Pope Benedict XVI (L), flanked by Cardinal Piero Marini, holds the cross as he leads the mass for workers in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican March 19, 2006.
Posted on 03/21/2006 9:59:32 AM PST by NYer
MILAN, Italy (CNS) -- Liturgies celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI are undergoing changes, said the papal master of liturgical ceremonies.
Archbishop Piero Marini, who also served as master of ceremonies for Pope John Paul II, said that with Pope Benedict "I have to be a little more attentive because he is an expert in liturgy."
"But it gives me satisfaction because he always recognizes the work that has been done, and we talk about it together," said the 64-year-old Italian, who has worked at the Vatican since 1965.
In a March 20 interview with the Milan-based online news site, Affari Italiani, the archbishop said he and Pope Benedict "are re-elaborating the papal ceremonies."
"I send him my notes and he returns them with his signature as a sign of approval, or else he suggests, completes or corrects," he said.
The archbishop did not provide details about what changes people may see in the papal liturgies or when they would be unveiled.
Archbishop Marini said each pope is different in his approach to the liturgy, particularly the large international celebrations he is called to lead.
"With John Paul II, I was a bit freer; we had an implicit agreement because he was a man of prayer and not of liturgy," the archbishop said.
In the interview, Archbishop Marini also was asked about liturgical abuses and about followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who refuse to recognize the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
"After every council," he said, "there always was a period of tension. There always was someone who was not in agreement or did not approve what was done. But the fact is, we do not have police to send around to force the faithful to accept what the Second Vatican Council decided."
The archbishop said it is true some people exaggerated their experiments with the revised liturgy.
"In Belgium and Holland, on the wave of experimentalism, more than 300 eucharistic prayers were born" when in most countries fewer than a dozen have been approved for use, he said.
"Slowly things turned back to normal," he said.
Now, the archbishop said, he fears there is a move toward "neoritualism, that is, to a priest who celebrates Mass thinking: 'Good, I said my Mass following the rite to the letter. I'm fine.' This is not good; the celebration is not slavish respect for liturgical norms. There always is a little bit of space for the celebrant."
Archbishop Marini said he understood why Pope John Paul gave permission for bishops to authorize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass in some churches for "older faithful" who were attached to the old rite.
"But to go beyond this is to go beyond the church," he said. "If the liturgy is the sign of the unity of the church, you cannot create groups of faithful who pray in a certain way on this day at this hour, then an hour later another group prays in another way.
"First of all we must understand that the liturgy is a sign of unity," he said. "It is not a matter of liberalizing the missal or anything else. It is only a question of accepting the church today, just that."
Now if he'd urge Catholics to experience the Eastern Rite liturgies as well as re-solemnize the Latin Rite liturgy--def be heading in the right direction. So many RC's have never been to an Eastern Rite or even an Orthodox liturgy.
Can we ever forget the canonization Mass for St. Juan Diego!
"If the liturgy is the sign of the unity of the church, "you cannot create groups of faithful who pray in a certain way on this day at this hour, then an hour later another group prays in another way.
"First of all we must understand that the liturgy is a sign of unity," he said. "It is not a matter of liberalizing the missal or anything else. It is only a question of accepting the church today, just that."
So I guess he wants the Byzantine Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldean Catholics, Mozarabic Rite, Lyonnais Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Anglican Usage (and occasionally now Dominican Rite), et al. to adopt the Novus Ordo also? Bah, humbug!
He just wants all of us to keep on doing the same dumbed down liturgy so as to be "united"--in what? in mind-numbing banality, kumbayah. We must all march over the cliff in lock step so as to maintain unity. Bah, again, I say.
And another thing: why is this guy not gone? I will be puzzled for only a little while longer. Then I will be very, very disappointed.
A book to read, if one can obtain it, is Thomas Molnar's "Counter-Revolution", written in 1969, in which he speaks, among many other interesting things, about the failure of the two then-hoped for counter-revolutionary heroes (de Gaulle and Paul VI) to live up to expectations. He notes that both de Gaulle and Paul VI came to their offices (for the majority of you who weren't around, de Gaulle came back to power on May 13, 1958, on the back of the French Army, for the purpose of preserving Algerie Francaise--of course he betrayed them big time in just a couple of years, leading to much of today's problem in France and the events that spawned a great movie: "The Day of the Jackal", which I watch periodically hoping, like the Texas Aggies, that we will win on the instant replay).
In both cases, his analysis was that they might initially have had good inclinations (again, however, the French traditionalist at our parish says both his grandfathers told everyone at the time in 1958, "don't trust that guy"), but were frustrated by the overwhelming leftist (or revolutionary) milieu in which they found themselves, ultimately surrendering to it.
So I am waiting to see.
Sorry about this but my senescence prevented me from finishing the thought after the long parenthetical (or was it maybe contemplating the old days of Algerie Francaise, l'O.A.S., etc.)? So here it is again slightly corrected.
And another thing: why is this guy not gone? I will be puzzled for only a little while longer. Then I will be very, very disappointed.
A book to read, if one can obtain it, is Thomas Molnar's "Counter-Revolution", written in 1969, in which he speaks, among many other interesting things, about the failure of the two then-hoped for counter-revolutionary heroes (de Gaulle and Paul VI) to live up to expectations. He notes that both de Gaulle and Paul VI came to their offices (for the majority of you who weren't around, de Gaulle came back to power on May 13, 1958, on the back of the French Army, for the purpose of preserving Algerie Francaise--of course he betrayed them big time in just a couple of years, leading to much of today's problem in France and the events that spawned a great movie: "The Day of the Jackal", which I watch periodically hoping, like the Texas Aggies, that we will win on the instant replay) with liberal pasts, but that both were initially expected to be counter-revolutionary (de Gaulle because he indicated as much, and Paul VI because the papacy was thought to be counter-revolutionary in its essence).
In both cases, his analysis was that they might initially have had good inclinations (again, however, the French traditionalist at our parish says both his grandfathers told everyone at the time in 1958, "don't trust that guy"), but were frustrated by the overwhelming leftist revolutionary milieu in which they found themselves, ultimately surrendering to it. He has the great quote from then-Father Yves Congar, to the effect that the Council was the French Revolution in the Church.
So I am waiting to see.
No, not really. These guys just can't give it up, can they. They still think it's all about them.
The Molnar book sounds very interesting. I highly recommend Fr. Jonathan Robinson's book, The Liturgy and Modernity. It's a good analysis of the philosophical trends of the last 100 or so years (particularly Hegelianism) that led to the current understanding of God, the Church and, hence, the liturgy. His feeling was also that the changes were not intended to be anything like their final result, but that the "new philosophy" had been so deeply imbibed by the persons promoting and enacting the change that it simply swept away 2000 years of tradition before most people even knew what was happening.
He has no jurisdiction over those liturgies, so it's a moot point. As odd as this may seem to us, Marini has his fans and supporters. Perhaps B16 is using his pontificate as a 'teaching moment' for Marini and fan club.
To be fair, I'd imagine many places don't have Eastern Churches nearby.
If I recall correctly, the Lyonnais rite was suppressed after Vatican II in favor of the Novus Ordo.
That is like saying he was a Protestant. There is no communal/parochial Catholic prayer that is not liturgical.
"If the liturgy is the sign of the unity of the church, "you cannot create groups of faithful who pray in a certain way on this day at this hour, then an hour later another group prays in another way."
Translation: We can create any liturgy we like, and everyone is obliged to conform to it.
"There always is a little bit of space for the celebrant" means that the liturgical books, including the missal, contain different options that the celebrant can follow. It doesn't mean that the priest is free to create his own liturgy.
Moreover, Archbishop Marini is clearly condemning unauthorized experiments here.
Way to take something out of context.
The archbishop is not suggesting that Catholics who belong to other rites should abandon those and adopt the Novus Ordo. He does seem to imply here that the Church is not going to put the older form of the Roman rite, the Tridentine Mass, on the same footing as the current form of the Roman rite.
WELL SAID, THANK YOU, Steadfastconservative!
Sadly, the conservative/traditionalist blogs are at their uninformed and unscholarly best when it comes to attacking Archbishop (or, as Reuters styled him, "Cardinal") Marini.
Everyone who is TRULY conservative and truly loves the normative Roman liturgy ought to invest in four historical books, readily available through the online "Vatican bookstore" (www.paxbook.com), WHICH WERE RESEARCHED AND ASSEMBLED by Archbishop Marini or by the staff working under his direction.
They are:
1. SEDE APOSTOLICA VACANTE: Storia - Legislazione - Riti - Luoghi e Cose [VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE: History, Legislation, Rites, Places and Things]: paperback, 260 pages, Vatican City: 2005.
The three hardbound servicebooks, each with a classic work of art as frontispiece, and full Gregorian chant with ribbon markers:
1. ORDO EXSEQUIARUM ROMANI PONTIFICIS [Order of Funeral Rites of the Roman Pontiff], red clothbound with gold embossed titles, Frontispiece: La deposizione della croce, Hungarian, 1428-1429, 437 pages, Vatican City: 2000. Approved by Pope John Paul II, Rescriptum ex audientia (Rescript from permission granted at an audience of the Master of Papal Ceremonies), 25 March 1998.
2. ORDO RITUUM CONCLAVIS [Order of Rites of the Conclave], green clothbound with gold embossed titles, Frontispiece: Cristo e l'assemblea dei Santi, Hungarian 1428-1429, 343 pages, Vatican City: 2000. Approved by Pope John Paul II, Rescriptum ex audientia (Rescript from permission granted at an audience of the Master of Papal Ceremonies), 25 March 1998.
3. ORDO RITUUM PRO MINISTERII PETRINI INITIO ROMAE EPISCOPAE [Order of Rites for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome], white clothbound with gold embossed titles, Frontispiece: Vocazione del'Apostolo Pietro, Codice Urb. Latina, Apostolic Library, 227 pages, Vatican City: 2005. Approved by Pope Benedict XVI, Rescriptum ex audientia (Rescript from permission granted at an audience of the Master of Papal Ceremonies), 20 April 2005 [i.e., the day after Cardinal Ratzinger's election as Pope].
NONE OF THESE BOOKS bears the usual heading "Congregatio pro Cultu Divino etc".
ALL OF THEM originate in "Officium de Liturgicis Celebrationibus Summi Pontificis."
That's Marini's office. These are Marini's productions, based on an immense amount of research and study, consultation and refinement, and - ultimately - approbation by two Popes!
And anyone who thinks Cardinal Ratzinger was not consulted on the first three books, while - as Pope Benedict - going over the last book concerning his own initial ceremonies in painstaking detail is badly mistaken.
In fact, the only person who "ad-libbed" during the whole unfolding of events back in April, at least that I could see, was Cardinal Medina-Estevez! In the Ordo Rituum Conclavis, Chapter V, n. 74, the announcement of the new Pope is to be made "his verbis" - in THESE words . . . "Annuntio vobis . . ." Not "in these or similar words"! Cardinal Medina is the one who decided to preface it with a poly-ligual "Dear brothers and sisters" !!!
Since Bugnini is dead, it's understandable that people would look for a scapegoat upon which to focus their liturgical rage . . . but Marini is just the wrong target, and to unload all the venom on him demonstrates a breathtaking lack of knowledge (not to mention justice and charity!).
Archbishop Martini is trimming his sails to fit the wind and moderating some of positions. If he was the one behind JPII's Masses, he was behind some truly weird "experiments."
And no, he's not referring to permitted choices. He specifically says that priests should not be bound by "slavish respect for liturgical norms." Go back and read the context before you accuse people of extracting things from it.
I think you should go back and read what he actually said, which definitely does approve of leeway.
That said, I see him as a sort of Vicar of Bray. "Whatsoever king may reign, still I'll be the Vicar of Bray, sir," etc., and I think he will probably try to do what the current Pope wants him to do. He says, quite correctly, that JPII didn't really care that much one way or the other about the liturgy, and he remarks that BXVI is concerned and therefore he has to be much more careful. Perhaps he'll put all the knowledge he supposedly has to a constructive use now; it sure sounds as if BXVI is not letting him run wild.
Well, you're right, I should read it all more carefully. I just remember another interview in which Bishops involved in the Synod for Africa complained that Marini would not allow them to do some things at St. Peter's that they had done during papal liturgies on one of JP II's trips to Africa. They protested - over lunch! - to JP II and he overode Marini's objections. The interview even quoted JP II's final "exhortation" to them in which he specifically praised "the many elements of your culture which were evident in our celebration of the liturgy this morning" - words taken as a direct slap at Marini for having tried to hold the Roman line.
And it wouldn't be very Vicar-of-Bray like to have prepared the first two liturgical books during the reign of JP II, who, after all, approved them. It was just funny to hear self-styled conservatives exulting over "all that Latin" in the papal funeral rites, as if this were done IN SPITE OF Marini and not from the actual books he had prepared.
Then again there was that young hot-shot clerical commentator on FOX celebrating the fact that "we younger priests like to sing over and over again ORA PRO NOBIS, ORA PRO NOBIS" - while in the background you could hear the choir singing ORA PRO EO (because they were praying not FOR US, but FOR HIM - the deceased Pontiff). I'm sure it entirely escaped him that the were significant uses of the plural as well, ORATE . . . but then again, we have a member of the VOX CLARA Commission who famously proclaimed the naming of his new Bishop in the headline of his diocesan newspaper: HABEMUS EPISCOPAM ! One can only hope that before his naming to the Commission he moved on to the second declension.
Yes, one of the problems with young priests and their Latin is that they don't have any. We have one very sincere priest who tries to throw in a bit of Latin every now and then but he gets all his declensions wrong, since he's not working from a text but from his vague idea of what the text says. In fact, he probably doesn't even know declensions exist.
As for Martini, it could be that he was simply doing what he thought was expected under JPII, and will have a chance to really come into his own now. I was just not very pleased with the comment that implied that the Mass could be the personal expression of the priest, which I think is precisely one of the problems. So who knows? I really don't follow Vatican politics that closely; life is too short...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.