Latin Mass motu coming very soon?
Since this subject popped up in the iPope thread (God knows why), here’s a place for dotCom readers to discuss–with exemplary civility–the looming motu propio. From Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, JUN 28, 2007 (VIS) – Given below is the text of a communique released today by the Holy See Press Office concerning Benedict XVI’s forthcoming “Motu Proprio” on the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.
“Yesterday afternoon in the Vatican, a meeting was held under the presidency of the Cardinal Secretary of State in which the content and spirit of the Holy Father’s forthcoming ‘Motu Proprio’ on the use of the Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962 was explained to representatives from various episcopal conferences. The Holy Father also arrived to greet those present, spending nearly an hour in deep conversation with them.
“The publication of the document – which will be accompanied by an extensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops – is expected within a few days, once the document itself has been sent to all the bishops with an indication of when it will come into effect.”
Supporters of diversity may now celebrate. Its been a long time coming, but as someone once admonished, festina lente me amigos y amigas, festina lente (if I may be permitted to mix Latin and Spanish; after all, Spanish is a “latin” language ;))]
Responding to MoK’s comments on David’s post…
“I have faith that the best educated laity in American RC history will be able to assist their pastors in their good effort to celebrate the mysteries as the Church intends.”
Pardon the bluntness, but what utter drivel.
The “old rite” does not elucidate the mysteries of the Mass more or better than the current rite. This assumes, of course, that you view mystery as what it is in the context of the Mass, namely something tangible that makes God’s presence known, as opposed to the smoke and mirrors definition of mystery that is wrapped up in mere theatre.
Furthermore, I hope that what the Church intends is to not be tricked into reducing a mystery into a problem.
Why should a religion that celebrates Christ’s victory over death choose to commemorate that event in a dead language?
Diversity, nonsense. Such talk is either naive or a cynical attempt to hijack the language of the reform for the purpose of defeating it. What the proponents of the use of the 1962 liturgy are after is the suppression of the Mass of Paul VI. Read their literature, and it becomes plain. I suspect the next move will be to train all priests in both rites, so the move can easily be made later to a complete change back to the so-called Tridentine rite.
This move will certainly foster more division, which we certainly don’t need! It endorses a form of Mass that prohibits women from service in the sanctuary (another of the goals of those who seek to further this cause). Furthermore, promotion of the 1962 rite says that Catholics will no longer be “on the same page” with regard to the biblical readings at Mass. Our current lectionary is far richer than that of the old rite. Consider even the simple fact that we now hear readings from the Old Testament on most Sundays (the old rite had only the epistle and the gospel), and you see that broader use of the 1962 rite is a definite step backwards.
I agree with Mr. Reid and Nicole. Mystery and mystification are two different things.
I agree that the point about the difference between “mystery and mystification” is an important one. I have a sense that many proponents of the Old Rite or those who are nostalgic for Latin equate the “foreignness” of the language and liturgy with something divine. And that’s understandable; I get the same sense at Jewish and Islamic services, or at masses in ancient liturgical languages that I don’t understand (which would be all of them).
On the other hand, that snetiment can be carried too far, almost to ideology. There is an essay by Peter Elliot, a longtime Vatican official and new auxiliary in Melbourne, Australia, in which he has some rather startling (to me) things to say about making liturgy comprehensible. I quote:
“Liturgiam authenticam and the recent guidelines from Vox Clara have freed us from an obsession with communication, instant comprehension, or immediately accessible meaning, all of which destroy real meaning. A rearguard action against these welcome developments only reveals the lingering mindset that was established thirty or forty years ago, a mentality rooted in the Enlightenment and the confident modernity of the conciliar era. This may explain why the existing ICEL texts are being defended as more “pastoral”. By “pastoral”, the critics of the new ICEL mean that the existing texts are easily comprehended, that they convey rapid meanings. The proposed texts are deemed to be archaic and obscure because they draw on unfamiliar symbolic language and suggest a sense of mystery in worship.”
“From Didacticism to True Pedagogy
Here we confront a widespread misunderstanding of liturgy that has set in throughout the Church, also obvious in the French translations.10 It is assumed that Catholic worship is primarily a pedagogical device. This view effectively argues that public prayers addressed to God are in fact messages addressed to us, designed for our instruction, improvement, and edification. That misunderstanding has had a devastating effect on the very structure of the Roman Mass. At not a few celebrations of Mass, the Eucharistic liturgy becomes merely an extension of the liturgy of the Word, not its culmination as the divine mystery and gift evoking a human response.”
“Most Catholics would not be aware that a Calvinist theology of worship embodies this didactic approach. When I was a young Anglican theological student, I recall hearing an Evangelical Anglican theologian explain that all prayer in public worship is really a prolonged form of sermon. According to this theological perspective, God seems to be too majestic for us fallen creatures to dare to address Him directly, so when the godly ones pray, they are really edifying one another. Every dimension of worship becomes the proclaimed Word. This also explains the style and tone of much Evangelical extempore prayer, which, to the outside observer, sounds like people telling God what is on CNN tonight.”
“I am not arguing that liturgical language should be incomprehensible. But once we try to make a vernacular liturgical text an exercise in instructing people, we are caught in a destructive illusion. We imagine that we are conveying everything — nothing is concealed, no mysteries here — when in fact very little is being conveyed at all. When this happens, the Mass becomes boring, especially for the young. They are in front of a liturgical television set, and its patter and style sound little different from what they can hear at any time through the various forms of electronic media.”
Yes, a long quote, but worth reading. Full text here: http://www.adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html
Bishop Elliot is not “just” a layperson, but a Vatican veteran and a bishop. (And a convert, which may say more than anything.) So I think it’s a view that bears weight. Though not necessarily with me.
David,
Definitely an interesting quote, but Bishop Elliot is sadly mistaken if he believes that young Catholics–at least young American Catholics, who like most Americans prefer the poorly dubbed versions of foreign films to the subtitled original versions–will somehow be excited by language that conceals its true meaning (whether via the proposed new English translations or a return to Latin itself). That Church leaders seem to believe this only demonstrates how very distant they are from people’s expectations and desires.
“This may explain why the existing ICEL texts are being defended as more ‘pastoral’.”
More pastoral, certainly, but still far from the ideal, which is an English style at once artistic, literary, and accessible. Preferably something that avoids the stuffy stiffness of the current ICEL work. By all accounts ICEL’s work on Roman Missal II was far superior, but perhaps a certain degree of jealousy was responsible for that deep-sixing.
As Rita suggests, the old rite has too much baggage to ever be considered more than a minor player, a curiosity at best. And among the world’s one billion Catholics, I’m sure tradis can take comfort in a million or two. If mainstream Catholicism ever got its act together in the arts, then there’d be serious threats of extinction for the Tridentine Rite.
I’m curious about the long delay in the motu proprio’s publication. Surely the pope is astute enough to realize it has the potential to splinter a Catholic unity already tested by incivility and political overtones. The delays can’t all be due to papal care or curial incompetence.
I suspect the traditionalists will be disappointed whatever the outcome. If the motu is less “liberalizing,” they can maintain their cottage industry of complaint.
And if they ever got what they wanted, they would soon find the burden of running dozens of weekly celebrations of the Eucharist far more than they could manage. Very quickly, we would see an internal segregation within their communities: putting all their eggs in a High Mass basket, and mumbling along the rest of the time with bare minimalism. They have the best of all possibilities now: energy and personnel to put into a good celebration of the 1962 Rite without the other distractions mainstream parishes, pastors, and liturgists have to bother with.
My guess is Rita does not realize that there are already different lectionaries in use in the Latin rite.
Despite Bishop Trautman’s misgivings we are the best educated laity in US Church history – we sit on parish councils, foundation boards, we teach in university’s and write in periodicals. We can help one another and hesitant clergy to meet the standard of good Catholic liturgy.
Diversity seems to be what some fear.
Some of our best clerics have been converts David. Think of Fr. Hecker.
The us vs. them mentality seems both divisive and unnecessary. Let us rejoice in the Holy Father’s pastoral sensitivity to millions of Catholics who simply seek to worship in a liturgy reflective of their faith without the baggage of a paraphrased vernacular and many priests who seek to celebrate the sacred mystery according to an approved and successful liturgical text. Some like the OT readings while others like the richer offertory prayers.
“Celebre la difference!”
Listening to some here I can imagine Archbishop Ireland shutting down Eastern rite parishes in the 19th c. in search of what proved to be an unnecessary conformity. Don’t be afraid of diversity, don’t hide from change.
This is the Mass of Vatican II after all.
Maid
David:
As has often been pointed out, no permission is required for celebrating mass in Latin using the Novus Ordo. Latin should not be the point. Those who want to return to the 1962 ordo have a different sense of what is appropriate to the mass and tend to regard the new rite as vulgarized, perhaps even inauthentic.
As to the use of the vernacular, some people seem to have little sense of history. Surely Latin was introduced into the Roman rite in the 4th century because few people in Rome at that time could understand Greek. If we really want to pure and mysterious as well as elegant, we ought to want to go back to Greek. Or should we do as the Romans did and opt for the vernacular?
Bishop Elliot is right in saying that the Mass ought hot be just one long “pedagogical” exercise. But there is nothing about the present vernacular Eucharistic prayers that calls for treating them as part of pedagogy. Granted, some priests, do so, but that’s an abuse.
For those who demand some Latin,may I suggest, given the sorry state of so much preaching, that the Mass texts remain in English, but that the sermons should be in Latin unless the preacher has gotten an indult from the congregation to preach in English.
Joseph,
When Latin was introduced in the liturgy it was in a classical form not the spoken vernacular of the people of that time and place. It was more foreign to the people of that day than 16th c. English would be to us today. I think you are misunderstanding the history of that change. Also, don’t forget that even then many peoples and tribes who never spoke Latin were using a Latin ordo, Clovis and the Franks comes to mind. If His Excellency Bishop Trautman were alive when Latin replaced Greek in the Roman liturgy he would have declared it incomprehensible to the Latin speakers of the Rome of that day and might have thought in unproclaimable too because it was not their dialect.
Additionally, the liturgy of 1962 already uses Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in addition to Latin and the vernacular readings. It is not only the Latin language, required by Vatican II by the way, but the prayers and rites that make of the 1962 RM that people seek.
Your criticisms of the 1962 liturgy being reflective of a different sense of appropriateness at Mass could be applied to any of the approved liturgical rites and usages already in place in the Church and could serve as a criticism of many celebrations of the new rite. Still this observation seems to conflict with Vatican II’s assertion that all the liturgical rites in the Church are of equal dignity.
The disciplinary objections I”ve seen given by others here could also be applied to the other Catholic liturgical rites that do not make use of female readers, EMHC’s or servers. It seems out of place to criticize other approved liturgies in our Church.
Maid
The reality is that Rome and the bishops have very little credibility. People pay lip service to the pastor if they do not like him and worship God with their neighbors despite the clergy.
The leadership of the Church is experiencing the lowest credibility and esteem, in American history.
As far as Bishop Elliot is concerned I am really flabbergasted. What is he talking about? Of course mystification has always served the hierarchy well in that they would have to answer to no one.
Along with Humanae Vitae, the church’s stand on divorce and annulment, and contempt of women, people will ignore Rome and attend services and hope the clergy will come out of their wilderness.
When a body or someone does non-sensical things, people often choose to ignore and go on with their lives.
I can’t help but think that “part” of the problem with those Catholics who are thirsty for a liturgy that offers more sense of the transcendent is that they are Roman Catholics unfamiliar with the beauty of Eastern Catholic liturgy (which is often the same as Orthodox liturgy). Even in English, the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, celebrated in clouds of incense and ancient chants, and surrounded by the Communion of Saints in iconography on the iconostasis, the Holy Doors, the ceiling and walls, transports the believer in ways that our Roman ritual cannot — and since the Eastern Catholic Churches are, well, Catholic (in union with the Pope), we “Romans” are perfectly free to receive the Eucharist. It’s too bad that the “indult” coming simply urged us mainstream Romans to explore the fuller richness of the Catholic Church, rather than give in to those whose liturgical vision is way too myopic.
Corrected last sentence: It’s too bad that the “indult” coming DOESN’T simply urge us mainstream Romans to explore the fuller richness of the Catholic Church…
Gotta love it Bernard. Let the priest have to preach in Latin unless he gets an indult.
A very good point, Michael. There is a wonderful mix of the unfamiliar and the familiar in many Eastern Rite services that makes me curious to find out how the Eastern Rites developed.
And many of their clergy are married. What’s THAT all about? ;)
Maid:
I am amazed that you are so familiar with the Latinity of the congregations in Rome in the late 4th century and are quite sure that they could not understand the language used in the newly introduced Latin of the liturgy.. Can you cite any evidence?
David:
I find the suggestion that we have become liturgical Calvinists almost bizarre.
I have just taken a look at the Ordo in my St. Andrew’s missal from the 1950s. Even in the Canon the celebrant is constantly using the first person plural. Who is this “we”? Surely is the celebrant + the congregation. Does not that imply that the congregation were conceived by the authors of these prayers as participants in the action of the celebrant rather than mere auditors? If so, is it not appropriate that the participants be able to follow and in their hearts join in the prayers that they are supposed to be offering?
Joseph,
My first thought was to ask you to first document your liturgical observations but I thought better of it. I did not say 4th century Romans could not understand the Latin used at that time at all – I said it was not their vernacular. In a sense Shakespeare is understandable by all of us today and it could be called English, our vernacular, but it is not our common speech. Get the difference?
4th century liturgical Latin was for the 4th c. Roman like Shakespeare’s English is to you and me. Additionally, 4th c. Romans were not the educated laity readers of Commonweal are today. Therefore, you can imagine the way His Excellancy, Bishop Trautman, would have reacted if he were alive when 4th c. Rome adopted the formal vernacular Latin they employed in their vernacular liturgy.
You can try: C. P. Caspari, “Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. der Glaubensregel” By the way, in Rome the creed, some psalms, and the lessons on Holy Saturday were all read or sung in Greek as late as the eighth century (Ordo Rom., I, P.L., LXXVIII, 966-68, 955).
My diocese permitted the Mass of Paul V 20 years ago. The permission was removed because attendance at the Mass dropped after three years below a level of what would be considered “pastoral necessity”.
The Mass of Paul V should remain if people want it. If/when support for it wanes, then the matter should be examined again.
The two logistical questions I have are: 1) What will happen at parishes where the Mass of Paul V is instituted by one pastor and then removed by the next? 2) How much will personnel assignments be bogged down within dioceses if priests refuse an assignment because their assigned parish has the Mass of Paul V or does not?
There is so much discussion surrounding this issue, and so many other issues that crop up, I would like to get back to basics and ask one question–and I’ll make it a fill-in-the-blank to keep the answers short and pithy:
“The reason we need the Tridentine Rite is _____ .”
“YOU TELL ME.”
to satisfy those who want it. The logistics now become a problem as to manpower for the extra celebrations. The important thing is not to condemn those who prefer a different liturgy. After each side has their option, hopefully, all will work for unity.
Because there is a very large group of Catholics who love the beauty and sense of sacredness of the TM.
Since I really have very little against the extension of the Pian rite, as long as they clean up the anti-Semitism that at one time marred that rite and as long as it isn’t an indirect attempt at putting women in their place, I will try to be as civil as I can in responding to two points our kale parthenos Cantii has made –
There simply is no evidence for the common spoken language of Rome in the fourth century; in fact there is hardly any evidence for the literary language of that time and place. Citing bibliography is all well and good, but given the lack of evidence it’s bound to be based simply on a model and hence open to pushing in whatever direction one wants. And based on what I know about the development of the Latin language and its sociolinguistic strata, I suspect the analogy with Shakespeare is misleading in the extreme.
As to the educational level of today’s Catholics, that may all be true (‘tho I have my doubts, and there’s always the question of who were talking about), but as regards the knowledge of the Latin language and its rich cultural heritage in the church there’s simply no comparison between Catholics under the age of 60 and the generation, now largely passed from the scene, of Catholics who were educated in Catholic high schools (and occasionally colleges) in the 20′s and 30′s.
And I would take the diversity argument seriously, particularly in the more polyglot and diverse areas of the American Catholic world; what I’m unsure about is whether the Pian rite in Latin adds anything to a spoken or sung Novus Ordo mass with a well-prepared congregation.
Bishop Elliot’s article is amazingly reactionary. He associates the current liturgy in English with the religionless Christianity and God is Dead theologies of the 1960s.
I love Latin and would like to celebrate the Mass in Latin more often, but according to the Novus Ordo please! Going back to a pre-Vatican II liturgy is in every way a negative and destructive step.
The literalist translations now proposed by ICEL are a disgrace and an embarrassment. I believe a new Japanese translation following the same incorrect translation principles is causing headaches among the Japanese clergy who have seen it (as if their current translation were not already sufficiently foreign to the genius of the Japanese language).
See my remarks on all this at http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/bishop-donald-t.html
Thou dost protest too much, methinks.
This is only permission to do something. It is not mandating anything. Why the, what I can only call, irrational hostility?
Lay Catholics want to extend the venerable Roman Missal’s use to:
1. express the continuity between the pre and post conciliar Church,
2. respect the rights of a large number of faithful Catholics who have been mistreated for many years,
3. inform the celebration of the Pauline rite – the two rites will organically influence one anther,
4. honor Vatican II’s directive that all the approved rites of the Church are of “equal” value and are to be respected,
5. revitalize the Church – no one who loves the Church will deny that she needs revitalization.
6. Respect the rights of priests to offer the liturgy of their own liturgical rite without having to deal with diocesan bureaucracy.
I say it again – don’t fear diversity and don’t fear change!
And to Fr. Shawn O. most places where that result has occurred are in dioceses where the venerable right was offered in an out-of-the-way parish (often way downtown in abandoned neighborhoods) at strange times of the day (4:45 Sunday afternoon).
I would consider your point if you could tell me that the venerable rite you mention was instituted in a thriving parish in the booming suburbs at 9:45 to 10:00 AM on Sunday mornings. If that took place and the Mass attendance dropped off as you say that might suggest something. I doubt that has been the case, however. My point is that these poor results are sometimes self-fulfilling prophecy’s by those who schedule the Mass.
Maid
Maid:
First, use your real name and I ask anyone and everyone else who uses pseudonyms to do the same thing. Leave anonymity to the confessional.
When the Mass of Pius V was instituted in my diocese, it was offered at the cathedral and at the two most historically prominent churches in two other cities within the diocese. There was a binding agreement made between the bishop and the parties who requested the Mass. All sides agreed in advanced to what would be considered an acceptable steady attendance. Steps were taken to make such a Mass easily accessible to the public.
Sure, the population has exponentially within in my diocese compared to twenty years ago, but two decades ago we had more people in the diocese who would have been more accustomed to the Mass of Pius V because they grew up with it.
Granted, I am not from a diocese where such Masses have been placed in out-of-the-way locations, but I look forward to seeing what the attendance will be on a month-by-month basis throughout the next year in regard to attendance.
Also, I would like to see pastors poll the parishes. Yes, there is a risk of minimal perticipation within polls, but at least a pastor can say that something does or nor look to be in the best interest of a parish. Also, I am concerned about pastors who would simply say, “We’re doing it because I say so.”
Fr. Shawn M. O’Neal
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Saint Joseph Church, Bryson City, NC
Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, Cherokee, NC
Are you saying that the cathedral and the two other historical parishes you reference are located in thriving population centers with families and that the Missal of St. Pius V was offered at a normal Sunday Mass time (eg Sunday morning) on a weekly basis?
I agree with your hope that pastors will not say
We’re doing it because I say so”. We’ve been suffering under that kind of injunction re. adopting the OCP hymnals, the moving of tabernacles, other church renovations, the use of EMHC’s when unnecessary and about posture innovations for so long.
But, if we are doing it because our tradition bids us to do it in a certain way – that is another matter because it is no longer about his fiat but reflects the voice of the Church worshiping her God through time.
This permissio is about the rights of priests and the laity. There are no losers here.
Mother Humiliata (aka the Maid).
Father O’Neal,
With all due respect (a line that invariably precedes criticism), I have to take issue with three things you said. Keep in mind that I say this as someone who will likely not go out of my way to find and regularly attend mass in the old rite.
First, this change, I think, is the result of a small but significant part of the Church earnestly desiring it. If it was a tiny fringe group, I can’t see the Vatican responding this way. I think the Holy Father was responding to a problem. Namely, that a small but significant part of his flock wanted better access to an admittedly legitimate form of worship and were being blocked by local bishops. My experience has been the two times I have attended a Tridentine rite mass that it was well attended – in one case very well attended. I have heard from others in other parts of the country that these masses are standing room only. In Boston, our one indult mass is in an old, and I have to say somewhat run down (since it is pegged for closure) church, in a less than pleasant part of town where parking is limited. That being said, they do a nice job and the attendance, while not overwhelming, is certainly comparable to other masses.
Second, I am all with the Maid on the concern over pastor’s “forcing” this on their flocks. For decades we have endured pastors forcing everything from middle aged ladies dancing down the aisles with colorful banners and streamers, to insipid OCP music, to removing kneelers, to make-it-up-as-you-go-along Eucharistic prayers, and I don’t recall the commentators of NCR or America or Commonweal being too concerned about that. I would rather deal with a pastor who insists on using a legitimate rite to one who likes to impose his personal predilections on the liturgy.
Finally, I don’t understand the concern over anonymity unless someone is being abusive. There are many people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. I have myself received abusive, threatening, and obscene phone calls and e-mails for things I have written for the local papers and even once for something I posted here. I have the skin– and increasingly and unfortunately the physique – of an elephant so it doesn’t bother me, but it has upset my wife, so I can appreciate someone wanting to keep some privacy. I don’t see a problem with that unless he or she is using it to do more than express opinions.
Sean:
I think many people fear that in the end this will NOT be a voluntary thing at all. Consider the case of the pronunciation of the Thames River in England. It was originallly pronounced exactly as it is spelled–until England was ruled by German kings who pronounced it “Tems” … evberyone did what the king did, and people finally got tired of switching back and forth, so “Tems” it is … while I do not fear that Latin will permanently become the primary language of the Mass, i would not at all be surprised if a large number of pastors and bishops seeking Rome’s favor (and face it, this would not be happening if Benedict opposed the idea) begin to offer more and more Masses in Latin until there is little else … where I live, there is only Mass in English on Sunday mornings; the other is in Spanish … I suspect my pastor will not want to abandon the Spanish Mass since the overall Spanish-speaking congregation is younger than the English-speaking congregation (and thus would have fewer people who even remember the Mass in Latin) and so the one and only Mass in English on Sunday morning is the one most likely to be Latinized (and thus we would be devernacularized …)
… this would likely last only during Benedict’s pontificate, unless he is followed by a like-minded pontiff.
I’d like to know how “large numbers of faithful Catholics were mistreated for many years.” In a non-circular way, please.
Bishop Eliot’s comments not only border on but are bizarre.
Finally, in answer to David’s question, another matter to divide an alreadt deeply divided catholic community – unnecessarily.
Sean:
Thank you for your points. My perspective is best in regard to where I live and around where I have served and studied. Also, my perspective is based upon if something within a parish was changed, modified, or altered, it was dropped by pastors and staff who said, “OK, this isn’t working.” In my two churches where I serve, we seek to do what is right and proper and we have been for many years. We’re in a tourist area and one aspect of hospitality is not throwing people for a loop when they come to Mass.
I’ll address the anonymity part first: Pastors and vicars of all shapes, sizes, and opinions receive anonymous or pseudonymous commentary on a daily basis. Even those comments of which normally priest would agree get placed in the shredder if a signature is lacking. Today and for the past few days, we have celebrated great and faithful witnesses whose names are known as well as their testimony.
On the point of forcing matters: A pastor should consider whether or not such a Mass should be in the schedule. If a vastly significant number of parishioners seek the rite, then the pastor should place it in the schedule. Even at my small parish, I will ask the parishioners who is genuinely interested in such a Mass. If I or any pastor receives genuine and significant interest, then such a demand should be met — at the least on a trial basis. If there is little to no interest, then the pastor should help people find the closest Tridentine Rite. I’m willing to do that now as things stand now and I’ll be willing to do it should things change next week.
Maid: The Masses of Pius V during the ’80s were offered in well-known and easy-to-find locations within the three largest cities within the diocese. The times might not have been in the morning, but the times were agreed upon from the beginning and they were public information at those churches and at other parishes within the cities. Everything was above the table from the start; the cessation of these Masses was no sudden secret.
The principal reason that a vocal minority in the Church wants the TM is not so much an attachment to the specific forms of that Mass but a dislike of what the new form allows – or even seems to encourage.
The worst mumbled Low Mass at least never had a priest don a clown wig to call attention to himself. Alas, this is done even in the new millenium.
It is not that every celebartion of the new form is bizarre, but that one never knows what will be inflicted on the laity by a priest whose chief desire is that the mass be startling and most of all “All About Me.”
Lee,
Maybe you haven’t lived long enough. I have seen many clowns recite the TM. In less than seven minutes. Like a whirlwind. Making a fool of themselves. etc etc
Fr. O’Neal has the practical facts. The minority is just very vocal.
I say let the Maid keep her pseudonym. Then I’ll take the moniker “Jesus Christ Almighty.” And when people don’t like my opinions, they’ll have to say, “I disagree with Jesus Christ Almighty.”
Just kidding.
The reason people take these pious little pseudonyms, of course, is to confer upon themselves some sort of authority and sanctity they don’t really have.
I say let them have their little power trip if that’s what gets them through the day.
I once served a Tridentine Mass for a visiting priest who jokingly told me and my fellow altarboy that it wouldn’t take more than 15 minutes. And he did it — on the lamb, so to speak :)
Keith Pecklers, SJ, S.L.D., is professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Gregorian University and professor of liturgical history at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant’ Anselmo in Rome. He notes: “Koine Greek was spoken by a large part of the Roman Empire including the City of Rome itself. Logically, the Roman Church adopted koine Greek as its liturgical language….Roman Christians continued to employ Greek for liturgical celebrations until the middle of the fourth century during the papacy of Pope Damasus I when the majority of Romans no longer understood Greek.
“Interestingly, as a cultural concession — what we would call ‘inculturation’ — the Roman Church shifted to Latin for the liturgy so that those in attendance would be able to understand what they were celebrating….In and of itself, Latin is no more ‘sacral’ than is Greek or Japanese. What perhaps gave Latin this sacral character was that it came [in time] to be used only in the Liturgy and was unintelligible to most worshippers.”
The late Josef A. Jungmann, SJ, was a respected liturgical historian. After taking note of the “three great cultural and literary languages of [Christian] antiquity,” to wit, Syro-Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, he offers the following information about the Greek:
“As soon as the apostles stepped beyond the narrow confines of Palestine, they came within the sphere of Greek culture. The Greek language was the ‘lingua franca’ as well as the literary language in the whole of the eastern half of the Roman empire and also of the various nations of the interior; it was understood even in the West….”
Lingua franca. Koine. Inculturation. Etc. There is no suggestion that, in time, Latin (replacing Greek) would be other than the vernacular language — as well as the liturgical language — of the people.
We do know, of course, that as Christians came to no longer understand Latin (including its use in an increasingly remote liturgy that separated priest from people), the laity would develop extra-liturgical services to retain at least some kind of connection with their institutional church. Pretty sad, really.
Paul VI once said the Tridentine liturgy had been replaced. This pope, of course, co-approved the liturgical constitution of Vatican II. We know, too, that Ottaviani et al within the curia would do their darndest to sabotage and frustrate the clear intent and wishes of the conciliar fathers. JPII would eventually issue his unconstitutional Liturgiam Authenticam (in his favor, I can say he recognized the inherent right of his fellow bishops to regulate the liturgy in their respective dioceses — a respect his successor is not prepared to extend to the world’s bishops today).
My former cathedral parish had — and no doubt still has — Novus Ordo liturgies that would easily rival any Tridentine Mass in nobility, beauty, solemnity, etc.
What we are witnessing vis-a-vis the upcoming motu proprio is the last gasp of a fearful and pitiful old man occupying the chair of Peter. Kinda’ sad, when one thinks of it.
Maid:
Yoursay: “I did not say 4th century Romans could not understand the Latin used at that time at all – I said it was not their vernacular. In a sense Shakespeare is understandable by all of us today and it could be called English, our vernacular, but it is not our common speech. Get the difference?
4th century liturgical Latin was for the 4th c. Roman like Shakespeare’s English is to you and me.”
The idea that liturgical latin is or ever was classical Latin is mistaken. It is a Latin full of the linguistic influence of the Latin Bible with all that that entails. No one calls Latin after 200 C.E. classical.
As fo the question of whether or not , when it was it was introduced, the vernacular in Rome, we need to distinguish. One may use “vernacular” pejoratively to indicate informal, colloquial, even slangy usage. One may also use “vernacular” in a neutral sense to indicate the first language, the native language, of a nation or people. When I, and I think most people, speak of the liturgy in the vernacular, they use it in the latter sense. In that sense the move from Greek to Latin in a people, the people of Rome, whose native tongue was Latin was a move to the vernacular.
Oops! For “when it was it was introduced, the vernacular” read: “when it was introduced, it was the vernacular “
As one belonging to one of the Eastern Rites (Syro Malabar, in Kerala, India) and frequent attender of another (Syro Malankara) I have to agree with Michael Hovey that there is “more sense of the transcendent” in the eastern liturgy compared to the Roman (which is also common here). But they do happen to be said in the vernacular. So why this need for Latin?
Maid,
“1. express the continuity between the pre and post conciliar Church,
2. respect the rights of a large number of faithful Catholics who have been mistreated for many years,
3. inform the celebration of the Pauline rite – the two rites will organically influence one anther,
4. honor Vatican II’s directive that all the approved rites of the Church are of “equal” value and are to be respected,
5. revitalize the Church – no one who loves the Church will deny that she needs revitalization.
6. Respect the rights of priests to offer the liturgy of their own liturgical rite without having to deal with diocesan bureaucracy.”
The reasons you give sound like one of these jargon filled marketing pitches. I really can’t find the substance in what you say. Of course it may just be that I am thick in the head.
Jaglowicz – “I once served a Tridentine Mass for a visiting priest who jokingly told me and my fellow altarboy that it wouldn’t take more than 15 minutes. And he did it — on the lamb, so to speak :)”
I have attended TLMs celebrated by 20-30 different priests (and two or three auxiliary bishops of Detroit).
With the exception of Boston – where the archbishops continually denied young, interested priests while forcing an bitter/unwilling, embezzling ‘administrator’ on the Indult congregation – I have never yet assisted at a TLM celebrated by a priest simply hurrying to finish.
One legacy of Paul VI’s NOM is that priests uninterested in the Mass don’t have to celebrate the TLM. Those who self-select in to the TLM and who love it are unlike to repeat the errors of Mr. Jaglowicz’s childhood.
Notwithstanding Mr. Jaglowicz’s citations, Latin – if it indeed was the vernacular – was not only the vernacular of a particular country but was essentially the language of the world and was therefore fitting for the liturgy of a universal Church.
Returning to Mr. Gibson’s question:
We need the TLM so that we can have a Mass that showcases the worldwide unity of Christ’s universal church.
(English is not the universal language and is irrelevant to the millions of Chinese written to by B16 recently. Similarly, Mandarin is not universal to the readers of this blog. Latin, while it is foreign to most everyone, is at least ‘equally foreign.’* It doesn’t favor any particular nation over other nations within the Church.)
*I believe that some Japanese Cardinal has complained in the press this year that Latin is more foreign to the Japanese than it is to, say, Europeans. I concede that this may be true, but I don’t find this to show any superior option.
Latin was never the language of the world. To the extent that it dominated in a given country (like Britain, for instance) it was because it was the language of the conquering forces.
I have a hard time taking seriously the notion that using a language that is equally unknown to everyone is the best way to demonstrate universality: Somehow the idea of everyone being universally in the dark isn’t what comes first to my mind by the expression universal church.
And it doesn’t pass the giggle test on other counts either. Latin is much more familiar to those in the West. To say otherwise is just dishonest.
Why is it necessary to defend the rite on such risible grounds? I think Sunil Korah has it just about right. This is more about solemnity of worship than Latin, and while I am sympathetic on that score, I also tend to recognize that a tridentine mass is going to be at least as marred by screaming babies as any other form, if not more so. It would be hard to ask for a service that caters to the serious Catholics. But that, I believe, is really what’s going on. Putting it at an out of the way time is the best solution, notwithstanding MOK.
The Tridentine Mass I described was “said” in 1960 or 1961, not recently. (I’m 59+)
Latin, as Barbara noted, was never “the language of the world.” It was not even the original language of the Catholic (or original Christian) Church. Try Aramaic and Greek.
Aside from a mistaken notion that Latin is or even was a so-called “universal language,” liturgical or otherwise, as Barbara points out, “everyone being universally in the dark” isn’t exactly (effective) communication. (I placed the word ‘effective’ in parentheses because folks either communicate or do not.)
English is, indeed, the de facto universal language (I dare say it’s the second most popular language in China!). French, if I remember, remains the official diplomatic language of the United Nations (I wonder how many diplomats and consular personnel speak Latin :)
When I was in high school during Vatican II, a popular expression regarding the Mass was “Unity without uniformity.” Perhaps a corollary might be “Universality is not uniformity.”
If I presented the “information” given by Una Voce, I, too, might be reluctant to provide my real name :)