The Error of Historicism and the Liturgical Revolution
In one of his substantial articles dedicated to the position of the priest during the reading of the epistle and the Gospel in the liturgical context, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski described the erroneous interpretation proposed by an adept of the post-conciliar liturgical reform:
“In his presentation he opines that the reason the priest continues to read facing the altar is because the Roman Rite codified in 1570 (which we might simply call ‘the Tridentine rite’) was derived from the pope’s private-chapel curial rite, where there was no congregation, so there was no reason to turn around and read for anyone.”[i]
When I read the lines above, I was surprised to recognize in the position of the author who sparked Dr. Kwasniewski’s reaction ideas that I had already encountered in discussions with a liturgical studies specialist I have personally met. As I will show below, we are dealing with one of the errors of interpretation and attitude—‘historicism’—which has led to the attempt to eliminate the Roman Catholic liturgy. Before explaining the statement above, I will revisit, from Dr. Kwasniewski’s article, the very claims of the author in question:
“People have often wondered about this: why does the priest read the lections, read the scripture readings, facing the altar rather than facing the people? Well, it makes sense. If you’re in the pope’s private chapel and you’re doing the readings, there are no people there to be read to — it’s a private Mass. So it’s totally fitting that the priest would keep the Missal on the altar and read the readings facing the altar rather than facing the people; there are no people there to be read to.”
Later, at another point in his presentation, he revisits the same “argument” only to express his adherence to one of the revolutionary aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy:
“The readings and the Gospel: this makes very much sense, that [in the Novus Ordo] they’re going to be read not facing the altar away from the people, but read to the people, just as they were done in the Roman liturgy in the first millennium.”
Now, let us uncover the implicit premises of these statements.
In the first excerpt, a particular historical context is mentioned—that of the biblical readings during liturgies celebrated in the private chapel of the Pontiff—where the orientation was allegedly aimed at the position of the recipient of the sacred reading. In other words, the orientation was the result of the priest positioning himself to face the audience. The implicit premise is that the reading had a recipient—like in a classroom where the teacher speaks while facing the students. If the students are in the East, the teacher will turn to face the East. If they are in the North, the teacher will turn to face the North. And so on. Regardless of the listeners’ position, the teacher orients himself in their direction. Similarly, in the context of the liturgies in the Pope’s private chapel, the one reading—the priest—would turn to face the direction in which the Holy Father was seated. Thus, a simple, accidental circumstance of this kind would have dictated the priest’s position.
"Those who came before us, lacking the advanced methods of modern “science” (i.e., textual criticism), were mistaken. And we, the moderns, must correct them." This attitude of suspicion toward everything we have received in the context of Christian Tradition is pervasive.
Hence, the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent reform through the new liturgy of Pope Paul VI merely made changes to correct the results of obsolete historical circumstances. Now, readings are performed facing the people. The hidden premise implied here—present in the second quote from the aforementioned professor’s presentation—is the same underlying the elimination of the Latin language: the people must be—and are—the “target” of the sacred readings. From such a perspective, any other interpretation of the priest’s position is excluded, and the reform of Pope Paul VI can be applauded without doubt or question. As I have already mentioned, what interests me is the attitude underlying such an interpretation.
The discussions I have had with a specialist in liturgical studies have consistently left me astounded. I emphasize that my interlocutor was not just any theologian but a true scholar of liturgies: he knew a wealth of historical details about the various rites of the Catholic Church, and being a priest himself, he was familiar with them not only from the outside. And yet, most of the time, what he explained had a single conclusion: “those who came before” (Saints and Doctors included) were wrong, and the liturgy needed to be corrected. Evidently, the Novus Ordo mass had already made many of these corrections, but they were insufficient. Moreover, something similar should also be done with the rites of the Eastern (or Byzantine) Catholic Churches, which use the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, presented condescendingly as being ‘behind’ the Novus Ordo liturgy. The details don’t matter. What matters is the core: those before were wrong, and we, today, must correct their mistakes.
If we scrutinize this core, we will always rediscover it underlying the assertions of the majority of contemporary “specialists” in various branches of theology. For example, the Church and its Doctors erred in the past by considering the anonymous author of the famous treatise The Mystical Theology to be Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. Today, he is merely Pseudo-Dionysius—an anonymous figure who is neither a saint nor even an author with a certain identity. Similarly, they think that errors were made regarding Sacred Scripture: most of its books—from the first, those of Moses’ Pentateuch, to the last, the Apocalypse of Saint John—were not written by the inspired authors unanimously recognized by Christian Tradition. In the biblical study books and manuals, one can find a plethora of such statements. Likewise, catechesis relies on texts by the Saints and Doctors of the Church—deemed erroneous or uncertain—that have not been validated by modern textual criticism and its specialists. For example, a certain scholar is dissatisfied with the current rites for the initiation of Catholic adults. Here is the reason:
“What is problematic (...) is that the many versions of Church orders were not subjected to critical analysis by scholars of the sixteenth through early twentieth centuries who discovered surviving manuscripts of these texts and/or published print editions. Also at the issue is that some compositions attributed to individual Church Fathers are pseudepigraphical writings. Despite subsequent investigations that dispute, on the basis of obvious anachronisms and absence of verifiable historical information, the presumed authorship or date of Church orders and pseudepigraphia accepted by the consensus, these writings continue to be provided, and consulted, in respected reference works such as Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca as depictions of the Early Church.”[ii]
The enormity of this type of statements cannot be overstated. Such “specialists” aim to scrutinize everything and—under the presumption of potential historical errors—issue certificates of accuracy to all authors and texts handed down to us within the context of Christian Tradition. A veritable idol for these “scholars,” the historical-critical method has caused countless casualties—among them, as mentioned earlier, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite (to whom we could easily add Saints Sebastian and Nicholas, among many others). Even the Gregorian-Tridentine Liturgy itself was replaced as a direct result of their efforts.
Their essential premise, as reflected in the explanations concerning the priest’s position during liturgical readings offered by the author cited by Dr. Kwasniewski, is the following one: those who came before us, lacking the advanced methods of modern “science” (i.e., textual criticism), were mistaken. And we, the moderns, must correct them. This attitude of suspicion toward everything we have received in the context of Christian Tradition is pervasive.
The difference between this forma mentis (i.e., mindset) and the attitude of the great Saints and Doctors is immense. To demonstrate this, let us consider one illustrative example.
For a faithful interpreter of Christian Tradition, what is best and most perfect is never what comes after but what came before. History does not follow an ascending, evolutionary direction but rather a descending, devolutive one.
The Traditional Mystagogy of the Holy Liturgy
The Christian Mystagogical Tradition is incredibly rich. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, as well as other authors (perhaps most notably Cardinal Henri de Lubac), have written about classical commentaries in the Latin tradition, such as On the Liturgy by Amalarius of Metz (c.77–c.850) and Jewel of the Soul by Honorius Augustodunensis (c.1080–c.1140). In the Greek tradition, the small treatise On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy by Saint Dionysius the Areopagite shines brightly. However, the most important, unique, and unparalleled work in the entire context of Christian Tradition is Mystagogia by Saint Maximus the Confessor (c.580–662). It is to this work that I wish to draw your attention, to observe the author’s attitude toward the Holy Liturgy.
Although brief, Saint Maximus’s treatise interprets both the architectural symbolism of holy places and the mystical meanings of the Holy Liturgy. His interpretations are guided by three central axes:
The Theological Axis: this pertains to how God is made present through all ecclesial-liturgical symbols:
“The Holy Church of God is an image of God because it realizes the same union of the faithful with God. As different as they are by language, places, and customs, they are made one by it through faith. God realizes this union among the natures of things without confusing them but in lessening and bringing together their distinction, as was shown, in a relationship and union with Himself as cause, principle, and end.”[iii]
The Cosmological Axis: both the Church (as a place of worship) and the Holy Liturgy make accessible—through symbols—the intelligible world, which is now invisible to our bodily eyes but accessible to the contemplative minds of well-formed believers:
“The entire world of beings produced by God in creation is divided into a spiritual world filled with intelligible and incorporeal essences and into this sensible and bodily world which is ingeniously woven together of many forms and natures. This is like another sort of Church not of human construction which is wisely revealed in this church which is humanly made, and it has for its sanctuary the higher world assigned to the powers above, and for its nave the lower world which is reserved to those who share the life of sense.”[iv]
The Anthropological Axis: Saint Maximus shows that there are profound correspondences between the structure of sacred architecture and liturgy and the constitutive structure of the human being:
“From another point of view (…) that holy church is like a man because for the soul it has the sanctuary, for mind it has the divine altar, and for body it has the nave. It is thus the image and likeness of man who is created in the image and likeness of God. By means of the nave, representing the body, it proposes moral wisdom, while by means of the sanctuary, representing the soul, it spiritually interprets natural contemplation, and by means of the mind of the divine altar it manifests mystical theology.”[v]
The mystical-symbolic explanations of Saint Maximus the Confessor merit not one but several articles (or even books). For now, I wish to emphasize the author’s intellectual humility. Not only does he specify from the outset that his formidable interpretation was received from a holy elder who initiated him into the sacred Christian mysteries, but he never, at any point, questions the treasure he received. Reading his works, one realizes that, for him, a discussion about the details of the Holy Liturgy in the manner of today’s authors—who analyze in order to “reform” what they have inherited—is inconceivable.
The same is true for the Holy Scripture. You will not find in Saint Maximus or other Church Fathers a “critical” approach to the sacred texts. For them, as for us, these were written by the very prophets and apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit, who have always been recognized as their authors. Implicitly or explicitly, the premise of the ancient Saints and Doctors was always that Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments of the Church, as well as iconography, sacred architecture, and sacred music, are transmitted and preserved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Questioning their presumed “errors” is simply an unacceptable attitude.
In this light, to consider that the priest’s position during sacred readings in the liturgical context is the result of a historical accident is utterly absurd. When it comes to Sacred Scripture and the Church’s worship, we can be sure that the Holy Spirit has not overseen the transmission of accidents. What we have received are contents that challenge our capacity to understand, often exceeding it. The only thing a true interpreter of Holy Tradition can do is to prayerfully and meditatively ask what their profound explanation is and what divine reasons lie behind them.
For a faithful interpreter of Christian Tradition, what is best and most perfect is never what comes after but what came before. History does not follow an ascending, evolutionary direction but rather a descending, devolutive one, moving toward the eschaton. In the face of the mysteries of sacred texts and the Church’s Sacraments, neither science nor technology, nor any other “achievement” of the modern world can assist us: only the Holy Spirit, who has always guided Christian Tradition, can aid in understanding and interpreting them.
This is why the “key” to knowledge and wisdom is not the scholarly study according to the historical-critical method but the art of prayerful contemplation—humble prayer of the mind directed toward the One whom Saint Augustine considered the only true Teacher, according to the Gospel:
“One is your master, Christ” (“Magister vester unus est, Christus” —Matthew 23:10).
Latest from RTV — ABUSE OF POWER: Pope Accused of Violating Religious Freedom
[i] Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Why the Epistle Should Be Read Eastwards and the Gospel Northwards (Part 1):” https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/why-the-epistle-should-be-read-eastwards? [Accessed: 21 January].
[ii] Lynne C. Boughton, “An Imagined Past: Initiation, Liturgical Secrecy, and „Mass of the Catechumens,” în Antiphon, 25.2, 2021, pp. 165-166.
[iii] “The Church’s Mystagogy,” in Saint Maximus, Selected Writings, Translation and Notes by George C. Berthold, Introduction by Jaroslav Pelikan, Preface by Irénée-Henri Dalmais, New York, Paulist Press, pp. 187-188.
[iv] Ibidem, p. 188.
[v] Ibidem, pp. 189-190.
