Whenever someone tells me that people didn't understand the Mass that was the norm for centuries, I ask myself whether that was really true. Do we only understand the spoken word? And, in fact, does the spoken word sometimes fail to impart a message? My contention is that the answer to those questions is NO and then YES.
I'll give an example. A friend has just lost her spouse of over 50 years, your brother. You meet her and tears fill both your eyes and then you hug and weep together. Would words in that situation carry a more understandable or loving message? I don't think so. The body has a language of its own and it is often eloquent. In fact, gestures can express more than words, and even babies understand them. Several of my children teach their little ones baby sign language. The little ones learn quickly how to ask for more or say thank or give the sign for drink or cookie. At Mass I sometimes make the Sh gesture with a smile when a child in the pew in front of me is a little challenging. They almost always respond by quieting down.
So, when people tell me nobody knew what was happening at Mass for over a thousand years, I just shake my head. What an arrogant statement! Martin Luther called for the vernacular to make the Mass more accessible to the people, but ironically he did not eliminate the Latin Mass. That was left to our own modern iconoclasts.
Let's look at the Mass from the viewpoint of gestures and movement -- as if it were a dance or being experienced by someone deaf. Is there no understanding? The priest enters the church preceded by the altar boys in a solemn procession. He mounts the steps, places the veiled chalice to the left of center, removes the corporal from the burse which he sets aside, and then unfolds and places the corporal at the center of the altar. He puts the veiled chalice on it and moves to the right and opens the Missal to the readings for the day. Then he returns to the center of the altar, bows, and goes down the steps to begin the prayers at the foot of the altar.
As he says those prayers, does the congregation need to understand the Latin to know that the priest is recognizing his own and the congregation's unworthiness to pray the sacred liturgy? Do you have to understand the Latin Confiteor to join the priest in expressing profound sorrow for your sins? Doesn't everyone understand the gesture of beating one's breast and lamenting, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa?"
The prayers and gestures of recognizing our unworthiness are almost lost in the Novus Ordo. The priest genuflects or makes a bow before the altar, but then immediately climbs the steps and begins. To me it seems almost rude. We are entering the holy of holies. Is some preparation not a necessary element of worship of the God of the universe? Of course penance isn't totally missing. The priest says the revised Confiteor with the congregation. But can anyone really think that our forefathers failed to understand what was happening at the foot of the altar? Hasn't something been lost by eliminating it? And why? Because it didn't fit into the banquet celebration model vs. sacrifice and atonement?
The Kyrie and Gloria follow according to the season. These also are easy to understand without knowing Greek or Latin. It's true that when the masses were illiterate, they did not understand the readings that followed. However, very early in Church history, particularly after the Council of Tours in 813 which mandated that homilies be given in the vernacular, both the Epistle and Gospel were read in the local language. And it's rather silly to think that the priest never explained the meaning of the different elements of the Mass. When my husband and I teamed for Engaged Encounter, some priests would do a teaching Mass, pausing to explain the Mass out of consideration for those entering into mixed marriages. Did ancient priests not catechize their congregations about the Mass? Of course they explained things! But the gestures did a lot of the teaching. Don't the profound bows and frequent genuflections transmit and emphasize the holiness of God?
Often during the Offertory of the Mass, I set my missal aside and unite my meager offering to the host on the paten. During the pouring of the wine and water into the chalice, I beg Jesus to unite me to Himself and I ask that my offering be in the chalice of consolation offered by the angel to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Can anyone miss the meaning of the priest lifting up the offerings to God? And then bringing his hands down over the sacrifice. He's saying in gestures, "Dear God, we've brought our offerings to you. We know they aren't worthy, but we beg You to make them a worthy sacrifice by uniting them to the sacrifice of Your Son Jesus."
To imagine that no one for centuries had any idea what was happening at Mass is so ridiculous it flies in the face of reality. I can only think one thing: we are witnessing the arrogance of the modern mind. There often seems to be an attitude that we are much smarter and holier than those idiots in the "dark" ages, you know -- like the illiterate Joan of Arc and the English recusants who continued to practice the faith and risk their lives for the Mass.
The term "hocus pocus" in a magician's act, came about to ridicule the words of consecration. Obviously, even non-believers understood what Catholics were doing although they ridiculed it. The elevation at the Consecration transmits a message more graphically than the words themselves. In fact, gestures offer significant meaning that often pierces the heart more deeply than words.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. The deaf, the illiterate, the childlike -- all of them have no problem understanding the Traditional Latin Mass. It's obvious that it's not a celebration of self, but an offering to God. Can one say the same about the clarity of the average Novus Ordo?
No comments:
Post a Comment