Boeciana in her comment on the previous post kindly corrects me in my error of not mentioning that Latin was, of course, only normative for the Latin Rite within the Catholic Church. She then goes on to make many salient points as to why its reintroduction would be helpful. I must say that my own inclinations, particularly the aesthetic, run very much along the same lines, although I appreciate Galileo's argument in favour of the vernacular in his comment.
However, I'm going to take this thought and push it in some particularly speculative directions. Now, in the West we have all become too familiar with some of the, shall we say perishable fruits, of the Second Vatican Council. But of course the Holy Spirit knows rather more than we do, and He must have had his reasons. And it is worth bearing in mind that while the Church has been in decline in Europe and, to a lesser extent, North America and Australasia, over the last 40 odd years, this same period since the Council has seen a quite explosive growth for the Church in Africa and Asia. Speaking to priests when I was travelling in India and Sri Lanka, and listening to reports from clerics in Africa, their consensus seems to be that the changes instituted by the Council, particularly the allowance of the vernacular in the Mass, have been major reasons for their success in evangelisation. Christendom, as it was previously constituted and including Spanish and Portuguese South America, largely consisted of countries whose civilisational patrimony included Greece and Rome, via European imperialism. Even the main languages spoken in these countries were all derived at one remove or another from Latin. Thus the use of Latin in the Mass, apart from any other function, would serve to evoke echoes of that shared past.
However, with the spread of Christianity into Asia and Africa, we are encountering peoples whose languages and histories have no major connection with our European past. Here Christianity's ability to adapt to and ennoble different cultures comes into its own. This trait has deep roots within the Faith, going back to the catacombs and the persecutions of the first Christians.
Now I would like to contrast this with how Islam has spread as a religion. As you no doubt know, Islam was both a faith and an army almost from the off. Thus it overran the Middle East, North Africa and Spain, and into Central Asia and India. However, it is worth pointing out that over the last couple of centuries its outreach has largely been peaceful. A particularly striking example is that of Java, which was a Buddhist nation until the fairly recent past. The conversion of Java, and then the rest of Indonesia, was undertaken by Muslim traders, usually Sufis, who achieved their aims often by preaching rather than the sword. Amongst these figures were the semi-legendary Nine Saints (or Wadis) of Java, who were renowned for their mastery of the local art of shadow theatre.
But what is all this aside about? Well, it's often been noted that Islam does not bear within itself any model for Muslims being a subsidiary section of society: historically they have generally been either the majority or a ruling minority like the Moghuls of India. So, together with the requirement that the Qu'ran be taught in Arabic and the prayers be said in a like manner, a certain degree of homogeneity was imposed over the Muslim world. But in centuries past, as central power structures waned and the difficulties of communication left one part of the Muslim world very separate from another, a certain degree of inculturation occurred.
However, recent decades have seen this process reversed, partly as a result of better communications, but also because of the disproportionate influence wielded by, in particular, the Saudi Arabians, on account of their wealth and their status as keepers of the Holy Places. This has led to an increasing Arabisation of Islam around the world, most visible in the fact that the style of hijab is becoming increasingly uniform from one end of the Muslim world to another.
Now, what does this mean for the future? Well, many things, obviously, but I'm going to pursue one particular avenue of thought. The meeting places between Islam and Christendom are shifting in surprising ways, with Islam on the advance in Europe through immigration and, to a lesser extent conversion. On the other hand, Christianity is at last beginning to win converts in Asia. Africa, of course, is likely to see quite a collision between the two faiths in the decades to come. But to really push speculation, when I think of Asia there is of course one country in the continent which has previously remained largely impervious to the missionary efforts of both religions: China.
Perhaps we can guess that one reason for Chinese resistance to Islam is the Chinese belief, not unjustified, in their nation's cultural superiority. To accept Islam, particularly in its modern form, would mean abandoning a great deal of that patrimony.
And now, to return via a long and circuitous route to the original point of my argument, perhaps that is one reason for the change to the vernacular and other reforms of the Council. Asking you to accept a huge speculation alert here, maybe the possibility of the Mass in Cantonese or another Chinese language, and the adoption of some appropriate Chinese ways, might make it possible one day for the Gospel to be proclaimed effectively to more than one billion Chinese.
So, to answer in a few words why it was necessary for the Church to adopt the vernacular, a possible answer is China, Asia and Africa.
Recent Comments