One problem I have is in designating a "movement" the Reform of the Reform. It implies, to me, a potentially endless series of quarrels and arguements over which of the potentially endless reformers will have the last word. My question about whether or not the reform of the reform can itself be reformed is serious. At what point does one relinquish their particular preferences in Liturgy for the greater good- comity within the communion.
If successfull, do the current reformers of the reform think there will not be others who think their particular prejudices, opinions, biases, in regards the Liturgy insufficeintly informed and yet will be satisfied to let that reform of the reform stand or will they not be encouraged to institute a final and perfect, in their minds, reform? ,> Four decades is enough. Faithfully implement the Pauline Rite with authentic translations and end the Liturgical Wars.<>
I used to think that was the solution too. But unfortunately, it's too late for fond hopes. The liturgical experts have so entrenched their control over the New Mass that all the directives from Rome will not remove them, nor their abuses.
In any event, why should they follow Liturgicam Authenticam or the revised General Instructions of the Roman Missal? All they have had to do in the past was go ahead with their adjustments and wait for Rome to fold.
Many of the questionable practices associated with the New Mass--Communion in the hand, laymen administering the Sacrament, altar girls--began as flagrant violations of the new rite's liturgical norms, only to be approved by Rome later as faits accomplis.
The New Mass was intended to bring a renewal of grace, faith and unity to the Church. It has visibly failed in these respects. Let the process of authentic liturgical development begin again.