Fr. Harrison skriver – etter at han går gjennom hva Vatikankonsilet skrev om liturgien (som jeg nevnte her) – så hvordan han syns den nye reformerte, nye liturgien bør være:
1 Latin has not been abandoned and is retained for almost the entire Ordinary of the Mass.
2 Only the Roman Canon (the first Eucharistic Prayer) is used. Vatican II never even hinted at the composition of new Eucharistic Prayers, not even as options. Even if the newly composed ones were in themselves of equal quality with the old-which is questionable, especially with no. 2, which now seems to be the most frequently used-they represent in effect the creation of a new rite, not the revision of the old. Gamber insists that to change anything so central as the 1500 year-old Canon-the very heart of the Roman rite and the fundamental defining point of its very identity in comparison with other rites-“is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety”. And the Council certainly never dreamed of any such abolition of the old rite in order to replace it with a newly invented one.
3 In our alternate revision, none of those existing Offertory prayers has been removed that clearly expressed the sacrificial character of the Mass. Their abolition has been a major source of scandal for many Catholics, and with the widespread decline in belief that we noted earlier, the experience of the last quarter-century surely enables us to conclude with more certainty than ever that the removal of these prayers definitely did not meet with the Council’s requirement, namely, that any innovation must be “genuinely and certainly required by the good of the Church”.
4 Our alternate reform would also leave unchanged, and merely translated into the vernacular, the vast majority of the proper prayers in the traditional Missal, that is, those that change from day to day. The Council never suggested any substantial revision of these prayers; and yet, as Father Anthony Cekada’s scholarly study has pointed out, nearly twothirds of all the Opening Prayers (the Collects or “orations”) were simply abolished, and only 17 percent of them have been retained untouched in the Missal of Pope Paul VI.
What is worse, the motivation for most of the changes has been markedly ideological: in an astonishing contrast with what the Council actually called for in … the Liturgy Constitution, there has been such a drastic reduction or mutilation of the traditional prayers mentioning such themes as human weakness, guilt and repentance on the part of sinners, the wrath of God, hell, the souls in Purgatory, the Church’s need for protection from her spiritual and temporal enemies, and other topics that were evidently considered too “negative” for the needs of “modern man”, that in effect the whole spirit of the eucharistic liturgy has been seriously altered. Instead of these timeless and essential aspects of Catholic doctrine and spirituality, we have been given a liturgy that to an alarming extent reflects the naive and transient optimism of the ig6os: consciousness of sin, guilt, enemies, and judgment had to yield to that “insight” of popular modern psychology that reassures us all: “I’m O.K., you’re O.K.”
5 Also in our proposed reform, the sacred silence so important as an aid to true recollection, adoration, and an appreciation of the Real Presence-is preserved throughout the Offertory and Canon, which would be recited by the priest in the traditional reverent whisper. A great many Catholics have found that in the new Mass the constant patter of words (now trumpeted through microphones and amplifiers) brings our liturgy uncomfortably close in spirit to the more rationalistic atmosphere of Protestant services, devoid of mystery, in which the edification of the faithful by preaching and instruction in the Word is of primary importance.
6 Equally conducive to true adoration were the many gestures of reverence to the altar, signs of the cross, and genuflections, Communion received kneeling and on the tongue, all of which characterized the traditional Roman rite. So it should be stressed that nearly all of these rubrics would be preserved in the alternate reform I have suggested, following the lead of Msgr. Klaus Gamber. At a time when their abolition, or reduction on a sweeping scale, has been accompanied by a terrible decline in belief in the Real Presence, it would seem that the retention of such gestures and postures is more urgent than ever.
7 I have already remarked that the “clericalization” of the laity by giving them more and more liturgical roles that were once reserved for those in Holy Orders was not at all what the Council had in mind by “more active participation” on the part of the laity. Literally not one word in Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for the introduction of new “lay ministries”. …
If we are to have ever-increasing “egalitarianism” of this sort in the new rite of Mass, this only underlines the need for an alternate and more faithful application of the Council that more clearly manifests the special dignity of the ordained male priest in his unique relationship to the sublime eucharistic mystery I would suggest that extraordinary ministers not participate at all in this Parallel reform and that only priests, deacons, and male altar servers be present in the sanctuary, together, perhaps, with men who are duly instituted to the ministries of lector and acolyte, which have now replaced the old liturgical roles of the subdeacons.
8 Finally, our alternate reform will once again have the priest in front of the altar, facing the same way as the people, throughout the Offertory and Canon. Mass “facing the people” is regarded by Gamber as the most harmful single innovation of the entire liturgical reform-one that, as he demonstrates with convincing scholarship and at great length, has no precedent in any ancient liturgical tradition. Again, Vatican Il never remotely suggested this change, which is more radically Protestant in spirit even than the Lutheran custom and traces its origin to the Calvinist “Lord’s Supper”.
More than any other single innovation, this one focuses attention on the “community meal” aspect of the Eucharist instead of its sacrificial character and highlights the human personality of the priest (his voice, facial expressions, and gestures) instead of downplaying those features in the interests of the person of Christ, the true High Priest whom he unworthily represents. (It will be noted that I spoke of the priest “facing the same way as the people”, not “with his back to the people”. Once we even use the latter expression, we are already defining this ancient position of the priest in very negative-sounding terms and thus playing straight into the hands of those who want to abolish that tradition. For of course, we only speak of “turning one’s back” on someone in a pejorative context, rebuking his rudeness in turning away from someone he should be speaking to. But the whole point is that during the Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer the celebrant is not in dialogue with the people, but in supplication before Almighty God in the name of the people.)