From The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God:
Hindsight reveals that the source of the
problem of the Consilium’s
fabrication of the liturgy in disregard for the organic, living process of
growth and development over centuries, was certain ambiguous passages in Sacrosanctum Concilium. These passages were included at the instigation
of the periti in order that they
might later be given a neomodernist interpretation by the Consilium when implementing the general principles of the document.
In this, the Council Fathers were at the mercy of the periti, and could hardly
have foreseen this deception. So it was that the Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy was rendered dead on arrival following its passage, and did not serve
as a foundation for the authentic liturgical reform John XXIII intended.
In 1959, Pope
John XXIII saw a true need for liturgical renewal within the Roman Rite in
accordance with the metaphorical principle of organic development, the aim of
the Liturgical Movement endorsed by Pope St. Pius X. In authentic organic development, the Church
listens to what liturgical scholars deem necessary for the gradual improvement
of liturgical tradition, and evaluate the need for such development, always
with a careful eye on the preservation of the received liturgical tradition
handed down from century to century. In this way, continuity of belief and
liturgical practice is ensured. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote at the time, the
principle of organic development ensures that in the Mass, “only respect for
the Liturgy’s fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us
what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture, but
receive as a gift. Organic development was the symbol employed by the key
figures in both the Liturgical Movement and hence in Sancrosanctum Concilium:
That sound tradition may
be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made
into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should
be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the
structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the
experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded
to various places. Finally, 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.
Thus as the
Council convened in the fall of 1962, Pope John XXIII had it in mind not to
reform the Roman Missal but to restore it, and articulate general norms for making
the liturgy “better suited to signifying the mystery it celebrates.” The Holy
Father was aware of the intimate connection between the liturgy and dogma, so
intimate that reform of the liturgy could be salutary only to the extent that
such reform would effect a deepening of dogma and a greater sanctification of
the faithful. As peritus Fr.
Ratzinger observed, the question of liturgical reform was pressing only for the
Council Fathers from France and Germany, the two countries that in 1962 enjoyed
theological leadership in the modern liturgical movement. Along with Belgium
and the Netherlands, these countries pushed through the schema in spite of the less-than pressing need for liturgical
reform at the Council.
Ominously, in
1960, Fr. Anibale Bugnini, professor of liturgy at the Lateran University, was
given the position of Secretary to the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy. In
this position, he proved to be the prime mover behind the drafting of the schema to be considered by the Council
Fathers, the very first of the schemata
to be discussed. The document proposed a more active participation by the faithful
in the liturgical actions, and in this, exposed its bias in favor of the
pastoral concerns of the liturgical movement at the expense of contemplative
participation consistent with genuine organic development. In its final form Sancrosanctum Concilium’s “participatio actuosa,” is more
accurately translated actual (and not
active) participation. To be clear — it is most certainly not the case, as is
often said, that Vatican II introduced active participation into the liturgy. The
best source for what the Fathers meant by participatio
actuosa is Pope John Paul II:
Since the Liturgy is the exercise of the
priesthood of Christ, it is necessary to keep ever alive the affirmation of the
disciple faced with the mysterious presence of the Lord: “It is the Lord!” (Jn
21:7). Nothing of what we do in the Liturgy can appear more important than what
in an unseen but real manner Christ accomplishes by the power of his Spirit. A
faith alive in charity, adoration, praise of the Father and silent
contemplation will always be the prime objective of liturgical and pastoral
care.
In the Constitution
on the Sacred Liturgy, there was no question of new constructions or
modifications of the Mass — only guidelines toward making it more effective in
signifying the mystery it celebrates. The text of Sacrosantum Concilium was approved by the Council in December, 1962,
and gave special emphasis to the “pastoral” aspect of the liturgy, reassuring
the more traditional among the Fathers:
Lastly, in faithful
obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church
Here is reflected
the Fathers’ belief that in the face of the modern world, new liturgical
guidelines were necessary to more effectively proclaim the truth of the
Christian message. The Fathers were no doubt also reassured by Article Twenty-three’s
assertion that prior to any proposed revision of the rites, a sound
“theological, historical, and pastoral” investigation should be made, with “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.” Thus one would expect that after approval of the Constitution on the Sacred
Liturgy, no major changes in the Mass would be forthcoming, but this was not to
be. In retrospect, it seems difficult to comprehend just how the Church could
remain true to “sound tradition,” to organic, authentic liturgical development
while simultaneously revising the rites “to meet the circumstances and needs of
modern times.”
For one interested in recent thinking on the status of liturgical reform the best source is the New Liturgical Movement.
Comments
Post a Comment