Misconceptions about Medieval Mass

[Dauphin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[iona_scribe]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bpbasilphx

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.