MetaCatholic

Iyov draws attention to the question of anti-Semitism surrounding the re-introduction of the Tridentine Mass, in a balanced post on the topic. He concludes that he “very much doubt[s] that the reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass will usher in a new era of Catholic antisemitism.” In that judgement I think he is right. He is right also to note in passing that some of those most associated with the preservation of this rite are virulently anti-Semitic. That, however, seems more to do, I think, with a general extreme right-wing position in which both the old Mass and old Fascism sit very comfortably together.

In this case, I am suspicious that the scholar quoted is the Jesuit liturgist Keith Pecklers. (NB What’s the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.) It seems (though I may be misjudging it) a case of playing the man and not the ball. Pecklers would, I think, rightly object on liturgical grounds to the Tridentine Rite, as an awful mess and a historical accident. But that argument won’t wear with Rome, so he has rolled out the “is it good for the Jews?” question that Iyov makes fun of. I don’t think it helps to raise the spectre of anti-Semitism as a replacement for other arguments which have failed.

Iyov has some positive things to say about the Tridentine Rite which I largely agree with. But whatever its historical merits, re-introducing it is a backward step. At best, it is a kind of romantic nostalgia, at worst it is a form of liturgical docetism.

What does it say about the incarnation, what does it say about the capacity of the modern world to be re-created by God, if the langauge(s) we speak are judged unfit for prayer and worship? As Gregory Nazianzus noted long ago: “What he did not assume, he could not heal.” If English, French, Russian, Chinese and the rest can’t sufficiently articulate the words of God’s people, then Christ remains at a distance from our own cultures, capable only of transforming them from without and not from within.

Some modern liturgical English is trite. Modern non-liturgical English in extemporary prayer sometimes reaches the apotheosis of triteness and inarticulateness. And I really would just be meaning that. “Lord” is meant to be more than an equivalent of “er” and “um” as the pray-er works out what to say next. But however sparse and taut it may need to be, modern English is capable of poetic transcendence from within its native culture.

There is a good argument for Arabic in Islam, and for Hebrew in Judaism, and however different the modern is from the old, these are still (or again) living languages, which are also the language of their respective scriptures. (And neither have the same understanding of divine immanence refracted through the Incarnation.) Latin is neither a living language, nor the language of the scriptures, but itself bears witness to that need for a culture to address God from within its own language and culture, translating the scriptures and prayers it has inherited, and developing the latter accordingly.

When this was first done in English, it not only produced a rich inheritance, but it shaped the language and the culture. The era of that first translation and re-articulation has now largely passed (but see, e.g. this post by Suzanne McCarthy). Reclaiming contemporary English (and other languages) for both scripture and prayer is fundamental to the church’s mission. If we cannot express transcendence in contemporary garb, if we cannot speak to and of God in the language we speak to our neighbours, then we and our culture are truly lost.