Liturgy News

One of the enduring legacies of Pope Francis is a move towards decentralisation. He set out the parameters of ecclesial renewal in his first year as pope in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013). He wrote: I do not believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralisation’ (EG 16). The document itself illustrates this by regularly quoting local and regional episcopal sources, something which was quite new in papal documents. Vatican Council II had recognised episcopal conferences as an important means of collegial governance. Pope Francis argued that this needed further development (EG 32).

He linked this move to an effective proclamation of the gospel which must take account of local cultures and sensibilities. Unity in the Church does not require uniformity. His ideas moved towards the promotion of ‘synodality’ which advocates processes of listening to others, discernment of the Spirit, and a new collaboration among all the baptised, whether ordained or not.

This trust of local bishops and collaboration with them extended also to the liturgy. In his ‘motu proprio’ Magnum Principium (2017), Francis modified the Code of Canon Law to clarify the intention of Vatican Council II that it was the bishops’ responsibility to translate the liturgical books into the vernacular, to accommodate them to the local culture, and then to prepare and approve liturgical books. The role of the Holy See is ‘confirmatio’, that is, simply to ratify what the bishops have done. The stronger role of ‘recognitio’, which requires the Holy See’s judgement on whether the unity of the Roman Rite has been maintained, only concerns adaptations or additions which the bishops may have introduced. Here Rome’s particular responsibility centres on safeguarding communion and doctrinal integrity. This rebalancing of pastoral responsibilities in favour of local bishops conferences, he said, makes absolutely necessary… a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See.

These changes represent a dramatic reversal of the increasingly centralised control of the liturgy over recent decades, a process which gathered momentum especially during the 1990s. Rome took over translation bodies such as ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) which was originally set up by the English-speaking bishops conferences. The Roman liturgy Congregation now vetted its staff and established the statutes by which it was to work. This was formalised in Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) which demanded a rigorous literal translation of the Latin with no adaptations or additions, strict Roman oversight of the result, and the Holy See’s sole authority in approving (and even preparing) liturgical texts. Despite all these restrictions, The Roman Missal (2010) – after its approval by bishops conferences – was released for use with 10,000 changes made unilaterally by Rome. Many have found the Missal linguistically artificial, culturally distant and pastorally disconnected.

Nine years after Magnum Principium, we are still coming to terms with the reforms it introduced. ICEL’s mandate is to prepare a base translation of the Latin editio typica. Inculturation is left to conferences of bishops who are in touch with the local idiom, symbols and pastoral context. They need to adapt the base translation so that people can participate and pray naturally. In Australia, for example, we need to prepare our own edition of the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults and the Order of Christian Funerals. The current editions of these books were significantly adapted for the English-speaking world by ICEL. Now the new translation they are offering has omitted any of these adaptations or rearrangements. We need to work out what we want to keep. What further adaptations will we need? Are we happy with the new translation and vocabulary? All of this requires a significant allocation of qualified personnel and financial resources. At this point a task group of volunteers has been meeting by Zoom to address the Christian initiation of adults. But this is not enough.

Pope Francis’ liturgical decentralisation has, of course, stirred up some disagreement. Some fear fragmentation and ambiguity. Others have accused Francis of being inconsistent. This latter refers especially to his strict regulation of the Tridentine Latin rite. In Traditionis Custodes (2021), he revoked the wide latitude given by Pope Benedict XVI to celebrate the old liturgy as an ‘extraordinary form’ of the Roman Rite. Both were trying to promote unity in the Church, but Francis believed the old rite was becoming a centre of opposition to Vatican Council II. While he happily decentralised in matters related to inculturation, local language and pastoral adaptation, he adopted more centralist regulations for the traditional Mass because he believed it was becoming a threat to ecclesial communion, the reception of Vatican II and the unity of the Roman Rite. It is notable however that the pastoral implementation of these guidelines was left to local bishops. Traditionis Custodes introduces a certain tension with respect to Magnum Principium, but it is not a contradiction.

In relation to the traditional Latin Mass, Pope Leo has been very cautious. He always seeks to reconcile and make peace. In this case, he seems to have introduced an inspiring decentralised approach which demonstrates a strong continuity with Magnum Principium. It seems that last January at the meeting of cardinals in Rome, Pope Leo talked with Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline of Marseilles to see whether the French bishops could reflect on possible pathways to resolve the tensions around the Tridentine liturgy. France is the birthplace and epicentre of these traditionalist communities. If France could discern a way forward, it might help everyone. Rather than enforcing restrictions from the centre, Leo seems to be searching for a way of inviting bishops conferences into a process of pastoral mediation.

Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Parolin followed up with a letter to the bishops of France. He asked them if they could explore a renewed way of looking at one another, marked by deeper understanding of differing sensibilities so that brothers (sic), enriched by their diversity, may welcome one another in charity and in the unity of faith. He hoped they would find concrete solutions to include everyone generously while respecting the liturgical orientations of Vatican Council II.

Consequently, the French bishops conference spent some time at their March meeting on the theme ‘liturgy and tradition’. Perhaps they could determine the doctrinal and ecclesiological questions that lie behind the controversy – how close or distant is God, how does the Church relate to the world, what does freedom of conscience mean, and so forth. What role does political-religious ideology play? Are any adaptations possible, for example, a common Lectionary and liturgical calendar? Would traditionalist communities be interested in celebrating the other sacraments according to the new rite in Latin? One key challenge that has emerged is ‘exclusivity’, that is, the refusal of some to celebrate any liturgical rites with the rest of the diocese, even the Chrism Mass. It remains to be seen if this initiative bears fruit.

If such a decentralised approach does offer a way forward on the traditional Mass, no doubt it could be applied also to other questions. In Germany, there is tension with Rome over the rites they have developed for blessing couples in irregular marriage situations. Without changing the Church’s doctrinal-moral teaching, can this be accepted as a pastoral adaptation suitable for the German context, even though it is totally rejected in Africa? Likewise, solutions developed in Africa for dealing with the liturgical participation of those in polygamous relationships might have no place in other parts of the Church, but could be received as inculturation in Africa. Will the Church be enriched by such diversity? Can these pastoral responses be held together in unity within the communion of the Body of Christ?

Tom Elich