FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245  
246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   >>   >|  
he treasures of sacred literature in the Church. In the fifth century came the disruption of the Roman Empire. New kingdoms began to be formed in Europe out of the ruins of the old empire. The Latin gradually ceased to be a living tongue among the people, and new languages commenced to spring up like so many shoots from the parent stock. The Church, however, retained in her Liturgy, and in the administration of the Sacraments, the Latin language for very wise reasons, some of which I shall briefly mention: First--The Catholic Church has always _one and the same faith_, the same form of public worship, the same spiritual government. As her doctrine and liturgy are unchangeable, she wishes that the language of her Liturgy should be fixed and uniform. Faith may be called the jewel, and language is the casket which contains it. So careful is the Church of preserving the jewel intact that she will not disturb even the casket in which it is set. Living tongues, unlike a dead language, are continually changing in words and meaning. The English language as written four centuries ago would be now almost as unintelligible to an English reader as the Latin tongue. In an old Bible published in the fourteenth century St. Paul calls himself _the villain of Jesus Christ_. The word _villain_ in those days meant a servant, but the term would not be complimentary now to one even less holy than the Apostle. This is but one instance, out of many which I might adduce, to show the mutations which our language has undergone. But the Latin, being a dead language, is not liable to these changes. Second--The Catholic Church is spread over the whole world, embracing in its fold children of all climes and nations, and peoples and tongues under the sun. How, I ask, could the Bishops of these various countries communicate with one another in council if they had not one language to serve as a common medium of communication? It would be simply impossible. A church that is universal must have a universal tongue; whilst a national church, or a church whose members speak one and the same language, and whose doctrines conveniently change to suit the times, can safely adopt the vernacular tongue in its liturgy. A few years ago a Convocation was held in England, composed of British and American Episcopal Bishops. They had no difficulty in communicating with one another because all spoke their mother tongue. But suppose they had representatives from Sp
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245  
246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

language

 

Church

 

tongue

 

church

 

Liturgy

 

tongues

 

universal

 

casket

 

Bishops

 

liturgy


Catholic

 

century

 

villain

 
English
 

Apostle

 

adduce

 
instance
 
complimentary
 

peoples

 

nations


embracing

 

children

 
liable
 

Second

 

spread

 

climes

 

mutations

 

undergone

 

communication

 

England


composed

 

British

 

Convocation

 

safely

 

vernacular

 

American

 

Episcopal

 

mother

 

suppose

 

representatives


difficulty

 

communicating

 

common

 
medium
 

simply

 

council

 

countries

 

communicate

 
impossible
 
doctrines