Old enough to know better...

When I was a little boy, the Mass was in Latin.

I was shorter than the adults, of course, and strained to see the mystery beyond the rail, into the Holy of Holies. The boys who were not much older than myself knew their lines all too well. "I will go to the altar of God, to God who gives joy to my youth."

Even before I entered fifth-grade, and was thus eligible to train for altar service, I knew the responses, following them in my missal. Like the other adults in the assembly, I would join in the responses with the altar servers. When the priest prepared the Gifts at the altar, then turned to us and said, "Orate fratres..." ("Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Father Almighty") all of us knew to respond to him: "Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis..." ("May the Lord receive this Sacrifice from your hands, to the praise and glory of His Name, for our welfare, and that of all His Holy Church.").

At the time just prior to our Communion, the priest turned to us with the Sacred Species and said "Ecce Agnus Dei..." ("Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world"), all of us knew to respond, three times: "Domine, non sum dignus.." ("Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.") Why would we not respond in this way? It was our Communion, not that of the priest.

I remember these things very well, both at the Low Mass and the High Mass. It made no difference.

In recent years, with the official reform of the liturgical books of the Roman church, Catholics of traditional sensibility have been able to avail themselves of an "indult" -- that is, an indulgence, or exception -- which allows a local bishop to permit the celebration of Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei (named for the decree which granted the broad use of the classical missal) was established to implement the terms of this indult.

In his own weblog, "Diary of a Byzantinesque Latin," Shawn Tribe discusses the modifications to the 1962 Missal which are approved by the Commission. He goes on to elaborate a defense of said modifications.

This discussion has also been augmented by the writings of our mutual friend and colleague Pete Vere.

The subject in question has brought about a number of detractors. Many of them are concerned with maintaining the purity of the ancient ritual, and the tradition for which it stands. Shawn's defense of "organic development" is quite sound (including those cases involving the modifications particular to monastic usage) but does not completely silence those who take exception. In their responses, they are not content to object to the modifications approved for official use in 1965 (after the Second Vatican Council ended). They go back to the revisions of the Holy Week Ritual in the mid-1950s by Pope Pius XII. This included, among other things, moving the Easter Vigil from Saturday morning to Saturday night. The result would be more like... oh, a vigil, perhaps?

Inevitably, someone would have to bring up the role in the reform of the liturgy by one Archbishop Annabale Bugnini. The most ardent of traditionalists cite his influence over events, dating back to the Holy Week revisions, using this event as the prelude to the liturgical anarchy that followed. These parties go so far as to point out the undue influence over Pius XII on such matters, even citing Bugnini's alleged ties to Freemasonry. Some go farther still, to the promotion of the "dialogue Mass" by Pius XI in 1940. I have even heard one young man blame Bugnini for liturgical mischief dating back to the mid-1920s (which would be about the time that a previous pontiff introduced the Feast of Christ the King on the last Sunday in October, an innovation left curiously unscathed by the antediluvians in question).

I remember Shawn from the days we both shared a place on e-mail discussion groups devoted to the Old Latin Mass. I was kicked off more than one of them, for the unspeakable crime of having an original thought, and daring to express it to the point of (gasp!) defending it. Many of the virtual angry mob that called for my removal were not even born in 1962. Those of such ilk include the ones who, were I to attempt to respond to the priest from the pews as I did when I was young, would greet me with indignant stares. All of them, no doubt, insist on maintaining the "purity" of the ancient ritual as codified in 1962. None of them, it seems, have a problem with an additional use of the "Confiteor," or confession of sin, immediately before the communion of the faithful, even though this was removed in the 1962 missal.

It is a curious phenomenon among some very devout Catholics, the tendency to play "more-traditional-than-thou." The players fail to appreciate the period between 1958 and 1962, as a time of great transition in Catholic worship, by those who only then learned of the convening of an ecumenical Council, and who could not have predicted the effect it could have had on the Church. They also fail to explain, how a Pope who stood up to the threat of Hitler's takeover of Rome, and whose hobbies included weight-lifting and driving high-performance automobiles along the Italian countryside, could be so easily cowed by a single curial official.

And please, don't tell me it was because Bugnini was a Mason. Those guys in the funny hats can't even scare me!