What do you think?
Rate this book
The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite
This is a serious, scholarly analysis of liturgy combining historical, philosophical and musicological aspects.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 16, 2020
For liturgy nerds with a traditional bent (or at least without a chip on their shoulder towards tradition). Written in 2010, this is a tremendous resource, written at the scholarly level, for anyone interested in exploring...
1. The differences between the Mass pre- and post-Vatican II.
2. How the Mass developed from apostolic times till now (Dobszay’s treatment is short but fascinating and informative — a Cliff notes version).
3. Which changes to the Mass were actually justified by the Council, and which changes were not.
4. How a “reform of the reform” (a now-famous phrase coined by the author!) could actually be accomplished in concrete terms.
The main service that the author has done in writing this book is not so much his concrete ideas for how we could restore the Roman Rite, although they are very interesting and usually plausible or even compelling (though not always, as for example his suggestion of eliminating the penitential rite from the Mass). Rather, the most important contribution of the author (it seems to me) is that he identifies each and every area of the Mass that must be considered if/when the Church attempts to reform the liturgy according to the true and authentic intent of the Second Vatican Council.
One thing I greatly appreciated about this book is that the author finds many good things amidst the changes that were made after Vatican 2. He is not trying to reject the new liturgy wholesale. His critique is nuanced and, in my opinion, fair. I was also grateful for the author’s encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter, which made him a great tour guide of the liturgy. There is so much amazing history to learn!
The five page “Summary” at the end of the book is truly excellent and helpful. The following quotation from it encapsulates the basic thrust of the entire book:
“The Roman Rite preserved its identity over a period of 1,500 years, yet all this time it developed continuously and organically. The will of the Second Vatican Council was to reform THIS living Roman Rite, and not therefore to create a new liturgy. Contrary to this intention, the Consilium, under Archbishop Bugnini, manufactured a new liturgy that broke the ancient continuity of the classical Roman Rite. The solution can only be to return to the situation of the rite in 1962, not in order to stop there, but to implement the intended conciliar reform in small, genuinely organic, steps. These steps will take the way that was already foreseen, even before the Council, and in the manner actually intended by the Council itself. The only sure points of orientation are the latest additions of the pre-conciliar liturgical books. But to exclude in principle the possibility of introducing certain minor reforms would not only be a categorical renunciation of the Council, but would also be tantamount to immuring the Roman Rite in a ghetto, restricted to the limited group of its staunchest supporters. In the course of a true reform one has to consider attentively not only the expectations of the Second Vatican Council, but also the pre-1962 and pre-Tridentine elements of the classical Roman Rite, and without an ideological aversion to including elements of the Novus Ordo, aspects of this too could be integrated inasmuch as they represent genuine historical developments. This book is not intended as a proposal for an exact itinerary, but seeks to show that such a reform, a real ‘organic development’, CAN be accomplished without ruining or abandoning the classical Roman Rite in the style of the Bugnini-led Consilium.” -p.263
Hallelujah!
One final note. The author’s passion for the musical treasury of the Church is evident in the seemingly excessive inclusions of Gregorian chant lyrics and melodies. I found it helpful to skim or even skip over some of these parts, so as not to get bogged down.
—
—
Some of my favorite quotes:
(I LOVE the opening words of his Intro — spoken like a true Hungarian!)...
“This book is an absurdity.
It is absurd, first, because now is not the time to start making changes again in the liturgy; people — priests and faithful alike — are fed up with innovations and debates. For each generation one shock is enough. There are always those who will say that whatever the liturgy is, or is not, only one thing really suffices: to follow the approved liturgy with due devotion and observance.
Secondly, this book is absurd in the sense that the shaping of the liturgy is not the task of any individual. The laws of the Church — and rightly so — do not follow the proposals of individual men; it is the task of the prelates — and foremost among them, the Holy Father — to take ultimate responsibility for considering these problems.
And it is absurd because these pages are written by a layman living in an isolated country far from the mainstream. His voice does not even reach the centre, where things really happen. Let the hermit be silent and pray.” -p.xxi (Introduction)
“This is the key problem with the whole movement of the liturgical renewal and its relationship to the 1970s. For the fathers of the movement the motivating impulse was the enthralling attraction of the existing liturgy. ... [We] fully misapprehend the Liturgical Movement if we do not recognize this basic emotion of admiration and fascination evoked by the Roman Rite and its very essence. The real concern was not what should be changed in the liturgy or where: they fell deeply in love with the very liturgy that was actually celebrated in the Church.” -pp.15-16
“The re-introduction of the ‘Old’ Mass does not justify a return to a practice whereby the celebration of the liturgy pertains only to the priest, while the piety of the faithful is fed by extra-liturgical devotions, prayers, hymns and spiritual literature, which are all right in their place but independent in style, piety and emotion from the liturgy itself. ... [The] true fruit of the conciliar reforms was that it directed our attention to the relationship between the faithful and the liturgy. Not even the best celebration of the 1962 missal permits neglect or diminution of the participation of the faithful. This is the most important enrichment that the classical Roman Rite has to gain from the Novus Ordo.” -pp.54-55
“My opinion is that it is a matter of life or death for the classical Roman Rite to embrace the desires, expectations and demands that clearly preceded the Council. If this is not done, the classical rite will remain isolated; although it will survive, satisfying the spiritual desires of small groups, it will be there only to decorate extraordinary feasts, special locations and certain kinds of meetings. In this situation it will not be able to heal the rupture!” -p.62
“[We] should return to 1962, not in order to stop there but rather to implement a badly conducted reform in a good way!” -p.63
One of the most shocking and (imho) insightful observations in the book was this: “If the classical Roman Rite were celebrated in the vernacular and with the priest facing the people, the abandonment of the Novus Ordo could be realized without any shock, perhaps unnoticed by the faithful. ... I say this not to recommend this sort of ‘behind the scenes makeover’; I only wish to emphasize that the wide-ranging reception of the classical Roman Rite is not hindered by the innermost essence of the rite.” -p.64
1. The differences between the Mass pre- and post-Vatican II.
2. How the Mass developed from apostolic times till now (Dobszay’s treatment is short but fascinating and informative — a Cliff notes version).
3. Which changes to the Mass were actually justified by the Council, and which changes were not.
4. How a “reform of the reform” (a now-famous phrase coined by the author!) could actually be accomplished in concrete terms.
The main service that the author has done in writing this book is not so much his concrete ideas for how we could restore the Roman Rite, although they are very interesting and usually plausible or even compelling (though not always, as for example his suggestion of eliminating the penitential rite from the Mass). Rather, the most important contribution of the author (it seems to me) is that he identifies each and every area of the Mass that must be considered if/when the Church attempts to reform the liturgy according to the true and authentic intent of the Second Vatican Council.
One thing I greatly appreciated about this book is that the author finds many good things amidst the changes that were made after Vatican 2. He is not trying to reject the new liturgy wholesale. His critique is nuanced and, in my opinion, fair. I was also grateful for the author’s encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter, which made him a great tour guide of the liturgy. There is so much amazing history to learn!
The five page “Summary” at the end of the book is truly excellent and helpful. The following quotation from it encapsulates the basic thrust of the entire book:
“The Roman Rite preserved its identity over a period of 1,500 years, yet all this time it developed continuously and organically. The will of the Second Vatican Council was to reform THIS living Roman Rite, and not therefore to create a new liturgy. Contrary to this intention, the Consilium, under Archbishop Bugnini, manufactured a new liturgy that broke the ancient continuity of the classical Roman Rite. The solution can only be to return to the situation of the rite in 1962, not in order to stop there, but to implement the intended conciliar reform in small, genuinely organic, steps. These steps will take the way that was already foreseen, even before the Council, and in the manner actually intended by the Council itself. The only sure points of orientation are the latest additions of the pre-conciliar liturgical books. But to exclude in principle the possibility of introducing certain minor reforms would not only be a categorical renunciation of the Council, but would also be tantamount to immuring the Roman Rite in a ghetto, restricted to the limited group of its staunchest supporters. In the course of a true reform one has to consider attentively not only the expectations of the Second Vatican Council, but also the pre-1962 and pre-Tridentine elements of the classical Roman Rite, and without an ideological aversion to including elements of the Novus Ordo, aspects of this too could be integrated inasmuch as they represent genuine historical developments. This book is not intended as a proposal for an exact itinerary, but seeks to show that such a reform, a real ‘organic development’, CAN be accomplished without ruining or abandoning the classical Roman Rite in the style of the Bugnini-led Consilium.” -p.263
Hallelujah!
One final note. The author’s passion for the musical treasury of the Church is evident in the seemingly excessive inclusions of Gregorian chant lyrics and melodies. I found it helpful to skim or even skip over some of these parts, so as not to get bogged down.
—
—
Some of my favorite quotes:
(I LOVE the opening words of his Intro — spoken like a true Hungarian!)...
“This book is an absurdity.
It is absurd, first, because now is not the time to start making changes again in the liturgy; people — priests and faithful alike — are fed up with innovations and debates. For each generation one shock is enough. There are always those who will say that whatever the liturgy is, or is not, only one thing really suffices: to follow the approved liturgy with due devotion and observance.
Secondly, this book is absurd in the sense that the shaping of the liturgy is not the task of any individual. The laws of the Church — and rightly so — do not follow the proposals of individual men; it is the task of the prelates — and foremost among them, the Holy Father — to take ultimate responsibility for considering these problems.
And it is absurd because these pages are written by a layman living in an isolated country far from the mainstream. His voice does not even reach the centre, where things really happen. Let the hermit be silent and pray.” -p.xxi (Introduction)
“This is the key problem with the whole movement of the liturgical renewal and its relationship to the 1970s. For the fathers of the movement the motivating impulse was the enthralling attraction of the existing liturgy. ... [We] fully misapprehend the Liturgical Movement if we do not recognize this basic emotion of admiration and fascination evoked by the Roman Rite and its very essence. The real concern was not what should be changed in the liturgy or where: they fell deeply in love with the very liturgy that was actually celebrated in the Church.” -pp.15-16
“The re-introduction of the ‘Old’ Mass does not justify a return to a practice whereby the celebration of the liturgy pertains only to the priest, while the piety of the faithful is fed by extra-liturgical devotions, prayers, hymns and spiritual literature, which are all right in their place but independent in style, piety and emotion from the liturgy itself. ... [The] true fruit of the conciliar reforms was that it directed our attention to the relationship between the faithful and the liturgy. Not even the best celebration of the 1962 missal permits neglect or diminution of the participation of the faithful. This is the most important enrichment that the classical Roman Rite has to gain from the Novus Ordo.” -pp.54-55
“My opinion is that it is a matter of life or death for the classical Roman Rite to embrace the desires, expectations and demands that clearly preceded the Council. If this is not done, the classical rite will remain isolated; although it will survive, satisfying the spiritual desires of small groups, it will be there only to decorate extraordinary feasts, special locations and certain kinds of meetings. In this situation it will not be able to heal the rupture!” -p.62
“[We] should return to 1962, not in order to stop there but rather to implement a badly conducted reform in a good way!” -p.63
One of the most shocking and (imho) insightful observations in the book was this: “If the classical Roman Rite were celebrated in the vernacular and with the priest facing the people, the abandonment of the Novus Ordo could be realized without any shock, perhaps unnoticed by the faithful. ... I say this not to recommend this sort of ‘behind the scenes makeover’; I only wish to emphasize that the wide-ranging reception of the classical Roman Rite is not hindered by the innermost essence of the rite.” -p.64
Displaying 1 of 1 review