Because the ancient rite of the Mass makes explicit and highlights certain values and certain fundamental aspects of the liturgy that deserve to be maintained, and I am not speaking only about the Latin or Gregorian chant, I am speaking about the sense of mystery, of the sacred, the sense of the Mass as a sacrifice, the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the fact that there are great moments of interior recollection, interior participation in the divine liturgy. All these are fundamental elements which are particularly highlighted in the ancient rite of the Mass. I am not saying that these elements do not exist in the Mass of Paul VI's reform, but I am saying that they are highlighted much more and this can enrich even those who celebrate or participate in the ordinary form of the Mass. Nothing prevents one from thinking that in the future we will also be able to achieve a reunification of the two forms, with elements that come together and complement one another; but this is not a goal to be attained in a short time, and particularly not with decisions taken at a desk, but one which requires a maturation of the entire Christian people called to understand the value of both liturgical forms of the same Roman Rite.Source: Gloria.TV
[Hat tip to J.M.]
9 comments:
Addendum:
As to Msgr. Pozzo's remark about the future reunification of the two forms of the Roman Rite, I would say that this would not even be entertained as a necessary goal if one were well-versed in the liturgical history highlighted by Geoffrey Hull in his book, The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church (T&T Clark Studies In Fundamental Liturgy, 2010). Why not a plurality of Latin rites, as there always were until the Counter-Reformation's insistence on uniformity? Whence the totalitarian impulse, when the Church readily recognizes the existence of numerous non-Latin Catholic rites?
During the Counter Reformation, the rationale for uniformity was the threat of Protestant defects and heresies creeping into the Catholic liturgical rites. If there is any danger today (and there is), I would say that the shoe is on the other foot -- i.e., having no alternative but the novus ordo, which, in so many venues, has been the subject of rampant and egregious abuse.
Hull is the right guy to bring into the discussion, PP, although I have a problem with him to some degree.
Hull's point can be loosely summarized as: whatever goes around, comes around -- meaning that those strict liturgical homogenizers of the pre-Vatican II centuries, who sought to suppress regional liturgies, some with great traditions of their own, should not have been surprised when the Paulist chickens came home to roost, and the traditional Roman liturgy was itself suppressed by homegrown liturgical elitists.
Well, that is a thesis of grandiose irony indeed, and in many respects cannot be denied. Mistakes were made, folks -- most of them by Jesuits, not surprisingly. But there was a grave crisis in the Church in those days, and much that required supression. And in view of the present state of things, I have to say that I have grown extremely irritated at seeing the Counter Reformation become the whipping boy of every winds-o-change claque of the last three centuries.
The Counter Reformation saved the Church. That is a hard pill for self-indulgent American shnooks and Vatican II daisy-sniffers to swallow -- but they should be made to ingest it, even if it gags them going down their pencil necks. God grant us another one, and soon.
I guess some might argue, with some justification, that we won't restore liturgical sanity until we have a single Roman Rite and it's the TLM of 1962, perhaps with minor modifications, like the addition of some possible new Prefaces, saints in the liturgical calender, etc.
But at least in the meantime, a less daunting strategy might be to argue for the rights of plurality, and let the faithful be taught by exposure which feeds the hungry heart and has the power of tradition and endurance and the formation of souls in the dark days ahead.
The great American distaste for any language but English stands as a formidable obstacle to the return of Latin in the liturgy here.
I believe John Carroll himself was a proponent of English in the liturgy until he realized that the Vatican wasn't buying at the time. The bishops we have now, even if they were in favor of a return to the classic language, are not likely to buck the popular taste. Suggest the idea of a return to Latin to any N.O. supporter and, triste dictu, the answer you are most likely to get is, "It isn't going to happen."
B16 could help to restore the ancient rite by using it publicly but I doubt that the Vatican is going to risk the uproar that would follow any mandate to dump the vernacular.
It looks to me as though the long range strategy is to straighten out the theology and liturgy of the N.O., gradually bring the forms of the two rites together, and then leave Latin as an option to be encouraged.
The language is not essential to the theology but the practical mistake was to allow the vernacular in the first place. If the N.O. were sanctioned only in Latin, it would not enjoy a tenth of the support that it now has and reform of the reform would be much simpler.
Of course, the Pope could just say that the N.O. is out and the Extraordinary Rite in and then dig in for the chaos to follow. AmCaths and probably a lot of others are just not so obedient any more-- if they ever were.
Dan, I'm sorry to say I think you're absolutely right. Sorry, that is, about the entrenched resistance among the mainstream to any substantial use of Latin in the liturgy.
Funny thing is, many of these folks -- many of them good and faithful Catholics in many respects -- have no clue that this sentiment places them in a position of distinct rupture, not merely from "immemorial Catholic Tradition," but also from the actual decrees of VATICAN II! To actually be a "Vatican II Catholic," whatever else that may mean, it literally requires that one liturgically embrace Latin and Gregorian Chant.
If one examines the various Catholic liturgical rites throughout the world, one notices a pattern: outside of the N.O., the liturgical language tends to be different from the ordinary everyday vernacular. For example, in Chaldean communities, the Chaldean Catholic liturgy is in Aramaic, not the quotidian language spoken by the people in the street.
Strategically, it seems to me, the first step would not necessarily be to try to eliminate the vernacular in the N.O. (although a perfectly good VATICAN II rationale exists for it). As you state, the backbone is probably lacking to face the uproar of protest that would ensue.
Rather, the strategy should perhaps be to educate N.O. parishes in the nature of liturgical language, that it is supposed to be consecrated, set aside, special, the very best available, just like one's "Sunday best" in dress. That used to be Latin. But it could possibly also be the much more elegant English of the era of the Douay-Rheims, or the Book of Common Prayer (which for all its faults, cannot be topped for beauty), etc.
This itself would doubtless elicit some resistance, what with people used to such McCatholic events as Life Teen Masses, and such abominably pedestrian locutions as "he took bread, said the blessing ..." (Eucharistic Prayer IV). But it might be a step in the right direction.
On the one hand, sometimes when I think of how far we've fallen and what the prospects of "liturgical renewal" in such a world as ours, I verge towards resignation. On the other hand, when I used to mention the possibility of altar rails or kneeling or Traditional Latin Masses again to my priest in NC ten years ago, he would always reply: "Dream on!" And here were are today with all of those things, at least in some blessed parishes.
PP,
Tecum consentio.
Ralph's Quick and Painless Method of Restoring the Latin Mass Without Anyone Noticing Until It Is Too Late:
(1) Dispose of the disposable "worship resources". Toss them -- they are a hindrance. Tell the pew mushrooms that it is a matter of parish economics. Tell them that the best "worship resource" is one's own eyes, ears, and mind. Telling them such things will make them somnolent.
(2) Introduce Latin into the NO without announcing it or preparing the mushrooms in any way. Since they are not listening, they will not notice that the Mass is now being said in a different language.
(3) Now that you have reintroduced Latin to the faithful, confine the NO liturgy to the deep freeze in the bomb shelter below the basement of the Vatican chancery, then erase the memories of the faithful servants who placed it there.
(4) Replace the NO with Latin Low Masses exclusively. Startled by the periods of actual silence in place of constant liturgical white noise, pew mushrooms will awaken and, seeing the priest deep in prayer, will be encouraged by his example to follow along. The fact that the priest mostly ignores them and faces the altar will perhaps alert them to the possibility that something more important is going on than a Tonight Show style conversation. Some will scramble for a "worship resource" of some kind, which they will not find. Others will, for lack of anything else to do (such as recitation, singing, and arresting arm gestures), will start to pray. In doing so, they will join with the priest -- even if not to the point of lockstep recitation (what does that gain us anyway?) -- and all will humbly kneel in prayer to their God.
(5) The only people who will be put out by this approach are the pew pietists who act as lectors and EMHCs. They can sweep out the pews after the Mass is over. If necessary, a collection can be taken to finance the making of little plastic badges for them to wear.
Ralph,
I had to pick myself up off the floor!
As to the subtlest way of re-introducing Latin so that it won't be noticed, there's always this: http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-vernacular-is-vast-improvement-over.html.
There's much here to provoke serious thought, however. You write: "Others will, for lack of anything else to do (such as recitation, singing, and arresting arm gestures), will start to pray."
Starting with your parenthetical remark, it seems to me that much of what goes on in the antiphonal "conversation" between priest and parishioner in the N.O. Mass involves next to no "active participation" in the sense recommended by Pope St. Pius X.
If you've ever driven home with a lot on your mind, you know how you can pull up in your driveway and suddenly realize you don't remember making a single stop or turn. You were on "auto-pilot," with your sub-conscious filling in. I'm convinced that a great deal of the recitation that goes on in your average church is of this order of performance. The mind may be completely elsewhere. The recitations are made on "auto-pilot."
While it's possible to day-dream in the TLM, there is much that militates against it, despite its being in Latin. Precisely because it is in Latin, and because the music and incense and gestures are other-worldly, it tends to cultivate in the parishioner, if he is conscious at all, a disposition of openness to learn what is going on -- precisely because it's not transparent, and because it provokes such wonder.
But the plastic badges would really be the kicker.
Post a Comment