Mass appeal to Latin tradition

Yesterday my local newspaper (The Washington Times) carried a front page (above the fold) article on the return of the Latin Mass according to the John XXIII Missal here in the Washington, DC area. I do know from my local RC friends (who are mostly part of the RC Diocese of Arlington) that it is expected that every RC Parish in that diocese will have a Sunday Latin Mass by the end of 2008. The local bishop was actually ahead of the Holy Father in granting blanket permission. The only requirement is that the priest take the appropriate course to learn how to correctly celebrate the Latin Mass.

Many of the details of the article are not relevant to these discussions of the RDL. But there was one very telling comment from the article:


Say what you like about the Latin Mass but 'stability and orthodoxy' are very much 'larger then themselves'.

It is also very interesting that even the 20-somethings can see the difference in a Liturgy that is about worshiping God and one that is about educating the faithful.

I have heard a large number of comments from older Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics. Most are hurt because the bishops took away something they had know all of their lives. I will always see the pain in the eyes of one woman I met at a funeral who told me: "After 72 years they tell me everything I have done all my life is wrong." And another who told me that she felt that the rock of her Sunday worship has been destroyed.

Stability in worship.
Stability in worship.
Stability in worship.

When the RDL implodes and the Ruthenian Liturgy is promulgated I pray that our bishops will gently raise the celebration in our parishes over a decade or more. The way forward is education, example and encouragement. No one need be hurt like they have been by the RDL.

Click here for story in The Washington Times.

Very true. A good friend who's RC, told me how she longs for the Latin Mass...and she's in her late 30s! I was going to invite her to my Red Book Parish, but then the RDL hit.

Can anyone answer where the committee got the hair brained idea that women needed inclusive language to feel included in Byzantine worship? Just curious.

Stephanie,

Your comments remind me of a poll that was taken by Catholic World Report magazine several years ago. The editor, Fr. Joseph Fessio, wanted to see if inclusive language--designated by the USCCB as one of its top priorities--was really that important to the people, or were the bishops just out of touch. I don't remember the exact numbers, but of the RC laypeople polled, fewer than 10% thought it was even important, much less a top priority.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Apparently, the BCC bishops think that inclusive language is necessary. What a shame!

Within 30 minutes from my house there are is a parish operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter (St. John Vianney, Maple Hill, Kansas) with a school and church right at the outskirts of the little ranching town. It is quickly becoming a little Catholic village of sorts - young families are flocking there. They seem to understand what they are looking for and why they are moving their families, sometimes across the country.

What I love about the whole thing in the Roman Church is that some are fighting this tooth and nail.

The question is why.

Are they afraid of young people?
Are they afraid of having vocations again?
Are they afraid of people who actually want to be Catholic?
Are they afraid of really being a priest who offers sacrifice?

The most traditional parishes are growing extremely quickly while the most liberal ones are complaining that they have fewer and fewer people (and so they get even more liberal).


I fail to see how growing churches, vocations, prayer groups, lay involvement, etc. are bad things. It just doesn't make sense.

I wonder if some would not listen even if God himself told them that this was the way to do it.

Robert,



Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but:

I think that, yes, there are unfortunately scads of Catholics (laity, priests and bishops) who "prefer" the theology of the "fraternal meal" to that of the "Sacrifice of the Cross", i.e., what I would call a Protestant understanding of the Liturgy to the bona fide Catholic understanding.

This was "encouraged" by the changes made to the Mass according to the following logic (which was denied by the "reformers", but is now affirmed by the scads I mentioned above): If Rome took that out of the Mass, it means we don't believe that any longer!

What was taken out were mostly references to offering a Sacrifice, to Christ being the Victim (hostia) being offered, and to the role of the Priest enacting that offering in persona Christi. That the Mass is mysteriously the work of Christ the Redeemer in time is lacking, and the music and mayhem seals the deal.

This is most apparent in the change in the Offertory of the Mass, and in the overuse of Eucharistic Prayer II (which makes no mention of "sacrifice").

I am very impressed by the Eastern "Great Entrance" (Byzantine) and the use of the expression "the Lamb", where Latins would use the term "the Host". In the TLM, as in the Eastern Divine Liturgies, one can follow the Lamb of God, as He enters, offers Himself, and then gives Himself. In NO practice (if not in theory) that is very, very obscure.

When one attends both the TLM and the NO, as I do, it is very easy to see this. That is the genius of the Pope's recent promulgation, and its importance increases, the higher up in the hierarchy one goes.

Best regards,
Michael

John,

Thanks for the article and analysis. I agree wholeheartedly.

Michael,

I would argue that it is not a question of either or, but both and. The Passover sacrifice of the Old Testament was originally a family celebration which only later became highly ritualized after the Golden Calf incident and the defrocking of all of the tribes apart from Levi (one thinks about it in the manner of the curse of Adam and the arduous labor he would have to endure!). The problem as you state it, however, is that people have adopted a Protestantized understanding of what a familial celebration means - more personality driven, casual and emotive rather than truly liturgical, which to my mind is far more in keeping with the extended tribal family model.

So retain/recover the sacrificial aspects of the liturgy by all means! But to my (tribalistic) mind those aspects are equally charged with familial meaning.

God bless!

Gordo

Gordo,

Clearly, you're right, it is "both...and". And the "family" typology brings in all the Covenantal (sp?) aspects. So, the practical challenge is to "put it back".

In fact, in the "Suffering Servant" passages of Isaiah, the Servant (in Aramaic, apparently, the word for "servant" was the same word used for "lamb" -- as in "Behold, the Lamb of God") is twice called "the covenant of the peoples".

It's all still there, but the "hermeneutic" has been wrong, as Pope Benedict has said many times.

God bless,
Michael

P.S. The Aramaic reference is in the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) in a note referencing the words of the Precursor.

I find these kinds of "either-or" presentations a bit "off-putting". If one takes a global perspective on Catholicism (which I strongly encourage) you will see that your presuppositions about growth to be misinformed. For example, as recently shown in the Pope's visit, in Brazil the Church is filled with youth. Yet, the services are modern, etc.

Teh reality is that there is a large matrix of reasons why the Church grows and why vocations grow, etc. To isolate one strain of this matrix and make it the defining line is to obscure the real issues going on.

Brazil...the Diocese of Campos, an excellent example. Pope John Paul II appointed Bishop Rifan as the ordinary of an entire traditional Latin-Mass diocese...and yes, lots of youth and converts. Many years to His Excellency Bishop Fernando Rifan.

Great example! (Could you give references to the data for this, especially in terms of actual numbers?)

Here we have a Latin-mass diocese that is growing and filled with youth. At the same time, we have other dioceses in Brazil that use the New Mass and have integrated many indigenous practices into their worship servies and they are growing, filled with youth. A good example of the new modern masses and the way that they are attracting thousands of Brazilian youth is found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6630311.stm

For more on the situation in Brazil -- see

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=199 and

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid21910.aspx

What does this mean? It means that (as I have stated) the issue is not "traditional" versus "modern". Churches grow for numerous reasons, many of which have very little to do with liturgics, or even theology -- demography, political and economic movements, etc. play a much larger role in determining church attendance and church growth than we sometimes acknowledge and/or understand.

The facts are that Brazil is becoming less Catholic in part due to the pentecostal congregations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11401610

To stay the tide, some are adjusting Catholic worship to lure those who are straying from the faith back to the Church.

Brazil is also losing ground due to abortion, sexual immorality and materialism.

Some like Boff, have said that the Church needs to adapt:



This theory of avoiding "rigid" dogma and making the churches language relevant to declining cultures is contrary to the program set out by Benedict XVI in his Regensburg lecture:



While the Church certainly can baptize new cultures, it cannot do so at the expense of rejecting the Greek culture in which it first grew. That is the essence of modernism.

I question this exclusive emphasis on the "Greek" nature of early Christianity. For one thing, it seems to overlook the essential Semitic nature of early Christianity, seems to disregard the Syriac tradition, the Ethiopian and Armenian traditions, etc.

Why is the "Greek culture" essential to Christianity? Jesus was a Jew, thought like a Jew and acted within a Jewish context.

Because Greek was the language of the New Testament. Greek philosophy gave us logos.

Here is what Benedict XVI has said:

From the December 1, 2005 Wanderer:





From Bishop Rifan's more recent Rorate Caeli interview:


As far as numbers, from the Catholic Hierarchy site:
Year Catholics
2002 27,730 (first year obtained)
2004 28,325 (most recent - does show net growth)

But what may be more telling than these sometimes innaccurate diocesan census numbers, is the more accurately documented growth of vocations - from nine when the Apostolic Administration was first erected, to now 30 according to Bishop Rifan, and soon room for 80 seminarians. The authentic received tradition is indeed attractive to young people worldwide. And this is only one apostolic administration within one Latin diocese.

Similar growth in vocations can be seen in the Fraternity of St. Peter, dioceses such as Lincoln, Nebraska, etc.

Thanks!

I love seeing the Church grow in all of her forms and expressions. This is ultimately the reason I entered into communion with Rome -- it represents, in my mind and heart, a truly inclusive, thoroughly Catholic vision of the Church. Personally, I do not find the Latin Mass appealing or spiritually beneficial. The juridical presuppositions that undergird its liturgical ordo are foreign to my eastern theological focus. But I recognize it as being part of the Church's unversal witness and thus I rejoice that it has been blessed by Pope Benedict and I rejoice that it is growing and reaching people for Christ. I would say the same thing of "guitar masses" -- not my cup of tea, but, glory to God, they draw people closer to Christ and His Church -- and in that I rejoice -- while continuing to find great comfort and peace in the liturgical structure of the eastern lung of the Church

To get to the root: It's the prayer.

Liturgy is the opportunity for the community to enter into prayer - as a group. Some like one thing; others prefer something different. So, perhaps the idea of 'geographical' parishes is no longer relevant. Some go to parishes that use guitars and a 'communitarian' focus. Others prefer the more 'worshipful' liturgy that focuses on the mystical elements of salvation. And each of these communities has a lot of 'logistical' elements that are part of the 'ecclesia', eg, social activism, community programs, etc., or perhaps a greater focus on a strong paraliturgical program, eg benediction, 40 hours, stations, rosary, etc.

Is it such a sin to let folks find a community where they feel comfortable in -- and I emphasize 'REAL' prayer?

Unfortunately, some folks confuse the worshipful/sacrifice oriented prayer community with the 'accidentals' of the environment and language.

To be honest, I am driven nuts by the Latin-only folks who confuse the use of Latin in the Roman Church with dedication to the Church and the Gospel.

St. Paul tells us that we must pray with faith and 'understanding'. Parroting Latin phrases without understanding the meaning is not prayer - it's cant. The same applies for Easterners who use Slavonic or some other language. It's like the Hare Krishnas -- just say the words and "it's holy".

As one who studied a ton of Latin - and used it as a communication method in seminary -- it's a wonderful language. But one has to study it, not just memorize sound-sequences. When a traditionalist RC addresses another individual with "Dominus vobiscum", for me it's fingernails on a chalkboard. The "vobis" form is PLURAL. Unless the person is a schizophrenic with 2 personages, or something else, that use of the phrase is just stupidly wrong and offensive to real language folks. And to claim that this use of language is "prayer" is just ludicrous.

The real question is why is any particular language, i.e., Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Arabic, etc., holy and English is not?

The key element is - again - prayer. Prayer MUST come from the heart of the baptized person. It is the individual raising his or her heart and mind to God and asking to be heard. For a native English speaker, saying "Lord, in Your Mercy, please listen to me" is a lot preferable to "Domine exaudi orationem meam" or "Kyrie ekekraksa" or "Uslishimja Gospodi".

Why? Because the English words represent the true psychological and spiritual reality of the person who is praying. The 'foreign' words are just Hallmark pious phrases that one has learned to represent what is in the heart and soul.

We linguists have an intersting test on this: if you really smack your thumb or finger with a hammer (I mean black-and-blue), what you utter is from your native language. It's a direct link between your physical situation and your linguistic explosive utterance. It's the real McCoy. One doesn't say: "Mihi dolendum magnum passus sum!" One says: "Aiiii! Oh crap!" or something much stronger than 'crap'.

It comes from the heart (and the injured thumb!!)

Let's not be deceived by the use of 'cant', i.e., sound patterns that may come from a real or made-up language.

Prayer is from the heart, in response to the everyday realities of one's life. And it expression is either profound silence - I mean DUMBSTRUCK AWE - or real words that reflect one's heart and soul.

Blessings upon all!!

Dr John

Fascinating !

I think in modern American society, there is such a sundering of the normal set of human relatinships and values that quite a few people would find this kind of setting appealing. I know it happens with Orthodox Jews often. Now, it appears to be happening with orthodox (little o) Catholics. Fascintating !

-- John

A good post, Dr. John, and well developed. I agree.

I would build on that thought and say there is something even deeper here. There is a craving for an encounter with the Holy, both transcendent and as well as immanent. That covers the religious folks who don't pray much (some Buddhists and Hindus, for example) but who meditate a lot. And they, like lots of Christians, Jews, etc., seem to be searching for a greater or deeper sense of the Sacred and to build their lives around that. At least, that seems to be happening in America more and more. I don't have sociological data to prove it, it's just my impression from what I've seen and heard, but I suggest it nevertheless. Modern American life seems so . . . overwhelming . . . with its material goods, technology and "success." But, it seems like we have lost the vital common sense of transcendence that gave us a vital common set of shared experiences and values about the ultimate meaning of life and purpose of life. In other words, it seems that we're so plugged in that we've forgotten about God. And what you (Dr. John) are describing seems to be people's gut reaction against that.




Yes and no. Lex orandi, lex credendi. That said, people can get overly focused on or even idolatrous about the things of liturgy.




I can relate. I was looking for the right religious group. It was like the Goldilocks story: one was too hot, another too cold, but the third was just right. The too hot group was a Catholic religious organization that was too conservative for me: God spoke to them, and He spoke in Latin, and God have mercy on you if you claimed to be a good Catholic and didn't speak Latin too. The too cold group was a Catholic religious organization that was too liberal for me: I wondered if they were still Christian, or if they were secular humanists with religious trappings. Then I found Eastern Christianity (and, now the Orthodox Church), and I feel it has the right balance for me: plenty of tradition (including in its liturgy), but the services are almost entirely in English. There are some groups like that in the Catholic Church and Protestant Church too. It's just a matter of finding the right balance, where the tools of liturgy are used as tools for communion with God and not as idols.

Just my two cents.

-- John

There are very few of us out there who prefer the "Traditional Latin Mass" who wouln't mind if it were in the vernacular. What some of us object to is the simplified ceremonial of the Novus Ordo. I'd take a High Mass in reverent English anyday over both a reverently celebrated Novus Ordo in Latin, or even a Traditional Latin Low Mass. I'm also not fond of the Novus Ordo lectionary. The Tridentine lectionary is much more sane seeing as obscure bits of the Old Testament are not part of the lectionary.