What do you think?
Rate this book
Looking At the Liturgy
Nichols assesses the liturgical reform from the three converging viewpoints of a historian, sociologist and cultural critic, pinpointing areas that need to be addressed.
91 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 15, 2011
8 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
About the author
Aidan Nichols
107 books48 followersJohn Christopher "Aidan" Nichols O.P., S.T.M. (born 17 September 1948) is an English academic and Catholic priest.
Nichols served as the first John Paul II Memorial Visiting Lecturer at the University of Oxford for 2006 to 2008, the first lectureship of Catholic theology at that university since the Reformation. He is a member of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) and is the Prior of St Michael the Archangel in Cambridge.
Nichols served as the first John Paul II Memorial Visiting Lecturer at the University of Oxford for 2006 to 2008, the first lectureship of Catholic theology at that university since the Reformation. He is a member of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) and is the Prior of St Michael the Archangel in Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
November 26, 2012Yes.
March 13, 2025
Well-written as it is, Fr. Nichols’s book is a pleasant read with many interesting parts (e.g., the chapter on sociological and anthropological critiques of spontaneity and de-ritualization), but it suffers from an overly abstract framing: it is as if a certain “spirit” is being criticized (rather than any specific liturgical reforms), in spite of the fact that Fr. Nichols clearly intends the book as a critique (albeit a cautious one) of at least some of the particular reforms themselves.
He comes close to articulating this more particular sort of criticism in his discussion of the current norm for presidential positioning during the mass (namely, “versus populum,” or facing the assembled people of God); disappointingly, however, his halfhearted argument in favor of reclaiming the “ad Orientam” mass reduces to an assertion that it is older and more traditional (so that the pro-“versus populum” “innovators” bear the burden of proof—or the “onus probandi,” as Fr. Nichols would have it). Taken in isolation, this argument is weak; it is made even weaker in its full context, since Fr. Nichols readily admits that liturgical reform is at least sometimes warranted and yet makes no effort to engage with the actual arguments of the liturgists who were largely responsible for this shift in liturgical practice. Instead, he is content to accuse them (all?) of “sociological functionalism” and trust that his readers will (again, all?) immediately agree that that is *bad* (and so unworthy of further investigation or even comment).
I wish I could say that authors critical of 20th-century liturgical reforms are generally better than this; alas, I cannot. They tend to share a kind of “conservative reflex” (think: “if it was recently changed, it must have been changed for the worse”) that leads them to excoriate the motives and general intellectual approaches of the architects of reform while abstracting in disdain from engagement with their opponents’ arguments. And all the time, they insist on their own openness to “reasonable” reform.
It’s all a bit rich.
He comes close to articulating this more particular sort of criticism in his discussion of the current norm for presidential positioning during the mass (namely, “versus populum,” or facing the assembled people of God); disappointingly, however, his halfhearted argument in favor of reclaiming the “ad Orientam” mass reduces to an assertion that it is older and more traditional (so that the pro-“versus populum” “innovators” bear the burden of proof—or the “onus probandi,” as Fr. Nichols would have it). Taken in isolation, this argument is weak; it is made even weaker in its full context, since Fr. Nichols readily admits that liturgical reform is at least sometimes warranted and yet makes no effort to engage with the actual arguments of the liturgists who were largely responsible for this shift in liturgical practice. Instead, he is content to accuse them (all?) of “sociological functionalism” and trust that his readers will (again, all?) immediately agree that that is *bad* (and so unworthy of further investigation or even comment).
I wish I could say that authors critical of 20th-century liturgical reforms are generally better than this; alas, I cannot. They tend to share a kind of “conservative reflex” (think: “if it was recently changed, it must have been changed for the worse”) that leads them to excoriate the motives and general intellectual approaches of the architects of reform while abstracting in disdain from engagement with their opponents’ arguments. And all the time, they insist on their own openness to “reasonable” reform.
It’s all a bit rich.
November 30, 2019
Fr. Nichols traces the origins of the Liturgical Movement to moderate elements of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis in the direction of the “anthropocentric, moralistic, voluntaristic, didactic, subjectivist”. I found the style of writing to be annoying at first, and I almost put the book down, but I warmed up to it about half way through the book. Nichol’s analysis was too interesting to let that get in the way.
This book was intended to be a contribution to the liturgical debate of our time and I value the insights Nichols brings together from sociology, anthropology, and other fields. As he says at the beginning of the book, “Liturgy is too important to be left to liturgists.”
I was fascinated to learn how it was actually the liturgists who wanted to reform the liturgy behind closed doors before anyone could intervene to stop it. “The extraordinary thing about these meetings was that with few exceptions they were held behind closed doors, by invitation only [...] Part of the reason for this coyness was, no doubt, fear of adverse reaction by Rome.”
And “One must, I think, conclude that the principal reason for the adoption of an in camera method was that liturgists considered their subject too technical to be safely entrusted, even in part, to the judgment of nonliturgists.”
This is a pretty dense book with a lot to think about. It ends with some proposals of what could be done next. You might agree or disagree, and perhaps Fr. Nichols would have more to say in light of Summorum Pontificum and later developments.
This book was intended to be a contribution to the liturgical debate of our time and I value the insights Nichols brings together from sociology, anthropology, and other fields. As he says at the beginning of the book, “Liturgy is too important to be left to liturgists.”
I was fascinated to learn how it was actually the liturgists who wanted to reform the liturgy behind closed doors before anyone could intervene to stop it. “The extraordinary thing about these meetings was that with few exceptions they were held behind closed doors, by invitation only [...] Part of the reason for this coyness was, no doubt, fear of adverse reaction by Rome.”
And “One must, I think, conclude that the principal reason for the adoption of an in camera method was that liturgists considered their subject too technical to be safely entrusted, even in part, to the judgment of nonliturgists.”
This is a pretty dense book with a lot to think about. It ends with some proposals of what could be done next. You might agree or disagree, and perhaps Fr. Nichols would have more to say in light of Summorum Pontificum and later developments.
April 6, 2025
Looking at the Liturgy is a fantastic book in which Aidan Nichols incisively critiques the post-Vatican II Catholic liturgy. This is not a fideistic call for return to the Tridentine Mass, but rather a historical, sociological, and theological critique of several particular issues with the way the new rite is celebrated. This book was written nearly thirty years ago but is still relevant today’s Church, especially for clergy or people otherwise involved in liturgical celebrations.
October 7, 2024
It would have been nice if people like this guy had been in charge of the liturgical reform.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews