Is it fair to say that most medieval laymen did not understand the mass?

I think that’s over-complicating it. As happens too often, the Patristic roots of the Reformation are omitted, while the feudal/medieval influences are over-privileged. In the Reformers you had the greatest Greek, Hebrew, and Classical Latin scholars who then lived in the world. Let’s take three of the biggest examples they might’ve looked at:

1.) 1st century AD. The Apostles inherit an intensely Judaic, 100% (sacred)Hebrew and Aramaic set of Scriptures. They look around them at the landscape of the culture: no sacred Hebrew anywhere, and yet a ton of various Greek dialects across the Roman Empire: attic, corinthian, near-eastern greek. You have Greco-Indian kingdoms in the far-east. What do they do? They translate the New Testament into koine — not attic, or corinthian, or near-eastern Greek, definitely not the indo-Greek. They AREN’T lost and tossed in anxieties, wringing their hands in doubts about Greek dialects and subcultures. They pick one dialect, and FORCE all of Greek Christendom to use koine Greek as their basis.

2. 4th century AD. An intensely Greek-speaking Christian Church, with (by then) ancient Greek liturgies, seemingly sacred Greek Scriptures (not to mention even more sacred Hebrew Scriptures). It’s a done deal right? Wrong. St Augustine, St Ambrose. St Jerome, St Cyprian look at the situation and figure out that it’s completely failing the Latin West. St Jerome undertakes the titanic task of translating all of the Scriptures into Latin (he even ignores the “sacred” Greek to go right back to the Hebrew!) but which Latin does he pick? Does he toss and turn at night about the kinds of anxieties you presented? Iberian Latin? Gallic Latin? How about Classical Latin? Maybe Britannic Latin from the barbarians up north?

No he simply translates it into LATIN. Jeromian Latin if you insist.

3. And for the final example, 8th century AD. By this time eight centuries of Latin, Syriac Christianity, the Greek is still going strong. Two brothers Cyril and Methodius go to evangelize the barbarians of the far-north Scythian Steppe. They realize that neither Latin nor Syriac nor Greek will work with the natives, so what do they do? Translate into the native language. But WHICH native language? “Each village has its own dialect,” yes? They aren’t lost in doubt, or wring their hands with anxiety. They PICK one of the local languages, invent a whole new alphabet to write down the illiterate gargles of the local natives, and FORCE the natives to all unite under one local language: the Cyrillic. Thus creating the Russian people.

 

Yes, but picking ONE language and FORCING everyone to worship in it was, itself, highly political.

And it also belies the ideal of everyone "having the Bible in their own language."

At a certain point, for expediency sake, you have to just do something, sure. But that something was, in Europe, Latin. Which for the southern countries which already spoke a form of popular Latin was totally logical.

What I'm reacting against is the popular modern Protestant sneer that "in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church kept the Bible in a language no one understood!" Well, actually, for a while people did understand it in lots of places. And there wasn't a lot of good alternatives (linguistically, economically, socially, politically). And even when people started translating into local languages, the results and implementation was sometimes horrible.

Why the RCC kept Latin (and continued to import it with its missionaries to places like Japan and South America) has, I think, lots to do with a reaction against the Reformation (Ireland perhaps being their example of this practice gone wrong) and then later the RCC reaction against nationalism (which is the reason why we even have languages called "French" and "Italian" today).

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p011lc1b

And that's just English.

In places in Saxony, local villages even today will each have their own dialect. And yes, this is real linguistic differences.

 

I don’t see many people wringing their hands over this today. It all comes out in the wash.

Even if you’re right, it was a practical choice that may have had political consequences, rather than fundamentally pushed by heavy political overtones as you seemed to initially write.

Your objections could be identically raised against the introduction of Latin in the 4th century. Many people still spoke Greek, right? Certainly *all* of the educated people. And it was a sacred language of sorts wasn’t it? What’s up with these profane “nativists” with their Latin? Did the Apostles write *anything* in latin, hmmm? And forget about the prophets and Latin altogether, that’s like two different galaxies. And *which* Latin to translate into? How dare St Jerome impose a single stamp on what were a dozen different Latin dialects and subcultures, effectively erasing them?

And later, what about Cyril and Methodius, going into places where at least the intellectuals *all* already spoke Greek or Syriac or Latin. What’s up with them elevating the barbarian language of the locals? And not the language of all the locals, which didn’t exist: “each village had its own dialect”. So they actually picked a subset of some of the locals and imposed it on all the rest, effectively erasing different dialects and subcultures over time, what the heck? How can they do that?

It’s impossible to understand the imperatives and impulses of the Early Church within the framework and objections you bring up here. The Reformers were a lot more in harmony with the Early Church than some today give them credit for.

 

Duplicate, please remove.

 

Actually the Church in Rome started using Latin in the second century. There was an old Latin translation called the Vetus Latina, which the Roman Rite continues to quote, which St. Jerome was commissioned to replace. So for example, the phrase “Gloria in excelsis Deo” is classical Latin from the Vetus Latina, whereas Jerome’s more vulgar dialect renders the same as “Gloria in altissimis Deo.”

In like manner, Syriac Christianity dates from the early evangelization of St. Thomas and his disciples Sts. Addai and Mari of Edessa, Mesopotamia and India. In the mid 2nd century, Tatian, who later fell into Gnostic heresy, composed a rather bland Gospel harmony called the Diatessarom, and separately the Old Testament portion of the Peshitta, the simple Syriac Bible, is dated from this century. After the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated in the fourth century, the bishops of the Syriac speaking churches quickly distributed it and simultaneously ordered the Diatessaron removed.

The Coptic Christians in their Bible and Liturgy provide a rare partial exception to the rule of liturgical languages you set out, because starting under St. Cyril in the 5th century, translations were made into the two main Coptic dialects, Sahidic and Bohairic (only the latter is still in use, and it is a dead language outside of the church, but the Coptic people prefer singing it).

 

Constantine the Great did not speak Greek, and regularly needed an interpreter when dealing with the Eastern part of the Empire. Augustine of Hippo was quite possibly the first significant theologian to write in Latin, which is part of the reason that they do not read him much in the East. The available evidence suggests that in the post-apostolic church the language of the liturgy would most likely be something that people could understand in the place where it was being used. Quite often that may have been Greek or Latin, as both were in widespread use.

The Apostles who wrote most probably wrote either in Koine Greek or Aramaic. The New Testament seems to have been written in Koine Greek. Koine Greek was not a special liturgical language, it was the Greek of the marketplace, as against the high classical language of the academics. The move to latin in the liturgy is in line with the consolidation of the Western Patriarch, in bringing some uniformity into the Church in is area.

I believe that the reformers were right to point out this glaring problem of the liturgy in a language not undsanded by the people.

 

You all seem to be talking about understanding language, implying that understanding what is going on when the words of consecration recall the parting words of Christ immediately before his great, once and final sacrifice for the entire human race, is merely a matter of 'hearing the words of a priest and understanding what you have heard in a language you understand'.

The Eucharist is a meeting of minds between God and a believer in Jesus Christ's ability to bring about reconciliation between themselves and the creator of universes. It is not primarily about hearing and understanding 'language'. It is about casting onself entirely upon the Grace of God and trusting in God's providence and love for His creation.

There are MANY who fully understand every word of what the priest has said, but yet still do not have any part in Christ Jesus. John 13:8, Luke 11:36.

There have been as many in the average congregation in every age who have this 'part in Christ', as there are today, despite words of priest or understanding of priest or people or rite or ceremony or incense or music or vestments or any other man made artifice.

God is ALL in ALL. 1 Cor.12:4-14.
.

 

I have no doubt the English Book of Common Prayer did not please the Cornish. I am sure the Welsh would not have liked it either. However, that is not the point I was addressing made to the poster before my last post. There the claim was made English varied so much from village to village that there was no common English language all English language speakers could comprehend.

 

Indeed. That said I believe there is a Cornish translation of the 1662 book, and the massive two volume BCP published when Dr. Rowan Williams was archbishop of Wales. before he became Archbishop of Cantebury, which is from what I understand the last traditional language BCP edition, although I find it a bit dense and impenetrable compared to the earlier BCPs, was of course published in English and Welsh. And the same presumably goes for many other provinces.

 

There has never been a complete Cornish translation of the BCP. In the 1970's Graham Leonard when Bishop of Truro authorised a small Cornish language prayer book called 'Lyver Pysadow Kemyn' (Book of Common Prayer) for use in his diocese. It is available online.

Lyver Pysadow Kemyn just contains MP, EP, HC and Compline with a selection of Marian Antiphons. There are no Epistles and Gospels although I have a slim separate volume which has Cornish translations for major days. Historically we only have fragments of the Bible in Cornish and a full translation has only been made in recent years.

 

I think the average layman understood the basics. Icongraphy and the explanation of the priest in their venacular, supplemented with pilgrimages was likely sufficent to have rudimentary understanding.