018: How We Ended Up Here—Latin, Vestments, Reverence, and More

Preface: I wrote the bulk of this while on the road and chasing a high-strung two year old who has decided to go nocturnal (though also active during the day). If the quality of this piece lacks, I apologize. That said…on a serious note, I feel that the topic covered here is an important one for the church.

Since as early as the second century, the Catholic Church has relied on Latin as their go-to language. It was standardized in the 300’s, and that practice did not change much for roughly 1600 years. For those who are fortunate enough to have attended a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)—especially a high mass—or even a highly reverent Novus Ordo mass, it will be clear why so many faithful appreciate the associated beauty. Chants for different parts of mass, such as the Gloria or the Agnes Dei, are not only beautiful but connect us with traditions carried forward from many generations prior.

It was while I was still a neophyte (a first year fully confirmed Catholic that I was lucky enough to attend a handful of TLM’s in Baltimore, MD at St. Alphonsus. When I say that it was unforgettable, it truly was. I would imagine that even a non-religious person would have to appreciate the reverence shown.

Vestments that the clergy don have for ages contained great symbolism. In the midst of these blogs, we have discussed the mozetta that Pope Leo XIV wore when he introduced himself. Some of the crucifixes he has carried during various ceremonies have contained relics of some of Catholicism’s most revered saints. Many members of the clergy have opportunities to do similar things in parishes throughout the country, and many do.

While there has been an acceptance of taking communion by hand in a more casual manner than in the years, decades, centuries past, many still practice the sacrament of communion in a traditional manner. It has become acceptable to receive from a standing position and on the hand, with the parishioner’s hand making the shape of a throne. However, it was custom for many centuries to receive communion on the tongue while in a knelt position. Some still do this, and many at least receive on the tongue after a bow before the host (my method, actually).

Altar rails facilitated a kneeling position for communion in the past and have made a notable comeback in recent years.

A common way to end mass has frequently been a recital of the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel; this practice was standard from 1886 to the Second Vatican Council. It had made a resurgence in recent years as well; my primary parish more often than not includes it.

I say all that to help set the stages for how we as a faith arrived at the actions coming from a one Bishop Michael Martin of the Charlotte Diocese. I can confidently say that he has become the most polarizing of bishops today.

Earlier in the week (as I write this), on the 23rd of May, Bishop Martin wrote a letter detailing his intentions to practicably ban the Traditional Latin Mass—save for one chapel in Mooresville, NC which is yet to be named (though it appears to be a glorified doublewide).

This is far from all of it, however. In a leaked letter from Bishop Martin, there have been further condemnations and discouragement of traditional vestments, vesting prayers, altar rails for communion (I believe he goes further to call the act of kneeling for communion “absurd”), as well as the use of Latin even in a Novus Ordo format. So…most of the customs which would make Catholic masses recognizable, short of the unique and rooted nature of the Holy Eucharist itself. (link the letter from the Bishop). I particularly found it remarkable that he wanted to prevent women who were serving in the mass from veiling.

There was some speculation that this might be a fraudulent accusation, but numerous reliable sources at this point confirm the unreleased letter’s legitimacy.

So…how did we get here? What led to one dictatorial bishop acting like a little jerk—mind you, in a diocese which was thriving when he took over?

Well, we know that Latin and the Traditional Latin Mass format had been the standard for many centuries. The Second Vatican Council created the option for some flexibility around mass. What Vatican II did and how some have conveniently interpreted it over the years are two very different things. I draw your attention, specifically in this case, to a few points made in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In 36.1, the text verbatim states, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” 36.2 provides leniency to the rigidity of that in saying  “since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.”

Before going further, I will add here that there have been liturgical and canonical atrocities committed “in the spirit of Vatican II.” My guess is that this is what Pope Paul VI meant when he said “the smoke of Satan has entered the church.” I fully acknowledge that his meaning for this quote is up for debate. That said, the spirit of Vatican II was to try to find a balance to make the faith more approachable without significantly sacrificing what makes Catholicism…Catholicism. I’ll let others be the judge on how that has gone.

While many modernist clergy continued to try to move us away from the traditions of our past, Pope Benedict XVI had established a balance which recognized both camps—those who wanted a more modern Novus Ordo, as well as those who wanted to celebrate with the 1962 Missal. His follow-on letter to bishops in 2007 reaffirmed this call for unity. In Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI makes it quite clear when he says, “The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

“It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.”

I will add, as someone who was blessed enough to attend a Pope Benedict XVI mass in New York City, Benedict was known for wearing traditional vestments. I will reiterate that, while one is free to support a more modest look of vestments for the clergy, it should also not go unrecognized that all of the symbols on more traditional vestments mean something. It isn’t just to look lavish, as the late Pope Francis accused the “little monster” conservative priests of doing. It is keeping longstanding traditions alive, which is something we should value.

Anyway, we had found a relatively peaceful equilibrium under Pope Benedict XVI between using the 1962 Roman Missal and using the one we know today. That operating status changed drastically under Pope Francis, when he released Traditionis Custodes. Every line in this letter is almost painful to read for a traditionally minded Catholic, and I am not one to sugarcoat many things. I encourage people to follow the link and read it, but in essence, it reverses Summorum Panctificum. He argued that the goal of unity had failed, and he declared that the 1962 Missal was an inferior version to the Novus Ordo which we more widely celebrate today. Pope Francis did make an exception if permission was granted from a diocesan bishop. Furthermore, priests wishing to celebrate the TLM would required Vatican approval if they were ordained after July 16, 2021. Why this man seemingly had the disdain he did for young conservative priests is beyond me, but evidence points to as much.

That leads us to Bishop Martin of Charlotte. As stated earlier, the Bishop all but eliminated the TLM in his diocese—effective this July. The aforementioned approved chapel has been barred from doing anything other than conducting the TLM—no marriages, baptisms, confirmations, etc. This was expressed most clearly in his letter which claimed to implement the spirit of Traditionis Custodes.

As mentioned before, he planned on expanding massively upon that restriction, which was made apparent in an unreleased letter leaked to the public from multiple sources that most would deem reliable. The contents of that letter can be found here.

My Take:

My goal in using this blog is not to create divisiveness among Catholics and other readers, but rather to inform and educate. My biases will inevitably come through, but I primarily just want to share information and give some encouraging thoughts about the faith.

That being said, the late Pope Benedict XVI had accurately sensed something the church greatly needed. Furthermore, he solved the issue. Having been a Catholic for now four popes, I can say that we did not have animosity for each other over liturgical preferences during the Benedict years. Some preferred more reverence, some preferred a more modern approach. We respected each other.

The late Pope Francis made a claim that those clinging to the TLM also were interested in pushing rigid ideologies, which is part of why he wanted to reduce its influence. While I can respect that the trad community has some absolute yahoos in it, so does the modernist community. My issue with the approach Francis had was that his intention to squash the push of ideology only seemed to go in one direction. Bishop Barron has often pointed out, as an example, that his demeaning remarks about the young conservative members of the clergy were extremely discouraging. One can read my previous blogs and see that I will gladly point out where I think Francis did great things. Liturgical trends will never be on that list in my lens.

Let me also quickly address the argument that there is simply not demand for the Latin mass. This is a bad-faith argument. I personally do not attend Latin mass. The reason? I don’t have access to a Latin mass. Would I attend one on a frequent basis if it were available? Absolutely. I am not alone either. Most young practicing Catholics I know (say, less than 40) are highly interested in the idea. We simply don’t have access. So don’t just eliminate access and then make a pathetic argument that there isn’t interest. This is complete balderdash. All that said, I am not anti-Novus Ordo. I wish no detriment to that structure. If it was good enough for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it is good enough for me.

As we have done before, we desperately need to find a way to accommodate traditionally minded Catholics and modernist Catholics. I know it can be done, as it was done before. What Bishop Martin is doing is the antithesis of it, and I would venture to say that he is not ignorant to this.

While he rants against the use of Latin, The Vatican has been releasing videos on the regular helping Catholics sing in Latin with the pope. What encourages me is that these videos have begun since Pope Leo XIV has become pope. He seems to have an appreciation for tradition. Even if I find a disagreement with him here and there, I think he wants to find a way to make this work for everyone. I hope and pray that I am right, but he seems like a good man who wants to do right by his Catholic faithful.

With that, I’ll leave the readers who made it this far with this.

“One who learns to believe, also learns to kneel, and a faith and a liturgy that no longer knows about kneeling would be unhealthy in a central point. Where this gesture has been lost, we must learn it again, to remain with our prayer in the communion of the Apostles and martyrs, in the communions of the whole cosmos, in the unity with Jesus Christ himself.” –Pope Benedict XVI.