Latin Rite

I am curious if anyone would have “documentation” showing what year the Latin Rite started?

[quote=tannose]I am curious if anyone would have “documentation” showing what year the Latin Rite started?
[/quote]

Matthew 16:18-19 – “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Sometime prior to the crucifixion, around 33ad.

Thank you for your response (I goofed) what I’m looking for is actually what year the Tridentine Mass started.

[quote=tannose]Thank you for your response (I goofed) what I’m looking for is actually what year the Tridentine Mass started.
[/quote]

There is no actual year. The name Tridentine is a misnomer, it should really be the Traditional Latin Mass. The Traditonal Latin Mass did not start with Trent.

Latin Rite could actually be called the Roman Rite back when there were four different areas of the early church, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and I don’t remember. Anyway I have a internet copy of the Divine Liturgy according to the Rite of Saint Gregory and he was pope from 590 to 604. This is almost likte the Tridentine Mass according to the C of Trent! There is alot of info on the Newadvent site. Just punch in Divine Liturgy in their serach window. Pax!

Canuth

try this site members.aol.com/FrNicholas/liturgy.htm

Two separate questions:

  1. When was the first time that liturgy was used?

  2. When was it made the standard for the West?

It is essential to keep these distinct.

Umm, Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Latin.


DaveBj

[quote=DaveBj]Umm, Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Latin.


DaveBj
[/quote]

The “Latin Rite” or “Roman Rite” is just the name of Western Catholicism. Any church that is Roman Catholic belongs to the Latin Rite (as opposed to, for example, a Byzantine Catholic church). The fact that Jesus and His Apostles did not speak Latin is pretty irrelevant.

Dear tannose,

If you are just looking for when the Roman Rite which was a result of the Council of Trent officially began, that would be 1570. What went into this Rite obviously had precedent. For instance, the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) came into widepread use sometime around 400…scholars think.

One thing to note however, 1474 Roman Mass is very similar to the 1570 Roman Mass, you would not be able to detect the changes unless you were a liturgical expert, so any notion that the Traditional Latin Mass started in Trent is false.

Hahahahaha, god. Existing. That's funny, yet sadly false

[quote="tannose, post:3, topic:425"]
Thank you for your response (I goofed) what I'm looking for is actually what year the Tridentine Mass started.

[/quote]

The poster who answered youir question first is pretty close to the answer. The Tridentine Mass started at the Last Supper. There were very few changes in the Mass before 1962. Those changes (i.e. Communion on the tongue, due to abuse of the Eucharist, etc.) were small ones & much time elasped between them. The growth & changes in that Mass were, as Pope Benedict said "organic"...they occured naturally.

The reason that the Roman Catholic Mass is called the Tridentine Mass is that it was codified (or arranged in accord with a definite plan? scheme), in other words.......though it already existed........it was "written in stone" at the Council of Trent in or around 1570.

Outside of Rome in the period before 1570, many other liturgical rites were in use, such as the Mozarabic Rite. As a result, every ecclesiastical province and almost every diocese had its local use, such as the Use of Sarum, the Use of York and the Use of Hereford in England. In France there were strong traces of the Gallican Rite. Pope Pius V made the Roman rite almost Universal in the different provinces.

Eastern rites still exist, but that's a "whole 'nother thing". :)

[quote="CradleCath, post:12, topic:425"]
The Tridentine Mass started at the Last Supper.

You are kidding, right? It has always been the Church's teaching that the first Mass was performed at the Last Supper but to suggest that Christ used the Tridentine form of the Mass is just bizarre. The Tridentine Mass is a form of the latin rite of the Church, one of many that accomplish the consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. There are many Eucharistic liturgies that pre-date the Roman Rite (one being, by the way, the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus which is Eucharistic Prayer II in the Pauline Missal).

From the Franciscan website; "St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, since, at the time of the foundation of his Order, on account of his desire to live the same religious life that the Apostles lived with Christ Jesus, the three years before He was Crucified and Died for our salvation, he petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his Order, the ancient Rite of the Roman Church, which was held to be the “Rite of St. Peter the Apostle”. During the reign of Innocent III, this rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome. In addition only 3 known copies of the liturgical books of this ancient rite were still extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books...This same Missale Regulare of 1245, which was adopted with very minor alterations for the calendar of the diocese clergy in 1265, was republished in 1465 as the curial missal. **It was this Missale, that Pope St. Pius V, by his Bull Missale Romanum of 1570, established as the Missale Romanum, **and imposed upon the entire Latin Rite in according with the mandate of the infallible, ecumenical Council of Trent, granting to all Roman Rite priests the perpetual privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to this Missal."

If Christ started the Tridentine form of the Mass at the Last Supper, why do the gospels not record that He said the words "mystery of faith?"

[/quote]

[quote="tannose, post:1, topic:425"]
I am curious if anyone would have "documentation" showing what year the Latin Rite started?

[/quote]

From what I read, it started to develop in the 4th century (300s AD). The Divine Liturgy was initially in Greek. The Latin rite borrowed a lot from Jewish origin.

[quote="Iohannes, post:4, topic:425"]
There is no actual year. The name Tridentine is a misnomer, it should really be the Traditional Latin Mass. The Traditonal Latin Mass did not start with Trent.

[/quote]

The TRIDENTINE Mass did start with Trent.

There were various recensions and uses of the Roman Rite that existed before the Reformation and this council. You can find some of them on line on the Monastery of the Holy Savior's web site. (Do not list the Ambrosian or Mozarabic rites among these uses of the Roman rite; they aren't.)

Almost all of these different uses of the Roman Rite were suppressed by Trent. (BTW, the bull Quo primum called the Pian missal a "new rite." Something that is new, by definition, cannot be traditional.)

As far as the term "Traditional Latin Mass," Pope Benedict has said that the preferred term is Extraordinary Form.

[quote="wet-rat, post:6, topic:425"]
Two separate questions:

  1. When was the first time that liturgy was used?

  2. When was it made the standard for the West?

It is essential to keep these distinct.

[/quote]

**I'll try to deal with #2, about which books have been written.

St. Augustine of Canterbury brought the Roman Use to England in the 600's.

Charlemagne wished to impose the Roman Use on his dominions--he was, after all, Emperor of the Romans. After years of dallying, the Pope at the time finally sent such a book to him, which was given to St. Alcuin to edit.

I say "Roman use" rather than "Roman rite" because it was still in a state of flux at this period.

This trend (of which I gave two examples) to adopt it was for the most part voluntary. But even the dioceses that adopted it saw nothing wrong with inserting dear and familiar prayers and ceremonies--such as bell ringing--into it that were not done in Rome itself.**

To Tim.,
I did not say that Christ used the Tridentine rite **as we know it now, **at the Last Supper, but that was when it was born. It’s sort of like the fact that we call St. Peter our first Pope, but know that he probably never heard that word. (Actually, the Roman Rite’s birth was foretold in Jewish Law. While the Jews sacrificed a Lamb at the Passover, Chirst…at the Last Supper… became the Sacrificial Lamb sacrificing Himself for all of the world.)

In John 6, Jesus states:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Do you believe that the beginnings of the Tridentine Mass, i.e.the Roman Catholic Mass found it’s beginning in another way??? Do you think it was begun as a Pagan ceremony??
No, the Mass that is called the Tridentine Mass BEGAN at the Last Supper.

**As I said in my post, **, there were changes & absortions but the beginnnings of the Mass have deeper roots than the Council of Trent. From the earliest Christian documents, such as the Didache, the understanding follows this pattern: that the bread and wine that is blessed and consumed at the end of the (transformed or New) Passover meal literally is the body and blood of Jesus, and was treated accordingly:

"Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said: ‘Do not give that which is holy to dogs’. The Didache also mentions the Sacrament of Confession “confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure”. Others state explicitly that the consecrated bread and wine is indeed the body and blood of Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in the yr.107, wrote: “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible”

The Church grew faster than most people know. The first Council was held in Jeruselem in 50AD about 20 years after the death of Christ. While their could have been Church councils before that, this is the first one of which a record exists.

The upheaval about circumsion…in the year 100.
The Apostles Creed had been written by the yr. 300AD
Armenia was converted to Christianity by Gregory the Illuminator before the year 311.

The term Eucharistic Sacrifice was used until around the beginning of the 4th century.The most common was Eucharistia, used both for the consecrated bread and wine** and for the whole service.** Clement of Rome (d. about 101) uses the verbal form still in its general sense of “giving thanks”, but also in connection with the Liturgy. The other chief witness for the earliest Roman Liturgy, **Justin Martyr (died 167), speaks of eucharist in both senses repeatedly . After him the word is always used, and passes into Latin (eucharistia) as soon as there is a Latin Christian Literature [Tertullian (died 220), St. Cyprian (d 258 ** It remained the normal name for the sacrament throughout Catholic theology, but was gradually superseded by Missa (MASS).

AS I SAID IN MY FIRST POST…there have been changes, additions, subtractions (I believe that I used as an example the discontinuation of receiving the Eucharist in the hand due to abuses). However, all of the changes before 1962 were “organic” they happened as the Mass evolved & matured. I also mentioned the different rites & the different customs & “uses” the Use of York, the Use of Hereford, etc., etc. & I’m not going to get into the Eastern rites in this thread because the OP. asked about the origins of the “Tridentine” Mass.

The Mass of the Roman Rite did not begin at Trent, it was CODIFIED at the Council of Trent, which is why it has been called the Tridentine Mass. The dictionary definition of “codified” is to arrange in accord with a definite plan or scheme : order systematically - the need to codify their work-**

If you believe that the THEOLOGY of the Roman Rite of the Mass (which evolved into what is popularly known as the Tridentine Mass) did not begin at the Last Supper, you’ll have to prove to me that someone other than Christ gave us the Eucharist.

(By the way, you can learn more about the early Mass from reading the Didache,
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” -Ch 14

From the Franciscan website; *"St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, *

All you shared regarding St. Francis of Assisi is nice, but notice that it said SAVIOR of the Roman Rite…not creator.

[quote="CradleCath, post:17, topic:425"]
To Tim.,
I did not say that Christ used the Tridentine rite **as we know it now, **at the Last Supper, but that was when it was born.

First, there is no such thing as a "Tridentine rite." There is, what I believe we are discussing here, the Roman Rite which the Tridentine Missal used as the Eucharistic prayer, thanks largely to St. Francis. Roman Rite and Tridentine Missal are not one and the same; the Missal of Pope Paul VI includes the Roman Rite.

Secondly, you said "The Tridentine Mass started at the Last Supper," and also that "I did not say that Christ used the Tridentine rite **as we know it now, *". So, which is it? If the form was not the same "*as we know it now," then how can the two be the same? Also, there are many other liturgies which predate the Tridentine Mass so how is it that we don't know that He used one of those forms? The Anaphora of Addai and Mari "is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church."

Face it; to say that Mass according to the Tridentine Missal was "born" at the Last Supper is simply not true. We can say that the first Mass was celebrated at the Last Supper, but to try and pronounce as to what form, other than what is given in the Gospels, is nothing but speculation and opens itself up to error.

[/quote]

[quote="Timothysis, post:18, topic:425"]
First, there is no such thing as a "Tridentine rite." There is, what I believe we are discussing here, the Roman Rite which the Tridentine Missal used as the Eucharistic prayer, thanks largely to St. Francis. Roman Rite and Tridentine Missal are not one and the same; the Missal of Pope Paul VI includes the Roman Rite.

Secondly, you said "The Tridentine Mass started at the Last Supper," and also that "I did not say that Christ used the Tridentine rite **as we know it now, *". So, which is it? If the form was not the same "*as we know it now," then how can the two be the same? Also, there are many other liturgies which predate the Tridentine Mass so how is it that we don't know that He used one of those forms? The Anaphora of Addai and Mari "is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church."

Face it; to say that Mass according to the Tridentine Missal was "born" at the Last Supper is simply not true. We can say that the first Mass was celebrated at the Last Supper, but to try and pronounce as to what form, other than what is given in the Gospels, is nothing but speculation and opens itself up to error.

[/quote]

[size=]You still don't get it. ALL CATHOLIC **MASSES before the second Vatican council were born at the last supper. I really don't think that Christ worried about "form". The Eucharist, as we know it, originated at the Last Supper & morphed & combined & grew organically until 1570. The Roman rite was then **codified i.e. written in stone & became known as the Tridentine Mass.

The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, was written by a commitee. The very name of it.......Novus Ordo.....means the NEW Mass. There was a complete disconnect from what had gone before. Even before he became Pope Benedict XVI, in his many written works on the liturgy, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger remarked that the Novus Ordo liturgy was not the organic reform that had been recommended by Vatican II, but a break in continuity-- a new form that had been imposed upon the faithful, while the old order of the Mass was abruptly discarded. In the opening passage of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict indirectly refers to that complaint when he says that **the universal Church must uphold "the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken **tradition." [/size]

I have explained the evolution of the Mass, which was born at the Last Supper, as well as I can, so there's nothing more I can say.

Christ celebrated the first Eucharist at the Last Supper. To call it a Mass would seem to be a misnomer, as the Early Church celebrated what we now call Mass or Divine Mysteries over two days - the Old Testament readings on the Sabbath, and the Eucharistic Meal on the First Day (Sunday). Gradually, as the followers of Christ were kicked out of more and more synagogues, and gradually as the New Testament was written, the day of readings and the day of Eucharist were combined into one on Sunday.

To say that the Mass as we have it started with the Last Supper then seems to be a bit of a stretch; unless one is referring only to the Consecration and the subsequent consumption of the Eucharist. And at that point, The Mass as well as the Divine Mysteries, and any and all other forms of the Eucharistic celebration all started in the same place and at the same time. But the form that we have in the Roman/Latin rite took some time to coalesce (as did the others).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.