Pieter Vree
No matter what direction the “new liturgical movement” envisioned by Pope Benedict XVI takes, and before any “mutual enrichment” between the two extant forms of the Roman rite can take place, the Tridentine Latin Mass must experience a significant revival. If only for the sake of the liturgical patrimony of the Church, it cannot remain restricted to a handful of Masses scattered about in far-flung parochial outposts. Unfortunately, four years after the release of Summorum Pontificum, Benedict’s motu proprio liberalizing the celebration of the Latin Mass, hard data on its growth during the ensuing years is hard to come by.
All we have to go on at this point — aside from first-person accounts of isolated circumstances that appear periodically in Catholic media — are a few surveys commissioned by Pax Liturgique, a French group in communion with Rome that works to promote the spread of the Latin Mass. The results of its surveys, conducted in late 2009 and early 2010, were published in the traditionalist British Christian Order (Oct. 2010). Insofar as surveys are useful, these provide insight into the situations in Germany, Italy, England, and Portugal (a survey of French Catholics was completed in late 2008 and is thus too dated to be relevant).
Of the German Catholics who were asked whether they were aware that the Pope had issued a document allowing for wider celebration of the Latin Mass, over 43 percent said yes. Word of the motu proprio’s release traveled farther in Italy, where 64 percent of the Catholics surveyed responded that they had heard of it. But only 39 percent of British respondents claimed to be aware of its release, as did an abysmally low 26 percent of respondents in Portugal. Pax Liturgique comments that the widespread ignorance of Portuguese Catholics about Summorum Pontificum (74 percent had never even heard of it) “is due, on the one hand, to the Portuguese media’s lack of interest for liturgical issues. On the other hand, however, it is due also to the indifference of the episcopate and a good part of the Portuguese clergy towards…the liberation of the traditional Mass.”
On the bright side, a majority of respondents in Germany (50.6 percent) and Italy (a whopping 71 percent) said they would consider it “normal” if the Latin Mass and the New Mass were celebrated regularly in their parish. Less than a quarter of respondents in either country (24.5 and 24 percent, respectively) said that such a situation would be “abnormal.” The remainder had no opinion. The results were mixed in England and Portugal: 44.9 percent of Englishmen would consider this situation “normal” (opposed to 21 percent who said it would be “abnormal”), as would 44.7 percent of Portuguese (with a full 40 percent calling it “abnormal”).
The practicing Catholics among those polled were then asked whether they would attend the Latin Mass if it were offered in their parish, without replacing the New Mass, and, if so, how often. In Germany the largest percentage of respondents, 40 percent, said they would attend it “occasionally”; the next largest percentage of respondents, 25 percent, answered “weekly.” In Italy the largest percentage, 40 percent, said they would attend “weekly”; 23 percent said “monthly.” In Portugal 29.5 percent said they would attend “weekly”; 24 percent said “monthly.” And in England 43 percent said they would attend “weekly.” In second place, 16.4 percent of respondents said they would “never” attend the Latin Mass.
We can glean from these figures that the “cohabitation” of the two forms of the Mass in one parish would generally not be a problem for most people (save for certain Portuguese and Englishmen). Moreover, substantial attendance at the Latin Mass on a regular basis, whether weekly or monthly, is likely in three of these four countries if — and it’s a big if — the Latin Mass were offered on a regular basis at the local parish.
Where the people are less aware of the motu proprio there exists greater resistance to the idea of having the Latin Mass as an option at the local parish. This situation, however, might exist by design. Christian Order comments: “Despite every effort to keep them in the dark about Summorum Pontificum, when apprised of its existence and provisions by pollsters, 30-40%+ of practicing Catholics in each country (i.e. more than one in three, and in England twice that number) indicated they would gladly attend the traditional Mass weekly if it were celebrated in their parish…. [This is a] very strong tendency considering the Novus Ordo’s longstanding monopoly on parish life…. The self-fulfilling lie of ‘no demand’ has been comprehensively debunked by [this] series of surveys.”
How does the situation compare stateside? Una Voce America (UVA), a group in communion with Rome that promotes the spread of the Latin Mass in the U.S., released the results of its own study in its Spring 2011 newsletter. Of the 34 dioceses UVA surveyed, 19 reported to have experienced an increase in every-Sunday Latin Masses since 2007; 14 experienced no change (three of which held steady at zero Latin Masses); and one reported a decrease. When asked about the attitude of the local ordinary toward the Latin Mass, the largest percentage of respondents, 35 percent, described it as “bad and no hope.” Eighteen percent called it “stagnant,” compared with only 15 percent who said it was “generally improving.” When asked about the general situation for the Latin Mass in their diocese, the largest percentage of respondents, 29 percent, called it “stagnant.” Eighteen percent said “bad and no hope,” whereas 21 percent said it was “improving.”
The conclusions UVA drew from its survey are that “there is a demand” for the Latin Mass and Summorum Pontificum has helped make it more accessible to the faithful, but that there is “still an unfulfilled demand” for the Latin Mass, and “increased oversight or better ‘enforcement’” of Summorum Pontificum is “necessary to insure that the demand is met.” (The newsletter was issued prior to the release of Universae Ecclesiae, the follow-up instruction to Summorum Pontificum, whose aim is precisely to ensure the proper interpretation and implementation of the latter so that the faithful who wish it can attend the Latin Mass.)
So there is, it appears, a demand for the Latin Mass in both Europe and America. But it is a demand that could best be described as dormant. While groups like Pax Liturgique and Una Voce America are doing what they can with limited resources to promote its spread, their efforts to date have been hampered by an overwhelming sense of ecclesial inertia. Let’s face it: the leaders of most parishes and dioceses have shown themselves to be content with the New Mass. It’s a known quantity — even if it’s a quantity that diminishes over time. It’s no secret that attendance has plummeted in Europe and America since the New Mass was introduced into parishes.
The typical response to dwindling attendance has been to try to make the New Mass more appealing to various subgroups. And so we have a surplus of youth Masses, Spanish Masses, Cantonese Masses, etc. And around and around we go. But installing a Latin Mass? That would take so much, well, effort.
Meanwhile, the old Mass languishes in the liturgical ghetto. Restoring it as a legitimate option in the average parish will, of necessity, have to be a grassroots effort. The demand for it must be stimulated, awakened, and allowed to thrive. Pope Benedict XVI has made a valiant effort to allow this to happen — and to ensure that the demand is fulfilled. If the Latin Mass is to escape its isolation and again become a prominent feature on the ecclesiastical landscape, the numbers will have to bear it out.
[Pieter Vree is Editor of theNew Oxford Review. The foregoing article, "Out of the Liturgical Ghetto," was originally published in the New Oxford Review (July-August), pp. 15-17, and is reproduced here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706.]
The Vatican's efforts to "encourage" a wider freedom of the old mass strike me as disingenuous. It's "instructions" ring hollow, because it's efforts have amounted to no more than token gestures. It has really done nothing to put teeth into it's statements.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason the traditional mass has survived at all is that the SSPX has kept it alive in defiance of the Vatican, which for years has behaved as though that mass had been suppressed. Wherever it has been celebrated with canonical approval, it has been 100% due to efforts of the laity. Where clergy have cooperated, it has been because of an irrepressible and persistent laity whose organized demands could not be ignored.
Why is the old mass in a "liturgical ghetto"? Because those loyal to the old mass are treated as liturgical niggers. (Pardon the expression but it's quite true.)
I quit going to mass when Latin was abolished. Eventually after much pain and realization that I was fighting against the Holy Spirit I went to English masses. Later a Latin mass was allowed, far from town, at midday on Sunday. Despite the expense in time and gasoline we attended the mass but eventually we realized that we were not going to mass, we were playing an antiquarian game.. I read Latin quite well and on many occasions my mind wandered away from the liturgy on considerations of why an ablative was used there instead of an accusative. We went back to our parish and attend the mass that is available and that I find perfectly satisfactory,
ReplyDeleteas a matter of fact enormously satisfying. The group that organized the Latin mass disappeared. Now there is a group in town that celebrates the liturgy in Latin every Sunday. But I have never attended so I don't know how many people gather there. I find past strange that people would prefer not to understand. But chacun a son gout.
It seems to me that if a Latin Mass were in place in every parish, most people would go to it whenever the time suited their schedule. In other words, if you ask them whether they like the idea of a Latin mass or not, they will give you an opinion but most, in fact, are not really concerned about this liturgical war.
ReplyDeleteThose who are concerned about it in a negative way, the folks firmly committed to the post-V2 innovating, the people who have bought into the propaganda about what a great gift the NO is, Bishops and priests who don't know how or don't want to have to train people to say the Extraordinary Rite, are unfortunately in charge and often obstructionist.
It is sad but true that the free-form liturgy type that puts on a show for the audience often gets rave reviews in the Am-Church. Valid but not licit is not a concern of most Catholics in the pews. After almost 50 years of the NO, it is hard to expect anything else.
Anon.B. is right on, if the Vatican wants to make the old Mass more available, it will have to give its statements some big sharp teeth.
"Chacun à son goût" suggests that the matter can be reduced to a matter of subjective taste. But that is the very point denied by those who have most assiduously resisted the innovation of the 1965 Missal, and even more assiduously the innovation of the 1969 Missal. Their unwavering claim is that their deepest objection to the New Mass is not aesthetic or sentimental, but theological. The theological critique of the Mass of Paul VI reviewed by Alcuin Reid, whose review was posted recently on this blog by Pertinacious Papist, makes that point in spades.
ReplyDeleteCertainly there are those for whom the matter is understood as a difference in tastes. In fact, that is what most likely first comes to mind to anyone asked to consider the option between the two Masses. But the question cannot be reduced to a matter of taste, and the most important considerations certainly are not mere matters of taste. The Church's theological fidelity to her own Sacred Tradition is at stake here, it seems to me.
I don't think Novus Ordo types should trust their own impresions when they visit a Tridintine Mass or talk about it. They were brainwashd by 50 years of protestant type reprograming. When you are sick, you can't trust your taste buds. You can know what is true only in your head.
ReplyDeleteI know, orthodox Priests who are completely aware of what the Holy Father is asking for but they put off doing it because they don't realize the importance of it. Most Catholics of good faith would probably say they would attend a Latin Mass. I honestly think unless the Pope is more clear about the siutation you won't get much more immediacy in terms of implementation
ReplyDeleteGeorgetown's CARA Institute did a similar survey with the same comclusions in 2009. People want the E.F. but those in power don't. The answer is to keep praying, stay positive, work to support new communities, and wait.
ReplyDeleteAgreed George. I remember a commentor named Jim who said he felt no edification from traditional liturgy. Someone quipped, "Well, I suppose it is a good thing we don't worship Jim."
ReplyDeleteThe champions of sentimentalist secular-therapeutic mush have already won we we accept personal edification as the measure.
Speaking of a liturgically philistine diocesan bishop:
ReplyDeletehttp://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/diocese-of-great-falls-billings-issues-amazing-document-about-benedict-xvis-summorum-pontificum/#respond
Many, if not most, NO Catholics in the pews who know only what they have seen for the past 40 odd years are as thoroughly indoctrinated in the NO as sincere Protestants are in their various persuasions. They have no idea of the theological objections to the NO nor do they realize that there might be any differences in theological orientation between the NO and the Extraordinary right. The NO is easy and they are comfortable with it.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that the NO is not a liturgical deviation from tradition, the Vatican is in a very awkward position for saying it may have been a mistake. The average Joe in the pew is not prepared for the theological niceties that might explain the need for the Extraordinary Rite.
I was struck by the statement that growth for the EF has to come from the grassroots level. So, what can I do to help? Can anyone offer suggestions or information on how to draw other faithful Catholics?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI think there are two great needs -- one primary, the other secondary.
The primary need is, as banal as it may sound, education -- or liturgical catechesis, to be precise. Most Catholics these days have no practical familiarity with the traditional liturgy, and even less catechetical understanding concerning its importance. Since the former is lacking, we've got to start with the latter. But as someone here pointed out, the required subtleties are not easily conveyed, and most Catholics today are conditioned against the spiritual docility such catechesis requires.
One of the best places to start, however, might be with the particular contexts and motives that occasioned the various liturgical innovations and so-called "reforms." Communion in the hand, while having patristic antecedents, was re-introduced in a context of unbelief in transubstantiation and a protestantizing revisionism in our understanding of the Eucharist as symbol rather than substance of our Lord. Altar girls were introduced in defiance of traditional proscriptions with the intent of eventually leveraging women's ordination. Etc. This can help, at least, in seeing what's wrong with so much in contemporary NO liturgies.
The secondary need is more practical. Lay involvement is needed in promoting the traditional Mass, because it's not going to be promoted or initiated by clerics. This requires political prudence as well as practical organizing skills. We've got a man in Detroit who has this in spades and would be happy to provide a blueprint to help any group get started. If you know of any groups that have reached that point of serious commitment, shoot me an email and I can put you in touch.
"...The main reason the traditional mass has survived at all is that the SSPX has kept it alive in defiance of the Vatican, which for years has behaved as though that mass had been suppressed."
ReplyDeleteBingo!! I quite agree. For years I read the new oxford review and enjoyed it for the most part. But their hatred for the SSPX was enough to drop it. It wasn't the pope's "valiant effort" as NOR claims but the tenacious efforts of SSPX that should be lauded. Schism was their favored word for the society and NOR has been proven wrong again. NOR should be relegated to the neo catholic dustbin before anyone thinks otherwise.