AV: What, in your considered judgment as Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir, role should Gregorian chant and sacred music have in the Roman liturgy?
+GP: Gregorian chant is the proper chant of the Roman liturgy and must be given the principal place, as taught by Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council (no. 116). Through its texts it reconnects us to the entire Catholic spiritual tradition, and its melodies, which highlight the ritual words in the proper way, easily lead to contemplation of the heavenly mysteries. The liturgical quality of Gregorian chant consists first of all in its being essentially and simply prayer. It is a chant made solely for God, which expresses the worship of faith and adoration that the Church raises to God. Secondly, it is connatural to the liturgy because the text is essential and the melody is employed only to serve the contemplation of the divine mysteries.
Alongside Gregorian chant stands sacred polyphony, with its immense heritage of art and beauty, which must be rediscovered and restored to its due honour, so that the liturgy of the Church may once again become the place where one experiences the most mature fruit of service to the worship of God.
AV: It has been suggested that incorporating certain fixed parts of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, such as the Pater Noster immediately after the Consecration or the words of consecration themselves, in Latin could lead to a greater sense of liturgical uniformity and ecclesial unity across different cultures and languages. As someone who is one of the stewards of the Pope’s own Choir, which sings in Latin daily, what are your thoughts on whether selective use of Latin in the vernacular Mass might enrich the faithful’s experience of the universal character of the Roman liturgy?
+GP: I personally would not exclude the possibility (without making it a juridical obligation) of inserting, in certain fixed parts of the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the vernacular, some words and texts in Latin. What seems to me even more important, however, is that in every diocese there should be at least one celebration of Holy Mass in Latin according to the Novus Ordo, animated by Gregorian chant, especially on Sundays and solemn liturgical feasts. This would foster among the faithful a deeper perception of the universal character of the Roman liturgy.
AV: More broadly, how can we use Latin in the liturgy, whether in the Ordinary Form or in the Choir’s own repertoire, to serve as a source of spiritual enrichment for the entire Church rather than as a barrier? In your experience overseeing the Sistine Chapel Choir, what pastoral fruits have you observed when Latin is allowed to resonate alongside the vernacular?
+GP: “A Church that embraces all peoples needs a universal language, but has no reason to adopt the language of this or that people… Humanly speaking, the Church needs a universal, unchangeable, learned language; whoever conspires to deprive her of it makes war on her unity.” These are the words of Fr Luigi Taparelli in his Theoretical Essay on Natural Law (1835), which I have no difficulty in making my own. Liturgical Latin expresses and guarantees the sacral dimension of the liturgy. To address God, the most appropriate words are those that God Himself, through His revelation, has placed on the lips of believers and those who pray. The Catholic Church has adopted the Vulgate, the Latin edition of the Bible, for her life, prayer, and doctrine. Disseminated by St Jerome in the fourth century and then revised after the Council of Trent, the Vulgate was also recognised by the Second Vatican Council, which admitted a limited and reasonable use of the vernacular languages; these, however, were to coexist alongside liturgical Latin (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 §1).
To the objection that Latin is no longer a commonly spoken language and is therefore a “dead” language, one may reply that a language that is no longer spoken does not mean a dead language. A dead language is one that has disappeared from the culture and memory of a people. Latin is the living foundation for understanding the cultural tradition and the doctrine of the Church and of Catholic Tradition. Moreover, Latin offers theological precision in verbal formulation and the solemnity of the prayed word, thus helping the faithful to understand that the Mass is the moment in which one enters the mysterium fidei, because we enter with Christ into the oratio offered by the entire Mystical Body to the Father in the Holy Spirit. The most significant pastoral fruits consist in the conscious, progressive recovery of the vertical, cultic dimension of the liturgy, introducing the faithful into the experience of encounter with the incarnate, dead, and risen God, vitally present in the sacrament.
AV: The Church today celebrates the liturgy in both the Novus Ordo and the earlier Vetus Ordo. In your view, how can these two expressions of the same Roman Rite best contribute to the unity of the Church rather than appearing as contrasting alternatives?
+GP: First of all, it is necessary to clear the field of a major misunderstanding: that of considering the two forms of the Roman Rite as opposed or irreconcilable. I would prefer not to designate them with the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form”, but simply as the Novus Ordo, that is, the Roman Rite reformed by St Paul VI, and the Vetus Ordo, the ancient Roman Rite, in use according to the liturgical books of 1962. It is necessary to escape from the ideological cages that set the two forms of the Roman Rite against each other. Certainly, the Novus Ordo is the common, universal, and habitual form of Catholic liturgy. The form of the ancient Roman Rite is particular and special; therefore, there is a concrete norm, which it is for the ecclesiastical authority to establish, regarding the conditions under which it is to be celebrated.
The liturgical reform of Vatican II must not be understood as a rupture with the traditional liturgy, but must be read as a renewal in substantial continuity. Unfortunately, the line of rupture with Tradition taken by large sectors of the Church’s life has led to an ecclesial and liturgical crisis that is still present. It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself who used grave expressions on the liturgical question:
“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends to a large extent on the collapse of the liturgy” — he used the word “collapse” of the liturgy — “it remains to be seen,” continues J. Ratzinger, “to what extent the individual stages of the liturgical reform of Vatican II were true improvements or rather banalisations, to what extent they were pastorally wise or, on the contrary, ill-considered.”
Once again, therefore, the crucial issue is not the renewal desired by the Council, but the reception and the concrete form of its implementation in practice. Critical observations about questionable forms of implementation cannot call into question the Missal published by St Paul VI and later reissued a third time with the approval of St John Paul II, which remains the ordinary and universal form of the Eucharistic liturgy. However, the celebration of Holy Mass in the antiquior rite certainly helps to recover and highlight, in a more pregnant and marked way, certain aspects and certain doctrinal truths that risk being obscured by a mistaken or banalised way of celebrating the reformed rite.
For example, the convivial aspect of the Eucharist, that is, the Eucharist as a banquet (already highlighted by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei, and certainly emphasised by Vatican II and the liturgical reform), is so accentuated at the expense of the essentially sacrificial nature of the Eucharist that one forgets that without the sacrifice there is no communion. Communion arises from the sacrifice of Christ, not the other way round. The aspect of assembly and social participation, which is undoubtedly emphasised and made more visible in the liturgical reform, is sometimes emphasised at the expense of the transcendent and Christocentric element. The aspect of the common priesthood of all the faithful is emphasised at the expense of the irreplaceable role of the ministerial priesthood. It is clear that in the texts and liturgical books of the Novus Ordo there is no such imbalance; rather, it is found above all in the way the minds of the Christian people, and also of priests, are formed, and in the way the rite is concretely understood, interpreted, and celebrated by some.
Consider, for example, the concept of actuosa participatio (active participation), so emphasised in the liturgical reform. It is not reducible to external activity, speeches, words, or comments, to a kind of “do-it-yourself”. It also includes silence, which expresses a real, deep, and personal participation, because the liturgy does not ask for arbitrary and attractive creativity, but demands solemn repetition. There is therefore a real risk of this collapse, of this instrumentalisation of the reformed rite to the detriment of the integrity of the faith and of divine worship.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to some of the underlying reasons for the difficulties of a peaceful integration of the ancient rite into the life of the Church. The fundamental reasons are essentially two. Some are of a practical order and we can leave them aside because they are certainly not important or serious. The first fundamental reason for the difficulties is found in the lack, or presumed lack, of obedience to the Second Vatican Council, which certainly wanted to reform the liturgical books. The second reason is seen in the risk of a rupture of ecclesial unity due to the difference between these two liturgical forms, which may also imply divergence in forms of catechesis and pastoral care.
As regards the first difficulty, it must be recalled that Vatican II certainly asked for a revision of the liturgical books, but also laid down certain fundamental criteria, and it is in the light of these criteria that the revision, and above all the practice of celebrations in the post-conciliar period, must be evaluated. Otherwise, one is not disobeying St Pius V; one is disobeying the Second Vatican Council. The criteria are formulated in numbers 34 and 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Council did not abrogate the previous books but asked for a renewal and a revision.
The other difficulty would be the existence of two different forms of the rite, which would represent an obstacle to the unity of the Church, to liturgical and pastoral unity. Here a distinction must be made, I believe, between a theological aspect and a practical one. From the theological point of view, it is well known that in the Church there have always existed different forms of the Latin rite, most of which fell into disuse following the greater unification of civil and secular European cultures. Nevertheless, until Vatican II, alongside the Roman rite in the Latin Church there existed the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite (of Toledo), that of Braga (Portugal), and the variants of the Roman rite: the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian rites. No one was ever surprised by these differences. No one found it scandalous to participate in the Dominican rite, which has some variants with respect to the Roman rite of St Pius V.
What must be avoided, I believe, is judging the two forms of the Roman Rite on the basis of their external characteristics. Public opinion considers the following to be essential to the new liturgy: that it be celebrated in the vernacular and not in Latin, because otherwise, they say, “we don’t understand anything”; that the priest face the faithful; that a certain space be left to the free creativity of the celebrating priest and also of the lay faithful participating in the celebration, so that they can move around the altar and intervene with short or long reflections. In the ancient liturgy, on the contrary, it was considered essential that it be in Latin, that the celebrant face the altar (coram Deo), and that the faithful participate, yes, but in silence. It is not that the faithful did not participate at all before; they participated, but through silence, and not, as the reform of St Paul VI proposes and encourages, through a more active and visible role. The difference is therefore between the visible and the invisible, between silence and external activity that is phenomenologically perceptible: there is therefore a difference. But the question is whether it is an essential difference.
For some, the two liturgical forms would express two fundamentally different attitudes in conceiving both the liturgy and the Church: a hierarchical Church versus a “People of God” Church. Some pronounce: “Before the Council the Church was hierarchical and pyramidal; now instead it is communal and popular; the whole people participates.” We reply: certainly there are different emphases and highlights. But the communion of which the Second Vatican Council speaks, the Church as communion, is a communio hierarchica. And even before Vatican II, it is not that the people and the faithful were considered second-class persons in relation to the priest.
In any case, the point of view that considers the phenomenological, empirical aspect essential for the liturgy is not the essential point of view. The contrasts that have come to light do not in reality originate in the Council. I insist on emphasising this. In Sacrosanctum Concilium it is stated that Latin must be preserved, while giving ample space to the vernacular, but it is stated that Latin must be preserved. So how does one truly obey the Council? By making Latin disappear completely?
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this is not a question of diminishing the principles and criteria of the Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy; on the contrary, it is precisely a question of recovering those criteria even for the celebration of the ordinary form. There will certainly remain different spiritual and theological emphases between the two forms, but not as two opposed ways of being Catholic or of celebrating the praise and sacrifice of the Lord, but rather as a common patrimony, albeit with different emphases, of the one faith.
AV: Many Catholics today appreciate both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine form of the Mass. From a liturgical and musical standpoint, why would you say these two expressions of the one Roman Rite do not stand in fundamental opposition to each other, but can instead be seen as complementary enrichments of the Church’s worship?
+GP: In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI expressly declared that the ancient use of the Roman Liturgy is to be considered a precious treasure to be preserved for all the faithful. In a recent letter to the French Bishops, Pope Leo XIV urged the prelates to foster the reconciliation and unity of the Church, avoiding the marginalisation and exclusion of those faithful who show a particular sensitivity and attachment to the liturgical form of the ancient Roman Rite, provided that they accept the orientations of the Second Vatican Council in liturgical matters and, obviously, do not oppose or contest the Novus Ordo.
On the other hand, the denunciation of the intolerable deviations and deformations of the liturgy in the Novus Ordo form, frequently cheapened by sloppiness, arbitrary omissions of the rubrics, and manipulations, which have occurred and unfortunately still occur, even through the unjustified tolerance of ecclesiastical authorities, cannot and must not lead to calling into question the reformed liturgy. When the Mass of St Paul VI is celebrated with fidelity, recollection, and awareness of the mystery, the spiritual distance between the ancient Roman Rite and the reformed rite appears much less pronounced than some would like to maintain.
Pope Leo XIV has expressed himself along these lines, speaking some time ago with the journalist Elise Ann Allen. The Holy Father stressed that the deep issue does not consist in the language of the celebration nor in the distinction between the Ancient Roman Rite (Vetus Ordo) and the renewed Missal of the Novus Ordo, but in the liturgy’s capacity to arouse in the soul wonder before the living God. The crucial point today, in my view, is that the liturgy must once again become a renewed encouragement to believe, to live a life starting from the centre and dynamism of faith, to rediscover God by rediscovering Christ, and thus to rediscover the centrality of the Christian faith celebrated in the liturgical mystery. It is in the relationship with the liturgy that the destiny of the faith of the Church is decided (Benedict XVI).
