What do you think?
Rate this book
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy Msgr. Klaus Gamber The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. Thirteen years ago when Pope Benedict was still ‘Cardinal Ratzinger’ he wrote the following in a Preface to this book: “What happened after the Council . . . in the place of ‘liturgy as the fruit of development’ came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy.” This most important book will give us insight to what the now Pope Benedict may have planned for the future of the liturgy.
198 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
5 people are currently reading
103 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 12 reviews
August 31, 2025
This is a very important work on the liturgy. Msgr. Klaus Gamber was a German liturgist. He wrote trenchant books and essays concerning the post-Vatican II reform of the liturgy. At times, this book has the feel of a polemic. Partly this is because it was written so soon after the jolting reforms of the liturgy. Those parts of the book written later seem a bit less polemical. Gamber makes a strong case that these reforms to the liturgy were a rupture, not a development. Amazingly, in a chapter entitled, "Does the Pope Have the Authority to Change the Rite?" Gamber all but says that Pope Paul VI went beyond the authority allowed a Pope. Gamber stops short of saying this, but he comes very close. Perhaps, even more surprising, then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the foreword to the French edition. (This should tell us much about Pope Benedict's understanding of the liturgy.)
The most compelling point in this book is its argument that the reform of the Roman Rite post-Vatican II represents a significant rupture rather than development in the liturgy. Gamber's case seems unimpeachable here. These reforms taken as a whole cannot be seen as a development of the Sacred Liturgy, but rather a departure, both from the Liturgy's traditional form and from the types of liturgical development that had come before. Liturgical reform previously had been organic. Changes had been small, incremental.
The most significant point here is Gamber's argument concerning the change in the priest's posture in the new rite from the priest and people facing the same direction to the priest facing the people from behind the altar (versus populum). Gamber shows that there is absolutely no precedent for this in the Tradition. Even in those Roman basilicas where the priest stood behind the altar, this was done to face the East (the ad orientem posture). When the priest faced the East, so did those attending Mass (i.e., they were turned away from the priest and towards the East). Thus, the priest and people were not facing each other, but turning to face the East (the rising sun and from whence the Son would come) in common. This is a point that Gamber hammers throughout the book. After reading this book, I think it is all the more imperative to restore the ad orientem posture of the priest to the Mass. (This is all the more important when one thinks of the Eastern Churches that to this day continue this orientation and with whom reunion is the most likely for the Roman Church.)
The most compelling point in this book is its argument that the reform of the Roman Rite post-Vatican II represents a significant rupture rather than development in the liturgy. Gamber's case seems unimpeachable here. These reforms taken as a whole cannot be seen as a development of the Sacred Liturgy, but rather a departure, both from the Liturgy's traditional form and from the types of liturgical development that had come before. Liturgical reform previously had been organic. Changes had been small, incremental.
The most significant point here is Gamber's argument concerning the change in the priest's posture in the new rite from the priest and people facing the same direction to the priest facing the people from behind the altar (versus populum). Gamber shows that there is absolutely no precedent for this in the Tradition. Even in those Roman basilicas where the priest stood behind the altar, this was done to face the East (the ad orientem posture). When the priest faced the East, so did those attending Mass (i.e., they were turned away from the priest and towards the East). Thus, the priest and people were not facing each other, but turning to face the East (the rising sun and from whence the Son would come) in common. This is a point that Gamber hammers throughout the book. After reading this book, I think it is all the more imperative to restore the ad orientem posture of the priest to the Mass. (This is all the more important when one thinks of the Eastern Churches that to this day continue this orientation and with whom reunion is the most likely for the Roman Church.)
July 23, 2023
A pioneering text in the post-Conciliar period that ascents to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council while criticizes the liturgical reforms that follow the same council. Mnsr. Gambler develops ideas that may have been taboo to discuss at the time, but have now been vindicated with greater liturgical scholarship. Some arguments that I hold very dearly are the effect of the liturgical reforms on our patrimonial relationship with our separated Orthodox brethren, as well as the reality that abandoning the unifying language of Latin ultimately leads to the separation of parish communities along linguistic lines. Extensive discussion is also focused on the changing of the Roman Canon, as well as worship versus populum. Recommended liturgical reading, with an endorsement by then-Cdl. Ratzinger.
Some notable quotations:
"[M]any of the faithful cling to the traditional forms; and the forms themselves live on because of the fundamental piety contained within them. Our zealous reformers fail to recognize the obvious connection between Catholic teaching and piety. For many among the faithful, changes in the traditional liturgy also mean a change of faith itself."
"[I]t is not appropriate to simply exchange or substitute individual liturgical elements between different rites. For example, one may not make use of an anaphora of the Eastern Church and incorporate it into the Roman rite, as is being done in the New Order of the Mass; or, for that matter, to do the opposite, i.e., to make the Roman Canon of the Mass part of Eastern liturgies."
"To change any of its essential elements is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety. This is what happened during the Reformation when Martin Luther did away with the canon of the Mass and made the words of consecration and institution part of the distribution of communion. Clearly, this change destroyed the Roman Mass, even though it appeared that traditional liturgical forms continued unchanged initially even the vestments and choral chant remained. As soon as the traditional liturgical rite had been abandoned, however, the momentum for further liturgical change began to accelerate among Protestant communities."
"Since the conclusion of the Council, has our liturgical worship become more attractive to the faithful? Did the new liturgy contribute to strengthening faith and piety among our people? Hardly! Even during the short time that has elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969, our churches have become emptier, the number of our priests and religious continues to decline steadily, and decline at an alarming rate. The reasons for these developments are many and varied, but we must admit that the liturgical reforms failed to arrest the negative trends they were to remedy, and that, more likely than not, they helped make them significantly worse."
"The many 'may' instructions provided for in the Introductory Rite, a feature particular to the Missal's German-language edition, literally invite the celebrating priest to come up with his own fanciful ideas of what to do. What twaddle the faithful must listen to in so many of our churches at the beginning of Mass! Incidentally, this phenomenon is now also present in many Protestant churches."
"The question we must ask at this point is: What exactly was to be gained with all the petty changes? Was it just to realize the pet ideas of some liturgy experts at the expense of a rite founded on a tradition of 1,500 years? Or are these changes to be understood as the deliberate destruction of the traditional order?—because the newly placed 'accents' clearly contradict the traditional faith from which the traditional rite has developed."
"[T]he traditional ritus Romanus,... by its use of Latin, a common language which during the Middle Ages served to unite the peoples of Europe, can help in bringing today's people closer together in worship, instead of separating them along language barriers."
"Indeed, if only we had just two rites to contend with in today's Church! As we all know, we now have an abundance of individual 'rites,' since so many priests now design their own liturgy, just as they please."
"It is easy to abolish something, but it is quite difficult to put something better in its place. Once an old order that has been the religious home for most people has been destroyed, it will take a long, long time to build a new one."
Some notable quotations:
"[M]any of the faithful cling to the traditional forms; and the forms themselves live on because of the fundamental piety contained within them. Our zealous reformers fail to recognize the obvious connection between Catholic teaching and piety. For many among the faithful, changes in the traditional liturgy also mean a change of faith itself."
"[I]t is not appropriate to simply exchange or substitute individual liturgical elements between different rites. For example, one may not make use of an anaphora of the Eastern Church and incorporate it into the Roman rite, as is being done in the New Order of the Mass; or, for that matter, to do the opposite, i.e., to make the Roman Canon of the Mass part of Eastern liturgies."
"To change any of its essential elements is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety. This is what happened during the Reformation when Martin Luther did away with the canon of the Mass and made the words of consecration and institution part of the distribution of communion. Clearly, this change destroyed the Roman Mass, even though it appeared that traditional liturgical forms continued unchanged initially even the vestments and choral chant remained. As soon as the traditional liturgical rite had been abandoned, however, the momentum for further liturgical change began to accelerate among Protestant communities."
"Since the conclusion of the Council, has our liturgical worship become more attractive to the faithful? Did the new liturgy contribute to strengthening faith and piety among our people? Hardly! Even during the short time that has elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969, our churches have become emptier, the number of our priests and religious continues to decline steadily, and decline at an alarming rate. The reasons for these developments are many and varied, but we must admit that the liturgical reforms failed to arrest the negative trends they were to remedy, and that, more likely than not, they helped make them significantly worse."
"The many 'may' instructions provided for in the Introductory Rite, a feature particular to the Missal's German-language edition, literally invite the celebrating priest to come up with his own fanciful ideas of what to do. What twaddle the faithful must listen to in so many of our churches at the beginning of Mass! Incidentally, this phenomenon is now also present in many Protestant churches."
"The question we must ask at this point is: What exactly was to be gained with all the petty changes? Was it just to realize the pet ideas of some liturgy experts at the expense of a rite founded on a tradition of 1,500 years? Or are these changes to be understood as the deliberate destruction of the traditional order?—because the newly placed 'accents' clearly contradict the traditional faith from which the traditional rite has developed."
"[T]he traditional ritus Romanus,... by its use of Latin, a common language which during the Middle Ages served to unite the peoples of Europe, can help in bringing today's people closer together in worship, instead of separating them along language barriers."
"Indeed, if only we had just two rites to contend with in today's Church! As we all know, we now have an abundance of individual 'rites,' since so many priests now design their own liturgy, just as they please."
"It is easy to abolish something, but it is quite difficult to put something better in its place. Once an old order that has been the religious home for most people has been destroyed, it will take a long, long time to build a new one."
March 7, 2017
It's not an enjoyable book, in the sense that you feel good afterwards. It is, however, a necessary book to understand why the mass appears to be 'missing something' or shallow in many places. Klaus Gamber was one of the few theologians critical of the implementation (not content) of Vatican II's reform of the liturgy, while still remaining faithfully within the Church. He was Pope Benedict XVI's favorite liturgical theologian--and I would say he is necessary reading for anyone wanting to know the roadmap to authentic renewal in the future. He shows, without ideological bias, (a rarity these days) how poor scholarship led to many ill-advised changes that have hurt the faithful. Although he has gone home to his reward, his work began a movement of authentic renewal that anchors us to solid hope over vapid sentimentality in worship.
October 10, 2016
Very interesting. Well researched and well written. And who should have written on the back cover but a cardinal called Ratzinger.
Read
June 14, 2023One cannot doubt Gamber's knowledge of liturgical history, and be somewhat impressed by his polemic. A work compiled from notes and lectures. Yet its conclusions and main assertions, with respect to the rupture of the liturgical reform, and the lack of authority of the Church, namely the Pope, to regulate and change the liturgy in certain respects, are poorly reasoned. This is made worse by the fact he knows liturgical history so well.
For example, the fact that popes intervened in changing the liturgy "only in exceptional cases" (p.30) is interpreted by him into a rule of papal limitation of authority - imposing effectively, the customary exercise of one pope or pope's as delimiting the authority of the next, leaving also no room for actual development of the office as understood and exercised. He also alienates the liturgy from Vatican I's definition of papal supreme jurisdiction over discipline, thus making it non-applicable to the liturgy which belongs instead to 'apostolic tradition.' How convincing right? Yet there is no precision and distinctions drawn here - one the divine tradition, two the divino-apostolic tradition, three, the human-apostolic tradition. To quote Pius XII, "But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized" (MD, 50). All one need do is read Pius XII Mediator Dei, no. 48-50.
In most hands, this work would be dangerous and harmful to the piety and faith of the average Catholic, and I mean this in the plainest sense. Yet, an essential read for those studying liturgy and seeking to tackle the liturgy wars.
For example, the fact that popes intervened in changing the liturgy "only in exceptional cases" (p.30) is interpreted by him into a rule of papal limitation of authority - imposing effectively, the customary exercise of one pope or pope's as delimiting the authority of the next, leaving also no room for actual development of the office as understood and exercised. He also alienates the liturgy from Vatican I's definition of papal supreme jurisdiction over discipline, thus making it non-applicable to the liturgy which belongs instead to 'apostolic tradition.' How convincing right? Yet there is no precision and distinctions drawn here - one the divine tradition, two the divino-apostolic tradition, three, the human-apostolic tradition. To quote Pius XII, "But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized" (MD, 50). All one need do is read Pius XII Mediator Dei, no. 48-50.
In most hands, this work would be dangerous and harmful to the piety and faith of the average Catholic, and I mean this in the plainest sense. Yet, an essential read for those studying liturgy and seeking to tackle the liturgy wars.
November 26, 2019
This book contains two treatises by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, an expert in Eastern and Western liturgy who died in 1989. There is some overlap of text between the two treatises. Gamber argues that the new Mass of Paul VI is in rupture with the traditional Roman Rite Mass. He argues that the new Mass, because of the alteration of the Roman Canon, the addition of new Eucharistic prayers, a new calendar of liturgical feasts, a new lectionary, among other things, is not the Roman Rite Mass. A significant portion of the book is dedicated to debunking the historical and theological authenticity of the versus populum stance, which Gamber traces back to Luther (noting that not even Luther seems to have actually taken up the practice). Gamber draws together evidence from Eastern liturgical practice, historical texts, and historical art and architecture to make a convincing argument that the new Mass and many of the elements surrounding it are in rupture with the Roman Rite and an inauthentic implementation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. He offers a few suggestions as to how the Roman Rite Mass might have authentically been reformed in accord with the Consitution. Among these are readings in the vernacular, additional optional readings added to the traditional order of readings, and adding the prayer of the faithful.
December 24, 2019
Written during a horribly tumultuous and iconoclastic era for Roman liturgy, Gamber's reflections often hint at his own sense of urgency as he witnessed the Roman Liturgy literally disintegrated during the 1960s and 1970s into forms of sentimental niceties and humanistic self-congratulation.
Although clearly written for a lay audience, Gamber's insights are approachable and insightful, especially about Eastern facing altars in Roman Basilicas and some of his insights regarding early Church orientation. On this latter point, I found Gamber immensely helpful to correct erroneous notions supposed by eager reform-minded liturgists from the last century regarding early liturgical worship and its orientation.
Though replete with sources both Patristic and modern, I was hoping for more footnotes to even more strengthen his argument, like Jungmann. But Gamber's book is most definitely worth the read for scholar and lay person alike to inform a true spirit of Liturgy: most especially to help orient oneself and the Church more directly towards the Lord during prayer and worship.
Although clearly written for a lay audience, Gamber's insights are approachable and insightful, especially about Eastern facing altars in Roman Basilicas and some of his insights regarding early Church orientation. On this latter point, I found Gamber immensely helpful to correct erroneous notions supposed by eager reform-minded liturgists from the last century regarding early liturgical worship and its orientation.
Though replete with sources both Patristic and modern, I was hoping for more footnotes to even more strengthen his argument, like Jungmann. But Gamber's book is most definitely worth the read for scholar and lay person alike to inform a true spirit of Liturgy: most especially to help orient oneself and the Church more directly towards the Lord during prayer and worship.
June 12, 2020
If you are a Catholic and you are very interested in the questions of the Church and you go to mass and you have a fealling that something is missing, something is not as it should be then this book is for you. It opened my eyes how modernism affected the liturgy, how vatican 2 fathers broke with tradition centurys old and created havoc that is still felt to tgis day. As I said it opened my eyes. Read it!
January 14, 2020
Jako jako dobro. Preporučam svakome tko se iskreno zanima za tradicionalnu misu. Nakon ovog djela stvari postaju jasne.
Read
August 1, 2013'Klaus Gamber’s book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy was and is a publishing event, one of the most significant in the Catholic world in a generation. It sent shock waves throughout Europe when it first appeared there 16 years ago, and its appearance here during the pontificate of Benedict XVI—who as Cardinal Ratzinger provocatively endorsed it with a pointed preface to the French edition—promises to be no less eventful.'
Read the full review, "Recovering the Lost Liturgy," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Read the full review, "Recovering the Lost Liturgy," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
October 13, 2015
Great Book. More significant today than when it was published.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 12 reviews