This article has been imported from our web archive. As a result, it may contain formatting errors, broken links or images, or other inconsistencies from the original publication.
No need to fear our church's past
By Dorothy Cummings McLean
March 9, 2009
Dorothy Cummings McLean
I was reading the documents of Vatican II — as one does when one wants to cite Vatican II without sounding dumb — and it occurred to me that the Council Fathers’ suggestions for the renewal of the Latin rite bore little resemblance to actual liturgical practices after the new missal was promulgated in 1970.
Right smack in article 36 of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) are the words, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” The article permits the use of vernacular languages to be extended in the Mass, but nowhere does it say that Latin is to be expelled, scrubbed out, shown the door.
Right smack in article 36 of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) are the words, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” The article permits the use of vernacular languages to be extended in the Mass, but nowhere does it say that Latin is to be expelled, scrubbed out, shown the door.
Indeed, the whole tone of Sacrosanctum Concilium seems oddly indulgent about the vernacular, as if the writers were struck by the novelty of its liturgical use and assumed Latin would remain the principal language of the Mass. In article 54, the document states that “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.” In article 116, we find the words: “The church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”
The documents of Vatican II are really quite surprising when you read them.
I grew up with the 1970 Missal, and it confused me that Sunday Mass differed from one parish to the next. St. G’s had altar girls long before Rome OK’d them. (St. E’s waited for permission first.) St. G’s choir sang “God Save the People.” (St. E’s stuck to the Catholic Book of Worship II.) Then my brother was recruited by St. Michael’s Choir School, and the family began to travel downtown for Sunday worship. And Mass at St. Michael’s Cathedral was like Mass nowhere else I’d been to.
Mass downtown was very exciting, for at the cathedral there was Latin — not just for the choir (“Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training” — Sacrosanctum Concilium) but for the faithful. We sang the Kyrie in Greek and the Creed and the Agnus Dei in Latin. Sometimes the celebrant would end with “Ite, missa est” and we all sang back, “Deo gratias!” The massive pipe organ roared out like the voice of God.
All that Latin and Gregorian chant made me feel plugged into the history of the church, the generations of Christians who, from all countries, had sung these very words with these very tunes. Christian Latin — pronounced differently from Classical Latin — belonged to no single nation, no ethnic group. It belonged to all of us. It was our heritage, our birthright. It was otherworldly, holy. And now I see in Sacrosanctum Concilium that its use is in accord with the spirit of Vatican II.
Catholics who love both Latin and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (commonly known as the Traditional Latin Mass) have been getting some very bad press lately. First was the embarrassment of the irregular St. Pius X Society’s anti-Semitic Bishop Williamson; his name has been unfairly linked with faithful Catholics who request the Extraordinary Form. Then there was the recent hatchet job in Britain’s The Tablet on a popular priest who says the Extraordinary Form. Some Catholics seem frightened of those interested in the traditional liturgy of the church.
But, as Pope Benedict pointed out in his cover letter to his recent Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, most Catholics who loved the Latin Mass and continued to assist at it did so for serious, non-schismatic reasons: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I, too, lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the church.”
Now, Catholics who love the Extraordinary Form don’t do themselves any favours by savaging the Novus Ordo. Of course the reform needs a reform — but that reform is already underway. Meanwhile, all Catholics should understand that there is only one Roman rite, albeit with two forms. They should not be set against each other, but each appreciated for what it has to offer.
The documents of Vatican II are really quite surprising when you read them.
I grew up with the 1970 Missal, and it confused me that Sunday Mass differed from one parish to the next. St. G’s had altar girls long before Rome OK’d them. (St. E’s waited for permission first.) St. G’s choir sang “God Save the People.” (St. E’s stuck to the Catholic Book of Worship II.) Then my brother was recruited by St. Michael’s Choir School, and the family began to travel downtown for Sunday worship. And Mass at St. Michael’s Cathedral was like Mass nowhere else I’d been to.
Mass downtown was very exciting, for at the cathedral there was Latin — not just for the choir (“Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training” — Sacrosanctum Concilium) but for the faithful. We sang the Kyrie in Greek and the Creed and the Agnus Dei in Latin. Sometimes the celebrant would end with “Ite, missa est” and we all sang back, “Deo gratias!” The massive pipe organ roared out like the voice of God.
All that Latin and Gregorian chant made me feel plugged into the history of the church, the generations of Christians who, from all countries, had sung these very words with these very tunes. Christian Latin — pronounced differently from Classical Latin — belonged to no single nation, no ethnic group. It belonged to all of us. It was our heritage, our birthright. It was otherworldly, holy. And now I see in Sacrosanctum Concilium that its use is in accord with the spirit of Vatican II.
Catholics who love both Latin and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (commonly known as the Traditional Latin Mass) have been getting some very bad press lately. First was the embarrassment of the irregular St. Pius X Society’s anti-Semitic Bishop Williamson; his name has been unfairly linked with faithful Catholics who request the Extraordinary Form. Then there was the recent hatchet job in Britain’s The Tablet on a popular priest who says the Extraordinary Form. Some Catholics seem frightened of those interested in the traditional liturgy of the church.
But, as Pope Benedict pointed out in his cover letter to his recent Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, most Catholics who loved the Latin Mass and continued to assist at it did so for serious, non-schismatic reasons: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I, too, lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the church.”
Now, Catholics who love the Extraordinary Form don’t do themselves any favours by savaging the Novus Ordo. Of course the reform needs a reform — but that reform is already underway. Meanwhile, all Catholics should understand that there is only one Roman rite, albeit with two forms. They should not be set against each other, but each appreciated for what it has to offer.
Dorothy Cummings McLean