Replies

"I agree with all that you say. Except that the gross error was not to "abandon" the Latin liturgy, but rather to not police the entirely reasonable efforts to use the vernacular where appropriate."

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Given the nature of the enemy in the culture war, it was--and is--a given that *any* change *will* be used as an opening for abuse. There may be a time to take off your armor and repair it, but that time is not when your enemy is chopping at you with a broadsword.

It was--and is--a time for one response to the enemy: "No, no, no, no, no, no, no." (Pounds table with shoe.)

Further, the Church *had* a special language that no one spoke as his first language, but which united all Catholics everywhere. I wonder how you would react to the mass in Japanese.

A couple of weeks ago a priest I don't know was saying, "Kiristo no karada" as he dispensed the Eucharist, as usual. He saw me stepping forward, had a moment of perplexity as he tried to figure out what language to use for me, then dropped back on "Corpus Christi." I nearly cried.

"That people should not be rewriting and injecting their own ideas into the liturgy is a given, regardless of what tongue it is in."

Agreed.

"The complete failure to control and police the actions of priests and bishops is the issue."

That is certainly one issue, but another issue is that the Church has given an opening to those who were looking for one. Once you agree that something needs to be changed, or can be changed, then it becomes just that much easier to say that it needs another change. The first change was an opening for a strategy of incremental change.

How many of us are educated enough to state with certainty that this change is okay and that one not? In the last couple of days here I've seen support both for and against the proposition that the Pope has authorized altar girls. Right now, I don't know which is correct.

I do believe that altar girls are an abomination, but I don't know whether that places me in agreement with the Holy Father or in disagreement. The Church should have held the line at NO change until Civilization's flirtation with lunacy abates.

"When priests were fluent in Latin, it would have been completely possible for them to "ad lib" parts of the Mass that they objected to, or thought needed their own particular "influence."

But...everybody would have picked up on it right away, and would have known it was not authorized. There would have been delegations to bishops, like in Don Camillo.

"Today we are selfish and each priest wants to tailor the Mass to suit himself. This is made easier by being in the vernacular, but it is made possible by the loss of faith and respect for the Church."

Without getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, if we are agreed that it is made easier by being in the vernacular, IMO it stands demonstrated that the vernacular should never have been authorized.

"The complete failure to control and police the actions of priests and bishops is the issue."

That is certainly one issue, but another issue is that the Church has given an opening to those who were looking for one. Once you agree that something needs to be changed, or can be changed, then it becomes just that much easier to say that it needs another change. The first change was an opening for a strategy of incremental change.

Uh, not necessarily. If I say that the blue widgets should now be red, this is not an authorization for them to be green, or totally non-existent.

One change, and authorized change does not mean that any change whatsoever is hereby authorized. It is, as I said, a failure to police and control the actions of bishops and priests. If the first person to start ad libbing was disciplined, then further change would have been inhibited.

Don't you see this?

"When priests were fluent in Latin, it would have been completely possible for them to "ad lib" parts of the Mass that they objected to, or thought needed their own particular "influence."

But...everybody would have picked up on it right away, and would have known it was not authorized. There would have been delegations to bishops, like in Don Camillo.

Um, there are rubrics for the NO Mass. And those of us familiar with them do indeed "pick up" on it right away and we know what things are not authorized.

It's really not that hard to look at your missalette and see that the priest is deviating.

The difference is that complints about such thing fall on empty ears at the chanceries. Which is why I said it is not a function of the language, but of the lack of discipline and policing of the actions of bishops and priests.

Say you attended an Indult Tridentine Mass, and the priest decided to violate the rubrics. Would the local bishop pay special attention to your complaint because the Mass was in Latin instead of English?

Without getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, if we are agreed that it is made easier by being in the vernacular, IMO it stands demonstrated that the vernacular should never have been authorized.

Is it possible that you are looking at only one side of the equation? Are there no benefits to having parts of the Mass in the vernacular?