May I briefly ask anybody who reads this blog to give me any helpful thoughts they may have on this subject? My problem: I understand the principle that liturgy should evolve gradually and organically, and approve strongly of it. But what happens when there has been a rupture in the past? As an Anglican, I might have had in mind the rupture of 1559, when, overnight, the Sarum dialect of the Roman Rite was replaced with (substantially) what we now call 'the 1662 Rite'. But let's consider instead the rupture over a period of less than half a decade when the Missal of S Pius V (substantially) was replaced with a rite which had important structural and textual and ritual differences: for example: the interface between the Canon Romanus silently in Latin, and the pseudo-Hippolytan prayer in ICEL English, is violent and nonorganic.
Fair enough: that should not have happened. But it did happen, and well over a generation ago. The cuckoo in the nest of the Latin Church is now established and, as we might say, 'in possession'. What are we to say to someone who uses the doctrine of organic development to argue for nothing more than the slowest and most gradual process of Reforming the Reform?
There were Catholic Anglican priests who took over churches where Prayer Book Mattins was the communal rite 'in possession' and replaced it with the Tridentine Mass on their first Sunday. Was this organic?