Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. It is a “dead” language that prevents church liberals from translating words into the vernacular using ambiguous terms that undermine church doctrine, such as the use of inclusive language. Perhaps the greatest advantage of the Latin Mass, then, is that it is not open to the numerous abuses currently experienced on a regular basis with the new Mass.
The universality of Latin makes it conducive to all believers experiencing more fully the mystery of the Mass. It imbues a heightened reverence and sense of the sacred. It compliments well the Latin rite’s traditional Gregorian Chant with its moving meditative cadence that touches the depths of the soul.
The Tridentine Mass is also more uniform and consistently Catholic in its theological and Christian-cultural aspects. The Pope has previously mentioned, for example, how in the new Mass the “turning of the priest toward the people no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above (but) has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle.” Both the priest and people should be facing the east.
Paul Kokoski Hamilton, Ont.
A little too green
Of the many unusual ideas in the Sept. 2 “Green issue,” I read liturgy professor Chris McConnell’s approach to the Mass with mingled fascination and trepidation (“Blessed are you Lord, God of all creation”).
Hitherto, when my Catholic friends and I prayed the Mass, we understood that Communion meant the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Enter eco-theology: I’m definitely not comfortable with McConnell’s New Agey spin on the Eucharist where we’re implored to see the host as the “material stuff” of creation to remind us of “what we do to the Earth the other six days of the week.”
God bless the creative energies of our liturgists, but we average Catholics are probably more comfortable with a non-sacramental symbol of Gaia the Good Earth — perhaps an alfalfa sprout dispenser in the church vestibule or “fair trade” palm fronds at Easter. We should leave the Eucharist as it is, as a reminder of what we do to each other the other six days of the week.
Greg Schilhab Toronto, Ont.
Use God’s standards
In “Dialogue has layers,” Janet Somerville (Reader Opinions, Sept. 2) states that the “opposite decisions of our two churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican) on the ordination of women” as well as on the possible “Anglican decision to offer a liturgical blessing to persons in a same-sex union” are not a “roadblock to (ecumenical) dialogue” but a “topic of dialogue.” She recognizes “we have authoritative doctrines,” but find equally relevant that “North American Roman Catholic theologians, not to mention pastors, confessors, counsellors, have been in intense dialogue with each other on these very topics since at least 1960.”
She assumes the members of today’s church, especially younger ones, having a better understanding of “the changes (occurring) in Western civilization,” should have a say in the matter, and if allowed to cast their votes, “might not vote very differently from their Anglican fellow Christians.”
As demonstrated by the episode of Caesarea Philippi (Mt.16:13-23), I know that Jesus’ mission was a “topic of dialogue” among both the people and His disciples, but I also know this dialogue did not affect Him at all. If He had followed the suggestions of His disciples, who certainly had a practical understanding of their own civilization, He would never have gone to Jerusalem to die on the Cross.
If that is Jesus’ way and will, in the church founded by Him, which, as we know, “subsists” in the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t find much room for the input of the members mentioned by Somerville, including the younger ones, with the exception of the input of prayer, which is the higher layer of dialogue and would affect indirectly the church through the Holy Spirit.
Actually, the kind of multilayered dialogue proposed was clearly refused by Jesus Himself on the same occasion at Caesarea of Philippi, as He first spoke about His passion and death in Jerusalem. When Peter took Him aside to remonstrate with Him, Jesus’ rebuked the apostle with words that are still valid today: “Get out of my sight, you Satan! You are trying to make me trip and fall. You are not judging by God’s standards but by man’s” (Mt. 16:23). As followers of Jesus, we should be more concerned about God’s standards than about the different layers of “man’s” dialogue.
Luigi Pautasso Woodbridge, Ont.
Poetry delights
As a retired English teacher, I wish to express my delight in reading Fr. Pier Giorgio DiCicco’s poetry. I sometimes believe in this post-modern age, some writers (poets and novelists) like to blur the lines between what is poetry and what is prose. In his Sept. 16 poem, “Landowner,” Father shows us a poet makes language dance. With craft, he has externalized our interior landscape through physical landscape imagery. Well done.
Also, I affirm Fr. Scott Lewis’ scholarly, pithy comments on the Sunday readings. I have attended numerous Bible workshops given by gifted scholars, but Fr. Lewis is able to bridge the gap between God’s Word and our experience with comments like: “Only God can make us whole and wise, but only we can allow it to happen.
Opinion 
(0 vote)
