Those are not revelations, fwiw. They repeat things previously reported long before this.

Yawn... I am sure I also have heard this somewhere but I have a few questions,

Are points 1 and 2 linked or do they contradict each other?

Have the reforms of Vat II not been fully implemented?

If the reforms have not been implemented, do we need further reforms, or do we need to go back and start again?

What exactly is the "liturgical vision of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" ?

Oh and more importantly what does Pope Francis' think is the "liturgical vision of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI"?

Maybe some are so desperate for hope they will grasp on to anything that is said. Those papal statements remind me of some others I have heard.

You can keep your doctor.

This will not raise your taxes.

The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad.

ISIL is a JV team.

I did not have sex with that woman...

Hello
Perhaps you know the book "The spirit of the liturgy" from Cardinal Ratzinger-Benoit XVI.
I recommande it you
You can find here from amazone.com http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898707846

Besides, right now within the rubrics, you can probably get closer to the 1964 missal through the OF than you can through the EF.

I think you are correct. Many - not all - of the local EF folks obsess over trivial liturgical details and don't see the forest for the trees. The 1964/1965 missal seems to me closer to what the Council actually had in mind for liturgical reforms.

Fr. Kocik's talk was not about reforming the TLM, but on Re-reforming the Post Concilliar rites (Mass & Office), and I apologize if my earlier comment made it seem as thought he was talking about a reform on the Traditional Mass.

What he was saying (to my mind, at least) is that the OF (Mass, Office, Sacraments, even the Calendar) is such a departure from tradition that to reform it would be like putting the toothpaste back in the tube, the liturgical horse has bolted and it's too late to shut the barn-door. We (i.e. The CDW, et al.) would really have to go back to the traditional books (perhaps 1961/2), with Sac. Conc., and look and see what worked and what didn't.

He suggested, among other things the possibilities of: restoring the seasons after Epiphany & after Pentecost, Septuagesima, and Passiontide; restoring the Octave of Pentecost; Solemnities on the actual day, not the nearest Sunday; Restoration of the Asperges before Mass; Restoration of Mass ad Orientem, Restoring the Offertory Rite; Restoring the differentiation between the Major and Minor Hours in their format, e.g. hymn at beginning of the Minor Hours, but after the Psalmody in the Major Hours; Restoration of a one-week Psalter; Restoration of the traditional one-year cycle of Mass readings; preference to Latin in bi/multi-lingual parishes/international liturgies, etc.; and so on.

Also, recommended was that a vernacular Altar Missal should include the entire Latin text as well as the translated one: the draw-back, to this, of course, is the fact that the Missal will have to be a multi-volume work.

On Solemnities being celebrated on the nearest Sunday, I can see a great practical reason for doing it. The solemnities of the Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity and Corpus Christi make sense to be celebrated on four consecutive Sundays in diocese where these solemnities are not Holy Days of Obligation. These Four feasts at the end of Easter mark important theological and catechetical points which should be reinforced amongst the laity every year.

The fact is that the modern world doesn't allow us the freedom to attend Holy Days of Obligation as was once possible, and many of the lukewarm Catholics in the world would not attend Mass during the week for various reasons. These feasts commemorate past events, and it is not essential that they be celebrated on particular days. If you wanted to retain the symbolism of Easter and Christmas, you should move them by 6 months to suit the seasons of the Southern Hemisphere, as the symbolism of Winter and Spring are lost to Catholics in Australia, Africa and South America.

Not sure where to begin responding to hartleymartin, but I'll give it a try.

Yes, I can see great practical reasons for changing a lot of things in the liturgy as well (I suppose reducing the obligation to once a month would be much more "practical" - i.e. easier). Asserting that "The modern world doesn't allow us the freedom to attend Holy Days of Obligation as was once possible" is not only highly questionable in the era of anticipated and evening masses, but really a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm puzzled by the sadness of the loss of things like the Kyrie in the Requiem mass (which I find regrettable as well), as compared to the dismissal of much more important items like the loss of entire liturgical seasons. The arbitrary introduction of "Ordinary Time" between Epiphany and Lent not only truncates the Christmas season but eliminates any preparation for Lent. It also contradicts the notion of "ordinary" (i.e. "ordered") time as these weeks are simply a filler between two other seasons. Finally, it breaks in two the great sweep of the liturgical time commemorating the events of our redemption that is supposed to extend from Advent to Trinity Sunday. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that the restoration of these seasons "won't achieve much" (achieve what exactly? how would we know?) The more pertinent question is what has been achieved by changing them?

"These feasts commemorate past events, and it is not essential that they be celebrated on particular days." OK, I agree it's not essential. But the liturgy has a higher standard than this. It's not a matter of commemorating the actual days in question as if we were keeping the "anniversaries" of the Christs's resurrection and Pentecost, but a matter of liturgical time, which is based on the historical events. So the days in question are important (40 days of Lent, 40 after Easter). I hope we can at least keep Ascension before Pentecost!

I know no one who would like to "turn back the clock" to 1962 or any other date. I'm even sure what this means, since everyone agrees it's not possible (nor really desirable even if it was). However, it can be instructive to try to understand some of what people knew back then but have forgotten or ignored since then. It's even possible (though of course highly unlikely) that people in the past understood the liturgy better than we do now, in which case it behooves us to learn from them.

Vatican II famously said that "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." It's only fair to ask if this principle has been followed, and if not, what can be done to address the situation.

One of the BIG problems I have with the New Calendar is the removal of the Octaves on many Solemnities, and their re-designation to the nearest Sunday.

Pentecost is a big one: if Pentecost is the "Birthday of the Church" as I often hear, then why is it relegated to one day, albeit with a Vigil, but then the rest of the Week is filled in with whatever week of "Ordinary Time" it is. The Feast of the Holy Trinity (Trinity Sunday) is not an arbitrary thing: it is the Octave Day of Pentecost.

The feast of Corpus Christi (and it should only be Corpus Christi -- the Feast of the Precious Blood was a wonderful feast (July 1) that emphasized a different aspect of Redemption, and should not have been mashed together with Corpus Christi -- is a revisiting of the gift of the Holy Eucharist in light of the Paschal Celebration. It is to be similar and yet dissimilar to Holy Thursday, and should be celebrated on a Thursday to show this better: Whereas on Holy Thursday (Thursday of Holy Week, first day off the Triduum, after Lent is technically over) focuses on the Holy Eucharist in light of the Cross; Corpus Christi, properly on the Thursday after the Octave of Pentecost (after Easter is technically over) Focuses on the Holy Eucharist in light of the Resurrection, Descent of the Holy Ghost, and beginning of the Church.

And how many people today know that the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus, January 13, is actually the Octave Day of Epiphany, January 6? (Well, at least it should be the Octave Day, if Epiphany still had an Octave and was actually celebrated on its proper day.)

@Salieri: "One of the BIG problems I have with the New Calendar is the removal of the Octaves on many Solemnities, and their re-designation to the nearest Sunday."

Actually this change predates the new calendar. Pius XII in 1955 reduced the number of Octaves from 18 to three: Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. Paul VI removed the Octave of Pentecost (a vestige of which remains in Trinity Sunday).

Personally I like the simplification of the calendar. It's much easier to follow and the rubrics much more approachable for those of us in secular life.

Dr. Foley's paper on the recapitulation of feasts was wonderful today, and highly informative. (As, of course, was Dr. Kwasniewski's on the cumbersome Novus Ordo Lectionary, but that's another topic...)

I don't think that the Calendarial (if that's a word) revisions of Pius XII and John XXIII are wonderful, either, but they are less hideous than the Paul VI revisions: much was lost in all of these reforms, and so there is much to be recovered. I do, however, think that simplifying the system of precedence was a good idea: if Feast Days and Octaves could be restored to their place before the Pian Reforms, while keeping the simplified system/nomenclature of the Johannine Reforms, it would be good. Just simple Fist, Second, Third, and Fourth Class days; none of this double/semi-double gobledy-gook. (It sounds like baseball.)

As far as the "external solemnities" of Corpus Christi on the nearest Sunday: that wasn't originally much of a problem, as they would have been held on "The Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi" -- Frankly, another Octave I think should be restored; after all, isn't the Holy Eucharist supposed to be the centre of the life of every Catholic?

It is a sign of the innovation, and a source of great frustration, that Solesmes has not finished the appropriate antiphonale for the reformed office.

And although I know of diocesan priests who go back and forth between the two forms of the office (feeling both enriched and overwhelmed), I wonder if we still suffer from the backwards mentality (a rather Jesuitical one) that the Office is an add-on not just to the liturgy but to our prayer lives as a whole. If seen that way, even subconsciously, then of course a one week psalter is going to be overwhelming.

That doesn’t help you much as an oblate, but it says something about post-Tridentine diocesan priesthood... We have left them out to dry!

Any subtraction, with the possible exception of recent additions, will encounter opposition. In an alternate universe, traditional Catholics are lamenting the loss of the 36-fold Kyrie. One can even imagine the reason. "Each repetition brought us progressively deeper into penitence and culminated in the joyous Gloria but now we're violently thrust into the Gloria completely unprepared. Reform of the reform!"

Corrections. Not all invocations of mercy are penitential. Some are quite similar in substance to exclamations of "Have Mercy!" when something notable is happening.

I felt like hearing the reading of Cdl. Sarah's letter was like being present at a great event. I mean, really, can anyone imagine that happening 10 years ago? Not me.

I would encourage you to send some letters/emails of support to the conference organizers, etc., too, as I'm sure they'd appreciate feedback as well as suggestions. There was a tremendous amount of work involved, and I think the generally high quality of the liturgical celebrations, the prayerful (yet scholarly) atmosphere fostered, and the unbelievably low cost of registration made this the most useful and informative convention I've been to in years.