…can I do two substantive posts in 23 minutes, at which point I will switch of the wireless antenna on my computer and get to work on other things?

First, I feel as if I need to come clean about my feelings on the whole Tridentine thing – new readers might be getting the wrong impression, not that it matters what I think anyway.

The Catholic Mass has never been carved in stone, and there are number of different rites that have been and are used within the Roman Catholic Church. The liturgy of the Roman Rite itself has developed and changed over time, yes even after the Pius V missal. The question has always been…how does that change come about? In some cases it has come from the "top" down, but for the most part development of the liturgy has been "organic" – an almost indefinable mix of local usage working its way into more universal practice, sometimes back out again, and eventually confirmed by some sort of decree or publication of ritual books and so on.

This is simply the way it’s been, it’s interesting, even as it somewhat mysterious – mysterious in that, we can talk about "organic" but someone, somewhere had to make a decision to start doing something for some reason – there are issues of human choice and culture involved. Perhaps someone more expert than I can explain. Perhaps it might be useful to compare it to the changes that flowed from the Second Vatican Council, which were unusual in the context of the history of liturgy in that they were almost all instituted from the top down.

It is interesting to think about for those of us who assume that the "new" church is all about the people and the "old" church was all about authoritarianism. The pattern of Catholic spiritual practices through history, including liturgical and paraliturgical practices and devotion has very much been a bottom-up type of process, with bishops and the Bishop of Rome functioning as gatekeepers, sifters and judges of what is consistent with the Christian faith and what is not.

Anyway, once again, I’ve gotten sidetracked.

I am a Novus Ordo baby, having not been taken to Mass until I was 5 – that would be 1965. I think I have been two exactly two Tridentine Masses in my life – one in Cincinnati, I think, and my mother’s funeral Mass. I’ve been to a couple of Eastern Rite liturgies – one Ukrainian and one Byzantine. One Russian Orthodox liturgy – in a tiny Russian Orthodox monastery, with its onion dome rising above the strawberry fields outside of Plant City, Florida. That was an experience. A good one, but an experience!

There is an indult Mass here in Fort Wayne (as well as an SSPX chapel, which is clear evidence, if you needed any, that the Mass is not the only issue with the SSPX. The indult Mass is every week, in a centrally located parish, at a convenient time – but they still have their own chapel because…there’s more to it for them than the Mass), but I don’t go, nor do I have a desire to go. Saying that is a risk because frankly, I’m opening myself up to emails filled with statements like "The Mass of the Ages was good enough for St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Therese…it’s not good enough for you?" Etc. That’s not what I’m saying. I am quite content going to a Novus Ordo Mass in English – the only things that bother me on a regular basis are the music and the extemporaneous stylings of priests and others. If we lived close to any kind of monastic foundation, once my children got a little older and more controllable, I’d probably be there more often than not.

But my interest in all of these recent rumblings is strong, and here’s why:

1) There is the issue of truth. The status of the Tridentine Mass is the subject of much discussion, but the fact is, if it wasn’t "suppressed" – then it shouldn’t be suppressed.  I don’t think there are hordes of folks yearning for this, and that is really not the point. The point is aligning the way the Church lives and prays with what’s really on the books and the real canonical status.

2) Too many Catholic liturgists have done their work over the past thirty years, happily, with no reference to the past at all. They have been quite busy dreaming up new pardigms of liturgy for a new people in a new spirit, and they need to be reigned in. To put it bluntly: I am not interested in the new paradigm someone dreamed up in graduate school, I am not interested in your individual stylings and creations and I am especially not interested in your recreation of the liturgy every week. I am really not interested. Sorry about that. The focus needs to be redirected, the reference points shifted. "Freeing" the Tridentine Mass, sends a message. This way…not that.

The Tridentine issue aside, I am all for the Latin, chant,  and all for ad orientem, when possible.

Total Latin Novus Ordo Masses or just liberal sprinklings? Both. I would simply like to see more and more Latin used in Catholic Masses again, aside from the question of history and linking us to tradition,  because it symbolizes, powerfully, the universality of this Church, which is the point – not to celebrate our uniqueness, but to celebrate our unity, as one Body. I went to a Mass once where seven – I am not kidding – SEVEN  – different languages were used. It made not a lick of sense to me, and I sat there the whole time thinking, "Wouldn’t it make more sense to do it in…Latin? Then we could all be lost together?"

And here’s the thing. "Oh…the vernacular. It needs to all be in the vernacular so that the people can understand and really enter into the experience."

Here’s an experiment. Which you can’t do because you can’t do this kind of thing during Mass, but anyway.

After the Opening Prayer (the prayer the priest says at the end of the Opening Rite – after the Penetential Rite and the Gloria) – turn to the person next to you and ask, "What did he just say?"

Will they be able to tell you? Would you be able to tell them?

I don’t have time (Because I’ve already gone over my 24 minutes) to engage in a full discourse on "full and active participation", but while I am fairly certain that praying the rosary while silent things are going on up at the altar does not exactly meet that ideal (and I’m sure we’ll have people arguing about that, so go ahead if you must)…this idea that because the Mass is in the vernacular, everyone is really fully engaged and getting it all the time is just wrong. You know that from your own internal disposition, as do I.

What would more Latin bring to the mix? A tie with tradition. Universality. A sense of a different experience that demands a bit more of us. An obstacle to the temptation for a priest to ad lib. Not bad. I’d take it.

And ad orientem has been discussed here as well. I think it is vital to talk about this honestly, without political shiverings. First, it’s not unique to the Catholic world. High Church Anglicans and, I believe some High Church Lutherans use it.

Secondly, one of the worst, most damaging features of the post-Vatican II reforms has been putting the priest at the absolute center of attention – as a personality – so that our participation is essentially a response to him.  Ad orientem disrupts this dynamic, for the benefit of all, including the priest, I would think. I told you about going to Mass last summer in Knoxville, in which the priest, as he prayed from the presider’s chair, turned just a bit – about a 45 degree angle, to face the same direction as the congregation. That slight shift made a rather startling difference in tone.

And so it is for chant – aside from the decrees, desires and statements of the Church on this, the "song" motif of Catholic worship, with its varied musical styles, stop-and-go rythym, up-and-down melodies functions as a disruption, I’m coming to believe. But that’s another matter, much discussed.

My hope (vain?) is that in the coming weeks, months, and years, the discussion about this could happen reasonably. Without one side screaming, "You just want to take us back to pre-Vatican II days of pay, pray and obey!" and the other screaming, "You lose, hippies!"

Think so?