The last year has witnessed an almost unprecedented degree of discussion on the current state of liturgy in the Western Church. Its participants have echoed Cardinal Ratzinger's call for a "new liturgical movement", and it has issued in a number of practical initiatives: Adoremus (Society of the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy), the Society for Catholic Liturgy, and the Oxford Declaration on Liturgy - to name just three new ventures in the English-speaking world. Fr. Joseph Fessio SJ, one of the founders of Adoremus, recently toured Australia to promote his association. The size and enthusiasm of his audiences attested to the depth of contemporary concern for the liturgy.
There are aspects of some of these recent initiatives, about which "traditionalists" can only rejoice. One sees in these movements a new awareness by "conservatives" of the intimate connection, not only between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, but also between the lex orandi and the Church's lex vivendi as well. Consequently, there is greater acceptance of the view that if the current crisis in the Church's life is not unrelated to liturgical change, then even the official reforms (and not just "unauthorized applications") are not immune from criticism. So far, so good.
Not surprisingly, the new "conservative" liturgical groups are somewhat at variance with each other about solutions to the malaise. Broadly speaking, however, they agree in wanting to rescue Catholic liturgical culture - sacred music, art and architecture - from oblivion. They seek both to raise the standard of liturgical scholarship, and to rekindle popular liturgical education. They recognise the importance of every Christian's acquiring the spirit of the liturgy, and embrace an understanding of "participation" which gives due primacy to its interior aspect over its external expression. One can hardly disagree with any of this.
But where does the classical liturgy figure in all of this? Aye, there's the rub. The Society for Catholic liturgy is firmly committed to the post-Conciliar changes and is explicitly critical of the traditional rites. In fact, one of the Society's leading members recently stated privately that, in his view, the classical liturgy should once again come under prohibition! The Oxford Declaration on liturgy favours a pluralism of rites, at least as a preface to a new reform down the track.
Adoremus' view of the classical liturgy is the clearest, and probably the most sympathetic of the new movements. Judging that the Pauline Missal of 1969 substantially departs from the actual directives of Vatican Council II, Adoremus' long-term goal is a new revision of the 1962 rites, in strict conformity to the Conciliar Decree Sacrosanctum Coniclium (SC). The Association states as its guiding principle in this work:
"There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing" (SC #23).
Adoremus does not intend that this revision replace or exclude the continued celebration of the immemorial liturgy (as codified in the 1962 books) by those who prefer it. Indeed, Adoremus seeks a "mutual collaboration and a fruitful exchange of ideas" with those who remain committed to the classical liturgy in its integrity. It is an invitation which we ought to accept . And, prompted by the same spirit in which this invitation was offered, I would like to propose the following considerations.
View of Council
Adoremus' promotional literature includes the following question and answer:
"Q: Does Adoremus accept the principles of liturgical reform enunciated at the Second Vatican Council?
"A: Yes, fully and unreservedly. We accept the Second Vatican Council as an act of the Church's supreme Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. We hold that its documents are an expression of the word of Christ Himself for His Bride the Church in our time."
Extravagant claim
Now this is an extravagant claim. All distinctions between disciplinary norms and matters of doctrine and, within the latter, of the degrees of assent proper to different acts of the Magisterium, have been ignored. These issues have been rehearsed at length elsewhere, and space does not permit them to be argued again in this article. Suffice it to say that one is hardly "opposing the Council" by requiring these distinctions to be made. In fact, to pretend that the Conciliar documents are, like Scripture, inspired does just as much disservice to the Council as their wholesale and a priori rejection.
Sacrosanctum Concilium contains a wealth of traditional doctrinal teaching on the liturgy. Alongside this, however, we find prudential judgments expressed, and practical norms enacted, with which one might legitimately take issue - especially in the light of the last thirty years' experience. If there is to be a "fruitful exchange" with Adoremus, we would have to ask for a preparedness to discuss the practical norms of SC on their merits, and that Adoremus not absolutise them in a way that the Church does not - indeed cannot - intend.
What is the Pope's view?
Adoremus claims support and inspiration from the Apostolic letter Vincesimus Quintus Annus (on the 25th Anniversary of SC), in which the Pope states:
" For the work of translation, as well as for the wider implications of liturgical renewal for whole countries, each episcopal conference was required to establish a national commission and ensure the collaboration of experts... . The time has come to evaluate this commission, its past activity, both the positive and negative aspects, and the guidelines and the help which it has received from the episcopal conference regarding its' composition and activity" (#20).
It is very clear from the context of this statement - and from other pronouncements by the Pope - that this evaluation is not meant to imply any substantive criticism of the new liturgy. On the contrary, the Pope claims elsewhere in the same letter that
"this work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers" (#4).
In a recent allocution to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (May 3, 1996), the Pope claimed a complete continuity between the traditional liturgy and the reform such that "the 'new' grows out of the 'old', and the 'old' finds a fuller expression in the 'new'." The Pontiff again insisted that the reform which actually took place was indeed the "authorised application" of the Council.
Adoremus should be prepared honestly to acknowledge that its own assessment of the Official Reform differs substantially from the Pope's. We know that such a difference of opinion implies no disloyalty to the Papal office, but it would be helpful to hear Adoremus admit as much.
Liturgical Change per se
If the arguments from authority - of Pope or Council - are specious,
then the proponents of change to the classical rites are going to have
to argue their case on its merits. To date, Adoremus has failed even to
attempt this, and yet surely the burden of proof must fall squarely on
those seeking change.
The key issue here is the nature of liturgical change per se. If the laws of liturgical development are at all analogous to those of doctrinal development, liturgical change should be all about achieving a greater explication and augmentation of existing forms. It is assuredly not about abolition and reduction, or a rationalistic "simplification". It is no more desirable, or even possible, to return to the precise form of Mass celebrated by St. Gregory the Great, than it is to reject or ignore dogmatic definitions of Pope's and Councils between the sixth century and the present.
Moreover, even if it could be established that the laws of liturgical development somehow operate in the reverse of those governing doctrinal development, any substantive reform - however well-intended - is going to be endangered by a very practical concern: if liturgy is not simply a given, how does one avoid the intrusion of personal preference and even prejudice? The there are the limitations and vicissitudes of contemporary scholarship.
The most egregious case of this in SC and the subsequent reform was the acceptance of the celebration of Mass versus populum as the primitive norm. It is true that liturgical studies during the last 30 years have clarified many issues which in the 1960's remained obscure. However, the origin and raison d'être of many aspects of the classical liturgy - the inaudible recitation of the Canon, for instance - remains contested. Liturgy somewhat imitates the Divine Nature in this: being supremely intelligible in Himself, God is not so intelligible to us because of the limitations of the human intellect. In other words, liturgists are not the measure of the liturgy.
It is also noteworthy that Adoremus rejects any need for an experiential encounter with the classical liturgy as a prelude to discussion on a new reform. Fr. Fessio made this very clear during his recent public lecture in Sydney. We might, as a consequence, expect a somewhat rationalistic and bookish effort from Adoremus' ranks.
This fundamentally flawed approach to the liturgy intrudes into the practical norms of the SC, but can be traced well beyond the Council to at least as early as the sixteenth century, in such efforts as the highly rational and equally dismal Quinonez breviary. The numinous frequently is conveyed to us by the convergence of many non-rational elements in liturgy. Contempt for this aspect of liturgy was one of the most striking features of the Pauline reform. Consequently, whilst the classical liturgy celebrated tolerably well is manifestly a religious experience, the new liturgy - even celebrated in optimum conditions, using all the traditional "options" - strains itself to express harmoniously the sense of the sacred. As Jane Austen's Mr. Bingley responded to his sister's plea for a "more rational" ball with more conversation and less dancing,
"Much more rational...I dare say but it would not be near so much like a ball."
The Divine Liturgy is, after all, the Opus Dei - God's work. We should be concerned, not so much to re-shape it, as to be re-fashioned by it. Much of the last 30 years has been wasted chasing a chimera, whilst the Church's essential work of reform of hearts has suffered neglect. The classical liturgy has served as the Church's premier means for achieving this perpetual reform, throughout most of Her history. Not a few Western Catholics have been graced in retaining or rediscovering this fountainhead in the last 30 years. I would invite our friends in Adoremus at least to slake their thirst at it, before setting off for the next mirage.
* Glen Tattersall was the founding president of The Ecclesia Dei Society
Return to Reforming the Reform
Return to Oriens home page