Anmeldelsen av Fr. Cekadas bok

Jeg skrev tidligere i dag om en kontroversiell bokanmeldelse, som også skapte en voldsom debatt på liturgi-bloggen Pray&Tell. Pray&Tell forteller nå at hele Msgr. Wadsworths anmeldelse er blir «frigitt» og kan leses her – tidligere måtte man abonnere for å kunne få se den.

Msgr. Wadsworths skriver i starten av anmeldelsen at forfatteren, Fr Cekada, er en ‘sedevakantist’, og at dette må/ bør man vite når man leser boka, og anmeldelsen. Men likevel kan man lære mye, sier han – og her har jeg tatt med noen utdrag:

… Unlike most critiques of the novus ordo which tend to concentrate on analysis of the ordo missae, Fr Cekada’s work considers the corpus of proper texts in the Missal in an attempt to assemble a comprehensive picture of the theological implications of the liturgical reform. The scarcity of this genre is testimony to the fact that forty years after the Council, we are still awaiting serious scholarship on these texts, the manner in which they were produced, and the guiding principles which shaped their composition. …

… On reflection, it is the assembly of a detailed chronology that is Cekada’s most significant contribution in this study. Drawing heavily on secondary sources (majorly Bugnini, Antonelli, and Bouyer), he charts the evolution of the mind of the Missal in terms of the development of the Liturgical Movement. For English readers, he also becomes a portal for a considerable amount of material not generally available in English. This is particularly important with reference to Didier Bonneterre’s Le Mouvement Liturgique (Fideliter, 1980).

Cekada sites his debate in the climate of renewed interest in traditional rites in the wake of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. He goes to considerable lengths to express his sincere view that attachment to the traditional liturgy without a thorough-going theological rationale amounts to no more than personal preference based on aesthetic considerations. ….

… Chapter Two traces the origins of the Liturgical Movement from promising beginnings through the ‘derailing’ influence of Beauduin, Jungmann, Bouyer, and Casel. Cekada clearly considers that their work in liturgical studies was so patient of modernism that they sent the whole movement veering off in the wrong direction. This movement ultimately bears fruit in the Pian Reform of Holy Week (1951) which Cekada identifies as the prototype for all subsequent reform and revision. This is Cekada’s most illuminating insight.

He explains at length his view of the shortcomings of Jungmann and Bouyer. The first he says commits the Church to archeologism with a corruption theory that advances an historically unsupported view of liturgy in Christian Antiquity. The second multiplies the falsehood by proposing an idealistic form of liturgy based on Lutheran ideals. …

… Its author claims a lot in offering ‘a theological critique of the Mass of Paul VI’. While I am not convinced that this is ultimately what is offered, the study certainly goes a long way in reconstructing the all-important narrative of how the liturgical reform came about. In many ways it makes a legitimate claim to being the fullest account of this narrative currently available in English. …