« Calling a Halt to the Restorationist Folly | Main | The Penny is Dropping »

February 03, 2010




But this does not seem to be so much an argument against reviving older forms (revivalism) as against reviving poorly understood older forms.

There is also a significant difference between this and the "revival" of the EF. The EF never went fully out of use in the Latin Rite. Moreover, the EF currently in use is only from 1962. There are plenty of people still alive that recall its use.

The liturgical movement that inspired much of the OF was attempting to revive patristic (and Gallican) liturigical practices. I assume that type of revivalism was not problematic.


The correct link is;


It is not out of the question that Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, the prefect of the congregation, might ultimately submit its solution of the issue to Benedict XVI, leaving the final decision to the pope.


Indispensable for an historical-liturgical analysis of the new Ambrosian lectionary is the following volume, written by one of the leading specialists in the matter, who is also a member of the "Congregation of the Ambrosian rite" that prepared the lectionary:

Cesare Alzati, "Il lezionario della Chiesa ambrosiana. La tradizione liturgica e il rinnovato 'ordo lectionum'", Libreria Editrice Vaticana – Centro Ambrosiano, Vatican City – Milan, 2009, pp. 510, euro 29.



"But the embarrassment is evident. If it agreed with even one of Biffi's observations, and required corrections for the new Ambrosian lectionary, the congregation would refute itself, for having previously approved the same lectionary in all of its parts."

On reflection, I am not sure that this is an issue of the congregation refuting itself so much as an issue of growth. Strictly speaking the congregation would only refute itself if it actually refuted itself. One might say that it contradicted itself but that would only depend on the nature of the approbation. Does anyone have the text which approved it?

There have been many corrections to the OF. Does this mean that the congregation "refuted" itself each time? This is a bizarre way to approach the matter. It seems that the approval of liturgical matters (given norms of Sacrosanctum concilium) is in fact provisional. We should therefore expect that this will occur, as it has even before the council, with some frequency.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad