How did peopel understand the mass?

[angell1]

I mean the general laity. when it was all in latin, before printed missals. even the gospels were in latin and most people couldn’t read anyways and latin was a dead language. what did they do?

 

[PrayHarder]

I don’t know about Latin being a dead language. My parents were both taught it in school and that seemed the norm for their generation. Even I was taught about “latin roots” in my high school English class so that we could better identify the meanings of words we haven’t seen before (great skill for the SAT).

Never having heard a Mass in Latin, I think it’s just something you would pick up. You would definitely pick up all the common prayers and responses over time. You may not understand the exact words you are saying, but you know how to put together the syllables. For example, when they chant the “Lamb of God” at Mass, I can chant along although I don’t know exactly what each word means. As for the readings, you might get a very general sense of what the reading was about from some of the latin words that are also roots of English words and I bet the homily would fill in the blanks.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

To those who speak only English, Latin may seem incomprehensible. However, those who speak the Romance languages descended directly from Latin typically can understand regularly repeated phrases. Catholics would grow up learning common prayers like the Pater Noster (Our Father), the Credo, and would often learn much of the Mass.

 

[z_0101]

To those who speak only English, Latin may seem incomprehensible. However, those who speak the Romance languages descended directly from Latin typically can understand regularly repeated phrases. Catholics would grow up learning common prayers like the Pater Noster (Our Father), the Credo, and would often learn much of the Mass.

I learned a lot of french while in high school and university and from that basis I can usually figure a good portion of the Latin texts (not sure if I’m always pronouncing the Latin correctly), I’m also a chemist, so there’s a little Latin that pops up, not as much as in the biological sciences, but enough to keep you on your toes.

 

[aTraditionalist]

Even way back there was still a catechism and sermons. It’s kind of narrow minded to think that the Church has survived for 2000 years on the backs of a ignorant laity. Sure there was probably a percentage of folks whom had no clue as to what was going on outside of the very basic details but that surely is no different than today. As always, you get out of it what you put into it. With no formal Latin instruction, it took me two months to catch on and understand everything that was going on. It was really not that difficult.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[pianistclare]

Latin was not there from the start. People had a pretty good working knowledge of the liturgy and the prayers before the advent of Latin.

Here’s good article on the languages of the Mass through time.
uscatholic.org/church/2010/06/when-did-we-start-celebrating-mass-latin

 

[ProVobis]

Latin was not there from the start. People had a pretty good working knowledge of the liturgy and the prayers before the advent of Latin.

Here’s good article on the languages of the Mass through time.
uscatholic.org/church/2010/06/when-did-we-start-celebrating-mass-latin

So your argument is to use Aramaic and everyone will understand the Mass? It’s obvious you don’t care for Latin but I doubt if you’ll get rid of Latin using that argument.

 

[pianistclare]

So your argument is to use Aramaic and everyone will understand the Mass? It’s obvious you don’t care for Latin but I doubt if you’ll get rid of Latin using that argument.

WHAT?
I’m not arguing anything. The article explains that Latin was not the only way to do Mass. She asked how people understood. I’m not looking to “get rid of” anything.
Where would you get that idea?
People understand many languages, even those that are not their native tongue.
Who said I didn’t care for Latin? Latin’s fine. Not available where I am, but it’s fine for those who prefer it.
Let’s not start a fight where is none, friend.
pianist

 

[z_0101]

So your argument is to use Aramaic and everyone will understand the Mass? It’s obvious you don’t care for Latin but I doubt if you’ll get rid of Latin using that argument.

Forgive me ProVobis,
I really do not think that the intent of pianistclare at all
IMHO the intent was to show that people would have had an understanding of some of the texts due to their existence in other languages prior to the wholesale transition into the Latin language. (much like I can attend a spanish language Mass, and although I don’t speak spanish, I have an idea of what is being said and what to say when (although I usually do so in english )

The link goes:
— The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians -
— Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, (…) In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy
— In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.
— etc —

and least we forget, Latin was the language used for contracts, and in science, for many centuries; thus the huge number of Latin phrases used within the law and science even today.
Latin was for a time, the “common” language of commerce.
++ juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2005_1_199.pdf
++ http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/latin.html
thus, perhaps **not the poor peasant would know Latin, the business man, middle class, nobility, anyone lucky enough to be educated, would have fair chance at knowing Latin to one degree or another.
Another thing to keep in mind, the Great Roman Empire covered much of the Known world, including the British Isles (from the PDF linked to, and by inference the citations noted therein - bold is mine):
The Latin language was carried by Roman soldiers, administrators, settlers, and traders to the various parts of their growing empire. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Dalmatia, and the southern and eastern coasts of Spain had been brought under Roman sway by the end of the third century BC, and the expansion continued until with Trajan’s conquest of Dacia the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent, including Britain in the far west and the Hellenistic kingdoms in the east,with the northern frontier on the Rhine and the Danube. The consequence was that a common civilisation was developed that varied little from country to country. Latin, the language of the new ruling power, was from this point on the language of government and administration, legislation and the judiciary, trade and army operations **

So, even the poorest soul may have learned enough conversational Latin to deal with the Roman Army - under the threat of flogging, one would have an incentive!

No indeed, let us not forget that St Jerome was commissioned to translate the texts into the common Vulgate around 382 commissioned by Pope Damasus I, working from the original Greek and Hebrew texts when available and the old Latin when not. So the old Latin had been around for quite awhile so I would think as noted earlier, people would have had some working understanding of the common, repeated, sections of the Latin-Rite, and just as I can function in a spansh language Mass, perhaps someone that came from another area of the world where the Greek was use would have that same understanding - after all, the Kyrie Eleison is Greek, not Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Forgive me ProVobis,
I really do not think that the intent of pianistclare at all
IMHO the intent was to show that people would have had an understanding of some of the texts due to their existence in other languages prior to the wholesale transition into the Latin language. (much like I can attend a spanish language Mass, and although I don’t speak spanish, I have an idea of what is being said and what to say when (although I usually do so in english )

The link goes:
— The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians -
— Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, (…) In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy
— In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.
— etc —

and least we forget, Latin was the language used for contracts, and in science, for many centuries; thus the huge number of Latin phrases used within the law and science even today.
Latin was for a time, the “common” language of commerce.
++ juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2005_1_199.pdf
++ http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/latin.html
thus, perhaps **not the poor peasant would know Latin, the business man, middle class, nobility, anyone lucky enough to be educated, would have fair chance at knowing Latin to one degree or another.
Another thing to keep in mind, the Great Roman Empire covered much of the Known world, including the British Isles (from the PDF linked to, and by inference the citations noted therein - bold is mine):
The Latin language was carried by Roman soldiers, administrators, settlers, and traders to the various parts of their growing empire. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Dalmatia, and the southern and eastern coasts of Spain had been brought under Roman sway by the end of the third century BC, and the expansion continued until with Trajan’s conquest of Dacia the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent, including Britain in the far west and the Hellenistic kingdoms in the east,with the northern frontier on the Rhine and the Danube. The consequence was that a common civilisation was developed that varied little from country to country. Latin, the language of the new ruling power, was from this point on the language of government and administration, legislation and the judiciary, trade and army operations **

So, even the poorest soul may have learned enough conversational Latin to deal with the Roman Army - under the threat of flogging, one would have an incentive!

No indeed, let us not forget that St Jerome was commissioned to translate the texts into the common Vulgate around 382 commissioned by Pope Damasus I, working from the original Greek and Hebrew texts when available and the old Latin when not. So the old Latin had been around for quite awhile so I would think as noted earlier, people would have had some working understanding of the common, repeated, sections of the Latin-Rite, and just as I can function in a spansh language Mass, perhaps someone that came from another area of the world where the Greek was use would have that same understanding - after all, the Kyrie Eleison is Greek, not Latin.

The OP question was HOW did people understand the Mass, but you make good points. Where I might have an issue with is whether the level or type of understanding is the same in Spanish and English (or Latin vs Greek, for that matter). I understand theology very much differently in Polish, my first language, and English. And yes, the Mass too.

At the time of Christ, most of the Greco-Roman world delved in pagan worship. Greek mythology prevailed throughout the Empire. That was the vernacular. Therefore their understanding of a new religion had to be different than the subsequent understanding of Christianity, which subsumed the Roman Empire a couple of centuries later. As you have pointed out, Latin was the administrative language of the Roman Empire among other things. It was codified by Cicero, himself a Greek, and was even used to identify Christ together with Greek and Hebrew. The Church in her wisdom chose to preserve her documents, moral code, scripture, etc. in a language it felt was immortal. Therefore it made perfect sense to write the central part of the Mass, the Canon, in Latin. Sure, one could use the argument that it wasn’t in the language of the people, but that sort of misses the point. The language of the people is not generally immortal and very easily changeable.

I find it interesting that there is Latin on the U.S. dollar bill and no one takes issue with the understanding of a dollar bill. The seal of the U.S., and the flags representing it, are entirely written in Latin. I would bet the reason why those, like the President, Speaker of the House, and others, who talk in the presence of those flags are telling the world they are serious about what they’re talking about. That (seriousness) is the understanding that should be received.

 

[Genesis315]

People knew generally what was happening at Mass (ie the offering of the sacrifice of Christ) from the explanations of clergy, as well as their own parents, who learned from their parents, etc. and they united themselves to the priest’s intentions accordingly. That doesn’t mean ignorance was never a problem, even among clergy. Sometimes this broke down and Mass was neglected by all or at least the people neglected by their pastors–and in those cases, God raised up saints like St. Catherine of Siena or St. Vincent Ferrer to help reform the clergy and bring the people back to the basics.

One point should be made however, the people generally didn’t need to know exactly what the priest was saying since, when praying the Mass, the priest isn’t talking to them, but to God. The priest and people form one body, and the priest, as the head, prays on the behalf of the whole body. They knew in general what he was praying for, however.

Note, I’m not saying that knowing and understanding the specific words the priest is praying isn’t a good thing (I think it is), just that it’s not strictly necessary. It’s also true that being able to hear and understand the prayers does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of the “big picture” of Mass. Personally, attending Mass in the extraordinary form actually helped me better understand what Mass is, which has given me a better appreciation of Mass offered in any manner according to any rite or form, including out loud and in the vernacular.

 

[lola5555]

My great grandmother was born in 1883 and my grandmother in 1913. Both of them attended Catholic schools where they were taught Latin. They were both fluent and knew English better because of it. My grandmother picked up Italian pretty easily as well because of her knowledge of Latin. And my grandmother was really more of a math/science kind of student and not as great with languages…so it’s not that she was a language genius. I’m sure things varied in different times in different countries, but that’s one example. Catechism could teach people exactly what’s going on in mass and you could memorize the parts in Latin without being fluent. I agree with those have stated we should not assume other people’s ignorance, even if they were illiterate. Actually my grandfather was illiterate and extremely smart and could easily keep up with my Latin speaking grandmother. So I guess reading isn’t everything.

My mother and I were taught Latin roots of English, while my sister and father were not. My mother and I have stronger language skills. Learning Latin is just a good idea when it comes to education, even if I’ve forgotten all the details the base still roams around in my head and helps me out.

 

[Mukomolov]

The study of Latin is a very useful exercise. Began to study her from a young age and just got carried away. My brother and sister also know Latin. Including English. And I like it

 

[ccmcmg]

While I would say that the Mass is the most important event of our day, week, lives…the epitome, as Catholics, it is not the only part of being Catholic. What we do and learn at the Mass in our local language is not all there is to know about being a Catholic.

Even without understanding the language of the Mass, we are still aware of the events happening, if we’ve had any teaching at all about the the Mass and Catholicism. Whether it’s the TLM, or the NO Mass in another language other than our own, we might not know exactly when something is happening that we can relate it to in our usual Mass, it is still happening, whether we know the moment or not.

Just as we need to remember that if the homily, or the singing, or the art, or the priest, or any part of the ‘human’ element of Mass doesn’t appeal to us, the Mass is still the same.

Do I get ‘more’ out of Mass when I ‘connect’ with what is going on? I think so. But is the Mass about me? No, it isn’t. Is it ‘for’ me? No, it isn’t.

 

[corsair]

In the traditional Latin Mass; it was never necessary to understand Latin. The concept of “participating” in the Mass was different. The priest offers the prayers on behalf of himself and the laity. As time past and people became more literate, they were encouraged to pray along with the priest. The printing press did a lot to assist in that direction. Many people still do not respond during the TLM. They simply join their souls with those of the priest.

St. Pius X began encouraging the laity to pray the Mass along with the priest. The popularity of the hand missal sort of exploded.

Yes, things were different back then; not bad, just different.

I still enjoy and like to attend the low Mass.

 

[curlycool89]

I mean the general laity. when it was all in latin, before printed missals. even the gospels were in latin and most people couldn’t read anyways and latin was a dead language. what did they do?

Honest-not-wearing-rose-coloured-glasses answer: they didn’t really.

Actually, that doesn’t just mean the people. Back before there were seminaries, many rural priests learned as a sort of “apprenticeship”. They didn’t need to know Latin (whatever the de jure rule was, the de facto was that they didn’t), they could just memorize the prayers and recite it from memory. No, definitely not ideal.

What really happened, if anyone was to watch, was that the priest was at the front saying Mass, while the people were in the pews doing their own prayers (the Rosary being a popular one). Once in a while, a bell would be rung so that people knew that something important was happening and they should pay attention (I know, not as theological as some people want to make it out to be, but sometimes in liturgical history the practical has proceeded the theological. The bell was rung to say “Hey! Look here!”). And that was all that was expected of them.

 

[ProVobis]

What really happened, if anyone was to watch, was that the priest was at the front saying Mass,

And the small prayerbook I had had the illustrations of where the priest was standing and explained what he was doing, as well as some short prayers. Those who chose not to bring a missal or prayerbook along might have been saying rosaries, but that wasn’t that common during Sung Masses per my observations…If people knew when to stand or kneel during the Credo, etc., then they must have been following the Mass to some extent.

 

[Filioque]

Good answers all. However I think the initial post was not an attack or defense of Latin, as much as an inquiry as to how did people understand what was going on as without missals and with the Mass in Latin.

Yes most people has a rudimentary understanding of Latin, we all thing of people in times past as being uneducated and ignorant. The reality is that most people had exposure to Latin, as well as their local language, and the languages of those around them. They may not have gone to school to learn grammar, but then again, the vocabulary of the common man was simple.

Modern European Languages have been unified only in recent times. Look at English, read Chauser in the original Old English, or Elizabethan English, even the English of the 1800’s and the early 1900, let alone British, Canadian and American English differ. Local Dialects were more common before the modern countries of Europe developed, so people had to know something about the local dialects to communicate between towns and regions.

Latin was until the early 20th Century one of the most common languages among scholars, at least in the west. Just like today there were places where the clergy gave good catechesis and areas where the people wallowed in superstition and got little education in their faith. Not simply a Catholic issue, but a human one. You will meet Protestants, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists who are ignorant of the basics of the faith they claim to adhere to.

The Sacred Scriptures were available in the vernacular for those who could afford books and read long before Martin Luther. Homilies were preached in the language of the people and the reading of the Epistle and Gospel on Sundays and Major Feasts in the local language (after they were read or chanted in Latin) was a requirement after the Council of Trent, but was also a practice in many places prior to the Venerable Council.

For those who could not read, the Cathedrals and Major Churches, were highly decorated with either paintings of statuary, as well as Stained Glass that was known as the Bible of the Illiterate, as they could learn the Bible stories by looking at the pictures. If you have the opportunity to visit major Cathedrals and historic churches from before the reformation that were not destroyed by Protestants at the Reformation, take some binoculars with you. Not only can you see more of the carvings but also left over pigment. Most of the Statues and the interior was painted. What we have today in the great stone Cathedrals from the Middle Ages does not reflect what the Church looked like in it’s time. They were bright cheery places, statuary, and everything from the floor to the ceiling was usually painted and vibrant, you could see the images much better.

We have a tendency to regard those who came before us as less educated and aware. However I think it is us today who are less informed. In days gone by, people used their minds, they learned things and passed on long stories and sagas by word of mouth and song. Today we rely on computer data storage, a few decades ago it was all in books, If you can imagine the Books of the OT were known by heart by the Jews prior to the written version of the Torah, History was passed orally, religious education was not done by CCD with DVD, live streaming and activity books, but the faith was taught on a more personal level and lived as a major part of one’s life, not something done on Sunday and when we log onto Catholic Forums. The bell tolled for the Angelus, the average parish had Vespers on Sunday, (in Europe) and other Devotions. In many places in Europe on Sundays and Holy Days the people assisted at Mass in the morning, and then gathered for a sermon that would last two to four hours before Vespers in the Evening. The Faith was a living Faith.

 

[Lormar]

Good answers all. However I think the initial post was not an attack or defense of Latin, as much as an inquiry as to how did people understand what was going on as without missals and with the Mass in Latin.

Yes most people has a rudimentary understanding of Latin, we all thing of people in times past as being uneducated and ignorant. The reality is that most people had exposure to Latin, as well as their local language, and the languages of those around them. They may not have gone to school to learn grammar, but then again, the vocabulary of the common man was simple.

Modern European Languages have been unified only in recent times. Look at English, read Chauser in the original Old English, or Elizabethan English, even the English of the 1800’s and the early 1900, let alone British, Canadian and American English differ. Local Dialects were more common before the modern countries of Europe developed, so people had to know something about the local dialects to communicate between towns and regions.

Latin was until the early 20th Century one of the most common languages among scholars, at least in the west. Just like today there were places where the clergy gave good catechesis and areas where the people wallowed in superstition and got little education in their faith. Not simply a Catholic issue, but a human one. You will meet Protestants, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists who are ignorant of the basics of the faith they claim to adhere to.

The Sacred Scriptures were available in the vernacular for those who could afford books and read long before Martin Luther. Homilies were preached in the language of the people and the reading of the Epistle and Gospel on Sundays and Major Feasts in the local language (after they were read or chanted in Latin) was a requirement after the Council of Trent, but was also a practice in many places prior to the Venerable Council.

For those who could not read, the Cathedrals and Major Churches, were highly decorated with either paintings of statuary, as well as Stained Glass that was known as the Bible of the Illiterate, as they could learn the Bible stories by looking at the pictures. If you have the opportunity to visit major Cathedrals and historic churches from before the reformation that were not destroyed by Protestants at the Reformation, take some binoculars with you. Not only can you see more of the carvings but also left over pigment. Most of the Statues and the interior was painted. What we have today in the great stone Cathedrals from the Middle Ages does not reflect what the Church looked like in it’s time. They were bright cheery places, statuary, and everything from the floor to the ceiling was usually painted and vibrant, you could see the images much better.

We have a tendency to regard those who came before us as less educated and aware. However I think it is us today who are less informed. In days gone by, people used their minds, they learned things and passed on long stories and sagas by word of mouth and song. Today we rely on computer data storage, a few decades ago it was all in books, If you can imagine the Books of the OT were known by heart by the Jews prior to the written version of the Torah, History was passed orally, religious education was not done by CCD with DVD, live streaming and activity books, but the faith was taught on a more personal level and lived as a major part of one’s life, not something done on Sunday and when we log onto Catholic Forums. The bell tolled for the Angelus, the average parish had Vespers on Sunday, (in Europe) and other Devotions. In many places in Europe on Sundays and Holy Days the people assisted at Mass in the morning, and then gathered for a sermon that would last two to four hours before Vespers in the Evening. The Faith was a living Faith.

Filioque, no truer words. Thank you for putting it so well.