We have heard of inculturation, and how it is necessary in order for Latin-rite missionaries to make Christianity intelligible to non-Latin peoples. It seems undeniable that this claim is legitimate to some degree, if one has a proper understanding of inculturation. Those whose duty is to evangelize others labor under with the burden of having to communicate with human language. It is easier for the apostle to learn the language of another people and to make the Gospel intelligible to them in their native tongue, than for that other people to learn his language. Moreover, inculturation can also be used to refer to the adaptation of the liturgical rites of the Church of Rome to other cultues in order to make them more familiar to the people (usually beginning with the replacement of Latin by the "vernacular"). (Would it be incorrect to say that the ability to create a wholly new liturgical rite or family of rites passed away with the Apostles and the first few generation of their successors?) However, often inculturation becomes syncretism, which is justified as being necessary to "translate" Christian teaching using [religious] concepts familiar to the people, and this is why inculturation has fallen into disrepute among traditional Christians.
What, then, are we to do with a culture that was once Latin, or heavily influenced by it? It seems ridiculous to say that there must be some sort of inculturation for the cultures of Europe and the Americas. But here in the United States it could be argued that we are so distant from our Latin roots that we do not need to familiarize the people with Latin culture. Why should the "Western Patriarchate" be tied to Latin? There are the historical and cultural ties of course... but is the Church of Rome to do when people are ignorant, both passively and actively so? There may be reasons for a certain few to embrace Latin and a classical education; those who know what it is to be a true Anglo-American republican, rather than a democrat of the modern mass liberal democracy. But the mission of the Church is to bring Christ to others, not to teach them Latin so they can read Virgil.
Even if one can present arguments for the necessity of Latin in Western cultures that are more deeply rooted in the Roman Empire, who is going to promote Latin among the laity and get them interested, or teach them the language (and culture)? Who can develop a Latin for Dummies course? As for Americans -- if they aren't even familiar with English, can they expected to learn Latin?
Should we therefore give up Latin, and go back to the original languages of Sacred Scripture and begin from there, as the Reformers thought they were doing, and what has been done since then by Biblical scholars and translators? Surely we can easily produce an English translation that is dignified, avoiding the worse excesses of those silly Bible translations whose rationale is that they can be understood by the youth or those who live in urban ghettos.
(It might seem that with regards to Sacred Scripture that there is less of a need to inculturate, because the language is relatively simple, referring mostly to concrete sensible things? It should not be difficult to find equivalents of words referring to sensible things in another language, unless that culture has no experience of those objects. If there are no equivalents, do we use approximations, or do we create neologisms based on transliterations? Or do we seek to invent a new word using the native language as the base?)
Bishop Cordileone on Latin (from his interview with Barbara Simpson): "Latin is our tradition, and it helps us keep in touch with our tradition." Americans may be too far removed from their classical and Christian roots. But it seems to me that even if we do not re-appropriate Latin for the sake of recovering our classical culture and heritage, we should do so as Latin-rite Catholics. Latin-rite Catholics should at least be able to understand the basic prayers in Latin, along with the ordinary of the Mass. (Those who pursue higher studies in philosophy, theology, and law should definitely know Latin.)
Even if English-speaking Catholics were to adopt a hieratic version of English for the liturgy,
hieratic language (vernacular), acquainting them with Latin would be useful. Our faith in Christ is mediated through the Church and Tradition, and is in this way dependent upon language. (Our knowing is dependent on language as well.) We are not rootless individuals, but are joined to others in history, and sharing a common liturgical language (even if only partially) unites us to those who have come before us. Christ does not obliterate our natural ties to one another, but elevates them. Was it not Christopher Dawson who emphasized that Catholic Christians have their own culture? Is the learning of Latin another way of showing love and honor for our forefathers in the Faith? Can we not have a catechesis that aids us in become latinized, while maintaining a balance with what is required by a legitimate inculturation? Familiarity with Latin may not be necessary for our salvation, but it is a natural perfection that "humanizes" us and is open to being raised by grace.
See the writings of Christine Mohrmann on liturgical Latin, which was not the vernacular of the people, but stylized and adapted for liturgical use. Fr. Z links to a reflection by Jesuit on the new Missal translation which uses Mohrmann as a starting point.
Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientiae
Rorate Caeli: Uwe Michael Lang traces the historical evolution of the liturgical language in the Roman rite--Latin vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures by Uwe Michael Lang (English translation by Fr. Anthony Forte)
NLM: Liturgical English and the Hieratic Tradition
Adoremus: Translation and Inculturation in the Catholic Church
Christopher Dawson: Is there a Christian Culture
What, then, are we to do with a culture that was once Latin, or heavily influenced by it? It seems ridiculous to say that there must be some sort of inculturation for the cultures of Europe and the Americas. But here in the United States it could be argued that we are so distant from our Latin roots that we do not need to familiarize the people with Latin culture. Why should the "Western Patriarchate" be tied to Latin? There are the historical and cultural ties of course... but is the Church of Rome to do when people are ignorant, both passively and actively so? There may be reasons for a certain few to embrace Latin and a classical education; those who know what it is to be a true Anglo-American republican, rather than a democrat of the modern mass liberal democracy. But the mission of the Church is to bring Christ to others, not to teach them Latin so they can read Virgil.
Even if one can present arguments for the necessity of Latin in Western cultures that are more deeply rooted in the Roman Empire, who is going to promote Latin among the laity and get them interested, or teach them the language (and culture)? Who can develop a Latin for Dummies course? As for Americans -- if they aren't even familiar with English, can they expected to learn Latin?
Should we therefore give up Latin, and go back to the original languages of Sacred Scripture and begin from there, as the Reformers thought they were doing, and what has been done since then by Biblical scholars and translators? Surely we can easily produce an English translation that is dignified, avoiding the worse excesses of those silly Bible translations whose rationale is that they can be understood by the youth or those who live in urban ghettos.
(It might seem that with regards to Sacred Scripture that there is less of a need to inculturate, because the language is relatively simple, referring mostly to concrete sensible things? It should not be difficult to find equivalents of words referring to sensible things in another language, unless that culture has no experience of those objects. If there are no equivalents, do we use approximations, or do we create neologisms based on transliterations? Or do we seek to invent a new word using the native language as the base?)
Bishop Cordileone on Latin (from his interview with Barbara Simpson): "Latin is our tradition, and it helps us keep in touch with our tradition." Americans may be too far removed from their classical and Christian roots. But it seems to me that even if we do not re-appropriate Latin for the sake of recovering our classical culture and heritage, we should do so as Latin-rite Catholics. Latin-rite Catholics should at least be able to understand the basic prayers in Latin, along with the ordinary of the Mass. (Those who pursue higher studies in philosophy, theology, and law should definitely know Latin.)
Even if English-speaking Catholics were to adopt a hieratic version of English for the liturgy,
hieratic language (vernacular), acquainting them with Latin would be useful. Our faith in Christ is mediated through the Church and Tradition, and is in this way dependent upon language. (Our knowing is dependent on language as well.) We are not rootless individuals, but are joined to others in history, and sharing a common liturgical language (even if only partially) unites us to those who have come before us. Christ does not obliterate our natural ties to one another, but elevates them. Was it not Christopher Dawson who emphasized that Catholic Christians have their own culture? Is the learning of Latin another way of showing love and honor for our forefathers in the Faith? Can we not have a catechesis that aids us in become latinized, while maintaining a balance with what is required by a legitimate inculturation? Familiarity with Latin may not be necessary for our salvation, but it is a natural perfection that "humanizes" us and is open to being raised by grace.
See the writings of Christine Mohrmann on liturgical Latin, which was not the vernacular of the people, but stylized and adapted for liturgical use. Fr. Z links to a reflection by Jesuit on the new Missal translation which uses Mohrmann as a starting point.
Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientiae
Rorate Caeli: Uwe Michael Lang traces the historical evolution of the liturgical language in the Roman rite--Latin vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures by Uwe Michael Lang (English translation by Fr. Anthony Forte)
NLM: Liturgical English and the Hieratic Tradition
Adoremus: Translation and Inculturation in the Catholic Church
Christopher Dawson: Is there a Christian Culture
No comments:
Post a Comment