A new lingua franca for the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximian

Guest
It is often said that the adoption of the vernacular in the Mass is merely the modern equivalent of the adoption of Latin in the early centuries of the Western Church.

But there is a difference: Latin was adopted as a single language, whereas the vernacular is not a language but a plethora of languages.

Would proponents of the “merely an update” view accept the imposition of a new lingua franca on the Church? English would be the obvious choice. Would you favour, in the interests of uniformity, the adoption of English as the universal language of the Western Church and the Roman Rite?
 
Maximian said:
Would you favour, in the interests of uniformity, the adoption of English as the universal language of the Western Church and the Roman Rite?
Click to expand...
Even if I was for replacing Latin with a different language in the Latin rite, my answer to this would still be no. English is great at adaptability, but it is not as exact as Greek. I’d rather the Church use Greek before English.
 
Latin is the language of the Latin Church, changing it would probably be very bad. Its lack of vernacular usage is one of its greatest assets, since the meaning of words doesn’t change, making much easier to keep the faith and doctrine sound, orthodox and unspoiled by the taste of times and cultures, safeguarding its purity and clearness.

We should learn a little bit of our Mother Church language and love it as a sign of union between Catholics of all cultures and times.
 
Last edited:
Thanks but my question is addressed to those who favour the vernacular on the grounds that Latin was originally vernacular. The logic of updating would lead to the adoption of a universal new vernacular such as English, not a multiplicity of vernaculars.
 
Thanks, I don’t disagree with you but that is off point. Im addressing those who believe that the introduction of the vernacular is merely following the precedent of the introduction of Latin.
 
I think Latin was already a very formal and not so much popular language in its erudite form during the Roman Empire.

But, if it would be to change the language now (I am completely against it, but for the sake of argument) French would make much more sense. As a Brazilian and Italian, I tell you that English really does not sound very Catholic! It is just a cultural opinion, sorry, but English is very associated with protestantism and trade. French would be a more classical and historical Catholic language, closer to Latin and it has already some kind of formal and solemn pedigree associated to it.
 
Last edited:
English, of all languages, is a horribly confused, muddled mess. It is evolving at an increasing rate. The venerable Douay-Rheims bible has had to be updated several times due to rapid changes in the English language.

No, I think a dead language is just fine. It means tomorrow what it means today - and what it did 1,500 years ago.
 
There is not “universal new vernacular”. Even english, that is widely spoken, isn’t understood by all people.
 
AlbMagno said:
There is not “universal new vernacular”. Even english, that is widely spoken, isn’t understood by all people
Click to expand...
That was true in the sixth century too but it didn’t stop the Western Church adopting Latin as its universal language
 
Maximian said:
Thanks but my question is addressed to those who favour the vernacular on the grounds that Latin was originally vernacular.
Click to expand...
I could probably count those that also favor imposing a singular vernacular the worldwide RC on my fingers . . . and I might have ten left . …
 
That is in fact my point. But I would like those who justify the vernacular on the grounds that Latin was once vernacular to see for themselves how flawed the argument is.
 
Last edited:
But that argument is itself flawed.

Latin was not adopted for the universal western church, but rather the archdiocese of Rome, where it was the vernacular.

Latin didn’t become the standard of the general western church until Trent.
 
Fauken said:
I’d rather the Church use Greek before English.
Click to expand...
Then we’d have to fight over which variety of Greek, just like the Greek Orthodox Church!

Fun fact: A great deal of the contemporary official documents and communications within the Greek Orthodox Church are written in an archaic, literary 18th century dialect called Katharevousa.
 
Maximian said:
It is often said that the adoption of the vernacular in the Mass is merely the modern equivalent of the adoption of Latin in the early centuries of the Western Church.

But there is a difference: Latin was adopted as a single language, whereas the vernacular is not a language but a plethora of languages.
Click to expand...
To say Latin got adopted as “a single language” seems inaccurate. First, the reason Latin got adopted as such wasn’t so much a desire to put everyone on the same page as it was the fact that Latin was the dominant language in the west at the time. If there had been more languages, we would have almost certainly seen more languages adopted.

Latin got adopted in the areas where Latin was spoken. Aramaic/Syriac got adopted in the languages where that was spoken. I think the same thing happened with Ge’ez in Ethiopia. There are probably other languages I’m unaware of.

So to say that Latin got adopted as a single language seems highly misleading, because that “single language” adoption applied only to where Latin was adopted, and not the areas where it wasn’t. It’s a redundant statement to say that “Latin got adopted where it got adopted” but your argument ignores the redundancy.
 
Maximian said:
Latin was once vernacular
Click to expand...
Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance languages descended, was the vernacular of the early centuries. Classic Latin, codified by Cicero et al, remains today in pretty much in its pristine form.
 
Last edited:
The Latin of the Mass is a vernacular not a classical Latin. At the time the church adopted it for the Mass, Catholics in Christendom included speakers of visigothic/frankish/germanic languages, berber, gallic, Basque etc.

The common language was vulgar latin, which was used for the Mass. No attempt was made to allow each of the peoples in western christendom to have a mass in their own indigenous tongue.
 
Oh yes? So which other language do you think mass was said in western christendom on the eve of Trent?
 
po18guy said:
English, of all languages, is a horribly confused, muddled mess. It is evolving at an increasing rate.
Click to expand...
That’s funny. In the fourth century, Latin was a horribly confused, muddled mess that was evolving at an increasing rate. Much more so than English is now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top