Michael Davies Sums up the Case

Michael Davies sums up the case: Liturgical time bombs in Vatican II: the destruction of the Catholic faith through changes in Catholic worship.

In 1996, as part of my research into twentieth century liturgical reform, I wrote to all Fathers of the Second Vatican Council then still living—some five hundred or so bishops throughout the world—in the hope of recording their recollections of the conciliar debate on the Sacred Liturgy, and of obtaining their assessment of the liturgical reforms enacted in the name of the Council. To the second of my questions: "What are your recollections of the Conciliar debate on the Sacred Liturgy?" one missionary bishop (a holder of a doctorate in Philosophy) replied:

"Horrible. If we judge the debate on the Liturgy as we have it today. Very few bishops would be proud to say that they had a hand in it...In my opinion the debate on the Liturgy has been hijacked. The Council gave permission to 'experiment' not to 'finalise;' it was to reform, not to change completely."

The same prelate replied to the later and more specific question: "How faithful were the [postconciliar] Consilium [charged with the application of the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy] to the mandate given them by the Holy Father?" with a curt "Eh. Come off it! How many bishops do you think will answer the remaining questions?"

The liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council—and that encompasses the work of the Council, the Consilium and indeed of Pope Paul VI—is very much a live issue, even with some of the Fathers of the Council itself. Simply asking my questions prompted rather prickly responses from some prelates.

Michael Davies, for whom this issue has, in latter decades, become a cause, is a straight-shooter. His numerous works on the Council and on the various aspects of the liturgical reform that followed it are relentless in their exposition of the nature and causes for the liturgical dissolution that the Roman rite of the Catholic Church has experienced since 1964. The familiarity of the voice and of the message of any veteran campaigner can often deafen ears to its substance and to its import, and Davies’ efforts may well suffer somewhat from that. However, in 2003 even Pope John Paul II has formally acknowledged in Ecclesia de Eucharistia that "dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice" are present in the Church’s liturgical life and, at the time of writing, there is much talk abroad of reasserting longsince lost liturgical discipline.

It is, then, timely for Michael Davies to have written Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, for the “question” of the Liturgy is very much under consideration at the present. The fundamental message of the book is contained in its title: the Conciliar Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium contained elements that would later explode and wreak havoc; or, in the words of Father Aidan Nichols OP, Sacrosanctum Concilium "carried within it, encased in the innocuous language of pastoral welfare, some seeds of its own destruction."

In demonstrating how such a grave state of affairs could come to be, Davies looks, briefly—this book is a short essay and but whets the appetite for further study of the issues it raises—at the twentieth century Liturgical Movement. Rightly, Davies states that the Liturgical Movement sought "liturgical renewal within the Roman rite, but a renewal within the correct sense of the term, using the existing Liturgy to its fullest potential." And, following the recently published short study of the Liturgical Movement by Father Didier Boneterre, Davies correctly asserts that the ground for erroneous liturgical reform was laid by the didacticism of some later Liturgical Movement enthusiasts, and by the consequent reformism which they espoused, which had far too much in common with the Enlightenment liturgical reforms condemned by Pope Pius VI in 1794 and deprecated by Pope Pius XII in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei.

The enigmatic figure of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini looms large very early in the ascendancy of the Liturgical Movement reformists. Davies, of course, clashed personally with Bugnini over the question of the prelate’s alleged masonic affiliation, and here Davies’ presents clear arguments in support of his claim. I have to confess to always having wondered whether the question of who was or was not a mason amongst the curia—clearly in itself a gravely irregular and scandalous thing for any prelate to be—is not a distraction from the critical assessment of the liturgical reforms? Surely the reforms themselves, and indeed Bugnini’s published apologia, clearly enunciate the principles upon which the reforms were built, regardless of any corruption of the persons responsible? And surely a sound critique of those principles and of the ensuing reforms would neither gain nor lose from such sordid detail?

But Davies is right to point the finger at Bugnini, for he pushed for ritual reforms that served his view that a didactic and radically simplified Liturgy was what modern man required well before the Second Vatican Council. And, given Bugnini’s appointment as Secretary to the Council’s Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy, there is no doubt that he was ideally placed to see to the preference of his ideas. However, as Davies makes clear, Bugnini was not named Secretary of the Liturgical Commission during the Council itself, and was sacked from his Roman teaching post at the same time. Under the new Pope Paul VI, however, he was named Secretary of the postconciliar Consilium and resumed his interrupted work.

It is important to note that the Fathers of the Council did not draft the schema on the Sacred Liturgy which they were called upon to debate; this was done under Bugnini’s coordination, who for more than a decade prior to the Council had been pushing for a general reform of the Liturgy along the lines of his questionable principles. Thus, Davies asserts, some proposals, moderate enough when read with a traditional mindset, were inserted which were later to prove capable of exploitation in a most radical manner. It is also important to note that hardly any of the Council Fathers, for whom radical liturgical reform cannot be said to have been a burning issue, could have been expected to foresee such consequences.

For the "time bombs" which Davies identifies (Sacrosanctum Concilium’s call for "active participation" and for "legitimate variations and adaptations," its recognition of the (not in any way primarily) "didactic" utility of the Liturgy; its observation that the Liturgy contains "elements subject to change," its permission for the use of some vernacular in the Liturgy), were considered by the more than 2,000 bishops as merely proposals for a moderate reform—indeed an organic development—of the traditional Liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium’s paragraph 23 itself honours the principle of organic development and declares that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." And the call for active participation was merely repeating that of St Pius X made in 1903. Archbishop Lefebvre, who would later write "let us then admit without hesitation that some liturgical reforms were necessary," himself signed Sacrosanctum Concilium. No, the Fathers of the Council who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium on the 7th December 19636 did not suspect the presence of such time bombs.

One question Davies does not discuss merits some examination: were these time bombs maliciously planted with a view to the destruction of the traditional Liturgy, or were they simply proposals for moderate reforms which were later exploited well beyond the bounds of their original intent and meaning? In other words, was there a plot, or did Bugnini et al. become drunk on the elixir or power and change and boldly push further and further with the ensuing years? As has been said, one can identify a set of operative principles espoused by Bugnini for many years prior to the Council which are consistent with his activities after it. But that does not prove a conspiracy. And there were many other, sound, players in the work of reform who did not operate from such flawed principles. Also, one cannot forget that Bugnini was in public disgrace during the Conciliar debate on the Liturgy itself, and was therefore denied the influence he had previously enjoyed.

There is simply not enough hard evidence to gain a conviction on a conspiracy charge, however much suspicion abounds. On the available evidence, it seems that at present we can only say that the death of some key personages, the election of a new Pope and his subsequent rehabilitation of Bugnini—with whom Paul VI maintained extraordinarily frequent contact and in whom he placed much confidence—and the spirit of the age, all combined to give to Bugnini and his allies the opportunity to explode the time bombs even if they had not originally been placed in the schema with conspiratorial intent.

And explode them he did, and without much delay. To take but one by way of example, Sacrosanctum Concilium’s permission for the introduction of some vernacular into the Liturgy (cf. article 34) was, within six months, being interpreted as a licence for the progressive application of the vernacular into the Liturgy, as a preparatory paper for the April 1964 Plenary Session of the Concilium indicates. Father (later Cardinal) Antonelli, who was Secretary of the Liturgical Commission during the Council, objected to this, annotating his copy of this paper to the effect that if we speak of progressive application, then we shall arrive at the point where everything is in the vernacular, and that would be contrary to article 36 no. 1 of the Constitution. Of course, we know that this is precisely what has happened. In the words of Bugnini himself; "It cannot be denied that the principle, approved by the Council, of using the vernaculars was given a broad interpretation." A very "broad interpretation" indeed! And the same may be said about the other principles or permissions for moderate reform (Davies’ "time bombs") approved by the Council mentioned above.

Davies catalogues various aspects of the consequent downward spiral of the Roman rite, not hesitating to attribute to it the pastoral disaster and massive loss of faith and practice that first world countries have experienced since the Council. There is much by way of qualification and discussion one may wish to introduce into such an assessment, but again, this is a brief book, and one cannot escape the fact that the Liturgy and attitudes to it are utterly central to the practice of the Faith. Tampering with it is risky. To revolutionise it is to court disaster.

And, in an appendix "The Fruits of the Liturgical Reforms," Davies cites some pretty hard and up-to-date statistical evidence—if evidence be needed—that we are suffering from such a disaster. Those who speak of the unfettered "renewal" the Church has supposedly experienced since the Council need to face these facts. They also need to appreciate the causal link between the state of the Church today and the liturgical reforms (and abuses) enacted in the name of the Council. Other appendices provide some significant material demonstrating the protestant influence in the preparation of the new liturgical rites, and evidence that no formal permission is necessary for the celebration of the traditional rites.

The claims of this book are as striking as they are serious. Davies pulls no punches, and for that we may be thankful, for the urgency of the crisis in the Church does not permit of ostrichlike obfuscation. Whilst there is much more study and discussion to be done in respect of what has happened to the Roman rite in the past four decades, there is perhaps an even greater need for concerted and immediate action to stop the haemorrhaging of the very fountain of life-blood of the Church that is her Sacred Liturgy. For stating this clearly and succinctly we must, once again, express our gratitude to Michael Davies.

(*Dom Alcuin Reid is a Benedictine monk of Saint Michael’s Abbey, Farnborough , England , and holds a PhD from the University of London . His book The Organic Development of the Liturgy is to be published early in 2004.)

Excerpt from Archbishp Lefebvre's Montreal Conference, 1982: _________________________________________

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?"

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn't think of that," he said!

Afterwards another arose and said: "Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church." Well, this is what he replied: "We can always add something." Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, new I heard it myself.

Another excerpt from that same conference:
___________________________________________

Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting."

So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It's not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy."

Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: "Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants." It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope's office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.

This can explain why Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read. He told Cardinal Journet that he had done this. Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian. When Cardinal Journet saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction, which precedes the Novus Ordo, he said: ”This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." He went and he said: “Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to him (Cardinal Journet did not tell me himself but he told someone who repeated it to me): ”Well, to speak truthfully I did not read it. I signed it without reading it." Evidently, if Fr. Bugnini had such an influence on him it's quite possible. He must have said to the Holy Father: ”You can sign it". "But did you look it over carefully". ”Yes, you can go ahead and sign it." And he signed.

But this document did not go through the Holy Office. I know this because Cardinal Seper himself told me that he was absent when the Novus Ordo was edited and that it did not pass by the Holy Office. Hence it is indeed Fr. Bugnini who obtained the Pope's signature and who perhaps constrained him. We do not know, but he had without a doubt an extraordinary influence over the Holy Father.

A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be given for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal Gut -a Swiss -who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: "I'm going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say."

As we spoke I said: "Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief"

At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, "See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly."

Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: "Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said "one" he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I'm not certain it is asked of me (don't forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: 'Holy Father do not do this; do not sign this decree.' I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here."

This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told; you are a dissident and disobedient rebel.

Excerpt, Montreal Conference, Archbp. Lefebvre:
___________________________________________

One day I went to see Cardinal Wright with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him: "Look at this catechism. Are you aware of those little books, which are entitled 'Purture'? It's abominable that children are taught to break away. They must break with their family, with society, with tradition. ..this is the catechism, which is taught to the children of Canada with the Imprimatur of Monseigneur Couderc. It's you who are responsible for catechism in the entire world. Are you in agreement with this catechism?" "No, no," he said to me: "This catechism is not Catholic" -"It is not Catholic! Then immediately tell the Canadian Bishops' Conference. Tell them to stop and to throw this catechism in the fire and to take up the true catechism." His answer was: "How can I oppose myself to a Bishops' Conference?"

I then said: "It's over and done with. There is no more authority in the Church. It's over and done with. If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops' Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying children's Faith, then it's the end of the Church."

Still another excerpt about a meeting with John Paul II:
_______________________________________________

During the audience, which the Pope granted me (-on November 18, 1978 - Ed.),, he asked me: "Are you ready to sign this formula?” I replied: "You yourself used it and I am ready to sign it." Then he said: "Then there are no doctrinal differences between us? " I replied: "I hope not." - "Now what problems remain? Do you accept the Pope?" - "Of course we recognize the Pope andd we pray for the Pope in our Seminaries. Ours are perhaps the only seminaries in the world where the Pope is prayed for. We have a great deal of respect for the Pope. Each time the Pope has asked me to come I have always come. But there is a difficulty concerning the liturgy,” I said to him, “which is truly very important. The new liturgy is in the process of destroying the Church and the Seminaries. This is a very important question.” – “But not at all. This is but a disciplinary question. It is not very serious at all. If this is the only problem. I believe that it can be fixed up.”

And the Pope called Cardinal Seper, who came immediately. If he had not come I believe that the Pope would have been ready to sign an agreement. Cardinal Seper came, and the Pope said to him: “I believe that it should not be so difficult to make an agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that we can come to an agreement. There is just the question of the liturgy which is a little thorny.” – “But, concede nothing to Archbishop Lefebvre,” cried out the Cardinal. “They make of the Tridentine Mass a flag.” – “A flag?” I said. “But of course the holy mass is the flag of our Faith, the ‘mysterium fidei.’ It is the great mystery of our Faith. It is obvious that it is our flag, for it is the expression of our Faith.”

This made a profound impression on the Holy Father, who appeared to change almost immediately. In my opinion this showed that the Pope is not a strong man. If he had been a strong man he would have said: "It is I who am going to decide this matter. We are going to fix things up." But no. Immediately he became as if he were afraid. He became fearful, and when he left his office he said to Cardinal Seper: "You can speak together right now. You can try to make an arrangement h Archbishop Lefebvre. You can stay here. But I am obliged to go and see Cardinal Baggio. He has very many files to show me concerning Bishops. I must leave." As he left he said to me: "Stop, Monseigneur, stop." He was transformed. In a few minutes he had completely changed.

It was during this audience that I had shown him a letter that I had received from a Polish Bishop. He had written to me a year beforehand in order to congratulate me for the Seminary I had founded at Econe and for the priests that I was forming. He wished that I maintain the old Mass with all its Tradition. He added that he was not the only one. We are several Bishops who admire you, who admire your Seminary, the formation that you give to your priests and the Tradition that you maintain within the Church. For we are obliged to use the new liturgy, which makes our faithful lose the Faith.

That is what the Polish Bishop said. I took this letter with me when I went to see the Holy Father, saying to myself: "He will surely speak to me of Poland." I was not wrong. He said to me: "But you know, in Poland all is going very well. Why do you not accept the reforms? In Poland there are no problems. People are simply sorry to have lost the Latin. We were very attached to Latin, because it bound us to Rome and we are very Roman. It is a pity, but what can I do? There is no longer any Latin in the Seminaries nor in the Breviary nor in the Mass. There is no more Latin. It's quite unfortunate, but it's just like that. You see, in Poland these reforms were made and they did not create any difficulty. Our seminaries are full, and our Churches are full."

I said to the Holy Father: ”Allow me to show you a letter I received from Poland." I showed it to him. When he saw the name of the Bishop he said: "Oh, this is the greatest of the communists' enemies." -"It's a good reference," I said. The Pope read the letter carefully. I watched his face in order to see how he would react to those words which were twice repeated in the letter: "We are obliged to use the liturgical reform which makes our faithful lose the Faith." Obviously the Pope could not accept this. At the end he said to me: "Did you receive this letter just like that? " – “Yes, this is a photocopy that I bring to you." - "It must be a fake," he replied.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.