"I wish to thank Ignatius Press for the timely publication...

... in English of this new book by Nicola Bux, well known for his stance in promotion of the ideas of the Holy Father concerning the repair of the liturgical breach. "Timely" is the right word not because there is anything particularly new in the book, which might throw the advantage in "battle" to either reform group whether it be to those favoring restoration of the Roman Rite and subsequent organic growth within the tradition going back to St. Gregory the Great or be it to the reform of the reform people. Bux honestly and rightly makes his case for rallying to the standard of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He speaks clearly and convincingly of his understanding of the Pope's will that the usus antiquior find more general use everywhere (in every parish?) of the Catholic Church, thus enabling it to be that mirror to aid the reform of the reformed liturgy.

Bux touches masterfully upon the unquestionable merits of the Mass of the Ages when it comes to fulfilling that which is liturgy's role in the heart of the Church. He argues certain points better than I have seen in the dozen or more books on the topic, which I've had occasion to read and reflect upon over the last few years. Well done! And, yes, timely, Ignatius Press! Thank you!

I find myself particularly sensitive to and in agreement with his arguments, quoting the Pope, concerning kneeling as a posture for both liturgy and prayer (not to limit discussion to the reception of Holy Communion):

Read the rest of Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson's review of Nicola Bux's new book, Benedict XVI's Reform: The Liturgy Between Innovation and Tradition. Here is more about the book:

When Benedict XVI reestablished the celebration of the older Latin Mass, voices of protest rose up from many sides. The widespread fear was-and is-that the Pope had revealed himself as the reactionary defender of tradition that many have accused him of being since he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Holy Office.

Defenders of Benedict XVI have responded to these objections by explaining that the use of the Tridentine Rite is not a "step backward" to pre-Vatican II times, but rather a step forward. Now the Church can see what the older rite offered in terms of beauty, reverence, and meaning and perhaps desire more of those elements in the ordinary form of the Mass.

A professor of theology and liturgy, the author of this book explains the motives behind the Pope's decision to allow two forms of the Mass. He does this by turning to the Pope's own theological and liturgical writings, but he also draws from his experiences on various Church commissions and in offices of the Roman Curia.

The author also brings to his subject an astute understanding of current social and spiritual trends both inside and outside the Church. Sensitive to modern man's hunger for the sacred, he desires with Pope Benedict XVI that the Mass be first and foremost a place of encounter with the living God.

Nicola Bux is a priest of the Archdiocese of Bari and a professor of eastern liturgy and sacramental theology. He has studied and taught in Jerusalem and in Rome. He is a consultor to the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Causes of Saints and consultant of the international Catholic theological journal Communio. He was recently named a consultor to the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

The book is also available in electronic book formats.

Comments

[LJ]

"When Benedict XVI reestablished the celebration of the older Latin Mass, voices of protest rose up from many sides. The widespread fear was-and is-that the Pope had revealed himself as the reactionary defender of tradition that many have accused him of being since he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Holy Office."

I understand the author's point, yet I find myself bristling at the automatic ceding of many of us to the evaluation of "reactionary" presumed by so many of the modernist and dissenting ideologues who borrow the term from the political left. I in no way concede that "reactionary" is by definition a bad thing. On the contrary, the progressive must demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of their changes before gaining any credibility, as it should be.

Recently, at a wedding reception I had the opportunity to speak to a serious minded orthodox Eastern Orthodox relative and he expressed to me an opinion I found fascinating. He holds Benedict XVI in high regard, more so even than JPII precisely because of his willingness to take a firm stand on orthodoxy and by extension the liturgy, since the liturgy expresses the level of orthodoxy in large measure. This is especially true in the ordinary form, which, even in its strictest adherence holds enough flexibility to be a barometer of the spiritual condition of the priest at minimum and often the parish itself.

It seems to me that what was unsaid was that some Eastern Orthodox (and they have their bitter divisions as well) find that unification would be a lot more palatable were the Catholic Church to be able to get its own house in order. My young relative expressed great confidence in Benedict XVI to do so.