Ranjith: 'Rebellion' Against Motu Proprio Gravely Sinful

[universalindult]

This translation was posted at freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354494&p=137

Emphasis added.

MONS RANJITH SPEAKS OUT ON ‘REBELLION’ AGAINST THE POPE:

‘THE CLERGY AT EVERY LEVEL HAVE A DUTY TO OBEY’
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8493/pategehh7.png
Here is a translation of an interview in PETRUS today with the #2 man in the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Pride and prejudice motivate the Pope’s opponents

By Bruno Volpe

VATICAN CITY - ‘The clergy at every level have a duty to obey the Pope’ is the central message from Mons. Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige, secretary-general of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in this exclusive interview.

Excellency, how would you describe the reception so far of the Pope’s Motu Proprio liberalizing the use of the traditional Mass? Some in the Church have turned up their noses at it…

There have been positive reactions, and of course, we cannot deny that there have been criticisms and direct opposition from some theologians, liturgists, bishops and even cardinals.

Frankly, I do not understand these forms of distancing from the Pope, or better still, call it for what it is, rebellion.

I invite everyone, especially bishops, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. Bishops, in particular, have sworn their loyalty to the Pontiff, and should be consistent and faithful to that vow.

In your opinion, what is the reason for this display of opposition to the Pope?

You know that there have been, in some dioceses, ‘interpretative’ documents aimed, inexplicably, at delimiting the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Such actions are partly motivated by ideological prejudice as well as arrogance, one of the gravest of sins.

I can only repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy Father thought that it was his duty to issue this Motu Proprio, he made his reasons clear, and I share them fully.

*The liberalization of the traditional Mass also seems like a proper remedy to so many liturgical abuses that were unfortunately committed after Varican-II in connection with the Novus Ordo…
*
I don’t criticize the Novus Ordo. But it makes me laugh when I hear it said, even by some friends of mine, that in a parish, the priest is a saint because of his homilies or how he speaks.

The Holy Mass is a sacrifice, an offering, a mystery, that is independent of the priest who celebrates it. It is therefore important - in fact, fundamental - that the priest knows his place in it: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ.

Therefore, I do not understand the eucharistic celebrations transformed into performances with singing and dancing and clapping, which unfortunately takes place in many Novus Ordo Masses.

Mons. Patabendige, your Congregation has often spoken against such liturgical abuses…

Yes. We have issued so many documents which, however, remain dead letters, that end up in dusty shelves, or worse, in the weatebasket.

Another point - sometimes, one has to sit through excessively long homilies…

Even that is an abuse. I am against dancing and applause during Mass, because one is not at the circus or a stadium. As for homilies, they should be exclusively catechetical, as the Pope has underscored, and avoid sociologisms and useless patter.

Often, the priest ends up talking about politics because he has not really prepared a homily [which should always be based on the Gospel and readings of the day]. And a homily should be prepared carefully, scrupulously.

An excessively long homily usually means little preparation. A homily should be about 10 minutes, 15 at the most. The priest must consider that the culminating moment of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery. This is not to diminish the liturgy of the Word but to clarify the correct application of liturgy.

Going back to the Motu Proprio, there are those who criticize the use of Latin for the Mass…

The Tridentine rite in Latin is part of Church tradition. The Pope has dutifully explained the reasons for his decision - it is an act of liberation and of justice for the traditionalists.

As for the use of Latin, I would like to emphasize that it was never abolished. Latin is a guarantee of the universality of the Church.

I can only repeat: I call on all priests, bishops and cardinals to obey the Pope, setting aside any pride or prejudice.

 

[universalindult]

Rome’s fury: Motu Proprio mutiny 'sinful’

Posted by Damian Thompson on 05 Nov 2007 at 16:27

telegraph.co.uk

The Vatican has vented its fury at the mutinous response of liberal bishops and cardinals to the Pope’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has accused dioceses that try to sabotage the Pope’s Motu Proprio of “prejudices of an ideological kind” and “pride, one of the gravest sins”. Well said!

The archbishop does not name the prelates he considers to be in a state of “rebellion towards the Pope”, as he puts it. But one thing is clear: overall, the reaction of the Bishops of England and Wales to Pope Benedict’s ruling has been truly dismal.

This is just guesswork, but I wouldn’t surprised if Archbishop’s Ranjith’s remarks were directed partly at the Diocese of Portsmouth, whose “director of liturgy” Paul Inwood produced an appalling set of guidelines that tried to ban Catholics for asking for the traditional Mass.

Two other names that come to mind are Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton and Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, both of whom have written letters contrary to the letter and spirit of the Pope’s wishes.

Hat-tip to Petavius and the Rorate Caeli blog for alerting me to the archbishop’s interview, given to Bruno Volpe of the papal news website Petrus. Here are the money quotes:

“There have been positive reactions [to the Motu Proprio] and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition, even from theologians, liturgists, priests, bishops, and even cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment…

“You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably intend to limit the Pope’s Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call all to obey the Pope. If the Holy Father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share.”

Such ferocious comments by a senior figure in the Curia indicate that Rome is not prepared to stand by and watch liberal bishops ignore Pope Benedict’s decision to restore the former Tridentine Rite to full parity with the Mass of Paul VI.

Archbishop Ranjith, 58, a Dutch-born Sri Lankan, is a man after the Pope’s heart: he loves the traditional Mass and celebrates it in his private chapel. He speaks with a forthright eloquence rarely encountered among English bishops. Here is a taste of his style, from a recent address in the Netherlands:

“The Church cannot be the arena of confusion, philosophical or moral relativism, sophistry and casuistic dilution of the revealed truth which is the foundation of its Credo, the Word of God as revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church and interpreted by the official magisterium of the Church and open dissent or public debate even in the name of the freedom of theological research.

“My mind goes back to the story of the construction or shall we say the attempted construction of the Tower of Babel. Its constructors felt confident that they could scale the heavens with their own resources and strength without God. Hasn’t that same spirit re-appeared perhaps in a more sophisticated form in the world and the Church today?”

Archbishop Ranjith is no fool: he is appalled by the stroppy, work-to-rule mentality of bishops who think they are popes in their own dioceses and have no intention of implementing a ruling they don’t like.

As for the identity of the unnamed cardinals, your guess is as good as mine. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster hasn’t said anything that could get him into trouble – but neither has he manifested the slightest enthusiasm for – or interest in – this crucial aspect of Benedict’s reform of the liturgy. He’s keeping his head down, as usual.

Posted by Damian Thompson on 05 Nov 2007 at 16:27

See also:

Rorate-Caeli: Ranjith speaks: Episcopal “rebellion” going on;
“Bishops and Cardinals” must obey the Pope

WDTPRS: Interview with Archbp. Ranjith: those who resist Summorum Pontificum guilty of the sin of pride

 

[universalindult]

Archbishop Ranjith is saying all the right things here. Combine his statement here,

“Episcopal “rebellion” going on; “Bishops and Cardinals” must obey the Pope”

with his prior comment,

“It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else.”

and add in Cardinal Hoyos' recent comments,

""priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests…It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission…The Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the “celebret,” the power to be able to celebrate , but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate. If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right is respected…The Pope does not impose the obligation; the Pope does impose offering this possibility where the faithful request it. If there is a conflict, the authority of the bishop must intervene to avoid it, but without canceling the right that the Pope gave to the entire Church.”

and hopefully, the hugely anticipated PCED document clarifying Summorum Pontificum will echo and reinforce Ranjith and Hoyos and make the bishops' onerous "guidelines" null and void.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thanks for posting this, great interview!

I also found it interesting that he noted long homilies as an abuse. I’d have to concur. There are some priests, though well-intentioned I’m sure, who just seem to go on and on. Further, quite often you end up learning next to nothing about the Catholic faith in these homilies (not that they’re heretical though). One other poster pointed out that after Vatican II they switched from doing sermons, which are focused on the Catholic Faith itself, to homilies, which are supposed to be focused on the gospel readings. I hope Priests can go back to sermons because so often you learn so little about either the Catholic faith or scripture from homilies–they are instantly forgettable.

I mean, when was the last time one heard a homily that actually dealt with the supernatural life at all, such as heaven, hell, and purgatory, sanctifying grace, indulgences, etc.?

 

[jj2011]

I’m praying that more priests return to the traditional rites and that Rome depose the bad bishops.

Feel free to join me!

 

[universalindult]

Archbishop Ranjith and Cardinal Hoyos laid much of the groundwork for the Pope’s Motu Proprio in the months leading up to the publication of Summorum Ponitificum.

I must wonder if they are laying the groundwork for the document from the PCED clarifying Summorum Ponitificum, because the clarification is going to be just as earth shaking as the document itself was!

 

[Pious_Mat]

Indeed, the only way things are going to get better in the Church in any respect is if we start getting good, orthodox, Bishops. The Holy Father ought to take a more active role in naming Bishops, and have the Congregation for Bishops do a complete investigation, preparing assesments of every priest in the Diocese. The problem seems to be that previous Bishops have too much say in naming their successors. A liberal Bishop will naturally recommend another liberal as his successor.

However, I’ve always held that one good priest can start something in the Diocese that overthrows all the heresies and abuses.

 

[otjm]

Thanks for posting this, great interview!

I also found it interesting that he noted long homilies as an abuse. I’d have to concur. There are some priests, though well-intentioned I’m sure, who just seem to go on and on. Further, quite often you end up learning next to nothing about the Catholic faith in these homilies (not that they’re heretical though). One other poster pointed out that after Vatican II they switched from doing sermons, which are focused on the Catholic Faith itself, to homilies, which are supposed to be focused on the gospel readings. I hope Priests can go back to sermons because so often you learn so little about either the Catholic faith or scripture from homilies–they are instantly forgettable.

I mean, when was the last time one heard a homily that actually dealt with the supernatural life at all, such as heaven, hell, and purgatory, sanctifying grace, indulgences, etc.?

Maybe I shouldn’t ask this, but what is the Catholic Faith if it is not based directly on the Gospels?

If the homilies are instantly forgettable, it would seem that you would be saying to me either that 1) they were poorly done, so they need to be done better, or, 2) if they were based on the Gospel, the Gospel it self is instantly forgettable. I will assume you meant 1).

Sermons were about whatever the local bishop deicided neded to be talked about that week, and were almost totally and completely disconnected from the Mass and the Liturgy of the Word. They were not necessarily about the Faith in any specific way, either.

It may be that your pastor is not good at homilies, although with all the material available, it isn’t for lack of resources. But if you are not hearing about purgatory, or heaven or hell, or what Christ actually calls us to, then perhaps the fault is not the issue of homily vs sermon; it is about the person doing the homily. Do we really need to throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It’s great to see Rome finally speaking out against the wolves in sheeps clothing. I bet they wouldn’t have to excommunicate more than a half dozen of them for the rest to shape up.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Maybe I shouldn’t ask this, but what is the Catholic Faith if it is not based directly on the Gospels?

If the homilies are instantly forgettable, it would seem that you would be saying to me either that 1) they were poorly done, so they need to be done better, or, 2) if they were based on the Gospel, the Gospel it self is instantly forgettable. I will assume you meant 1).

Sermons were about whatever the local bishop deicided neded to be talked about that week, and were almost totally and completely disconnected from the Mass and the Liturgy of the Word. They were not necessarily about the Faith in any specific way, either.

It may be that your pastor is not good at homilies, although with all the material available, it isn’t for lack of resources. But if you are not hearing about purgatory, or heaven or hell, or what Christ actually calls us to, then perhaps the fault is not the issue of homily vs sermon; it is about the person doing the homily. Do we really need to throw out the baby with the bath water?

I don’t know if I meant either 1 or 2. I do think that the concept of preaching a homily (exclusively) on the gospel needs to be thrown out and Priests should be told to give instruction on the Catholic Faith as a whole and not be (practically speaking) restricted the way they are.

Of course the Faith is based on the Gospels (and Tradition). However, that of course doesn’t mean that any particular Priest is going to say much of anything of significance about the gospel passage. I am basing my observation on a number of Priests and homilies as I attend Mass at several different churches. To me, it’s like being in a Bible study where people just say what’s on their mind about a passage of scripture. Nice, yes, but often not particularly informative.

With the way Priests at least seem to be restricted now nothing particularly useful is said about the gospel and usually nothing about the Catholic faith is said at all. So Catholics grow up not knowing why they believe what they believe (if they even hear about what Catholicism actually teaches).

Plus, yes, the gospel is the root, and I’m glad it’s read, but this root has grown into a tree which encompasses the whole Catholic Faith. Thus when a Priest preaches on the Catholic Faith this, in a way, automatically incorporates the gospel as the teachings of the Church are the fruition of the gospel teachings.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know if I meant either 1 or 2. I do think that the concept of preaching a homily (exclusively) on the gospel needs to be thrown out and Priests should be told to give instruction on the Catholic Faith as a whole and not be (practically speaking) restricted the way they are.

That is what I don’t get; they are less restricted now than they were when they had sermons; the bishop desginated what they gave a sermon on. Any gospel story has a multitude of things they could give a homily on; failure to do so is just that.

Of course the Faith is based on the Gospels (and Tradition). However, that of course doesn’t mean that any particular Priest is going to say much of anything of significance about the gospel passage. I am basing my observation on a number of Priests and homilies as I attend Mass at several different churches. To me, it’s like being in a Bible study where people just say what’s on their mind about a passage of scripture. Nice, yes, but often not particularly informative.

With the way Priests at least seem to be restricted now nothing particularly useful is said about the gospel and usually nothing about the Catholic faith is said at all. So Catholics grow up not knowing why they believe what they believe (if they even hear about what Catholicism actually teaches).

That is a failure on the part of the priest, not something caaused by a restriction.

In short, what you complain about is a failure of many priests to learn Homiletics; it is not a failure due to restrictions. For example, the readings during the summer pick up the Gospel of John and are a fantastic point of explaining the Eucharist and expanding upon it. The priest doesn’t need to do something else; he just needs to do what the Church has asked him to do. His failure is not a reason to try something else; it is a reason to learn to do what he was supposed to do to begin with.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That is what I don’t get; they are less restricted now than they were when they had sermons; the bishop desginated what they gave a sermon on. Any gospel story has a multitude of things they could give a homily on; failure to do so is just that.

That is a failure on the part of the priest, not something caaused by a restriction.

In short, what you complain about is a failure of many priests to learn Homiletics; it is not a failure due to restrictions. For example, the readings during the summer pick up the Gospel of John and are a fantastic point of explaining the Eucharist and expanding upon it. The priest doesn’t need to do something else; he just needs to do what the Church has asked him to do. His failure is not a reason to try something else; it is a reason to learn to do what he was supposed to do to begin with.

I do think a priest could take a gospel passage like John 6 and launch into a homily on the Eucharist. For that matter, I am sure there are many places in the Gospels where a priest could use the gospel as a launching pad for sermonizing on Catholic doctrine.

Yet it seems as if there has been a collapse of catechetical teaching on a widespread scale after Vatican II. If the Church has asked them to teach Catholic doctrine, and not just expound on whatever comes to mind when they read the gospel, it sure does not seem to be getting through.

Perhaps you’re right, perhaps it isn’t due to restrictions. Maybe we should have a greater restriction to teaching the Catholic Faith and not giving priests the idea they can just expound on the impressions they get from the Gospel.

Yet something seems to have been amiss in just instructing priests to explain or expound on the gospel and scriptures. I think a lot of priests are doing precisely that, and it’s not yielding much fruit.

 

[universalindult]

Vatican official decries opposition to Summorum Pontificum

Rome, Nov. 5, 2007 (CWNews.com) - In an interview with the Italian Petrus web site, Archbishop Albert Ranjith Patabendige, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, acknowledged that the papal document, Summorum Pontificum, has been met in some dioceses with criticism and resistance. In some cases, the Sri Lankan prelate said, the hostility amounts to "rebellion against the Pope."

Reminding the interviewer, Bruno Volpe, that every bishop swears allegiance to the Roman Pontiff, Archbishop Ranjith said that “everyone, and particular every pastor, is called to obey the Pope, who is the successor to Peter.” He called bishops to follow the papal directive faithfully, "setting aside all pride and prejudice."

Archbishop Ranjith complained that in some dioceses, bishops and their representatives have set out policies “inexplicably” limiting the scope of the Pope’s motu proprio. He charged that the resistance to the Pope’s policy has been driven by “on the one hand, ideological prejudices, and on the other hand pride-- one of the deadliest sins.”

Early in October, in an address to the Latin Liturgy Association in the Netherlands, Archbishop Ranjith had delivered an equally blunt assessment of the response to Summorum Pontificum, saying that bishops were being “disobedient” to the Pope, and stifling the impact of the motu proprio by their policies. Diocesan bishops “do not have this right,” he said, and bishops who defy the Pope’s authority are allowing themselves "to be used as instruments of the devil."

 

[Asperges_Me]

That is what I don’t get; they are less restricted now than they were when they had sermons; the bishop desginated what they gave a sermon on. Any gospel story has a multitude of things they could give a homily on; failure to do so is just that.

That is a failure on the part of the priest, not something caaused by a restriction.

In short, what you complain about is a failure of many priests to learn Homiletics; it is not a failure due to restrictions. For example, the readings during the summer pick up the Gospel of John and are a fantastic point of explaining the Eucharist and expanding upon it. The priest doesn’t need to do something else; he just needs to do what the Church has asked him to do. His failure is not a reason to try something else; it is a reason to learn to do what he was supposed to do to begin with.

Why is it that priests who take all kinds of liberty and make all kinds of innovations at Mass seldom if ever do away with the homily? And they never keep it short either. It seems like replacing the homily with a sermon would be one “abuse” that I just maybe could ignore. Would any of the same people who want you to “offer it up” for other abuses do the same if the homily was skipped?

How many different ways can you spin the “prodigal son” or the “wedding feast at Cana” or the “loaves and the fishes” anyway? Same old ancedotes are repeated over and over by different priests. Maybe it’s just time to change the rules and start preaching Catholic doctrine at every Mass?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Why is it that priests who take all kinds of liberty and make all kinds of innovations at Mass seldom if ever do away with the homily? And they never keep it short either. It seems like replacing the homily with a sermon would be one “abuse” that I just maybe could ignore. Would any of the same people who want you to “offer it up” for other abuses do the same if the homily was skipped?

** How many different ways can you spin the “prodigal son” or the “wedding feast at Cana” or the “loaves and the fishes” anyway? Same old ancedotes are repeated over and over by different priests. Maybe it’s just time to change the rules and start preaching Catholic doctrine at every Mass?**

Amen!

 

[Servulus]

The question of whether a homily should “preach the doctrine” or “discuss the Scripture” seems to be a false dichotomy. In the quote posted earlier in the thread, the Archbishop makes the point that the homily is required to be catechetical (preaching the doctrine) and be based on the Gospel and readings of the day (discussing the Scripture). As a previous poster noted, “The priest doesn’t need to do something else; he just needs to do what the Church has asked him to do.”

The fact is that with proper preparation and effort a homily can be constructed that is at once doctrinally sound, Scripturally based in the day’s texts, and relevant to the daily lives and pastoral needs of the faithful. If that isn’t happening, the answer is meeting the responsibility, not removing the requirement.

I realize this homily discussion is not what this thread was originally designed to discuss. Perhaps a new thread on this topic is indicated.

 

[peary]

Maybe what we need in the next pope is a “benevolent dictator” who will make sure the changes needed are made. That means one who can “clean house” and demote those bishops who refuse to do their pastoral duty. Not only that, bishops that refuse to be accountable in the sex scandal should be defrocked. It should have been done years ago, in my opinion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t see why we cannot have sermons that relate to both the Gospels and catechetical instruction on dogma. I’d hate to see the gospel thrown out, as a sermon or homily topic. I think we ought to have Sunday Schools for the continued catechesis of the laity.

 

[TNT]

I don’t see why we cannot have sermons that relate to both the Gospels and catechetical instruction on dogma. I’d hate to see the gospel thrown out, as a sermon or homily topic. I think we ought to have Sunday Schools for the continued catechesis of the laity.

SSPX & FSSP are THE best SERMONS I ever heard, and you get them EVERY Sunday!
Sorry bout the NO Homilies.

 

[otjm]

I do think a priest could take a gospel passage like John 6 and launch into a homily on the Eucharist. For that matter, I am sure there are many places in the Gospels where a priest could use the gospel as a launching pad for sermonizing on Catholic doctrine.

Yet it seems as if there has been a collapse of catechetical teaching on a widespread scale after Vatican II. If the Church has asked them to teach Catholic doctrine, and not just expound on whatever comes to mind when they read the gospel, it sure does not seem to be getting through.

Perhaps you’re right, perhaps it isn’t due to restrictions. Maybe we should have a greater restriction to teaching the Catholic Faith and not giving priests the idea they can just expound on the impressions they get from the Gospel.

Yet something seems to have been amiss in just instructing priests to explain or expound on the gospel and scriptures. I think a lot of priests are doing precisely that, and it’s not yielding much fruit.

Again, I think it may be due to the situations you have observed; I have heard both well done homilies and poorly done ones; but then I have also heard poor sermons too.

Keep in mind that because for centuries the Liturgy of the Word was not exactly highly focused on, we have a bit of catch up to do. The Protestants put much more emphasis on preaching than diocesan priests have, in general. They have a tendency to do that part better (given all of the issues otherwise). The purpose of the homily is to open up Scripture to the person in the pew; to make them aware of what Christ calls us to. Sometimes that is not conveyed well, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The water does need changing, though.