Yuku free message boards

But how do you account for the fact that up until 1968 everyone in the world who had ever become Roman Catholic attended the Mass in Latin? Would you seriously argue that for almost two millenia people were unable to worship God? Or that Catholicism did not become part of their culture, or part of their intellectual, emotional or psychological development? How did the Philippines become overwhelmingly Catholic? Was that a development of the last 40 years only after the Mass was celebrated in Tagalog or English or Spanish, or did it start in the 16th century?

In response to your query, Rcesq, as to how the Philippines became a Catholic country, well, it was in a manner similar to that which PaxTibi has noted: Catholicism was brought to our shores not by missionary priests, but on the coattails of a certain Portuguese explorer and "conquistador" by the name of Ferdinand Magellan, who was in the service of the Spanish Crown, and who set foot on the island of Cebu in 1521. Among the members of his expeditionary party was a Malay slave named Enrique, who was able to act as his translator. Although Enrique may not have spoken Cebuano, the native dialect of Cebu, he collaborated with a Siamese trader who was in Cebu at the time and who spoke Malay, and together, they communicated Magellan's statements to Rajah Humabon.

Now, while it is true that Rajah Humabon and his queen agreed to be baptized, thus making them the first Filipinos to become Christians, I cannot help but think that there may have yet been another reason - and one that was definitely not quite spiritual - that aided them in making this decision. Antonio Pigafetta, an Italian scholar who was a member of Magellan's party, kept a journal of the entire expedition, and here is a rather pertinent portion of that journal:

"The interpreter [Enrique] told him [Siamese trader] that the captain [Magellan], as captain of so great a king as his, would not pay tribute to any lord in the world, and that if he desired peace he should have peace, and if he desired war, war he should have. Then the aforesaid merchant replied to the king [Humabon of Cebu]in his own language, Cata raia chita, which is to say, Have good care, O king, what you do, for these men are of those who have conquered Calicut, Malacca, and all India the Greater." (Italics supplied.) - From the Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, 1969

Over the next 378 years, the Philippines existed as a colony of Spain, and yes, in those years, Christianity became part of our culture, and definitely part of our identity. It is true that the Philippines, like every other country colonized by the Christian kingdoms of Europe, worshiped in the language of her colonizers, and I have never denied that - what other language was the liturgy written in, at the time? I am thankful, however, that Christianity - and Roman Catholicism, in particular - has become one of the far happier legacies of our Spanish colonial period; that is something I definitely attribute to the grace of God, because the Philippines was not without its unhappy experiences at the hands of our Christian colonizers.

You do not, of course, seriously think that I am saying that it was not possible for people to worship God before Vatican II. I meant nothing of the sort, and I'm going to think that you were just kidding when you said that. I must wonder, however, if you would seriously argue that prior to the development of the Latin Mass, people were unable to worship God? Because the Disciples, who were given the gift of tongues at Pentecost, may in all probability have celebrated the Eucharist in the language of whichever place they were preaching. The Eastern Catholic Churches, in fact, have worshiped in Church Slavonic, and not in Latin. Should we consider their experiences of worship under this language as any less "valid" than those under Latin?

And if the Lord really wanted everyone to worship Him in their own languages, why did it take the Holy Spirit so long to inform the Church of this wish? I'm sorry, Unicorn, but your reasoning here is flawed. I can understand a preference for local churches to use the local language, but something very real has been lost: unity. And that is no small thing.

Hmmm … I would ask, rather, why did it take us so long to discern what the Holy Spirit may have been telling us so long ago? Human beings, Rcesq, are flawed and sometimes rather slow to discern the will of God. I don't presume to know exactly what His plans are for the Church, but I'm willing to bet that they do include for the advent of a time when the liturgy will be translated - and celebrated - in all the many languages of the world. And it seems that that time has definitely come.

Now, I must admit that I definitely agree with PaxTibi on this score: whether those of us here who love Latin wish to accept it or not, the truth is that Latin is simply not something that is relevant to people in countries whose language and culture are as deeply rooted, if not more ancient than, the Latin language and civilization. Take for instance, China. In the article that Adamz09 has linked to, Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say about the failure of the missionary efforts in China:

"Following in the footsteps of Francis Xavier, the Jesuits once again advanced towards China, and for a time it seemed that Asian wisdom and Christian faith would walk hand in hand and mutually complement one another. It seemed that China, from the top down, and through its intellectuals, would be led towards Christ's Kingdom. But this hope ended in failure, not only because of the Rites Controversy, but because the method was too bold and did not win over the hearts of the common people. After all, the essence of religious belief is in its simplicity. The evangelization of the 19th century suffered the ramifications of its link to the political ambitions of the European Powers. From this, the Christian faith was formally seen as a European matter, and the missionaries manifestly as part of European colonization. Their aim was to have the whole world accept European thought and its way of life."

I cannot help but wonder how history might have turned out differently for the Church in China if the Chinese Missal that Pope Paul V had approved of as early as 1615 (and which Adamz09 has very kindly made known to us - Adam, many thanks for your very thoughtful contributions to the thread; I am somewhat delayed, but I certainly bid you a warm welcome to the RFC Family) had been put to use. Because the Latin language, I am reasonably sure, was most certainly seen as one of the aspects of European thought and way of life that the Chinese felt was being imposed on them as part of the political ambitions of the European powers.

China has a civilization that dates back at least two thousand years before the birth of Christ, and it also has the world's longest continuously used written language system. Do you really believe that it will be easy for Latin to supplant Chinese as the ideal language of worship for the Chinese Catholics, given that the Chinese language is most definitely part of the Chinese "soul", and is directly linked to their very long and legendary civilization? Do you really think that Latin will have more relevance, if not more resonance, than Chinese for this ancient people in worshiping God? They have been speaking Chinese far, far longer than Latin was spoken; I daresay that if the Church in China is to truly make even further inroads into the evangelization of China, it would do well to continue using Chinese during the celebration of the Mass.

Let's now address the issue of literacy, and this is something that is very, very important to the spread of the faith, particularly in these times. The plain and simple truth is that for many Catholics in Africa, China and yes, South America, poverty prevents them from raising their levels of literacy. And now, if Latin is going to be the primary language once again of the Mass, then they must be taught Latin - it is either that, or they must use a Missal with a translation. But how can they do that if they can't even read? And how can they go to school to learn how to read when many of them cannot even earn enough money for three meals a day? Don't you think that it will be an act of compassion on the part of the Church to extend to these our less fortunate brethren the opportunity to worship in a language that they already know, and which they can understand, even if they cannot read or write it?

You will, I am sure, argue that in previous centuries, there were many less fortunate Christians, particularly in Medieval Europe, who were illiterate and yet worshiped in the Latin Mass, and of course, no one is denying that, least of all myself. My question now is this: what was the depth of their experience? Yes, they probably knew, from the preaching of the priests, that when the Sacred Host is raised, it is meant to show them the Body of Christ. Yes, they will have known that in receiving the Host, they were also receiving the Body of Christ. But don't you think that the experience may have been even more profound for them, if they could actually understand the prayers spoken by the priest, as well as the gestures? These are no longer colonial times, when the colonized people had to use the language of their colonial masters - and no, I have not forgotten the courageous example of the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and all the other orders who travelled the world to preach the Gospel. Today, the evangelization of the peoples of the world has a rather different perspective, and I'm willing to bet that that perspective most definitely includes the worship of God in the native language of the peoples to whom His Gospel is being preached.

When I was in Milan, I attended the Mass for the Ascension. I could follow the service because I knew the order of the liturgy and I knew the intent of the gestures of the priest, although my Italian wasn't good enough for me to understand everything the priest was saying. And I don't mind saying that somehow, there was something missing - it is that indefinable something that is directly linked to being able to hear words of great importance and significance, words that have the power to move one's soul, spoken in one's native tongue (which in my case, is either Tagalog or English, although I'll admit that my real native language is English - but that's another story altogether). I have no words to describe how incredibly moving it was for me to hear Il Papa celebrate the Mass in English, the language of my soul, during his US pilgrimage.

You may disagree with me on this, Rcesq, but I cannot help but think that there is something profoundly uplifting in being able to worship in the language that you can think in - this is the language of your heart and soul, because it is the language that you can understand and in which you can express your very thoughts, even if you do not speak them aloud. Don't you think that the experience of worshiping God would be infinitely more meaningful and profound for a Christian if he can do so in the language of his heart, in the language in which his thoughts find coherence, even before they are actually spoken?

Now, as regards the issue of unity. Not many people know this, but in the Philippines, we have more than a score of dialects, the most popular of which are Ilocano (spoken in the Northern Philippines), Tagalog (my dialect, which is the most widely-spoken, and which is more commonly known as Filipino), and Cebuano. Masses are celebrated in these dialects every day, in the provinces where they are spoken. Filipinos take great pride in their ethnic heritage, but when you ask them about their faith, they will not say "I am an Ilocano Catholic" or "I am a Tagalog Catholic", or "I am a Cebuano Catholic". No, a Filipino will say "I am a Catholic." Period.

Remember the doctrinal matters you listed on the previous page? I can tell you that items 1 to 17 were most definitely taught to Catholics across the country, regardless of whether they worshiped at Ilocano, Tagalog or Cebuano Masses. And by the way, abortion is most definitely illegal in my country, and no politician worth his salt would even dare to breathe a word about making it legal. I don't know of any instance when a non-Catholic was allowed to receive Holy Communion during Mass; it was certainly never done in the Masses I've attended.

So you see, it seems that the Philippine Church is indeed very much in unity with the Holy Mother Church - despite the fact that we don't celebrate the Latin Mass every day. I'd venture to say that at least where the Filipinos are concerned, it's not an issue of having a single language in which to worship - it is, rather, that the doctrine was taught to us consistently, regardless of what language or dialect was used.

By the way, my university - you know, the 397-year old Pontifical university which you described as … err … a "purported Catholic educational institution" where I was misled into believing that there was only one Mass, and where I supposedly learned more about Stalin and Hitler than the Tridentine Mass - most certainly taught, if not drummed into her students, doctrinal items 1 to 17, despite the fact that we didn't attend the Latin Mass, although we most certainly knew about its existence.

There is real danger for the untrained person who chooses to isolate him or herself in a place that provides no guidance for prayer or reflection or meditation. Pope Benedict cautions quite rightly against "going it alone" spirituality.

Alright, now I'm really going to presume that you were joking - you don't seriously think I am advocating that a person isolate himself from the rest of the Church and "go it alone" spiritually! Really now, Rcesq - you know me better than that, and I'm sure everyone on the Forum does as well.

You will recall that I cited the example of the young Mary, sister of Martha, who sat at the feet of our Lord, and hung on to His every word - goodness, if only everyone in the world were as attentive as she was! Surely you remember that this beautiful little Biblical tale is sometimes used as an analogy for the dynamic between life as a layperson, and life as a consecrated person? It is in this context that I have used it, and I am sure that everyone here understands that I am most definitely referring to the consecrated life. Apropos consecrated life, it's interesting to note that the abbots and abbesses of Benedictine monasteries have full authority over the monks and nuns in their charge - and this authority extends to actually deciding what books they should read. So, it seems that the consecrated life, although it is definitely removed from the "hue and cry" of the secular world, is most definitely not practicing a "going it alone" spirituality.