Why Latin: Part 3

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question:
I have been attending a Catholic Church in the diocese in which the priest and congregation sing some of the parts in Latin. I am curious as to why the Catholic Church is bringing this back and in some parishes even saying the mass entirely in Latin. It appears that the Church is going back to traditionalism. How does this (Latin) entice new people to the Catholic faith? If I were looking for a Christian faith to join and visited a parish with Latin, I would take Catholicism off my list. I, myself, have considered looking elsewhere for a new faith because of this. Shouldn’t the church be looking forward and seeking out modern ways to entice newcomers? To many outsiders, the Catholic Mass is already very dry and boring with all of its prayers through Mass, let alone adding in Latin. Please advise and help me understand the Latin importance in this modern age.

Why Latin: Part 1, Part 2

Answer:
Having discussed in my last article the reason for the increased use of Latin in the Novus Ordo (the new Mass), I want to now address the question of the resurrection of the “traditional Latin Mass” (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Why is the Church bringing back the TLM, or “going back to traditionalism” as you put it?

The very question itself displays the reason why. Blessed John Paul II, along with Pope Benedict, both of whom were participants in Vatican Council II, recognized that the changes in the Mass, in the liturgy, that occurred after Vatican II, went beyond what the Fathers of that Council intended. The Council Fathers wanted a reform of the liturgy or, I think it is more proper to say, they wanted an authentic renewal of the liturgy, but somehow things went a bit too far. It is apparent from reading the documents of Vatican II, that the Council Fathers wanted a renewal of the liturgy that built upon the old and which reflected continuity between the old and the new. Instead, the baby was tossed out with the bath water, so to speak.

The fact that you, as well as many others, are asking questions like this, speaks to the point – we Catholics are generally ignorant of our liturgical patrimony, our liturgical heritage. This is because the liturgical reforms of the 60’s and 70’s, which were supposed to make Catholics more aware of what is going on at the Mass, to draw Catholics into a deeper participation in the Mass and a deeper understanding of the Mass have, for the most part, failed in their purpose and intent. Ignorance of our liturgical heritage, of which the TLM is a significant part, has led to us being generally even more ignorant of the liturgy than we were before. Why do we do what we do at Mass? What is the meaning of the Mass? What are the meanings of the words, the prayers, the actions of the priest and the congregation? What is the purpose of the Mass? In large measure, Catholics generally have little to no understanding of the underlying purpose and meaning of the Mass, nor of its connection to the Old and New Testaments and to the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

I would argue that a liturgical rupture of sorts, occurred between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo, and that rupture has led to Catholics being less knowledgeable about the Mass and less engaged in the Mass than would have been the case if there had been greater continuity between the old and the new. If the actual words of Vatican II had been followed, I believe we would have seen a much smoother transition between the two forms of the Mass.

As I mentioned in my last article, if one actually reads the documents of Vatican II, they would see that nowhere does the Council call for the wholesale abandonment of Latin in the liturgy. In fact, it is just the opposite (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36). Nowhere does the Council call for Gregorian chant to be abandoned. In fact, it is just the opposite: “Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place,” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #50). Nowhere does the Council call for individual “tinkering” with the Mass. In fact, it is just the opposite: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority,” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #22). Nowhere does the Council call for, and I know this is a hot button issue with a lot of folks, but nowhere does the Council call for the priest to turn around and face the people rather than face God.

To quote then Cardinal Ratzinger on this, “To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council.”

Abandoning, almost overnight, the more than thousand year heritage of the Traditional Latin Mass has led to an even greater liturgical ignorance among Catholics than otherwise would have been the case and has resulted in many, such as yourself, having what seems to be a visceral reaction to that heritage and anything associated with it, and it has also left some open wounds – wounds that need to be healed. And, it has led to some liturgical “creativity” which I’m sure the Council Fathers never intended.

Next week: Healing the wounds.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.