Europe: A Region or a Continent?

Europe is often a central focus of global conversation. Whether that is in history, other social studies, world politics, or otherwise, people often speak of a place called Europe, where a lot of the world's most influential countries have been. Usually, people speak of Europe as a continent, a loose category by itself. What is it that all European countries have in common? In most atlases, Europe's boundary includes a line going through a lot of land on the eastern margin through Russia, a line about as wide as the width of Europe itself. What is it, then, that distinguishes Europe from the rest of the Eurasian landmass, or the rest of the world for that matter?

For starters, we have religion. Before "Europe" was a common name, there was the idea of "Christendom": the contiguous area where Christianity was the most common or official religion. This idea held sway in the Middle Ages, right up to the overseas expansion of Portugal, Spain, and other countries called European. This is also kind of like the Ummah, the contiguous area stretching from Senegal to Pakistan and from Somalia to Kazakhstan where Islam predominates. The problem here is that the "boundaries" between these religious areas have shifted over time. For example, Spain and Portugal would have been in the Ummah in the 8th century, and the Balkans were essentially in the Ummah too from the 15th through the 18th centuries. Likewise, some nations in northeastern Europe were holdouts of paganism into the late Middle Ages. One nation, the Sami people, were a pagan remnant in Scandinavia even into the 1700s. I also doubt that any new colonies of Spain and Portugal in the 16th centuries were automatically considered a part of Christendom, so the focus now turns to natural boundaries.

I have seen a very common dividing line for Europe get drawn along the Ural Mountains, the Russia-Kazakhstan border or the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea, the Turkish Straits, and somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. This is one common way to split off Europe from the rest, but what about the islands? The British Isles are conventionally considered a part of Europe, and so are many Mediterranean islands. Iceland is sometimes a bit of a gray area, but it is usually considered a part of Europe as well due to its similarity to the Scandinavian countries. Does this mean the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago in the middle of the ocean, are included as well? The question becomes one of how far out islands have to be before they are included with Europe or any "continent". One could perhaps use the Atlantic Ridge as a dividing line, but the problem is that Iceland and the Azores themselves are along that ridge, meaning they would only partially be in Europe. Also, do we use the rift between the Eurasian and African plates? In that case, the Canary Islands and Madeira are a part of Africa and Italy itself would be split. Notice, though, that Europe does not have a distinct plate and is mainly on the same plate as China. That brings up, again, a possible cultural divide. It is often said that Europe and Asia are split because of differing cultures. We already looked at religious boundaries, but what about linguistic ones? Europe mainly has three language (sub-)families: Romantic (i.e. derived from Latin), Germanic, and Slavic. There are others, such as Baltic, Albanian, Greek, and Finno-Ugric, a family by itself, not to mention the language isolate Basque. However, that linguistic boundary cannot be applied without physical boundaries also. Similar to the problems with Christendom, these language families have become dominant in other places across the world, especially the Americas. However, just as a new Christian area is not automatically included in Christendom, a new Romantic or Germanic speaking area is not automatically included in Europe. Speaking of languages, though, the name "Europe" itself comes from ancient Greek and originally referred to parts of today's Balkan region. The Greeks later applied the name to all the land they knew of north of the high Mediterranean Sea, west and north of the Anatolian peninsula, and west again of what we would know today as the Crimean Strait, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River.

Ancient Greek map of the world, with the whole waterway from the "Phasis" (perhaps the Don) to the Strait of Gibraltar as the boundary of Europe.

The Greeks did not have a northern boundary for Europe, since many lands were still unknown to them, such as Scandinavia. Not even Rome knew much about Scandinavia. It was the missionary fervor of Christians in the Middle Ages, and the Viking raids at the same time, that really introduced Scandinavia to the rest of Europe and integrated Scandinavia within it.

If we take the ancient Greek boundaries of Europe on its south and east, what are its western and northern boundaries? Personally, I think that the margin of the continental shelf is a good one. By using this boundary, all the British Isles are included, but not the islands in the middle of the ocean such as Iceland, the Azores, etc. Those islands deserve their own isolated category (pun intended) since they are so far from the European mainland. As for continuing the boundary from the continental shelf to the Don River, I think the established system of waterways through Russia from the White Sea to the Don River makes a good boundary. Most of the waterway is along rivers, and other parts are canals built or remodeled in Soviet times. Considering how Norsemen knew how to navigate and portage across this waterway before the canals, I think there is good cause to establish the waterway as an eastern boundary of Europe, by which Norsemen and others knew how to get to non-European lands such as Persia or Anatolia.

The system of rivers and canals through Russia, going from the Sea of Azov to the White Sea, which I consider a good northeastern boundary of Europe.

Now that I have defined what I consider to be Europe, does it really qualify as a continent? I think not. For one thing, "continents" are almost completely surrounded by water, whereas the so-called continental boundary between "Europe" and "Asia" is hundreds of miles wide. On the other hand, there are other areas in the Eurasian landmass that have defining characteristics, such as the Arabian peninsula or "Middle East", the Indian subcontinent, Indochina, etc. Some of those regions are about as big as Europe itself but are not considered continents. That being said, we often speak of the "Indian subcontinent" consisting of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and all the other countries south of the boundary made by the Himalayas and nearby mountain ranges. I would argue that Europe is a region or subcontinent of Eurasia, the real "continent" as far as being a landmass almost surrounded by water is concerned.

The Latin Mass Question

Last week, Bishop Martin, of the Diocese of Charlotte in North Carolina, announced that the diocese would no longer have mass in the style of the 1962 Missal, commonly called Latin Mass, in any parish churches, limiting it to one chapel. This was done in accordance with the pastoral letter Traditionis Custodes, which under Pope Francis restricted where the Latin Mass could be celebrated and by whom. The Latin Mass, in general, has been a talking point among Catholics ever since the new missal and Roman Calendar was introduced in the '60s, and especially since Traditionis Custodes.

The Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass, has a variety of features that the "new" mass does not. One, obviously, is that all the prayers except the Kyrie are in Latin (the Kyrie is in Greek.) Another is the priest facing the altar rather than the people for most of the mass, usually praying in a quiet voice. A third is the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at a special railing while kneeling. I could go on, but the point is that the Latin Mass is so different from how (most) masses are celebrated today that it could be its own rite within the Catholic Church. Let's hold that thought.

When the Second Vatican Council happened in the early '60s, the latest missal in the Tridentine style was hot off the press. While the Second Vatican Council had a lot of new and interesting developments of Church doctrine, it seemed to have less to say about changing the liturgy than what would end up happening by the end of the decade. For example, Latin was still held to be the language of the mass, though local languages could replace Latin in any prayer of the mass. Organs and Gregorian chant were still the instruments/musical styles of choice for sacred music, but some instruments were permissible for the mass besides. As for the changes that actually ended up happening to the mass, see A Perfect Storm: What happened to the Mass after Vatican II (I will admit the documentary is biased against the changes, but it is well researched).

Ever since the changes to the mass happened in the '60s, there have been some holdouts of people who aren't interested in celebrating the new style, often called Novus Ordo or the New Mass, and prefer to continue celebrating Latin Mass and live Catholic life essentially as it was in the 20th century before 1962. Some outright rejected the new mass, creating schismatic-ish organizations such as the Society of St. Pius X while still considering themselves Catholics (and to be fair, their liturgies are the same as the Roman Catholic Church's were for roughly 400 years.) Various smaller schismatic groups came about as well. On the other hand, religious groups such as the Institute of Christ the King were created that recognized the legitimacy of the new mass while also celebrating the Latin Mass exclusively. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (or "FSSP") broke off from the Society of St. Pius X in the '80s as a Latin Mass group that, like the Institute of Christ the King, recognized the legitimacy of the new mass but exclusively celebrates the Latin Mass.

There have always been a variety of opinions about the Latin Mass and its devotees. On one hand, those who enjoy the Latin Mass often say they have much to gain, spiritually speaking, from attending such masses and have numerous arguments for why the Latin Mass is better for individuals and the Church as a whole. On the other hand, opponents of the Latin Mass consider it to be backward since the Church has adopted the 1969 Missal as the ordinary form of the mass. Furthermore, they see the Latin Mass as deficient because most people will not understand what is being prayed and will feel more like spectators than participants, especially with the priest looking away from the people for most of the mass. I myself have gone between these two extremes of opinions. In 2017 and most of 2018 I was basically an opponent of the Latin Mass, but in 2020 through 2022 my preference for the Latin Mass was somewhat strong. Now I'm somewhere in between, where I would just like the liturgy to be relevant and appropriate enough to produce great benefit for the participants (though I do very much prefer organs and chant to guitars and "praise and worship" music).

Different popes have had different takes on the Latin Mass since the new mass came about. Pope St. Paul VI instituted the new mass in the first place, but did not mandate all parts of the mass to be in either Latin or the local language. He also acknowledged that there were some bad consequences, "the smoke of Satan", in the Church after the new mass was instituted. Pope St. John Paul II accepted the foundation of the FSSP and had no problem with Latin Mass being celebrated through them. Pope Benedict XVI made it easy for any priest to celebrate the Latin Mass, within or without the religious orders that specialize in it. It was only Pope Francis who made the great turn-around in Traditionis Custodes, thereby restricting the availability of the Latin Mass. Pope Francis also shared that he did this to try to get the Latin Mass-goers to go to Novus Ordo masses instead.

The problem that soon arose from Traditionis Custodes was that, as I mentioned before, Latin Mass-goers see the Latin Mass as better than the Novus Ordo, some to the point of attending SSPX (Society of Pius X) churches. Pope Francis intended to unite the Latin Mass-goers in with the Novus Ordo mass-goers, but if anything, he made them resentful. Many wondered how much longer people could attend Latin Mass. Some major advocates for the Latin Mass, such as Bishop Strickland (of Tyler, Texas) and Cardinal Burke (of both La Crosse, Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri in the past) were punished under Pope Francis, with Bishop Strickland being forced to resign and Cardinal Burke losing his apartment in Rome and his salary. Now, we have seen Pope Francis pass away and Pope Leo XIV take the seat. Many are wondering what Pope Leo XIV will do as pope regarding the Latin Mass, especially in reaction to Bishop Martin's announcements.

There are a few options, some good and some bad, for what will happen to the Latin Mass. The most extreme option, on one hand, would be to suppress all orders that specialize in the Latin Mass and not even allow chapels to be used for the Latin Mass, which would cause a schism and a likely expansion of the Society of St. Pius X or schismatic groups that do not recognize the legitimacy of the current pope (these are called "sedevacantists".) The other extreme would be to convene a council or synod that replaces the Novus Ordo mass with some form of the mass prior to 1969 (which I highly doubt would happen given the opinions of most bishops today, but it might cause a schism of another sort.) As for some options in between, Pope Leo XIV could publish a pastoral letter that undoes Traditionis Custodes in some way, whether that be by restoring the way it was before or loosening the restrictions. His Holiness could also advocate for a middle ground, keeping Traditionis Custodes in place but also mandating some Latin, communion rails, veils, altar crucifixes, organs, Gregorian chant, or any other thing that some parishes currently have in their Novus Ordo masses (for example, I have seen Novus Ordo masses where organs and Gregorian chant are used, some prayers are in Latin, communion rails are used, and even some masses where the priest faces away from the people.) Finally, there is an option which I find the most interesting: creating a new rite or church sui juris for the Latin Mass.

In a previous schism, the East-West Schism, Christians of Western and Eastern Europe found themselves at odds. This was when Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split from each other over centuries of liturgical and slight theological differences. However, some of the schism was not forever. Almost all of the other particular churches besides the Roman Catholic Church, as they are called, were created when Oriental or Eastern Orthodox groups decided to re-enter the communion of the greater Catholic Church. These all have their own rites and dioceses, but are still in communion with the pope, who is recognized as the visible head of the Catholic Church. One major mistake happened in the Diocese of St. Paul, however, when Bishop John Ireland did not recognize the Eastern Catholic masses/divine liturgies in his diocese. As a result, many Eastern Catholic clergy in the United States founded the Orthodox Church in America. Therefore, given the historical precedent, getting rid of the Latin Mass in any diocese would be a bad idea. Anyway, what if we had a particular church for the Latin Mass? I think that, ironically, that hypothetical church should keep the name of Roman Catholic Church, since the use of the Latin language makes it very clearly Roman. As for the rest of what is the Roman Catholic Church today, it could be called the "General Catholic Church" given the worldwide use of local languages or the "Ordinary Catholic Church" given the title of Ordinary Form for the Novus Ordo mass. The unity of the Catholic Church would be preserved, and the uniqueness of the Latin Mass would also be preserved.

I pray that Pope Leo XIV will choose wisely what happens to the Latin Mass both in certain dioceses and across the world-wide Church. Optimally, the unity of the Church is preserved, reverence returns to the mass everywhere, and communication between both sides will result in much spiritual and numerical growth within the Church.