Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Misa Dialogada - CLVI

Verdadera versus falsa reforma litúrgica

Dr. Carol Byrne, Gran Bretaña

El Movimiento Litúrgico no derivó de los principios de Dom Prosper Guéranger. Sus principios diferían marcadamente de los reformadores litúrgicos del siglo XX en tres puntos clave:

Como explicó en el Prefacio de su Défense des Institutions Liturgiques (1844), su objetivo era restaurar la unidad del Rito Romano en toda Francia mediante el uso de una sola lengua de culto que excluyera la Babel de las versiones vernáculas. Pero esa unidad litúrgica quedó destruida cuando el latín fue reemplazado por una multiplicidad de lenguas que daban expresión a los sentimientos del hombre moderno; ¹

Abandonar el latín y adoptar la lengua vernácula
crea una Babel de lenguas

Dom Guéranger restauró el Canto Gregoriano a su forma original y auténtica mediante la producción de facsímiles de manuscritos originales encontrados en bibliotecas de toda Europa. Pero toda esa labor minuciosa y meticulosa resultó en vano en lo que respecta a los reformadores posteriores, quienes complacieron los gustos modernos por una música mundana y sensual;
Rechazó el uso de Misales bilingües en manos de los laicos ‒ una característica que ocupó un lugar destacado en las exigencias de los reformadores benedictinos posteriores, quienes produjeron grandes cantidades de ellos desde sus monasterios en Bélgica.

Para Dom Guéranger, el uso del latín en el Rito Romano era sagrado y no podía ser reemplazado sin efectos perjudiciales:

“Las traducciones de la Misa y del Oficio a la lengua vernácula son de tal naturaleza que producen este inconveniente: aislar a los fieles de la oración pública, bajo el pretexto de asociarlos a ella de manera más íntima.” ²

Que Dom Guéranger tuviera razón o no en este punto concreto no es la cuestión aquí; pero los fundamentos en los que basaba su opinión eran indiscutiblemente verdaderos: que una versión vernácula de los sublimes misterios celebrados en la liturgia no es esencial para permitir a los fieles participar espiritualmente en el culto público de la Iglesia. Amar la fe de la Iglesia es el requisito indispensable.

Obispo Pierre Louis Parisis

A este respecto, citó una carta escrita por Mons. Parisis, Obispo de Langres, en 1846, sobre la participación de los fieles:

“Lo mejor que podrían hacer los fieles, mientras el sacerdote canta, sería adherirse interiormente a sus palabras, aun sin comprenderlas; pedir lo que él pide, aun sin saberlo; esto es todo lo que hicieron los primeros cristianos, primero durante todos los siglos en que la liturgia se transmitía solo por tradición oral, y luego durante años después. Esta es la razón por la cual, a las oraciones misteriosas recitadas en silencio por el sacerdote, respondían: Amén, ¡así sea!, un acto de fe sublime en su simplicidad.

“Como si hubieran dicho: ‘No sabemos qué es lo más deseable para nosotros, pero Dios lo sabe; no sabemos qué glorifica mejor al Señor, pero la Iglesia lo sabe; ahora bien, es la Iglesia la que ha hablado, pues es en su nombre y como su representante especial que ha hablado el sacerdote; es la Iglesia la que ha puesto en sus labios las oraciones recién dichas; nos adherimos a ellas, sean las que sean, porque no podemos pedir nada mejor que lo que la Iglesia pide, no podemos decir nada mejor que lo que la Iglesia dice: ¡Así sea, así sea! ¡Amén! ¡Amén!” ³

Este principio fundamental del culto católico ya no es comprendido por la mayoría de los católicos hoy en día.

Solución pastoral

A diferencia de los reformadores posteriores, Dom Guéranger no consideraba el uso de la lengua vernácula como un medio indispensable de comprensión; ni veía el latín como un obstáculo para la participación de quienes no entendían el idioma. En su tiempo, las traducciones literales de los textos litúrgicos no estaban permitidas ni se consideraban necesarias. Existían otras alternativas para transmitir el significado de la liturgia a los fieles, incluida su propia iniciativa pastoral:

“Para conformarnos con los deseos de la Santa Sede, no damos, en ninguno de los volúmenes de nuestro Año Litúrgico, la traducción literal del Ordinario y del Canon de la Misa; y hemos procurado, en su lugar, ofrecer a aquellos laicos que no entienden latín los medios para unirse, de la manera más estrecha posible, con todo lo que el sacerdote dice y hace en el altar.” ⁴

Verdadera versus falsa renovación

En resumen, Dom Guéranger emprendió una verdadera renovación. Él edificó, mientras que los neo-modernistas demolieron. Denunció el protestantismo (“las sectas”) como una falsa religión, mientras que los progresistas trabajaron hacia la asimilación con ellas. Facilitó la proclamación del dogma de la Inmaculada Concepción y el decreto sobre la supremacía papal, mientras que algunos de los reformadores influyentes del Vaticano II promovieron el “minimalismo” mariano y la colegialidad. Promovió una estricta adhesión a las rúbricas oficiales, pero los reformadores progresistas deshicieron su obra fomentando la laxitud rubrical, la inculturación y la diversidad.

Si los progresistas fueran coherentes, deberían adaptarse a cada una de las 51.314 sectas protestantes existentes hoy

Como veremos en las páginas siguientes, la historia del Movimiento Litúrgico desde comienzos del siglo XX hasta la víspera del Vaticano II demuestra que los reformadores progresistas siguieron una agenda propia que tenía poco, o nada, en común con el pensamiento y la obra de Dom Guéranger. Incluso su insistencia en el requisito indispensable del Canto Gregoriano – que fue el orgullo y la alegría de su obra fundacional en Solesmes – encontró poco eco entre los reformadores neo-modernistas, salvo algunos de la primera mitad del siglo XX que apenas le rindieron un homenaje verbal mientras conspiraban para su desaparición.

La aprobación de Pablo VI citada en un artículo anterior cuando iniciamos este análisis no solo supone una tensión para nuestra capacidad de razonamiento, sino una traición a nuestro patrimonio heredado. Pues fue el triunfo del Movimiento Litúrgico, posibilitado por Pablo VI, en el que la Tradición fue sacrificada en nombre de la modernidad, lo que provocó la autodestrucción de la vida y la piedad litúrgicas católicas, sobre la cual el mismo Papa comentó célebremente con estas palabras:

“La Iglesia se encuentra en una hora de ansiedad, un período perturbado de autocrítica, o lo que sería mejor llamar autodemolición. Es una conmoción interior, aguda y complicada.” ⁵

Continuará

Para reforzar su punto, citó Gén. 11:1: "Erat autem terra labiis unius et sermonum eorundem!" (Toda la tierra tenía una sola lengua y las mismas palabras). P. Guéranger, Défense des Institutions: Lettre à Mgr. l'Archêveque de Toulouse, Le Mans: Fleuriot, 1844, p. xiii.
P. Guéranger, Institutions Liturgiques, París: Société Générale de Librairie Catholique, vol. 3, 1883, p. 167.
Ibid.
P. Guéranger, El Año Litúrgico, Vol. 1, Adviento, Dublín: James Duffy, 1870, p. 16.
Pablo VI, Discurso al Seminario Lombardo, 7 de diciembre de 1968, en Insegnamenti di Paolo VI (Enseñanzas de Pablo VI), Roma: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1968, vol. VI, pp. 1188-1189.

Publicado el 16 de diciembre de 2025

Comparta

Síganos

______________________

Temas de Interés Relacionados

______________________

Obras de Interés Relacionadas

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition

Traditionalist Issues

Dialogue Mass - CX

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

When we compare the traditional view of Minor Orders with the treatment they received at the hands of liturgical reformers in the 20^th century, it becomes evident that the two positions stand in dire contrast to each other. To illustrate this point in greater depth, let us turn again to the exposition of Minor Orders made by Fr. Louis Bacuez who modestly introduced his magnum opus as follows:

Starting the whittling away of respect
for the Minor Orders...

“This little book is a sequel to one we have published on Tonsure. God grant that those who make use of it may conceive a great respect for Minor Orders and prepare for them as they should! The dispositions with which they approach ordination will be the measure of the graces they receive, and on this measure depends, in a great part, the fruit that their ministry will produce. To have a rich harvest the first thing necessary is to sow well: Qui parce seminat parce et metet; et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. (2 Cor. 9:6)” (1)

Little did he realize that when he wrote these words every vestige of respect for the Minor Orders would be whittled away by the concerted efforts of progressivists with a negative and dismissive attitude towards them; and that the Liturgical Movement, which had just begun when he published his book, would be dominated by influential liturgists discussing how to overturn them.

Long before the term “Cancel Culture” was invented, they presented the Minor Orders as a form of class-based oppression perpetrated by a clerical “caste” and as a form of spiritually empty legalism, and they went to great lengths to make them look ridiculous.

Far from showing due respect, this involves quite a considerable degree of contempt, not only for the generations of seminarians who were formed within this tradition, but also for the integrity of the great institution of Minor Orders that had served the Church since Apostolic times. In fact, so great was their animosity towards the Minor Orders that they could hardly wait to strip them of their essential nature as functions of the Hierarchy and turn them into lay ministries.

A tree is known by its fruits

These, then, were the hate-filled dispositions that inspired the progressivist reform, and would determine the graces received and the fruit to be produced by those who exercise the new lay “ministries” as opposed to, and in place of, the traditional Minor Orders.

Fr. Bacuez, who wrote his book in the pontificate of Pius X, could never, of course, have envisaged the demise of the Minor Orders, least of all at the hands of a future Pope. He was concerned lest even the smallest amount of grace be lost in the souls of those preparing for the priesthood:

Blighted fruits from a sick tree

“We shall see, on the Last Day, what injury an ordinand does to himself and what detriment he causes to souls by losing, through his own fault, a part of the graces destined to sanctify his priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father: Modica seminis detractio non est modicum messis detrimentum. (St. Bernard)” (2)

We do not, however, need to wait till the Last Day to see the effects of a reform that deliberately prevents, as by an act of spiritual contraception, the supernatural graces of the Minor Orders from attaining their God-given end: “to sanctify the priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father.” For the evidence is all around us that the tree of this reform produced blighted fruits.

First, we note a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church and a blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity; second, a “contraceptive” sterility resulting in vocations withering on the vine and below replacement level, seminaries and churches closing down, parishes dying, and the decline in the life of the traditional Catholic Faith as seen in every measurable statistic. The conclusion is inescapable: those who planted this tree and those who now participate in the reform are accomplices in a destructive work.

Advantages of the Minor Orders

A substantial part of Fr. Bacuez’ exposition of the Minor Orders is devoted to the inestimable benefits they bring to the Church. These he divided into the following three categories:

The honor of the priesthood;
The dignity of worship;
The perfection of the clergy.

It is immediately apparent that the Minor Orders were oriented towards the liturgy as performed by the priest and his ministers. In other words, they existed for entirely supernatural ends invested in the priesthood.

A significant and entirely appropriate omission was any mention of active involvement of the laity in the liturgy. Fr. Bacuez’ silence on this issue is an eloquent statement of the mind of the Church that the liturgy is the preserve of the clergy.

We will now take each of his points in turn.

1. The honor of the priesthood

“A statue, however perfect, would never be appreciated by most people, unless it were placed on a suitable pedestal. Likewise the pontificate, which is the perfection of the priesthood, would not inspire the faithful with all the esteem it merits, if it had not beneath it, to give it due prominence, these different classes of subordinate ministers, classes inferior one to another, but the least of which is superior to the entire order of laymen.” (3)

Toppling statues has become popular today:
above, Fr. Serra in central Los Angeles, California

It is an example of dramatic irony that Fr. Bacuez unwittingly chose the theme of a statue supported by a pedestal to illustrate his point. He was not to know that statues of historical figures would become a major source of controversy in the culture wars and identity politics of our age.

Nor could he have foreseen that toppling monuments – both metaphorical and concrete – was to become a favorite sport of the 20^th-century liturgical reformers, their aim being to exalt the status of the laity by “active participation” in clerical roles. And never in his wildest imagination would he have suspected that a future Pope would join in the iconoclastic spree to demolish the Minor Orders about which he wrote with evident pride and conviction.

'Don’t put the priest on a pedestal'

However, the revolutionaries considered that esteem for the Hierarchy and recognition of its superiority over the lay members of the Church was too objectionable to be allowed to survive in modern society. The consensus of opinion among them was that clergy and laity were equals because of their shared Baptism, and placing the priest on a pedestal was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the interests of the laity.

“Don’t put the priest on a pedestal” was their battle cry. It is the constant refrain that is still doing the rounds among progressivists who refuse to give due honor to the priesthood and insist on accusing the Church of systemic “clericalism.”

But the fundamental point of the Minor Orders – and the Sub-Diaconate – was precisely to be the pedestal on which the priesthood is supported and raised to a position of honor in the Church. When Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam dismantled the institutional underpinnings of the Hierarchy, the imposing pedestal and columns that were the Minor Orders and Sub-Diaconate were no longer allowed to uphold and elevate the priesthood.

The biblical underpinnings of the Minor Orders

Fr. Bacuez made use of the following passage from the Book of Proverbs:

“Wisdom hath built herself a house; she hath hewn out seven pillars. She hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table.” (9: 1-2)

An ordination to the minor order of exorcist, one of the seven columns

He drew an analogy between “the seven columns of the living temple, which the Incarnate Wisdom has raised up to the Divine Majesty” and all the clerical Orders (four Minor and three Major) that exist for the right worship of God. In this, he was entirely justified. For, in their interpretation of this passage, the Church Fathers concur that it is a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed, as St. Augustine said, by “the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchisedek.” (4)

In the 1972 reform, no less than five (5) of the seven columns were brought crashing down from their niches in the Hierarchy to cries of “institutionalized clericalism,” “delusions of grandeur” and “unconscious bias” against the laity.

To further elucidate the affinity of the Minor Orders to the priesthood, Fr. Bacuez gave a brief overview of the cursus honorum that comprised the Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest before going on to explain their interrelatedness:

“These seven powers successively conferred, beginning with the last, are superimposed one upon the other without ever disappearing or coming in conflict, so that in the priesthood, the highest of them all, they are all found. The priest unites them all in his person, and has to exercise them all his life in the various offices of his ministry.” (6)

After Ministeria quaedam, however, these rights and powers are no longer regarded as the unique, personal possession of the ordained, but have been officially redistributed among the baptized. It was not simply a question of changing the title from Orders to “ministries”: the real locus of the revolution was in taking the privileges of the “ruling classes” (the representatives of Christ the King) and giving them to their subjects (the laity) as of “right.”

The neo-Marxist message was, and still is, that this was an act of “restorative justice” for the laity who had been “historically wronged.” For the liturgical progressivists, 1972 was, apparently, the year of “compensation.”

Continued

Louis Bacuez SS, Minor Orders, St Louis MO: B. Herder, 1912, p. x. “He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.”
Ibid., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermon on the Psalm ‘Qui habitat,’ Sermones de Tempore, In Quadragesima, Preface, § 1: “If, at the time of sowing, a moderate amount of seed has been lost, the harm done to the harvest will not be inconsiderable.”
Ibid., p. 6.
St. Augustine, The City of God, book XVII, chap. 20: "Of David’s Reign and Merit; and of his son Solomon, and of that prophecy relating to Christ, which is found either in those books that are joined to those written by him, or in those that are indubitably his."
These were the four Minor Orders and the Major Order of the Sub-Diaconate.
L. Bacuez, op. cit., p. 5.

Posted December 10, 2021

______________________