Was Latin being promoted or Spanish being demoted? Hard to imagine him saying the same about an English Mass in Mexico.

Regardless of the context, it's interesting to see a non-Catholic recognize the benefit of Latin as a universal language.

Let's all point some fingers, why don't we? I'm pretty sure none of us here have ever been divorced or had a drug problem. I bet none of us are gluttons or gossips either.

Let's all point some fingers, why don't we? I'm pretty sure none of us here have ever been divorced or had a drug problem. I bet none of us are gluttons or gossips either.

I don't repeat gossip, so you need to pay attention the first time. ;-)

I know it's not earth-shattering, but it does kind of wake one up as one is driving mindlessly along listening to weather and traffic reports and suddenly to hear the Latin Mass mentioned favorably in a secular context, and specifically the Latin language as an element of unification.

Pretty abstruse stuff for most radio listeners, I guess, but it made my day, because it's a far greater concession to the value of the Latin Mass than you'd get from most Catholics or from most priests or bishops, for that matter.

P.S. For accuracy's sake, here's the excerpt from yesterday's show:

"So il papa is coming to the United States and is going to give his Washington mass September 23rd in Espanol. I would think that if the pope -- I mean, just off the top of my head here. I'd think that if the pope advocated immigration, he'd been praising the United States to the sky. More people immigrate to this country than anywhere else in the world.

The past year alone the United States has admitted 1.7 million legal immigrants, and yet the pope is gonna show up here and, for all intents and purposes, look like he's protesting our immigration policy? It's said here to be "in honor of and in advocacy of immigration." But this is... I don't know. It's provocative to me. Almost half of the legal immigrants past year alone are from Mexico, 740,000 -- which, as usual, is more than the rest of the immigrants allowed into the rest of the countries in the world combined.

But what is this, still not enough? Why not give the mass in Latin? That used to be the way the church avoided the confusion over the Tower of Babel. That is, too many different languages. That's why the Latin mass was used, so as not to offend anybody or what have you. Cardinal Wuerl said the mass is gonna be in Spanish in recognition of how large the Hispanic population the United States is. Really? Okay. Cool. Got it."

Needless topic, needless thread. Move on

Seconded. Move to lock.

Julie, thank you for this.

I'm so sorry that some of the members see this as useless. I don't think positive news is ever useless. YMMV.

Julie, I'm happy you celebrate this odd occurrence from El Rushbo. But, just like Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert, Rush is a self-proclaimed, albeit incisive-witted ENTERTAINER.

Self-proclaimed entertainer AND commentator. He admits to balancing both aspects.

I have found it interesting that much of what El Rushbo says is in line with some thread of Catholic thought (his views on immigration may not be among such things). I've heard it said that he speaks more Catholic truth (not everything he says, mind you) than is heard from some pulpits (anecdotally, of course).

So, I'm with JulieColl in that it is interesting to hear non-Catholic commentary, especially as it relates to the liturgy, that expresses some manner of understanding of the issues. Here Rush expresses better than Catholics the beauty and insight of Latin Mass. Admittedly the context could rub against the grain, referring to immigration, and if this thread became a discussion of his views on that, perhaps locking it would be smart.

Otherwise, does anyone have other examples of non-Catholics "getting it" in relation to Catholic liturgy?

I will not comment on this thread.

bh, you're protesting too much about the drug thing. Well, I'm happy that the plank in the eye doesn't pertain to you. And I'm glad you feel so superior to Rush and all the other flawed conservatives. What's it like to be perfect?

Rush' s biggest flaw is that he's not far enough right-wing for me.

bh,

Some time ago you got EXTREMELY offended by a meme about "Mexican word of the day"
The underlying joke of the meme was about bowling. Rolling a ball down an aisle toward some pins.

This offended you.

With that in mind, you might want to consider that there may be active or recovered addicts browsing this forum. I know quite a few people personally with a past of severe addictions. Felons several times over. They're great people without a concoction of chemicals driving their thought process, and many of them would cite some vague idea of God (but an idea, nonetheless) as the source of their recovery.

When you refer to people as "dope heads" and discount their opinion based on a past struggle with dependency, you dismiss many (most) other aspects of the whole person. And THAT is offensive.

Your attitude reeks of "once a dirty drug addict, always a dirty drug addict." These "dope heads" can never be trusted, even if they've been clean 30 years, raised kids and grandkids, bought homes and vacation homes, invested in their communities, regular tithing members of their church... I think of one man in particular, by whose history you might just dismiss anything he says because he's "just a crackhead." Except he's not. He is all of those things I just listed.

If you can get so bent out of shape about wordplay involving BOWLING that you'd petition for a "bigoted " image to be removed, consider the bigotry in your own attitude about drug addiction. I've got half the mind to ask @chonak to remove you from the forum for your bigotry, because the issue hits very close to home with my family.

Rush is a great radio host - I listen to his show whenever I'm in the car and he's on (I only listen to talk radio - no music). I don't necessarily agree with many of the things he says - but he's got a great voice for radio and he fills the air time quite well.

Well, now. If you want to talk about drugs, I can tell you plenty about my drugs of choice - oolong tea and dark chocolate. I am allergic to most all the others, including prescription ones. Too bad, since working in Catholic church music is grounds for staying under the influence if there ever was just cause.

CharlesW, I don't think anyone asked for sympathy for the man- I think he was attacked unfairly. The discussion was about something he said pertaining to the Latin mass; just because he has been married and divorced and admittedly had a drug problem was not a relevant argument to discount his opinion.

Chris, Rush is definitely not a liberal. He makes the reactionary wing of the Republican party seem centrist. He has a very wide following of 'ditto heads' who listen to what he says and swallow it hook, line, & sinker. He's one of the biggest hate mongers on radio today.

This is the last thing I will say about Rush. At least you can understand him. No one has to spin his words for them to make sense, or make them mean something they don't.

JulieColl, thank you for drawing attention to St. JPII's letter Dominicae Cenae. I just read it, and it's a wealth of beautiful reflections on the Eucharist and the Priesthood.

Here's a great part related to our discussion from the end:

Above all I wish to emphasize that the problems of the liturgy, and in particular of the Eucharistic Liturgy, must not be an occasion of dividing Catholics and for threatening the unity of the Church. This is demanded by an elementary understanding of that sacrament which Christ has left us as the source of spiritual unity. And how could the Eucharist, which in the Church is the sacramentum pietatis, signum unitatis, vinculum caritatis,(72) form between us at this time a point or division and a source of distortion of thought and of behavior, instead of being the focal point and constitutive center, which it truly is in its essence, of the unity of the Church herself?

Truly a needed reading still, 35 years later.

I confess I have an allergy to Mr Limbaugh being cited as a valuable reference on anything, because he's an infotainer, a class of celebrities I believe are profoundly corroding our public discourse - for the public bad rather than the public good, even if from time to time they share a good opinion. I have a similar allergy to, say Michael Moore and Al Sharpton, and a host of others who are infotainment brands who ride the base emotions of the public primarily for their own benefit. Just to put my ad hominem in perspective. I free acknowledge it was an illogical objection (though certainly not gossip or detraction), but Rush's opinions on Catholic liturgy would be about as relevant as Michael Moore's or Rachel Maddow's. YMMV.

JM

I actually have no problem with partisan discourse, but the form of sponsored entertainment that looks like it's discussing things of substance but is really about cultivating resentment and fear - something that is great for stimulating consumer demand, it should most definitely be remembered - is inimical to the public good, period.

It's the reason I am wary of relying on crack highs in liturgy, either of the Hootenanny Mass type or the Society for Creative Liturgical Anachronism type. (To return to the subject of liturgy).

Charles, this is not about you, sir.

I wasn't umbraging! :) I was joking. Your geezer meter is off.

I first heard Rush Limbaugh over 30 years ago, just by chance during a conference trip in 1984. I was in St. Paul, MN, to attend the Latin Liturgy Association national convention, held at the legendary St. Agnes Parish. Rush was only on the air in parts of the country, a funny guy but not well-read, and his arguments were sometimes good, but occasionally more rant than reason. I gave him a grade of B. A few years later he was heard everywhere, and was making up for his lack of conservative-intellectual background by reading books Bill Bennett recommended. It was probably his peak of performance.

When I used to listen to him, he didn't show much knowledge of Protestant or Catholic faith or much interest in religion, other than the basic concepts that used to constitute the American civil religion: that God exists and He cares about what people do. He wasn't opposed to anyone's faith, but wasn't involved with it himself. Nominally, he's a Methodist, a denomination that is easygoing about doctrine and long in good works; and like most baby-boomers, he probably didn't learn much Christian doctrine in childhood either.

His detached attitude toward religion is the context in which his comment about the Latin Mass belongs. Unless something major has changed in his life, he's not involved with the Latin Mass or any Mass or any church services on any regular basis; if he sees a Mass in person, it's probably a wedding or a funeral.

Going by juliecoll's paraphrase above, the line was something like this: "it used to be that the Catholic Church would have Mass in Latin to avoid this Tower of Babel effect, so why not have the Latin Mass instead?" That is a casual, jocular suggestion with a political point: he's comparing modern-day churches, which go out of their way to serve immigrant groups and affirm their cultures, against old-time churches which served more to Americanize and homogenize their congregations.

But - here's the gap - that wasn't the case for Catholics. He probably doesn't realize that Catholic Church support for immigrant groups, their languages, and their cultures, is nothing new: in the cities, those Latin Masses were largely delivered in ethnic parishes where people were expected to attend their own parish, and where sermons were preached in the language of the old immigrant populations, just as is done now in ethnic ministry.

So Rush's suggestion is a bit of cute talk, but it's not in touch with the history.

FWIW, when Limbaugh was in NYC, he was influenced by Cdl. O'Connor; made mention of it a few times, favorably. And, if nothing else, Rush is consistently pro-life.

Of course, like many "practicing" Catholics, he's also pro-pill.

In the same show on Thursday, Rush mentions Cardinal O'Connor in a very favorable light and relays a very touching incident. More ">here. but Rush's point was that the Catholic Church used to be used to be the foundation or bedrock of morality, but has begun to shape itself to popular opinion.

I readily concede El Rushbo is not an authority on Catholic liturgy, and may not even be that well-versed on many topics, but his perception that Latin was used formerly in part to provide a universal language of worship is spot-on. He said:

"Why not give the mass in Latin? That used to be the way the church avoided the confusion over the Tower of Babel. That is, too many different languages. That's why the Latin mass was used, so as not to offend anybody or what have you. Cardinal Wuerl said the mass is gonna be in Spanish in recognition of how large the Hispanic population the United States is. Really? Okay. Cool. Got it."

I think Rush makes a perfectly valid point, and if I were in charge of deciding such matters, I'd highly recommend celebrating the papal Mass in Washington, D.C. in Latin as an excellent way to avoid the perception that the Holy Father is engaging in identity politics. That is all I was trying to point out with this post, that I think Rush, even if he is a non-Catholic, ignorant in the liturgy, a divorcee x 3, and a recognizably partisan, secular, bystander commentator, happens to have nailed what many others have missed, and he instinctively knows that there is a reason why the Mass has always been offered in Latin, and in fact, papal Masses continued to be offered in Latin at important moments even by post conciliar Popes: It is both the best way to unite people of all nationalities, languages, races and cultures, as it fulfills the wishes of the Vatican Council that the faithful be taught to say TOGETHER the parts of the Mass that pertain to them in LATIN.

There is no better liturgical way to express the unity of the Church here and now and with those who have before us. If there is a better way to unite Catholics of different cultures and nations in the same Eucharistic celebration other than following the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium, I would like to know what it is, and I would love to hear from anyone who has a better and more effective plan to promote ecclesial solidarity and communion.

I might not be able to speak Spanish, Croatian, Polish, Chinese or Tagalog, but I certainly can say the Gloria in excelsis Deo and the Credo in Latin, and I think it is highly ironic that on this forum there are people attacking Rush Limbaugh for simply reminding us of what the Second Vatican Council and echoing Cardinal Robert Sarah, to boot. Maybe if this mandate of the Council and of Cardinal Sarah were being followed by more Catholics,
including the Pope, we wouldn't have to rely on non-Catholics like Rush Limbaugh to remind us of the principal plan of Vatican II to renew the sacred liturgy.

So in this one particular, specific, tiny narrow instance, we have to say this: Rush Limbaugh stands with Vatican II. Do you?