Michael Davies on liturgical reform: Part II

On December 6th, we posted a notice (Michael Davies on liturgical reform) that we had published Part I of a two-part article by Michael Davies on "True and False Liturgical Reform" over at the Scripture and Catholic Tradition blog. Part II is now available online as well -- about which I will have a few comments in a moment. First of all, here's where they can be found:

• True and False Liturgical Reform: Part I
  
  
• True and False Liturgical Reform: Part II

Part I of Davies' article, as we noted in the earlier post, reviews the history of the Mass from antiquity up through the Protestant revolution and the reform of St. Pius V. Davies traces the development of the Mass through the first four centuries to the end of Roman persecution in the Constantinian period, with particular attention to the subsequent Gregorian reforms and the Gregorian Sacramentary. The balance of this this first installment is devoted primarily to a fairly detailed summary of the radical changes effected by Protestantism, as well as to the political strategies by which these were often introduced among the laity, and the parallels to the post-Vatican II changes introduced Bugnini and his succession of liturgical experts is notable.

Part II is devoted to reviewing the evidence establishing the continuity of the Roman liturgy preceding Vatican II with the Roman Mass of antiquity, the perfection of this Mass, and the minor nature of the reforms from the Gregorian Reform up until the Bugnini Mass of 1969. The balance of this second installment is spent on illustrating the revolutionary nature of the Bugnini 'reform', and examining the question of the canonical and moral right of the faithful to the traditional rite. Here he spends some time reviewing the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas placing the onus against the sovereign who wishes to introduce changes in civil or ecclesiastical law that do not clearly conform to the demands of reason or appear to have an effect that is both good and to the benefit to those for whom it is intended. Quoting the Decretals, Thomas writes: "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old"; and he adds that the very fact of changing a law, even for the better, "is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom even in slight matters is looked upon as grave." (ST, II, I, Q. 97, art. 2) Davies notes that this principle was echoed in Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II, which commanded that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them" (Article 23). The conclusion he draws may be summed up thus: "law must never be changed unless it is certain that the common good will find in the modification at least adequate compensation for the harm done by way of derogating a custom." Points to ponder.

• To comment on Davies' article, please go to the comment box following the full article on the Scripture and Catholic Tradition blog. The comment box below is reserved for those who have not read, or do not wish to read, Davies' article.