|
There is a considerable amount of talk about a
reform of the reform in the Roman Catholic Church under the
pontificate of Benedict XVI. We see many parallels between the
initial thoughts and motivations behind this "new liturgical
movement" and the Victorian Anglican ritualist movement.
I recently posted a suggested rite for Mass on
this site, and deleted it when I found that some people thought
I was using it for the actual celebration of Mass, and thus
behaving like the progressives. Though my conjecture was based
on objective principles and genuine sources, it was considered
as yet another DIY eucharist. Perhaps they are right, because
I do not have any authority in liturgical matters. All I can
do is to offer the fruits of my own studies, and our Bishops
are free to make use of them or disregard them as they see fit.
Indeed, we Anglicans are on a knife edge, and all we can do
at present is to use something like the authorised Anglican
Missal (containing the Collects, Epistles and Gospels from
the Prayer Book) or the old Roman rite when celebrating without
a congregation. We can alternatively use the Book of Divine
Worship, though it is generally not in use in our Church.
The most widespread usage in the Traditional Anglican Communion
is the Anglican Missal and the 1928 American Prayer Book. The
English Missal is also widespread.
One notion against which we have had to fight
is that of archaeologism - the only way to have a good, pure
and pristine rite is to go against the whole history of the
Church and the organic development of the liturgy and revive
some ancient and long-disused liturgical rite. We have had,
on the other hand, to admit that the liturgy would have become
grossly misformed had the Pope and Bishops never intervened
and pruned back the un-traditional apocryphal accretions.
The notion of recovering simplicity and sobriety
in the liturgy is nothing new. The Council of Trent called for
the codification of the Roman Rite and a return to what would
amount to 11th century norms. Vatican II ordered a return to
the ancient Roman Mass in recommending that elements... which
have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to
be restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers, and
these reformed rites were to be distinguished by a noble
simplicity, short, clear and free from useless repetitions.
To what extent were the medieval additions to be removed? Which
period of the Church's history would be a reference for the
"pristine" liturgy? It would seem that Cardinal Sirleto's
commission in the 16th century had access to the old Roman sacramentaries
and ordines. The reference was obviously to the fully
developed Roman rite at its best, even though it contained the
Gallican elements absorbed in about the 9th century.
This question of "reference" in the
Roman Catholic Church is a matter of simplifying a "medieval"
rite, and, in the Anglican tradition where the question is inversed,
restoring Catholic elements to an excessively mutilated
and reformed liturgy. It is for this reason that constant principles
need to be found and formulated in order to guide those who
will be responsible for liturgical reform and restoration. We
find that liturgical reform requires a reference point
and sound principles.
The temptation to archaeologism remains very strong,
even though the fruits of it in the Anglican and post-conciliar
Roman Catholic liturgies are clear for all to see. Also, "inculturation"
though it is needed in the Church, can become perverted and
made a tool for de-sacralising the liturgy. Both of these tendencies
destroy or compromise the notion of organic development in the
liturgy. One problem remains in this discussion, since we are
no longer at the time of the Reformation or the reforms of Paul
VI. The old liturgical tradition is no longer a "driving
force" in the contemporary Church, and the "Tridentine"
liturgy is as archaic and irrelavant to the majority of Roman
Catholics as the old Use of Sarum to Anglicans!
As in Victorian Anglicanism, the task of the Roman
Catholic Church is to recover and restore the liturgical tradition
insofar as it can be assimilated by the faithful. As I have
mentioned elsewhere, there are many positive points in the modern
Roman rite like the wealth of prefaces, the expanded Lectionary
and the Prayers of the Faithful. At the same time, the Ordo
Missae has been impoverished and "intellectualised".
This is why I am more favourable to a reform of the reform,
as happened in the Victorian Anglican ritualist movement, than
to the simple restoration of the rite that is used only by a
restricted and closed traditionalist Catholic sub-culture.
Certainly, the "Tridentine" liturgy
should be freely allowed to all priests and laity who ask
for it, but in a general context of partially reversing
the post-Tridentine reform of Pius IV and Pius V. What is
needed is diversity rather than the uniformity as inspired
by the scholastic and rational spirit of the Counter-Reformation.
Having studied the Tridentine reform in some depth, I found
that the tendency was to freeze development as a way
to defend Catholicism from Protestant influence. The liturgical
life of the Roman Catholic Church between 1570 and 1965 (despite
the minor modifications, notably by Urban VIII) was, in a
way, in an unnatural situation. On the other hand, the old
Roman rite, like the Sarum Use in 16th century England, was
a mature rite - and had come to the term of its
development.
In the absolute, it would seem that
the Roman Catholic Church, in the Latin rite, would do well
to return to the "Tridentine rite" in a definitive
version, and that Anglican Catholics should adopt the same
rite or the old Use of Sarum. However, our pastoral
sense brings us to realise that such a measure would alienate
the majority of the Church's faithful. Should we continue
to reform according to rationalist principles of archaeologism
and pastoral inculturations? It would seem that a third consideration
enters the fray: pragmatism. What will work?
At this pragmatic level, given the rupture
in the liturgical tradition, it is a matter of repairing
a situation that is no longer ideal, fitting a round peg
into a square hole as Tyrell would have put it. Lay people
tend to think about the liturgy in terms of reverence, intelligibility
and familiarity. The most significant step to restore reverence
will be the eastward position. To maintain intelligibility,
it would be good to maintain the possibility of the vernacular
but in improved translations. For familiarity, the rites need
to be "repaired" gradually and progressively. Some
of the innovations in the modern Roman Catholic and Anglican
liturgies have proved meaningless at best and hypocritical
at worst. I think of the Offertory procession and the Kiss
(handshake) of Peace in particular. As for the notion of unction
in the liturgy, I would not agree with those who would return
to the "giddy piety" of 19th century neo-gothic
churches, darkened stained glass windows and hundreds of votive
candles, and appreciate the light and open baroque churches
of Bavaria and Austria. I have greatly appreciated Masses
celebrated on the old eastward-facing altar, but in a light
and clear church, where the altar is not very far from the
faithful, and where there the atmosphere is not lugubrious
but joyful and frank. In this way, I appreciate the approach
of the late 18th century in Josephist Austria.
Likewise, the liturgy needs to be emphasised
over the plethora of devotions still found in Latin countries
and traditionalist Roman Catholic communities. The Jansenists
went too far in their attack against popular religion and
piety, and a more healthy balance is found in Anglican Catholicism,
where our Anglo-Saxon temperament eschews exhibitions of excessive
piety whilst keeping a tender interior life. 18th century
England went to the other extreme, and the Erastian secularisation
of the Anglican Church was nearly complete. The modern liturgy
facing the people in a stark, functional and whitewashed church,
as often found in Germany, is the final result of the long
Jansenist movement for rationalising the liturgy. Intellectually,
all seems ideal, but it has proved a pastoral failure.
The history of the Church since the 16th
century has been marked by this tension between continuing
the medieval tradition and attempting to recover the spirit
and practice of the ancient Church of about the 3rd or 4th
century. Louis Bouyer castigated the liturgical outlook of
the medieval, baroque and romantic periods in his La Piété
liturgique, written in 1956. We will find that organic
development, the liturgical counterpart of Newman’s theory
of the development of doctrine, is a capital notion of setting
a principle for dealing with the liturgy. Many contemporary
scholars refuse this notion, as, ironically, is the case of
most traditionalists. Joseph Jungmann affirmed that the primary
aim of Pius V’s revision, as expressed in the bull Quo
Primum of 1570, was to restore the primitive Roman rite
by removing medieval accretions and restore the pristina
sanctorum Patrum norma [the ancient norm and rite of the
holy Fathers]. Judging by the severity of Cardinal Sirleto's
work, I would not dispute that this was indeed the intention
of the post-Tridentine liturgical commission and Pius V.
Having studied something of the history of
the Roman liturgy, I would conjecture that this rite was at
its best and most mature in the 12th and 13th centuries before
popular religion began to influence and corrupt it. A number
of rites have been preserved in the Catholic tradition, notably
the particular rites of some of the religious Orders. The
Dominican Rite is virtually the Lyons Rite of the 13th century.
It is much simpler and more sober than the later medieval
Roman rite, but it is a traditional and venerable rite. The
Carthusian rite is even starker with its pre-medieval offertory
(the host and chalice are offered without any spoken prayer)
and the only spoken prayers are the In spiritu humilitatis
and the Oratio super Oblata.
It is little known that the original missal
of 1570 had a very severly simplified sanctoral calendar,
and it was only after the Urban VIII revision in the early
17th century that the sanctoral started again to fill out
to such an extent that the Temporal Cycle was being increasingly
eclipsed.
Since the 19th century, the tendency has
been to modify the liturgy according to theological tendencies
and rationalism. Pius XII’s reversal in the encyclical Mediator
Dei of the historical principle legem credendi lex
statuat supplicandi, i.e. "let the rule of prayer establish
the rule of belief", is disturbing:
"Indeed if we wanted to state quite
clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the
faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that
the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer’.
This innovation became one of the principles
determining the 1960's liturgical reforms. A rigorously conservative
attitude concerning liturgical reform is also the constant
teaching of the Eastern Churches. The Orthodox theologian
George Florovsky made a point when he said "Christianity
is a liturgical religion. The Church is first of all a worshipping
community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second".
The present liturgical chaos in the Western Church is largely
due to the emphasis that Latin Christians have always placed
on dogma, with the consequent tendency of considering the
liturgical texts as a mere source of theology rather than
simply the life of the Church. If we go to the extreme of
emphasising the rational, we reject the living liturgical
tradition in favour of Biblical and Patristic texts only.
We can thus understand the Orthodox (Khomiakov) jibe that
Protestantism was hatched from the egg that Rome had laid.
It will shock some of the Roman Catholic traditionalists,
but the liturgical reform of Paul VI began under Pius XII,
and, after all, Msgr Bugnini was working in Rome in the Congregation
of Rites from 1948!
So far, I have given a summary analysis of
the background of the 1960's reforms, particularly the reversal
of the famous maxim of Prosper of Aquitaine concerning the
relationship between prayer and doctrine. The tendency is
to modify the rites according to theological tendencies, historical
discoveries and "relevance to modernity (rationalism)".
In the absolute, liturgy is best left alone,
and when cancerous growths begin to attack it, the cancer
has to be cut away whilst leaving the healthy tissue intact.
In the actual situation, the Roman liturgical tradition has
only been partially preserved, in a sub-culture of traditionalists
that is still marginalised by the Church hierarchy. I clearly
see the point of "mainstreaming" the old Roman liturgy
in order for it to become a reference for a liturgical
reform that would be more faithful to what the Vatican II
fathers envisaged in about 1963. I would like to see other
"references" like the old diocesan and religious
uses, such as the Dominican Rite and French customs that persisted
until very recently. Indeed, the customs of the dioceses of
Evreux, Rouen, Bayeux and the neighbouring areas are still
within living memory - and were almost identical to Sarum!
I see the liturgical question compared to
that of pipe organ building. In the 1960's, a number of English
cathedral organs were rebuilt. Their characteristics as romantic
instruments, designed for accompanying the Anglican liturgy,
were destroyed. Their pipes were revoiced to imitate the effect
of baroque German and Dutch organs. They were great for playing
Bach and Buxtehude, but they jarred the ear when the Psalms
and Canticles of Evensong were to be accompanied. In the 1980's
and 90's, historic organs were restored and preserved in an
extremely purist attitude. For example, the Cliquot organ
of Poitiers Cathedral was restored to exactly as it was when
it was first built in the late 18th century. The result is
that a modern organist has incredible difficulty playing on
the archaic pedalboard, so Bach cannot be played. Only a narrow
repertoire of French baroque music can be played on this organ,
and the role of this instrument in church becomes questionable.
The most sensible approach when restoring an old organ is
to increase its possibilities for playing different types
of music by adding more types of pipes and sounds, and above
all, provide the kind of keyboards and pedalboard that can
be played by an organist of our time. Now, let us apply this
notion to the liturgy.
If we destroy and innovate, we will alienate
the faithful and destroy the spiritual life of the Church.
If we adopt the purist principle, then we can come up with
an academic reconstruction of a 2nd century liturgy, but it
will be as dead as a doornail. The obvious principle for the
liturgy is keep the old and add to it what is good and
useful. We can imagine how this could apply to the Roman
liturgy: add what is good and beautiful and uplifting in the
Paul VI liturgy to the old rite. Make it possible to celebrate
the old liturgy in the vernacular. Now, perhaps a little simplication
is needed - why not refer to the Dominican rite.
What were our Anglican ritualists doing at
the end of the 19th century? They had to use the Prayer Book,
but they added to it what had been taken away by Cranmer's
reforms. Sometimes, the Roman rite was the reference, as in
the English and Anglican Missals. Some Anglican clergy and
religious communities referred to the old Sarum tradition.
Such a liturgy is "ecletic", but it causes fewer
problems than replacing the old with something new or a purist
restoration and academic reconstruction. The Anglican Use
approved by John Paul II in 1980 is a step forward, because
it is distinctively Anglican. Now, imagine if our Anglican
rite was not "filled out" by the modern Roman rite,
but by - for example - the Use of Sarum, we would rediscover
our liturgical roots and our communion with and in the Catholic
Church.
It is difficult to speculate on the principles
Benedict XVI will adopt for the reform of the reform,
other than those given in Sacrosanctum
Concilium of Vatican II. This reform, when it arrives,
should inspire us Anglicans to tidy up our present liturgical
untidiness. As Anglicans, we have not to adopt the rites of
the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church. We need to reform
our own reform. Much of this work has already been done for
us by the Victorian ritualists, and we would do well to study
their writings, particularly those of Percy Dearmer. Since
those days, and even since the days of Vatican II and Jungmann,
historical scholarship has advanced. We are more aware today
that many errors can be committed. Cranmer thought that the
Gregorian Canon was a product of medieval scholasticism! Bugnini
thought that Mass was said facing the people in the early
Church, and this thesis has been refuted by Msgr Klaus Gamber
and other scholars.
Regardless, the modern Roman rite promulgated
by Paul VI has to an extent become a tradition for
most Catholics, like the Prayer Book in Anglicanism. For most,
it is impossible simply to return to the old liturgy as if
there had never been a new or reformed liturgy. This fact
has to be taken into account. The Anglican ritualist movement
worked around six points: one of which was the orientation
of the altar. If the immediate task is a "repair"
to the liturgical reform, then this task will revolve around
the:
-
restoration
of the eastward-facing altar,
-
the
use of Latin or better vernacular translations,
- the restoration of standards for worthy church music - organs,
choirs and congregational singing,
-
the
use of traditional Gothic or Roman vestments instead of
many of the garments presently used in churches,
-
restoration
of parts of the Mass like the offertory based on medieval
sources,
- restoration of Septuagesima and the Ember Days,
- the gradual re-introduction of traditional rites (the plural
is emphasised),
- above all, an adequate liturgical training for the clergy.
Some of these ideas seem to be on the Pope's agenda, but the "reform
of the reform" movement has as yet little coherence and sense
of purpose. Changes to the status quo take forever, as everything
goes though a heavy bureaucratic system, as is seen with the new
English translation to replace the awful ICEL texts, which is still
unpublished. There is not only the question of putting some elements
of the liturgy back to what they were before the reform, otherwise
it would simply be a question of substituting the old rite universally
- which will not work.
The new liturgy has undoubtedly produced good effects where it
has been implemented with a Catholic spirit. The most important
element is the vernacular language, which has been desired
in the Latin Church since the middle-ages and used in some countries
from that period. The new liturgy has underlined the Paschal
Mystery which was weaker in the old rite and almost non-existing
in scholastic theology. The modern liturgy has combatted rubricism,
though the reaction went to the other extreme. There needs to be
a middle ground between following the rite, obeying the instructions,
and being a little more relaxed than a soldier or a robot.
The Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgical reforms, separated by
four centuries, shed light on each other. In the Roman Catholic
Church, the principles given by Sacrosanctum Concilium are
sound, but they were never properly implemented and their meaning
was twisted by men with an agenda. On the other hand, the Anglican
reform was excessively radical and also based more on ideology than
detached scholarship. Again, we need to look at what was sought
by the Reformers despite their lack of historical knowledge. Victorian
ritualism went a long way towards rediscovering an authentic Anglican
liturgy, and many of its inspirations and methods could well guide
a future Roman Catholic reform of the reform.
The real issue is the spirit of the liturgy rather than
this or that precise rite. We need to get away from the categories
of Protestant and Catholic, progressive and conservative, in order
that we may be allowed to pray and listen to the Lord's voice. Liturgy
is not about abolishing the priesthood or limiting the participation
of the laity, but requires us to recapture the mystical and heavenly
dimension. The liturgy is a road to freedom, freeing man from his
enslavement of his selfishness, opening us to the infinite. Future
liturgical reform must begin with this spiritual principle
before going into the mechanics of the rites and surrounding human
culture. Another important point in the Roman Catholic Church is
to escape from the present polarisation between "conciliars"
and "traditionalists" and refind its unity without rigid
uniformity. This is another area where the legacy of Anglican comprehensiveness
can help...
Again, comparing the liturgy with a historical pipe organ, when
we begin to fiddle, meddle and tamper, we are never satisfied. There
is a limit to what can be done to the liturgy, especially by individual
priests. The Roman Church has reserved liturgical questions to the
Holy See since the 16th century, where before each Diocese had its
own Use, and the regulating authority was the Bishop and the Cathedral
Chapter. As an Anglican, I favour Anglican and Gallican ecclesiology
rather than post-Tridentine ultramontanism. But, if our bishops
and their bodies of advisors are to take responsibility in liturgical
matters, then they need the fruits of solid liturgical scholarship.
The Traditional Anglican Communion would do well to have a single
Anglican Catholic rite. The question now is to have the help of
real liturgical scholars and spiritual men who have an internal
understanding of the Mystery.
| |