Interview regarding the 50th Anniversary of the Concilium

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Interview regarding the 50th Anniversary of the Concilium Dec 3, 2019 14:22:02 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 14:22:02 GMT

The following interview is from a Novus Ordo website that addresses the liturgical changes implemented in the wake of of Vatican II, obviously with laudatory praise for those changes. But from the traditional Catholic perspective, it sheds some light on the inner workings of the commissions charged with making those pernicious changes and for that reason, it is shared here. For completeness sake, both parts of the interview are included but it is the second part that is of most interest to us.

***

The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 1)

New Liturgical Movement | February 07, 2014

Having marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Sacrosanctum Concilium, we recently (on January 25th) passed the 50th anniversary of the committee established by Pope Paul VI to implement it, the “Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium.” NLM [New Liturgical Movement website] recently asked Dom Alcuin Reid, whose scholarship on the liturgical reform needs no introduction, about the formation of the Consilium, its activities, and the results of what it produced. His replies include previously unpublished material from his research. [...]

NLM: Dom Alcuin, you have written and talked a great deal about the pre-Conciliar Liturgical Movement, and Sacrosanctum Concilium as the consummation of its ideals. Can you describe what the Council Fathers envisioned would be the result of the Constitution?

Dom Alcuin: The Council desired that all of Christ’s faithful would truly and fruitfully connect with the action of Christ in the Sacred Liturgy through full, conscious and active participation in its rites and prayers. This connectivity is what was called for by St Pius X, drawing on what Dom Guèranger and others had called for in the nineteenth century and before, and is what the twentieth century liturgical movement promoted widely.

Liturgical participation includes physical participation in the rites, being able to comprehend them, respond, sing and so on. But these external activities are means to an end and are not ends in themselves. The Council was not calling for liturgical activism, but rather for that fruitful connectivity, so that that the Sacred Liturgy would truly become the source and summit of Christian life for all, and thus bring about true renewal of the Church and of the world.

The Council Fathers and Sacrosanctum Concilium itself did not regard the participation for which they were calling as substantially different from the participation called for by Pius X, or by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. There is a clear continuity, and certainly a developing one (as seen in some of the reforms of Pius XII), in the principles from Pius X to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

[With what audacity this priest attempts to link Pope St. Pius X, a great defender against Modernism, to the modernist 'doctrine' enshrined in Vatican II that birthed the horrific liturgical changes! Once again, we see this revisionism of history coming from those who wish to somehow portray Vatican II and its changes as being a continuation of the true Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this and spent his life persistently the opposite, that rather the "Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976) - The Catacombs]

At present some speak as if there is a “participation 1” and “participation 2”, where 1 = pre-conciliar and 2 = post-conciliar. That may reflect what came to pass after the Council as a result of how the reform was implemented, or it may reflect what some liturgists want to be the case, but what we need to be clear about—and indeed recover—is the Conciliar concept of participation. The Fathers of the Council who debated this in October and November of 1962, who approved the first chapter of the Constitution that December, and the Constitution as a whole in December 1963, were envisaging participation in the Roman rite as it was then, moderately reformed with more vernacular and various simplifications, etc. Speaking of the Holy Mass, article 48 lays down:

“The Church…earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.”

This is participation à-la-Concile. What is essential is participation that is conscious and understanding: i.e. internal. Certainly the Council expects the faithful to be able actively to “take part” (article 30 explains how), however the Council itself [the Council "itself" enabled various regulations that allowed for the implementation of the changes that eventually took place, see here, under 'Contradictions' - The Catacombs] does not call for or justify the complete vernacularisation of the rites, the relegation of any liturgical music in which the people cannot all immediately join in, the requirement that Mass only be celebrated versus populum, the introduction of a responsorial psalm after the first Scripture reading, of multiple Eucharistic prayers, etc., in order to facilitate this.

The historical fact is that these and many other components of “participation 2” are contingent elements imposed in the name of Vatican II or of post-conciliar liturgical ideologies, but are in fact not of the Council itself.[But the groundwork was laid for their implementation is found right in the documents of that Council and were rapidly implemented in the maelstrom of "reform" that followed. - The Catacombs]

NLM: So how did the Fathers envision that liturgical participation would be achieved?

Dom Alcuin: The Fathers of the Council foresaw that two things were necessary. Firstly, they saw the urgent need for a thorough immersion and formation of all, clergy and laity, in the spirit and power of the liturgy. This was and is the “hard work” of liturgical renewal that Sacrosanctum Concilium requires, and it has to be said that it has not been attended to as well as it needs to have been. Without laying solid foundations there is a risk of building on sand, or as the Constitution alludes at the end of article 14, without this formation hopes of realizing the Council’s liturgical vision would be “futile”.

The second thing the Council held as necessary was ritual reform. Continuing what had been begun in the pontificate of Pius XII, it called for a general liturgical reform (which had been envisaged from at least the 1940s). Specifically it authorized the increased use of the vernacular, the expansion of the lectionary, the reintroduction of Holy Communion under both species on particular occasions, the extended use of concelebration, ritual simplifications, the return of bidding prayers, etc. But we must be clear: the reason for the reform of the rites was to facilitate fruitful participation in the liturgy. The purpose of these ritual reforms—according to Sacrosanctum Concilium—is to facilitate true and fruitful connection with the action of Christ in the Sacred Liturgy. That is what is essential: not the presence or absence of bidding prayers or of some other particular ritual reform!

NLM: Is it fair to say that the document was approved in the belief that the ensuing reform of the liturgy would be a fairly mild one?

Dom Alcuin: Without doubt. Article 23’s insistence that “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” makes perfectly clear that the Fathers of Council did not have a revolution, or what some like to call an “epochal shift” to some ‘form’ of liturgy that is communal in essence in a way in which the preconciliar liturgy was not, in mind. As if the liturgy hitherto was not the community of the ecclesia at worship and could not serve perfectly well as such, moderately reformed so as to facilitate greater participation, in the future!

Those who assert this sort of thing are not sound historians of the Council or of the liturgy. This is fantasy proposing a revisionist history that seeks to justify interpretations read into Sacrosanctum Concilium after the Council, in spite of its carefully nuanced language and the clear intentions of the Fathers in aula.

Let one example suffice. Article 50 (on the reform of the order of Mass) was considered from 29th October 1962. Some Fathers saw this article as a licence for revolution and protested strongly. The opening intervention of Francis Cardinal Spellman and that of Cardinal Ottaviani on the following day are noteworthy for their critical content. Those of Archbishop Frederico Melendro SJ and Bishop George Dwyer on October 30th, as well as that of Bishop Alberto DeVoto on the 31st, called for clarification. Later the same morning Bishop Léon-Arthur Elchinger intervened:

“I propose that the entire text of this article be conserved but that it may be clarified by the publication of the complete [explanatory] declaratio prepared by the preparatory commission under this article. So to ‘calm the spirits’ of those that fear a complete revolution of the Order of Mass and the death of the Roman Rite, this declaratio does not propose for us a revolution but only an evolution—a pastoral evolution—something sound and prudent.”

In the next session, November 5th, Bishop Henri Jenny, intervened. A member of the liturgical preparatory and conciliar commissions on the liturgy (and later of the Consilium) he set forth the content of the declaratio. Before outlining the specific reforms, the assurance was given that: “Hodiernus Ordo Missae, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, certe retinendus est.” (“The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is certainly to be retained.”) The resonance of article 23’s principle—that sound tradition is to be retained whilst the way is to be open for legitimate progress—is clear.

When the text of chapter II as revised in the light of the Fathers’ interventions was presented in October 1963, a printed copy of this declaratio was given to each of the Fathers, again including the assurance “Hodiernus Ordo Missæ, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, retinendus est.” The text of article 50 had a second sentence added which included the statement that the “rites are now to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the Holy Fathers.”

If we ask what the Fathers understood and intended by this article in approving on chapter II of the Constitution, this history must be taken into account. Whilst the addition of the reference to “the vigour” had “in the days of the Holy Fathers” may have subtly opened a door through which much later passed, from the Conciliar debate and redaction of this article itself, it is not possible to assert that the Fathers of the Council intended anything beyond a moderate reform of the rite of the Mass as specified in the declaratio they were given before voting—along the lines of what appeared in the Ordo Missae jointly promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for Rites and the Consilium on 27 January 1965 with a decree mandating that it be adopted in new editions of the missal. The Consilium, however, regarded the 1965 Ordo as merely provisional.

[Emphasis mine.]

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Interview regarding the 50th Anniversary of the Concilium Dec 3, 2019 15:46:18 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2019 15:46:18 GMT

The 'Consilium ad Exsequendam' at 50 - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid (Part 2)

New Liturgical Movement | February 12, 2014

We continue our interview with Dom Alcuin Reid, occasioned by the 50th anniversary of the committee established on January 25th, 1964 by Pope Paul VI to implement the liturgical reform, the “Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium.” His replies include previously unpublished material from his research.

NLM: You mentioned the Consilium – the body charged with implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI established this on January 25th of 1964; who were its members, how were they chosen, what had they done beforehand?

Dom Alcuin: In January 1964 Paul VI personally chose Fr Annibale Bugnini to be the Secretary—a political move which reversed Bugnini’s banishment from responsibility for liturgical reform by Blessed John XXIII in 1962, in favour of Fr Ferdinando Antonelli—together with Cardinals Lercaro (Bologna), Giobbe (Curia) and Larraona (Prefect of the Congregation of Rites). This nucleus proposed the names of members and consultors to Paul VI who acted on their advice.

NLM: Were there any persons who, in your opinion, should or should not have been included on the committee? If so, why?

Dom Alcuin: Eleven pages of an appendix to Archbishop Bugnini’s memoirs, The Reform of the Liturgy (Liturgical Press), lists the personnel. Many of these had been involved in the commission for liturgical reform of Pius XII, the preparatory liturgical commission or the conciliar liturgical commission. Names such as Jungmann, Gy, Botte, Martimort, Righetti, feature rightly enough amongst the consultors. Interestingly Louis Bouyer was only included in 1966. Antonelli was one of the members; Bishop Jenny also. And there were bishop members from around the world who were regarded as having shown interest in the liturgy at the Council.

At a distance of 50 years I hesitate to suggest who should or should not have been included. Two of Antonelli’s contemporary observations, however, are illustrative:

“[The Consilium] is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak” (N. Giampietro, The Development of the Liturgical Reform, Roman Catholic Books, pp. 166-167).

“That which is sad...however, is a fundamental datum, a mutual attitude, a pre-established position, namely, many of those who have influenced the reform...and others, have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore” (ibid. p. 192).

NLM: The basic work of the Consilium was achieved in about 6 years – the Novus Ordo Missae less than five years after its establishment, November 1969, and the Liturgy of the Hours soon after. Is it fair to say that the work was done hastily? Too hastily?

Dom Alcuin: Let’s return to the Ordo Missae of January 1965. It was possible for that to be published within a year of the Consilium’s establishment, and it is largely faithful to the Council’s stipulations for the ritual reform of the Mass. In due course an expanded lectionary, further prefaces, etc., could have been carefully prepared and published in due course as the post-Vatican II edition of the Roman Missal in accordance with the Council’s mandate.

But the Consilium were working on a completely new Ordo Missae, calendar, lectionary, etc., from 1964. As Antonelli said, they were not working from a desire to restore but from a wish to demolish and build anew. Hence the radical differences in the lectionary, calendar, order of Mass and other rites—something not intended by the Council but, alas, something enacted by enthusiastic reformers and promulgated by the authority of a pope.

The Consilium’s efforts encountered opposition, and Archbishop Bugnini is clear that they wanted to get the new rites out as quickly as possible—almost so as to ‘achieve’ a victory before it was too late. There is also the historical reality of the expectation of change and the devaluing of authority that was part of the 1960’s. This led to experimentation and abuse which was harmful, as Bugnini himself recounts, and meant that there was a real need to get the official rites out as soon as possible.

NLM: Was the work of the Consilium done with respect for the ideals of the Liturgical Movement and for the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Dom Alcuin: Fr Carlo Braga, a close collaborator of Bugnini, once wrote to me that the principles outlined in the 1948 document of the Pius XII reform commission were “amplified by another spirit” after the Council (“dopo il concilio”). In February 1964 Paul VI established the Consilium in order to “to apply” Sacrosanctum Concilium “according to the letter and spirit of the Council”. Its “letter” was quickly left behind, and its “spirit” became something other than that of the Council fathers: one of innovation rather than restoration.

Some currently attempt to justify this departure and subsequent innovation by regarding Vatican II as an “event” and by insisting that the “core values” and “theology” of this “event”—in other words its increasingly hard to define “spirit”—are the only legitimate bases for interpreting Conciliar documents, regardless of the provisions and theology of the documents themselves. Such a position is utterly revisionist and astonishingly a-historical. The Council Fathers never proposed this. It renders the principles and provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium null and void, and provides a carte blanche for liturgical innovation.

NLM: During and after the Council, there was a great deal of talk in the Church about “collegiality” between the Pope and the bishops. Sacrosanctum Concilium itself says in no. 25 that “(t)he liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.” Were the bishops consulted by the Consilium? If so, to what extent? Were the reforms carried out as an act of collegiality between the Pope and the world-wide episcopate?

Dom Alcuin: Certainly there were bishops from dioceses across the world on the Consilium. And some schemas were sent to Bishops Conferences before the 1967 Synod of Bishops. But it is simply not true to assert that “every suggested adaptation, change, or modification was sent out to every Catholic bishop in the world” and that “when changes were severely questioned or opposed by a large number of bishops, they were revised according to the will of the bishops and then sent back again.” (Robert Taft SJ, Interview, 4 Nov. 2009) Bugnini describes the relationship with the world’s bishops in chapter 14 of his memoirs—and it is a very different account from Father Taft’s. The Consilium had ongoing contact with the Episcopal conferences, certainly, but one only has to read Cardinal Heenan’s letters to see how a residential Archbishop regarded the reform as something imposed by ‘Rome’ regardless of local bishops’ views (cf. A Bitter Trial, Ignatius Press).

Msgr Martimort, the Relator (co-ordinator of the working group) for the reform of the Liturgy of the Hours, explained to me in an interview that after consultation with experts he presented two position papers to the Consilium plenary meeting, which decided on which to follow and on appropriate revisions. After this, Martimort complained vigorously, Bugnini ignored these decisions and himself proposed another course to Paul VI—which was the one adopted. This ‘Paul VI approves what Bugnini-wants’ is a significant factor in the postconciliar reform, a fact underlined also by details recounted in the memoirs of Louis Bouyer, still sadly unpublished.

So too in 1969, the by-then Archbishop Jenny wrote to Paul VI because he believed he had “a duty in conscience” to utter “a cry of alarm” about “the liturgy in general and the divine office in particular” because of influences outside of the Consilium and outside of its normal working methods. Co-operation within the Consilium itself was questionable!

NLM: Did the bishops express much satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the work of the Consilium? Were their opinions heeded?

Dom Alcuin: The 1967 Synod of Bishops is illustrative. The Synod was given an update on the progress of the reform. In addition, a Mass was celebrated demonstrating what the Consilium intended as the rite that would become “normative” for parishes. The Synod Fathers did not like it. Cardinal Heenan spoke strongly against it (cf. A Bitter Trial, pp. 102-4). Bugnini himself admits: “It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success,” and that “it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the [Synod’s] negative vote that followed”—“…in short, the changes in the Mass seemed too radical” (Reform of the Liturgy, p. 349-50). The Synod Father’s responses were not ultimately heeded, but dismissed—Bugnini says that they were “not representative” (p. 356).

NLM: In your opinion, what were the greatest successes and failures of the Consilium?

Dom Alcuin: I think that they are one and the same thing: the implementation of a radical liturgical reform that was the product of the wishes of certain of its members and consultors. This was a great political success, in spite of the Roman Curia and others, as Archbishop Piero Marini’s book A Challenging Reform (Liturgical Press) underlines. And it was a tragic failure faithfully to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium, as any careful reading of its text and as any study of such important sources as Bugnini’s and Antonelli’s memoirs reveals.

NLM: What implications does this have for our assessment of the liturgical reform today, and for the possibility of ‘reform of the reform’ in the future?

Dom Alcuin: As many have said before, we have not yet seen the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican Council. We glimpsed something of it in the 1965 Ordo Missae, but that was quickly left behind by the Consilium’s own products. Thus, out of fidelity to liturgical tradition, out of fidelity to the Council and as a matter of justice in respect of what was done in its name, we need seriously to address the question of a reform of the reform.

[Notice there is no mention of the canonization of the Tridentine Mass of Pope St. Pius V and that there is/was no need to "reform" it? The sentiment interwoven throughout this interview is simply a longing for a better version of a liturgy but still based (the errors of) Vatican II. There is an utter lack of understanding that the teachings of Vatican II contradict the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church for the last two thousand years. (cf. The Errors of Vatican II) - The Catacombs]

So too, we need as ever to invest in the work of sound liturgical formation so as to facilitate that participation desired by the Council, in order that the Sacred Liturgy—in whatever ritual form it is celebrated—may truly be the source and summit of Christian life and mission.

[Emphasis - mine.]

Last Edit: Dec 3, 2019 15:46:46 GMT by Admin