Pope Names 27 Bishops Advisors to Vatican CDW

Pope Francis has named no less than 27 bishops today to be members of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS, or more commonly CDW). With these appointments, Pope Francis has given a quite clear indication of the direction he has in mind for the liturgical life of the church.

Among those named are Archbishop Piero Marini, longtime MC to John Paul II who was secretary to Archbishop Bugnini, architect of the post-conciliar liturgical reforms, Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, Cardinal Stella of the Congregation for Clergy, and Cardinal Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

According to the Annuario Pontificio, among those who have belonged to the CDW up until now are Cardinals Raymond Burke, George Pell, and Mauro Piacenza. They will no longer serve as members with today’s appointments.

Writing at The Tablet, Christopher Lamb stated that

[t]he move will be read as the Pope’s attempt to rein in the cardinal [Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the CDW – ed.] who has consistently called for priests to celebrate Mass facing East, something the Pope reprimanded him for earlier this year.

Here is the full list.

Cardinals:
Rainer Maria Woelki, Cologne, Germany;
John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, Abuja, Nigeria;
Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State;
Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, Québec, Canada;
Philippe Nakellentuba Ouédraogo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso;
John Atcherley Dew, Wellington, New Zealand;
Ricardo Blázquez Pérez, Valladolid, Spain;
Arlindo Gomes Furtado, Santiago de Cabo Verde, Capo Verde;
Gianfranco Ravasi, Pontifical Council for Culture;
Beniamino Stella, Congregation for Clergy;

Archbishops:
Dominic Jala, Shillong, India;
Domenico Sorrentino, Assisi‑Nocera Umbra‑Gualdo Tadino, Italy;
Denis James Hart, Melbourne, Australia;
Piero Marini, President of pontifical committee for Eucharistic congresses;
Bernard‑Nicolas Aubertin, Tours, France;
Romulo G. Valles, Davao, Philippines;
Lorenzo Voltolini Esti, Portoviejo, Ecuador;

Bishops:
Arthur Joseph Serratelli, Paterson, NJ, USA;
Alan Stephen Hopes, East Anglia, Great Britain;
Claudio Maniago, Castellaneta, Italy;
Bernt Ivar Eidsvig, Oslo, Norway;
Miguel Ángel D’Annibale, Rio Gallegos, Argentina;
José Manuel Garcia Cordeiro, Bragança‑Miranda, Portugal;
Charles Morerod, Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Switzerland;
Jean‑Pierre Kwambamba Masi, auxiliary of Kinshasa, Congo;
Benny Mario Travas, Multan, Pakistan;
John Bosco Chang Shin‑Ho, auxiliary of Daegu, Korea.

Share:

36 comments

  1. Thank you so much for sharing this information, Anthony. I appreciate your timeliness in publishing what is happening in the Church at the national and international level.

  2. Archbishop Gregory is taking over at the USCCB as liturgy head, I wonder why Serratelli was named; he is on his way out of the position.

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB:

        The Council *was* in the 60’s; but the Pauline Missal was actually implemented in the 70’s. It is really in that decade that the Reform reached full steam, due particularly to the tailwind of a systematic effort of key appointments in both Rome and the episcopates (cf. the role of Jadot in the U.S.) – which is what I see being mirrored here now.

        As the old saying goes: “Personnel is policy.” And the policy is that the Reform of the Reform is dead as a coffin nail.

  3. I know few of the names on the list, but fans of BXVI can be pleased with the inclusion of Bishop Hopes…I hope that it’s an indication that there’s been balance in the appointments.

  4. John Bosco Chang Shin‑Ho, auxiliary of Daegu, Korea

    hey, I know him!

    By which I mean I’ve read about him in the paper when he was appointed as auxiliary bishop earlier this year.

    For those interested, Bishop Chang studied at St. Anselm, received both a master’s and PhD in liturgy there, and has been part of the CBCK’s liturgy committee for some time now. The blurb also touted him as a man of dialogue who is open to/inclusive of different viewpoints.

    Anyway, Pope Francis must really really really like Cardinal Parolin. It seems he’s naming Parolin to practically every key dicastery.

  5. James Dunne : I know few of the names on the list, but fans of BXVI can be pleased with the inclusion of Bishop Hopes…I hope that it’s an indication that there’s been balance in the appointments.

    Hopes and Morerod can be reasonably glossed as conservative. Perhaps Masi as well. But that’s just about it out of this list of 27 names – though there are a few I can’t speak to with much familiarity. It’s a pretty progressive list, liturgically and otherwise.

    And I expect this overhaul (purge?) would have come much sooner, if Benedict were not still alive.

  6. These types of apparent public rebukes are becoming very divisive in the Church. Instead of allowing the routine rotation in the Curia to present an opportunity to replace people that are more in keeping with the mind of the Pope, he rules like a tyrant and slaughters anyone in his way. This move will only serve to entrench divisions, liturgical and otherwise; strengthen the Ancient Use; weaken the reforms of the Second Vatican Council by alienating those who were being won over to the reform in continuity; and justify the next Pope in doing the same thing when he gets into office. Very sad. But, I can’t say that I didn’t see this coming.

  7. A few things …

    Public rebukes are not new. I think of the many theologians and bishops who experienced secret persecutions followed by later sackings in the 1978-2013 era. Was the treament of Bishop Morris of Toowoomba (among many, many others) somehow not divisive in comparison? Let’s have a little honesty, please.

    As for the implementation of conciliar liturgical reform, I don’t think it hit its stride until the 80’s. The high water mark of the Pastoral Care rites (1983), RCIA (1988), and the OCF (1989) have yet to be reached by any subsequent effort.

  8. Tod,
    I wasn’t an active Catholic until the early nineties. So, I think I hit the crescendo of liturgical experimentation. I could be wrong. But, while I lived in California it sure looked like it was in full swing. It pushed me further towards a traditional approach to Sacred Liturgy. It took me three years to learn how to offer the Ancient Use. Once I learned it, I honestly saw the need for a reform. By reading this blog I came to study the reform and embrace its laudable goals, but in total continuity. With this news today, I find myself once again in a liturgical no man’s land. If the modern Roman Rite cannot be offered in a manner that is in continuity with its two-thousand year history. Then the reform sought by the Vatican Council is awash. I have to prayerfully consider the Ancient Use once more. 🙁

    1. @Steve Hartley:
      Regarding “liturgical experimentation,” I’m not sure the worst of it extended past the 70’s. But that might depend on how one defines it. The penitential rite for candidates for full communion–that was a thoughtful attempt for the 2nd Sunday of Lent. The celebration of Mass conjoined to a meal, perhaps not as thoughtful. I would have to say I favor discernment, scholarship, and the creativity of the human arts above experimentation.

      Others here know of my skepticism on raising continuity as a prime virtue, especially where the spiritual life and conversion are concerned. Sometimes a Saint Paul must break from being an observant Jew and move forward on a pilgrimage.

      1. @Todd Flowerday:
        I favor discernment and scholarship as well. But, we are not talking about a new public revelation here to warrant moving forward like St. Paul. I’m talking about a magisterium that must remember that it is “not above the Word of God,” but its servant – “teaching only what has been handed on” – “Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the people of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.” (DV 8-10). To embrace the hermeneutic of rupture in the context of liturgical reform is to separate the magisterium from Scripture and Tradition; and thus to betray the very Council that they claim to uphold.

      2. @Steve Hartley:
        One main component of liturgy is Scripture. But where Mass or the Hours or sacramental celebrations are concerned, we are not talking of a “new” revelation–a new book or a new sacrament. Conciliar liturgical reform is a discernment to present the mission of Christ in a more effective and fruitful way.

        Experimentation is not only a biblical virtue, but a time-honored way of discernment. So I don’t see the principle as less important than a quality like continuity. Rupture is actually a positive spiritual quality. I think not only the movement from sin to grace as in a saintly person like Augustine or Dorothy Day. But even in a situation like Thérèse of Lisieux: she was by accounts a virtuous child, but her entry into religious life was certainly a rupture from home life in Alençon. Likewise the entry into sacraments such as confirmation or marriage or orders: the implication is that one makes a break from the old. Genesis 2:24 describes a rupture, does it not? I believe the hermeneutic of rupture is a phantom.

        I might also suggest that the liturgy, as celebrated on Earth, is a servant of both Christ as well as the Body he has assembled. To change language, altar and priest positions, musical style, wordiness is not comparable to a shift in doctrine or revelation. The components of liturgy are part of an unchanging tradition. How they are assembled is not.

  9. Would the newly re-constituted Congregation for Divine Worship be open to the possibility of authorizing both the 2011 and the 1973 (or better the 1998) translations of the Missal? That way the wishes of all English speaking Catholics could be accommodated within the boundaries of tradition. The NJB, NABRE, and NRSV and used in the lectionaries of UK, Ireland, USA, and Canada. The Spanish Missal used in the Americas uses ustedes rather that vosotros in Spain. Finally, a lot of Episcopal parishes in the USA are able to move between Rites 1 and 2 pretty easily on any given Sunday. Just a thought.

  10. ” . . . he rules like a tyrant and slaughters anyone in his way.”

    Hyperbole, a bit much? Viz. Cdls Mueller and Sarah have served this pope three and a half years so far…

  11. It will be interesting to see what effect these changes will have on the composition of Vox clara. Does anyone have a link to the outgoing membership of the Congregation? I don’t have a copy of the current AP to hand.

  12. Todd Flowerday : @Richard Malcolm: Perhaps. But I then wouldn’t characterize Vatican II liturgical reform as a rupture.

    Fair enough. Though any further discussion along those lines would require a definition, and clarification of the scope, of “Vatican II liturgical reform.”

    1. @Richard Malcolm:
      Thanks, Todd and Richard, for bringing up the issue of “rupture.”

      I disagree Todd – there are ruptures at Vatican II. That seems clear to me, actually. There is also continuity. I think we should admit both points, and then talk about what is good rupture and what is good continuity.

      If Pope Benedict, in his famous 2005 speech about continuity and reform/rupture, helped us name the issue and advance the discussion, then he has performed the service. But if he has given cover to those who think you can’t have rupture and use ‘continuity’ as an ideological slogan to resist what Vatican II actually taught, then his categories are not helpful and we should all move on.

      The jury is still out on that. But it’s really on us, not him, at this point. Here’s to a good, clarifying discussion!

      awr

  13. “f Pope Benedict, in his famous 2005 speech about continuity and reform/rupture, helped us name the issue and advance the discussion, then he has performed the service. But if he has given cover to those who think you can’t have rupture and use ‘continuity’ as an ideological slogan to resist what Vatican II actually taught, then his categories are not helpful and we should all move on.”

    In this respect, it’s important to remember to distinguish Pope Benedict from his erstwhile Internet fanboys and fangirls.

    1. @Karl Liam Saur:

      In this respect, it’s important to remember to distinguish Pope Benedict from his erstwhile Internet fanboys and fangirls.

      But, what has Benedict actually done to merit such distinction?

  14. Understood, and I suppose I would have to agree. However, I don’t see rupture as a bad thing, obviously. Even when it isn’t a matter of metanoia. When is rupture a virtue? When it serves the mission of the Gospel. I would certainly say the jury is out on the fruitfulness and effrectiveness of the wholeness of liturgical reform as we have it today. I think we’ve been too timid, but there’s room for discussion and discernment on that–no doubt.

  15. Pope Benedict would seem to distinguish between reform (good change) and rupture (bad change). With good and bad being understood in the frameworks provided by JH Newman and JC Murray, both of which would place VII in the good change category.

    Speaking of good rupture would therefore seem get peoples backs up for no reason, and thus be a failure of dialogue.

  16. If an organization is dysfunctional, disruption may be necessary. It may take priority over preserving the members’ feathers in their unruffled state.

    (“Disrupt” appears to have the same root as “Rupture”, and perhaps if we go far back enough in Latin they do share the same root, but it seems the etymology of the two is a bit different. And while putting “dis” in front of “rupt” would seem to imply that the two words are antonyms, they’re not. Language is funny.)

  17. There is a worldwide spread here, geographically and in pastoral experience. A much greater spread, in fact, than there was in the reform commission of the 1960’s. Whatever their personal tastes, it is more important that they be astute observers of how the Latin rite is celebrated in their parts, and what that rite can learn from this. Given Pope Francis’s predilection for facts on the ground, I could see a lot of cross-fertilization that will benefit both the center and the peripheries – over the long run anyway. Liturgical understanding, in order to survive and blossom in a church we define proudly as universal, will need to involve every continent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *