Hi Muslimwoman —
InLove — Before anything else it's worth noting an anti-Christian agenda at the highest levels of the BBC (a fact they themselves have been obliged to acknowledge).
Dauer's comments are by far the most balanced here, and put the BBC to shame. The point raised by them highlights one line, in one liturgy, said once a year. If the Jews are offended, I have little doubt it would be removed, what it says is hardly 'central' to the Christian mysteries.
The BBC are good at this sort of thing. Remember they went through 90 minutes of a speech to draw out one comment, and then sent that one out-of-context extract to every Islamic news agency asking for a response. Hardly fair or responsible — a nun was shot dead on account of it.
+++
Allow me a personal reflection on the point at hand:
I feel it neither a backward nor forward step — rather the recovery of a forgotten treasure of Catholicism, so that's no bad thing — the Pope is simply giving back something that was wrongly denied.
The issue of 'understanding' depends whether one's understanding is entirely rationally based. many Catholics 'understand' the Mass said in the vernacular, but whether they understand what that means, is another matter (I doubt it, they are not theologians) — but they do understand what it signifies. For some centuries the mass in Latin did not seem to debarr the common folk — it seems that today, unless we are served everything on a plate with no necessity to think for ourselves, it's just too much hard work...
Curiously, I read most of the contrary comments on this thread as ignorant of the reality, and therefore reactionary, especially when many aren't Catholic, and haven't even bothered (like Dauer) to understand the issue. The BBC insinuate triumphalism, and everyone takes the bait.
Lastly, on the Mass itself —
As I have indicated, the Mass is a Rite, and a Mystery, two things that modernism and relativism have always sought to do away with.
The modern Catholic mass is in some danger of becoming a celebration of self, as exemplified by the 'happy-clappy' celebration which too often implies to others 'hey look, we're Christians, isn't it fantastic!' — something that is in fact utterly triumphalist way beyond the Latin Rite. I doubt the Apostles were 'happy-clappy' at the Last Supper, so I'm not sure where that example came from.
The symbolism of the Mass is dreadful, and shows just how bankrupt the modernising element had become.
In the Old Style the priest and people faced the Tabernacle, all equal before God, the priest simply fulfilling a function on behalf of the community, of which he is a member. The whole Mass is an approach to 'sliding back the veil' and opening the Tabernacle itself was a symbol of the rolling away of the stone.
Now the priest faces the people, and inescapably becomes the star of the show, people look at him, not the tabernacle. In some churches the tabernacle does not even occupy the central place behind the altar. God is relegated to 'offstage' where in the Latin Rite God is very much 'center stage'.
The Mass has been said in Latin for some 1500+ years. It's been said in the vernacular for some 40-odd. It's got a long way to go, and a lot of improvements to make, before it comes anywhere near trhe Mystery and majesty of the Latin Rite — but if done properly, and with due reverence, it will stand alongside the other.
That was what Vatican II wanted, after all.
Thomas
