Fr Martin Sirju

I now address the final part of this three-part installment by looking at sacred scripture. Let me first of all re-iterate something that I might not have stated too clearly before.

There is only one normative (“ordinary”) version of the Mass and it is that of Paul VI promulgated in 1970.

This version is in Latin and Paul VI allowed translations into the vernacular and adaptations to culture and needs of the people. As Cardinal Montini (later Paul VI) had noted during the Council (pardon the non-inclusive language): “The liturgy was instituted for men and not men for the liturgy.”

Let me now turn to the aspect of scripture. The classic text lending support to liturgical variety is Acts 2: 1-13 (the Pentecost event), especially “we hear them preaching in our own languages about the marvels” of God. The Greek word used is dialectos or “dialect”.

So the Greek word conveys a meaning broader than “language”. This was how the early Church understood it before there was any semblance of a rite. Household leaders presided over the Eucharist in a free-hand style, most likely in Greek, before a fixed rite began to take shape.

Yet even before these rites became fixed there were some common features. Paul mentions some of these in 1 Cor 11: 23-26 regarding the tradition he received concerning the breaking of bread and sharing the cup.

Furthermore, Paul founded many communities, as can be seen by the letters in the New Testament attributed to him. Each of these communities would have celebrated the Mass in Greek together with their local customs and traditions.

Karl Rahner, in a famous article entitled “Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II”, sees in the post-Vatican II Church a missionary epoch similar but potentially wider than the one started by Paul: “[T]heologically speaking, there are three great epochs in Church history, of which the third has just begun and made itself observable officially at Vatican II. First, the short period of Jewish Christianity. Second, the period of the Church in a distinct cultural region, namely, that of Hellenism and of European culture and civilisation. Third, the period in which the sphere of the Church’s life is in fact the entire world.”

It is the third one that should interest us most because for the first time in Church history the Church is poised to become a “world Church”. It is a huge and ongoing process in which the Gospel is to enrich world cultures and be enriched by its encounter with them.

This process of proclaiming the gospel in one’s native tongue has been the hallmark of Christianity vis-à-vis Islam throughout the centuries. Senegalese professor of World Mission Studies at Yale University, Lamin Senneh calls it translatability.

Peter Phan writes: “In contrast to Islam, which remains entrenched in its birthplace of Mecca and Medina and retains the exclusive authority of Quranic Arabic, Christianity, as Sanneh points out, ceased from its very beginnings to worship in the language of its founder and recorded his words and deeds in Koine Greek. For Sanneh, translation, then as now, is the privileged medium whereby Christianity is interpreted and appropriated to fit local culture.” (Commonweal Jan 12, 07)

This translatability of Christianity, I believe, argues against the necessity of using Latin as the language of the liturgy at international gatherings. It can be used but it need not be because I think there is a more creative alternative in keeping with our liturgical tradition, which is not one of uniformity but diversity. This is something I saw while on sabbatical.

Every year Los Angeles boasts of an International Religious Education Congress with thousands of people attending from all over America as well as other parts of the world.

At the final liturgy there were people of many languages present. The closing liturgy was well planned and executed. It employed the use of several languages – English, Spanish, Vietnamese, an African dialect as well as a Native American one.

The penitential rite involved the purifying of the worship space by calling down the Great Spirit and the intercession of the ancestors. It used Native American incense, colourful clothing, eagle headgear, drums, dance and chants.

We did not know what it meant but we could feel what it was doing and understand in a non-verbal way. God was addressed as “Grandfather”, a hallowed title among Native Americans. We joined in the singing, and even when it was not in English, we could pick up most of the chorus.

The homilist spoke in Spanish and English and songs were given English translations on an electronic screen. I feel if a similar effort were made at international gatherings the liturgies would be more moving and more reflective of the World Church which is still in the early evolutionary stages. I therefore see the future marked with some danger, yes, but full of exciting possibilities.

In conclusion, let me make a few remarks concerning the motu propio of Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum. As was mentioned in last week’s editorial, I think the Pope’s move is more reconciliatory than anything else. Peter, above all, is a sign of unity of the flock and he must have a care for those who are not in communion with Rome as well as those within the fold who still treasure the Tridentine Mass.

Secondly, I think as part of the compromise I mentioned in my first article, the Latin tradition should not be entirely lost. I do not mean by this a full-scale resurrection of the Mass of Pius V in these times.

I mean rather some attempts could be made to highlight the great tradition of Latin music which existed in the Church for centuries e.g. through Church concerts. I do not think the tradition of Gregorian chant should be forgotten.

I see no reason why from time to time the Sanctus or Agnus Dei, for example, cannot be sung in Latin. But to revive the Latin Mass tradition as a parallel rite in the Church would be, I think, counter-productive and against the intention of the Council.

We are grateful for the past but it is time to chart a bright course for the future.