Liturgy

A Brazilian bishop has said young Catholics drawn to traditional practices such as kneeling for Communion and wearing veils have a legitimate place in the Church, describing such expressions as part of Catholicism’s natural diversity rather than a rupture. A Brazilian bishop has said that young Catholics drawn to more traditional forms of worship have a legitimate place in the Church, insisting that such expressions are part of the inherent diversity of Catholic life rather than a rupture within it. Speaking at a press conference during the 62nd General Assembly of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil in Aparecida, São Paulo, Bishop Joel Portella Amado of Petrópolis addressed questions about the resurgence of interest among younger Catholics in older liturgical customs. The liturgy must not become a source of conflict and division among us. Responding to a question from a journalist with Rede Vida TV about “a return of a certain Catholic traditionalism in Masses”, the bishop acknowledged visible signs of this trend, including “young people who kneel to receive communion, who wear veils”, adding that “it is possible to perceive this in the Masses”. He said that such developments should be understood within the broader context of contemporary religious life in Brazil, particularly among younger generations. Referring to census data from 2022, he noted the large number of 19-39 year olds who do not profess a religious belief. “It’s not that they don’t believe in God,” he said. “The evangelical side calls them ‘unchurched’. I prefer this expression. They believe in God in heaven, but they don’t have a mediation on earth, a path to the Church.” Within this context, Bishop Amado indicated that the attraction to more traditional forms of worship may arise from a wider search for meaning. “In times of emptiness, we start searching, we look for things, even in some historical realities that this youth did not experience,” he said. Bishop Amado, who serves as president of the CNBB’s Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasised that diversity in liturgical expression is not only permissible but intrinsic to Catholicism itself. “Does it have the right to be this way? Yes, because Catholicism is plural by nature, even more so in a profoundly plural world,” he said. At the same time, he cautioned against any tendency to elevate one form of expression above others or to impose personal preferences on the wider Church. “While there is a right to live and express one’s faith in one’s own way, according to one’s own personality, on the other hand, in the name of love and brotherhood, one cannot impose this on others or believe that only one is right,” he said. The bishop’s comments come amid an ongoing conversation within the global Church about the place of traditional practices in contemporary Catholic life, particularly in the years following the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century and subsequent debates over their implementation. While the early signs of Pope Leo XIV’s approach to the TLM suggest not a dramatic reversal of his predecessor’s policy, they do point to a deliberate attempt to reframe the question in terms of unity, discipline and synodality. What is emerging is a repositioning of the issue within a broader vision aimed at removing ideological conflict and quietly adjusting the tone. Further clarity has come through the remarks of Cardinal Pietro Parolin after he sent a letter to the French bishops on behalf of Pope Leo concerning the TLM. Speaking to Advaticanum’s Vatican correspondent the following day, Cardinal Parolin articulated what appears to be the governing principle behind the Pope’s thinking. “I think we all share this, this, let’s say, assessment that the Pope gives, right?” he said. “In the sense that the liturgy must not become a source of conflict and division among us. It will be necessary to find the formula that can meet legitimate needs. But I believe that this can happen without turning the liturgy into a battlefield.” Sources have told Advaticanum that many cardinals and bishops expect a forthcoming document on the liturgy, following an anticipated encyclical on artificial intelligence. According to these curial sources, the document is likely to address reverence and ritual integrity in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, as well as the complex issue of inculturation. Such a move would confirm that the Pope’s concern is with the quality and unity of Catholic worship as a whole.

From medieval processions, feasts and liturgical splendour to a single tweet from Downing Street, St George’s Day has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. England once honoured its patron with seriousness and scale. On April 23, at 7:29am, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, told his 2.2 million followers on X that “today, we fly our flag proudly and we’re reminded of the values it represents – service, generosity and respect.” Lest there be any doubt as to which flag he was paying homage, the comment was followed with “Happy St George’s Day!” As endearing as Keir Starmer’s public flirtation with nationalism may be, St George’s Day is a shadow of its former self. In comparison with the national celebrations and general merriment of earlier centuries, a tweet is underwhelming. The official @10DowningStreet account did go as far as posting a short, uninformative video in commemoration of the Saint; however, a similar video had been posted the week before wishing “everyone celebrating a happy Nepali New Year”. The return of the cult of St George, in full liturgical observance and cultural pomp, would likely give the country a powerful civic booster, as well as a recovery of its spiritual nerve. While Keir Starmer can be blamed for some of the social ills of England, the demise of St George’s Day does not fall on only his shoulders. The rise and fall of England’s saintly culture predates his premiership and finds its origins in more ecclesiastical affairs. St George, a Roman soldier of good Christian stock, was born in Cappadocia, in modern-day Turkey in 275 AD. He spent much of his life under the Emperor Diocletian, who retired shortly after his death, reportedly preferring to garden rather than rule. The Diocletianic persecution, the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, attempted to force the empire’s Christian population to renounce their faith and offer sacrifice to the Roman gods or face execution. Preferring death to apostasy, St George died a martyr’s death. It was not until the 12th century that devotion to St George took hold in England. Returning from the Third Crusade, stories circulated about his power, and he was adopted as a military patron. In 1222, the Synod of Oxford declared St George’s Day a feast day in England, and in 1348, under Edward III, the newly founded Order of the Garter was placed under his patronage, effectively securing his status as patron of England. In 1415, at the Battle of Agincourt, soldiers fought under the red cross of St George, invoking his name as they entered battle, or, as Shakespeare later put it: “God for Harry, England and Saint George!” (Henry V, Act III, Scene I). Henry V’s army was weary and outnumbered, and England’s eventual triumph was widely accredited to the intercession of St George. The Sarum Missal, England’s medieval variant of the Roman Rite, places St George’s Day within the liturgical calendar as a recognised celebration, sometimes treated as a major feast, with proper prayers and chants assigned to the saint. The Order of the Garter marked the feast with particular solemnity, at times extending its observance to an octave. These liturgical celebrations were accompanied by towns and villages organising processions, plays, pageants and feasts. In the full life of medieval England, the country’s patron was publicly honoured. The demise of such celebrations has its roots in the Reformation. The Sarum liturgy was replaced by the Book of Common Prayer, and the proper Mass for St George gave way to a simple commemoration in the calendar, with the feast stripped of its former liturgical prominence and public ceremonial life. Over the following centuries, the processions and pageantry ceased, the guilds were dissolved, and St George receded from public life. Today, according to the Prime Minister, a single tweet suffices. Much has been made of the need for a renewed patriotism across the land of Mary’s Dowry, but little has been said about how this might be achieved. For a true rejuvenation of English identity, the best place to start would be to honour its patron.

The prefect responds to widespread questions about liturgical changes Cardinal Fernández at the DDF C ardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith , has issued a detailed response to questions raised by bishops’ conferences worldwide regarding recently published norms on the celebration of the Eucharist. The clarifications were released following weeks of requests from episcopal conferences in Germany, the United States, and sub-Saharan Africa. The original norms, published in January, sought to harmonize certain liturgical practices that had diverged significantly across different regions. Critics argued that the document left room for widely divergent interpretations, particularly on the question of permitted adaptations during the Liturgy of the Word. The clarifications address concerns about the implementation timeline and the scope of permitted adaptations. Several bishops’ conferences had requested additional guidance following the norms’ publication, and the Dicastery convened two consultation sessions with liturgical theologians before issuing the response. The document runs to fourteen pages and includes an annotated index of the original norms. These norms are not restrictions. They are an invitation to celebrate the Eucharist with greater reverence and unity. Theologians and liturgical scholars broadly welcomed the prefect’s statement, noting that the clarifications remove ambiguity around key provisions while affirming the pastoral intentions behind the original document. Some traditionalist commentators, however, expressed concern that the flexibility permitted by the new clarifications could open the door to further experimentation. Implementation will be overseen at the diocesan level, with bishops responsible for ensuring that their clergy receive adequate formation before any changes take effect. The Dicastery has announced plans to publish a companion study guide in multiple languages by the end of the liturgical year.

The retired prefect revisits the legacy of Benedict XVI and the traditional Latin Mass Cardinal Sarah at the book’s Roman launch C ardinal Robert Sarah’s newly released memoir has reignited debate within the Church over the direction of liturgical reform. In the book, the retired prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments offers a candid defense of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and a sustained critique of what he calls the horizontalism of post-conciliar worship. The memoir covers Cardinal Sarah’s formation in Guinea under French missionary priests, his decades of service in Rome, his close friendship with Pope Benedict XVI, and his reaction to the restrictions placed on the Traditional Latin Mass by the 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes . The most controversial chapters deal directly with his assessment of that decision and its pastoral consequences. The memoir has been praised by traditionalists and criticized by progressives, with some theologians questioning whether a cardinal, even a retired one, should publish such pointed commentary on current papal policy without prior consultation with the Holy See. The Vatican has not responded officially. Silence in the face of the desacralization of the liturgy is not humility. It is negligence. The book has already sold over fifty thousand copies in its first week across English, French, and Italian editions, with a Spanish translation expected within the month. A speaking tour is planned for the autumn, including appearances at several traditional Catholic conferences in the United States and a lecture at the Angelicum in Rome. Liturgical scholars across the spectrum have engaged seriously with the memoir’s central arguments. Even those who disagree with Cardinal Sarah’s conclusions acknowledge that he raises questions about the nature and direction of liturgical reform that the Church has not fully answered — and that the conversation he is provoking is necessary, whatever one thinks of his conclusions.