I check The New Liturgical Movement website like some people check CNN for the news of the day.  Ever since I got "hooked" on sacred music as the Church intends it, I've been hungry for more information about the Mass, and how to bring Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony back into the liturgy... as it should never have been ejected in the first place (see Sacrosanctum Concillium article 116). 

Jeffrey Tucker, who I knew first from the Church Music Association of America but who also contributes as a blogger on The New Liturgical Movement, had a post today spurred by another blogger who critiques NLM as getting too zealous over the release of Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio which gives permission (without need of indult) for the use of the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite, also known as the Tridentine Rite or the "traditional Latin Mass."  According to the blogger, at least some contributors of NLM have decided that the only way to "reform the reform" is to abandon the Novus Ordo (or the "ordinary form") and bring back the 1962 missal wholesale... essentially, making what is now the "extraordinary form" into the "ordinary form".

I have to say here that just this weekend I commented to my husband that it seemed like NLM, which claims to stand for the reform of the reform, wasn't actually serious about improving the Novus Ordo at all, but seemed to think we should just go back to the "Tridentine Rite". (He had had that impression since we started reading the site several months before the Motu Proprio was promulgated.)  I understand, as Mr. Tucker points out, that NLM writes about it a lot because the Motu Proprio and its effects are current news - well sort of.  (Actually, it's getting to be old news.)  I hope the blogger's critique will indicate to the contributors and especially NLM's founder, Shawn Tribe, a need to strive for balance.  Not that I don't appreciate all they have shared on NLM!  It's very interesting and informative.  I would like to see more on the reform of the Novus Ordo. (Maybe it would help if I make a donation eh?)

Related to this, when I attended the colloquium put on by the Church Music Association of America this summer, I was (pleasantly) surprised to find that it was all about the reform of the Novus Ordo and ways to re-introduce Gregorian chant into the liturgy of the everyday parish.  All but one of the Masses the group assisted at and provided music for were in the "ordinary form," incorporating sacred music and legitimate variation in the celebrations to give an example people could take home to their Novus Ordo parishes.  The reason I was surprised at this was because the CMAA's website contains so many pre-Vatican II liturgical resources and references, that it seemed to be pointing the way back in time to when things were "right" (at least from a traditionalist standpoint), at least to some extent ignoring what the Council Fathers strove for, in their purest intentions and in the letter of Vatican II.  

As an example of why I got this impression, the CMAA site contains the entire Graduale of 1961, but only has the index of the 1974 Graduale.  I believe the majority of links go to resources that pre-date Vatican II.  They're still good resources, but the balance seems off.

However, it turns out my impression that the CMAA was frozen in pre-Vatican II times was a complete misconception!  This is the power of the website -- a good lesson to me as I blog on these topics, and even as I put out publicity for the Gregorian Chant workshop being held at my parish.  The CMAA website gave me one impression, but actually meeting the faculty members and officers of the CMAA showed me a much more balanced group of people, and certainly not hostile to the authentic reform of the reform.

So why did the Holy Father issue the Motu Proprio?  Does he secretly hope that the "extraordinary form" will eclipse the Novus Ordo?  I seriously doubt that.  I'd prefer to take him at his word... that he hopes the two forms of the Roman Rite (ordinary and extraordinary) will inspire each other.  And as to the term the "reform of the reform": how many people know why Vatican II called for the reform of the Latin Rite Mass?  As 40 years rolled by after the Council and there are at least two generations of people who don't really remember the Mass before Vatican II, it seems allowing the older form of the Roman Rite to be offered in a wider context helps revive the memories... there is so much good that was lost, but then there were things that did need reform!  Let's investigate what those things might be.  After all how can you have a reform of the reform if you don't know what was intended with the original reform?

I know that my thought, as I read the Pope's indication that the two forms of the rite should inspire each other, was that those who love the "traditional Latin Mass" will gladly see it influence the Novus Ordo (and some people would even like to see it eclipse the Novus Ordo completely), but I doubted that they would look to the "ordinary form" to inspire their celebrations of the ''extraordinary form".

On a related rant, I wish people -- and I mean intelligent and catechized people, people I hear on Catholic Radio, people who run adoration programs in their parishes, Catholic bloggers -- would stop referring to the "extraordinary form" as The Latin Mass.  I feel there is a serious problem here.  How can someone who seeks the "reform of the reform," for the authentic celebration of the Novus Ordo, a celebration which preserves the Latin language and Gregorian Chant, hope to see this come about when this artificial wall is being put up between the two forms... as though only the extraordinary form can be celebrated in Latin... as though the ordinary form is ALWAYS celebrated in, and only in, the vernacular!  This reflects the attitude that there is no hope for the Novus Ordo, and that it isn't worth seeking to restore the sacred in the Mass celebrated throughout the world as the typical form.

Bloggers who love the liturgy, there is important work to be done here!  No doubt there are issues not only with the way the Novus Ordo was implemented in the years after the Council, but I have come to understand there are problems even with the form itself, things that should be addressed... things I'm not qualified to go into here, by the way (except to add that I've noticed some lack of attention given to distributing the Propers among the new 3-year cycle).  I want to learn more about it, but I rely on other sources, such as NLM, to present the facts and offer their suggestions.  I love the Novus Ordo in Latin, without improvisation, where I can celebrate with people in any country and we can all say or chant the Pater Noster together... it is worth reforming!  So talk to me about where and why the Novus Ordo needs reform, not just in implementation but in its essence.

If you believe the Holy Spirit blew into the Church with the Second Vatican Council, then you must take seriously the Council Fathers when they called for a new order of the Mass.  You must also take seriously their wish that Latin and Gregorian Chant be preserved/given pride of place.  And this is something to work toward!  It seems like there are a minority of liturgy-loving Catholics who want to see the Novus Ordo perfected and implemented to the letter of Vatican II.  I hope I'm wrong!

Never forget... to reject one Council is to reject them all... that is to reject the Bride of Christ.  Thanks for listening.