Correspondence from last summer between Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, England and Archbishop Arthur Roche, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW), was recently leaked and can be found in various places online. Cardinal Nichols addressed pertinent questions about the implementation of Traditionis Custodes<\/em> to the CDW late last July, and Archbishop Roche responded in early August with some pretty clear statements about the proper interpretation of the pope\u2019s document restricting the preconciliar Latin Mass.<\/p>\n Roche\u2019s response, which is \u201cpersonal\u201d in nature because more official guidelines have not yet been issued, makes the following points:<\/p>\n *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n In 1981, German theologian and liturgist Theodor Maas-Ewerd released a study of the liturgical crisis of the 1930s and 1940s titled Die Krise der Liturgischen Bewegung in Deutschland und \u00d6sterreich: Zu den Auseinandersetzungen um die \u201cliturgicsche Frage\u201d in den Jahren 1939 bis 1944 \u2013 <\/em>which one could translate as \u201cThe Crisis of the Liturgical Movement in Germany and Austria: On the Struggles around the \u2018Liturgical Question\u2019 in the Years 1939 to 1944.\u201d<\/p>\n The Liturgical Movement was rapidly advancing in central Europe at that time, and the Germans and Austrians were leaders in adapting the Tridentine Mass to be, within the limited options then possible, more participative and communal. But some, including very vocal bishops, objected to these efforts. The push for vernacular, increasing experimentation with Mass facing the people, unduly lengthening Mass by distributing Communion during <\/em>Mass \u2013 all these were under attack. Leading German-speaking bishops rose up to defend the Liturgical Movement.<\/p>\n The response of Rome came in the papal encyclicals Mystici Corporis<\/em> (1943) and Mediator Dei<\/em> (1947) which largely affirmed the Liturgical Movement.<\/p>\n Maas-Ewerd calls it (in my translation) \u201can exemplary model for the resolution of a crisis in the life of the church.\u201d Criticisms of the Liturgical Movement, divisions around it in the episcopate, ultimately served to bring about an official affirmation in its favor.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve wondered for some time whether something similar might ever happen regarding the binding nature of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. We have a difference of opinion around whether the continued celebration of the preconciliar liturgy comports with the Council, provided the adherents do not explicitly reject the Council, or whether the Council intended that the preconciliar liturgy be replaced by a reformed one.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s the latter. I suggest this comparison \u2013 which admittedly works in the U.S. and not in the U.K. but you\u2019ll get the point: If I recognize that the law requires me to drive in the right-hand lane, and acknowledge the rightful authority that made this decision, this does not leave me free to drive in the left-hand land.<\/p>\n\n