The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionQ & A with Msgr. Guido Marini, papal liturgist
Mar. 03, 2010
Monsignor Guido Marini, Benedict XVI’s Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, is one of those Vatican figures who normally operate in the shadows. He’s the guy who organizes the Masses and other liturgical events over which the pope presides, so he generally attracts notice only when he happens to be standing near his boss when the TV cameras light up.
Marini took a big step into the spotlight back in January, however, when he gave a speech to a meeting of English-speaking priests in Rome, in which he advocated a liturgical “reform of the reform.” Those comments unleashed a wave of speculation in the blogosphere and in liturgical circles about a possible new overhaul of Catholic worship under Benedict XVI, which critics would read as “rolling back the clock” on reforms associated with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
Marini sat down for an exclusive interview with NCR in his Vatican office on Feb. 9, to explain what he had in mind by a “reform of the reform.”
Read John Allen's news story here: Liturgist: Pope aims to 'propose' practices
In a nutshell, Marini’s message was that under Benedict XVI, the winds are clearly blowing in a more traditional direction, but anyone expecting a dramatic lurch one way or the other is likely to be disappointed – this pope prefers to operate by “proposing,” Marini said, rather than “imposing.”
The following are excerpts from the interview with Marini. (Marini spoke in Italian, and was given an opportunity to review the English translation of his remarks.)
* * *
What did you have in mind on January 6 when you talked about a “reform of the reform”?
To tell the truth, I didn’t use this expression as something of my own, but as a phrase used by several others for many years, including, of course, the former Cardinal Ratzinger. I didn’t want to get into the details of what various people might mean by the expression, because there are different ways of understanding it. I believe that the best way, the most correct way, to understand the expression is certainly not to reject the reforms determined by the Second Vatican Council. Rather, it’s to take another step forward in the comprehension and experience of an authentic liturgical spirit, carrying together the inheritance of our tradition with the reform that the council accomplished, in a spirit of development in continuity.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Of course, the former Cardinal Ratzinger also once warned against new upheavals in the liturgy, saying that we need a period of stability. Do you agree?
Yes, yes … I’m fully in agreement! I don’t believe that the liturgy of the church needs any radical changes or distortions, in part because it’s not in the logic of this spirit of development in continuity. I believe instead that it’s a matter of consolidating what already exists, in a more authentic way, according to the true mind of the church.
There is no “rollback” on Vatican II?
Of course not. A ‘rollback’ wouldn’t make sense, because it’s not how the life of the church works. The life of the church moves forward in time, always developing but without losing anything from its life of either the past or the present.
You spoke about some more traditional touches in Pope Benedict’s liturgies, such as placing a cross on the altar and giving communion on the tongue. If I understand correctly, you’re not suggesting that these are harbingers of new liturgical policy for the whole church.
The pope has proposed, and proposes, these solutions. It’s the style of the present pope to proceed not though impositions but propositions. The idea is that, little by little, all this may be welcomed, considering the true significance that certain decisions and certain orientations may have. That seems to me a typical touch of Pope Benedict.
Whether sometime in the future, what the pope’s presenting in this propositional way should become more of a disciplinary norm, we don’t know and can’t say. Certainly, the style at the moment is to offer proposals for the celebrative style of the church. Nevertheless, when the Holy Father proposes, it is not simply his personal preference, but a precise and clear orientation for the whole church.
That raises a broader question. Benedict XVI clearly has a strong liturgical vision, but to date hasn’t launched any sweeping liturgical reform. You seem to have already suggested why not: His strategy is to propose rather than impose. Is that right?
I would say so, yes. It seems to me that he has a vision rooted in great faith in the life of the church, which of course has its own sense of time and its own rhythms. Given certain realities, as well as the times in which we live, sometimes things can’t just be imposed quickly. They have to slowly enter into the way of thinking of the church, its way of feeling, its climate. Within that, maybe one can eventually arrive at providing a more precise disciplinary norm, but perhaps first it is helpful to shape a climate of opinion.
You have to shape the culture of the church before its legislation?
I believe so, even if the two things obviously have to go together, because disciplinary norms also help to shape a culture. At the same time, there’s a process of cultural formation that can lead to disciplinary norms. I believe the balance between these two moments has to be kept in mind.
The new edition of the Roman Missal in English is about to come out. Have you seen it?
No. As you know, that’s a job for the Congregation for Divine Worship. I know that it’s moving forward.
Will the pope use the new missal when he’s in England in September?
I don’t know, because it hasn’t yet been decided. We don’t know if by then it will already be definitively approved. Certainly if it’s approved in the meantime, it would be the text he uses.
The new translation has sometimes been criticized for using unfamiliar terms that may not be readily accessible to people. Do you agree with the logic that sometimes a kind of ‘sacral speech’ is a good thing, in order to lift people out of their daily experience?
I believe so, yes. The liturgy certainly has a popular dimension, but it also has its own language and its own frame of reference. We sometimes need help in considering that in the liturgical space, in the climate of the liturgy, we effectively enter another dimension which is not our every-day world. The pope often speaks of the liturgy as a kind of heavenly space, which is certainly not detached from the world, but in fact offers a new way to live the experience of the world. This all has to go together, and sometimes it can be expressed in language that isn’t the speech of everyday life, but the language of prayer and spirituality, which has its own beauty.
With his 2007 motu proprio, Benedict XVI authorized wider celebration of the old Latin Mass, the so-called “Tridentine Rite,” alongside the new. Now that the dust has settled on that decision, where do things stand?
In my opinion, what’s important now is that the two forms of the Roman rite look upon one another with great serenity, realizing that both belong to the life of the church and that neither is the only true, authentic expression. But rather, the two forms of Roman Rite can mutually enrich each other. This must be the path along which we should walk, because perhaps we haven’t yet truly arrived at this attitude of serenity and welcome in daily life.
Posters feverishly blurting
Posters feverishly blurting out that he is just trying to cover up some kind of Dark Vatican Conspiracy(TM) to 'destroy Vatican II' to show up in 3... 2... 1...
Thank you, John, for once
Thank you, John, for once again delivering a balanced report on the Holy See. I enjoyed reading Msgr. Marini's comments. I, too, believe that the present Pope is trying to help people understand what the Liturgy truly is all about.
This is cool. We all need to
This is cool. We all need to listen to our Holy Father. We must learn to be like children: meek and humble. The Pope knows what the Church needs at this time. We need only look to our Holy Father for the way we must take.
"We must learn to be like
"We must learn to be like children: meek and humble."
And what did you not learn from revelations of rampant clerical sex abuse in the church, not to mention papal and episcopal indifference to same???
It's called the "clerical culture", i.e., the historical elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity.
As exemplified in the Tridentine mass where the laity are passive and their priest --- with backside toward them and praying in a barely audible and unintelligible dead foreign language --- expects them to stick out their tongues (like "meek and humble" kids) in order to be fed holy communion.
It's called "paternalism".
It is "dysfunction".
It is sick and sinful.
And it's exactly what Papa B16 wants.
Thanks but no thanks.
This adult will take a "pass".
(Honest to Pete, those who bury their "orthodox"/"traditionalist"/"fundamentalist" heads in the sand and refuse to learn the lessons of history.......:(
This is cool. We all need to
This is cool. We all need to listen to our Holy Father. We must learn to be like children: meek and humble. The Pope knows what the Church needs at this time. We need only look to our Holy Father for the way we must take.
WRONG. The "RUB" occurs when
WRONG. The "RUB" occurs when there is an attempt to mix the two rites, ie placing candles and a crucifix on the altar, kneeling for communion etc. Rather, I hope that when he states: "the two forms of Roman Rite can mutually enrich each other" he means that by their presence each has its place, rather than one rite making changes to another rite to enrich them. Otherwise it won't work. If someone wants to kneel for communion, wants Mass in latin, Gregorian chants, ad orientem, etc then they can go to an extraordinary Mass, if one wants active involvement in liturgy as a layperson, lector, female altar server, ad populum, etc they can go to an ordinary Mass. PROGRESSIVES WILL NOT ALLOW CROSSES AS A BARRIER ON THE ALTAR, EXCLUSION OF FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS, MANDATORY KNEELING AND COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE ANYMORE THAN CONSERVATIVES ALLOWING COMMUNION IN THE HAND, STANDING FOR COMMUNION AND FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS AT AN EXTRAORDINARY MASS. EACH HAS THEIR OWN MASS, NO MORE SAYING VATICAN II DOCUMENTS DIDN'T SAY THIS OR THAT.
FURTHERMORE, THE INFLUENCE CAN GO BOTH WAYS! IF THEY WANT TO START INFLUENCING ORDINARY MASSES THEN WE WILL GO TO EXTRAORDINARY MASSES AND BEGIN DEMANDING CHANGES THERE SUCH AS COMMUNNION IN THE HAND (which I believe is allowed) FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS ETC. TO EACH ITS OWN.
Thank God you "progressives"
Thank God you "progressives" are not in charge any more. Your days are numbered. Get with the times.
Are you saying the actual documents which transmit the authentic liturgy don't matter? I'm guessing that's because you don't like what the documents say. So now I'm supposed to be subjected to your banal, summer-camp style monstrosities because your tastes matter more than the authentic Catholic faith. Us young Catholics are beginning to find the 1960s style rebellion quite tiresome.
And this is because this is a matter of authentic faith vs. inauthentic faith; but you insist that it is a matter of taste. You take it there because those are the only grounds on which you can get your way. It is not a matter of taste at all: one is authentic to the Spirit of the Liturgy, as the Holy Father has made very clear, and one is not.
As I said, GET WITH THE TIMES. Your 1960s liturgy, architecture, and "theology" is painfully antiquated, and the passage of just 40 years has exposed your movement as a mere mood instead of an authentic development.
It's late and I'm tired. Yes
It's late and I'm tired. Yes we are heading in a traditional direction these days. You know, continuity with the 16th Century! Perhaps the earlier Church is just an embarrassment to the Vatican power brokers.
The recent actions of the institutional church are turning this 70 year old man cynical. What's worse, without my carping, my married daughters (with 6 children between them) who have been very active in parish life and the Catholic school are getting fed up with what's going on. My married sons in their 20s keep wondering, as they say "What the hell are those old men up to?" They have just about given up on the Church.
We all know. All we need do is mention the U.S.A, Ireland, and now, Germany. Above and beyond the "sex" scandal is the "power" scandal. That's what screwed up the sad, horrendous pedophilia scandal. At dinner tonight my wife said that there is more sin and guilt in what the bishops have done than the poor sick pedophiles.
And that's it. Anyone who reads John Allen's article or the the interview with Marini (or read his initial "reform of the reform" speech), can see all the double-talk coming from the Vatican. One has to be stupid not to realize the direction in which we are moving. Anyone who closely listens to the words coming out of Rome knows all the verbiage coming from there is obfuscation designed to cover what is and is going to happen.
Why oh why can't they just speak plainly and say, "People, I have decided that much of Vatican II was a mistake and this is what I'm decreeing: we will restructure the Liturgy as it was during our 400 glorious years beginning in the 16th century. If you don't like it, leave?"
I would at least offer grudging respect to pope and the Vatican bureaucracy for "telling it like it is" going to be. What I want is some honesty!!!
"Whether sometime in the
"Whether sometime in the future, what the pope’s presenting in this propositional way should become more of a disciplinary norm, we don’t know and can’t say. Certainly, the style at the moment is to offer proposals for the celebrative style of the church. Nevertheless, when the Holy Father proposes, it is not simply his personal preference, but a precise and clear orientation for the whole church."
I think this statement contains much truth. Benedict doesn't have to worry much about the laity, he just has to send a strong visual message to his bishops for his 'preferences' to become a disciplinary norm in any given diocese. Marino is just passing on the message in this double talk he's using. Especially the last sentence in the above quoted parapraph.
Strangely, I've seen this
Strangely, I've seen this particular interview commented on elsewhere with the conclusion being that Pope Benedict will not mandate changes, but rather suggest them. I don't see how they get to this conclusion given the specific statement of Msgr. Marini:
“Whether sometime down the line, in the future, what the pope is presenting should become more of a disciplinary norm [for the whole church], we don’t know and can’t say,” he said,/em>
A disciplinary norm is legislative. What he is saying is that for now, Pope Benedict is leading by example to build a foundation for later legislation. It's not some conspiracy, it's simply how things are done in the Catholic Church folks. Changes happen first, then become law.
There is double-talk here: When asked about Pope Benedict desiring a "roll-back" of the Vatican II reforms, Msgr. Marini is quoted as saying:
A ‘rollback’ wouldn’t make sense, because it’s not how the life of the church works
Well...everybody knows full well that the "changes" that Benedict is proposing are actually the proposals put forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Everyone knows full well that "Communion in the Hand" was not a reform of Vatican II, so to return to communion kneeling and on the tongue is to actually comply with the Vatican II reforms. Same for Ad Orientem...it's right there in the documents. SO...what is being called for is a "roll-back" of the "Spirit of Vatican II" reforms and adherence to the actual reforms proposed by the council. No actual legislation needs to be changed. That's what I believe Msgr. Marini is getting at here...
Good point Jeffrey - let's go
Good point Jeffrey - let's go back to the documents and see what Vatican II really said, not what the demononic 'spirit of Vatican II' told us they said.
"The pope often speaks of the
"The pope often speaks of the liturgy as a kind of heavenly space, which is certainly not detached from the world, but in fact offers a new way to live the experience of the world. This all has to go together, and sometimes it can be expressed in language that isn’t the speech of everyday life, but the language of prayer and spirituality, which has its own beauty."
I wished John Allen, Jr asked Msgr. Marini to explain why the word "consubstantial" is beautiful.
Communion in the hand while
Communion in the hand while kneeling before the priest is arguably an effective way of showing the relative positions of power between priest and communicant (you don't have to speak the language to know who's in charge here).
However, I hear consistantly from survivors of priestly abuse that the priestly rapists have made that prayer position impossible now. Kneeling with one's face level with a priest's crotch is a vivid trigger of post-traumatic stress. Insisting on this ritualistic convention will simply drive victims permanently from reconcilation with the church. It's yet another specific signal that the clergy still doesn't understand that the trauma of rape lasts a lifetime, and that saying "we're really sorry (and would you help us pay off the victims)" just doesn't cut it.
Does the Vatican realize that
Does the Vatican realize that if they try to roll back Vatican II changes it may be harder for people to handle than the original changes themselves? After living for decades in a Vatican II church, many of us cannot imagine going back.
I know of many who would not accept some of the liturgy rollbacks that have been mentioned. The Vatican should also be aware that if they alienate American Catholics, they may well quit giving of their money to the church.
One suggestion: How about NCR doing a poll to get a rough idea how many Catholics do not support rolling back Vatican II changes? If you allow that to do done anonymously, people would feel free to "vote" the way they feel.
How people "feel" about the
How people "feel" about the Church's actions and whether or not they will continue "giving of their money" are both thoroughly irrelevant here. It comes down to the fact that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. Anyone who would leave the Church or rabble rouse as a result of the sort of changes one might expect for His Holiness (i.e., any changes that don't make him a formal heretic) is stepping out of line and ought to be told they're not in charge.
Oh, by the way...for anyone who doesn't like changes to the interpretation of the Vatican II documents, keep in mind that Pope Paul VI himself pointed out EXPLICITY that the council was PASTORAL in nature and didn't define any dogma/doctrine. In other words, not only is the "spirit of Vatican II" subject to the sovereignty of the Holy Father, but any of the faithful are free to disagree with the conciliar documents, provided we fall in line with the Holy Father's wishes/dictates (in so far as they are a product of him fulfilling his duties as Vicar of Christ).
"Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam."
NOT
"My way or the highway, Mr. Pope!"
It sounds to me like the
It sounds to me like the Vatican plans to tamper with the Traditional Latin Missal aligning it with The New Mass which underlines the importance of Archbishop Lefebvre's stance in his 1991 sermon when he consecrated the 4 bishops "We are keeping Tradition alive while awaiting for Tradition to regain its rights in Rome."
The time is not opportune for a reconciliation between Rome and Econe!
To Andrew105 Please explain
To Andrew105 Please explain your post about the mass and Lebebvre. Thanks so much for what you write. Is the pope bringing SSPX mass to the newest mass wording? Is the pope catering to SSPX by not accepting the current English mass? Thanks to you, please explain this some more because it sounds complicated, and I would appreciate further clarification please on what you mean in your comment.
Why the change, who is the pope doing this for? SSPX? Opus Dei? The Pizza founder benefactor? Has the pope been planning this since John XXIII died? I was born in the late 1980's so I do not read or speak Latin, nor do my parents or aunts and uncles. I do like the current mass in English and find it holy and good. I have read the newest translation and do not like it at all.
Post new comment