What were the first Masses like?

[Sarpedon]

The early Mass was often said in Greek. I don’t know if this was standardized (it may have just been the vernacular of many areas). I seem to recall Greek as being the vernacular of much of the Mediterranean world (I could be mistaken, as I also recall vulgar Latin as the vernacular of the Roman Empire.)

 

[BobP123]

My question was concerning the Early Church in the vernacular.

Vernacular as opposed to a worship language like Hebrew or Sanskrit?

Would Aramaic have been considered the original language of the Mass since that is the language which Christ predominately taught in? If so, then Greek or Latin would have been considered the vulgar tongues, I would think. But then Christ probably spoke and understood Greek and Latin so could make either the de facto worship language too, no? What do you think?

 

[christcnection1]

Vernacular as opposed to a worship language like Hebrew or Sanskrit?

Would Aramaic have been considered the original language of the Mass since that is the language which Christ predominately taught in? If so, then Greek or Latin would have been considered the vulgar tongues, I would think. But then Christ probably spoke and understood Greek and Latin so could make either the de facto worship language too, no? What do you think?

You’re probably right. I’m not sure. I would tend to think that the Mass was said in the language that was most common to the culture and people within the community; however, this is speculation. If you find out, I am curious to know.

 

[Cat]

I’m currently reading a history of Catholic music. The book was written in 1961 (well before Vatican II).

The Mass was in Greek originally. It switched to Latin because Latin was the language of the people.

 

[christcnection1]

I’m currently reading a history of Catholic music. The book was written in 1961 (well before Vatican II).

The Mass was in Greek originally. It switched to Latin because Latin was the language of the people.

That makes sense…

Do you know if they had Mass in Greek where the people did not speak Greek? Or at times did they deviate from Greek (use the vernacular) to adapt to other people’s language?

 

[palmas85]

I hope this doesn’t come across as pomposity, but In the interest of clarity the following are absent form the order of St. Gregory:

Everything before the Introit
Half of the prayer before the Gospel and the Creed
The whole Offertory (except for the antiphon and the Secret)
All the prayers of the priest immediately before and for communion
The prayers at the ablutions
The blessing [for priests] and Last Gospel.

The Rite of St Gregory itself which is still celebrated in some Eastern Churches:
* The Preparation for Mass
* Confiteor
* Kyrie eleison (nine-fold)
* Gloria in excelsis
* Collect of the Day
* Epistle
* Gradual
* Alleluia
* Gospel
* Sermon
* Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
* Offertory
* Dialogue
* Preface
* Sanctus
* Canon
* Lord’s Prayer
* Fraction
* Agnus Dei
* Prayers before Communion (including “I believe, O Lord, and I confess…”)
* Holy Communion
* Prayer of thanksgiving after Communion
* Dismissal
* Blessing of the faithful
I * Last Gospel (Prologue of St. John’s Gospel)

It is very close to the Sarum Rite which is still celebrated on occasion and also is sometimes called the Rite of St. Peter.

 

[byers]

Pax Tibi,

There is an excellent older book available still at amazon which contains tremedous amounts of research on the history of the Mass.

How Christ Said the First Mass
by Rev. James Meagher

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Pax Tibi,

There is an excellent older book available still at amazon which contains tremedous amounts of research on the history of the Mass.

How Christ Said the First Mass
by Rev. James Meagher

Thanks so much. I will go buy it now.
Thanks.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Pax Tibi,

There is an excellent older book available still at amazon which contains tremedous amounts of research on the history of the Mass.

How Christ Said the First Mass
by Rev. James Meagher

Bought it!
Thanks

 

[guanophore]

… the history of the early Church. To start with it was completely different than it is today. During that time, the Roman Church gradually became the lead Church so to speak.

I think your rendition of history, although accurate from a Western viewpoint, discounts the traditions of the East.

Sanctified by the blood of two of the Apostles, Peter and Paul , the Roman Church was looked to as the center of the faith and the Bishop of Rome given honor and respect as the First among Bishops. The Rite celebrated by the Roman Church gradually became the predominant Rite within the Church probably between the years of 800-900 or so.

This is only true from a Western point of view.

There were several other Rites, Ambrosian and Gallician come to mind as well as several Rites peculiar to certain religious orders that grew organically and thus co existed with the Roman Rite. As the Roman Rite spread it swallowed up some of these and retained some of the elements found in them, notably those of the Gallician Rite.

Your version of history does not seem to take into account the Liturgies written by St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.

The Ambrosian Rite remained basically distinct until 1970 when it too was changed. I believe that the other distinct Rites of the Orders, Cistercian, Carthusian etc also changed at that time.

Respectfully, you beliefs about what happened, and what actually DID happen, seem to have discrepancy

other rites sprang up that in many cases were completely different than the standard rite. Some of them were blatantly heretical while others were merely adapted to suit local customs and strangel enough politics.

Again, respectfully, the Roman Rite was only standard in the West, and in areas under the dominion of Rome. The Eastern Churches are today recognized with valid orders, liturgies, and sacraments. They are not heretical, they are not “blatently adapted” and they are not Roman.

In a nutshell and very very simply put that was the situation up to the Council of Trent.

I must say your “nut” is quite narrow.

Trent was held during the confusion that existed as a result of the reformation and was the action taken by the Church to solidify, consolidate and re-affirm the faith and to protect it from the heresies that were being preached by the reformers. Part of that was to codify the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and set standards for its celebration. Trent abolished those rites and local adaptations that did not meet a certain criteria, namely longevity and impious practices, insisted on a rigidity of formula.

Only for the West. the East did not need a “Trent” because the Orthodoxy of the faith was preserved, and the priests and other church officials did not engage in abuses.

So while the Council of Trent codified the way the Mass was to be celebrated, it did not as many believe create what we call today Tridentine Mass. In its form and substance the Mass had existed as Trent decreed from about the year **600 or so and St Gregory the Great **

Again, no mention of the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.

Perhaps you do not realize that this liturgy originated in the East? Rome was the one in need of alignment. Remember that the Birth of the Church was in the East, not the West. By the time Peter and Paul got to Rome, there had been thriving church communities that they started for 20 years in the East.

The Order of Mass in the 1570 Missal of St. Pius, apart from minor additions and amplifications, is very very close to the order established by St. Gregory. And so it remained basically unchanged until 1950 when Pope Pius XII authorized a revision, chiefly concerned with the calendar.in 1951. That restored the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday, and, in 1955, he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, reforming the Holy Week ceremonies.

I commend you on your Western rendition of history.

So we can say with some authority that the Traditional Mass adheres fairly closely to the Masses celebrated around the year 600, or approximately 900 years earlier than most of the Traditional bashers would have you believe:thumbsup: .

Really? What authority is that?

[/QUOTE]

 

[chet]

In the Didache, which many scholars believe was written before many of the New Testament books we read, “Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ (Mal 1:11)” (Didache, 14).

 

[chet]

Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology: "We call this food Eucaristia [Eucharist], and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior 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.*

 

[chet]

The Scriptures and the Mass were inseparably united for all time by Jesus himself on the first Easter night. Luke tells us that upon rising from the dead, Jesus encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35).They didn’t recognize Him at first. Nonetheless, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets,” Jesus explained the meaning of the Old Testament to them - showing how all the promises God made there were fulfilled in Him (see also Luke 24:44-48). As He spoke their hearts were “burning within.”

Then Jesus sat down at table, took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them.
Notice Luke’s deliberate use of the same words used in his Last Supper narrative: At table, Jesus takes . . . blesses . . . breaks . . . and gives the bread (compare Luke 22:14-20).

Luke is giving us a picture of the Eucharist, the first to be celebrated after the Resurrection. Jesus first “proclaims” the Scriptures, showing how the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament made in His blood. Then He gives thanks for this covenant in the breaking of the bread.

When He does this, the promise of the Scriptures, Old Testament and New, is fulfilled - the disciples’ eyes are opened and they come to “know” Jesus in intimate communion.

Since that night, believers have gathered every Sunday, the day of the Resurrection known as the Lord’s day (see Revelation 1:10; Acts 20:7). In this gathering we open the Scriptures, and break the bread.

 

[chet]

We see in a story of Paul celebrating the Eucharist in Troas. His sermon, or Homily lasted until midnight, causing one of his parishioners to fall asleep and plunge to his death. Undeterred, Paul revived the man and continued the service. He “broke the bread” (see Acts 20:7-12). Paul writing in his 1st letter to the Corinthians 10:15-16 “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”
A disciple of Peter and Paul, and a martyr for the Faith eaten by lions, St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-110 A.D.), wrote, “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 ).

St. Ignatius also wrote, “Obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds. . . . Share in one common breaking of bread—the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore” (Letter to the Ephesians, 20).

 

[AJV]

The Rite of St Gregory itself which is still celebrated in some Eastern Churches: (snip)It is very close to the Sarum Rite which is still celebrated on occasion and also is sometimes called the Rite of St. Peter.

The name of the saint attached to it is a matter of custom. The first few Ordines Rom. don’t give any such prayers e.g. the Offertory. Also Micrologus corroborates some of it. His Mass more resembles the one in the ‘Tridentine’ Missal but in his explanations he says on various parts that it is not yet the custom in Rome e.g. Romanus tamen Ordo nulla orationem stituit post offerendam ante secretam.

 

[AJV]

P.S. I meant to add “the Micrologus” since the writers name is not Micrologus. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[palmas85]

I think your rendition of history, although accurate from a Western viewpoint, discounts the traditions of the East.

This is only true from a Western point of view.

Your version of history does not seem to take into account the Liturgies written by St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.

Again, respectfully, the Roman Rite was only standard in the West, and in areas under the dominion of Rome. The Eastern Churches are today recognized with valid orders, liturgies, and sacraments. They are not heretical, they are not “blatently adapted” and they are not Roman.

Only for the West. the East did not need a “Trent” because the Orthodoxy of the faith was preserved, and the priests and other church officials did not engage in abuses.
palmas85;2337434:

So while the Council of Trent codified the way the Mass was to be celebrated, it did not as many believe create

what we call today Tridentine Mass. In its form and substance the Mass had existed as Trent decreed from about the year **600 or so and St Gregory the Great **

Perhaps you do not realize that this liturgy originated in the East? Rome was the one in need of alignment. Remember that the Birth of the Church was in the East, not the West. By the time Peter and Paul got to Rome, there had been thriving church communities that they started for 20 years in the East.

I commend you on your Western rendition of history.

I meant no disrespect to the Orthodox Churches at all, but they are outside the sphere of the Roman Catholic Church and now is neither the time nor place to engage in a discussion of the relative merits of east versus west.

I also realize that the church of Antioch as well as numerous others pre dated the Church of Rome, even though,it must be stressed they were founded by the same Apostles.

In spite of that, I believe the Roman Catholic faith as being the faith that is preserved from the time of the Apostles intact. Therefore, I must look at the history from a western viewpoint. To do otherwise would of necessity cast into doubt the validity of the truth that the Roman Catholic Church is the **ONE ** true faith, All others, yes, sadly enough including the Orthodox are in some way deficient.

I made no mention of earlier Orthodox liturgies or other liturgies at all because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I know that the eastern churches have rich traditions, and are an integral part of Christianity from the very start. I know that their orders are considered valid and that their beliefs are the closest of any outside the Roman Church to the true faith. I also know that at one point in history, we probably believed exactly the same thing. But not now.

The Orthodox Churches are outside the Holy Mother Church, not accepting some of the essential doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, but that is just the way it is.

I pray that the divisions between us may be resolved one day.

It may also interest you to know that earlier in life, when I saw the rampant abuses occurring daily in the Roman Church, I seriously considered converting to the Orthodox. In the end though, I could not, as my belief in the ultimate truth of the Roman Church won out over my fears that the Church was self destructing.

 

[Aramis]

Keep in mind also: pre-constantine, the Roman Divine Liturgy (Commonly called the Mass) was celebrated in private homes, in the catacombs, or in other places.

I’ve read that it was not uncommon for the smaller groups to all gather round the altar.

Likewise, remember also that, in the east, the Divine Liturgies of the 5 other traditions grew organically, as well. The uniformity of the words of institution were profound.

Also: Most educated romans could speak Greek. Greek was the language of the Learned. Latin was then the vulgar tongue of the west, and hence the Latin Vulgatus translation of the bible.

The West developed several different ritual traditions, Gallican, Roman, Mozarabic, Celtic, Sarum, Ambrosian, Dominican, and a few others I can’t recall. Most of these were fairly close, differing in postural rubrics, and in some cases, positioning of a few prayers, in others, deletion or addition of prayers.

The Dominicans, and a few other orders, have their own Rite, which they still may use, which is subtly different from the TLM, but which has, by their own choice, fallen from common use.

The east developed 5 major traditions:
Alexandrian (Coptic)
Antiochian
Byzantine/Greek
Chaldean/Syriac
Armenian

Each of these has grown, and flourished, both in union with Rome and outside union with Rome, many with 2 or more liturgical forms.

 

[guanophore]

Does anyone know if there are any early church documents or any other documemts, that shed any insight into how the VERY first Christians celebrated the Holy Eaucharist? And where they were celebrated?

Is there any history of the Mass that shows how the Mass changed throughout the ages?

When do traditional Catholics understand to be when the Mass they prefer was finally formalized? And what makes it special over any other celebration today? The Mass they prefer had to start somewhere and sometime. So there has to have been many traditions prior to the current “traditional Mass”.

Thanks.

Here is an early description from Justin Martyr

“And 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. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”

The First Apology Ch. 67