# Post-Reformation (and Protestant) use of the Dies Irae



## Pergamum (Sep 25, 2013)

Dies Irae

I am looking into the history and the post-Reformation church use of the hymn Dies Irae (words linked). It was written by a Franciscan and became part of the requiem Mass. 

I find it quite moving and I am wondering how the Reformation impacted its liturgical use. It is not tainted by the Mariology of the Medieval period (which ruins so much of the good Medieval music I like to listen to). Many later classical composers incorporated its words/tune (to include Mozart and Verdi).

I also read that it was based on the prophecy of Sophonias (Zephaniah in the Vulgate) 1:14-16, a reflection upon the final judgment, "15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness..."

I also read that it was removed in 1972 from the Catholic Mass for the dead for being to negative and "hell-firey" perhaps? I would like to investigate this more. This hymn seems an integral part of the history of Western Christianity for hundreds of years. What was the history of its use among the Eastern Orthodox?




> Dies Irae/Day of Wrath
> 
> DIES irae, dies illa,
> solvet saeculum in favilla,
> ...




John Newton seemed to adapt it for use as well.

I am also wondering how well-used is this 1848 adaptation by William Irons:
Day of Wrath, O Day of Mourning



> Day of wrath, O day of mourning!
> See fulfilled the prophet’s warning,
> Heaven and earth in ashes burning.
> Oh, what fear man’s bosom rendeth
> ...



Do Protestant churches use this hymn today?

Finally, I have a question about the first lines of verse 

"Dies iræ! Dies illa
Solvet sæclum in favilla:
Teste David cum Sibylla!"

or

"The day of wrath, that day
Will dissolve the world in ashes
As foretold by David and the Sibyl!"

Who are the Sibyl?





Any info to add? I would love to know more about this hymn and its place in the history of the Church.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 26, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Who are the Sibyl?



Prophetesses, usually meaning pagan prophetesses. 

From σίβυλλα.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2013)

How did this reference to pagan Sibylla get into part of the Catholic Mass?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Sep 26, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> How did this reference to pagan Sibylla get into part of the Catholic Mass?



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sibylline Oracles


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > How did this reference to pagan Sibylla get into part of the Catholic Mass?
> ...



WOW! 

Early Church Father non-cessationists co-opting a Greek pagan practice? 



> In pagan times the oracles and predictions ascribed to the sibyls were carefully collected and jealously guarded in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and were consulted only in times of grave crises. Because of the vogue enjoyed by these heathen oracles and because of the influence they had in shaping the religious views of the period, the Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria, during the second century B.C. composed verses in the same form, attributing them to the sibyls, and circulated them among the pagans as a means of diffusing Judaistic doctrines and teaching. This custom was continued down into Christian times, and was borrowed by some Christians so that in the second or third century, a new class of oracles emanating from Christian sources came into being. Hence the Sibylline Oracles can be classed as Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. In many cases, however, the Christians merely revised or interpolated the Jewish documents, and thus we have two classes of Christian Oracles, those adopted from Jewish sources and those entirely written by Christians.



Again I say "WOW!" Maybe I should start a new thread just on this side-topic..... anybody got more info on this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 26, 2013)

I wonder if it was expunged (in part) on account of this stanza, especially the first line:


> Qui Mariam absolvisti,
> et latronem exaudisti,
> mihi quoque spem dedisti.


Note how the first line seems literally to read:
_From absolving *MARY*..._​
The one translation gives us:
_Through the sinful woman shriven,_​
Remember that the sinful woman to whom Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven you," Lk.7:48, was never named, although she became associated with Mary Magdalene in tradition (see Lk.8:2).

The second line {edit} (my Latin is nonexistent)
...
... the translator refers to the dying thief, Lk.23:42-43.

The crucifixion, wherein Jesus said, "Father forgive them..." Lk.23:34, was a time when pardon was much in evidence.

So, could the ancient writer _in fact_ have been referring to (or confused by the Roman faithful with) the pleading Mary of Lk.2:47ff, the mother of the Lord, and so the statement be intended to say that Jesus WAS the forgiveness of sin from the beginning of his Incarnation to the end? This seems to me at least as plausible an interpretation, as the given translation concludes:_Thou to me a hope hast given._​
But of course, this would NOT fit with Romanist dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception (the sinlessness of Virgin Mary). A sinless Virgin needs no absolution.



Another possible reflection on the original poem:

Trinity Hymnal
DAY OF JUDGMENT! DAY OF WONDERS — ST. AUSTIN
Original Trinity Hymnal, #241 (also in the revised hymnal)

Day of judgment! day of wonders!
Hark! the trumpet's awful sound,
Louder than a thousand thunders,
Shakes the vast creation round.
How the summons
Will the sinner's heart confound!

See the Judge, our nature wearing,
Clothed in majesty divine;
You who long for his appearing
Then shall say, This God is mine!
Gracious Saviour,
Own me in that day as thine.

At his call the dead awaken,
Rise to life from earth and sea;
All the pow'r of nature, shaken
By his looks, prepare to flee.
Careless sinner,
What will then become of thee?

But to those who have confessed,
Loved and served the Lord below,
He will say, Come near, ye blessed,
See the kingdom I bestow;
You for ever
Shall my love and glory know.


----------



## Prufrock (Sep 26, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> To the utter devotion or last act of worship



Rev. Buchanan,

If you'll permit me, I'm not sure where the idea of the above translation came from; perhaps you had in mind some form of _laus, laudis_ (praise) when you saw _latronem_?. _Exaudisti_ is simply the perfect of _exaudio_, here meaning "to give ear to" or "regard;" and _latronem_ is the accusative form of "thief." The first two lines are a relative clause which, in English, would be standing in apposition to the subject (You). Thus the whole simply reads "You who forgave Mary and gave ear to the thief, you also have given hope to me."


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 26, 2013)

I see from the Franciscan Archive edition, there are a couple of references to the 


> nourishing brilliance of the Trinity, alme candor Trinitatis


, an expression I've never come accross.

We have _alma mater_, nourishing mother, for schools and colleges we have attended.

Alma mater was sometimes used of the Virgin Mary:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 27, 2013)

Prufrock said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > To the utter devotion or last act of worship
> ...



As I said in the post, *my Latin is non-existent*, other than a bevy of "standard phrases." If I don't know something, I try to make that clear. And most of those times, I input nothing. "Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent." I'm silent quite a bit.

As you surmise, I plainly took the form of the words and applied them to erroneous origins. I thought the one might be related to _latria_, and the other to exhaurire, where we get the English, "exhaust." Totally wrong. Should have done more research.

No doubt, most reasonable people would say, "Then why did you opine, since whatever you wrote had a good chance to be misleading?"

Because I had a thought, and I decided to air it. I admitted how ignorant I was up front, so (hopefully) people wouldn't assume I knew what I was talking about. And I don't mind being corrected in a public forum. Sometimes we have to be wrong first, in order to be right. In this case, I'm happy to be wrong, and have someone smarter than me give correction.

So thanks, brother. I'll go back to that post now, and expunge it of egregious error. Your post, and my response will be sufficient and lasting witness to my mistake.


Still I wonder if "Mary" might not be the "traditional" one that I referenced (Lk.9 & 10), and instead be the Virgin. Or if Rome might have just thought it was past confusing to have Jesus pardoning an undefined "Mary."


----------



## Prufrock (Sep 27, 2013)

I do sincerely hope you did not take the words "I'm not sure where the idea for above translation came from" in any kind of snarky or superior way, nor would I desire to appear smarter (or adopt any posture other than student to you) nor provide a lasting witness to a mistake. It truly was a simple statement of fact - your posts are always highly informed, and I did not know if some bit of historical or extra-textual knowledge had suggested something that led your thoughts in the course they took. Also, I took the "my Latin is non-existent" comment as more of a statement of modesty - a non-feigning of expertise, rather than a lack of study. Apologies for the misunderstanding.


----------

