Mass being said in Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter JayCL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shasta-Rose said:
We do want more people to join the Catholic Church, don’t we?
Click to expand...
Certainly!
Shasta-Rose said:
We keep hearing how awful it is, we only have a fraction of the Catholics we did during the 50’s and 60’s. (I’m talking about the US here.) I think we have opportunities to evangelize and bring more people in, but I don’t see that happening so much if a lot of the service is going to be incomprehensible to possible new recruits.
Click to expand...
🤔

In the 1950s and early 60s, the entire Mass was in Latin and the Church had lots of converts. In 1965, parts of the Mass could be said in English. In 1969-70, the new Mass was approved by Pope Paul VI and people left the Church in droves.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Margaret_Ann:
In 1969-70, the new Mass was approved by Pope Paul VI and people left the Church in droves
Click to expand...
It’s pretty ludicrous to put this on the feet of the OF.
Click to expand...
The Ordinary Form has feet? Who knew?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
phil19034:
this is a pretty ludicrous comment
Click to expand...
Just like how the blame on the hemmoraging of the Church in this period is due to the OF Mass.
Click to expand...
Few people blame the vernacular for the hemorrhaging of the Church.

A lot of the people who “blame the OF form” like the Anglican Use of the Mass (which is totally in English).

The main issues that people “who blame the OF form” have are:
  • the removal of prayers from the Mass - for example the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
  • Communion in the Hand.
  • Standing during the Sanctus & Agnus Dei Lamb of God.
  • making Eucharistic Prayer 1 optional to the point where few Catholics hear it more than once or twice a year (if that)
Issues regarding reverence, watered down homilies, etc are not due to the Form of the Mass, but issues with the priest.
 
That is not what I said. Do not put words into my mouth, it’s dishonest.
 
It was in the 4th century that the Mass was first offered. This was after the bible was translated into the language of the people (a vulgar language…hence bible known as the vulgate).

There was great resistance because the Mass had always been offered on Greek, a holy language.
 
phil19034 said:
Latin was being used for all Rites in the Latin (Western) Church for at least 1000 years before the Reformation.
Click to expand...
“Was used”, yes.

“Was exclusively used,” no.
Evan said:
It was in the 4th century that the Mass was first offered.
Click to expand...
That’s a rather technical statement. (and I like it 😁 )

I suppose the liturgy in Rome couldn’t be called “Mass” until the dismissal was in lattin (the source of the term), but the transition from greek to the vernacular (latin) was gradual over a century or two, and I’ve never seen a claim that it was freshly written as opposed to translating the same litugry.
 
phil19034 said:
Yes, there have been some exceptions, like the Indian Use Masses were a great example of the Vernacular being used for part of the Mass.
Click to expand...
And the parts of Europe that used the vernacular.

There was no uniform liturgy before Trent.

The Mass as used in Rome was widespread. There were any number of local liturgies, though. And the notion that they were all in latin is fantasy.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
phil19034:
Yes, there have been some exceptions, like the Indian Use Masses were a great example of the Vernacular being used for part of the Mass.
Click to expand...
And the parts of Europe that used the vernacular.

There was no uniform liturgy before Trent.

The Mass as used in Rome was widespread. There were any number of local liturgies, though. And the notion that they were all in latin is fantasy.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of that. But the vast majority of the western rites spoke in Latin in Europe. Whether it was in England, Spain, France, etc… they were speaking Latin the vast majority of the time (if not all the time)
 
I’ll defer to the older threads on byzcath.org with folks far more qualified to comment on it than I (or anyone else who regularly posts here, for that matter).

I want to say the germanies in particular, but . . .
 
I’ve been to approximately 5 Latin masses in my life and every one left me feeling bereft due to the people that attended. I got a distinct “holier than thou” vibe from them in general and some were actually quite hurtful to my oldest daughter who suffered from Aspergers and was apparently wiggling in her seat too much.
As a result I have a strong dislike for Latin mass to this day.
 
That’s a shame, but as they say “leaving church because of all the hypocrites be like leaving the gym because of all the fat people.”

I had 3 years’ worth of traumatic experiences with heterodox liberal Catholics, lay and cleric alike, and yet I continued to attend Mass, even daily, because it’s the Eucharist. Eventually I found a community of mutual trust and respect.
 
Latin is nice, but is still unnecessary to the Holy Sacrifice. The use of the vernacular is a small “i” issue.

The Latin used in the Mass isn’t even purely Latin. “Kyrie eleison” is brought in from the Greek.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
That’s your word for word quote.
Click to expand...
I said it is “associated with” not “responsible for” “the cause of” or “to blame for”

So no, it is not my word-for-word quote. . . .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top