'Summorum Pontificum' also indicates for the whole Church some theological and disciplinary principles necessary for its renewal as intended by Vatican-II
Interview with Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacramental Discipline.
VATICAN CITY (Fides News Agency) - With the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has enabled the celebration of the traditional Mass without necessarily requesting the permission of the local bishop.
After Vatican-II and in particular, with the consequent liturgical reform of 1970 promoted by Pope Paul VI, the old Missal was replaced by the Novus Ordo, and even if the old rite was never abolished, those who wished to use it had to get the local bishop's express permission. And were often denied.
But such a permission was sanctioned by another Motu Proprio - Ecclesia Dei afflicta issued by John Paul II on July 2, 1988. With Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, such permission is no longer necessary and any 'stable group' can freely ask their parish priest for the celebration of the traditional Mass on a regular basis.
Fides agency directed some questions about the Motu Proprio to Mons. Ranjith.
Your Excellency, what do you think is the deepest significance of Summorum Pontificum?
I see in this not only the Holy Father's concern to open the way for a return to full communion with the Church of the followers of Mons. Lefebvre, but an idnication to the whole Church of some theological and disciplinary principles that must be preserved in order to carry out the profound renewal of the Church which was the great intention of Vatican-II.
I think the Pope strongly desires to correct the temptations evident in some circles who see the Council as a rupture with the past and as a completely new beginning. We should not forget his speech on December 22, 2005 to the Roman Curia.
Moreover, not even the fathers of Vatican-II themselves thought in terms of rupture. Whether it had to do with doctrinal or liturgical choices, or juridical and pastoral decisions, the Council was a time for profound examination and an updating, aggiornamento, of the rich theological and spiritual legacy of the Church from its bimillennial history.
With the Motu Proprio, the Pope wished to affirm clearly that any temptation to deprecate the Church's venerable traditions is out of line. The message is clear: progress, yes, but not at the expense of, or doing without, the Church's previous history. So, even liturgical reform should be faithful to what took place in the life of the Church from the beginning to the present, without excluding anything.
On the other hand, we must never forget that for the Catholic Church, divine Revelation does not only come from Scriptures but also from the living Tradition of the Church. This distinguishes us cldearly from other manifestations of Christian faith.
For us, truth is what emerges, so to speak, from both poles of Scripture and Tradition (capital "T"). I think this position is much richer than any other because it respects the Lord's freedom to guide us toward a more adequate understanding of truth that can be revealed even through what could happen in the future.
Of course, the process of discerning just what emerges is realized through the Magisterium of the Church. But what we must grasp is the importance attributed by the church to Tradition. Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum states this clearly (DV 10).
Moreover, the Church is a reality that goes beyond the level of mere human invention. It is the mystical Body of Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the people elected by God. Therefore, it goes beyond earthly frontiers and every limitation of time. It is a reality that transcends by far her earthly and hierarchical manifestations.
That is why, within the Church, whatever has been received must be transmitted faithfully. We are neither inventors of the truth nor its masters. We are only those who receive it and have the task to safeguard it and pass it on to others.
As St. Paul said, speaking of the Eucharist, "In fact, I have received from the Lord what, in my turn, I am passing on to you" (1 Cor 11,23).
Respect for Tradition is not our free choice in searching for the truth - it is the basis for it, and we must accept it as such. Therefore, faithfulness to Tradition is an essential attitude of the Church itself.
And the Motu Proprio, in my opinion, should also be understood in this sense. It is a possible stimulus for a necessary course correction. Because, in some choices made for the liturgical reform carried out after the Council, orientations were adopted that obfuscated soem aspects of liturgy which were better reflected in the traditional rite - all because those who were responsible interpreted liturgical renewal as something to be done from scratch, ex novo.
But we know very well that was not the intention expressed in Sacrosanctum concilium, which states that "new forms must draw organically from those that already exist" (SC 23).
One characteristic of Benedict XVI's Pontificate appears to be an insistence on the correct intepretation (hermeneutic) of Vatican-II. Do you see Summorum Pontificum as a step in that direction? And in what way?
Already as a cardinal, the Pope in his writings rejected a certain 'exuberance' found in some theological circles who were motivated by a so-called 'spirit of Vatican-II'. which for him was actually an 'anti-spirit', what he called a Konzils-Ungeist (Chapter 2, The Ratzinger Report).
He wrote then: "One must decisively oppose this scheme of a 'before' and 'after' in the history of the Church, which is totally unjustified by the documents of Vatican-II, which do nothing but to reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism".
However, such an erroneous interpretation of the Council and the historical-theological path of the Church has influenced all sectors of the Church, including the liturgy. This attitude of facilely rejecting eccclesiastical, theological and liturgical developments of the past millennium, on the one hand, and a naive idolization of what they presume to be the thinking (mens) of the early Christians, on the other, has had an influence of not little relevance to the liturgical-theological changes of the post-conciliar era.
The categorical rejection of the pre-Conciliar Mass, as a 'relic' of an era that has definitely been 'overcome', is a result of that mentality. So many in the Church took up that attitude, but thank God, not everyone.
Sacrosanctum concilium, the Council Constitution on the Liturgy, does not offer any justification for such an attitude. Whether in its general principles or in the standards it proposes, the document is moderate and faithful to what the liturgical life of the Church should be. Just read the Paragraph 23 of that Constitution!
Some liturgical reforms abandoned important elements of liturgy and their related theological considerations. Now it is necessary and important to recover these elements.
The Pope, who considers the Mass of Pius V revised by John XXIII as a way to recover those elements obfusdcated by the 1970 reform, surely thought a lot about his decision. We know that he consulted different sectors of the Church about this first, and then, despite some objections, he decided nevertheless that free access to the traditional rite should be allowed.
It is not, as some have said, a return to the past, as much as a way to restore balance in an integral way between the eternal, transcendent and heavenly aspects of the liturgy and its earthly and communitarian aspects. This will help eventually to establish an equilibrium between the sense of the sacred and of mystery, on the one hand, and the external gestures, attitudes and socio-cultural aspects deriving from liturgy.
When he was still a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger insisted a lot on the need to read Vatican-II starting with its first document, which was Sacrosanctum concilium. Why do you think the Council Fathers decided to make liturgy their first objective?
Surely, it must have been primarily their awareness of the vital importance of liturgy to the life of the Church. The liturgy is, so to speak, the nucleus, because what one celebrates is what one believes and what one lives - the famous axiom of Lex orandi, lex credendi. That is why every true reform of the Church passes through liturgy. The Council Fathers were very aware of this importance.
Moreover, liturgical reform was already under way even before the Council, starting with the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini of St. Pius X, and the Mediator Dei of Pius XII. It was Pius X who attributed to liturgy the expression that it is the 'primary spring' of authentic Christian spirit.
So perhaps, the existence of structures and the experience of those who had been studying the possible introduction of liturgical reforms led the Council Fathers to choose it as the subject for their first sessions.
Pope Paul VI reflected on the thinking of the Council Fathers about this when he said, "Let us review together our scale of values and duties: God in the first place; prayer as our first obligation; the liturgy as the first source of divine life communicated to us, the first school for our spiritual life, the first gift which we can make to the Christian people"(Paul VI, Address at the closing session of the second period of Vatican-II, Dec. 4, 1963).
Many see the publication of Summorum Pontificum as the Pope's attempt to bring back the Lefebvrians into the Church. Is that right?
Yes, but that was not the only reason. The Holy Father, in explaining his decision, listed all his reasons, both in the Motu Proprio and in his explanatory letter.
Of course, he took into account the growing requests from various groups and above all, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX, formal name of the Lefebvrian movement) and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as various lay associations, to liberalize the traditional Mass.
To achieve the total reintegration of Lefebvrians into the Church is important because, in the past, errors of judgment were made which caused unnecessary divisions within the Church, divisions which cannot perhaps be easily overcome now. And the Pope describes this risk in his explanatory letter to the bishops.
What do you think are the most urgent problems that must be dealt with for proper celebration of the liturgy? What would be the priorities?
I think that in the growing demand for the liberalization of the traditional Mass, the Pope saw signs of a certain spiritual void caused in part by how the Mass has come to be celebrated.
These less than desirable practices have been the result of post- Conciliar litugical reforms which tend to reduce, or perhaps, better said, to misunderstand certain essential elements of the faith, as well as an attitude of adventure and innovation that is not itself faithful to the discipline imposed by the liturgical reform - and that is something we see everywhere.
I think that one of the causes why some important elements from the traditional Mass were abandoned in the post-Conciliar reform by some liturgical sectors was ignoring or under-estimating what took place in the liturgy during the second millennium of Christianity. Some liturgists have considered the developments of that period only as negative.
It is an erroneous attitude, because when one speaks of the living Tradition of the Church, we cannot pick and choose only those which agree with our own preconceived ideas.
Tradition, considered in a general sense even in the fields of science, philosophy and theology, is always something living which continues to evolve and progress through the high and low points of history.
As I said earlier, living Tradition is, for the Church, one of the sources of divine Revelation and is the fruit of a continuous evolution. That is true even in liturgical tradition with a small 't'.
The liturgical developments in the second millennnium have their value. Sacrosanctum concilium does not talk of a new rite, or of a rupture, but of a reform that can emerge organically from what exists already.
That is why the Pope said: "In the history of liturgy, there is growth and progress but no rupture. What was sacred in preceding generations remains sacred and great even for us, and cannot suddenly be completely prohibited or even judged dangerous" (Letter to bishops, July 7, 2007).
To idolize and idealize the liturgy of the first millennium at the expense of the second is hardly a scientific or modern attitude. The Fathers of Vatican-II did not show such an attitude.
But the second great problem is a crisis of obedience to the Holy Father that is evident in some circles. The attidue of autonomy which some ecclesiastics have displayed, even in the highest ranks of the Church, certainly does not help the mission that Christ has entrusted to his Vicar on Earth.
One has seen that in some countries and dioceses, bishops have issued rules that practically annul or deform the intentions of the Pope [in Summorum Pontificum]. Such behavior is not in consonance with the dignity and nobility of the vocation of a Pastor of the Church.
I'm not saying this of everyone. Majority of the bishops and ecclesiastics have accepted the wishes of the Pope with due reverence and obedience, and that is very laudable. It is just unfortunate that there are these voices of protest.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Pope's decision was necessary because as he said, the Holy Mass "in some places has not been celebrated in a way that follows the prescriptions of the new Missal, but instead, the new Missal was taken to be an authorization, or even an obligation, to be 'creative' which has often led to deformations of the liturgy to the limits of what is supportable."
"I speak from experience," he contiinued, "because I, too, lived through that period with all its expectations and confusions, and I saw how the arbitrary deformations of the liturgy profoundly hurt many persons who are totally rooted in the faith of the Church" (Letter to Bishops).
So the result of these abuses was a growing spirit of nostalgia for the traditional Mass.
The situation has been aggravated by a sense of general disinterest in reading and following normative documents from the Holy See or even the Instructions and Premises of the liturgical books.
Liturgy still does not count enough to be a priority in the courses for continuing education of churchmen.
Let me be clear. The post-Conciliar reforms to the liturgy were certainly not all negative. There are many positive things that have been achieved. But there have also been abusive changes introduced and that continue to be practised despite their harmful effects on faith itself and the liturgical life of the Church.
I would cite, for example, a change which was never proposed by the Council Fathers nor in Sacrosanctum concilium, which is to receive Communion in one's hands. This alone has resulted in a certain diminution of faith in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Such a practice, and doing away with communion rails, and kneelers for the pews, the introduction of practices which oblige the faithful to be seasted or standing at the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament - diminish the genuine significance of the Eucharist and the sense of profound reverence with which the Church, its faithful, should address the Lord, God's only-begotten Son.
Then, there is the fact that the Church, God's dwelling, becomes nothing more than an assembly hall for meetings, concerts or inter-religious rites.
In some Churches, the Blessed Sacrament is almost hidden away or abandoned in some inconsequential side chapel that is not even properly set up.
All these laxities tend to dim and diminish the faith that is central to the Church, namely the real Presence of Christ. For us, Catholics, the physical Church is properly the dweelling of the eternal.
Another serious error is to confuse the specific roles of the clergy and the laity in the liturgy, so that the presbytery, the space around the altar, becomes a place of too much movement - certainly not a place from which the Christian can catch a sense of wonder and splendor in the presence and saving grace of the Lord.
Then there's the use of dancing, musical instruments and songs that have little to do with liturgy and are not at all appropriate to the sacred environment of the Church and of the sacramental nature of liturgy. I would also add some homilies with a political-social character which are often extemporaneous. All this denatures the celebration of Holy Mass, making it a choreography and a theater event, but not a manifestation of faith.
There are other aspects which are hardly consistent with the beauty and the wonder of what is being celebrated on the altar.
Still, not everything has gone wrong with the Novus Ordo, but much has to be put into order so as to avoid further damage to the life of the Church.
I think that our atttiude to the Pope, his decisions, and the expression of his concern for the good of the Church, should be what St. Paul advised the Corinthians - "Everything should be done for building up" (1 Cor 14,26).
