Please help me understand this

[St_Francis]

yes, I do understand that it would be difficult to learn all the dialects

but it seems like most common people didn’t know latin, unless I’m wrong

You’re wrong Most common people did know some or quite a bit of Latin, because it was necessary not only for Mass but also for trade, because Latin was the common langage, just as English is known around the world today. Latin was the “lingua franca” of the time (this is a little bit funny, because lingua franca is a Latin phrase meaning French language–French was the common language for a short while esp in diplomacy.)

Anyway, there were Passion plays during Lent and Easter, creches at Christmas-time, and the Bible stories were sort of embedded in the culture the way Star Wars and other popular movies are embedded in our today. And people went to Mass more often and had access to other prayer activites at the church until TV came in. The fact that people did not receive much formal education does not mean they didn’t learn much!

And on top of all that, people’s aural memories were *much *better developed than ours.

 

[wittgenstein]

I think there is spiritual knowledge too intense for us common folk. See Luke 8:10

 

[ProVobis]

most people didn’t understand latin, how else did they learn if not through the mass?

There could be some truth in that. Most of the Spanish I know I learned from the Spanish Mass.

But the truth is, Latin was taught in private and public schools in much of the West. It was only after Vatican II that the Church started dropping the Latin requirement among other things. But thanks to the internet and JPII and BXVI and even some Protestants, Latin has made a modest comeback.

That said, it doesn’t take a person with enormous capacity for vocabulary to learn the Latin Mass. There are only some 600 distinct Latin words in the EF, many of them with English and Spanish cognates. And the readings and sermon are given in the vernacular.