Latin Mass

banquo

Hey,

whereabouts in Dublin would I find a mass in Latin?

Manach

This is a source of info for the Tridentine Mass.
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/Mass_Times/LatinMass.htm

11.00
Pro-Cathedral (Solemn Sung Latin Mass).

11.00
St. Audeon's, High Street

Kevin_rc_ie

i met a young man studying Biblical and Theological studies in Trinity College and he said there was a latin mass on the quays during the week. he also mentioned the church had been excommunicated from the RC church also. Sorry i've nothing more specific to say.

Excelsior

St. John's in Dun Laoghaire is a Latin mass church.

leftofcentre

There is one round the corner from me in Belfast. I have never been to one, but i might confess the punters who go to it are a weird looking bunch.

They look like something from the Victorian age, they give me the creeps when i pass them.

I am a liberal sort and i could not care if people want mass in swaheli, but really whats the point when you can't undertstand whats going on?

Manach

Well latin still retains its role as a lingua-franca of the Church. To have Mass said in latin would been a language neutral choice, especially in the polyglot culture of Dublin. Besides, it is fairly easy to gain a bit of knowledge of the language; there is a good number of web sites promoting Church/Classical latin.

Michael G

I just found this thread through Google. The Mass in St Audoen's at 11.00 on Sundays is in the pre-Vatican 1962 rite but has the approval (indult) of the Archbishop. The Mass in St John's in Dun Laoghaire (twice a day both Sundays and weekdays) is celebrated by priests of the Society of St Pius X, which is officially excommunicated although the new Pope had a friendly meeting with their prelate some time ago. Both the new Pope and his predecessor have encouraged bishops to allow the traditional Mass.

The Latin Mass on Sundays in the Pro-Cathedral is the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo — the same liturgy as what you get in most churches, but in Latin and without all the bad taste.

There is an Irish Latin Mass Society which doesn't oppose the post-Vatican II rite (for which you get stamped on by bishops and priests who were young when all that stuff happened and still think it is the ***'* ******** (rude expression concealed in asterisks)) — see http://indigo.ie/~colmgren/latsoc/.

NewOxfordReview

The old mass is amazing.

Cantab.

Michael G wrote:

The Latin Mass on Sundays in the Pro-Cathedral is the post-Vatican II Novus Ordo — the same liturgy as what you get in most churches, but in Latin and without all the bad taste.

Bad taste??? I would say the Pro-Cathedral Latin new Mass is in bad taste! I agree with NewOxfordReview - Old Mass is class!

Michael G

Yes, but it is vastly better than the alternative. However, better still to go to St Audoen's or St John's.

howdareyou

Why is the pro cathedral's novus ordo mass in its original language in bad taste?

Michael G

howdareyou wrote:

Why is the pro cathedral's novus ordo mass in its original language in bad taste?

The Novus Ordo doesn't have to be in bad taste, whether it is in Latin or in English. Unfortunately it often is. The "Sign of Peace" is particularly horrible, but the crass ad-libs that priests insert all over the place are just as bad. And as for the homilies, God help us.

But there is another aspect which I think is the most important of all. I was at a Novus Ordo Mass in Dublin a few years ago, celebrated by an African priest who was standing in for the usual clergy during the holidays. He looked about 30. The grace and dignity of his movements and gestures were a startling contrast to the hurried shuffle and jerky movements we are used to, and they made the liturgy very different. In the Tridentine Mass, every movement was prescribed. The Novus Ordo leaves too much open to the discretion of the priest. How many of us have a natural grace or presence? The proportion among priests is just the same. For a priest who is just ordinary like most of us, the Novus Ordo leaves too many opportunities for banality.

UU

I remember going to a Latin mass once upon a time in Dublin. I couldn't understand what anyone was saying though but it sounded nice anyway! Has anyone ever heard a mass in Irish? That would be rather interesting too. When I was in France, my Protestant correspondent invited me to a Calvinist French mass. I couldn't understand a word at the time but I understood "Notre Père" That was "Our Father" in French.

NewOxfordReview

When someone says "latin mass" they don't usually mean (new) mass in latin, as you mean when you say mass in Irish. They mean the old, tridentine, mass.

And yesterday was a holy day in the old calendar!

UU

NewOxfordReview wrote:

When someone says "latin mass" they don't usually mean (new) mass in latin, as you mean when you say mass in Irish. They mean the old, tridentine, mass.

And yesterday was a holy day in the old calendar!

Oh I thought it was speaking mass in Latin the language the Catholic Church adopted for centuries. What's a tridentine mass then, I'm rather curious? What's the difference between that and the usual masses they hold in Catholic churches today? Do the RC Church have an old calender also? Is it the same as the Hebrew calender the Jews follow?

Vangelis

I'm veru crious about this too. But why do people want to attend a mass in Latin? Do Catholics know what is being said? Do all Catholics know Latin? (I know it's a silly question. )

NewOxfordReview

Both the Tridentine (codified at the council of Trent, hence Tridentine) and the New, or Pauline (after Pope Paul VI) mass are in Latin. The tridentine mass was never (to my knowledge) celebrated in the vernacular; nowadays the new mass is usually celebrated exclusively in the vernacular, which was never the intention of the Second Vatican Council: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36)


The Pauline mass was promulgated in 1970 and is similar in structure to the old mass, with extra scripture readings and extra anaphoras (eucharistic prayers) to choose from. However, the whole thing is almost like a cutdown version of the old, with many prayers shortened and others ommitted.

To make matters worse, the English translation we hear is more of a paraphrase of the latin original than a translation. One of the worst examples, just before the Our Father:

Praeceptis salutaribus moniti, et divina institutione formati, audemus dicere

translates directly into English as:

Directed by saving precepts and schooled in divine teaching, we make bold to say

But we hear at mass:

Let us pray with confidence to the Father in the words our Saviour gave us

This miserable state of affairs should be remedied soon: a new translation has been prepared and is expected to be promulgated soon. Expect also to soon be saying "and with your spirit" instead of "and also with you". How the ICEL translators got "and also with you" from "et cum spiritu tuo" is a mystery.

When I mentioned the old calendar before, I was referring to the liturgical calendar: what days pertain to which saint or feast and what readings pertain to the day. The new liturgical calendar follows a cycle of (I think) three years; the old only one.

Vangelis, yes people do know what is being said. People are encouraged to use a Latin-English missal and before long it's very easy to follow and understand. There are many reasons to use latin: universality, the sense of timelessness, unity, the changing meaning of vernacular words, and others. I'm sure there are essays on the value of Latin in the liturgy somewhere on the Internet.

UU

I heard Latin is a very difficult language to learn. My great-grandfather whom I never knew could speak it fluently as well as Irish! Latin is a very ancient language which pre-dates Christianity as it was the language of the Roman Empire. I wonder why the Church decided to retain the language as the Romans persecuted Christians and took Armenian, the language of Jesus instead?

Michael G

UU wrote:

I heard Latin is a very difficult language to learn. I wonder why the Church decided to retain the language as the Romans persecuted Christians and took Armenian, the language of Jesus instead?

It's not difficult to learn, particularly if you know any French, Spanish or Italian because they are all developments of Latin. Furthermore Church Latin is very simple, unlike the Latin of Roman literature. If you go to a Latin Mass and have a Missal (that is, a book with the words of the Mass in it — apologies if anyone things I am being patronising in explaining the term, but I don't think people who were not brought up as Catholics would understand it), it will have the Latin and an English translation in two columns side by side. After hearing it a few times you will know immediately what is happening. In the Latin Mass that is said with permission from the bishops, using the 1962 Missal (like the one in St Audoen's on Sunday mornings), the priest reads the Epistle and Gospel in English. From what I have seen of the Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St Pius X (like the ones in St John's Church in Dun Laoghaire), they follow an earlier Missal where the Epistle and Gospel are read in Latin only.

Why did the Church use Latin? For two reasons: first of all, all educated people spoke Latin up to the 18th century, but the more important reason is that it was a dead language. Therefore the meaning of words was fixed forever, so there was no danger of disagreements about what they meant. If you look at the King James Bible of the Church of England, or their Book of Common Prayer, they both contain some of the most beautiful English every written. However large parts of them would be incomprehensible even to educated English-speakers today, because they were written early in the 17th century and the meanings of many words have changed since then.

NewOxfordReview

UU, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Armenian! Only the Latin rite of the Catholic Church uses Latin; others use Coptic, Syriac and other languages. Including Armenian, I think!

Michael, in theory both the SSPX and Indult masses are by the 1962 missal. At St Audeon's on Sundays the priest reads the epistle and gospel in the same way as you describe (in Latin) and then reads them again in English from the pulpit before his sermons. I believe it's the same at St John's.

Some people might be interested to learn that a small part of mass is in Greek — the Kyrie (Lord have Mercy).

robindch

> Why did the Church use Latin? For two reasons: first of all,
> all educated people spoke Latin up to the 18th century, but
> the more important reason is that it was a dead language.
> Therefore the meaning of words was fixed forever

While I go along with your first reason, your second reason is debatable. I believe that the church stayed with latin (as it stayed with greek) for as long as possible because almost nobody could speak it except the people who'd been through church-controlled schools where it was taught. This allows the church to control who gets access to the holy texts which provide the "divine right to rule" owned by the ruler and the administrative class. Using a single language also makes it much easier to administer a wide-area pseudo-empire.

Also (quoting from here), just as the christian authorities kept their holy book in Greek for as long as possible, so too do Jews keep the Talmud in Hebrew, Muslims keep the Qu'ran in classical arabic, Sikhs keep the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi and so on and so on. The same classically effective control tactics are used time and time again by religious leaders to keep their followers in a dark where they control access to the light switch.

Excelsior

I have to agree with Robin's diagnosis of the use of latin. I'll stand happily in my dissenting tradition. Us Presbies translate the Bible into any language we can find.

Dyr

Michael G wrote:

Why did the Church use Latin? For two reasons: first of all, all educated people spoke Latin up to the 18th century, but the more important reason is that it was a dead language. Therefore the meaning of words was fixed forever, so there was no danger of disagreements about what they meant. If you look at the King James Bible of the Church of England, or their Book of Common Prayer, they both contain some of the most beautiful English every written. However large parts of them would be incomprehensible even to educated English-speakers today, because they were written early in the 17th century and the meanings of many words have changed since then.

Something else to bear in mind is that once you understood mass in latin then you could basically travel anywhere in the world and still understand it. Nowadays you'd have to understand the local lingo

As for irish, i learned all my prayers in irish and attended irish masses as a nipper, i dont actually know most prayers in english

:v: < not that he ever actually goes to mass anyway

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

I have to agree with Robin's diagnosis of the use of latin. I'll stand happily in my dissenting tradition. Us Presbies translate the Bible into any language we can find.

It also aplies to in my crowd to a huge degree.
To me this is one of the root causes of why we are in the state we are in today.

Yossie

robindch wrote:

.... just as the christian authorities kept their holy book in Greek for as long as possible, so too do Jews keep the Talmud in Hebrew, Muslims keep the Qu'ran in classical arabic, Sikhs keep the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi and so on and so on. The same classically effective control tactics are used time and time again by religious leaders to keep their followers in a dark where they control access to the light switch.

I agree totally, but as a "mea culpa" gesture , it's probably fair to include a lot of early scientific works in that bracket, too. And to a good extent for the same reasons of keeping knowledge (is power) away from the masses.

NewOxfordReview

People might be interested to see this:

http://indigo.ie/~colmgren/latsoc/template/martin_pics.html

robindch

> It's probably fair to include a lot of early scientific works in that bracket,
> too. And to a good extent for the same reasons of keeping knowledge (is
> power) away from the masses.

Up to a point, but in this case, I suspect that people were at least as interested in having people in distant countries be able to read their work, at least as much as any interest they might have had in hiding it from locals.

BTW, without looking at this very closely, I've suspected that it was only around the time of the development of the printing press that the demand arose for personal copies of holybooks -- since the per-copy cost of a printed edition is far less than of a handwritten edition -- and Gutenberg opened up the floodgates by printing (surprise, surprise!) his bible. Once the population began to get their hands on the holybooks in the appropriate and dead religious language, the next thing was to translate them into the vernacular, which Luther did around 70 years after Gutenberg. Once the populace could read their "own" holybooks, they no longer needed a religious class to "interpret" the texts for them, hence the schism/reformation and the ultimate demise of much of the political power of the catholic church, specifically to introduce flexible decentralized authorities to replace centralized ones. And from this small developments, religion-as-replicator-only began, very, very slowly, to displace religion-as-administrative-justification, its original purpose. So these days, five centuries later, we find that religion is very often concerned only with "evangelization" (propagating to you and me), and outside of the USA, nowhere near as intimately involved with the administrative classes as it once used to be.

Or, to look at it from a slightly different angle: ultimately, religious texts in the vernacular are evolutionarily more will adapted to propagate than hidden texts in dead languages. So, with the passage of time, the use of dead languages declined, except where they're also useful as a political binding agent, as they are in hebrew-speaking Israel, arab-speaking muslim countries and so on.