FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Liturgical Reform and Cardinal Antonelli
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I just noticed an interesting book called "The Development of Liturgical Reform" by Nicola Giampietro. Apparently part of the book includes the
diaries of Cardinal Antonelli who served under Abp. Bugnini. From what I've seen Antonelli was very much disturbed by Bugnini and recorded his  misgivings. Just wondering if anyone here has read it?? And what you think? It was published in English in Feb. of this year.
"This study...helps us to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to and immediately following the Council...[and] would help us to see another side of the otherwise over-euphoric presentations of the conciliar reform by other contemporary authors....The publication in English of this interesting study would, I am sure, contribute greatly to the ongoing debate on the post-conciliar liturgical reforms." --Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo

Some excerpts of Cardinal Antonelli as he watches liturgical deformation:
"The '"Working Method" of the Consilium

After the first meeting of the Consilium, Fr. Antonelli writes: "Grand ideas, but it will not be easy to put them into practice" (p.228). He still believes that it is a question of painstaking work with a prudent respect for liturgical tradition, as it had been under Pope Pius XII, but very soon he will come to see that it is not so anymore. After the second meeting of consulters he wrote:

    I am not enthusiastic about the work in hand ,...we have a collection of people who are very incompetent and, what is worse, they are "advanced" in promoting novel­ties. The discussions are entirely avant-garde in tendency, based on impressions and chaotic desires. What upsets me most is that the reports of the presentations and the corresponding questions are always "advanced" in ap­proach and phrased in a biased way. Direction is weak (p.229).

This first negative impression is confirmed in the second meeting of the Consilium. Fr. Antonelli wrote,

    Everything that is "advanced," is passed ...because that is Consilium's climate of thought. As a result, there is a great hurrying to get on, and people do not take time to reflect sooner has the text been distributed but the examination begins, without anyone having had time to reject ,...There ought not to be such haste. But people's minds are excited and they want to press ahead (p.229).

Doubts continue to trouble Fr. Antonelli, for example, on concelebration (p.230); and, after the third meeting of Consilium, his fundamental doubt resurfaces concerning the opportuneness of liturgical reform at this particular historical moment:

    I dislike the whole spirit of innovation; I dislike the tone of the discussions, which is too hasty and sometimes too excited, I dislike the way the President [Lercarol does not get the participants to speak by asking their views. After all, the issues to be decided on are important ones, and I don't know whether this is a good time (p.230).

After the fifth session, Fr. Antonelli is seriously worried by the spirit of innovation of the Consilium members:

    This was a constructive session. But I am unhappy about the atmosphere. There is a spirit of criticism and intolerance towards the Holy See which cannot lead to a good conclusion. Then the whole approach to the liturgy is rationalistic; there is not concern for true piety. I am afraid that one day we shall have to say of this whole reform...: accepit liturgia recessit devotio-As the liturgy progressed devotion goes backwards (p.234).

Doctrinal Concerns

It is not, however, only a question of devotion. During the seventh session, when the Rite of Priestly Ordination is being discussed, Fr. Antonelli "notes with surprise that, in the context of the priest's functions, there is no mention of his principal work: sacrificium eucharisticum offerre" (p.236).

For the moment he is held back by an accident, due to the incompetence of the. "legal corps" and the "haste to get on." But Pope Paul VI's address of April 19, 1967 makes him think even more seriously about this Pope's responsibilities:

    Paul VI said that he was saddened because some people were making capricious  experiments in the Lit­urgy, and even more distressed by certain tendencies towards desacralizing the Liturgy. On the other hand he re-affirmed his confidence in the Consilium." And the Pope does not see that all the ills come from the way in which the "Consilium" organizes everything in this reform (p.237ff).

And all the time, as Fr. Antonelli makes it clear, "it is certain that Pope Paul VI followed the work of this `Consilium' most attentively" (p.237ff). Fr. Antonelli does not cease to be amazed at the method of working of the Consilium, or rather, the absence of any method in its working. On April 23, 1967, he notes in his diary:

    The schemas multiply without arriving at a form that is really thought-out. Cardinal Lercaro is not the man to direct a discussion. Fr. Bugnini is interested only in one thing: To go ahead and get it finished. The voting system is worse. Generally votes are made by raising hands, but no one counts the number of hands raised in favor and the number against; no one says "so many in favor and so many against"-It is a real scandal. Secondly, we have never been able to find out-although the question has been asked many times-what majority is necessary: a two-thirds majority or an absolute majority ....Another grave defect is the absence of minutes of the sessions, this has never been mentioned and certainly no such minutes have ever been read.

A "Continuation of the Council," or, the Permanent Council

Finally, after three years of anarchy, or rather, of dictatorship, by Fr. Bugnini, the "Consilium" wished to have its own "statutes," and a draft was presented to Pope Paul VI who, in turn, passed it on eventually to Fr. Antonelli for his comments. Antonelli, who, in addition to being a member of the "Consilium," was also Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, submitted his "observations" to Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of this Congregation, and he returned them to Pope Paul VI. In his "general observations" Fr. Antonelli emphasizes that "there is a noticeable and widespread anxiety with regard to these continual changes in a

large section of the clergy and the faithful," and that "this state of instability and uncertainty about the future is favorable to abuses, eroding more and more the holy respect for liturgical laws." Among other things he points out the anomaly of there being "two organs of the Holy See, both concerned with liturgical life, namely, the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the `Consilium."' Then, in his "particular observations," Fr. Antonelli notes that, according to the statutes, four-fifths of the members of the "Consilium," "including the Cardinals," are to be appointed by the Presidency and only one-fifth by the Pope. This is inadmissible: "this system," writes Fr. Antonelli "is absolutely new and is nothing but a continuation of the Council-which has no precedent in history. For, even after the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, once the Council had ended the Holy See entered once more into in full autonomy."

In his observations Fr. Antonelli also asked that the system of counting votes should be clearly fixed, because, he wrote,

    ...[Up] to now ...if a certain number of hands went up, they would press ahead without anyone counting how many were in favor and how many were against. Then, in the discussions which followed people often appealed to the fact that the vote had been in favor, and no one could prove that it had really been in favor.

After Fr. Antonelli's observations, the question of the "statutes" got bogged down. Pope Paul VI, as we shall see, opted for a different solution that would take Fr. Antonelli away from the liturgical reform and leave Bugnini's hands free. For the present, however, Antonelli had to endure Bugnini's violent reaction-which showed that he was privy to Antonelli's consultation with Pope Paul VI, whereas the latter had told Antonelli that the matter was "strictly reserved" (p.242).

Fr. Antonelli Begins to See Clearly

We are now at the end of 1967 and Fr. Antonelli writes in his diary:

    No one has any longer an awareness of the sacred and binding character of liturgical law. The work of desacralization, which is now called secularization, continues on a grand scale. It is clear from this that the liturgical question part of a far bigger set of problems, which are fundamentally doctrinal, so the big crisis is the crisis of traditional doctrine and the magisterium.

The blindfold starts to fall from Fr. Antonelli's eyes. It is not only a question of incompetence, of an appalling superficiality, of working at breakneck speed; it is a much more serious phenomenon. The liturgical reform is an instrument in the hands of triumphant "innovators" (in the same way that the liturgical movement had been, in part, in the hands of "rampant Modernists").

On July 23, 1968, Fr. Antonelli tells Cardinal Benelli of his ...

...anxieties concerning the liturgical reform which is going further and further astray. I mentioned in particular:

    1. Liturgical law, which was something holy until the Council, no longer exists for many of them. Each one regards himself as authorized to do what he wants...

    2. The Mass, above all, is the sore point...; now they are starting to pull confession apart.

    3. In the "Consilium" there are few Bishops who have had a specific liturgical training, and very few who are real theologians....And this is dangerous. In the liturgy, every word, every gesture imparts an idea which is a theological idea. Since, at present, the whole of theology is up for discussion, the theories current among the "advanced" theologians bring ruin upon the formula and the rite: the very grave result is that, while the theological discussion remains at an elevated level among men of culture, once it has descended into the formula and the rite, it begins to wreak havoc among the people (p.257ff).


I think that you will find a consensus here that indeed the council had strayed from its original intent, farther I think that anybody at the time could of perceived and that includes Bugnini.
I think some of them were disappointed that things didn't go farther than they did, like Cardinal Suenens who believed, according to Guinmares that the post-conciliar reforms weren't going far enough.  The ones who were astonished by the Conciliar deformations were the resourcement people like Louis Boyer, Ratzinger, de Lubac et al....