Paix liturgique

In our newsletter No. 1358 of April 15, 2026, we highlighted what La Croix reported regarding the bishops’ discussions during their last plenary assembly in Lourdes, held from March 24 to 27. According to the official daily of the French episcopate, all agreed that: “Behind the liturgy lie problems of doctrine and ecclesiology.”

There is, however, a need to question this observation, which is as obvious as stating the obvious. If, in fact, the bishops of France believe that behind the liturgy lie “problems of doctrine and ecclesiology” (which in itself is already an outrage, since the liturgy is normally supposed to be that clear and distinct language offering flawless worship to God and bringing the faithful closer to Heaven with certainty and precision), of which liturgy are they speaking, then? The reformed liturgy, composed under brutal conditions and within a hermeneutic of discontinuity? Or the traditional liturgy, celebrated for centuries and actively contributing throughout the Church to its doctrinal, disciplinary, and prayerful unity?

If one doubts the problems posed by the Reformed liturgy, one need only recall the famous memoirs of the liturgist Louis Bouyer, which recount in particular how the Eucharistic Prayer No. II was hastily cobbled together, with the spirit of the Council in full swing, on a café table in Trastevere (Memoirs, Louis Bouyer, Le Cerf, 2014): “We will get an idea of the deplorable conditions under which this hasty reform was rushed through once I have explained how the second Eucharistic Prayer was cobbled together. Between fanatics who were dabbling in archaeology haphazardly—who would have liked to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic Prayer, adopting Hippolytus’s Eucharist as is—and others who couldn’t care less about his so-called Apostolic Tradition but simply wanted a slapdash Mass, Dom Botte and I were tasked with patching up his text so as to introduce these elements—certainly older ones—by the next day! Fortunately, I discovered, in a text if not by Hippolytus himself, then at least in his style, a felicitous formula on the Holy Spirit that could serve as a transition, of the Vere sanctus type, to the brief epiclesis. Botte, for his part, concocted an intercession more worthy of Paul Reboux and his “In the manner of…” than of his own scholarship. But I cannot reread this implausible composition without thinking back to the terrace of the Transtévère bistro where we had to polish our assignment, so we could present it with him at the Bronze Gate at the hour set by our regents!”

Father Louis Bouyer, a former Protestant pastor who became a Catholic priest, theologian, and trusted liturgist to Pope Paul VI, was directly involved in the liturgical reform itself at Paul VI’s express request. The circumstances surrounding the development of the Mass—which the Church has always regarded as “the source and summit of Christian life”—illustrate the seriously rushed and improvised nature of the entire process.

Father Louis Bouyer denies having been “one of the primary architects of the wretched monstrosities now adorned with the name ‘new liturgy’” and argues, on the contrary, that he was one of the first to speak out against them, “utterly in vain, of course!” he writes. According to him, it was an entire context that fostered “problems of doctrine and ecclesiology,” to use the phrase of the bishops of France. “A fatal error of judgment placed the theoretical leadership of this committee in the hands of a generous and courageous but poorly educated man, Cardinal Lercaro. He was completely incapable of resisting the maneuvers of the smooth-talking scoundrel who soon revealed himself to be the Neapolitan Lazarist, Bugnini, who was as devoid of culture as he was of simple honesty.”

We know how the virtual absence of the Offertory in the new liturgy constitutes, among other things, a doctrinal breach and a highly problematic discontinuity. Louis Bouyer describes the doctrinal laxity of the new Offertory, a stumbling block thrown into what should have been the organic development of the sacred liturgy. Regarding the work of liturgical reform, he recounts a rather unflattering episode: “The worst was an implausible Offertory, in the sentimental-proletarian style of Catholic Action, the work of Father Cellier, who manipulated the despicable Bugnini with arguments within his reach, so as to push through his creation despite almost unanimous opposition.” What an atmosphere!

Thus, when the bishops of France assert that “behind the liturgy lie problems of doctrine and ecclesiology”—aiming, as we have clearly understood, not at the liturgical reform but by pointing the finger at the Vetus Ordo, may we respectfully remind them to exercise a little more historical-critical lucidity regarding sixty years of liturgical reforms. A liturgy without problems does exist, and it draws generations ever more eager to embrace it: it is the traditional liturgy. Yet the faithful must still have the opportunity to encounter it without difficulty. And that, precisely, is the problem to be resolved.