Thomas M. Kocik

In this unique book, Father Thomas Kocik sets out to redress a specific problem: the counterproductive mutual antagonism between two camps of liturgical conservatism. On one side are the “traditionalists” who argue that a return to the Roman Missal of 1962 is the only way out of the current liturgical crisis. On the other side are the reformists” who are working instead on a reform of the liturgical reform, i.e. a proper implementation of The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, according to the true intention of the Council Fathers. Both camps are deeply dissatisfied with the results of the modern liturgical reform carried out in the wake of Vatican II. They are also united in their mutual desire “to restore a pronounced sense of the sacred and transcendent dimensions of worship and to halt the seemingly endless array of banalities, abuses, and innovations that mark the modern liturgical landscape” (15). But they are sharply divided regarding how to accomplish these things.
Father Kocik’s goal here is not to take part in this debate between “traditionalists” and “reformists”, but to remind both sides that in this case it can truly be said that what unites us is greater than what divides us. As he states in the introduction, “I believe that their heretofore mutual antagonism is counterproductive and that a traditionalist-reformist engagement can go a long way toward achieving the liturgical stability and suitability so desperately needed in Roman Catholicism” (17). A house divided against itself cannot stand.
In order thus to encourage cooperation and understanding between “traditionalists” and “reformists”, Father Kocik presents a debate between fictitious representatives of these two positions. He does this not in order to prove or refute either position, indeed it is to his credit that he refrains from doing either, but precisely to show that “both sides have legitimate arguments and concerns that neither side can afford to ignore” (17). It is evidence of a balanced and incisive mind that Father Kocik sets out the “traditionalist” and the “reformist” positions fairly, maintaining an objective distance, as it were, from his debaters. Although one might guess that Father Kocik would side with the “reformist”, this is by no means certain within the debate. He avoids the ever present temptation to set up a straw man as his opponent (as the debaters accuse each other of doing on occasion).
Despite the somewhat popular sensation generated by the give and take of the debate format, the debaters have clearly done their homework. The debate is thoroughly footnoted, as both sides call frequently upon such authoritative liturgical scholars as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Aidon Nichols, O.P., Michael Davies, and Brian Harrison, O.S. among others.
Moreover, what follows the main body of the book cannot be passed over in silence. The epilogue by the Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, and six appendices constitute more than half of the book. The appendices containing the 1962 and 1970 Roman Missals with English translations are particularly helpful, providing a handy reference for the comparison between the two that occupies much of the debate. But the hidden gems of this book are Fr. Brian Harrison’s essay, “The Postconciliar Eucharist Liturgy: Planning a ‘Reform of the Reform’,” and the following responses to his proposal: “Salutary Dissatisfaction: An English View of ‘Reforming the Reform’” by Aidan Nichols, O.P., “A Reform of the Reform?” by the Reverend J. P. Parsons, and “A Question of Ceremonial” by Monsignor Peter J. Elliott.
Any liturgical scholar who would consider himself a “traditionalist” or a “reformist” should read this book. It is addressed to you. But any Catholic who is concerned about the state of the liturgy will find this book to be helpful. By following the debate the beginner will gain an overview of the guiding principles of the post-conciliar liturgical reform and the continuity (or lack thereof) between the 1962 and 1970 Roman Missals.… (más)