A Brief Survey and Analysis of Post-Conciliar Liturgical Philosophies: Part 1 of 2

Preface

A caveat. This is not intended as a formal history. Moreover, labels by nature are almost always non-exacting.

Evidently as well, the historical relation of some of these movements are not clear cut. In many regards, they could have all co-existed at once in particular pockets of individuals.

With these caveats in mind, let us proceed to look at the major subdivisions that have been and can be found proceeding from the post-conciliar liturgical reform to the present day.


I. A Survey of the Movements

A few decades ago, there seems to have been two particularly identifiable groups of liturgical activists:

1. The progressivists, who wished to “push forward” reforms in the name of the “spirit” of the Second Vatican Council.

2.The traditionalists, who questioned the liturgical reforms, the progressivists and who wished to preserve the ancient Roman liturgy – in some cases even arguing for the abolition of the modern Missal as a failed experiment.

These were of course the particular product of their time, following closely upon the Council and could be a considered very much in reactive mode as such.

After those initial days passed, a third group became more substantial and defined. Here began the crystallizing of the reform of the reform that wished to place itself somewhere between the progressivists and traditionalists. Many such seemed to be in agreement that the reforms following the Council had particular problems that needed to be looked at again, though they disagreed with any proposal that would suggest simply replacing the 1970 missal with the 1962 as a final solution. Rather, there was often talk that the 1965 Ordo Missae, which sat closer to the 1962 Missal but brought into it the vernacular as well as some simplifications the Council spoke of, might serve as a kind of model for what the Council may have mandated and actually intended. Hence the idea of a “reform” of the reform.

It must be remembered that up until this time, it seems to have been more common to hear fairly strident, popular critiques from the traditionalist movement which questioned the motivating factors behind the reforms, as well as a typically more polemical questioning about the theological compatibility of the new Missal with what had been defined by the Council of Trent.

However, it seems that concurrent with the greater development of the reform of the reform as a movement, the traditionalist movement also began to more fully blossom and shift away from a more simply polemicist, abolitionist frame of mind to introduce a new generation and a different approach to the traditionalist position.

A variance upon that movement had grown whose interests were not so much polemicist, but rather more rooted in academic exploration, the constructive promotion of the usus antiquior and whose ideas were not so much a reaction to the Council as they were an examination of the Council in the light of its texts, in the light of continuity, and in the light of the objective value of the received tradition. Expressions of this particularly grew with advent of the priestly societies like the ICRSS and FSSP, as well as the work of Le Barroux and lay organizations like CIEL.

We might think of these as those who wished to work toward the “integration” of that tradition – through practice, study, promotion and constructive critique – back into the life and consciousness of the Church, leaving the rest to divine providence.

Progressivists too would see some nuancing with some being far more radical in their revolutionary interpretations, with others perhaps content to suffice with their perceived gains.

These developments in mind, the picture then might have looked as follows:

1. The Progressivists
      a. Continuing Evolution
      b. Status Quo

2. Traditionalists
      a. Abolitionists/Polemicists
      b. Integrationists

3. Reform of the Reform

With a stronger, more vocal movement of moderate, studious traditionalists (2b) who proffered critique of the liturgical reforms -- in a constructive, centrist way, without conspiracy theories and in view of the Council itself -- while also promoting the scholarly study and excellence of celebration of the ancient Roman liturgy, the reform of the reform was no longer necessarily the only middle ground between absolute restorationists/abolitionists or progressivists.

What this perhaps highlighted was also the fact that there were different elements in the reform of the reform itself, one of which found itself closer to that new group of traditionalists and which was thus more inclined to work in concert with them. This included tangible agreement, all personal preferences aside, about the place of both liturgical forms in the present day life of the Church as a pastoral reality. It also included agreements about the constructive critique of the liturgical reforms, as well as the treasures of the ancient liturgy, without polemics about which missal one “ought” to be using.

Examples of this collaborative model can be seen in the work of Fr. Thomas Kocik who attempted to bring understanding to the two movements in his work, Reform of the Reform: A Liturgical Debate; it can be seen in a collaborative liturgical conference at Fontgambault in 2001 hosted by Cardinal Ratzinger; it can of course be seen in the sentiments of the likes of Ratzinger himself, in Benedict’s Motu Proprio, as well as in liturgical conferences that draw in proponents of either movement for a mutual sharing of ideas and the exploration of common goals and concerns.

This development might make the situation appear as follows:

1. The Progressivists
      a. Continuing Evolution
      b. Status Quo

2. Traditionalists
      a. Abolitionists
      b. Integrationists

3. Reform of the Reform
      a. Paulinists (efforts focused almost exclusively upon modern liturgical books and their reform)
      b. Collaborationists (efforts focused upon Pauline books but with a stronger relationship with the Pian liturgical books)

Particularly with the ascension of Pope Benedict XVI, a liturgically interested Pope, and with the attention he has drawn to the liturgy, including the ancient Roman liturgy, another group has perhaps started to make itself known. This group we might identify as the “ars celebrandists” – or, put more awkwardly, the “Say the Black and Do the Red” movement. (“Ars celebrandi” relates to the proper art of celebrating the liturgy, and thus relates to following the prescribed texts and rubrics, as well as to reverence and dignity of celebration.)

While the reform of the reform is interested in the revision of the Pauline Missal, and thus interested in liturgical reform proper, the “ars celebrandists” are not so much interested in the reform of the Pauline missal itself, but rather are they interested retaining that Missal “as-is” while cleaning up liturgical abuses in the celebration of that Missal and improving the ethos by the promotion of more traditional options -- such as the use of ad orientem, chant and polyphony inspired forms of liturgical music and so on – though how much and how often will vary. They may or may not be interested in the usus antiquior, though if there is an interest, it will be most likely seen as a separate project and initiative and one rather on the periphery.

Their noticeable advent would make the scene now look as follows:

1. The Progressivists
      a. Continuing Evolution
      b. Status Quo

2. Traditionalists
      a. Abolitionists
      b. Integrationists

3. Reform of the Reform
      a. Paulinists
      b. Collaborationists

4. Ars Celebrandists

Of course, even in the Ars Celebrandist movement, there is a subdivision that can be found:

      a. Those who would suggest that all that is needed is the abuses be cleaned up and the texts and rubrics be followed and all will be well.

      b. Those who would suggest (a) but who would go further to also suggest that the liturgical ethos also need to be improved (better sacred music, at least some Latin, greater beauty for sacred vessels, the use of incense, etc.) and that traditional options should be employed more frequently (Eucharistic Prayer 1, the option for black vestments, etc.)

Now identifying those who belong to the Ars Celebrandist movement can be difficult for the reason that the particular goals of their movement can be shared, insofar as they go, by those within the reform of the reform camp and also those within the moderate faction of the traditionalist camp – particularly in the case of 4b above.

The aforementioned groups would see such activities as good and beneficial and would happily work for them or promote them as well, but the key difference lay in the greater ends. Whereas they would continue further, Ars Celebrandists would see that as the end in itself, being the only measure of “reform” that is actually needed and that the form and liturgical reform of the Missal is substantially fine as it officially happened.

Conclusion to Part One

While not perfect and not necessarily comprehensive, this summation might present to us a general, yet more specific grouping of the different liturgical philosophies active in the Latin rite today.

In the second and final installment of this piece, I will attempt to provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these philosophies in hopes of providing a better understanding of the issues at play, taken in view of the mind of the Church as seen through her liturgical history and the Magisterium.

The idea behind this is not as a point of condemnation or polemic, but simply to flesh out the issues in the hopes of fostering profitable and charitable debate amongst all parties interested these issues as they relate to each other, the Church's liturgical life and the liturgical good.