More on the "Reform of the Reform"

As I predicted earlier in the year on this blog, Summorum Pontificam has begun to raise questions about the Reform-of-the-Reform and where it will go next. Over at the New Liturgical Movement there is an interesting discussion of the "Reform-of-the-Reform" movement and what its real agenda is.

There are a number streams of thought in the article:
Stream #1 is that the RofR movement is seeking a return to organic growth and an interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium that focusses on its Vatican II's desire for organic growth and a mild amount of mofification of the Roman Missal and questions the direction of the liturgical reform from 1962 to 1970 and beyond.

Stream #2 is that the RofR movement simply accepts what is done with the 1970 edition of the Missal (and the 2002 update) and apply it as accurately as practicable (ie. Say the Black - Do the Red or as NLM terms it the STBDTR movement).

Leading from this are the assertions that Stream 1 is the authentic RofR. The chief criticism made by the author of the Shrine of the Holy Wapping is that the RofR is becoming more narrow focussed and hitching its wagon to the "classically tradtionalist" agenda and being excessively restorationist. The author claims that this has led to certain parishes being labelled as "flagship parishes" that reflect what certain RofR proponents want rather than what the "movement" set out to achieve.

Confused? You are not the only one.

This is my take on all of this. I agree that SP has completely changed the RofR agenda. I believe that one of the original driving forces of the RofR was the assumption that the TLM was gone and would never be a viable force, had problems, and that the RofR was an alternative way that would be acceptable to the church hierarchy. I think that this was probabaly some of the driving force behind St Agnes in St Paul Minnesota and the Brompton Oratory. Under this agenda, Stream #1 was more dominant than stream #2.

SP has "pulled the rug" from the stream #1 thought. I believe that the Ordinary Form is what it is. It cannot be "tridentinised" as it is a child of its particular time in church history. Therefore stream #2 should be driving the RofR agenda, and personally I am of the STBDTR persuasion.

If I want to tridentinise the Mass I go to an Extraordinary Form Mass and do it properly. If I want to go to an Ordinary Form Mass because I want a greater range of scripture readings, hear and participate in the Mass in English, I will do so. The fact that Holy Communion is in the hand, the Mass is celebrated versus populum, there may be lay ministers of Holy Communion, is part of that package. The thing that I am concerned about is that the liturgical books are followed accurately and with maturity. What I do not like is "pick and choose" approaches to the GIRM. It is in these areas that the RofR needs to focus.

Incidently in Brisbane we have no parishes that could be seen as RofR flagships. The liturgy is in disarray to varying degrees in all of them.