I was alerted to the following by a friend. The present Papal Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini gave an interview to the Sunday magazine of Niedziela in Poland. I don’t know if this was published somewhere else previously, but this is where I saw it.
With my emphases and comments.
Wlodzimierz Redzioch: – What does the collaboration between Benedict XVI and his Master of Ceremonies look like? Does the Pope decide about everything? [A question I have wondered about for a long time.]
Msgr. Guido Marini: – At first, I would like to stress that the celebrations the Holy Father presides over are to be the points of reference for the whole Church. The Pope is the highest priest, [after the Lord] the one who offers the sacrifice of the Church, the one who shows the liturgical teaching through celebrations – the point of reference for all. [I wonder what the Polish (or Italian) says. Is there is difference between “point of reference” and “model to be imitated”?] Considering this explanation it is easier to understand what the style of collaboration between the Papal Master of Ceremonies and the Holy Father should be. One should act in the way to make the papal liturgies the expressions of his authentic liturgical orientation. Therefore, the Papal Master of Ceremonies must be a humble and faithful servant of the liturgy of the Church. I have understood my work in the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations in this way since the very beginning.
– We all can see the changes introduced to the liturgical celebrations by Benedict XVI. How can we synthesize these changes?
– I think that these changes can be synthesized in the following way: first of all, these are changes made in accordance with the logic of development of continuity with the past. So we do not deal with breaking with the past and juxtaposing with the former pontificates. Secondly, the introduced changes serve to evoke the true spirit of liturgy like the Second Vatican Council wanted, ‘The “subject” of the liturgy’s intrinsic beauty is Christ himself, risen and glorified in the Holy Spirit, who includes the Church in his work.’
– Celebrations directed towards the cross, Holy Communion received directly by mouth and while keeling, longer moments of silence and meditation – these are the most visible liturgical changes introduced by Benedict XVI. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the theological and historical meanings of these changes and what is worse, they can see them as ‘return to the past.’ Can you briefly explain the meanings of these changes?
– To tell you the truth our office has received many testimonies of the faithful who have favourably received the changes introduced by the Pope because they see them as the authentic renewal of the liturgy. As for the significance of some changes I will say a few synthetic reflections. Celebrating towards the cross stresses the correct direction of liturgical prayer, i.e. towards God; during prayers the faithful are not to look at themselves but should direct their eyes towards the Saviour. Giving hosts to people kneeling aims to giving value to the aspect of adoration both as the fundamental element of celebration and the necessary attitude while facing the mystery of God’s real presence in the Eucharist. During the liturgical celebration prayer assumes various forms: words, songs, music, gestures and silence. Furthermore, moments of silence let us participate truly in the act of worship, and what’s more, from the inside evoke every other form of prayer.
– The Pope attaches importance to the liturgical vestments. Is it a matter of pure aestheticism?
– In order to understand better the Pope’s ideas concerning the meaning of the beauty as an important element of liturgical celebrations I would like to quote the apostolic exhortation ‘Sacramentum caritatis, ’This relationship between creed and worship is evidenced in a particular way by the rich theological and liturgical category of beauty. Like the rest of Christian Revelation, the liturgy is inherently linked to beauty: it is veritatis splendor. […] This is no mere aestheticism, but the concrete way in which the truth of God’s love in Christ encounters us, attracts us and delights us, enabling us to emerge from ourselves and drawing us towards our true vocation, which is love. The truest beauty is the love of God, who definitively revealed himself to us in the paschal mystery. […] The beauty of the liturgy is part of this mystery; it is a sublime expression of God’s glory and, in a certain sense, a glimpse of heaven on earth. Beauty, then, is not mere decoration, but rather an essential element of the liturgical action, since it is an attribute of God himself and his revelation.’
– Benedict XVI has changed his pastoral staff – currently he is using the cross-shaped staff. Why?
– I would like to remind you that till the pontificate of Pope Paul VI popes did not use crosiers at all; on special occasions they carried a ferula (cross-shaped staff). Pope Montini, Paul VI, introduced a cross-shaped crosier. And so did Benedict XVI till the Pentecost Sunday of 2008. Since then he has been using ferula because he thinks that it is more suitable for the papal liturgy.
[NB] – Why is it so important that the Church preserves using Latin in the liturgy?
– Although the Second Vatican Council introduced national languages it recommended [required] using Latin in the liturgy. I think it is for two reasons that we should not give up Latin. Above all, we have a great liturgical legacy of Latin: from the Gregorian chant to polyphony as well as ‘testi venerandi’ (sacred texts) that Christians have used for ages. Besides, Latin allows us to show catholicity and universality of the Church. We can experience this universality in a unique way in St Peter’s Basilica and during other international gatherings when men and women from all continents, nationalities, languages, sing and pray in the same language. Who will not feel at home when being at church abroad can join his/her brothers in the faith at least in some parts by using Latin? [That presupposes use in parishes, not just in international gatherings. I am sick of that international gatherings blather, frankly. Why must they beat around the bush? How are people to “feel at home” in international gatherings using Latin if they have never had Latin in their parishes (as Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated? Similarly, if the Holy Father has Latin in his Masses, and the Holy Father’s Masses are a “point of reference” for the rest of the world… well… ergo…. Why is this so hard? JUST.USE.LATIN.]
– Do you agree that the faith of priest is expressed in the liturgy in a special way? [Sigh… this is a question for the Papal MC?]
– I have no doubts about it. [What was he going to say? On the other hand, given what I have seen in some places… never mind.] Since the liturgy is the celebration of Christ’s mystery here and now the priest is called to express his faith in a twofold way. Firstly, he should celebrate with eyes of the one that looks beyond the visible reality to ‘touch’ what is invisible, i.e. God’s presence and work. [More easily facilitated by celebrating Mass ad orientem, no?] It is ‘ars celebrandi’ (art of celebration) that lets the faithful check whether the liturgy is only a performance, spectacle for the priest or whether it is a vivid and attractive relation with Christ’s mystery. Secondly, after the celebration the priest is renewed and ready to follow what he has experienced, i.e. make his life a celebration of Christ’s mystery. [Again the ad intra and ad extra pairing, this time within Mass and outside Mass.]
Loading ...
There’s the rub, of course. How are we to get Latin included as a normal part of every parish’s CCD program? It’s precisely in those brightly-colored classrooms with tiny chairs that the battle for the restoration of Catholic identity will be won or lost.
I’d say there is an important difference between “model to be imitated” and “point of reference”, at least in the technical fields.
In the first, your goal must be to mirror what the Pope does. Any variation is a non-conformance of the standard and should be corrected.
In the latter, the Pope’s liturgies are an example of what liturgy is meant to be — variation is possible but if your liturgy bears no resemblance to the “point of reference” (e.g. your liturgical dancers are bumping into your clowns) then it’s likely that you are in non-conformance and must bring your liturgy in line with the “point of reference”.
To be more concrete, Eastern Catholic Liturgies and the Ambrosian Rite conform to the Pope’s litugies if it is a “point of reference” but not if it is a “model to be imitated”.
To be honest, Romeontherange, you don’t have to teach parishoners latin. They don’t have to follow classes. The only thing that’s needed is that latin is being used at mass, and that they have a missalette with the translation. They don’t have to be able to have a conversation in latin, they need to hear the words and recognize them. That’s all that’s needed (not to say that more isn’t a plus, of course, but historically only a tiny portion of the faithful had formal training in latin, and that has never been seen as a big hurdle.)
Why does one almost always get the sense as if one is talking to a politician, when one reads an interview of some more important monsignor or bishop?
Why is it so important that the Church preserves using Latin in the liturgy?
Why is it so important to preserve the Roman rite? Can’t we just fabricate, say, a Californian rite? You know, the one with the smoking salad bowls and the lady singing those tunes from the Lion King?
@Phil_NL
Conversational ability is really a very high-level skill. What I’m suggesting is rather that Latin ought to have the place in CCD programs which Greek does in Greek Orthodox parishes and Hebrew in the “Hebrew school” attached to a typical synagogue. Actual practical experience, even at a very basic level, is essential for helping people internalize a language and make it theirs. This facilitates true comprehension of what they hear in church and (even more importantly) ensures the kind of emotional resonance implicit in the term “worship.”
“Celebrating towards the cross stresses the correct direction of liturgical prayer, i.e. towards God;…”
How is placing a Crucifix on the altar between priest and people preferable to ad orientem? Isn’t the Benedictine arrangement – setting aside any irrelevant arguments about it being an improvement upon the versus populum innovation – a break with tradition?
I would love hear the Holy Father’s thoughts on this. [And they are available. Check out the PODCAzT page for a couple old audio projects addressing this very issue.]
@RomeontheRange:
I still think you’d be overdoing it, massively. Again, there’s nothing against catholics learning latin – heaven forbid I’d suggest otherwise – but I’m against setting this as a sort of standard.
Many, if not most parishes will not have the resources or expertise to do this, nor will many (would be) catholics be happy to hear they are sort-of-expected to learn latin, even a bit of it. I also fail to see what you would mean with ‘true comprehension’ – latin as used in Mass is so far removed from most modern languages that there always remain several layers of depth and meaning that are noticable only to those with a profound knowledge of latin, history and theology. That’s in fact part of the appeal, it emphasises mystery. As for ’emotional resonance’, I think that classes/lectures would be counterproductive, especially given the alternative, which is just use the latin during Mass, offer a translation, and aiding those that want to delve deeper into latin, if possible. Mass would hopefully resonate more than a lecture. That way you have it for those who want, without bothering those who are happy just to read the translation.
It’s hard enough, apparently, to teach a bit of latin to priests. Let’s focus on that, IMHO, they really need instruction in latin.
This is so interesting. I think that yes taking part in international gatherings would presuppose exposure to Latin. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t require a huge amount. Have heard of one parish (which has been sort of aggressively and rudely disrupted and dismantled — pray for those people) where the confirmation class, all public school kids, happily did learn to sing prayers in Latin. It’s the decision and the leadership that is important and the follow through is probably not hard at all. Little ones memorize the Our Father without knowing what all of the words mean, older ones can memorize it in Latin fairly easily. While people memorize less and less in schools it is still a part of life. It would not be necessary to take an entire course in Latin to participate in the Mass and of course it is possible as the composer’s piece pointed out yesterday to learn as you go, which is always and always has been a hallmark of the Christian journey.
Where I am it seems that the contributions of J.C. Murray at Second Vatican have been totally exaggerated and the distortion serves as the going assumptions in catechesis, liturgy, the entire approach to evangelization, the call to holiness, the life of faith, prayer, I think it’s fair to say that this distortion colors everything and has become a reverse-dogma. I am certainly not a canon lawyer or a theologian so I would have to leave it to better minds to process out. But it is observable, this “teaching” and it goes something like this. We never want to give the impression that we are encouraging people in the life of faith, because, if we do, as, priests (first and foremost), pastoral ministers, catechists, youth ministers, etc etc etc, then we run the risk of making the choice to, live out the faith by, say, attending Mass, or, considering the virtue of chastity, or (substitute just about anything here, prolife, encouraging vocations, etc etc), not a freely chosen choice in an act of free will and conscience but one that is less valuable or prized or even “coerced” (?). Therefore, according to this teaching, do nothing to make the sacraments attractive and beautiful. Strip things down to the bare minimum. Do not go out of your way to remember the name of a parishioner or develop a genuine friendship with them. Do not even encourage weekly Mass attendance as this says something “negative” about the others who do not come every week. In fact, deride those who attend when they attend as being Pharisitical in so many ways. Never encourage one virtue or another, as this would seem to require that and interfere with the freedom of choice. Just give a journal or daybook account of your whereabouts and people will that way somehow extrapolate your leadership from there. Kinda strange, huh? But those are the operating assumptions. Or you could call it the justification. Or excuse…So you see by this approach participation in the life of the sacraments and the Church is minimized altogether and it seems that they should be allowed to sort of “fail” of their own devices…if people stop coming, so what, at least their choice is totally free…That is held as a higher value and priority than attempting to live it out, even in struggle, or attempting to support people in their attempts to live it out. Bespeaks of a hatred, a self-loathing, of the Church itself, and you wonder, why do you not just leave then? And it answers the question of the sort of leadership, as well as the choices and emphasis in strange liturgy, the lack of interest in prayer, and so much weirdness. And if the Church is thereby run into the ground then so be it for in this calculation it is not worth saving. Call me a meanie but I challenge the powers that be and better minds to look into it. Is it not the case in many places?
Does the trend toward the dumbing down of liturgy, homily, connection also not seem to coddle a certain laziness as well? It just seems easier to do this or that thing and if it’s perennially innovative it keeps people interested without having to put nose to the grindstone and focus and work, day after day…
I’m not sure I see the point to emphasizing teaching and learning Latin for everyone.
On the one hand: I see that the children attending TLM catch on rapidly, and clearly are at comfortable with Latin liturgy by time for their first communion.
On the other hand, I entered the Church as a young adult, with no previous exposure to Latin. But this did not prevent the Latin liturgy making such a deep impression that it was the reason for my conversion. Indeed, the die was cast after one or two Masses, which obviously I did not understand in Latin. It was the ritual rather than the language of the Mass which reached me.
Since then, I have studied a fair amount of Latin, recite all the Liturgy of the Hours daily in Latin, and thus spend several hours a day reading Latin. But I cannot really say that my present familiarity with liturgical and scriptural Latin has in itself had a profound effect on my participation at Mass. The Latin required for this participation is so minimal that one picks it up by osmosis and without systematic study.
Actually, I think the emphasis on didactic liturgy and hence on understanding every word as proclaimed in liturgy is one of the mistakes responsible for the liturgical problems we see throughout the Church. Language is really only a part—and perhaps not the most important part—of ceremony and ritual. Those who concentrate only on the verbal may miss the transcendent dimension of the Mass.
In any event, I myself find it necessary to escape the tyranny of the audible word that turns people at Mass into couch potatoes either watching liturgy in the same superficial manner they watch TV, or simply ignoring it with 30-yard stares.
Which is one reason I take a Latin-English missal (or at least a prayer book with Latin-English Order of Mass) to both OF and EF Masses. Whichever language is being proclaimed aloud, I usually follow in the other. For instance, at a vernacular OF Mass, I usually follow the Eucharistic prayer in Latin, whereas at an EF Mass I follow the silent Roman Canon in English. As the priest reads the Epistle and Gospel in Latin at the altar, I usually follow them on the English side in my hand missal. When he repeats them in English from the pulpit, I follow them on the Latin side. Whatever works?
Na pocz?tku chcia?bym podkre?li?, ?e celebracje, którym przewodniczy Ojciec ?wi?ty, maj? by? punktem odniesienia dla ca?ego Ko?cio?a. Papie? jest najwy?szym kap?anem, liturgiem Ko?cio?a, który poprzez celebracje przekazuje wiarygodn? nauk? liturgiczn? – punkt odniesienia dla wszystkich.
….
My reading is: The liturgies led by the Holy Father are to be benchmarks for the entire Church. The pope is the highest priest (in the Church’s hierarchy, is how I would read it), who through liturgy presents a faithful liturgical teaching – the benchmark for all (ceremonies, and perhaps all ‘presiders’)
BTW… I didn’t say that all members of the Latin Church had to learn Latin (though that would be fine with me) or that parishioners had to learn Latin (though that would be fine with me).
The Second Vatican Council said that Latin should be retained and that pastors of souls had to make sure that people could both speak and sing the parts of Mass that pertain to them in both Latin and their mother tongue.
Let’s start doing what the Council asked… 45 years after the fact.
RomeontheRange – I disagree with your statement: “It’s precisely in those brightly-colored classrooms with tiny chairs that the battle for the restoration of Catholic identity will be won or lost.” Certainly I am all for teaching Latin to the kidlets. But the battle for Catholic identity was won at Calvary. The question is, how many casualties will there be before the end, and how large will the “winning” group be? Teaching Latin to the kids can be a huge weapon to this end, and keep many of them from becoming spiritual casualties.
This may be an interview published originally in Inside the Vatican, June-July 2008 [http://www.insidethevatican.com/back-issues/2008/issue-jun-jul-08.htm#G1302187329750]. I can’t locate my copy to compare the two. I’m presuming that ‘Vladimiro’ is the Italian version of ‘Wlodzimierz’. Mr Wlodzimierz is a staff writer at Inside the Vatican.
Correction: I should have said ‘Mr Redzioch’.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Language is an inseparable part of national, group, and religious identity. The Greek Orthodox and the Jews know this and have used language to bolster their internal cohesion with an effectiveness that history itself demonstrates quite thoroughly.
Thanks Fr. Z. Your podcasts are treasure. I need to make more time for them.
I cannot help but hear a disconnect between the importance Cd. Ratzinger places upon ad orientem in “Feast of Faith” and elsewhere, and the Benedictine arrangement. He tells us plainly that priest and people “facing the same way” is of “considerable importance.” That the cosmic dimension of the liturgy is “best expressed” through this posture, and that this is a strong expression of the degree to which priest and people are “united.”
Yet… as Holy Father he has chosen not to offer Holy Mass in this way. This troubles me.
I suspect that his motives are expressed in his description of the Benedictine arrangement as “a way forward.” This begs the question, “To where is it a way forward?” Presumably the answer is forward to a return to the venerable posture that he has been encouraging for decades on end; ad orientem!
So… I’m still left to wonder, why insert yet another innovation in the process? Why not just return to the posture that best expresses the nature of the liturgy?
A leftward-leaning friend of mine emailed this interview to me yesterday with the introduction, “I figured someone like you would enjoy this…”
I did, but I found myself dissatisfied with some of Marini’s answers, to be honest. Take the first question as an example. The interviewer asks,
“What does the collaboration between Benedict XVI and his Master of Ceremonies look like? Does the Pope decide about everything?”
An interesting question. The response, however, is so lofty as to fail to reveal much of anything about what their collaboration “looks like”. I like what he says, but not in response to that question. Were I the interviewer, I would have politely listened to Marini’s response, and then pressed him for the details that he didn’t offer:
“Okay, that’s nice, Monsignor, but could you tell us about the typical conversation or planning session that happens between you and the Pope before you plan a ceremony? Does he tell you, for example, what vestments he wants to wear or does he just give you a general idea of what he has in mind before allowing you to flesh-out the details? Or do you, perhaops, delegate that task to the sacristans? Do you (and/or the sacristans) have to get the Pope’s OK once you make selections? The reason I ask, Monsignor, is that the recent restoration of traditional Roman solemnity to the papal liturgy (which includes alot of traditionally-styled vesture, the type of which hasn’t been worn by any pope in decades) has generated alot of buzz (both positive and negative) as I’m sure you’re aware, and it would be interesting to know how much of a direct hand the Pope has in this as opposed to how much of the decisions are delegated to yourself or to your adjutants.”
I also would have asked him for some insight as to how it came about that the Pope made such a drastic departure from the sort of look and presentation of the papacy that characterized the early days of his reign. He began his pontificate presenting himself in vestments so outlandish and avant-garde in design as to make one quickly nostalgic for the days of John Paul II, but then, quite suddenly, he did a complete about-face, abandoning his initial look, entirely, in favor of a highly traditional pre-Vatican II era look.
Away went the too-short, weird-looking miters, the tie-dyed ample chasubles, the ‘corporate Rome’ lace-insert albs and rochets, the gigantic over-the-shoulder style pallium, JP’s silver crozier, and the white armchairs; along came the jeweled miters of his early twentieth century predecessors, the Mantum, the elaborately-embroidered fiddleback chasubles, albs and rochets finished in full lace, the redesigned pallium, the ferula of Pius IX, the red velvet and gilt thrones. Was he merely being surreptitious in the beginning, or was the sudden change of style brought on by an equally sudden change of heart?
“In order to understand better the Pope’s ideas concerning the meaning of the beauty…”
I’d like to understand, because, clearly, his idea of what defines beauty changed drastically at some point. Some say it was merely a change in Marinis that cause the change to the pope’s liturgy and liturgical vesture. Was it really just a matter of a change in MCs, though? That seems unlikely. Did the pope, perhaps, suddenly realize that his external presentation was inharmonious with his hopes for liturgical reform?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled by the transformation that occurred but I would have asked Marini to elaborate on just how it came about. I’ve never read anything but idle speculation on that question. Then I would have asked him for an ETA on the Fanon. ;^)
I would have asked him, too, regarding the notion that the papal liturgy is the point of reference for the rest of the Church, whether he had thoughts as to how that idea might be more…fully…communicated to the Pope’s brother bishops and to their clergy. It might have been interesting to read Marini’s reaction had the interviewer bluntly pointed out that the Pope’s liturgical example is obviously not the point of reference for the vast majority of clergy.
To clarify my previous comment, let me say my concern is that—while emphasizing the need to make up for the loss of Latin in the last forty years—we not allow the prevalent ignorance of Latin to be a false barrier for participation in Latin liturgy now.
Whereas my former pastor (now a model bishop) argued famously that Latin and lima beans are both good for you whether you like them or not, I think both that Latin liturgy is good for you and that you can like it, whether or not know it (the Latin itself, that is).
@ Andrew “Can’t we just fabricate, say, a Californian rite? You know, the one with the smoking salad bowls … ”
The “smoking salad bowls” image is one that is hard to forget.
I thought of “woks” and stir fry vegetables,
flambe’ desserts,
and “hibachi grills” when I saw the video.
Liturgical novelties are painful to watch.
Perhaps many people will remember David Carradine in “Kung Fu,” picking up the red-hot brazier with his bare forearms as he graduates from the Shaolin temple.
That was also painful to watch.
I think it is important to preserve Latin and Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic in the NO mass (at least in hymns) since it links the present to the early church. The Catholic Church wasn’t started yesterday by Pastor Smoothtalker. It has a long history that the hymns and liturgy hint at.
It also links us across borders, since you can go into another country and still recognize parts of the mass.
Both these facts are a real joy. To me at least, Adeste Fideles and Kyrie Eleison are far nicer than their English counterparts.
Louis,
When Joseph Ratzinger was just a cardinal, he could speak and write frankly. But popes these days have to hedge and be politic. I expect the Curia and episcopate won’t let him celebrate ad orientem regularly. Sad to say, Benedict is surrounded by many powerful men hostile to his vision.
Louie Verrecchio – I hope that the so-called “Benedictine arrangement” is being used by the Holy Father as an interim step to ease into ad-0rientem – sort of a cushion for people who would be shocked by a sudden change. I pray the he lives long enough to accomplish this. If not, I pray for a holy and able successor who will.
I echo Louie’s question/comment. If the Holy Father really wants us to return to ad orientem worship, then why doesn’t he celebrate every Mass that way, order it to be done that way in every Mass celebrated in Vatican City, and say he highly recommends it for
every priest?
ttucker:
If the Holy Father really wants us to return to ad orientem worship, then why doesn’t he celebrate every Mass that way?
If every Pope imposed his own will on the whole Church we would have wildly different styles of worship with each successive papacy. Fortunately, Popes are very wise and patient and willing to forgo their personal preferences in order to maintain stability. The Church has made a drastic move in the late sixties and we are still experiencing the consequences. It’s like a ship that made a drastic turn in a storm. You don’t want to oversteer it now or you might just sink it. It is better to hold your course and wait for the storm to subside. In the meantime there is a lot of work to be done so that once we are in the clear we will know what to do. For my part, I am teaching myself Latin. Other know about vestments and calendars and customs etc. Patience and perseverance will get us there. I think. Unless the end is near.
asophist: What do we know about Card. Arinze’s liturgical preferences?
Haven’t there been Papal Masses celebrated ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel?
Benedetta would stand Correct, Yes the Holy Father has Celebrated the N.O. (ad orientem) in the Sistine Chapel on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, when He Himself administers the sacrament of Baptism.
Seems like many of the young Priests have no problem celebrating the N.O. ad orientem….if they are allowed to by the pastor.
RomeontheRange,
” . . . Latin ought to have the place in CCD programs which Greek does in Greek Orthodox parishes . . .”
That’s a great idea! Also, let’s require children to attend several Latin Masses as part of their formation for the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Go Guido. Aren’t we blessed to have this holy man as the Papal Master of Ceremonies, after the other person who had this job, with the same surname?
Latin is taught in my Confirmation classes one step ahead already
I find it somewhat humorous that the same people who claim that communion on the tongue is a “return to the past”, used a “return to the *way* past” to justify communion in the hand. :)