Why did Mass used to be Latin?

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Sorry, but not everyone lives in a multicultural city. And how much traveling do Italians do in Vietnam?

If what you say was important, at Pentacost they all would have spoken Latin.

Btw. the Divine Liturgy at Rome for the first centuries was in Greek (hence the Kyrie eleison,etc.). Latin was introduced by Pope Victor (from Latin Africa) towards the end of the second century, and did not take over until Damasus, in the 4th (the same Pope who commissioned St. Jerome).

 

[Gamera]

I was just wondering, why did Mass used to be in Latin?That doesnt really make sense because nobody could understand it.Latin is certainly a beautiful language, and its nice to have one every now and then, but what was the point of always having Mass in a language you couldnt speak?Jesus can understand ALL languages easily, but the congregation would understand the venacular better,so why did it used to be only Latin?

So that EVERYBODY, all over the world, could walk into any Catholic Church and hear and understand. Catholic children were TAUGHT Latin and therefore COULD understand every Mass they attended, even when they travelled abroad.

That’s the same reason that Latin became the universal language of medicine and science – so that everyone around the world could understand it.

 

[holy_roamer]

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!

Truthfully, and I don’t mean this to promote any particular church, but millions upon millions turned to Protestantism. Especially, the educated and the immigrants from Europe seeking religious freedom here in America. At one time, Christianity could be classified as Protestant America and Catholic Europe.

This is only my own belief, but the Holy Spirit is able to work through folklore when it’s done in innocents, as long as the name of Jesus is used. There are quite a few places in the Bible where is says, “in my name you will” referring to Jesus‘ name“. Also, He said, “my sheep know my voice” It’s logical to assume that those poor souls wouldn’t have been there in church if they weren’t His sheep.

Hope this helps.

.

 

[socalsurfnici]

I just wanted to throw out my theory on why masses were in Latin. First off, the word “catholic” means “universal.” And the Catholic church has done far better than any other church to try to make their services universal. For example, they wanted the format, and before Vatican II the format included the languages, to all be the same, thus no matter where you were it was just like your old church and the service was performed the same. Second off, if you watch the UN every country is speaking their own language and there are hundreds of translator’s translating everyone’s view. So if all priests were taught to speak in Latin wouldn’t it be easier if all the priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. had a meeting since they all spoke the same language thus making a quicker and easier meeting. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[markadm]

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.

What on earth do you mean by the last part? It’s definitely part of cultures–where do you think the disparaging term “hocus pocus” comes from?

Second off, if you watch the UN every country is speaking their own language and there are hundreds of translator’s translating everyone’s view. So if all priests were taught to speak in Latin wouldn’t it be easier if all the priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. had a meeting since they all spoke the same language thus making a quicker and easier meeting. Maybe, maybe not.

Priests used to do this, yes. Sadly now, I’m not sure it would be possible. However, the Church still mandates a proper study of Latin for all ordinands–see Pastores Dabo Vobis, if memory serves–but I’m not sure all Dioceses stick to this.

 

[holy_roamer]

What on earth do you mean by the last part? It’s definitely part of cultures–where do you think the disparaging term “hocus pocus” comes from.

Yes, but the Latin Mass was a contemporary humanities during the time of Jesus, not during 1969 when the Liberation was the dominating influence of the humanities. The community colleges offer an evening course in Contemporary Humanities if your are interested. If you take that course you will notice how church architectural, music, and liberal policies coincided with World during 1969. What I’m trying to say is, “the Tridentine Latin Mass is the original stuff.”

I cut and paste this from the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest web site:

Addressing some misconceptions:

The Classical/Traditional Latin Mass is not a product of the 16th-century Council of Trent.

The history of the Traditional Latin Mass, whose latest version dates from 1962, traces back to the beginnings of Christianity. The Mass went through organic, gradual development throughout the centuries. The first written record of the Prayers of the Latin Mass is found in a 6th-century manuscript (Leonine Sacramentary). The Roman Latin Mass was codified and made universal in the 16th century by Pope St. Pius V because of the liturgical confusion then reigning. As this codification was part of the measures taken by the Council of Trent, the Traditional Latin Mass has often been called “Tridentine Mass.” After this, as before, small, incremental changes were made to the Missal (book containing texts and prayer for Mass) in the centuries following, the latest being made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. In 1969 Pope Paul VI promulgated a new Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) designed by an appointed committee, based on the Traditional Mass but with substantial changes to it, particularly in the Offertory prayers.

Another area of secular study that is helpful in understanding the old Latin Mass is a good college course in Folklore, or what some call Sacred Narrative. When listening to a story told by a person from a different culture over a campfire or during a church homily, the receiving person can perceive the words with entirely different emotions than the than the story teller thought he presented. The same held true during 1969 here in the modern western civilization when substantial changes were made to the Mass. In other words, the people wanting Liberation were hearing the words of the new Mass with entirely different emotions than what the Priest was presenting to them.

One thing is for sure, the Tridentine Latin Mass is not part of the contemporary humanities of the 60’s.

.

 

[markadm]

Yes, but the Latin Mass was a contemporary humanities during the time of Jesus, not during 1969 when the Liberation was the dominating influence of the humanities. The community colleges offer an evening course in Contemporary Humanities if your are interested. If you take that course you will notice how church architectural, music, and liberal policies coincided with World during 1969. What I’m trying to say is, “the Tridentine Latin Mass is the original stuff.”

…One thing is for sure, the Tridentine Latin Mass is not part of the contemporary humanities of the 60’s.

I think I understand you, but really I was confused. Personally, I don’t identify with the 60s and would not like to think of the humanities and cultural milieu of the times being associated with that. I would prefer a wider range, thinking that worship, architecture, rite, music, etc., would be consonant with, say, the “1900s”. I see the 60s as a sad blip, part of the post-war descent into plastic and mass-production!

 

[holy_roamer]

I think I understand you, but really I was confused. Personally, I don’t identify with the 60s and would not like to think of the humanities and cultural milieu of the times being associated with that. I would prefer a wider range, thinking that worship, architecture, rite, music, etc., would be consonant with, say, the “1900s”. I see the 60s as a sad blip, part of the post-war descent into plastic and mass-production!

Yes, I’m in full agreement with your Year 1900 figure, because of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles. That revival occurred in 1906 and was conducted by William Seymour a black minister. It spread throughout the World like wild fire. By the way, my gifts of the Spirit originate with that Pentecost, and when I lay hands it passes on that outpouring. The Catholics also had their outpouring, so during Healing Masses when laying on of hands for healing occur, it will most likely be the outpouring from the Catholic side. We will have one of those Healing Masses with the Bishop present next month, and it will be during the usual Novus Ordo Missae in English in a very contemporary architectural church building.

Apparently, the Latin Mass is not required for faith healing? I narrow it down to whether a person has faith in the old Latin Mass or faith in Jesus. Or, faith in faith rather than faith in Jesus. Jesus it the healer.

I lived through that “sad blip of the 60’s”, and remember how the Latin Mass fell by the wayside at that time. Do you think it’s time to put that bad blip behind us and return to the Tridentine Mass in Latin?

.

 

[markadm]

holy_roamer, I’m sorry if it sounded as though I were denigrating everything new. I’m not. However, I would rather that modern architecture, forms of the Mass, etc., were a continuation of the older milieu, rather than being children of the 60s. Does that make sense? I suppose I’m trying to talk about a continuity here, as opposed to rupture.

 

[holy_roamer]

holy_roamer, I’m sorry if it sounded as though I were denigrating everything new. I’m not. However, I would rather that modern architecture, forms of the Mass, etc., were a continuation of the older milieu, rather than being children of the 60s. Does that make sense? I suppose I’m trying to talk about a continuity here, as opposed to rupture.

This weekend we had a huge two day Scottish Rite event at the County Fairgrounds, and it looks like we have more Scots here in California than you have in Scotland. If you get into the Priesthood will the Scottish Rite give you a hard time?

Getting back to continuity between NO and the old Latin Mass, I think it would be easier for you to convert the Scottish Rite to Catholic. Lets pray that the Beatle Fans cave in and join the Latin Mass with us.

.