The more I read about the process of liturgical reform, in both Anglican and Roman Catholic circumstances, the more I see the following scenario repeated again and again:
Those who actually know and devote decades to making a meaningful contribution have their work go swiftly down the drain.
Those who do not know and spend about fifteen minutes making up their mind in a split committee vote always carry the day.
I've never read Bugnini's monumental work but I hear it's worth it. Apparently, he "admits everything."
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that Bugnini, who was a gentleman and a scholar, was, and continues to be, so vilified by the ignorant. He became a scapegoat for the traddies unwilling (or unable) to see the root cause of liturgical reform. To put it one way: in any organization, the buck stops with whoever is in charge. And who would that be in the Roman Catholic Church?
I am totally ignorant of the liturgical reforms in the Church of England, from the rejected 1928 Prayer Book to the Alternative Service book. But, it is my understanding that Canterbury simply followed Rome in cheaply discarding her own patrimony, cherished by great men like Dr Johnson and John Wesley, and that this was the result of the two World Wars. The founding of the NHS was championed by the Church of England, which by then had become more a humanitarian institution than a church. "The Kingdom of God is the welfare state, and who cares about Common Prayer," &c.