"Three Liturgical Movements"?

The latest issue of the Adoremus Bulletin (July-August 2005) carries a letter I wrote to the editor (p. 11, unavailable online), which reads as follows:

In response to Linda Smith's letter ("AB Should Be More Thoughtful," May 2005), alleging insufficient sensitivity to letters by traditionalists concerned with abuses in the Novus Ordo, you reaffirmed your commitment to liturgical authenticity, beauty, and reverence, extending your sympathy to "the vast majority of Catholics who ... have no alternative to often dismal" liturgies. "That is why," you added, "for nearly ten years, we have worked very hard for the authentic 'renewal of the Sacred Liturgy' according to the genuine intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council ...."

This raises several questions. There are three liturgical movements in Roman Catholicism today: (1) the Tridentine rite, which continues under an officially encouraged indult, (2) the reform of that rite called for by Vatican II, and (3) the Novus Ordo, which incorporates numerous innovations never envisioned by the Council, and which Pope Benedict has called a "rupture" with liturgical tradition. The Council never envisioned the elimination of Latin, Gregorian Chant, the Communion rail, or statues. It never imagined a free standing "Communion table," the reception of Communion in the hand while standing, the priest facing the people, the removal of the Tabernacle from the Altar, female "altar servers," lay Eucharistic ministers, or folk masses. Yet all these innovations have insinuated themselves into the now officially approved Novus Ordo liturgy. Further, numerous officially condemned abuses have become effectively institutionalized in the Novus Ordo through widespread acceptance, including the ROUTINE use of lay Eucharistic ministers, the eliminations of kneelers, standing during the Eucharistic prayer, liturgical dance, and much, much more.

This raises a question about the mission of Adoremus. If Adoremus is devoted to the renewal of the Sacred Liturgy "according to the genuine intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council," wouldn't you be committed primarily to #2 above? Yet over the last decade, you have been occupied almost exclusively with abuses within the Novus Ordo, which, even with its abuses eliminated, incorporates numerous innovations never mandated by the Council. Doesn't this suggest that Adoremus is more concerned with #3 than with #2? The only places in the world where I know of decided attempts to implement the Roman rite in accordance with the actual mandates of the Council (#2) have been the Brompton Oratory in London [pictured right] and Fr. Joseph Fessio's celebration of "The Mass of Vatican II" in Latin, facing God (not the "audience"). [The preceding sentence was omitted by the editor in the print edition.]

This brings me to two final questions: First, how can the Church expect her faithful to take seriously her calls for liturgical renewal when virtually nothing is being done to address what the Council itself mandated (#2)? Second, how can the Church deny her faithful, in the meantime, a much more generous application of the Tridentine indult (#1 above) -- a stable, well-established liturgy -- especially when #2 seems nearly a dead letter, and #3, far from being a settled liturgical rite, is an unendurable burlesque of ceaseless innovations, which Pope Benedict himself calls a "rupture" with what the Council itself envisioned?

Adoremus Bulletin Editor, Helen Hull Hitchcock, responds as follows:

You seem to suggest that working for authentic reform of the Sacred Liturgy would preclude working to correct liturgical abuses. We do no regard these as mutually exclusive efforts; indeed, we see them as inseparable. Clearly we do not agree that "virtually nothing is being done," nor that this is a "dead letter."

As we have said in our Mission Statement (see AB June 2005, p. 12): "Adoremus believes that the liturgical reform legitimately mandated by the Second Vatican Council cannot be furthered by a simple return to the pre-conciliar Liturgy; although Adoremus does not oppose those who make lawful use of the present discipline which permits celebration of the pre-conciliar Liturgy under certain conditions.

First, I agree with the editor that working for authentic reform does not preclude working to correct liturgical abuses. I don't think I really suggested otherwise. Second, I agree that the Council did mandate a reform of the Tridentine Liturgy, so that a simple return to that Liturgy would be to return to the status quo ante, rather than a fulfillment of that mandate. Third, I do think, however, that forty odd years of ceaseless innovation is not at all what the Council Fathers had in mind, and that we have ample testament to the disastrous results of this "Novus Ordo Missae" not only in the utter disillusionment of the Church's own top liturgical scholars like Fr. Louis Bouyer with the implementation of Annibale Bugnini's proposed "reforms" by the late 1960s, but also by the results we see around us virtually every time we assist at a Novus Ordo Mass. My concern is that we have drifted so far from the pre-conciliar Liturgy that few people any longer have much of an idea what was supposed to have been reformed. If for no other reason than providing this benchmark, I see the broad and generous implementation of the "Ecclesia Dei" provision mandated by Pope John Paul II as indispensable. Of course, there are volumes more that could be written about the Tridentine Mass from which we could spend our lifetimes learning, but so much for now.

For further reading:

• Joanna Bogle, "Brompton Oratory Has Lessons for Parishes" ("The Brompton Oratory, where the Novus Ordo is done as it should be done, attracts vast crowds. The cause of restoration calls for greatness of vision")
  
  
• Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., "The Mass of Vatican II" ("With regard to the Mass we have now two extremes and a moderate position. One extreme position is the kind of informal Mass, all in English, facing the people, with contemporary music, which does not at all correspond with what the Council had in mind. But it is legitimate, it is permitted; it is not wrong. And we have on the other extreme those who have returned, with permission, to the Mass of 1962 and, as others have noted, it is thriving and growing. But it is not what the Council itself specifically had in mind, although it is the Mass of the ages. Then you have the moderates.")
  
  
• Thomas M. Kocik, Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return (San Diego: Ignatius Press, 2003) -- an excellent little book.