Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, som arbeider i Vatikanets liturgi-kongregasjon, har skrevet ei bok om liturgien, som i september vil komme ut på engelsk med tittelen: ‘True Development of the Liturgy’. Erkebiskop Ranjith har skrevet et 10 siders forord til denne boka, og der skriver han bl.a. at the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should «help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy.» A much-needed «reform of the reform,» he argues, should be inspired by «not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be.»
Han kommer også med flere «gullkorn» om liturgien:
The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader «to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to an immediately following the Council.» The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council’s suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward ….
«Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of «active participation.»»
The Council took place at a time of great worldwide intellectual turmoil, and in its aftermath especially, many would-be interpreters saw the event as a break from the prior traditions of the Church. As Archbishop Ranjith puts it: » Basic concepts and themes like Sacrifice and Redemption, Mission, Proclamation and Conversion, Adoration as an integral element of Communion, and the need of the Church for salvation–all were sidelined, while Dialogue, Inculturation, Ecumenism, Eucharist-as-Banquet, Evangelization-as-Witness, etc., became more important. Absolute values were disdained.»
Even in the work of the Consilium, the Vatican agency assigned to implement liturgical changes, these influences were clearly felt, the archbishop notes: «An exaggerated sense of antiquarianism, anthopologism, confusion of roles between the ordained and the non-ordained, a limitless provision of space for experimentation– and indeed, the tendency to look down upon some aspects of the development of the Liturgy in the second millennium– were increasingly visible among certain liturgical schools.»
Today, Archbishop Ranjith writes, the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should «help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy.» A much-needed «reform of the reform,» he argues, should be inspired by «not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be.»