"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Folks, please stop turning up the temperature.

I deleted a pointlessly argumentative comment.

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.

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."

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?

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).

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.)

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...

But it's not unreasonable considering that most people act as if the reigning pope IS the magisterium.

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.

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?

Or Ave verum corpus.

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.

Pope Salieri -

Would your liturgy be akin to the Ordinariate Missal?

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.

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!

Salieri, does anyone have a copy of that letter in English?