Liturgy between Tradition and Inculturation: Theological Analysis and Practical Consequences
"We may no longer have a complete grasp of the many dilemmas posed by the universality of the Christian message in the face of the diversity of cultures of a pluralistic humanity" (Santedi Kinkupu, Léonard: Dogme et inculturation en Afrique, Préface). With these words, the Congolese theologian introduces the problem of inculturation in a missionary church. Our aim is to examine the current state of inculturation as applied to liturgy and statements of faith. To better assess the consequences and show the way forward for a successful inculturation process, we will draw on the inculturation models of Joseph Ratzinger, Louis-Marie Chauvet, Joseph Gelineau, Robert Sarah, and Engelbert Mveng.
Motivation
Globalization, cultural diversity, and socio-religious change raise the question of whether faith in Jesus Christ can be expressed authentically in different cultural contexts without betraying its liturgical heritage. Joseph Gelineau emphasizes the necessity of inculturation, though he acknowledges the risk of creating confusion with these terms.
Every rite is inculturated by nature, which extends the incarnation of the word. Without being embedded in a culture and a symbolic constellation, a sign is no longer recognizable as a rite and can mean anything or nothing. (Gelineau, Joseph. Libres propos sur les assemblées liturgiques, 60).
The fundamental question is how to combine fidelity to the liturgical tradition with adaptation to local cultures. Above all, the Second Vatican Council's liturgical constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC 37-40), paved the way for liturgical reform that allows for adaptation to cultural circumstances, while setting clear limits to prevent confusion.
Research Questions
What are the main liturgical inculturation models used in the Catholic Church, and what impact do they have?
How do these models influence the liturgy's structure, language, and symbols in different cultural contexts?
To what extent can the liturgy be adapted without changing its essence?
What theological and liturgical criteria determine legitimate inculturation?
What are the consequences of these approaches for liturgical practice today?
Methodology
This work provides theological and pastoral analyses of controversies between inculturation models and liturgical traditions, as seen through the perspectives of Chauvet and Ratzinger. It also reinterprets the positions of Gélineau and Mveng by critiquing current methods, proposing an inculturation adapted to the needs of the people.
Literature
Chauvet, Jean-Marie. Du rite au Symbole, une mutation de la théologie sacramentelle. Paris, Cerf, 1997.
Ela, Jean-Marc. Symbolique africaine et mystère chrétien, les quatre fleuves n°10 : un christianisme africain, Paris, Beauchesne, 1979.
Gelineau, Joseph. Demain la liturgie. Essai sur l’évolution des assemblées chrétiennes, Paris, Cerf, 1976.
Jaouen, René. L’Eucharistie du mil, Langages d’un peuple, expressions de la foi, Paris, Karthala, 1995.
Ratzinger, Joseph. Der Geist der Liturgie, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 2000.
Supervisor
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Liborius Olaf Lumma,
Institute of Biblical Studies and Historical Theology
Doctoral Candidate
Mag. theol. Jacques Yannick Noah Noah
jacques.noah-noah(at)student.uibk.ac.at
