Why did Mass used to be Latin?

[palmas85]

The language of the Roman Church is Latin. All official documents are in Latin and the official rite of the Mass is in Latin. Every other language that it is celebrated in is done by permission of the Vatican. Latin can be used for ALL Masses and the Vatican could tomorrow say that henceforth all Masses will be in Latin and only in Latin. They have the authority to do it.

That is why the Mass used to be in Latin.

** It is the Official Language of the Roman Church
**

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If you go to angelqueen.org/missal/ you will find links to the propers, which include the Epistle and Gospel, for all Sundays.

Im BOOKMARKING that!

edit: DANG it is sspx

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Mass still is in Latin. What are you talking about??? Even the Novus Ordo the Mass is in Latin… the English is only offered via an indult.

 

[holy_roamer]

Im BOOKMARKING that!

edit: DANG it is sspx

What is sspx?

.

 

[LilyM]

I grew up in Philadelphia. Lots of 1st generation immigrants. A given parish could have Italian, Irish, Polish, German, Spanish, later even Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese people. So which ‘vernacular’ Mass would you offer?

Think about it. Most of us had missals. . . I still have three myself, one English/Latin, one German/Latin, and one French/Latin. There were Spanish/Latin, Polish/Latin, even Italian/Latin (there isn’t MUCH difference but there is some), etc. missals.

All of those groups above could go into church with their missals, read the ‘Latin’ on the one side and whatever ‘vernacular’ language was their language on the other. . .and understand.

One “Latin” language Mass could be followed by all the above.
How many Italians can follow along at a Vietnamese Mass? How many Germans or Americans at a French or Spanish Mass?

Having a Latin Mass was more universal, catholic and welcoming to ALL groups than the current rather divisive practice of ‘one’ usually ‘majority’ Mass today in many larger and more diverse areas.

Bully for you. The fact remains that until 150 years ago the majority - the vast majority - of people of all countries couldn’t read. Not their vernacular languages, and most certainly not Latin. What advantage to them then?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Wow, Lily.

As another poster mentioned earlier, in those earlier, ‘pre literate’ days, most people did know one or more languages, orally, at least enough to handle the basics of communication.

What makes you think that a person whose main language was ‘oral’ English, say, or French, did NOT or COULD NOT handle enough Latin to understand the basics. Did not have parents, family, and friends to help them to understand?

150 years ago is pushing it SLIGHTLY here in America, but we’ll use 1800, say, and talk about three poor families who have moved to the U.S… . .one French, one Highland Scots, and one Spanish. All have come from areas where the Mass has historically been available and most people ‘devout’. None can ‘read or write’.

So what makes you absolutely assured that these people go to a Mass in Latin and, because it isn’t in French, or Gaelic/English, or Spanish, that they 'don’t get anything out of it?"

Quite frankly, if you look at the attendance records when available, the noted devotional practices, etc., those ‘pre literate’ people attending those ‘awful and unintelligible’ Latin masses appear to not only have ‘understood’ what was going on better than a lot of people attending a vernacular Mass, they also appear to have understood Church teachings a bit better as well. Sure, they didn’t always PRACTICE the teachings (we don’t always either) but when they didn’t, they KNEW THEY WERE WRONG, they didn’t try to ‘change’ the teaching or argue that they were ‘right’. . .these latter views are much more likely to be seen among very ‘literate’ and ‘well educated’ and ‘participatory’ people in this time.

I’ll tell you what, though.

I’m perfectly willing to say that SOME PEOPLE in history may have gone to a Mass in Latin and didn’t get as ‘much’ out of it as they could have were it presented in their ‘own language’. . .

IF. . .
YOU are prepared to acknowledge that SOME PEOPLE go to a Mass in their vernacular and do not get as ‘much’ out of it as they could, even though it IS in their language.

IOW, sometimes it is not the LANGUAGE that is at fault, but the PERSON HIM/HERSELF.

 

[LilyM]

Wow, Lily.

As another poster mentioned earlier, in those earlier, ‘pre literate’ days, most people did know one or more languages, orally, at least enough to handle the basics of communication.

What makes you think that a person whose main language was ‘oral’ English, say, or French, did NOT or COULD NOT handle enough Latin to understand the basics. Did not have parents, family, and friends to help them to understand?

150 years ago is pushing it SLIGHTLY here in America, but we’ll use 1800, say, and talk about three poor families who have moved to the U.S… . .one French, one Highland Scots, and one Spanish. All have come from areas where the Mass has historically been available and most people ‘devout’. None can ‘read or write’.

So what makes you absolutely assured that these people go to a Mass in Latin and, because it isn’t in French, or Gaelic/English, or Spanish, that they 'don’t get anything out of it?"

Quite frankly, if you look at the attendance records when available, the noted devotional practices, etc., those ‘pre literate’ people attending those ‘awful and unintelligible’ Latin masses appear to not only have ‘understood’ what was going on better than a lot of people attending a vernacular Mass, they also appear to have understood Church teachings a bit better as well. Sure, they didn’t always PRACTICE the teachings (we don’t always either) but when they didn’t, they KNEW THEY WERE WRONG, they didn’t try to ‘change’ the teaching or argue that they were ‘right’. . .these latter views are much more likely to be seen among very ‘literate’ and ‘well educated’ and ‘participatory’ people in this time.

I’ll tell you what, though.

I’m perfectly willing to say that SOME PEOPLE in history may have gone to a Mass in Latin and didn’t get as ‘much’ out of it as they could have were it presented in their ‘own language’. . .

IF. . .
YOU are prepared to acknowledge that SOME PEOPLE go to a Mass in their vernacular and do not get as ‘much’ out of it as they could, even though it IS in their language.

IOW, sometimes it is not the LANGUAGE that is at fault, but the PERSON HIM/HERSELF.

Oh they went - certainly they understood that it was a sin not to go, if nothing else. Since THAT was explained to them in their own language, not in Latin. They also were subject to social ostracism or criticism from their families and communities, in many cases, if they didn’t.

They understood transubstantiation, so they knew what happened. Again because that was told them in their own language, not Latin. They knew when it happened because a bell rang to tell them so, not because they ever heard Our Lord’s glorious words ‘This is My Body’ and ‘This is My Blood’ in their own language. Which is sad.

The problem today, if my humble opinion is worth anything, is not really lack of understanding. We are still told at least the same basic truths often enough, provided we listen, to know 'em. And are as intelligent as our forebears. So we do understand, for the most part. Many simply don’t believe any more, in the face of mass media which constantly take the irreligious ‘God is dead’ point of view, and families and even priests who tell them if they don’t fully beleive it’s fine not to go.

So the main problems are two. One is lack of belief. You can tell someone a hundred times over that missing mass is a mortal sin or that Christ is really and transubstantially present in the Eucharist - if they don’t believe they don’t believe.

That’s why two of my four sisters never darken the doorstep of a church any more whereas the other two do fairly often, and myself more than once a week. We were all taught by the same priests and nuns, raised by the same devout parents and so on. Lack of belief, rather than lack of understanding or teaching, is the only explanation for the difference.

The other is lack of social reinforcement of religion - which is usually portrayed negatively, or else totally ignored, in our modern media.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And if my reply lacked in charity in any way–which the Lord knows is possible–please accept my apology.

While we have different perspectives on what people may–or may not–have experienced in attending a Mass in what was not their ‘primary’ language, I do not think that we disagree on the main point: It is not a lack of understanding of a language which is the main cause of lack of understanding of truth, it is the refusal, even when things are explained ‘in our own language’, to accept a truth which is the problem.

You and I apparently both know this, having relatives who were given the same teaching etc. and which you and I have both taken care to understand as much as possible, and to seek further explanation when we have difficulty, whereas they ‘have ears but do not hear’, or have taken a ‘different’ understanding.

Having been a young child when Mass was ‘still’ normatively in Latin, and perhaps coming from what is now perceived as an ‘abnormal’ tradition of being taught or studying more than one language as a matter of course, I do find it a weakening and a lessening, rather than a ‘sadness’, that people think that ‘only’ their (usually, their ONLY) language is sufficient to convey ‘understanding’. I find that limiting. But again, that is my perspective. I don’t try to push that on everyone but I do submit it for consideration, at least equally, with the perspective that it is ‘only if we hear what we ‘best’ understand, language wise’ that we CAN understand.

In so far as the media attention; yes, it may have a negative impact, but again (here comes the historical worldview that is an integral part of me), ‘negative media impacts’ regarding the Catholic faith are nothing NEW. I could give you chapter and verse on the anti-Catholic history of the U.S., not to mention other countries, that in many cases involved not just negative ‘words or pictures’ as we see on the internet and TV, but actual refusal of employment, starvation, lynchings, and persecutions. . . yes, even ‘here’. The world will always hate us.

And social reinforcement is exactly what we ‘had’ back in those days of “Latin Masses”. Even if some people are rejoicing in actually hearing “In English” what they might otherwise have either had to “read along” or what they might have only known through ‘interpretation into their own language’–wasn’t that INTERPRETATION ITSELF a SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT? That’s just a thought. Certainly we could use more social reinforcement today, no matter what our language preference, as well as more thorough and consistent education and more positive reinforcement to practice what was preached.

Now today, I do understand and agree that both ‘sides’ if you will can go much too far. I do not think someone who wishes, “English only” is a LESSER person, a LESSER Catholic, or in any way INFERIOR, at all. For them, it is a valid need, and God be thanked we have to offer them what they need. But. . .for those for whom “Latin” is a valid need, God be thanked it is now again available.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Bully for you. The fact remains that until 150 years ago the majority - the vast majority - of people of all countries couldn’t read. Not their vernacular languages, and most certainly not Latin. What advantage to them then?

If Mass is in Latin and you can’t speak it, but the man next to you in the pew can, that can be divisive.

However it is an awful lot more divisive if Mass is in English, and you can’t read the missalette, whilst the man next to you in the pew can.

 

[markadm]

It seems to me that this thread is getting all worked up, when it’s not necessary. I dearly love the Latin Mass, but I appreciate there are those who feel disenfranchised. Yet, I do not understand it, for though I never studied Latin at school, I can quite easily understand most of what is said ‘to the people’, and where not am perfectly capable of fishing about in my Missal to find out!

 

[holy_roamer]

I should remind everyone that my grandfather from Eastern Europe only went as far as the third grade in school, and most of what he told me about Catholicism during the late 40’s and all though the 50’s turned out to be folklore. People just didn’t have the means to send their kids to college back during WWI when he was a kid. My mother went as far as the 8th grade and my father dropped out sometime during high school, and they were part of the “Great Generation” of WWII. I didn’t get any theological information from them either. The priest in our small town during the 50’s was probably a reject from somewhere? He didn’t sound like a theologian either.

What I’m trying to say is that the theological information that we are getting from this Internet Forum just wasn’t available to laypeople when the Latin Mass was popular. That is why I include the local folk religion along with the Latin Mass. A good example is the Book of Tobit that is Jewish Folklore and is part of the Catholic Bible. The stories that were passed down from generation to generation about the Latin Mass must also be part of it, because that is how the Holy Spirit was interpreted by the laypeople.

.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Seems to me that almost everyone brought to Mass a Latin-English missal … and they could follow along in both languages.

People did just fine.

Of interest, I went to a seminar a few years ago at which as part of the seminar, a Mass was offered, and they said it in Latin, and even though there were a huge number of people under the age of 30, everyone seemed to know the Latin responses.

 

[LilyM]

Seems to me that almost everyone brought to Mass a Latin-English missal … and they could follow along in both languages.

People did just fine.

Of interest, I went to a seminar a few years ago at which as part of the seminar, a Mass was offered, and they said it in Latin, and even though there were a huge number of people under the age of 30, everyone seemed to know the Latin responses.

Darlin’ all of this is because you live in a time and place where literacy (at least in English) is common and books relatively cheap and plentiful. Imagine your average illiterate person 200 years ago going into Church and hearing only Latin - how much did they understand?

And illiteracy was a real problem up until the mid 1800s. One example from wiki - in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to EVEN sign their names let alone write anything else. A lot of those who DID sign again wouldn’t have been able to do more than write their own names. America wouldn’t have been any better. What help would an English-Latin missal have been to such people really, do you think?

What was the seminar on and where was it held, may I ask? That may have a bearing on how well people know their Latin. I don’t know much myself, and I know one of my local churches has started introducing some Latin into their masses and people seriously don’t know the Latin prayers or responses at all for the most part. And the majority of 'em are certainly of a pre-Vatican 2 age group who you’d think would remember it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Two hundred years ago and further back than that, people were not only unable to read and write, but often their facility in their native language was limited as well.

There wasn’t much education, period.

It’s a miracle that Christianity survived.

Check out “How the Irish Saved Civilization”.

But people do and did pick up little snippets of Latin here and there.

The time period of when folks carried missals to Mass was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Little pocket missals. Complete and inexpensive. Some folks spent money for thicker and fancier books with larger printing and some illumination. I had a couple of the small ones and one of gifts that I asked for was for a fancier book (which I did receive) … but sadly got lost during my many moves.

There is another thread hereabouts about the amount of Biblical knowledge possessed ( or not )by Catholics. I remarked that one of my friends made the comment that Catholics learn about their religion “by osmosis”. Sort of humorous, in an ironic sort of way. [He was actually responding to a Hindu fellow worker who had studied religion back in India and who knew more Catholic “stuff” than the Catholics here in the USA.]

I will have to meditate and contemplate my navel to recall the year of that seminar. Karl Keating was there … first time I had met him. And Father Peter Stravinskus was also a presenter and said the Mass. It was at the Tarrytown (NY) Hilton hotel, if I recall correctly.]

Actually I’m virtually flaberglasted that there are folks today who don’t know even a minimum of Latin responses. Many English Masses in the East Coast of the United States have little pieces of Latin here and there.

Pax Vobiscum.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Here’s the other thread, which has kind of gotten into the area of how well Catholics know their faith and why and etc.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180613

 

[markadm]

Actually I’m virtually flaberglasted that there are folks today who don’t know even a minimum of Latin responses. Many English Masses in the East Coast of the United States have little pieces of Latin here and there.

Lucky! Latin is never used in my home Parish, sadly.

I feel like saying to people “you know why no-one knows Latin? Because it’s never used!!”

 

[dessert]

Two hundred years ago and further back than that, people were not only unable to read and write, but often their facility in their native language was limited as well.

There wasn’t much education, period.

It’s a miracle that Christianity survived.

Check out “How the Irish Saved Civilization”.

But people do and did pick up little snippets of Latin here and there.

The time period of when folks carried missals to Mass was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Little pocket missals. Complete and inexpensive. Some folks spent money for thicker and fancier books with larger printing and some illumination. I had a couple of the small ones and one of gifts that I asked for was for a fancier book (which I did receive) … but sadly got lost during my many moves.

There is another thread hereabouts about the amount of Biblical knowledge possessed ( or not )by Catholics. I remarked that one of my friends made the comment that Catholics learn about their religion “by osmosis”. Sort of humorous, in an ironic sort of way. [He was actually responding to a Hindu fellow worker who had studied religion back in India and who knew more Catholic “stuff” than the Catholics here in the USA.]

I will have to meditate and contemplate my navel to recall the year of that seminar. Karl Keating was there … first time I had met him. And Father Peter Stravinskus was also a presenter and said the Mass. It was at the Tarrytown (NY) Hilton hotel, if I recall correctly.]

Actually I’m virtually flaberglasted that there are folks today who don’t know even a minimum of Latin responses. Many English Masses in the East Coast of the United States have little pieces of Latin here and there.

Pax Vobiscum.

We never had misssals except for the children ones with the english of the important prayers that we had to learn, we got one at communion. That is because all you had to do was say Amen.
I took Latin in HS because it was required for college but still in church all you had to do was say Amen. The priest said it all.
Dessert

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

This appears to be quite controversial:shrug: Yes,maybe it did make sense to have it in Latin.

 

[holy_roamer]

This appears to be quite controversial:shrug: Yes,maybe it did make sense to have it in Latin.

Yes, I think that we can conclude that Latin kept the original Mass from becoming part of the local folklore up until 1969 when Pope Paul VI promulgated a new Mass (Novus Ordo Missae). Whether or not the new Mass is intermingled with contemporary humanities would be a subject for another thread. But one thing is for sure, the Tridentine Latin Mass is not part of any contemporary humanities.

.

 

[ravenonthecross]

Before, the advent of widespread literacy, how did the laity, understand the mass, pray, and learn the Catholic Faith,and the Tridentine Mass? I mean, the Church couldn’t have perpetuated the faith, without the laity understanding atleast, some of the Holy Mass? Please help me, understand this folks! Thanks!