By now all have heard of the letter from the Bishop of Charlotte, Bishop Michael Martin, addressed to his priests that would effectively drive the Mass of the Ages from his diocese. Rorate Caeli published the letter on their site; if you click on this link, the letter will open in another window on your computer.
I read the letter. It is not only an act of disobedience to Quo Primum, issued by Pope St Pius V, but also to the Vatican II document on the liturgy called Sacrosanctum Concilium, even though Martin pays it copious lip service throughout his screed. He also claims adherence to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, issued in 2002 by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and distributed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Such adherence is rather selective, shall we say.
In summary, Martin's letter is a combination of rank dissidence and a plain old temper tantrum. Most of my blogging colleagues have observed that the provisions against the Tradtional Latin Mass are both petulant and draconian. After reading it myself, I agree.
However, I suspect that Martin et al intended us to perceive that. I understand that Martin has backpeddled on that, claiming that it was merely a draft that "leaked". I put the word "leaked" in quotes because I suspect we were supposed to think that the "leak" was not desired on their part when in reality it was. I think this "leaked" letter was a trial balloon. They wanted to see how we reacted to it.
The recently-deceased Francis tried the trial-balloon strategy in the past with his unauthorized "declaration" that the death penalty is "inadmissible". He attempted to insinuate the idea that Church teaching could be changed. For those of a faith life compromised by liberalism, it worked.
The trial-balloon gambit has another goal. Martin's letter detailed a scorched-earth stance towards the Latin Mass. After the outcry that is still occurring, they very quickly withdrew the letter. That withdrawal was so quick, in my opinion, to warrant some suspicion. The progressives might wait a while, but then try another tactic. They will likely hope that we won't be nearly as alarmed as we are now about the letter, since the scope of this tactic won't seem to us to be as threatening as was the letter. Then, again waiting a while, another ever-so-slight restriction will be placed on the TLM. Now the question is, will we be alert to such subtleties?
Even if Martin's letter is simply a ruse, I think it's helpful to see just how far it deviates from the Faith. The fact that such pig-slop can ooze from a Catholic chancery is an abysmal disgrace. I spent quite a few hours going over it and comparing it with the documents that I cited in the first paragraph. So many errors, so little time! I won't have the time to elaborate on each one but will highlight some key ones. The reader of this post may wish to open the documents that I cited above, to have them handy in different windows as I refer to them. I find it quite humorous to note Martin's request from his letter: "I ask all of us to reacquaint ourselves with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” which is of utmost importance and from which so much of the Church’s liturgical life flows." He should do the same.
Let's pay some attention to the section of his letter entitled "The Latin Language". His very first sentence is "One of the desires expressed by the Second Vatican Council was to embrace the vernacular language in our liturgies as an intelligible vessel through which the faithful may better comprehend the mysteries of the faith." Oh, really? Let's go to paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. These two statements seem rather contradictory, don't you think? Even if you read the rest of the paragraph, you see that the vernacular is only permitted in certain parts, and that Latin is never eliminated.
In the next paragraph of the letter we read: "I cannot comprehend why a vocal minority of the faithful who themselves admit to not understanding Latin would advocate a revival of the Latin language within our diocese, rendering the liturgy unintelligible for all but a few of our people. Moreover, as a diocese that is comprised of so many immigrants, we would be imposing on them an even greater burden. Not only are they trying to learn English and assimilate into our culture, but then they have another language imposed upon them that is foreign." Then the next paragraph: "However, there are several places that are introducing Latin Mass responses, Latin Ordinary chants, Latin antiphons, and even the Memorial Acclamation and Our Father. Latin polyphony and motets are being sung at the Offertory and during the distribution of Holy Communion."
The first sentence in his quote is simply a petulant whining. Simply because he "cannot comprehend" the desire to retain our Latin patrimony doesn't mean that the use of Latin in Mass is without merit. By the way, read the entire section. In the first paragraph he states the imporance of "sensitivity on the part of pastoral leaders." How is he displaying that by dismissively calling attendees of the Traditional Latin Mass "a vocal minority"?
I'd also like to evaluate what he wrote in light of paragraph 41 from the GIRM: "All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful. Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies." So Martin should take note that the presence of Latin in the Mass may be beneficial to immigrants. Many of those immigrants are Spanish speakers. Spanish, as many know, is a language directly descended from Latin.
In the section called "Cross-Pollination of the Liturgical Rites" we read: "While every priest is required by Canon Law to make prayerful and suitable preparation and thanksgiving before and after Mass, the vesting prayers are no longer part of the Roman Missal." So what? The priest vests in the sacristy out of sight of the people, so why does Martin see a problem here? Is he simply trying to downplay the need for piety on the part of the priest?
Further down, Martin balks at the recitation of the prayer to St. Michael: "After the dismissal, there are some churches that have reintroduced the communal recitation of the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel. This prayer is no longer prescribed in the Novus Ordo Missae. While the intention to defeat the power of Satan and other evil spirits is commendable, its recitation at the end of Mass can lead to the unfortunate doubt that the Eucharistic liturgy is somehow insufficient to bring about the scattering of evil and motivation to do good." The original introduction of the prayer to St. Michael (and other prayers) was done at the explicit order of Pope Leo XIII. Would Martin dared to speak so derisively to him and dismissed Leo's care for souls?
I may well continue my expose of this letter and its all-too-many errors later. This situation is still ongoing so further discussion will be relevant. I invite my readers to do their own examinations and relay their own observations in the comment box. I regret that you probably won't have to work too hard to find some.
By the way.. If you'd like to read an excellent book on the Mass, I'd suggest "The Catholic Mass: Steps to Restore the Centrality of God in the Liturgy" by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. I got it from Sophia Press, but it might be available elsewhere, too.