WHY THE CHURCH USES LATIN

New Zealand Tablet, 1 September 1910, Page 1393

WHY THE CHURCH USES LATIN

When Christianity was first established (says the Bombay Examiner) y the Roman Empire ruled the destinies or the world. Ragan Rome had dominion over nearly a’l Europe and large portions of Asia and Africa. The Latin was the language of the Empire. Wherever the Roman standard was planted, there also was spread the Latin tongue; just as at the present time the English language is spoken wherever the authority of Great Britain or cf tiro United States is established. Faith of Our Fathers, P. 377. j ‘The Church naturally adopted in her liturgy or public worship the language which she then found prevailing among the people. The Fathers of the early Church generally wrote in the Latin tongue, which thus became the depository of the treasures of sacred literature in the Church.’ The popular view which is reflected in this passage has always interested us, so we must be excused for a discourse somewhat longer than the importance (or unimportance) of the matter might demand. Let us take a rough survey of the distribution of languages at the time of Christ and for two or three centuries after. Latin as a vernacular was confined more or less to Central Italy. In Northern Italy, Gaul, and Spain there was a kind of Celtic; in Germany Teutonic; in Marseilles, Lyons, Southern Italy, and Sicily, Greek; in Northern Africa, Punic and Greek. Greek was, of course, the vernacular of Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, and Asia Minor. The conquest of Greece had brought Greek into the Roman Empire through two channels. Among the educated it was taken up as a language of culture; among the lower classes it was spread by the multitudes of Greek slaves. Latin remained the social language of religious worship, the law, the army, and the government; but Greek became almost the lingua, franca of the Empire—a language which every Roman was supposed to know. In most of the distant provinces Greek was spread, rather than Latin. The Jews of Palestine spoke Greek. . The Jews of the dispersion spoke Greek. Hence the Septimgint translation of the Old Testament. Hence tlife NilSy Testament was written in Greek, even the EpistliMb the Romans. Again, the first Fathers of the Church all wrote in Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Hernias (writing for Roman readers), Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin Martyr; Aristides (addressing the Emperor); Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus refuting the Gnostics; Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, Sotor of Rome ditto. In fact all the Popes of the first two centuries seem to have written Greek if they wrote at' all. The original Roman liturgy is supposed to have been in Greek; and the Apostles’ Creed, as it is called (apparently the Roman baptismal creed) was also in Greek. The first of the Latin-writing Fathers is Tertullian (Circa 200 A.D.), and he was an African. In fact, Africa seems to have been the place where Latin was chiefly kept up, at a time when it was practically neglected in Italy itself—even the Sibylline books were written in Greek. Many cf the Roman writers cultivated both tongues. As regards the West, there is no doubt that the higher class natives of Gaul and Germany and Britain cultivated Latin, and not Greek; and that partly through this, and partly through the settling down of the soldiery, Latin became an important element in the modification of these languages. But on the whole it seems true to say that at no time was Latin ‘ the language of the Empire ’ in the sense of a universal lingua franca. This is far more true of Greek, but not strictly true of either. The initial adoption of a Greek liturgy at Rome was obviously due to that being the prevalent language there. Similarly the introduction of a Latin liturgy in its place, perhaps in the second or third century, was due to the revival and prevalence of Latin in Rome. But when we inquire why the Latin liturgy was spread over the whole Western Church, this seems to be accounted for, not «n any reflex principles of adopting the language of the people, still less because Latin was the language of _ the Empirefor it was not. It came about, we think, chiefly, from a concatenation of circumstances which practically made any other alternative impossible. In the first place, the great centre of western missionary enterprise was Rome itself; or, at any rate, the clergy who went out missionising were always in the first instance men who were accustomed to saying Mass in Latin. Their preaching had to be done by interpreters till they picked up the local vernacular for themselves. The making of a vernacular liturgy was very difficult. At first the language was not well enough known; then when it became known, it was too crude and wanting in words; finally it was too fluctuating. Some attempts were made, but without success; and so in the end the clergy, who had been carrying on the offices in Latin, according to their custom, continued to do letting the people make the best they could of it, and aiding them by suitable instructions as to what was going on. Latin became a lingua franca of Western Christendom for similar reasonsbecause the clergy were the educated men; because the only language common to the clergy everywhere was Latin; because it was the only stable lan-

guage in a time of chaos; because it was the language of the ecclesiastical writers, and because it was the only means of communication between the bishops and Rome. The stereotyping of Latin in the liturgy and literature thus came about, not from any purpose of taking up the language of the people, but rather through the practical necessity of the case, and from simple common sense recognising that necessity, and conforming to it. As regards the services of the Church, the people who in their pagan ceremonies had been used to unintelligible formulas uttered by their priests, took the use of a language they did not understand as a matter of course, and accommodated their devotion to it. And so everybody was content until in the sixteenth century the Reformers began to stir up the question, and to make a controversial and even a doctrinal point out of it. Then, and then only, was the Church compelled to take up an attitude of defence in regard to a practice which had hitherto been unquestioned. The foregoing is a rough impression which may need revising in parts; but it is on the whole, we think, a far nearer approximation to the facts than the view, so often assumed, about Latin being the language of the Empire. No one reflecting on the matter will, we tlnnk, deny that in the abstract a service in the language of the worshippers would be preferable to a service in an unknown tongue'. Even allowing as we must that the Mass is essentially a sacrifice directed to God, and not an ‘ instruction ’ to the people, it seems obviously that the people, who are . supposed to join in the offering, would, ceteris paribus, do so more easily and completely if it were couched in their own native tongue. Nor is this obvious acknowledgment a giving away of the case. The Church’s practice is in fact only intelligible when understood in the light of history. The circumstances of the past show how it unavoidably came about, and present circumstances show why, having thus come about, it should be maintained. It is all very well for a narrow and circumscribed sect to glory in its vernacular services; for such services are practicable in a single country where everybody speaks the same language. But in a universal missionary concern, and so vast a concern, too, as the Catholic Church : s, the least experience shows it to be impracticable. Look around India, for instance. There are hundreds of languages in vogue, and nearly a dozen of them are the vernaculars of millions. But these are so irregularly distributed that there is hardly a single diocese where the language is the same throughout and in some there are at least three prevalent tongues. It would certainly be possible to produce vernacular liturgies in the chief among these languages. But at once another difficulty occurs — in fact two difficulties. First, in most of the churches where Mass is said, there is sure to be a mixture of different races, each using a different languagesome Canarese, some Telegu, some Tamil, some Mahratti, some Concanim, and besides some Europeans. Hence a Mass in any one language would be unintelligible to all the rest. Secondly, look at the case of the clergy. At present any priest can say Mass, privately or publicly, in any church in the whole world; and it is the same always. Given local vernaculars, he could only say Mass privately, and must bring his own books and server with him if things are to be done properly. Moreover, in the missions a priest is liable to be sent to this or that station. Suppose he goes to Ahmednagar, he must say an English Mass for the soldiers. If he goes fifty miles further to Kendal he must say it in Mahratti. If he is sent to Anand he must say it in Gujerathi. If he goes to Gooledgood it is Mahratti again, and if to Alnavar or Tumaricop it must he Canarese, etc., etc. Travelling through the Madras diocese he needs Telegu in the north, Tamil in the south, and Canarese in the west. Surely no priest could be expected to equip himself in this cosmopolitan way. We need not work the matter out further. The conclusion is that the vernacular system is unworkable in the Catholic Church because it is catholic or worldwide; and considering that Catholics as a body are perfectly satisfied and well suited by the existing system, there is not the least need for a changeand any one with »the least common sense will recognise this. Even converts for the most part get quite used to it after a few months, and most of them then begin to prefer it. And if there are a few who criticise and object, we can easily allow them the liberty of a preference for the vernacular system, if their taste lies that way— long as they do not make themselves disagreeable over it. With a short explanation showing how the people aip able to follow the services intelligently if they wish to, and that they can also participate profitably and rationally by means of private devotions according to their own taste, the apologetic for Latin services is complete.