct, I would presume that the USCCB ties the missal in whatever language for public use in the US to the edition currently approved by the respective bishops’ conference (and, of course, recognized by Rome).

For example, AFAIK, (and Benedictgal, please correct me if I’m wrong), currently in the US, the approved Mexican version of the Novus Ordo is used for Spanish-language Masses. So, (given my presumption above), if there were to be a revision to that edition, that revision would be required in the US. Again given my presumption, the same should apply to any language. As I see it, that would be the most logical way to deal with the issue.
Click to expand...
Not only the Spanish or Dutch, but I understand even the English has slight variations (because of spellings, local politics, etc.) from one English-speaking country to another. So, by the same token, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Mexican-Spanish Mass were slightly different from the American-Spanish Mass and would have to be recognized separately by Rome.
 
Hmm. I had to look this up. Last Sunday when I finally did manage to get to a Latin Mass for the first time since the mid 1960s I have to admit I was so happy and so excited that only middle aged decorum kept me from cheering! (Don’t be too shocked by that sentiment, I do have a sense of reverence, but it wasn’t all that easy to restrain myself I was so thrilled.) But I digress: It’s not surprising that in that state I got a little goofed up.

I had borrowed Mom’s old St. Paul Daily Missal, copyright 1955 by the Daughters of St. Paul. I was able to follow along verbatim. You guys are right, no second reading. There was the Epistle and the Gospel. There was something called the Gradual, which I must have mistaken for a second reading.

The priest read both the Epistle and the Gospel in English last Sunday. No Latin reading first. The homily was delivered in English.

That seems to make sense to me, as most people would not have understood Latin easily, even in those days, and the purpose of the priest reading the Word of God is to instruct the people. Same with the homily.

I didn’t get a chance to do this this past week, but I think I’m going to sit down and go through the Ordinary of the Mass this evening, just as a refresher course of sorts.

And yes, I was surprised and delighted about the Final Gospel. I love that passage from John. ( My feeling at the time was “yeay–BONUS!!!”)

Hope nobody thinks my enthusiasm is irreverent. I certainly didn’t behave this way externally, I’m not quite ready for a booby hatch! I’ve been promising myself attendance at a Latin Mass for a few months now, but the nearest one is about thirty miles from where I live. So not only was this the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but for me it was a special spiritual treat that I don’t get to experience that often.
 
Oops, hit the post button too soon. Mom’s 1955 Missal has both the Latin and the English, side by side. Was that to help people follow along and understand the prayers the priest was saying?
 
ProVobis said:
Not only the Spanish or Dutch, but I understand even the English has slight variations (because of spellings, local politics, etc.) from one English-speaking country to another. So, by the same token, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Mexican-Spanish Mass were slightly different from the American-Spanish Mass and would have to be recognized separately by Rome.
Click to expand...
To this point: I visited Venezuela several years ago. The Missal there is the Spanish translation as approved by the Bishops of Spain. The one in our missal here in Texas is the translation approved by the Bishops in Mexico. 🙂
 
odile53 said:
There was something called the Gradual, which I must have mistaken for a second reading.
Click to expand...
The Gradual is the equivalent of the Responsorial Psalm in the modern Mass, except shorter and, well, not responsorial. Even in the modern Mass, the option exists to replace the Responsorial Psalm with the equivalent Gradual.
And yes, I was surprised and delighted about the Final Gospel. I love that passage from John. ( My feeling at the time was “yeay–BONUS!!!”)
Click to expand...
I hope you got to hear it out loud. That’s been an option at low Masses since, I think, the 1920s or so. Otherwise, including at all sung Masses, the Last Gospel is said privately by the priest. It was originally just a private devotion that the priest would say on his way back to the sacristy, and eventually got agglomerated into the Missal (which also explains its seemingly-bizarre placement after the Ite missa est). I think it’s great if priests are exercising the option to proclaim it to the congregation.
odile53 said:
Oops, hit the post button too soon. Mom’s 1955 Missal has both the Latin and the English, side by side. Was that to help people follow along and understand the prayers the priest was saying?
Click to expand...
Yes. The official Missal itself is completely in Latin, of course, but private publishers produce versions with the English translations so that people can understand what is being said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top