매주간 발행되는 가톨릭 신문인 National Catholic Register에 지난 주와 이번 주에 실린 뉴스 중에 주목을 끄는 기사가 있었습니다.^{1), 2)}  현재 신앙 교리성 장관을 맡고 있는 프란시스 아린제 추기경님과의 인터뷰입니다.  아린제 장관은 나이지리아 출신으로서 요한 바오로 2세 서거 후 최초의 흑인 교황으로 선출될 가능성이 있는 분으로 주목받았던 분입니다.   

 

이 인터뷰 기사는 추기경님께서 사제 성소를 받게 된 이야기, 교황청에서 종교간 대화 문제를 담당하여 일했던 체험, 라틴어로 된 미사 전례를 각 나라말로 번역하는 문제, 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이후 나타난 부작용들에 대한 염려, 트리덴틴 양식의 라틴어 미사를 지지하는 입장 등을 싣고 있습니다. 

 

관심 있게 읽은 부분은 아린제 추기경님께서 제2차 바티칸 공의회 이후 손으로 성체를 모시게 되면서 나타난 부작용들에 대한 우려를 표하신 대목입니다.  손으로 하는 영성체에 대하여 추기경님께서 염려하고 계신 점은 사람들이 부주의해서 성체 조각이 땅에 떨어지는 경우가 있고, 어떤 사람들은 성체를 입에 영하지 않고 주머니에 넣고 간다든지 로마를 방문한 기념으로 성체를 사진 앨범에 끼워 넣어 보관하는 경우들이 있었다고 합니다.  더욱 심각한 것은 그렇게 모셔간 성체를 악마를 숭배하는 예식에 사용하는 신성모독 사례들이라 합니다.  (제 개인적인 체험으로는 당시에는 제가 잘 몰라서 그를 제지하지 못했지만, 성체 분배자가 아님으로 불구하고 손으로 모신 성체를 입으로 영하지 않고 상자에 넣어 휴대하고 다니는 사람을 본 적이 있습니다.  교황 요한 바오로 2세께서 돌아가셨을 때 어떤 관광객이 경매 싸이트인 eBay 에다가 교황 요한 바오로 2세로부터 직접 받은 성체라 광고하면서 성체를 경매 물품으로 내놓아 큰 물의를 일으킨 사건도 있었습니다.³⁾)

 

이 인터뷰에서 아린제 추기경님께서는 사제가 십자가가 위치한 동쪽을 바라보는 전통적인 트리덴틴 양식의 라틴어 미사에 대해 긍정적인 입장을 보이십니다.  아린제 추기경님께서는 미사가 갖는 “일차적인” 의미는 너와 나의 “수평적인” 관계 (물론 미사에 이러한 의미가 있기는 하지만) 가 아니라 하느님과의 “수직적인” 관계이다, 사제가 사람들과 함께 십자가와 그리스도를 바라볼 때 미사의 수직적 의미가 보다 잘 나타난다, 미사는 일차적으로 우리를 창조하는 하느님을 향하는 것이다,  미사는 사제와 사람들이 서로 즐기는 유흥이 아니다, 사제는 쇼맨이 아니며 하느님께 희생을 드리는 지도자로 서품된 사람이다, 한마디로 말하면 미사는 하느님 중심적이어야 한다, 우리가 보다 하느님 중심적이 될 때 우리는 보다 거룩한 사람들이 될 것이다라고 말씀하셨습니다.

 

신앙 교리성 장관 아린제 추기경의 이번 인터뷰 기사에서 가톨릭 교회의 전례에 대한 교회의 염려와 그를 교정하기 위한 고심을 읽을 수 있었습니다.  이와 관련하여 개인적으로 경험한 경우들이지만, 성체 분배자나 사제께서 성체를 손으로만 영하라고 강제한다든지, 성체를 사제나 성체 분배자가 직접 영해주지 않고 평신도가 직접 성체를 집어 성혈에 담근 후 영한다든지, 양형 영성체를 하는 경우 사제나 성체 분배자가 그를 영해 주지 않고 평신도들이 제대 위에 놓여진 성작을 들어 성혈을 모시고 다시 제대 위에 올려 놓는 경우가 없었으면 좋겠다는 소망을 가져 봅니다.  그리고 되도록이면 성반을 사용하여 성체가 떨어지는 경우 성체가 땅에 떨어지는 일을 방지하면 좋겠습니다.  제가 어렸을 적에 떨어지는 성체를 복사가 성반으로 받아내는 광경을 본 기억이 있습니다.  아무튼, 이번 인터뷰 기사를 읽으면서 우리가 성체와 성혈이 진실로 그리스도의 몸과 피라 믿는다면 미사에 임하는 몸가짐이라든가 성체를 모시는 태도에 있어 보다 신중해야겠고, 성체에 대한 모독이나 훼손을 방지할 수 있는 장치가 마련되어야겠다는 생각을 해 보았습니다. 

 

 

문 헌

 

1) Edward Pentin, “Mass and The Man At Liturgy Central”, National Catholic Register, March 4-10 Issue, 2007: http://ncregister.com/site/article/1990

 

2) Edward Pentin, “Mass and The Man At Liturgy Central”, National Catholic Register, March 11-17 Issue, 2007: http://ncregister.com/site/article/2026

 

3) 경매 싸이트 eBay에 성체를 2,000$ (한화 200만원 상당) 에 경매 물품으로 내놓아 물의를 빚은 사건 소식, Catholic News Agency, 2005년 4월 19일 보도:  http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3674

 

 

 

[신앙 교리성 장관 프란시스 아린제 추기경과의 인터뷰 기사 전문]

 

 

Mass and The Man At Liturgy Central

 

BY Edward Pentin

 

 

March 4-10, 2007 Issue

Posted 2/27/07 at 8:00 AM

 

Cardinal Francis Arinze served Mass celebrated by a future saint.

 

The priestly example of Blessed Cyprian Michael Iwene Tansi is what drew him to the priesthood. Since 2002, the Nigerian cardinal has been prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and is overseeing a new translation of the Mass. He lays a heavy emphasis on faith as the basis for reverent liturgy.

Cardinal Arinze, 74, spoke Feb. 14 with Register correspondent Edward Pentin in his office at the Vatican.

 

 

Who influenced you the most to answer the call to become a priest?

 

In the final analysis, no one knows why a particular individual is attracted to the priesthood, religious life or marriage. But analyzing it in our own weak, human way, I can say when I was a boy, there was a parish priest we had — Father Michael Tansi — who impressed many of us. Many boys in the area wanted to become like him, so they wanted to become priests.

 

I was his Mass server in 1945. He baptized me. He was the first priest I ever knew, my first confessor, and so I wanted to be like him. I wanted to go to the seminary after I finished my primary school. That’s the human explanation I can give. Actually that priest [Father Tansi] later became a monk, and became Blessed — he’s beatified now. But as to the origins of a priestly or religious vocation, only divine providence can fully analyze it, how God attracts a person at that age of 11, 12 or 13.

 

Your family was non-Catholic, but did they also have an influence on your vocation?

 

By non-Catholic, that could mean another religion in the sense of Anglican or Presbyterian, but no, not exactly. My parents were of African traditional religion — the ordinary religion around when the missionaries came. ... But our parents sent us to school — all the children — and gradually in the school we learned about the Catholic faith. We wanted baptism so I was baptized at the age of 9, but it doesn’t mean that I was a staunch member of, let us say, the African traditional religion at the age of 9 years. How much would I know? So that’s my background. My parents were not Christians at that time — later on they became Christians, but they didn’t persuade me to go to seminary. If anything, my father dissuaded me, but he loved me and when he saw that I liked to go to seminary, he said “Okay, if God wants this go ahead.”

 

And he joined the Church later on?

 

Afterwards, yes.

 

What have been the high points of your time in the many years you’ve served as a senior official of the Roman Curia?

 

The first eight years I worked in the office for contact with other religions — contact between the Catholic Church and Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, people of traditional religions, Sikhs, and so on, all around the world. I found it a wonderful experience — how the human soul is looking for God, even in the various religions, and how the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not destroy whatever is genuine in that seeking of the human soul.

Nevertheless, the Church cannot but preach Jesus Christ because in him we have the fullness of religious truth. That is not a condemnation of the other religions, but it is to say that they are all looking for Christ even without them knowing it. And he is our Savior, the Savior of all — even of those who don’t know, so that when they are in heaven they will be surprised that Jesus Christ is their Savior. So I found it very fascinating, especially when the Pope [John Paul II] invited people of many religions to Assisi to pray in the international year for peace in 1986. And also after 9/11, when he invited again many religions, Christian and otherwise, to come to Assisi to pray. Some people were asking the question, “Are the religions of the world part of the problem or part of the solution? Are they causing tension?” But that gathering was really saying genuine religion is about love of neighbor, not about violence.

 

So those were highlights, also of course the celebrations around the year 2000 — the Great Jubilee — the Catholic Church coming together to ask God for pardon in any way that members of the Church have offended in the last 2,000 years. That was a powerful event. Then special days — one for politicians, another for priests, one day for religious brothers and sisters, one day for youth, one day for families. That was powerful.

On the day for people in public life, people like Gorbachev also came. Another day for university people was also powerful.

 

Has there been any time in your years in the Curia that you’ve felt you would rather be serving a parish or diocese, ministering in a more practical, pastoral way, or have you been quite happy here?

 

Quite happy here. Nevertheless I never adopted the attitude of preferring one job over another because I am convinced the Church needs all. Most clergy are parish priests, diocesan bishops, but the Church needs a few priests to be in the diocesan office and also some bishops to be in the central offices in Rome. So I simply adopted the attitude: Let the Pope tell me where he thinks I will be most useful and I will be happy there.

 

Concerning the English translation of the Mass, some of the faithful think there is too much concern over the details, and that there are more important liturgical issues to focus upon. They point to the attention given to the decision to translate pro multis as “for many” rather than “for all.” What is your response to this criticism?

 

I can approach the question by saying that translation is a difficult thing; even between two scholars, good people, there can be disagreement on how to translate a particular word. More so, some technical Latin phrases that are difficult to translate, not only into English, French, German, Italian, not to talk of African, Asian languages. In Nigeria, we have 240 languages, so you see the problem. Secondly, there are areas where people who don’t have enough information, then make a big judgment that they would not have made had they known the reason why.

 

One example is pro multis that you have just mentioned. In the consecration of the wine that would become the blood of Christ, which will be shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. It isn’t a question of English there. It is a question of all the languages.

Secondly, it was not a thing that was rushed; it was studied over a long period. When the present Holy Father was cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his congregation at that time, and this one, the Congregation for Divine Worship, got theologians together to study just that, because the words of consecration are very important. There it became clear that the synoptic Gospels all said “for many.”

 

Isaiah the prophet, who prophesied about the suffering servant of God, said he would give his life “for many.” Then it was also found that no one of any Church has said “for all,” except this fashion in the Church that has gone on for 35 years. That means it isn’t a tradition in any Church — Oriental, Coptic, Aramaic, Byzantine, Maronite, Armenian. All of them said “for many.” It was weighed very carefully.

 

However, what you have said is right in the sense that it isn’t meticulous insistence on particular words that would be the most urgent thing in liturgy. That is true. But the issue of pro multis is not a question of meticulousness. Then there are many areas that deserve attention in liturgical matters. It’s a question of what looks more urgent in a particular country or another. The emphasis changes.

 

Do you think the Mass translation we currently have was rushed in the 1960s?

 

You are right in that sense. It was the Second Vatican Council that introduced the vernacular. That was only 40 years ago. It’s not a long time. No one had experience how to translate, neither this Congregation for Divine Worship nor the bishops’ conferences nor the experts they got together. So they began and the whole Church was feeling her way through.

 

Gradually, after 30 years, the Church had gathered experience. Then the Pope instructed this office to issue a document to say translations now are to be more faithful to the original text, that’s all.

 

You’d be surprised what countries have said about translations in those days. Let us say that prayer the priest says, after washing his hands. He says: Pray brothers and sisters that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father. You know how the French translated it: “Prions pour le sacrifice de toute l’Eglise” — Let us pray for the sacrifice of the whole Church. That was it. The translation avoided saying “my sacrifice and yours.” It was ideological. And their reply: “May the Lord receive the sacrifice from your hands, for the honor and glory of his name, for our good and the good of his Holy Church.” That’s faithful to the Latin. For the French: “Pour la gloire de Dieu et la Salut du monde” — For the glory of God and the salvation of the world. Beautiful theology, beautiful phrase. But not a translation.

 

So this recent document of five years ago said: Be faithful now to the Latin original. That’s all.

 

Are the reforms that came after the Second Vatican Council — I’m thinking of Communion standing up, Communion in the hand and changes to the music that, in the English-speaking churches, has been criticized as being rather banal and not raising the spirit of the faithful — concerns of yours, and will you address them in the future to make worship more reverential?

 

You are right. This Congregation for Divine Worship is concerned about all those points. But we do not pretend that we have a magic wand that we can wave here and everything goes right.

 

You mentioned Communion in the hand. As people know, for people traditionally in the Latin Rite, it was always on the tongue after the early centuries. Nevertheless, in the last 40 years, some people rushed — no, not rushed — they urged that it be also in the hand. They pushed and pushed and pushed, and then it was authorized by Rome that it can be on the tongue and also in the hand. If the bishops of a country vote by two-thirds majority, it is ratified here.

 

But we have problems. Now it has been done for many years, and people are careless. There are particles of the sacred Host that fall on the ground, and that’s the Body of Christ.

 

Problem No. 2: Some people are not only careless, but malicious. They receive the Host and they don’t put it in their mouth, they put it in their pocket. Someone put it in a photo album at home to remember their visit to Rome. Another problem is worse: People use it for devil worship. They take the sacred Host to honor the devil, to desecrate the Host. That was not the intention of those who urged Communion in the hand, but it has now become a fact. So that’s one area.

 

You talked about the whole area of reverence, respect, hymns. It is true. Many people make things a little banal, sometimes it’s the priest banalizing, secularizing, and sometimes it is people. Then there is also the whole area of singing. Some songs they sing are not approved by any bishop. They copy anything from somebody or a group, and that also can do damage because the way we sing will manifest what we believe. What we sing should be good theology and also good music, not music unsuitable for church. There’s a type of music suitable for the parish hall, for a picnic, for dancing, for enjoyment, but there’s another music suitable for prayer, adoration — all these are concerns.

 

What is your department doing to try to bring back that reverence, because if the bishops won’t do it themselves, perhaps there needs to be more authoritative pressure saying that these changes must be made.

 

You do not create reverence by decree from the Vatican. It has to be based on faith, whatever can be done to nourish the faith. For instance, the Mass: Do people believe it is the body and blood of Christ? Do they believe that God is our Creator, and we are his creatures? If so, are they showing it by their actions?

 

The priest who is celebrating Mass: Is he celebrating in such a way that he shows his faith, that faith is nourished in the people? The synod of two years ago said it on the Eucharist. Then of course, I gave talks, but one talk does not change the whole Church. Then we also trust that the bishops and priests will be doing their work at the liturgical institutes, at seminaries where the future clergy are formed and the religious houses. It is not a work that one person alone can do. Reverence is based on faith.

 

As one Protestant said to a Catholic: They went into a church and the Protestant said, “That red light that I see there, what is that?” The Catholic said, “Is it near the tabernacle?” And the Protestant said, “What is a tabernacle?” He said it’s that box there, and the Protestant asked what is in the box? The Catholic said it’s Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The Protestant said, “If you believe that it is Jesus Christ, why don’t you genuflect, why don’t you crawl on the ground?”

 

The Protestant was correct. The Catholic got the message and genuflected. That means that our actions are based on our faith. You can therefore suspect that many people’s faith in Christ in the Holy Eucharist is weak. They show it by lack of reverence.

 

 

March 11-17, 2007 Issue

 

 

How much of this is a great concern of yours, the changes that have occurred since Vatican II?

 

In human nature, in matters religious, change is difficult, and most human beings resist change, especially in matters touching relations with God — on how they pray — most resist change. Introduction of change demands a lot of care, a lot of explanation, a lot of bringing people along with you.

 

A particular change may be good in itself, but if it is not well explained and understood, it will not be accepted. That is practical. So, in some places, there was introduction of change without due preparation of the people.

 

So you see your task primarily as one of education, to teach the true meaning of the Second Vatican Council?

 

Yes, not that we think the bishops don’t understand, but that our Vatican congregation must encourage liturgical formation as we call it. That means information, formation, explanation, seeing why it was done or why it should be done and how it should be done, who should do it, so that every celebration in church manifests our faith, nourishes our faith, sends the people home in joy and with fire and desire to come back next week.

When it doesn’t happen like that, we have to look into ourselves.

 

But a lot has to do with society, doesn’t it?

 

In part because the Church is not living in a vacuum, so those people who come to Mass are also influenced by those they see outside the church, what is shown on television, what they read in the newspapers, what they hear over the radio, what the politicians are saying. The Church does not control everything, and those influences — not to mention the Internet and all its derivatives — you see, the forces are many.

 

Some blame the Vatican Council for everything: They say if it rained last week, it was the Second Vatican Council that caused it!

 

Do you see a need for a more African-oriented Church, helped by having a future African pope, rather than the more Eurocentric papacy that some complain of today? Is it time for Africa’s voice to become louder in the Church?

 

I do not think the problem for most Africans is where the pope comes from. I don’t think that’s the problem because, if anything, Africans like to approach the Catholic faith with faith in Jesus Christ.

 

But if the Church has a European image, that’s quite another matter. The fact is, the center of Church administration is Rome, and the development from the times of St. Paul, the apostles, they crossed into Europe, and the Greco-Roman culture was very much a fact. The ocean here is called the Mediterranean Sea — the sea that is in the center of the world — because that was the known world, the Roman Empire and so on. That’s pure history and we cannot ignore that history.

 

Missionaries who have gone to bring the faith have been mostly from Europe. That’s just a fact. After all, many parts of Africa and Asia are only recently evangelized. So the practical thing is to present the Gospel in parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, in such a way that it will be Catholic but also local. Easy to say, difficult to do, but it has to be done. It is that whole work called inculturation.

 

That is where the Africans put the emphasis, not on where the pope comes from: That’s not their worry. But the Gospel must be at home in Africa and not be there like a visitor with a visa, but be there as a tree growing in its native soil. And it has to be so in Japan, too, and in India, and in Taiwan, and in China and also in Argentina, and in Ecuador, in Nigeria, in Ireland and in Italy. That is a challenge for all the evangelizers.

 

What are your hopes for the future and what challenges do you see must be faced, both in your department and in the Church?

 

Hopes we must always have because we are followers of Christ, who rose from the dead. There are, however, problems. So there are challenges, and it is our duty to work hard. We must pray.

 

My hope is greater faith. For matters liturgical, they must begin with faith, because we do in this or that way what we believe. If a person does not believe, we don’t know where to start. So if a person says: “The way I like to celebrate Mass is this; no one’s going to tell me what to do.” “We celebrate Mass this way because of our faith, and if you don’t believe what we believe, then we can’t go far with you.” So the first area must be faith.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and some people are frightened by 700 pages, so we have the Compendium, which is 150 pages. That’s first, so we know what we believe. Our faith isn’t a question of yes, no, but, maybe, opinion polls, votes — no. We know in whom we believe.

 

After faith, in matters liturgical we must go on to doing it, so that the people see it, so that every Sunday when they come to Mass, it isn’t just theory. We call it the art of celebrating.

 

Is the priest celebrating the Mass in such a way that when people look at him for one hour or one and a half, they say, “He believes in what he is doing?” The way he celebrates and the people around him, does that manifest the faith of the whole Church? Does that encourage Catholics who are fervent? Does that wake up those who are half asleep, those who don’t exactly believe, those who are indifferent? Does it shake them up? Does it send the people home joyful, resolved to live the Christian life, which is never easy? Does it send them home desirous to come again? Or when next Sunday comes, do they feel, “Oh, Lord help us! We have to go back to that church and be again with that priest for 1½ hours? Please, is there another alternative where I can go?”

If so, then the priest has not succeeded. He has to examine his conscience.

 

Do you think it would be better if the priest faced East again? Some, including the Pope, have reservations about him facing the congregation.

 

Yes, and rightly so. There are arguments for both. When the priest faces the people, it may be easier for them to see they are a community with the priest. However, when the priest looks with the people — I do not say with his back to the people — and faces the crucifix, faces Christ (Christ is everywhere, but the crucifix is the powerful symbol) or faces East, the vertical dimension of the Mass is better shown. The Mass is directed primarily toward God, our Creator.

 

The Mass is not primarily about me and you, “horizontal”; it is also that but not primarily that. However, it is quite another matter to say it is wise to order the people of God around, again, and tell them to shift around the altar again.

 

If you were in my shoes, would you go so far? You see the difficulty. If it’s a small chapel and so on, there’s no difficulty. But to order it for the whole Church is quite another matter.

 

But it seems that all the issues we’ve talked about have been very much of a horizontal nature, or owing to this emphasis on horizontal rather than vertical worship. So what’s needed in many ways is, some would say, that perspective again — to face the cross, to face God.

 

Yes, you are right, you are right. If we were to be more vertical in our whole Christian life, if we would turn toward God in both senses of the word, if we would give more priority to God and not what I want or you want.

 

The Mass is not a mutual entertainment gathering between the priest and the people — I admire you and you admire me. He is not a reverend showman, he is ordained to be their leader in offering sacrifice to God. So you are right. To put it in one word, be more God-centered.

 

But that’s not going to happen, is it?

 

Why must we not hope that it can change? But it is a big challenge — indeed it is the summary of holiness.

 

The more God-centered each of us is, the holier that person is. That’s what it is.

 

Edward Pentin writes

from Rome.