THE REFORM OF THE ROMAN LITURGY: ITS PROBLEMS AND BACKGROUND

Newsletter Article:PART II: COMMENTARY ON MSGR. KLAUS GAMBER'S THE REFORM OF THE ROMAN LITURGY: ITS PROBLEMS AND BACKGROUND

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, has been publicly endorsed by three cardinals: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal Silvio Oddi, and Cardinal Alfons Stickler. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his preface to this book: "J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development'....

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on the-spot product." We encourage all to read this most informative book on the liturgy.]

Msgr. Camber never in any way calls into question the validity of the New Mass due to any changes in the ritual of the Novus Ordo Mass. His basic contention is that the new ritual of the Mass is just that, a new ritual of the Mass. Thus, for all practical purposes the Roman Rite is dead, when not using the Roman Canon in the Novus Ordo Masses. Because of his knowledge of ecclesiology and sacramentology, Gamber never insists that the new ritual of the Mass is somehow invalid. Gamber proposes this order of events:

(1) There was a revolutionary, abrupt, definitive, purposeful break with tradition, that is, the multiplicity of traditions that had organically developed around the Tradition, spelled with a capital "T", of the most Holy Eucharist. The organic growth of the ritual of the Mass had achieved its ultimate development in the fifteenth century, up until that time, and thus was frozen (i.e. preserved), by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 with the Missal he published preserving the definitive form of the Roman Rite Mass for all ages.

(2) The next point Gamber makes in this scenario is that although the Mass still needed some additional reforms to make clearer the historical origins of its present rites which the council Fathers of Vatican 11 insisted in Sacrosanctum Concilium, how ever the Commission presided over by Bugnini and his henchmen destroyed that process of organic growth so thoroughly that, in effect, when the first Canon is not used in Latin, nothing remains of the former rite of the Roman Church, except for a few structural resemblances. Finally, because of the disruption of this organic development of the sacred liturgy, and because of the fluidity of the rite that replaced the old Roman Rite, all imaginable sorts of innovations, experimentations, and improvisations, both trite and banal, were imposed upon the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church. This led to some of the most sacrilegious "fun and games" unprecedented in the entire history of the holy Roman Catholic Church. These innovations passed as "creative liturgy."

On the other hand, there must be said something for the defense of the authority of the Catholic Church, which has the power to guard and protect the sacred liturgy. Msgr. Gamber does not question the papal authority and power to determine liturgical reforms. He does question, however, whether or not it is really in the best interest of the Church to radically interrupt what were traditionally the liturgical rites of the Mass, which had roots for over a millennium, not to mention the very center of the liturgy, the Roman Canon (which had been determined already, almost in its entirety by the fifth century, even before the time of Gregory the Great). Gamber questions the prudence of the Roman Pontiff in discarding these venerable traditions without sufficient cause, especially when there had been no outcry on the part of the faithful, before, during, or even after the Council to discard or destroy any of the elements of the Roman Rite.

And even if there had been a general outcry for change, there still would have been on justification for destroying a veritable work of art, a treasure for the Church for all time. Gamber's balanced view notes that Pius V did indeed do something unprecedented in the history of the Church, and that was to freeze, in effect, the liturgy as it had developed up to that point in the 16th century. In doing this, Pius V stabilized, homogenized and thus preserved the unity of the Church during a turbulent time of mass apostasy by preserving the venerable and sacred liturgy of the centuries. His act, unprecedented though it was, was yet done out of a perceived necessity given the Protestant Revolution. The fruits of this unprecedented act of Pius V certainly were evidenced in the number of great saints whose lives were nourished by the holy Eucharist presented by this august and venerable rite. This could include many illustrious personages even of today, whose Catholicism of their youth was nourished by this ritual, e.g. St. Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Padre Pio, and St. Maximilian Kolbe, just to name a few.

What occurred after Vatican II in 1969 through 1970, October of that year, was also unprecedented in the history of the Church. Yet this radical act was neither called for by the Council Fathers nor the Catholic faithful. It was the decision of a few powerful men who had influence over the Holy Father at the time. Gamber is not naive to believe that there was no need in the former rite for clarification, reformation, and revivification. Yet he courageously (of all the liturgical scholars of these last thirty years), has seen clearly the folly of that significant historical fact. Contrasting the unprecedented action of Pius V with the unprecedented action of Pope Paul VI, he describes how, whereas one sought to bring about unity of faith throughout the Church, to preserve the Faith unblemished due to the storm of revolutions that raged about during those turbulent times, while that of Paul VI, in times when there was relative tranquility about the Faith of the people, whose unprecedented act in permitting an innovative Mass (albeit unintended), would unleash the diabolical forces that were fermenting within the Church, like the chaff amongst the wheat, waiting to spread its vermin amongst the people of God, causing confusion, disorder, leading to mass defections of the laity from the Church.

We must not have the simplistic view, as some of our badly misinformed traditionalist brethren, that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil, or invalid. Michael Davies, a very renowned scholar from England, has, in many of his works, sufficiently shown that this could not be true, that the Novus Ordo is somehow intrinsically evil. In his various works on the Mass, he has demonstrated, in fact, the intrinsic goodness of the normative Mass, published by Paul VI, not to be confused mind you, with any wretched translations that may have appeared in the vernacular, especially the English language.

So what were some of the changes that were needed, according to the Council Fathers? Sometimes in their fervor for promoting the traditional Mass, traditionalists blind themselves by the following erroneous propositions:

(1) to cast the blame entirely on the twenty first ecumenical Council of Vatican II as the cause of all the invalid, sacrilegious and innovative liturgical experimentation of today. Vatican 11, albeit a pastoral Council, was still protected by the Holy Spirit, attended by twenty-five hundred or more bishops; convoked by a validly elected Pontiff who prepared schema for two years, which were orthodox, dogmatic, and definitive outlines of our Faith; the promise of Our Lord never to leave His Church; the indefectibility of the Church of Christ; all these defeat this proposition of the traditionalists.

(2) The second erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the form of the Mass, frozen by Pius V, was the Mass celebrated by the early Christians in apostolic times. In answer to this erroneous proposition, overwhelming historical evidence exists for any serious student of the liturgy to know that it took almost five centuries to form the very core of the Roman Rite Mass, the Roman Canon. To prove this, all one has to do is to study the list of the saints that are presented in the Roman Canon, some of the most favorite and popular saints of the Roman Church, whose lives span several centuries.

(3) The third erroneous proposition of the traditionalists is that the rite of the Mass is identified with the very sacrament of the Eucharist. Two basic facts oppose this view:

(1). The very fact that there are 17 oriental rites (give or take a few variations), that are officially recognized by the official Church, and whose development also hearken back to the ancient Church.

(2). The second fact that opposes this third assumption of the traditionalists is that historical evidence itself reveals the human development of the rites of the Mass. The essence of the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father being made present by the power of the Holy Spirit through the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the consecration of the Mass.

The essence of the Mass as the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father is expressed by the various rituals that surround this essential fact. The Eucharist, that is, the presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is the reality of the Mass. For sacrifice, the three necessary elements of each Mass are:

the offering of the oblation;
the consecration of the bread and wine (the calling down of the power of the Holy Spirit), in the epiklesis;
and the final element of the communion of the priest celebrant of the Mass. It is naive, at least, to insinuate that the elaborate development of the Mass by the fifteenth century was present from the earliest times.

(4) The fourth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that nothing in the traditional Mass needed reform or clarification. In answer to this, in fact, for the student of the liturgy, many things were confusing about the tradition a I Mass which needed clarification. (Admittedly, these items were not of the essence of the liturgy nor detrimental to the flow of the sacred action. Still, had Pius XII lived longer, he would probably have addressed these cloudy areas of the Mass, as effectively as he had reformed the rites of Holy Week in the mid '50s). Following are some examples of the areas that needed to be addressed:

In an effort to show the distinctiveness of the priesthood of the celebrant of the Mass, and the "priesthood' of all believers," the traditional Mass constantly had the priest recite the same prayers and antiphons of the people and the choir, such as the Introit, 'the Gradual, the Communion verse, the Gloria, the Credo, and others. This was due, of course, to the prevalency of private and low Masses in which no choir and general public may have been present. Yet at a sung Mass, all these similar prayers were reduplicated by both priest and choir , instead of being able to be sung by both priest and people together.

Another example, is that the traditional Mass, especially a sung Mass, seemed to put an emphasis on endings of prayers, e.g., the Doxology of the Secret (per omnia saecula saeculorum), the very end of the final Doxology (per ipsum...), the ending of the libera nos, etc. This made for a very confusing emphasis on sung endings, instead of the whole prayer.

The third area revolves around some "vestigial organs" of previous ancient rites whose vestiges in the traditional Mass provoked some questions on the parts of scholars. One such notable example is the priest turning to the people after the Creed to greet them and invite them to prayer, to a prayer which never follows. It is at this point in history that the prayer of the faithful, or the "bidding prayers" followed, gradually atrophied, and then only the introduction of the rite remained.

(5) The fifth erroneous traditionalist proposition is that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. This proposition is the most serious of all, for it undermines the whole indefectible nature of the Church, that She could be guilty of promoting invalid sacraments. As absurd as this proposition is, many either explicitly or implicitly hold to this viewpoint.

To give some examples: Once, while giving a mission at a traditionalist parish (at the time in which I celebrated only the Novus Ordo Latin Mass with Canon #1), wherein I could not celebrate my private Novus Ordo Latin Mass on the altar of the main chapel, the chapel which had a charter and constitution that forbade the Novus Ordo Mass from being celebrated on it. Instead, I was forced to celebrate my Mass on a table in the library off from the side of the chapel,

Another incident was on the occasion of a visit to a traditionalist order of sisters who claimed union with our Supreme Pontiff. But when asked what Missal I was to follow, and what Mass I was to say, and after responding that I say the same Mass as the Holy Father, was consequently refused access to celebrate Mass in their chapel. Arid I asked the dear Mother Superior, "Do you mean to tell me that if the Holy Father were to come to your convent, you would not allow him to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass, even if he used Latin and the first Canon, as I was planning to do?" And she answered, "Yes."

These incidents clearly display an ignorance of Church history, of the history of that liturgy, of ecclesiology, and of sacramentology. For the failure to distinguish between the essential elements of the Mass common to all liturgies of all rites, and the accidental elements of other rites which are found in those liturgies is a true root cause for all of the above erroneous propositions.

As much as we can find fault with the origin, implementation, and the interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass, we may never call into question its validity. Also, Catholics may not question the power of the Holy Father to implement another Rite. But what must honestly be said (and Gamber so courageously says it), despite that papal power, it is a tragedy to have witnessed the demise of this living tradition of the previous Roman Rite. In his prudent pastoral style, Pope John Paul 11 (perhaps because he realizes the folly of having initiated a new rite, and with a desire to nurture the traditional Roman Rite), has given permission for the legacy of the traditional Roman Rite to continue in time. However, one of the unfortunate results may be--what was intended by Pius XII before his death, mandated by the Council Fathers, and suggested by balanced liturgists--that the proper, fitting, and dignified reform of the Roman Rite may never come to fruition in our time.

One final thought: After having considered the above, all of us owe Msgr. Gamber a debt of gratitude. He was not interested in popularity, giving his readers what they wanted to hear, human respect, or just the vested interested of acceptance by his professional colleagues. Instead, Msgr. Gamber was searching for historical fact and therefore truth regarding the organic and historical development of the venerable Roman liturgy. His insights were refreshing as they shed light on the true values that this ancient liturgy has preserved throughout the centuries.

"Sometimes in their fervor for promoting the traditional Mass, traditionalists blind themselves by the following erroneous propositions:" Round 2 - of the weekend discussion. 2 posted on 06/07/2003 2:05 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)

Interesting discussion. This might also be possible:

Sometimes in their fervor for promoting "the spirit of Vatican II" in the Novus Ordo Mass, neo-modernists blind themselves (and their parishioner hostages)by following erroneous propositions.

Like...liturgical minimalism, wreckovation,iconoclasm, bad modern music, liberal political speeches as sermons, etc., etc. The liturgy controversies are not entirely one of the schismatic irregularities of traditionalists. What does blind some traditionalists are some of the more extreme posturing. Catholics attending Novus Ordo Masses are certainly not risking damnation, just to take one example.

Good points. Which lead me to wonder where our freepers fall on these issues.

It is my personal contention that as a baptized and confirmed catholic, I have a personal responsibility to address any liturgical abuses with my pastor. Failing a satisfactory response, I may then proceed to the next level, the diocesan office for divine worship and liturgy.

If the pastor is not violating any of the norms in the GIRM, while proffering a mass at which I personally am uncomfortable (music, decor, etc.), it is then incumbent on me to find a different parish that is more suited to my conservative approach.

If I as a baptized and confirmed catholic am uncomfortable with the Novus Ordo mass, then it is incumbent on me to seek out an Indult Tridentine Rite parish. If there are none within reasonable proximity (let's arbitrarily say 50 miles), I have a right to approach the bishop to appeal this.

Would you agree?

It is quite interesting, is it not, that Fr. David (who is quite literate---I met him a number of times) flat-out CONTRADICTS the statements made by UltRat and others regarding Gamber's opinion on the implementation.

FrD's essay states clearly that Gamber questions PaulVI's prudence, but not the liceity of his action.

Bump for Msgr. Klaus Gamber. His book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy which forms the basis and the title of this article is probably the single best volume to explain the problems with the New Mass and the destruction it has caused. I urge everyone to buy a copy and read it. I was going to post a link to Amazon, but they say it's out of print. Please try to find a copy at your local Catholic book store, and have them order it if necessary.

Zero credit, however, to whoever wrote this article. To take Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book and to try to use it as a club against traditionalists is just perverse and shows a lack of understanding. It does demonstrate that some people will attack anyone defending the Tradition of the Catholic Church, for any reason they can find.

Here's one excerpt from Msgr. Gamber's book which he forgot to mention in the article: Gamber says that the New Mass is a more significant departure from the traditional Roman Rite than were the alterations made by either Luther in Germany or Cranmer in England.

Read the book for yourself and enjoy an eye-opening experience. Don't be biased by the irrational interpretation given by this author.

Sure. Good points. Although I've had enough experience with our AmChurch diocese that I would not recommend engaging in a discussion of controversies with liberal modernists which they have never addressed or improved in 30 odd years or so , often stigmatizing conservative critics and subjecting them to much abuse. This is a prudential judgment.

Precisely!

I don't see what would be the problem with having both Masses held at more churches. I think there is a Tridentine Rite church near here and I would like to go ---but I don't see why they don't encourage one mass ---maybe a 10 am mass that way and other masses can be different. You could even go to whichever depending on your mood.

An excellent point. I have said this before. This would actually stimulate a "Catholic Revival" of sorts. Mass in Latin should be offered wherever there is a priest willing to say it and Catholics who will attend. Stigmatizing the traditionalists with "spirit of Vatican II" rhetoric and neo-modernist pieties has not been good for the Church.

Learning Latin is also good for children (just to add a utilitarian selling point). And now to be ironic...it could boost SAT verbal scores.

Where I live, more masses are in Spanish and as far as I know it still counts when you go to one of those even if you don't speak or understand Spanish. I've been to Polish masses also --- I think it would add a lot to have the Latin traditional Mass as a choice. Sort of like on Christmas ---there are the midnight masses that you know will be more formal, if you wait for the noon mass you know it's quick and less formal and really there is a different flavor that you always see if you go at 5:30 or 7:00 pm on Saturday versus 10:00 am on Sunday.

I mentioned this once before - there are some places in the U.S. where eventually there will have to be a choice whether Mass is in English or Spanish. LATIN would unite Anglo and Hispanic Catholics in this country, just as Latin has united the universal Church in Rome for centuries.

"As much as we can find fault with the origin, implementation, and the interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass, we may never call into question its validity."

You keep posting the above inanity. But the validity of the Novus Ordo was never its problem. Its fidelity to the Catholic faith is the problem. It is a deficient Mass, very harmful to the faith because it teaches and supports a theologically Protestant interpretation of the the Eucharist that suppresses and subverts Catholic belief. This speaks to why the Church is in its present state of theological and moral chaos.

Sort of like on Christmas ---there are the midnight masses that you know will be more formal, if you wait for the noon mass you know it's quick and less formal and really there is a different flavor that you always see if you go at 5:30 or 7:00 pm on Saturday versus 10:00 am on Sunday. 12 posted on 06/07/2003 4:27 PM PDT by FITZ

That's an excellent point. I wish you were a bishop.

I will respond as a baptized and confirmed Catholic, not very interested in what passes for Mass (and homily) at most of the churches within my driving range. Your suggestion that going up the diocesan ladder is honorable, but I suggest that it would be about as productive as a rank-and-file union member trying to trend his union into a more conservative posture. In other words virtually futile.

"Msgr. Gamber does not question the papal authority and power to determine liturgical reforms."

This is a false statement. Gamber DOES question whether the pope had such authority. Here is what he wrote:

"Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone abolish the traditional liturgical rite and since furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, THE ASSERTION THAT THE HOLY SEE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LITURGICAL RITE WOULD APPEAR TO BE DEBATABLE, TO SAY THE LEAST." (Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Harrison, NY, Foundation for Catholic Reform, p. 39.)

This writer doesn't know what he's talking about.

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.