There has been so much carrying on in American media about the Latin Mass, you’d think the only important liturgical question in Rome is whether and how much Pope Leo XIV will roll back Pope Francis’s restrictions on use of the Tridentine rite. But if there are some tea leaves to read, the establishment of a new study group on liturgy for the Synod implementation process would suggest that Leo has a different—and much more interesting—agenda.
The international study group of sixteen liturgical and sacramental theologians, chaired by the cardinal archbishop of Quebec, Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, is set to take up issues that were brought to the fore at the Synod on Synodality, and to address some probing questions that seem to have been added later. I had wondered if the liturgical questions raised at the Synod—in particular, those concerning the renewal of baptism and the need to improve our translations of liturgical texts—had been left on the cutting-room floor, as Francis did not assign a group to follow up on them. But evidently they were not forgotten, at least not by Leo, who established a study group on liturgy for the implementation phase of the Synod.
We don’t know everything they will come up with. Their published agenda, located near the end of a long set of documents on phase three of the Synod (the implementation phase), in a section called “The Liturgy in a Synodal Perspective” dated August 28, 2025, has received almost no attention whatsoever. But even a cursory reading of the questions that form the starting point of their investigations shows that the group has not gathered to discuss trivialities. They will be considering complex, challenging questions that, if addressed well, could have an impact on the quality, style, and content of the liturgical experience of Catholics around the world.
The first question concerns ecclesiology. How does our understanding of synodality as an integral dimension of Church life affect how we celebrate liturgy, particularly the Eucharist? The second question concerns how to foster a better realization of the central importance of baptism and Christian initiation, as well as how to enable more active participation in the liturgy. The third concerns “the recognition of the role of women.” A particular issue highlighted here is how lectionaries might better reflect the scriptural witness of women in salvation history.
The fourth question is focused on enhancing liturgical preaching and promoting mystagogical catechesis. The fifth asks “how to continue along the path of a healthy decentralization of liturgical authority” with respect to inculturation and the translation of texts (the reference here is to Pope Francis’s 2017 motu proprio, Magnum principium). Under the umbrella of this question, the group will also consider the oversight and service provided by the Dicastery for Divine Worship concerning these and other liturgical matters (cf. the Apostolic Constitution Predicate Evangelium, 88–97). The sixth and final question is directed toward liturgical formation. The proposal, based on Pope Francis’s teaching in Desiderio desideravi, is that liturgical formation is a mystagogical undertaking intended for everyone—priests, ministers, and the whole people of God—so that all might “recover the capacity to live completely the liturgical action” (Desiderio desideravi, 27).
However one might criticize the Synod on Synodality, it has underlined the fact that the Church is moving, and has opened the possibility of moving forward together on a number of fronts, one of which is liturgy.
Take, for instance, the question of inculturation and the desire for more inspiring translations of liturgical texts into vernacular languages. Magnum principium effectively annulled the requirement for extreme literalism expressed in the 2001 instruction, Liturgiam authenticam, which was used to produce our current stilted and cumbersome translation of the Roman Missal. Alas, our American bishops had sunk so much capital into that effort that they never pursued Francis’s more nuanced policy. It’s doubtful they even understood it, so thoroughly had they persuaded themselves that what they did could not be undone.
As a result, we have been stuck since 2011 with a wooden version of our most prized liturgical prayer, the Eucharist. Rife with run-on sentences and lacking the beauty and fluency of language that praying in well-crafted English truly can afford, this translation does not at all correspond to Pope Francis’s priority of honoring the “great principle” (the magnum principium) of the Council’s liturgical reform: participation. Could that change under the impulse of synodality? One hopes it will.
The need for better translations was raised at the Synod by English-speakers—delegates from Australia, seconded by delegates from Ireland. Now it seems that Pope Leo, through the Synod, has put some wind in their sails. Depending on what the study group reports, the Church may look again at what we are doing concerning translation.
The many questions this study group will consider—how to learn again the language of symbol, better honor women, undertake liturgical formation through mystagogy, pursue inculturation, enliven preaching, and rediscover the centrality of baptism—are all ingredients in liturgical renewal.
After Pope Francis’s death, Catholic traditionalists, who were dealt a blow by Francis’s decision to limit the use of the older rites, began to hope that they would see a change in policy under the new pope. Cheered by the sight of Leo wearing some of the more traditional papal attire, and buoyed by his reputation as a good listener, they began to dream that he might be persuaded to favor their cause. Greater credence was given to this idea when Leo gave Cardinal Raymond Burke permission to celebrate the old Latin Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica for a pilgrimage group. Some even imagined he might go further than Benedict in opening space for the old liturgy. When the papal nuncio to Great Britain told priests in the United Kingdom that it would soon become easier to expand the use of the Tridentine rites, expectations rose still more—never mind that the Dicastery for Divine Worship immediately contradicted this report.
Leo’s recent consistory, his first formal meeting with the College of Cardinals, was predicted to be the moment he would unveil his intention to roll back Francis’s restrictions on the older rites. Those hopes were dashed, however. Four topics were proposed for discussion, and one of them was liturgy. The cardinals were asked to choose only two of them, because of a lack of time, and liturgy was not chosen.
Nevertheless, a background paper for the liturgy discussion, written by the prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, Cardinal Arthur Roche, was distributed. It was then leaked to the traditionalist website Rorate Caeli. It argued, in the strongest possible terms, that the reformed liturgy is the expression of the Church’s authentic and living liturgical tradition. It reiterated what Francis had said: that the Council fathers had “particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform,” and affirmed that the reform was grounded in solid theological, historical, and pastoral research. Weaknesses in liturgical formation should not obscure the value of the reform itself, but rather spur us to strengthen our understanding of it, especially through better seminary education.
When this presentation was leaked, commentators began to refer to it as Cardinal Roche “doubling down” on his defense of the reformed liturgy, as if Leo had nothing to do with it. Yet it was Leo who asked for this paper. If his reputation for consultation and collaboration is deserved—and he is famous for both—he knew what was in the paper and he supported it.
It seems to me that Cardinal Roche’s paper was intended to ground the discussion of liturgy at the consistory. Advocates of the older rites like to refer to the pre–Vatican II liturgy as the “traditional Latin Mass” but this is a misnomer. The liturgy as it was reformed following the Council is traditional, provided one understands tradition rightly. Much of Roche’s paper is devoted to making the case for this understanding. Interpreting Pope Francis’s affirmation of the priority given to liturgy by Vatican II, Roche concludes: “It is like saying ‘without liturgical reform, there is no reform of the Church.’”
At the close of the consistory Leo declared, “We will never insist enough on the importance of continuing the path that opened with the Council.” As for liturgy, he told the cardinals that although liturgy was not one of the topics discussed, it is “not forgotten,” and “will not be forgotten.” He also referred to the Synod study group on liturgy he had created to carry the work of renewal forward. As we come to know Leo better, it is becoming clear that he has a strong commitment not only to continuing in Francis’s footsteps, but also to furthering the work of Vatican II.
No comments:
Post a Comment