It's All Greek to Me: Unkosher Jesus and the Latin Mass

A number of Unkosher Jesus readers have recently been kind enough to submit comments in response to the Unkosher Jesus post on the reinstatement of the Latin Mass. With so many comments on this one post, I wanted to take some time to respond. As I wrote on the introductory blog post, "Unkosher Jesus readers will have the opportunity to comment on each post. Inappropriate comments will be removed- each reader is welcome to state his or her disagreement with the contents of any particular post, even strongly, but please do so respectfully and in the spirit of advancing, not halting, any given discussion."

Now, some readers didn't adhere to all of the posting guidelines. Some comments seem more to have to do with being critical, if not constructively so. Nonetheless, Unkosher Jesus remains committed to the notion of providing an open forum for the discussion of diverse points of view, and so all comments have been posted. Again, I would simply urge readers to take a more constructive stance when submitting comments, as this will add to, rather than detract from, any discussion fostered by the topics presented herein. Also, I do have a preference for people to post with a name and not anonymously. Online screen names are even preferable to Anonymous.

But, enough of my yakkin'. On to the comments.

Maria said...
"I am 57 years old. I was there when the Traditional Mass was replaced with this man made mass called the Novus Ordo. You say that the Church needed to be reinvigorated? I never saw that. The Mass needed to be "modernized"? For whom? The modernists, the liberals, the protestants? Yes absolutely. But not for Catholics. Maybe it is the Holy Spirit that has the Pope's ear. Maybe the Holy Spirit has decided it is time for the return of the One True Mass."

Unkosher Jesus sez: "Man made Mass"? Each and every Mass liturgy is man made, so I'm uncertain as to the distinction referred to here. As to whether or not the Church needed to be reinvigorated, you are entitled to think otherwise, but I submit for your consideration that the Pope and the College of Cardinals certainly did think so.

Johnny Womack said...
"I'm not at all surprised by your reaction, and I shall pray for God to remove the scales from your eyes. You see Doug, what Benedict is doing with the Motu Proprio...THAT is what Vatican II called for. :-)
The Motu Proprio is Heaven sent. I'm overjoyed that the Holy Father is protecting the truth of the Catholic faith, and Doug, I bear you NO ill will. God bless you!"

Unkosher Jesus sez: I am surprised that you are not surprised, Johnny Womack, seeing as how we do not know one another. As for Benedict's Motu Proprio, I feel that one good Latin turn of phrase deserves another: non sequitur. As in, Vatican II called for a future pope to single-handedly decide to reinstate the Missale Romanum?

Catholig said...
"I just wanted to comment that while I do NOT reject the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II I, for one, would appreciate a return to tradition. I mean this Mass was celebrated for centuries and is the Catholic Mass. We shouldn't be aiming to please other religions or christian denominations, but only our God in heaven."

Unkosher Jesus sez: My question is: is it pleasing to God in Heaven when a religion, any religion, structures its rite of worship in such a way as to sanctify only those who participate in that rite and recite it prayers and creeds? My comments with regard to other religions reflect my own concern that the Catholic Church is unnecessarily damaging ecumenical relationships that have flourished between it and other faith traditions in the years since the completion of the Second Vatican Council. I personally would have to think that God finds it more pleasing when human beings of all races, cultures and faith traditions find common ground between themselves and coexist in peace and harmony versus when members of any particular religion decide to worship in one fashion or another. So, again, the question I asked is: whom does Benedict think that he is serving by reinstating the Latin Mass? Catholics who he already has a relationship with, or the whole of humanity that Pope John XXIII urged the Church to recognize and serve through its mission of salvation?: "Today more than ever, we are called to serve mankind as such, and not merely Catholics; to defend above all and everywhere, the rights of the human person and not merely those of the Catholic Church. It is not that the Gospel has changed: it is that we have begun to understand it better... the moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead."

veganvixen052507 said...
"I believe that you are a bit confused as to what the MP will state. The hope, at the very least, is that the MP will allow priests to celebrate the TLM without having to ask permission from the Bishop. As it stands, most diocese have at least one TLM, while others offer a Latin NO. Part of the MP is to bring the schismatics back to the fold of the Church. I invite you to find a Latin Mass, either a TLM or a Latin NO in your area (available at Latin-liturgy) and attend. Pax Christi!"

Unkosher Jesus sez: Thank you for the invitation. I do in fact understand that Pope Benedict is not requiring that parishes celebrate Mass exclusively in Latin, and is merely allowing for the option should any parish choose to worship in this manner. As for praying for the conversion of schismatics such as Orthodox and Protestant Christians, it is my humble opinion that this might in fact simply be counter-productive and will create barriers, not dialogue, between the churches. You are a devoted Catholic and would not take kindly to the knowledge that any non-Catholic is praying for your conversion. Why would you not assume that members of Orthodox and Protestant churches are any less devoted to their faiths than you are to yours? Why would they be any less insulted by the Catholic Church's notion that they need to be prayed for in the first place?

Anonymous said...
"Why comment- all are deleted anyway- shame on the OP. Ken"

Unkosher Jesus sez: It does not protect your anonymity if you sign your name to your submission. Anyhow, I am happy to post this comment along with all others. Thank you for reading Unkosher Jesus and taking the time to comment.

Cory Lang said...
"You mention the Second Vatican Council as the reason for "freezing" the Latin (TLM) Mass. Where in the Council's documents does it say such a thing?

"Also, reading Article 36 of "Sacrosanctum Concilium" says as follows, "1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." How is the Catholic Church enforcing this article?

"There are people who do not understand Latin, and that is fine. However, for those who do understand Latin, why are they repressed when in the same document in Article 54, those people are encouraged to continue to pray parts of the Mass in Latin, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

"Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

"Sounds to me that the Second Vatican Council is yet to be implemented. Thank you and have a good day."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please forgive the misunderstanding. I did not state that the Second Vatican Council is the reason for freezing the Latin Mass. What I wrote about is my concern over the fact that the Church is reinstating a liturgical form that has been frozen in time for over four hundred years. That, in my humble opinion, makes the Latin Mass a relic that bears no relation to the lives and concerns of many modern-day Catholics, nor does the reinstatement of the Latin Mass serve any constructive purpose insofar as interfaith relations are concerned. The Second Vatican Council was an attempt on the part of the Church to broaden its own means of engagement with the entire world, not only the Catholic portion of it (sizeable, though it may be). I am not a knee-jerk, unthinking reactionary who advocates for gutting a tradition, any tradition, simply for the sake of doing so. In the case of the Latin Mass, and in the broader context of engaging Catholics and non-Catholics alike, I simply ask: what is the good purpose of reinstating this liturgical form?

Anonymous said...
"I don't understand how B16's effort to allow more free access to the Old Mass is causing so much fear. If people do not want to go to it, they don't have to. If Benedict was imposing it as the ordinary form of Mass, I think your arguments might be more of a concern.

"The reality is that Vatican II's documents never called for the (pre-Vatican II) Latin Mass to be "replaced by a liturgy celebrated in the Mother tongue," as you put it. Sacrosanctam Consilium stated that there could be limited use of the vernacular, but that Latin was to be retained as the language of the Roman Rite, Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place in the liturgy, and the people should know all their parts of the Ordinary of the mass in Latin that pertain to them. The current rite of Mass can be celebrated in Latin (and the Vatican officials have repeatedly said that this SHOULD be done in obedience to the Council).

"As for the enthusiastic support from the laity, I think that is not the best way to look at it. Look at whether or not there has been a surge in holiness and devoutness. Vocations in this country are 1/10th of what they were before the Council. Confession lines are short while Communion lines are always full (I guess we have a bunch of people ready for canonization - or maybe a bunch of sacrilegious communions going on). Parish devotions are muted (rosary, benediction, etc....). Priest scandals. 25% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass versus 85% before the council. Yeah, let's just stay the course.

"Benedict's actions are exactly what this Church needs. We need to come down out of the clouds and take an honest look at reality. What we have been doing hasn't been working.

"The pendulum has swung too far, and now it's moving back to center."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please see my comments above, after the previous post, as I feel these address many of the points/issues that you raise. As for a surge in holiness and devoutness, I would say that (1), religious vocations are only one such way to measure whether members of any society are holy or devout, and (2) correlation is not causation. That is to say, if religious vocations have declined in the years following Vatican II, what evidence do you have to support your contention that the reforms of Vatican II are directly responsible for this decline?

Brennan said...
"The reforms instituted by Vatican II met with enthusiastic support among the laity,..."

Really? And is that why Mass attendance plummeted from 75% to around 25% after the Council?

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please see my comments above. Thank you for submitting your comment.

Andrew C. said...
"You'd be surprised how many people do in fact like the classical Roman Rite. You'd also be surprised at the number of people who, with a little education, would like to see it come back-and/or the Novus Ordo celebrated according to the actual norms of Vatican II and not the hype created by the 'spirit of Vatican II' (i.e. Latin, priest celebrating ad orientem, use of the communion rail, Gregorian chant etc.).

"The 'Revolution' has failed. The upcoming priests and seminarians are much more in line with tradition than their predecessors. While the progressives may lament Pope Benedict XVI's 'lurch to the right', we have wandered in the desert of liturgical innovation and faulty theology for more than 40 yrs. Its about time that we come into the promised land.

Unkosher Jesus sez: You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world. Actually, I think that Pope John XXIII and the Cardinals who participated in the Second Vatican Council would be very surprised, and perhaps amused, to see themselves characterized as a troupe of Che Guevara hippy radicals. I feel as though your comments reflect a completely Church-centric point of view, and while I recognize how much you and many others value the traditions of the Church, I will simply repeat what I wrote in my earlier post on this topic: "...whatever flaws inherent to this process (the Second Vatican Council), the willingness (on the part of the Church) to engage in honest and open dialogue with lay Catholics, with other Christian churches, and with non-Christian faiths was not one of them. Pope John XXIII's vision for the Church was that it fulfill its potential for greatness by adopting a more expansive view of its own mission and striving to meet the material and spiritual needs of believers and non-believers alike. Benedict's rightward tilt gives me the impression that the Church has now abandoned that stance and is only willing to meet the needs of its most fervent and unwavering supporters. What a tragic, and wholly unnecessary, blunder. What good can the Church do for the world when it is only relevant unto itself?"

Anonymous said...
I have no problems with your opinion on this blog but PLEEEASE do not revise history. VII had never said anything about "freezing" or abrogating the Tridentine Mass. Never was anything mentioned about changing the Mass. In fact the Novus ordo was created AFTER vatican II. I am absolutely AMAZED at the opposition to the Tridentine Mass. I am a Novus Ordo person and will likely never attend a Tridentine Mass but for the life of me I scratch my head at the opposition to the old rite.

Unkosher Jesus sez: Again, please forgive my for any misunderstanding. My intention is not at all to rewrite or otherwise misrepresent history. In the case of the use of the term "frozen in time", this is simply in reference to the fact that the Latin Mass has not changed since it was formally adopted as the official Church rite in 1570.

Anonymous said...
"While I appreciate your perspective, it's simply not pastoral.

"The pope has to take care of the religious needs and preferences of all Catholics -- that includes Catholics whose religious needs are best met by an older Catholic liturgy. As long as a liturgy is not connected with heresy or schism (e.g., denial of Vatican II or the legitimacy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI), there is no reason to suppress it.

"You do not have to go to the older liturgy, but it would be uncharitable to deny it to others. A sign of a good pastor is that he seeks to meet the needs of all the flock, which perhaps is why Benedict XVI is pope and you aren't."

Unkosher Jesus sez: It certainly does fall within the pope's purview to administer to the religious and liturgical needs of Catholics. However, are you contending that Catholics are the only constituency that he must consider when rendering a decision on the liturgical form of the Mass or on any other topic? The Catholic Church spans the globe. As the self-proclaimed Body of Christ on Earth, does it not have a responsibility to minister to all people just as Jesus did? In this context, is the reinstatement of the Latin Rite a help or hindrance to the Church's relationship with other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths, particularly Judaism? Are not all the people of the world members of God's flock who are also worthy of ministry? As for the reasons that explain why Benedict is pope and I am not, well, I'll need to devote a separate blog entry for that discussion...

Anonymous said...
"I am a 34 year old former cafeteria Catholic who had his heart changed by the Latin Mass. I have many friends and know of many other "younger" Catholics who have wanted and prayed for this for a very long time. You are very misinformed a little more research should have been done before posting such nonsense."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Thank you for your comment. I would like to steer your attention to the comment submission guideline that speaks to the submission of comments "respectfully and in the spirit of advancing, not halting, any given discussion."

Anonymous said...
"You are a post VII Catholic? You do not have a clue."

Unkosher Jesus sez: God is vast and mysterious, and all that we think we know about God does not even begin to give us the slightest, vaguest notion of the reality that lies beyond the grasp of our perceptions and intellect. In this regard what you say is true about me as it is true about all of us. I thank you for your submission.

Thank you all once again for taking the time to read Unkosher Jesus and to share your thoughts and comments. I hope that Unkosher Jesus continues to be a thought-provoking forum that stimulates discussion while providing space for people from all faith traditions, including no faith tradition, to journey together in the search for unity among all people. Shalom.

Doug L.



FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

"Pope revives old Latin mass, sparks Jewish concern." The Boston Globe, July 8, 2007.

ADL Calls Vatican Prayer for Conversion of Jews 'A Theological Setback' and 'A Body Blow to Catholic-Jewish Relations'. Anti-Defamation League, July 6, 2007.

"Hold your breath for the next media frenzy: The Latin Mass document is coming." National Catholic Reporter, April 20, 2007.

"Jesus Christ: The Nice Jewish Boy Your Mother Never Told You About." (UnkosherJesus.net, April 23, 2007.)

Ostende nobis Domine, misericordiam tuam- and save us from the return of the Latin Mass

"Right turn, Clyde." Clint Eastwood used this famous phrase in the classic 70s hit, "Every Which Way but Loose." With those three magic words he was able to transform his seemingly docile orangutan companion into a four-foot high Joe Frazier.

Pope Benedict the XVI has a mean right hook of his own. Faster than you can say "dignum et justum est," the Pope is fast approaching a decision on the reinstatement of the Latin Mass. Clyde's right turn came in the form of a jarring right jab, where Benedict's right turn comes in the form of an awkward lurch backwards to a pre-Vatican II liturgical practice that has been frozen in time since it was established in 1570.

A little Vatican II background... With the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the Latin Mass was replaced by a liturgy celebrated in the common tongue of parishioners in parishes worldwide. This important and historic shift dramatically underscored the theme of reform embodied by Pope John XXIII who convoked the council in 1962. Although he did not live to see the council complete its work and implement the reforms he had envisioned, Pope John passionately advocated for the Church to reinvigorate itself though a renewed mission to serve all of humanity and to modernize its practices as a means of accomplishing this. On his very deathbed, this visionary leader exhorted his fellow Catholics to heed the call of modernization and reform as necessary means to ensuring that all that is good about the Catholic faith would continue to be relevant: "‘Today more than ever, we are called to serve mankind as such, and not merely Catholics; to defend above all and everywhere, the rights of the human person and not merely those of the Catholic Church. It is not that the Gospel has changed: it is that we have begun to understand it better... the moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead."

Or not. The reforms instituted by Vatican II met with enthusiastic support among the laity, mainly because for the first time in Church history they were made to feel like fully human participants in the shape and direction of their faith. And while the reforms offended the traditional sensibilities of old school Catholics, a great many clergy did support the reforms. But, just like the culture wars here in America, a conservative backlash has been coiling in the corners of the Catholic Church and waiting for its moment to remake the Church in its former image. Now, with the installation of Benedict (the former Cardinal Ratzinger) as Pope, the Empire is definitely striking back. As Cardinal Ratzinger he served as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he established a reputation as a conservative hard-liner. He is apparently not interested in moderating any of his views on Church policy and teaching now that he is Pope.

But whom does Benedict think that he is serving by reinstating the Latin Mass? Does he even care, i.e., is this something that he believes in so strenuously that he would support it no matter the backlash it might, and has, provoked? It certainly does not seem plausible that a majority of Catholics worldwide have blitzed the Vatican with letters demanding that Mass be celebrated in Latin. The question has even been raised as to whether there are even more than a handful of priests who are capable of celebrating Mass in this language.

Nevertheless, there is apparently a constituency for 16th century liturgical practices among the Church faithful. A cursory Internet search using the term "Latin Mass" quickly turned up the following Web URLs, among others:


* Latin Mass Magazine

* Latin Mass.org

* Una Voce.org ("One Voice")

While organizations such as these may constitute a minority of worldwide Catholics, they are apparently the ones who have the Pope's ear. Never mind how alienating this move may be to a majority of Catholics: what type of ecumenical message does this send to other Christian churches, to other non-Christian faiths in general? Vatican II was intended to transform the Church into a more outward looking institution more fully integrated into the modern world. Reinstating a dusty relic such as the Latin Mass appears to be a full-scale retreat from engagement back to a more conservative, triumphalist dogma of an older time.

While a traditionalist minority might cheer Benedict’s rightward lunge, this move can likely have critical, negative consequences for relations between the Church and Judaism. As a part of the Vatican II reforms, the Council struck the following prayer from the Good Friday liturgy: ""Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ..." In 1970 this was replaced by the following: "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." Which version will be used if and when Benedict brings Latin back home to roost? Why should we even have to ask this question? Benedict himself could have issued a statement clarifying the Church's position on this months ago.

I am a product of the post-Vatican II Church, and for whatever flaws inherent to this process, the willingness to engage in honest and open dialogue with lay Catholics, with other Christian churches, and with non-Christian faiths was not one of them. Pope John XXIII's vision for the Church was that it fulfill its potential for greatness by adopting a more expansive view of its own mission and striving to meet the material and spiritual needs of believers and non-believers alike. Benedict's rightward tilt gives me the impression that the Church has now abandoned that stance and is only willing to meet the needs of its most fervent and unwavering supporters. What a tragic, and wholly unnecessary, blunder. What good can the Church do for the world when it is only relevant unto itself?

-Doug L. FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, July 9, 2007):

"It's All Greek to Me: Unkosher Jesus and the Latin Mass." (UnkosherJesus.net, July 9, 2007.)

Vatican II: Voice of the Church

"Rite Turn: Can the Latin Mass Make a Comback?" (Slate.com, May 4, 2007)

"Latin Mass May Offend Jews" (London Telegraph, April 28, 2007)

"French Clerics Warn Against Return of Latin Mass Traditionalists" (Catholic News.com)

"The Return of the Latin Mass" (Time.com, October 12, 2006)