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.
VALLE: 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.
