![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Interview with Archbp. Ranjith: those who resist Summorum Pontificum guilty of the sin of pride
The highly estimable Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige gave an interview to Bruno Volpe of Petrus where you can find the original Italian.
Rorate has their own translation, but here is mine with my emphases:
Your Excellency, what kind of reception has Benedict XVI´s Motu Proprio which liberalized the Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite had? Some, in the very bosom of the Church, have got their noses bent out of shape…
"There have been positive reactions and, it’s pointless to deny it, criticisms and opposing positions, also on the part of theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. Frankly, I don’t understand this distancing from, and, let’s just say it, rebellion against the Pope. I invite all, above all shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. Bishops, in particular, swore loyalty to the Pontiff: they must be consistent and faithful to their commitment."
In your view, what are these demonstrations against the Motu Proprio due to?
"You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely."
The derestriction of the the Tridentine Rite by Benedict XVI appears to be the right remedy for the many liturgical abuses sadly recounted after the Second Vatican Council with the ‘Novus Ordo’...
"Look, I don’t want to criticize the ‘Novus Ordo’. But I have to laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a some parish, a priest is a ‘saint’ because of his homily or how well he speaks. Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest celebrating it. It is important, nay rather, fundamental that the priest step aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. So I really don’t understand these Eucharistic celebrations turned into shows with dances, songs or applause, as frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."
Monsignor Patabendige, your Congregation has repeatedly denounced these liturgical abuses…
"True. However, there are so many documents which have sadly remained dead letters, winding up on dusty shelves or, worse yet, in waste baskets."
Another point: one often hears very long homilies…
"This is an abuse too. I’m against dances and applause during Masses, which aren’t a circus or stadium. Regarding homilies, they must be about, as the Pope has underscored, the catechetical dimension exclusively, avoiding sociologizing and pointless chatter. For example, priests jump onto some political point because they didn’t prepare their homily well, which really ought to be scrupulously worked on. An excessively long homily is synonymous with poor preparation: the right length of time for a sermon should be 10 minutes, 15 at most. You have to remember that the high point of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery, without of course intending to downplay the liturgy of the Word, but rather to make clear how to carry out a correct liturgy."
Returning to the Motu Proprio: some criticize the use of Latin during Mass…
"The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has duly explained the reasons for his provision, an act of liberty and justice towards traditionalists. As for Latin, I would underscore that it was never been abolished and, what is more, that it secures the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I urge priests, bishops, and cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice."
I have a couple observations.
Archbp. Ranjith identifies resistance to Summorum Pontificum, that is, attempting to impose restrictions on the Pope’s wide provisions, as a manifestation of the sin of pride.
Ranjith firmly establishes that Christ is the true actor in the Mass. Thus, since He is the Actor, what He does in the liturgy (the Church’s texts and the our gestures defined by rubrics) is Christ acting and speaking through us. Our active participation, therefore, be characterized by active participation by active receptivity.
Since Christ is the true Actor, the priest needs to get out of the way and not impose too much his own personality on any liturgical action. The older form of Mass, in its precision of rubrics first and foremost, but also its gestalt tends to control the priest. The newer form of Mass frees him up in a way that is a little risky. Also, we could say that the ad orientem manner of saying Mass also helps to get the priest out of the way so that everyone can focus more fully on the Lord together.
About that phrase of "liberty and justice" towards "traditionalists". In an amazing coincidence I was reading this morning a new little book by a liturgist at the liturgical institute Sant’Anselmo in Rome, Andrea Grillo (born 1961) entitled Oltre Pio V... Beyond Pius V. Though I am not too far into this book, and probably won’t go much further, Grillo takes exception to the argument in favor of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum based on "freedom" of rites. I will look over that section again and maybe post some comments on it elsewhere. But it strikes me that Archbp. Ranjith knows precisely who, in Rome and around the world, is fighting the Motu Proprio and with what arguments.
Therefore, WDTPRS will continue to keep and eye on things and let people know what is going on. If I can’t always provide lots of analysis or review everyone you readers inform me about, I can at least put certain positive and negative positions in the spotlight. You can do your own digging and decide what is going on.
This the second(?) time Arch. Ranjith has castigated Cardinals and Bishops who oppose the Motu Propio; “instruments of the devil”.
Comment by Bernard — 5 November 2007 @ 1:39 pmUnless the upcoming clarifications have real teeth (such as…what?) it seems the battle lines are being drawn. Very serious. Pray hard.
I agree… battle lines are being drawn very clearly. This is a bold statement coming from someone in Ranjith’s position, particularly since it is his congregation that is issuing (has issued?) the document clarifying SP. For him to say, critically, that there have been “even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio” would seem to not bode well for the Bishop’s issuing those documents. I am predicting that the coming “clarification” from the CDW will be in the form of a “cease and desist”(sp?) letter, hopefully with a definitive statement that there is NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER INSTRUCTION FROM THE BISHOPS, and that their role is to respond to questions from clergy who need assistance implementing SP, and that is it! It is sad that we’ve come to a point where things need to be selled out like this. It is gtting easier to understand why Pius X felt it necessary to issue Tra le solicitudini…
Comment by chironomo — 5 November 2007 @ 2:05 pmFurthermore this fits well with what Monsignor Perl of PCED said to Petrus last month:
[Petrus]Well, why are some Bishops and many priests not accepting it [the Motu Proprio]?
[Perl]”It must be clarified for them. Personally, I believe the problem may be generally of order. Everyone, in all the avenues of society, has lost the sense of obedience and the respect for authority. In a manner of speaking, few really have the capacity to obey.”
I see a potential strike back from the Holy See. Perl is essentially saying the Bishops have gone the way of society in disobedience, and his excellency here is saying the bishops are sinning.
Comment by Athanasius — 5 November 2007 @ 2:31 pmMy problem is in the fact that many Bishops of ill will still follow the Weakland doctrine. Weakland ignored explicit instructions from the Holy See not to wreckovate his Cathedral in Miluakee back in 2002, and nothing was done. That was a sign to every other progressive Bishop that when the Holy See puts out instructions like Redemptionis Sacramentum, they are DOA and nothing will be done. In fact, Cardinal Mahony, in a letter in the Tidings, told everyone how he respected Redemptionis Sacramentum, but since pouring the Blessed Sacrament from pitchers like kool-aid had become custom in the LA Archdiocese, he was going to set it aside as if he were his own Pope. The episcopal resistance to SP is a continuation of this. Blatantly tell the Vatican to go to hell and nothing will happen. My problem is, what will happen when the Vatican finally does something? Will the Bishops push back, with their new found powers outlined in the “spirit of Vatican II”? The Holy See historically has always worked to avoid schisms with few exceptions. This is true long before the modern period. During the Italian Wars Pope Julius II gave up all kinds of rights to King Francis to stop the Gallican schism from occurring. Will Pope Benedict cave on obedience to SP in order to stop the “spirit of Vatican II schism”, which I define as multiple national episcopal conferences deciding they will ignore Church law? Then again, to quote the famous words of the late Jesuit John Hardon, S.J., when asked whether or not the USCCB was in schism, he said “How do you know they aren’t already in schism?
Wow.
Comment by Athelstane — 5 November 2007 @ 3:10 pmFr. Z writes: “The newer form of Mass frees him up in a way that is a little risky. Also, we could say that the ad orientem manner of saying Mass also helps to get the priest out of the way so that everyone can focus more fully on the Lord together.”
Couldn’t agree more. The form and rubrics of the vetus ordo formed through the centuries to control the actions of the priest, who acts in Persona Christi, and therefore must comport himself accordingly. How the priest holds the Eucharist, for instance, is regulated to show due reverence; and how we receive it is regulated for the same reason. Passing around Christ, hand-to-hand; lay minister to disinterested parishioner, does not create a sense of awe. No wonder only 25% of those who still attend mass (which itself is only 25% of Catholics in America and 7% in France) do not believe in the Real Presence.
In so many novus ordo masses the attention is all on the priest; how funny he is being, the great jokes he is telling, it’s, “me, me, me!” While Christ is, all too often, forgotten; and if He is remembered at all, it is only as the resurrected Christ (which is a good thing, don’t get me wrong), and the Sacrifice is forgotten or deemphasized.
Comment by Malta — 5 November 2007 @ 3:46 pmI have heard good 10-15 minute homilies. They are the exception. My personal preference is 30 minutes. With the exception of priests who rarely hit the 30 minute mark, my expereince is that the longer sermons are better. Other than that, I don’t think there is much to disagree. In particular, the standard for televised masses needs to be improved.
Comment by M.Z. Forrest — 5 November 2007 @ 4:02 pmWow
Talk about throwing down the gauntlet!
This is the second time in a month that disobedient Bishops have been PUBLICLY accused of grave sin. Is there a precedent for this??
Comment by Tom S. — 5 November 2007 @ 4:19 pmI like Damian Thompson’s spin on this story:
Rome’s fury: Motu Proprio mutiny ‘sinful’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/november07/romes-fury.htm
Posted by Damian Thompson on 05 Nov 2007 at 16:27
telegraph.co.uk
The Vatican has vented its fury at the mutinous response of liberal bishops and cardinals to the Pope’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass.
Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has accused dioceses that try to sabotage the Pope’s Motu Proprio of “prejudices of an ideological kind” and “pride, one of the gravest sins”. Well said!
The archbishop does not name the prelates he considers to be in a state of “rebellion towards the Pope”, as he puts it. But one thing is clear: overall, the reaction of the Bishops of England and Wales to Pope Benedict’s ruling has been truly dismal.
This is just guesswork, but I wouldn’t surprised if Archbishop’s Ranjith’s remarks were directed partly at the Diocese of Portsmouth, whose “director of liturgy” Paul Inwood produced an appalling set of guidelines that tried to ban Catholics for asking for the traditional Mass.
Two other names that come to mind are Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton and Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, both of whom have written letters contrary to the letter and spirit of the Pope’s wishes.
Hat-tip to Petavius and the Rorate Caeli blog for alerting me to the archbishop’s interview, given to Bruno Volpe of the papal news website Petrus. Here are the money quotes:
“There have been positive reactions [to the Motu Proprio] and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition, even from theologians, liturgists, priests, bishops, and even cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment…
“You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably intend to limit the Pope’s Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call all to obey the Pope. If the Holy Father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share.”
Such ferocious comments by a senior figure in the Curia indicate that Rome is not prepared to stand by and watch liberal bishops ignore Pope Benedict’s decision to restore the former Tridentine Rite to full parity with the Mass of Paul VI.
Archbishop Ranjith, 58, a Dutch-born Sri Lankan, is a man after the Pope’s heart: he loves the traditional Mass and celebrates it in his private chapel. He speaks with a forthright eloquence rarely encountered among English bishops. Here is a taste of his style, from a recent address in the Netherlands:
“The Church cannot be the arena of confusion, philosophical or moral relativism, sophistry and casuistic dilution of the revealed truth which is the foundation of its Credo, the Word of God as revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church and interpreted by the official magisterium of the Church and open dissent or public debate even in the name of the freedom of theological research.
“My mind goes back to the story of the construction or shall we say the attempted construction of the Tower of Babel. Its constructors felt confident that they could scale the heavens with their own resources and strength without God. Hasn’t that same spirit re-appeared perhaps in a more sophisticated form in the world and the Church today?”
Archbishop Ranjith is no fool: he is appalled by the stroppy, work-to-rule mentality of bishops who think they are popes in their own dioceses and have no intention of implementing a ruling they don’t like.
As for the identity of the unnamed cardinals, your guess is as good as mine. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster hasn’t said anything that could get him into trouble – but neither has he manifested the slightest enthusiasm for – or interest in – this crucial aspect of Benedict’s reform of the liturgy. He’s keeping his head down, as usual.
Posted by Damian Thompson on 05 Nov 2007 at 16:27
Comment by BK — 5 November 2007 @ 4:23 pmArchbishop Ranjith and Cardinal Hoyos laid much of the groundwork for the Pope’s Motu Proprio in the months leading up to the publication of Summorum Ponitificum.
I must wonder if they are now laying the groundwork for the document from the PCED clarifying Summorum Ponitificum? If so, the clarification may be just as earth shaking as the document itself was!
Comment by BK — 5 November 2007 @ 4:29 pmFather Z, a question from an ignorant layman:
Is there anything in canon law that would prohibit a pastor from celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ad orientem, or would he need explicit permission from his bishop first?
Along a related line, can the Canon of the Mass be recited in Latin, if the rest of the Mass (readings, prayers, etc) are in the vernacular? Or must it be an “all or nothing” approach?
Many thanks, and God bless you for the work you do in this blog!
Comment by Dave Wells — 5 November 2007 @ 4:56 pmHow long will it take for the comments of Archbishop Ranjith to filter to the bishops who are trying to squelch Summorum Pontificum? And then, when they do, will they even pay attention? My biggest fear is th