reforms<\/em> of the post-conciliar years. Dom Reid lists the twelve as follows:<\/p>\nThe first is the hatred of Tradition in the formulas of divine worship.<\/p>\n
The second is the substitution of writings from Sacred Scripture for formulas composed by the Church.<\/p>\n
The fabrication and introduction of new liturgical formulas is the third.<\/p>\n
Fourth is the contradictory principle that operates from an affection for antiquity that seeks to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153reproduce divine worship in its original purity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d while spurning development later in liturgical Tradition and yet introducing new elements of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153incontestably human\u00e2\u20ac\u009d origin.<\/p>\n
Fifth, noting that similar attitudes are to be seen in Protestant liturgical reform, Gu\u00c3\u00a9ranger proscribes the rationalistic removal of ceremonies and formulas that leads to a loss of the supernatural or mystical element of the Liturgy without regard for its tangible and poetic nature.<\/p>\n
The sixth characteristic is the total extinction of the spirit of prayer or unction from the Liturgy. Gu\u00c3\u00a9ranger speaks here of pharisaical coldness and cites the Protestant insistence on the vernacular by way of example.<\/p>\n
The Protestant exclusion of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6is the seventh characteristic.<\/p>\n
The use of the vernacular itself is the eighth. Here Gu\u00c3\u00a9ranger warns of the transience of the vernacular and of the dangers of using mundane language in worship.<\/p>\n
An overriding desire to lessen the burden of the Liturgy (by shortening it) is the ninth characteristic.<\/p>\n
Rejection of all things papal or Roman is the tenth.<\/p>\n
A consequent presbyterianism that downplays the ministerial priesthood forms the eleventh characteristic.<\/p>\n
Finally, Gu\u00c3\u00a9ranger deprecates secular or lay persons assuming authority in liturgical reform lest the Liturgy, and consequently dogma, become an entity limited by the boundaries of a nation or region.<\/p>\n
Reid, Alcuin O.S.B. The Organic Development of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. pp. 58-59<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"From “Liturgy Guy” Blog In recent years the Church has witnessed an increasing appreciation for the writings of Benedictine priest Dom Prosper Gu\u00c3\u00a9ranger. Abbot of Solesmes Abbey, founder of the French Benedictine Congregation, and author of both \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Liturgical Year\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Holy Mass\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, Dom Prosper is widely considered one of the foremost liturgists of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}