It’s the symbolism attached to the decision by outsiders that worries me.

A couple of facts need to be set straight before discussing Trent and Latin. First, it is obvious that policies adopted when the Council of Trent was ending in 1563 are going to be “old-fashioned” in 1963, when the II Vatican Council was ending. In its time, however, the Council of Trent was innovative. Second, Trent never directly ordered the Mass in Latin: only that Catholic worship around the world use the same Latin text as a basis. The French, Spanish, Germans, etc., could have translated the Latin into the vernacular and still complied with Trent. Third, the priest facing the crucifix with his back to the people was a part of a response to attacks by Protestant reformers against the doctrine of the Real Presence. In the wisdom imparted to the II Vatican Council by the Holy Spirit, this emphasis of Trent was reversed in favor of public participation.

Pope Benedict’s decision on the Latin Mass is linked to his announced goal of ending the schism with traditionalists in the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. No doubt bloggers with little patience for internal religious concerns -- and even less knowledge thereof -- will ridicule concern for schism. However, for believers, it is a bigger issue than just public relations. Put simply, while an action like ordination of priests may be unauthorized for a bishop in schism, it is nonetheless valid: the ordained are really priests. This contrasts with other actions that are both illegal and invalid. If allowing the Latin Mass ends a schism and restores dissident priests to the fold, it is a very small price to pay.

People who don’t understand this concern will likely rent and rail. I put in that category the irrepressible Abraham H. Foxman, President of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. He complains that this papal decision sanctions prayers for the conversion of Jews. His reference is to a single prayer that was recited once a year in a three-hour long ceremony on Good Friday – the only day of the liturgical year when Mass is not celebrated. How Mr. Foxman got from the decree about the Mass in Latin to a wave of Anti-Semitism is beyond me. I just don’t think he could be so stupid. I suspect this is one of those eye-catching, headline seeking statements Mr. Foxman is famous for, and his intent is to make sure this issue is attended to by the Vatican. It should be, but shame on Mr. Foxman by engaging in his own brand of anti-isms by making accusations rather than seeking clarifications.

I think the Latin traditionalists, as well as Mr. Foxman will soon discover that the tradition favored by most Catholics today is not controversial. In the PARAL Study, to provide just one example, Latino Catholics sought traditional expressions primarily in music and in customs that are not part of the Mass rubrics, like the Quinceañera. I suspect the same is true for Irish, Italian, Polish, Basque, Vietnamese, Chinese and other ethnic groups within the American Church. Perhaps those favoring Latin have shallow roots in contemporary ethnicity and are trying to create a medieval one for themselves. I do know some pagans today prefer words and phrases from ancient Celtic in their rituals. I wouldn’t be surprised if some modern day St. Patrick gets the idea for a Catholic Mass in just such a language: I know it has been proposed for Nahuatl. In sum, people should be free to worship in their language of choice, even if they are romantics.

The bottom line for today’s Catholicism gives each national grouping of bishops the freedom to set most liturgical rules. This preserves union on doctrinal issues but permits freedom of choice at the local level. Any effort to use the recent papal instruction as a “Trojan Horse” to destroy this balance is likely to be opposed vigorously by both laity and clergy, not to mention the pope also.

A final note: when in 1965 the U.S. Bishops authorized the use of Spanish for Masses within the nation’s borders, they effectively made the U.S. a bilingual Catholic country, much as Canada with French-English. In fact, on any given Sunday as many as 35 non-English languages are used in U.S. Catholic worship with official permission. Based on such facts, can any rational person still use “monolithic” and “Catholic Church ritual” in the same sentence?