Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the former private secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and current nuncio to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, recently gave an interview to Athinea Andryszczak, broadcast in two parts (1, 2) on the German Catholic television station K-TV.
At the very beginning of part 2 (full German-language video below), he spends some time discussing the liturgical situation in Lithuania and the universal Church. Here are his comments, in English translation, with my emphases:
Your Excellency, we were just talking about the different denominations [nb. at the end of Part 1 of the interview]. I would like to stay with the theme of diversity and variety, and look at the differences within the Catholic Church in its liturgy. There is the Tridentine Mass and also the Novus Ordo. The restrictive stance of Pope Francis towards the older liturgical form is well-known. Do you experience this diversity of liturgies in everyday church life here [in Lithuania], and what significance do you attribute to it?
To give a concrete example: when I arrived, naturally I spoke with the bishop about the positives and negatives. Where do the problems lie, where are things okay, what are the worries, what brings joy, where is there hope? And so on and so forth. Naturally, the conversation also touched on the liturgy.So then I spoke with the Archbishop of Vilnius regarding the specific question: what is the [liturgical] situation? He said there is a small community here that celebrates with the traditional ordo, or, to use Pope Benedict’s term, the extraordinary Rite. And—it goes without saying—there are no difficulties at all. It is a small group, but with many young people, families, and an excellent Gregorian liturgy. Specifically, there is singing, and the choirmaster is a professor at the music academy.There were never any difficulties, not even after Pope Francis intervened restrictively. There were no difficulties. And the priest who celebrates Mass there, a priest who has been here for many years, spoke with the archbishop, and vice versa, asking: does anything needed to be changed or not? Would it be forbidden or not? The archbishop said the Mass was not forbidden, it was restricted: specifically, this meant it could no longer be celebrated in a parish church, and it could no longer be announced in parish bulletins and so on. And then the archbishop said, “Well, so far, we’ve had a very peaceful and friendly cooperation. To maintain this peace, I won’t do anything.” Ultimately, it’s up to bishops whether they change anything or not. And so, nothing was changed, and there were absolutely no difficulties. One can say that things are the same as before Pope Francis’s motu proprio, the same as before, and it works perfectly.The concern—indeed, it was a concern of Pope Francis—was that some people who attend Mass according to the extraordinary Rite might have, so to speak, internal or external reservations about Vatican II. Of course, there are people who disagree with some aspects of the liturgy, the liturgy here. But continuing from the [previous] example, this is not the case at all, is it? In this respect, as far as the liturgical situation is concerned, there is a coexistence—or, rather than ‘coexistence,’ I would say cooperation: people are aware of one other.We must not forget that there is also an SSPX group in Vilnius. It is quite small, but there are three or four families who have grown so close to the priest that they do not want to leave him to join the FSSP; or, more precisely, they do not go to the FSSP, but rather to this priest who celebrates the traditional Mass. As far as I know, there is only one small group in Vilnius that aligns with the Society of St Pius X. The SSPX are simply aware of the situation, and are neither aggressive nor trying to launch any kind of frontal attack. We know they exist, but they are very few in number, so they are simply left alone, yes? They also know perfectly well that, on the other side, the FSSP, who live in communion with the Holy See, are also present and, of course, regularly celebrate Mass and assist here.And the bishops have absolutely no difficulty with this cooperation and this different liturgical form: they approve and are satisfied with it.
Cardinal Kurt Koch recently said in an interview that Pope Benedict had shown a helpful way forward by being convinced that something practiced for centuries could not simply be forbidden. Indeed, the restrictions on the classical liturgy clearly pained Pope Benedict.
It was not only painful [for him], but he also saw, in his role as Pope, that something had to be done to change this state of affairs. He repeatedly stated that the so-called ‘old liturgy,’ that is, the Tridentine liturgy, was never abolished. This is absolutely not the case since, of course, the Tridentine liturgy became the Novus Ordo; that is to say, the language was retained, but the content was somewhat changed. And it is precisely this liturgy that, for centuries, has allowed the Church not only to live, but to live well; the Saints have nourished themselves on it and from it. It cannot be the case that it was legitimate and precious yesterday, but then no longer so from tomorrow. This is, therefore, an unnatural situation, and that was the driving force, along with the experience he gained after the Second Vatican Council—his experience that those who have lost their spiritual and liturgical homeland just need to be returned to this spiritual homeland. This is where his motu proprio and accompanying letter came from.
What is your assessment of Traditionis custodes and the new regulations for the classical rite?
I have never understood why Pope Francis introduced this restriction. At the time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was tasked with conducting an investigation, or survey, of the bishops worldwide. What do you think about Benedict‘s motu proprio? Have the experiences been positive? Have the experiences been desirable? Did anything need to be changed? The results were never published, but of course, we know about them. The result, ultimately, was that a sense of peace had been achieved. It was a path to peace, especially in the liturgy, the most important place of religious life, and there should not be any changes. Why Pope Francis still did this anyway is and remains a mystery to me. Have we not seen, especially in the English-speaking world, the difficulties that arose from this? Even in the accompanying letter from Pope Francis, where he repeatedly referred to John Paul II and Benedict, it is impossible to discern what purpose his restrictions serve.So, I suspect that for most bishops, today [the classical rite] still remains in the way it had done until Traditionis custodes. But it is, of course, the case that the motu proprio of Francis has indeed been a great burden with regard to this important question of the extraordinary Rite.
What path do you yourself envision now for the future of the liturgical tradition?
I believe that Pope Benedict’s wise approach is the right way—and this has been the case for over ten years now—it is the right way, and this path should be continued without difficulty or restriction. And I can only hope that Pope Leo will also move in this direction and simply continue the process of reconciliation, that this cooperation may also bear fruit.
[Translation: MPH]
