Paix Liturgique Newsletter
Contents of our letter 22 - 20 November 2011
To contact us, click here
Contents of our letter 22 - 20 November 2011
| Liturgy Professors Fight a Rearguard Action |
Liturgy Professors Fight a Rearguard Action
| There is no question about it: the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II was cobbled together in the offices of liturgists who, for all their learning, were steeped in ideology. Given the history of the Roman liturgy (on which they were supposed to rely), no one today would dare defend most of the choices they took upon themselves to make. Leaving aside the theological deficiencies resulting from their hasty choices (such as the suppression of the offertory), the cultural impoverishment of their reform is obvious to all. In point of fact, above and beyond the resistance on the part of traditional groups, many writings and much work (including first and foremost by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI) have patiently undertaken an objective critique of this reform. The reform's authors, however, had yet to provide an actual response. Now, however, two liturgy professors from Louvain, Joris Geldhof and Arnaud Join-Lambert, are attempting to defend the reform. They are doing this in a moderate, yet quite critical tone, all the while expressing concern about the rehabilitation of the traditional liturgy. The daily newspaper La Croix, which is the voice of the Church of France, published their article on 10 September under the title "Can the older and the currant Roman liturgical rites coexist without consequence?" We present it to you this month, along with our commentaries, which are based on the response made to them by Jean Madiran (1) in Présent on 16 September 2011. I - The Louvain liturgists' article "Can the older and the current Roman liturgical rites coexist without consequence?" by Joris Geldhof (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) and Arnaud Join-Lambert (Université catholique de Louvain), professors of liturgy. La Croix, September 10, 2011. "The Universae Ecclesiae instruction of May 13 on the older Tridentine Roman rite has at times been hailed as "peacemaking" in France, the only country, really, where this pastoral question is not a marginal one. Have the problems connected with the coexistence of two forms of the same rite been resolved? In 2007 liturgist professors in French-, English-, German- and Dutch-language universities as well as in Italian universities all noted the unprecedented difficulties presented by the motu proprio that facilitates the older rite. Yet none of them is an anticlerical iconoclast; quite the opposite. They insisted on the consequences of a disassociation between the lex orandi (the rule of prayer) and the lex credendi (the rule of faith). The current liturgy is the expression of a theology that is in part different from the older one. This of course does not impact the heart of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, the theological shifts should not be overlooked. In this sense, the lex orandi has changed. In order to grasp the theological stakes, let us start with three untruths that are current among traditionalists. 1) The liturgical reform was [traditionalists say] the work of a handful of intellectuals who went beyond the mandate Paul VI had entrusted to them. But any dispassionate study easily establishes the continuity there is between the liturgical movement born at the turn of the twentieth century, its amplification up to the Council, the work done at the Council, and the implementation of its decisions. In 1956 Pius XII had already dubbed the liturgical movement as "the Holy Spirit passing through His Church." The reform that was decided in 1963 did not come out of nowhere. Also, putting together the current liturgical books was a gigantic and painstaking undertaking on the part of many bishops and theologians hailing from every continent. 2) The implementation of the liturgical reform was [traditionalists say] characterized by multiple errors and abuses. There does not exist to date a scientific study on this period and these abuses, however. What is an abuse in this field anyway? While on the one hand many priests were ill-prepared to implement this reform, on the other hand there is no basis for presenting the years 1969-1975 as a vast period of chaos. The social crisis beginning in 1968 provoked a profound upheaval and a serious identity crisis in the Church. To lay the responsibility for this at the feet of the liturgical reform is a simplistic shortcut. The liturgical renewal has been and continues to be a source of progress for the life of the great majority of Catholics. 3) The restoration of the older form of the liturgy would [traditionalists say] be no more than a liturgical adjustment. Though some of those who participate in celebrations according to the older rite do not question Vatican II, one cannot deny the theological impact: it is as though the theological enrichment of the current Missal were being denied. This amounts to forgetting the emphasis placed upon the active and conscious participation of all, the enriched proclamation of the Bible, the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic Prayer, etc. Let's go a step further with the older Roman Ritual, which has also been authorized. Its use amounts to minimizing or even rejecting theological and pastoral advances. As for marriage, a mediaeval anthropology is retained side-by-side with a modern understanding of the relations between men and women present in the new Ritual. And what is one to say of Extreme Unction, which is coming back in the practice of traditionalists, whereas Vatican II had changed it into the anointing of the sick in order to broaden its celebration to sick persons outside of imminent death? Many other examples show how the reform was a systematic and theological enterprise based on aggiornamento for the needs of the men and women of our times. What is to be done, then? The most urgent task is the formation of priests and seminarians. Being conscious of all of the liturgy's dimensions is crucial for the acquisition of an authentic ars celebrandi, an art of celebrating that reveals the richness of the liturgies. The suggestion, mentioned in the Instruction, that seminarians ought to be formed in the Tridentine rite stems from a ritualistic approach, according to which knowing how would be enough to do well. But one has first to enter into a rite, its spirituality, its theology, its mystagogical dimension. These are not two interchangeable forms. It is furthermore just as urgent to have a liturgical theological formation in traditionalist institutes, based on the Council's Constitution on the holy liturgy. In 1984 John Paul II had authorized the celebration with the older Missal for strictly pastoral reasons, allowing persons to continue to nourish their faith without following Archbishop Lefebvre. This instruction continues the broadening begun in 2007. One may legitimately ask whether this is truly opportune. It seems risky to encourage a sort of biritualism that is historically unheard of. It would be irresponsible not to examine carefully the complex theological questions regarding the liturgy." II - Paix Liturgique's Comments 1) In his article published in Présent (2), Jean Madiran underscores the authors' pretension in "all" standing up to the Motu Proprio and, therefore, to the Holy Father. Do they not write: "In 2007 liturgist professors in French-, English-, German- and Dutch-language universities as well as in Italian universities all [sic] noted the unprecedented difficulties presented by the motu proprio facilitating the older rite"? 2) When they state that "[t]he current liturgy is the expression of a theology that is in part different from the older one," do these liturgists realize what they are writing? They are all but vindicating (but do they know it?) the traditional movement's principal criticism against the liturgical reform. To wit, as Cardinal Ottaviani wrote in the preface to his 1969 Short Critical Study [the "Ottaviani Intervention"], that the new Mass is a striking departure from the theology of the Council of Trent! Except that in reality our two professors mean to say that making a new liturgy that departs from traditional liturgy was the right thing to do. "They want to change the faith," writes Jean Madiran. At the very moment when Benedict XVI has decreed a Year of Faith, the "theological shifts" claimed by Geldhof and Join-Lambert are cause for concern . . . . "Thus," Madiran continues his analysis, "is verified the extent of an already well-known bankruptcy: that of the intellectual (or at least academic) elites of contemporary Catholicism." 3) No one should be fooled by the moralizing tone of learned and calm competence on which the liturgist professors express themselves. Now this tone is in no way aggressive in its form. Its content, however, is aggressive, implacably so. They declare it "urgent to have a liturgical theological formation [viz., theirs] in traditionalist institutes." That is their threat. Fortunately these institutes are under the protection of the Ecclesia Dei pontifical commission. But that is not necessarily going to prevent this or that bishop from claiming that he will let traditionalist institutes into his diocese only under this condition of mental fealty. In brief, concludes Madiran, "the incoherent sectarianism of Catholic universities isn't making it any easier for the task of progressive intellectual (and liturgical!) reorientation undertaken by Benedict XVI." 4) When they state that France is "the only country where this pastoral question [of the Tridentine Roman rite] is not a marginal one," our two liturgists are uttering an enormous untruth: -they would be well advised to check the results of the international surveys Paix Liturgique has been commissioning since 2009. These demonstrate that at least one in three practicing Catholics in Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Great Britain wishes to be able to attend the extraordinary form of the Roman rite in his own parish; -they would do well to consider that the SSPX is established all over the world, as are the Ecclesia Dei institutes, from Argentina to Poland through the United States and Australia etc.; -they ought to abandon their narrow vision and discover that, from Paraguay to the Philippines, pastors are basing themselves on the Motu Proprio to restore the liturgy, particularly Holy Mass as the Holy Father wishes, to that privileged moment of an encounter with God, the source and summit of the life of the Church (Sacramentum Caritatis). No: the Motu Proprio is not a Franco-French issue. To imply such a thing is to be willfully ignorant of the Motu Proprio as "universal law for the Church," as the Universae Ecclesiae instruction states explicitly in article 2. Coming as it does from liturgy professors, such an assertion denotes either crass ignorance or a bad faith bred by a profound disdain for the pope's will and wisdom. 5) We have tirelessly been repeating in our letters that our Holy Father's Motu Proprio is a work of peacemaking. In doing so we are not falling prey to any ad hoc papolatry, nor are we being fooled into irenicism. We are well aware, for having long lived it and still experiencing it, that arriving at religious peace, i.e. at truth acknowledged in peace, necessitates an occasionally combative "virtus." The progressive development of the aims of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which the Universae Ecclesiae instruction has so to speak set in stone, works for the good of the Christian people's faith: it restores to their rightful place some of the aspects of the rule of prayer that had been obscured. Msgr Pozzo, secretary of the Ecclesiae Dei commission, has recently explained that the older rite better brings out the mystery, the sacrality, and the sacrificial essence of the Mass. The aim in view--the recovery of this truth--is intrinsically peaceful. And the way Benedict XVI has been going about it--by establishing a serene coexistence of both forms at the parish level through the greatest dissemination of the older form and by retraditionalizing the new form in incremental brushstrokes--is eminently peaceful. Joris Geldhof and Arnaud Join-Lambert are among the last representatives of those Churchmen who have taken upon themselves to engage in a veritable liturgical war. For our part, when it comes to the liturgical peace heralded by Summorum Pontificum, we are its committed partisans. (1) Jean Madiran, French Catholic journalist and founder of the journal Itinéraires (1956-1996), is one of the major figures of European resistance to post-conciliar deviations, particularly in liturgy and the abandonment of the Catechism for children. (2) « L’offensive et la menace des liturgistes professeurs », Présent, 16 septembre 2011. |
Si vous souhaitez recevoir la lettre de Paix Liturgique en français, cliquez ici
Si Usted desea recibir el correo de Paix Liturgique en espanol, haga clic aquí
Se desiderate ricevere la lettera di Paix Liturgique in italiano, cliccate qui
Se deseja receber a carta de Paix Liturgique em Português, clique aqui
Jeżeli chcą Państwo otrzymywać biuletyn Paix Liturgique po polsku Proszę kliknąć tutaj
Um den Brief von Paix Liturgique in deutscher Sprache zu erhalten, klicken Sie hierTo stop receiving our letter, click here.
To confirm your subscription, click here.