THIRTY YEARS have elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in Advent 1969. None of us will feel a great enthusiasm to celebrate the anniversary of this event. It is an understatement to say that its outcome has been far from beneficial. Here and there, throughout this period, there have been signs of growth, expansion and encouragement in the Church. None of these successes can be seriously attributed to the new rite. There is every indication that they would have been achieved anyway and probably even more without it. At the same time, in the parts of the world where growth and increase might confidently have been expected, the very opposite has occurred. Judging by the patterns of the earlier decades of this century, the Church, in what may be described as its ancient heartland of Europe, and also in the English-speaking continents, was on course for a great new epoch of confident evangelisation. But that was not what happened. In fact, the reverse has occurred. By the fifties, the stage was set for a major expansion of Catholicism but in its place we have a massive contraction and a crisis of global proportions. It is true that some recovery has been made and continues, so that the picture now is better than it was at the beginning of this pontificate. But the problems remain and continue. The most far-reaching and immediately accessible of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, the new rite of Mass, has consistently failed to live up to any of the extravagant expectations of success predicted for it. For many, it remains the single most obvious problem that affects the whole Church in our day. Far from being a source and a means of the growth of piety and deeper understanding of faith, at its worst, it continues to be a major factor in the progress of the erroneous ideas and attitudes that have shaped and dominated Western Catholicism during this time. The new liturgy is the showpiece of the post Vatican II Church. Its failure to fulfil the prodigious expectations predicted by its apologists, cannot be blamed on the Council -- which did not vote for it -- but nevertheless, it discredits unfairly the positive aspects of its documents on the liturgy. Its obvious lack of success as a vehicle of renewal must place a question mark over the future of the rite itself.

Deception, dissension, and uncertainty.

This is a previously unheard of situation in the long history of the Church. Though it can be -- and indeed has been -- clearly demonstrated that this rite is not that intended by or legislated for by the Bishops at the Second Vatican Council, it has been seen by most Catholics as the unmistakable and immediately significant achievement that came out of it. But it has been the subject of division, controversy and confusion ever since. The origin and inspiration of the rite is an activity surrounded by ambiguity and allegation. Therefore, at the very heart of what should be the most unifying and grace-filled occasion of the Church's life, there is deception, dissension and uncertainty. It cannot continue indefinitely. To leave this matter unresolved will exacerbate the problem and, I believe, accentuate the haemorrhage of people from the Church. The struggle to recover the sacredness and splendour of the liturgy is the contest for the very identity of the Church, the "mors et vita duello" that will determine the quality and character of Catholicism for the next millennium. I would like to offer you some reflections and observations of my own, which over the years have caused me anxiety and kept me constant in my devotion to the old Mass. I am convinced that it is a precious and unique resource that can and will help to re-invigorate the Church we all love so much. The Church, that has been wounded and weakened by the adoption of a liturgical initiative which has cost it dearly. The price has been paid in spiritual and in economic terms, driven many of its faithful to despair and apostasy, and caused many prominent and holy churchmen and scholars to lament this appalling tragedy of the passing of a once great and seemingly indestructible culture of piety and worship.

Our Lord is recorded in the Gospels as having said that the eye is the lamp of the body (Mt.6:22. Lk. 11:34). He went on to say that if the eye be sound, the whole body is full of light. But, if it be unsound then there is only darkness. The liturgy is in a very real sense the eye of the Church. It is its window into the eternal and heavenly, as well as the means whereby is revealed in word and sacrament, its true identity and universal purpose. If that eye be defective or damaged, the picture will not be clear. The image will not shine forth as it should and the result will be a vision that is impaired or even obscured altogether. That, I believe, is a metaphor of the problem we have today in the Church. Many celebrations of the Mass are defective, not in their essential validity but in their ability to convey swiftly and unmistakably to the faithful the eternal, immutable and hierarchical nature of the sacrifice. Roles are often confused or reversed, standards of music and language are employed and places of worship are constructed which have the effect of diminishing rather than enhancing liturgical awareness. Attitudes and habits of belief and practice are being induced which spell the end - if they continue unchecked - of any hope of a lasting spiritual renewal among Catholics.

If a congregation is customarily present at a Mass which is dignified, and respects the sacred and the solemn nature of what is taking place, then they will more easily be disposed inwardly to orthodox patterns of faith and acceptance of, and obedience to, teaching. On the other hand, if a congregation is habitually involved in liturgies that are noisy, eclectic, and draw their inspiration from secular values and concerns -- even though partaking of some elements of conventional worship -- such people will be less sympathetic to the imperatives of authoritative statements and definitive teaching. They have been conditioned to think, act and behave in a transitory and selective mode, which inclines them to see religion exclusively as a question of attitudes to people, togetherness, humanist concerns and the propagation of social welfare. There is also the acute danger of the personality cult. Of the celebrant who strikes the right note and gives the most visually stimulating presentation. The notion of worship hardly enters the equation. The community is held together, not by the power of grace and inspiration external to itself, but by its own artificial dynamic manifested in its own peculiar way of doing things. To a great extent, it takes its cue from the celebrant. His presumed freedom and inclination to include a variety of elements to create an atmosphere that makes him, or them, feel good, easily translates into their freedom to choose or reject whatever in the Church appeals or does not appeal to them. What makes them feel uncomfortable or uneasy is discarded and what is seen to be affirming or consoling to them is retained. The result is fragmentation, confusion, apostasy and division. Those who do not accept or fit in with this approach to worship soon leave, to go elsewhere or to lapse from practice altogether. Catholics are now amongst the most diligent of Christian worshippers in applying the principle of choice and selectivity to their preferred place of worship. There is no longer the cohesion and communal character once found in every Catholic parish. The laity prefer to travel great distances to get to the church of their choice. This, in itself is evidence of a protestant tendency never before prevalent among our people. I admit that for many it has become a sad necessity but it is not a positive development.

Man-made, self-serving, and utopian.

The principal defect of the modern liturgy is that it is a man-made, self-serving, eclectic and utopian fabrication. It partakes of all the worst aspects of our contemporary age and can engender in the less wary of its participants an impression that very little in religion is of a permanent or immutable character. Because the Mass was changed and still continues to be the plaything of any person -- priest or layman -- involved in its presentation there is almost nothing that many Catholics now believe with real certainty of immutability, in the future. Large numbers of the faithful have been and continue to be slowly protestantized by constant exposition to the current form of the liturgy, mainly due to its banal and inaccurate English translation and its irrelevant options and alternatives. To some extent, this was foreseen by a few of those moved to pronounce upon the new Mass in all its stark novelty in the early seventies. In June 1971, writing in the Clergy Revue, an official organ of the Church in this country for many years, one such observer, identified only by the initials C.V.M.H., came to this conclusion.

"To such an extent have recent changes been in a protestantizing direction that one cannot dismiss out of hand the suggestion that they have been dictated by a wider strategy aiming at assimilation of Christian communions. Every time one goes to Mass now, one is reminded of the gnawing suspicion that in the service of this overall objective something else in the life of the Church is under threat; even that the doctrine of the special relationship of God with the Catholic Church is at risk. (The special relationship of God with every human being is not in question.) This is a big subject, and oversteps this contribution; but it leads right back to the first paragraph -- if the Mass can be changed, what cannot?" [The Clergy Review, Vol. LVI. No.6, 488, June 1971. p.438-429].

I regard that statement as prophetic. Nearly 30 years later, concerned and involved individuals in the Church, from the laity right up to one of the highest-ranking Cardinals in the Vatican were expressing similar fears. A growing number of Churchmen, scholars and religious point to the liturgical chaos as the untreated illness of the Catholic Church, an illness which is draining the life-force of faith from Catholics everywhere. Among those who have more recently identified the present liturgy as the key to the Church's present malaise is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. A theologian and a prelate steeped in the debate and discussion of the Council he is able to perceive and to pinpoint the real cause of the problem. He has recently written:

"I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of 'etsi Deus non daretur', in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity which is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result into a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing itself apart." [Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Milestones, San Francisco, 1998. p.148-149].

There are, of course, priests who celebrate the present rite of Mass with strict adherence to its rubrics - minimal as they are. Their congregations receive an ordered and solemn presentation of the liturgy, which helps them to have a correct understanding of the nature of a religion that is divinely revealed. However, even this cannot overcome the serious problem of bad translation, which is beyond the power of any priest to alter. And it is a profound weakness of this rite that it depends so much on the attitude of the priest. That is both a dangerous and un-Catholic approach to worship, which in the past we have always associated with high and low Church attitudes in the Anglican Communion. The traditional Mass left no room for such individual initiative and rightly insisted on conformity with the rubrics and forms ordered during centuries of vigilant surveillance by Church authorities. Whatever gave added emphasis to the nature and character of the Mass was preserved and mandated. Whatever tended to confuse or detract from it was proscribed. The old rite was uncompromising and unambiguous in its ability to convey the mysterious and the sacred. Developed over centuries of piety and in the face of the collapse of so many political and social institutions, it linked in time the Church of Constantine, Augustine and Leo the Great, with that of the 20th century. It was an unbroken continuity, which meant that every priest who prayed the Canon of the Mass could be sure that those same words and gestures were essentially those used and performed by saints and popes a thousand years ago. The whole ethos of that liturgy was God-centred and awesome and magnificent and priestly. Was that why it had to go? That at least, is the opinion of one of the greatest scholars of the liturgy, who, in contrast with so many of his contemporaries in this field, deplored the introduction of a new rite. He set down his reflections in a work, which has become a reference source for all, who wish to promote and preserve the ancient liturgy of the Church. I refer, of course, to Monsignor Klaus Gamber and his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. Like Cardinal Ratzinger, and others, he is one who has so well understood and analysed the true extent of the break with tradition that the new Mass represents. Writing on the subject of the interlinking of faith and worship -- the notion best expressed in the phrase, lex orandi, lex credendi, he has this to say:

"Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings of Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology -- for example, references to a God who judges and punishes [Gamber, Mgr. Klaus, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (English translation) USA 1993. p.100].

Over the past 20 years as a priest, I have observed a great change come about in the attitude of many Catholics to their religion. The time-honoured respect for holy things and for doctrine has been to a large extent replaced by indifference or even hostility to these things. These attitudes are fairly widespread. It is commonly believed that this malaise is primarily affecting those of the generations born within the last three decades. It would still be a tragic state of affairs if that were true. But I have to tell you that it now affects many of the older generations too. Indifference to Mass attendance, confession, decorum in church, respect for the priesthood and our bishops has become a prevalent attitude among many older Catholics too. There is also an increasing anticipation and expectation of yet more changes to come. I know some Catholics who in every other respect would be considered devout and loyal, but who still believe that the passage of time and the influence of powerful pressure groups will bring about changes that have hitherto been considered impossible.

This scepticism and predisposition to radical alteration of our religion, have all been bred of the destruction of the ancient Roman rite and successive campaigns to reduce liturgy and belief to the whim of personal preference and subjective choice. The new liturgy itself has played the major part as a vehicle for these agendas, and in helping to condition Catholics to the idea that a) change is inevitable, and b) is the result of progress. Liturgy and even religion exist for some people as a means of manipulation and control. They are seen as catalysts for the furtherance of aims and the dissemination of ideas. Just as Prayer Book services imposed on the people of this country stamped out all Catholic notions of eucharistic sacrifice, it also served as a form of instruction. It has an excessively moralistic and didactic tone. It overemphasises activity, instruction and conformity at the expense of mystery, receptivity, silence and adoration. Instead of buttressing the belief that the Mass is of itself the gift of God, of the means as well as the supreme action of communion with Him, it appears to diminish this aspect. It suggests that the main purpose of eucharistic celebration is to generate communion, produce fellowship with one another and be told what to do.

Never before, in the history of Catholic liturgy has such a position been reached. Only now, with the total replacement of the ancient form of the Mass and the continued application of the principle of necessary change have these attitudes taken root so firmly in the mind of church-going Catholics. This is in total opposition to the careful preservation of allowed usage in former times. It was ever the concern of the Church not to permit innovations of such magnitude in so vital an area as the liturgy, without many years, even centuries of trial and observation. Clearly, that wise procedure was abandoned in 1969. The whole Church has been the subject of a vast experiment in liturgical innovation without even the pretence of the long period of probation demanded in the past. With an arrogance on the part of those who engineered these changes that is almost breathtaking in its proportions, no warning was heeded, no provision for the possibility of failure was allowed. It seems unthinkable that in the space of a few years, the form and words of a millennial tradition of worship was replaced with an untried and hastily thrown together miscellany of divergent gleanings from other liturgical traditions and promulgated as the "Roman rite". How could it be imagined that the upheaval thus engendered would produce a devout and theologically sound Catholic people? Who could believe that the Church could have made the transition from a form of Mass which would be recognised by anybody alive for the last fifteen hundred years, to one which was barely recognisable from country to country within the decade of its own promulgation, and have avoided all division or loss of faith?

A great masterpiece of liturgical action.

Dom Gueranger, the great 19th century Abbot of Solesmes, once remarked, "To change people's religion, you need do no more than change their books of worship." There is little doubt in my mind that what we have seen in the past 30 years, is just such a change. It has been brought about by a relentless and ruthless policy to denigrate and deny the value and the availability of the old Latin Mass. I have been involved both as layman and priest, since my teenage years in the support of that great masterpiece of liturgical action, which I unite with greater minds and authority than my own, in describing as the supreme achievement of Western civilisation. It subdued the savagery of the Goths and Saxons, Huns and Magyars, Vikings and Normans. In the 19th century its timeless and awesome beauty captured the minds and hearts of numerous African peoples. The cadences of its chant filled sanctuary and seminary all over the American continents. And what has now replaced all this perfection of dignified movement, hallowed ritual and prayerful chant? We all know the answer to that question.

I have sought to set out in some detail the depth of the problem. It is time to look at the challenge that it poses. It is a mistake and a sin to become depressed. As we go through the valley of tears, we must fear no evil. Nothing can happen but what God permits. So we must seek to draw some wise lessons from these events and a sound course of action for the future. Not enough priests or people loved the old Mass sufficiently to preserve it totally. In many places before the Council it had become customary for congregations to be largest in Masses which were short. At the same time, if we had never had this change and lived through its catastrophic outcome, it would have been argued by those in favour of it, that putting the Mass totally in the vernacular and stripping it of every vestige of the piety of centuries was the solution to modern unbelief and moral decline. Now at least we know that is not true and never will be. Time has vindicated those who, in the late sixties, predicted a perilous result from wholesale abandonment of centuries of liturgical development and piety. Eminently sensible conventions and safeguards were jettisoned in favour of optional and minimal guidelines. The traditional Mass was denied to millions. But thanks to the efforts of a few champions and the good offices of the late Cardinal Heenan, the availability of the old rite still continued here and there to draw, to inspire, to offer comparison. We are all branded with the pejorative remarks of 'right-wingers' , 'traditionalists', 'reactionaries', 'extremists', and similar and less charitable descriptions. But we have not faded away and we have not given up. We are more numerous now than we were 20 years ago when things looked really almost over. I recall when I was ordained a priest in 1979, being among only about four priests of my generation in the south east of England, able and willing to offer the old Mass. Happily, that figure has now grown and continues to grow. The apologists for the Novus Ordo were fairly confident in the late 1970s that another 25 years would see the extinction of those who defended the old Mass. How wrong they were.

In conclusion, there are two things that I would like to say regarding our struggle to keep alive and fresh the vision of liturgy as celebrated daily by the fathers of Vatican II and voted for by them in their plenary session. First, supporters of the old Mass may be more numerous but are also very divided. That is both a weakness and a tragedy to be exploited by those who oppose what we are seeking. Unity is essential. So also is charity. We must never lose sight of the essence of Catholicism and legitimate obedience to authority. We must still continue to resist the downward slide of Catholic faith and devotion in our country without ourselves deteriorating into factional and sectarian attitudes of mind. There is always that danger when passionately involved in defending principles.

We must ourselves also pursue a vigorous and demanding quest for personal holiness and integrity within the Church respecting and praying for those whom God has placed over us. This may involve rejection, isolation, fear for the future and sadness at what has been lost. But, it should never descend to utter despair or bitterness or the poison of personal hatred for those with whom we disagree and who fail in their duty to correct what is amiss. Prayer and sacrifice are better than vitriol and brickbats. I am certain that every Catholic would agree with that statement. Sometimes charity may seem to desert us, carried away by zeal for truth and sanity as we may be. But one can point out error and request clarification and redress of grievance firmly and fearlessly without having to resort to hyperbolic acerbity. I believe that in the end, what we represent will be seen as the true path to renewal of the Church; the alternative that was abandoned in the late 1960s in favour of a misguided utopian strategy of liturgical revolution. The fruits of genuine prayer and ancient forms of piety will become evident to those who need to be convinced. They are still many, and powerful.

It was not the liturgy that needed reform.

The second thing I wish to say is that ultimately it is priests themselves and not the liturgy which was seriously in need of reform. Without holy and dedicated priests, no amount of presentation skills and holy roadshows will bring people to Christ or offer to God that perfect worship which is His due. Every gesture and prayer in the pre-conciliar Mass reminded the priest of a) his instrumentality and b) his unworthiness. But the prayers also made him aware that Christ's power was still effective through him. Recognising so much that has gone wrong, we must pray and hope for the day when major decisions are taken that move the priesthood and the Mass forward again in that direction. May I conclude with words from Mgr. Klaus Gamber:

"Today's Church has no need of a new order of Mass. What she needs is a flourishing spiritual life. This can overcome the crisis of faith, a crisis that is also a crisis of authority. At least in part, the responsibility for the crisis of authority must be squarely placed in Rome. Life does not exclude order, nor does it exclude authority. The opposite is true. Life, particularly spiritual life, can only flourish in an orderly environment. It follows that it can flourish in a type of order which, at first glance, may appear to be outmoded -- for example, the traditional rite. To make this rite truly relevant to our time, it probably would not have been necessary to come up with a new Order of Mass. We only have to remember how under the Nazi regime, when the Church existed in a ghetto state, spiritual and liturgical life flourished in many, many places. Contrast this with today. In spite of the new liturgy, the churches grow emptier and emptier. And still the experiments continue, all in the hope that the Church will finally "get in touch" with modern man. Also, we must not forget this: only a Church strong and secure in its faith and spiritually fertile will be able to create something really new and lasting. All else is but an artificial and utopian construct, unconcerned with and uncaring about the true needs of the faithful and their pastoral care; and above all, without any real psychological understanding of the sentiments of the people" [Gamber, Mgr. Klaus, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (English translation) California &N.Y. 1993, pp68-69].

This, as we all know, is the magnitude of the enterprise that engages us all. May Our Blessed Lady and our glorious martyrs of England and Wales, aid us, that we may not falter in it.

[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's August 1999 Newsletter.]