The Malines Congress: Birth of the Pastoral Movement

Dom Lambert Beauduin did not set out to dismantle the Roman Rite. His original impulse—genuinely pastoral, and in its stated aims entirely orthodox—was to bring ordinary Catholics into a more conscious, interior, and intelligent union with the Church’s worship as it had been received.

At the dawn of the twentieth century, he looked out upon a common situation: the faithful present at Mass, devout and sincere—yet often praying private devotions alongside the liturgy rather than praying with it. Beauduin did not interpret this as contempt for the Mass, but as a symptom of distance: the people loved the Church, yet did not always know the Church’s own prayer.

This diagnosis came to public expression in 1909, when Beauduin delivered a keynote address entitled “La vraie prière de l’Église” (“The True Prayer of the Church”) at the Congress of Catholic Works in Malines (Mechelen), Belgium. His audience was not a group of liturgical technicians or reformers, but Catholic leaders and workers engaged in the Church’s apostolic life. His concern was practical and pastoral: if the liturgy is truly the Church’s prayer, then it must once again become the primary source of Christian formation for her people.

The Foundational Intuition

In that address, Beauduin articulated what would become the foundational intuition of the early Liturgical Movement:

❝

“The primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit is found in the active participation of the faithful in the liturgy of the Church.”

— Dom Lambert Beauduin, La vraie prière de l’Église, 1909

By “active participation,” Beauduin did not mean constant external action or visible busyness. He meant conscious, interior, and intelligent union with the sacred rites themselves. He lamented that many Catholics no longer drew their spiritual life from the liturgy, observing:

❝

“The Christian people no longer draw from the liturgy the authentic expression of their adoration and prayer, and the substantial element of their spiritual life.”

— Dom Lambert Beauduin

His remedy, however, was not to remake the rites, but to reconnect minds and hearts to the sacred action already there—to lead the laity into the liturgy’s textual and spiritual world, so that the Mass would again become their primary school of prayer. This is exactly how his program is summarized in his own early agenda: active participation “by means of understanding and following the liturgical rites and texts.”

Beauduin was under no illusion that this would be quick or easy. In the same keynote, he warned that authentic renewal would require patience and re-education rather than shortcuts:

❝

“The work of liturgical renewal will be arduous… the crowds took centuries to unlearn liturgical traditions; may they be less slow to relearn them.”

— Dom Lambert Beauduin

Vernacular: Not Replacement, but Instruction

This is where modern readers often misunderstand him.

Beauduin is frequently described by historians as opposing the vernacular as the language of the liturgy itself, even while actively promoting vernacular as a tool of formation—especially through the widespread distribution of hand missals with accurate translations, so that the faithful could follow the Latin prayers and enter their meaning.

That distinction matters. For Beauduin, Latin was not an inconvenience to be overcome by simplification; it was a sign of the Roman Rite’s unity, continuity, and sacral inheritance. But he also recognized that the laity needed genuine access to the Church’s prayer—not by replacing it with something else, but by learning it. The hand missal, with translation, served as a bridge: the people could “understand and follow” the rites without the rites losing their received form.

This is the beating heart of his early project: not the democratization of power, but the democratization of access—a widening of participation through comprehension and spiritual union. The liturgy was to be loved not as a spectacle and not as a private clerical act, but as the Church’s own prayer into which the faithful could be formed.

How Later Revolutionists Used Beauduin

And yet—history often treats foundational figures like Beauduin as quarry: later builders extract what they want, while leaving behind the structure the original architect actually intended.

Beauduin’s language of “participation” proved enormously potent. It could mean what he meant—interior union with the received rites through understanding, chant, and formation. But it could also be stretched into something else: the idea that if the people were not participating in an immediately visible, audible, and external way, then the rite itself must be redesigned until that outward participation was produced.

In other words, a principle originally aimed at catechesis and interiority could be reinterpreted as a mandate for structural reconstruction. Scholars looking back on the modern Liturgical Movement routinely note how early theological scaffolding—especially “active participation”—was later taken up as justification for a far more sweeping program than the pioneers themselves had articulated.

This is how Beauduin became useful to revolutionists: not because he wrote a blueprint for wholesale liturgical refashioning, but because his central concern—the people must be brought into the liturgy—could be cited as a moral warrant for almost any reform. Once the aim is framed as “returning the liturgy to the people,” the temptation arises to treat the rite not primarily as an inheritance to be reverently received, but as material to be reshaped to achieve pastoral effects.

Beauduin sought vernacular as instruction; the radicals could cite Beauduin while demanding vernacular as replacement. Beauduin sought participation through understanding and following the rites; they could cite Beauduin while insisting participation required new forms, new options, new structures, even a new ethos. And because the early slogans sounded so noble—the people, participation, accessibility—later deformations could present themselves as simply the “logical next step.”

The Tragedy

The tragedy is not that Beauduin wanted the faithful closer to the Mass. That desire is good, and in many respects, overdue in every age. The tragedy is that his pastoral concern became a lever: a language of renewal that could be—and was—employed to justify changes that no longer merely formed the laity to love the Roman Rite, but increasingly treated the Roman Rite itself as negotiable, as something to be refashioned until it produced the desired modern response.

❝

“What began as a call to form the faithful for the liturgy became, in other hands, a program to reform the liturgy for the people—a subtle but catastrophic inversion.”

— Historical reflection

Beauduin himself would live to see some of this transformation. He died in 1960—just before the Second Vatican Council would take the language he had helped pioneer and apply it in ways he might not have recognized. Whether he would have approved of what came after remains a matter of historical debate. What is certain is that the vocabulary he popularized outlived his intentions.