The
Return of Latin to the Mass
"It Is the Holy Father Who
Will Decide"
An Interview with Archbishop
Malcolm Ranjith,
Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By Anthony Valle
Courtesy of Inside the
Vatican
http://www.insidethevatican.com
ANTHONY
VALLE: Your Excellency, you have been generous in giving
several interviews to the international press regarding liturgy
since becoming the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.
Some of your statements have been misinterpreted and aroused
controversy rather than providing the intended clarity. Would you
care to clarify anything?
ARCHBISHOP MALCOM RANJITH:
What I wished to insist on in those interviews was that the post-conciliar
reform of the liturgy has not been able to achieve the expected
goals of spiritual and missionary renewal in the Church so that
today we could be truly happy about it.
Undoubtedly there have been positive
results too; but the negative effects seem to have been greater,
causing much disorientation in our ranks.
The churches have become empty,
liturgical free-wheeling has become the order of the day, and the
true meaning and significance of that which is celebrated has been
obscured.
One has to, then, begin wondering if
the reform process had in fact been handled correctly. Thus, we need
to take a good look at what had happened, pray and reflect about its
causes and with the help of the Lord move on to make the necessary
corrections.
VALLE: It seems as if Pope
Benedict XVI will release a motu proprio to liberalize the
use of the traditional or Tridentine Mass. Some hope that the Pope’s
motu proprio will institute a juridical structure enabling
priests to celebrate the traditional Mass without being unjustly
harassed and persistently thwarted by, ironically, not people of
other faiths or secular authorities, but by their own pastors and
bishops. Is this hope for a new juridical apparatus realistic? Is
such an apparatus necessary?
RANJITH: Well, there is this
rising call for a restoration of the Tridentine Mass. And even
certain leading figures of the elite have made public appeals for
this Mass in some newspapers recently.
The Holy Father will, I am sure, take
note of this and decide what is best for the Church.
You speak of the possible realization
of new juridical structures for the implementation of such
decisions. I do not think that this would be so much of a problem.
Rather what is more important in all of this is a pastoral attitude.
Will the bishops and priests reject
requests for the Tridentine Mass and so create a need for juridical
structures to ensure the enforcement of a decision of the Pope?
Should it go that way?
I sincerely do not hope so.
The appropriate question the shepherds
have to ask themselves is: How can I as a bishop or priest bring
even one person closer to Christ and to His Church?
It is not so much a matter of the
Tridentine Mass or of the Novus Ordo. It is just a question
of pastoral responsibility and sensitivity.
Thus, if the Tridentine Mass is the way
to achieve an even better level of spiritual enrichment for the
faithful, then the shepherds should allow it.
The important concern is not so much
the "what" as much as the "how." The Church should always seek to
help our faithful to come closer to the Lord, to feel challenged by
His message and to respond to His call generously. And if that can
be achieved through the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass or
the Pius V Mass, well, then space should be provided for whatever is
best instead of getting down to unnecessary and divisive theological
hair-splitting. Such things need to be decided through the heart and
not so much through the head.
After all, Pope John Paul II did make a
personal appeal in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 1988 to the
bishops, calling upon them to be generous in this matter with those
who wish to celebrate or participate in the Tridentine Mass.
Besides, we should remember that the Tridentine Mass is not
something that belongs to the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre only.
It is part of our own heritage as members of the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council, as Pope
Benedict so clearly stated in his speech to the members of the Curia
in December 2005, did not envisage a totally new beginning, but one
of continuity with a renewed sense of enthusiasm and a new outlook
that better responds to the missionary needs of the time.
Besides, we also have the serious
question of the diminishing number of faithful in some of the
churches in the Western world. We have to ask ourselves what
happened in these churches and then take corrective steps as may be
necessary. I do not think that this situation is attributable to
secularization only. A deep crisis of faith coupled with a drive for
meaningless liturgical experimentation and novelty have had their
own impact in this matter. There is much formalism and insipidity
visible at times.
Thus, we need to recover a true sense
of the sacred and mystical in worship.
And if the faithful feel that the
Tridentine Mass offers them that sense of the sacred and mystical
more than anything else, then we should have the courage to accept
their request.
With regard to the timing and nature of
the motu proprio, nothing yet is known. It is the Holy Father
who will decide.
And when he does, we should in all
obedience accept what he indicates to us and with a genuine love for
the Church strive to help him. Any counter attitude would only harm
the spiritual mission of the Church and thwart the Lord’s own will.
Like many Catholics today, my
wife and I have found that we leave the celebration of the Novus
Ordo Mass on Sunday exasperated and perplexed rather than
spiritually invigorated. Why?
RANJITH: In the celebration of
the Novus Ordo we have to be very serious about what we do on
the altar. I cannot be a priest who dreams in his sleep about what I
will do at the Mass the following day, walk up to the altar and
start celebrating with all kinds of novel self-created rubrics and
actions.
The Holy Eucharist belongs to the
Church. Hence, it has a meaning of its own which cannot be left to
the idiosyncrasies of the single celebrant.
Every element in the liturgy of the
Church has its own long history of development and significance. It
is certainly not a matter of private "traditions" and so cannot be
the object of manipulation by all and sundry.
In fact, Sacrosanctum Concilium
does state that other than the Apostolic See and the bishops, where
this is allowed to the latter by the former, "absolutely no other
person, not even a priest, may add or remove or change anything on
his own authority" (SC 22). Even then, we note much free-wheeling in
liturgical matters in some areas of the Church today, basically due
to an incorrect understanding of liturgical theology.
For example, the mystery of the Holy
Eucharist has often been misunderstood or partially understood,
leaving thus the door open to all kinds of liturgical abuses.
In the celebration of the Holy
Eucharist, some place too much accent on the presidential role of
the priest. But we know that the priest is really not the main agent
of what happens on the altar.
It is Jesus Himself.
Besides, every liturgical celebration
has also a heavenly dimension "which is celebrated in the holy city
of Jerusalem towards which we journey as pilgrims" (SC 8).
Others explain the Eucharist in a way
that places the accent on its banquet/meal dimension, linking it to
"communion." This too is an important consideration, but we should
remember that it is not so much a communion created by those taking
part in the Eucharist as much as by the Lord Himself.
Through the Eucharist, the Lord assumes
us unto Himself and in Him we are placed in communion with all the
others who unite themselves to Him. It is thus not so much a
sociological experience as much as a mystical one. Hence even as
"communion" the Eucharist is a heavenly experience.
What is more important is the
sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. Each time we celebrate the
Eucharist we relive the sacrifice of Calvary, celebrating it as the
moment of our salvation.
And this very fact also constitutes the
unique dignity and font of identity of the priest. He has been
instituted by Christ to celebrate the wonderful mystery of turning
this corruptible piece of bread into the very glorified Body of
Christ and this little bit of wine into the Blood of Christ,
enacting the sacrifice of Calvary for the salvation of the world.
And this has to be lived, understood and believed by the priest each
time he celebrates the Eucharist.
Indeed, Sacrosanctum Concilium
placed accent on the sacrificial and salvific effectivity of the
Mass. The priest thus becomes another Christ, so to say. What a
great vocation! And so, if we celebrate the Eucharist devoutly, then
the faithful will reap immense spiritual benefit and return again
and again in search of that heavenly nourishment.
VALLE: Some have contended that
the solution to the liturgical crisis -- and at bottom the crisis of
faith -- afflicting the Catholic Church today would be to implement
the exclusive use of the Tridentine Mass, while others maintain that
all we really need is a "reform of the reform," in other words, a
reform of the Novus Ordo. What do you think?
RANJITH: An "either-or" attitude
would unnecessarily polarize the Church, whereas charity and
pastoral concern should be the motivating factors.
If the Holy Father so desires, both
could co-exist.
That would not mean that we would have
to give up the Novus Ordo. But in the interaction of the two
Roman traditions, it is possible that the one may influence the
other eventually.
We can’t say everything is completed
and finished, that nothing new could happen. In fact, Vatican II
never advocated immediate change in the liturgy. Rather it preferred
change to "grow organically from forms already existing" (SC 23). As
Cardinal Antonelli, a much revered member of the Concilium that
undertook the revision of the liturgy after the Council, noted in
his diaries, some of the liturgical changes after the Council had
been introduced without much reflection, haphazardly, and made later
to become accepted practice.
For example, Communion in the hand had
not been something that was first properly studied and reflected
upon before its acceptance by the Holy See. It had been haphazardly
introduced in some countries of Northern Europe and later become
accepted practice, eventually spreading into many other places. Now
that is a situation that should have been avoided. The Second
Vatican Council never advocated such an approach to liturgical
reform.
VALLE: Lex orandi, lex
credendi, lex vivendi ("The law of praying (is) the law of
believing, (is) the law of living"). Is it true that how we worship
and pray influences what we believe, and that what we believe
influences how we live? In other words, liturgy ultimately
influences our moral life, does it not?
RANJITH: Yes. How can we
convince the faithful to make sacrifices in their ethical and moral
options, unless they are first touched and inspired by the grace of
God profoundly? And such happens especially in worship when the
human soul is made to experience the salvific grace of God most
intimately. In worship, faith becomes interiorized and brims over
with inspiration and strength, enabling one to take the moral
options that are in consonance with that faith. In the liturgy, we
should experience the closeness of God to our heart so intensely
that we in turn begin to believe fervently and are compelled to act
justly.
VALLE: What are some
contemporary liturgical trends or problems that need correction?
RANJITH: One of these, as I see,
is the trend to go for ecumenical liturgies in replacement of the
Sunday Mass in some countries, during which Catholic lay leaders and
Protestant ministers celebrate together and the latter are invited
to preach the homily. Sunday Liturgies of the Word with the
distribution of Holy Communion, which form is allowed in cases where
a priest cannot be present, if turned into ecumenical events can
give the faithful the wrong signal. They may get used to the idea of
the Sunday without the Eucharist.
The Eucharist, as you know, makes the
Church (Ed E. 21) and this is central to us Catholics. If it is so
easily replaced by Liturgies of the Word, or worse still by
so-called ecumenical prayer services, the very identity of the
Catholic Church would be in question. Unfortunately, we hear also of
cases whereby the Eucharist itself is being celebrated under various
guises along with the Protestant pastors. This is totally
unacceptable and constitutes a graviora delicta ("more grave
offense") (RM 172).
Ecumenism is not something left to the
ad hoc choice of individual priests. True ecumenism, such as the one
espoused by Vatican II, comes from the heart of the Church. For
example, the path to true ecumenism begins with serious reflection
on the part of those who are deemed competent to engage in that type
of reflection, such as the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity
and the Holy Father himself. Not everyone has the competence to know
in what way this delicate search for unity is to be perceived. It
needs much reflection and prayer. Hence, liturgical novelty in the
name of ecumenism should not be tried out individually.
A second disturbing trend is the
gradual replacement of the Mass celebrated by a priest with a
paraliturgical service conducted by a lay person. This of course can
legitimately happen when no priest is available and facilities for
the fulfillment of Sunday obligation are scarce. However, this is an
exception, not the rule. What is dangerous is to marginalize the
priest even when he is available and some lay pastoral leader team
arrogates to itself tasks that are reserved for the priests. I mean
by this the trend to get the lay leader to preach the homily instead
of the priest, even when he is present, or to distribute Holy
Communion, leaving the priest to sit idle at the altar.
We have to stress here that, as the
Second Vatican Council affirmed, the common priesthood of the
faithful and the ministerial priesthood "differ from one another in
essence and not only in degree" (LG 10). And so it is gravely
abusive to relegate to the laity the sacred obligations reserved to
the priest.
What is unfortunate is the increasing
tendency worldwide to laicize the priest and to clericalize the
laity. This too is contra mentem ("against the mind" or
"against the intention") of the Council.
There is also an increasing trend to
shift the Sunday Mass to Saturdays almost as a "normal" practice.
Rather than Sunday being the true day of the Lord, and so a day of
spiritual and physical rest, there is a move to reduce its
importance, making it become a day of worldly distractions. In
Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II warned against this disturbing
trend.
A final point I wish to make here
concerns some practices introduced in mission territories, for
example, in Asia, in the name of change, which are counter to its
cultural heritage.
In some Asian countries we see a trend
to introduce Communion in the hand which is received standing. This
is not at all consonant with Asian culture. The Buddhists worship
prostrate on the floor with their forehead touching the ground.
Moslems take off their shoes and wash their feet before entering the
mosque for worship. The Hindus enter the temple bare-chested as a
sign of submission. When people approach the king of Thailand or the
emperor of Japan, they do so on their knees as a sign of respect.
But in many Asian countries the Church has introduced practices like
just a simple bow to the Blessed Sacrament instead of kneeling,
standing while receiving Holy Communion, and receiving Communion on
the hand. And we know that these cannot be considered practices
congruent with Asian culture.
Besides, the laity whose role today is
being enhanced in the Church are not even consulted when such
decisions are made.
All these situations do not augur well
for the Church and we need to correct these trends, if the Eucharist
we celebrate is to become, as St. Ignatius of Antioch affirmed,
"medicine of immortality and antidote against death" (Eph. 20).
_________________________________
Anthony Valle is
a theologian and writer who lives in Rome. Inside the Vatican.
Courtesy of
Inside the Vatican
http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-feb21-07.htm
Also see:
Ghetto Catholicism: the Need for Latin in the Mass
 Printer
Friendly Version
|
