A Revolt of the Revolt?
Since I have been on the list of contributors to this blog it seems logical that I should contribute something. Here are some thoughts I have on a subject that I suppose to be precious to us all. (I hope I did not make to much grammatical errors since English is not my mother tongue).
The impression the different books and articles on the ‘reform of the reform’ made on me is that this movement starts with the observation that after the Second Vatican Council something went terribly wrong with the liturgical reform. A problem that goes beyond implementation but also touches the liturgical books itself. In this she is strongly influenced by the works of Mgr. Klaus Gamber but also on the thought of our current Pope. Liturgical reform itself is not rejected but there is a strong doubt whether the liturgical reform that followed the Council was actually intended by the Council, whether it was the intention of the Council Fathers. Therefore she wishes rethink the liturgy and her reform again: a revival of the Liturgical Movement.
On the short term mostly three complementary roads are mentioned. At first the reform of the contemporary liturgy, both by improving the Ars Celebrandi (with an important part for the Orientation), as well as further reform of the liturgical books itself, both aimed at the vision of the Council Fathers. Secondly, a strengthening of the position of the ‘Tridentine’ liturgy, as a lighthouse for the first point and because of her own specific value. Thirdly, a renewed study of the liturgy and her reform, a study without polemics but who does not hesitate to name the problem spots by their proper names.
At the middle long and long term the goal is to reform the reformed liturgy thus that she is inline with the original intentions of the council fathers. By this they hope to heal the rift with the precounciliar liturgy and bring both liturgies back together, to make them an organic whole again.
Several authors have already made schemes for this reform of the reform. Each of them has, in my opinion, more in common with the original precounciliar liturgy than with the contemporary liturgy (and for certain with the prevailing liturgical practice). Personally these schemes give me the impression that this is not a ‘reform of the reform’ but rather a ‘revolt of the revolt’. I do have the impression that a part of the ‘reform of the reform’-movement is of the same mind. Especially Aidan Nichols O.P. leaves the impression that the needed reform is more a ‘revolt of the revolt’. Other authors such as Thomas Kocik (pr.) seem to consider the intended reform to be more an organic ‘reform of the reform’. Whatever it might be, the end goal is more or less the same, and I think that for the welfare of the Church this difference of terminology is not very important. What for one person might be a strong correction of the roman rite, might for an other person be a recovering of the roman rite that is nowadays replaced by a rite that is more neo-galician than roman. These different valuations do not necessary need to jeopardise a fruitful cooperation and a fruitful renewed study of the liturgy and its reform. When one sees the final goal of the ‘reform of the reform’ as a break with the contemporary liturgy and the other doesn’t, doesn’t matter for the welfare of the Church (especially since the whole process will be accompanied by a profound prayer and study). What does matter is a holy and dignified liturgy.
The impression the different books and articles on the ‘reform of the reform’ made on me is that this movement starts with the observation that after the Second Vatican Council something went terribly wrong with the liturgical reform. A problem that goes beyond implementation but also touches the liturgical books itself. In this she is strongly influenced by the works of Mgr. Klaus Gamber but also on the thought of our current Pope. Liturgical reform itself is not rejected but there is a strong doubt whether the liturgical reform that followed the Council was actually intended by the Council, whether it was the intention of the Council Fathers. Therefore she wishes rethink the liturgy and her reform again: a revival of the Liturgical Movement.
On the short term mostly three complementary roads are mentioned. At first the reform of the contemporary liturgy, both by improving the Ars Celebrandi (with an important part for the Orientation), as well as further reform of the liturgical books itself, both aimed at the vision of the Council Fathers. Secondly, a strengthening of the position of the ‘Tridentine’ liturgy, as a lighthouse for the first point and because of her own specific value. Thirdly, a renewed study of the liturgy and her reform, a study without polemics but who does not hesitate to name the problem spots by their proper names.
At the middle long and long term the goal is to reform the reformed liturgy thus that she is inline with the original intentions of the council fathers. By this they hope to heal the rift with the precounciliar liturgy and bring both liturgies back together, to make them an organic whole again.
Several authors have already made schemes for this reform of the reform. Each of them has, in my opinion, more in common with the original precounciliar liturgy than with the contemporary liturgy (and for certain with the prevailing liturgical practice). Personally these schemes give me the impression that this is not a ‘reform of the reform’ but rather a ‘revolt of the revolt’. I do have the impression that a part of the ‘reform of the reform’-movement is of the same mind. Especially Aidan Nichols O.P. leaves the impression that the needed reform is more a ‘revolt of the revolt’. Other authors such as Thomas Kocik (pr.) seem to consider the intended reform to be more an organic ‘reform of the reform’. Whatever it might be, the end goal is more or less the same, and I think that for the welfare of the Church this difference of terminology is not very important. What for one person might be a strong correction of the roman rite, might for an other person be a recovering of the roman rite that is nowadays replaced by a rite that is more neo-galician than roman. These different valuations do not necessary need to jeopardise a fruitful cooperation and a fruitful renewed study of the liturgy and its reform. When one sees the final goal of the ‘reform of the reform’ as a break with the contemporary liturgy and the other doesn’t, doesn’t matter for the welfare of the Church (especially since the whole process will be accompanied by a profound prayer and study). What does matter is a holy and dignified liturgy.
- David | 5:01 PM GMT
Comments [1]
Ironically, it seems to me that the only grammatical error in this post is in the phrase "to much grammatical errors", which should have said "too many grammatical errors". :)
Post a Comment
<< Home