The following are sound files of Pater Lappe pronuncing these
common prayers. Click them; it's fun.
The Sign of the Cross (Signum Crucis)
"I Confess" (Confiteor)
Our Father (Pater Noster)
Hail Mary (Ave Maria)
Glory Be (Gloria Patri)
Apostles' Creed (Symboloum Apostolorum)
Grace Before and After
Meals (Benedictio Mensae)
Cardinal
Arinze's Address to FDLC
Highlights of the Liturgical Renewal
by
Francis Cardinal Arinze
October 8, 2003
Online
Edition - Vol. IX, No. 8: November 2003
An Exerpt
4. Translation. Adaptation. Inculturation.
The Second Vatican Council introduced the vernacular into the Liturgy
and also allowed for properly considered adaptations and inculturation
in the rites. This poses a considerable challenge and requires careful
consideration.
While retaining Latin as the language in
the Latin rite, the Council appreciated the usefulness of the use
of the mother tongue among the various peoples of the world (cf.
SC 36).
Since the Council, the use of the mother
tongue has become so widened and general that many priests now find
it not easy to celebrate Mass in Latin. Vatican II did not abolish
Latin. It would be good that occasionally a parish sings the more
popular parts of the Mass in Latin: think what this means in terms
of preserving and respecting our patrimony, showing the Church as
a community that has a memory, and facilitating international Eucharistic
celebrations.
Liturgical translations into the mother tongue
pose the demanding challenge of producing translations which are
faithful to the Latin original, which are excellent literary productions,
which can be set to music, which will stand the test of time and
which will nourish the piety and spiritual sensitivity of the people.
Dangers and abuses arise from ex-tempore translations, hurried works
and illegitimate translations not approved by the Conference of
Bishops and ratified by the Apostolic See.
When we go into the area of adaptation and
inculturation of rites, we are faced with still more demanding challenges.
Sacrosanctum Concilium is very clear in its
principles and directives. "Even in the Liturgy", it says,
"the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters
which do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community.
Rather she respects and fosters the spiritual adornments and gifts
of the various races and peoples. Anything in their way of life
that is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she
studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes
in fact she admits such things into the Liturgy itself, as long
as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit" (SC 37).
The carrying out of these directives will
engage the Church for generations, especially in the countries of
recent evangelization. To assist in this task the Holy See has issued
extensive guidelines which explain the Council's intention and lay
down detailed steps to be followed (cf VL). Provided that the substantial
unity of the Roman rite is respected, the liturgical books allow
for legitimate adaptations to different regions and people. It is
always the national Bishops' Conference or its equivalent which
gets the matter studied, voted on and passed on to Rome for the
required recognitio (cf SC 38; GIRM 386-394).
When deeper inculturation is considered necessary,
then many more demands are made: interdisciplinary study by theologians,
and by experts in Liturgy, in literature, in anthropology and in
music, discussion and voting by Bishops, and ratification by the
Roman See (cf. Ad Gentes 22; SC 40; VL 6368; GIRM 395-399).
It is clear that whether in adaptation or
inculturation, great care is needed to respect the mysteries of
Christ which are celebrated in the Liturgy. Writing on the Holy
Eucharist, Pope John Paul II says that "the treasure is too
important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise through
forms of experimentation or practices introduced without a careful
review on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authorities [and]
because the Sacred Liturgy expresses and celebrates the faith professed
by all, and being the heritage of the whole Church, cannot be determined
by local Churches in isolation from the universal Church" (EE
51).
It is therefore reasonable and indeed obvious
that there must be liturgical regulations and norms. With reference
to the Holy Eucharist, for example, Pope John Paul II says that
"these norms are a concrete expression of the authentically
ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning.
Liturgy is never anyone's private properly, be it of the celebrant
or of the community" (EE 52). That is why Sacrosanctum Concilium
already declared that the regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends
solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic
See and, as laws may determine, on the Bishops and the Bishops'
Conference. "Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even
a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on
his own authority" (SC 22).
The danger is that some people seem to think
that inculturation in the Liturgy encourages free and uncontrolled
creativity. They imagine that according to Vatican II the progressive,
modern and enlightened thing to do in liturgical celebrations is
to be creative, to be original, to introduce something new, to do
it yourself. Pope John Paul writes that "it must be lamented
that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical
reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation,
there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering
for many" (EE 52).
The truth is that genuine inculturation has
nothing to do with the product of the over-fertile imagination of
an enthusiastic priest who concocts something on Saturday night
and inflicts it on the innocent Sunday morning congregation now
being used as a guinea pig. True and lasting inculturation demands
long study, discussions among experts in interdisciplinary platforms,
examination and decision by Bishops, recognitio from the Apostolic
See and prudent presentation to the people of God. Moreover, it
should be noted that in religious matters, people's sensitivity
and piety can easily be hurt by ill-considered and hasty novelties.
In religious practices, most people are understandably conservative
in the good sense and unwilling to endure frequent changes.
Even when we give the hasty innovator the
benefit of the doubt, that the motivation is a sincere attempt to
bring the Liturgy home to the people, it remains true that the results
are generally disastrous. Unapproved innovations distract and annoy
the people. They often draw attention to the priest rather than
to God. They generally do not last long. They are often superficial.
And they scandalize because they run against Church norms and regulations.
If many lay people had only one request to make, they would ask
that the priest celebrate Mass, or other rites, simply according
to the approved books. Many lay faithful complain that rarely do
they find two priests celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice in the
same way. The Roman Liturgy is not a free-for-all experimentation
field where each celebrant has the option to tag on his cherished
accretions. Repeated and laid-down action is part of ritual. The
people are not tired of it, as long as the celebrant is full of
faith and devotion and has the proper ars celebrandi (art of how
to celebrate).
Pope John Paul II laments that "some
have promoted outlandish innovations, departing from the norms issued
by the authority of the Apostolic See or the Bishops, thus disrupting
the unity of the Church and the piety of the faithful and even on
occasion contradicting matters of faith" (VQA 11). "It
cannot be tolerated", he continues, "that certain priests
should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers
or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture.
Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical
reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are
in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian
people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church"
(VQA 13).
It is therefore clear that inculturation
does not encourage banalization or trivialization of the Sacred
Liturgy. Spontaneity run wild can manifest itself in many ways.
At the beginning of Mass the priest can trivialize
by amusing the people on the weather, by saying "Good morning
everybody" instead of "The Lord be with you" or "The
grace of Our Lord...", which are the proper liturgical opening
greetings. He can banalize by an exaggerated autobiographical introduction
and trite jokes in his misguided effort to warm the people up for
worship! He may not realize that he is now drawing attention to
himself instead of to God and the liturgical celebration of the
day.
Other distractions and even desacralizations
can come through dances that offend against good sense and do not
help to raise people's mind to God, loquacious and unnecessary commentaries,
over-dosage of singing monopolized by the choir which allows no
time for personal prayer, and the introduction of bizarre vestments
and unacceptable vessels for the Holy Eucharist.
We have dwelt somewhat long on inculturation
because the experience of many is that it is often misunderstood
and offended against. But genuine inculturation is what Holy Mother
Church wants. And the challenge before us is to promote it and not
to allow the cockle to grow among the wheat.
Read in its entirety here.
Return to top
