The Organic Development Of The Liturgy

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]The Organic Development of the Liturgy[/i] by Dom Alcuin Reid OSB. This book is currently available through Ignatius Press.

I had the joy of reading this text several months ago and I recommend it most highly to anyone who is interested in the liturgical reform.

Here is a review of the book by Pope Benedict to give a summary impression of what the book is about.


In the last few decades, the matter of the right way to celebrate the Liturgy has increasingly become one of the points around which much of the controversy has centered concerning the Second Vatican Council, about how it should be evaluated, and about its reception in the life of the Church. There are the relentless supporters of reform, for whom the fact that, under certain conditions, the celebration of the Eucharist in accordance with the most recent edition of the Missal before the Council -- that of 1962 -- has once more been permitted represents an intolerable fall from grace. At the same time, of course, the Liturgy is regarded as "semper reformanda," so that in the end it is whatever "congregation" is involved which makes "its" Liturgy, in which it expresses itself. A Protestant "Liturgical Compendium" (edited by C. Grethlein -- Ruddat, 2003) recently presented worship as a "project for reform" (pages 13-41), and thereby was also expressing the way many Catholic liturgists think about it. And then on the other hand there are the embittered critics of liturgical reform -- not only critical of its application in practice, but equally of its basis in the Council. They can see salvation only in total rejection of the reform. Between these two groups, the radical reformers and their radical opponents, the voices of those people who regard the Liturgy as something living, and thus as growing and renewing itself both in its reception and in its finished form, are often lost. These latter, however, basing this on the same argument, insist that growth is not possible unless the Liturgy's identity is preserved, and further emphasize that proper development is only possible if careful attention is paid to the inner structural logic of this "organism:" Just as a gardener cares for a living plant as it develops, with due attention to the power of growth and life within the plant, and the rules it obeys, so the Church ought to give reverent care to the Liturgy through the ages, distinguishing actions that are helpful and healing from those that are violent and destructive.

If that is how things are, then we must try to ascertain the inner structure of a rite, and the rules by which its life is governed, in order thus to find the right way to preserve its vital force in changing times, to strengthen and renew it. Dom Alcuin Reid's book takes its place in this current of thought. Running through the history of the Roman Rite (Mass and Breviary), from its beginnings up to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, it seeks to establish the principles of liturgical development, and thus to draw from history -- from its ups and downs -- the standards on which every reform must be based. The book is divided into three parts. The first, very brief part investigates the history of the reform of the Roman Rite from its beginnings up to the end of the nineteenth century. Part two is devoted to the Liturgical Movement up to 1948. By far the longest part -- the third -- deals with liturgical reform under Pius XII, up to the eve of the Second Vatican Council. This part is most useful, because to a great extent people no longer remember that particular phase of liturgical reform, yet in that period -- as, of course, also in the history of the Liturgical Movement -- we see reflected all the questions concerning the right way to go about reform, so that we can also draw out from all this criteria on which to base our judgments. The author has made a wise decision, in stopping on the threshold of the Second Vatican Council. He thus avoids entering into the controversy associated with the interpretation and the reception of the Council, and can nonetheless show its place in history, and show us the interplay of various tendencies, on which questions as to the standards for reform must be based.

At the end of his book, the author enumerates some principles for proper reform: this should keep being open to development, and continuity with the Tradition, in a proper balance; it includes awareness of an objective liturgical tradition, and therefore takes care to ensure a substantial continuity. The author then agrees with the Catechism of the Catholic Church in emphasizing that "even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy" (CCC No. 1125, p. 258). As subsidiary criteria we then encounter the legitimacy of local traditions and the concern for pastoral effectiveness.

From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis the handing-on of tradition.

It is important, in this connection, to interpret the "substantial continuity" correctly. The author expressly warns us against the wrong path up which we might be led by a neo-scholastic sacramental theology which is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the "substance" to the matter and form of the sacrament, and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament; the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary, everything else is changeable. At this point Modernists and Traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction. They want to overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly 'pastoral,' around this remnant, this core which has been spared, and which is thus either relegated to the realm of magic, or loses any meaning whatever. The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.

I should like just briefly to comment on two more perceptions which appear in Dom Alcuin Reid's book. Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism -- which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism -- are both equally wrong. These two might be described as unholy twins. The first generation of liturgists were for the most part historians. Thus they were inclined to archaeological enthusiasm: They were trying to unearth the oldest form in its original purity; they regarded the liturgical books in current use, with the rites they offered, as the expression of the rampant proliferation through history of secondary growths which were the product of misunderstandings and of ignorance of the past. People were trying to reconstruct the oldest Roman Liturgy, and to cleanse it of all later additions. A great deal of this was right, and yet liturgical reform is something different from archaeological excavation, and not all the developments of a living thing have to be logical in accordance with a rationalistic or historical standard. This is also the reason why -- as the author quite rightly remarks -- the experts ought not to be allowed to have the last word in liturgical reform. Experts and pastors each have their own part to play (just as, in politics, specialists and decision-makers represent two different planes). The knowledge of the scholars is important, yet it cannot be directly transmuted into the decisions of the pastors, for pastors still have their own responsibilities in listening to the faithful, in accompanying with understanding those who perform the things that help us to celebrate the sacrament with faith today, and the things that do not. It was one of the weaknesses of the first phase of reform after the Council that to a great extent the specialists were listened to almost exclusively. A greater independence on the part of the pastors would have been desirable.
Because it is often all too obvious that historical knowledge cannot be elevated straight into the status of a new liturgical norm, this archaeological enthusiasm was very easily combined with pastoral pragmatism: People first of all decided to eliminate everything that was not recognized as original, and was thus not part of the "substance", and then supplemented the "archaeological remains," if these still seemed insufficient, in accordance with "pastoral insights." But what is "pastoral"? The judgments made about these questions by intellectual professors were often influenced by their rationalist presuppositions, and not infrequently missed the point of what really supports the life of the faithful. Thus it is that nowadays, after the Liturgy was extensively rationalized during the early phase of reform, people are eagerly seeking after forms of solemnity, looking for "mystical" atmosphere and for something of the sacred. Yet because -- necessarily, and more and more clearly -- people's judgments as to what is pastorally effective are widely divergent, the "pastoral" aspect has become the point at which "creativity" breaks in, destroying the unity of the Liturgy and very often confronting us with something deplorably banal. That is not to deny that the Eucharistic Liturgy, and likewise the liturgy of the Word, is often celebrated reverently and "beautifully" in the best sense, on the basis of people's faith. Yet since we are looking for the criteria of reform, we do also have to mention the dangers, which unfortunately in the last few decades have by no means remained just the imaginings of those traditionalists opposed to reform.

I should like to come back to the way that worship was presented, in a liturgical compendium, as a "project for reform," and thus as a workshop in which people are always busy at something. Different again, and yet related to this, is the suggestion by some Catholic liturgists that we should finally adapt the liturgical reform to the "anthropological turn" of modern times, and construct it in an anthropocentric style. If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age. As against this, the Liturgy should be setting up a sign of God's presence. Yet what is happening, if the habit of forgetting about God makes itself at home in the Liturgy itself, and if in the Liturgy we are only thinking of ourselves? In any and every liturgical reform, and every liturgical celebration, the primacy of God should be kept in view first and foremost.
With this I have gone beyond Dom Alcuin's book. But I think it has become clear that this book, which offers a wealth of material, teaches us some criteria and invites us to further reflection. That is why I can recommend this book.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
26th July 2004

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is a review of the book from the perspective of a notable traditionalist (the late Michael Davies):


[quote]Once again Dom Alcuin Reid has put every Catholic who loves tradition greatly in his debt. This is his sixth book relating to the liturgy of the Roman rite – the most important of its predecessors being his revision of Fr Fortescue’s The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described and Looking again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger – his edition of the papers delivered at the 2001 Fontgombault liturgical conference. Both have been reviewed in Mass of Ages, and while the former is primarily of interest to priests and masters of ceremonies, the second should definitely be in the library of every Catholic, clerical or lay, who loves the Mass so rightly described by fr Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.”
Dom Alcuin’s latest work, certainly his magnum opus, is entitled The Organic Development of the Liturgy. It places him among the foremost liturgical authorities in the English-speaking world; indeed, I would go further and state that it makes him the foremost liturgical authority.
Having had the misfortune to waste a great deal of my time reading the mediocre works of selfstyled
liturgists from the USA, Australia, and New Zealand (I have not come across any, even
mediocre, from Britain or Ireland) this is not such a great compliment as it might appear!
The thesis of the book is summed up perfectly in its final sentence, quoting the Protestant
scholar Owen Chadwick: “Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of centuries.” This
was most certainly not the case with the reform that followed the Second Vatican Council. By no
possible stretch of the imagination can it be described as the fruit of organic development;
instead, as Cardinal Ratzinger expressed it:
In the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We
abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries,
and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-thespot
product.
Does Rome’s recent document on the correction of abuses in the new rite,
Redemptionis Sacramentum, represent the beginning of the reconnection of that rite to
Tradition? Michael Davies reviewing Dom Alcuin Reid’s important new book shows
what a chasm was opened up by the fabrications of the Mass of Paul VI.
The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Dom Alcuin Reid OSB, hb, St Michael’s
Abbey Press, £20.95.
Dom Alcuin does not examine the post-Vatican reform in any detail, but documents the
development of the Roman liturgy up to the eve of the Council. He summarises the development
of the Roman rite in the first millennium as follows:
The Roman rite, the ritual of the local church at Rome and of most of the Western
Churches in communion with her, may broadly be said to have undergone a gradual
development throughout the first Christian millennium, being enriched by the
introduction of some customs and suffering the loss of others, over time. The central
role of the Church of Rome in the Christian West meant that particular attention was
given by other local Churches to its liturgical forms. The early Carolingian
monarchs showed it particular reverence. Franciscan mendicants of the thirteenth
century would spread the Roman missale throughout the West. The post-
Reformation papacy would impose it on all Western Catholics where no venerable
local rite existed.
In a detailed examination of the history of the Roman rite until 1545, Dom Alcuin notes that
while there is evidence of development there is little evidence of major liturgical reform. He
states correctly that the appearance of printed missals in the fifteenth century accelerated the
spread of the Roman rite. The first printed edition of the Roman Missal was published in Milan
in 1474, and was identical in every important respect to that of St Pius V in 1570, thus giving the
lie to those self-styled contemporary liturgists who protest that if it was legitimate for St Pius to
compile a new rite of Mass in 1570, why should Pope Paul VI not have done so in 1970? The
reform of St Pius V, enacted in obedience to the Council of Trent, was to a large extent a
reaction to the new liturgies concocted by the various Protestant heresies. Dom Alcuin writes:
Protestant reformers not only rejected what they perceived to be abuses in the
Church, they rejected the medieval liturgy. The Protestant Reformation has been
described as “essentially an anti-liturgical revolution.” Its typical desire was for a
“service” newly “made out of the scriptures and other authentic doctors.” Protestant
rites thus “broke away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution.” The legitimacy
of the organic development of the Liturgy throughout history was rejected, freeing
the reformers to construct heteroprax liturgies according to their heterodox
ideologies.
“The reform enacted by the Tridentine commission,” writes Dom Alcuin, “is of singular
importance.” He examines it in great detail and concludes:
The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure
doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new.
It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing presss –
published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without
prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen
were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the
mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another
growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial
change.
Edmund Bishop is then quoted to the effect that with the Missal and breviary of St Pius V, “the
history of the Roman Liturgy may be said to be closed.”
After this initial discussion, Dom Alcuin devotes most of his book to an examination of the
history of the Liturgical movement up to the eve of Vatican II. He begins, of course, with the
motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini of St Pius X, promulgated on 22 November 1903. In 1905
Sacra Tridentina Synodus declared that frequent and daily communion should be open to all the
faithful, and Quam Singular of 1910 allowed children from the age of reason (approximately
seven) to receive Holy Communion. In 1911 Divine afflatus promulgated a reform of the
breviary and calendar which radically rearranged the ancient arrangement of the Roman psalter,
and has been criticised rightly by many of the most orthodox liturgists as a disaster. In respect of
the abolition of the Laudate psalms, Anton Baumstark is scathing in his critique:
Down to the year 1911 there was nothing in the Christian Liturgy of such absolute
universality as this practice in the morning office, and no doubt its universality was
inherited from the worship of the Synagogue...Hence to the reformers of the
Psalterium Romanum belongs the distintion of having brought to an end the
universal observance of a liturgical practice which was followed, one can say, by
the Divine Redeemer Himself during His life upon earth.
This disastrous reform, which most certainly did not respect the fundamental principles of
organic development, provides a salutary warning sixty years before Paul VI promulgated his
Missal, that approval of a liturgical reform by a pope by no means guarantees its conformity to
tradition. Dom Alcuin writes:
That a pope could discard ancient liturgical Tradition by sole virtue of his authority
is found nowhere in liturgical history before St Pius X. Lamentably, in a period
where the prevalent ultramontanism led to the assumption that even prudential
judgements of popes were unquestionably correct, St Pius X contravened that part
of the principle of liturgical reform that obliges even popes to respect objective
liturgical Tradition and to develop it organically.
The detailed history of the Liturgical Movement provided in this book is unequalled in any other
publication that I know. The scope of the author’s research is made clear in his footnotes and
bibliography. He gives particular attention to Dom Lambert Beauduin, and makes it clear than in
the initial years of the movement neither Dom Lambert nor the other members envisaged a
radical reform of the Roman rite, but sought to help the faithful to participate in, and derive the
full benefit of the riches found in, the existing liturgy. The contributions of all the principal
members of the movement are examined, and the approval of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII noted,
but the latter was to warn against deviations from the principles of the founders of the
movement, and made this clear in 1947 in his encyclical Mediator Dei. These deviations were
recognised by some members of the movement. As early as 1951, Fr Louis Bouyer warned:
One must never become too caught up in eclectic and hasty constructions, showing
contempt (often simply through ignorance) for the traditional heritage of the
Church, and throwing oneself uncritically and without discernment upon whatever
appeals to the fashion of the day.
Could there be a more accurate description of the reform (better termed a revolution) enacted in
the name of Vatican II?
In a remarkable example of historical research Dom Alcuin examines all the liturgical
conferences prior to Vatican II, beginning with the celebrated Maria Lach Conference of 1951.
This conference can be considered as the actual source of the post-Vatican II revolution, the
principles it expounded growing more radical with each succeeding conference. He points out
the centrality of Annibale Bugnini to the movement throughout the 1950s. He “was to become
and remain the key figure in liturgical reform until 1975.” Dom Alcuin’s verdict on Bugnini’s
proposals is that they would constitute “a break with tradition...going well beyond the organic
development of the liturgy.”
Astonishing as it may seem, in view of the clear and frequently reiterated plans for reform
enunciated by the more radical members of the Liturgical Movement in their publications and
conferences, Dom Alcuin tells us that “it is fair to say that on the eve of the Council neither John
XXIII, the dicasteries of the Holy See, the Pian Commission, the world-wide episcopate nor the
publishers of liturgical books envisaged that a root and branch liturgical reform was imminent.”
Cardinal Heenan would remark that neither Pope John nor the Fathers of the Council realised
what the liturgical experts were planning.
Dom Alcuin’s conclusion is as follows:
Our review of liturgical reform in history leads us to the conclusion that, while
liturgical history bears witness to the development of many rites, and at times to
their reform, it is clear that Catholic Liturgy is by no means a subjective expression
of the faith that can be altered at will according to contemporary fashions or desires.
Rather Catholic Liturgy is a singularly privileged and an objective and constituent
element of Christian Tradition. The liturgical rites and formulas themselves share in
this objectivity. Their faithful transmission ensures continuity and orthodoxy of
belief and practice. Their development – which is at times both necessary and
desirable – can only be legitimate by ensuring substantial continuity with received
Tradition.
The Organic Development of the Liturgy is a book which should be owned by every priest,
seminarian and Catholic layman who is devoted to the liturgical treasury of the Roman rite.[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

I may need to check this out. I don't have any problems with true organic development in liturgical practice, but I suppose it could have some answers to other questions.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

I had the honor of being able to confer with Dom Alcuin privately while in Norcia, Italy 2 years ago. Wonderful man and I had to buy that book after talking with him.

-Kevin Symonds

[genxcathedra]

Nice book report by the Pope. I think he will have a great legacy. That, however, depends on what he would DO about abuses of the liturgy. What would he DO about abusers of the liturgy--keep them in like other popes and bishops have unless they do something newsworthy like ordain women or set up their own traditional bishops? Abusers and those superiors who are playing politics won't care about the Pope's book. Corrupt clerics, not to jusge their souls, need to be stripped of their jurisdiction. Popes before John 23rd could do it. Pope John Paul 2nd appointed some good bishops. Pope Benedict should have leverage, if what Fr. Gruner said was true about communistic advisers keeping the last Pope from acting, to do some interdicting and excommunicating of corrupt clerics. He is the Commander in Chief or Prime Minister of the Church.

The traditionalist author (I want to say Malachi Martin, but that's not it) in the second post, despite writing lots of negative materials about the N.O. Mass, did write a book called, "I Am With You Always", that refuted, I believe, the kind of actions Archbishop Lefebvre, and other schismatic clerics like him, made.

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='Nov 16 2007, 07:39 PM' post='1420556']
I had the honor of being able to confer with Dom Alcuin privately while in Norcia, Italy 2 years ago. Wonderful man and I had to buy that book after talking with him.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1419994' date='Nov 15 2007, 08:03 PM']I may need to check this out. I don't have any problems with true organic development in liturgical practice, but I suppose it could have some answers to other questions.[/quote]
Yeah, the book is very well documented and has tons of interesting information and ideas. Prior to reading the book I had been reading Klaus Gamber's available works in English and I must admit that I came away from these texts pretty upset. I won't say that Reid's book solved all my problems, but it did help me appreciate that the liturgical movement started out with correct motives and that not everyone involved in this movement was an iconoclast or really bad at all. The book is neither a defense of the liturgical reform nor a condemnation of it; it is rather a historical narrative that examines the key figures and events in the movement that was the basis of what we find in Sacrosanctum Concilium. There are a couple other books that I am aware of that attempt to do this but they tend to be shallow and biased. Reid's book is totally professional and without the bombastic ad hominem attitude that one may find in so many books of this sort (although I am aware of none that have the scope and density of Reid's book so I would tend to put the book in a class of its own). Reid comes across as a very peaceful and objective individual in the book which is something I cannot say for many authors who right on these subjects.
I read another historical book on the Roman rite immediately after Reid's book and it was a yawner by comparison. The book had almost exactly the same page count, but when I had finished it I felt as though it had about 25% of the information. So much of it was boring, drawn out assertions of personal "feelings" and amateurish conjectures on the subject. All I can say is that I appreciate Dom Alcuin Reid's work immensely! It is no mystery to me why he would get an introduction (in the second edition) by Pope Benedict himself.

Peace.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' post='1420556' date='Nov 16 2007, 07:39 PM']I had the honor of being able to confer with Dom Alcuin privately while in Norcia, Italy 2 years ago. Wonderful man and I had to buy that book after talking with him.

-Kevin Symonds[/quote]
Please do share! I was hoping to go to a liturgical conference a while back in which he was the keynote speaker but in the end I couldn't afford it. I would love to meet him.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1421112' date='Nov 17 2007, 01:09 PM']I can't say that the book solved all my problems, but it did help me appreciate that the liturgical movement started out with correct motives and that not everyone involved in this movement was an iconoclast or really bad at all.[/quote]
I'll see if I can get it then because this is one of the things that bothers me the most. I wouldn't say that all the people involved had evil intentions because I'm sure that's not he case. Just as I don't believe every catholic clergyman today has malicious intent in his belief or teachings. But there are a few names in that circle which I definitely still need to see something pretty concrete to convince me of their good intentions.