Some questions on church history

[catholictiger]

alright so i’m talking a class on history of western civ post 1450 or 1300 I think

and we are currently talking about the division of the protestant churches, and the catholic church around the time of the protestant reformation

and these questions came up in class

has the homily always been in the native language or was there a time it was in latin?

when did the rood screen start to disappear (the wall that separated the lay from the priest) (also could somoene explain this a little more)

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

when did the pulpit start to disappear in newly built churches. (the thing the priest said homilies on.

I think that’s it for now.

thank in advance for the answers

 

[ConstantineTG]

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

Its also known as the Liturgy of the Catechumens and Liturgy of the Faithful. Basically there is a dismissal of Catechumens before the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful/Eucharist as only Christians are allowed to watch the consecration and receive the Eucharist.

 

[danserr]

alright so i’m talking a class on history of western civ post 1450 or 1300 I think

and we are currently talking about the division of the protestant churches, and the catholic church around the time of the protestant reformation

and these questions came up in class

has the homily always been in the native language or was there a time it was in latin?

when did the rood screen start to disappear (the wall that separated the lay from the priest) (also could somoene explain this a little more)

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

when did the pulpit start to disappear in newly built churches. (the thing the priest said homilies on.

I think that’s it for now.

thank in advance for the answers

Sermons were probably always given in the vernacular when preached to the laity, but might have been given in Latin when preached to other clerics. Since the point of preaching was to instruct people, it’s hard to believe they were preached to in a language they didn’t understand. See David D’Avray, “The preaching of the friars.”

I don’t have great answers to the others at the moment.

 

[steve_b]

alright so i’m talking a class on history of western civ post 1450 or 1300 I think

and we are currently talking about the division of the protestant churches, and the catholic church around the time of the protestant reformation

and these questions came up in class

has the homily always been in the native language or was there a time it was in latin?

Even when the liturgy was in Latin, the homily was in the vernacular.
c:

when did the rood screen start to disappear (the wall that separated the lay from the priest) (also could somoene explain this a little more)

Do you mean iconostasis?
newadvent.org/cathen/07626a.htm
c:

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

The teaching goes back to scripture.
c:

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

Yes
catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm
c:

when did the pulpit start to disappear in newly built churches. (the thing the priest said homilies on.

newadvent.org/cathen/12563b.htm

 

[Vince1022]

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

No.

 

[Vince1022]

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

Yes.

 

[Contarini]

has the homily always been in the native language or was there a time it was in latin?

Sermons to laypeople have always been in the language of the people (obviously that was once Latin in Western Europe!) Sermons to a clerical audience continued to be in Latin, because that was the spoken language of educated people. However, many parish priests in the Middle Ages couldn’t preach at all.

The Scripture readings, on the other hand, were in Latin, though there was a special service called “prone” practiced in some places by the early sixteenth century in which the Scriptures were read in the vernacular, I believe.

when did the rood screen start to disappear (the wall that separated the lay from the priest) (also could somoene explain this a little more)

.

I’m not sure when it disappeared. For a discussion of it, see Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars. (This is a controversial book, but it’s a good antidote to the caricatured view of late medieval worship that you generally get in secular/Protestant circles, and even in many post-Vatican-II Catholic circles.)

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

That’s a big question. I would say no, but others might disagree! One of the big issues in the early Church was whether schismatic/heretical baptism was valid. Rome said yes, in opposition to prominent folks like Cyprian. Augustine agreed with and defended Rome’s position. Fr. Stanley Jaki has argued that this was the basis for the later broadening of the Catholic understanding of salvation. In other words, Augustine’s key argument was that baptism belongs to Christ and thus to Christ’s Body the Church, even if it is administered by schismatics. Vatican II was arguably just pushing this further.

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

Basically, although I don’t know if that division was particularly obvious in the way the Latin liturgy has traditionally been celebrated (the post-Vatican-II revisions were in part designed to emphasize this basic structure).

Edwin

 

[Dave_B]

Some interesting Qs
In Middle Ages only the clergy and learned spoke Latin. The sermons would be in the vernacular, old english. The Our Father, Creed, Sign of the Cross, would be taught in latin to the learned and english to the unlearned. The readings would of course only be in the Latin Vulgate. Although Bibles were very rare I believe not many were owned outside of monasteries in the early middles ages.

 

[Vince1022]

Some interesting Qs
In Middle Ages only the clergy and learned spoke Latin. The sermons would be in the vernacular, old english. The Our Father, Creed, Sign of the Cross, would be taught in latin to the learned and english to the unlearned. The readings would of course only be in the Latin Vulgate. Although Bibles were very rare I believe not many were owned outside of monasteries in the early middles ages.

Latin was only used in the Latin Catholic rites, not all Catholic rites.

Sermons (the homily) became optional in the Roman Rite during this time, so they would not have been common.

 

[Contarini]

Some interesting Qs
In Middle Ages only the clergy and learned spoke Latin. The sermons would be in the vernacular, old english.

Middle English after about 1100, and then mostly for the commoners–the aristocracy spoke French for several centuries after the Norman Conquest.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Latin was only used in the Latin Catholic rites, not all Catholic rites.

Sermons (the homily) became optional in the Roman Rite during this time, so they would not have been common.

Well, at least in the later Middle Ages they were fairly common, but mostly preached by members of the mendicant orders, not necessarily parish priests.

 

[catholictiger]

Well, at least in the later Middle Ages they were fairly common, but mostly preached by members of the mendicant orders, not necessarily parish priests.

the main reason I asked this question some student asked the question where the sermons in Latin too and the teacher was like yeah, I just wanted to clear it up.

I should have spoken up and said I don’t think so but i don’t usually speak up, I always hesitate when I have a question or answer in class or a small group discussion.

 

[Contarini]

the main reason I asked this question some student asked the question where the sermons in Latin too and the teacher was like yeah, I just wanted to clear it up.

I should have spoken up and said I don’t think so but i don’t usually speak up, I always hesitate when I have a question or answer in class or a small group discussion.

I think the best response would have been–“Sermons were sometimes in Latin and sometimes in the vernacular, depending on the audience, but many parish priests couldn’t preach at all.” So it’s true that the average peasant in the average village, attending only the parish church, might rarely or never hear a sermon in their own language.

 

[Dave_B]

…So it’s true that the average peasant in the average village, attending only the parish church, might rarely or never hear a sermon in their own language.

But that’s not to say they were ignorant of the faith. They were taught and knew prayers and the creed in the vernacular. Plus I bet they went every week

 

[cfrancis]

For a discussion of it, see Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars. (This is a controversial book, but it’s a good antidote to the caricatured view of late medieval worship that you generally get in secular/Protestant circles, and even in many post-Vatican-II Catholic circles.)

Gotta recommend Duffy’s book. It’s detailed, so it’s a bit of a slog, but worth it. One of the reason’s it’s controversial is that it goes against the conventional idea of Reformation in England as “the people supporting the King;” rather, it presents the removal of Catholicism from England as top down, against the people’s wishes.

EDIT: Duffy presents the Catholic faith as part of everyday life for the common parishioner. It does a good job of, if not slaying, severely wounding the “peasant ignorant of the faith” paradigm.

 

[Contarini]

Gotta recommend Duffy’s book. It’s detailed, so it’s a bit of a slog, but worth it. One of the reason’s it’s controversial is that it goes against the conventional idea of Reformation in England as “the people supporting the King;” rather, it presents the removal of Catholicism from England as top down, against the people’s wishes.

EDIT: Duffy presents the Catholic faith as part of everyday life for the common parishioner. It does a good job of, if not slaying, severely wounding the “peasant ignorant of the faith” paradigm.

Duffy’s “revisionism” on the relationship between the Reformation, the people, and the monarchy is now more or less the standard view, which is not to say that it’s uncontested. He’s not alone by any means. He’s probably more controversial on the point at issue here, which is his rather rosy picture of lay piety on the brink of the Reformation.

 

[steve_b]

many parish priests couldn’t preach at all." So it’s true that the average peasant in the average village, attending only the parish church, might rarely or never hear a sermon in their own language.

Couldn’t preach?

Are you refering to circumstances surrounding the plague that wiped out rank and file in Europe in huge numbers, as well as wiping out priests who ministered to them? New priests as a result of the high death rate, were ordained faster than normal because of the need to administer the sacraments. That need was the priority as it always is.

 

[James224]

Hi catholictiger;alright so i’m talking a class on history of western civ post 1450 or 1300 I think

and we are currently talking about the division of the protestant churches, and the catholic church around the time of the protestant reformation

and these questions came up in class

has the homily always been in the native language or was there a time it was in latin?

Both

when did the rood screen start to disappear (the wall that separated the lay from the priest) (also could somoene explain this a little more)

Some churches had them up to Vatican II

has no salvation outside the church always been the same in the eyes of the church.

Yes - Of course, understood in the proper way

in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.

Yes

when did the pulpit start to disappear in newly built churches. (the thing the priest said homilies on.

I would say most still have the ambo

I think that’s it for now.

thank in advance for the answers

 

[Barbkw]

“…in general the two main parts of the mass have always been the liturgy of the Eucharist and liturgy of the word. is that correct.”

Read St. Justin Martyr’s Apologies from around the year 150 A.D.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Apology_of_Justin_Martyr

From that website:

"It contains early mentions of matters concerning liturgy and the Eucharist, and Sunday worship (chapters 66, 67).

"On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to “the president of the brethren.”

The language used was doubtless Greek, except in particular for the Hebrew word “Amen”, whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it “all the people present express their assent” when the president of the brethren “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings.”

Real Presence

Also, in Chapter 66 of Justin Martyr’s First Apology, he describes transformation of the Eucharist:

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin’s."