Talk:Protestant Reformation

Sermons in Latin?

I don't think sermons were in Latin. That would be pointless. I think the services were in Latin, which means the formal repetitive parts, not the preacher talking to his flock (which is the sermon). The bible was at that stage in Latin, so it required explanation in the vernacular language. The people could not read Latin, so they could not read the bible: they were dependent on the priest's interpretation from the pulpit. It was central to the Reformation that people should be able to see with their own eyes that much church doctrine did not follow the bible, and so was not sanctioned by it. That is why the church fought so hard and long to prevent translations being published. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dominicans were specifically encouraged to preach sermons in the vernacular. Just how commonplace this was in parish churches, I don't know, but I doubt it was almost entirely one or almost entirely the other.. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, for the Roman Catholic Church it was the second vatican council (1960s), that established that Masses should be held in the language of the people (and not Latin), where possible. I think the papal bull is en:Sacrosanctum Concilium, published in the 1960s. The form currently in use in the Catholic church most of the time is from 1970 (en:Mass of Paul VI). Before, most of the mass (except perhaps for the sermon parts), were in Latin. Also look at church music: Most masses of the great composers of the time use the Latin text. --Eptalon (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)