The Mass of Vatican II

Catholic Dossier ^ | REV. JOSEPH FESSIO S.J.

[Catholicguy]

Because Bach was writing music for the Roman Catholic Church and he set the music to the texts the RCC used.

<>Bach was a Lutheran who wrote the majority of his work for the German Lutheran Church. He was not writing Latin for the German Lutheran Church

[Catholicguy]

Christ as their Messiah?

<> Please cite for us the decree in which that appears and in what paragraph. Please reproduce those words from that decree; name of decree and relevant passages please.

Thank you

Please provide what I asked for rather than a link to another thread. Thank you

[Catholicguy]

They understood the vernacula language the priest spoke when he read the OT, Epistle and Gospel to them in their own language. They continued to undersatnd him when he spoke his sermon in the vernacular. They learned about the Catholic Doctrines via Sermons and their families - many, presumably, which spoke the vernacular language :)

[Polycarp]

What's your take on the Vatican issuing a decree/doctrine that Jews are NOT WRONG to reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah?

They did no such thing, you lying swine.

[RobbyS]

I was surprised to learn in a recent book(The Book by Christopher de Hamel) how many thousands of Latin Bibles were in circulation during the late Middle Ages. Furthermore, there was Lollard Bibles. Church authorities had removed them them from the hands of families with heretical views and put them in the hands of pious Catholics. But virtually any literate person who wanted one could get hold of a Bible.

[ninenot]

Actually, JSB was writing mostly for the Lutherans. Perhaps you have never noticed, but the Lutheran service is VERY close to the Catholic one and includes the sung parts which Bach wrote.

Further, your point is irrelevant. Your claim that the peasants were ignorant would ALSO include Catholics--who were peasants.

SO which is it: they couldn't understand Latin, or they COULD understand Latin? JSB knew.

[ninenot]

Des, I think you meant prEscribed, not prOscribed.

What you have demonstrated is that JSB, Moz., Beeth.. Verdi, Faure, et.al. wrote music to illuminate the texts of the Mass--which EVERYONE in Europe understood. Whether JSB wrote for the Lutherans or Catholics (Byrd wrote for the Anglicans and the Catholics) is irrelevant to Berned's point. He erroneously maintains that the peasants had no idea what the texts meant. JSB disagrees.

[ninenot]

Not being argumentative: was not the Cyrillic Mass actually Old Slovonian, thus incomprehensible to most peasants after, say, 1800?

[ninenot]

Under the best of circumstances, 'missals' w/translations were rare. The printing press was brand-new in 14XX(?) and handwritten goods were almost the exclusive province of monestaries.

Thus, we can conclude that, as was the case with the Jews, learning the sacred texts and meanings thereof was likely passed on verbally--oral tradition and learning.

Of course, there are those who can't IMAGINE learning from oral tradition.

[ultima ratio]

You are badly misinformed. Latin was widely understood--and still is. The English-Latin missal is very easy to use and even small children have no difficulty following it. A major reason for using Latin was its universality. One could attend Mass in the US or in Africa and it would be the same exact liturgy. Latin also guaranteed precision in meaning. Words in a dead language are not subject to shifts in meanings.

[Sock]

Lying Swine. ;)

[Desdemona]

Whatever. I flunked spelling.

Now as for the vernacular, as I thought about it, the oratorios (St. John's Passion, The Messiah, Elijah, etc.) were written in the language of the audience. Again, NOT usually for Catholic consumption. Notice the Italians and the Austrians and the French wrote church pieces in Latin. For church. I assume people understood what was being sung. Nowadays we have to put a translation in the program.

[RobbyS]

According to The Book by Christopher de Hamel,(Phaison, 2001) hand-written Latin Bibles on very thin parchment and about the size of a Bible today were very plentiful from the 13th Century on. They were based on the Paris Bible and Dominican friars carried them in the pockets of their gowns and used them as text-sources for the sermons they have to the people. When Bibles began to be printed the followed closely the format of the Paris Bible. Of course, after printing was invented the price of Bibles dropped termendously and vernacular were soon available to the ploughman as well as the priest. But the Bible --the single volume as we know it--was a medieval invention.

[RobbyS]

And of course people like the idea of a "sacred language" that has been handed down by their ancestors This fact helps explain the popularity of the King James Bible. The worse think about the mass in English is the banality of its language. How they came up with "and also with you" as a translation of et cum spiritu tuo," escapes me, but it has no flavor. I agree with you that the Latin of the responses is really rather simple. What is so hard about grasping the maning of "Agnes Dei, qui tollis pecatta mundi. miserere " When I was young I knew quite a few people who had memorized the Pater Noster and in a mixed language assembly people would come on strong when they recited it.

[Catholicguy]

Good points, all. I wonder if berned will now admit he has been misinformed regarding his charges about Latin and the Church's alleged attempt to fool the congregation and if he will now stop repeating those accusations having had his misimpression corrected.

[Catholicguy]

that sounds like a book to read...

[Catholicguy]

Not being argumentative: was not the Cyrillic Mass actually Old Slovonian, thus incomprehensible to most peasants after, say, 1800?

mega erudite ditttoes, brother :)