2: JReducation’s point is well made (and much respect to him for serving in the Amazon missions for 7 years). Cultural sensitivities should be taken into account if this can be done without doctrinal error. In this, we follow the marvelous example of, for example, Jesuit missionaries who, with the Church’s permission, developed vernacular liturgies for mission territories centuries ago.
He may be right in saying the attachment to Latin is a Northern Hemisphere thing, (**although I’d challenge him to name a Southern Hemisphere territory where the Faith was not introduced from Europe and thus has European heritage). **
As with the Amazon faithful, if these cultural sensibilities can be accomodated without doctrinal error, why not? And what doctrinal error could the Mass of St Pius V, gradually updated to 1962, possibly contain?
I hope that I did not imply that the Catholic faith in the Southern Hemisphere did not come from Europe, because that is not what I meant at all. What I was trying to say is that the indigenous people associate Catholicism with Europe and the United States. That’s where most of the missionaries came from.
Unfortunately, many European and American Catholics, mostly lay people, have been complicit in the exploitation and oppression of the local people in the developing nations of the world. This creates a credibility issue.
If we watched WYD in Australia and the Papal visit to Africa, the inclusion of local culture in the liturgy has done a great deal to bring the indigenous people closer to Catholicism, because they see it as the Universal Truth, not the “truth” of the foreigner who goes to mass every Sunday and Monday thru Friday exploits their country and pushes immoral agendas on their society.
A good example was the Holy Father’s reference to condoms in Africa. This whole safe-sex concept is a very European and American concept. These are often the same people who call themselves Catholic. The teachings and actions of these people don’t add up in the mind of the local people. They are inconsistent with what the Catholic Church preaches. The conclusion at which they arrive is that European and American Catholicism is not credible, especially when these same folks coming from other nations manage to sell their agendas to the local politicians or should I say, buy off the local politicians.
In other words, Catholicism has to be consistent in liturgy and daily life. When inconsistencies happen and the first Catholics that indigenous people meet are from the USA or Europe they mistakenly label it the Church of Europe or the Church of the USA.
The Spanish, English, Dutch, Portugese and French did a great deal of harm to the people of the southern hemisphere, while the missionaries were trying to implant the faith. They took advantage of the divisions that existed in these nations to prosper. Yet these people called themselves Catholic or Christian.
There is still a certain reserve for anything in Catholicism that is too European and now too American. The people wonder if the missionaries are really telling the truth or if they are simply trying to absorb them into the culture of the Northern Hemisphere. There is a state of tension there.
Yes, one can make adaptations to the accidens in the liturgy without breaking the rules of Tradition and liturgical law. Keeping the local language is one of them. Introducing classical liturgical music and encouraging the local people to produce wonderful music of their own culture for liturgical use is another. In fact, the blend can be very beautiful, if it is done appropriately. We saw that at WYD in Sydney.
For myself, I don’t think it is fruitful to dwell too much on the imperfections and limitations of the New Mass - they are clear to see, and if we trust in God, and if we are right that the TLM is more pleasing to Him than the New Mass, His Will will in time be done. Cases of clear sacrilege - as with the supersoaker that started this thread - should of course be highlighted and combatted. What is important, keeping our powder dry, is to defend the TLM and ensure that it is available to the maximum possible number of faithful in the widest geographical coverage.
I don’t think that the EF pleases God more than the OF simply because both are the same sacrifice of Calvary.
The supersoaker was not a sacrilege in the theological sense. But it was the dummest idea I have ever seen. Along that line, I might add, that it detracted from the visual solemnity of the liturgical action with Holy Water. I hope it was an isolated event.
If I may suggest one more thing with all due respect, let’s refer to the two forms of the mass by their official and given labels. It’s not the TLM and the NO. They are the EF and the OF. At least, let’s use the same language and say the same thing that the Holy Father says about both forms of the liturgy. Our unity is demonstrated through many avenues. One of them is through unity with Peter. If Peter calls it the EF and OF and says that both are holy, we should also do the same. Communion with Peter is as essential to Catholic Tradition as many other elements of our faith.
Fraternally,
JR
