Our Differences Make Us One

As weird as it sounds, I have been thinking about language and its relation to liturgy a lot over the past few months. While this coincides with the recent documents regarding a new translation of the English Mass, it’s not the cause of this musing but presents an interesting backdrop to the situation. About two weeks ago I attended a Mass back at my parent’s home parish, St. Edward. During the Mass, I was a little shocked to hear them sing several of the Mass parts in Latin. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a fan of the Latin Mass and that I think a Latin form of the Mass should have died out long ago with you know the Latin language seeing as how no one has spoken it in everyday life for over a millennium. However it wasn’t the Latin that upset me the most it was the explanation given the priest (let me make it clear quickly that the priest presiding the Mass and offering the explanation was not Fr. Steve, Fr. Joe, or Fr. Avelino and Fr. Loc was not there yet so use the process of elimination to figure it out if you really want to know). He offered the explanation that Vatican II stated the faithful should have a working "Church" knowledge of Latin despite the fact that Mass is now celebrated primarily in the vernacular. He then went on to state something to the effect that with "all the different languages we have in the community" it’s important to have one that we can all have in common. Let me first refute his explanation then offer my own reflection on multicultural liturgy. The first part of his explanation may at first appear to be the more legitimate of the two as he cites Vatican II. However that is not what Vatican II said at all. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, does state that "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (36.1) However this statement was intended to mean that the official texts of the rites were to be kept in Latin and all translations into various other languages be done from the Latin. This prevents, for example, the texts from being translated into Spanish then into English from the Spanish translations. The text then goes on to state that using the mother tongue (or vernacular) is of great advantage as it allows the people to participate more actively and better understand the liturgy. (36.2-4) No where does it say that the people of the Church should retain a working "Church" knowledge of Latin, in fact it says quite the opposite: that the reason for the vernacular is so many people don’t understand Latin. It basically implies that using Latin discourages active participation as although the people may be able to memorize the Latin words, they may (and probably) don’t know what they mean. The second part of his explanation hardly needs much refutation after looking at why his first argument was ill-based. It’s not hard to recognize that using a language that no one understands is much worse than using a multilingual setting in which everyone offers some of her own culture and receives some of another’s culture. All this is especially interesting in light of the new English translation of the Mass sent down by Rome as it uses a more literal word-word translation of the Latin rather than an American-English translation. The reasoning is that Rome (really, Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict--neither of whom speak English as their primary language) feel that the new translation better reflects the theological and catechetical mysteries being communicated. However, to any English speaking American the syntax and diction of the new translations come off as awkward and overly-regal and seemingly does not necessarily promote better or fuller active participation on the part of the assembly or the presider. I feel that if the translation is to be kept in the Spirit of Vatican II they would have consulted the American Bishops more in the process (or at least not have disregarded their suggestions as they did throughout this process).

Now that I have offered my rebuttal to Fr. (fill in the blank)'s comments about Latin in the liturgy, I have to praise him for his homily this past Saturday evening. Going into it I was not expecting much after being so put off by comments about Latin, he offered a beautiful reflection on who all are equal before God and even challenged those in the assembly on an issue that many would find "too sticky" to approach in Orange County. Several weeks after my first encounter with the Latin being sung at St. Edward’s I was forwarded an article in which my friend (and one of my mentors) John Flaherty quoted about the importance of multicultural liturgical music in today’s Church--particularly in the multicultural setting of Southern California. The article stated: "'By our very tradition,'" [Flaherty] said, 'liturgy is based on inculturation. We all surrender a little of what we hold onto so we can become a new creation. It especially applies to those in power. The only way the stranger (the disempowered) is welcomed in our midst is if we stand up and let them have a seat. It's up to the people in power to do the welcoming. When I have to do anything on an archdiocesan scale, I think of language and culture,’ said Flaherty, who believes everyone brings their cultural experiences to the Eucharistic table. Multilingual hymns and multicultural musical rhythms and instrumentation, he asserted, have the ultimate goal of creating a new culture where all ethnicities are woven together in one body of worship." I had this in the back of my mind as the priest eloquently preached on how all are foreigners in the Church, as there is not one chose people but that all were welcome in the Church. He went on to point out that throughout the Gospel, Jesus welcomed strangers, foreigners, and the disempowered to his table. It is in this spirit, he asserted (and I full heartedly agree), that all are welcome to the table at Mass--that all are invited to celebrate the Eucharist as One Body. He even went as far as to challenge the assembly that regardless of their political and legal views on immigration and undocumented immigrants, that they must welcome them into the community and at the Eucharistic table in order to call themselves Catholic. I don’t mean to pontificate on this subject by any means (no pun intended, honestly) but I found it odd extremely odd that such a homily would come from the same priest who just two months earlier had stated why the Latin rights were better than a multilingual setting. Perhaps he will reflect on his own words and realize that he was in many ways saying the same thing John was saying when he stated that what the makes us one is that we all offer a little bit of ourselves and accept the others at the Eucharistic table.