What do you think?
Rate this book
Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform
LÁSZLÓ DOBSZAY, the famed Hungarian musician and liturgist, is the author of this 2003 work that offers a powerful assessment of the 1970 Missal in light of the Second Vatican Council and the preconciliar form. His argument is frank, even bracing, without being he deals with the grave problems inherent in in the Bugnini reform while not abandoning the need for reform of the preconciliar Mass. The unique contribution here deals with the topic most the relationship between the music of the Mass and the liturgical structure itself, a topic on which the defects of the reform are most evident. He deals further with the unstable existence of Roman Rite divided between two forms and two calendars. But he does not stop at criticism he presents a path ahead that is viable and consistent with the organic growth of liturgy that has always characterized the development of the Roman Rite.
218 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
17 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 25, 2016
This was perhaps the first serious book on liturgy I had ever read, and certainly a life-changing one since it was part of continuing conversion that has had a great effect on my priesthood.
December 10, 2025
A curious work. It is only fitting that this book was dedicated “with the permission” of the then Cardinal Ratzinger, because it tries to maintain a perilous position: the Tridentine Rite needed to be reformed, but the Novus Ordo is a mess that betrays the call of the Second Vatican Council, but we have to follow it because it is the legally declared to be our Rite, but merely relying on legal diktat alone is insufficient.
As with Ratzinger’s works, I can’t subscribe to that theory, but I can find some interesting points in their books. I’ll skip over the usual criticisms of the Novus Ordo that is pretty standard at this point, and instead focus on three particular points Dobszay made.
1. The distinction between Tridentine and Roman Rite. Dobszay wrote this in 2003, before Summorum Pontificum and when dial up internet had just disappeared. He rightly points out that the 1962 Missal and Breviary are not the same as that created after the Council of Trent in 1570/1568, but that the ’62 is clearly in the same family as those rites. This distinction is becoming better known in TLM circles today (Restore the ’54!) but there are still more than a few Trads who would be surprised to learn a good deal of their Holy Week ceremonies were crafted by the same Bugnini of N. O. fame. Dobszay takes it a bit far in his criticisms, especially of the work of St. Pius V, though criticism of the psalter rearrangement in 1914 are becoming more common. Perhaps the average TLM attendee is better informed now than in 2003, but if not, Dobszay helpfully shows the breadth of the Roman Rite beyond the Tridentine Use. The Ambrosian Rite is impressive, the Sarum Rite, the various ordos of the religious communities are all Roman Rite, but not Tridentine. Tridentine is the species, Roman is the genus.
2. The Novus Ordo fails even more in its Divine Office than it does in its Missal. I suppose we can forgive people not noticing this, as when was the last time any of us participated in a public service of the Liturgy of the Hours? In my diocese, I don’t think I have heard of a single Vespers service outside of Christmas. Dobszay correctly criticizes the LotH as a read, private devotion which cannot properly be considered a liturgy at all. It even lacks music; its norm is said, not sung. It turns out that trashing over a thousand years of work is easy, replacing it with better in ten years with texts and musical settings is impossible.
3. The need to build from the ground up. The most interesting part of this book for me, because it’s been sitting in my mind for a while. This can be split into two views, a horizontal and a vertical.
a. Vertically, we may need to adapt the Roman Rite to accommodate the circumstances it is being celebrated in. In a real sense, we have already done this, with the division between the Low, High, and Solemn Mass. What Dobszay would like to see is a sung Mass of some sort at every Sunday and significant feast day. Couldn’t agree more. Having a choir on hand that can sing the Introit or the Alleluia? That’s different. To avoid having a spoken low Mass forever, a simplified chant might be necessary. There is precedent for this: the Dominican chant is simpler in general than the Gregorian. But the full grandeur of the Gregorian should be kept in cathedrals and monasteries that have the personnel for them. The Eastern Rites do this with their Divine Office. It’s extremely rare for them to complete the entire set of hours, especially if the Divine Liturgy is also performed. They have modified to fit the circumstances. For us, what would that look like? Simplified propers in the Mass, for sure. What I really like about Dobszay, though, is his focus on the Divine Office and desire to see it sung publicly again. Again, the full ceremonial should be performed where it can; go on YouTube and you can find some beautifully performed Vespers (the SSPX seminary and the account Ite Missa Est routinely publish video of them). But it might be a bit much to expect a local parish to gather together a half dozen deacons, or even a priest in many circumstances. The ceremonial has to be lowered there. The norm still exists of the full ceremonial, but if we wait for a parish to have all of the parts together, we’ll wait forever. It is probably better to get some parishioners together and start chanting, make it a part of the parish life, and then begin to add the ceremonial elements on top of that foundation. Build brick by brick, as they say. Again, this is not a criticism of the full ceremonial. It’s actually a desire to get to that by taking the first step.
b. Horizontally, Dobszay wants to bring back the diversity of rites and uses common before the Council of Trent. Part of me understands this. Let each diocese have its own calendar, have some special rituals unique to it, so long as the main outline is still in the Roman Rite family. By jumping into the Tridentine Use, we did lose a bit that was beautiful. Dobszay rightly contrasts this with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, where the Novus Ordo was imposed, whereas the Tridentine Use was largely just offered and not made mandatory. One had broad support, the other is imposed to this day by imperial decree often against the wishes of the faithful. Pretty big difference. I think Dobszay’s ambitions on this topic were wildly unrealistic. Twenty years later, with far more interest and participation in the Roman Rite, we have the resources to keep the 1962 usage afloat but probably not much more. As much as I would love to see a flourishing Sarum community, a flourishing Ambrosian rite, a flourishing Carmelite rite, a flourishing Cistercian rite, a flourishing Dominican rite…heck, let’s add a flourishing Premonstratensian use in there, we simply don’t have the numbers to make that happen. The very fact that Dobszay has to talk about the vertical aspect indicates that we’re not in a position to bring back a wide variety of rites anytime soon. Such a process will be the work of centuries.
As with Ratzinger’s works, I can’t subscribe to that theory, but I can find some interesting points in their books. I’ll skip over the usual criticisms of the Novus Ordo that is pretty standard at this point, and instead focus on three particular points Dobszay made.
1. The distinction between Tridentine and Roman Rite. Dobszay wrote this in 2003, before Summorum Pontificum and when dial up internet had just disappeared. He rightly points out that the 1962 Missal and Breviary are not the same as that created after the Council of Trent in 1570/1568, but that the ’62 is clearly in the same family as those rites. This distinction is becoming better known in TLM circles today (Restore the ’54!) but there are still more than a few Trads who would be surprised to learn a good deal of their Holy Week ceremonies were crafted by the same Bugnini of N. O. fame. Dobszay takes it a bit far in his criticisms, especially of the work of St. Pius V, though criticism of the psalter rearrangement in 1914 are becoming more common. Perhaps the average TLM attendee is better informed now than in 2003, but if not, Dobszay helpfully shows the breadth of the Roman Rite beyond the Tridentine Use. The Ambrosian Rite is impressive, the Sarum Rite, the various ordos of the religious communities are all Roman Rite, but not Tridentine. Tridentine is the species, Roman is the genus.
2. The Novus Ordo fails even more in its Divine Office than it does in its Missal. I suppose we can forgive people not noticing this, as when was the last time any of us participated in a public service of the Liturgy of the Hours? In my diocese, I don’t think I have heard of a single Vespers service outside of Christmas. Dobszay correctly criticizes the LotH as a read, private devotion which cannot properly be considered a liturgy at all. It even lacks music; its norm is said, not sung. It turns out that trashing over a thousand years of work is easy, replacing it with better in ten years with texts and musical settings is impossible.
3. The need to build from the ground up. The most interesting part of this book for me, because it’s been sitting in my mind for a while. This can be split into two views, a horizontal and a vertical.
a. Vertically, we may need to adapt the Roman Rite to accommodate the circumstances it is being celebrated in. In a real sense, we have already done this, with the division between the Low, High, and Solemn Mass. What Dobszay would like to see is a sung Mass of some sort at every Sunday and significant feast day. Couldn’t agree more. Having a choir on hand that can sing the Introit or the Alleluia? That’s different. To avoid having a spoken low Mass forever, a simplified chant might be necessary. There is precedent for this: the Dominican chant is simpler in general than the Gregorian. But the full grandeur of the Gregorian should be kept in cathedrals and monasteries that have the personnel for them. The Eastern Rites do this with their Divine Office. It’s extremely rare for them to complete the entire set of hours, especially if the Divine Liturgy is also performed. They have modified to fit the circumstances. For us, what would that look like? Simplified propers in the Mass, for sure. What I really like about Dobszay, though, is his focus on the Divine Office and desire to see it sung publicly again. Again, the full ceremonial should be performed where it can; go on YouTube and you can find some beautifully performed Vespers (the SSPX seminary and the account Ite Missa Est routinely publish video of them). But it might be a bit much to expect a local parish to gather together a half dozen deacons, or even a priest in many circumstances. The ceremonial has to be lowered there. The norm still exists of the full ceremonial, but if we wait for a parish to have all of the parts together, we’ll wait forever. It is probably better to get some parishioners together and start chanting, make it a part of the parish life, and then begin to add the ceremonial elements on top of that foundation. Build brick by brick, as they say. Again, this is not a criticism of the full ceremonial. It’s actually a desire to get to that by taking the first step.
b. Horizontally, Dobszay wants to bring back the diversity of rites and uses common before the Council of Trent. Part of me understands this. Let each diocese have its own calendar, have some special rituals unique to it, so long as the main outline is still in the Roman Rite family. By jumping into the Tridentine Use, we did lose a bit that was beautiful. Dobszay rightly contrasts this with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, where the Novus Ordo was imposed, whereas the Tridentine Use was largely just offered and not made mandatory. One had broad support, the other is imposed to this day by imperial decree often against the wishes of the faithful. Pretty big difference. I think Dobszay’s ambitions on this topic were wildly unrealistic. Twenty years later, with far more interest and participation in the Roman Rite, we have the resources to keep the 1962 usage afloat but probably not much more. As much as I would love to see a flourishing Sarum community, a flourishing Ambrosian rite, a flourishing Carmelite rite, a flourishing Cistercian rite, a flourishing Dominican rite…heck, let’s add a flourishing Premonstratensian use in there, we simply don’t have the numbers to make that happen. The very fact that Dobszay has to talk about the vertical aspect indicates that we’re not in a position to bring back a wide variety of rites anytime soon. Such a process will be the work of centuries.
July 10, 2019
An excellent choice for all theologians seeking to understand the true spirit of the Roman Liturgy. Dobszay tackles a number of crucial issues that deal with how the Roman Rite has developed over the past 50 years while also explaining how said developments look in light of the tradition of said rite. Some points of interest include:
-The development of the Church Calendar and it's correlation with Mass Propers
-The history of the Divine Office
-The role of Liturgical Music
-The purpose of the Reform of the Reform
-The development of the Church Calendar and it's correlation with Mass Propers
-The history of the Divine Office
-The role of Liturgical Music
-The purpose of the Reform of the Reform
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews