

























INTRODUCTION
The Second Vatican Council's call for the reform of the 

liturgy has aroused much discussion and conflicting 
opinions. A leading voice in this discussion is Joseph 
Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 and 
resigned from his Petrine ministry in 2013. Unlike the 
exceptions he takes to certain formulations of some of the 

2 conciliar documents, like Gaudium et spes, for example,
Ratzinger is not known to have expressed any reservation 
about the conciliar document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum 
Concilium. In fact, in his early and later writings, he is full of 
praise for this document. However, what becomes 
increasingly pronounced in his later writings is his criticism 
of the way the conciliar reform was implemented. He sees the 
liturgical abuses in post-conciliar times as manifestations of 
the deficiencies in the implementation of the conciliar reform. 
He particularly finds the promulgation of the new order of 
mass and some of the changes it called for problematic 
because it gave the impression of a break with the past in the 

175

Idahosa AMADASU

THE REFORM OF THE REFORM: AN 

EXAMINATION OF 

JOSEPH RATZINGER'S VISION OF 
1LITURGICAL RENEWAL



Church's liturgical life. Such implementations were informed 
by a hermeneutics of rupture, that is, a break with past that 
undermines the organic development of liturgy in the Church.

For Ratzinger, it is this kind of hermeneutics that has 
given the impression that one could easily formulate the 
liturgy according to pastoral expediency. Such formulations 
are often based on a selective reading of history that is 
informed by an antiquarianism which romanticizes the early 
Church in a way that precludes its later historical 
developments. The consequence of hermeneutics of rupture 
is that the place of God is marginalized in the liturgy and an 
undue attention is given to our human actions and creativities. 
It is from this perspective that Ratzinger expressed 
reservation about the way that the conciliar call for active 
participation in the liturgy has been understood, for example, 
the change in the liturgical celebration from ad orientem to 
versus populum, the use of certain kinds of music in the 
liturgy etc. In contrast to the traditionalists who reject the 
conciliar call for reform and the progressives who see the post 

3conciliar changes as advancing the conciliar reform,  
Ratzinger's liturgical vision sees some gap between the 
conciliar call for reform and its implementation. He would, 
therefore, call for a reform of the reform so that the reform 
which was carried out after the council can conform to the 
council's true intention.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the plausibility of 
Ratzinger's call for the reform of the reform. His proposal cuts 
across a range of liturgical issues. But for the limited scope of 
our presentation, we will briefly examine few of these areas. 
More specifically, we will examine Vatican II's notion of 
active participation and the change from ad orientem to 
versus populum. We will take our discussion further to 
examine Pope Benedict XVI's liberalization of the 
celebration of the mass according to the 1962 missal. From 
these discussions, our evaluative conclusion will show 
whether Ratzinger's call for the reform of the reform has any 
hope for the revival of the Church's liturgy today.

176



RATZINGER'S LITURGICAL VISION OF THE REFORM 
OF THE REFORM

In his report on the Vatican II, Ratzinger praised the 
conciliar constitution on the liturgy for its solid 
achievements. He wrote that the text recommended a 
profound change which was informed by an integral 
understanding of the Christian faith that did “not restrict itself 

4
to mere changes in individual rubrics.”  It marked a return to 
the “sacramental origins” of the faith against a limited 

5
“hierarchical narrowness.”  He thereafter enumerated some 
basic traits that characterized the recommended reforms of 
the conciliar document on the liturgy as follows: i) The ritual 
rigidity which undermined the meaning of individual actions 
in the liturgy was defrosted. This restored the priority of 
Sunday liturgy over the feast days of saints and the priority of 
mystery over devotion. Such prioritization would return the 
Church to the origins of the Christian faith and prune the 
accretions that have concealed the nucleus of the liturgy. 
Later in a monograph on the liturgy, he describes these 
accretions with the metaphor of a whitewash that has overlaid 

6a fresco.  ii) A stronger emphasis on the liturgy of the Word. 
iii) A more active participation of the laity in the liturgy. iv)  A 
decentralization of the liturgical decision making. v) More 
place to vernacular in the liturgy against an exclusive use of 

7
Latin.

In 1964, Pope Paul VI established a committee for the 
implementation of the conciliar reform called the 
Consiliumadexsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia 
(Consilium for the Implementation of the Sacred Liturgy). 
The committee (which was commonly referred to as 
Consilium) was headed by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro and the 
secretary was Father Annibale Bugnini, a Vincentian, who 
later became Archbishop. In his account of the activities of 
the Consilium, Pierro Marini notes that Pope Paul VI had 
created the Consilium because he was unwilling to entrust the 
implementation of the conciliar reform to the Congregation 
of Rites, which was established to implement the reforms of 
the Council of Trent, due to the fact that it was still wedded to 
an antiquated mode of thought that was unsuited for the 
implementation of the Vatican II's liturgical reform. In its 

177



modus operandi, the Consilium allowed for experimentation 
in some proposed areas of liturgical reforms before a 

8definitive missal was promulgated in 1970.  In his memoirs 
Ratzinger wrote that he welcomed the promulgation of the 
new missal, though not without reservation, noting that the 
Church now “had a binding liturgical text after a period of 

9
experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy.”  His 
reservation becomes pronounced when he notes that, the 
publication of the new missal was accompanied by an 
“almost total prohibition” of the old missal. Furthermore, 
speaking as if the missal was actually prohibited, he adds, 
“But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, 
since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire 

10
history of the Church.”  Later in an interview he advocated 
that “the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use 

11up to 1970 should be lifted.”
There have been some debates on the canonical and 

theological status of the old missal. Nicola Bux makes a 
distinction between the prohibition and the abolition of the 

12old Mass.  In fact, he notes that Pope Paul VI never abolished 
the Old mass; rather he only restricted its usage. But there are 
others who hold that the old mass was abrogated with the 
promulgation of the new missal. Such positions would argue 
that there would not be any need to promulgate a new missal if 

13
the old one was still valid.  One could reason from this 
perspective that if the law of belief and the law of prayer are 
mutually reinforcing, then it is normal that the renewal of the 
faith and a renewed ecclesiological understanding should 
also warrant a new missal that replaces the old. But if the new 
missal replaces the old, does it then mean that the old missal is 
no longer valid? For Ratzinger, to hold such an opinion is to 
create a rupture with the past, which also renders the 
foundation of the present fragile. Ratzinger's perspective is 
informed by his understanding that the liturgical rites are of 
divine origin and no power, even that of the pope, can 
abrogate them. Thus, he makes a distinction between the 
renewal of a liturgical book and the abolition of an old 

14missal.  But critics of Ratzinger would tend to see this 
standpoint as an attempt to place too much emphasis on the 

178



Church's liturgical tradition in a way that undermines her 
contemporary needs. His view is also seen as a way of seeking 
for the solution to the problems of present liturgical abuses 

15
only by a return to the past.  We will come back to this 
discussion, but for now, let us see some of the areas that 
Ratzinger thinks are in need of reform and the solution he 
proposes for the reform.

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AND AD ORIENTEM
Ratzinger holds that there was a need for reform of the 

pre-conciliar liturgy because like a fresco it had become 
tainted with a whitewash that needs to be removed. He uses 
the same metaphor of a fresco to explain how this very reform 
called for a new reform. The liturgy, like a fresco covered with 
whitewash, was laid bare by the pre-conciliar Liturgical 
Movement, and this uncovering achieved a definitive form in 
Vatican II. While the colors of the uncovered fresco are 
captivating, it has again been left exposed and “has been 
endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various 
restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with 
destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these 

16damaging influences.”  By the metaphor of the fresco, 
Ratzinger meant to explain the way the conciliar reforms 
have been carried out and the understanding of the liturgy that 
it gave birth to. One area that he has found often 
misunderstood is the conciliar call for active participation, 
actuosa participatio. Ratzinger thinks that the word has often 
been reduced to the external form of participation, as if the 
liturgy is what we do, rather than what we participate in. The 
liturgy is first an action of God that we participate in. John 
Baldovin comments that the “greatest strength of his 
[Ratzinger's] analysis of liturgy and sacrament today is his 
insistence on keeping God at the centre of the liturgical 

18 
celebration” Baldovin continues that this marginalization of 
God in the liturgy today is often the result of a superficial 
understanding of the etymological meaning of liturgy, which 
is sometimes translated as 'work of the people.' But in its true 
meaning, rather than the work done by the people, the liturgy 

19actually refers to the 'work done for the people.'  It is the false 
etymological meaning of the liturgy as 'the work of the 

179



people' that Ratzinger objects to in the post conciliar liturgical 
celebrations, which has often led to a reductive understanding 
of community celebration.

The fundamental idea here is that the liturgy is a 
community celebration, an act in which the 
community forms and experiences itself as such. 
In fact this means that the liturgy more and more 
acquires a 'party' character and atmosphere, as we 
see for instance in the increased importance 
attached to the words of greeting and dismissal and 
in search for elements with 'entertainment' value. A 
'successful' liturgical celebration is judged by the 
effects achieved in this way. Liturgy is thus 
dependent on the 'creativity', the ideas of those 

.20who organize it

In a critical evaluation of Ratzinger's monograph on the 
liturgy, Pierre-Marie Gy raised doubts about the former's 
faithfulness to the council in the way he understands active 
participation as autocelebration. He thinks that Ratzinger's 
criticism does not pay adequate attention to article 48 of 
Sacrosanctum Conciliumwhich calls on the faithful not to 
assist at mass as dumb spectators, but to actively take part in 
the sacred action. Gy also questions Ratzinger's objection to 
versus populum in the liturgy. He thinks Ratzinger's criticism 
is based on an incorrect reading of history and an inadequate 
appreciation of how versus populum spontaneously became a 
common practice as a consequence of the celebration of mass 
in the vernacular. It subsequently gained magisterial approval 
in the first document that was published on the 
implementation of the conciliar liturgical reform, Inter 

21
Oecumenici. In response to Gy, Ratzinger denied that he 
understands active participation as autocelebration. He 
explains that his criticism was not directed to the conciliar 
phrase, but rather to its interpretation which simply 
understands it as “assigning specific active functions to each 
of the faithful gathered for the celebration of the Eucharist.” 
He thinks active participation as understood by the council 
means something more. Indeed, it primarily refers to an inner 
participation that informs the external activity.

It requires, in the first place, that one is really 

180



familiar with the shape of the liturgy and its texts. 
Liturgical formation is what I mean, without 
which purely external actions remain empty and 
meaningless  liturgical formation is a fundamental 
prerequisite for, and indeed an essential form of, 
active participation in the celebration of the mass. 
But such participation which allows an inner 
adherence to the liturgy with one's whole being, 
one's thinking and activity, must of course also be 

22expressed externally, with our bodies.

On the issue of versus populum, there have been much 
discussion on whether the council or the documents that 
heralded the liturgical implementations actually warranted 

23the versus populum as Gy claims.  Ratzinger's basic 
reservation is that versus populum gives the impression that 
the community is in a closed circle in which the priest 
presides over the assembly. It has, for him, further helped to 

24
reinforce a false understanding of active participation.  But 
when Ratzinger does speak of reforming the reform, since the 
practice of versus populum has become conventional in the 
celebration of the novus ordo, what then does such a reform 
call for in this case? Does it mean returning to the pre-
conciliar liturgical form of ad orientem, which most current 
Church architectures no longer favor? If the liturgy can be 
compared to a fresco in which the reform called by the council 
was meant to remove the whitewash that covered it, and if the 
fresco has become once more 'endangered' how can it be 
protected and at the same time made captivating again? For 
Ratzinger, “Of course, there must be no question of its being 
covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a 
new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of 
its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not 

25
become the first stage of irreparable loss.”

Hence in calling for a reform of the mistaken impression 
that versus populum may have created, Ratzinger thinks that 
because the essential element of the ad orientem is its Christ-
centeredness, this Christocentricity can be rediscovered even 
in the versus populum. Consequently he proposes three steps 
for a greater emphasis on this Christocentricity in the liturgy: 
i) A proper space should be arranged around the ambo for the 
dialogue of proclamation and response that goes with the 

181



liturgy of the Word. ii) Altars should be constructed near the 
people in Churches where they are too far from the people. iii) 
A visible cross should be placed on the altar that would be the 
focal point of the priest and the faithful at liturgical 

26
celebrations.

We now move to examine one more area in Ratzinger's 
program of reform before drawing our conclusion.

SUMMORUMPONTIFICUM
This idea of the reform of the reform has also shaped 

Pope Benedict XVI's liberalization of the old missal by the 
27

motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum. At the promulgation 
of the new missal, only the elderly priests who could not 
easily learn the new form were permitted to still celebrate 
mass with the old missal. Later in 1984, Pope John Paul II 
granted the indult (Quattuorabhincanno) in which bishops 
were to permit those who request to celebrate mass according 
to the old missal. The establishment of Ecclesia Dei, with the 
motu proprio, Eccleisa Dei Adflicta in 1988, was to further 
strengthen this indult and take care of those who wished to 
celebrate the mass according to the old missal. Summorum 
Pontificum builds upon the foundation of these two 
documents and describes the celebration of the mass 
according to the 1962 missal as the extraordinary form of the 
Roman rite, while the celebration according to the novusordo 
is described as the ordinary form of the rite. These two uses of 
the Roman rite means that any priest could celebrate mass in 
the extraordinary form without any need for permission, and 
it also allows it to be offered for any 'stable group of the 
faithful', coetusfidelium that requests it. In a letter he wrote to 
Bishops on the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, Pope 
Benedict noted that his intention for the motu proprio was to 
bring about “an internal reconciliation in the heart of the 

28Church.”  According to Nicholas Bux, the pope's statement 
“implies not only healing the formal schism of the 
Lefebvrists, but also overcoming the break brought about 
during the reform of the liturgy, opposing the new and the old 

29
rite”  But there are others who doubt whether this 
reconciliation can be achieved by the motu propio. Baldovin 
finds it troubling that the document does not insist that those 

182



who celebrate with the 1962 missal should show due 
allegiance to Vatican II. He continues that if the mass 
according to the Missal of Paul VI is not celebrated with 
reverence, then the pope should have focused on how to 
ensure this reverential celebration with the new missal 
instead of restoring the pre-conciliar liturgy. He adds, 
“(m)any people have not accepted the Second Vatican 
Council and the renewal and reform of the church that have 
sprung from it. This document will only give them hope that 

30the last forty years can be reversed.”  Thus, while Pope 
Benedict XVI thinks of bringing about reconciliation within 
the Church with the motu proprio, scholars like Baldovin see 
a potential reversal of council's gains.

Opinions like those of Baldovin might have been 
informed by the different ecclesiological emphasis that 
underline the old and the new missal. According to Peter 
Jeffery, on the one hand, for those who are more attuned to the 
new form of the mass, it offers a model of the Church as a 
community, with the priest and people united together in 

31prayer.  For such people 'Tridentine mass' cannot bring out 
this communitarian aspect of the liturgy, for the  architecture 
of the Church effectively demarcates the clergy and the 
faithful, making the latter look like dumb spectators during 

32
liturgical celebrations.   On the other hand, Jeffery notes that 
for those who favour the pre-conciliar mass, it depicts a more 

33
contemplative model of the Church.  For such persons, the 
new mass appears to place a superficial emphasis on the 
horizontal dimension of our being in a way that virtually 

34evacuates the mystery of celebration and the trials of life.  
Considering the fact that the positive dimensions of both 
celebrations have a legitimate place in Christian life and 
worship, in contrast to Baldovin's assessment of Summorum 
Pontificum as having little hopes for addressing the problems 
of the liturgy today, Jeffery thinks that the document calls us 
to widen our hearts (Cf. I Cor. 6:11-13) so that positive 
emphases of both forms can enrich our liturgical 

35celebration.
Jeffery's evaluation of Summon Pontificum shows that 

the task before us today is to appreciate the strengths of the 
ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite, and to 

183



see how they mutually reinforce each other. Since the liturgy 
is a living reality, it is when both rites are alive that they can 
grow and learn from each other. It is in this respect that one 
could perhaps see the positive effects of the liberalization of 
the extraordinary form of the mass. For the interior 
reconciliation which the pope calls for to be achieved, it 
means that those who celebrate in the new order of mass 
should not see it as a rupture from the old form, just as those 
who celebrate in the old form  as Baldovin advocates  should 
also be open to celebrating mass in the new form. This will 
help to ensure that the liberalization of the extraordinary form 
of the Roman rite promotes the right hermeneutics for 
interpreting the council. Such a hermeneutics would ensure 
that continuity with the past does not stifle development, just 
as the development of the liturgy, even as it calls for some 
discontinuities with the past, is not a rupture. This 
reconciliation that the pope desires would be further 
advanced if there are greater efforts made not simply to 
describe both forms from the abuses one sees in their 
celebration, but rather to see how they can promote good 
liturgical celebrations in their authentic meaning. Thus the 
two forms of the Roman rite can enrich each other with their 
different emphases, correct their shortcomings, and bring 

36
about a more healthy liturgical celebration in the Church.

CONCLUSION
From Ratzinger's proposal of the reform of the reform, it 

is clear that left to him, some of the changes that came about 
from the implementation of the conciliar reform should not 
have been made because they did not represent an organic 
gradual change that is proper to liturgical development. 
Hence these changes have also resulted in losing some of the 
precious liturgical practices that the missal of the 1962 mass 
embodies. This has informed his idea of the reform of the 
reform so that the lofty values of the past are not lost in the 
liturgy's openness to changes and development. But the fear 
that has often been expressed about Ratzinger's idea is that it 
is an attempt to draw the clock back. This is evident in the 
criticism that greeted the publication of Summorum 
Pontificum. However, a careful study of Ratzinger's proposal 

184



shows two characteristic traits that might suggest otherwise. 
First, while he regrets the changes that were made in the post-
conciliar reform, his proposal for a reform of these changes is 
not always an exact return to pre-conciliar practices, as seen 
in his proposal to place a cross at the centre of the altar to 
achieve the ad orientem status of liturgical celebration, rather 
than reconstructing the Church altar according to its pre-
Vatican II architecture. Second, while he still desires some 
past liturgical practices, like the silent recitation of the canon, 
he is not known to have departed from the current practice of 

37the loud recitation of the canon, even as pope.  While certain 
practices like kneeling for communion, reception of 
communion on the tongue, the use of old vestments were 
conspicuous during his papal liturgical celebrations, these 
too, have not been made universal laws. It is for this reason 
that Mariusz Biliniewicz comments that the “'reform of the 
reform' is mainly an educational process consisting of 
explaining, showing good examples and encouraging good 
practices. Benedict does allow liturgical pluralism and does 
not impose his style on anyone.” Biliniewicz continues, “I 
think that it is quite clear to those who look closely that the 
imposition, disciplinary compelling and limitation of post-
Vatican II liturgical pluralism are not Benedict's method in 

38 
introducing his reform of the reform” In this light, we think 
that when the reform of the reform is understood as attempt to 
find a balance between the past and the present, a balance that 
gives room for liturgical pluralism, then it has much hopes for 
the revival of the liturgy in the Church today.   

ENDNOTES
1. A shorter version of this paper was presented at the Leuven Encounters 

in Systematic Theology, LEST IX, at the Catholic University of 
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium on October 23, 2013.

2.  See Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: 
Paulist Press, 1966. Reprint, 2009), 231-235, Joseph Ratzinger, 
Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental  
Theology, trans., Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco, CA: 
Ignatius, 1987), 378-393

185



3.  For an overview of the different positions of the traditionalists and the 
progressives on liturgical issues, see Thomas Kocik, The Reform of the 
Reform (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003)

4. Ratzinger, Theological Highlights, 31.
5. Ibid., 32.
6. Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans., John Saward (San 

Francisco, CA: Ignatius 2000), 7-8
7. Ratzinger, Theological Highlights, 32-37.
8. Pierro Marini, A Challenging Reform:  Realizing the Vision of the 

Liturgical Renewal. (Minnesota: Liturgical Press 2007), 139-143. For 
other accounts of the activities of the Consilium, see AnnibaleBugnini, 
The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975), (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 
1990), Nicola Giampietro, The Development of theLiturgical Reform as 
seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948-1970, (Colorado: 
Fort Collins, 2009) and Laszlo Dobszay, The Bugnini Liturgy and the 
Reform of the Reform, (Hungary: Church Music Association of 
America, 2003)

9. Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, trans., Erasmo 
Levia-Merikakis (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius 1998), 146.

10. Ibid., 146.
11. Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World : Believing and Living in Our 

Time. A Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans., Henry Taylor (San 
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 417.

12. Nicola Bux, Benedict XVI's Reform: The Liturgy between Innovation 
and Tradition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 104.

13.  For Peter Jeffery, to claim that the old rite was never abrogated “looks 
like a case of historical revisionism” See Peter Jeffery, Widening Our 
Hearts: The Latin Mass is Back.” Commonweal  134, (2007): 10. 
Available online at https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/widening-
our-hearts.(accessed on January 30, 2014). See also Nathan D. 
Mitchell, “The Amen Corner: SummorumPontificum”, Worship 81 
(2007): 556-558. John Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to 
the Critics (Minnesota: Liturgical Press Collegeville, 2008), 131.

14. Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 147-148
15.  See John Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 89
16. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 8.
17.  Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the 

Liturgy, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 1986), 70
18.  John Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 67
19. Ibid., 68.
20.  Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith, 62
21. Pierre-Marie Gy, "Is Cardinal Ratzinger's l' Espirit de la liturgie Faithful 

to the Council?," Doctrine and Life 52, no. (2002): 426-429. See Sacred 
Congregation of Rites, Inter Oecumenici. Published on March 7, 
1 9 6 5 . A v a i l a b l e  a t  
www.ewtn.com/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM.Accessed on October 31, 
2014.

22. Joseph Ratzinger, "The Spirit of the Liturgy or Fidelity to the Council: A 
Reply to Pierre-Marie Gy, OP," Doctrine and Life 52, no. (2002): 494.

186



23.  According to Peter Jeffery, “The most familiar visual symbol of 
  liturgical renewalthe altar facing the peopleis not mandatory in the new 

missal, and was not forbidden in the old. Both the 1570 and 1962 
rubrics expressly permit the early medieval practice of celebrating 
versus populum.” See Peter Jeffery, “Widening our Hearts…” See also 
Uwe Michael Lang, Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in 
Liturgical Prayer, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), John 
Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 108-113

24. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 80.
25. Ibid., 8.
26.  See Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy or Fidelity to the Council,  497-

498.Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 83-84.
27.  S e e  B e n e d i c t  X V I ,  " S u m m o r u m  P o n t i f i c u m "  

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/docu
ments /hf_ben-xvi_motu-propr io_20070707_summorum-
pontificum_en.html (accessed September 17 2013).

28. Benedict XVI, "Letter to Bishops Accompanying the Publication of 
S u m m o r u m  P o n t i f i c u m "  
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/docume
nts/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html (accessed 
September 17 2013).

29. Bux, Benedict XVI's Reform, 57
30. Baldovin, Reforming the Liturgy, 132.
31. “ The new Mass, to many of its supporters, offers a model of the church 

as a united assembly, priests and laity gathered as one around a central 
altar, confessing our sins, hearing the Scriptures, praying for the needs 
of the world, greeting each other in peace, receiving the sacrament of 
the Lord's presence, and carrying that graced presence out into the 
world as we disperse. The congregation participates by listening and 
responding to the prayers and readings. Many of those who yearn for 
such a “church as community” ideal also hope for greater lay 
participation in the life of the church: more consultative and 
collaborative forms of leadership, more responsiveness to the new 
problems of today's world. From the perspective of a “community” 
ecclesiology, with clergy and laity united in hearing the Word of God 
(and keeping it!)” Peter Jeffery, “Widening our Hearts…”

32.  “…the Tridentine Mass seems to offer a poor substitute: The altar is 
three steps up from the rest of the church's floor, separated from the 
congregation by a railing, approachable only by the ordained, who turn 
their backs to the assembled people and mumble an ancient tongue. The 
congregation's deepest involvement in the proceedings takes the form 
of merely looking at the host when it is elevated after the consecration. 
To some, the whole thing looks like an enactment of monarchical right-
wing political values masquerading as the Christian gospel.” Ibid.

33.  “the Mass celebrated before Vatican II focused sharply on the central 
moment of transubstantiation; all that comes before and after is 
preparation or aftermath. This liturgy depicts a more contemplative 

 model: a church on its knees before the awe-filled mystery the Son of 
God come among us in the broken flesh and spilled blood of an innocent 

187



human being who was killed yet lives eternally with the divine life of 
God he wills to share with us. In the presence of that 
incomprehensibility, bells tremble, incense smokes, candles burn, 
hearts quake, choirs echo the heavenly host in the same words that 
inspired our ancestors in the faith for centuries, suggesting the 
unchanging quality of eternity.”

34.    “For those who desire this kind of church a secret place where 
Almighty God dwells hidden in our world, a foretaste of heaven amid 

 the trials and disappointments of earthly mortalitythe new Mass seems 
a tawdry affair indeed: an undisciplined burst of feel-good spirituality 
that evades the real difficulties and sacrifices of a committed Christian 
life; a cheap dose of “relevance,” designed to make the Mass seem 
entertaining so that people of little faith will not flee out of boredom; 
even, to some, a deliberate effort to confuse the faithful by disguising 
left-wing egalitarian political and social agendas as Christian values. 
Many people who favor the more “contemplative” ecclesiology long 
for clearer structures of authority, more emphasis on doctrinal accuracy, 
greater trust that contemporary issues can be addressed with the 
wisdom of tradition.” Ibid.

35. “ If the 1970 Mass promotes an outward-looking spirituality that cares 
for the suffering as Mother Teresa did, the 1962 Mass asks us to 
embrace the suffering human condition with a more inward spirituality 
like Padre Pio's. The day may come when all this can somehow be 
encompassed in a single order of Mass, but that day is not yet here, and I 
think we should expect more liturgical transitions in the years to come. 
The task now is somehow to recover what was left behind without 
losing what has been gained, like the householder who brings forth both 
new and old (Matthew 13:52).” Ibid

36.  Perhaps it is in this respect that one could understand Ratzinger's 
statement some years back: “The difference between the liturgy 
according to the new books, how it is actually practised and celebrated 
in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old 
Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the 
prescribed liturgical books.” Joseph Ratzinger, “Ten Years of Motu 
Propio, 'Ecclesia Dei'” (October 24, 1998). Available at 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020702085721/http://www.latin-
mass.org/ratzinger.html

37.  Joseph Ratzinger,The Feast of Faith, 72.
38. MariuszBiliniewicz, The Liturgical Vision of Pope Benedict XVI: A 

Theological Inquiry. (Switzerland: Peterlang, 2013), 289-290

188


