The Return of Peter Miller

Want a good way to figure out if the traditionalist you are talking to has been one before Benedict XVI's pontificate? Ask them if they read Peter Miller's Seattle Catholic. Between 2001 and 2006, SC was a website that served as an all purpose internet hub for traditionalists. Mr. Miller collected links from around the web that trads would find interesting, and linked them without commentary. When Peter Miller gave you a link, your traffic exploded. This was always comforting to young traditionalists such as myself, who at that time were written out of polite Catholic conversation. In 2002 at 20 years old and only starting to discover the Latin Mass, Mr. Miller always "put me over" (to borrow a wrestling phrase) by giving me a couple links every now and then. As Michael Brendan Dougherty (my original blog partner who transferred into really interesting political journalism) put it, a lot of us got our start thanks to Seattle Catholic and their influence. 

 

When you actually wanted commentary, he always had some interesting opinion works that spanned the viewpoint of traditionalist commentary. Most importantly, it allowed viewpoints that went against the prevailing traditionalist ethos. Many believed that traditionalists were all monarchists politically and you had to be a distributist economically. Mr. Miller allowed incredibly intelligent writers to come on and argue otherwise. Some might not have realized it at the time, but he was broadening the traditionalist movement through his actions. Agree on the same faith and our love of the same liturgy, everything outside of dogmatics can and should be debated. That's what I learned from reading the site several times a day. If anything I would argue traditionalists need a modern day Seattle Catholic, if someone was insane enough to do that much work.

 

That's why it is with much fanfare and celebration that Mr. Miller stepped out of his self imposed exile to give a current state of the traditionalist movement promo over at Rorate Caeli. In it he talks a lot about the same themes we have covered lately, mainly about how much has changed in the past 7 years since SC went dark. They are teasing this as the first of many, and I hope that is the case.

Mr. Miller offers a very sobering analysis, emphasizing how far we've come, how far we still have to go, and stressing the importance of individuals, on all sides, doing the right thing and fighting the good fight. That's a call I made in two well received columns at Catholic Lane. Someone with Mr. Miller's influence and auctoritas will hopefully be able to get more to pay attention.

Pope Will Not Hamper the Extraordinary Form

Says a top Vatican liturgical expert. This really isn't news, but many will treat it like news. Personally I've said from the beginning that the Pope isn't going to roll back Summorum Pontificium.

Yet let us engage in a bit of theorycrafting, and assume that tomorrow, Pope Francis outlawed the Latin Mass Again, or returned it to the days of the Indult Ghetto. There's maybe a one-thousandth of one percent chance this would happen, but it certainly is possible! Even if that happened..... such a decision would be short lived for the reasons the article points out.

 

If nothing else, the Extraordinary Form is a priest-making juggernaut. In a land where the faith is dying, 15% of French seminarians come from the Extraordinary Form. I wouldn't be surprised if in America, the 1% of the Catholic population that is traditionalist is pumping out 5% or more of the seminarians, and this only increases as the years go on. These priests are young, dynamic and holy. Even those who aren't traditionalists are a lot friendlier to the Extraordinary Form than the previous generations, either willing to celebrate it, or speaking fondly of it. Every year that goes by with this situation, the more the ground becomes favorable to us. Anyone think the mediocre Catholicism that passes for Catholicism in most parishes is pumping out vocations?

 

There's also that thing we like to brag about, but fail to back up with our beliefs: that we are doing God's work here. If you think having the Latin Mass is something God wants, then how long can men prevail against it? That doesn't mean things can't be made difficult: they most certainly can (and are!), and we need to be vigilant against this. Yet let's not forget the justness of what we fight for.

In the end, a lot of the worrying about Pope Francis supressing the Latin Mass made traditionalists look dumb, because it was a worldview that was impervious to evidence. It was an emotional reaction, and emotional reactions are never good reactions. Maybe he takes away the EF tomorrow and makes me look like a fool. If so, then I'll just enjoy the victory a few decades from now all the more.

A Time to Listen

The theme of listening is the subject of my latest column at Catholic Lane.  There has been a lot of buzz about the whole "radtrad" debate that I seemed ot have kicked off.  What do trads do now?  I cover that, and give a few other ideas going forward.

Listening is one of the hardest things to do, especially in a tribalistic polarized landscape like we often find ourselves today.  We have an inclination to "refute" and "argue" under the guise of a dialogue, when in reality, we should just shut up, let the other speak, take to heart his words, and act on them later.

On Divisive Terms, Dialogue, and Reading "The Signs of the Times"... Guest Editorial by I. Shawn McElhinney

KMT note: Longtime readers of the Catholic blogosphere may remember Shawn McElhinney. If you remember him, your perception of him depended greatly on whether or not you attended the Extraordinary Form during the early days of Catholics blogging. He ran the "Lidless Eye Inquisition" with several others in attacking what they perceived to be "radical traditionalists" and "radtrads." Here Shawn explains why he no longer uses the terms.

 

It was brought to my attention recently that Catholic Answers had done a two hour program on traditionalism and terms such as "rad-trad" were utilized as well as a new term "mad-trad." As I helped popularize the terms "radical traditionalist" and "rad-trad" in weblog publications years ago, I was asked by my good friend Kevin Tierney for some thoughts on the use of the term in the modern ecclesial climate. A simple comment would not suffice and after some pondering of the matter, the result is what you have before you. Now I was admittedly privy to some apologists resurrecting the term earlier in the year and proceeding to use it in ways it was never intended to be used. However, that was small potatoes compared to when Catholic Answers (among the largest Catholic apologetics organizations in the world) decides on one of their shows to sanction the use of terms like rad-trad and "mad-trad." With that in mind, a bit of personal disclosure at the outset of this article is necessary.

Metting Halfway

Something happened during the debate surrounding "radtrad" and "radical traditionalist." No, everyone didn't suddenly convert to the position they disagreed with before.  Instead, I think everyone is regressing to the mean after some initial bumps in the road.

Giving the Status Quo a Push (More on the whole Radtrad Debate)

Nobody died and made me leader of a cause, but the way I see it, traditionalists should keep the following things in mind moving forward:

Letting Us Stand Together

The dicussion surrounding my editorial at Catholic Lane generated a lot more discussion than I ever would have hoped or wished for. There have been a lot of varied responses, some more valuable than others. I'd like to call the attention of my audience to one of these responses in particular, by Fr. Dwight Longenecker.

Traditionalism and Beating the Expectations Game

A photo on Facebook can tell a pretty great story.  It is why traditionalists like myself are so optimistic.  In short, the photo shows the exponential growth of the Extraordinary From of the liturgy from roughly 1988-2010.  In 1990, there were roughly 60 masses available every Sunday throughout the country.  (Probably 30 of them were in Chicago.)  In 2006, there were roughly 200, a growth of roughly 8 or 9 a year.  This was under the ancien regime of the Ecclesia Dei indult, when the survival of the Mass was dependent on Bishops, many of them openly hostile to the Extraordinary Form.

The Triumph of Division

I certainly hope Catholic Answers is happy.  They wasted a lot of money on a pointless two hour radio program that didn't help their audience understand traditionalists, "radical" or otherwise.  What they did do was create an incredible amount of ill will from traditionalists, and even those who aren't.  When these kind of circumstances happen, certain traditionalists will go out of their way spoiling for a fight.

I'm not really one to comment too much on the article in The Remnant.  When one gets past Mr. Ferrara's verbal flourishes, one finds there actually aren't a lot of things to disagree about.  I think everyone would agree that nobody is obligated to attend Mass in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.  Everyone would also agree (or at least they should) that the Church has been under attack from both the world and from within, and that weapon has many names:  the dictatorship of relativism, modernism, secularism, etc.  I think it is also beyond dispute that everyone agrees the Second Vatican Council wasn't implemented pretty good, if at all.  Those who disagree are free to find beef with Pope Benedict (who spoke of a false council of the media that has mistaken for Vatican II) and Pope Francis.

These truths aren't denied by anyone, yet both sides have to act like they do.  Why?  To put it bluntly, people are pretty angry when they are treated as second class Catholics, and they are likely to fire back in kind.  When people aren't around screaming "rad-trad", you don't see too much talking about "Neo-Catholic."  Neither term is actually descriptive of anything.  It simply means "other people do crap I don't like, and I need to condemn it in the flashiest way possible."  They are polemical terms that belong to a previous age.  They are also words that are only meant for the choir.

So now we've got another pointless conflict that the good folks at Catholic Answers don't actually disagree with, or at least wouldn't dare to disagree with it in public, as they really are settled matters.  What's sad is that others are actually starting to become a bit more honest in their assessment of matters.  The only problem with this kind of approach is you aren't going to drive up ratings for your radio show or print magazine.  Instead you will do the far more mundane task of slowly but surely laying a proper foundation for true Catholic unity.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be far better suited instructing its audience how to do that.

Why We Speak Past Each Other

As I've been mulling over a bigger work on so called "radical traditionalism" (more on this over the next week!), there have been a few other things that have happened which I want to talk about.  In trying to reach out to traditionalist audiences, two different voices gave two different critiques, but both seemed to fall pretty flat.  While some partisans will say this is just proof that trads are obstinate and impossible to have a discussion with, I think a more honest reading gives a far more simpler answer.

Sometimes Being Liked is a Good Thing

For most of its existence, traditionalism has been a rebel movement.  Even the loyal sons of the Church were still looking to shake up the existing order of the Church.  We hated the horrendous liturgies rife with abuse, despised the heterodox theology coming from popular circles, and we hated above all the seeming "conservative" silence or acquiescence on these manners.  To borrow a page from pro wrestling (as a proud smark since the mid 90's), traditionalists were heels, and we loved being heels.  That also meant we weren't interested in cheers or adulation from the powers that be within mainstream Catholicism.  Many times those who were getting cheers were those traditionalists who did nothing but bash their fellow brothers, even the loyal ones. 

The Liturgy and Humility

If nothing else, the last few days have been a clarifying moment for traditionalists.  No, I'm not talking about Pope Francis.  At least not directly.  What I am referring to is the line of attack many will make against the Latin Mass.  Traditionalists need to be smart and anticipate this.

What is that line of attack?  For the rest of Pope Francis' pontificate, there will be those who will attack traditionalists the following way.  They will see an emphasis by this Pope for the poor and humble, and ask what is poor and humble about the way traditionalists celebrate their liturgy?  We will then be viewed as not being obedient to the Pope.... again.  First they said it was illegal.  Then under the Indult, we were told it was inferior, and to enjoy our position as inferior Catholics.  Then the motu proprio came out, and they've been looking for another avenue.  They think they have found it.

If the Extraordinary Form and Traditionalism is to survive, we must meet this head on.  Yet we can't do so by just mocking our friends across the way, as much as they deserve to be mocked.  From almost every indication, it is becoming clear there will be a renewed emphasis on simplicity and humility in this pontificate, and maybe even (dare we hope?) a renewed emphasis on penance.

We need to emphasize how the Extraordinary Form helps further simplicity and humility.  Fr. Z has already done a good job in giving a brief look into how the vestments of the priest and his actions, while to the untrained eye might seem pompous, are actually a great symbol of humility.  Everyone needs to do more.  We will need to do something similar for all of the Extraordinary Form.  The prayers, the postures of the faithful, even the architecture, we need to show how all of these things reinforce humility and simplicity in the soul. The liturgy of St. Francis of Assisi's time, the one he would have spent much time in, the one he would have loved, has far more in common with the Extraordinary Form than the "simple" liturgies, and this needs to be emphasized.  If the Church needs a renewed emphasis on humility and penance, then that is what the Church needs.  Yet we need to promote those things which bring about the interior renewal of these things.

Now if people think that is too alarmist, then let us suppose that we strengthen this belief (any time spent among the Extraordindary Form communities will tell you this is already believed), and become more passionate and aggressive in spreading it, and the Pope decides not to listen to the enemies of the Latin Mass, and nothing happens.  We've still managed to become more in tune with an important virtue, and we can never have a sufficient attitude of penance, so it is still a win.

That's our job.

Why do Traditionalists Care So Much About the Latin Mass?

Since the election of Pope Francis (and some of the overreactions of various traditionalists) I've had several friends ask me what at first may seem like an odd question.  Why do traditionalists care about the Latin Mass so much?  We aren't like the moonbat crowd that rejects the validity of the Ordinary Form, so what's the big deal?  If you aren't a traditionalist, it can be very tough to describe the attachment we have towards the extraordinary Form, even if we view the Ordinary Form a valid and lawful mass as we must.

When you go through dark times as a Catholic, you usually have a lot of avenues to turn to.  You have Church socials.  You have friendly priests.  You can seek encouragement from prominent Catholics that what you are doing is right.  For the longest time, traditionalists had none of these things.  They were faithful catholics persecuted in their own parishes.  Around the dioceses, they were seldom at the socials, as it was made clear they weren't welcome.  If you had a bishop who decided to offer a concession (and it was almost always a concession!) for a Latin Mass, it was typically in a bad neighborhood in a bad time that you were forbidden from advertising about.  If you found out about the Latin Mass, it was by accident more often than not.

These negative opinions were reinforced by a lot of the commentariat amongst Catholics.  It was never any surprise that the likes of National Catholic Reporter despised us.  Yet amongst magazines like Crisis Magazine, the disdain for traditionalists was unparalleled.  Janet Smith will lecture against contraception, always presuming the goodwill of those who nevertheless do a very bad thing.  Yet a traditionalist is a fossil, a relic of "yesterdays Church" who stands in the way of true progress in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Considering these factors, traditionalists tended to become tight knit small communities at the Latin Masses they went to during the Indult days, even in spite of those in authority doing everything possible to keep them apart.  Things began to change with the election of Pope Benedict, albeit in subtle ways.  I would say that there was never any revolutionary change under his pontificate for traditionalists.  Instead, we slowly but surely were able to rejoin the church at large.  Most Masses were still in the city (as they were designed for that kind of Mass) but they were a lot more out in the open now.  You started having religious orders like the FSSP encounter incredible growth, to where they are just now beginning to pump out the first generation of priests where the Latin Mass was an acceptable thing to celebrate.

Once traditionalists had that all important stability (rarely do we worry anymore that a bishop might wake up on the wrong side of the bed and outlaw the mass in his diocese), we were able to develop stable communities, host events, develop homeschooling networks, and begin to pass on to others all the good we have to offer, with little of the bad.  We even have leaders in the church who are not just sympathetic to our causes (like Pope Benedict XVI was), but outright advocates of our cause.  10-15 years ago, a Cardinal Ranjith or Bishop Schneider would have been unheard of.  The Congregation for Divine Worship has been ran (or had secretaries) who could count as close allies like Cardinal Llovera.  In short, the growth of traditionalists in the last decade has been stronger than many would have thought possible before Pope Benedict.

Even with all this growth, it is still a young phenomena, and many fear that without leadership encouraging traditionalists, it will whither and decay.  I think such fears are overblown, but I can completely understand why they exist.  We are too used to the old ways and sometimes forget how much we have accomplished, and how much more we can accomplish.  Yet I ask those who aren't traditionalists to keep this in mind whenever these discussions come up.  For traditionalists, the Latin Mass has been a rock of stability in our faith lives, and nobody wants their rock taken away.

Pope Francis and the Case for (Guarded) Traditionalist Optimism

If you read the Rorate Caeli guys, you'd be forgiven for thinking that our new Popes last name is Borgia.  He was a Latin American Bishops, and the Latin American Bishops weren't really that sincere in opposing homosexual unions.  It was just late in the game, and only because Rome forced him to speak up.  Evidence?  Who cares about evidence!  They might set a record in the speed with which they dumped on the new election of Pope Francis.  So far in 4 hours, they have 6 posts on what a rotten horrible choice Pope Francis is, and what a rotten horrible Pope he will be.  Yet they are still faithful Catholics who pray for him.  When you need to remind people of that, you are doing it wrong.

That isn't to say that I don't have some of the same questions they do.  How he responds to the Latin Mass is something I worry about.  It is something I would've worried about with anyone not named Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith.  Yet I'd like to lay out a case for guarded optimism about this Pope, and the future of the Latin Mass/traditionalist movement in general.

The Rorate guys prove there is no attack they wont levy when they bemoan the fact that Pope Francis has never spent time in the Curia.  You know, that Curia which protected the Legionaries, is rampant with corruption, questions about their personal holiness, and has seldom hid their outright contempt for much of what traditionalists hold dear.  Him not being a member of the Curia is a feature, not a bug!  If a few Curial officials wind up being sacked, who cares what reason he did it for?

What about the more serious claim, that in his diocese, he hindered the spread of the Latin Mass.  Almost all of this is through off the record citations, but let us take them as true.  The Latin Mass grew during the days of the Indult, when John Paul II gave an indifference towards the Extraordinary Form at best.  (Love of the Latin Liturgy is not what moved his hand in Ecclesia Dei.)  We packed our parishes with young Catholic families, even when the Mass was at 4pm in the ghetto and we were forbidden from advertising about it.

Then Pope Benedict came and gave faithful Catholics his blessing to experiment with tradition.  He really didn't do a lot beyond it.  Did he celebrate it in public?  No.  The demographic of the Latin Mass has gotten even younger, and those churches which offer it find those masses packed.  Pope Benedict made it so that everyone would leave us heck alone, and the results have been positive.

If Pope Francis strikes down Summorum Pontificium then we can start worrying.  Yet why don't we wait until that happens, and not before?  The likely scenario is he does nothing about the Extraordinary Form.  It falls to us faithful Catholics to spread the beauty of this Mass, and let its grandeur do all the work.  The young will continue to flock to it.

Yet Kevin, we need a Pope who loves the Latin Mass and promotes it!  While we don't need it, hey, it certainly would be nice.  Yet let us be real here:  we are maybe a couple million (if that!) in a Church of 1.2 billion.  I want our numbers to increase, but there's very little a Pope can do with this, for good or ill.  Our movement gets built from the ground up.  Time to make that happen.

Why Catholics Excercise at Mass

When finding out I was going to Sunday Mass, a secular friend remarked that "Kevin is off to do his weekly calisthenics."  To the outsider, the various physical activities Catholics do during mass can seem odd.  (And admit it, it sounds pretty odd when you read it phrased like that.)  To the outsider of the Latin Mass, this behavior is even stranger.  Even many Catholics find the idea of kneeling for 15 minutes straight during Mass to be a little odd.  Sometimes, even those in love with the mass fight find all the posture a bit silly, or it might even lose its meaning.  Yet I submit that if we actually stop and think about what we are doing, we will never look at the Mass the same way again.

As mentioned in previous entries, the Catholic mass uses everything for the worship of God.  Our bodies are no exception.  The human body is the greatest creation of God.  If we use fine gold and other precious metals (which we all treasure dearly in today's world) for God's glory, how can we not use ourselves?  Our actions during Mass take on a brand new meaning when looked at through this prism.

Even something as simple as sitting can take on a profound meaning.  When one sits, one is always told by their parents to sit up straight.  Sitting up straight implies full attention towards what is going on.  Outside of that, we are passive.  There's nothing more that we can do but pay attention and wait.  At every Mass, we are awaiting the moment when redemption is applied to us.

There are other times when we stand, for example during the Gospel.  When a general addresses his troops before war, those troops are standing and at the ready.  When we sing the Gloria or the creed, we are akin to one who has found a great truth, and stands from a high place proclaiming it to anyone who comes his way.  The Gloria is the announcement the angels gave when announcing Christ to the world.  When the Creed is proclaimed, we proclaim for all to hear the central truths of the faith, and that we personally confess them.

Other times we bow.  A bow is always a sign of reverence for something greater than yourselves.  It has long been a pious tradition of many to bow when they hear the name Jesus.  Others bow whenever one proclaims "Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning.."  When we bow, we place ourselves subject to that greater thing.  (The same could be said on a certain level of kneeling.)  Like John the Baptist, we state "He must increase, I must decrease."

Finally, we kneel down with both knees during Mass.  Kneeling is always the most vulnerable position for an individual to be in.  When we kneel in worship before God, we are acknowledging that vulnerability, and also stating that everything is dependant upon him.  That is why for example the Extraordinary Form has Catholics kneeling for the entire canon (or Eucharistic prayer), even if that is to take 10 minutes or longer.  At the very moment of consecration and the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the work of redemption is carried out upon every penitent individual in the entire world, including the individual kneeling in Church.  If there is anything more vulnerable than a full acknowledgement and realization of what utter failures we are, followed by a purging of those failures, I am unaware of such.

That is why posture matters at Mass.  Without it, we could very well be holding something back from God during worship.  So before you kneel, ask yourself why you are kneeling.  If you can't provide an answer, I suggest you think long and hard in finding one.

Silence and Participation at Mass

When we turn our attention to the Latin Mass, the Extraordinary Form is frequently criticized for lacking "participation."  Upon hearing this, the traditionalist offers a riposte about different theologies of participation, the deficiencies of this or that, you know the drill.  Very rarely does anybody have success convincing either side.

I would like to do something different.  I will freely concede that for a decent number of people, they are not participating properly at Mass.  I myself have been guilty of this.  I bet you have as well.  My mind has spaced out when a priest speaks in English and in Latin.  I have words I "understand" come off flat from my mouth, and a phrase spoken in Latin carry more meaning, and vice versa.  Whenever the issue of participation comes up, we should just simply point out one fact.  Catholics behaving badly is not the fault of this or that liturgical form.  After stating that, we must then dismiss the issue at hand.  Instead, let us focus on what true participation is.  In order to do that, we must first focus on what we are as individuals.

Each and every person truly is a complex work of art.  For one, we have a body.  We also have deep knowledge of our bodies.  Therefore in worshipping God, we use what we know best.  That body conducts different motions that convey certain expressions and attitudes.    When Moses encountered God, he is instructed to remove his sandals, for he was stepping on Holy Ground.  What he did with his feet was significant in how he worshipped God.  With feet and tongue, David worshipped God in dancing around the ark, and composing some of the most beautiful Psalms.  Yet God also said that in true worship of him "all flesh will keep silence", as the prophet Habakkuk relates.

To add to this complexity we have our intellect.  With our intellect comes reason, and with reason we find a path to God.  Our God wants to be known and in many ways understood by man.  Just as we use our intellect to ponder the depths of a friendship with someone, we can do likewise with God, coming to a greater understanding and love of Him by thinking of things concerning Him.  Yet sometimes God appears in ways the intellect cannot fathom.  The author of  Ecclesiastes had knowledge surpassing all man, and yet found knowledge vanity when contemplating God.  Paul spent his life plunging deeper and deeper intellectually into understanding God and His Holy Law.  Yet the closest encounter he had with God involved him being struck dumbfounded and on the ground.

Finally, we can add emotional sentiments onto this complexity.  Many times these are a mix of physical and intellectual things.  These are also used in finding God.  When King David recognized his sinful ways, he was overwhelmed with emotion.  These emotions are also caused by gladness, such as when Zechariah proclaimed his joy in God's wonders upon the birth of his son John the Baptist.  Yet for all the importance of emotions, St. John of the Cross describes encountering Christ, whose very touch suspended all senses and emotions.

Knowing all these facts, what can we say about worship?  First and foremost, there is no one singular way to worship.  As with all things human, there are limitations.  The Mass overcomes these limitations by including all the different forms of worship.  Not only is there something for everybody, everybody will experience the full spectrum of worship.

Considered from this perspective, the question about whether or not we are participating properly at Mass takes on new meaning.  Not by mistake did the Council of Vatican II call for participation which is not just "active", but "full and active", that is, spanning the entirety of the human condition.  If you approach every part of mass every time with nothing but stoic contemplation, you are missing the chances where we publicly and vocally affirm our faith in God.  Yet on the other side of that coin, we cannot focus so much on the vocal aspect of things that we neglect the times when silent adoration is called for.  Neither is inherently superior, rather both are superior in their own proper times.

Why Latin?

When people find out you attend a Latin Mass, they always get hung up on the Latin part.  I remember taking a trip down to Franciscan University of Stuebenville, and spending the evening with a group of otherwise perfectly orthodox Catholics.  When a young lady learned I went to the Latin Mass, her response sticks with me to this day.  "Why Latin?  Don't you believe in the Holy Spirit and Vatican II?"  Crazy as it sounds, she didn't mean anything  ill by it.

To many, the Latin Mass is constructed as follows.  The congregation sits with their faces buried in a missal (or fingers thumbing on a Rosary) while the priest has his back turned to the faithful praying in silence so you can't hear him.  When you can hear him, it's in a language you deliberately cannot understand.  If that's how it has been taught to you, one would certainly think there's nothing about the Holy Spirit there!

From a certain perspective, there are elements of truth to each of these statements.  Yet that doesn't change the fact this characterization of the Churches ancient liturgy couldn't be any further from the truth.  Let us consider the use of the Latin language.

In my regular career, I work in a data center for a global corporation.  That data center is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The servers in that data center are accessed by individuals in over 40  countries.  In those countries exist people speaking even more languages.  Many times, I have to be in touch with these individuals speaking a variety of languages.  We need to speak in a language we both understand.  In this case, every global support contact for our company has to be fluent in English.  Whether I am speaking to Jaromir in Kostelec, Azmat in Russia, Ignacio in Mexico City, we communicate in and are understood in one language.  If one prefers a nerdier example, a physicist in Tokyo and a physicist in New York can communicate to each other in their work even if neither knows the language the other speaks.  They speak through the language of mathematics.

The Catholic Church is like the business I work for in the aspect of its size.  She spans countless cultures and languages.  Whenever Catholic leaders from across the globe put together things having to do with the Catholic Faith, they as well have a universal language.  The documents of an Ecumenical Council are worthless from a doctrinal point of view unless in Latin.  The official liturgical books are only authoritative in the  Latin.  Attempt to write something authoritative on canon law in your native tongue with no reference to the Latin, and your likely to get laughed out of whatever venue you are in.  Precisely because the Church exists here on earth on a global scale, you need that universal language.

"Well that is the Church on a greater level.  What about the individual Church?"  You will frequently hear that question asked.  I will only say one thing.  If you look at the Mass you celebrate as different from the Mass celebrated in other Churches, you are doing it wrong.  There is only one sacrifice of the Mass.  That is celebrated in heaven, outside of time.  This one offering is made present on the altars throughout the world, due to a miracle.  No matter which day we attend Mass, we are attending the same Mass, the same sacrifice.  It was for this symbolic reason that masses were in a universal language.

Yet why Latin?  Why not English, or Swahili for that matter?  In short, it is what worked best throughout history.  There's no divine or theological reasoning behind it.  Latin was the language of all of Christianity for at least the first several centuries.   Latin was the language of the Roman Empire.  When the Empire fell, the Latin language influenced countless languages.  Most importantly, it fell out of use.  The meanings of the phrases became fixed.  In our English language, one need only look at such terms like "liberal" or "conservative" at the founding of our country, to how they are used today.  That dead language is one that can be reasonably learned by the greatest amount of people and the meaning of those words will be consistent and reliable.

Yet most importantly, this language links you to a greater tradition and patrimony.  When Christ celebrated the Passover Seder, he did not do so in the common language.  He said it in the dialect and tongue of those first Hebrews as they left Egypt.  In the thousands of years since, the language had developed.  By using the same words in the same language, it was yet another way to make present the anamnesis of the Seder.  Our defecient English language translates anamnesis as "remembrance."  To the Jew celebrating Passover (and the Catholic celebrating Mass), the "remembrance" or "memorial offering" is something far deeper.  When they partake in the rituals of the Passover, they are living what is symbolized by them.  When we Catholics of the Roman Rite assist at or celebrate Mass, we use that Latin language as a way to unite ourselves to those first Roman priests who celebrated Mass on the tombs of martyrs.  We unite ourselves with the Popes who carefully through the years developed organically that liturgy.

Does this mean that a Mass not done in Latin is somehow less of a Mass?  Certainly not!  Yet when dealing with such sublime mysteries, we go as far as possible  in immersing ourselves in them.  When dealing with the Mass, one cannot immerse themselves in it enough.

Why a Latin Wedding?

Whenever people here of our engagement, people always ask "So where are you going to be married?"  When they hear St. Josaphat in Detroit, a lot of people know how beautiful the Church is.  Seriously, its reputation precedes itself.  When they hear that we are having the nuptial mass according to the Extraordinary Form (or a Latin Mass Wedding), the reactions are mainly mixed, in and of itself a good thing.

That the reaction is simply "mixed" and not outright scorn and ostracizing is a sign that yes, the Latin Mass has found itself a place in today's Catholicism.  Is some of that scorn still present?  Indeed, yet for the most part that scorn is kept silent.  The far more likely reaction is either curiosity or confusion.  A lot of non-catholics (or those no longer practicing) have given most of the curiosity.  In an irony of ironies, traditionalism is a novelty today, and they are fascinated by the novelty if nothing else.  Others love the beauty.  To those curious, they can only attend our wedding and find out.

My focus today (and for quite some time) is on the confused.  It isn't that they are hostile to the idea of a Latin Mass Wedding.  They just don't understand what the big deal is.  I do not know if I can accurately convey why I view it a big deal.  Yet I hope to offer an explantion for why I love this way of celebrating Mass.

Throughout 2011 I did a series here at Common Sense Catholicism explaining various facets of the Extraordinary Form.  I'd like to revisit those works and reboot them with these considerations in mind.  The first section of postings will center around various questions about the Latin Mass and some basic answers, while the second portion will focus on the individual prayers contained in the Mass and the great meaning behind them.  Even if one attends nothing but the Ordinary Form, I hope this helps you in achieving a greater understanding of the one Mass, no matter how it be celebrated here on Earth, for it is the same in heaven.

The Extraordinary Form: The Meaning of the Sanctus

At the end of the Preface (depending on the Preface), various invocations of the angels and saints in Heaven are made. We are then called to join their song humbly. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is something very important to remember. When we begin the Sanctus, we are not simply saying it alone. We are moved outside of time, united to heaven in a very mystical way.

The Sanctus is a very rich prayer when we consider what exactly is going on. Two scenes are called to mind in this prayer, both of which were introductions. The first is from the Prophet Isaiah:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated: and his train filled the temple. Upon it stood the seraphims: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings: with two they covered his face, and with two they covered his feet, and with two they hew. And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory. And the lintels of the doors were moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts.

And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I send? and who shall go for us? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me.

I would like to submit that when Isaiah saw this vision, Isaiah saw the Mass. Remember, heaven cannot be measured via time, because it is outside of time. God is timeless. When he saw the angels in their chant, he was seeing yesterday, his present time, and several millennia later, right up to the present day. He states that he was in the temple. Temples are the place of sacrifice. The smoke from the incense filled the temple, and God himself was present. What he saw (but perhaps could not explain), was that God was present as both priest and victim. Recognizing the amazing event he witnessed, he saw how unworthy he was. Not only because he saw God, but rather that he saw God accomplish his ultimate plan, the salvation of the human race. As a result of this, an angel comes and purifies him, so that he can prepare worthily for the event he is about to witness.

The priest finds himself in a similar situation. After that purification (which we all receive in the Sacraments of Initiation), God asks for people to accept the calling of the priesthood. Not everyone will answer that call. When the priest does, he may ask, like Isaiah does, how long must he preach the Gospel? How long must he offer the Mass? The answer God provides is instructive:

Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land shall be left desolate. And the Lord shall remove men far away, and she shall be multiplied that was left in the midst of the earth. And there shall be still a tithing therein, and she shall turn, and shall be made a shew as a turpentine tree, and as an oak that spreadeth its branches: that which shall stand therein, shall be a holy seed

In short, the priest is meant to act until the end of the world. Likewise, from the saying of the first Mass until the end of time, there will always be a priest somewhere, at some hour of the day, fulfilling the Lord’s request throughout the earth. This call remains equally true to the faithful, albeit in a different way. The Sanctus is a reminder that we too must live according to the Gospel to the end of the earth. The worship of God was meant for all creation. If one iota of creation is not yet participating in it, the job of a Christian is never done. Like Isaiah, we must realize our unworthiness to partake in the mystery of God’s redemption. This task is perfectly suited towards God. God is Holy. His very name is called Holy. When something was said three times in ancient times, it was a very special confirmation of what was being said.

Yet what makes the Canon such a holy thing? It is more than just our participation at Calvary. Through the Roman Canon, Holy Week itself is retraced.

The Extraordinary Form: The Lavabo to the Preface

As we come to the end of the Offertory, a distinct tone begins to emerge. In the texts there is a growing sense of unworthiness on behalf of the priest and the faithful that they are participating in this event. The Mass is the very Sacrifice of Calvary, yet it is far more than just that. Through the Mass, heaven and earth become united, the covenant with the Father is renewed, and we partake, in our own certain way, in the mystical banquet of the Lamb’s Supper in Heaven. Sinful flesh that we are, we should be feeling a sense of unworthiness.


That sense begins with the Lavabo, which goes as follows:

I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of Thy praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works.

I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is filled with gifts.

But as for me I have walked in mine innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the direct way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord.

There are a few things to note about this prayer. The Psalm originates in a Psalm of distress. David’s claim of innocence is not a boastful claim. He feels a great moment of distress, and points to the fact that he has looked to please God in all he does. Confident of God’s mercy, he washes his hands amongst the innocent. Likewise the priest and congregation should feel a slight distress based on their current position. We are entering in a very special way into God’s presence. We are about to experience a deeply personal moment beyond those even Moses experienced with God. Our only response is to state we have looked to do God’s will to the best of our ability.

Following the Lavabo there is a final prayer to the Trinity which states:

Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these [the relics in the altar] and of all the Saints, that it may avail unto their honour and our salvation, and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord.

The sacrifice which is offered is of course first and foremost offered to the Trinity. Yet like all other offerings, the offering is also a commemoration of those who walked before us. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us to honor those who walked before us in the faith. Yet how does honoring a saint give glory to God? Are our Protestant friends correct when they assert the mere suggestion of including honor to the saints in offering to the Trinity is blasphemous, for only the Trinity is worthy of any honor?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of honor given. No saint in and of themselves is worthy of honor. Not even the Blessed Virgin. Only through Christ can anyone receive any honor or praise. It was only through Christ that the Blessed amongst women was preserved from sin. When we honor the saints, we honor God’s handiwork within them. (Eph 2:10-12) Since those in heaven are “the spirits of just men made perfect”, we ask for their intercession. God stated in the Old Covenant that “if even Samuel and Moses prayed for these people I would not listen” and help that sinful wicked generation. Yet we are Christians redeemed by the blood of the lamb alongside the saints, would not their prayers be of great benefit?

We then come to the Orate Fratres. Unfortunately, the modern understanding of the liturgy in many Churches has really damaged the significance of this prayer. In the extraordinary form, the priest is facing God in the tabernacle and the East (where the Risen Christ will come from) instead of the congregation. When this prayer comes, he turns to face the people, saying:

Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty:

In the context of the Mass, the priest normally turns to face the people in saluting them or blessing them. Yet this time instead he asks for their prayers. In this statement is a recognition that without their prayers, the priest will struggle going forward. One could further say, without the prayers of those individuals, something is lacking from the Mass. What could possibly be lacking from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The same thing that Paul states was lacking from the Sacrifice of Christ in Colossians 1:24. The sacrifice lacks in the degree of application, since Christ does not save against someone’s own will. Therefore we pray that hearts are turned, and that the Sacrifice of Christ be applied. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Father will accept the sacrifice of the Cross during the Mass. That sacrifice is always before Him. Yet there is a legitimate doubt as to how useful the sacrifice will be for the individual faithful due to lack of faith. That is why in response, we ask that the sacrifice be for “our benefit, and that of all His holy Church.”

What is a beautiful exercise in symbolism loses a lot of significance in the modern liturgical landscape. Since Mass is said facing the people, this is no longer an externally special moment. The appearance is no different than every other moment of the Mass in such a situation. If one needs a reason to return to saying Mass ad orientam, here is a strong one.

After praying what is known as the Secret (one of the propers which is made a final urgent supplication to God), the priest begins the Preface. Unlike previous salutations, the priest says Dominus Vobsicum still facing the altar and the tabernacle. One could say, in a mystical sense, he has begun his transition into acting in persona Christi. Christ acts through Him, so that the identity of the priest becomes less and less important. We are then called to sursum corda, lift up your hearts. Where are we lifting them up to? We lift them up to heaven! At this point in the Mass, we are entering (albeit in an imperfect way) into Heaven, or rather Heaven is coming to us. At this point in the Mass, I am no longer simply assisting at Mass at my local parish. I’ve entered into communion with all the saints and angels. This moment is truly timeless, for it is outside of time. Having entered into this blessed moment, the only acceptable response is thanksgiving towards God.

This understanding is vital for the next part of the Mass. If all of the Mass is holy, the Roman canon is the holy of holies within the Mass.