The Liturgical Movement - is it controversial?

[Bluegoat]

I am curious about a discussion I have NOT seen in this forum. I wasn’t sure if it should go here, in Non-Catholic religion, or Traditional Catholicism for the most answers, but this seemed the closest fit topically.

Among Anglicans, which is where I have most of my experience, the new liturgies written under the influence of the Liturgical Movement came out in the 70s and early 80s. They have a lot on common with the RC liturgies written under the same influence, as one would expect.

Now, among Anglicans, the movement was very controversial, and a good sized minority saw it as a departure from the way liturgy had been handled traditionally, and as well, felt that the Liturgical Movement had a whole new understanding of the role and authority of Scripture and the nature of Tradition. (Supporters claimed this was not so and the new liturgies implied no change in understanding - but history perhaps suggests otherwise.)

And more than that, although those liturgies are still popular, many aspects of the LM seem to have been based on suspect or premature scholarship, and the whole thing seems to be going out of style. A scholarly fad.

Now, among educated Anglicans into liturgics, these are fairly common discussion points. And given that the liturgies were based on the same pool of scholarship, and liturgical scholars do a lot of inter-denominational work, I would have expected similar discussions among Catholics.

But although the newer liturgies seem controversial, and many seem happy to have the TLM becoming more available, I don’t see much of this kind of discussion. Indeed, it seems to be assumed by many that the newer liturgies are actually just a continuation of the older understanding.

Is there some reason this is not an issue for Catholics? Is the assumption that Rome could not fall into a fad? That doesn’t seem to be the case given the heated discussions of the NO Mass I have seen.

 

[StatCrux]

Now, among Anglicans, the movement was very controversial, and a good sized minority saw it as a departure from the way liturgy had been handled traditionally, and as well, felt that the Liturgical Movement had a whole new understanding of the role and authority of Scripture and the nature of Tradition. (Supporters claimed this was not so and the new liturgies implied no change in understanding - but history perhaps suggests otherwise.)

This argument was made when the Novus Ordo (the newer form) was promulgated, and sadly many left the Church as result. Also groups like the SSPX broke away from full communion with the Catholic Church not only because of the drastic changes in the liturgy but also perceived theological consequences of the Second Vatican Council.

Many (although not all) of the concerns brought up by traditionalists are against the “spirit of Vatican II” and not its letter or orthodox interpretation. The spirit of Vatican II mentality has also led to painful liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict has wisely been confronting the matter on both ends- seeking an orthodox hermeneutic of continuity between the pre-Vatican II church and the post. It is after all the same Church. He also is seeking the more reverent celebration of the liturgy. By expanding access of the TLM, the Pope desires mutual enrichment of both old and new forms.

But although the newer liturgies seem controversial, and many seem happy to have the TLM becoming more available, I don’t see much of this kind of discussion. Indeed, it seems to be assumed by many that the newer liturgies are actually just a continuation of the older understanding.

Hardline traditionalists have said there has been a departure. Many liberals have also tried to argue that Vatican II was a rupture from the “Old Church” and we are part of “New Church” in a new age of understanding. Again, the Pope and orthodox thinkers have been challenging this widespread belief (actually permutation of a very old heresy, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore). The Church of today is indeed a continuation of the Church of yesterday.

Is there some reason this is not an issue for Catholics? Is the assumption that Rome could not fall into a fad? That doesn’t seem to be the case given the heated discussions of the NO Mass I have seen.

Many people (again the spirit of VII’ers) are furious that there is expanded access to the TLM. Catholics firmly believe “lex orandi, lex credendi” that is, the way we pray expresses something about what we believe. You change one and the other will change too, and *both *sides of the argument realize this.

The TLM stands in stark contrast to the guitar strumming, happy-clappy method of celebrating the Mass as many Catholic have been accustomed to for the past thirty odd years. The elements of mystery, reverence, sacrifice, and a God-centered liturgy are becoming more present in the NO Mass.

Can Rome fall into a fad? Of course. Can it fall into heresy or can the gates of Hell prevail against it? Certainly not. For example, take a look at some of the ridiculous vestments this Pope or the previous was made to wear and tell me those aren’t very short lived fads. Thankfully the current Holy Father put an end to that silliness and we see him wearing more dignified things.

I think the real meaty question is whether or not the current Missal is in need of *significant *alteration to better reflect a continuation of understanding from the older missals. Regardless of the answer, the Church has learned hastily hoisting large amounts of liturgical change is imprudent and dangerous. Whatever changes will be made (and they will be, it’s just a matter of time) they will be careful, deliberate, and precisely executed.

This generation may live to see some big changes to the Roman Missal. It is unlikely they will be as violently drastic as the previous changes (Deo gratias!) but they will undoubtedly be for the better.

 

[japhy]

the movement was very controversial, and a good sized minority saw it as a departure from the way liturgy had been handled traditionally, and as well, felt that the Liturgical Movement had a whole new understanding of the role and authority of Scripture and the nature of Tradition … many aspects of the LM seem to have been based on suspect or premature scholarship, and the whole thing seems to be going out of style. A scholarly fad.

There has been much conversation about the manner in which the reformed Rite of the Mass was produced. Liturgical scholars such as (links go to books of theirs that I’ve read) Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and even Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope) have written about it in less-than-glowing terms.

For example, Msgr. Gamber said that the Roman Rite was substantially changed to the point that the reformed Roman Rite was a new Rite, not the same Rite. Dom Reid’s book on the organic development of the liturgy stops (wisely, as Card. Ratzinger said in the foreword) before Vatican II’s reforms, but he does cover the Holy Week reforms that took place after 1948; he identifies times in the Church’s history when the liturgy was developed gradually and organically, and times when the changes to the liturgy were forced and mechanical (and did not last). And Ratzinger made a lengthy statement which shocked me when I first read it; here’s an excerpt, but you can read the whole thing here.
It was reasonable and right of the [Second Vatican] Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. … A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy … This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.
Ratzinger has said, in two other places, that the rites promulgated after Vatican II (which does not mean they were promulgated by Vatican II) are “banal” and “fabricated”:
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)

What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Preface to French edition of Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Rite)
What is needed is a liturgical movement which does two things: 1) reads Vatican II in light of the liturgical tradition of the Church, one of organic development rather than redesign-by-committee, and 2) emphasizes liturgical catechesis as a necessary precursor to any liturgical reform.

I should make clear my own position: whatever happened after Vatican II, the Church approved the liturgy we have today, which makes it legitimate and valid. I’ve only been to a handful of Masses in the Extraordinary Form – the “TLM” – and I rarely get to attend a Mass in the Ordinary Form (the “Novus Ordo”) that is celebrated in a way that is really evocative of the Church’s traditional liturgical heritage (with Latin, chant, etc.). I’d like to think I’m a member of this “new liturgical movement” that Ratzinger wrote of. I support the new English translation of the Mass (as my signature attests to), but I long for the day when the two “forms” of the Roman Rite are reunited into one form which faithfully applies the Vatican II liturgical reforms and retains unity and identity with the traditional liturgy. (Long-winded, I know.)

 

[Bluegoat]

Aha, ok, so there was indeed a similar controversy. Is it still something people talk about, or has it died down? I guess most people are likely not interested in the details, so it doesn’t come up even in general conversation about liturgics.

However, I do have a follow-up question. It seems clear to me that the Catholic Church has not fundamentally changed its understanding about the role of tradition and scripture. However, I do think the Liturgical Movement takes a fundamentally different view. I also think this accounts for the present splits in the Anglican Communion. And I tend to think that though many supporters are simply unaware, to some extent this was a deliberate change of emphasis, though not touted as such.

So, what I am wondering is if the RC hierarchy would simply disagree that the LM represented a change of understanding in scripture and tradition; if they perhaps failed to see it at the time but see it now; or perhaps if there were actually elements who deliberately embraced that change of understanding, either openly or covertly?

 

[StatCrux]

Aha, ok, so there was indeed a similar controversy. Is it still something people talk about, or has it died down? I guess most people are likely not interested in the details, so it doesn’t come up even in general conversation about liturgics.

Well I think because of the Holy Father’s emphasis on liturgical renewal the conversation about authentic, organic development of the liturgy is being brought to the forefront again. Most Catholics are not involved (for many reasons) in the theological/liturgical controversies. Except for a slight adjustment period immediately following a change, most Catholics would be largely indifferent to changes in the Mass.

However, I do have a follow-up question. It seems clear to me that the Catholic Church has not fundamentally changed its understanding about the role of tradition and scripture. However, I do think the Liturgical Movement takes a fundamentally different view. I also think this accounts for the present splits in the Anglican Communion. And I tend to think that though many supporters are simply unaware, to some extent this was a deliberate change of emphasis, though not touted as such.

So, what I am wondering is if the RC hierarchy would simply disagree that the LM represented a change of understanding in scripture and tradition; if they perhaps failed to see it at the time but see it now; or perhaps if there were actually elements who deliberately embraced that change of understanding, either openly or covertly?

I think the hierarchy, the present Pope included, would agree that many sought to change understandings of scripture and tradition through liturgical changes. Those people included the original formulators of the NO and those who celebrated it after its promulgation. While individuals held erroneous ideas about scripture and tradition the Church never did.

As a former Anglican, I see this as the critical difference. Both clergy and laity of the RCC and the AC fell into error but the difference lies in authority. No one speaks for the Anglican Church definitively. As a consequence, no fundamental difference can be resolved without mutual agreement. A problem arises when sides cannot agree on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, or female clergy (problems that boil down to scripture and tradition). These irreconcilable differences lead to confusion: “do I listen to Bishop A or Bishop B?”. In contrast, the Magisterium and the Pope speak authoritatively for the Church and when there is a matter of grave importance, the Church can authoritatively define her position. Currently much work is being done to refute the errors promoted by many individuals over the past several decades in favor of the Church’s timeless teachings.

 

[japhy]

Aha, ok, so there was indeed a similar controversy. Is it still something people talk about, or has it died down? I guess most people are likely not interested in the details, so it doesn’t come up even in general conversation about liturgics.

Well, since Pope Benedict liberated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the so-called “Tridentine” or “Traditional Latin Mass”), and since he lifted the excommunications on the Bishops of the SSPX, and since he celebrated Mass ad orientem a few times, and since he now only distributes Communion on the tongue to kneeling communicants… well, some people have started taking notice again.

Too many people who haven’t read the Vatican II document on the liturgy think (wrongly) that the Pope is trying to undo Vatican II or bring back pre-Vatican II traditions. Instead, the Pope is trying to get Vatican II implemented properly and restore traditions that were never actually abrogated. The average American Catholic doesn’t know that Communion in the hand is a post-Vatican II indult which was a response to disobedience; they think Vatican II changed the rules about Communion. The list goes on and on.

the Catholic Church has not fundamentally changed its understanding about the role of tradition and scripture. However, I do think the Liturgical Movement takes a fundamentally different view.

There is no such thing as “the Liturgical Movement”, since the movement has been so splintered and distracted. There are many liturgical movements, some which uphold the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium… and some which don’t.

I really recommend Dom Alcuin Reid’s book for a good history of “the liturgical movement” over the past couple of centuries. (His book starts in the first millennium, but the details are more abundant the closer you get to the present day.)

if the RC hierarchy would simply disagree that the LM represented a change of understanding in scripture and tradition; if they perhaps failed to see it at the time but see it now; or perhaps if there were actually elements who deliberately embraced that change of understanding, either openly or covertly?

There are those who argue that a non-traditional “strain” of the liturgical movement “came to power” in the Catholic Church during the 1940’s (the name Annibale Bugnini is usually mentioned) and that it led to the post-Vatican II liturgical reform. This “strain” favored antiquarianism (“it’s good because it’s old, even if it was abandoned”) and viewed organic development primarily as unnecessary accretions to a pristine original. As such, it enacted its reforms based on certain (sometimes suspect) scholarship and committee decisions, and it acquiesced to the spirit of the times. ("[L]iturgical services [should] manifest a noble simplicity more attuned to the spirit of the times…" Inter Oecumenici 36)

Here’s my generalization. After Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was promulgated, there was a Consilium established to implement it. From 1964 on, there are two “threads” of Magisterial documents on the liturgy, one in the direction of the Council (favoring continuity with tradition), and the other in the direction of the Consilium (which at times failed to meet the prescriptions of Vatican II, and at other times exceeded their own mission). We are now in a period where the documents are overwhelmingly in favor of continuity with tradition.

I don’t know how well that answers your question.

 

[Joannm]

There are those who argue that a non-traditional “strain” of the liturgical movement “came to power” in the Catholic Church during the 1940’s (the name Annibale Bugnini is usually mentioned) and that it led to the post-Vatican II liturgical reform. This “strain” favored antiquarianism (“it’s good because it’s old, even if it was abandoned”) and viewed organic development primarily as unnecessary accretions to a pristine original. As such, it enacted its reforms based on certain (sometimes suspect) scholarship and committee decisions, and it acquiesced to the spirit of the times. ("[L]iturgical services [should] manifest a noble simplicity more attuned to the spirit of the times…" Inter Oecumenici 36)

Here’s my generalization. After Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was promulgated, there was a Consilium established to implement it. From 1964 on, there are two “threads” of Magisterial documents on the liturgy, one in the direction of the Council (favoring continuity with tradition), and the other in the direction of the Consilium (which at times failed to meet the prescriptions of Vatican II, and at other times exceeded their own mission). We are now in a period where the documents are overwhelmingly in favor of continuity with tradition.

I don’t know how well that answers your question.

The Liturgical Movement can actually trace its beginnings to the nineteenth century with Benedictine monks in Solesmes in France, Beuron and Maria Laach in Germany and Maredsous and Mount Cesar in Belgium. One of the first masses with full participation of the assembly and in the venacular was in 1925 at Maria Laach, but it was called for earlier, in 1903 by Dom Lambert Beauduin. It was the writings and experimentations by these monks and others that led to the liturgical renewal at Vatican II. The Liturgical renewal in the United States after the 1920’s especially at St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville with Monks like Virgil Michel, Hans Reinhold and the Chicago priest Reynold Hillenbrand. So the liturgical movement did develop slowly, some say it even can be traced back to the seveenth century. The call for venacular in the liturgy was brought up at Trent but it was decided that it was not the time to discuss it given all that was going on with the Protestant reformation.

 

[organist15]

I Have A Question i am a teenager and play the Organ for Maas and they are talking about changing the mass. Like Example how we sing holy holy holy lord god of power and might, They want to change it to holy holy holy lord god of hosts. We use beautiful mass settings. Do we still sing them or are they not used again? Could someone answer my queston.

 

[Bluegoat]

I Have A Question i am a teenager and play the Organ for Maas and they are talking about changing the mass. Like Example how we sing holy holy holy lord god of power and might, They want to change it to holy holy holy lord god of hosts. We use beautiful mass settings. Do we still sing them or are they not used again? Could someone answer my queston.

In general, if the words fit the music you could substitute where there is a change in the translation - that should probably work in the example you have given. Or you could look for other music for masses written in English. Or you could always sing it in Latin, lots of nice mass settings for that.

But it is hard to say without knowing what kind of things you use, if it is a choir or the congregation doing the singing, etc.

You will likely get some direction on this when the change happens.

 

[StatCrux]

I Have A Question i am a teenager and play the Organ for Maas and they are talking about changing the mass. Like Example how we sing holy holy holy lord god of power and might, They want to change it to holy holy holy lord god of hosts. We use beautiful mass settings. Do we still sing them or are they not used again? Could someone answer my queston.

The changes that are being made to Mass reflect a more accurate translation of the Latin original texts. The changes are no secret and are published on the USCCB website so that new Mass settings can be prepared. Go to usccb.org/romanmissal/ and see the changes for yourself. While the changes offer a deeper, more fully Catholic meaning and are a blessing for the entire English speaking Church, the Mass settings will only need minimal changes to accommodate the new translation (e.g. the Sanctus).

Lets not derail the thread.