Louis Bouyer (1913-2004) was a former Lutheran minister who was received into the Catholic Church in 1939 and became a priest of the French Oratory. He was a theologian and exerted a strong influence at Vatican II as a peritus in the sphere of liturgy. With Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar he was a founder of the periodical Communio (which was countered by Kung’s and Rahners Concilium). Today is the 2oth anniversary of Bouyer’s death.
In his memoirs, Bouyer has anecdotes about how the Conciliar liturgical reform was perpetrated…. er um… implemented. For example:
October 3rd — Sainte Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus (Roman calendar and a local Saint here in Normandy)…
Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!
Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?
Paul VI: But I don’t understand: I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: “Here is what the experts are asking for.” And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.
Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: “The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy.” And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.
Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: “The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that”. And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.
The Novus Ordo… what the Council Father’s wanted?
Also, at The Catholic Thing today there is a piece about Bouyer’s view of “Catholicism” which might not be what you think it is. He thought that, within the Church, there were polar opposite ideologies of progressivism and integralism. Distinctions can and must be made.
BTW… if anyone knows for sure the name of the restaurant where Bouyer and Bernard Botte cobbled up in an evening the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer, drop me a line.
The English translation of The Memoirs of Louis Bouyer: From Youth and Conversion to Vatican II, the Liturgical Reform, and After has finally been produced. UK – HERE
This is an important first hand account of what happened in the liturgical “reform” sparked by Vatican II.
Click to buy!
Loading ...
But if the Holy Father knew he was being deceived, why didn’t he put an end to it all and undo any changes that had been made? This reminds me of the story of the same pope discovering he had done away with the Octave of Pentecost and then weeping. Didn’t he have the power to fix this, if he knew it was wrong? I don’t understand.
Pingback: TVESDAY MID-DAY EDITION | BIG PULPIT
Neither Amazon nor Bookfinder have a copy of The Decomposition of Catholicism, but I’ve put in a request via interlibrary loan. I’ll probably get the Kindle edition of Fr. Bouyer’s memoir.
So interesting that you post this today, Father. As I woke up early and began my rosary, my mind drifted to so many decades ago, at Mass as a very young wife and mother, and the priest made changes to the Mass, it felt so wrong! It was just beginning! (It was around 1969.)
@suzannaleigh,
There is so much here I would like to understand as well. Maybe there is a book about it that I haven’t heard of? The only theory I can come up with that makes any sense is that Paul VI constrained himself to follow whatever process was put in place for liturgical reform, since he thought that that would be how any reform would be viewed as legitimate by the Catholic Church as a whole. In other words, if he just made a significant liturgical change by just publishing a letter primarily on his own authority as Pope, it wouldn’t be properly accepted. Maybe the response to Humanae Vitae played into that. I am of the impression that many faithful Catholics don’t feel similarly constrained. We know that dissenters and libs will rage if the Pope “does the right thing” no matter what. And, frankly, we don’t care. The right must be done regardless, especially for Christ and His Church! Today, here is no more fragile Catholic consensus that must be carefully managed.
I am sure that many of us have had that particular type of boss where anything that caused problems for the workers was never his fault, something that he was blindsided by (or tricked into), and something he wished was another way, yet he never did anything to correct what he was saying was a mistake. Obviously, all the “gee-whizzes”, “aw-shucks “, “copious tears” etc. are hand-waving and those actions were precisely what the boss wanted as it was by his power that they were done, and by his power that they stayed done.
As for Fr. Louis Bouyer, my interesting question is whether or not he undertook any actions to undo what he did and realizing the mistakes of such things as Eucharistic Prayer 2, or is this just the case of someone seeking change, being used as lever to make change, and then discarded once his usefulness was over for those that sought to get the ball rolling so that they could make a completely different type of change and just laments that his “learned experience” was cast aside?
Father,
As you are probably aware, the reference in Fr. Bouyer’s memoirs was to the terrace of a cafe (unnamed) in Trastevere. Dom Bernard Botte apparently gave his recollections of the event in his book, ‘From Silence to Participation’. Perhaps, if you have access to this book you may find more detail of the meeting between Botte and Bouyer, including the name of the cafe. Incidentally, it has always been my interpretation of Fr. Bouyer’s account, that the meeting in the cafe occurred in the morning over breakfast, but this is largely supposition based on F. Bouyer’s statement that he and Botte were given the assignment to produce a canon drawn from Apostolic Tradition the day before the work product was to be presented to the subcommittee and the meeting between the two on the terrace of the cafe was to put final touches to their individual work products before the morning subcommittee meeting. But, perhaps it could also have been an evening meeting. In any event, perhaps Dom Botte’ account may provide further answers.
OldProfK (and others):
Please be aware that there are two different English versions, or rather translations, of Fr. Bouyer’s Memoirs: one (pictured above) from Angelico Press, the other from Ignatius Press. Neither publisher was aware until very late that there was another version in preparation. How this came about boils down to the fact that a decade or more before his death Fr. Bouyer dropped off a manuscript copy of his autobiography at the Ignatius Press office in San Francisco, suggesting that they might wish to publish a translation after his death, but when he died his literary executor, having no knowledge of the “drop off” years previously at Ignatius Press, went ahead to commission an English translation on his own. Eventually, and happily, an amicable agreement was reached between Angelico Press and Ignatius Press.
Both translations are excellent and elegant (I read the original French version before either one of the English versions had been published). I would state, though, that the notes accompanying the Angelico Press version are far more copious, detailed, and revealing than those of the other one.
And as for the questions of “Ariseyedead” and “Lurker 59,” Bouyer addresses some of these issues in his Memoirs, if in some cases a bit indirectly.
~~…if anyone knows for sure the name of the restaurant where Bouyer and Bernard Botte cobbled up in an evening the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer, drop me a line…~~
.
Either Fr. Joseph Fessio and/or Erasmo Merikakis Leiva would almost certainly know for sure.
However the details vary, the outline is correct. We have enough clues to piece it together:
– Bouyer and “Botte”,
– in the Tradtevere restaurant,
– with the lead (pencil).
For those of you in the know with Italian, “botte” has a double-meaning.
One of my heroes also had much to say about this period, the great Dietrich Von Hildebrand. I believe it was “The Trojan Horse In The City of God”. He also referenced the Pope’s tears and much more. Then there’s a small booklet from Tan Books showing the efforts of 2 great Cardinals, Oddi and the other Cardinal whose name just escaped me. They tried to reverse the changes and wrote against them; two more of my heroes, may they rest in peace.
Once all but four of the bishops at VII had voted for a modest reform of the liturgy there was a great clamour from many clergy to bring in changes quickly. And in some parts of Europe many unauthorised changes, something like 40 different Eucharistic Prayers were in print in Flemish, Dutch, or German. In these circumstances Paul VI thought he needed to get a definitive new Missal into print urgently, and then hold everyone to it, to avoid schism. Almost nobody was satisfied with the result, but the Latin version stayed unchanged for 30 years, because most bishops were opposed to further upheaval.
And remember that these were years of race riots, draft riots, assasinations etc. in the US; and in Europe universities were centres of unrest and riots toppled governments.
Also remember that the NO was being drafted while the shock of Humanae Vitae was still rattling the pews “!!Pope holds firm to traditional teaching!!”
@sandy. Ottaviani
Way back in the ‘90’s I heard a talk (cassette tape) by ScottHahn in which he mentioned a book by Bouyer that had been recommended to him by another reform seminarian. It was an early step in his conversion. My university’s library had it, it being written while a second Vatican council was considered only a possibility. In it he raised the question: “what if the Mass is what Jesus taught the apostles?” as a response to Protestant critics of it. He also pointed out that Protestantism had been a failure, which is why it requires so many revivals. So it does not surprise me he did not like the reforms.
Interestingly, I have just read a couple of reviews of a new book about a Father Mankowski, SJ who was silenced by his superiors because he actually believed the faith.