Ah, so the readings would be done again in the vernacular. I was unaware of this practice. Not that I’m doubting you, but do you have any sources so that I might read up on this?
That’s the way it is done everywhere today. At a daily Low Mass there is usually no sermon; but when there is a sermon the Gospel and Epistle are alwasy re-read in the vernacular.
I’ve been listening to a six part talk given to the nuns at EWTN by Fr. Calvin Goodwin of the FSSP. I wish these were available online because he answers this question very well - and he does so in many ways scattered throughout the talks.
In one place, he explians it from his personal experience from when he was a child before Vatican II. In another place he explains it from, believe it or not, the perspective of a Lutheran liturgist. The quote from the Lutheran liturgist was actually very interesting. The liturgist begins by conceeding that they have had many misconceptions about how the Catholics understood the Masss during the middle ages (in other words, the Lutherans always thought and claimed that the Catholics did not know what was happening during the Mass - which he says was not at all the case). He explains how and why he knows these misunderstandings are not accurate, and then explains the different types of “vernacular” - meaning, not just vernacular in speach, but other forms of “vernacular” (that I personally had never thought of).
From personal experience, Fr. Goodwin explains how he was catechised, on one level, by the reverence of his parents and those around him during Mass. He says that after communion his parents were always engaged in deep prayers. At any other time, he was the center of their attention, but after communion it was different. They were focused on something else, and he was well aware of it. He said that little things such as this made a lasting impression on him. He gives similar examples of how he was catechised by these forms of “vernacular” that were present at the Mass, and explains the deep and lasting impression that they had on him.
He also explained something else that I myself have experienced on one level. He explained how the theological virtue of faith provides a certain implicit understanding in the heart. A child with the faith (that was received at baptism) may not be able to explain the doctrinal formulations, but they know them in one sense implicitly through the faith. Later (such as in catechism class when they begin school) the doctrinal formulations confirm what they knew to be true in their heart. He explained how the reverence at the Mass, and the focus on God in the Eucharist, confirms what the child knows in their heart, even before the doctrinal formulas are explained.
So with that being said, I would answer the question posed by the O/P this way: First we must remember that the place where a Catholic learns their catechism (questions and answers, etc.) is at home and at school. The Mass will provide additional instruction
explicitly during the sermon, and (even more importantly) reinforce these doctrinal teachings
implicitly by the entire liturgy and general atmosphere reflecting the spirit of Catholicism, and thereby confirms what the person knows to be true in their heart - both before and after the doctrinal formulations are learned. And if you think about it, the latter is at least as important as the former if not more so. If a person is taught that the Eucharist is God; yet at Mass see is treated as ordinary bread, such irreverent treatment by the Priest and faithful will make the greatest impression in a child and end by undermining what he is taught in the catechism. On the contrary, if the child sees great devotion and reverence displayed toward the Eucharist, and their parents in deep prayer after communion, this too will make a deep and lasting impression even before they have a complete understanding of the doctrinal teachings.
