by Wilfrid Jones

Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982) was the key architect of the Liturgical reform that followed the Second Vatican Council and was, at least in principle, provoked by its constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. He began his career working on the Liturgy as professor of at the Pontifical Lateran University, and later took part in the planning of the Liturgical reforms conducted by Pius XII as secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform, the same post he would hold in the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem Liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium following the Council. His position as secretary allowed him to set the agenda and tone of the reform, an agenda and tone which coincided very closely with his own, rather than that of the Constitution. Indeed, whilst his reported declaration “I am the Liturgical Reform” is an exaggeration, it is not an overly wild exaggeration.[1] Bugnini’s influence upon the liturgy has greatly damaged the musical expressions of Liturgical worship and in so doing has created a knock on effect upon the broader liturgical action in which music has its ministerial function. In this brief article, I will examine only one of his factually inaccurate underlying assertions.

In his memoir, Bugnini states that “the entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung, and to inspire the creation of suitable songs in the vernacular.”[2] This assertion is categorically false.

There are two ways of interpreting the Council, the first is with the hermeneutic of continuity and the second is with the hermeneutic of rupture.

The Hermeneutic of Continuity

In the earliest liturgical sources available, notably MS CH-Gs Cod.Sang. 338 (a liturgical manual dating from 850 to which Adrian Fortescue refers in his article for the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Introit),[3] it is clear that the entrance and communion antiphons are set to their own tunes.

The Fourth Sunday of Advent is a good example of continuity within the liturgy. The Introit sung at the Abbaye Saint Martial in St Gallen in 850 was from Isaiah, Rorate Caeli, [4] with the Communion Verse Ecce Virgo Concipiet.[5] These are the same texts that appeared in the Liturgy on the eve of the Council in the Liber Usualis and the tunes are from the same Gregorian melody families.[6] This is a thousand years of unbroken tradition of singing the Entrance and Communion Antiphons that Bugnini simply ignores in the sentence whereby he justifies his rubric “vel alius aptus cantus” which has brought about the near death of Gregorian propers, the larger part of the “treasure of inestimable value”[7] that Bugnini was charged with “preserving and fostering”[8] and which is “specially suited to the Roman liturgy” and “should be given pride of place in liturgical functions”.[9] By this measure, his reform in this respect failed.

The Introit of the Fourth Sunday of Advent from MS CH-Gs Cod.Sang. 338. 850

The Introit for the Fourth Sunday of Advent from the Liber Usualis. 1961.

The Communion Antiphon from MS CH-Gs Cod.Sang. 338. 850

The Communion Antiphon for the Fourth Sunday of Advent from the Liber Usualis. 1961.

Post-Conciliar Sources

The other paradigm by which the Council can be assessed is one in which it represents the “Year 0” for Catholicism, a completely fresh start. This is plainly not a particularly helpful given the developments of the one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-sixty years of Catholicism that had preceded the Council, but even within this hermeneutic, Bugnini’s assertion is very much not true.

The Graduale Romanum, a post-conciliar liturgical document, contains the same chants as MS CH-Gs Cod.Sang. 338 for that Sunday.[10] This is reinforced by the Consilium’s own journal Notitiae which notes

That rule [which allows other songs] has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its ordinary and proper, not “something,” no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought, and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain.[11]

Yet somehow, despite all this, the rubric that “another suitable song” could be substituted for the liturgical text and chant managed to find its way into the General Instruction [“Institution” in Latin] of the Roman Missal.[12] I will grant, that in Dies Domini, John Paul II recognizes the existing practical situation in which the propers were being neglected and provided rules to limit the harmful effect of that neglect.[13] That is, however, quite a different matter from establishing liturgical law making normative the singing of another song in place of the proper.

Conclusion

It seems, therefore, to me to be inexcusable that the rubric allowing texts other than those prescribed by the Church exists. The norm in the rubrics remains the singing of the proper antiphon; the practical reality is that an entrance hymn replaces it. Bugnini appeals to pastoral necessity but his actions deny the congregation access to the complementary scriptural passages the liturgy puts before the ears of the faithful. Limiting the amount of scripture in the liturgy goes against the will of Sacrosanctum Concilium[14] and the good of souls: as Ratzinger explains, the Liturgy in its fullness, “contains essential exposition of the biblical legacy that goes beyond the limits of the individual rites, and thus it shares in the authority of the Church’s faith in its fundamental form.” [15] How could it be pastorally necessary to deny the faithful access to this?

Surely this is obvious, but it underpins an important liturgical point made by Notitiae, that “texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing during Mass”.[16] The liturgy is an integral whole and it offers within itself reflections on revealed truth. Within it are actions which might be described as “musicking”,[17] a selection of liturgical acts including, but not limited to, composing, singing and playing. “The fundamental nature and meaning of music lie not in [musical] objects, not in musical works at all, but in action, in what people do.”[18] The meaning of Liturgical music must always derive from the divine Logos.[19] The Holy Spirit leads us to the logiké latreia of intellectually coherent worthy worship and the liturgy has evolved to with this same Spirit at its heart. It has its form, but under Bugnini’s rubric it has begun to “[disintegrate] into formless intoxication”.[20] This is not the fault of the rite in its pure form, but as far as liturgical music is concerned, the liturgy has been undermined by the imposition of the personal choice, taste and innovation of the celebrant or parish liturgical committee and Bugnini’s rubric gives permission for this.

To compose, to sing, to play or to listen are their own respective ministerial functions in which Christ is served, but the most important is to stop and listen. This is the inverse of the traditional power structure of secular musicking.[21] In stripping the liturgy of its internal cohesive narrative, one limits the angles from which the prayerful participant can gaze upon the Truth. It is high time we at least tried to give the people the opportunity of inwardly praying the propers.