Francis selects low-profile Roche to replace Cardinal Sarah at Vatican liturgy office
ROME — Pope Francis on May 27 named a relatively low-profile British prelate to replace Cardinal Robert Sarah as the leader of the Vatican office charged with overseeing most of the global Catholic Church's liturgical rites.
Archbishop Arthur Roche, who had served as the No. 2 official at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments since 2012, is now the office's prefect.
Roche, 71, had been leading the Vatican office on an interim basis since February, when the pope accepted Sarah's resignation. Sarah had turned 75, the traditional retirement age for bishops, in June 2020.
Beyond Roche, Francis also appointed new No. 2 and No. 3 officials for the congregation. Bishop Vittorio Viola, until now the head of the Italian Diocese of Tortona, north of Genoa, will serve as secretary. Msgr. Aurelio Marcias, formerly a department head at the office, will now serve as its under-secretary
While in Leeds, Roche had also served as the chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), set up by bishops' conferences across the English-speaking world after the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council to help in providing translations for Latin-language liturgical texts.
During Roche's tenure at the commission, much of its authority had been assumed by a Vatican committee, known as Vox Clara, which had been created by Pope John Paul II in 2001 to specifically evaluate English-language liturgical translations.
Francis decentralized authority over how the texts used in the Catholic Church's liturgies are translated from Latin into local languages in 2017, moving most responsibility for the matter from the Vatican to national bishops' conferences.
Unusually, the official commentary from the Vatican worship office at the time of that change came not from Sarah, then the office's leader, but Roche. The archbishop said then that the pope's changes reflected a hope that the Vatican and bishops' conferences could work "in a spirit of dialogue" about liturgical translations.
MY TAKE
Appointment wise this is pretty much standard Francis.
In the case of Sarah like that of Muller at the CDF, Francis has put up with someone who was not really on board with his program. When the time came for the appointment to be up, Francis simply accepts the resignation but does not give the guy any new appointment. Francis does not like the idea of promoting someone to get them out of the way.
At Worship just like at Doctrine, Francis has promoted the second in charge. In both cases those people were quiet good workers who did not have an agenda of their own. Francis really likes good workers! Just do a good job and you are likely to be promoted. You don't have to be a strong supporter of your boss.
In the case of Worship the new guy is really an old guy who took part in the old system where things happened at the level of bishops conferences rather than in Rome. Francis wants to get back to that.
P.S.
There are rumors that Francis will repeal Benedict's policy on the Extraordinary Form, returning to individual bishops the right to determine if, when and where the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated. Benedict had installed protections that allow any priest to celebrate it, and required bishops to provide Masses in the EF if a group requested it. Francis has often questioned those who want the EF. Recently he greatly reduced the celebration of the EF at Saint Peters by eliminating private Masses by clerics in the Vatican. No longer mass with server and no congregation. Reader and congregation are required.
Looks like the Reform of the Reform is over even while Benedict is alive. But, of course, Francis has done this all very gently. The new guy will be perfect for rolling out the roll back in the EF.
The EF movement now has to hope that one of their guys, e.g. Sarah or Burke, becomes the Pope. There never really was much support among the bishops for the EF. They mainly view it as a nuisance. I think the cardinals would be very wary of electing an EF advocate as Pope. Benedict was really the best hope for those who prefer the Pre-Vatican II Mass.
I am reading that Archbishop Roche is British. They don't appear to have quite the polarization issues that the American church does.
ReplyDeleteAbout the EF, I think it would have been better if they hadn't brought it back. It should be noted that the Latin novus ordo Mass was always allowed and still is, if people are so attracted to Latin. I think Benedict allowed the EF in an attempt to get the St.PX back on board with Rome. My thought was, let them go. Most of them didn't return, anyway.
Yes one can use as much Latin in the new Mass as one wants. So it can be very tailored to the needs of a parish. If priest likes to sing the prefaces in Latin, he can do that. If the choir wants to sing the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion in Latin, they can do that. If they people want to sing the Gloria, Sanctus, Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei in Latin they can do that.
ReplyDeleteIn England, especially in the big cities, a lot of the larger parishes with good choirs have retained a lot of the Latin. Certainly the new head of Worship is very familiar with all that, and has probably participated in many liturgies with some or even a lot of Latin. The traditionalists will not be able to criticize him as being against Latin if he (like Francis) questions the need for the EF.
On the other hand in the US, if my diocese is typical, it is easier to find an SPSS Mass (I think there are two in the area)or an EF Mass (one maybe two) than to find extensive use of Latin in the new Mass (no parishes as far as I know).
Love of Latin and Gregorian chant is not confined to traditionalists. I have an extensive collection of CDs and regularly played them for friends, almost all of whom are very liberal. One remarked that she felt it was odd that the only place she had sung Latin was in the local community college chorus. Some pastors are against any Latin, and the only priests that are for it are too young to be pastors.
While I was disappointed when Ratzinger became Pope, I thought one benefit would be that he would promote more Latin in the new Mass. If he had I would have used all my music resources to help implement it in our parish and diocese.
However when he established the EF, I knew immediately that it was the wrong move. Especially giving priests the authority to use it whenever they want even if they are not pastors. A very good way for insecure priests to grow a cult following.
"Especially giving priests the authority to use it whenever they want even if they are not pastors." Yes, and it also seems to me that they should not use the EF if it's not what the parishioners want, and I don't mean just a small vocal minority.
DeleteWhat you said about it being easier to find an EF Mass than a Latin ordinary form one in your area is also true of ours. There is a FSSP seminary in our state (not our diocese) and I guess the EF is their specialty.
I assume the cathedral schola in our archdiocese does some of the Latin chants and music as part of the ordinary form, but most parishes here do not.
We often sing the Gloria, Agnus Dei, and Sanctus in Latin in our Episcopal parish.
DeleteOne of the reasons there is so much Latin in Catholic churches in England is that there is also much Latin in Anglican churches in England. Also there are so many choir schools in England, and so many men who are products of those choir schools. I suspect that a lot of the Catholic churches which do Latin and English (plain chant and polyphonic) Masses employ choir members who were trained in those choir schools.
DeleteAnne, I didn't know the Episcopalians sang Latin Mass parts. Do they do chant mode, or one composed for choral singing?
DeleteThey are sung as chants. Occasionally the choir sings a Latin hymn with multiple parts. I remember some of them from my Catholic school days.
DeleteHowever, the music director retired. They hired a temp when Covid hit. I have no idea whether or not we will stay with that parish - by August the two part-time interim rectors who have run the show completely during Covid time will be replaced by a permanent new rector. They will hire a new permanent music director and eventually another priest who will be chaplain to the school and assistant rector for the church. An all new cast of characters. So, we will see. The previous music director was really good, a hard act to follow. But Episcopalian churches seem to excel when it comes to music - at least all of those where we have gone to mass, including while traveling. Our former priests were also outstanding- Replacing our retired rector with someone as good will be a challenge. We will return there to see but will change parishes if necessary.
If placating traditionalists were simply a case of aesthetics, then it would be a relatively easy question to resolve: as noted, there is nothing (except good pastoral judgment!) which prevents Latin from being used in the current missal.
ReplyDeleteI've probably mentioned here before: I think an argument can be made, during this era of much immigration and movement of refugees, to make use of a common language. Also, India and Africa, two areas where the church has been growing quickly, are not as linguistically monolithic as we are in the West - hundreds of languages are spoken in both places. Having a common language for worship could be a force for unity. Of course, that language needn't be Latin; English seems to be the lingua franca for much of the world.
Had we cared more about our Latin heritage 50 years ago when the Roman Catholic church was transitioning to the vernacular, and taken greater care to keep it alive in our worship, use of Latin might have practical applications for some of these situations I am describing. But the fact is, we basically severed our connections with Latin. There is no living tradition of Catholic worship in Latin anymore. It's probably more important that we teach our English-speaking parishioners to worship in Spanish than in Latin. For good or ill, the tradition of worshiping in Latin is part of the past, not the present.
And of course, neither these practical considerations, nor aesthetics, are what traditionalists really want. What they really want, I guess, is to impose a certain spirituality on the rest of us. No doubt, they would complain that "we" have been doing just that to "them" for decades.
Francis shows quite a bit of patience with his enemies in the Holy See. Many other popes would have seized the first opportune moment to yank Cardinal Sarah from his prefecture and exile him halfway around the world as Nuncio to Outer Ruritania.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteWhat they really want, I guess, is to impose a certain spirituality on the rest of us.
That sums up the issue. We have a great diversity of spirituality within the Church, e.g. the Benedictines, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits. One could also see the diversity of ritual traditions within the Church, e.g. Roman, Byzantine, etc. and all the national churches with their varieties chant as spiritualities.
The new Code of Canon Law affirms that each of us has a right to our own spirituality provided it is one approved by the Church.
There could be a great deal of value in reviving some of the great liturgical traditions of the Western Church which while being in Latin differed in substantial ways. In fact the Ambrosian tradition is still kept extensively in the Diocese of Milan, and the Mozarabic in a few churches in Toledo, Spain. Many of the religious orders, e.g. Franciscans and Dominicans had slightly different versions of the old Latin Mass.
Many of the other local Western traditions have been studied and recorded. So why not allow any such Catholic tradition that has been extensively documented be celebrated in places (e.g. Colleges, Monasteries, Retreat Houses) where there are competent people provided the local bishop approves.
Rome was willing to accommodate those who had left the unity of the Church because they wanted to celebrate the old Missal. At one point they appeared to have offered them the opportunity to become a personal prelature with their own bishops just like Opus Dei, and therefore be able to function anywhere in the world.
The sticking point was that they were not willing to give up their opposition to substantial developments at Vatican II (e.g. personal conscience, religious liberty, relationships with the Jews, and ecumenism).
The issue is summarized in their advocacy of “The Reform of the Reform.” They want the rest of the Church to change to agree with them. They are not willing to live and let live. Both Benedict and Francis have been very patient with them. They both would have liked to find a way to accommodate them. But it is hopeless. Essentially Francis has decided to treat them like the Orthodox, acknowledging that their sacraments are valid and allowing Catholics to partake of them but otherwise ignoring them.
I would not be surprised that Rome has decided that the EF rather than being a bridge to bring people back into the Church may be a bridge to leaving the Church. So why continue the broad ability to celebrate the EF? The Reform of the Reform people may be less a problem outside the Church than in the Church.
FWIW, there are several Orthodox churches in our area, each using the language of the country of those who founded the congregation. I have gone to the Greek Orthodox church with a friend many times during the last 40 years. Part of the service is English, part is Greek. They have a bilingual missal like the one I had in Latin and English when I was growing up. But for us, the entire mass was in Latin, not only part of it. She told me that it’s Ancient Greek not contemporary Greek and that the members of the congregation don’t understand it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wiki -“ Liturgical languages used in the Eastern Orthodox Church include: Koine Greek, Church Slavonic, Romanian, Georgian, Arabic, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Spanish, French, Polish, Portuguese, Albanian, Finnish, Swedish, Chinese, Estonian, Korean, Japanese, King James English, several African languages and other world languages”
I grew up with the Latin mass. Studied Latin for four years in high school, winning awards, and I could understand the Latin without the missal from about mid- sophomore year on. It was still Latin my first few years of college. Even though I understood the Latin, I very much preferred the vernacular, as did my Catholic friends and family. I have also attended mass in French, German, Spanish and Viet Namese. I always know what is going on (except for the homily) and think the vernacular is always the better choice.
Having the liturgy reflect the culture, including music, is also the better choice. Most Catholics in the world are not descendants of the English speaking countries, nor of the European countries. Why force either a dead European language or English on all? It seems too reminiscent of colonialism.