"Reform of the Reform"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusalright4me

Guest
Alright so I recently had a debate with a seminarian friend about ad orientem in the ordinary form liturgy. Things got heated and it went it circles. While he has a respect for tradition (he even wants to celebrate the EF should he become a priest) he thinks that the OF was built only with versus populum in mind (not true, both are allowed with a priority given to VP).

Anyways, we eventually got on to the topic of the “reform of the reform”. Now he was saying that terms like that should be avoided because it causes confusion and creates a “mentality like SSPX”. I argued that the liturgy rubrics can and are bound to change, that it’s indeed possible for a reform of the reform. Heck, if Pope Francis wanted to do a complete overhaul of the liturgy, I’m pretty sure this would be allowed, though unlikely and certainly probably imprudent).

Now, on the reform of the reform, there seems to be two different opinions as to what is fact in the Church. The first is that it is still being discussed. Cardinal Sarah himself said “Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and the way in which the two forms of the Roman rite could enrich each other.” Source: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/full-text-cardinal-sarah-at-sacra-liturgia-conference/

The second opinion is that a term like that should not be used. Federico Lombardi, S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office, said in response “…it is better to avoid using the expression “the reform of the reform,” in referring to the liturgy, given that this has sometimes been the source of misunderstanding.” Source: americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/vatican-denies-changes-celebration-mass

See the contradiction? Cardinal Sarah said that Pope Francis told him to study the “reform of the reform”, then on the other hand Federico Lombardi, S.J. says that this term shouldn’t be used. So should it be used? And, outside of Cardinal Sarah’s comments, are there any times that higher up Church authorities used the term (e.g. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict)? Discuss (in a respectful and charitable way).
 
I don’t see anything wrong with saying “reform of the reform”. It explains very well what is trying to be done. It’s good to hear of a seminarian that plans to say the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
I don’t see anything wrong with saying “reform of the reform”. It explains very well what is trying to be done. It’s good to hear of a seminarian that plans to say the Traditional Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
See, that’s my thing. If we aren’t supposed to use a term like that, but at the same time take Cardinal Sarah at his word when he says he is studying how the two forms can encourage each other, then what else should we call it?

And agreed! He told me that the seminary he goes to are beginning to encourage the seminarians to learn both. In fact, I believe he said their current rector is getting trained to do so so he can celebrate Mass in the EF occasionally:)
 
(This is a repost. Was originally in the Traditional Catholic section. Moved as I felt this section was more relevant to the questions being discussed.

Aright so I recently had a debate with a seminarian friend about ad orientem in the ordinary form liturgy. Things got heated and it went it circles. While he has a respect for tradition (he even wants to celebrate the EF should he become a priest) he thinks that the OF was built only with versus populum in mind (not true, both are allowed with a priority given to VP).

Anyways, we eventually got on to the topic of the “reform of the reform”. Now he was saying that terms like that should be avoided because it causes confusion and creates a “mentality like SSPX”. I argued that the liturgy rubrics can and are bound to change, that it’s indeed possible for a reform of the reform. Heck, if Pope Francis wanted to do a complete overhaul of the liturgy, I’m pretty sure this would be allowed, though unlikely and certainly probably imprudent).

Now, on the reform of the reform, there seems to be two different opinions as to what is fact in the Church. The first is that it is still being discussed. Cardinal Sarah himself said “Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and the way in which the two forms of the Roman rite could enrich each other.” Source: catholicherald.co.uk/news…ia-conference/

The second opinion is that a term like that should not be used. Federico Lombardi, S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office, said in response “…it is better to avoid using the expression “the reform of the reform,” in referring to the liturgy, given that this has sometimes been the source of misunderstanding.” Source: americamagazine.org/content/d…lebration-mass

See the contradiction? Cardinal Sarah said that Pope Francis told him to study the “reform of the reform”, then on the other hand Federico Lombardi, S.J. says that this term shouldn’t be used. So should it be used? And, outside of Cardinal Sarah’s comments, are there any times that higher up Church authorities used the term (e.g. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict)? Discuss (in a respectful and charitable way).
 
You might want to ask the moderator to move the original thread and delete the duplicate. 🙂
 
Sure the term can be used. But like all terms, it must be defined in each usage for maximum understanding. The Catholic Church has always undergone change while maintaining a continuity of tradition. In like manner, inculturation is always within the context of the universality of the Church. I can see a greater harm in blindly accepting every change everywhere as something irreversible, rather than accepting that something might have been imprudent and restoring some element of the liturgy to its former state.
 
I certainly think the Refom needs to be reformed, especially in terms of spelling. 🙂
 
There was nothing wrong with the reforms. The implementation of such is the problem and we can’t, 50 years later “go after” a bunch of people who are not even alive.
Pointless and divisive.
 
I agree that the term is fine. It is legitimate to make adjustments to the postconciliar reforms. They were done fairly quickly and, one might even add, influenced by persons with specific agendas. Pope Benedict reminded us of the importance of organic change to the liturgy, which was not apparently high on the list of those who produced the Pauline missal.
 
I found the Holy See’s statement to be quite clear: “it is better to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’”. It is interesting to encounter this thread today as I was asked to recently give an exposition on this very quote of the Holy See and to reflect with those participating about why it was a term now to be retired. If one manages to live long enough, one sees the full life cycle of many things.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
I found the Holy See’s statement to be quite clear: “it is better to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’”. It is interesting to encounter this thread today as I was asked to recently give an exposition on this very quote of the Holy See and to reflect with those participating about why it was a term now to be retired. If one manages to live long enough, one sees the full life cycle of many things.
Click to expand...
So if we are now changing the term, is this a reform of “the reform of the reform?”

There is a broader truth here that we tend to misuse, overuse, and rely too much on labels. Changes are just that. Changes. Guessing motives and trends is an exercise in futility.
 
pnewton said:
So if we are now changing the term, is this a reform of “the reform of the reform?”

There is a broader truth here that we tend to misuse, overuse, and rely too much on labels. Changes are just that. Changes. Guessing motives and trends is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...
If I did not know better, I could think you were at the talk. 🙂

You are very close to what I said. From my perspective, “Reform of the Reform” has become the mirror image of “The Spirit of Vatican II”.

I was around for the birth of both phrases, of course. Each, in their own way, became outsized. Each came to be used and counter-used.

Personally, I stopped using both of them a long time ago. They had outlived their usefulness. Like certain expressions that die from overuse. They came to designate so much that, in the end, they actually designated little.
 
jesusalright4me said:
Alright so I recently had a debate with a seminarian friend about ad orientem in the ordinary form liturgy. Things got heated and it went it circles. While he has a respect for tradition (he even wants to celebrate the EF should he become a priest) he thinks that the OF was built only with versus populum in mind (not true, both are allowed with a priority given to VP).

Anyways, we eventually got on to the topic of the “reform of the reform”. Now he was saying that terms like that should be avoided because it causes confusion and creates a “mentality like SSPX”. I argued that the liturgy rubrics can and are bound to change, that it’s indeed possible for a reform of the reform. Heck, if Pope Francis wanted to do a complete overhaul of the liturgy, I’m pretty sure this would be allowed, though unlikely and certainly probably imprudent).

Now, on the reform of the reform, there seems to be two different opinions as to what is fact in the Church. The first is that it is still being discussed. Cardinal Sarah himself said “Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and the way in which the two forms of the Roman rite could enrich each other.” Source: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/full-text-cardinal-sarah-at-sacra-liturgia-conference/

The second opinion is that a term like that should not be used. Federico Lombardi, S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office, said in response “…it is better to avoid using the expression “the reform of the reform,” in referring to the liturgy, given that this has sometimes been the source of misunderstanding.” Source: americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/vatican-denies-changes-celebration-mass

See the contradiction? Cardinal Sarah said that Pope Francis told him to study the “reform of the reform”, then on the other hand Federico Lombardi, S.J. says that this term shouldn’t be used. So should it be used? And, outside of Cardinal Sarah’s comments, are there any times that higher up Church authorities used the term (e.g. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict)? Discuss (in a respectful and charitable way).
Click to expand...
I think it depends on context. In my own time running in liturgical circles, the question that arises is ultimately what are we reforming? Are we taking the Tridentine Mass and applying the vision of Sacrosanctum concilium to that, or are we overhauling the rubrics and vision of the post-conciliar Mass of Paul VI? These questions often arise.

In Robert Cardinal Sarah’s speech, he was speaking to a group of liturgical theologians (I was one of those present), and moreso a group of like-minded theologians who would have some consensus among them about what “Reform of the Reform” meant. In this scenario, I don’t think His Eminence’s use of the term was troublesome, but when speaking to people from different backgrounds it can be a bit confusing. I think this is what Fr. Lombardi was referencing.

On this subject, I must pause to put in a plug for a book written by a friend. Fr. Thomas Kocik, a priest of the Diocese of Fall River wrote a dialogue titled Reform of the Reform? which was published as a book some years ago. It tackles this idea well, and lets it play out in an organic way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top