The church needs to go back to the authentic 5th-century liturgy and abandon the revisionism from those wacky Latin councils of Trent and Vatican II.

'Authentic 5th-century liturgy', Charles?
Um, would we really want all those decadent and innovative accretions that by then had been pasted onto what our Lord did and said at the Last Supper?

And who served as the psalmist?

No psalmody. Matthew 26:30 is clear. Just a recessional hymn.

Actually, um, Matthew doesn't say 'recessional', he says merely that 'after they had eaten...'. However, you rightly point out that they did sing a hymn after they had been 'dismissed'. Certain folks might want to take note of that! (It is most likely, though, that the 'hymn' that they sung was actually a psalm, probably one of the Hillel psalms.)

Actually, the word 'hymn' as used in the New Testament should generally be taken to mean a psalm, or a hymn such as any of those found throughout the New Testament which are ejaculations of praise in honour of God, such as the well known one from the Revelation: 'Worthy is the Lamb...'. Most passages such as this, which are marked by particularly unusual and elevated language of a Christological nature, are the sort of 'hymns' and hymn remnants that are referenced and which were the often spontaneously improvised hymnody of the early Church up until into the third century when the Fathers of the Church came to insist upon psalmody and biblical canticles because of the increasingly questionable orthodoxy of many of the 'hymns' that were being sung. It was at this time, not, as is commonly believed, in the infant Church, that the psalms of David (he actually may have written about half a dozen of them) became the predominant liturgical texts in the west. Hymns as we know them became, in the west, limited entirely to the divine office and for catechetical and extra liturgical uses.

Examples of infant Church 'hymnody' in the New Testament, which would have been sung and delivered with great devotion are: I. Timothy 3.36, I. Timothy 6.15-16, II. Timothy 2.11-13, Revelation 15.3-4, Revelation 5.12-13, Revelation 4.8-11, and there are many others.

Um, would we really want all those decadent and innovative accretions that by then had been pasted onto what our Lord did and said at the Last Supper?

So whose accretions do you prefer? Most of what you have in the Anglican Use liturgy is accretion, as it also is in the TLM and the current English liturgy. As best I can tell, the 5th-century liturgies of Rome and Constantinople were similar, so I could be happy with either. If we are going to be anachronistic, let's take it seriously. LOL.

Umnnhhh....yah, a RotR group exists, and it has excellent scholars and good practitioners, too.

But I think--along with the LMS essayist--that an RotR is not possible in the next 50 years, or more. He has observed that utilization of Latin is--generally--divisive, and I think he's right. Of course there are exceptions.

More important, he has also observed that the whole package: sacred space, sacred time, sacred language, sacred music, is not consonant with the OF as currently constructed.

Another way to put it: without a major shift in emphasis from "text-focus" to an all-encompassing "package", a reformed liturgy will have dissonant elements.

This was what was missing from the Liturgical Movement. An appreciation of non-verbal communication is not incompatible with the writings of the earlier exponents, such as Guéranger, despite his emphasis on 'understanding'. But as the movement develops, and turns into the movement to create the Novus Ordo, a blindness to non-verbal communication (and a parallel lack of interest in gestures and visual ceremonies) becomes increasingly evident and increasingly problematic

We could very easily add "sacred music" to that list of the missing--or, perhaps, "musical beauty," which might better describe the current situation.

I'm comfortable with both the OF and the EF, with the usual disclaimers. So I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I think his analysis is correct.

rorate-caeli? It seems to be about the least balanced, most alarmist, and most distorting site out there today.

I dunno...next to Verecchio or the Remnant, it's pretty mellow. I'm a pretty traddy guy, and if I can't read that, chances are it shouldn't be read.

I do wish you kids would play nice though. I'd hate to see either of you in the time-out chair.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but the author of the article seems to suggest that while the Pope basically follows his own peculiar compulsions and does not seem to have a set agenda, those who elected him definitely have a predetermined set of goals and it is this behind-the-scenes Team Bergoglio who are driving the media coverage of the Pope.

I fail to see how such a scenario is any more reassuring than a scenario which posits the Pope as the highly intelligent and focused mastermind/collaborator with the Kasper/Maradiaga plan for Church renovation which the media is only too happy to promote and publicize.

It's a nice try on the part of the Monday Vatican, but the picture of Pope Francis as a whimsical, aimless, semi-lunatic puppet figure who says and does whatever pops into his head, led around by a shadow group that pulls all the real strings of power is far more disturbing than the other option. I'm not buying it. That doesn't mean I buy the other scenario, either. I really don't what to think.

Oh dear... I really don't see the point of such threads and try to avoid commenting, there are so many better things to do with my time. But I feel a few points need to be made.

1. The Pope...
As a commenter mentioned above we really should not read too much in to what he says to small groups.
i. He will say something traditional one moment, and appear to say the opposite the day after.
ii. Like so many things in the modern Church they can be read two ways, In the light of Tradition or in a spirit of rupture.
iii. So many things published are translations are they accurate?
iv. Did the Holy Father intend for his comments to be to the whole Church or just that group at that time?

Anyway "By their fruits you will know them" well lets have a look a South America, well one rarely finds that scale of failure outside of Government. (See figures for Mass attendance etc.)

2. German Bishops
Well what can one say, they may have loads of money and own many businesses (including gravely sinful ones!) But shall we look at Mass attendance / Vocations. At the present rate the German Church will be extinct in a couple of generations. Oh and I should point out that they hand out the Blessed Sacrament with all the reverence of a burger bar handing out free hamburgers. Communion for public sinners (adulterers, fornicators, etc.) they already do this no questions asked. Will the synod make any difference, NO!

3. I am glad some of you have enjoyed the blog posts of my friend and colleague DR. Shaw (He is part of the Philosophy department at Oxford and is very supportive of the chant, he sings with one of the Oxford schola).

4. Reform of the reform...
I know things are different in those United States... but here in England we have had Latin N.O. Masses with Propers etc. for many years, of course they are islands of light in a sea of darkness but we have them and they are not going anytime soon.

There are problems with the ROTR and some of the points below could be said to show it to be a 'mistake',
i. It is purely the whim of the priest as to how traditional the Mass can be, one Sunday Mass can be like the London Oratory, the next week the visiting priest could have a clown Mass!
ii. Many people have grown up with a Liturgy that 'we' know to be barely Catholic, while most Catholics do not seem to mind what happens at Mass, a few are very happy with the 1960 style 'liturgy' and will not have it taken from them without a fight.
iii. The ROTR can cause all sorts of divisiveness, is this really a good thing?
iv. So the Priest has worked hard he has overcome the objectors, he has educated his parish, and has worked up to having a Latin N.O. with sung Propers. Great we might say, but does the journey stop there, in several places I know it has not, the Latin N.O. within a year or so became an E.F. Mass.
v. As Dr. Shaw has mentioned, for many priests it is easier to set up a new Mass time and have the E.F. and not follow the ROTR path.
vi. The so called end of the ROTR in some places has increased the Mass attendance at the nearest E.F. Mass, our numbers have jumped since Pope Francis!

5. The future,
The decline in Mass attendance continues, the Church in England and Wales has a 97% lapsation rate from Catholic schools, we also have a vocations crisis, the Church here is dying. This is not true of those attending the E.F. numbers are steadily growing, with ever more E.F. Mass centres, bishops handing churches to E.F. communities, and a steady stream of vocations (on average 1 Ordination per year over the last 10 years, the next 10 years it should be 2 per year).

It is all very well taking about the Ordinary form being here to stay, but with ever declining Mass attendance and falling numbers of priests who will say the N.O. They have a big problem, a look at France shows that in a few years most priests will only be saying the E.F. (for the N.O. 800 priests retire 100 are ordained each year in France) My Sister in Law visited Normandy last year and was very surprised that all the Masses in the area were E.F., it turned out that the regular priest was on holiday, and the only supply he could find only said the E.F. A whole new generation growing up only knowing the E.F.

Anyway I will get back to producing resources for the E.F., helping run a couple of (E.F.) schola, and bringing up 6 children in the Faith, it seems to be a good investment in the future.

Predictions sometimes don't come true. A couple of years ago, some bloggers reputed to favor 'progressive' approaches to liturgy were floating the idea that the next Prefect of CDWDS would be a certain like-minded prelate. Instead Cdl. Sarah was appointed in November 2014.

Speculators opined that Pope Benedict's master of ceremonies would be sent home to Genoa, but in May 2013 Pope Francis expressed himself against such a change, reportedly saying he wanted to benefit from the MC's traditional formation.

A priest of my acquaintance predicted that Summorum Pontificum would be abolished and the classic Roman rite would be confined to a personal prelature, so that diocesan priests like him would finally be freed from having to deal with those annoying people who prefer it. But when a group of Italian bishops complained to Pope Francis about SP, his response was summarized by the pundits as "leave the Latin Mass alone" ("La Messa in latino non si tocca").

So, in response to JulieColl's expression: does this mean "move on, there's nothing to see here"? Not really. But it does mean: don't put much stock in the premature gloating of people with an agenda.

Amen, ryand.

There's no way that RotR would come to a dead stop at Mundelein, if only because Fr. Barron oversees it, and particularly if Adam Bartlett is still associated on staff.

The movement preceded the papacy of Benedict XVI and can continue afterward.

Hey Roomie,
I thought that the demise was Nixon's visit/kowtow to Dung Xiou Peng in PRC. ;-)