This is a comment Jonathan Day made at Praytell. He does not call it "reform of the reform" because this is the way his London parish has celebrated the Mass since 1970 with the revised Missal.
Maybe if every parish did it this way immediately following the publication of the 1970 Missal there would be no "reform of the reform" movement as we know it today. What do you think? Here is Day's comment:
I don’t think anyone here has claimed that that the postconciliar liturgical reforms are, by definition, perpetually irreformable, or that they could not have been less than perfect. The myth of an irreformable “Mass of all time” belongs elsewhere.
I have just come from a Mass, celebrated in the normative form, in Latin except for the readings, homily and prayers of the people, with beautifully sung, unaccompanied Gregorian chant, the sung propers (we use an English entrance hymn outside of Lent and Advent), incense, bells and simple solemnity. A newly ordained deacon joined an experienced priest at the altar; this was his first Mass in Latin, of this solemnity, but he adapted seamlessly … you might call it “continuity”. Everything done was in accord with the GIRM and the instructions given by the bishops of England and Wales. The Mass bore many similarities to the one celebrated by Pope Benedict when he visited Westminster Cathedral, though with a bit less pomp — only four altar servers, for instance.
The claim is not that “reform of the reform” is impossible. It is that it is unnecessary. The reformed liturgy may not be perfect (nor is the extraordinary form); but it is fit for its purpose: giving God glory and praise.