Gotcha. What I am getting at is, for many people of whom I am one, hearing and understanding the Mass is part of “full and active participation”. If, as you suggest, understanding is not really important, why even have Missals with the vernacular in them? At some level, the Church feels it is important for people to understand the words used in the Mass, the Scripture being read, etc. If that was not the case, there would be no missal provided and no translation at all.
One of the commonly cited reasons for some traditionalists not liking the prayers used in the OF of the Mass is that the Mass itself is supposed to serve as catechesis for the Faithful. This would seem to contradict your suggestion that understanding is really not necessary.
Understanding is good and important; but no, not actually necessary. A child does not understand - whether said in Latin or the vernacular - the baptismal formula or rite;- notwithstanding, it is the faith of the Church that is communicated.
But if I can neither i) understand nor ii) assent, then the Mass is almost useless from that standpoint, outside of fulfilling an obligation. I can scarcely participate - I can’t understand or meditate upon what is being said; worse, I don’t even know what to do or say or when because I don’t know what’s happening. Now admittedly certain gestures and movements give me a vague idea of what is happening, but I can’t be completely sure. I can summise that the gospel is being read when the priest is reading, but when does it end? I know, perhaps, once the people around me have made a response in their language - but again, I’m like a catechumen in my own Church hearing Mass for the first time: but at least as a catechumen I could understand what was being said even if I didn’t know when responses were appropriate or what responses were appropriate.
The most important thing, though - and this is why I will go to an OF celebrated in Spanish if I’m in Spain - is really faith. My faith tells me that the Mass is the Mass regardless of the form or language it is said in: whether extraordinary or ordinary, English, Spanish or Latin, and that it is important that I be there.
As the Pope in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, has pointed out- of the bare minimums of salvation required from a reading of the scriptures, a knowledge (let alone an actual understanding) of Revelation is hardly ever listed as a criteria; hence, someone can have Baptism of Desire, even if they have never even heard of Christ. This actually makes sense: why would memorizing the dogmas of the Church be necessary for salvation? Why would an ability to recite a list of dogmatic factoids procure for me salvation, especially if I didn’t understand them? How few would be saved if we had to have a precise knowledge of each dogma, for instance, as also a perfect understanding of its full meaning or consequence? If it ever was anything remotely approaching strictly
necessary, the Church would have had us do it. But first and foremost is faith. With faith comes the blessings and the promises, as with Abraham the father of faith; moreover, it’s an ancient belief of the Church that understanding tends to follow after belief/faith - not precede it.
The
protoevangelium, for instance, was given to our first parents. To what extent did they understand it? How many Catholics know what the protoevangelium is or was? Is it necessary they i) know it and ii) understand its contents? Hardly - but all Catholics, notwithstanding, can safely be assumed to believe in it, if only implicitly.
Consider that we hardly ever read a list of things someone must believe. We don’t find: You need to believe this, and this, and this, and this, and this, etc. No: we need to believe, and we can’t believe if we don’t even have a disposition to believe.
