When we think about the West’s cultural heritage, what typically comes to mind are things like the defiant spires of European cathedrals, the mysterious smile of the Mona Lisa, and perhaps even Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. UNESCO acknowledges not only physical objects, but also intangible aspects of cultural heritage. This includes things that are recognized by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals as part of their cultural legacy. Recently, a fascinating argument was made to include the Traditional Latin Mass on this list. Is it a proposal with some merit, or should we dismiss it as hot air?
The first thing to note is that the Traditional Latin Mass seems to tick all the boxes necessary to warrant UNESCO’s protection. To be considered, the candidate for listing as intangible heritage must be simultaneously traditional, contemporary, and living. In this regard, the Latin Mass seems to be a perfect exemplar. It is ancient, as it has been practised in broadly the same form for over 1,500 years. Yet, it is also contemporary, as communities attached to this rite exist worldwide and live the tradition in their daily lives. It is not without reason that the Mass is also called the Mass of the Ages. The fact that many items on the intangible cultural heritage list are Catholic religious traditions should only facilitate the process.
The perplexing thing is that, in the case of the Traditional Latin Mass, much of the Church’s hierarchy does not seem to be interested in protecting it. On the contrary, Pope Francis recently published Apostolic Letter Traditionis custodes (Latin for “Guardians of Tradition”), which, contrary to its very name, effectively throttles the very liturgical tradition it is supposed to guard, making it much more difficult for many of the faithful to attend the Latin mass.
Two thought-provoking questions beg further exploration. Firstly, there is the paradox aggiornamento—a process of revision that Pope John XXIII encouraged at Vatican II— as the Catholic Church’s response to modernity coincided with a decrease in its ability to protect its religious heritage, just as the protection of secular heritage became more important. The Church hierarchy since the second Vatican Council seems to relish the hermeneutics of rupture, that is to say, in making radical departure from what was once understood to be essential aspects of Catholic doctrine and praxis.
Second, there is a question of the inevitable power struggle connected to defining what heritage is and what is worth protecting for future generations. Here, the faithful’s popular, participatory, bottom-up initiative to safeguard the Latin Mass, which many consider their cultural heritage, can be juxtaposed with top-down, hierarchical attempts to own the tradition, as expressed in Traditionis custodes.
The conceptualisation of intangible cultural heritage as made up of lived, experienced, and shared practices emphasises its societal dimension. It is rooted in the fact that conserving and re-enacting traditions, ceremonies, and social customs help societies feel connected to their ancestors and maintain a shared sense of community more effectively than physical artefacts. For this reason, heritage should not be understood as a ‘luxury artefact’ but as an identity kernel and a condition necessary for the very survival of those communities whose culture it creates. Without heritage no community is able to indicate clearly who they are, where they come from or, most importantly, where they are going.
It is evident then that if the human factor determines the chances of preserving a fragile tradition, it is also the factor that can condemn it to extinction. Community attachment is essential in this regard as heritage depends on a conscious effort to nurture it and pass it on to proceeding generations.
The discrepancy in defining heritage becomes more evident when conflicts arise regarding who owns, interprets, or uses heritage or when a particular aspect of heritage is controversial or associated with an unwanted past. In the past, this has been associated with Kulturkampf, understood here as policies aimed at eradicating whole cultures (for instance, the Germanisation of Polish people under Prussian occupation in the 19th century). However, there are also contemporary examples, such as immigrant communities and indigenous minority groups that safeguard cherished traditions, language, and rituals that have been deemed dissonant or incompatible with a national identity and thus suppressed by government policies.
Heritage is considered ‘dissonant’ precisely when various interest groups dispute its value, and its meanings are not fixed but can change over time. An attempt to gain recognition for a particular heritage can worsen political, ethnic, and ideological disagreements. First, because heritage is a part of the past that a community chooses to pass on to future generations, it is only natural that not everyone will choose the same parts to preserve and pass down. Therefore, trying to gain recognition for a particular heritage can lead to increased tensions. Differences in how religious groups, or even sub-groups within them, interpret their intangible cultural heritage can cause dissonance, a problem that can escalate over time.
Second, this dissonance can potentially escalate as different communities seek to interpret intangible cultural heritage from their own perspective and use it for different purposes. Dissonance in the heritage sphere is closely tied to the phenomenon of its contestation, which occurs when an interest group does not acknowledge heritage as their own, minimizes its importance, manipulates it, or questions the rationale for its preservation or transmission. That some bishops are proposing to include indigenous Mayan rites such as dance, music, and the participation of women at the very same time when the pope objects to recognise one of the most prominent rites in Catholic history is a perfect illustration of this dynamic.
When discussing heritage, the question of its relation and relevance in regard to official power structures and group interests comes naturally. Heritage is and always will be the subject of power struggles. The crux of the debate revolves around what deserves to be cherished and what should be forgotten. In this context, it is not only that the pope is enacting policies harmful to the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass, but also that he is doing so in clear opposition to the bottom-up reaction of the people, who insist on protecting what they consider an indelible part of the Apostolic tradition. The issue here is not introducing innovations through democratic processes akin to the German synodal way but ensuring that the “living treasure” of Catholic heritage can live on.
Consequently, seeking the protection of UNESCO is an attempt to give due recognition to the Traditional Latin Mass, despite the current repressive policy of its formal administrator and custodian, the Holy See, which aims to lock the rite in a museum cabinet. This recognition could lead to strong public pressure to preserve this heritage, coming from outside the community of the faithful. After all, a ‘living heritage’ exists only when practised. The fact that the traditional communities have become more numerous in recent years and seem to be one of the few groups within the Catholic Church that are not experiencing a crisis cannot be disputed. Paradoxically, it makes the recent attempt to eradicate the old Mass even more bizarre and the initiative to extend secular protection precisely when the ecclesiastical is absent an even more pressing issue.
Of Heritage and Power: Who Owns the Tradition?
When we think about the West’s cultural heritage, what typically comes to mind are things like the defiant spires of European cathedrals, the mysterious smile of the Mona Lisa, and perhaps even Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. UNESCO acknowledges not only physical objects, but also intangible aspects of cultural heritage. This includes things that are recognized by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals as part of their cultural legacy. Recently, a fascinating argument was made to include the Traditional Latin Mass on this list. Is it a proposal with some merit, or should we dismiss it as hot air?
The first thing to note is that the Traditional Latin Mass seems to tick all the boxes necessary to warrant UNESCO’s protection. To be considered, the candidate for listing as intangible heritage must be simultaneously traditional, contemporary, and living. In this regard, the Latin Mass seems to be a perfect exemplar. It is ancient, as it has been practised in broadly the same form for over 1,500 years. Yet, it is also contemporary, as communities attached to this rite exist worldwide and live the tradition in their daily lives. It is not without reason that the Mass is also called the Mass of the Ages. The fact that many items on the intangible cultural heritage list are Catholic religious traditions should only facilitate the process.
The perplexing thing is that, in the case of the Traditional Latin Mass, much of the Church’s hierarchy does not seem to be interested in protecting it. On the contrary, Pope Francis recently published Apostolic Letter Traditionis custodes (Latin for “Guardians of Tradition”), which, contrary to its very name, effectively throttles the very liturgical tradition it is supposed to guard, making it much more difficult for many of the faithful to attend the Latin mass.
Two thought-provoking questions beg further exploration. Firstly, there is the paradox aggiornamento—a process of revision that Pope John XXIII encouraged at Vatican II— as the Catholic Church’s response to modernity coincided with a decrease in its ability to protect its religious heritage, just as the protection of secular heritage became more important. The Church hierarchy since the second Vatican Council seems to relish the hermeneutics of rupture, that is to say, in making radical departure from what was once understood to be essential aspects of Catholic doctrine and praxis.
Second, there is a question of the inevitable power struggle connected to defining what heritage is and what is worth protecting for future generations. Here, the faithful’s popular, participatory, bottom-up initiative to safeguard the Latin Mass, which many consider their cultural heritage, can be juxtaposed with top-down, hierarchical attempts to own the tradition, as expressed in Traditionis custodes.
The conceptualisation of intangible cultural heritage as made up of lived, experienced, and shared practices emphasises its societal dimension. It is rooted in the fact that conserving and re-enacting traditions, ceremonies, and social customs help societies feel connected to their ancestors and maintain a shared sense of community more effectively than physical artefacts. For this reason, heritage should not be understood as a ‘luxury artefact’ but as an identity kernel and a condition necessary for the very survival of those communities whose culture it creates. Without heritage no community is able to indicate clearly who they are, where they come from or, most importantly, where they are going.
It is evident then that if the human factor determines the chances of preserving a fragile tradition, it is also the factor that can condemn it to extinction. Community attachment is essential in this regard as heritage depends on a conscious effort to nurture it and pass it on to proceeding generations.
The discrepancy in defining heritage becomes more evident when conflicts arise regarding who owns, interprets, or uses heritage or when a particular aspect of heritage is controversial or associated with an unwanted past. In the past, this has been associated with Kulturkampf, understood here as policies aimed at eradicating whole cultures (for instance, the Germanisation of Polish people under Prussian occupation in the 19th century). However, there are also contemporary examples, such as immigrant communities and indigenous minority groups that safeguard cherished traditions, language, and rituals that have been deemed dissonant or incompatible with a national identity and thus suppressed by government policies.
Heritage is considered ‘dissonant’ precisely when various interest groups dispute its value, and its meanings are not fixed but can change over time. An attempt to gain recognition for a particular heritage can worsen political, ethnic, and ideological disagreements. First, because heritage is a part of the past that a community chooses to pass on to future generations, it is only natural that not everyone will choose the same parts to preserve and pass down. Therefore, trying to gain recognition for a particular heritage can lead to increased tensions. Differences in how religious groups, or even sub-groups within them, interpret their intangible cultural heritage can cause dissonance, a problem that can escalate over time.
Second, this dissonance can potentially escalate as different communities seek to interpret intangible cultural heritage from their own perspective and use it for different purposes. Dissonance in the heritage sphere is closely tied to the phenomenon of its contestation, which occurs when an interest group does not acknowledge heritage as their own, minimizes its importance, manipulates it, or questions the rationale for its preservation or transmission. That some bishops are proposing to include indigenous Mayan rites such as dance, music, and the participation of women at the very same time when the pope objects to recognise one of the most prominent rites in Catholic history is a perfect illustration of this dynamic.
When discussing heritage, the question of its relation and relevance in regard to official power structures and group interests comes naturally. Heritage is and always will be the subject of power struggles. The crux of the debate revolves around what deserves to be cherished and what should be forgotten. In this context, it is not only that the pope is enacting policies harmful to the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass, but also that he is doing so in clear opposition to the bottom-up reaction of the people, who insist on protecting what they consider an indelible part of the Apostolic tradition. The issue here is not introducing innovations through democratic processes akin to the German synodal way but ensuring that the “living treasure” of Catholic heritage can live on.
Consequently, seeking the protection of UNESCO is an attempt to give due recognition to the Traditional Latin Mass, despite the current repressive policy of its formal administrator and custodian, the Holy See, which aims to lock the rite in a museum cabinet. This recognition could lead to strong public pressure to preserve this heritage, coming from outside the community of the faithful. After all, a ‘living heritage’ exists only when practised. The fact that the traditional communities have become more numerous in recent years and seem to be one of the few groups within the Catholic Church that are not experiencing a crisis cannot be disputed. Paradoxically, it makes the recent attempt to eradicate the old Mass even more bizarre and the initiative to extend secular protection precisely when the ecclesiastical is absent an even more pressing issue.
READ NEXT
Why Greenland’s Independence Terrifies Europe
Valencia Is Not Forgotten
Historic French Theatre Falls Victim to Pro-Migrant Zeal