On the
air with Bishop Lynch
January 24th, 2008
Bishop Lynch
I have been waiting for well over
a month to listen to a pre-recorded radio
show which was billed under the title: the "differences between the
pre-conciliar Latin Mass, and the New Mass in English". The speaker was our
own Ordinary, Bishop Robert Lynch who spoke with program interviewer, Mary Jo
Murphy on Spirit FM (the catholic radio station for the diocese of St.
Petersburg). The following text (in blue) is my transcript of the audio program
which aired today (my commentary in green as usual):
Well I will follow up on the idea
that I ended on yesterday and kind of draw some distinctions because if the
Council fathers called us to full and conscious participation in the liturgy
what did that do to what you and I grew up with ? I think that’s an
important thing to reflect upon.
Full and active participation...
oh dear ! Well what did the Council say exactly ?
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
Sacrosanctum concilium paragraph 14
Pope Benedict
XVI has repeatedly reminded the Church that the Second Vatican Council is to be
understood in the light of what preceded it in so far as the continuous teaching
of the Magisterium is concerned. In fact Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical on
the liturgy Mediator Dei warned of the spirit of "novelty" that
preceded the Council and continued once the Council had ended that would only
prove disasterous.
We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.
Mediator Dei paragraph 8
In the same encyclical,
Pope Pius XII also established ways for participating in the liturgy:
It is, therefore, desirable, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."[80] And together with Him and through Him let them make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves.
Mediator Dei paragraph 80
Pius XII also
wrote that in the matter of liturgy there isn't a "one-size-fits-all"
approach:
108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.
Mediator Dei paragraph 108
Bishop Lynch
continued...
When Mary Jo and I grew up in the
Church before the liturgical reforms, first of all the Mass was in a foreign
language; not even a modern foreign language, but a foreign language which had
ceased to exist centuries ago, it was in Latin, and most of what the
priest proclaimed and what the priest spoke, if you could hear him
(because microphones as we are currently wired and miked were not a part of
the scene at that particular time), most of what he spoke was in Latin.
Pius XII on Latin and the
vernacular:
The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church,
is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
Mediator Dei paragraph 60
The Second Vatican Council
did not call for the abolition of Latin:
1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin
rites.
Sacrosanctum concilium paragraph 36
Bishop Lynch
continued...
In fact he read only two
Scripture readings, usually one from the Epistles, occasionally from
the Old Testament. But the first reading at Mass was usually from an Epistle
of St. Paul, and the second reading was from a Gospel, and he would read them
both in Latin to himself ! Nobody else ! To himself !
If we wanted to know what he was reading, then we had to have what was
called a missal, that usually had two columns: one with the Latin and the
other side with the English, and if you could, even if you didn’t study
Latin, you could kind of hear the words and know where he was at the Mass.
On Sunday, you see, he would turn around and read
the Epistle in English and read the Gospel, nothing else but just the
Epistle and the Gospel.
The Council
called for the use of the vernacular particularly for the readings
but not necessarily the whole Mass:
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.
This will apply in the first place to the readings and
directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Sacrosanctum concilium paragraph 36
Pope Benedict
XVI in the Apostolic letter Summorum pontificum made an identical
provision (which seems to be in the letter and spirit of the Vatican II document
quoted above):
In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people
in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the
vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.
Summorum
pontificum Article 6
Bishop Lynch continued...
His back was towards us, he was
assisted by altar servers who knew less of the Latin than the priest did, but
who would respond to the prayers, the prayers that we now respond to,
were reserved to the servers in those days with one or two exceptions ‘D-o-m-i-n-u-s
V-o-b-i-s-c-u-m !’ (Mary Jo Murphy) ‘Et cum spirituo’. (Bishop
Lynch) ‘The Lord be with you. And with your spirit.’ That was something
that we were trusted with and ‘per omnia saecula saeculorum.’ (Mary
Jo Murphy with surprise) ‘Amen !’ (Bishop Lynch) ‘For age after
age after age’ or it could be translated ‘for all eternity’, ‘for all
the ages. Amen.’ So we would
have opportunities to respond occasionally in those phrases, but the
rest of it was between the celebrant and the server.
We didn’t, couldn’t see what
was going on, on the altar because the priest blocked those actions. When he
wanted us to see something, or the Church wanted us to see something, he would
turn around and do it, he would hold the chalice and the host and say: ‘Ecce
Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollis (sic !) peccata mundi’ ‘Behold the Lamb
of God, Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world’ but generally
speaking it was all kind of, it was very mysterious and there wasn’t, I’m
not complaining about the mystery, I’m just saying that’s the
way it was !
The only commentary needed
here is this (the Pope celebrating Mass January 13, 2008 - 11 days ago - with gasp
his "back to the people"):
Bishop Lynch continued...
I think the Holy Spirit said to the
Council fathers in overwhelming majority: “We’re not going to last unless
we renew our liturgy and invite our people to full and conscious participation
in the Mass. This is going to become a museum piece. This is going to become
something, in this day and age, in the day and age of instant
communications,” which was really nowhere near in the sixties what it is
today, “that if we continue this way there’s going to be fewer and fewer
and fewer and fewer people at Mass.”
Weekly Mass attendance in USA
Yes the New
Mass has caused an "upturn" in attendance ! Bishop Lynch continued...
And in actual point of fact we’ve
had the ability to have Mass in Latin for some time now, and very, very few
people go and very, very few people who did not experience it prior to the
Council stick with it. I’ve had several people, recently, who have attended
the Latin Mass who have said to me: “Well that was nice but that didn’t
mean much to me.”
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos to the rescue:
"Curiously even in the new
generations, both of clerics and laity, interest and respect for the earlier
rite seems to be blooming. And they are priests and ordinary faithful
who sometimes have nothing to do with the so-called Lefebvrians. These
are facts about the Church, to which pastors cannot remain deaf. That
is why Benedict XVI, who is a great theologian with a deep liturgical
sensibility, has decided to promulgate the motu proprio."
30 Days Magazine, N. 6/7 2007, p. 32
Bishop Lynch concluded
So I think, you know, the
experience of what the, the whole point that I’m making is the shift from
Latin, the shift from the back to the people, the shift in the liturgy was all
designed to invite us into full and conscious participation in the
liturgy, and to be a part of it and to know what was going on,
and to focus on what was going on and to play our part and our role, in
what was going on. So there’s no more redundancy in the liturgy of
the word, it’s not read in a foreign language and then turn around and read
in English. It’s read the first time, and it’s proclaimed !
In the old days it was just pure monotone in many places, I mean it was
whatever mood the priest was in when he turned around to talk about it, but
today we work hard to make sure that those who proclaim the Word of God are
well trained, our lectors, that they actually proclaim it they just don’t
read it. There’s a big difference between proclaiming and reading.
No comment !
+TF
