Pope Benedict’s preference for the Latin Mass is a good way to enter the question of what makes for good worship. I like the Latin Mass. I love the combination of sound, sight and scent that is the medieval rite in a cathedral setting.
But, I am not a Catholic and I do not rely on the rite as an instrument of grace. Rather, I appreciate it as art: art that stirs, not saves my soul. The Eucharist is, however, the central rite of salvation for billions of worshipers. What is it that communicates to its participants the hope of salvation, even immediate divine presence, and what impedes it? My Tennessee neighbors drive considerable distance from the parish around the corner to attend a Vietnamese mass. They are not Vietnamese and as close as he has gotten to Asia in his 92 years was Guadalcanal. So, why not Latin?
It seems to me that understandable words (or any words at all) are not necessary to worship and that to insist on them is a relatively modern view, even in the pews. Obviously, the didacticism inherent in audience-directed speech can inhibit more immediate appeals to the heart. Hence, some painters refuse to name their paintings and all readers of poetry prefer the poem to its explanation. They insist on the more direct appeal of experience. This seems even truer of the mass, surrounded as it is by depictions of Jesus’ sacrifice and based in centuries of observance. All who see it, and, yes, hear it know what is being elevated at the table and the story spoken over it. If not, the Roman Catholic Church has greater problems than translation would cure. So, what’s going on here?
It seems to me that the issue raised by Pope Benedict’s preference for Latin is not one of worship quality, but of worship authority. If the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s stands for anything it is that lay participation is necessary to Church renewal, if not its future survival. Modernity simply will not tolerate the passivity encouraged by past hierarchical practices. Thus, the vernacular mass was only one of several actions taken to strengthen the “local church” and to involve its communicants in what had become a dangerously solo performance by clergy. In the half century since Vatican II, the pendulum has swung away from local to Roman governance, often under the direction of the, then, Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition). Now as Pope Benedict, it appears that he continues to assert Roman prerogatives by eroding one of the Council’s most enduring and popular reforms: the vernacular liturgy.
History is on the side of those who wait for the pendulum’s reversal, however. As we all know, no one – however authoritative – has succeeded in returning to the pre-1960 status quo. I daresay the Holy Father, bound as he is by time and history, will not be an exception. Too much was undone to be redone, even if only because clerics -- much less Latin speaking clerics -- are painfully hard to find these days. If wishes were horses all would ride, goes the old saying. This horse is out of the barn and no amount of nostalgia for the tridentine mass will bring it back.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
