What Monsignor Marini expressed is not something new. I believe that he was simply echoing what was in the mind of the Holy Father concerning the “Reform of the Reformed” as it apply to the liturgy. Early in his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI expressed the need to reestablish the link or to put it simply emphasize the hermeneutics of continuity. Perhaps this is the reason why some who oppose this new liturgical movement has found ways to attack or to put it in mild terms, criticize the Pope by not mentioning his name but by directing their criticism to the papal master of ceremonies and others who support this reform.
Even while as a cardinal, Benedict XVI has expressed the need to emphasize the hermeneutics of continuity. The difficulty that arose in the aftermath of the council was on how to implement its decrees. To put this more eloquently, I will quote what Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI said in an address delivered in Santiago, Chile on July 13, 1988, (emphasis supplied):
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of a super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”[i]
Further he stated that the only way that Vatican Council II can be made effectively operative is to consider it as part of the entire living tradition of the Church. Not as a blanket authority to discard the past but a means to consolidate the past and present with the entire living experience of the pilgrim Church. The irony or should I say the difficulty was expressed by then Cardinal Ratzinger when he said:
“That which was previously was considered most holy-the form in which the liturgy was handed down-suddenly appears as most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith-for instance, the corporeal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc.-nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher, who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.”[ii]
Thus further, the conclusion given by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI is summarized powerfully thus:
“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The only way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is: one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.”[iii]
Looking at the answers given by Monsignor Guido Marini to the reporter’s questions, I find his reasoning excellent and truly explain the program of his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
"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." (Emphasis supplied). (NCR)
I think that Mosignor Marini has said it well. This is the reason why we laypeople could not grasp the logic why all of a sudden the crucifixes were removed from the altars and substituted with an empty crucifix and with the figures of the resurrected Lord. The disappearance of the communion rails, the liturgical tasks which previously were done by the clergy are now being performed by lay people. Why do the enculturation scholars and “gurus” need to dig for artifacts and find tidbits of discoveries and then all of a sudden make this as the norm as if the church had been sleeping for a long time and as if the living tradition has been ruptured. The promoters of enculturation have after all failed to understand the meaning of authentic liturgical evolution. Liturgical practices evolve with time. Most often this evolution takes several years even centuries. They evolve for a reason and they evolve not from anywhere but from existing liturgical tradition and practices. I would opine that this is what Monsignor Marini mean when he said those words quoted above.
Thus, turning back the clock is not the correct term to describe this new liturgical movement as some of its opponent would like to make it appear. But rather this new liturgical movement is a means to consolidate the reforms and to connect it with the entire living Tradition of the Church or the Deposit of Faith. The purpose is to offer an authentic interpretation of the reforms as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council. The hermeneutics of rupture is the main reason for the increasing desacralization of the liturgy, which resulted in much deformation of the liturgy and abuses. Which as the principle goes, how we pray is the way we also believe. Thus many of the moral aberrations of our times like moral relativism have its roots in this rupture. Once the body of the tree is detached from the roots (tradition) it looses its vitality. The restoration of the Sacred in the liturgy will bring back the old piety and devotion in the church that has helped it withstand trials and persecutions.
I am inclined to believe that the Summorum Pontificum of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI should be interpreted along the lines of continuity. Monsignor Marini expressed it thus:
"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." (NCR)
Thus from this point of view, it is inappropriate now to speak of the Tridentine Rite as “the Mass of All Ages” if by this to denote that the rite surrounding the Mass under that typical edition is fixed for eternity. Even St. Pius V speak of revising the missal in order to provide a standard missal for the Roman Rite, which at the time prior to the Council of Trent appeared in various editions dictated by local sees and custom. On the other hand it will also be inappropriate to say that the Reforms of Vatican II discards the rites of the pre-conciliar Mass. Rather, the correct way to view the Mass as far as the Roman Rite is concerned is that there is only one Roman Rite in two forms, namely the Extraordinary Form (1962) and the Ordinary Form (the current novus ordo rite). The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum explains this more clearly. Both forms of the Roman rite are legitimate and can be used according to existing church law. I believe that the growing appeal of the classical rite (extraordinary form) will help improve the Novus Ordo and bring to clarity the mind of the council fathers. I do personally believe that the decrees of the Second Vatican Council must be interpreted in the light of Tradition. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has aptly described this relationship between the Extraordinary and the Ordinary in his preface to the Daily Missal:
“May it likewise contribute to the understanding that the older rites need not be disdained in order to appreciate the new, nor must the new rites be disparaged in order to love the old”.
In conclusion I would say that the pontificate of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is a gift to the Church. His pontificate will help consolidate the reforms envisioned by the Second Vatican Council in an authentic way. For just as Christ is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever, so is His Bride the Church.
[i] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Lessons from the Lefevbre Schism”. Position Paper. Documentation Service. Vol. IV, no. 12, Manila: 1989, pp. 19-20