Back to Reform of the Reform
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    Something went wrong with Reform of the Reform, and it aproximately corresponded to the release of Summorum Pontificum.

    As I understand it, back in the day Reform of the Reform was about celebrating the Novus Ordo as it was intended to be celebrated.

    Somewhere along the lines, certain activists convinced the RoR community that the Novus Ordo was hopelessly corrupted, and RoR turned into Repeal of the Reform, with the goal to be to make the TLM the only form of the Mass. I think that Peter Kwasniewski bears a substantial amount of the blame for taking RoR down this road.

    With the effective abrogation of Summorum Pontificum, perhaps there can be a return to the original mission of Reform of the Reform.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,745
    "bears the blame"
    I'm not into pointing fingers. Particularly at people who are smarter and wiser than any 10 of us. The focus of Peter's argument is that when dealing with a liturgy where choice is elevated to a constructive principle, any choice is equally valid, and it's all subjective. Now, you may or may not buy that, but it's certainly not true of the Missal of Pius V.

    I think that RotR is possible, over centuries, including ultimately getting rid of its modular design. And the attempt is worth making, if for no other reason that that those of us who are about the Church's musical patrimony (presumably, all of us here) need a place to practice it.
    Thanked by 3cmb Salieri Don9of11
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    What has amazed me about "Reform of the Reform" (and the reason why it has failed) is that it simply is a matter of aesthetics, and the utilization of one option over another, and any discussion about actually Reforming the Reform is considered as an affront to the Reform and a repudiation of Vat.2, even though both Paul VI and Bugnini admitted that the reform was done in haste, AND that Bugnini at various times suggested that the Missal needed to be revised after several years. To say that X should be done because that is the way it has been done for centuries in the Roman Rite and that there is no real reason for it to have been changed, except based on bad scholarship and some 'expert' opinion, is to call the reform into question and brands one a heretic/schismatic/traditionalist/Lefebvrite/blah, blah, blah.

    Yes: Reform of the Reform, but you can't Reform the Reform, because Reforming the Reform undermines the Reform.

    Since it's only about one set of licit options over another, there is no sure footing on which any attempt at Reform of the Reform can take place. Because of that, it's all bound up with the 'style' of whichever priest is at a given parish. Pastor A can use only the Confiteor with the Kyrie, use incense at the Introit, Gospel, Offertory, and Consecration, use only the Roman Canon, and encourage chant in Latin and vernacular and good, solid hymns, then be transferred, and Pastor B only uses the 'tropes' to 'give the Deacon something to do', thus preventing the Kyrie from ever being sung, doesn't use incense, insists on no music at the Offertory so that he can recite the offertory/Berakkah aloud, only uses EP III, and replaces the Adoremus Hymnal with Breaking Bread. And all with the same official liturgical books, while citing the same GIRM, and same Council, etc., etc., etc.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    There are people for whom RoR was simply about aesthetics, and others who wanted wholesale restructuring, both I find absurd. Even more absurd is the failure to correct manifest problems with the OF. Such as the Eucharistic Acclamation, which cannot work in the way the Missal lays down. It is simply not possible for a congregation to choose a response, this can only be done by an individual, and the common practice of the celebrant initiating (intoning) the response is contrary to the rubric. The failure to address this problem is symptomatic of a structural failure in the present system of liturgical regulation. [end of RANT]
    That is quite apart from the structural problem of having a congregational response interupting what is, certainly in EP1, a continuous utterance by the celebrant. (I believe Gelineau, who was a strong advocate of acclamations in the EP, described this result as 'idiotic'). This is a difficult problem to tackle, but the multiplicity of responses has simple possible solutions.
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 485
    I don't know if this is what you're talking about but when I was singing in St. Mary's in Akron Ohio we celebrated a Novus Ordo Latin Mass once a month. Now it wasn't the TLM but it preserved as much of it as possible. Is this what you mean by RotR?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    Even more absurd is the failure to correct manifest problems with the OF. Such as the Eucharistic Acclamation, which cannot work in the way the Missal lays down. It is simply not possible for a congregation to choose a response, this can only be done by an individual, and the common practice of the celebrant initiating (intoning) the response is contrary to the rubric.


    Easy solution: you don't alter the mystery of faith that a community sings/recites, or if you do alter it then no more than once a year. That way people know what their response will be, don't need to wait for it to be intoned, don't need to be coached, and the celebrant doesn't need to initiate the acclamation. The prayer and ritual become internalized.

    The way it's done in most parishes (especially if an instrumental musical ditty is needed to cue them in), it does seem like an interruption or a song interrupting the prayer, but done well it is the assembly's small vocal participation in the prayer by affirming the mystery of faith after the consecration. For example, at my parish the priest chants, "The mystery of faith," and the assembly is accustomed to begin chanting a cappella the ICEL "We proclaim your Death, O Lord..." one pulse after the priest ends his intonation. It's smooth and seamless.

    Competent implementation of rubrics and ritual sensitivity are the answers to so many criticisms of the Novus Ordo.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    QED.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    Meaningful reform of the memorial acclamation would require that it be treated the same way in all parishes. For example, this could be done by making the four responses seasonal.

    PS: Or three, or whatever it is now.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    I know, it is easily solved, but it needs solution, and at least in a nationally uniform way.
  • I don't think Dr. K will take credit for derailing the Reform of the Reform. Those who are the most ardent proponents of the Spirit of Vatican II are, rather, those who deserve that credit. If reforming the reform means using the less-inclusive translation or a dead language and the priest with his back to us, preventing us from actively participating in the Mass, then clearly reforming the reform of the Mass is bad, in the minds of these people. If there is any gravitational pull to be seen, it must be altar girls at the TLM, or something similarly impossible.

  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 475
    The RotR started up after then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a preface to a book suggesting that maybe the Novus Ordo needed some help. This was in the late 1990s, and there were a relatively small number of people involved in the movement. It was energized by the election of Pope Benedict XVI, but withered after SP because, as people have said, many simply moved over to the TLM.

    At the present moment, it's hard to see how the RotR might gain renewed traction. Rome is not at all receptive its ideas, and despite the abrogation of SP, the TLM will continue to be available, still allowed by TC and bolstered by the post-Boomer generation that is increasingly its mainstay. Furthermore, the partial rehabilitation by Pope Francis makes the Society a more acceptable alternative to a larger slice of Catholics compared to 2005.

    In theory, TC chokes off the supply of new TLM clergy, and so over time, the TLM should start to die out. But Pope Francis and his group are going to literally die out well before that along with the rest of the bishops who came of age in the 60s and 70s. So a new generation of leadership will be in the driver's seat. And if, as seems likely, TC provokes even more bitter conflict, and the Unique Expression becomes emptier and emptier, TC will be undone.
  • donr
    Posts: 964
    it is because of the RoR that we got the changes to some of the language of Mass, a more better translation. So I would not call it a failure. But there is still more work to be done.

  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 475
    Yes, we got Liturgiam authenticam, but that was in 2001 at the tail end of the language wars involving (in the U.S.A.) people like Hellen Hull Hitchcock and Adoremus Bulletin. It was an exciting time, much more intense than anything happening today, pitting bishop against bishop in debates at the USCCB. It's good to reflect on the ecclesiastical personalities of that time to appreciate just how much more conservative the U.S. bishops are today.

    The RotR movement didn't get going until the early 2000s and never had the episcopal involvement of the language wars. It started with people like Fr. Fessio, but then became dominated by bloggers, mostly (e.g., Shawn Tribe), but also to some extent by people like Frs. Crouan, Reid and Nichols. These were not language wars people. Many Catholic musicians of the sort that hang out here were attracted to the RotR in this period because of the seriousness about music.
  • jclangfo
    Posts: 185
    What I see in many of the comments above is a surrender of the mission to promote authentic liturgy in the Church. And with that, a surrender of the mission of the CMAA, this forum, and everyone who cares about the well being of the liturgy.

    The Reform of the Reform is dead because RoR people no longer hold institutional power in Rome?? Well, if RoR was simply about aquiring then weilding institutional power, I think that is sad, and pathetic.

    How on earth did our mission become to identify every minute flaw in the Novus Ordo and then have these corrected by judical fiat? The Novus Ordo is the creation of human beings (minus some words instituted by Christ that are probably less than 1% of the total, please don't nitpick this statement), and is thus going to have flaws. So was the 1962 missal, the missal that came after Trent, and every missal the Church has ever published. Yes, let's progress towards having missals that are less flawed, and it's great when Rome is listening to our concerns. But this as the main focus of a movement? Sad!

    I see in the above an idolotry of power and an obession with matters generally outside the control of laypeople. Why on earth have we let such matters be of ultimate concern?

    What I understand RoR to mean is recieving the imperfect liturgy that the Church has given us and implementing it faithfully. As laypeople, there is much we can do to imbue the Masses we assist at with an authentic spirit of the liturgy. We can assist at Mass with reverence and devotion. We can know what the rubrics say and demand that our rights to the authentic litrugy of the Church be respected. We can volunteer for liturgical ministires such as music ministry and preform these ministries with the spirit called for by the liturgy. We as laypeople have a special role to play in the culture that is built around the liturgy, and that is the true power that a lay movement holds.

    And yet, I see comments above that suggest to me that people want to give up and quit because our friends aren't in power in Rome anymore. Which suggests to me that this movement has been corrupted into being about power and not being about doing what we as laypeople can do day in and day out to support the liturgy.

    We can do better.
  • In the proper sense of the term, the Missal of Paul VI isn't a liturgy at all, because it has so many variable elements.

    As to the project of the Reform of the Reform, if Mark and others are correct, reforming it means making it more "pure", more "concentrated", so that all elements still hanging on from the past may be purged completely. Those who have championed the Reform of the Reform found least willing to listen to their please the very people who said that they thought the "reformed" liturgy was a perpetual workshop. It isn't the people who attend the TLM who cut off Reform of the Reform, at the knees.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    There was a time, (or am I dreaming?), when NLM was making helpful suggestions for RotR. Of late it has turned mostly to simple denigration of the OF, and coming close to the idea that the EF has sprung direct from the mind of God. pace jclangfo we don't need that attitude for the OF, or even that 'it has sprung from the pen of the pope', we need an openness from CDWDS to reform.
    We know much of the history of the construction of the NO. We know there was a hurry to cobble something together to avoid another Protestant Reformation. We equally know that Bugnini for one was open to correcting mistakes made in the process, he had after all been involved both in the changes to the Triduum which culminated in 1962 and in the revisions for 1969 which changed them back again, while preserving the essential correction of timing. The tragedy is that we did not immediately go back and start correcting the mistakes.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    But now to propose correcting the "mistakes", or even to consider that there are any in the first place, seems to be considered as a rejection of The Reform and of The Council.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    I noticed that change at the New Liturgical Movement myself. Gregory DiPippo, especially, has become quite arrogant and denigrating towards the Novus Ordo.

    This board risks going in the same direction that NLM has gone, seems to me.

    I recommend that a "Reform of the Reform" thread category or "Music in the Novus Ordo" be added so that members of the forum can easily identify topics that will be about celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass in accord with the rubrics and with a view towards reclaiming liturgical traditions that were hastily abandoned in the early days of the reform, particularly as regards music.
    Thanked by 2toddevoss Don9of11
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,311
    "This board risks going in the same direction that NLM has gone, seems to me."

    I am not going anywhere.

    I've witnessed many people, center-left-right, cultivate expectations regarding liturgy and the Church.

    Right there is the problem: as is said by some in recovery and other circles, expectations are premeditated resentments (and, I would add, resentments are never of God).

    When I was a very young lad, the main crushed expectations energy was a huge cloud of fury around Humanae Vitae; roughly contemporaneously, there was a comparatively tiny furious crowd about liturgical changes (Fr Gommar DePauw's community was a few miles away - nearly everyone else thought them very strange folks).

    I've since seen that same energy in a lot of other contexts from across the spectrum.

    That energy is, largely, not about the Church - it's more about ourselves and the stories we tell ourselves that cultivate and nurture expectations (the culture of late capitalism is all about seeding and building that habit).
    Thanked by 1jclangfo
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    Folks, please stop turning up the temperature.

    I deleted a pointlessly argumentative comment.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    The Reform of the Reform was abandoned because it was self-defeating. Long story short, everything that the RotR wanted to accomplish is already present in the TLM - so why struggle to reform the newer form of the mass if you already have everything you want in the older form? Fr. Thomas Kocik, one of the main proponents of the RotR, came to this conclusion in an article at the NLM in 2014.

    "Competent implementation of rubrics and ritual sensitivity" are great ideas, but I have yet to see this carried out in any meaningful way in the past 50 years. I've been fortunate that my last two pastors have done things well (both were also very attached to the EF - imagine that). But the phenomenon (mentioned by Salieri) of one pastor undoing what another has established is also a real and serious problem.

    I don't see a need for a "RotR" thread here on the Forum. The majority of us are doing it de facto, in that we work in parishes that celebrate the OF, most often the OF exclusively (as I do). So I am part of the RotR, even though I agree with most of what proponents of the EF have to say on this Forum.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    everything that the RotR wanted to accomplish is already present in the TLM - so why struggle to reform the newer form of the mass if you already have everything you want in the older form?
    Yes... the Mass of Ages (and yes, it IS the Mass of Ages... and it doesn't matter whether I say it or you think it not) is perfect and continues to be perfect even as it grows organically. A flower is perfect when it is a bulb in the ground and then it is perfect when it fully blooms. So don't buy into the rubbish that we are 'working on an imperfect liturgy'... it will always be God's perfect sacrifice. But please do not plant your own fabricated bulbs... they are doomed to fail.
    Thanked by 3sdtalley3 CCooze tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    The claim that the RotR's objectives are already present in the TLM is false. Gregory DiPippo made that absurd claim at The New Liturgical Movement the other day:

    it is precisely in the celebration of the traditional rite that we see the authentic fulfillment of what Vatican II wanted and asked for in Sacrosanctum Concilium,

    Source: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/the-legacy-and-tragic-flaws-of-summorum.html

    Vatican II decreed a greater use of the vernacular may be introduced. That's not in the TLM. Vatican II called for greater (full, conscious, active) participation of the assembly; that's not possible in the TLM as much as it's possible in a well-celebrated Novus Ordo. Vatican II called for eliminating some things from the rites, such as useless repetitions. Vatican II called for a more expansive set of lectionary readings. That's not in the TLM.

    If the Council fathers had thought the TLM didn't need to be reformed for the good of the faithful, they wouldn't have mandated that it be reformed. But they did, so we have the liturgical reform. The TLM is definitely not what the Council fathers envisioned would result after the liturgical reform because the TLM preceded the reform and is precisely what was to be reformed.

    That the liturgical reform was poorly implemented necessitated a RotR.

    That doesn't mean going back to the TLM, which was reformed; it means something more like recovering and reclaiming what never should have been abandoned in the reformed liturgy during the 1970s.

    The RotR's starting point is the Novus Ordo. As I understand it and am committed to it, a RotR liturgy will have many affinities with the TLM in music and ars celebrandi, but it will still be the Novus Ordo.

    I agree more with jclangfo's analysis that Summorum took the wind out of the sails of the RotR because people who otherwise might have directed efforts at improving the celebration of the Novus Ordo in parishes instead went to the (then) EF communities and liturgies.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 865
    If you read DiPippo's article he means what he says in the sense that an unreformed liturgy is actually more faithful to the principles given in Sacrosanctum Concilium than what eventually resulted from the reform done in the name of the Council.

    I've been part of the RotR, by default at least, my whole career. The problem is that I have little to show for it. A new pastor, a new bishop, and everything I've worked for can be swept away overnight. And this in complete faithfulness to the rubrics and (many would argue) the spirit of the newer rite. The music I do is not part of the rite (as it is in the EF), the options I do (and they are only that) can be changed with complete freedom and legal legitimacy, the ethos I've tried to create is my interpretation of the rubrics. And I'm sure many on this Forum have experienced this "sweeping away" or know someone who has - I certainly do.

    But more than this, the bottom line is that RotR is simply an option - one among many - in the OF. It has no real claim to any more legitimacy than a masses with no propers or any of the other things we would like to see. All of the elements considered part of the RotR can be optioned out by anyone, anytime, with complete freedom. This is the fundamental reason the RotR has been found wanting - because the OF has been found wanting.

    So the basic objective of the RotR - a stable, objective, permanent way to celebrate the Mass - is inherently lacking in the OF. But this is precisely one of the main virtues of the EF. It is a mature rite with everything in place. This is what I mean when I said that "everything that the RotR wanted to accomplish is already present in the TLM."
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    rich_enough, you made excellent points.

    Perhaps what we are striving for is better captured by the expression "good liturgical sensibilities". Unless someone is imbued with the true spirit of the liturgy, following the rubrics in a minimalist sense or using legitimate options carelessly, without giving careful thought to the ritual as a whole celebration, is insufficient and will often result in poorly celebrated liturgy.

    Liturgy is a divine work but also a product of human art, not the product of an algorithm or flowchart.

    So RotR should be about liturgical formation that brings history, tradition, rubrics, ritual and musical artistry, and spiritual maturity to the preparation of Mass.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    So the basic objective of the RotR - a stable, objective, permanent way to celebrate the Mass - is inherently lacking in the OF. But this is precisely one of the main virtues of the EF. It is a mature rite with everything in place. This is what I mean when I said that "everything that the RotR wanted to accomplish is already present in the TLM."

    Indeed.

    I have worked in the Novus Ordo my entire life, only occasionally have I supplied music for an TLM, though I have attended many. I will give here an anecdote about my current situation:

    This parish is, broadly speaking, "Reform of the Reform"; I am on my second pastor in this position. We sing the Propers from various sources, usually in English; the Ordinary chants are from the Kyriale in Latin, except that the Gloria is often sung in English during Ordinary Time, and the Memorial Acclamation is from the Roman Missal (form C); The Creed is only ever recited; occasionally the choir sings a choral Mass (we've done things like Hassler Secunda and Schubert In G). The hymnal is Adoremus, we use the Ignatius Pew Missal for readings. (We also have a Polish hymnal, since this is historically a Polish parish.) The choir also sings Anthems or Motets.

    All it would take is a pastoral change and all this will go the way of the dodo.

    In fact, I tried to resign this past spring, but was asked to stay on, at least for another year, because the pastor was concerned that he wouldn't be able to find another person to take the post and keep all this going--in other words, I'm allegedly 'indispensable', which is why I wanted to resign in the first place: The entirety of RotR depends on my presence. I'm sorry, but if it depends on me, then it has failed.

    I also want to point something out: The use of the "patrimony" in the New Mass. Whenever I have "attended" either live (such as at Colloquia) or via the internet TLMs with 'Big Masses', I am amazed at how well everything flows together, even things as seemingly disparate as a Gregorian Introit and a Poulenc Kyrie follow one another seamlessly. Everything works.

    This is not the case with the Novus Ordo, sad to say, especially in, forgive me, certain cathedrals and shrines. Because of the modular construction of the Novus Ordo, and because of Bugnini's fetish about duplications or ritual overlap (e.g. Canon said under a choral Sanctus), everything has to stop, and so even something as seemingly simple and appropriate as Byrd for Four seems horrendously out of place; heck, even Gloria XV or Sanctus XI seem out of place. The liturgy literally has to stop while the choir puts on a concert. The Novus Ordo, in its current form, seems to be a liturgy intended for the perfunctory "utility music" of Gelineau and Berthier.

    So, (rhetorical question) how exactly are we supposed to safeguard the musical patrimony of the Church and be true to the "ethos" of the New Mass?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 620
    If we're honest, it probably means that not everything in the Church's musical treasury ought to be used in the Novus Ordo. A polyphonic Sanctus that takes three or four minutes to sing? Usually not going to be a good fit, but in rare instances (not at regular parish Sunday Masses), maybe it could be used.

    That doesn't mean everything gets chucked, but the different ritual purpose of music in the Novus Ordo has to be considered an important factor along with the traditional qualities of holiness, beauty and universality.

    A chant setting such as the Missa de Angelis can work very well in the Novus Ordo Mass.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 149
    But more than this, the bottom line is that RotR is simply an option - one among many - in the OF. It has no real claim to any more legitimacy than a masses with no propers or any of the other things we would like to see. All of the elements considered part of the RotR can be optioned out by anyone, anytime, with complete freedom. This is the fundamental reason the RotR has been found wanting - because the OF has been found wanting.


    Because of the modular construction of the Novus Ordo, and because of Bugnini's fetish about duplications or ritual overlap (e.g. Canon said under a choral Sanctus), everything has to stop, and so even something as seemingly simple and appropriate as Byrd for Four seems horrendously out of place; heck, even Gloria XV or Sanctus XI seem out of place. The liturgy literally has to stop while the choir puts on a concert.


    I am someone who followed the NLM blog soon after its beginnings. I very much believed in Reform of the Reform(and still do). Initially, my views centered on choosing more traditional options, chanting the propers etc. But I do agree these cannot be implemented with catholicity/universality because of the "optionality" of the OF. So I agree with the two quotes above that the long term RofR should focus on these key points:
    1) eliminate most of the optionality (leaving prefaces as an example of optionality still permitted which has support in the organic tradition)
    2) reconsider the needless elimination of duplications that, in fact, were not needless themselves (an example was the 2011 restoration of the thrice-repeated "through my fault" which is poetic and striking and therefore effective liturgy).
    3) eliminate the artificial dissolution of "ritual overlap". Its natural and quit worrying about it such that it disorders the liturgy

    This long term goal isn't going to be achieved by individual parishes. The short term goal would be "what we can do". The lay folks need to actively support the Salieri's when a new priest arrives. And actively engage and say we love our liturgy here and we ask you not to change it. And vote with their money and their feet if he disregards their wishes.

    I was dismayed by devolution of NLM into a absolute restorationist blog and especially by one author's increasing attack on the OF as not just shabby but spiritually harmful (accompanied by that same author's increasing support for Vigano and all he represents). Nevertheless NLM still have very good scholarly articles legitimately pointing out choices made in the construction of the OF and its prayers that certainly provide food for thought in the longer project (especially in the Collects).
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    I've been part of the RotR, by default at least, my whole career. The problem is that I have little to show for it. A new pastor, a new bishop, and everything I've worked for can be swept away overnight. And this in complete faithfulness to the rubrics and (many would argue) the spirit of the newer rite. The music I do is not part of the rite (as it is in the EF), the options I do (and they are only that) can be changed with complete freedom and legal legitimacy, the ethos I've tried to create is my interpretation of the rubrics. And I'm sure many on this Forum have experienced this "sweeping away" or know someone who has - I certainly do.
    rich_enough... you have told my story which happened numerous times... and overnight, years of work, formation, teaching, a setting in of 'tradition' is scrapped overnight and is thrown out on the street. The NO constituents DON'T WANT RIGIDITY in ANY form, ancient or new. This experimental liturgical form is defective in its very essence in that it prefers personal options, personal taste, personal preference, and my 50 years in the NO is proof of this very fact.

    And here is a very interesting thing... the true tell all... consistently, someone with my personal leanings toward the repertoire based in chant, polyphony and organ made me the outcast every single time I took a post, as these things represent those that the constituents of the NO also did not want in any way.

    It is not just the form of the new mass that is erroneous, it is also the defectability of how it misforms, twists, fragments and distorts the faith of those who give themselves to it.

    If ever there needs to be a questionaire, it needs to be sent to us directors of music who have been experimenting our entire lives in the NO (me since 1972) to see if IT is the thing that needs to be phased out.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    Salieri - yes I understand and sympathesise with what you say, but was the grass greener before? Say 120 years ago, when the choir might be singing something by Gounod, or chant from the Medici school. Did it not depend just as much on the choirmaster. Its like washing the dishes, after each meal, on and on.
    And perhaps when we do have some of the neccessary reforms, the issue of preserving the musical patrimony without impeding the sacred action can be addressed. My own feeling is that it has never been done satisfactorally, before and after VII I have avoided choral (as opposed to chanted) Masses. Last year, exceptionally, I attended an Ordinariate Mass on Candlemas, which used Mozart's Sparrow Mass. The music was good, and pleasing to the ear, I did not find it a liturgical enhancement, rather the contrary, YMMV. (And they did say the whole of the first part of the Roman Canon while the choir were singing the Sanctus, and still had to wait.)
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • MichaelRaney
    Posts: 10
    .
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    Until there is curial or pontifical movement, there is only individual parish grasping at ever-diminishing straws. At the next pastor switch, we could be told, "We don't chant in Latin anymore." or "Tear out that organ and bring in a drumset." - at this point, who could argue it?
    ...our entire lives, and the entire lives of those who will follow...
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 149
    I suppose I'm most upset with Benedict being shown to promote error.

    That is a misuse of the term "error". Benedict's prudential judgement about what he "expected" was not part of his magisterium.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    But it's not unreasonable considering that most people act as if the reigning pope IS the magisterium.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MichaelRaney
    Posts: 10
    .
  • In the final analysis, Pope Francis has just put the nail in the coffin of the Reform of the Reform, because any form of improvement by recovering things which should never have been lost in the first place will leave the meek proposer open to the charge of restorationism or something.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    Some things the Council wanted are realized in present-day TLM practice: vernacular readings, more common celebration of sung and solemn Masses and not just read Masses; the fostering of Gregorian chant, greater awareness of the liturgy, and very likely more of the full conscious and active participation for which Pope St Pius X called in 1903.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    Here's a question to consider toward a reform of the reform:

    What innovations or options in the modern Roman Missal should be identified as useless accretions contrary to the will of the Council, and be removed to move toward a purer, more authentic representation of the Roman liturgical tradition?
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 818
    Multiple Memorial Acclamations (it should either be removed entirely or replaced with a single option, preferably Salvator mundi or O salutaris hostia)
    Thanked by 3Salieri CHGiffen tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    Or Ave verum corpus.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    1) the Eucharistic Acclamation; SC§30 calls for acclamations but this one is in the wrong place
    2) option of the Kyrie as a penitential action; it could just be moved after the "absolution" to give a choice of Kyrie with or without tropes.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,602
    The Bidding Prayers/General Intercessions or whatever they are currently called should be brief set formulae if voiced by a lay person. and each should provide a silence for individual reflection/prayer.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    With regard to a general reform of the Missal, at the risk of looking like a MAJOR DORK, this is something that I did on a day of boredom in 2014. It was a kind of thought exercise of what a hypothetical reform of the Missal might look like. There are probably some things which I might change were I doing it today, but this is basically where my thoughts on this subject were seven years ago. (Needless to say, this holds no weight as a legitimate usage.)
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,456
    Pope Salieri -

    Would your liturgy be akin to the Ordinariate Missal?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    In retrospect, probably, but I don't think that the Ordinariate Missal was around at the time.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,772
    Ah! Reform of the Reform: The Bishop of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, in addition to banning the TLM has also banned: Roman Chasubles, Maniples, Birettas, Veils & Burses, linen altar cloths, etc.image
    Thanked by 1trentonjconn
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,593
    I've deleted some off-topic comments.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 796
    everything that the RotR wanted to accomplish is already present in the TLM - so why struggle


    Since this motu proprio purports to kill the TLM, it's time to struggle again...

    But the phenomenon (mentioned by Salieri) of one pastor undoing what another has established is also a real and serious problem.


    And now one pope undoing what another had established... it seems an unavoidable condition of our work, that another will someday come and undo it!
    Thanked by 3CCooze tomjaw francis
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,039
    There were initiatives for mutual understanding. In a real sense, these two forms were growing together still. Maybe the fullest expression of the 'two forms' would have been fulfilled in 100 years, now we'll never know.


    Watching the ars celebrandi of our pastor both before and after he began using the EF, I can see some migration towards an EF 'sensibility.' (Sadly, that has not yet begun with the music person, despite the fact that she is a loud-and-proud proponent of the EF.)

    I agree that the process could have taken far more years than was allowed.

    Is there 'blame' here? Not necessarily. Priests aged 60+ or so are, by and large, NOT going to learn and use the EF. Priests under the age of 30 are, by and large, interested in learning/using the EF--at least in this Archdiocese; in fact, several have become 'bi-ritual' in the last couple of years.

    Those 'bi-ritual' priests are the only ones who can merge the Rites in an RoR, so to speak, and they certainly cannot assemble all the working components in only a few years.

    Maybe if there had not been islands of EF, and a large group of "NOT ME!!" older priests/pastors in the OF, things would be different.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,154
    Salieri, does anyone have a copy of that letter in English?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,311
    Very very roughly, the first two parts of that diocesan decree stipulate there aren't and haven't been any communities or groups that have had a need for the EF, nor have there been nor will there be designated any places or priests to celebrate it. The third part is basically a measure against alternative facts arising.