Few issues are more contentious in contemporary American Catholicism than the proper celebration of the Liturgy. When major changes were first made to the Mass in the late 1960s, those who were critical of the reform could adequately be described as a tiny minority in the church. Since that time, however, the groundswell of criticism has grown, such that liturgical traditionalists now occupy a noticeable and enduring place in ecclesial life. The two works under review represent the fruits of conversation among what could be described as the academic wing of the traditionalist movement. While some readers may quibble with the foundational commitments of the contributors, anyone who comes to these books with a hermeneutic of generosity will find something to be challenged by, as the overall quality of the essays is quite strong.

The first of the two volumes—Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century (2016)—contains diverse perspectives, but the chapters betray in underlying unity in that the authors all share a profound respect for Pope Benedict XVI. The index notes at least 62 references to Benedict/Ratzinger, far more than any other theologian or author who is cited in the book. In this volume, two chapters stand out from the rest: the essay by Alcuin Reid, “Holy Week Reform Revisited,” and Peter Kwasniewski’s treatment of “The Reform of the Lectionary,” both of which blend careful attention to historical detail with a deft handling of the theological issues relevant to the topic they are treating. While an author like Kwasniewski is primarily occupied with expanding the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (EF), other contributors (e.g., Kurt Belsole and Richard Cipolla) focus their attention more so on “a reform of the reform”—which is to say, they seek to draw upon the riches of the Catholic tradition to correct what they see as defects in how the postconciliar liturgical reform was implemented. Even though the overall mood of the book is one of disappointment in the present state of liturgical practice, it would be unfair to accuse the authors of having an axe to grind. Underneath any criticisms that are leveled, one can sense a deep and abiding loyalty to the church as the body of Christ and, in turn, a desire for the members of that body to experience an authentic encounter with the living God in the context of solemn and reverently celebrated liturgies.

The second volume—Authentic Liturgical Renewal in Contemporary Perspective (2017)—in many ways carries on the conversation that was commenced in the first volume. This makes sense, as the two books gleaned their contributions from successive meetings of the Sacra Liturgia Conference. The second volume is thinner than the first, but matches its predecessor in terms of substance. Robert Cardinal Sarah sets the tone for the second volume in his chapter two essay, “Towards an Authentic Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” After providing a critical analysis of “what has happened following the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC],” Cardinal Sarah proceeds to offer practical considerations for moving towards a more authentic implementation of SC today. These include making the full and rich celebration of the EF an integral part of liturgical formation for clergy, clarifying for the faithful that active participation is “primarily internal,” and recovering an ad orientem posture for the celebration of the Mass, in which priests and the faithful both face the same direction—i.e., towards the liturgical “East.” The essays that follow Sarah’s generally share his basic outlook regarding the theology of the Mass,  applying this perspective to such diverse topics as the public nature of the liturgy, the ethical character of the mysteries, stewardship of creation, and care for the poor.

As intimated near the start of this review, these are well-researched, thought-provoking reflections on the history and status of the most recent liturgical reform. My hope is that those theologians who do not share the general persuasion of the contributors will not prejudge these essays or dismiss their suggestions too hastily. The tendency in intra-ecclesial debates about matters liturgical is for those participating to dig in their heels and to accuse their opponents of being unreasonable. One can see this pattern of engagement on both sides of the liturgical divide. Liturgical traditionalists, especially in the blogosphere, tend to fixate on the most unfortunate expressions of contemporary liturgical practice and then proceed to draw broad generalizations about the reform as a whole, while those who are ardent defenders of the reform sometimes accuse their more traditionally minded brothers and sisters of rejecting Vatican II or of falling prey to unfounded nostalgia (Massimo Faggioli’s True Reform is perhaps the most prominent example of this latter tendency, several times charging his opponents with being “anti-Vatican II” and “moved by nostalgia,” in some such cases without taking the time to cite whose work he has in view). In the case of the two books under review, I personally hope that those who are skeptical of “the new liturgical movement” will read these essays charitably and with an open mind. Most of the contributors are solid scholars who display a sound grasp of liturgical theology and of the church’s ritual heritage. Dismissing their arguments out of hand by accusing them of nostalgia or of being opposed to the Council would not only be unfruitful, it would be unjust.