In Koch’s view, the readmission of the celebration of Mass in the preconciliar form is “only the first step,” but “the time is not yet ripe” for further steps. Rome can take further actions only when there is readiness among Catholics to consider new forms of liturgy “in service of the Church.”

According to Koch, “the pope suffers from accusations” that he wishes to go back on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). On the contrary, the pope wishes to take up statements of the Council on liturgy which have not yet been implemented.

Koch maintains that not everything in today’s liturgical praxis can be justified by the texts of the Council. He named as an example the priest facing the people during the celebration of the Eucharist, about which the Council said  nothing.

In Koch’s opinion, further development of liturgical forms is necessary for an inner renewal of the church. “If the crisis of church life today is above all a crisis of liturgy, then the renewal of the church must begin with a renewal of the liturgy,” he said.

The cardinal’s remarks provoke several reflections.

It is not the case that the Second Vatican Council exhaustively defined the parameters of liturgical reform. Much of this was left to the Consilium to carry out after the Council closed. The Council never mandated versus populum (priest facing the people), nor has any Church document since the Council, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the practice an illegitimate development. Scholars such as Fr. John O’Malley have demonstrated that there is a “spirit of Vatican II” opening up new vistas for the Church. It is to be expected that responsible and creative implementation of the Council would lead to possibilities not yet foreseen at the Council itself. Whether versus populum is one of these can remain an open question. Which is to say, the fact that it isn’t mentioned by the Council doesn’t really answer the question.

I suppose it’s inevitable that any interpretation of Vatican II will emphasize some passages more than others. Ratzinger and Koch and others can point to a few statements of the liturgy constitution (Gregorian chant is to have pride of place, Latin is to be retained) to buttress the claim that they wish to implement the Council’s statement that have been ignored up until now. Fair enough – but specific directives of the Council have to be ever reevaluated in within the broader context of ongoing liturgical development. Within this context, it is difficult indeed to see how the Council fathers ever intended that an unreformed rite of Mass would remain in use alongside a reformed rite. And there is no denying that Liturgiam authenticam, the 2001 Roman document on translation, introduced centralism and thereby undoes the explicit directive of the liturgy constitution that translations are to be prepared and approved by bishops (not Rome).

Finally, I would be very interested in the cardinal’s thoughts on liturgy and ecumenism, not least because he is the head of the Holy See’s ecumenism department. How does he understand his liturgical proposals to contribute to the work for church unity? Some theologians believe that Roman decisions in recent years have been a setback for the cause. What would Cardinal Koch say?

awr

Fr. Neil Xavier O’Donoghue has written a response to Magister, and sent it to us. I consider it a “must-read” to help us have a better informed and more well-rounded discussion here at Pray Tell. Here’s a bit of it:

I have personally attended thousands of Eucharistic celebrations in Neocatechumenal communities in the United States, Canada, Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Estonia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Australia, Guam, Saipan, Taiwan and Israel.  All of these Eucharists have been in conformity with the relevant rubrics and used the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite.

I find it hard to put up with the constant criticisms from Magister and the like who blend some plain untruth with half-truths taken out of context.

You can read the whole thing here.

Update: Here are some photographs of Neocatechumenal Way liturgies, also supplied by Fr. O’Donoghue.

April 3, 1997 Convivence with 253 Bishops of the Americas on the theme: "Evangelization and the Neocatechumenal Way."

Pope John Paul II celebrating the Eucharist in December 1988 on the Feast of the Holy Family at the Neocatechumenal Center in Porto San Giorgio (Italy).

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger celebrates Mass during his visit to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Rome where he delivered a conference on Dominus Iesus on December 16, 2000

Here are the items that raised Magister’s eyebrows:

The Masses of the Neocatechumenal communities have always been distinguished by at least four elements.

1. They are celebrated in small groups, corresponding to the different stages of advancement on the catechetical journey. If in a parish, for example, there are twelve Neocatechumenal communities, each at a different stage, there will be twelve Masses, celebrated in separate places more or less at the same time, preferably on Saturday evening.

2. The surroundings and furnishings trace out the image of a banquet: a table with the participants seated around it. Even when the Neocatechumenals celebrate the Mass not in a parish hall but in a church, they often ignore the altar. They put a table in the middle and sit around it in a circle.

3. Each of the biblical readings of the Mass is preceded by an extensive “monition” on the part of one or the other of the community and is followed, especially after the Gospel, by “resonances,” or personal reflections by a substantial number of those present. The priest’s homily is added to the “resonances” without being distinguished from them.

4. Communion also takes place in banquet form. The consecrated bread – a large unleavened loaf, two thirds white flour and one third whole wheat flour, prepared and baked according to detailed rules established by Kiko – is broken and distributed to those present, who remain in their places. After the distribution, it is eaten at the same time by all, including the priest. After this, the priest goes from one person to the next with the chalice of consecrated wine, which everyone drinks.

There are also other peculiarities, but these four are enough to understand how different in form and substance the Masses of the Neocatechumenals are from those celebrated according to the general liturgical rules. A difference that is certainly more pronounced than that between the Masses in the ancient Roman rite and in the modern rite.

The Vatican authorities have repeatedly sought to bring the Neocatechumenals back to greater fidelity to the “lex orandi” in effect in the Catholic Church. But with a weak pulse and almost no results.

But it seems the Holy See did not mind so much after all. The movement has come away with the laurels in its recent interactions with the Pope, who appears to have approved their practices while urging more openness to integration with the work of the bishop and the life of the ordinary parishioners.

Catholic Culture now reports that the approval does not extend to how they celebrate Mass. But, then, it never did. So the situation appears to be unchanged. The rules they didn’t follow before are still in force. And still able to be ignored.

I expect that fans of the great contemporary classical composer are struggling with whether this is good news or not.

awr

Source: KIPA

Most clergy seem to have given up on Eucharistic Prayer I as too difficult to proclaim. Complaints include rhythmical problems, lack of flow, and so on. I have not heard of anyone tackling Eucharistic Prayer IV either. Most priests seem to be using EPs II and III, and thus by a strange coincidence at all the Masses at which I have been present since the beginning of September, in a variety of churches, I have only heard EP III.

In the course of listening to the revised text, I have become increasingly uneasy about one or two phrases in this Eucharistic Prayer.

——————————–

I want first of all to contrast these lines from the 1970 translation of the 1969 Ordo Missae with the same lines in the Missal of 2010:

1970
From age to age you gather a people to yourself,
so that from east to west
a perfect offering may be made
to the glory of your name.

2010
and you never cease to gather a people to yourself,
so that from the rising of the sun to its setting
a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

There is no doubt that 2010 is a more accurate rendition of the Latin text:
et pópulum tibi congregáre non désinis, ut a solis ortu usque ad occásum oblátio munda offerátur nómini tuo.

However, the phrase that has been nagging at me is “from the rising of the sun to its setting”.

I am well aware that many clergy have already been using this for some years in the midst of the 1970 text, on the grounds that it is (a) more poetic, and (b) picks up the psalmic allusion [Psalm 50:1d, and more especially Ps 113:3 “From the rising of the sun to its setting, praised be the name of the Lord!”]. I certainly appreciate both of those reasons, but I am wondering if the translation is in fact a betrayal of the intentions of the composer of EP III (and it is good to remind ourselves that it is a new composition, originating in a newly-composed Prayer by Cipriano Vagaggini).

We know far more today than the psalmist did all those centuries ago. Then, life took place during the waking hours of daylight, literally from sunrise to sunset, and Ps 113 was an encouragement to be constantly praising God from the time that you awoke until the time you went to sleep. It reminds me of those cenobitic monks who used to pray the entire psalter in a single day, every day: non-stop praise of God. (It was easy for them to do: they were the “profession pray-ers” and had little else to do except pray!)

However, I feel quite sure that the original intent of the phrase in EP III was actually “from one end of the earth to the other”; and for me, “from east to west” is a much better way of suggesting that, especially in these days when we have 24 hours of time zones and an International Date Line where east and west actually meet. Yes, I know that some have “abused” the text by saying “from east to west and from north to south”, but they too have been attempting to convey the idea of “always and everywhere”.

I do not think that “from the rising of the sun to its setting” does that in today’s modern civilization. The phrase is “temporally limiting”, and could even in extremis imply that during the hours of darkness the sacrifice is not actually being offered.

The more I have listened to this phrase, the more I have become convinced that in fact it is not an accurate translation of the intent of the original.

——————————

My second point is not so much about the text of EP III since it also applies to EPs I and IV, less so to II, but about the memorial acclamations in the Prayers.

It was brought home to me today, listening to people “acclaiming”
Save us, Saviour of the world,
for by your Cross and Resurrection
you have set us free.

followed immediately by the priest saying
Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son,….

I was struck more than I have ever been before by the disjuncture between addressing Christ and then switching back to God as a whole and the Father in particular. And it is a real disjuncture, one that perhaps you only notice precisely at the moment of switching back. (It’s less obvious in EP II because the word “Lord” does not occur until several lines on.)

I think I have written previously on this forum about interviewing Gelineau on this topic, since he was the person responsible for the insertion of a memorial acclamation into the Eucharistic Prayer in the course of his time on the Consilium working group after the Council. I mentioned the problem of switching back and forth from Father to Son and back to Father, and asked whether it might not have been possible to have provided acclamations about Christ rather than addressed to Christ. For example,
We proclaim his Death, O Lord,
and profess his Resurrection
until he comes again.

where “Lord” would still be addressed to the Father.

Gelineau’s response was that certainly they could have done that without a problem. When asked why they didn’t, he said that the only reason was that they did not find that form in the tradition. Such acclamations were usually addressed to Christ. Pressed once again to say why he thought that was so, he said that the people always felt “closer” to Christ, and so addressed him. (I forbore to comment on the prayer that begins “Our Father…”) Today, when our relationship with God is more of an intimate one along the lines of an all-merciful “Abba”, Daddy, rather than a fearful relationship with an all-powerful God who is waiting to pounce on sinners, I think there is considerable justification for saying that we have moved on from the Middle Ages. Gelineau himself did mention, in this context, the fact that when you say Kyrie eleison (but not Christe eleison) you’re addressing whoever you like!

So my dilemma is about how to resolve this disjuncture.

——————————

My third point concerns this clause:

1970
…and all your saints
on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

2010
and with all the Saints,
on whose constant intercession in your presence
we rely for unfailing help.

Once again, 2010 is a more faithful translation of the Latin:
et ómnibus Sanctis, quorum intercessióne perpétuo apud te confídimus adiuvári.

but pays the price by introducing a possible ambiguity in the vernacular text as it is heard. The ambiguity concerns “in your presence”, apud te, with its resonances of the Book of Revelation and other apocalyptic literature where saints and angels minister unceasingly around the throne of God.

Because the lines “on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help” are a little longer than presiders have been used to, every presider that I have heard so far has introduced a gap, sometimes even a breath, between “intercession” and “in your presence”, thus:
on whose constant intercession
in your presence we rely for unfailing help.
What then happens is that the fleeting impression is given that it is we rather than the saints who are “in your presence” as we rely for unfailing help. Yes, this is not the fault of the text but the way in which it is delivered, but yes also, this could have been avoided by using a (to my mind equally faithful) translation along the lines of
and with all the Saints,
whose constant intercession in your presence
is a source of unfailing help for us.

This points up one of the major problems with the revised translation of the Missal as a whole. It has not been designed in any way for the listener but only for the reader, and more specifically for someone reading to her/himself silently. One recalls the Jerusalem Bible translation, which was never intended for public proclamation but only for private reading at the student’s desk. In the Missal, the problems are infinitely worse, of course. We have already uncovered many in the form of subordinate clauses whose antecedents are completely unclear, even on paper, let alone to the bewildered listener. I suspect that many subtler instances, such as the one just described, remain to reveal themselves over the course of time.

Pope Benedict XVI has transferred responsibility for two very precise administrative procedures from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments to the Roman Rota, a church court.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the papal directive Sept. 27 giving the Rota responsibility for handling procedures involving a marriage that was celebrated validly but not consummated and for cases involving the nullity of an ordination.

Pope Benedict said he made the change so that the congregation for worship could “dedicate itself principally to giving a new impulse to the promotion of the sacred liturgy in the church, according to the renewal willed by the Second Vatican Council.”

Story in Catholic Review here.

For most of its life since its foundation in 1963, ICEL members had maintained cordial relationships with the CDW. However, things changed dramatically in 1996 when the Chilean Cardinal Medina Estevez, Archbishop of Valparaiso and former friend and fellow peritus of Joseph Ratzinger at the Second Vatican Council, was called to the Roman curia by Pope John Paul II as Prefect at the CDW. Bishop Maurice Taylor recorded what transpired when Medina took over at the CDW:

It soon became clear that things were going to change. Until then it was common for ICEL to send a few officials to Rome from time to time for informal discussions with officials of the congregation. They would speak about ICEL’s work at the time and of the progress of the work; they answered questions from the congregation’s representatives, heard their comments and, in a word, worked collaboratively for the good of English-speaking Catholics throughout the world.

From the start of his reign Cardinal Medina let it be known that relations with ICEL, if any, would be formal and cold. There were no further collaborative meetings, no advice or comments were forthcoming in the course of our work and, in general, we felt that we were under suspicion.

Cardinal Winning was well aware of all this and as a consequence, he made a dozen attempts between 1999 and 2001 to arrange a meeting with Cardinal Medina to discuss the proposed document, but was repeatedly rebuffed.

When Pope John Paul II called an extraordinary consistory of all the cardinals in March 2001 to discuss his apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, Winning was delighted with the opportunity it presented. He considered the letter to be one of Pope John Paul’s finest and noted with glee the criticism in it of ‘careerism’ among the curia. As a result, he decided that his own contribution to the extraordinary consistory of cardinals in May 2001 would address the subject of collegiality since he believed that consultation and cooperation ought to be the hallmark of the relationship between the Vatican dicasteries and bishops’ conferences throughout the world. However, one week before the consistory opened, the document he knew the CDW had been preparing – without any consultation – on the principles of translation was released, unannounced, on the Holy See’s website. An authoritative summary of the ramifications of this document, Liturgiam authenticam, can be found in Bishop Maurice Taylor’s book.

Cardinal Winning was greatly angered not only by the secret manner in which the document had been put together and then published, but also by its content which arbitrarily overturned the principles, approved by Pope Paul VI, on which ICEL had been basing its work for three decades. It made him even more determined to highlight what he believed to be the important issues at stake during the consistory.

In order to be able to speak with the maximum degree of authority, he faxed a draft of his proposed intervention to the presidents of the English-speaking bishops’ conferences around the world, including England and Wales, United States and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa asking for consent to speak in their name. He duly received the authority he sought.

When he addressed the extraordinary consistory of Cardinals on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 May 2001, he spoke in English and his address was translated into ten languages. He began by setting out the context of his unease:

My particular concern is with relationships between the Roman curia and the episcopal conferences. The apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus [John Paul II's Constitution of June 1988] rightly defines the function of the Roman curia as a service, or diakonia. It is a service to the Holy Father in whose name the various dicasteries [Curia subdivisions] act, but it is also a service to the college of bishops. As diocesan bishops, we value greatly the insight, the pastoral concern and support we receive from the heads and collaborators of the various dicasteries here in Rome. I personally have experienced very warm and friendly meetings with many members of the Curia.

He went on to describe the nature of the problem and what caused it before proceeding to outline what was necessary for the situation to be corrected.

On occasion, however, tensions can and do arise. I know I speak for many bishops when I express my disappointment that the diakonia and collegiality of Pastor Bonus have, of late, not been evident in certain situations involving the Roman curia and the bishops’ conferences. I emphasize that such tensions are more due to misunderstandings and poor communication than to ill will and divergent ecclesiologies. I wish to suggest very strongly that a primary way of fostering the full potential of the Roman curia is the need for greater consultation and dialogue between bishops’ conferences and the curia.

The Cardinal then spelled out the importance of this consultation and dialogue if the needs of the Church were to be best served, and what the consequences would be if this did not happen, implicitly suggesting this had been the case in the preparation and publication of Liturgiam authenticam.

An essential element in genuine dialogue is that full information is available to those engaged in it. To engage in fraternal dialogue particularly before the publication of documents of far-reaching importance and with grave pastoral implications, is not to undermine or interfere in the work of the dicasteries. Rather it is in the interests of the whole Church as well as being the expression of the fraternal and collegial spirit which is the legacy of the Second Vatican Council.

If we are sincere in practicing the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity, there have to be consultation and exchange of views prior to the publication of major church documents. When such dialogue is lacking, misunderstandings arise and when, without due dialogue, major documents are published which appear to be contrary to previously established policies, these misunderstandings give rise to serious concerns, even to questioning the very reasons for the document and its canonical validity.

The cardinal then went on to address the unsatisfactory manner in which the documents were published and distributed by the Vatican.

Moreover, given our modern communications technology, it is disappointing that major documents are released unannounced on the internet. Not only does this mean that the bishops find themselves relying on others to bring these documents to their notice, but the secular media are able to deal with the contents of the documents before bishops have been properly briefed, causing misunderstanding and confusion among the People of God.

In concluding his address, Cardinal Winning generously opened the way for all concerned to engage in a fresh start which would avoid the pitfalls of fear and distrust. Finally he stressed that he spoke on behalf of English-speaking bishops throughout the world.

I offer these thoughts in the spirit of openness and sincerity and my plea today is that any communication blocks which may exist between the bishops’ conferences and the Roman curia will be examined and cleared so as to allow a full, free and genuine dialogue and collaboration. The church we all love is ill served by attitudes of fear and distrust. This is a plea from the heart reflecting the minds of the presidents of nine English-speaking conferences of bishops, and all the members of my own bishops’ conference.

These strong words drew a mixed reception from his listeners. Stephen McGinty recounted what happened in the immediate aftermath of Winning’s intervention:

The speech caused great offense to Cardinal Medina Estevez who, quite correctly, read it as a direct rebuttal to his treatment of ICEL and the manner of the publication of Liturgiam authenticam. Winning was relieved when two cardinals approached him afterwards and praised his words. At the end of the day Winning and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor walked to the café within the building for an espresso….. In the café Winning was approached by Cardinal Estevez who was visibly angry and said, “You denigrated me in there.” He then began to complain about the difficulty of his job, that it was forced upon him against his wishes. Winning had no time for either his evasions or his self-pity and was brisk in his response. “I didn’t denigrate you. We’re all adults here. We can speak as adults.” At this point Estevez turned and walked off.

Perhaps his earlier experiences as Pinochet’s chaplain had caused the Chilean Cardinal to grow unaccustomed to being treated as an equal!

Cardinal Thomas Winning could – as Cardinal Medina discovered – be abrasive and hard-hitting. He was no stranger to controversy. He was outspoken on life issues, homosexuality, the Section 28 issue in Scotland, nuclear disarmament, and a host of other social matters. Many would fundamentally disagree with a number of the targets he chose to attack. And yet in certain respects Thomas Joseph Winning was most definitely a prophet. The new translation of the Mass is not a ‘document,’ but what Winning says about ‘major church documents’ in the third paragraph of his intervention could well be viewed as applying equally to the new translation.

Nor was Cardinal Estevez the only Vatican official unhappy at the content of Winning’s intervention. His words seem to have been too controversial and provocative for Dr Navarro-Vals, the director of the Vatican’s press office, who apparently attempted some internal censorship, making no mention of the speech in the daily press conference given on May 23rd, 2001.

Sadly, Cardinal Winning died suddenly of a heart attack on June 17tg, less than four weeks after delivering his address at the consistory.

In light of all of the above, it is clearly inaccurate to claim, as many opponents of the new translation have done, that the conferences of English-speaking bishops have never taken the Congregation of Divine Worship to task over its successful efforts to interfere in and seek to curb the rightful authority of episcopal conferences in this area. The various conferences clearly supported Cardinal Winning’s initiative and empowered him to speak on their behalf. The tragedy is that when he died, it seems they lost not only their spokesman but also their way. Indeed a decade later, the bishops seem to have performed a veritable volte-face: they seem to have surrendered their authority and no longer try to reclaim and reestablish their rights. For many of us, their increasing failure during these years to exercise their episcopal authority in this area has been both sad and rather humiliating.

It would appear that our bishops have allowed themselves to be bullied by Vatican officials who are actually in post in order to serve them. They seem to be embarrassed, and with just cause. It is, after all, the passivity of those bishops who have been in post for the past ten years that has landed us with a new translation of the English sacramentary in a style which the vast majority of English-speaking bishops neither asked for nor wanted: indeed, which it appears virtually no one except the officials in the CDW actively sought. But surely our bishops need to get over their embarrassment and seek to begin to reclaim their rights. Power and control are addictive, and it seems fair to assume that unless they are forcefully confronted by the bishops, the CDW, and indeed much of the Curia, will continue to act in an imperious and high-handed manner.

The Second Vatican Council articulated that ultimate authority rests with the college of bishops in union with the Pope. Unless there is strong leadership from a prophetic voice like Winning’s, the respective roles of bishops and curial officials will become even more blurred and the rightful authority of the bishops will be further usurped. History shows the need for prophetic figures like Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena who, as loyal critics, challenged the status quo in the governance of the Church and were canonised for their efforts.

The question now is whether such a prophetic figure will emerge at this time in the English-speaking church. Or will history show that the capitulation of the English-speaking bishops over the new translation effectively signalled the demise of the authority of local episcopal conferences and the subjugation of the clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council ?

Perhaps our shepherds need to know that they have both our encouragement and our support so that they can rediscover the confidence they need to reclaim their rights as pastors. Unless that happens the flock will be left following sheep. Cardinal Winning would not be impressed.

Source: Association of Catholic Priests

“It is to simply know that we are before God himself and that He came to us and that we are undeserving… If we trivialize Communion, we trivialize everything, and we cannot lose a moment as important as that of receiving Communion, of recognizing the real presence of Christ there, of the God who is the love above all loves, as we sing in a hymn in Spanish.”

The Vatican authority referred to a directive on the old Latin Mass which was published the middle of May. According to this directive, liturgical decrees issued since 1962 which are not compatible with the liturgical books then in use are not binding on Tridentine celebrations.

In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI readmitted the rite, which was superseded worldwide in 1970, the “extraordinary form.” The “modern” celebration according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) remains the normal form.

Source: KAP, tr. awr.