About the legitimate liturgical movement
by Stuart Koehl via Samer al-Batal

Fr. Serge begins with a quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium, that "the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else", and then he notes that "Every conceivable device, every trivialization of the Sacred Mysteries, has been justified in the name of 'active participation'". He quotes Prof. Mark Searle's devastating one-line put-down of the Novus Ordo in that regard: "Rarely was their an atmostphere of deeply prayerful involvement", and Fr. Serge notes that "Any further criticism of the Novus Ordo might even be superfluous. Participatio actuoso in the sacred Liturgy means deeply prayerful involvement; any so-called 'active participation' in the liturgy in the absence of deeply prayerful involvement is nonsense and blasphemy".

Turning to the origins of the Novus Ordo, Fr. Serge reviews the fundamental principles of the liturgical movement prior to Vatican II, in order to show that the founders and leaders of the movement (Baumstarck, Botte, Casel, Congar, Danielou, Gamber, Herwegen, Jungmann, and Louis Bouyer) would not (indeed, did not) set out to dismantle the Latin liturgical tradition, nor to put in its place so flawed a liturgy as the Novus Ordo. What were those principles? He enumerates nine in all:

1. Fidelity to the Church. Fr. Serge (who knew many of these man personally), observes that they were people who "loved the Church above everything except God Himself--and since they found God and love God in the Church, which is the Body of Christ, they found no reason to declare such an exception". For them, there was no liturgical movement apart from the Church, "because, in the happy phrase of St. Pius X, liturgy is the Church's own piety".

2. Reverence for the Liturgy. Fr. Serge quotes one of the few living* members of the preconciliar liturgical movement, Fr. Boniface Luykx, that "the Liturgy is the dwelling place of God, to be approached with worship and awe", a belief that is demonstrated by the manner in which Luykx himself celebrates the Liturgy (*abbot of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Ukrainian Greek Catholic, in California, he died in 2004).

3. Dedication to Ressourcement. Serge notes that the liturgical movement was closely linked to the patristic revival that began in the late 19th century. Leaders of the liturgical movement, he states, realized that one could only understand the liturgy in the context of the Holy Fathers of the Church. They supported the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers, and their translation into modern languages. And, above all, "they taught their students the necessity of reading and studying the works of the Holy Fathers".

4. Propagation of Greater Knowledge of the Liturgy. These men wanted the Catholic faithful at every level to understand the content and meaning of the Liturgy. They promoted the publication of missals (a rarity before then) so that the faithful could actually follow the words and actions. Bi-lingual missals were actually prohibited until 1897, and the first complete Latin-English missal was not published until 1910.

5. Efforts to Promote the Divine Office. The liturgical reformers wanted to make the Divine Office an integral part of the faith of all the people, and not merely a priest's prayer book. Thus, they promoted and published bi-lingual service books that included vespers, compline and other offices of the Hours, and encouraged their use in parishes.

6. Appreciation of Authentic Liturgical Music. In particular, Fr. Serge notes, Gregorian Chant. Also, an attempt to restore the best in iconography and appointments for the altar and the interior of the church.

7. Profound Interest in the Eastern Churches. Most especially, the Eastern liturgies. The liturgical movement published liturgical texts, arranged for public celebrations of the Eastern Liturgies, and in general believed that there was much the West could learn from the East in this area. As a result, the leaders of the liturgical movement also became leaders of the ecumenical movement between Rome and Constantinople, which in turn led to a fruitful cross-pollination with liturgical reformers in the East (Eliade, Gillet, Korolevsky, Popidara, and Schememann, among others).

8. Reverence for Sacred Scriptures. To support their liturgical activities, the reformers also pressed to place Biblical studies on a sound footing, recognizing that the Bible is the Book of the Church, to be read in Church.

9. Strong Monastic Foundation. Monasteries were at the forefront of the Liturgical Movement through the mid-1950s, in large part because liturgy is such a large part of the monastic vocation.

Fr. Serge Keleher provides the following summary that should be kept in mind as we continue through the remainder of his critique of the Novus Ordo:


One could sum up all these characteristics in a word which today might seem ironic, but is nonetheless true: the authentic Catholic liturgical movement of the twentieth century is deeply and thoroughly traditional. The aim of the liturgical movement is to know, to live, to spread the genuine orthodox Tradition of the Catholic Church. This could be demonstrated by the writings and lives of the leaders of the liturgical movement; no one who is familiar with them would dispute it.

This leads Fr. Serge to begin an inquiry into what went wrong. He notes that the great leaders of the liturgical movement believed that in Sacrosanctum Concilium the Church had adopted their guiding princples wholesale. Why then, he asks, do we find, thirty years later, that those who truly care for the genuine orthodox Tradition of the Catholic Church taking refuge in the Eastern Churches, or trying desperately to maintain the Tridentine Mass and "barring the door to anything that even reminds them of the Novus Ordo", or, in some cases, maintaining that the problem is not the Novus Ordo, but the "abuses" heaped upon it. But, Fr. Serge observes, the Novus Ordo continues to deteriorate. He quotes from the Psalms in a most appropriate passage:


Why does thy anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?
Remember Mount Zion, where thou hast dwelt.
Direct thy steps to the endless ruins;
The enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary!

Thine enemies shriek where thine assemblies used to gather;
They stuck their enemy emblems over the entrance,
Emblems we had never seen before.

At the upper entrance, they hacked the wooden trellis with axes.
And then all its carved wood they broke down with hatchets and hammers.
They set the sanctuary on fire;
To the ground they desecrated the dwelling place of thy Name.
They said to themselves, "we will utterly subdue them".
They burned down every shrine in the country.

Fr. Serge notes that as early as 1966, Fr. Louis Bouyer, perhaps the greatest of all the liturgical reformers, was warning that the movement was being hijacked by people who were using its language to subvert its principles:


Already we too often observe how individual aberrations or collective daydreams succeed in spinning a web around the best orientations of conciliar authority. For all the defects in the liturgy, whether in the past or of the present, and for everything that accompanies, sustains or produces them [i.e., liturgical errors] in piety as well as in religious thought, there can be but one remedy. And this is a return to the sources, as long as it is authentic and not one that is pretended or miscarried.

By 1968, Fr. Bouyer wrote:


There is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church. Yesterday's liturgy was hardly more than an embalmed cadaver. What people call liturgy today is hardly more than the same cadaver, decomposed.

Fr. Serge stands behind Louis Bouyer's accusation that those who purported to apply the liturgical directives of Vatican II deliberately turned their backs on the guiding principles of the liturgical movement. Writes Fr. Serge:


Those who have claimed to 'implement' Sacrosanctum Concilium have repudiated the foundations of that document, have conceived a different inspiration, and have led the Roman Church in quite another direction from that given by the liturgical movement and ratified by the Council.

But Fr. Serge Keleher does not look upon the pre-Conciliar Church as a liturgical Eden before the serpent of reform tempted the Church away from the true faith. No, he identifies a number of pre-Conciliar sources for the current crisis. Of these, he covers in detail no fewer than six distinct tendencies:

1. Authoritarian Clericalism. The notion that everything must be done out of obedience of the "because I said so" variety in fact breeds subservience, and not interior religious assent or genuine understanding. He notes that parish priests who heaped abuse on those advocating vernacular liturgy in 1961 could and did use exacting the same language to abuse those advocating the retention of Latin and Gregorian chant in 1968. He notes that the liturgical movement was naive in thinking that this deeply ingrained mindset would be removed by conciliar decree.

2. Idolization of Practicality. Fr. Serge notes that there is a tendancy to measure the success of the Church in concrete terms like numbers of baptisms, marriages, Mass attendance, etc., and less on the spiritual life of the faithful. He quotes a story by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, who whilst travelling with a Roman Catholic priest, happened to bring up Louis Bouyer. The Catholic priest denounced Bouyer, calling the liturgical movement a bunch of romantics with no concern for the "practical" elements of parish life. His supposed clinching argument was to invite Fr. Schmemann to his parish, where he could take a look at the parking lot. Fr. Serge observes that an overly business-like approach to the Holy Mysteries places churches in danger of becoming the sacramental equivalent of gas stations--and he doesn't doubt that Schmemann's parish priest would consider that a compliment.

3. Uneducated and Unconcerned Clergy. Serge Keleher observes that prior to Vatican II, seminaries and religious orders actively discouraged serious study of the Liturgy. Courses "on" liturgy were actually courses on memorizing the rubrics. Louis Bouyer reports that after joining the Oratory, he was told by his superiors, "You're much too interested in things like Holy Scripture and the liturgy. Real Catholics don't attach such importance to those things". Recognize, please, that the Protestant stereotype of Catholic worship did indeed have some basis in truth.

Fr. Serge notes that clergy formed in that environment did not find inspiration in liturgy, or have much respect for those who did. The authors of Sacrosanctum Concilium were aware of this problem, and included strongly worded sections on the importance of teaching liturgy in the seminaries and religious houses. But, he notes, far too often those sections were ignored or subverted.

Bad as this problem was among priests, it was also damnably present in bishops. He notes that shortly after being elevated to the papacy, John XXIII pontificated at Solemn Vespers--the first time that the Bishop of Rome had done so in more than seventy five years. Francis Cardinal Spellman so disliked celebrating the Mass that he received a dispensation from Pope Pius XII "so that he never recited the Divine Office, and almost never celebrated the Eucharist (though on Christmas he would celebrate a low Mass for servicemen at a nearby military base). Cardinal Spellman, while an extreme case, was no anomaly, to the point that Sacrosanctum Concilium had to include provisions stating explicitly the duty of the bishop to lead the liturgical life of the dioceses.

4. Irreverence. Many "traditionalist" Catholics have dim or hazy memories of the pre-Conciliar Church, and seem to think that there was a much greater degree of reverence for the Mass then, than there is now. That may be the case, but Fr. Serge demonstrates that the degree of reverence then still left much to be desired. Specifically, he points to the Holy Table of the Altar. Under the pre-Vatican II rubrics, there were precise instructions for the materials, care, and positioning of the altar, but in point of fact, seldom were these implemented. Supposedly made of stone, most altars were in fact hollow wooden boxes (frequently marblized) and were, contrary to all prohibitions, often used for storage purposes.

He also points to the abuse of simultaneous services, recounting how he once visited a parish in which a Mass was in progress at the main altar, a second priest was addressing the congregation from the pulpit throughout the Mass, a third priest was distributing Holy Communion continuously at the altar rail, a marriage was taking place in one side chapel, and devotions were being held audibly in another side chapel, whilst in the midst of all this "pious chaos" several other priests attempted to hear confessions. He also notes that the Blessed Sacrament was enthroned in a monstrance on the main altar, even though the rubrics disapproved of the celebration of Mass in the presence of the enthroned Blessed Sacrament. Fr. Serge wryly observes that had anyone tried to point this out the parish priest, he would have been told to go elsewhere; he notes that the faithful who have attempted to point out abuses in the Novus Ordo have been similarly dismissed.

5. Overwhelming Preference for the Low Mass. Fr. Serge hurls quite a number of bombshells here. To begin with, he notes that all prostestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the real basis for the Novus Ordo is the Low Mass. He follows this with a brief synopsis on the development of the low Mass; i.e., how it began as an abbreviated form of the Solemn Mass to be used when priests celebrated without the presence of a congregation, how it eventually became a public Mass, with the congregation worshipping however they pleased while the priest also prayed silently, and how music unrelated to the liturgical action was gradually inserted into the Low Mass. He observes that the Solemn (High) Mass came to be regarded as suitable only for the most important holy days, and generally a burden to be avoided. While every scholar knew that the Pontifical High Mass was the normative form of the Roman Liturgy, everyone's practical experience was the opposite: the Low Mass was normal, and the High Mass a rare aberration, which ordinary Catholics avoided at all costs.

He notes that in this century, attempts at reforming the Low Mass led to a variety of other abuses, starting with the so-called "Dialogue Mass" that originated in Germany in the 1920s, and which reached the US in the 1950s. The Dialogue Mass was a low Mass in which the entire congregation recited the responses once said silently by the acolytes. The existence of this hybrid made celebration of the High Mass even more rare, but worse, it encouraged misunderstanding of the congregational role in the Mass. For instance, the priest continued to read silently the Propers, which should have been sung by the congregation; the people did not recite the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, or Agnus Dei--all of which were still recited silently by the priest. At the same time, the people did recite the Suscipiat response to the Orate, Fratres--which rightfully are a dialogue between the celebrant and concelebrating presbyters.

Fr. Serge quotes Cardinal Heenan in a 1967 interview, in which Heenan said.


I cannot think that anyone with pastoral experience would have regarded the sung Mass as being of first importance. Our people love the Mass, but it is the Low Mass without psalm-singing and other musical embellishments, to which they are chiefly attached.

In other words, Low Mass is what matters, Music is a "trivial embellishment" that would drive people from the Church.

6. A Passion for Uniformity (and conversely, a Terror of Pluralism). Fr. Serge notes that devotees of the Novus Ordo often compare its erstwhile "pluralism" with the "rigidity" of the pre-Conciliar liturgy. But, he observes, the truth is more complex. Taking on the language issue first, he takles the "argument from tourism", that because of Latin, the Mass is the same for Catholics everywhere and at any time. He says regarding this:


The argument is idiotic and rest on several false premises, but it is very powerful emotionally; even people who knew perfectly well that it wasn't true still managed to believe it. They wanted it to be true; therefore it must be true. And evidence to the contrary must be kept out of sight. The Liturgy should be done the same way everywhere (in preparation for Vatican II, the American Roman Catholic bishops seriously demanded the suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the USA); nobody should know about the different liturgies of the religious orders; the Mozarabic Rite should be locked in its small chapel in Toledo


Fr. Serge then goes on to state that three decades later, the official liturgical books of the Novus Ordo have so many options that one needs a computer to keep them all straight, but that in reality the options are constrained by a prevailing group-think. He gives examples:

-The Sacramentary provides for the chanting of the Gospel, but where in any Roman Catholic parish will you find this done?

-The Roman Canon, first of the four Eucharistic Prayers, has a special variations for the Communicantes at Christmas, and the General Instruction states that the Roman Canon be used on days for which such variations are appropriate, but often this is not done because the text is omitted from the service books and misslettes given to the people.

-The Eastward Orientation of the celebrant. Fr. Serge notes with growing outrage (I know the man--he's about six foot six, full-blown Irish, and has a temper) that there is not one official document that requires the priest to celebrate the Mass using the versus populum; i.e., facing the people:

The rubrics of the Novus Ordo assume that the celebrant is facing East, and require him to turn and face the people to bestow certain blessings. But may God in His infinite mercy be kind to the priest who dares to celebrate the Novus Ordo facing East! One may not even discuss the matter (almost no Catholic bookshops will sell Monsignor Klaus Gamber's book on the subject).

(For those who want it, the title is The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background, Una Voce Press (San Juan Capistrano, CA) 1993); despite some hyperbole surrounding the origins of the Roman rite, the book is actually quite good on recent developments.

Fr. Serge concludes this part of his paper by observing that:


On this point, in practice the Novus Ordo is far less pluralistic and tolerant than the Tridentine Mass; well before Vatican II, it was possible to find places where the Tridentine Mass was said "facing the people" on a regular basis, and it was not unusual to find this practice done in other places on particular occasions, usually for educational purposes.

Having examined the principles of the liturgical movement, and the preconciliar roots of the current crisis, Fr. Serge Keleher now addresses the question of what the liturgical movement actually wanted. He begins by noting that he was a dedicated vernacularist who looked forward to the celebration of the Mass in English. Two things, however, he and his fellow reformers never anticipated:

First, that celebration of the Roman Liturgy in Latin would be prohibited. Such a prohibition is nowhere mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium; in fact, it states that use of the vernacular may be extended, while that of Latin is retained. Furthermore, it directed that all the faithful should be taught to sing certain parts of the Mass in Latin. The liturgical movement also expected that Latin and vernacular celebrations of the Mass would exist side-by-side, with the Latin version remaining normative.

He says that, in retrospect, such an expectation was unrealistic, because most priests were unwilling to maintain anything resembling a choice (Keleher is too nice to imply that most priests heartily detested Latin, a language in which they had only limited facility).

Second, and this is most telling, "Still less did we realize that "vernacular" was going to mean a cross between computerese and newspaper jargon". Keleher tells us that it was the expectation of the liturgical movement in the English-speaking countries (Keleher himself is Irish, schooled in the US and UK) that the Anglican translations of the Roman Liturgy would be adapted for Catholic use, since the Anglicans had been using all or part of the Roman Liturgy in English for a very long time, and had done much work in liturgical chant. "Why refuse to benefit from this work and instead attempt to reinvent the wheel?"

Keleher puts this failure down to one factor, totally unrelated to the principles and objectives of liturgical reform: secularism.


The note which marks the ICEL translations and connects them to the Novus Ordo so intimately is the false but powerful principle of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini that the norm for the liturgy and for Church renewal is modern Western man, who is the normative man, the perfect man, the final man, the everlasting man. For Bugnini, secularization was a necessary process, something the Church needed to accept and to embrace. Bugnini accepted and embraced secularism because he said it was reality, and it was necessary to accept reality. He held to the philosophical view that man is made without God and does not need God. Such a mindset necessarily excludes anything resembling hieratic or sacral speech. In spite of protestations to the contrary, ICEL does not object to hieratic language because "it cannot be understood"; ICEL objects to hieratic language because such language is redolent of the sacred. Such language is not horizontal; it leads the worshipper to elevate his heart and his soul to the transcendant God.

It should be noted here that Keleher knew Bugnini and many other prelates who were even more intimate with him, and that this is an authentic representation of Bugnini's views (See "Interview with Abbot Boniface Luykx" Inside the Vatican, May 1996 for independent confirmation). He also notes that Bugnini was merely the most visible advocate of a perspective that was fairly widespread within the Vatican Curia at the time.

Finally, Fr. Serge Keleher addresses one of the most commonly repeated myths about the Novus Ordo: that its formulation was heavily influenced by the Christian East. As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Fr. Serge has a personal interest in this issue.

He begins with a quote by the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch, +Maximos IV, at Vatican II:


We must not allow the adaptation of the liturgy to become and obsession. The liturgy, like the inspired writings, has a permanent value apart from the circumstances giving rise to it. Before altering a rite, we should make sure that a change is strictly necessary. The liturgy has an impersonal character and also has universality in space and time. It is, as it were, timeless, and thus enables us to see the divine aspect of eternity. These thoughts will enable us to understand what at first may seem shocking in some prayers of the liturgy--feasts that seem no longer appropriate, antiquated gestures, calls for vengence which reflect a pre-Christian mentality, anguished cries in the dark of the night, and so on. It is good to feel oneself thus linked with all the ages of mankind. We pray not only with our contemporaries, but with men who have lived in all centuries.

Keleher looks at the relationship between the Novus Ordo and the Eastern liturgies, and while noting that the advocates of the new Mass sometimes claimed an Eastern inspiration for their changes, it was but a short-lived "affair of convenience", one that flattered Eastern Catholics and gave the Novus Ordo reformers a cover of legitimacy. But any real relationship between the Novus Ordo and the Eastern liturgies is illusory, because the two are
based on diametrically opposed assumptions about the relationship of God and man.

Keleher looks at some specific "points of resemblance" between the Novus Ordo and the Eastern liturgies:

1. Concelebration: the Byzantine liturgy specifically allows for concelebration whenever the clergy so desire; in other traditions, concelebration occurs only at special occasions, if at all. Under the Tridentine Rite, concelebration was limited only to the consecration of bishops and the ordination of priests. Sacrosanctum Concilium extended the opportunities for concelebration, but there is no direct link between the Byzantine tradition and this change in the Roman rite. In fact, there are several substantive differences: in the Byzantine rite, each concelebrant must be at the altar, in full Eucharistic vestments; in the new Roman rite, concelebrants can be away from the altar, and not even in full vestments. Keleher calls these "mob concelebrations", and recalls a scene in Rome in 1976, when some 700 priests concelebrated a single liturgy. Quoting an unnamed Eastern Patriarch (it was +Maximos V) who witnessed this scandalous event, "They go from one extreme to the other".

2. Administration of Holy Communion Under Both Species. The Christian East administers communion both of the Body and Blood, with the two elements mixed together in the chalice and administered on a golden spoon; that method was rejected by Vatican II at the outset. Fr. Serge notes that the unfortunate practice of administering communion "in the hand" (something completely alien, not to mention impossible in the Eastern rites) became common soon afterwards. He notes that most Eastern Christians regard this practice as scandalous, to the point that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Greece had to prohibit it entirely at Roman Masses celebrated in that country.

3. Vernacular Liturgy. Fr. Serge notes that the situation in the East is far more complicated than the apologists for the Novus Ordo pretend. It is true that the original languages of the Eastern Church were Greek and Syriac, and that as time passed, it was translated into new languages as needed (Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, etc).--but in almost every case, Eastern liturgies have been celebrated either in a hieratic language (Coptic, Ge'ez, Syriac, or Church Slavonic) connected to the history and culture of particular peoples, or in a hieratic form of a vernacular language (e.g., Greek). He points out that the Eastern Churches have generally tried to make translations that were at the same time, understandable and sacral, using sacral idioms throughout. According to Fr. Serge, "No Eastern Church would tolerate the sort of language produced by ICEL; ICEL's inspiration could not have come from the Christian East."

4. Multiple Eucharistic Prayers. Fr. Serge begins by noting that the Eastern liturgies have several Eucharistic prayers (anaphora), but that even before Vatican II, the same could be said of the Roman rite, for the Preface is part of the Eucharistic prayer, and the 1962 Missal lists no fewer than fifteen different Prefaces. And he points out that other Western rites, such as the Mozarabic, have even greater variety (to the point where one has to question whether the Mozarabic rite even has a fixed Eucharistic prayer).

In selecting alternative Eucharistic prayers for the Novus Ordo, the Concilium deliberately avoided using anything derived from either the Basil or Chrysostom liturgies. The Second Eucharistic Prayer is sometimes claimed to be Eastern, because of its alleged authorship by St. Hippolytus, but Hippolytus of Rome is unknown in the Christian East, was a bishop of the Roman Church, and in any case, any relationship between the current Eucharistic prayer and the Hippolytan canon is vague at best.

Having covered all the bases, Fr. Serge Keleher now explores the ongoing task of the liturgical movement. He agrees with the statement that, "there must be a reform of the reform", but what does that mean? First of all, he cautions against any undue haste because of the potentially catastrophic pastoral consequences. Rather, he calls in the near term for a revival of the liturgical movement, according to its original principles and objectives:
fidelity to the Church, reverence for the Liturgy, study and publication of biblical and patristic sources, popularization of the Liturgy of the Hours, rediscovery and renewal of authentic liturgical music, iconography and architecture, and a parallel monastic revival. He also calls on Latin Christians to develop, in accordance with the call of Pope John Paul II, a more profound awareness of the theology, liturgy, spirituality and discipline of the Eastern Churches. He notes,


There is no reason to start all over again; much essential source material was published and continues to be published. Some of the classic works of the masters of the liturgical movement are now out of print; they should be reprinted and used. The liturgical movement must encourage further scholarship, and regular gatherings of prayer and worship; there is no real liturgical movement without a constant thirst for holiness.

He asks that those interested in a sound liturgical movement work to make the Eastern liturgies more open and available to Western Christians, "for the benefit of a more complete understanding of Catholic worship. The Novus Ordo represents a turning away from the Christian East; a greater awareness of the Christian East can be most salutary". He notes that, because it developed in the eclectic environment of "New Rome", which combined Roman, Greek and Semitic culture into an harmonious synthesis, the Byzantine Liturgy is the only Catholic Tradition not tied to a particular culture. This, he argues, is why the Byzantine Tradition is able to take root in otherwise highly diverse cultures, and that "in a time when there is justified concern for the 'inculturation' of the Faith in diverse cultures, the Byzantine example deserves attention."

Fr. Serge quotes Dom Lambert Beauduin's principle that "one cannot reform that which one does not know". For thirty years, the Novus Ordo has had a virtual stranglehold on Western liturgical celebration. He calls, as a necessary precondition for a reform of the reform, real pluralism in the Latin Church: not just the Novus Ordo in Latin and vernacular versions, supplemented by the Tridentine rite, but also greater use of all the extant Western liturgies: Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and the different monastic liturgies--Carmelite, Cistercian, Dominican, Premonstratensian, etc. He calls for much wider use of the indult for the Tridentine rite using the 1962 missal, because "one cannot possibly understand the liturgical movement and the decree Sacrosanctum Concilium without being familiar with the Rite of the Mass. However, he does call, as an immediate measure, for the translation of the 1962 Missal into proper vernacular versions:


"Vernacular in this context must not mean the idiom of the ICEL. To begin with, there could be an adaptation of the English Missal, which has the advantage that there is liturgical music to match the texts. This is not quite an innovation for Catholics; the scant handful of 'Anglican Use' parishes in the US are following a liturgy along these lines, using Coverdale's translation of the Roman Canon".

At the same time, he calls for a complete rejection of the ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo Missal, and its replacement with one that accurately reflects the Latin text and uses proper sacral idiom, resulting in a Mass suitable for use throughout the English-speaking world. There could also be, he notes, specific variations for the UK, the US, Australia and elsewhere. This could be accompanied by a restoration of versus apsidem orientation for the priest, though, he notes, this will take some pastoral sensitivity so that the people fully understand the import of the change. And, finally, he recommends restoration of Gregorian Chant as normative for the Church, and the encouragement of good cantors and choirs. But, finally, he recognizes that these are all interim measures, and that true liturgical reform will require many years of patient dedication on the part of all those who love the authentic Tradition of Catholic worship.