A question of language

TO the ordinary Catholic-in-the-pew, who
is beginning at last to see the sense behind all the liturgical changes, the public launching of the Latin Mass Society may appear to be a step backward. He may see in it proof that a minority of Catholics is determined to go against the mind of the Church and that those who not so long ago were demanding world-wide uniformity in the language used are now deliberately fostering differences within the country.
This undoubtedly explains why sonic readers of the CATHOLIC HERAID disapprove of any publicity being given to a minority group. They think that it can only further confuse the ordinary people and harm the reform movement in the Church.
We would remind them that these were the very arguments being used against themselves pot so long ago.. Then the plea was that the faithful would be confused by change and that in any case there was no need to tamper with the liturgy.
It is important, therefore, that those who, like the CATHOLIC HERALD, believe that the liturgical reform is the key to the renewal in the Church and that the introduction of the vernacular is, in turn, the key to the reform, should take the right attitude to the new minority. They should not forget that, as recently as two years ago, they themselves were pleading for a hearing too and were rightly distressed when they were opposed.
In this country, the change of heart in a short time has been remarkable. From all parts come reports of the enthusiasm which the liturgical reform has aroused in both priests and people. It is hard not to see the Spirit at work.
Nevertheless, there is a minority which believes that this very enthusiasm endangers something precious which the Latin Mass can preserve and, basing their case on the provisions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, they are campaigning for Masses in Latin.
We believe that their attitude to the vernacular is misguided and that their public association with the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in America, with its exaggerated claims and empty boasts, does nothing to enhance its bonafides. But we feel that it is entitled to a fair hearing. The
CATHOLIC HERALD has given it that and will continue to do so.
The difficulties about the liturgical reforms show that there is still in the Church a widespread tendency to confuse unity with uniformity. There are many people who feel that in the one. true Church there can be only one uniform expression of worship. Even among those who agree with the introduction of the vernacular. there are some.who see it as the independent action of authority rather than the result of the workings of the Holy Spirit in the body of the faithful.
Since the liturgy—the Church's public worship must reflect the needs of the people. we must expect it to change if people's needs change. If the African finds that drums or dancing help him to express his worship of God, he should have them. If the Italians find they can participate better by singing to an orchestral accompaniment there is no reason why they should not have it, provided it remains an accompaniment.
And if a sizeable section of the English people need a Latin Mass to express themselves in, there is no reason, apart from the practical difficulties. why they should be deprived of it. Most of us will feel that it does not represent a legitimate cultural expression of the average Englishman but we are not infallible. There must be freedom for all for legitimate adaptation. Unless we understand this, the whole point of Vatican II will be missed.
But there is one difficulty worth mentioning in the context of the liturgical reforms. It is that the changes themselves— the introduction of the vernacular, the new rubrics, even the eventual reform of the Mass rite itself—may be accepted as the beginning and end of the liturgical renewal, instead of as just some of the means'of achieving it.
It Must be stressed that the renewal will come only when the people begin to see the meaning of the Mass and the other liturgical functions more clearly. when they understand the significance of the structure and the symbolism of the actions, the prayers and even of the materials used. This is the aim of the whole liturgical reform and differences of opinion on the language should be discussed in the light of what it is designed to achieve.