By Veronica A. Arntz
Pope Francis has repeatedly called
the Church to become a “culture of encounter.” What this has come to mean is
that we engage other people and cultures, meeting them where they are at, in
order to bring them the Gospel message.
While we are always called to
evangelize others, this understanding of “culture of encounter” can lead toward
watered down catechesis, and a watered down understanding of the Church.
Central to discovering the legitimacy of this “encounter” movement is the
question of language.
Fundamentally, we may ask the
following question: Does the Church have one language or many languages? The
premise for the culture of encounter is that the Church has many languages, and
we need to speak the particular language of the culture to pass on the faith.
While it is obvious that the Church is made up of many cultures that speak many
languages, does this necessarily mean that the Church herself has many languages, particularly many languages for
the celebration of the Roman rite liturgy? Language can be taken in two senses:
internal and external. I would like to argue that the Church has one internal
language, which is the essence of her beliefs, and one primary external
language, the language of Latin, to express that internal reality, especially
in the liturgy.
The one internal language of the
Church is expressed fundamentally in the Creed. The Creed contains all the
doctrines of the Catholic Church, although many hidden within the simplicity of
the prayer itself: “Credo in Deum, Patrem
omnipotentem, Creatorum caeli et terrae.” In a sermon to catechumens on
the Creed, St. Augustine says:
For this is the
Creed which you are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which you
have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence
gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be
distressed; that ever person may be able to say, able to hold, what he
believes.
There are a few things to note
here. First, the Creed is meant to be rehearsed and recited; when it is recited
repeatedly, the words are retained in memory. When the words are retained in
memory, they are ingrained into the individual’s soul, so that they become a
rule for living one’s life in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. Second, the
words from the Creed come from the Scriptures themselves: these words contained
in the Creed are not arbitrary or invented, but rather, every part of the Creed
can be found somewhere in the Scriptures. This reveals continuity between the
Scriptures and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Finally, every person who is a Catholic is to say these words; thus, the
Creed is universal in character. It is not meant for one group or culture, but
rather, the entire universal Church. When a member of the Church prays the
Creed, he or she is praying with all the members of the Catholic Church. In
that respect, the Creed transcends time. For this reason, St. Paul writes,
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that
belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
us all” (Ephesians 4:4-6, RSV). Thus, because there is one Lord, we have one
faith in him, which is expressed in the Creed of the Catholic Church.
The Creed can be considered the
“internal language” of the Church because it is a summary of what she believes.
Anyone who contradicts this language of the Church by preaching another word is
considered a heretic or a schismatic. To be part of the one Church of Christ,
it is necessary not only to be baptized, but also to profess the language of
the Church. That is why renewing our Baptismal vows involves proclaiming a
strong, “I do,” to the articles of the Creed. If we deny any of these articles,
then we are denying the internal language of the Church. It is impossible to
remain the Church and speak another language than she does, in this respect.
One cannot simply say that Christ only had one nature, as the Monophysites did,
and still expect to remain in the Church, because such a belief directly
subverts the true beliefs of the Catholic Church.
In order to express this internal
language, the Church needs an external language. In essence, words are only
signs pointing to reality; they are not the reality in themselves. In the Cratylus, Plato (through Socrates)
argues that language is merely convention, meaning that words can change
meaning over time, and the reality is not present within the word itself. In
this respect, one could say that the language of the Church does not matter.
Nevertheless, this has not been the primary mode of the Church, even since the
time of the chosen people of God in the Old Testament.
The Tower of Babel is an
interesting study in language. In the story of the Tower of Babel, the people,
who at this time were speaking all one language, say to each other, “Come, let
us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us
make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the
whole earth” (Genesis 11:4). The people are building the tower of themselves
and of their own pride; their city will not be dedicated to God, but rather, to
themselves.
Because of their pride, the Lord
says, “Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may
not understand one another’s speech” (Genesis 11:7). Now the people are no
longer one, but many, and scattered throughout the earth, because they were
speaking many languages that no one could understand (see Genesis 11:9). In
other words, the people no longer spoke one, unified language, and could
therefore not understand each other. From pride comes a multitude of languages.
What does this mean for our
discussion on language and the Church? In his tractates on the Gospel of John,
St. Augustine comments on this passage in light of the command to baptize all
nations through the power of the Holy Spirit. Augustine writes:
If pride caused
diversities of tongues, Christ’s humility has united these diversities in one.
The Church is now bringing together what that tower had sundered. Of one tongue
there were made many; marvel not: this was the doing of pride. Of many tongues
there is made one; marvel not, this was the doing of charity (In Jo. ev. tr., 6.10).
The pride at the Tower of Babel
caused a diversity of tongues, but the humility and charity of Christ, brought
all tongues back into unity under himself. The many tongues of the many nations
have become one under Jesus Christ. Again, this can be understood in two
senses: internal and external. In Christ, there is one faith, and all
Christians are required to believe his Gospel of Love. But I would also like to
argue that this means there is one external
language of the Church. How is the universal Church to communicate if there
are many languages? This would certainly cause controversies in the early
Church with councils in the East and West. Nevertheless, over time, the Roman
Rite of the Church chose the Latin
language as her one, external language, which is explicit in her sacred
liturgy.
If the Church truly wishes to
“encounter” people, then she needs one language that all her members can
understand. This does not mean that the diverse cultures within the Church
should all abandon their own languages for the language of the Church. Rather,
those things that properly belong to the Roman Catholic Church should be in one
language—Latin. Particularly in the sacred liturgy, we can see how this is a
most useful thing.
When Latin is used as the
language of the liturgy, it is set apart from the vernacular and the vulgar
tongue of the people. While some may argue that at one time in Rome the
vernacular was Latin, we should be
clear that the Latin of the liturgy is poetic and elevated; it could hardly be
considered the same Latin of the streets. But especially now, in our modern times,
when Latin is not spoken, and is indeed considered a dead language, Latin
liturgy really is set apart from our mundane world. For liturgy celebrated in
the vernacular can all too easily become just like anything else in our lives:
there is nothing to set it apart. Particularly since the Second Vatican
Council, when Latin was almost entirely abandoned within the liturgy (contrary
to the intent of the Council Fathers), have we not seen the liturgy become
mundane? Is the liturgy truly seen as something set apart from our daily lives?
Thus, Latin as the proper
external, liturgical language of the Church reveals something deeper and more
profound about her internal language, for it is in the liturgy that we recite
the Creed and encounter the realities of our faith. When the external language
of the Church is something entirely other than the language of our daily lives,
we recognize something sacred.
The liturgy is not just like a
conversation with the checkout person at the grocery store; rather, the liturgy
is a conversation with the Omnipotent God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the
Creator of our individual souls. In the Tower of Babel, the people wanted to
create something like themselves, but this caused their language to become
confused. Too often, we want the liturgy to become something like ourselves.
We want to understand the
liturgy, to participate in it, to make it into entertainment. But this is
precisely the problem of the Tower of Babel, and the very same thing will
happen to the liturgy and the Church’s internal language: both will become
confused. If the Church does not have one external language, then she will find
it difficult to accurately and clearly articulate her internal language. If we
change the external language of the liturgy, then we will be tempted to change
the Church’s internal language, which is expressed in a particular way in the
liturgy.
The Church specifically chose the
language of Latin to express the internal realities of the Roman Catholic
Church. This does not mean that we should no longer do catechesis in the
vernacular or stop teaching prayers in the vernacular. What it does mean,
however, is that the liturgy, which is the public and external expression of
the Church’s internal language, should be in the Latin language, lest we become
confused in what the liturgy really is.
It is not each particular Church
that celebrates the liturgy; rather, the universal Church celebrates the
liturgy in each particular Church. For that reason, there should be one
universal language of the liturgy, such that there are many cultures united
through Christ in one sacred language. And this one sacred language, the
language of Latin, unites the many cultures in the sacred liturgy so that we
can truly say that the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.
