The Rite Move

For hundreds of years, the Latin Mass was a potent symbol of the Church Universal, which transcended nationality, ethnicity, culture, and language.

The Latin Mass familiar to Catholics old enough to remember how worship was conducted before Vatican II was known as the Tridentine Rite because it had been codified by the Council of Trent. From 1570, when Pope Pius V's Quo Primum bull authorized the use of that rite, "without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty," until the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, the Tridentine Mass was the distinguishing characteristic of the Roman Church.

The Vatican II reformers pressed a broad liturgical modernization program, at the core of which was a move towards conducting the Mass in the local vernacular. Granted, there was a case to be made for de-emphasizing Latin. First, Christ's Great Commission commands Christians to "make disciples of all nations." The arcane elements of the Tridentine Mass and the use of a strange tongue supposedly made evangelism by Catholics nearly impossible. Second, many uneducated Catholics had only a limited understanding of the Mass and, as a result, lacked a meaningful worship experience. Indeed, among the least educated, the Tridentine Mass had magical and superstitious connotations. Third, even as to Catholics who fully understood what was happening in the Tridentine Rite and possessed a reasonable command of the Latin liturgy, the structure of the Tridentine Mass precluded the full and active participation of the laity in the ritual.

The Sacrosanctum Concilium (i.e., Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) issued by the Second Vatican Council began a process of reform that culminated in the 1970 Missal and, to some extent, continues even today. Contrary to popular belief, Vatican II did not ban the use of Latin or the Tridentine Rite. Instead, the choice of whether to permit the use of the Tridentine Rite and/or Latin was left to the discretion of each diocesan bishop.

In the United States, the vast majority of diocesan bishops have sharply restricted the use of the Tridentine Rite. This remains the case even though Pope John Paul II's 1988 Ecclesia Dei declaration stated that "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition" and urged diocesan bishops to make "wide and generous application" of their power to authorize the use of that tradition. In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for example, Cardinal Mahoney reportedly insists that the Tridentine Mass should be available only to those were alive and actively attending Mass pre-1965. Those of us born into the Church (or, as in my case, who converted) after 1965 are denied access to the Tridentine Mass. (Fortunately, Mahoney's opposition to the Tridentine Rite does not preclude the use of Latin entirely. My parish, St. Victor Church in West Hollywood, has a lovely Sunday Vigil Mass in which extensive use is made of Gregorian chant.)

Almost since the beginning of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy, there has been rampant speculation that he will issue a universal indult that will bypass recalcitrant diocesan bishops like Cardinal Mahoney. The Times of London reported recently on the latest rumors out of the Vatican, which sound as though it is a done deal:

In other words, although the new indult will not ensure that the Tridentine Mass is universally available, it would reverse the presumption against the Tridentine Rite by requiring local bishops proactively to proscribe that Rite. It remains to be seen whether Vatican II diehards like Mahoney will accept the change with good grace or actively resist it with written proscriptions.

There is no guarantee that the rumors are true, of course. The Vatican remains very much a black box in this area, as in many others. Yet, we may nevertheless ponder the merits of the rumored indult.

The arguments for the vernacular mass are undoubtedly strong. In theory, at least, the Mass has become more accessible both to cradle Catholics and prospective converts. In practice, however, the post-Vatican II liturgy all too often has been trite or even embarrassing. As "liberal" Archbishop Rembert Weakland observed back in 1999, many priests "adopted a kind of colloquial style that was and is unbefitting the liturgical movement." And, of course, the music has been even worse. To again quote Weakland, "most of the new music created for the liturgy has been and continues to be trite in both musical form and text, more fit for the theatre and the pub than for church."

Archbishop Weakland argued that the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms have created serious theological shortcomings in Catholic practice by promoting "a diminution of respect for and belief in the real presence in the Eucharist". Among the problems Weakland identified are "the tendency to stand, not kneel," "the placement of the tabernacle in the church away from the central axis," and the demise of genuflections. Taken together, he argued, the reforms "have reduced the sense of the transcendent and an appreciation for God's presence and role in the liturgy."

Weakland's critique, of course, was a call for more and better liturgical reform rather than for a restoration of the Latin Tridentine Mass. Yet, given the repeated failures of the reform movement, and with the Tridentine Rite lying to hand as a long-proven alternative, why not at least make it widely available as an option?

Making the Tridentine Rite widely available in Latin would be an important signal to Catholics and all Christians that we are members of a universal Church. The Catholic Church is universal across both time and space. In temporal terms, it is a partnership between the living, those who have gone before us, and those who will come after us. Christians throughout history used the Latin Mass. When we use it today, we reaffirm our place in that history. It reminds us of the traditions of our faith and, as St. Paul put it, of the great cloud of witnesses before whom we run our race.

In spatial terms, the Church transcends national boundaries and linguistic barriers. The Latin Mass reminds us that we are just Americans but also Catholic Christians. Indeed, it reminds us that we are Christians first and Americans second. There is something very profound and moving in knowing that millions of people around the world, in dozens of countries, are saying precisely the same words that you are speaking.

Catholics around the world hunger for the return of the Latin Mass, not just quasi-schismatic traditionalists and sedevacantists. In Atlanta, for example, it is reported that the regularized Latin Mass mainly by "younger people who want to pass on the faith and its true expression." One hopes Pope Benedict will not disappoint them.

I sense your sarcasm.

But you know, there was a time, not that long ago, when the vast majority of Latin Rite Catholics knew a bit of church Latin, and that bound us together all over the world. You could go to Calcutta, and apologize to another Catholics by saying mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and he or she would know exactly what you meant.

The Pater and the Ave were the same all over the Catholic world, and the Salve Regina was the prayer and melody that ended the evening all over Europe for a thousand years.

We've lost all of that, and much of it really only in the space of a couple of generations. Pick up a novel that was discussed extensively here on another thread a couple of weeks back, A Canticle for Leibowitz. Shot through with Catholic imagery and Church Latin. Written in 1959, and easily accessible to Catholics and even many non-Catholics back then, despite having a healthy dose of church Latin interspersed in its pages.

Don't neglect the place of Latin in creating a common Catholic culture, and the loss of Latin in weakening it.

Dominus tecum

There must be a blue moon. I disagree with you :)

As Fr. Robert Taft noted,

Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly Western character of Catholicism for over 900 years makes it necessary for us to remind ourselves that variety within the Church is not only a fact, but that any other situation would be deplorable. There was a time not so long ago when some sort of proof for the universality of the Church was found in the false belief that, "Wherever a Catholic goes, he will feel at home when he enters a Catholic church because there he will find the familiar Mass celebrated in the common language of the Church." Not only is this untrue, but if it were true, it would be not the glorious thing we might have once imagined, but a chilling commentary on the narrowness we had imposed on the Body which Christ fashioned for all mankind. To impose one Rite on everyone does not render that Rite, or the Church, more universal. It only impoverishes the catholic expression of the Church’s life.

*He speaks for me. I think it wonderful the Mass is in English for those who speak English, and in Spanish for those who speak Spanish. There ought be a great diversity within Unity due to our Catholicity. The Living Magisterium, established, guided and protected by our Triune God, is the sole source of Unity, not language.

I was learnt that Unity is Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and that within the Unity of worship there is a great diversity provided to us children by our Holy Mother in the various Rites and Liturgies she has approved for use.

FWIW, for over a thousand years, we Christians used to stand during the Mass. We used to gather at the altar with the Priest in a Circum which as Jungmann details,

Rather the picture intended is what is suggested by the structure of the old Roman basilicas, where the altar stood between the presbytery and the nave, so that the faithful - especially if there was a transept - could form a semi-circle or "open ring" around the altar."

*Now, if I were Pope, I'd reintroduce this ancient Tradition which was in use much longer than the recent innovations of the protestant-innovations of pews and kneelers.

I think the position and posture of the Ordained Priest and the Priesthood of the Faithful would do wonders in having the laity learnt they have a role to fulfill at Mass. They must also act as priests.

For a thousand years we Christians stood with the Priest at the Altar and offered our intentions - Petitions, Adoration, Reparation, Thanksgiving - in the pluperfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant and then we ate the Heavenly Banquet of the New Covenant.

A return to that past, imo, would be a blessing.

I am very much in favor of the restoration of the Tridentine rite (although taking into account the reforms encouraged by the pre-VatII reform movement - i.e., audible, clearly spoken Latin, dignified, reasonably paced celebration, etc.) for both historical and aesthetic reasons.

However, I would really like to see the restoration of Latin to the NO, as well. It will bring back many parts of our shared Catholic culture and will moor us in our collective past again.

Another aspect that has not been mentioned is that language is used for political reasons in some countries. I go to Spain a lot, where various linguistic "nationalist" movements have often turned the Mass and other celebrations into exclusionist political statements by insisting on their celebration in some minority language with political significance. Not even a few words are said in any other language as a gesture of friendship to the other language speakers who are members of the community. I am sure this is true in many other countries that have a majority language and several minority languages. It could eventually be true in this country with English and Spanish. Essentially, the language of the Mass is being used to divide and segregate, and often to make a political statement.

Having most of the NO Mass in Latin and permitting certain parts (Gospel readings, intercessory prayers, etc.) in whatever language the locals decide on would be a reminder that the Mass is about God and not about the local language-party leader, and that the Church is superior to any local squabble or political situation.

Teach your three year old to say the words in the Latin and Harvard will probably be trying to recruit her - LOL!

Actually, when I was a kid (prior to VatII), we all had missals that had the words in both English and Latin, and kids were taught the meaning of the phrases in Catholic school or in their CCD classes. They also began the study of a very basic level of Latin fairly early on in Catholic schools. Supposedly, this early language learning is one of the things that accounted for the high proportion of Catholic attorneys - well, that and the Jesuit tradition of rhetoric and debate, sadly lost to us now.

Another writer recently pointed out the fact that Catholics often used these phrases jokingly among themselves (Dominus vobiscum, as I recall, was frequently used in a joking sense), and that even non-Catholic writers referenced them. This was because everybody knew what they meant, and they were part not only of Catholic culture, but of Western poetic and literary culture in general.

That's what I'd like to see come back, and I think it would be a bridge over the cultural divide of the 1960s. Not everything that came after 1965 was bad, but on the other hand, it did not have the right to obliterate everything that had gone before. I think the Tridentine Rite needed a bit of reform (and most people agreed on that at the time), but certainly not what it got!

I guess we'll just have to see what happens. In the meantime, one couldn't go wrong by learning Latin. It's a great grammatical tool and it is fine preparation for any Romance language (which is normally what American kids choose as their foreign language in school). Actually, it's a great preparation for any language learning, because it teaches the basic parts of speech of all Western languages.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.