Ultramontanism and the Liturgy...

I am no liturgical scholar. Most of my liturgical posts have been translations of Introits and Collects, musings about certain aspects of Liturgy and liturgical history (liturgical theology is a modern thing in my opinion), rubrics etc. I have here a cogent question to raise: to what extent has the ultramontane Papacy done greater harm than good to the Liturgy of the Church? It was a Pope who changed the Breviary hymns to better resemble the metre of the Classical age in 1629; it was a Pope who, to lessen the burden of the Ferial Office, authorized priests to celebrate Votive offices in the late 19th century (thereby going against the very first Rubric in the Missal - Missa quotidie dicitur secundum ordinem Officii); it was a Pope who changed the Breviary and other parts of the Mass 1911-1913; it was a Pope who authorized the changes to the Rites of Holy Week (beyond recognition) in the 1950s; it was a Pope who authorized and approved the Novus Ordo in 1969. These days we rely solely on the authority of the Pope (a very great Pope I daresay) to have the Old Rite...liturgical history, then, is not without a sense of irony.

Fr John Hunwicke over at Liturgical Notes has an interesting similar post about the process of canonization. He rightly says that Pope Benedict XVI has been wise to give this back to local churches. I am very much in favour of legitimate ''local custom'' - moreover I would go back to the days when there were no Missals or Breviaries, but were Antiphonaries, Sacramentaries etc (I wonder what the implications would be for the priest at High Mass if we did away with the Missal - would he still have to read everything? I would hope he would, since this seems to me to be integral to the Mass); I would that there were no ''Code of Canon Law'' but there were the Sacred Canons again; I would that there were a whole Psalm for the Introit rather than two verses, I would that instead of just the liturgical choir deserving a censing, the whole congregation at High Mass were censed individually (the Subdeacon can and should answer the Suscipiat); I would that Low Mass were abolished and there were more sung Office (no matter how much you go on about ''active participation'' - reason dictates that the congregation at Low Mass are indeed mere spectators, and spectators to what? a very unedifying, boring and certainly abridged form of Liturgy; no more pews etc. I would also that the training of priests for the celebration of High Mass would stop referring to things like ''the rest is as at Low Mass'' - High Mass is the definitive form of Liturgy, not Low Mass. More Sequences for greater feasts...

If you did away with the idea that you should have Mass everyday, more than once a day, then you could have more High Mass - at any rate, such an attitude towards the Mass only leads to complacency about the Blessed Sacrament. My somewhat strange opinion of Low Mass is not a new thing. My first experience of the Old Rite (although it was not in fact the Old Rite) was a Low Mass at the Oratory on a Sunday 5 years ago, and I came away rather perplexed - I even thought ''no wonder people desired reform!''

The Orthodox Church does not have this problem. From personal experience, their Liturgy is at once sacred but not exclusive to the clergy behind the Iconostasis. The greater litanies encourage ''active participation'' (although I would rather they stick to the liturgical languages of their respective churches - Church Slavonic for Russia, Greek for the Greek Church - I was most unimpressed the last time I attended an Akathist to the Theotokos at the Russian Orthodox cathedral at Kensington, half of it was in Church Slavonic, which was exquisite, but the other half was in a kind of liturgically stylized form of modern English which I thought was impertinent - rather like hearing Gregorian chant in English; it just doesn't work) in the congregation; people who know the liturgical tongue can join the clergy in singing the Akathist etc; and there are no pews and so the church feels clearer and has an atmosphere more conducive to worship.

There is nothing wrong with the Liturgy of the Roman Rite, but I am often compelled to ask: what went wrong? Pews, Low Mass and other such unfortunate terms seem to have stifled it. The answer? I am no authority, but I'd suggest do away with pews, and Low Mass, and bring back more incense, more chant (no more Mass VIII and Credo III though), more ''legitimate local custom,'' more litanies, more Latin hymns (English hymns, well any devotion in the vulgar tongue, goes against the grain somewhat), and especially sung Office (a good place to start would be Sunday Vespers, and perhaps Vespers for Holydays and other great Feasts). As I have said, there is nothing wrong with the Liturgy of the Roman Rite but there seems to go with it a sort of attitude inimical to liturgical things such as incense and chant...comments, suggestions, protests etc in the comment box...