mass in latin

[Pulvis]

Even though people in the Middle Ages were mostly illiterate, there were other ways of catechesis. For example, the stain glassed windows you see in the old churches. They depicted stories from the Bible, the life of Jesus, and the life of the saints with symbols that were more readily understood in their time than perhaps today (“Pictures tell a thousand words”). People also learned from friars who preached in the streets, like St. Dominic and St. Francis, through oral tradition.

While it’s true that there needs to be some understanding for faith, acceptance and trust are also necessary. When I was little, I didn’t fully understand why some parts of the Mass were in Hebrew (Alleluia!), Greek (Kyrie Eleison), or Latin (Agnus Dei), while the rest was in English, but I learned to appreciate and accept the heritage and tradition of our Faith. I would imagine the same would be true in a different age, as the Truth is ageless.

Well said. And the one factor which developed after Tren was that regardless of where you went , over the entirety of the Christian world, you would see the exact same Mass. I travel alot, and it surprises me just how many different variations of the Mass there are just in our US. While most, if not all parishes follow most of the OF rubrics, which are vastly simpler than the EF rubrics, the number of deviations, additions and local variations are astounding. Sometimes I find myself wishing everyone would just follow the rubrics, and leave the personalisations behind.

 

[bben15]

why though? they could have easily made it understandable.

Latin was, and still is, the universal language of the Church. Making the Mass in Latin represents this. Also, Latin was used in the Masses in the earliest Christian communities. By using Latin, you are preserving the link between now and the past.

It’s not about understanding the Mass, it’s about contemplating the Sacrifice.

 

[Veridical16]

isn’t that just an occasion for poor catechesis though? we already have issues with that as it is when people do understand the language of the mass. wouldn’t it have just been worse?

I think we need not get trapped in our 21st century thinking. One does not have to be St. Thomas Aquinas, or have the prestige and advantages of a monarch in St. Louis IX to know the faith.

Faith is determined not by one’s intellect. It is determined by the one who reveals.

Christendom was built during these times and they understood the Faith in more unity than is displayed now in our Church crisis; with the way the Church operates in the vernacular where there is vulnerability for abuse in Catechesis.The simplicity of attending the Sacrifice of the mass was more readily understood.
The Latin Mass did not deter any of that grace, with the abuses that we see sometimes committed in the Novus Ordo, where it can be man centered, and because of the living language (which Pope Benedict addressed) an impediment for some given how the parish operates in obstructing the understanding of the Sacrifice.

We live in an age where the internet provides all the information one could dream of… But I’m pretty sure most in the earlier centuries understood the nature of man – and how the world works practically – a lot better than the average American in the 21st century; who is accursed with the most opulent and indulgent culture right now.

It is a mistake to think the Faith is just something that was taught or indoctrinated, needing to be based on the individual’s understanding. One can know Christ in the gospels while being illiterate, because one can know the Gospel through way a person (in his Faith in Christ) lives and behaves every day.
Christ is the gospel. Know Scripture, know Christ. Know Christ, Know Scripture.

In citing a dogmatic teaching on the Theological Virtue of the Faith, a priest has said
*If only one is disposed to believe that which he can understand?he will never arrive at Supernatural Faith, but instead God gives grace to the humble.
*

And this is supported by this

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8442

Faith, insofar as it is a virtue, can be increased by performing actions in congruity with the virtue. It can be said to be greater in one than another on the part of the intellect (subject),** as one has greater certitude or firmness (greater habit)** than another.** Still, as an infused virtue, faith cannot be begun by human capacities but is caused first by God.** On the other hand, to reject one article of faith (heresy) causes the loss of the virtue.35 Every habit is corrupted by the opposite action and so faith can be corrupted by a single action contrary to the virtue. Theological virtues differ from acquired virtues (moral or intellectual) in that they may be lost through a single contrary action.

Faith requires adherence to the infallible rule of the Church, i.e. that to whom the teaching of revelation has been entrusted. If one does not put one’s rule in the authority that has the right to teach (Magisterium), then the rule finds itself in the will, resulting in it becoming a matter of opinion.

Give way to God’s existence, and Christ the creator revealed? how can one question how members of the Church in those times were 'properly ’ Catechized through the sacramental life of the Church?
It is not properly formed RCIA classes, or the vernacular that determines a Faithful Catholic. It is grace.

 

[Veridical16]

**The OP is transmitting a 20th/21st century perspective back on all centuries that preceded. **Just because we have greater rates of literacy and more developed means with which we are able to study and understand the Mass, does not mean that those before us could not or did not have proper faith. The Op also mimics a contemporary trend of deeming any such faith as “blind.”

yes exactly

 

[Veridical16]

this just gives off the impression that everyone was catholic due to ignorance of what they were doing. the church could have essentially told them anything they wanted. does anyone know if the homilies were in the vernacular at least?

The Mass isn’t made for the priests homilies, but those who preached the gospel on the streets probably weren’t speaking Latin.

You are also forgetting that the Parents were the ones who.also formed their children in the faith. And if the Church could "tell the faithful" anything they wanted, that would imply it was a man-made faith, and knowing that? how could it be preserved when we had so many heresies around, what would there be to defend against them? The Church would have gone the way the Protestant Churches have gone.

Faith is not based on one’s understanding. That applies today, Catholics aren’t more faithful, because we have the capacity to understand the faith better because we have the venacular and more access to books. Then we should all be saints!

See how that works? And yet those centuries continually produced many educated Saints and Doctors of the Church who displayed the same faith as the ‘ignorant’ peasants of their day. So if the Church could tell the faithful anything at the time because of Latin? Then how could educated Kings and Theologians, the St. Augustines and converts with an educated background? still attend the same mass and profess Christ the same as the peasants? Would not have they called out the Church?
The faith was not due to ignorance; so you are incorrect.

You can have both theological scholars who know the ins and outs about the dogma of the Immaculate conception, and you can have a peasant girl that is informed about the Immaculate conception.
St. Joseph Cupertino was not a great intellect yet he could expound on the Trinity with simplicity because of his sanctity.

These questions are good, but the Faith is not dependent on one’s own ability to understand intellectually. We are made to be children of God and that is something the Universal Faithful can share no matter one’s intellectual capacities.

 

[janeway529]

Well said. And the one factor which developed after Tren was that regardless of where you went , over the entirety of the Christian world, you would see the exact same Mass. I travel alot, and it surprises me just how many different variations of the Mass there are just in our US. While most, if not all parishes follow most of the OF rubrics, which are vastly simpler than the EF rubrics, the number of deviations, additions and local variations are astounding. Sometimes I find myself wishing everyone would just follow the rubrics, and leave the personalisations behind.

The US is unique in that it is a country made up of immigrants who bring their local customs with them, which inculturates the liturgy. These are not deviations. Just like our united devotion to Mother Mary under her many varying titles, there is a richness in the diversity of peoples sharing their gifts with us as we all unite in bringing those gifts to the altar of God. Unity should not be confused with uniformity.

As Pope Francis says, uniformity kills.
youtube.com/watch?v=txlhEegKvco

 

[FAB]

how did people understand mass when it was all in latin. i’m talking about like in the middle ages before printed books were available for people to follow along. and also when a lot of people were illiterate.

To answer, the educated would have possiblly understood the mass, the great majority would not have. Except for the rich and the educated, no one else would have books and a bible since it was hand scribed would have been very expensive.
The reason for great stained glass in church’s was for the purpose of Catechesis. the priest could pint to the glass that depicted a gospel story and teach, the same purpose for many works of art.

It seems sad that for so many hundreds of years the beauty of the was not fully appriciated because of language.

 

[ProVobis]

As Pope Francis says, uniformity kills.
youtube.com/watch?v=txlhEegKvco

That could just as easily apply to bi-lingual parishes where some try to impose the all-English Mass on everyone. Just my opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems sad that for so many hundreds of years the beauty of the was not fully appriciated because of language.

Had the all-vulgar, all-vernacular liturgy been imposed in the 3rd century, I wonder how much of that medieval art and music that was inspired by the Latin Mass we’d have today. Maybe you can claim there’d be better music today but look at a great composer like Richard Proulx. He was inspired by the ICEL Mass but his work is now pretty much antiquated because of the new translation. And so it will be for all the other translations of the Mass. That is why I never bothered to memorize the English Creed, English Gloria, etc. Because I realized all the different possible translations, I knew they would be short-lived. But the Roman Canon of 750 AD in Latin is the same as we have today. And the music and art it inspired still lives today.

 

[Veridical16]

To answer,** the educated would have possiblly understood the mass, the great majority would not have. Except for the rich and the educated, no one else would have books and a bible since it was hand scribed would have been very expensive. **
The reason for great stained glass in church’s was for the purpose of Catechesis. the priest could pint to the glass that depicted a gospel story and teach, the same purpose for many works of art. **

It seems sad that for so many hundreds of years the beauty of the was not fully appriciated because of language**.

What an incredibly arrogant and presumptuous statement. How can you determine if the Church Faithful of previous centuries, were too stupid and ignorant to FULLY appreciate the beauty of the Faith… IF you weren’t there?? you need to be quiet and watch you say about those who make up many of the Church Triumphant and are interceding on our behalf… as we speak.
How arrogant for us to say that only WE in the 21st century with our knowledge, could properly understand the Gospel in a superior manner to those of the past. The Mass/The Faith is Eternal, not reserved for a momentary blip for a particular set of people given certain conditions to our disposition and understanding.

Language being in Latin was a restriction for the masses? How pathetic would God be? If for a millenia, God was restrained because of the Church’s application of Latin.
I also think its so stupid for us to say that they had to rely on just stain glassed windows to instruct the faithful? That was the mere purpose? That is stupid. That is absurd. The point of stain glassed windows is the same as they are now, we are creatures made of matter, we use tactile forms EVEN today, so just because the stained glass windows existed then? Does not imply that that was their only source of encounter with the Gospel.

Where is this modernist notion that, we don’t still use this art, and the symbols in the sanctuary, to elevate our minds towards Christ? That we are not to be simple like children in receiving the faith through ways that don’t need words or classes? I say modernist because certain parishes are ugly and stripped of these very art forms and objects that the accused faithful of previous centuries had to "rely on in their ignorance’; and we see with some protestant/evangelical parishes being just another “building” ]

Understanding the Faith does not depend on one’s station in life or whether one was educated or Rich, where the Heck is this absurdity coming from?? So only until our culture became wealthy enough to provide the “masses” with the understanding, was the Faith not fully appreciated?
So fully appreciating the beauty of the Catholic Faith is dependent on the wealth of the Individual from century to century?
Do we really think that the wealth of a nation or culture is a sign of God’s blessing? ( It’s actually many times a chastisement. )

How pathetic would our God’s truth and beauty be if he relied on one’s economic and educational background?

 

[janeway529]

That could just as easily apply to bi-lingual parishes where some try to impose the all-English Mass on everyone. Just my opinion.

If the parish is bilingual, and the pastor decides not to have one Mass in Spanish, for example, then the people have recourse to their dean, then their bishop. I can tell you that it did happen in LA, and the parish now offers Mass in Spanish to meet the needs of its parishioners.

 

[janeway529]

Had the all-vulgar, all-vernacular liturgy been imposed in the 3rd century, I wonder how much of that medieval art and music that was inspired by the Latin Mass we’d have today. Maybe you can claim there’d be better music today but look at a great composer like Richard Proulx. He was inspired by the ICEL Mass but his work is now pretty much antiquated because of the new translation. And so it will be for all the other translations of the Mass. That is why I never bothered to memorize the English Creed, English Gloria, etc. Because I realized all the different possible translations, I knew they would be short-lived. But the Roman Canon of 750 AD in Latin is the same as we have today. And the music and art it inspired still lives today.

In the 3rd Century, the vulgar and vernacular language of the masses was Latin. Greek was the language of culture and education. Pope St. Callistus was born a slave and did not know Greek, so he began a gradual transition of the Mass into Latin so the common people could understand it. The Roman liturgy was not completely Latinized until about 350. Also during this time, there was much creativity for the presider to compose, within general limits, prayers. Certain ones known for their excellence were copied and spread throughout the Church, such as the one composed by Hippolytus (known today as Eucharistic Prayer II). So, Mass varied in small ways from region to region, but there was a general uniformity, not unlike today.

 

[adawgj]

They built statues and made elaborate paintings to create a visual for the illiterate.

 

[ProVobis]

In the 3rd Century, the vulgar and vernacular language of the masses was Latin.

350 AD sounds about right. We know the Roman Canon didn’t go all the way back to Christ since it lists many saints.

Actually the vernacular of that period was Vulgar Latin. Vulgar Latin didn’t have the fine grammar of Classical Latin, which the Church Christianized. (There is an Appendix Probi which demonstrates some of the differences.) Vulgar Latin then morphed into the Romance languages and some of those today include Spanish, French, Italian, etc.

A lot of the ancient Latin has found its way into English derivatives and directly (unchanged) so Latin shouldn’t be totally strange to an American. The same alphabet is used. Unlike the modern languages, Latin has a very immutable quality about it. And like Greek it is inflective and the subjunctive (seemingly disappearing in English) is quite more meaningful, at least in my opinion.

A recommended book to read: Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages