From the New Liturgical Movement, Part 2
\nBy Gregory DiPippo<\/p>\n
We continue our interview with Dom Alcuin Reid, occasioned by the 50th anniversary of the committee established on January 25th, 1964 by Pope Paul VI to implement the liturgical reform, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d His replies include previously unpublished material from his research. The first part of the interview was published last Friday.<\/p>\n
NLM: You mentioned the Consilium \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the body charged with implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI established this on January 25th of 1964; who were its members, how were they chosen, what had they done beforehand?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: In January 1964 Paul VI personally chose Fr Annibale Bugnini to be the Secretary\u00e2\u20ac\u201da political move which reversed Bugnini\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s banishment from responsibility for liturgical reform by Blessed John XXIII in 1962, in favour of Fr Ferdinando Antonelli\u00e2\u20ac\u201dtogether with Cardinals Lercaro (Bologna), Giobbe (Curia) and Larraona (Prefect of the Congregation of Rites). This nucleus proposed the names of members and consultors to Paul VI who acted on their advice.<\/p>\n
NLM: Were there any persons who, in your opinion, should or should not have been included on the committee? If so, why?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: Eleven pages of an appendix to Archbishop Bugnini\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s memoirs, The Reform of the Liturgy (Liturgical Press), lists the personnel. Many of these had been involved in the commission for liturgical reform of Pius XII, the preparatory liturgical commission or the conciliar liturgical commission. Names such as Jungmann, Gy, Botte, Martimort, Righetti, feature rightly enough amongst the consultors. Interestingly Louis Bouyer was only included in 1966. Antonelli was one of the members; Bishop Jenny also. And there were bishop members from around the world who were regarded as having shown interest in the liturgy at the Council.
\nAt a distance of 50 years I hesitate to suggest who should or should not have been included. Two of Antonelli\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s contemporary observations, however, are illustrative:<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153[The Consilium] is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (N. Giampietro, The Development of the Liturgical Reform, Roman Catholic Books, pp. 166-167).<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153That which is sad…however, is a fundamental datum, a mutual attitude, a pre-established position, namely, many of those who have influenced the reform…and others, have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (ibid. p. 192).<\/p>\n
NLM: The basic work of the Consilium was achieved in about 6 years \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the Novus Ordo Missae less than five years after its establishment, November 1969, and the Liturgy of the Hours soon after. Is it fair to say that the work was done hastily? Too hastily? <\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: Let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s return to the Ordo Missae of January 1965. It was possible for that to be published within a year of the Consilium\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s establishment, and it is largely faithful to the Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s stipulations for the ritual reform of the Mass. In due course an expanded lectionary, further prefaces, etc., could have been carefully prepared and published in due course as the post-Vatican II edition of the Roman Missal in accordance with the Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s mandate.<\/p>\n
But the Consilium were working on a completely new Ordo Missae, calendar, lectionary, etc., from 1964. As Antonelli said, they were not working from a desire to restore but from a wish to demolish and build anew. Hence the radical differences in the lectionary, calendar, order of Mass and other rites\u00e2\u20ac\u201dsomething not intended by the Council but, alas, something enacted by enthusiastic reformers and promulgated by the authority of a pope.<\/p>\n
The Consilium\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s efforts encountered opposition, and Archbishop Bugnini is clear that they wanted to get the new rites out as quickly as possible\u00e2\u20ac\u201dalmost so as to \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcachieve\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 a victory before it was too late. There is also the historical reality of the expectation of change and the devaluing of authority that was part of the 1960\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s. This led to experimentation and abuse which was harmful, as Bugnini himself recounts, and meant that there was a real need to get the official rites out as soon as possible.<\/p>\n
NLM: Was the work of the Consilium done with respect for the ideals of the Liturgical Movement and for the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: Fr Carlo Braga, a close collaborator of Bugnini, once wrote to me that the principles outlined in the 1948 document of the Pius XII reform commission were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153amplified by another spirit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d after the Council (\u00e2\u20ac\u0153dopo il concilio\u00e2\u20ac\u009d). In February 1964 Paul VI established the Consilium in order to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153to apply\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Sacrosanctum Concilium \u00e2\u20ac\u0153according to the letter and spirit of the Council\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Its \u00e2\u20ac\u0153letter\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was quickly left behind, and its \u00e2\u20ac\u0153spirit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d became something other than that of the Council fathers: one of innovation rather than restoration.<\/p>\n
Some currently attempt to justify this departure and subsequent innovation by regarding Vatican II as an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153event\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and by insisting that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153core values\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153theology\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of this \u00e2\u20ac\u0153event\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201din other words its increasingly hard to define \u00e2\u20ac\u0153spirit\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201dare the only legitimate bases for interpreting Conciliar documents, regardless of the provisions and theology of the documents themselves. <\/p>\n
Such a position is utterly revisionist and astonishingly a-historical. The Council Fathers never proposed this. It renders the principles and provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium null and void, and provides a carte blanche for liturgical innovation.<\/p>\n
NLM: During and after the Council, there was a great deal of talk in the Church about \u00e2\u20ac\u0153collegiality\u00e2\u20ac\u009d between the Pope and the bishops. Sacrosanctum Concilium itself says in no. 25 that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153(t)he liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Were the bishops consulted by the Consilium? If so, to what extent? Were the reforms carried out as an act of collegiality between the Pope and the world-wide episcopate?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: Certainly there were bishops from dioceses across the world on the Consilium. And some schemas were sent to Bishops Conferences before the 1967 Synod of Bishops. But it is simply not true to assert that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153every suggested adaptation, change, or modification was sent out to every Catholic bishop in the world\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153when changes were severely questioned or opposed by a large number of bishops, they were revised according to the will of the bishops and then sent back again.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (Robert Taft SJ, Interview, 4 Nov. 2009) Bugnini describes the relationship with the world\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s bishops in chapter 14 of his memoirs\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand it is a very different account from Father Taft\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s. The Consilium had ongoing contact with the Episcopal conferences, certainly, but one only has to read Cardinal Heenan\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s letters to see how a residential Archbishop regarded the reform as something imposed by \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcRome\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 regardless of local bishops\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 views (cf. A Bitter Trial, Ignatius Press).<\/p>\n
Msgr Martimort, the Relator (co-ordinator of the working group) for the reform of the Liturgy of the Hours, explained to me in an interview that after consultation with experts he presented two position papers to the Consilium plenary meeting, which decided on which to follow and on appropriate revisions. After this, Martimort complained vigorously, Bugnini ignored these decisions and himself proposed another course to Paul VI\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwhich was the one adopted. This \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPaul VI approves what Bugnini-wants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 is a significant factor in the postconciliar reform, a fact underlined also by details recounted in the memoirs of Louis Bouyer, still sadly unpublished.<\/p>\n
So too in 1969, the by-then Archbishop Jenny wrote to Paul VI because he believed he had \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a duty in conscience\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to utter \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a cry of alarm\u00e2\u20ac\u009d about \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the liturgy in general and the divine office in particular\u00e2\u20ac\u009d because of influences outside of the Consilium and outside of its normal working methods. Co-operation within the Consilium itself was questionable!<\/p>\n
NLM: Did the bishops express much satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the work of the Consilium? Were their opinions heeded?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: The 1967 Synod of Bishops is illustrative. The Synod was given an update on the progress of the reform. In addition, a Mass was celebrated demonstrating what the Consilium intended as the rite that would become \u00e2\u20ac\u0153normative\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for parishes. The Synod Fathers did not like it. Cardinal Heenan spoke strongly against it (cf. A Bitter Trial, pp. 102-4). Bugnini himself admits: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the [Synod\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s] negative vote that followed\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u0153\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6in short, the changes in the Mass seemed too radical\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (Reform of the Liturgy, p. 349-50). The Synod Father\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s responses were not ultimately heeded, but dismissed\u00e2\u20ac\u201dBugnini says that they were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153not representative\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (p. 356).<\/p>\n
NLM: In your opinion, what were the greatest successes and failures of the Consilium?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: I think that they are one and the same thing: the implementation of a radical liturgical reform that was the product of the wishes of certain of its members and consultors. This was a great political success, in spite of the Roman Curia and others, as Archbishop Piero Marini\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s book A Challenging Reform (Liturgical Press) underlines. And it was a tragic failure faithfully to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium, as any careful reading of its text and as any study of such important sources as Bugnini\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s and Antonelli\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s memoirs reveals.<\/p>\n
NLM: What implications does this have for our assessment of the liturgical reform today, and for the possibility of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcreform of the reform\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in the future?<\/p>\n
Dom Alcuin: As many have said before, we have not yet seen the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican Council. We glimpsed something of it in the 1965 Ordo Missae, but that was quickly left behind by the Consilium\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s own products. Thus, out of fidelity to liturgical tradition, out of fidelity to the Council and as a matter of justice in respect of what was done in its name, we need seriously to address the question of a reform of the reform.<\/p>\n
So too, we need as ever to invest in the work of sound liturgical formation so as to facilitate that participation desired by the Council, in order that the Sacred Liturgy\u00e2\u20ac\u201din whatever ritual form it is celebrated\u00e2\u20ac\u201dmay truly be the source and summit of Christian life and mission. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From the New Liturgical Movement, Part 2 By Gregory DiPippo We continue our interview with Dom Alcuin Reid, occasioned by the 50th anniversary of the committee established on January 25th, 1964 by Pope Paul VI to implement the liturgical reform, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d His replies include previously unpublished material from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=509"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/509\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}