position, however, was not the only possible way of approaching matters, and a
moderate position was proposed by the Dominican, Marie-Joseph Lagrange,<fnref n="136" /> who
tried to solve matters by developing his own methodological set of tools, leaning on
orientalist and contemporary scientific insights, yet criticizing the ‘classical’ idea of
inerrancy.<fnref n="137" /> Lagrange disputed the instrumentalist approach maintained by the Jesuits
since Franzelin<fnref n="138" /> and appealed for a modern Thomism, over and against intransigent
interpretations of it. On the other side of the spectrum, an influential exponent of
the intransigent current of thought was the Belgian Jesuit, Alphonse Delattre.<fnref n="139" />
Hardly studied and often neglected by historians in the field of the Catholic biblical
movement, he was behind a list of attacks on an “open” school of exegesis in the
beginning of the twentieth century and was a close ally of the Benedictine integrist
theologian, Laurent Janssens.<fnref n="140" /> Delattre had spent a period of study in Beyrouth, was
well versed in biblical studies and Assyriology, specialized mainly in Old Testament
exegesis, and published several works on Chaldean and Persian history,<fnref n="141" /> yet he
never quite accepted the historical-critical method as proposed by Lagrange.<fnref n="142" /> Like
Lagrange, he figured among the first generation of consultors to the Pontifical Biblical
Commission. Nevertheless, the two exegetes were far from being allies. While Delattre
endorsed the study of antique sources and linguistics, he thought it to be a primordial
task for all Catholic exegesis to safeguard revealed doctrinal truths and refused to
question them as a result of historical criticism. Therefore, both his exegetical and
other writings<fnref n="143" /> bear the mark of intransigent apologetics, and Delattre, defending

<footnote n="136">136 Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), French Dominican friar of the Toulouse province in 1879. He studies theology and oriental linguistics, exegesis and philosophy at Toulouse and Vienna. In 1890 Lagrange founds the École pratique d'études bibliques in Jerusalem, training several generations of exegetes there. See Bernard MONTAGNES, *Le père Lagrange, 1855-1938. L'exégèse catholique dans la crise moderniste* (Histoire), Paris, 1995.</footnote>

<footnote n="137">137 Henri MERKELBACH, *L'inspiration des divines écritures*, in *Revue ecclésiastique de Liège*, 6-7 (1910-1912), p. 221-243 and 12-33. Both articles were edited in 1913 as Henri MERKELBACH, *L'inspiration des divines écritures. Questions de principe et questions d'application*, Arras, 1913.</footnote>

<footnote n="138">138 Raymond F. COLLINS, *Introduction to the New Testament*, London, 1983, p. 337. On Franzelin's (1816-1886) life and work, see Peter WALTER, *Johann Baptist Franzelin (1816-1886). Jesuit, Theologe, Kardinal. Ein Lebensbild*, Bosen, 1987.</footnote>

<footnote n="139">139 A short biographical notice is given in É. DE MOREAU, *Delattre, Alphonse*, in *Biographie Nationale*, 29, col. 533.</footnote>

<footnote n="140">140 Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Delattre highly valued the works of the aforementioned Louvain exegete, Beelen. See the rather hagiographical, but nevertheless interesting, biographical overview in Victor DUBAR, *Le révérend père Alphonse Delattre s.j.* (1841-1928), in *Savant polémiste*, sine loco, 1928, p. 34-34.</footnote>

<footnote n="141">141 For more biographical information on Delattre, see Victor DUBAR, *Le révérend père Delattre*. See for instance Alphonse J. DELATTRE, *Les chaldéens jusqu'à la formation de l'empire de Nabuchodonosor*, Paris, 1877; *Le people et l'empire des Mèdes jusqu'à la fin du règne de Cyaxare*, Brussels, 1883; and Coup d'oeil sur la civilisation Assyrio-Babylonniene, Louvain, 1900.</footnote>

<footnote n="142">142 Several interesting references to the positions of Delattre are found in an edition of Lagrange's correspondence with Cormier, see Bernard MONTAGNES (ed.), *Exégèse et obéissance. Correspondance Cormier-Lagrange (1904-1916)*, Paris, 1989.</footnote>

<footnote n="143">143 See, for instance, his attack on 'Americanism' in Alphonse J. DELATTRE, *Un catholicisme américain*, Namur, 1898, and a repeated version of it in his article *Encore l'Américanisme. Une planche de salut*, in the Jesuit periodical *Études*, 76 (1898), p. 535. Interesting references on his actions can be found in</footnote>
the Roman school in the tradition of Johann Baptist Franzelin (1816-1886), would openly attack several Catholic exegetes for being led astray: be it into liberalism, socialism, modernism, americanism, ... or even harnackism.<fnref n="144" />

Known as a polemicist writing dozens of “conservative” pamphlets, Delattre disputed the orthodoxy of exegetical methodology.<fnref n="145" /> In 1904, in reaction to Lagrange’s work on the historical method in Catholic exegesis,<fnref n="146" /> he published his *Autour de la question biblique*, accusing Lagrange of being a “modernist” in the tradition of Msgr. d’Hulst and of neglecting the doctrinal demands set forth in *Providentissimus Deus*.<fnref n="147" /> The subtitle of this book is already revealing: “une nouvelle école d’exégèse et les autorités qu’elle invoque”. This indicates from the start that throughout the history of tension between exegetical intransigentism and renewal characterizing the Catholic Biblical Movement, the recourse to authority is crucial. Delattre’s attacks constituted a prefiguration of the positions that would be taken in Pius X’s *Pascendi* and *Lamentabili*,<fnref n="148" /> and immediately illustrate a central difference between the aforementioned ressourcement position and that of Delattre. The issue at stake here is the nature of interpreting authority in early twentieth-century Catholicism. Delattre’s writings and positions were, in many instances, simply identifiable with the magisterium’s positions. In other words: one notices a quasi-identification of theology and Catholic magisterium, both doctrinally and stylistically.

The discussion waned under Benedict XV,<fnref n="149" /> only to flare up again under his successor, Pius XI.<fnref n="150" /> The absence of negotiations and a general climate of fear brought an uneasy calm to the situation,<fnref n="151" /> but the continued ambivalence inherent to Catholic biblical scholarship was far from satisfactory. In exegetical circles, the pioneering work

Gerald P. FOGARTY, *American Catholic Biblical Scholarship. A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II*, San Francisco, 1989, p. 80-81, 88.

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ See Delattre's quite aggressive and anti-Protestant stance in his Alphonse J. DELATTRE, *Préludes d'une refutation de l'Harnackisme*, Brussels, 1908.</footnote>

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ Luc COURTOIS, *Paulin Ladeuze (1870-1940). Parcours d'un exégète progressiste de l'Université de Louvain au cours de la crise moderniste (1898-1909)*, in Lettre d'information sur l'histoire des Universités (1999).</footnote>

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE, *La méthode historique, surtout à propos de l'Ancien Testament*, Paris, 1903.</footnote>

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ Alphonse J. DELATTRE, *Autour de la Question biblique*. For instance, on p. 210, one finds accusations towards Lagrange sounding: «Par malheur, l'écrivain conçoit l'Écriture comme un ensemble d'écrits remplis d'erreurs qu'il appelle matérielles, mais que les livres inspirés sont censés offrir sous la même rubrique que la vérité pure. L'idée qu'il donne de l'histoire biblique primordiale est digne seulement de l'Écriture interprétée selon la norme du bœuf volant». Also see p. 344: «Je n'aurai pas eu le temps de faire observer que tout le fait des cent exégètes tant loués dans l'Encyclique *Providentissimus Deus*, est réprouvé, par le R.P. Lagrange en vertu d'un principe qu'il prétend tirer de cette même encyclique!»</footnote>

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ S. Congregatio Sacrae Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis, *Decretum Lamentabili quo sub 65 propositionibus reprobantur et proscribuntur praecipui errores reformismi seu modernismi*, in ASS 40 (1907), 470-478.</footnote>

<footnote n="149">¹⁴⁹ Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Une Église en quête*, p. 16-20, talks about a “détente”.</footnote>

<footnote n="150">¹⁵⁰ The famous *Manuel Biblique*, which had known several reprints since 1878, was put on the Index in 1923. One year later, Pius XI's *Motu proprio* *Bibliorum scientiam* forces all students in exegesis to obtain their license or doctoral degree with the Pontifical Biblical Commission or at the Biblicum, which explains why professors such as Cerfaux had spent a year of study there. EB, p. 510-515 (512, § 509).</footnote>

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ A crucial step in that direction is the abolishing of the *Sodalium Pianum* in 1921. See Émile POULAT, *Intégrisme et catholicisme intégral. Un réseau secret international antimoderniste, la Sapinière 1909-1921* (Religion et sociétés), Tournai, 1969.</footnote>
of Rudolf Bultmann and his *formgeschichtliche* method quickly spread. The idea that the image of Christ proclaimed by the New Testament did not completely coincide with the historical Jesus, but had its roots rather in the faith context of the early Christian communities. The context in which the said image was transmitted<fnref n="152" /> led Bultmann to a number of radical conclusions in his later work. In his *Theologie des neuen Testaments* of 1948,<fnref n="153" /> he emerged as the defender of a demythologisation of the language of the New Testament in an effort to understand the message of the biblical narratives at an existential level. Another discussion should be mentioned at this juncture: After the Modernist Crisis, the question of the (in)compatibility of traditional dogmatics and the historical-critical method reappeared on the agenda, albeit in a different form: the so-called *nouvelle théologie*.<fnref n="154" />

Since the first years of the twentieth century, the Dominicans of Le Saulchoir had developed a *via media*, which was only clearly committed to writing in 1937¹⁵⁵ by Marie-Dominique Chenu, but had been prepared by the writings of Gardeil.<fnref n="156" /> A first and important constatation for our purposes is that Chenu proved to be deeply inspired by the work of Lagrange, to whom he constantly refers.<fnref n="157" /> Although this paper will not discuss the *nouvelle théologie* at length, it should be pointed out that a strong “methodological tradition” was present within the French Dominican order, leading to a continuity in the search for a reconciliation of dogmatic thinking with historical criticism. In this fashion, Gardeil, (and later) Chenu and Congar became heirs of Lagrange’s search for renewal in Catholic theology, also in their upkeep of a clear distinction between theology and magisterial discourse. Moreover, the attempts by Gardeil, Chenu and Lagrange to develop a contemporary neo-Thomism highlight two issues: first, that 20th-century Thomism is not at all a monolith. And second, that the Biblical Movement and the *nouvelle théologie* movement are intersecting and, on many occasions, simultaneous efforts seeking Catholic renewal. This overlap and shared concern is well expressed in Roger Aubert’s 1954 *La théologie catholique au milieu du XXe siècle*:

<footnote n="152">¹⁵² Rudolf BULTMANN, *Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition*, Göttingen, 1921.</footnote>

<footnote n="153">¹⁵³ Rudolf BULTMANN, *Theologie des neuen Testaments*, Tübingen, 1948.</footnote>

<footnote n="154">¹⁵⁴ Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Une église en quête*; and Tharcisius TSHIBANGU, *Théologie comme science*. Also see GIBELLINI, *La théologia del XX secolo*, p. 173-225.</footnote>

<footnote n="155">¹⁵⁵ Much of Chenu's terminology was owed to the founder of Le Saulchoir, and his book Ambroise GARDEIL, *Le donné révélé et la théologie*, Paris, 1910. See Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Le Saulchoir en procès (1937-1942)*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO et al. (ed.), *Une école de théologie. Le Saulchoir (Théologies)*, Paris, 1985, p. 37-59 (42-43).</footnote>

<footnote n="156">¹⁵⁶ Marie-Dominique Chenu (1895-1990), French dominican friar. Professor of Church History and regent of Le Saulchoir from 1920 to 1942. Later also professor at the Sorbonne and the Institut Catholique de Paris. On Chenu, see Jean JOLIVET, M.D. Chenu. *Médiéviste et théologien*, in *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques*, 81 (1997), p. 381-94.</footnote>

<footnote n="157">¹⁵⁷ For the sake of completeness we mention the influence of humanism inspired neo-thomists such as Jacques Maritain (1882-1971) and Étienne Gilson (1884-1978). See Jacques MARITAIN, *Humanisme intégral. Problèmes temporels et spirituels d'une nouvelle chrétienté*, Paris, 1936; and Etienne GILSON, *Christianisme et philosophie*, Paris, 1936. Cf. Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Le Saulchoir en procès*, p. 44-45. More background in Andrea RICCARDI, *Une école de théologie fra la Francia e Roma*, in *Cristianesimo nella Storia*, 5 (1984), p. 11-28 and Gerald A. MCCOOL, *The Neo-Thomists*, Milwaukee WI, 1994.</footnote>
Deux préoccupations majeures caractérisent la théologie actuelle: désir d'un contact plus étroit avec la Tradition et souci d'une meilleure adaptation au monde moderne. Nous examinerons successivement ces deux aspects. Le premier, ce désir d'un « ressourcement de la théologie au contact de la Source toujours jaillissante qu'est la Parole de Dieu, proclamée et commentée dans l'Église, se manifeste par un triple renouveau: biblique, liturgique et patristique. Quant à l'effort des théologiens pour apporter une réponse inédite et cependant conforme aux principes éternels, aux questions nouvelles posées par les courants d'idées contemporains, il se traduit par l'élaboration de nouveaux chapitres d'une science longtemps considérée comme immobile: théologie du laïcat, théologie des réalités terrestres, théologie de l'histoire.

After the intransigent reactions seen in the early years of the 20th century, with several condemnations, it is all the more painful to notice that the works of Chenu and others were also placed on the Index in 1942.<fnref n="158" /> The double perspective of both simultaneous existence and tension developed from the late 19th century onward, up until the middle of the 20th century, into an enduring phenomenon as well as the strong alignment between hierarchical positions and those proposed by intransigent exegetes. This situation would alter under the reign of Pius XII, paving the way for the debates held at Vatican II.

## DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU AND THE AMBIVALENT POSITION OF PIUS XII

At first, the 1942 condemnations seemed to reconfirm the presupposition that Pius XII<fnref n="159" /> was in line with both the intransigent currents and with his predecessor, Pius X, when it came to exegetical matters, yet further developments reveal an altogether more complex picture. In 1943, Pacelli promulgated his encyclical on the Bible and biblical studies, *Divino afflante Spiritu*, which gave way to ample relief from the side of various 'open' Catholic exegetes: why such a tangible sense of relief?

The encyclical, *Divino afflante Spiritu*, which strongly bears the mark of the then rector of the Pontifical Institute, Augustin Bea,<fnref n="160" /> opens with a confirmation of the stipulations of Vatican I and *Providentissimus Deus* concerning the infallibility of the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, Pius XII<fnref n="161" /> devotes a large amount of attention to the issues surrounding the concept of *Deus auctor*: inspiration and infallibility. Yet it is precisely at this juncture that a number of new perspectives are revealed, and such perspectives had also become viable because of the fact that the generation of cardinals backing up the intransigent current in Rome had slowly vanished. This created space for change within the circles of Roman Catholic authorities and, as a consequence, change in the official doctrines: Where Leo XIII's doctrine of inspiration put all the

<footnote n="158">158 Jesus Martinéz de Bujanda, *Index librorum prohibitorum 1600-1966*, Montréal, 2002. This was instigated by Pietro Parente (1891-1986) who had spread a note asking for a condemnation of these works. See Tharcisius TSHIBANGU, *La théologie comme science*, p. 80.</footnote>

<footnote n="159">159 Up until the present day, the best study on Pius XII remains that by Philippe CHENAUX, *Pie XII. Diplomate et pasteur*, Paris, 2003, see p. 383-387.</footnote>

<footnote n="160">160 Stjepan SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea. Der Kardinal der Einheit*, Graz – Vienna – Cologne, 1989, p. 117-122, demonstrates that the German jesuit's hand can be traced to a significant degree. On this, also see Philippe CHENAUX, *Pie XII*, p. 385-386.</footnote>

<footnote n="161">161 Joseph G. PRIOR, *The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis*, Rome, 1999, p. 118-120.</footnote>
weight on the role of the divine author, Pius XII shifts to a clear appreciation of the human author. In doing so, he introduced the notion of cooperation between the human and the divine, which was dear to the writings of Lagrange, and so lessens the instrumentalist vision of human authorship. The encyclical displays the realisation that instrumental causality cannot reach its final goal —the communication of God's truth to humanity— without valorizing the mediation by a human author whose person and words are linked inseparably. The notion of human mediation as a constitutional factor in the conveying of God's message is tantamount: for the first time in magisterial discourse, divine authorship becomes *dependent* upon human authorship and is shaped thereby. The implications for critical scientific study of the Scriptures and the valorisation of contingency and its role in theology are of major importance.

Other than Pius X, backing and aligning himself fully with the positions of Delattre, the notion of dual authorship renders the consciousness, intention and historical locatedness of the human authors relevant in establishing a clear theological understanding of the Scriptures.162 A positive attitude with respect to the various exegetical tools emerges here, although the encyclical continues to insist on the importance of the *analogia fidei* and fidelity to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.163 I will return to this when addressing the period of Vatican II in order to stress the shift between *Divino afflante* and the 1964 Instruction *Sancta Mater Ecclesia*. For now, it is sufficient to point out that apparently, the encyclical by Pius XII largely paved the way for Vatican II and later PBC statements on Catholic exegesis and the role of the exegete. On the other hand, it would be historically unwarranted to conclude that Pius XII's magisterial teaching is to be regarded as a fully-fledged prefiguration of Vatican II doctrine and discourse.164

Before we deal with the similarities and differences —or the continuities and discontinuities, to put it in a more fashionable terminology—, something more needs to be said on the Catholic Biblical Movement in the 1940's. The insistence on fidelity and obedience to the Catholic hierarchy in conducting scientific exegetical research is linked first and foremost to the desire to salvage exegesis as a “theological” discipline. At this stage, any one-sided interpretation of exegesis as a purely philological question

<footnote n="162">162 See EB, § 560: Quapropter catholicus exegeta, ut hodiernis rei biblicae necessitatibus rite satisfaciat, in exponenda Scriptura Sacra, in eademque ab omni errore immuni ostendenda et comprobanda, eo quoque prudenter subsidio utatur, ut perquirat quid dicendi forma seu litterarum genus, ab hagiographo adhibitum, ad veram et genuinam conferat interpretationem; ac sibi persuadeat hanc officii sui partem sine magno catholicae exegeseos detrimento neglegi non posse. Non raro enim —ut hoc solummodo attingamus— cum Sacros Auctores ab historiae fide aberrasse, aut res minus accurate rettulisse obiurgando nonnulli iactant, nulla alia de re agi comperitur, nisi de suetis illis nativis antiquorum dicendi narrandique modis, qui in mutuo hominum inter se commercio passim adhiberi solebant, ac reapse licito communique more adhibebantur. Iusta igitur mentis aequitas postulat, ut haec, cum in divino eloquio, quod pro hominibus verbis humanis exprimitur, inveniantur, non magis erroris arguantur, quam cum eadem in cotidiano vitae usu habeantur.</footnote>

<footnote n="163">163 EB, § 551.</footnote>

<footnote n="164">164 This happens in the book by Alexandra VON TEUFFENBACH, *Pio XII tra storia, politica e fede*, Rome, 2008; and elements of such an approach can also be found in a recent volume edited by Philippe Chenaux. On this attitude see Karim SCHELKENS, *Pie XII. Précurseur du Concile Vatican II?*, in *Laval théologique et philosophique*, 66 (2010), p. 177-182.</footnote>
remains out of the question. In this sense too, the encyclical can be said to be an ill-
disguised canonisation of Lagrange's search for a balance between historical-critical
exegesis and theology.<fnref n="165" /> At this juncture, one notices a first shift of balance over and
against the Catholic Biblical Movement in the modernist era. Although a diversity
of intransigent and renewing attitudes co-existed both then and under Pius XII, an
element of change is occurring. To a decreasing extent, the intransigent side of the
exegetical landscape is identifiable with the positions of both the Pontifical Biblical
Commission and with the official teachings of the Holy See. The full identification
recognized under Pius X no longer exists, and a gradual but ongoing process of mutual
detachment between all key players (PBC, Papal magisterium, intransigent theology,
and *ressourcement* attempts) is set in motion. The result is an increasingly complex
situation on all sides and in particular, a growing sense of loss of self-secured actions
for the intransigent theologians now forced to respond to their situation. Elements
and insights of methodological and theological renewal have slipped into official
magisterial teaching, even when the latter does not necessarily distance itself from
intransigent theological movements. On the part of the Catholic hierarchy, and
ambivalence is felt, and the results of *Divino afflante* can be summarised as follows:
exegetes are again permitted to engage in the public confrontation of the historical-
critical method *and* dogma, as long as they remain loyal to the faith of the Church.
They are warned in this regard that the scholarly and the 'religious' readings of the
Scriptures are not mutually exclusive; rather they support and enrich one another. In
the years to come, 'open' Catholic exegetes felt officially warranted to employ their
scholarly-historiographical *instrumentarium*. The study of language and context were
granted a prominent role, and became a part of Catholic theology a good two decades
before *Dei Verbum* was officially promulgated. With *Divino afflante*, the Church
recognised the methodological primacy of the *sensus litteralis*, the "literal sense", as
being understood at this juncture in the historical sense, which can be retrieved by
the study of language and context. Method is given priority, and exegetes are invited
to employ genre criticism as a legitimate tool.<fnref n="166" /> Furthermore, exegetes who apply this
method have no reason to object to the Catholic *doctrina infallibilitatis*. This is based
on the conviction that a lack of historical knowledge introduces doubt over the truth
content of certain passages of Scripture. Still, one should avoid the pitfall of a simple
identification of Lagrange's methodology with the positions proposed by Pius XII.
The encyclical is not altogether unambiguous when defining the mutual relationship
between the Catholic theologians and exegetes and the magisterium, and remains
within a classical ecclesiological standpoint. Again, and this was already the case
during modernism, the relationship with authority is at the heart of the debate.

<footnote n="165">¹⁶⁵ More info in Enrico GALBIATI, *I generi letterari secondo il P. Lagrange e la Divino afflante Spiritu*, in La Scuola Cattolica, 75 (1947), p. 177-186, see p. 282-292.</footnote>

<footnote n="166">¹⁶⁶ Jean-Louis JADOULLE, *Les intellectuels catholiques. De la libération au concile Vatican II*, in Jean PIROTTE and Guy ZÉLIS (ed.), *Pour une histoire du monde catholique catholique au 20ᵉ siècle. Wallonie – Bruxelles. Guide du chercheur*, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2003, p. 467-486, see p. 470.</footnote>
In 1950, when *Humani generis*<fnref n="167" /> was promulgated, it is hardly surprising that some exegetes felt relieved. Others then felt themselves under attack and read this encyclical through the lense of their own interpretation of *Divino afflante Spiritu*. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, contrasting interpretations of *Divino afflante* were increasingly being spread and gave rise to a polemic between the Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Lateran University, bringing back memories of the Modernist Crisis. Lateran theologians interpreted both aforementioned encyclicals through the lense of Trent, Vatican I, *Providentissimus*, and also *Pascendi Gregis* and *Lamentabili*, claiming a full and simple continuity between all of the aforementioned and attempting the prove the identification between these documents and their own opinions. This way, they clung to the anti-modernist identification of theology and magisterial discourse. But what is more important for this paper is that this controversy illustrates how the contrast between ‘intransigent’ and ‘open’ receptions of the very same magisterial teaching will be of an endemic nature throughout the history of the Catholic Biblical Movement, lasting throughout Vatican II and continuing into the postconciliar era. The issue is: How do we analyse this contrast historically and theologically? For my present purposes, there is no need to trace the neo-modernist controversy in its entirety.<fnref n="168" /> Rather this paper will focus on a 1960 article by Luis Alonso-Schökel¹⁶⁹

<footnote n="167">¹⁶⁷ Pius XII, Litt. Enc. *Humani generis de nonnulis falsis opinionibus quae catholicae doctrinae fundamenta subruere minantur*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 568-570; 575-578. The encyclical consists of two main parts. The first part of the encyclical the pope appeals to theologians to return to the sources of divine revelation, i.e. the Scriptures and the Tradition. In so doing, Pius XII condemns two ‘false opinions’, namely the argument that the infallible divine significance of the Scriptures is completely masked by their (fallible) human significance, and the idea of symbolic exegesis. The second part of *Humani generis* declares that theologians should account for the sciences —proven facts rather than hypotheses— in so far as they are not in conflict with Catholic doctrine. Reflection on the evolution of the human body was permitted, for example, while the theory of polygenism [with Teilhard de Chardin in the background] was forbidden. In addition, it was permissible to integrate the historical sciences into the study of the bible. *Humani generis* recognises, for example, that the Old Testament contains narrative structures that were subject to cultural influence. In spite of this, they remain the result of divine inspiration and are immune as such to error. It is not permitted to compare such narratives with myths, since the latter are more a product of an inflated imagination than a search for the truth.</footnote>

<footnote n="168">¹⁶⁸ More detailed information can be found in the existing literature on the debate: Joseph A. FITZMYER, *A Recent Roman Scriptural Controversy*, in *Theological Studies*, 22 (1961), p.426-444; Joseph A. KOMONCHAK, *The Struggle for the Council During the Preparation of Vatican II (1960-1962)*, KOMONCHAK and Giuseppe ALBERIGO (ed.), *History of Vatican II*. Vol. 1: *Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II*. Toward a New Era in Catholicism*, Maryknoll - Leuven, 1995, p. 167-356, esp. p. 278-283; Riccardo BURIGANA, *Tradizioni inconciliabili? La 'Querelle' tra l'università lateranense e l'istituto biblico nella preparazione del Vaticano II*, in Philippe CHENAUX (ed.), *La PUL e la preparazione del Concilio* (Studi e documenti sul Concilio Vaticano II, 1), Rome, 2001; Brian W. HARRISON, *The Teaching of Paul VI on Sacred Scripture. With Special Reference to the Historicity of the Gospels*, Rome, 1997, esp. p. 59-72; HARRISON, *On Rewriting the Bible. Catholic Biblical Studies in the 60's*, in Christian Order, 43 (2002), p. 155-178 and HARRISON, *The Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in Its Historical Context*, in *Living Tradition*, 60 (1995); Mauro PESCE, *Il rinnovamento biblico*, in Maurilio GUASCO et al. (ed.), *Storia della chiesa*, Vol. XXV/2: *La Chiesa del Vaticano II (1958-1978)*, Milan, 1994, p. 167-216; Gerald P. FOGARTY, *American Catholic Biblical Scholarship*. A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II, New York NY, 1989, p. 291-296. See p. 323; François LAPLANCHE, *La crise de l'origine. La science catholique des Evangiles et l'histoire au XXe siècle*, Paris, 2006, p. 459-469; Karim SCHELKENS, *Perceiving Orthodoxy. A Comparative Analysis on the Roman Controversy in Catholic Exegesis (1960-1961)*, in Lieven BOEVE, Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, Terrence MERRIGAN (eds.), *Theology and the Quest for Truth. Historical- and Systematic-theological*</footnote>
from the Pontifical Biblical Institute called *Dove va l'esegesi cattolica*, and which can be
read over and against the general background of the Biblicum's preconciliar votum. <fnref n="170" />
Note that the title paraphrases Garrigou-Lagrange's much debated text aimed against
the *nouvelle théologie*.<fnref n="171" /> In his article, the interpretation of *Divino afflante* is crucial.
Moreover, throughout his text, the author plays with the positions of Lagrange and
Delattre in their methodological quarrel from half a century before. The author
discusses exegetical developments prior to and after 1943, and distinguishes between
a “strict” school existing side by side and a more “open-minded” group of exegetes<fnref n="172" />
in the entire period. Alluding once again to the Modernist Crisis, he admits that,
in some instances, individuals from the latter group had erred but also underlines
that others had gradually acquired ‘canonical’ status. This is not surprising, but what
is more interesting is that, methodologically speaking, he does what Lagrange and
Loisy were unable to do in their day: he defends an identification of recent magisterial
discourse with the positions of the “open school” of exegesis.<fnref n="173" />

*Divino afflante Spiritu*, he claims, entrusted considerable freedom to those who applied themselves to serious critical Bible study. And even *Humani generis* did not react to exegetical errors but rather to theological errors, which were more related to the general standpoint on inspiration and hermeneutics than to the exegetical interpretation of individual texts. Alonso Schökel agrees with Pius XII in that the freedom granted to engage in scientific exegetical research was a freedom ‘*con limiti e cautele*’:<fnref n="174" /> while the historical-critical method was permitted, it was not to be treated lightly. Judgements concerning the historicity of a particular biblical passage without sufficient supporting evidence could be very dangerous, especially when they challenged facts that were important for salvation history. The real reason for the crisis in Catholic biblical research was not the use of critical methodologies, but rather their abuse. Immediately, this discourse was severely attacked by Antonino Romeo and Francesco Spadafora in a style that very much resembles Delattre’s early

<footnote>Studies, Leuven, 2007, p. 143-164; and Karim SHELKENS, *Anthony DUPONT, Katholische Exegese vor dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil (1960-1961)*, in *ZKT, 132* (2010), p. 1-24.</footnote>

<footnote n="169">¹⁶⁹ Luis ALONSO SCHÖKEL, *Dove va l'esegesi catolica?*, in *La Civiltà Cattolica*, 111 (1960), p. 449-460. Close to a year later, J.A. Fitzmyer evaluated the article as follows: "It has the merit of putting the question of modern biblical studies in a perspective which is badly needed. The only way to explain how the "new direction" —the existence of which cannot be denied— has developed is to sketch the matrix in which it had its origin". See Joseph A. FITZMYER, *A Recent Roman Scriptural Controversy*, p. 431.</footnote>

<footnote n="170">¹⁷⁰ AD, 1/4, p. 121-136. See also Étienne FOUILLOUX, *The Antepreparatory Phase. The Slow Emergence From Inertia (January, 1959 - October, 1962)*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph A. KOMONCHAK (ed.), *History of Vatican II*, Vol. 1., p. 55-166, see esp. p. 137: "[...] the response of the Biblical Institute, which stands out clearly from the entire body of vota. Although they were suspected of serious errors, the exegetes of the Society of Jesus had the courage forcefully to recall three pressing needs: freedom for biblical scholarship, the reform of disciplinary procedures and, above all, a radical change in the way Catholics spoke of Judaism".</footnote>

<footnote n="171">171 Réginald GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, *La nouvelle théologie, où va-t-elle?* in *Angelicum*, 23 (1946), p. 126-147.</footnote>

<footnote n="172">172 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, *Dove va*, p. 454: "una scuola stretta *versus* una scuola larga".</footnote>

<footnote n="173">173 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, *Dove va*, p. 455.</footnote>

<footnote n="174">174 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, *Dove va*, p. 457.</footnote>
twentieth-century writings.<fnref n="175" /> The attacks from these Lateran University professors, moreover, were simultaneous with the activities of the preconciliar commissions — one of them drafting the schema *De Fontibus Revelationis*. And, here too, the Lateran's reaction becomes tangible over and against the background of the massive votum and its faculties of theology, philosophy, and canon law.<fnref n="176" /> The reason I mention them is that both the preconciliar vota and the public polemic of the early 1960s make clear that both intransigent and renewing currents were both very much present within Roman Catholicism, as they were in 1904, and in 1943.

As becomes clear from the reactions of Antonino Romeo and Francesco Spadafora, anti-modernist discourse is far from vanished, although it had been forced to reposition itself. These authors stress that the suggestion of *Divino afflante* representing a canonisation or crystallisation of the ‘open-minded’ school is sheer “nonsense”. Neither science nor the truth can be divided into ‘strict’ and ‘open-minded’, and the light of the truth is self-imposing, apart from individual preferences, and clearly demonstrated in magisterial discourse.<fnref n="177" /> Next, and quite significant, several Biblicum professors are openly charged with accusations of “modernism”. The principle of immutability of method, truth and doctrine, and thus of the supra-historical character of Scripture, is once more repeated. The suggestion of an ‘era nuova’ was thus inaccurate and irrelevant.<fnref n="178" />

From the Modernist Crisis onward, and up until the eve of Vatican II, there is an enduring presence of renewing and intransigent currents within the Catholic Biblical Movement. Moreover, up until the Council they remain in an endemic state of opposition. But, after *Divino afflante* and due to the encyclical's ambivalence, both factions consequently warranted their legitimacy by claiming their consistency with Pius XII's teachings. This situation lingered throughout the decade preceding Vatican II, with instances of the Biblical Commission blowing hot and cold<fnref n="179" /> right up to

<footnote n="175">¹⁷⁵ Some thirty years later, Spadafora provided a concise formulation of his problems with S. Lyonnet and M. Zerwick in Francesco SPADAFORA, *La Tradizione contro il Concilio*, Rome, 1989, p. 49: “[...] i due Padri, ascoltati dal S. Officio, non poterono negare gli addebiti loro attributi: insegnamento erroneo (e articoli) sulla inspirazione, sulla inerranza dei Libri Santi, sulla storicità degli Evangelii”.</footnote>

<footnote n="176">¹⁷⁶ The votum is found in AD, I/4, p. 169-442. See also FOUILLOUX, *The Antepreparatory Phase*, p. 137-138: "The vota of the Lateran professors are impressive both for their volume and for the impression they give of already being conciliar drafts. [...] What these men had in mind seemed, to say the least, far removed from the *aggiornamento* of which John XXIII was speaking. [...] they in effect sketched a plan as it were to bring four centuries of intransigent Catholicism to a climax, in regard both to the claims of the Roman Church and to protection against the countless dangers, domestic and foreign, that were threatening it". On the importance of the vota, see ALBERTO MELLONI, *Per un approccio storico-critico ai consilia e vota della fase antepreparatoria del Vaticano II*, in RIVISTA di STORIA e LETTERATURA RELIGIOSA, 26 (1990), p. 556-576. A study on the vota of the roman universities was published by see ANDREA RICCARDI, I 'vota' romani, in MATHIJS LAMBERIGTS, Claude SOETENS (eds.), À la veille du Concile Vota et réactions en Europe et dans le catholicisme oriental, Leuven, 1992, p. 146-168.</footnote>

<footnote n="177">¹⁷⁷ ROMEO, *L'Enciclica*, p. 406-407.</footnote>

<footnote n="178">¹⁷⁸ ROMEO, *L'Enciclica*, p. 409-410.</footnote>

<footnote n="179">¹⁷⁹ See for instance the ambivalences on the role of the catholic exegete, still present in the Pontifical Biblical Commission's May 13, 1950 Instruction *Sanctissimus Dominus* (EB § 582-610) a text published only weeks before the apparition of *Humani Generis*. On this document, also see FRANÇOIS LAPLANCHE, *La crise*, p. 342-343.</footnote>
this pope's final words on biblical matters, expressed in a message delivered to the Congrès International Catholique des Sciences Bibliques<fnref n="180" /> on the occasion of the World Exhibition in Brussels in 1958. This leaves a mark on the situation of Catholic exegesis entering the conciliar realm. The appeal to authority is most interesting, for the shift in papal discourse itself appears to have necessitated a redefining of the relationships between the currents in Catholic biblical scholarship. This becomes tangible from studying papal writings and the Biblical Commission itself. The detachment from explicit alignment with intransigent theologians creates an environment in which the Lateran University position cannot be seen as an official "Roman reaction". From three different "official" sides, a distance is taken from intransigent attacks that under Pius X would have been fully backed by the Catholic magisterium: the preparatory Theological Commission's Subcommission on the Sources of Revelation; the Supreme Pontiff (i.e. John XXIII); and the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

First, the preparatory subcommission On the sources of revelation. Even when not quite identifying themselves with Alonso-Schökel's "open school", almost all members of this preconciliar commission openly and clearly distance themselves from the positions defended by the Lateran University and backed by cardinals such as Pizzardo and Ruffini. The subcommission De fontibus attempts very clearly to steer away from these positions.

Second, Pope John XXIII reacts by personally contacting Ernst Vogt, the Biblicum's rector, as well as the editorial office of la Civiltà Cattolica.<fnref n="181" /> The pope offers his sympathy to the positions of the Biblicum, and clearly deprecates the intransigent attacks being carried out. Nevertheless, he does not rehabilitate the two Biblicum professors cast aside by the Holy Office —this will be done by Paul VI. Still, somewhat later, John XXIII appoints Vogt as a member of the subcommission on the sources of revelation as a clear sign of his intentions.

On a third level, the group of consultors to the Pontifical Biblical Commission gather with its secretary, Athanasius Miller, to discuss the whole affair. They too take a clear stance over and against the Lateran University, siding itself clearly with the Biblicum, whose rector had already clearly disavowed the Lateran attacks<fnref n="182" /> in several publications.

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ Allocution de Son Éminence le Cardinal Van Roey et Message de Sa Sainteté le Pape Pie XII, in Joseph COPPENS, Albert DESCAMPS, Édouard MASSAUX, Sacra Pagina Miscellanea biblica Congressus internationalis catholici de re biblica, 2 Vols., Paris – Gembloux, 1959, Vol. 1., p. 14-16, see p. 16: "Depuis le début de Notre Pontificat, en effet, Nous avons eu à coeur de favoriser le développement des études scripturaires, et voici bientôt quinze ans, Nous aimions, par Notre Encyclique 'Divino afflante Spiritu', stimuler de plus en plus dans leurs travaux tous les fils qui s'adonnent à ces études ...".</footnote>

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ See Alexandra VON TEUFFENBACH, Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp s.j. Mit Erläuterungen und Akten aus der Arbeit der theologischen Kommission. Bd. 1/1-2: (1960-1962), Rome, Editrice Gregoriana, 2006: "Die 6 Februari 1961: feria II. Mane sueta consulta in S. Off. Post consultam hora 11½ audio Papam telephonice communicasse cum Rectore 'Civiltà Cattolica' et per eum cum rectore Instituti Biblici, Pontificem legisse articulum Prof. Romeo in 'Divinitas' et 'pur non entrando nel merito della causa, avere letto cum dispiacere e disgusto l'articolo'".</footnote>

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² Komonchak quotes a *pro-memoria* in which Ernst Vogt laments the attack on the PIB and complains the Romeo's article had been allowed to circulate freely for seven months. When the *Biblicum's* reaction was finally published, however, further distribution of Romeo's article and that of the PIB was immediately forbidden. *KOMONCHAK, The Struggle*, p. 279, n.419.</footnote>
## MOMENTS OF CONCILIAR TENSION

All of the above goes to demonstrate that, if Catholic intransigentism is far from vanished on the eve of the Council, it had nevertheless made its own shift. The intransigent forces had lost their immediate and uncritical identification with the Church's central authorities. This "regroupement des forces"<fnref n="183" /> had its implications. In some contrast to the era of Pius XII, under the rule of John XXIII, the official instances openly choose sides, and a second shift of balance takes place. This time, a striking tendency of magisterial instances—both the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the Pope himself—siding with theological currents of renewal is noticeable, creating an alliance that will allow for more evolution in the field of Catholic Biblical Scholarship. On top of the fact that much of the openness displayed was well prepared for in milieus of Catholic scholarship in the years preceding Vatican II, the general atmosphere created at the opening of Vatican II proved crucial, certainly for the debate on biblical scholarship. In his diary, Yves Congar wrote on November 5, 1962:

> Le climat général fait beaucoup. Aujourd'hui, c'est le climat du concile: climat pastoral, climat de liberté, climat de dialogue, climat d'ouverture. Alors, c'était le climat du St Office et des chaires de collèges romains. On était neutralisé par un code tacite mais puissant, par une pression sociale très forte et contre laquelle on ne réagissait pas jusqu'au point où il eût fallu tout mettre en question.<fnref n="184" />

Against such a climate, the debate was refashioned yet once again. Next, this paper will highlight a few key elements and moments of the conciliar debate in order to link the evolution of the Catholic Biblical Movement with the conciliar event. Firstly, we will address the *Schema de fontibus Revelationis* and utter some thoughts on the debate in the Council's first period. Then, we shall look briefly at the Biblical Commission's 1964 Instruction, *Sancta Mater Ecclesia*, which is devoted to the role of Catholic exegetes. This will constitute an important intermediary step toward the final promulgation of the conciliar constitution on divine revelation, *Dei Verbum*.

With regard to the role of the Catholic exegete, his relationship to the magisterium, and the acceptation of historical-critical method in Catholic theology, the conciliar period is an extremely important and extremely relevant period. Nevertheless, against the afore-sketched background, the schema *De fontibus revelationis*, and in particular its fifth chapter, hardly offers new or surprising elements. Drafted in a very late stage of the development of the schema, the chapter had been written very quickly, and harkens back largely to elements found in *Providentissimus Deus* and *Divino afflante*. Even when the document would become highly controversial with regard to its standpoints on the relationship between Scripture and tradition, its final chapter was given little attention by most council interventions during the November 1962 debates on the schema.

Nevertheless, I wish to address its content briefly. The chapter on the "Use of Sacred Scripture" raises the question of the role of the exegete, especially in the wake of the preceding two chapters on the Old and the New Testament. The schema first

<footnote n="183">¹⁸³ LAPLANCHE, *La crise*, p. 460-464.</footnote>

<footnote n="184">¹⁸⁴ Yves CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, Vol. 1, présenté et annoté par Éric MAHIEU, Paris, 2002, p. 182.</footnote>
underlines the importance of the search for the *sensus litteralis* (a formal recognition without further determination), but also points to the importance of the theological meaning of the text. Often, it sticks closely to the wording of Pius XII's so differently received encyclical, *Divino afflante*. Exegetes are called upon to respect the Church's tradition of interpretation, and the chapter insists on keeping the theological and literal meaning of the Scriptures together. It represents an appeal to exegetes not to limit themselves to philological criticism, but to engage in theology. On the latter domain however, the Catholic exegete is expected to develop a viewpoint that endeavours to expose the internal cohesion of Catholic doctrine from the beginning to the present day. With all of this, it is striking here that little reference is made in this chapter to the magisterium, and where reference *is* made, it is not clear how magisterium is to be distinguished from the Tradition, as it also remains unclear how the relationship between the magisterium and the Catholic exegete is to be understood. In sum: the schema gives priority to the idea that exegetes should be theologians, and that their findings should not run counter the magisterial discourse in matters of faith and morals. This, as a result, is ultimately vague, to say the least.

In the conciliar discussion of the schema on the sources of revelation, the main focus was not on exegetical methodology, but rather on the question of the 'sources of revelation', the material sufficiency of Scripture, etc. When looking at the November 1962 debate on the schema, which was very important for the Council, one can notice that chapter five is hardly ever an object of discussion because the Council is led into an impassus between two blocks<sup>185</sup> over the interpretation of revelation as such, and over the question of the two sources. Strikingly, the opposite was true during the meetings of the preconciliar Coordinating Commission. Since the topic of Tradition raised at Vatican II will be addressed by François Nault, this paper will leave it aside and focus on the activities of the newly appointed mixed commission on revelation at its final December 1962 gatherings.<sup>186</sup> Of course, the fact that John XXIII forced the Theological Commission into collaboration with the Secretariat for Unity<sup>187</sup> was, in itself, an important factor at play and again, as with his reaction to the neo-modernist crisis, a public sign of alignment with currents of renewal. Also, many commission members soon realized that in matters of exegesis, the protestant world—present in Rome with the non-Catholic observers invited by the aforementioned Secretariat—provided something of an exemple.

This provides us with an interesting momentum. On December 7, 1962, the mixed commission's members are faced with the fact that after the painful debates the battle for an acceptance of historical-critical exegesis and for exegetical freedom is not yet

<footnote n="185"><sup>185</sup> In this sense, it is interesting to read Schillebeeckx' analysis of the relationship between what he calls the 'conservative minority' and the progressive majority bloc. See Karim SCHELKENS, *The Council Notes of Edward Schillebeeckx, 1962-1963*, Leuven, 2011, p. 24-25.</footnote>

<footnote n="186"><sup>186</sup> For more background see the pioneer work done by Riccardo BURIGANA, *La Commissione De Divina Revelatione*, in Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, Claude SOETENS, Jan GROOTAERS (eds.), *Les Commissions conciliaires à Vatican II*, Leuven, 1996, p. 27-61.</footnote>

<footnote n="187"><sup>187</sup> AS I/3, p. 184-187. On the background of the papal decision, see Karim SCHELKENS, *Cardinal Paul-Émile Léger and the Establishment of the Mixed Commission on Revelation*, in Catherine CLIFFORD, Michael J. ATTRIDGE, Gilles ROUTHIER (eds.) *Vatican II. The Canadian Experience*, Ottawa, 2011.</footnote>
won. A letter, signed by 19 cardinals and addressed to the pope is distributed:<fnref n="188" /> this anonymous document attacks several northern European exegetes and explicitly puts itself in the tradition of Delattre, Romeo and Spadafora, *cum sociis*. With it, several bishops are attacked, as well as the open standpoint adopted by the consultors of the biblical commission. Charges of inconsistency and heresy fly. The document claims to react against “modernism”! The letter was drafted by Ernesto Ruffini, who himself was a member of the Biblical Commission, a fact that makes clear that the split of opinions was present even within the confines of this Papal commission. The discussion as a result of this was very sharp and vivid, and would remain present until 1965. In sum: the tensions between both currents are endemic, even when the players have been replaced by new ones.

One other moment cannot remain unmentioned either, because it is a crucial step towards both *Dei Verbum* and even the 1993 document *On the Use of Scriptures in the Church*. In March 1963, soon after the 1962 quarrel on Ruffini's letter, a Belgian Franciscan, Béda Rigaux, and his Benedictine compatriot, Jacques Dupont, had —in contact with Bishop Charue— proposed a solution to the enduring tensions between exegetical thought currents:<fnref n="189" /> They had suggested that the Biblical Commission publish a clear position as to the issues of historicity, historical-critical methodology and the relationship between the Catholic exegete and the magisterium. After the death of John XXIII, the project was put on hold for a period, but in februari 1964, it was again picked up. Finally, on April 21, 1964, *Sancta Mater Ecclesia*, on the historical truth of the Gospels, was signed by Paul VI, and the text clearly had the mark of a series of new exegetes that had been appointed consultors to the Commission only recently: Béda Rigaux, Xavier Léon-Dufour, Rudolf Schnackenburg.<fnref n="190" /> This time, the interpretation given to Pius XII's recommendations was officially pushed into the direction of a broad and open acceptation of historical methodology in exegesis. The Commission insisted that unless the exegete pays attention to the origin and composition of the gospels and makes proper use of all the results of recent research, he will remain unable to comprehend what the sacred writers intended and really said. The Instruction's clause on "what they really said" is of interest to us. For a start, it is a clear paraphrase of the von Rankian insistence on the need to recover the past "wie es eigentlich gewesen". This can already illustrate the acceptance of the method, but *Sancta Mater Ecclesia* is even more important and revealing with regard to the role of the exegete and the way he relates to the magisterium—an issue of particular interest for my paper. There is a brief comparison between a passage of *Divino afflante Spiritu* and the *Instructio*, which almost litterally cites Pius XII but makes one crucial addition to it that also has ecclesiological bearings.<fnref n="191" /> First, Pius XII's encyclical:

<footnote n="188">¹⁸⁸ Francesco M. STABILE, *Il cardinale Ruffini e il concilio Vaticano II. Le lettere di un intransigente*, in *Cristianesimo nella Storia*, 11 (1990), p. 83-176, see p. 124-126.</footnote>

<footnote n="189">¹⁸⁹ Cf. BURIGANA, *La Bibbia nel Concilio*, p. 276-281.</footnote>

<footnote n="190">¹⁹⁰ LAPLANCHE, *La crise de l'origine*, p. 476-478. On the evolution of the Pontifical Biblical Commission see the article by Albert VANHOYE, *Passé et présent de la Commission biblique*, in *Gregorianum*, 74 (1993), p. 261-275.</footnote>

<footnote n="191">¹⁹¹ It should be noted here, that this insertion has been pointed to by others, such as Joseph A. FITZMYER, in his book *The Interpretation of Scripture. In Defense of the Historical Critical Method*, New York NY,</footnote>
Multa igitur remanent, eaque gravissima, in quibus edisserendis et explanandis cathol-
icorum interpretum acumen et ingenium libere exerci potest ac debet, u ad omnium
utilitatem, ad maiorem in dies doctrinae sacrae profectum, et ad Ecclesiae defensionem et
honorem ex suo quisque viritim conferat.<fnref n="192" />

Against the background of our survey of the reception of the 1943 encyclical, a
careful rereading of the last clause in the context of the 1964 document is strikingly
relevant. There, we read an almost exact rendering of the 1943 passage, though with
a significant insertion:

Multa supersunt eaque gravissima in quibus edisserendis et explanandis exegeta catholicus acumen et ingenium libere exercere potest et debet, ut ad omnium utilitatem, ad maiorem in dies doctrinae sacrae profectum, *ad iudicium magisterii Ecclesiae praeparandum et ulterius fulciendum*, ad Ecclesiae defensionem et honorem ex suo quisque viritim conferat.

The role of the Catholic exegete has become larger still; it has even become
constitutive for magisterial teaching which it has to prepare. This inclusion has
several effects: First it revises the relationship between the magisterium and
Catholic exegetes by a) distinguishing between the two, and b) by offering a space
in which magisterial discourse is prepared by theological research. Second, and as
a consequence: Magisterial discourse is henceforth bound to the results of critical
historical study of the Christian origins, in *casu* the Scriptures, and vice versa. The
exegetes are bound to defend the authoritative positions, provided, however, that
these positions are well founded and backed by critical study carried out precisely by
these Catholic exegetes.

With papal support, the Biblical Commission has now sided fully with an
approach once condemned by Pius X. To return to the Council: the 1964 Instruction
would find its way into the final teachings of *Dei Verbum*'s chapter three, where the
distinction between exegetes and the magisterium is maintained and again framed
in a dialectical relationship. The Catholic biblical scholars, with respect for the
ecclesiastical principles of exegesis, are due to prepare the Church's judgment.<fnref n="193" />
At the same time, this gradual shift within the Catholic Biblical Movement from
1893 to 1965 by no means implied the existence of intransigent currents of thought.
We should point to the fact that in the period between 1964 and 1965, the *Coetus
Internationalis Patrum* organized large attacks on various points of the draft *De divina
revelatione*. For instance, Luigi Carli circulated a series of *observations*, attacking once
more the positions of the Biblicum, and contestating the contents of the schema
*De divina Revelatione*, which had been reworked under Cardinal Bea's supervision.<fnref n="194" />
In his remarks, he stressed the supreme authority of Catholic magisterial teaching
over and against any recent exegetical insight, and points to the ambiguity raised by
historical studies, raising critical thoughts on the aforementioned 1964 Instruction,

<footnote>2008, p. 45.</footnote>

<footnote n="192">¹⁹² See EB, § 565.</footnote>

<footnote n="193">¹⁹³ Cf. the discussion of the place of the historical critical method in catholic exegesis according to *Dei Verbum* and *Sancta Mater Ecclesia* in the book by PRIOR, *The Historical Critical Method*, p. 156-159.</footnote>

<footnote n="194">¹⁹⁴ A more elaborate discussion of this attack is found in BURIGANA, *La Bibbia nel Concilio*, p. 367-372.</footnote>
and warning about suspicious influences in Catholic biblical scholarship.<fnref n="195" /> In July 1964, the *Coetus* directed a letter to the pope, asking for his intervention and pleading in favour of a return to a strong identification of Tradition, magisterium and Catholic theology. Both the letter and the conciliar interventions by protagonists such as Carli and Siri stressed the importance of maintaining the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, thereby claiming the Scirptures as being a supra-historical entity which remains above historical criticism. Up until the very eve of *Dei Verbum*'s promulgation, intransigent and *ressourcement* theologies were existant, active, and in a constant situation of opposition. This brings me to some conclusions.

## CONCLUDING REMARKS

If anything, I have tried to study the following basic problem in contemporary Vatican II scholarship: when overlooking the 20th-century Catholic biblical movement, both currents of *ressourcement* theology and of intransigent approaches are present within Catholicism for the larger part of the century. In fact, both are represented during several subsequent phases ranging from 1) the Modernist Crisis, 2) the preconciliar period, including the interbellum and the post World War Two era, and 3) the era of conciliar preparations, up until 4) the Council itself. In all four phases of the Catholic biblical movement, both milieu's of Catholic renewal and of intransigentism take part in the events and evolutions of the movement and find themselves in a situation of endemic tension.

This raises interesting methodological and hermeneutical questions in a broader perspective: distinguishing the aforementioned subsequent phases, a church historian feels obliged to enter into debate on the adequacy of the theory of paradigm shifts. When dealing with the hermeneutics of Vatican II, or as O'Malley puts it, when trying to comprehend “What Happened at Vatican II”,<fnref n="196" /> one notices that Kuhn's approach is often used, either explicitly or implicitly. In 1962, just around the opening of the Council, Thomas Kuhn published his work entitled “The structure of scientific revolutions”.<fnref n="197" /> Ever since, his concept of paradigm shifts has often been applied in order to reach an increased comprehension of Vatican II's significance. Set apart the fact that Vatican II cannot simply be approached as a scientific revolution, and one wonders if this use is warranted, historically speaking. Does not the very notion of a paradigm shift force its applicants into a tunnel vision? The *logic* of 'paradigm shifts' appears to oblige the acceptance of a *chrono-logical* sequence of events. In other words: the idea of distinct and subsequent phases (an early paradigm, a period of transition, and a new paradigm of thought) becomes unavoidable. The necessary introduction of the chronological factor enters one into the realm of the church historian. Looking at all of the above, reconsidering the general conference theme at the end of this survey, and mindful of our emphasis on the “simultaneity” of opposing models of thought, one is inclined to conclude that Kuhn's theory is inadequate —an inclination that is felt even more when taking into account the way in which intransigent theological

<footnote n="195">¹⁹⁵ AS IV/2, p. 956-963: *Observaciones Carli*.</footnote>

<footnote n="196">¹⁹⁶ John O'Malley, *What Happened at Vatican II*, Cambridge and London, 2008.</footnote>

<footnote n="197">¹⁹⁷ Thomas KUHN, *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, Chicago ILL, 1962.</footnote>
currents remain present within postconciliar Catholicism. One is challenged to reconsider the 'classic' argument that the event of the Second Vatican Council constituted a moment of transition toward a new paradigm. If at all, at this juncture, the notion of paradigms is applicable, it would seem that for the entire period two distinct yet interwoven and interacting paradigms are present simultaneously and remain present.

Where the theory of paradigm shifts would naturally lead to an insistence on discontinuity, the situation appears much more complex than that. A process of careful discernment might lead one to affirm the existence of a plurality of both continuities and discontinuities, and to set aside the fruitless hermeneutical discussions on discontinuity or continuity. Much could be gained, it seems, from the development of a "hermeneutics of shifting balances", a framework in which a historically warranted attention to the simultaneous existence and interference of several currents of thought is possible. Or, theologically put, one might argue in favour of a legitimate diversity within the Church, both horizontally (synchronic) and vertically (diachronic).

Karim SCHELKENS
K.U.Leuven
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
THE PRE-CONCILIAR LITURGICAL MOVEMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE LITURGICAL REFORM OF
VATICAN II

Historians of American Catholicism are unanimous in seeing the continuity
between the issues and the goals of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement in the
United States on one side, and the outcomes of *Sacrosanctum Concilium* and the litur-
gical reform of Vatican II on the other side. Nevertheless, we need a close analysis of
the correspondence between the goals of the American liturgical movement, in the
preparatory phases of Vatican II, and the concrete reception of the issues of the Amer-
ican liturgical movement during the liturgical reform.

This is especially important now, given the new attention devoted to the liturgi-
cal reform also in the United States, after Benedict XVI's decisions on the matter of
liturgy and the motu proprio *Summorum Pontificum* (July 7th, 2007), and the fact that
theologians and historians have somehow taken for granted the long history of the
liturgical movement before Vatican II, the fact that Vatican II was the only council
to approve a doctrinal document on liturgy, and the patent fact that the council's
liturgical reform is the major *reform* in the post-Tridentine Catholic Church after the
reform of church discipline in the 16th and 17th centuries.

It is time to help build the bridge between the history of the vast network that we
call the “liturgical movement” in the United States and the tumultuous memories of
the liturgical reform of the post-Vatican II period.<fnref n="1" />

THE ROOTS OF THE US LITURGICAL MOVEMENT (1926-)

The liturgical movement in the United States originates from European roots,<fnref n="2" />
transplanted through a handful of individuals to the Upper Midwest of the United
States in the mid-1920s (one of them, Quasten, had escaped from Nazi-ruled Germany
in 1937). The actual date of birth of the liturgical movement is usually identified with
the years 1925-1926, and its birthplace is located in the Benedictine Abbey of St. John's

<footnote n="1">¹ This essay will try to bridge this gap thanks to the wide bibliography already available, but also on the basis of unpublished archival material researched in the *Archivio Segreto Vaticano* (henceforth ASV) in July 2010.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² See Maria PAIANO, *Liturgia e società nel Novecento. Percorsi del movimento liturgico di fronte ai processi di secolarizzazione*, Roma, 2000; Olivier ROUSSEAU, *Storia del movimento liturgico*, Roma, 1959 (original French, Paris, 1945); Cipriano VAGAGGINI, *Il senso teologico della liturgia. Saggio di liturgia teologica generale*, Roma, 1957; Bernard BOTTE, *Le mouvement liturgique. Témoignage et souvenirs*, Paris, 1973; Annibale BUGNINI, *La riforma liturgica (1948-1975)*, Roma, 1983; Rita FERRONE, *Liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium*, New York NY, 2007.O. ROUSSEAU, *Storia del movimento liturgico*, Roma 1959 ed. or. Paris 1945)</footnote>
in Minnesota.<fnref n="3" /> Virgil Michel (1890-1938), the founder of the movement in the United States and of the journal *Orate Fratres* (from 1951 to the present: *Worship*), had studied in Rome, where he had taken courses from Lambert Beauduin (1924-1925), and then in Louvain where he had taken again courses from Beauduin for the rest of the year.<fnref n="4" /> The journal *Worship* began to build a vast network of theologians, parishes, and associations that were advocating, between the late 1920s and the 1930s, a full implementation and development of the first liturgical reforms of Pius X. In proportion to its circulation, *Worship* had an impact much bigger than any other Catholic magazine, especially between 1957 and the post-Vatican II period thanks to Father Frederick McManus.<fnref n="5" /> But *Worship* was not an isolated enterprise: in 1929 Fr. Bussard, a St. Paul (Minnesota) priest, conceived the idea of a “Leaflet Missal”, and the initiative took off nationwide in the 1930s and 1940s.<fnref n="6" /> In 1942 Joseph F. Stedman published *My Sunday Missal*, which was reprinted several times until 1956.<fnref n="7" /> In the same year, that is, 1942, another Midwesterner, Gerald Ellard, published *The Dialog Mass*, followed in 1948 by *The Mass of the Future* and in 1956 by *The Mass In Transition*.<fnref n="8" />

The issues of the liturgical movement, according to Michel, were the role of women in the liturgy, the texts for religious education, the relationship between liturgy and social justice, and especially the full and active participation of the laity. The liturgical movement did not appeal to all American Catholics in the same way: the Midwest—Minnesota, Chicago, and St. Louis—and its cluster of German and Polish Catholic immigrants were the first important centers of the liturgical renewal, and they would remain so until the age of Vatican II. German immigrants were more receptive of the movement than Irish immigrants, and the German Catholic “Zentrale Verein” was the only to give corporate endorsement to the liturgical movement in the United States.

This specific geographical and ethnic background explains the tensions between the devotions of the immigrant Church on one side, and the issues of the liturgical movement on the other. These tensions made the movement focus on the issue of active participation during Mass, thus eliminating from the goals of the movement some issues that were close to the heart of its founders. In a way, it can be said that the liturgical movement in the United States had less theological aspirations than in

<footnote n="3">³ Keith PECKLERS, *The Unread Vision. The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955*, Collegeville MN, 1998.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Paul MARX, *Virgil Michel and the Liturgical Movement*, Collegeville MN, 1957.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Mark S. MASSA, *The American Catholic Revolution. How the Sixties Changed the Church Forever*, New York, 2010, p. 15-28.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ For the relationship between St. John's Abbey and the local church in Minnesota see Marvin O'CONNELL, *Pilgrims to the Northland. The Archdiocese of St. Paul, 1840-1962*, Notre Dame, 2009, p. 451-460.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Joseph F. STEDMAN, *My Sunday Missal. With New Features Listed on Page 480 and Complete Pulpit Text of All Epistles and Gospels from the New Authorized Translation of the New Testament*, Brooklyn, NY, 1942. About Stedman see John W. O'MALLEY, *What Happened at Vatican II*, Cambridge MA, 2008, p. 74.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Gerald ELLARD, *The Dialog Mass, A Book for Priests and Teachers of Religion*, with a preface by the Most Reverend Michael J. CURLEY, New York, Toronto, 1942; Gerald ELLARD, *The Mass of the Future*, Milwaukee, 1948; Gerald ELLARD, *The Mass in Transition*, Milwaukee, 1956.</footnote>
Europe: "As in Europe, the American movement was fostered by Benedictines, but unlike its European counterpart, it was not overly academic or theological in nature. Rather, it was fundamentally a pastoral, grassroots development within the Church. The promoters were convinced that liturgy possessed a transformative power for social change. The movement reached the very heart of American Catholic society".<fnref n="9" />

On the other hand, the pace of the reform, which was accepted by the local hierarchy and implemented locally, was much more steady in the US than in Europe. In 1947 the Liturgical Conference of the bishops of the United States considered incorporating more English in the ritual activities of the community, and in 1952 a tentative brief was completed.<fnref n="10" /> In the early 1950s the push for more English in the liturgy became visible, thanks to the "Vernacular Society", derived from the "English Liturgy Society of England" and founded in Denver, after the liturgical week of 1946 (changing its name from the previous "St. Jerome Society"). In 1953 the "Vernacular Society" had 2,753 members, among them 41 bishops.<fnref n="11" />

Overall, the pre-Vatican II history of the liturgical movement in the United States between 1926 and 1960 is the story of a "pedagogy of participation", with the missa recitata or dialogue mass at the forefront.<fnref n="12" /> Nevertheless, for the liturgical movement in the United States, the preparation for Vatican II coincided with a turning point in the long story of the relationship between Catholicism and American culture: from the "Depression-era religious expressions", to the end of "ghetto Catholicism" with World War II, to the "Cold War devotionalism" (the Enthronement of the Sacred Heart, the Family Rosary Crusade, the Block Rosary), and to the cultural and social tensions within the Catholic community during and with the suburbanization and the "white flight" from inner cities in the 1950s and the 1960s.<fnref n="13" />

## THE JOURNAL “WORSHIP” IN THE PRE-CONCILIAR ERA (1953-1962)

The more important source of the ideas of the liturgical movement in the United States was undoubtedly the journal *Worship*. Starting in 1926 with the title *Orate Fratres*, this journal represented and developed the major ideas of the liturgical movement before, during and after Vatican II.

<footnote n="9">⁹ PECKLERS, *The Unread Vision*, p. 43.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ See Joseph P. CHINNICI, *The Catholic Community at Prayer 1926-1976*, in James M. O'TOOLE (ed.), *Habits of Devotion. Catholic Religious Practice in Twentieth-Century America*, Ithaca and London, 2004, p. 9-87. For a comparison with the case of Québec, see GILLES ROUTHIER, *Les avents de la constitution sur la liturgie au Canada francophone*, in *Questions Liturgiques* 87 (2006), p. 233-263 and GILLES ROUTHIER, *Le mouvement liturgique au Québec. Attentes et espérances de l'aggiornamento conciliaire*, in GILLES ROUTHIER (ed.), *Vatican II au Canada. Enracinement et réception*, Montréal, 2001, p. 129-161.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ See Hans Alexander REINHOLD, *Understanding the Mass*, in *Bulletin of the Vernacular Society* (May 1954), in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1386: "The vernacular movement as I understand it begs our bishops and pastors to ask the Holy See for the following: that communication between altar and pew be developed to its fullness and that it be direct, not via reading of translations. In other words: we desire to have in English the priest's message to us, that is: all sung (or recited) collects, the epistle, the gospel and, if at all possible, the preface and the Lord's prayer. We also would like to sing in our mother tongue the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei and, where there is no choir, hymns—good ones—for the introit, graduale, offertory and Communion (a processional during the people's communion)".</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² CHINNICI, *The Catholic Community at Prayer*, p. 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ CHINNICI, *The Catholic Community at Prayer*, p. 62.</footnote>
A question very much at the center of *Worship* between the 1950s and Vatican II was the reception and implementation of the liturgical reforms of the pontificate of Pius XII. In 1953 the journal welcomed the reform about the Eucharistic fasting and the evening Mass. The author of the article, H.A Reinhold, remembered: “Six, seven years ago you were called disobedient and out of step with the Church, a crack-pot, a liturgical zealot, a radical, for advocating these same causes.” Reinhold defined the Eucharistic decrees “a tremendous step forward”, but he also acknowledged that many other problems remained:

> The vernacular and how much of it, the reforms of Holy Thursday and Good Friday, the very much ignored reform at the parish level of ‘first’ Communion, the misery of evening services, dialog and congregational Mass, the English breviary for the clergy, some form of adapted divine office for all religious and for the laity in general, an American hymnal, the offertory, the processions at the introit and Communion, the creation of a good biblical and dogmatic catechism for converts as well as for children which will do justice to the ‘new approach’ signalized by Bl. Pius X, by the encyclicals on the Mystical Body and the liturgy, and by the resurgence of the Scriptures.<fnref n="14" />

This enthusiasm for Pius XII's reforms did not blind the American liturgical movement from the need to take further steps. The liturgical needs of the local churches in America, facing the fact that “priests were getting scarce and vocations evaporate in training at a terrific rate”, pushed Reinhold to express his “dream” for deacons active in the pastoral and liturgical ministry. Reinhold confessed: “I am sure I won't see it carried out in this generation, but I feel in my old bones something of the kind is needed.” Reinhold meant deacons “not only in a decorative role at solemn Mass, to give the celebrant a greater foil”.<fnref n="15" />

In the mid-1950s the tone of the liturgical movement in the United States was set in order to solidify the previous liturgical reforms, between Pius X and Pius XII. In early 1954, *Worship* published an article by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro on the need for “active participation”, underlining a clear link between the liturgical movement and Abbot Guéranger, Pius X's motu proprio *Tra le sollecitudini* (1903), the apostolic constitution of Pius XI *Divini cultus* (1928), and Pius XII's *Mediator Dei* (1947).<fnref n="16" /> Pius XII's liturgical encyclical was remembered in one issue of *Worship* on its tenth anniversary in 1957 by one of the leaders of the liturgical movement in the United States, Martin Hellriegel, who did not indulge in dreaming of further steps in the liturgical reforms.<fnref n="17" /> But starting in 1954, the longing for the succeeding reforms were clearly in the minds and in the articles of the authors of *Worship*. A clear item on the agenda was concelebration, which was the subject of many articles.

<footnote n="14">14 Hans Alexander REINHOLD, *The New Eucharistic Decrees*, in *Worship*, 27 (1953), p. 187-190. About the German-born Hans Emil Alexander Reinhold, see Julia A. UPTON, *Worship in Spirit and Truth. The Life and Legacy of H.A. Reinhold*, Collegeville MN, 2009.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 Hans Alexander REINHOLD, *Yearnings of a Reformer*, in *Worship*, 27 (1953), p. 353-355.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Cardinal Giacomo LERCARO, *Active Participation. The Basic Principle of the Pastoral-Liturgical Reforms of Pius X*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 120-128. About Cardinal Lercaro see Enzo LODI, *Pensiero e esperienza liturgica*, in Angelina ALBERIGO (ed.), Giacomo Lercaro Vescovo della chiesa di Dio (1891-1976), Genova, 1991, p. 81-97.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Martin B. HELLRIEGEL, *Mediator Dei 1947-1957*, in *Worship* 32 (1957), p. 2-7.</footnote>
In 1954 Howell (taking over for Reinhold for the column “Timely Tract”) argued for the need for a more widespread granting of the permission to celebrate “sacramental concelebration”:

> One feels that it would be fitting that the priests should wear priestly vestments, that they should be grouped about the altar (*versus populum* one hopes), should make their gestures in common, and should communicate, standing, under both kinds. That would make it perfectly clear that they are a veritable *presbyterium* acting with one consent and hierarchically in a manner quite distinct from the laity who simply ‘assist’ and communicate, kneeling, under one kind.<fnref n="18" />

On concelebration, Diekmann reported from the international liturgical study meeting of Louvain (September 1954), sponsored by the Abbey of Mont César in Belgium, the Centre de Pastorale Liturgique in Paris, and the Liturgisches Institut in Trier, with two topics on the agenda: the advisability of a several-year cycle of scriptural readings for Sundays and feast days, and concelebration. Concerning the first, Diekmann noted: “no elaborate argumentation seems necessary to establish that the inspired word of God is no longer playing its divinely intended role in the spiritual formation of our people.” On concelebration, Diekmann was more cautious, but nevertheless encouraged by the result of the study meeting, on one hand underscoring the fact that concelebration has already been part of the history of liturgy, on the other side mentioning that this issue was close to the attention of the local churches and the bishops in the United States, and possibly not remote from the wishes of the Holy See itself.<fnref n="19" />

More Scripture in the liturgy was another issue. In 1954 *Worship* published an article, submitted by “a missionary”: “the urgency of the whole problem of a more extensive use of Scripture can be proposed perhaps most convincingly from the missionary standpoint.” The anonymous author of the article mentioned the liturgical congress of Lugano of 1953 and the third petition of the congress that the people might sing in their mother tongue the ordinary parts of a sung Mass, saying that this privilege had already been granted to two Indonesian bishops and an African bishop: “but what the missions obtain may, in the course of time, also be granted to other parts of the Church, more especially if the pastoral needs of the latter can be shown to resemble those of mission areas properly so called”.<fnref n="20" />

The connections between the liturgical dimensions of the missionary activity of the Church and the demands from the liturgical movement in the United States were multifaceted: more Scripture in the Mass was one among many issues, another was the “dialogue Mass.” In a series of three articles *Worship* offered its readers a strong case in favor of a mass with more active participation of the faithful. In a rather technical presentation of the “dialogue Mass” (form A) and the “high rule Mass” (form B), Howell started a debate that took into account sound liturgical tradition and practical considerations about the need to educate the laity in the pew to respond

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Clifford Howell SJ, *Concelebration*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 89-93.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Godfrey DIEKMANN, *Louvain and Versailles*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 537-545.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ [A Missionary,] *More Scripture*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 508-516.</footnote>
in the “dialogue Mass”.<fnref n="21" /> But the issue of the changing nature of post-World War II Catholicism in America and the liturgical movement was much deeper than the uncertainty about the ability of the people in the pew to participate in the dialogue mass. In the first issue of *Worship* of 1958, Andrew Greeley pointed out one of the major challenges which prevented the liturgical revival from realizing its full potential: “the vast cultural gap which exists between Roman liturgy as a means of expression and communication and the industrial culture of urban America”. Greeley explained the consequences of the vast differences between the liturgy and mass culture, and saw four possible solutions: “the maintenance of the status quo, the abandonment of modern civilization, the complete change of liturgy, or some combination of the last two”. The first and the second were not an option, in Greeley’s view, and therefore he advocated the fourth one: “to change modern civilization while at the same time modifying the liturgy. Such a solution will not satisfy those who like simple answers, but it seems to be the course which the Holy See has adopted”.<fnref n="22" />

The issue of the need for a comprehensive liturgical reform as such was a common theme in the decade before the announcement of Vatican II. One of the American ways to look at the liturgical reform was the idea of “liturgy as education” and the “formative power of liturgy”. In 1954 Drinkwater elaborated on an essay published in *Orate Fratres* (October 1949) by J.A. Jungmann. Drinkwater criticized the far too optimistic ideas of some advocates of the liturgical movement, especially the idea of the liturgy as a natural and total way to educate Christians - “Are they not living in a kind of pleasant ivory tower? Can they expect anybody to join them there, except a few fellow escapists?” —but only to emphasize “the present jejune bone-dry theological lecture-room-type way of presenting the faith to the bored faithful”.<fnref n="23" /> But *Worship* was at the forefront of the request of the American liturgical movement for a renewal. In 1954 George Tavard explained some basic principles of the role of liturgy in theology and remarked on the link between access to Scripture and active participation:

> New attempts to bring the liturgy to the people —or rather, to bring the people to the liturgy— should take account of two leading principles. In the first place [...] it is in the liturgy itself that the faithful ought to find their key to the meaning of Scripture. In the second place, since tradition is really included in the liturgy of which it is no more than an aspect, the laity’s participation in the liturgy ought to open their mind to their own positive share in the transmission of tradition.<fnref n="24" />

The liturgical movement in the United States was focused on the pastoral and cultural needs of the American faithful, but it did not refrain from seeking help from liturgical experts in Europe. In 1955 *Worship* published an essay by Annibale Bugnini (editor of the journal *Ephemerides Liturgicae*) who offered a short history of the liturgical reforms and a rationale for the forthcoming reform: “The Church has never been estranged, least of all in worship, from the practical needs of men. The

<footnote n="21">²¹ Clifford HOWELL SJ, *What Form of Dialogue Mass*, in *Worship*, 31 (1957), p. 566-570.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Andrew GREELEY, *Mass Culture Milieu*, in *Worship*, 33 (1958), p. 19-26.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ F.H. DRINKWATER, *An Education in Itself*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 452-459.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ George TAVARD, *Some Remarks on the Liturgy as Tradition*, in *Worship*, 28 (1954), p. 466-471.</footnote>
adaptation of worship has been equal to the spiritual profit intended to be drawn from it.” Bugnini remembered the reforms of the fourth century (abandoning Greek for Latin), the reform of Gregory the Great and of St. Pius V: “from the middle of the last century the need for a ‘general liturgical reform’ began to make itself felt. It found its echo at the Vatican Council, which, however, did not have time to be concerned with this reform; nor was Leo XIII deeply concerned with it”.<fnref n="25" />

The peculiar role of the liturgical movement in the Church of the United States, at the center of the effort of Catholics to get out of the “ghetto”, was evident in the defense of the movement from the accusations of parochialism and single-issue mentality. In his 1957 article published in *Worship* Reinhold departed from a fact: “The liturgists have been blamed for many things ever since the movement started in the era before the First World War”. In the wake of the many accusations moved against the movement by the so-called “beati possidentes”, Reinhold was confident: “With time and Rome on our side we can weather this storm and wait in patience.” The issue was that new enemies, other than the “usual” conservatives, were accusing the liturgical movement of not emphasizing the social action aspects of their being a Catholic movement: desegregation, racism, secularism, communism and fascism. Reinhold responded declaring the special course of action of the liturgical movement, but stressing the link between the liturgical movement and the rest of the changing nature of American Catholicism, this time calling to action the rest of the Catholic Church in the United States:

> While it is not our task as liturgists to be spokesmen of the Social Action Department of the NCWC, or agents of the Christian Family Movement, a completely aloof attitude of this magazine towards their departmental concerns would justify the suspicion that we are a group of cloud gazers or worse; while their indifference to popular participation in the most noble manifestation of our faith —in its theological order— would leave them open to the charge of stopping up the best source and fountainhead of the living waters that feed their own garden.<fnref n="26" />

On the other side, in the social activity of Catholicism in the United States, the liturgical movement engaged the new spiritual needs of American Catholics in the period between the end of the “ghetto” and the beginning of the mainstream.<fnref n="27" /> The symbolic figure of Thomas Merton provided *Worship* with a long article about “liturgy and spiritual personalism”, in which the best-selling Trappist monk from Kentucky stressed the “political”. that is, public aspect of liturgical life. Merton called “zealots” the ones whose zeal “makes the simple and ordinary Christian afraid of Liturgy with a capital L, and drives him back into the no man’s land of devotions and nondescript meditations”. Merton read the cultural situation of American Catholicism in parallel with the debate about liturgy, and gave a striking assessment:

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Annibale BUGNINI, *Why a Liturgy Reform?*, in *Worship*, 29 (1955), p. 562-569.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Hans Alexander REINHOLD, *Is the Liturgy a Panacea?*, in *Worship*, 32 (1957), p. 12-16. About Reinhold’s quest for justice in connection with liturgy see Julia UPTON, *Worship in Spirit and Truth*, p. 65-74.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ About Merton and the culture of post-World War II Catholicism in the US, see Mark S. MASSA, *Catholics and American Culture. Fulton Sheen, Dorothy Day, and the Notre Dame Football Team*, New York, 1999, p. 38-56.</footnote>
The pseudo-liturgists are not the only zealots. Perhaps in America they are not even a significant minority, compared with the mob of pseudo-personalists. If individualism and subjectivism are so widely suspect among us, there is perhaps a very good reason for it. We live in a climate of individualism. But our individualism is in decay. Our tradition of freedom which, as a matter of fact, is rooted in a deeply Christian soil, and which in itself is worthy of the highest respect and of undying loyalty, has begun to lose its genuine vitality. It is becoming more and more a verbal convention rather than a spiritual conviction.<fnref n="28" />

This example of Merton's attack against "the zealots" shows how close the relationship was between the elite of the liturgical movement and the culture of well-read and even better-published Catholics, who were very much at ease both with the need for dialogue with mainstream American society and with the vital counter-cultural dimension of Catholicism in the United States. Between 1960 and 1962 the preparation of Vatican II necessarily involved more the leaders of the liturgical movement than the grass-roots members.

## THE LITURGICAL MOVEMENT IN THE US AND THE LITURGICAL PREPARATORY COMMISSION OF VATICAN II (1959-1962)

There is a direct link between the ideas and the insights of the leaders of the liturgical movement in the United States and the contribution of American Catholic theology to the preparation of Vatican II. The liturgical movement in the United States was not surprised by the fact that one of the major issues of Vatican II would be the liturgical reform.<fnref n="29" /> But there was also a visible gap between the vibrancy of the movement in its ability to organize itself and the slow response of the bishops in embracing the ideas of the liturgical movement as their own ideas.

Soon after 25 January 1961, when Cardinal Cicognani sent a letter to the national bishops' conferences asking them about the existence of "national liturgical commissions",<fnref n="30" /> the archbishop of Cincinnati, Karl Alter (chairman of the administrative board, NCWC), replied that from 1959 the "Episcopal Moderator of our Liturgical Commission for the Hierarchy of the United States" was bishop James Henry Griffiths, auxiliary bishop of New York.<fnref n="31" /> But after this reply from Alter, the response to the questionnaire about the activities of the liturgical commissions in the

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Thomas MERTON, *Liturgy and Spiritual Personalism*, in *Worship*, 34 (1960), p. 494-507.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ About the history of the debate within the preparatory liturgical commission, see MARIA PAIANO, *Il rinnovamento della liturgia. Dai movimenti alla chiesa universale*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Alberto MELLONI (eds.), *Verso il Concilio Vaticano II, 1960-1962. Passaggi e problemi della preparazione conciliare*, Genova, 1993, p. 67-140.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Draft of the letter by Bugnini to Cicognani in Vatican Secret Archives (henceforth: ASV), Conc. Vat. II, 1364. Enclosed to the letter there was a questionnaire (to be sent back to Rome before December 31, 1963) with four questions about the activity of these commissions: 1) "De Commissionis Liturgicae Constitutione" (date of foundation, statute); 2) "De actuositate commissionis liturgicae" (director, instructions, norms); 3) "De actione liturgica in natione aut regione" (liturgical groups, journals, liturgical publishing houses, national liturgical conferences, liturgical education in seminaries); 4) "De commissionibus liturgicis dioecesanis" (diocesan liturgical commissions and their activities).</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Letter of Archbishop Karl Alter to Cardinal Cicognani, February 1st, 1962, in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1364.</footnote>
United States never came to Rome—not even after a second letter dated 23 August 1961.<fnref n="32" />

But the liturgical debate in the US Catholic Church was far from inactive during the preparation of Vatican II. Even *Time* magazine covered the matter (in an issue of 28 April 1961), by reporting on the embarrassment caused by the decision of the Roman Congregation for the Rites to “demote” St. Filomena on the very same day when Cardinal Cushing of Boston consecrated the new church of St. Filomena in Dover (Massachusetts)—the first Catholic church in the town. Cardinal Cushing had to rededicate the church as “the Church of the Most Precious Blood;” as he told the press afterward: “It was a difficult job. It was like telling the Irish there was no St. Patrick”.<fnref n="33" />

It there was a gap between the level of activity of the liturgical movement and the American bishops, that gap was much narrower than in other countries. Already before the announcement of Vatican II, the bishops had responded to the openings of the pontificate of Pius XII and to the movement: in 1958 the NCWC (the conference of Catholic bishops in the United States) had formed the “Episcopal Committee for the Liturgical Apostolate.” But after the announcement of the council the movement had a more effective impact. In 1959 the “20th North American Liturgical Week” was held at Notre Dame (with 3,000 participants - 12 bishops, 1,200 priests, and 250 seminarians), chaired by Fr. George Shidel, C.S.C., and Fr. Michael Mathis, C.S.C.<fnref n="34" /> Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna was one of the guest speakers at this meeting, where Frederick McManus was elected president of “The Liturgical Conference.” In August 1961 the National Liturgical Conference, held in Oklahoma City, was dedicated to an examination of the link between the Bible, life, and worship, and 4,000 faithful (including twelve bishops) took part.<fnref n="35" />

But the liturgical movement in the United States was effective in letting its voice be heard during the preparation of Vatican II also in Rome and in the official preparatory commission for the liturgy. Members of the commission were John

<footnote n="32">³² See ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1364. During those same weeks, on September 20, 1961, Bugnini informed Felici that the liturgical preparatory commission had sent “al nostro consultore P. Dubois il disappunto per la pubblicazione del Referendum dei canadesi, apparso in *Revue eucharistique du clergé* (64° année, n. 9, sept. 1961, p. 470-483)”. Father Dubois justified his actions before Rome by saying that the *Revue eucharistique du clergé* had published the dossier because requested to do that by the bishop of the diocese of Nicolet, Martin, and because the bishops’ conference of Canada had already published the *vota* of the German bishops, and finally because “l’épiscopat et le clergé de notre pays aimaient savoir ce que les canadiens avaient demandé. Comme je ne croyais trahir aucun secret, je n’ai pas pensé vous consulter avant de rédiger cet article”: ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1356.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ In ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1356.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Michael Mathis, a priest of the order of the Holy Cross, established summer programs in liturgy at Notre Dame in the summer of 1947. From these summer programs grew the University’s graduate degree programs in liturgical studies, the Notre Dame Center for Liturgy (established in 1970), and the annual Pastoral Liturgy Conferences (sponsored by the Center since 1971): see http://liturgy.nd.edu/</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Letter of Frederick McManus (sent from “The Liturgical Conference”, 3428 Ninth Street, NE, Washington DC) to Bugnini, September 4, 1961: “Habuimus ‘Hebdomadam Liturgicam’ 21-25 Augusti in, in Civitate Oklahoma, sub auspice Exc.mi Domini Victoris J. Reed. Thema erat Scriptura, Vita Christiana, et Liturgia: ‘Bible, Life, and Worship’. 4000 sacerdotes, sorores, et fideles laici interfuerunt, duodecim episcopis inclusis”: ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1376 (p. 1376).</footnote>
Quasten, Godfrey Diekmann OSB, and Frederick McManus. John Quasten (1900-1987) was a German-born patrologue, who had to leave Germany in 1937 because the Nazi regime withdrew his *venia legendi* at the University of Münster, and —thanks to the intercession of Cardinal Pacelli— in 1938 he was offered an extraordinary (in 1941 ordinary) position at the Catholic University of America (in Washington, D.C.) in ancient Church history, patrology, and Christian archeology.<fnref n="36" /> Diekmann (1908-2002), the sixth of eight children of German emigrés from Westphalia, had been editor of *Worship* (formerly *Orate Fratres*) beginning in 1938, taught theology at St. John's University (Collegeville, Minnesota) and retired in 1995.<fnref n="37" /> McManus (1923-2005), priest of the archdiocese of Boston, received his JCD from the Catholic University of America with a dissertation on the history of the Roman Congregation of the Sacred Rites in 1954; in 1956 he was a member of the Boston delegation for the Assisi-Rome Congress; in 1958 he became a member of the faculty of the School of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America (and he worked as its dean between 1967 and 1973); in 1959 he was named editor of *The Jurist* and elected President of The Liturgical Conference at the Liturgical Week in Notre Dame (reelected in 1964); after Vatican II McManus became the real soul of the post-Vatican II liturgical movement in the United States.<fnref n="38" />

All of the American members of the liturgical preparatory commission had a considerable impact on the debate within the commission. McManus was a member of the subcommissions “De calendario recognoscendo” and “De lingua latina”, and Diekmann of the subcommissions “De fidelium participatione in Sacra Liturgia” and “De Liturgiae aptatione ad traditiones et ingenium populorum”.<fnref n="39" /> In February 1961, in a series of observations on the use of modern languages in byzantine liturgies, McManus enclosed a report by Maximos IV Saigh (dated Cairo, February 5th, 1960: “Note on the Use of Modern Languages in the Byzantine Liturgy”) and the declarations of two Eastern Catholic bishops on the same issue —Agagianian and of a “Fr. John Archimandrite” (published in *Worship* XXV Dec. 1960, 63-65). McManus quoted also the *votum* of the Catholic University of America,<fnref n="40" /> in order to make his case in favor of the vernacular language in the liturgy:

<footnote n="36">³⁶ From 1945 to 1949 Quasten was dean of the department of theology and in 1960 he received the “Cardinal Spellman Award of the Catholic Theological Association of America” for his theological work. In 1964 Paul VI appointed him consultant of the “Consilium ad exsequendam”: see Patrick GRANFIELD, *John Quasten. A Biographical Essay*, in Patrick GRANFIELD und Josef A. JUNGMANN (eds.), *Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten*, 2 Vols., Münster, 1970, Vol. 2, p. 921-923; Norbert M. BORENGÄSSER, *ad vocem*, in *Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon*, 15 (1999), 1187-1192: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/q/quasten.shtml</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ See Kathleen HUGHES, *The Monk's Tale. A Biography of Godfrey Diekmann*, O.S.B., Collegeville MN, 1990. By Godfrey DIEKMANN see, among others, *Come, Let Us Worship*, London, 1962.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ See Mark S. MASSA, *The American Catholic Revolution*, p. 15-28. Among the publications by Frederick McMANUS, *The Ceremonies of the Easter Vigil*, Patterson NJ, 1953; *The People's Holy Week*, Patterson NJ, 1956; *Pontifical Rite of the Restored Order of Holy Week*, translated and with an introduction by McManus, Patterson NJ, 1958.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1365: minutes of the meeting of the preparatory liturgical commission of November 1960, where all the US members were absent.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ *Votum* of the Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.), in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1365: “Patrum deliberationi proponimus: a) regulam quae in usu Ecclesiarum Orientalium recepta et pro</footnote>
Mihi videtur utile, immo necessarium esse addere vota vel votorum summarium Episco-
porum qui veri doctores et pastores Ecclesiarum mentem Ecclesiae Christi manifestant
ne labores Commissionis Antepraeplatoriae et consultationes vanae sint. In Actis iam
publicatis sunt multa vota *pro* usu lingua patriae in S. Liturgia —non solum Episcoporum
Germaniae, Galliae, Hiberniae, sed etiam *Italiae, Hispaniae, Lusitaniae*. In votis Episco-
porum Civitatum Foederatarum Americae [USA]: 38 mentionem rei huius fecerunt, de
quibus: 4 retentioni linguae Latinae faverunt, 34 usui ampliori linguae patriae faverunt
—23 in Missa, 9 in administratione sacramentorum etc., 11 in Officio divino, 10 generatim
in S. Liturgia.

McManus finally quoted the request of the “Liturgical Conference” of August 1956, voiced through bishop John Christopher Cody (bishop of London in Ontario, Canada, between 1950 and 1963) on the use of the vernacular language: “Ut, ad agendam virtutem pastoralem Missae catechumenorum, haec pars Missae lingua populi celebrentur… Ut sacerdotibus ministerio actuoso laborantibus concedatur facultas recitandi Breviarium lingua materna, his de causis: a) pro unitate Ecclesiae [...]; b) pro utilitate sacerdotum [...]; c) pro praedicatione sacerdotum [...]; d) pro propagatione fidei”.<fnref n="41" />

In April 1961, Bugnini sent the members of the preparatory liturgical commission of Vatican II a document about the “adaptatione liturgiae ad ingenium et traditiones populorum”, whose first author was John Quasten. That text affirmed the local bishops as the best judges of the adaptation (episcopi enim, qui in contactu immediato cum fidelibus proprii territorii munere apostolico funguntur, iudices maxime qualificati sunt tum de modo tum de mensura aptationis expetendae) together with the bishops’ conferences (quaestiones de aptatione in Conferentiis regionalibus Episcoporum ordinentur). Most of all, *adaptatione* should be about the use of vernacular languages instead of Latin (tamquam cardo tempestivae aptationis liturgicae sine dubio considerandum est problema linguae vernaculae, cui secundum indigentiam nostrorum temporum notabilior latior usus concedendus est praesertim in Missa ubique terrarum, sed maxime et urgentissime in Missionibus. Sine nitida solutione huius problematis, tota aptatio liturgica manca et inefficax manebit).<fnref n="42" />

During the summer of 1961 the first version of the liturgical constitution was ready and the American members reacted with observations. All of the American members expressed their appreciation of the work done, with some *iuxta modum*. In paragraph 28 McManus wished a "Placet, sed verba 'et approbante Sancta Sede' substituantur per 'sub auctoritate Sanctae Sedis' (Praevia approbatio S. Sedis non semper requiritur)". In paragraph 30, Diekman pushed for more trust in the authority of the bishops' conferences:

eis a Sede Apostolica agnita est, ut scil. actiones liturgicae ad incrementum pietatis populi in lingua vernacula celebrentur, ad Ecclesiam Latinam extendendam, versione tamen unaquaque ab auctoritate competenti ecclesiastica approbata. Cf. Pius XI, audientia 20 februarii 1929; Pius XII, ep. Encycl. *Mediator Dei*, AAS, 39 (1947), p. 545; Theodorus Balsamon, in Migne, P.G., CXXXVIII, 957-958". See also Frederick R. McMANUS, *Preconciliar Vota of the Faculty of Canon Law —The Catholic University of America - February 1960*, in *The Jurist*, 57 (1997), p. 457-48.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ The observations of McManus, from the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C., February 12th, 1961, in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1360.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² April 1961: ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1370.</footnote>
Melius dicendum: 'Ut aptatio cum necessaria circumspectione fiat, Conferentia Episcopalis facultate, intra certos et bene circumscriptos limites, gaudeat, si necessitas vel animorum utilitas exigit... [...] Talia experimenta perutilia essent non tantum in regionibus missionariis, sed ubicumque quaestio est de aptatione. Si paragraphus hic retineantur sub n. 30, forsitan addatur: 'Talis facultas etiam concedatur Conferentiis Episcopalis regionum non-missionariarium, praesertim si in istis regionibus Catholicis minoritatem constituunt populi.'

In paragraph 48 McManus desired a more open-ended declaration of Vatican II about the liturgical reform: "Non placet declaratio voti quae videtur portam claudere et limites rigidos statuere —forsitan usque ad concilium generale post II Vaticanum." On the prayer of the hours at paragraph 55, McManus gave his placet, "cum additione: 'et valde commendatur pietati omnium Christifidelium'". But also Diekmann had a strong and long objection to paragraph 63 about the overly idealistic interpretation of the document drafted by the liturgical commission concerning the relationship between liturgical reform and monastic prayer:

> Omnino non placet. Hodie etiam monachi in monasteriis degentes, approbante et urgente Sancta Sede, operibus apostolatus adstricti sunt, eg. in scholis. Ideo omnino ridiculus est commendare, tamquam normam, praxim quae et in monasteriis strictissimae clausurae, sine operibus ullis apostolatus, nimis onerosa esset, et nullibi nunc observatur, neque per saecula observata est (uti in Declaratione admittitur: nam simpliciter desunt libri pro officium divinum in omnibus eius partibus cantando). Talis commendatio tunc tantum semsum haberet, si officium (eg. Monasticum) drastico modo abbreviretur — quod quidem nemo suggerit. Si cantus uti norma omnimodo declarandus est, forsitan Votum exprimi posset hoc modo: 'Commendatur, ut officium divinum in choro vel in communi cantetur, saltem quoad Vesperas cotidianas et, diebus dominicis et festivis, etiam quoad alias partes Officii magis convenientes. Et tunc Declaratio Voti consequenter mutetur.

Both Diekmann and McManus asked for a more clear and courageous paragraph on the vernacular language for chapter IV, paragraph 65: "Si quaestio de lingua non explicite tractetur in votis de sacramentis et sacramentalibus, saltem in Proemio mentionis digna est" (Diekmann), "Mihi videtur necessarium esse canonem de usu linguae vernaculae" (McManus).<fnref n="43" />

The American members of the liturgical commission were not the only ones pushing the agenda of the liturgical movement before the council. A very active part of the movement in the United States was the "Vernacular Society", whose president, Colonel K. Ross-Duggan, in August 1962 wrote to Bugnini to advocate the vernacular in the liturgy. Colonel K. Ross-Duggan, whose "undiplomatic touch" was well known to other more cautious activists of the liturgical movement,<fnref n="44" /> lamented that after John XXIII's *Veterum Sapientia* "the dead hand of many centuries had established concentration on the use of Latin with resultant silence on the part of the majority of layfolk in the Catholic world. Hence it came to be taken for granted in conservative circles that *more* Latin and *less* mother tongue was the accepted thing." Ross-Duggan even informed Bugnini about —and even asked Bugnini to take part in— an ongoing "mailing campaign to members and prospective members of the Vernacular Society"

<footnote n="43">43 *Responsiones* to the *Constitutio* of August 10th, 1961, in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1375.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 *PECKLERS, *The Unread Vision*, p. 64.</footnote>
and a "petition for an English liturgy" (to be subsequently submitted to Msgr. Felici) with the following appeal:

> Responding with joy to the assurance that an expression of the hopes and wishes of the laity regarding the sacred liturgy would be welcomed by officials of the Ecumenical Council, we, undersigned, respectfully submit the following petition: 'That in English speaking countries, specifically in the United States of America, for the greater instruction and devotion of the faithful, permission be granted for the use of the English language in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (other than the strictly priestly prayers) and in the Sacraments and Sacramentals'. With a fervent tribute of our loyalty and devotion, we prayerfully present this petition.<fnref n="45" />

## "THE AMERICAN VIEW" AND THE EARLY RECEPTION OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM (1963-1968)

The attitude of the American bishops during the first and second sessions of the council on the liturgical debate was in favor of the liturgical reform and in general often leaning towards a "via media" in the issue of the continuity/discontinuity with the previous liturgical tradition. Positions within an episcopate as large as the United States bishops were diverse. Cardinals Spellman (New York) and McIntyre (Los Angeles) and archbishop Hallinan (Atlanta) were clearly on different sides of the debate, Spellman, McIntyre and Ottaviani being among the most vocal opponents of changes to the order of the mass and to the canon. But when Hallinan recruited, on 19 November 1962, a significant number of bishops from the United States, it became clear that the majority of the bishops were in favor of the liturgical reform and of the schema debated on the floor of St. Peter's.<fnref n="46" /> It also became clear that the North American bishops were not "Latin-minded" and that Hallinan represented a wide basis of a Catholic Church waiting and already preparing for this reform.<fnref n="47" />

Young and inexperienced bishops also advocated an issue more typical of senior clergy in the United States, given the almost 50-year-long history of the liturgical movement in America. In his observations about the liturgical schema, the newly appointed bishop of Boise (Idaho), Sylvester Trainen, observed:

<footnote n="45">45 ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1386. Ross-Duggan letter to Bugnini mentioned many cases of concession of the vernacular in the liturgy: among them, the one granted by the bishops of Marquette on March 10th, 1962: "Thomas L. Noa, D.D., Bishop of Marquette, Michigan, has given his imprimatur to the Community Mass Book arranged by the Liturgical Commission of the Diocese of Marquette, Michigan. The book contains full explanation of a Community Mass with short Latin responses and Pater Noster; English recitation of the Gloria; Apostles' Creed at the Credo; Sanctus; Agnus Dei and Domine non sum dignus. There is provision for vernacular hymns at Entrance, Offertory; Communion and Recessional. There are also Latin chants for High Mass".</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 Hallinan wrote a short text in which he stressed that the bishops of the United States wished to vote on chapter I of the schema during the first session, and 132 bishops signed the petition: see Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, *The Liturgy Debate*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO (ed.), *History of Vatican II*, Vol. 2, English version edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Maryknoll - New York, 1997, p. 107-166, esp. p. 153. See also O'MALLEY, *What Happened at Vatican II*. About Hallinan, see Thomas J. SHELLEY, *Paul J. Hallinan. First Archbishop of Atlanta*, Wilmington, DEL, 1989.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 See Paul J. HALLINAN, *An American View*, in *Worship*, 37 (1963), p. 547-550.</footnote>
As one of the Junior Bishops who will be attending the Second Session of the Second Vatican Council in September, I hesitate to make a petition or offer any suggestions. However, perhaps on the other hand it would be unwise for me to remain silent on something which I feel is important. With all due reverence then to Your Eminence [Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State] and acknowledging my own youth, I would like to say that I would be much in favor of having the Council Fathers be given a chance to vote on a proposition that would allow the priests to have an option of reciting the Divine Office in the vernacular language. I would like to see the priests able to make this choice merely for the sake of their own personal devotion if they felt that this would add to their devotions. Perhaps it is not possible at this date, but I also feel that it would add much to the progress of the sessions of the Council if there were some kind of an instantaneous translation of the speeches into the four or five major languages. I am able to understand the Fathers, when they speak in Latin, if they speak distinctly and slowly. However, it is quite a strain to do this for several hours at a time. I have spoken with many other bishops who feel this same way. With sentiments of deep esteem and with best wishes, I remain very sincerely yours in Christ, Sylvester Trainen.<fnref n="48" />

The issue of the breviary was another issue typical of the bishops of the United States, as we see from the letter of the auxiliary bishop of Lansing (Michigan), Michael Green, to the liturgical commission of Vatican II: "the feelings of the clergy throughout the Diocese about the possibility of having the Breviary recited in the vernacular [...] I dare to say that the one question asked most frequently was 'Will we be able to recite the Breviary in the vernacular?' [...] I might add, too, that in my travels around the country I found a similar anxiety on the part of almost every priest with whom I came in contact'.<fnref n="49" /> On the other side, clearly not everyone was satisfied with the success of the liturgical movement, worrying about the possible "over-rating" of the pastoral effectiveness of the liturgical reform:

> The 'liturgical movement' has been suggesting changes in the rite of celebrating Holy Mass that appear to be too drastic. It is easy to change without improving, to reject ceremonies long honored and loved by our people for the sake of others that have little merit beyond their newness. We question the over-emphasis on the 'lay priesthood' and on forms of togetherness of priest and people that tend to lessen the sacrificial character of the Mass in favor of a sacrificial meal. In the United States Protestant sects have found this form of church services fails to increase attendance by their adherents, while Catholic churches that stress the sacrificial character of the Mass are always crowded on Sundays. Rites and ceremonies are externals and religious are now tending to over-rate their pastoral effectiveness. Nor are ceremonies patterned by religious for their chapels always the best suited for Christians living in the world and attending Mass in large and crowded churches.<fnref n="50" />

But the overall reception of the liturgical debate and of *Sacrosanctum Concilium* was overwhelmingly positive. The journal *Worship* prepared the reception and the translation into action of the liturgical constitution through a long and detailed

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Letter of Sylvester Trainen, bishop of Boise (Idaho), August 9th, 1963, in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1384.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Auxiliary bishops of Lansing (Michigan) Michael Green, letter of August 20th, 1963, (a few days after the meeting of the US bishops in Chicago), in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1384.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Bishop Henry Joseph Grimmelsmann (bishop of Evansville, Indiana), letter to the liturgical commission, July 17th, 1963, in ASV, Conc. Vat. II, 1384.</footnote>
commentary by McManus (170 pages in three parts).<fnref n="51" /> The generally enthusiastic tone of the commentary was otherwise careful in offering a balanced and open-ended interpretation of the text of the constitution, for example, about the use of the vernacular language —an issue that received comments as long and detailed as no other part of the constitution (12 pages for SC 36 and 12 pages for SC 54). The interpretation of the passage on the liturgical language was clearly directed towards a differentiated application of the documents depending on the local demands of the liturgical movements: “The purpose of this article [36] may be described as the widespread introduction of the vernacular languages, but in such a way as to respect the liberty of those areas where thus far there has not been any broad movement toward the use of the mother tongues. The article appears as a compromise between those who would retain the Latin language in the Roman rite and the other rites of the Western Church, and those who would on principle use the vernacular languages exclusively”.<fnref n="52" />

McManus represents a special example, but from the analysis of the literature about the early reception of the liturgical constitution and the start of the liturgical reform there is no doubt that the beginning of the liturgy of Vatican II in the United States marked a turning point in the appreciation of the council by US Catholics: “The Catholic sixties began in 1964, which was when the first (and arguably most dramatic) implementation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (the reform of the celebration of the Mass) reached American shores”.<fnref n="53" /> A minority of opponents of the liturgical reform became visible from the very beginning of the application of the reform in the Advent of 1964, but for a long time in the United States this minority remained sociologically marginal and culturally estranged, not less than the experience shared by similar traditionalist groups in Europe. After the implementation of the reform of the celebration of the Mass, in the United States a Catholic Traditionalist Movement was born just eight weeks after the beginning of the reform —ironically enough, by a Belgian-born priest in the Baltimore diocese, Father Gommar de Pauw.<fnref n="54" /> But it is fair to tell that in drawing the line between “conservative Catholics” and “Vatican II Catholics” in the United States, the liturgical reform did not play a fundamental role, at least until the beginning of the post-Vatican II.<fnref n="55" />

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ See Frederick R. McMANUS, *The Constitution on liturgy. Commentary. Part One*, in *Worship*, 38 (1964), p. 314-374; *Part Two*, in *Worship*, 38 (1964), p. 450-498; *Part Three*, in *Worship*, 38 (1964), p. 515-565.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² McMANUS, *The Constitution on liturgy. Commentary. Part One*, in *Worship*, 38 (1964), p. 350-351.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ MASSA, *The American Catholic Revolution*, p. XIII.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Among the opponents of the liturgical reform there was the former archbishop of Portland in Oregon (until 1974), as we can see from his letter to the journal of the Lefebvrians in Italy: Robert Joseph DWYER, *Una cattedrale devastata*, in *Sì sì, no no*, n. 3 (1978), p. 2, quoted in Roberto de MATTEI, *Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai raccontata*, Torino, 2010, p. 576-577.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Richard John NEUHAUS, *The Catholic Moment*, San Francisco, 1987, p. 63-64.</footnote>
## CONCLUSIONS

### THE LITURGICAL REFORM IN THE US AS A BRIDGE TOWARDS THE REFORMS OF VATICAN II

It is accurate to see a fundamental coherence and consistency between the issues of the liturgical movement and the reform made possible by Vatican II and the liturgical reform that began with *Sacrosanctum Concilium*. As Jay Dolan put it: "The goals of the liturgical movement that reformers had promoted since the 1930s were finally realized".<fnref n="56" /> Dolan is far from alone in his assessment of the liturgical reform as a fruit of the liturgical movement and also of the liturgical movement in the United States. Mark Massa has recently emphasized the success of the liturgical reform in the US: "despite scattered evidence of frustration, disaffection, and wistful yearning for the old Mass, the widespread fears of rejection and nonreception among the faithful appeared to be unfounded. Most North American Catholics overwhelmingly —and surprisingly quickly— came to support what would come to be known as the new Mass".<fnref n="57" />

Unfounded and delusional as the nostalgia of the liturgy of the “good old days” might be, the time of “Vatican II triumphalism” has passed, and now also the advocates of the council try to give a more nuanced and more comprehensive appreciation of the fruits of the liturgical reform. In his recent history of the American faithful, James O’Toole has emphasized the not only chronological coincidence between the liturgical reform and the crisis of devotional life, but he also acknowledged that, in general, American Catholics favored the new Mass.<fnref n="58" /> In fact, it can be argued that the Catholic Church in the United States saw a wide acceptance of the liturgical reform especially until 1967-1968, when other socio-cultural factors came into play, as Chinnici has effectively explained: “the ‘piety void’ occasioned by the collapse of Cold War devotional life occurred precisely because the devotions themselves had encoded a social world that no longer existed”.<fnref n="59" />

The sociology of the liturgical reform cannot be separated from the deep, theological motives of the reform and liturgy's role as a bridge towards the whole “thing”, that is, Vatican II —a council that at the beginning of the liturgical reform, in late 1964, was still underway. From a theological point of view, Dolan saw in the liturgical reform an important passage in US Catholics' understanding of Vatican II: "The vast majority of Catholics went along with the changes and in time began to understand why it all had taken place".<fnref n="60" /> The theology of the council and the

<footnote n="56">56 Jay P. DOLAN, *In Search of an American Catholicism. A History of Religion and Culture in Tension*, New York, 2002, p. 193.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 MASSA, *The American Catholic Revolution*, p. 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 James M. O’Toole, *The Faithful. A History of Catholics in America*, Cambridge MA – London, 2008, p. 199-221. For the case study of the diocese of Pittsburgh, see Timothy KELLY, *The Transformation of American Catholicism. The Pittsburgh Laity and the Second Vatican Council, 1950-1972*, Notre Dame IN, 2009.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 CHINNICI, *The Catholic Community at Prayer*, p. 83.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 Jay P. DOLAN, *The American Catholic Experience. A History from Colonial Times to the Present*, Notre Dame – London, 1992, p. 430.</footnote>
liturgical reform made room for new ways of expressing the spirituality of Catholics. From the point of view of the history of the spirituality of American Catholics, James McCartin has identified with the period of the liturgical reform the passage from a prayer as crusade to a prayer that “becomes secular”, between the rise of “spiritual Catholicism” and the “fast-declining ideal of ‘institutional Catholicism’”.<fnref n="61" />

Between institutional Catholicism and spiritual Catholicism nostalgia works now, at the beginning of the 21st century, much better towards for the former. Not surprisingly, during this last decade at least, a few voices in American Catholicism have also become more audible in their calling for a “reform of the reform” of Vatican II.<fnref n="62" /> This phenomenon is part of the ethnically diverse and ideologically divided landscape of contemporary American Catholicism. But there is no way that the advocates of the “reform of the reform” can justify their wishes by saying that the council betrayed the expectations of the liturgical movement, nor that there is a substantial difference between the issues of the liturgical movement and the results of the liturgical reform.

## VATICAN II AND THE EUROPEAN ROOTS OF THE LITURGICAL MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

We can clearly see the continuity between the issues of the liturgical movement *tout court* and the liturgical movement in the United States. The pre-Vatican II liturgical movement advocated the pastoral nature of the liturgy, the importance of liturgy for the missions, the use of the vernacular language, and the Eucharistic concelebration.<fnref n="63" /> But the complexity of the sociological landscape of American Catholicism and its diverse national-ethnic origins provides the history of the liturgical reform with elements that are unknown in the history of modern European Catholicism. If the emphasis on the vernacular language was an old and common request from America,<fnref n="64" /> the emphasis on the “dialogue mass” had been for a long time

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ James P. MCCARTIN, *Prayers of the Faithful. The Shifting Spiritual Life of American Catholics*, Cambridge MA and London, 2010, p. 101.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² See James LIKLOUDIS and Kenneth D. WHITEHEAD, *The Pope, the Council, and the Mass. Answers to the Questions the 'Traditionalists' Are Asking*, preface by H. Lyman Stebbins, W. Hanover, Mass., 1981; Ralph M. MCINERNY, *What Went Wrong with Vatican II. The Catholic Crisis Explained*, Manchester, N.H., 1998, p. 116, and Ralph M. MCINERNY, *Liturgy in the true spirit of Vatican II*, in AD2000 14/2 (March 2001), p. 20; George WEIGEL, *The Courage to Be Catholic. Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church*, New York, 2002, p. 186-189; Romanus CESSARIO, *The Sacraments of the Church*, in Matthew L. LAMB and Matthew LEVERING (eds.), *Vatican II. Renewal Within Tradition*, New York NY, 2008, p. 129-146; Kenneth D. WHITEHEAD, *Mass Misunderstandings. The Mixed Legacy of the Vatican II Liturgical Reforms*, South Bend, Ind., 2009. *Contra*, see John BALDOVIN, *Reforming the Liturgy. A Response to the Critics*, Collegeville MN, 2008; Massimo FAGGIOLI, *Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Meaning of Vatican II*, in *Theological Studies*, 71 (2010), p. 437-452.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ See André HAQUIN, *Le mouvement liturgique dans l'église catholique (19ᵉ-20ᵉ siècle)*, in Carlo BRAGA and Alessandro PISTOIA (eds.), *Les mouvements liturgiques. Corrélation entre pratiques et recherches*, Roma, 2004, p. 19-34.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ In 1946 it was founded the “St. Jerome Society” (secretary John Ross-Duggan), and in 1952-54 the initiative for some portions of the liturgy in English was pushed by the Vernacular Society and some US bishops; in June 1954 came the approval from Rome.</footnote>
a conflicting issue between German-speaking immigrant advocates of the reform and immigrant devotions more typical of Tridentine Catholicism.<fnref n="65" />

The expectations of the liturgical movement in the United States matched the ones from the European liturgists (the “dialogue mass”, the use of the vernacular language), but it added at least one particular issue typical of the North American Catholic landscape and its background in Midwestern Catholicism with strong monastic ties: the participation in the liturgy of the hours, and the connection between the liturgical movement and social justice. The first issue, advocated especially by William Busch and Gerald Donnelly, argued that the liturgy of the hours belongs to the whole Church. The foundation of the “League of the Divine Office” was intended to show the social-communitarian character of Christianity, to lead people into the current of Church’s life, and to show a less egocentric form of prayer.<fnref n="66" /> The second issue, liturgical movement and social justice, was part of the effort of the American faithful to exit from “ghetto Catholicism” of blue-collar workers and European immigrants, and make it more open to American culture and, at the same time, consistent with the genuine *counter-cultural* feature of American Catholicism. Already in the late 1920s Virgil Michel’s idea of liturgical movement was drawing on the ideas of Orestes Brownson about the relationship between Catholicism and American culture during the age of the Civil War,<fnref n="67" /> that is, anti-individualism and equality of men and women: “In Michel’s opinion, one of the limits of the earlier European liturgical movement was that it lacked the justice dimension. While Beauduin was an obvious exception to this, Michel’s thesis was accurate”.<fnref n="68" /> H.A. Reinhold’s articles in *Orate Fratres* (and later, in *Worship*) drew upon his contact with Dorothy Day and his advocacy for interracial justice.

What was typical of the cultural and theological identity of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement in the United States was the history of the struggle of US Catholics—the “immigrant Church”—to be accepted in American culture, especially in the 50 years before Vatican II: the “roaring Twenties”, the Great Depression, the role of Catholic Action and Dorothy Day’s *Catholic Worker*. The particularity of the liturgical movement in the United States should be remembered—especially its unique geographical roots in the Midwest and the Upper Midwest and ethnic German origins: “It was Germans and German-Americans who were the first to grasp the intrinsic connection between liturgy and social justice. The movement, then, was more successful in the middle west, than on the east or west coasts, not because the area was more Protestant, but because it was more German”.<fnref n="69" />

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ “The liturgical movement in this country has always maintained a cautious reserve on the subject of popular devotions [...] Liturgists have usually felt that popular devotions can pretty take care of themselves without any special help from the liturgical movement”: Andrew GREELEY, *Popular devotions. Friend or Foe?, in *Worship*, 33 (1959), p. 569-573. The first “missa recitata” was celebrated in 1928 in St. Louis (MO) by the Sodality of Our Lady, mostly thanks to the work of Martin Hellriegel.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ See DANIEL SHANAHAN, *The History and Reception of the Divine Office in Sacrosanctum concilium Among the Laity in the United States*, in *Cistercian Studies Quarterly*, 43 (2008), p. 161-175.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ See DOLAN, *In Search of an American Catholicism*, p. 47-70; John McGreevy, *Catholicism and American Freedom. A History*, New York, 2004, p. 43-90.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ PECKLERS, *The Unread Vision*, p. 134.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ PECKLERS, *The Unread Vision*, p. 283.</footnote>
This particularity had to reckon not only with the dynamic of the marketplace of religions in America,<fnref n="70" /> but also the with the momentous history of a Catholicism thriving and changing between World War II and the 1960: a cultural and social universe far more promising and hopeful than the Catholic ghetto celebrated in Elia Kazan's movie *The Waterfront*.<fnref n="71" /> The chronological coincidence between the liturgical reform of Vatican II and the end of the ghetto helped bridging the gap within the liturgical movement in the United States between the more theological Benedictine line and the line advocating “active participation” not in opposition to popular devotions.

## THE ISSUES OF THE LITURGICAL MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE LITURGICAL REFORM

The liturgical reform in the United States was met by almost unanimous support. The journal *Worship*, thanks to Frederick McManus especially, kept nourishing American Catholics about the riches of the “new Mass” during and after the conclusion of Vatican II:<fnref n="72" /> “Frederick McManus played a crucial role, arguably *the* most crucial role played by any single individual, in mediating the extraordinarily positive reception of the new Mass in the United States”.<fnref n="73" />

If it is true that the liturgical debate and the beginning of the reform were satisfying for the liturgical movement, the reform could not embrace all of the issues coming from the movement in the United States. But it is also clear that the liturgical movement grew in its consciousness of the theological stakes of the reform: from the 1930s to the 1950s and finally to the era of Vatican II, the ecclesiological impact of the liturgical reform became more clear to the advocates of the liturgical reform assumed in its pastoral value: “The basis for liturgical renewal was a new theology of the Church. It was a more biblical, less institutional, type of theology, which emphasized the spiritual nature of Catholicism. Its focus was Jesus Christ, not the saints; its chief prayer was the Mass, not the novena; it encouraged a social spirit, rather than individualism; it sought to foster community, rather than isolation; it stressed the public quality of religion, not the private”.<fnref n="74" />

In this respect, it is clear that while the bishops supported the agenda of the liturgical movement in its more suitable parts not only for the pastoral and theological renewal of the liturgy, but also for the “marketing” of American Catholicism, less visible support came from the bishops before and at Vatican II for the special link seen by the advocates of the movement between liturgical renewal and social justice. They remained part of the background, of the “political” understanding of conciliar

<footnote n="70">70 See Roger FINK and Rodney STARK, *The Churching of America, 1776-2005. Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy*, New Brunswick NJ, 2005³.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">71 See James T. FISHER, *On the Irish Waterfront. The Crusader, the Movie, and the Soul of the Port of New York*, Ithaca NY, 2009.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">72 See TERESA BERGER, *Die nachkonziliare Liturgiereform in den USA, in Martin KLOCKENER and Benedikt KRANEMANN (eds.), Liturgiereformen. Historische Studien zu einem bleibenden Grundzug des christlichen Gottesdienstes*, Münster, 2002, p. 951-964.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">73 MASSA, *The American Catholic Revolution*, p. 25.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 DOLAN, *The American Catholic Experience*, p. 392.</footnote>
Catholicism, able to enter the mainstream of American culture. In this sense, the disappearing of this element of the liturgical renewal from the liturgical debate at Vatican II was concealed on one side by the early beginning of the liturgical reform, in late 1964, *concilio durante*, and on the other side by the diverting of these calls for social justice coming from politically active Catholicism following the “civil rights movement”, which was gaining momentum exactly during the same years of debate and preparation of the liturgical reform in which Catholics played a significant role.

On the other hand, the outcomes of the liturgical reform gave way to the issues of the theological and cultural views of the US liturgical movement in its monastic and non-Irish roots, forcing the other national Catholic identities of the American “immigrant Church” to catch up with the novelty of a reform whose Christocentrism was pushing aside the Tridentine devotions of the national and local saints supposed to meet “the emotional and moral needs of a population that had emigrated”.<fnref n="75" />

RESSOURCEMENT, RAPPROCHEMENT, RENEWAL: THE US CASE AS A SIGNIFICANT FACET OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM OF VATICAN II

The five-volume *History of Vatican II* edited by Giuseppe Alberigo provided new information about the key role of the liturgical debate within the council and about the dynamics of the preparatory and conciliar liturgical commissions.<fnref n="76" /> Nevertheless, a few studies on *Sacrosanctum concilium* published almost concurrently with the *History* focused on an alleged “ideological” continuity between the early 20th century liturgical movement and *Sacrosanctum concilium*, and thus they overlooked the impact of the constitution on Vatican II as such. The main allegation brought against the liturgical movement is, in brief, that it prepared the liturgical reform not on the basis of a profound theological rationale (*ressourcement, rapprochement, renewal*), but on the mere basis of the need to “reconquer” a Christian society on the verge of falling into the hands of secularization and modernity after the shock of the French Revolution and the liberal culture of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The anti-modern and “ideological drive” of the liturgical movement still needs to be convincingly demonstrated for the European case. But that is certainly not the case for the American liturgical movement, in which the issue at stake was certainly not the reaction against secularization, especially in the United States embedded in the political, cultural, and devotional environment of the Cold War in the 1940s and 1950s, and in a Church that was thriving. In this respect, the case of the liturgical movement and of the liturgical reform in America proves essential in understanding the real nature of Vatican II and its goals. Belittling the value of the liturgical reform for the Church in the United States means belittling the history of Catholicism

<footnote n="75">75 Robert A. ORSI, *The Madonna of the 115th Street. Faith and Community in Italian Harlem, 1880-1950*, New Haven – London, 1985, p. 163.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">76 MARIA PAIANO, *Il rinnovamento della liturgia. Dai movimenti alla chiesa universale...*; Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, *The Liturgy Debate*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO (ed.), *History of Vatican II*, English version edited by Joseph A. KOMONCHAK, Vol. 2: *The Formation of the Council's Identity, First Period and Intersession, October 1962-September 1963*, Maryknoll NY – Leuven, 1997, p. 107-166; Reiner KACZINSKY, *Toward the Reform of the Liturgy*, in *History of Vatican II*, Vol. 3: *The Mature Council, Second Period and Intersession, September 1963-September 1964*, p. 192-256.</footnote>
in 20th century United States and its transition from the “immigrant Church” to a Church at ease both with its cultural and counter-cultural message.

Massimo FAGGIOLI
University of St Thomas
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
THE LITURGICAL MOVEMENT IN GERMANY AND THE
LOW COUNTRIES

"Die liturgische Bewegung geht es um die Vertiefung christliches Lebens".<fnref n="1" /> With this sentence, Theodor Maas-Ewerd, a great connoisseur of the liturgical movement in Germany, makes clear that the basic insight of the promoters of the liturgical movement was that liturgy has to do with a promotion and deepening of Christian life, Christian life being much more than a functional, juridically based participation in rites, celebrated by the priest, without real involvement of the faithful or consequences for one's daily life. To put it a bit more bluntly: going to mass challenges and inspires the faithful and thus requires the active participation of all the faithful in it. Therefore, it is not something typical for the Roman Catholic Church, but is also present in the Protestant Churches, where this striving toward participation of the faithful is the result of a reaction against the overemphasis on the preaching as the essence of the celebration.<fnref n="2" /> In any case, the concern for the celebration of Christian life is the essence of the liturgical movement. In that sense, it is much more the result of practical experiences than of theological insights. In this line-of-thought, theology clearly comes after the liturgical experiences of the faithful. The liturgical movement can certainly be considered as a stimulus of, among others, the study of the Bible or the Fathers, but is probably not its foundation, as suggested by Cardinal Frings in 1962.<fnref n="3" />

<footnote n="1">¹ Theodor MAAS-EWERD, *Liturgische Bewegung* (LB). Vol. I: *Katholische Kriche*, in LThK³ 6, cc. 992-993, c. 992.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Hans-Christoph SCHMIDT-LAUBER, *Liturgische Bewegung*. Vol. II: *Kirchen der Reformation*, in LThK³ 6, cc. 993-994 (with further literature).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Joseph Frings' interview *Le concile et la pensée moderne*, in *Documentation catholique*, February 18, 1962, c. 266, quoted in Étienne FOUILLOUX, 'Mouvements théologico-spirituels et concile (1959-1962)', in Mathijs LAMBERIGTS and Claude SOETENS (eds.), À la veille du Concile Vatican II. *Vota et réactions en Europe et dans le catholicisme oriental*, Leuven, 1992, p. 185-199, p. 185 with a critical comment of Fouilloux; see p. 186-187.</footnote>
ITS ORIGINS<fnref n="4" />

The beginning of the liturgical movement is most often connected to the lecture of Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960)<fnref n="5" /> at the Catholic Congress of Malines of 1909, a lecture entitled *La vraie prière de l'Église*.<fnref n="6" /> This is the case not only for Belgium or the Netherlands, but also for Germany.<fnref n="7" /> In this speech, held within the context of a conference, organized by Catholic Action, Beauduin stressed that liturgy should be something in which the whole faithful community should be involved, in fact the second element of Pius X's motu proprio, *Tra le sollecitudini*, from November 22, 1903, the first being a plea in favour of the promotion of Gregorian chant. Indeed, *Tra le sollecitudini* mainly dealt with church music and the idea of active participation of the faithful, although this was long awaited for in France for example, it was still only mentioned in passing.<fnref n="8" /> The technical term *actuosa participatio* was not even present in the official Latin text. It was only mentioned in the Italian text of Pius X, in fact an instruction which was initially intended for the Diocese of Rome:<fnref n="9" /> *attiva partecipazione*.<fnref n="10" /> In his motu proprio, Pius X wanted to make a tribute to Dom Prosper-Louis-Pascal Guéranger (1805-1875),<fnref n="11" /> promoter of a Benedictine reform movement, during his youth a good friend of de La Mennais, later an Ultramontanist and in this context a great promoter of the Roman liturgy and Gregorian chant.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="4">⁴ The literature about the liturgical movement is abundant; see, e.g., the surveys of Olivier ROUSSEAU, *Histoire du mouvement liturgique*, Paris, 1945; ROUSSEAU, *Rond het jubileum van de Liturgische Beweging – 1909-1959*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 43 (1959), p. 345-361; André HAQUIN (ed.), *Le centenaire du Mouvement liturgique de Louvain. Congrès liturgique de Ciney 2-3 octobre 2009*, in *Questions Liturgiques*, 91 (2010), p. 5-96. At the very beginning, some of the promoters of liturgy preferred to speak about liturgical renewal in stead of liturgical movement. See Theodor MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung? Zu den liturgischen Entwicklungen in den Jahren zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen*, in *Erbe und Auftrag*, 69 (1993), p. 223-246, p. 227-228.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ The best biography on Dom Beauduin is, without any doubt, Raymond LOONBEEK and Jacques MORTIAU, *Un pionnier. Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960). Liturgie et Unité des chrétiens, 2 Vols. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2002*. It should be said that, long before Beauduin started his action, many changes in liturgy were underway, as is made clear in Rousseau's *Histoire du mouvement liturgique*.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ For an analysis, see, among others, André HAQUIN, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et le renouveau liturgique*, Gembloux, 1970, p. 92-109.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Victor LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, s.l., 2005, p. 193-221, p. 204. This part of Leemans' book is a slightly revised version of his *Romano Guardini (1885-1968) en de liturgie*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 69 (1985), p. 322-337.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Jean-Yves HAMELINE, *L'intérêt pour le chant des fidèles dans le catholicisme français d'Ancien Régime et le premier mouvement liturgique en France*, in *La Maison-Dieu*, 241 (2005: *La participation active*), p. 29-76.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ For the details, see Jozef LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active" dans le mouvement liturgique du vingtième siècle*, in *La Maison-Dieu*, 241 (2005), p. 79-80; 84-86.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Paul DE CLERCK, *Actieve deelname. Liturgiehistorisch overzicht van Pius X tot Vaticanum II*, in Jozef LAMBERTS (ed.), *De actieve deelname aan de liturgie herbekeken. Honderd jaar na Pius X en veertig jaar na het Concilie*, Leuven, 2004, p. 15-39, p. 17-19.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ The literature about Guéranger is abundant; see, e.g., André HAQUIN, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et le congrès des œuvres catholiques de Malines. À l'occasion du centenaire du Mouvement liturgique belge (1909-2009)*, in *Questions Liturgiques*, 91 (2010), p. 18-36, see p. 19, n. 4 for further references.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² With regard to Solesmes' important contribution to the revaluation of the Gregorian Chant, see, e.g., Jean-Paul PENSION, *Les restaurations du chant grégorien à travers l'histoire*, in Paul CADRIN and Gilles ROUTHIER (eds.), *La liturgie en quête de sa musique*, Montréal-Paris, 2007, p. 11-45, esp. p. 38-40.</footnote>
Guéranger was convinced that a return to the sources would be the optima course for the liturgical life.<fnref n="13" /> Guéranger, as is known, was a strong opponent of French local liturgies and experiments.<fnref n="14" /> He did not really like the rather popular way in which people celebrated liturgical events. He clearly aimed at a restoration of the liturgy, certainly not a reform.<fnref n="15" /> Guéranger's *Année liturgique* was meant as a liturgical teaching, not only for the Benedictines, but also for priests and well educated laity, in other words the intellectual elite.<fnref n="16" /> I mention this because his view on the liturgical renewal is only one side of the coin, the other being the popular liturgical movement as promoted by Pius Parsch c.s. Between these two approaches, there will be, up to the time of the council, a difference which, in a sense, would also characterize the councilian debates.<fnref n="17" /> However, both have their roots in the Romantic return to the "Christian" Middle Ages.<fnref n="18" />

## DOM BEAUDUIN: A SECULAR PRIEST BECOMES A BENEDICTINE

In 1906, Beauduin joined the Benedictine abbey of Keizersberg (Louvain).<fnref n="19" /> This abbey is to be situated within the context of the German Benedictine movement. In 1863, Beuron was reopened by Solesmes. Beuron founded Maredsous (Belgium) in 1872 and it was Maredsous that started with a new community at Leuven in 1899.<fnref n="20" /> Beuron started with a Benedictine community at Maria Laach. Although the protest of the Protestants was rather vehement, the emperor, Wilhelm II, did not intervene,<fnref n="21" /> but rather supported the new community, proof that the emperor appreciated or at

<footnote n="13">¹³ See also Martin KLÖCKENER, *La dynamique du mouvement liturgique et de la réforme liturgique. Point communs et différences théologiques et spirituelles*, in La Maison-Dieu, 260 (2009/4), p. 69-109, p. 74-76.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ In this regard, see the critical remarks of Anselm ROBEYNS, *Bedenkingen bij een half-eeuwfeest*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 43 (1959), p. 365-374, p. 366.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ See KLÖCKENER, *La dynamique*, p. 76-77.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ HAQUIN, *Dom L. Beauduin et le congrès*, p. 20.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ It is interesting to see that during Vatican II the abbot of Solesmes will become a member of the conservative *Coetus internationalis partum*, a group animated by, among others, Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre; see Joseph FAMERÉE, *Bishops and Dioceses and the Communications Media* (November 5-25, 1963), in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph A. KOMONCHAK (eds.), *History of Vatican II. Vol. III: The Mature Council. Second Period and Intersession*. September 1963-September 1964, Maryknoll-Leuven, 2000, p. 170-171.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ So Floridius RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch und die biblisch-liturgische Erneuerung im historischen Kontext*, in Winfried BACHLER, Rudolf PACIK, Andreas REDTENBACHER (eds.), *Pius Parsch in der liturgiewissenschaftlichen Rezeption. Klosterneuburger Symposion 2004* (Pius-Parsch-Studien. Quellen und Forschungen zur Liturgischen Bewegung, B. 3), Würzburg, 2005, p. 19-26, p. 19. See also KLÖCKENER, *La dynamique*, p. 69-109.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ On the influence of the then prior of the Abbey, Columba Marmion (1858-1923), an Irishman, see François WERNERT, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et sa vision de la “pastorale liturgique”*, in La Maison-Dieu, 260 (2009/4), p. 17-35, p. 20-22</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Maredsous already started with the promotion of liturgical ideas in 1882; the *Messager des fidèles* (predecessor of the *Revue bénédictine*), founded by Dom van Caloen (1853-1932) in 1884, wanted “to rapprocher les fidèles de l’Église leur Mère; leur faire goûter et les leur faisant connaître, les traditions, les enseignements, les rites de l’Église”; see Bernard CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, in *Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*, 15 (1930), p. 228-240, p. 229.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ See Albert HAUSSLING, *Kirchliche Erneuerung aus dem Geist der Liturgie. II. Die betende Kirche*, in Erbe und Auftrag, 68 (1992), p. 22-33, p. 22.</footnote>
least accepted Roman Catholicism. All abbeys would become centres of renewal of monastic life, Gregorian chant, sacred art and the biblical and spiritual liturgy. Especially at Keizersberg, the abbey Beauduin will join in 1906, emphasis was put on historical, biblical and theological deepening of liturgical understanding.

Before entering the abbey, Beauduin had been a priest of the diocese of Liège and then joined the newly founded *Aumôniers du Travail*, a congregation that was wholeheartedly supported by Bishop Doutreloux (1837-1901), for it was a congregation that worked among the working-class and attempted to spread the Christian message in a group which seemed to be lost for the Church.<fnref n="22" /> In other words, Beauduin was actively involved in pastoral work for young labourers.<fnref n="23" /> This engagement among the workers was the reason why Cardinal Mercier asked Beauduin to take the floor at the 1909 conference of Catholic Action at Malines.<fnref n="24" /> The title of Beauduin's Malines conference, *La vraie prière de l'Église*, made very clear what he had in mind, a 'no' to a juridical approach, to suffocating rubrics, a 'yes' to the real encounter with God. The title can also be read as a critique about the many devotions that had overrun true sacramental life.<fnref n="25" /> Many of the concerns of the liturgical movement were present in his speech: renewal of liturgical life, promotion of the unity of the Church (liturgy as a "puissant lien d'union"), liturgy as community building and education, translation of the Latin texts and diffusion of them in the vernacular, in order that the faithful would understand what was being prayed. In other words, more than several of his successors, Beauduin was motivated by a pastoral concern.<fnref n="26" />

From the very beginning, Beauduin was confronted with resistance, which also came from within his own order. The Benedictine J. Picard anonymously published a critique on Beauduin's ideas in the Catholic journal *La patriote* (September, 1912), a

<footnote n="22">²² Olivier ROUSSEAU, *Rond het jubileum van de Liturgische Beweging – 1909-1959*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 43 (1959), p. 345-361, p. 349-350.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ LOONBEEK and MORTIAU, *Un pionnier, Dom Lambert Beauduin* (1873-1960), p. 26-37.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ That holding such a speech was not evident, has been made clear by ROUSSEAU, *Rond het jubileum van de Liturgische Beweging*, p. 346-347.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ HAQUIN, *Dom L. Beauduin et le congrès*, p. 24-25. However, it should be said that devotional practices at home were very much promoted. It goes without saying that the faithful, stimulated to implement such practices at home, were not really invited to be actively involved in the liturgical celebrations. In a sense, they continued to do in the Church what they were expected to do at home. In the regions under discussion, the veneration of the Holy Heart of Jesus is a good example. It was used by Catholics in France, Germany, and the Netherlands as a means to show their own identity in times of crisis; statues could be found in every house; paintings were made of it, and the neo-gothic style certainly created a sympathy for these practices; see Louis VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move: the Reform of the Liturgy and the Development of Liturgical Studies in the Roman Catholic Netherlands in the Twentieth Century*, in VAN TONGEREN, Marcel BARNARD, PAUL POST and Gerard ROUWHORST (eds.), *Patterns and Persons. A Historiography of Liturgical Studies in the Netherlands in the Twentieth Century*, Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA, 2010, p. 25-68, p. 29-31. Justified as Beauduin's critique might be, it was, in the context of the time, rather revolutionary and thus vulnerable to critique.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ His approach is sometimes characterized as “Demokratisierung der liturgie”; see RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch*, p. 20, with reference to Balthasar FISCHER, *Das “Mechelner Ereignis” vom 23 September 1909*, in *Liturgisches Jahrbuch*, 9 (1959), p. 203-219. See also LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active"*, p 91. With regard to the several concepts Beauduin used when speaking about the liturgical renewal, see, e.g. WERNERT, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et sa vision*, p. 22-25; see also KLÖCKENER, *La dynamique du mouvement liturgique et de la réforme liturgique*, p. 79-80 (with further literature).</footnote>
journal published in Brussels.<fnref n="27" /> According to these critiques, the liturgical movement was considered to be a threat to popular devotions. Moreover, the critics had the impression that the movement was elitist. The Jesuits criticized the holistic character of the liturgical spirituality, so characteristic for the Benedictines and considered it as a rival to their own Ignatian spirituality.<fnref n="28" />

In his development of a liturgical movement, Beauduin was ambitious, perhaps too ambitious. Indeed, Beauduin's attempt to develop a liturgical institute would fail, even though he wanted leading theologians to be involved in it. The following names read as a programme: Mgr. Batiffol, the Bollandist Delehaye, Prof. Cauchie, founder of the *Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique*, Mgr. Callewaert, famous liturgist and president of the Seminary of Bruges, Dom Berlière, founder of the Monasticon Belge, Dom Morin, famous editor of patristic texts. The project failed because of financial reasons but also because of the indiscretions of Mgr. Callewaert, part time professor at the Louvain theological faculty. As a result of these indiscretions, the university of Louvain immediately organized a course on liturgy,<fnref n="29" /> and the idea to create a liturgical institute had to postponed momentarily. A successful initiative was the creation in 1910 of *Les Questions liturgiques*<fnref n="30" /> and the *Liturgisch Tijdschrift*, the latter being administered by the abbey of Affligem.<fnref n="31" /> After an interruption of 4 years (WW I), both would continue from 1919 onwards.

Partly because of the critique as mentioned above, Beauduin wanted to make clear that he was simply implementing what he considered to be the programme of Pius X.<fnref n="32" /> In 1914, he published his book *La piété de l'Église. Principes et faits*. On the cover of this book, he put Pius X's quote about active participation, thus making clear to the reader whose ideas he was following. The book was a complaint about the ignorance and complete alienation of the faithful with regard to the liturgy.<fnref n="33" /> In this regard, one should remember that at the time of Pius X, it was a widely spread custom that the faithful received the communion apart from the Eucharist or at the beginning of the Eucharist. In other words, communion and Eucharist were separated. After the Great War, Dom Beauduin left for Rome, where he became professor of ecclesiology. The German abbey of Maria Laach took over the lead, but one should immediately add that the interest in liturgy was growing everywhere in Europe and the United States.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Beauduin's reaction was published in *Questions Liturgiques*, 2 (1911-1912), p. 529-536; with regard to Picard, see LOONBEEK-MORTIAU, *Un pionnier, Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960)*, p. 136-137.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ See ROUSSEAU, *Rond het jubileum van de Liturgische Beweging*, p. 354-355; HAQUIN, *Dom L. Beauduin et le congrès*, p. 31-33.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ HAQUIN, *Dom L. Beauduin et le congrès*, p. 29-30.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ After World War I, it will get a new title: *Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*. Up to 1924, the revue seems to be meant for the clergy only. However, the subtitle *Revue réservé pour le clergé* will disappear in 1925.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ The *Liturgisch tijdschrift* was in fact the successor of *Het Kerkelijk Leven*, the Dutch translation of *La vie liturgique*, started in 1909; see Joseph VAN DER SPEETEN, *Het volksmisboek van de abdij Affligem (1915-1965)*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 67 (1983), p. 309-317, p. 309.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Wit regard to Beauduin's ideas about a liturgical renewal under the guidance of Rome, see, e.g. WERNERT, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et sa vision*, p. 28-29.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Lambert BEAUDUIN, *La piété de l'Église*, Louvain, 1914, p. 17.</footnote>
One of the initiatives undertaken by the promoters of the active participation of the faithful was the development of the personal missal. In such a missal, the liturgical texts were offered in translation in order to help the faithful to understand what was said by the priest in Latin. The idea was certainly not new.<fnref n="34" /> What was new, however, was that the personal missal was comprehensive.<fnref n="35" /> The promoters of this missal were of the opinion that it should be of help for a liturgy with dialogue in it, a concept and term that seems to be used for the first time in 1914.<fnref n="36" /> During the first years, the idea was confronted with much resistance, as one can read in the articles and books published by the promoters of the idea. Moreover, during the inter-bellum period, the idea of the common priesthood of the faithful, which could have been the theological underpinning of the active participation of the faithful, was not approved, let alone accepted. Indeed, at that time, priesthood and ministry were not yet distinguished and the idea of the common priesthood of the faithful was considered to be a threat for the sacrament of the priesthood, which was at the time described in terms of “consecration power”.<fnref n="37" />

## DEVELOPMENTS IN BELGIUM

By way of introduction, it should be said that, from the very beginning, the liturgical movement was wholeheartedly supported by Cardinal Mercier who, in line with the intuitions of Pius X, stressed the importance of liturgical chants, active participation in the Eucharist and the like.<fnref n="38" /> But what were considered to be the main problems the liturgical movement was confronted with? The first complaint was about the absence of an adequate liturgical education. Liturgical training in the seminaries should be more than an introduction into the rubrics.<fnref n="39" /> Liturgical training in primary and secondary schools seemed, generally speaking, to not exist.<fnref n="40" />

Especially after WW I, a central role in the development of the ideas of the liturgical movement was played by journals such as *Questions liturgiques et paroissiales*<fnref n="41" /> and the *Liturgisch Tijdschrift*, both resuming in 1919. While *Questions liturgiques* was edited by Keizerberg, the *Liturgisch Tijdschrift* was the work of the abbey of Affligem, now responsible for both editorial work and administration. Also, the title had changed: *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie* (*Journal for Liturgy*).<fnref n="42" /> Up to the beginning of the Second World War, the journal was confronted with quite a number of challenges. During the

<footnote n="34">³⁴ One may think of the missal, published by Anselm Schott (1843-1896) in 1883; see Albert HAUSSLING, *Einhundert Jahre "Schott"*. Anselm Schott und sein Messbuch, in *Erbe und Auftrag*, 59 (1983), p. 342-352; for other examples, see KLÖCKENER, *La dynamique du movement*.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ DE CLERCK, *Actieve deelname*, p. 20. Schott was indeed mostly used by intellectuals; see RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch*, p. 19-20.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch*, p. 19-20.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ DE CLERCK, *Actieve deelname*, p. 25-26.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ See HAQUIN, *Dom Lambert Beauduin et le renouveau liturgique*, p. 81-109.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 235.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 235-236.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ In 1970, the title will be changed into *Questions Liturgiques*.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² See AMBROOS VERHEUL, *Hoe de abdij Affligem in de liturgische beweging kwam*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 43 (1959), p. 362-364.</footnote>
Great War, in 1915 was founded the Federation of Liturgical Associations (Federatie van Liturgische Verenigingen in Nederland), which had started its own journal, the *Monthly for Liturgy* (*Maandschrift voor Liturgie*) —the journal was soon free of charge—,<fnref n="43" /> later called *Our Liturgical Journal* (*Ons Liturgisch Tijdschrift*). Also in Belgium, a series of liturgical journals came into existence after the Great War. The abbey Saint-André at Loppem started with its *Bulletin Paroissial Liturgique*,<fnref n="44" /> and its Dutch pendant (*Liturgisch parochieblad*). Given the fact that the abbey at Loppem was mainly a French-speaking community, the Dutch edition was handed over to the Dutch speaking abbey Saint Peter at Steenbrugge. The journal —its name was changed in 1941 into *Church and People* (*Kerk en Volk*), after World War II joined the ranks of *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, just like *Eucharistisch Tijdschrift*. This journal was founded by the Premonstratensian abbey of Tongerlo in 1922. In other words, there was, between the two World Wars, much interest in liturgy, but collaboration between the different abbeys did not really seem to be a concern of those who took the initiative, something that evidently would change after World War II. In any case, it should be stressed that in a rather small country such as Belgium, the journals *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, *Questions liturgiques*, and *Bulletin Paroissial Liturgique* remained key players within the context of the liturgical movement up to Vatican II.

As already mentioned above, the publication of personal missals played an essential role in the spread of the liturgical movement. In this regard, Belgium played an important role.<fnref n="45" /> Promoters of this type of missal were abbeys such as Keizersberg (Louvain), Clervaux (Luxembourg), Affligem (Brabant) and publishers such as Desclée and Brepols.<fnref n="46" /> The missal of Affligem, for the first time published by Dom Franco de Wyels in 1915,<fnref n="47" /> became a huge success, a proof that the initial resistance soon had disappeared (already in 1930, the 75.000<sup>th</sup> copy was published).

Another way in which the liturgical movement tried to correct the ignorance in *liturgicis* was the organization of liturgical weeks, and this from the very beginning. Indeed, already in 1910, such a week was organized at Louvain. For the inter-bellum period we count 24 Dutch-language study weeks, organized both in Belgium and the Netherlands and clearly in close collaboration between the two countries. In the organisation of such weeks, the Norbertine abbey of Tongerlo (province of Antwerp

<footnote n="43">43 H. LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, in *Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*, 15 (1930), p. 261-272, p. 263.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 This journal was very successfull and had in 1930 about 7500 subscriptions; see CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 235. After World War II, the title of the journal was changed into *Paroisse et Liturgie*. The subtitle *Revue d'action pastorale et liturgique* can be read as a program.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active"*, p. 94-95.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 See, e.g., Thierry MAERTENS, *Le mouvement liturgique en Belgique*, in *Lumen Vitae*, 10 (1955), p. 413-420 (415). It is amazing to see how many publishers were involved in the spread of liturgical books during the interbellum; see the examples as given by Modest VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen in Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*, 15 (1930), p. 215-227 (221), and CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 234-235.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 With regard to the origin, development and international spread of this so-called *Volksmisboek*, see VAN DER SPEETEN, *Het volksmisboek van de abdij Affligem*, p. 310-317; other successful initiatives were the *Zondagmisboek* (Keizersberg and Affligem) and the so-called *Liturgische Volksbibliotheek*, with publications about the Holy Week, the Liturgy for the deceased, only to mention a few; see VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 220-221.</footnote>
but during the period under consideration still part of the Archdiocese of Malines-
Brussels) was of great importance. Further, the abbey played a stimulating role in the
so called “Misweken” (Mass weeks). The idea was to react against disinterest and
ignorance in liturgicis. In a sense, it was a kind of training programme for the faithful
in the parishes, explaining to them the basics of liturgy. One gets the impression that
less study weeks were organized in the French-speaking part of the country, most
of them having been organised in Louvain.<fnref n="48" /> Another initiative, in fact the result
of the publication of Divini cultus (1928), was the organisation of “parochieweken”
(“parish weeks”, an initiative that wanted to increase the active participation of
the faithful in the liturgy).<fnref n="49" /> In any case, much time and energy was invested in
liturgical formation. In this formation, liturgical associations played a crucial role.
Hundreds of these associations were created for priests, professors in theology, choirs,
acolytes, sextons.<fnref n="50" /> Some of them already existed before 1909. Needless to say that co-
ordinating associations became a necessity (such associations were founded in 1915
in the Netherlands,<fnref n="51" /> 1928 in Belgium).<fnref n="52" /> One can say that during the inter-bellum
period practically every group, involved in the liturgy, had its own organization.<fnref n="53" />
These organisations continued to exist after World War II.

But, at least in this period, it remained a mostly religious orders issue. Although
this survey might give the impression that the main actors in the Belgian liturgical
movements were religious, one should mention that also a few secular priests were
interested in this movement, the most important being Mgr. C. Callewaert, president
of the Major Seminary of Bruges, sometimes described as the leader of a movement
for which Keizersberg was the start.<fnref n="54" /> Already in 1907, thus before the real start of
the liturgical movement, he had founded a liturgical study group of priests. The group
was concerned about how the faithful could be given a solid liturgical formation.
In 1913/14, Callewaert published an article about the active participation of the
faithful.<fnref n="55" /> Among the Flemish secular clergy, it was, at least in the period between
the two World Wars, certainly the clergy of Bruges that showed the most interest in
the liturgical renewal.<fnref n="56" /> In the French-speaking part of the country, several initiatives

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ Erik Godfried FEYS (ed.), *Liturgisch Tijdschrift – Tijdschrift voor Liturgie: een liturgisch panorama 1910-1946*, Affligem, 1986, p. 224-225.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ For the details, see LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active"*, p. 100-101.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Still in 1930, one could hear complaints about lack of formation of the sextons and the acolytes in order to be able to fully participate in the liturgical movement; see VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 222-223.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Diocesan liturgical associations were already founded in 1911 and 1912; see LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 262.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² There were two committees, one Dutch and one French, who seemingly well worked together; see CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 238-239.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ FEYS, *Liturgisch Tijdschrift – Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, p. 225-227.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 218-219.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ With regard to Callewaert's impressive bibliography, see De geschriften van Mgr. C. Callewaert, in *Sacris Erudiri*, 1 (1948), p. 353-379; concerning other protagonists of the movement among the secular clergy in Belgium, see ROBEYNS, *Bedenkingen bij een half-eeuwfeest*, p. 371-372.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 219; FEYS, *Liturgisch Tijdschrift – Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, p. 207.</footnote>
were taken, especially with regard to Gregorian chant. Other initiatives were, e.g., the *Journée liturgique paroissiale* in Liège, explicitly intended for both clergy and laity. Its aim was to stimulate the active participation of all in the liturgical services, although one still gets the impression that the direction was expected to be in the hands of the clergy.<fnref n="57" />

The liturgical movement was, from its very beginning, clearly related to Catholic Action.<fnref n="58" /> In a period of crisis (1936), the then bishop of Liège related both the liturgical movement and Catholic Action to the struggle against Marxism, combining the *ora* of the liturgy with the *labora* of the Catholic apostolate. Although the bishop considered prayer more important than apostolate, he was of the opinion that both belonged to the essence of the Church's mission. Both had to do with the social duties of the members of the Church. The bishop was aware of the tensions between the two: often people engaged in the Catholic apostolate were considered as not really being of help for the life of the parishes. However, the Catholic Youth Movements were, according to the bishop, excellent places for the liturgical training of the youth.<fnref n="59" /> Given the authoritarian spirit of the time, it will be no surprise that the bishop stressed the importance of absolute obedience of the laity to the hierarchy.<fnref n="60" /> Lay people involved in Catholic Action should implement what was ordered by the hierarchy. Mgr. Kerkhofs of Liège — a great supporter of the liturgical movement—<fnref n="61" /> considered both liturgical movement and Catholic Action as valuable instruments in the struggle against Marxism.<fnref n="62" /> Both could be fruitful for the Christian life, at least if lay people perfectly obeyed the ecclesiastical hierarchy.<fnref n="63" /> Anyway, during the interbellum there was lay interest in the liturgical developments, but it only became visible in areas such as music —although still in 1930, people complained about the slowness with regard to this musical renewal<fnref n="64" />— and architecture.<fnref n="65" />

<footnote n="57">57 CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 232-233.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 One should not neglect the impact of Pius XI's introduction of the Christ the King feast, which both on the level of the relation between Church and World and the lay apostolate played an important role; see, e.g. Michael QUISINSKY, *Das II. Vatikanum in der Pfarrgemeinde. Der Freiburger Pfarrer und Theologe Eugen Waltzer (1906-1999) zwischen Liturgischer Bewegung und Konzilsrezeption*, in *Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv*, 128 (2008), p. 161-203 (167).</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 The number of liturgical initiatives as taken by the Catholic organizations, is really impressive, although not always completely successful; see VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 224-225; CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 237-238. One should also mention two spiritual movements, the Association of the Holy Heart and the Eucharistic Crusade.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 With regard to this topic, see also the vivid description of Célestin CHARLIER, *Réforme liturgique et renouveau biblique*, in *La Maison-Dieu*, 66 (1961), p. 10-35 (24).</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 239.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 Louis-Joseph KERKHOFS, *Liturgie en katholieke actie*, 21 (1936), p. 311-325.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">63 Concerning both the idea of subordination of the laity and the needed co-ordination by the hierarchy, see, e.g., Émile GUERRY, *Action catholique*, in *Catholicisme*, 1 (1948), p. 98-101, c. 98.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">64 See VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 216-217, on p. 223. The author explicitly complained about the quality of the singing in Church: much work was needed in order to ameliorate this part of the liturgical celebration.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">65 VAN ASSCHE, *Verslag over de Liturgische beweging in Vlaanderen*, p. 223; FEYS, *Liturgisch Tijdschrift – Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, p. 210-211.</footnote>
After the death of Mgr. Callewaert in 1943, the liturgical movement seemed to have come to a stand still, while challenging initiatives were taken in patristics such as the start of the series *Corpus christianorum*,<fnref n="66" /> an initiative of the Benedictine Dekkers of Saint Peter's abbey of Steenbrugge, but also in exegesis (cf. the start of the *Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense*).<fnref n="67" /> When in 1951, an alternative Easter celebration was made possible, less than 10% of Flemish parishes participated in it. In the Diocese of Bruges, before the war a centre of the liturgical movement, only 6 parishes were willing to make use of it.<fnref n="68" /> At the time, there was no "direct" reason to change the winning team on the episcopal level, nor among the clergy. On the surface, all things seemed to be right, although the number of seminarians was declining.<fnref n="69" /> At the time, "Catholic Flanders" was rather rural. Its piety was described as traditional, sentimental, individualistic and utilitarian.<fnref n="70" /> The parochial clergy was not very open for the liturgical developments.<fnref n="71" /> Although it is true that, as part of the implementation of *Mediator Dei*, in the dioceses liturgical commissions were erected in order to promote the active participation of the faithful and control the liturgical rules, during the first years of their existence, dioceses seemed to do what they thought that was appropriate,<fnref n="72" /> coordination being absent.

However, already in 1947, the then editor-in-chief of the *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie* warned of the threat of de-christianization and how Christians should react,<fnref n="73" /> something which in Catholic Flanders became very visible, e.g., in the Diocese of Ghent where, in 1954, nearly 20% of the population attended mass on a regular basis.<fnref n="74" /> In other words, there were people who were aware of the changes that were

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, *Corpus Christianorum* (1947-1955). *The Laborious Journey from Dream to Reality*, in *Sacris Erudiri*, 51 (1998), p. 15-41.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ It goes without saying that initiatives like these —one should also mention e.g. the foundation of the French series *Sources chrétiennes*— have to be directly related to the encyclical *Divino Afflante Spiritu*.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Ambroos VERHEUL, *Liturgische verwezenlijkingen in Vlaanderen*, in *Universitas-Schriften*, 4, p. 94.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ Dirk CLAES, *Theologie in tijden van verandering. De theologische faculteit te Leuven in de twintigste eeuw* (1900-1968), Leuven, 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ See L. LARDOT, *Voies et moyens dans la paroisse rurale*, in *Paroisse et Liturgie*, 9 (1954), p. 404-405.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ MAERTENS, *Le mouvement liturgique en Belgique*, p. 418-419.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² MAERTENS, *Le mouvement liturgique en Belgique*, p.416-417. With the foundation of the ICLZ (Interdiocesan Centre for the Liturgical Care of Souls) in 1958, the needed national consultative structure came into existence.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Ons standpunt, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 31 (1947), p. 1-9. One gets the impression that within the Benedictine line of the liturgical movement, a journal such as *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie* is very much aware of the “katabasis”-element in liturgy and thus stresses more than, e.g., the Solesmes-approach, that God comes to all human beings, not only to the clergy and the intellectuals. It might be interesting to examine in detail the differences within the Benedictine line of the liturgical movement and relate them to specific contexts. See in this regard, Jan Hendrik WALGRAVE, *Moderne problemen der geloofsopvoeding bij onze ontwikkelden in Streven*, 9 (1942), p. 277. In any case, the awareness that the Church was going to be confronted with a crisis was present everywhere; see, e.g., for France, Henri GODIN and Yvan DANIEL, *La France, pays de mission?*, Paris, 1943.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ Zie Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, Msgr. Calewaert, *Bishop of Ghent and Sacrosanctum Concilium*, in Doris DONNELLY, Joseph FAMERÉE, Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, and Karim SCHELKENS (eds.), *The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council*, Leuven, Paris, Dudley MA, 2008, p. 611-632 (613). Needless to say that in the French speaking part of the country, especially in the industrialized regions (Liège, Charleroi, Mons), the situation was even worse.</footnote>
underway and that held a plea for appropriate strategies.<fnref n="75" /> But their voices were not really heard.

Collaboration between secular and religious clergy was still at an initial stage. Conferences such as the one on Eucharist and life in the parishes could be organised without any contribution of the laity,<fnref n="76" /> partly because conferences were organized during the week, when lay people had to do their job. The programme of these liturgical conferences was such that only clergy took the floor.<fnref n="77" /> It should be said that in the period 1945-1960 a series of changes was underway and this on the political (growing democratization), social and economic level (the progress in welfare due to the Marshall Project). Initially, the bond between the liturgical movement and Catholic Action remained rather closed.<fnref n="78" /> But in Belgium, like everywhere, changes were underway: growing democratization of education resulted in the creation of a new generation of Christian intellectuals who had other ideas about obedience to the ecclesiastical hierarchy than their predecessors. The new generations lay people were interested in more than the building of churches or liturgical chants.<fnref n="79" />

From 1946 onwards, the Dutch theologian Ambroos Verheul (1916-2005), a monk at the abbey of Affligem, and a doctor of theology at the Louvain University (1946) with a dissertation on Paul,<fnref n="80" /> first prior (1968) and then abbot of the abbey of Keizersberg (1974),<fnref n="81" /> would play an active role in the liturgical movement. In that year, he became the secretary of the *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie* (the *Journal of Liturgy*). A year later, a series of Flemish and Dutch liturgical journals agreed to become part of the said journal, the journal thus becoming the official organ of the liturgical movement in the Low Countries.<fnref n="82" /> As a result, the redaction of the journal was extended with liturgical experts from both the Netherlands and Belgium: for the first time, structural cooperation between Flanders and the Netherlands seemed to find its way. In the first issue of 1947, Verheul anonymously published his viewpoint. Much of what he proposed would be resonated in the encyclical *Mediator Dei et hominum*.

<footnote n="75">75 Already in 1943, A. Dondeyne, one of the most influential thinkers at the K.U. Leuven, held a plea in favour of a thorough revision of Catholic theology and sharply criticized the unworldlyness of both theology and the philosophy, on which it was based; see his article *Katholieke problemen van deze tijd*, in *Streven*, 8 (1942), p. 97-110 (107). On this intriguing priest and professor, promoter of the responsibility of Christian intellectuals in the societal life of Belgium, see my *De opvattingen van Albert Dondeyne (1901-1985) over tolerantie en godsdienstvrijheid. Hun relevantie voor de 21ᵉ eeuw*, in Bart RAYMAEKERS and Gerd VAN RIEL (red.), *Hoe dichtbij is de toekomst? Lessen voor de eenentwintigste eeuw*, Leuven, 2005, p. 83-112.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">76 *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 1 (1957).</footnote>

<footnote n="77">77 Jan GROOTAERS, *De liturgische hernieuwing. Haar ontwikkeling en haar betekenis*, in *De Gids op maatschappelijk gebied*, 48 (1957), p. 351-376 (369).</footnote>

<footnote n="78">78 See, e.g., A. HANSSENS, *Liturgie en Katholieke Actie*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 32 (1948), p. 97-109.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">79 See GROOTAERS, *De liturgische hernieuwing*, p. 352.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">80 AMBROOS VERHEUL, *De charismatische opvatting van het apostelschap bij den H. Paulus*, Leuven, 1946.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">81 In 1968, the Catholic University of Louvain was split into two sections: a Dutch and a French-speaking one. Founded by the abbey of Maredsous and much supported by the French-speaking bourgeoisie of Louvain, the abbey's position had become very difficult after the split. That explains why the Dutch Verheul first became prior, then abbot of Keizersberg.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 MAERTENS, *Le mouvement liturgique en Belgique*, p. 413.</footnote>
According to Verheul, the liturgy should be considered as the heart and the fountain of life. It should be fruitful for theology, taking into account contemporary sensitivities in order to become relevant for the faithful of today. In this regard, Verheul explicitly referred to the need of adaptation of liturgy to the needs of the missions (missionary congregations in Belgium were abundant and the number of regular clergy vocations would constantly increase up to the opening of the Council, and this in a period that one could see a gradual decline of the number of vocations to the secular priesthood).<fnref n="83" /> Moreover, Verheul emphasized that liturgy should be directed to the “mass of faithful”, in other words, that it should not be elitist. Further, Verheul continued, Christians should be made aware of the importance of a community spirit, discovering that the whole Church’s life is involved in it. The openness to the Symbol and the Word were other issues of concern. Finally, Verheul concluded, through the realisation of these aspects, liturgy will contribute to ecumenism.

Was the liturgical movement in Flanders before the Second World War mostly the work of religious, especially Benedictines,<fnref n="84" /> this will change after the War. Indeed, one gets the impression that the interaction between the secular and religious becomes more intense, at least since the middle of the 1950s.<fnref n="85" /> Moreover, the need for permanent formation of the professors of liturgy found its expression in the yearly study days held at Louvain since 1954.<fnref n="86" /> From 1956, the tradition to organise liturgical conferences was again taken up by the abbeys of Affligem and Tongerlo.<fnref n="87" /> Meanwhile, the German Gemeinschaftsmesse had found its way in Dutch-speaking Belgium.<fnref n="88" /> The same happened in French-speaking Belgium, where, under the influence of France, somewhat hesitantly, the use of the vernacular found its way.<fnref n="89" /> In any case, in Belgium, like everywhere, the recognition of the value of the vernacular in the liturgical chant received an important impulse due to the publication of the encyclical *Musicae sacrae disciplina* of Pius XII (promulgated on Christmas Day, 1955).

<footnote n="83">⁸³ See also ROBEYNS, *Bedenkingen bij een half-eeuwfeest*, p. 366 who criticizes the too European character of the liturgy and deplores the fact that the missions never got the occasion to develop their own liturgy.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ Something the Benedictines themselves deplored; see CAPELLE, *Rapport sur le mouvement liturgique belge en Wallonie*, p. 232.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ See FEYS, *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie. Een liturgisch panorama 1947-1985*, in FEYS, *Liturgisch Tijdschrift/Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, p. 476-481.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ With regard to other initiatives, see FEYS, *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie: een liturgisch panorama 1947-1985*, p. 500.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ See Peter D'HAESE, *Terugblik op de na-oorlogse liturgische congressen*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 67 (1983), p. 318-329 (318-319).</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ See D'HAESE, *Terugblik*, p. 320-321. It is interesting to see that what was already well received in Germany, the singing of songs in the vernacular, was still an aspect of surprise in Flanders. For a good survey of the history of this Gemeinschaftsmesse, see Stephan K. LANGENBAHN, *Jenseits und diesseits der Liturgischen Bewegung. Materialien und Marginalien zur Frühgeschichte der "Gemeinschaftsmess" im deutschsprachigen Raum von 1912 bis 1920*, in *Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft*, 46 (2004), p. 80-105.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ MAERTENS, *Le mouvement liturgique en Belgique*, p. 419</footnote>
DISCOVERY OF THE LAITY

In the 1950s, the interest of the laity in the liturgy was growing. While, during the first years after World War II, liturgical conferences were organized for priests and religious, evidently during the week (an extra handicap for the laity to participate), this would change in the second half of the 1950s.<fnref n="90" /> It was the result of a growing awareness about the laity's responsibility. The central idea was that every believer is a member of a local community.<fnref n="91" /> Therefore, people came to realise that the celebration of the liturgy was a social activity. This awareness clearly came to the floor during the organisation of the First National Congress for Lay Apostolate, held at Louvain in December, 1956. The enormous interest was experienced as a surprise. The participants were mostly adults, showing a deep concern about religious topics. The group not only consisted of members of organisations, but also of people, only engaged in the local parishes. The engagement of both groups made the conference a pastoral/theological event. Their active presence made clear that there was a growing group of laypeople that became aware of the meaning of baptism and being children of God. The congress seemed to be the recognition that a layperson is not a second-class Christian. Moreover, the one who is first confronted with the dialogue between Christianity and the contemporary world is the layperson, who, in the family, the job, the use of his/her free time, comes into close contact with the world, in fact is part of this world, which was, generally speaking, no longer experienced as Christian world. How could Christians offer a testimony of their faith in a world that claimed to be autonomous and doing this without becoming a stranger in his/her own world, suffering from a “Christian inferiority-complex”. The lay person is in fact the first who is involved in the growth of the Kingdom of God in this world, in this “mixed world”. During this congress, the problem that most dominated the congress was that of education and liturgical life. With regard to the latter, it became clear that people where longing for a more vivid and fresh contact with the Bible and the liturgy related to it. Liturgy should not be the privilege of experts, but something all should be involved in and live from. Laypeople at the congress did not ask for apologetic defence material but for spiritual nourishment. Priests recognised that they had, for a long time, underestimated the laity, and that clerical humility was needed. The congress made clear that a rather large elite was ready to serve and that many youngsters, averse from organisational tactics and constraints, were willing to engage on behalf of the Church. During the conference, people criticized the fact that organisations, once started as a reaction against paralysing conservatism, now seemed to be tempted to develop a similar defensive and protective attitude.<fnref n="92" /> However, it should be said that important initiatives such as the creation of a Catechetical Centre in Antwerp, the centre *Lumen Vitae* in Brussels or also the renewal of the Higher Institute for Religious

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Tijdschrift voor Liturgie, 1957, 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ See GROOTAERS, *De liturgische hernieuwing*, p. 352.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² See the report of Cyriel CERPENTIER, *Verjaardag – geen verjaring. Het Leuvens Congres in hoofdlijnen geschetst*, in *De Maand*, 1 (1958), p. 22-27. Cyriel Cerpentier (1908-1994) was a Redemptorist, well known for his conferences and sermons. He showed much interest in the spiritual training of the laity.</footnote>
Sciences at Louvain in many cases were training centres for the laity, although not yet directed by the laity.

Historical research also played an important role in the rediscovery of the laity's responsibility and involvement in liturgicis. A series of historical studies made clear that during the first centuries of Christianity the relation between hierarchy and laity could be described in terms of collaboration, while, since the edict of Milan (313) this relation developed in the direction of an antithesis: clergy versus laity, the latter considered to be the weaker ones.<fnref n="93" />

It should be said that the liturgical movement, since World War II, was part of a broader process in which new theological approaches, thorough renewal of catechetics, and liturgical care of souls interacted with each other. Moreover, the movement benefited from the war: imprisoned priests had been urged to celebrate the sacraments outside the “sacral” context, but in brotherhood with the other imprisoned faithful, a remarkable event indeed.<fnref n="94" />

Although one gets the overall impression that the period 1945-1962 can be described as the acme of the liturgical movement, already in 1961, Thierry Maertens, monk of the abbey of Saint André (Zevenkerken, near Bruges) warned of a decline of it. In 1961, he published a book, entitled *Les risques de plafonnement du Mouvement Liturgique*, a book in which he warned for a possible standstill of the movement.

## THE GERMAN SITUATION

In Germany, like elsewhere, the liturgical movement was in a sense prepared by historical research.<fnref n="95" /> In the midst of the Great War (1915), Hermann Platz (1880-1945), a layman, philosopher and philologist, one of the founding fathers of the German liturgical movement, later a promoter of a Christian Europe with France and Germany as central axes, also one of the editors of the ecumenically inspired journal *Una Sancta* (1925-1927),<fnref n="96" /> in the 1930s a strong opponent of Hitler (in 1935, Platz lost his position as professor at the University of Bonn) published an article in the German Catholic avant-garde journal *Hochland*, entitled *Die Sehnsucht nach dem Organischen im Lichte unserer Liturgie*. In this article he emphasized that liturgy is the theocentric cosmos towards which all souls, starving to death in an anthropocentric world, are longing. In 1921, Platz published a second, augmented, edition of his book *Krieg und Seele* (first published in 1916) under the title *Krieg und Liturgie*, a significant change and a proof that interest in liturgy within new contexts was in the air. It is suggested that Hermann Platz discovered his interest in liturgy when he attended a liturgical retreat for lay people in the Abbey of Maria Laach —this abbey already organised in 1913 during the Holy Week a retreat for young university students—,<fnref n="97" /> a retreat

<footnote n="93">⁹³ Jan GROOTAERS, *De taak van de leek in de liturgie*, in *De Liturgie en de Hedendaagse Mens*. Derde liturgische studiedagen (Antwerpen, 21-24 juli 1958) (Tijdschrift voor Liturgie), p. 61-82 (62ff.).</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ Les leçons d'un Stalag, in La Maison-Dieu, 1 (1945) p. 64-73.</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ André HAQUIN, *Le mouvement liturgique dans l'Église catholique (19ᵉ-20ᵉ s.),* in Carlo BRAGA and Alessandro PISTOIA (eds.), *Les mouvements liturgiques. Corrélations entre pratique et recherches*, Rome, 2004, p. 19-34 (27).</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ Because of its ecumenical character, the journal was already forbidden by Rome in 1927.</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ HAQUIN, *Le mouvement liturgique dans l'Église catholique (19ᵉ-20ᵉ s.)*, p. 27.</footnote>
preached by the then newly ordained abbot of the place, Ildefons Herwegen (1874-1946).<fnref n="98" /> Other lay people, attending this retreat were Heinrich Brüning (1885-1970), chancellor from 1930 to 1932, strong opponent of the Nazi's, leaving the country in 1934, when his life was seemingly at risk, and Robert Schuman (1886-1963), again an adversary of the Nazi's, a committed Christian and one of the founding fathers of the European Community.<fnref n="99" /> In other words, among those laymen, engaged in a renewal of liturgical life, one can find future leading politicians.

The liturgical movement as developed by the Benedictines of Maria Laach, Beuron and Seckau, was deeply influenced by the idea that liturgy was unchangeable given (needless to repeat that the German Benedictines had ties with Solesmes). The faithful had to be elevated to it. Such an idea of renewal and deepening of the Christian religious life presupposed education and constituted, in a sense, a prerogative for the clergy and lay intellectuals.<fnref n="100" /> Maria Laach therefore first and foremost attempted to promote its liturgical ideas among people who had studied at the universities and were prepared in order to guide the common people. At the time, at least within the German context, people were not thinking of a liturgical reform in sensu stricto.<fnref n="101" /> Although the use of German translations of Latin text was not excluded (the German translations intended to be so literal that one also speaks of the Deutsche Gregorianik), emphasis was put on the fact that the liturgy as such was untouchable and unique,<fnref n="102" /> something research, especially of the Fathers, should underpin.<fnref n="103" /> Abbeys such as Maria Laach considered it as a “principe inviolable, de s’en tenir le plus possible aux cérémonies et aux rites, tels qu’ils sont prescrits par la Sacrée Congrégation des Rites”.<fnref n="104" /> The use of Latin was considered to be the expression of the unity of the German Churches with Rome<fnref n="105" /> and as a medium in

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ With regard to Herwegen's view on the spiritual life of intellectuals in relation to liturgy, see HAUSSLING, *Kirchliche Erneuerung aus dem Geist der Liturgie*, p. 26. In passing, it should be said that one of the leading historians of liturgy in Germany, K. Mohlberg (1878-1963), studied at the Catholic University of Louvain at the time Beauduin was promoting the liturgical movement at Keizersberg, where Mohlberg lived at the time. With regard to the interest of German intellectuals in the liturgical movement, see, e.g., Stephan GEIGER, *Die religiöse Bewegung unter den Akademikern. Ihr Sinn, ihr Wollen, ihr Erfolg*, in *Theologie und Glaube*, 16 (1924), p. 491-501.</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ See Franz HENRICH, *Die Bünde der katholischen Jugendbewegung. Ihre Bedeutung für die liturgische und eucharistische Erneuerung*, München, 1968, p. 63.</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ Theodor MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung? Zu den liturgischen Entwicklungen in den Jahren zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen*, in *Erbe und Auftrag*, 69 (1993), p. 223-246 (233-234). In 1930, the monks of Maria Laach explicitly stated that with regard to the liturgical movement, Germany (in this case Maria Laach) “ne tend pas à saisir directement la masse des fidèles”; see Albert HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, in *Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*, 15 (1930), p. 294-307, on p. 303. Otherwise than suggested by the title, Hammenstede mainly discussed the views of Maria Laach.</footnote>

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ See Johannes WAGNER, *Das Anliegen der Liturgiereform von Pius X. bis zum Codex Rubricarum* (1960), in *Liturgisches Jahrbuch*, 11 (1961), p. 142-157 (147).</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² The defense of Hammenstede of the positions of Odo Casel; HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 300-301.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 301-302.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 296.</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 297-298.</footnote>