...priests, deacons, and ordained ministers who wish to use the "old rite" must submit their requests to Cupich in writing and agree to abide by the new norms.Those rules specify that the Traditional Latin Masses must incorporate scripture readings in the vernacular, using the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.In addition, such Masses cannot take place in a parish church unless both the archbishop and the Vatican agree to grant an exemption.The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday.
The push follows the Pope's move to try to limit the usage.
The Vatican's explanatory document states that the intent of Traditionis custodes is "to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church."
What always strikes me here is how much more the Latin Mass represents an establishment 'in the whole Church of the Roman Rite [in] a single and identical prayer." It's the one they sing in Jerusalem, and occurs in the same language and terms as when performed in America or Europe, Africa or in (secret, hidden churches in) China. It ties the Church together, and ties it also to its ancient ancestry -- those who, by doctrine, continue to be members of the Church after death.
It seems to me that a quick way to divide the Church into many competing factions is to divide it into many competing languages. In fact, I believe there is a Biblical story about that.
10 comments:
Does this new policy affect the Eastern rite churches?
I don’t know. It’s a good question.
I did a little prowlng around. I know no latin, but what I've seen in English suggests that the expansive claims are explicitly only to do only with the Roman rite. But unintended consequences seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
While the wife and I were up late after midnight mass wrapping presents (somehow though the children are no longer small, we still end up doing this!) and we turned on the vatican channel with the Pope doing mass. It was terribly annoying to me that they opted to use a translator, and a female one at that, rather than subtitles. It just destroyed the event for me entirely. I immediately thought of how reverting to Latin would obviate the need for a translator. Ah, well, what do I know?
Regarding 'establishing a single and identical prayer' .. You're thinking too broadly. Once you've begun saying Mass in the vernacular you aren't going back to Latin always and everywhere, and some of your parishioners will form the idea that Latin Mass is *Real Mass* and one said in the vernacular is a substandard one. Coming from a mainline Protestant church I've heard, and will confess to feeling, similar opinion regarding the musical setting and general tone of worship. AVI has expressed himself on this from time to time. This has implications for an country/language area that is struggling to fill pulpits with priests and may have to rely on lay worship leaders who aren't comfortable with Latin. I'm quite sure at least some US Bishops would prefer not to have to import priests who might have theological tendencies that differ from theirs, too.
There are SOME who hold that the Old Rite (EF) Latin Mass is 'superior' to a vernacular Mass. They are wrong. And in the long run, they are irrelevant.
The musical differences are noticeable, of course. The execution of the New Rite (OF) vernacular Mass usually includes hymnody which is the very last of the options allowed in the Rite. The first is utilization of the Proper Introit, Gradual/Alleluia, and Communion (all are available in the vernacular.) That preference has been studiously ignored.
There are Canon law questions as to whether the Pope or the Congregation for Rites is on solid ground with their pronouncements and that's not a question which will be settled quickly.
At this time, only Cd. Cupich of Chicago has laid down rules which are going to cause agony. Most other Bishops have 'taken it under advisement' and will 'study the matter.' Of those, many are thinking that they can study the matter for longer than Francis has left in this vale of tears.
For a very, very long discussion involving church musicians on four continents, see: https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/19566/responsa-ad-dubia-concerning-traditionis-custodes#Item_207
Blessed New Year to all!!
I also thought about how, for those who prefer the Latin mass and are comfortable in it, Latin is in essence their vernacular (at least for the mass). How could this be found incorrect?
I mean the whole point of allowing mass in the vernacular was to reach more people- so why push people away from one particular language?
It is true that the long-standard Latin Bible is called the Vulgate.
There’s a discussion several centuries long (as there often is on important matters, which is one of the nice things about the Church). Alfred the Great advocated for translation into not just Latin but also vulgar language. From his perspective, accessibility was the most important thing.
Here, we’ve come close to the other extreme.
Luther was also an advocate of the vulgar.
However, there's a classic formulation regarding liturgy: "sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, sacred music."
In the Ordinary Form, the last two have been erased (by and large, yes there are exceptions.)
The Faith will survive, of course. But she doesn't look good limping along on only 2 legs of the 4.
Post a Comment