J
japhy
Guest
This is one paragraph (broken up for readability’s sake) from a response to a critique of his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, from , Vol. 11Antiphon (2007), pp. 99-100:
It is true that Paul VI approved the missal published in 1970 in forma specifica, and I hold to it with an inner conviction, even if I regret certain deficiencies and do not consider each of the decisions made the best possible. I should prefer, on this point, not to get into the question how far, in the preparation of the missal, the wishes of the pope were truly sought out and maintained in detail. That is a matter for future historians to resolve, once all the material is available.
Nicola Giampietro’s book on Cardinal Fernando Antonelli and the developments of the liturgical reform from 1948 to 1970 presents views that raise questions and provide considerable material for discussion about the liturgical reform before and after the Second Vatican Council. { Nicola Giampietro, Il Cardinale Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948-1970 (Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1998). } Why did the Pope withdraw his confidence from Bugnini in the end and remove him from the work on the liturgy? That must certainly still remain an open question. Questions like it naturally change nothing in the obligatory character of the missal, and I could wish, as I have said, that all liturgists should bring to this matter the seriousness it deserves. But that the impression should arise as a consequence that nothing in this missal must ever be changed, as if any reflection on possible later reforms were necessarily an attack on the Council – such an idea I can only call absurd.
It is true, we need to regain stability in the liturgy, but we also need to reflect on the means for correcting the deficiencies of the reform, deficiencies that are more obvious today. Why we should not call such a possible future investigation and development a “reform of the reform” is something I have still not figured out. For that matter, a cardinal of the Roman curia, since deceased, an emiment man, completely involved in the conciliar reform, told me personally that one day he had asked Bugnini about the longevity that he attributed to “his missal.” Bugnini answered that he estimated it at approximately twenty or thirty years. On this point, I am altogether decidedly in disagreement with Bugnini: a missal is not a book good for only 20 or 30 years; rather, it is situated in the great continuity of the history of the liturgy, in which there is always growth and purification, but not ruptures. To that extent, I am much more in favor of the stability of this missal than was he with whose name it is perhaps too much associated.
It is true that Paul VI approved the missal published in 1970 in forma specifica, and I hold to it with an inner conviction, even if I regret certain deficiencies and do not consider each of the decisions made the best possible. I should prefer, on this point, not to get into the question how far, in the preparation of the missal, the wishes of the pope were truly sought out and maintained in detail. That is a matter for future historians to resolve, once all the material is available.
Nicola Giampietro’s book on Cardinal Fernando Antonelli and the developments of the liturgical reform from 1948 to 1970 presents views that raise questions and provide considerable material for discussion about the liturgical reform before and after the Second Vatican Council. { Nicola Giampietro, Il Cardinale Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948-1970 (Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo, 1998). } Why did the Pope withdraw his confidence from Bugnini in the end and remove him from the work on the liturgy? That must certainly still remain an open question. Questions like it naturally change nothing in the obligatory character of the missal, and I could wish, as I have said, that all liturgists should bring to this matter the seriousness it deserves. But that the impression should arise as a consequence that nothing in this missal must ever be changed, as if any reflection on possible later reforms were necessarily an attack on the Council – such an idea I can only call absurd.
It is true, we need to regain stability in the liturgy, but we also need to reflect on the means for correcting the deficiencies of the reform, deficiencies that are more obvious today. Why we should not call such a possible future investigation and development a “reform of the reform” is something I have still not figured out. For that matter, a cardinal of the Roman curia, since deceased, an emiment man, completely involved in the conciliar reform, told me personally that one day he had asked Bugnini about the longevity that he attributed to “his missal.” Bugnini answered that he estimated it at approximately twenty or thirty years. On this point, I am altogether decidedly in disagreement with Bugnini: a missal is not a book good for only 20 or 30 years; rather, it is situated in the great continuity of the history of the liturgy, in which there is always growth and purification, but not ruptures. To that extent, I am much more in favor of the stability of this missal than was he with whose name it is perhaps too much associated.
