The Reasons for the Reform of the Roman Rite: Conclusion

Here is the CONCLUSION of this very challenging and informative series by RADTRAD.

With – on the whole – very solid recommendations for going forward. And I note a certain parish in Connecticut is prominently featured….

Some random observations: It should be increasingly clear to all that 1962-65 and its aftermath is to a great extent the fruit of what developed in the Church in 1846-1958. And the trail leads further back from that. Let us not, however, in our zeal adopt the rhetoric of the liturgical reformers. I do not think, for example, that it is accurate to characterize the baroque age as “non-liturgical.” And one finds here and there throughout the 19th century – even among the allegedly non-liturgical Irish – surprising interest in elaborate solemn masses, in the quality of the music, in “alternative” uses (like Sarum) and in Vesper services in parishes. I think we have to focus more closely on the model of top-down liturgical change pioneered by Pius X, implemented more broadly by Pius XII and John XXIII and then expanded beyond any possible previous expectations by the Paul VI to get to one key cause of the problem. And as for throwing out polyphony – we need more of it and more frequent exploration of Catholic tradition of orchestral music as well. Which brings us to the author’s very sound recommendation – which he makes for the pre-1955 form of Holy Week but has more general application – in the case of what is liturgically right,”Just do it!” With Pope Francis setting the example on Maundy Thursday…