Respondeo dicendum . . .
I am sorry to see you go down this path. Liturgical reform, indeed, liturgucal study as it has developed in the Modern West is inescapably infected by the Enlightenment mentality. Under the aegis of Enlightenment ideology the past must always to submit itself to natural cognition through which confidence in man's ability to free himself from the legitmate claims of past tradition is increased. Through knowledge of the past man frees himself from God and becomes an adult. Mankind comes of age!
This cannot fail to happen. For the Enlightenment is an attack on iniatic cognition. We see this in the enshrining of the Cogito in Descartes's Meditations, It is an attack on the individuals access to genealogical succession gained through initiation. Most of all Christian initiation.
Of course this was resisted by the Church. The proponents of the Enlightenment had to develop rites rehearse the break with the illusions of tradition over and over again.This was the effort of Freemasonry, in whose rites an aura of mystery maintained. But all is devoted to a god of reason, i.e., an idol. Attention is directed against the God of revelation because initiation into His msyteries is the province of the Church, the bulwark of tradition. Tradition is always the enemy here so it must be analyzied atomized under the tool of the Higher Criticism.
The Church of course resisted the application of the tools of the Higher Criticism to scripture. But there were those in the Church who had become addicted to its methods. They found a refuge in the study of the liturgy where ecclesiastical vigilence was weak. No one had ever seen an attack from there. Ecclesiastical authorities were focused on the Bible.
But the center of attention of the Enlightenment Fundamentalists had alway been on rite: the rite of ridding the modern man from the illusions of tradition. That idea was enshrined in Masonic ritual. It was not long before they were able to realize their ambitions at Vatican Council II and ts tragic aftermath.
So my dear Brother watch it. You have entered dangerous territory. The Godly strategy seems to me is to ignore the liturgy. Just say this is the way we pray and that's it. Don't argue for the traditional mass for or against, since to argue is always to occupy to some degree the same territory of ones opponent. That is not holy ground, believe me!
Proklos,
My interest in the historical data isn't to deconstruct or even reconstruct the traditional liturgy. Looking at the historical forms has its benefits apart from any attempts to alter or deviate from the Church's liturgical life. As I grow to understand more about the liturgy, I appreciate it that much more. While I understand your reservations about such inquiries I also think that you might be overreacting to the Enlightenment. Whereas the enlightenment brought us to the elevation of man especially as rational and the denigration of faith as such, the Church has always upheld the natural good of reason in itself and which is perfected by faith. Perhaps you see in my writing a certain flaw that I do not. I protest, however, that this study is fides quarens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) and not a rational curiosity that seeks knowledge for itself. In that light I hope you think better of my project but I nevertheless thank you for your words of caution.
Commenting by HaloScan
