www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Latin Mass & Eastern Church

Father Deacon Edward,

Interesting thoughts...I cannot say that I agree that the points that you raise are insurmountable.

1. Nothing says that the Tridentine Mass needs to be celebrated in Latin. As has been pointed out, there is the very worthy translation in English of the 1962 Missal. A priest I know very well who has been on the forefront of the Liturgical movement since the 1950's (and is very traditional) and uses Latin for the Ordo of Paul VI has celebrated the 1962 Missal in the vernacular on several occasions.

2. There is nothing that says that the full restoration of the Tridentine Mass could not include the restored role of the deacon. The text of the 1962 Missal here indicates some possible roles for the deacon:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/ord.htm

The commitment to the restored diaconate is NOT something the Latins will give up, nor should they. But I would hardly call the restoration of the deacon's role in the Ordo of Paul VI a stellar accomplishment! Even the petitions have been stripped from his proper ministry and given to the laity (sometimes several people in one liturgy).

Also, let's not forget that we are talking about Pope Benedict XVI!

So I do not share your skepticism about this "rumor". I think we could be in for something of earthquake proportions in the Latin communion!

God bless,

Gordo

Fr. Deacon Edward,

I think you are missing the point of the indult. Right now most Latin Bishops refuse to allow the TLM. An indult is a "protection" for the SSPX and other groups that if they come into full communion with the Pope that they will assured they can say the TLM.

Also and indult doesn't mean that the TLM will be said in every parish. It is there for priest who are so incline to celebrate it. Most priest will not celebrate the TLM and as a result there is no problem.

The last point I want to raise is that I have spoken with a cannon lawyer who is a priest in full communion. He said Nothing in Cannon Law now is forbidding priest for celebrating the TLM. Thus, a universal indult is really for the Bishops.

"What have become known as "trads" are, with a few exceptions, dismissive and hostile to the Christian East. "

This is NOT my experience, rather, I have found them curious albeit somewhat ill-informed. And very, very courteous and polite and respectful. I have dealt with FSSP priests here, and go to their church when our Eastern rite travelling priest can't make it.

A few thoughts on some things I've seen in this thread:

1. there'll be plenty of TLM in the future. An easy majority of the under-40 Latin priests I know are either for it or wouldn't mind saying it. Moreover, the FSSP and similar groups will probably be more prominent as the 60s generation disappears, simply by demographics (i.e. the FSSP seminary has 100+ spaces a year, a long wait list, and doesn't even advertise for vocations because they're swamped).

2. as far as so-called "trads" being hostile to the east, this varies. If being a "trad" means slavish, ideological devotion to one's idea of what the pre-Vatican II era was like and a resultant sectarian exaltation of everything taught in Catholic books of the 1850s-1950s (and I know people like this); then yes they are generally hostile to the Christian East, viewing the East at best as a curiousity, at worse as an inferior species.

However, if being a "trad" means a strong preference for proper liturgy and Christian life (which in some cases it does) then the situation is different. My parish gets many "trad"-ish visitors on a regular basis and they generally have good impressions of us (though they're often more than a bit overwhelmed).

Along those lines, my parish would be very impoverished if it weren't for the "trad" movement, and in particular Christendom College. Many of our strongest parishoners come from this kind of a background.

Markos
[sorry for the long sentences]

I can't say for certain, but my perception is that this view is incorrect. There doesn't need to be a Canon Law forbidding TLM, since the current Ordo is the 'norm'. To deviate from the norm requires Episcopal permission, if that permission isn't sought, then the Canon on disobedience comes to play.

Just as a Latin-Rite priest isn't specifically forbidden in Canon Law from celebrating the Gallican, Ambrosia, Mozarabic, Byzantine, Maronite, Armenian or any other; this just isn't done without the Bishops permission.

I would ask how many of the people in the pews understand the Latin?

The comments about ancient Romans were tongue in check; but the point I was making was that one should not just do Latin because it was once used or led back to the good old days. If it leads to understanding in the pews or there were people who spoke it, then do it. E.g., I was following the Orthodox rule of thumb..use the language that best serves the parish. The liturgy should be in the language that the laity understands. How many understand Latin? Hence my reference to the Galla Placidia and Comstantinus, all good 4th century folk.

Hmmm....I thought the Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic rites were restricted to certain territories. that is interesting. Is there an approved English vernacular translation of these liturgies?

Gordo

Michael_Thoma,

Again you are missing the point those other Liturgies were "discontinued" or not the norm of the Western Church. The TLM was never "discontinued" officially. If a priest says the TLM mass right now in a NO parish he is disobedient to his Bishop but not the Church.

The indult is to "fix" the disobedient part.

BTW, this topic is in the news again:
Pope still weighing document on Latin Mass [cwnews.com]

I thought of another example to illustrate my point. Right now it is 100% legal for a priest to say the NO facing East. You do not need permission from your Bishop to do so. However, the local Bishop where EWTN is located is forbidden to face east when celebrating the NO Liturgy. If a priest on EWTN did face east he would not break "Church Laws" but be disobedient to his Bishop.

This is the same thing with the TLM.

He forbids facing East? Or he forbids ad orientem, which in effect (hopefully, but not always) means East?

Someone gave an explanation here some time back which helped me to understand the indult. My concern was the ability of the bishops to regulate what goes on in their own diocese, but it was explained that the Pope, in his role of bishop, is deciding what goes on in his own territory. That helped me to understand.

Regarding the first part to quote 'The Simpsons'' Rabbi Hyman Krustovsky, 'I didn't mean that literally!' Yes, 'facing east' means 'priest and people facing the same direction' not literally east as in the compass and the rising sun. BTW ad orientem means 'towards the east' literally. To literally say what I just said it's ad apsidem (towards the apse, the end of the church where the altar is).

As I understand it the bishop of EWTN's diocese did ban taping Masses facing the altar for television and although I may disagree with his decision it's within his powers as bishop to do that.

The second point looks like something clever folk who don't like the Tridentine Mass would try to use: 'It's anti-ecumenical! What about the rights of bishops? What will the Orthodox think?!' Never mind that if liturgical innovation like they want and do were tried in the Orthodox churches there'd be fistfights in the streets of Athens and Moscow.

The universal indult seems something out of Snopes (the urban-legends debunking site) now but of course I'd welcome it and will believe it when I see it, not sooner.

The Latin West had, until very recently, a different understanding with regard to the role of language in the liturgy.

What you describe is the Orthodox view that places a high priority on the people using their own tongue.

To be sure, the least persuasive reasoning against Latin in the RC liturgy has to do with comprehension. For one thing, the repetition of key phrases week after week will leave no doubt in parishioners as to the meaning of responses ("Dominus vobiscum"). The abundance of handheld missals also assures that those in the pew understand the collects, prayers, etc.

As for reasons in favour of Latin, this has to do with the intuition that the holiness of the liturgy calls for a sacral language. Some other religions or branches of Christianity still use a sacral language.

Consider that while Jews speak a multitude of languages, the language of their services is Hebrew.

Assyrian Christians, I am told, use Neo-Aramaic in their liturgy, but their daily language is Arabic.

You will find RC traditionalists who cite other reasons for the use of Latin, but I believe the above is the more important. Certainly, this is quite different from the Orthodox attitude, but I don't think it's a matter of one being "better" than the other.

I believe that the USCCB has called for a return to a sacred form of English for the Novus Ordo Missae which would be a nice middle ground between the vernacular and Latin.

I would ask how many people understand the mystery of the Mass any better in the vernacular languages.

By the way, it's not like missalettes don't exist. I've never been to a Traditional Mass where there weren't missalettes available.

It is ironic, and sad, that it seems that although the average Catholic didn't understand Latin 50 years ago, there was a much greater awareness of what the Mass is, and is about, than now when we have the Mass in our own vulgar tongues. And it's not like hierarch after hierarch and document after document coming from the Holy See hasn't encouraged more Latin in Novus Ordo Masses. We would all do well to (re-)read Bl. Pope John XXIII's Veterum Sapientia ...

Paraphrasing a recent post I read on another website, a man was once conversing with a Mexican priest, and the priest said that the problem with the Mass in Latin (which can and should be done, at least in part, in the Novus Ordo!) is that the people didn't understand the Latin. The man asked the priest: "Do the people understand the Mass in Spanish?" The priest, surprised, thought for a moment, and answered: "No."

Logos - Alexis

P.S. Dr. Eric, from what I can tell by following the upcoming new Missals/translations for the Mass, many of the bishops in the USCCB have had to be absolutely browbeaten into agreeing to ACCURATE translations of the Latin. It really isn't a movie to a more sacred form of English, but really a question of translation accuracy, which in the case of English has been disastrous up till now.