Liturgy "inculturation"?

Hello all!

I was wondering if someone could explain to me what this term means, particularly in keeping mind the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1204-1206. I’ve heard this term used by certain priests & laity as justification for some liturgical abuses/promotion of dissent/heresy in the mass…

Yours in Christ,

This may help: .

Well, when a Priest explains a liturgical abuse as “inculturation”, he doesn’t know the definition of the word. Inculturation is taking something that was originally not Catholic, and making it Catholic. Like the Pantheon, in Rome.

Sometimes. But it can also be a good thing, like adopting a native style of architecture for the church. Think “Spanish Mission” adapted from native forms and native building materials and well-suited to the climate.

yes, i don’t see whats wrong with inculturation. isn’t the Eastern Churches an example of this? each Eastern tradition a reflection of the culture of where the Particular Church was established?

this is sometimes why i wonder if new Particular Churches can be established right now. some people frown at the attempt of integrating other cultures into the Latin Tradition. perhaps there should be a North American Rite, Spanish Rite, Chinese Rite, etc?

also, don’t forget the Latin Rite is an inculturation of Christianity which began as Jewish, not Latin

Actually, the Roman Church is more an example of “inculturation” than Eastern Churches. Eastern Churches (many) still use the original language. The Church started in the “East.” The Latin language’s use in the Church is a premier example of “inculturation.”

well, to be really technical about it, any Church not using Aramaic would be an inculturation :wink:

No, not really. Greek and Hebrew at least would have to be included. Point being, Latin was a later language used by Christians than many others.

Hebrew = Aramaic :wink:

Greek you can say is later. since the Last Supper was celebrated in Aramaic, so thats the origin

No, Hebrew is not the same as Aramaic.

We don’t know what language Jesus used at the Last Supper.

Greek was the common tongue of the Roman empire, so it’s likely (definitely, in Paul’s case) that the first Apostles in the early Church spoke Greek.

“Inculturation” was defined in the following terms in John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio in 1990:

“The incarnation of the Gospel in native cultures and also the introduction of these cultures into the life of the Church.” [20]
“The intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures.” [21]
“It is now acknowledged that inculturation is a theological term which has been defined in Redemptoris Missio 52 as the on-going dialogue between faith and culture.” [22]

The practical impact of “inculturation” is especially notable in theology, particularly as Catholic theology is developed in non-European cultures such as in Asia and Africa, for example, and in liturgy.

right, but people who have a common native tongue would speak in their native tongue

English is a popular and common language today. Filipinos like myself who have moved here to North America (Canada and US) will speak in Filipino to each other, even if English is the common tongue. since all Apostles are Gallileans, they share a common native tongue thats not Greek

they could have spoken to Paul in Greek, but Paul wasn’t at the Last Supper anyways :wink:

What difference does it make that Paul wasn’t at the Last Supper?

we were talking about the language used in the Last Supper
the greatest possibility is of course Aramaic, being na native tongue of Jesus and all the Apostles

But Paul of course wasn’t there…so what’s the point of noting Paul wasn’t there?

you’re the one who brought Paul up in the first place :wink:
just saying, if he’s na native Greek speaker and since he obviously wasn’t at the Last Supper, there’s no need to speak in another language other than their native tongue

RIght. Which was Greek. That’s my point.

Greek is not the native tongue of Jesus nor the 12

I think it’s likely that the first Apostles would have been able to use Greek to communicate with foreigners. But most likely they were not nearly so fluent in Greek as they were in Aramaic.

We don’t know for sure. It’s probable that at least some were fluent in Greek, as it was the common tongue of the region at the times they would have used it. Especially if they were fishermen, or tax collectors, etc., who would deal with non-Jews on a daily basis.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit