: "in the coming weeks a document of Benedict XVI will be released which reorganizes the competences of the Congregation for Divine Worship, entrusting it with the task of promoting a liturgy more faithful to the original intentions of Vatican II, with less room for arbitrary changes, and for the recovery of a dimension greater sacredness. "
This is very exciting news! The most immediately visible effect of the Second Vatican Council was the introduction of the Novus Ordo mass. In my opinion, based upon my reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium I must say that the vision of V2 has not been fully implemented. The council, encourages...
"full, conscious, and active" participation in the liturgy (#14),
and that, "the use of the Latin language, except when a particular law prescribes otherwise, is to be preserved...but since the use of the vernacular....may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants." (#36),
and that "care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" (#54),
and that, "the church recognizes Gregorian chant as especially native to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (#116),
and that, "the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the latin church..." (#120),
and that, "no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority." (#22.3)
and that, "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing. As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in neighboring regions should be avoided." (#23)
I love the Novus Ordo mass, but how often have you experienced a mass where....
1) Latin was used by the people?
2) Gregorian chant was used by the people?
3) The priest ad-libbed?
4) "Liturgical planners" made up something new to "spark interest" in the people?
5) A pipe organ was used?
The tremendous spiritual fruit of the Second Vatican Council, for all states of life, has yet, as I see it, to be grasped. The reason for the delay is, in my opinion, the nonchalant, trite, and uninspiring practice of the mass, that has become, already, so ingrained in the United States. The mass is a truly cosmic event, where humans, angels, and God meet, and the ineffable Word is spoken by the lives of Christ's faithful. The tremendous spiritual potency of the mass is so great that we cannot afford to be satisfied with a mediocre and mundane celebration. We as Christians, must demand that the mass, where we receive the source and summit of Christian living, be celebrated worthily by the priest and the people.
I am not, however, encouraging a reincarnation of the rubricism that was alive before the Council, which, along with strong moralism and certain veins of traditionalism, see goodness and sanctity only stemming from external acts; I am encouraging a spiritual vigor that, inspired and begotten by the love of God and neighbor, seeks to celebrate worthily the sacraments, under loving obedience to the Church, and for the love of Christ in the mass, who deigned to become man.
I think that the strong desire to revive Latin in the Liturgy is problematic. Not because Latin is bad, or because having the Liturgy in Latin is bad. But the idea that a particular language is the only good language for a liturgy is a sort of cultural exclusivity, that idolizes one language above all others. And the fact is that the Latin Liturgy has had a tradition of being in other languages (ie Church Slavonic, Cantonese and Celtic). Specifically sacral forms of language. I think that that should be the core of discussion of language in the liturgy. Is this language one that is set apart from the language of everyday life but still something not totally alien to Joe Schmoe. Latin is alien for an American, but not for an Italian. Perhaps then a very high form of English should be used for our liturgy.
ReplyDeleteThere are still celebrations of the EF in Church Slavonic. Why could there not be celebrations of the EF and naturally the OF in High Churchy sounding English, in a high form of German, Chinese, etc. We can use semi-vernaculars to accomplish the same thing as Latin in non-Romance language countries.
I would say that one language cannot be holier than another, otherwise we should have mass in Aramaic, since that was Jesus' language. My understanding of the use of Latin (at least the understanding I wish were true) is that it is indicative of the term "catholic". As members of the one catholic church, members of a common rite ought to use a common language to more fully express the universality.
ReplyDeleteSed Contra, I have thought that an EF in the English found in old hand missals would be rather excellent.