Tom Woods Tom Woods
Search
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy
Feb 13th, 2013 @ 01:43 pm › Tom Woods
↓ Skip to comments

My 2006 review of this important book. Pope Paul VI had said, when unveiling his new liturgy in 1969, “We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance.” Thou sayest it.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber was a liturgical scholar of great renown, so his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, a blistering attack on the liturgical reform, had great influence. The future Pope Benedict XVI wrote the foreword to the French translation, thereby reminding the Catholic world that the classical liturgy had a few friends in high places after all.

Categories: Blog
  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    To be fair, several parts of the Novus Ordo Mass, including the responses by the faithful, were expected to remain in Latin. Additionally, never was the priest supposed to be turned toward the congregation at Consecration. One can say a lot about the lack of reverence at Mass in many parishes nowadays, but Vatican II cannot be blamed for what amount to abuses against what it mandated, which have regrettably become the de facto norm.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    I disagree. Vatican II’s document on the liturgy is full of loopholes. Most bishops probably didn’t notice them, but that hasn’t stopped the vandals from exploiting them.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    You know the saying: loopholes don’t take advantage of people, people take advantage of loopholes. And yet: abusers will abuse. Or do you think that if the document were ironclad the vandals would be stopped?

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    I am suggesting the document was written by vandals who deliberately inserted time bombs into it.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    That’s quite different from what you firstly said. I’ll go over it with this suspicion in mind to see if comes across like that to me as well.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    I’m at a bit of a loss; it sounds (to me at least) exactly like what I said at first.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    At first you said that the vandals exploited loopholes in Sacrosanctum Concilium that the bishops, perhaps the Council Fathers or all bishops, missed, but later you said that the vandals themselves had actually added the loopholes. You provided two scenarios which I assume that you mean that both took place, right?

    Now, while I can read the document with a suspicious eye, I cannot suppose some surreptitious tactic by the vandals to not show their hand while authorizing themselves mischief. I cannot possibly test this theory.

    This may look like a straw-man, but it’s not, rather merely my attempt to read your one-liners here.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    A book I co-authored called The Great Facade takes one chapter to analyze Sacrosanctum Concilium closely. By the end, it is difficult to dispute that deliberate mine fields were sown all over that document.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    Is this a shameless plug? :-) Short of shelling bucks out to find out, throw me a bone!

    Here’s where I’m coming from. At my parish, during Advent and now during Lent, instead of singing something dreadful like “rage against the night”, we are chanting the prescribed antiphon as the priest processes in. Our priest explained to us that the antiphon is the norm, while singing an arbitrary hymn is actually the 4th alternative.

    With this in mind, I find it hard to think that the mines were sewn deliberately after three alternatives. Rather, I find it easier to think that only those trying hard to vandalize the Mass would find their loophole after sifting the alternative to the alternative to the alternative of the alternative.

    I don’t think that I’m wrong in concluding from this perspective that the vandals acted out of ill will picking apart Sacrosanctum Concilium. I grant that your background as a historian gives some weight to your conclusion that the vandals usurped this document. Yet, I don’t think that both conclusions are contradictory or mutually exclusive.

    But we have to consider that the vandals care less about the letter of any VII document than about the ever so malleable spirit of VII, e.g., the change from ad Oriens, which I don’t think that it was the exploit of a loophole, but a downright invention.

    Thanks for your patience.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.drinnon Roger Andrew Drinnon

    Coming from Lutheranism, it is very refreshing to see real confessionalism from Roman Catholics. You all are severely struggling with the conflicts between the Council of Trent and Vatican II. I respect Catholics who actually confess what the Council of Trent says and not use Vatican II as a ‘hey we are nice to you all now’. I would rather every denomination be honest about its differences. I met you at the Missouri Economics conference and read your book on Catholicism and the Market and I wish someone on our side would do such a book for Lutherans (maybe I can?). Luther was pretty pro-free market.

    http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Martin%20Luther%20-%20On%20trading%20and%20usury%201524/Martin%20Luther.htm

    We have our own set of liberal guys in the LCMS who put time bombs in our own doctrines especially with the current controversy of Unionism and Syncronism. Unfortunately because tragedies are so emotion driven, speaking out against these matters triggers uproar even though we in the LCMS say we cannot participate in joint worship services. Man, those liberals are so tolerant that they are intolerant of what we believe. It might sound ‘exclusionary’, but that is hardly the case. We are confessing that our doctrine is correct and associating with the Heterodox and unbelievers in joint prayer/worship services is a violation of the 1st commandment. The same is probably true about the ‘tolerant’ liberals in the Catholic Church who try to drum you all out in the name of being tolerant.

    We also have charismatics who are also destroying the liturgy in the LCMS. It is so tragic. They play songs that have no meaning when you read the lyrics. Blimey Cow had something on that I think (I know you have promoted them before or watched their videos).

    I love the traditional liturgy even though it is more likely that we would say it in German than Latin. Every part of the traditional liturgy links us not only to God, but the past Saints that we are in communion with through Jesus Christ our risen Lord. I mean, I look at our hymnals and see hymns coming from 1200, 1000, and
    so on and think, our brothers and sisters in Christ sung this now, and
    we do now. The liturgy is a link that links us all together. I am so
    amazed that Christians think it is a tool to ‘get more converts’ or
    ‘get with the times’.

    You do great work and though we may disagree theologically as a person I am always impressed at your high levels intellectual integrity, honesty and honor.