Misconceptions about Medieval Mass

[iona_scribe]

I was reading the article about “Church architecture” on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_architecture) when I came across this section under the “Medieval West” heading:

“Participation in worship, which gave rise to the porch church, began to decline as the church became increasingly clericalised; with the rise of the monasteries church buildings changed as well. The ‘two-room’ church’ became, in Europe, the norm. The first ‘room’ the nave, was used by the congregation; the second 'room, the sanctuary, was the preserve of the clergy and in which the Mass was celebrated. This could then be only seen, through the arch between the rooms, as from a distance, by the congregation, and the elevation of the host, the bread of the communion, became the focus of the celebration. Given that the liturgy was said in Latin, the people contented themselves with their own private devotions until this point.”

I know I’ve read refutations of such ideas before on this forum, but I’m having trouble finding them using the forum search tool. Does anyone have any good historical references to challenge the following ideas:

1. The Mass suddenly became centered around the Eucharist during the Middle Ages
2. The Mass started being said in Latin in the Middle Ages; nobody understood Latin besides the clergy
3. Lay people practiced private devotions during Mass because they didn’t know what was going on.

Also, as a corollary to this question, what sort of historical references do people get these ideas from to begin with? I ask this as a former protestant who received quite a bit of inaccurate information about the state of the medieval Church which I never found to be substantiated once I took a college course on Church history (I became Catholic a few years later).

Thanks in advance!

p.s. I’ve visited maybe a dozen or more medieval churches in Central Europe, and while the apse and altar are much more deeply recessed than we’re used to in American Protestant-style churches, I’d hardly call it a separate room

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I believe it was Fr. Uwe Michael Lang who, in addition to his book on ad orientem, recently published an article about how early liturgical Latin was not the vernacular Latin but a hieratic language. And yes, this was before the Middle Ages (unless you’re dating them quite early).

For the vibrancy of late medieval lay participation, Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars is probably the best known text. That covers how much Latin people “understood” and their understanding of the Mass and involvement in corporate worship even through what clueless moderns instinctively think of as private devotion. I don’t know about early or high medieval histories.

Basically, you’re dealing with history written by a Protestant establishment that had no need to research further since all the books they had written fit their assumptions about Romanism. It’s Whig history all the way. Much of the so-called “revisionist history” of the Middle Ages is actually coming out of Great Britain because the Catholics there are fed up with Whig narratives of all stripes and have set out to find out and prove what things were really like. Were the Middle Ages some kind of Catholic fairyland? No, but they weren’t the ignorant nightmare your public school textbook will tell you about either.

 

[Dauphin]

This little excerpt from an essay I wrote last year might be helpful:

"The Lay Folk’s Mass Book is a primary source dating from the “late twelfth or early thirteenth century” (Swanson, 79) which reveals much about what was expected from the laity of the time. Written by an anonymous French author, the Mass book clearly lays out their expected actions and disposition throughout the entire Mass, revealing that members of the congregation did much more than sit and trust in what the priest was doing. Recall the Te Igitur quoted earlier. This prayer cites the offering of bread and wine which was made earlier during the offertory, clearly identifying that it is an offering of the whole community, and that the laity are involved in the intention of the prayer. The Lay Folk’s Mass Book confirms this, as it contains a prayer which it recommends to be said silently by the laity during the offertory, in a clear spiritual communion with the intention of the priest:

"Jesus, you were born in Bethlehem, and three kings appeared before you. They offered gold, incense and myrrh, and you did not reject any of them. …] Just so with our offerings which we offer, and our prayers which we proffer, take them, Lord, for love of you, and be our help in all things, so that all perils may be avoided." (Swanson, 86)

This is a clear demonstration of active participation in the liturgical action, by tying the prayers of the congregation directly to the prayers of the priest."

I have no doubt that much of the laity would have failed to participate fully in the Mass. The idea that it didn’t happen or wasn’t expected, however, is contradicted by the primary sources.

 

[muffinmojo]

Latin was spoken since the Roman times. As its use declined as the vernacular, it became more and more the langauge of those attached to Roman imagery; the Church. Eventually it became essentially a clerical langauge, as well as the language of the people of Europe(as in, the way they talked to each other).

As for churches in Europe not looking like separate ‘rooms’ now, that would be because the rood screen, a big series of arches, sometimes even just a wall, has been taken out. The apse was traditionally always separated to indicate the boudnary between lay and clerical areas. Some were more open than others, some were as the article described, where you could only see one tiny part where the priest elevated the Host. Altar rails are the equivalent of a rood screen, the boundary between sanctuary and nave, but even those have been removed in most places.

The Mass suddenly became focused on the Eucharist?

Read the ‘Didache’. Early Church writing. The Mass is, has been, and always will be entirely about the Eucharist and very little else.

Don’t believe stuff o nthe internets

 

[iona_scribe]

For the vibrancy of late medieval lay participation, Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars is probably the best known text. That covers how much Latin people “understood” and their understanding of the Mass and involvement in corporate worship even through what clueless moderns instinctively think of as private devotion. I don’t know about early or high medieval histories.

Thanks, I’ve heard of Duffy’s book on a couple of other occasions. I will definitely have to read it now

Were the Middle Ages some kind of Catholic fairyland? No, but they weren’t the ignorant nightmare your public school textbook will tell you about either.

I know what you mean; unfortunately it took me until college to figure out that Christianity didn’t just die for a few centuries until Luther revived it I really enjoyed the 2 volume textbook “The Story of Christianity” by Justo L. Gonzales (a very even-handed Methodist). I might view it differently now if I were to re-read it as a Catholic, but this is what really got me started on the road to the Church.

 

[iona_scribe]

I have no doubt that much of the laity would have failed to participate fully in the Mass. The idea that it didn’t happen or wasn’t expected, however, is contradicted by the primary sources.

Thank you, that was very interesting! Yes, I also suspected that many didn’t, but couldn’t believe that absolutely nobody knew what was going on

 

[DavidPalm]

Duffy’s book is a great suggestion. Remember, though, that some of these sweeping generalizations have some truth to them. They may be overstated, or used in a polemical way to try and discredit Catholicism, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically devoid of truth.

I consider myself a traditionalist and am a hard-core supporter of the traditional Latin Mass, but there is plenty of indication that, at least in parts of the Church, people prior to Vatican II were indeed quite alienated from the Mass. That certainly can and does happen. Indeed, it even happens in the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s all in the vernacular and everything is supposed to be instantly understandable and yet many Catholics are abysmally ignorant about what is happening at the Mass.

Pretty much everybody at the time of Vatican II, including even the notorious Abp. Lefebvre, understood that there was a need for liturgical reform. The problem, IMO, is that instead of liturgical reform we got a liturgical revolution. So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s nothing wrong with examining the truth of someone’s claim that in certain eras or areas people were more or less alienated from what was taking place during Holy Mass.

 

[iona_scribe]

As for churches in Europe not looking like separate ‘rooms’ now, that would be because the rood screen, a big series of arches, sometimes even just a wall, has been taken out. The apse was traditionally always separated to indicate the boudnary between lay and clerical areas. Some were more open than others, some were as the article described, where you could only see one tiny part where the priest elevated the Host. Altar rails are the equivalent of a rood screen, the boundary between sanctuary and nave, but even those have been removed in most places.

Ah, that explains it then. I have seen churches with a “rood” but with the “screen” part removed, so I had wondered how that partition way up there could block anyone’s view

The Mass suddenly became focused on the Eucharist?

Read the ‘Didache’. Early Church writing. The Mass is, has been, and always will be entirely about the Eucharist and very little else.

Don’t believe stuff o nthe internets

lol, don’t worry, I always take the internet with a grain of salt I knew that claim was most definitely false, but I do need to become more familiar with the early church writings.

 

[iona_scribe]

Duffy’s book is a great suggestion. Remember, though, that some of these sweeping generalizations have some truth to them. They may be overstated, or used in a polemical way to try and discredit Catholicism, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically devoid of truth.

So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s nothing wrong with examining the truth of someone’s claim that in certain eras or areas people were more or less alienated from what was taking place during Holy Mass.

You’re very right. I have to be careful to maintain objectivity if possible. I fear it’s a temptation of mine, having migrated from one theological paradigm to another, to feel a little betrayed by the former (at least as far as history lessons are concerned) and to feel automatically suspicious of facts or claims framed in criticism of Catholicism.

Ultimately, I hope that by examining the sources of claims on both sides I can engage in fruitful dialogue between two groups who both love the Lord but operate from different assumptions. It’s easy to lose focus and get frustrated along the way though

 

[iona_scribe]

DavidPalm, this is off-topic, but may I link to your blog from mine? The name caught my attention and I really enjoyed reading some of the posts. (my blog is: ionascribe.blogspot.com).
My husband would really enjoy your beer review blog

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Pretty much everybody at the time of Vatican II, including even the notorious Abp. Lefebvre, understood that there was a need for liturgical reform. The problem, IMO, is that instead of liturgical reform we got a liturgical revolution. So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s nothing wrong with examining the truth of someone’s claim that in certain eras or areas people were more or less alienated from what was taking place during Holy Mass.

That what I was trying to point to at the end of my post: the absolutized extremes ought to be thrown out, but since we know it wasn’t all roses we shouldn’t have a problem examining criticisms.

 

[DavidPalm]

That what I was trying to point to at the end of my post: the absolutized extremes ought to be thrown out, but since we know it wasn’t all roses we shouldn’t have a problem examining criticisms.

Absolutely. I apologize for missing your last sentence before I posted; we’re saying the same thing.

this is off-topic, but may I link to your blog from mine? . . . . My husband would really enjoy your beer review blog

Of course. I’m pleased if they can be helpful, entertaining, or both.

 

[bpbasilphx]

1) The Mass suddenly became centered around the Eucharist during the Middle Ages
2) The Mass started being said in Latin in the Middle Ages; nobody understood Latin besides the clergy
3) Lay people practiced private devotions during Mass because they didn’t know what was going on.

**1. The Mass has ALWAYS been “centered around the Eucharist” in all times, all places, and all the classical rites! DUH! Nothing sudden about it.

1. Latin was almost always used as the liturgical language in the West; they did “start saying it in Latin,” because at one time everyone could at least get the gist of it. And the nascent vernaculars of Europe simply weren’t developed enough until just before the Reformation to have the Liturgy or the Scriptures in these tongues.
2. Printing wasn’t invented until the 15th century or so. A manuscript missal or Bible (or any other book) was VERY expensive. A book of devotions for Mass (provided you could read to start with) was cheaper and could be used daily.**

 

[mongobongo]

What would Mass (traditional, Medieval or otherwise) be without IT being centered around the Eucharist?! Doesn’t make sense otherwise.

 

[chevalier]

Dear Iona Scribe, the article doesn’t seem to suggest the Mass started being said in Latin in the middle ages. As for the separation of the laity from the clergy, that was true. I’m not sure how accurate particular details of the article are, but have you noticed the screens in the middle of churches in Rome? Those served to prevent the laity from seeing the Eucharist from what I remember.

 

[Dauphin]

Dear Iona Scribe, the article doesn’t seem to suggest the Mass started being said in Latin in the middle ages. As for the separation of the laity from the clergy, that was true. I’m not sure how accurate particular details of the article are, but have you noticed the screens in the middle of churches in Rome? Those served to prevent the laity from seeing the Eucharist from what I remember.

That’s nuts! The elevation was added during the Middle Ages precisely because the Church wanted the laity to see the Eucharist!

 

[iona_scribe]

Dear Iona Scribe, the article doesn’t seem to suggest the Mass started being said in Latin in the middle ages. As for the separation of the laity from the clergy, that was true. I’m not sure how accurate particular details of the article are, but have you noticed the screens in the middle of churches in Rome? Those served to prevent the laity from seeing the Eucharist from what I remember.

Thanks for prompting me to reexamine the text. The phrase “became the focus of the celebration” was embedded in an awkward sentence so I misread it in a more general sense, as if the focus of the celebration had changed, implying that the eucharist was not previously the focus until the architecture changed and the “clericalization” occured.

My misinterpretation on this point is not entirely unfounded coming from my background. Once upon a time I was taught that the Early Church worshipped like Evangelicals and that anything peculiarly Catholic such as the use of liturgy, the priesthood, and use of Latin were introduced some time after Constantine. I felt that this article had hints of a similar viewpoint in the way it was presenting some of the facts, so I was eager to hear any evidence that might challenge some of these assumptions. I may just be reading too much into an innocent article

Also, I understand that the clergy and the laity were definitely separated by the architectural elements, I just felt that the ‘separate rooms’ description was slightly exaggerated.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

3. Printing wasn’t invented until the 15th century or so. A manuscript missal or Bible (or any other book) was VERY expensive. A book of devotions for Mass (provided you could read to start with) was cheaper and could be used daily.

Not contradicting but building on your post, it is interesting that the *vast *majority of devotional books, in the English world known as “primers” were written in Latin - many who could read still couldn’t “read Latin” but could muddle through and follow enough to know the gist of what they were saying.

Another point about the devotional books is that there tended to be just a handful dominating certain markets so that the odds were that praying along in one’s primer during Mass actually meant praying in common with a large chunk - if not most - of the parish who was using the same book. Thus from primers alone we can see that both the “Latin=bad” and “private devotion” stand-bys do not have the teeth they are typically ascribed.

 

[FanChan]

Thinking about the misconceptions - or the exaggerations of truth, as they more likely are - really makes me wonder if ‘liturgical reform’ was what was needed at all.

It seems to me that the real issue here was that people didn’t quite understand what was happening.
That’s still the case, as someone pointed out, with the NOM.
Why change the Mass in order to make it more understandable rather than teach people what’s happening? Considering 2/3 of Catholics in the US - if not the whole world - don’t even believe in the True Presence, I don’t think any amount of ‘liturgical reform’ is going to change the state of things. It’s educational reform we need.

 

[DavidPalm]

Thinking about the misconceptions - or the exaggerations of truth, as they more likely are - really makes me wonder if ‘liturgical reform’ was what was needed at all.

It seems to me that the real issue here was that people didn’t quite understand what was happening.
That’s still the case, as someone pointed out, with the NOM.
Why change the Mass in order to make it more understandable rather than teach people what’s happening? Considering 2/3 of Catholics in the US - if not the whole world - don’t even believe in the True Presence, I don’t think any amount of ‘liturgical reform’ is going to change the state of things. It’s educational reform we need.

I really agree with this, in the main. Obviously simply putting the Mass in the vernacular hasn’t rendered it more understandable. Unless…the simplicification of the texts themselves was sufficiently comprehensive that hearing them still doesn’t really pass on the fullness of the Catholic faith. Let me give you an anecdote (you know how useful those are to illustrate universal principles ).

My rather anti-Catholic father used to attend Mass with us occasionally when we were first received into the Church (this was over ten years ago, before we began assisting at the TLM). Usually the priest would use “Eucharistic Prayer” #2 or, more frequently, #4. My dad never really had much to say about it. But one Sunday, for some reason, the priest said EP #1, which is for all intents the purposes the old Roman Canon still used in the TLM. My father was very upset by it, because it so clearly spoke of the Eucharistic sacrifice. He never went back. So there is some pretty significant loss of distinctive Catholic material in the new liturgical prayers that may explain part of this as well.