jan 232017

Nå har jeg også lest The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970, skrevet av Nicola Giampietro – ingen ferie uten å lese bøker om liturgien! Det var en interessant bok, og viser (ifølge forfatteren og Antonelli) at den liturgiske bevegelsen var sunn og nyttig fram til ca 1965, da for mange ukyndige ble involvert og noen av ekspertene mistet alle hemninger. Alcuin Reid skriver om boka på amazon.co.uk bl.a.:

… The appearance in English of Msgr Giampietro’s book is long overdue. It details the involvement in and contribution to liturgical reform by Father Fernando Antonelli OFM (created Cardinal in 1973) from the 1940’s until 1970, publishing for the first time Antonelli’s personal writings as well as archival material from the Commissions on which he served. …

… Antonelli was an, if not the most, influential member of the Commission for Liturgical Reform established by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and served as the Secretary for the Liturgical Commission of the Second Vatican Council. He was a member of the post-conciliar Consilium throughout and was appointed Archbishop Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Rites in 1965 (Those who have read Bugnini and Marini will be aware of the political battle for control of the liturgical reform waged by the Consilium against the Congregation for Rites). Giampietro’s study of Antonelli’s diaries and papers allows another voice on this and on other issues to be heard.

Antonelli was no `tweedy young traditionalist’ for whom a there is a given year after which liturgical reform is anathema and for whom the name “Bugnini” is synonymous with the root of all evil. The work of liturgical reform was his business for more than two decades. That is not to approve of all that he did. Indeed, it is the opinion of the present author that some of the principles of reform espoused by Pius XII’s Commission, and some of their applications, require critical re-evaluation: we stand in great need of a detailed and dispassionate study of the liturgical reform of Pope Pius XII.

For Antonelli continues to refer to the need to respect “genuine”, “best” or “original” liturgical tradition in liturgical reform. But quite how this can be discerned is not clear. “The surest” historical research was seen as fundamental, though some decades later we are clear¯most notably in the case of the so-called anaphora of Hippolytus¯that the final word in historical research had not been uttered in the 1950s. Yet the minutes of the Pian Commission¯published here in a 112 page appendix, which are themselves of enormous historical worth¯reveal that their reforms were largely based on such assumptions. So too they reveal the influence of a pastoral expediency and an archaeologism (which deprecated later, especially medieval developments, and sought to reduce rites to their “severe and original lines”) that may well have been injurious to received liturgical tradition. There are no simple answers to be found here, but there is plenty of primary material with which to inform further scholarship.

Antonelli describes the work of pre-conciliar reform as “a kind of novitiate” for what followed. Due to other responsibilities, he was not involved with the liturgical Preparatory Commission. Although he was an official of the Congregation for Rites, it was with some surprise, then, that Antonelli was named Secretary of the liturgical Commission for the Council instead of Father Bugnini, who “reacted violently”. …

Bugnini, not Antonelli, was named Secretary of the post-conciliar Concilium, though Antonelli remained a member. His view of its work is again not without historical importance. At the end of its first meeting he reflected:

“I am not enthusiastic about this work. I am unhappy about how much the Commission has changed. It is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others of them well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. What is most displeasing is that the expositive Promemorias and the relative questions are drawn up in advanced terms and often in a very suggestive form. The direction is weak.”

As the Consilium’s work proceeded, Antonelli’s concerns about its competence, its predilection for innovation and its consuming haste, grew. After some years’ experience of the Consilium he wrote that the liturgical reform was becoming “more chaotic and deviant”, adding:

“That which is sad…however, is a fundamental datum, a mutual attitude, a pre-established position, namely, many of those who have influenced the reform…and others, have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore.” …..

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>