Adrien Nocent OSB, liturgist guilty of crimes against the Roman Rite

Counter-history of the liturgical movement #56 – The liturgical reform and Belgium: Father Adrien Nocent OSB. 

The liturgical reform and Belgium: Adrien Nocent (1913–1996)

When studying ecclesial reforms and the liturgical movement, one realizes the truly important role played by certain nations. One nation I have come to regard as likely decisive is Belgium. It was not only the theological and pastoral work carried out in monasteries such as Mont César and Maredsous, or at the University of Louvain, but also figures—such as the aforementioned Dom Lambert Beauduin, Cardinal Léon Joseph Suenens, and others—who formed a vanguard for theological and pastoral renewal within the Church. Among them, one certainly should not overlook Dom Adrien Nocent, a significant figure in the context of Vatican II and the liturgical reform.

A student of Bernard Capelle and Bernard Botte, and a confrere of Lambert Beauduin (whom he undoubtedly knew well), he studied at Louvain before moving to Rome to teach at the Pontifical Atheneum of Sant’Anselmo. Together with Dom Salvatore Marsili and Dom Cipriano Vagaggini, he was a co-founder of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute at Sant’Anselmo.

He served as director of Ecclesia Orans, an expert (peritus) at Vatican II, and a consultor for the Congregation for Divine Worship. He authored numerous works. One of these, in which he re-examines the post-Council liturgical reform, is titled Liturgia semper reformanda. Indeed, this concept of a liturgy that is always in a state of becoming can be found in the works of other authors as well. No one can doubt that updates are necessary from time to time, yet it should not be possible for these “variations”—as Romano Amerio would call them—to affect the liturgy’s essential elements. Denis Crouan addresses this distinction between the essential and the accessory in the liturgy in several of his studies.

In a text available online, responding to those (traditionalists) who criticized the “Protestantization” of the Mass, he stated: “When Christ says, ‘Do this in memory of me,’ it means: perform this ritual meal which actualizes, before the eyes of my Father, what I did in obedience to His will for the New and Eternal Covenant. One of the new Eucharistic Prayers says: ‘Look, Lord, upon the victim You Yourself have prepared.’ The Roman Canon repeatedly affirms—using various terms—the reality of the presence, the victim present, and the sacrifice made actual. One must, therefore, fully grasp the meaning of ‘memory.’ Many articles and books opposing the liturgical reform—claiming that we have thereby become Protestant and that the Eucharist has been reduced to a mere recollection—betray their ignorance regarding the concept of ‘memory.’ It is an unacceptable ignorance of what memory truly is, for it presupposes reality; it is reality actualized in the present moment. To say that the Eucharistic celebration is a memorial of the Passion conveys far more than saying it merely repeats Calvary. It does not repeat it; rather, it is that very sacrifice made actual—and because it is actualized, we become participants and collaborators in it. This constitutes the very purpose of the institution of the Eucharist.” Certainly, perhaps Father Nocent ought to have addressed the many “reformers” who turned the liturgy into a mere banquet—akin to Protestant practice—thereby minimizing, if not eliminating, its sacrificial dimension. Traditionalists may bark, but it is the progressives who bite.

Source