With the release of his long-awaited Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has rescued the so-called Traditional Latin Mass from decades of undeserved and unauthorized obscurity.
Go find a tranquil place, close your eyes and think back. You were much younger than you are now, quite possibly a child. Your mind’s eye conjures up what seemed like a vast and majestic palace with the rising wisps of sweet-smelling incense leading your gaze upward toward what you thought must surely be Heaven. The altar boys, who only hours before were your rambunctious playmates, have been transformed into cherubic servants of God.
Your parents and neighbors kneel close by; your mother’s veiled head bowed low, deep in prayer amidst the sacred silence. There is no band, no choir in sight; in fact, there are no performers anywhere to behold. On the altar, the priest addresses God in the same language that Pontius Pilate used in reference to our beaten and bloodied Savior: “Ecce homo.” You are in a pre-Vatican II Catholic Church worshiping God with wonder, awe and reverence.
For those not old enough to recollect these wonderful memories, you may soon get your chance. With the release of his long-awaited Motu Proprio, “Summorum Pontificum,” Pope Benedict XVI has rescued the so-called Traditional Latin Mass from decades of undeserved and unauthorized obscurity. While making clear that the Novus Ordo, or new Mass, would be the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, he established that the older form “must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.”
These are words that a goodly number of Catholics have longed for years to hear. When the ‘spirit’ of the Vatican II changes were adopted, many thousands of the faithful lost faith. The thinking being, that in the crazed cauldron of the 1960’s, if the unmovable Church could change with the times, all was lost. Old women bewailed the ‘desanctification’ of saints like Christopher, folk masses confused parents who wanted to insulate their children from pop culture and everyone wondered about Purgatory.
Especially for young women — against whom the sexual revolution was a great act of moral violence — the impervious shield of the Church seemed to have been fatally weakened. If, for example, we no longer had to cover our heads in church, we were just like ‘other girls,’ and so we became. The notions of modesty and chastity for Catholic girls were particularly mocked by the culture of that time, and a Church undergoing such upheaval had not the weapons to fight for them.
In truth, we were all laboring under the misconception — greatly enhanced by the world’s panting media — that we did not leave the Church, she had “left us.” Thankfully, we were as wrong about that as anyone will ever be about anything in this life. Because essentially, the root of Catholic worship has never changed, and cannot change as long as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is at its heart.
The re-presentation of Christ’s death and resurrection: Christ as both victim and priest; the giver and the gift of the bread of life and cup of eternal salvation; this is the Mass. And as long as it is celebrated reverently, either form will do. But the confusion which led to the state of the Novus Ordo Mass as it is often celebrated today has in some places led to a dire irreverence, and it is this that the Holy Father seeks to dispel by ‘freeing’ the Latin Mass.
It is easy to see why today’s Catholics are so attached to the new Mass. Because, like so much of modern culture, it is morally easy. It is easy to understand, easy on the ears and it’s an easy way to satisfy what many see as a tiresome requirement that interrupts their Sunday ritual of football and fun. This attitude is an anathema to belief in critical dogma like the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: lex orandi, lex credendi; as the law of the liturgy goes, so too the faith.
It is hoped that the two forms of the Roman Rite will influence each other in positive ways. Indeed, some parishes have already incorporated Latin within the Novus Ordo and it is expected that the Tridentine Mass will use the vernacular in its readings. Both will enable more awe, reverence and wonder; those qualities of a child which our Lord enjoins on us in order to gain the Kingdom of God.
Are there divisions in the Church? There are now and have been, even when the Apostles walked the earth. Were there not, St. Paul wouldn’t have written most of his beautiful letters to those pesky presbyters in the nascent Church. Indeed, schisms and heresies have often lead to the Church defining or redefining its teachings for the sake of unity, and the Motu Proprio may be a prime example of that. Through it, the Church Militant; that is, all Catholics still living here on this earth, have been joined more closely in the charity so desired by our Lord:
And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
– Jn 17: 22-23
Ah yes.
This ” former ” Hitler Youth Pope continues to undermine all progress made recently between Catholics and Jews by reintroducing anti-semetic stereotypes into liturgy.
With $660million dollars paid out to the sexual victims of Catholic priests in Los Angeles just this week and $2Billion in settlements paid in the USA alone the Pope has to do something to fill those seats.
Just wait untill the Europeans start legal proceedings against the Vatican ….
I would reply, menachembenyakov, that membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory for all German boys at that stage and that the Pope refused to attend meetings if I were not convinced these facts would be wasted on you. You are obviously the type who either would be willfully ignorant of such things or would not cease his unlettered, rambling libel even if made aware of them.
And do tell what anti-semitic stereotypes you refer to. I am sure that I know what you mean to say, but I’d rather see you attempt to back up your statements regarding the liturgy.
Hitler Youth was mandatory? What a lame excuse for participation in a racist, genocidal organization! A complete lack of moral courage would be a more fair discription.
The return to the Latin Mass contains a call for converison of Jews. As if Christianity is a superior religion. Give us all a break. Every person has the right to believe his or her religion is best, It is pure arrogance to believe that ones religion makes one superior.
Heres an article that may help educate you. There are plenty more if you look around.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19650532/
Yes, thank goodness the Catholic Church has returned to the practice of holding services in a foreign language that the congregation cannot understand, once again adding a “reverent”, “traditional” layer of separation between the lay and the teachings of the Church. But why stop there? Wouldn’t it be even more reverent and traditional if we spoke the very language that our savior taught the original gospel in directly from his own mouth? I believe we ought to conduct services in Aramaic! In fact, conducting services in Latin may very well have been the beginning of the liberalization of the Church, and I think it’s high time we return to the true traditional and reverent language of our Lord.
menachembenyakov:
“The return to the Latin Mass contains a call for converison (sic) of Jews.”
I challenged a poster on another site to produce the actual text of the prayer for the conversion of the Jews, a prayer that she was outraged over, and she couldn’t do it, so she called mea liar.
There have been many different claims made on various sites as to what the prayer says, but no one has yet produced the ACTUAL prayer. I have two pre-Vatican missals, one 1953 and one 1960, and I can’t find it in either. I have looked at four on-line pre-Vatican missals and came up empty.
So I am leaving complainers with the burden of proof: provide a link to a Vatican website that documents the actual prayer. Here is the Vatican’s home page http://www.vatican.va .
If what these “offended” Jews are saying is true (which I have my doubts), what do they have to worry about?
First, where is their evidence that this return to Latin will include prayers for their conversion?
Second, even if it does, so what? There are three answers to prayer: “yes”, “no”, and “wait a while”. If God wills the Jews to be converted (in the case of “yes” or “wait a while”), will they defy God? If God does not will it (“no”), then there is nothing for them to worry about.
In “Fiddler on the Roof,” a rabbi offers this prayer for the Czar: “May God keep the Czar…far away from us!” Do you think those Christians of Russian descent would be offended by it?
Claims that a return to the Latin mass will launch Krystallnacht II are just so much hyperbole attempting to play victim and acquire all its attendant public sympathy, and just one more EXCUSE to bash Catholics.
The prayer for the conversion of the Jews is contained only in the Good Friday Latin Mass, which, of course, cannot be celebrated under the new Motu Propio. I believe your complaint to be precisely why the Pope excluded the Good Friday Latin Mass from use, so you should be thanking the Pope for his (in my opinion over)sensitivity to the sentiments of the politically correct among the Jewish leaders.
As to the Hitler Youth response, I’m inclined to think you didn’t read my response. Yes, in 1941 membership in the Hitler Youth was automatic and no, Pope Benedict XVI did not participate. In fact, I believe he had a retarded cousin who was murdered in Hitler’s eugenics.
Offensive to Jews? Name a single line in the Latin text that singles out Jews. I am an attendee of the Latin Mass, and I guarantee you, the new Mass is far more offensive to Catholics than the old is to anyone else. And about the congregation “not understanding the language:” Latin is the original language of the Church off of which most Germanic languages in the world are based.
Before you go slamming traditional Catholics for practicing their own beliefs and wanting our own little legitimate corner of the universe to pray in peace, maybe you should step into our shoes and take the kind of mud-slinging we get from other Catholics, not to mention outside the Church, EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.
“And about the congregation “not understanding the language:” Latin is the original language of the Church off of which most Germanic languages in the world are based.”
Do explain how this fact changes non-Latin speaking audiences’ understanding of the language. As I said, Jesus and his original disciples spoke Hebrew and Aramaic – so technically speaking, those are actually the “original languages of the church”. Your (and by that I mean “traditional Catholics’”) insistence that holding services in a language foreign to the audience is somehow more righteous or pious is absurd – the reason Latin was first spoken in the church in the first place was to make the gospel message accessible to gentiles in a language they could understand! It’s analogous to the denominations that insist that the King James Bible is the only true way to experience scripture. The entire reason the King James translation exists is because King James wanted the Bible texts translated into a language he could understand! There is nothing liberal, or sinful, or unrighteous about conducting services in (or translated the scriptures into) the native language of the listeners. In fact, the services and scriptures really aren’t good for much if the intended audience is oblivious to what is going on or what is being said.
The readings, which is all that usually differs from Mass to Mass, are read in both the Latin and local languages, so that it can be understood. Latin is also arguably the easiest second language to learn, and translation missals are provided in virtually all churches that offer the old Mass.
Furthermore, it may or may not be best to keep the Mass in Latin; I don’t even know for sure. That’s not what is out of place. What IS out of place is this casual form of the most holy prayer, the gutting of prayers, words, and actions that made the Mass uniquely Catholic and not Protestant (Protestants and Catholics now use the same liturgical missal), and everything that is being said about the OLD way of doing things somehow being invalid, while an experimental expantion project conducted by 11 Protestant ministers in 1962 rapidly replaces the real Sacrifice and tears the Church apart.
Ian MacLean, et al:
“The prayer for the conversion of the Jews is contained only in the Good Friday Latin Mass…”
I don’t know how many times I’ve read this claim after I’ve asked for proof, but still NO ONE has produced the ACTUAL prayer from a Vatican source, or any other Catholic source for that matter. They all simply restate the claim.
How about Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer
Alleged antisemitism
Some writers use the term “Good Friday Prayer” to refer to a specific portion from a litany (prayer of petition) that is offered in certain churches on that day. In a very small number of Catholic churches that have been given permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1953 (when permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass is given by a bishop, it is almost always for the Missal of 1962), the particular form of the prayer offered runs like this.
Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord and God would be pleased to rescue them from their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, Who savest all, and wouldest that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all endless ages. Amen.
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts; that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. (‘Amen’ is not responded, nor is said ‘Let us pray’, or ‘Let us kneel’, or ‘Arise’, but immediately is said:) Almighty and Eternal God, Who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even the faithless Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of Thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all endless ages. Amen.
Let us pray also for the pagans: that Almighty God take away iniquity from their hearts: that leaving aside their idols they may be converted to the true and living God, and His only Son, Jesus Christ our God and Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and Eternal God, Who seekest always, not the death, but the life of sinners: mercifully hear our prayer, and deliver them from the worship of idols: and admit them into Thy holy Church for the praise and glory of Thy Name. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all endless ages. Amen.
The congregants do not kneel during the prayer for the conversion of the Jews, because the Church did not wish to imitate the Jews who mocked Christ before His Crucifixion by kneeling before Him and reviling Him. During the major revision of the Holy Week Liturgy in 1955 Pope Pius XII instituted kneeling in the same place as the other petitions. More recently, this prayer has been changed in the way it refers to the Jews, and the Catholic church has now revised this petition. In 1960, Pope John XXIII removed the word “faithless” (Latin “perfidis”) from the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This word had caused much trouble in recent times because of misconceptions of the Latin “perfidis” as “perfidious”, giving birth to the view that the prayer accused the Jews of treachery, which was a complete misunderstanding of the prayer since it was not a litany of accusation, but a petition for conversion. In handmissals from the 1950′s and more recent ones, used by the laity to follow the Latin Mass, the word was always correctly translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”. In 1965, the prayer was revised as this:
Let us also pray that our God and Lord will look kindly on the Jews, so that they too may acknowledge the Redeemer of all, Jesus Christ our Lord. … Almighty and eternal God, you made the promises to Abraham and his descendants. In your goodness hear the prayers of your Church so that the people whom from of old you made your own may come to the fullness of redemption.
The official modern Good Friday Prayer in English has since 1970 been as follows:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Silent prayer) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
There is also a prayer for atheists as well as one for non-Christians in general.
An Anglican form of the prayer ran like this:
O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest [wantest] the death of any sinner, but rather that he be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen. (Older editions of The Book of Common Prayer.)
stutzenbach, et al:
Not to belabor he point, but Wikipedia is not a Vatican source; it’s not even Catholic. Anyone can add anything to a Wikipedia topic. I will grant that it’s the only one anyone has been able to come up with, that I know of. For this you are to be commended.
Be that as it may, we are still left with the “So what?” There is no indication that this prayer will be included in the new Latin mass. Even if it were, there is no law that says Jews have to attend Catholic services nor listen to what offends them. And how much lower can Catholic/non-Catholic relationships go? It’s much ado about nothing.
To be quite blunt, this is essay’s enthusiasm is pure hogwash.
It is always curious to me what man will do to try and feel reverant and pious. Conduct church services in an extinct language because it conjures up feelings of reverence and holiness in the listener?
Whatever.
When Christ came to earth, he spoke in the vernacular. To make sure he got his points across, he “stooped” to telling parables rather than simply annunciating the scriptures with pious-sounding inflection in the original Hebrew. His purpose was not to set himself apart from his listeners but to connect with them.
Christ’s mission involved making His message plain and clear and approachable and contemporary – not to shroud it in language designed to make the hearer feel “holy” and “reverent.” People were amazed at his teaching because it had authority and because it was approachable. He was a carpenter and the scriptures say that people were “amazed at his teaching because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt 7:28-29). In other words, his focus was on communicating in a manner that the people could understand, not on rote, and certainly not in an extinct language that was supposed to impart “good feelings” in his listeners.
Newsflash: The purpose of language is to communicate. That’s how latin masses started out – to present the message in a language understood and spoken by gentiles. But then, somewhere along the line, the language took on all kinds of connotations of holiness and “specialness” that are wholly unwarranted.
That’s the problem I have with liturgy in general, and liturgies in extinct languages in particular. If it makes you feel good and closer to God, fine. But please understand that this is nothing more than a feeling you are conjuring up yourself. God is not not more present, more blessed, more impressed, more revered, or more honored. This is about you, not God.
I suspect He would be much more impressed if we followed the example of His son and focused on communication rather than tradition and the choice of a language based on the “feelings” it conjures up. Do you own study on this. See how many times Christ criticized the traditions of man because they focused on tradition for tradition’s sake rather than the actual underlying message.
Frankly, I don’t see Latin mass as any different than the middle ages when the Catholic Church kept the Bible inaccessible to the masses and reserved primarily to clergy. So, we eventually got the King James version of the Bible. And what did we do? Retread the same path and made exactly the same mistakes all over again. Began insisting that the language was more important than the message, insisting that God’s preferred pronouns were “thou” “thee” and “thine.”
How foolish.
As you can perhaps tell, I am not a catholic, nor do I subscribe to liturgical protestant forms of worship. But regardless of you own beliefs, it might be appropriate to question whether the ressurection of church services conducted in a language nobody understands is something to be commended – or lamented.
Now that I think about it, I’m willing to be that there were those outside the clergy that opposed the dissemination of the Bible to the masses in the 1600s with publication of the King Jame Version because it somehow made the “holy scriptures” too commonplace, too utilitarian.
But that’s precisely the point. The choice of language is indeed a utilitarian choice. The Old Testament is in Hebrew because that is what the recipients spoke. The New Testament is in Greek because that is what the recipients spoke. Our church services languages should be chosen for the same reasons. Latin more “holy” –more “meaningful?” I’m sure the Romans would be quite honored, but I know of know one else. Certainly not the One we are supposed to be honoring with our services.
Let’s not ascribe meaning and importance to those things which have none while diminishing the importance of that which is paramount: the message.
Ian MacLean , You charged that I am , ” … obviously the type who either would be willfully ignorant of such things or would not cease his unlettered, rambling libel even if made aware of them.”
Now that what I said has been proven accurate by another poster you have not even shown the simple courtesy of offering an apology. I am not surprised.
Perhaps next time you feel moved to reiterate the statement you would be best served doing so in a mirror.
MBY
Menachembenyakov:
My apologies for not remaining attentive to comments following my last. The quote of mine that you have used in post 15 was made in reference to your Hitler Youth comment. If I am not mistaken, my last comment was the last on the subject. Please note where your Hitler Youth comment was “proven accurate” in comments subsequent to my comment.
If, in the future, you will be relying on other posters to prove your false and irrelevant commentary accurate, please be sure to select posters and posts that exist.
sedonaman:
You are positive your missals do not have this prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday Liturgy?
Ian MacLean:
They do not.