D
De_Maria
Guest
A couple of weeks ago, on Catholic365, I asked the question, "Why is it called “the Mass”?
I followed that up with another article, The Mass, St. John chapter 6 and the test of faith.
Those articles trace the name of the Mass to the “unleavened bread” used in the Passover.
However, I was challenged by someone who says that I am opposing the Church. They claimed this was a Teaching from the early Church.
That is not the case, the oldest document I could find that ties the Mass to the dismissal, is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgy of the Mass. This article makes the claim that “mass” derives from the Latin “misa” in the dismissal of the Latin Mass. But I think I’ve detected several errors in the logic used to arrive at that conclusion.
If you don’t mind, let’s go through it together. If anyone can find a flaw in my logic, it is the folks at CA.
I’ll skip to the pertinent parts. But you can examine my findings in the link above.
Under the Category, “Name and Definition”
The first paragraph is an introduction to the theory that the word “misa” was not in extensive use in the first and second centuries. He says:
…the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.
I can’t disagree with that. The only thing to say, perhaps, is that there is really no way to know, since we don’t have very much from that early date.
The 2nd paragraph begins in the same vein. Relating how, in the first period (the first 300 years), even in Rome, the Greek language was the language of Christianity.
Nothing there with which to disagree. One thing to note, however, is that during that period, none of the names for the Mass signify a dismissal or departure. Many of them do make a reference to the Eucharist, such as, eucharistia and koinonia.
The 3rd paragraph begins the transition, in the West, from the Greek to the Latin language and the appearance of the word, misa. Let’s look at what he says:
All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: “The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer [dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people” (Ep., I, xx, 4-5). It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.
There are some very interesting things said there.
1st. He (St. Ambrose) dismissed the Catechumens.
How did he dismiss them? Did he use the word, “misa” in the sense of dismissal when he did so?
2nd. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers
How did they send them? Did they use the word, “misa” in the sense of sending when they did so?
Apparently not, I’m sure he would have said so since the entire point of this article is how “mass” is derived from a form of “dismissal”.
But there’s more.
3rd. But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi].
St. Ambrose uses the word “missa” for the Mass in such a matter of fact manner that the author is forced to admit,
It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.
In fact, St. Ambrose is using the term in the same way that it is used today. The author makes noise about it being a reference to the Liturgy of the Faithful. But, so what? It remains a reference to the Eucharist as he also admits.
Still on the 3rd paragraph, the author continues:
There is another, still earlier, but very doubtfully authentic instance of the word in a letter of Pope Pius I (from c. 142 to c. 157): “Euprepia has handed over possession of her house to the poor, where . . . we make Masses with our poor” (cum pauperibus nostris . . . missas agimus" — Pii I, Ep. I, in Galland, “Bibl. vet. patrum”, Venice, 1765, I, 672). The authenticity of the letter, however, is very doubtful. If Missa really occurred in the second century in the sense it now has, it would be surprising that it never occurs in the third. We may consider St. Ambrose as the earliest certain authority for it.
Personally, if that is the only reason he doubts the authenticity of this letter, then he has no grounds at all, except his own presupposition that it could not be true.
cont’d
I followed that up with another article, The Mass, St. John chapter 6 and the test of faith.
Those articles trace the name of the Mass to the “unleavened bread” used in the Passover.
However, I was challenged by someone who says that I am opposing the Church. They claimed this was a Teaching from the early Church.
That is not the case, the oldest document I could find that ties the Mass to the dismissal, is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgy of the Mass. This article makes the claim that “mass” derives from the Latin “misa” in the dismissal of the Latin Mass. But I think I’ve detected several errors in the logic used to arrive at that conclusion.
If you don’t mind, let’s go through it together. If anyone can find a flaw in my logic, it is the folks at CA.
I’ll skip to the pertinent parts. But you can examine my findings in the link above.
Under the Category, “Name and Definition”
The first paragraph is an introduction to the theory that the word “misa” was not in extensive use in the first and second centuries. He says:
…the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.
I can’t disagree with that. The only thing to say, perhaps, is that there is really no way to know, since we don’t have very much from that early date.
The 2nd paragraph begins in the same vein. Relating how, in the first period (the first 300 years), even in Rome, the Greek language was the language of Christianity.
Nothing there with which to disagree. One thing to note, however, is that during that period, none of the names for the Mass signify a dismissal or departure. Many of them do make a reference to the Eucharist, such as, eucharistia and koinonia.
The 3rd paragraph begins the transition, in the West, from the Greek to the Latin language and the appearance of the word, misa. Let’s look at what he says:
All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa. The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: “The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to be baptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer [dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people” (Ep., I, xx, 4-5). It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.
There are some very interesting things said there.
1st. He (St. Ambrose) dismissed the Catechumens.
How did he dismiss them? Did he use the word, “misa” in the sense of dismissal when he did so?
2nd. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers
How did they send them? Did they use the word, “misa” in the sense of sending when they did so?
Apparently not, I’m sure he would have said so since the entire point of this article is how “mass” is derived from a form of “dismissal”.
But there’s more.
3rd. But I remained at my place and began to say Mass [missam facere coepi].
St. Ambrose uses the word “missa” for the Mass in such a matter of fact manner that the author is forced to admit,
It will be noticed that missa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known.
In fact, St. Ambrose is using the term in the same way that it is used today. The author makes noise about it being a reference to the Liturgy of the Faithful. But, so what? It remains a reference to the Eucharist as he also admits.
Still on the 3rd paragraph, the author continues:
There is another, still earlier, but very doubtfully authentic instance of the word in a letter of Pope Pius I (from c. 142 to c. 157): “Euprepia has handed over possession of her house to the poor, where . . . we make Masses with our poor” (cum pauperibus nostris . . . missas agimus" — Pii I, Ep. I, in Galland, “Bibl. vet. patrum”, Venice, 1765, I, 672). The authenticity of the letter, however, is very doubtful. If Missa really occurred in the second century in the sense it now has, it would be surprising that it never occurs in the third. We may consider St. Ambrose as the earliest certain authority for it.
Personally, if that is the only reason he doubts the authenticity of this letter, then he has no grounds at all, except his own presupposition that it could not be true.
cont’d
