Dom Prosper Guéranger has been called the “grandfather” of the Liturgical Movement,¹ a century-long effort within the Catholic Church to inspire deeper understanding and greater appreciation for the liturgy of the Roman rite through liturgical piety, which Dom Alcuin Reid defines as “drawing one’s spiritual nourishment from active and conscious contemplation of the faith of the Church as it is celebrated and expressed in the liturgical rites and prayers throughout the annual round of seasons and feasts of the liturgical year, as distinct from the practice of an unrelated, however worthy, devotional exercise.”² Alongside his many other efforts which contributed to this project, Guéranger summarized the errors which he and many future proponents of the Liturgical Movement sought to correct in popular approaches to the liturgy through what he called the “anti-liturgical heresy.”³

The development of the liturgy can be measured according to Guéranger’s description of this heresy as he found it in the early Church, the Protestant Revolution, and through the errors of the Jansenists and Gallicans of Guéranger’s own time, as well as the varied threads of this heresy which were woven into the Liturgical Movement in the 20th century. Guéranger divided the anti-liturgical heresy into 12 distinct criteria: (1) hatred of Tradition; (2) substitution of ecclesiastical formulae for readings exclusively from Scripture; (3) fabrication of innovative formulae; (4) antiquarianism; (5) demystification of the liturgy; (6) “pharisaical coldness”⁴ in liturgical prayer; (7) removal of all intermediaries (Marian devotion, communion of saints, etc.); (8) replacement of sacred languages with the vernacular; (9) simplification of rites and easing of religious duties; (10) rejection of papal authority; (11) laicization, denying the sacramental nature of the ministerial priesthood; and (12) confusion of the roles of priests and laity in liturgical reform.

Hatred of Tradition

Guéranger begins his formulation of the anti-liturgical heresy with its most overriding criterion: hatred of tradition. He explains that the liturgy, “which is Tradition at its strongest and best,” acts as the buttress against all doctrinal error. As such, those in history who wished to introduce innovative doctrines only had to deform the liturgy, to substitute the heritage of Tradition which it maintains for their own hymns, prayers, and lessons, for the faithful to be subjected to and formed in their falsehoods. Through these cunning and often subtle changes, “the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.”

Liturgical innovators who seek to violate tradition and form the faithful in false doctrines have tended to uphold one common criterion: the need for all the formulae of the liturgy to derive exclusively from Scripture, as Guéranger explains: “This involves two advantages: first, to silence the voice of Tradition of which sectarians are always afraid. Then, there is the advantage of propagating and supporting their dogmas by means of affirmation and negation. By way of negation, in passing over in silence, through cunning, the texts which express doctrine opposed to errors they wish to propagate; by way of affirmation, by emphasizing truncated passages which show only one side of the truth, hide the other [from] the eyes of the unlearned.”

Ultimately, this second criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy falls prey to the same weaknesses as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura: the choice of readings and even the canon of the Bible, as well as its interpretation, rely entirely upon “the caprice of the reformer, who, in final analysis, decides the meaning of the word itself.” On the other hand, the formulae inherited from Tradition reflect the infallible teaching of the Church and the integral meaning of Scripture; many of them were composed by saints and, like the creeds and definitions of the ecumenical councils, they codify and explicate the truth of God without bias. In place of these traditional formulae, and as his third criterion, Guéranger explains that the heretics “fabricate and introduce various formulas, filled with perfidy, by which the people are more surely ensnared in error.” These innovations prove to be the true motive for the application of sola scriptura to liturgical tradition.

Antiquarianism

Alongside sola scriptura, liturgical deformers will also frequently commit themselves to Guéranger’s fourth criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: antiquarianism. Proponents of this heresy claim that only what is most ancient is truly pure, whereas later developments are those which “the errors and passions of man have mixed in.” As a result, antiquarianism seeks to purge the liturgy “from whatever is ‘false’ and ‘unworthy of God.’” Accordingly, “they prune, they efface, they cut away; everything falls under their blows, and while one is waiting to see the original purity of the divine cult reappear, one finds himself encumbered with new formulas dating only from the night before, and which are incontestably human, since the one who created them is still alive.”

This “pruning” can include the deletion of practices which are considered to be mere late “accretions”⁵ yet are later proven not to be so, such as ad orientem prayer which “the early Church…regarded as an apostolic tradition” since “it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and, indeed, of private prayer).”⁶ It would also involve the exclusion of cherished customs, such as the elevatio at the Consecration or the reading of the Last Gospel, which developed from centuries of pious devotion. In rejecting later developments in tradition, antiquarianism, in Guéranger’s words, “cut[s] them [the Christian faithful] off from the entire past.”

Pope Pius XII clearly condemned antiquarianism only a few years before the Second Vatican Council: “[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device…; one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See…. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise” (Mediator Dei, §62, 64).⁷

Anthropocentrism and Demystification

A fundamental aim of the anti-liturgical heresy, in all its historical and modern forms, is the subjection of the liturgy, and the tradition which it monumentalizes, to human interests; this has sometimes been called anthropocentrism, in which “we want to find God on our terms, not on His terms; we want to worship Him in our way, not His way.”⁸ According to Guéranger’s fifth and sixth criteria (demystification of the liturgy and “pharisaical coldness” in liturgical prayer), all teachings, formulae, prayers, and devotions which seem mysterious or arresting must be removed while any perceived obstacles to easy comprehension and external participation must also be “reformed.” This dry rationalism often involves the elimination, simplification, or deemphasis of sensible signs in order to demystify and didacticize the liturgy, the effect of which is “the total extinction of that spirit of prayer, which in Catholicism, we call unction,” since “[a] heart in revolt can no longer love.” Following from this is the seventh criterion, in which man, “[p]retending to treat nobly with God…has no need of intermediaries.” Thus, the intercession of the saints is made superfluous in a liturgy that has been demystified and brought down to man’s level.

The ultimate result of this anthropocentrism, warns Guéranger, is “no more Sacraments, except Baptism, preparing the way for Socialism, which freed its followers even from Baptism. No more sacramentals, blessings, images, relics of Saints, processions, pilgrimages, etc. No more altar, only a table, no more sacrifice as in every religion, but only a meal…. No more religious architecture, since there is no more mystery. No more Christian paintings and sculpture, since there is no more sensible religion.” In the end, Guéranger concludes, when the faith centers on man rather than God, it is gutted of all meaning.

But those seeking to destroy the liturgy also set their sights on the language of the liturgy itself. One of the most ubiquitous and effective methods of demystifying the liturgy is the imposition of vernacularism, the eighth criterion of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy. By exchanging a sacred language with a mundane vernacular, the reverence and sacrality of the liturgy are essentially destroyed as it is reduced to the level of the commonplace. As a result, the liturgy loses its universality, becoming particular to each culture according to language, and hindering the ability to participate in a universal prayer no matter the locale. A dull vernacular liturgy easily falls prey to the arbitrary customizations of the people, as well as confusions of doctrine between languages, whereas a sacred language maintains continuity with tradition and unity within each of the six liturgical traditions (rites) which trace back to the apostles and together make up the Catholic Church (“the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (sometimes called Byzantine)”).⁹ As Pope St. John XXIII taught (quoting Pope Pius XI), “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time…, of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular” (Veterum Sapientia).

From a desire for expediency, vernacularism leads to Guéranger’s ninth criterion, the easing of other sacrifices in the life of the faithful: “no more fasting, no more abstinence, no more genuflections in prayer” and the lessening of “the sum of public and private prayers.” Once a sacred language has been abandoned, “from that moment on the liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks in the marketplace.” While Guéranger focuses on Latin (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §36), which he describes as “the bond among Catholics throughout the universe [and] the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit,” this same virtue of a single language can also be applied to the Eastern rites, which often use ancient or specialized forms of vernacular languages to inspire reverence and preserve Tradition,¹⁰ or to the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship which employs archaic English for similar purposes.

Throughout history, anti-liturgical heretics have consistently rejected the unique office of the papacy as the guarantor of orthodoxy, the sign of universality, and the final arbiter of conflict, substituting themselves as the sole authority to customize the liturgy and interpret Scripture. Guéranger lists this usurpation as his tenth criterion. From it follows the eleventh criterion of the anti-liturgical heresy: the laicization of the priesthood as a whole. When the liturgy is rationalized and brought down to the merely human level, a sacramental priesthood, acting in persona Christi, is impossible.

One consequence of this anti-clerical “presbyterianism” is Guéranger’s twelfth and final criterion, wherein he warns against “secular or lay persons assuming authority in liturgical reform.” He recognized that this inevitably leads, like vernacularism, to “the liturgy, and consequently dogma, [becoming] an entity limited by the boundaries of a nation or region.”¹¹ As liturgy scholar Peter Kwasniewski has noted, the laicizing of the priesthood, in doctrine or in practice, is also not infrequently responsible for the confusion of roles in the liturgy, by which tasks proper to the ordained are appropriated by laypeople.¹² Both of these final criteria blur the distinctions between the universal baptismal priesthood and the special ministerial priesthood, thus subjecting liturgical tradition to the local and individual preferences of the laity. In so doing, much of the mystery and universality of the sacraments is destroyed through a false democratization, as extraordinary ministers fill the sanctuary while the priest and deacon return to their seats.

Tradition as Living Organism

From Guéranger’s negative criteria of the anti-liturgical heresy, Dom Alcuin Reid deduced positive principles which clarify and affirm liturgical tradition: “[corresponding to criteria 1 and 2] [to] protect the place of non-scriptural texts in the organic whole of the Liturgy; [3] innovate rarely and only where necessary; [4] reject antiquarianism out of respect for the living, developed Liturgy; [5] protect all that speaks of the supernatural and of mystery in the Liturgy; [6] similarly, protect the nature of Liturgy as prayer and worship lest it be reduced to a didactic exercise; [7] treasure the role of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints in the Liturgy; [8] reject vernacularism; [9] resist the temptation to sacrifice the Liturgy for the sake of speed; [10] rejoice in liturgical unity with the Church of Rome; and, [11 and 12] to respect the particular liturgical roles and authority of the ordained.”¹³

Answering these various components of the anti-liturgical heresy requires a thorough understanding of liturgical tradition in light of these positive principles. The liturgy must develop organically, as Vatican II taught: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23). Guéranger also summarized this rule: “Progress in Liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.”¹⁴ Likewise, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “the Liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and…innovation must be for good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition,”¹⁵ reflecting the truth that “Liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of centuries.”¹⁶

Recovery and Restoration

As the Liturgical Movement progressed, it broke into two distinct strains: one faithful to Guéranger’s clear understanding of liturgical Tradition, and another which embraced both antiquarianism, following the “corruption theory” proposed by Jungmann according to which only what is most primitive constitutes authentic Tradition, and anthropocentrism, insisting on the need for a “pastoral Liturgy” which should be “fashioned to meet the needs of contemporary man.”¹⁷ In response, Cardinal Ratzinger observed, “Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism—which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism—are both equally wrong. These two might be described as unholy twins.”¹⁸

Tradition, then, is not merely a remnant of the early Church or the wholesale adaptation of the faith to suit the times but the accumulated devotion of the saints across the centuries handed on to future generations. Accordingly, the goal of Pope St. Pius V’s institution of the Tridentine reforms was not to introduce any radical innovations but only to “[restore] the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers” while still permitting the continuation of any rite “which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years” (Quo primum), thus recognizing medieval contributions as legitimate organic developments of Tradition.¹⁹ The same purpose also guided the fathers of the Second Vatican Council: “Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).

A rediscovery of Guéranger’s anti-liturgical heresy criteria, and their application to contemporary liturgical theology and practice, can help to fulfill the original goals of the Liturgical Movement and restore liturgical tradition, including those venerable elements, such as ad orientem worship and the use of a sacred language, as well as the received forms of liturgical prayers and rites which have fallen into disuse.

1. Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 381. Kindle.
2. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 58-59.
3. See Prosper Guéranger, “The Anti-Liturgical Heresy,” at Catholic Apologetics, at catholicapologetics.info.
4. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 55.
5. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 46.
6. Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2018), loc 816. Kindle.
7. The propositions of the illegal 1786 Synod of Pistoia, eighty-five of which were condemned in the 1794 papal bull of Pope Pius VI Auctorem fidei, were Jansenist attempts to make the Liturgy rationalized and anthropocentric according to the aims of the Enlightenment. They included having only one altar in each church, no recitation by the priest of anything chanted by the choir, “[f]orbidding relics and flowers on the altar,” reciting the Offertory and Canon aloud, “forbidding numerous devotional and pious practices, including the rosary,” simplifying the Liturgy and translating it into the vernacular. “The people rose up and rejected the imposed reforms.” See Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 49-50.
8. Peter Kwasniewski, The Once and Future Roman Rite (Gastonia, NC: TAN, 2022), 117. Kindle.
9. Edward McNamara, “Why So Many Rites in the Church,” at EWTN (25 October 2016), at www.ewtn.com.
10. E.g. “[L]iturgical Greek… Church Slavonic… old literary Georgian… literary Coptic… Ge’ez… classical Syrian and Arabic [and] classical literary Armenian.” See Peter Kwasniewski, “The Byzantine Liturgy, the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Novus Ordo—Two Brothers and a Stranger” at New Liturgical Movement (4 June 2018), at www.newliturgicalmovement.org.
11. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 55.
12. See Peter Kwasniewski, Ministers of Christ: Recovering the Roles of Clergy and Laity in an Age of Confusion (Manchester, NH: Crisis, 2021).
13. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 55-56.
14. Quoted in Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 56.
15. Joseph Ratzinger, introduction to Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 20. Kindle.
16. Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, vol. 3 of The Penguin History of the Church (London: Penguin, 1990), 119; cf. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, loc 1952.
17. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 151.
18. Ratzinger, introduction to Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed.10.
19. Reid, Organic Development, 2nd ed., 39-41.