Reform of the reform of the reform of the mass?

Posted by

A blogger in Australia recently wrote about the new translation of the mass that is coming to the english-speaking world. He takes it in stride and considers that although this new translation is not perfect… it is not… the last word on the mass. Like any reform, it will need to be reformed. No need to get excited. If this new translation seems too abstruse [sic] we can later change it. Have a taste of what he says:

What was significant about Vatican II is that unlike any other council in Church history, it had no doctrinal agenda. It was a pastoral council, seeking nothing but the renewal and reform of Church life. Surely at the time a necessary thing! Does anyone now seriously suggest that the Church could and should have just continued the way it was prior to the Council? That John XXIII (pictured) was wrong to throw open the shutters and allow a spirit of aggiornamento to enter?

Of course the implementation of the reforms was not always well handled, nor should we think that the reforms themselves were necessarily set in stone, the last word that could ever be said on the matters of Church life and practice. In that sense a reform of the reform should not be seen as unnecessary or unexpected. And further if there is to be a reform of the reform, surely, logically, there can also be a reform of the reform of the reform. And then a reform of the reform of the reform of the reform etc. Constant reform and renewal should be an expected part of Church life.  As Vatican II stated, the Church is semper purificanda, constantly in need of purification. And Benedict XVI has spoken of the need to interpret the Council in terms of a “hermeneutic of reform”.

Read the whole thing.