Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
To those who say the Reform of the Reform is going nowhere, I would remind them of the lovely adage, "The wheels of Rome grind ever so slow but ever so fine."
The great injustice done to the Liturgical Movement in the 1960s-70s was due to the speed which which "reform" was carried out. Fire isn't fought with fire and one can't expect anything good to come from dashing through yet another reform in just a few years or decades.
When change occurs in a short period of time, one can be reasonably sure that man himself was the principle agent of change. But when change takes place over decades and centuries, one can take hope in the confidence that the Holy Spirit was the most likely agent of change.
The refors of the 1960's and 1970's were a disaster in and of themselves. The elaborations upon them even worse ( multiplications of Eucharistic prayers , Communion in the Hand and under both kinds, altar girls etc.).
I think that not too long from now, (especially with Arinze gone hopefully next month when He turns 75), there will be some surprise rulings regarding the N.O. in the direction towards tradition....more specifically making the N.O. more like the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I think the N.O. will morph into a creation similar to the Tridentine over the next few years....or....will eventually die out...replaced largely by the Tridentine liturgy.
I think that Pope Benedict XVI fully wanted the Tridentine Latin Mass to influence the Novus Ordo. But I also think that Pope Benedict XVI would not be too surprised to see the N.O. eventually fall into disuse.
A little-known letter written by Joseph Ratzinger to Heinz-Lothar Barth, a few months before his elevation to the papacy, can be accessed here:
http://www.olfatima.com/ratzinge...r%
20letter.html
This letter reveals what the future Pope Benedict XVI was thinking in 2004 regarding the future of the liturgy, and should give pause to those who think that the "reform of the reform" is dead. If anything, the letter reveals that the future Pope was envisioning a SINGLE FORM of the Roman Rite in the future, described as:
"But I think in the future the Roman Church will have to have only a single rite; the existence of two rites presents administrative difficulties for bishops and priests. The Roman Rite of the future ought to be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or the language of the people, but entirely based on the tradition of the old rite; it might integrate some new elements that have proven themselves, some prefaces, longer readings - more choices than before, but not too many - an Oratio fidelium (Prayer of the Faithful), this could mean a litany of prayers of intercession after the Oremus before the offertory, which is its primitive place"
Cardinal Ratzinger was here describing a form of Mass that is obviously in the tradition of the Roman Missals promulgated by the Popes from St. Pius V to Bl. John XXIII, but which is not unaffected by the Novus Ordo either.
Joseph Ratzinger, for all his apparent youthful "radicalism", has in fact been marked by a remarkable consistency of thought for all his theological life. I don't think that a mere three years have changed his views. Let's not forget that there will be an evaluation period of the new state of affairs brought about by Summorum Pontificum, three years from now; who knows if, in 2010, we will see the beginning of a "Benedictine Reform" of the the two forms of the Roman Rite that will eventually see the creation of a reformed Traditional Roman Mass with notable Novus Ordo elements?
For those who feel that the ROR is going nowhere, I would ask exactly where is it supposed to be going right now? With the new translations of the Missal due during the next year or two, the pending revision of Music in Catholic Worship, which will become a far more important document than it is now, the appearance of the Bishops Directory for Music and the Liturgy (which is another whole storm that will come on the scene suddenly and without warning!)and of course, the ongoing influence of the TLM in parishes across the country... I think the ROR is plenty alive! If you are waiting for Benedict to issue Motu Proprio some kind of radical overhaul of the NO liturgy, then it may seem to be going nowhere, because that is most unlikely to happen. One brick at a time...
All this is well and good, but what about that most necessary document: an Apostolic Constitution on the Suppression of Certain Unworthy Liturgical Musical Works, with an appended Schedule that basically reprints virtually all of the OCP and and GIA catalogues, and a Note that says the Schedule may be updated from time to time?
A good question is how much can the reform be reformed? Certainly the current liturgical and juridical laws must also be followed. To just start adding Traditional elements would be imprudent, but the question is, how do those of us wanting to reform the reform make progress to hopefully bringing in changes that are not currently allowed according to the Novus Ordo books or instruction?
Many good thoughts and insights on the topic of the R of the R--and where it goes from the present. May I add that it appears in alot of places, that diocesan officials have put up barriers and all manner of obstruction aimed at halting the advance of the extraordinary rite, thereby shutting down any possible liturgical reform. Putting the issues of the extraordinary rite, latin, and gregorian chant aside, there are many that just don't want ANY reform on ANY level. Given all of this, I don't forsee any reform happening in the near future, unless Rome decrees definitively and with clarity--leaving no option to resist or refuse. Without such a move from Rome, many clerics will continue along quite successfully in their attempts to isolate and ostracise any attempts at liturgical reform, because there appears to be a decidely different ideology in play--this is what I see REALLY happening.
"But I think in the future the Roman Church will have to have only a single rite; the existence of two rites presents administrative difficulties for bishops and priests. The Roman Rite of the future ought to be..."
I think this quotation is very telling, and explains why Pope Benedict worded both the motu proprio and his explanatory letter the way that he did. I am convinced that if people went back and actually READ them both, without preconceived notions or expectations (and let's face it, people who looked forward to such a decree did have expectations), they would understand.
Until then, the very idea of liturgical co-existence is unthinkable, and they'll quote selectively from the Holy Father's works to make their point. Some of NLM's contributors continue to discuss the use of one form or the other -- this as opposed to the older form exclusively -- in the course of their apostolates. This is a good sign.
Kenjiro, I applaud your enthusiasm, if not your naiveté and I hope you'll permit me just a few words of correction. "Tridentine Mass" is a sloppy term at best and at worst is misleading and actually harmful.
God forms the Liturgy, not man. The term "Tridentine" attributes the origin of the Mass to the Council of Trent instead of to God Himself. In this sense, the term "Tridentine" is painfully bad theology.
Additionally, the Mass codified at Trent is virtually the same Mass that had already been celebrated in the many centuries before Trent. In this sense, the term "Tridentine" is just sloppy history.
The term "Extraordinary Form" should be preferred, but some may find it too cold or scholarly. Personally, as a liturgust, I find "Traditional Latin Mass" perfectly agreeable because it avoids attributing the Mass to any one point in history. Rather, it speaks of the whole expanse of Tradition (i.e., God's Revelation through time) which has been responsible for delivering that form of the Mass to us.
For a lot of us out in the trenches, the reform of the reform currently consists of the long task of getting our daily and weekly liturgies more in line with how they are already _supposed_ to be. Getting Latin used for parts such as the Kyrie, Gloria and Sanctus. Using chant and polyphany instead of G&P favorites, encouraging the use of incense, chanting of the Eucharistic Rite, and avoidance of ad-lib catechesis during the mass (a temptation of even many orthodox priests, whose awareness of poor education among the flock tempts them to turn every sacrament into an explicit instruction session), etc.
It's un-sexy work done at parish council, liturgy committee and music ministry retreats, and so it doesn't make exciting national news the way the motu proprio does. But it is, I think, highly necessary as we try to get individual parishes back on track liturgically speaking.
For a lot of us out in the trenches, the reform of the reform currently consists of the long task of getting our daily and weekly liturgies more in line with how they are already _supposed_ to be. Getting Latin used for parts such as the Kyrie, Gloria and Sanctus.
Getting Latin used for the Kyrie would be an achievement indeed. :-)
--John
The reform of the reform is not dead as a movement. The question is will it ever be successcful, and if we believe it can, how long will it take. In Seattle and unfrotunately in many other locales, we still see flagrant abuse, personalized alterations, horrible music (not even good contemporary music) and highly questionable theology. The "rules" issued by the Congr of Diveine Worship are blatantly ignored. In many dioceses, like Seattle, the priests ordained in the early 70s to mid 80s are still in control. I think it's going to take a generation of new priests to eliminate these abuses, and that, of course, necessarily relies upon the support of bishops and seminary faculty. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but sometimes I think folks from other parts of the country don't realize what a liturgical wasteland the West truly continues to be.
I translate the Greek characters into Latin ones and consider it a victory... :-P
What are the specific, concrete goals of the reform of the reform? Improving ceremonial is one thing, but this is only part of the picture. There is still the issue of the unprecedented Offertory prayers, the invented-by-committee Lectionary, the multiple Eucharistic prayers, etc.
Moreover, the great majority of parishes that hold fast to the Ordinary Form are not fertile ground for revisions to the rite that go more in the direction of tradition. Imagine the outrage at--hypothetically--discontinuing the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
In short, it seems to me that if the reform of the reform seeks to go in the direction of tradition, then the Traditional Latin Mass is where it is at. For my part, I have decided to focus much more of my effort on the Extraordinary Form. The spread of the dignified celebration of the older form of Mass is the best way to return to tradition.
I know this might make me the bete noir with some, and this post may come across as somehow intolerant, but it is not that. It is simply that, after reflection, I think this is the way to go. In order for tradition to spread and take root, the Traditional Mass will have to spread and take root.
This is why the work of the individuals mentioned in the post remains not only relevant, but more crucial than ever.
For the moment, the practical side of the reform of the reform lay in the area of ceremonial, music, etc.
The matters pertaining to the missal itself are presently matters of study, debate and discussion -- all hopefully lending itself to some action in the future on the part of the Churhc.
But, one can also look to implementing the classical liturgy now as not only being good in its own right, but also as yet another means of helping to effect a reform of the reform as well.
Indeed, as I say, it is my personal opinion that in great part the implementation of the classical liturgy will now give the significant basis and push for the reform of the reform.
I don't, however, see any issue with someone focusing more upon the one or the other -- at the end of the day, they do interrelate. What mainly matters is that there is at least an attitude of openness as regards the other.
A real reform of the reform would obviously entail an improvement for the Novus Ordo but also its slow death.
Before the MP, the reform of the reform *was* going nowhere. The MP may have given it some impetus to move, but we will see. The status quo in the N.O. is pretty well entrenched due to all the I-want-a-job hangers on in so-called lay ministry.
I expect that it might pick up along about the time the new translations are released and the present ones are abrogated. That ought to be interesting. I think we might get another birds-eye-view of who's who then.
Reform of the reform so far has been feel good rhetoric for conciliar dreamers like Fr. Fessio. If it meant the restoration of the traditional mass in its substance if not every detail, I'd be down for that.
I have to agree with Mike Lawrence. In reality, the genie's out of the bottle -- EMs, renovated churches, desecrated altars, communion tables, "my time in the spotlight" cantors, "happy-face" masses with lots of hugging, chatting, and self-congratulations for what a wonderful celebrating assembly we all are, etc. Are folks really going to give that up? I despair that any "reform of the reform" will not happen in my lifetime. That's why I embrace the TLM, which takes just as much work, if not more, to do well. With luck and support from the clergy, the TLM will influence the NO, but only slowly as one generation passes to another.
I'm all for people putting more work into doing the extraordinary form well, in part because I yearn for the day when I can go to an extraordinary form mass and hear the priest speak the Latin clearly and as if the words were individually important. (As someone whose Latin is pretty good, the Roman auctioneer thing that I've experienced at every TLM I've attended really bothers me.)
However, I'd be sad to see the result of the motu proprio be that many of those committed to beautiful liturgy go off and hide themselves with TLM groups. It's all very well to huff that most priests and laity like the happy clappy stuff, but since for the forseeable future (unless I am very, very much mistaken) 95%+ of the liturgies in this country will be celebrated according to the ordinary use, it seems terribly important to work on the ordinary use.
Maybe this is easier for me to say in that I have relatively few real objections to the new missal as it's actually written. Sure, it would be nice if there were only the Roman Canon, but aside form that I have few objections to the missal -- just to what's done to it.
My priest has done away with weekday Masses. The Sunday liturgies are all over the lot, some are relatively free of abuses others are not. Whatever the music honchow wants to do for that Mass is what sets the tone.
SP in my neck of the woods? The Bishop does not think priests have time for it. Priests ditto. The older faithful are indifferent, the younger ones have never been exposed to Catholic doctrine, liturgy, music or culture. Can you please describe how the reform of the reform or the implementation of SP going to happen in the absence of Devine intervention?
Let me say from the start that I've never been one who embraces the "Reform of the Reform" idea, not out of any malice, but simply because I feel there is no need as we can just restore the TLM. My own opinion is that you will see the number of people who hold the Traditionalist position - not extremist, but undbending (think Michael Davies RIP) - is only going to grow now, with much of that growth coming from those who would otherwise have supported a reform. I do think we will end up with one form of the Roman Rite (and hopefully restored versions of the other Latin Rites), but I think it will be the TLM with minor updates pertaining mostly to the calendar. Just look at how the Traditional Orders were growing before the MP, how much more will they now? This will not happen overnight - most priests I know between 40 and 60 (like the laity of that age) - aren't going to embrace the TLM, but in 40, 50, 100 years?
A few thoughts for those who are uncomfortable with the reform of the reform and its chances of success.
Let's recall the history of the pre-indult, and 1984 original indult days. It took over 40 years to hit the point we have hit now. That's a long time in the life of a person and had you mentioned it back then if you somehow knew, they likely would have despaired at the thought. How hopeful might one have been, even in 1984 with a very restrictive indult, that such would happen? Some people fell along the way, and yet it happened, through persistence, prayer and I think through divine intervention. But of course, there is yet still work to be done, not only as regards its application, but also as regards the continuing improvement of the quality and fullness of the classical liturgies celebrated.
That ties into the second point. Our considerations are often based upon what is possible from a human perspective as regards a human institution, but let's not forget the Church is human and divine. So while the challenges are real and arduous, nothing is impossible for God.
Let's also not forget that progress is being made for the reform of the reform. Resources are being published, just like they were in the 1962 missal movement. Discussion is happening. Further, in terms of formal progress, the re-translation of the modern Roman missal in the English world is a major improvement for example. There are other things. The progress in the reform of the reform is not always so easy to see as it is in the classical liturgy, precisely because it moves in gradations which vary from parish to parish, diocese to diocese.
The impact of the classical liturgy will also be felt as I have said. Actally, a wise reform of the reformer would, I think, understand that the classical liturgy actually provides another tool in the arsenal of the reform of the reform itself as well. Unfortunately, amongst some of them there has also been an attitude of marginalization toward the classical liturgy. That is likewise something some of them will need to get over, just as I think some traditionalists need to stop pushing that movement down and away.
If they can move beyond that, they will see, I think, that there is a great strategy to be found in employing Summorum Pontificum. Even in a parish that seems unprimed for the reform of the reform, adopting the classical liturgy into that parish will begin the process of infusing of ad orientem, chant, Latin, etc. into the life of the parish and some of its parishioners. That will then be a better position to help get such things translated into their other parish liturgies as well, while also providing the classical liturgy to those in the parish who desire it and prefer it.
It's that kind of scenario that makes me say, as I did in the post itself, that my personal opinion is that Summorum Pontifium now very much drives the reform of the reform.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
At the end of the day my thought is this: work wherever you want; focus on the reform of the reform; or focus on the classical liturgy; or focus on both. Whatever. But do it with an attitude that is open to the greater project.
If we are concerned about the liturgy, then we are concerned about the liturgy generally. Let's recall that the liturgical rupturists are not content to leave any liturgy alone, neither should we be, whatever our preference. Reform of the reformers should help people get the classical liturgy into their parishes, and classical liturgy folks should help encourage the re-enchantment of the ordinary form of the Roman liturgy by lending them their support, encouragement, resources, expertise and so forth.
Ryan,
Pastorally, as the situation stands, one couldn't simply universally restore the classical liturgy. We have to think realistically about that matter.
Further, do consider that what you propose or envision as the goal/end could therefore not happen without a reform of the reform first influencing the standard Catholic's parish liturgy and formation.
The best way for that to happen is by the wide diffusion of the classical liturgy into typical parish life, and by the project of the reform of the reform which seeks to draw a traditional liturgical ethos gradually back into the parish, thus forming people in our liturgical tradition, while continuing to contribute to the discussion of the reform of the missal itself. The latter is most likely able to happen once the former (the ethos and formation) is being accomplished.
John, in addition to what I have already said (and divine intervention does indeed enter into it) from a purely human level consider that dioceses and parishes do not exist in vacuums. So if the reform of the reform and the classical liturgy is being defused in neighbouring dioceses/parishes, eventually this influence will be felt even in places resisting.
One can only hold out so long.
By way of counterpoint to the early post by Anon, here is an extract from a lecture given by then Cardinal Ratzinger on 24 October 1998 at a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei":
We must now examine the other argument, which claims that the existence of the two rites can damage unity. Here a distinction must be made between the theological aspect and the practical aspect of the question. As regards what is theoretical and basic, it must be stated that several forms of the Latin rite have always existed, and were only slowly withdrawn, as a result of the coming together of the different parts of Europe. Before the Council there existed side by side with the Roman rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga, the Carthusian rite, the Carmelite rite, and best known of all, the Dominican rite, and perhaps still other rites of which I am not aware. No one was ever scandalized that the Dominicans, often present in our parishes, did not celebrate like diocesan priests but had their own rite. We did not have any doubt that their rite was as Catholic as the Roman rite, and we were proud of the richness inherent in these various traditions. Moreover, one must say this: that the freedom which the new order of Mass gives to creativity is often taken to excessive lengths. The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books.
Amen to that, Shawn. It's intolerable to think that lukewarm mediocre "ordinary form" liturgy is going to be the default for the foreseeable future. I'd rather have a spoken Mass.
Here's the deal. Very few young people have experience in the extraordinary form. In fact, very few of them have experience with a beautifully-done ordinary form. On the other side of the age spectrum, you have aging Boomers and even older Traditionalists. The older Traditionalists can be extremely helpful, but I wouldn't count on many of them to join scholas and choirs.
So that likely leaves middle-aged people like me (age 40), and many, if not most, of us have kids, families, and full-time jobs. We do have interest, we're increasingly better informed, and our voices are still in good shape. We're busy, capable, have lots of resources, and can get things done.
But we need help. At a minimum, we need some child care at Church (this is yet another area where senior people can really help). We also need the blessing of the pastor, and a "liturgy person" or music director who will let us build a parallel organization to the established (if there is an established) Family Style™ choir. We need space, preferably in the Church's facility, for practice. We don't need a budget, but we'd love the Church to hire a first-rate organist. Without an organist, we can still accomplish a great deal.
Having met many accomplished musicians out here in the pews, I can tell you, there is a LARGE reservoir of talented, orthodox, hungry, willing people who'd like to help parishes. We just need support. Break down the ridiculous monopoly of "Spirit of Vatican II" types on the liturgy, support the quality, tradition-minded people, get some orthodox traditional pro musicians in the mix, and watch good things happen.
If we get this, I'm convinced the Reform of the Reform is not only possible, but probable. Moreover, it's crucial to the Faith.
But I'm not hopeful. There are too few talented orthodox people to go around. They'll help with EF Masses, and the OF Masses will continue to swirl around like wet paper.
I pray Shawn is right, that the desire for reform is strong in enough places for momentum to build. A Papal Mass rumored for Advent would go a long way to foster such momentum.
Michael is right, as are others here. The proloferation of the TLM is necessary for the reform movement. It will serve as a reference - a benchmark. More importantly, the spread of the TLM will open the eyes of many of the lost who have no idea how beautiful the mass can be. Having the TLM much more widespread will expose them bit by bit to that reverence and beauty. THEY will then become advocates for the reform of the reform. There is militantly modernist minority, but they ARE a minority. Most people who attend the many sad NO masses have no idea at all that that is not how it is supposed to be. They think it's normal.
That having been said, in many cases the powers that be in a parish (or diocese) are sooo far "out there" litugically that nothing short of a figurative kick in the backside in the form of some VERY strict - and stricly enforced - rules from the top will have any effect at all.
Question: does 'reform of the reform' mean dressing up the Bugninian Ordo with chant and incense, or modifications of the Novus Ordo to bring it closer somehow to the classical rite?
I did not want to stir up a hornet's nest with this issue, but I am concerned that there are signs of a growing polarisation on the use of the 2 forms. It seems to me that the great difficulty with a reform of the reform is that there are too many questions as to what such a reform should be like, and too many, way too many answers. Issues have to be narrowed down so that concrete steps can be taken for a reform. There is no question that Vatican II mandated changes to the 1962 liturgy, and that such a changed liturgy would have to be the norm in the Latin Church until superseded by other valid mandates.
There are many questions, but here are some basic ones:
Is the Bugnini reform faithful to the conciliar mandates? If so, were some of the changes in excess of what was called for and in what way? If not, should the Novus Ordo be reformed, or should another attempt be made to fulfill the mandates using the 1962 books as the starting point? Either way, what are the issues that are problematic for many with the Novus Ordo, and what are the difficulties with the 1962 books that require reforms? As one can see already, these few questions can easily lead to nowhere because there are just too many varied answers. Someone in authority must narrow down the options.
I personally think a fresh starting point should begin with the 1962 books as base. I suspect that many reading the NLM would agree with me. In the light of this perhaps the NLM could take leadership to address systematically specific issues with the 1962 books and the liturgical mandates of Vatican II and try to reach a large consensus. For instance, should the prayers at the foot of the altar be changed, and if so in what way? Should the Canon be said in total silence, out loud, or in a practical "secreto", that is, like whispering a secret into someone's ear? The last Gospel...offertory... ad Dominum posture.... etc. Could we come up with some consensus on all these issues over time, and try to make a provisional reformed ordo of Mass that could be referred to and argued for in official circles? I think that a reformed ordo should not come from the "experts" whose views change from generation to generation and from university to university, but from God's people themselves, from the Church.
"Question: does 'reform of the reform' mean dressing up the Bugninian Ordo with chant and incense, or modifications of the Novus Ordo to bring it closer somehow to the classical rite?"
There are three answers to that: "both," "neither," and "it depends..."
For most individuals and families, the immediate need is to get to Heaven. In the minds of some of them, the recent papal decree made that easier, and their immediate need is met. Within their sphere of influence, the "reform of the reform" is done. But the Holy Father, through his writings as a Prince of the Church, and the details of his decree and explanatory letter (and someday more people will actually read them as opposed to reading about them), is concerned with the other one billion people outside that "sphere of influence" I mentioned.
That's the part that some would call "the big picture."
With the latter, the "reform of the reform" is NOT over. The average parish may find itself with recourse to interim measures for the recovery of tradition -- the "smells and bells," if you will -- in the context of the reformed liturgy. If you want to call that "dressing [it] up," fine, but I submit that such was its proper place all along. To wit, the monks of Solesmes have published volumes of chant for the liturgy and the church year, all suited for the reformed Roman rite. Msgr Elliot wrote two volumes of Ceremonials for the same, published by Ignatius. Now, we can ask ourselves, why bother with any of those when we have the classical missal to use again?
If you have read Summorum Pontificum, and the explanatory letter, and still have to ask, I can't help you.
the "smells and bells," if you will -- in the context of the reformed liturgy. If you want to call that "dressing [it] up," fine, but I submit that such was its proper place all along.
Thank you, Mr. Alexander!
Goodness knows, I'm aware of the shortcomings of the vast majority of the everyday celebrations of the NO -- but at the same time I've got to admit it fries me to hear people who should be in a position to know better act as if chant, reverence, incense, etc. in the NO is like makeup on a pig.
I'm no Bugnini fan, and I wish that the reforms had not gone nearly as far as they did, but the fact remains that the NO is the mass we have. The mass that has nourished Catholics in my generation all our lives (except for the occasional visit to Tridentine or Byzantine liturgies.)
It's the mass our pope says most of the time, and the mass that allows me to receive the most precious body and blood of my savior several times a week -- and I can't say I love hearing it discussed like some old sow that only a few "conciliar dreamers like Fr. Fessio" are foolish enough to see any worth in.
I think another thing that people need to keep in mind is that this problem may well take a century or so to fix. All of us might be dead before the Liturgy is, for the most part, back on her feet again. We ought not to think that, just because a given solution can't be realized during our lifetime, therefore it is not a good solution.
Pius VI
Well said. It is like planting an acorn, knowing full well one will not live to see the oak tree, but that those who come after us will benefit by our action.
Sorry, of course I mean Pius VII!
I agree with our Holy Father's letter cited above: one rite in latin or in the vernacular. Questions like the prayers at the foot of the altar and whether the priest faces the congregation or not need to be addressed. However,as an organist and choir director in a parish where liturgy is rather loose (much to my dismay but leaving me little choice for financial reasons) I think that the NLM could use its influence to at least apply some pressure on our Bishops to change a few things. 1.that the English translations of the Paul Vi Missal be more accurate and not changed at the ICEL whims every so many years and 2. that good music be composed in English for the Introits, Gradual, Offertory and Communion Verses. (so we can bury the pop tunes that litter our liturgies with all kinds of pyschobabble). I love the Gregorian chants and beautiful polyphonies but there should be as beautiful classical music for the use in English. Time for composers to give us equally good music (as Howells, Near etc..)that sing the offical texts of our liturgies.
and classical liturgy folks should help encourage the re-enchantment of the ordinary form of the Roman liturgy by lending them their support, encouragement, resources, expertise and so forth.
Shawn
I cannot in good conscience lend a helping hand to improve a NO mass solely. I could lend support for the destruction of abuses and the use of traditional form like ad orientem but at the same time I have an obligation to explain how the NO is a fabricated, watered-down liturgy (even if done traditionally) that is inferior to the TLM and must be gotten rid of.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
