LITURGICAL DISCIPLINE NEEDED, VATICAN OFFICIAL SAYS

Jul. 13 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican is planning to restore some disciplinary control of the liturgy, according the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in response to widespread abuses.

Speaking to the I Media news agency in Rome, Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don will soon take steps to indicate the importance of following the Church's liturgical guidelines. Asked whether Pope Benedict XVI is preparing a document on the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith answered indirectly, noting that the Holy Father has written and spoken extensively on liturgical issues in past years. Pope Benedict is keenly aware of today's challenges, he said, and determined to restore a proper sense of reverence to the liturgy. The Sri Lankan prelate said that some of his thoughts had been taken out of context after a previous interview with the French newspaper La Croix. He had not intended to suggest that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II had failed, he stressed; rather, he meant that some liturgical changes had produced an overreaction, and a loss of appreciation for Church traditions. As a result, he said, "the reforms of the Council did not bear the expected fruit, because of the way in which they were interpreted and put into practice." Now, he continued, the great challenge for the Church is to promote a deeper understanding of the liturgical reforms: one in keeping with the constant traditions of Catholicism. Archbishop Ranjith said that two extremes must be avoided: a liturgical free-for-all in which "every priest of bishop does what he wants, which creates confusion;" or a complete abandonment of liturgical reforms, leading to a vision that is "closed up in the past." Today, he said, those two extremes are becoming more prominent, and the Church needs to establish a middle ground.

Every day, the archbishop disclosed, the Congregation for Divine Worship receives new complaints about serious liturgical abuses, and complaints that local bishops have failed to correct them. If the Church fails to curb these abuses, he said, "people will attend the Tridentine Mass, and our churches will be empty." Liturgical guidelines are set forth clearly, he observed, in the Roman Missal and in Church documents. Now "some discipline is necessary regarding what we do at the altar."

Archbishop Ranjith spoke to I Media after returning from Kumasi, Ghana, where he participated in a workshop about the liturgy in Africa. He reported that Church officials from 23 different African countries took part in the discussions, which centered on questions of translation and inculturation.

END

[Here follows the original French interview in an unofficial, rough translation; in some places I've cut out phrases which were too convuluted for me to get a sense of; in others I've replaced a word to gain what seems to be the sense of what is being said; however, again, this is not an official translation, nor even a very competent one. It seems however to be of interest to read the broader interview, even if only loosely and roughly:]

Rome: The Vatican intends to reaffirm the need for liturgical discipline
The Pope wants to put an end to the abuses, ensures Mgr Malcom Ranjith

(Original French Article)

Rome, July 13, 2006 (Apic) Pope Benedict XVI will put an end to the “abuses” in the celebration of the Mass and will put an end to “the confrontations” with the adherents of the Latin mass, declared a person at the Vatican, Thursday, at the agency I.Media, partner of Apic in Rome. According to the Sri Lankian Bishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don, new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pope “will take measures” because the liturgy of the Catholic Church has too often been “a sign of scandal”.

Msgr Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, intends to point out the importance of discipline as regards liturgical celebration. According to the Sri Lankan prelate, Benedict XVI “will take measures indicating how it is advisable to celebrate" explained the prelate on his return of Ghana where he took part in a congress devoted to liturgical promotion in Africa and Madagascar.

Q.: You recently affirmed in the French Catholic daily newspaper La Croix that the liturgical reform of the Council the Vatican II “had never taken off “. These words have surprised many people…

R.: I am surprised, because I did not say it thus and it is not true. I wanted to say that the conciliar reform - with the awaited spiritual revival, with the major catecheses which were to start again the Church vis-a-vis the secularist context - had results which are not so positive. The reform took off well. Thus, the use of the vernacular language is a positive thing, because everyone can include/understand what occurs during the readings. In the same way, the direction of communion which developed. But these elements sometimes were accentuated a little too much by giving up certain positive aspects of the tradition of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger himself, in the foreword of the book Turing Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer of Father Uwe Michael Lang, has said that the abandonment of Latin and the orientation of celebrating towards the people was not part of the conclusions of the Council.

Q.: For some, which accurately followed the Council, your remarks surprise…

R.: It is not a question of giving up the Council, because it influenced the Church substantially in its opening to the world. But, at same time, it would have been necessary to deepen what we had already. It would have been necessary, as was said the Council, to have “organic” change, without a break, a giving up of the past. The encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia of John Paul II, and the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (April 2004) indicate well that something did not go right. The Pope spoke then with a certain bitterness. Thus, one cannot say that things happened very well, but one cannot say either that it happened very badly. The reforms of the Council, by the way in which they were understood and implemented, did not bear the hoped for fruits.

Q.: Concretely, what should be done?

R.: There are two extremes to avoid: to allow each priest or bishop to do what he wants, which creates confusion, or, on the contrary, to completely give up a vision adapted to the modern context and to be locked up in the past. Today, these two extremes continue to grow. Which is the happy medium? … It is advisable to reflect for a moment, to celebrate seriously and to improve what we currently do.

Q.: Does one have to await a papal document or one of your Congregation on this subject?

R.: In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (published in German in 2000, then in French in 2001), Cardinal Ratzinger had presented a very complete framework of the question. I believe that the pope is very conscious of what is occuring, that he studies the question and that it is a priority [?]. He will take measures to indicate to us with what seriousness we must celebrate the liturgy. It is with responsibility that the liturgy becomes a sign of building of the faith and not a sign of scandal. Because, if the liturgy is not able to change the Christians and to make them become heroic witnesses of the Gospel, then it does not realize its true goal. Those who take part in the Mass must leave the church convinced that its engagement social, moral, political and economic, is a Christian engagement.

Q.: Are the liturgical abuses really so numerous?

R.: Each day, we receive so much letters, signed, where people deplore the many abuses: priests who do what they want, of the bishops which ignore this or even who make their priests [do these things] in the name of the `true renewal' We cannot conceal this. It is of our responsibility to be vigilant. Because, in the end, people will attend the Tridentine Mass and our churches will be emptied. The Tridentine Mass does not belong to Lefebvristes. Now is the moment to cease the confrontations and to see whether we were faithful to the instructions of the Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is why one needs discipline for what we do... The rules are clearly shown in the Roman Missal and the documents of the Church.

Q.: You hardly return of Kumasi, in Ghana, where you directed work of the congress organized by your congregation on liturgical promotion in Africa and in Madagascar. Of what that did it consist?

R.: There were representatives of 23 African countries, of which many bishops. We presented the work of the Congregation to them, the updates necessary. We also evoked the way of translating the liturgical texts and the need for recognition of these texts by the Congregation. We devoted one day whole to the inculturation in the liturgy, and we also studied the question of the liturgical formation of the faithful.

Q.: Which questions were particularly mentioned concerning the inculturation?

R.: We especially spoke about the problems of language in the liturgical translations, how to introduce the local languages, and also adaptations of the liturgy. The bishops are conscious of the danger, on the one hand, to have a certain religious and cultural syncretism, and on the other hand they are aware of the necessity that the liturgy is comprehensible to all. We discussed the question of the universal identity of the Mass, the things which cannot be changed and of those which can be, of the African values of crowned [?], mystery, family, the respect of elders, and of how to introduce them into the liturgy.

Q.: Which recommendations result from this first continental congress?

R.: 25 different points were approved by the participants at the end of the congress. Essence being not to betray the universal form of the sacraments, especially its Catholic aspects. At the same time, it is advisable to seek to engage a deeper inculturation, not only external but also of mentality, a way of seeing, a way of requesting, etc. Very many bishops took note of many points of the liturgy of the Church which they were unaware of before. This meeting, on the one hand, thus made it possible the Congregation to listen to the bishops, to have their problems, and, on the other hand, it helped the bishops to include/understand the universal needs for the liturgy.

Q.: You await now texts coming from African countries to approve?

R.: Yes, because many of the bishops were unaware of that it was necessary that their texts are recognized by the Congregation. They indeed continued to use texts written without approval of Rome. It is quite possible that this situation exists on other continents.

(Remarks collected in Rome by Antoine-Marie Izoard/apic/ami/pr)

13.07.2006 - Apic

According to the Sri Lankan prelate, Benedict XVI “will take measures indicating how it is advisable to celebrate" explained the prelate on his return of Ghana where he took part in a congress devoted to liturgical promotion in Africa and Madagascar.
Q.: You await now texts coming from African countries to approve?

R.: Yes, because many of the bishops were unaware of that it was necessary that their texts are recognized by the Congregation. They indeed continued to use texts written without approval of Rome. It is quite possible that this situation exists on other continents.

Sounds like his comments are particularly related to the African congress he had just attended.

I wanted to say that the conciliar reform - with the awaited spiritual revival, with the major catecheses which were to start again the Church vis-a-vis the secularist context - had results which are not so positive.

There's an understatement!

"Because, in the end, people will attend the Tridentine Mass and our churches will be emptied."

* I understand the context of this remark, but I still do not think it would be a bad thing to have such occur. The Novus Ordo is a fabricated liturgy that should die by attrition; however, I agree that a wholesale return of the TLM is not necessarily the long term solution. OTH, a short term return to the TLM is a good thing and any meaningful reforms should be carried out in the context of and stem from the TLM as was the intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

"The Tridentine Mass does not belong to Lefebvristes."

* Agreed. The TLM is a venerable, ancient rite that belongs to all Catholics at every time.

"Now is the moment to cease the confrontations and to see whether we were faithful to the instructions of the Sacrosanctum Concilium. "

* Bump to my first comment. SC was composed entirely in the context of the then existing and current 1962 Missal.

>>* I understand the context of this remark, but I still do not think it would be a bad thing to have such occur. <<

I agree with you. If he had said "The SSPX parishes....." instead of the TLM, that would be a problem.

Go on Catholic Answers forum and see how many people go to the TLM because they are offered nothing but innovative masses in their area.

If we were to offer an EWTN type mass in every vicariate, I think the market would prevail. The more innovative the Diocese, the more people run to the TLM.

We have two parishes in our immediate area that have an NO without innovation. Each are growing out of the churches. Even our one TLM is packed and it's in the hood.

The rest of the Archdiocese is so innovative, it's sad. Not all abuses, just innovations. Some of us want a Historically Catholic mass. No handholding, no orans, no baskets full of hosts, no "Happy Catholic" masses. If they don't give us that in the NO, we will go to the Indults. And they will grow.

"The Tridentine Mass does not belong to Lefebvristes. "

True. It belongs to all of us.
But, unfortunately, it is available to very few of us.

If it were not for the "Lefebvristes", it would likely be available to none of us.

Let's face it, the "Indult" was a reaction to the success of the "Lefebvristes".

There is little doubt in my mind that the good archbishop will be canonized some day, probably in the very distant future.

I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people go to the TLM because it is the oasis from the Novus Ordo. I recognize this will happen and rightly so.

However, I wish more people would adopt a pro-TLM reasoning for going "trad" rather than an anti-NO reasoning.

Consider that prior to 1962, all that existed was the TLM (save for Eastern rites). I think the whole point of SC was to foster the people with a sense of appreciation for and promote the inherent beauty of our liturgical heritage. If the TLM is being filled because of what it is not and not for what it is, then Ranjith has a point in his sayings above.

In the AMchurch, it will be business as usual. USCCB will form committees to study any proposed orthodox changes, etc., and in the end, most of the bishops will simply ignore the Holy Father (as usual) and continue to implement their own agenda. Of course, there are already some bishops who have cleaned up their dioceses to some extent, but I'm not expecting much more at this point. In the meantime, the Traditinal Mass will continue to thrive either through official channels (though many bishops still suppress it in opposition to Rome's desire for it to be widely available), or through the Eastern Rite and even the schismatics (who are actually protestant). Perhaps one day the neo modernists/pelagianists will make a formal split from Rome and form an American Cathoic Church or some such, but I think they are happiest when undermining from within.

Hopefully B16 will put more teeth in his decisions with more consequences even for the Am Bishops if they do not comply.

More on this topic on www.chisea.com

In other offices of the curia, the pope’s guidelines have already left their mark with earlier removals, replacements, consolidations, and confirmations.

In the area of the liturgy, the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, archbishop Malcolm Ranjith of Sri Lanka, has made it clear that there are “corrections” of certain postconciliar tendencies on the way, which will be discussed in the document finalizing the synod on the Eucharist that Benedict XVI will publish by the end of the summer (9).

Some of these “reforms of the reform” will concern music. On June 30, the head of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, Msgr. Valentino Miserachs Grau, announced that the pope will make a personal visit there in November to inaugurate the new academic year. And he said he expects the creation of a new Vatican office “that would coordinate with authority the activity of all those who work in liturgical music, and would watch over the liturgical celebrations.”

Benedict XVI’s thought on the matter was confirmed with a concert held in his honor on June 24 in the Sistine Chapel by Maestro Domenico Bartolucci, a living symbol of liturgical music inspired by Gregorian chant and polyphony (10).

Other alterations are foreseen for other offices of the curia. One of the candidates for prefect of a congregation is the current secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Angelo Amato, whom Ratzinger knows very well and trusts completely (11). Amato’s promotion would be further confirmation of the preeminence of the Holy Office within the new curia, in part as the training ground of its most highly placed officials.

The 1962 Missal is not the TLM because its rubrics and liturgical calendar deviate from the historic Roman rite in unnumerable areas.

However, it is far closer to the 1570 Missal than the current rite.

Pope Benedict XVI, like his immediate predecessors, are bent on reunion with the Orthodox; however, the liturgical changes implemented since the 1950s are an ecumenical obstacle to reunion. Eastern Orthodoxy places liturgical continuity at the top of its concerns. The Byzantine rite as well as those of the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Armenian and Assyrian churches have not been tampered with in centuries.

The Orthodox view the pre-1950s form of the Roman rite as a liturgical continuity with the pre-schism era before in their view, the Roman Catholic Church fell into error due to scholasticism.

The pre-conciliar liturgy in its solemn form maintains a continuity with the other rites of the Church in a way the current rite does not.

You still don't seem to get it. Vatican II ordered the revision of the missal. Therefore, it is not possible to remain faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium and return to the Tridentine Mass since that would mean returning to a form of the rite that had not yet been reformed. The Church is not going to repudiate the Novus Ordo and return to TLM.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I get it perfectly. In order to correctly implement SC, we must begin with the TLM. My other point from previous posts is that while I agree for the need to reform, I disagree with the actual reasoning for reform found in SC, whih is my prerogative as an individual.

I think regardless, the goal should be that if one were to attend the TLM or a revised form stemming from the TLM, he would encounter the same spirituality and ethos at Mass. I think this goal is implied with what Ranjith said.

The traditional Mass went through minor revisions up to and including the 1962 Missal. You may have a strong point with the Holy Week revision of 1955/56 as being a rupture, but other than that, revising minor rubrics and the calendar is in perfect continuity with Roman tradition.

The East has historically maintained a very unchanged liturgy from ancient times, so I can see why there would be a certain distaste for the Western habit of revising liturgy.

Yes, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a reform of the liturgy but, if are to be honest, the Novus Ordo went way beyond the modest proposals that were called for by the council. This goes double for the way the NO is typically celebrated today. The reforms called for by the council were the product of the Liturgical Movement which sought to better celebrate the Roman Rite that was received, not to replace it with a new one. What Vatican II really called for can best be seen in the forgotten Missal of 1965. You can see a fuller discussion of this at http://traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/.

It is the hope of many Catholics that we will see a real and complete "reform of the reform" that will be faithful to both the tradition and the council, to neither of which is the NO faithful. I would suggest that this is also the intention of Pope Benedict. I, as many others have argued, believe that this new reform should start with the traditional Mass rather than the NO. In the meantime it must be remembered that Pope John Paul II has reauthorized the celebration of the Mass according to the traditional Missal. Thus to seek to so worship is in complete harmony with the mind of the Church. I would also add that since the NO has gone so far away from what was intended by the council fathers that the tradition unreformed Mass is actually closer to what they envisioned than the present Novus Ordo Mass.

"I would also add that since the NO has gone so far away from what was intended by the council fathers that the tradition unreformed Mass is actually closer to what they envisioned than the present Novus Ordo Mass."

Amen to that. My bishop at the time of VII was one of the council fathers. He would have gone wild if one of his priests ad libbed anything much less did the clown, dancer or drum and banjo thing.

Thanks for the so called history lesson but I don't need it since I wrote my master's thesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I disagree that the Missal of Paul VI went "way beyond the modest proposals" that the Council decreed. The missal itself is fine. Rather, I would place the "blame" with the instructions that were issued by the Consilium and, later, the Congregation for Divine Worship. I would also give some of the blame to the regional conferences of bishops and to regional and diocesan liturgy committees, which too often pushed for unnecessary liturgical experiments.

As I pointed out to jrny, the reform of the reform does NOT require throwing out the Novus Ordo and returning to the Tridentine Mass. Indeed, it would be counterproductive for the Church to do so and the current pope has written that he would not consider doing this. Finally, the unreformed Latin Mass was not what the Council Fathers wanted. If it were, they would not have decreed that it be reformed and revised.

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.