This article is a rejoinder to Rev. Fr. Godfred Ofori’s response
Dear Fr. Godfred (Konongo-Mampong Diocese),
Thank you for raising these concerns. Your desire for a Church that feels welcoming, culturally expressive, and socially connected is something we all share. The Church does value culture deeply, and inculturation is a real gift when done in harmony with the faith.
However, the Mass has a unique and sacred identity. Because it is the action of Christ, not of the community alone, the Church gives us very clear guidelines to ensure that our cultural expressions enrich the liturgy without overshadowing its deeper meaning. If you read my existing articles (Rep your jersey and Mass Servers in ‘collar’) on the issue at hand, you may realize their consistency with the Church’s position on proper liturgical practices, yet very open to local contexts or Inculturation in a non-disruptive way. While trying to avoid repeating what have already been said in previous articles, I humbly seek to address your points as regards my articles on the issues titled above and its connection to the shared video of a Protestant Pastor discussing same:
1.) Apart from the fact that true Inculturation requires discernment and not personal preference, the articles you implicitly allude to address the misunderstanding, if not the abuse of the concept of Inculturation.
You argue that prohibiting certain practices comes from “our own perspective.”
But the Church has always insisted that inculturation is not determined by individual taste, parish popularity, or emotional attachment. It must be ecclesiastically evaluated (John Paul II, Ecclesia in Africa, 62–64), theologically grounded, approved by competent authority (Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC] 22; GIRM 24), and in harmony with the Roman Rite’s structure, spirit, and meaning (SC 37–40). Individual members cannot simply declare that something “does not disrupt the Mass” (as in your position) and therefore should be allowed, nor that something “disrupts the Mass” (as in my position) and therefore should be disallowed.
Therefore, I seek to address the substance of your position without preferences lest in the long run, I may suggest we do away with the small unleavened bread and the at times not so tasty wine we use for the eucharist and use rather, puff-puff (“bofrot”) and “sobolo” since those elements are easily liked, cultural, accessible, materially fulfilling, and with great propensity to attract many numbers to fill our churches. .
Jerseys, “kosua ne m3ko,” or cultural dress (smock, Kente, representing the 80’s, etc.) is not the challenge, but liturgical context is. No serious argument claims that ordinary laypeople cannot wear Kente, jersey, or smock to Mass. That is a false equivalence. Indeed, apart from the ritual ministers whose vesture is directly addressed by the GIRM (339–347), the article on “Sunday Mass and the New Rep Your Jersey Culture” (link above) stated without ambiguity:
“The challenge with approaches like ‘Rep Your Jersey Sundays’ is not necessarily about the jerseys or whatever there is, but the grand distracting-psychological toll such decisions cast on the (un)conscious desire of the faithful to actively participate and benefit from the celebrated Mystery. Just as it may be understandable for identified groups to fancifully appear for Mass (offered for various intentions) before their sports, entertainment, or whatever engagement, so also, it may be, when an individual fancifully wears a jersey, 1652 Wellington boot, etc. for a general Mass.
Psychologically, however, it is a different ball game all together when such particular intentions are institutionally facilitated through a conscious wiring of the minds of the faithful in a parish setting, especially on the primordial feast day (Sunday) for the celebration of «the “viaticum” par excellence» (Eucharist). Worse of it is when the so called ‘Rep your Jersey’ or ‘Rep your School’ Sundays shortly happen after competitions like the National Science and Math Quiz or Manchester United and Chelsea. In such instances, almost every climate around the liturgy changes from Sacred to entertainment, and spectatorship.”
So, our crusade is not about a “No Kente/Smock in church”, but about the (in)direct impositions of personal idiosyncrasies on the Church’s liturgy. This is not rigidity—this is obedience. And you rightly asked: “How do you measure someone’s spirituality or activeness?” At least from the face value, I totally agree with you on this. I subscribe to that position of yours because the Mass as an integral part of the liturgy is not built around measuring spirituality through outward performance, rather, the liturgy protects the objective action of Christ from being swallowed by our subjective expressions. The liturgy forms us, not the other way around.
2.) Although your argument about “The Church changed” appears to be comparing oranges to bananas, let me simply state that “The Church changed” is not an argument for arbitrary change. You refer to social media, developments in doctrine, Galileo, extra ecclesia nulla salus, etc., but these examples do not support arbitrary innovation in the liturgy. Actually, they prove the opposite. When the Church changes something, it does so through magisterial clarification (example is when in November 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released Mater Populi Fidelis to clarify Marian titles of “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces”), episcopal consensus, the Holy See’s approval, and guided development, not improvisation. The fact that the Church eventually embraced new tools (like social media) shows that the Church studies first, discerns, tests, and then approves, not the reverse. You and I cannot use “the Church evolved” as justification for individuals to evolve the liturgy on their own initiative.
3.) Again, you argue that because people are busy on weekdays, the “social aspect” of Church must occur inside Mass. Questionably, immediately before Mass, some pastors are recently organizing UEFA champions league, EPL matches and the likes INSIDE churches with the excuse of attracting numbers, don’t the people come on weekdays? The challenge I realize with that argument is that we rightly identify challenges but are quick in choosing convenience over proper discernment and approaches. If that continues, the cure may become worse than the disease in the long run. The Mass is not the place or container for all forms of parish activity, but the summit and source (SC 10).
4.) On the argument of “competition”, you suggest that if we do not “merely” (emphasis mine) adopt trends, we may lose “talents, ideas, and money.” That is a dangerous metric. Once evangelization as regards the Church’s liturgy becomes “competition,” the liturgy risks becoming a product rather than a sacred action. Sacrosanctum Concilium (2) defines the liturgy as “the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ”, not “a tool for keeping people entertained, connected, or financially committed.” The moment we “merely” adapt the Mass primarily to keep people from leaving, we stop celebrating God, and start celebrating ourselves (cf. Jn. 6: 53-68).
I totally agree we must “borrow good ideas and catholicize them’, but that is exactly why we must be careful. It would be wrong for me to suggest, even in the remotest sense that the Church cannot learn from others outside her material walls. We can adopt/adapt and “baptize” cultural expressions, but not emotionally or without authority. Otherwise, we do not get Inculturation, we get liturgical fragmentation, where every parish becomes its own rite based on personal taste. This is what the Church has repeatedly condemned (cf. SC 22; Redemptionis Sacramentum 59–62).
5.) You asked: “Where is the research backing the prohibition?” I humbly ask also: Where is the research for the innovations? From what has been said so far, you may realize that the burden of proof does not rest on tradition, but rather, the one proposing change. The Roman Rite we are privileged beneficiaries of, is the product of 2,000 years of uninterrupted but organic development.
Changes, therefore, must be justified through theological coherence, Ritual compatibility, approval of the local ordinary, and Roman authorization if necessary. Personal enthusiasm is not evidence.
The real challenge I find in your argument is this: “You value culture, community, and participation”, yet you seem to dismiss the very ecclesial process that protects those values. True inculturation is not: “anything cultural goes,” nor “anything new is progress,” nor “we must adjust the Mass to attract people,” nor “convenience determines liturgy.” Rather, it is the meeting of the Gospel and a culture, discerned by the Church and integrated slowly in ways that serve the Mystery not the moment.
Your desire to include people which I wholeheartedly subscribe to is admirable, but if we are privileged servants of the liturgy and not innovators of it, then inclusion cannot bypass obedience, coherence, and reverence. Otherwise, we get cultural exhibition, not Christian worship. Thanks for your engagement.
Leave a Reply