in cooperation with the Church Music Association of America MusicaSacra.com MVSICAE • SACRAE • MELETEMATA edited on behalf of the Church Music Association of America by Catholic Church Music Associates Volume 5 THE BUGNINI-LITURGY AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM THE BUGNINI-LITURGY AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM by LASZLO DOBSZAY Front Royal VA 2003 EMINENTISSIMO VIRO PATRI VENERABILI ET MAGISTRO JOSEPHO S. R. E. CARDINALI RATZINGER HOC OPUSCULUM MAXIMAE AESTIMATIONIS AC REVERENTIAE SIGNUM D.D. AUCTOR Copyright © 2003 by Dobszay Laszlo Printed in Hungary All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Conventions. No part of these texts or translations may be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher, except for brief passages included in a review appearing in a magazine or newspaper. The author kindly requests that persons or periodicals publishing a review on his book send a copy or the bibliographical data to the following address: Laszlo Dobszay, 11-1014 Budapest, Tancsics M. u. 7. Hungary. K-mail: [email protected] Contents INTRODUCTION Page 9 1. HYMNS OF THE HOURS Page 14 2. THE HOLY WEEK Page 20 3. THE DIVINE OFFICE Page 45 4. THE CHANTS OF THE PROPRIUM MISSAE VERSUS "ALIUS CANTUS APTUS" Page 85 5. THE READINGS OF THE MASS AND THE CALENDAR Page 121 6. THE TRIDENTINE MOVEMENT AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM Page 147 7. HIGH CHURCH - LOW CHURCH: THE SPLIT OF CATHOLIC CHURCH MUSIC Page 180 8. CHURCH MUSIC AT THE CROSSROADS Page 194 A WORD TO THE READER Page 216 Introduction The growing displeasure with the "new liturgy" introduced after (and not by) the Second Vatican Council is characterized by two ideas. 1) A large part of the objections was raised on account of theological failures or distortions in the new liturgical texts, rubrics or practice. 2) The alternative advised is the 1962 Missale Romanum as the source of the traditional Roman liturgy. It is rare, however, to meet a communication (publication?) analyzing the new liturgy as a liturgy, i.e. according to the proper nature of this special field of religious life. It is, perhaps, because it was mostly theologically well- educated Catholics who tried to find a justification for their instinctive aver- sion, and not those who were familiar with the details of liturgical affairs. The theological objections might prove strained but even if everything were right with the theology, the liturgical problems would still remain. The problem with the second approach is that an absolutism of change is opposed by an absolutism of constancy. Supporters take the 1962 Missal as if it were identical with the Tridentine rite, and as if the Tridentine rite were identical with the traditional Roman liturgy. (We discuss this question in the sixth chapter of this volume.) Concerning the first point: I admit that the quality of the liturgy reflects the quality of the theology, discipline, morality and spirituality, and also re- acts on them. But now we wish to ponder the liturgy as a liturgy. Concerning the second point: one should not conceal the fact that the Roman liturgy has changed in an organic way and with small modifications over the past centuries. The traditional Roman liturgy can be found in what is common in spite of the changes on the surface. I agree that we have to re- turn to the traditional Roman liturgy and not be content with the removal of some "excesses" of the Neo-Roman rite. The true "Reform of the Re- form" is the reform of the traditional Roman liturgy in the sense intended by the Council: organic changes in the measure of previous organic reforms in history, in accordance with the real necessities of the Church (and not with the creative will of commissions). But do we know what kind of changes and what measures can be intro- duced justifiably without demolishing the identity of the Roman rite? I wish to scrutinize these questions in the following studies. The following studies1 contain critical reflections on the Novus Ordo. We start with a seemingly unessential theme, the position of hymns in the Office. It is, however, suitable to make clear some basic aspects. The second study concerns the very center of the liturgy: the Holy Week. The Divine Office is a much more important element in this affair than many regard; it stands in the focus of the third chapter. The proper chant of the Mass is connected with the organism of the liturgical year, and the fifth section on the pericopes and calendar completes this theme. Three more tracts (published elsewhere) have been appended to the series. The first addresses the friends of the Tridentine Movement, and its intention is to convince them that the long-term alternative of the Novus Ordo is not simply the restoration of the 1962 Missal. The last two treatises are about music, but some remarkable theological and pastoral issues are also discussed in them. * * * By way of introduction, let me draw the lines immediately so as to sepa- rate myself from certain views on the one hand, and on the other to ex- clude some other topics, albeit important, from discussion: 1. The critical approach to the "Bugnini Liturgy"2 presented here reflects neither disobedience toward higher church authority nor a practical opposi- tion to liturgical regulations. In everyday life, I am ready to accommodate myself to the currently valid liturgical prescriptions even though as an ex- pert dealing with the liturgy, I consider them wrong or unsuccessful in many respects. Thus, my remarks are made in a spirit of service and not of con- testation. 1 Since some of them have been published separately, certain thematic repetitions could not be entirely avoided. 2 My expression 'Bugnini Liturgy' was earlier criticized by saying that the new liturgy was elaborated by commissions and not a single person, and was introduced under the authority of the Pope and the Curial Office concerned. These readers do not seem to have noticed the essentially provocative nature of the title. The name was naturally not meant to attribute this liturgy to one person, but had to do with the contents: It symbolized that the new liturgy is not a recent form of the Roman rite, nor another stage of an or- ganic development, but a hastily created, voluntarist invention, in which individual ideas and ambitions played a decisive, dominant role. This has remained so as regards the con- tent even if it had received /^/approbation. 10 2. The reason why I think that the Bugnini liturgy is unsuccessful for the most part is not because it has introduced innovations and thus is a re- form-liturgy, but because it has introduced defective reforms and has thereby caused damage. There is no doubt that a liturgical reform was nec- essary, but it is not so clear that this liturgical reform was needed. Conse- quently, I decline to accept the grouping of opinions into "progressive" and "conservative" categories, as well as the attempt to seek the main cause of the present troubles in these "progressive" and "conservative" extremes. I am convinced that the scholar may undertake the awkward task of exam- ining both the old and the new elements in the liturgy, each according to its own specific truth, as long as he is willing to observe the regulations of the Church in daily practice. 3. The liturgy has its own particular laws and truth, and what is more, its own immanent laws and truth, and not only legal statutes. When in the following pages the Bugnini liturgy is criticized, it will be done from the standpoint of this particular "liturgical truth" and not from a theological point of view, in spite of the fact that at certain points (e.g., the rites of the sacraments) the liturgical solution suggests a problematic dogmatic attitude. The liturgy seems to have no measure apart from the lex credendi; everything can be imagined and verified by means of speculation. Yet the liturgy is one of the most important repositories of holy TRADITION, the dynamic handing- down of the wisdom of the Church even in its stylized state. Its dogmatic contents are constituted, in addition to the normative system of dogma, by the sum of spiritual, socio-psychological, aesthetic, cultural, emotional, historical and pedagogical factors which preserve at the same time the role of the liturgy connected with the other spheres of religion but not identical with them. Theological speculation may warrant the harmony between lex orandi and lex credendi; liturgical legislation can protect the values of liturgy against arbitrariness; and yet for grasping the specific truth and validity of the liturgy, theological speculation proves inadequate and the law insuffi- cient. To touch this sacred sphere, utmost tact is required, since our reason- ing is in much the same way secondary to reality as any speculation about life is to the fullness of life. 4. Tradition plays such an important role in liturgy because, among other things, it provides the most essential point of departure. The Consti- tution on the sacred liturgy made a clear statement in this respect: it allowed for the introduction of innovations, but only on condition that they meet 11 two requirements. One is that the new forms should spring organically from the existing ones; the other is that only innovations yielding real and genu- ine profit to the Church are to be introduced. Unfortunately the Constitu- tion itself contradicts these two requirements in certain respects, and in subsequent years the regulations fell into serious contradiction with the Constitution on these two points, and in so many other areas as well.