Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
It would be interesting to know --who were the members of 'study group 10'? Without wishing to use the word 'conspiracy', it does indeed appear that they had some sort of ideological agenda to advance, that not even the bishops were fully aware of--or am I reading too much into the text?
Shawn,
Having read Dr. Reid's, OSB, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy", Msgr. Gamber's "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", Abbot Boniface Luykx's "The Failure of the Liturgical Reform" (audio) together with a myriad of other articles and sources, not the least of which are those of the current Pontiff, there can be no other conclusion than that the normative liturgy is not as a whole an organic development of the Roman Rite.
I've struggled for some time with coming to terms with what actually constitutes organic development, and I struggle still. There's no doubt that in the history of the development of all sacred liturgies there have been times of innovation, accretion, simplification with things discarded. Yet, I think that what is significant about the amount of change that occured in the Roman Rite is that it is so extensive as to not fit the patterns of earlier innovations. The innovations introduced into the liturgy, especially that of the additional Eucharistic Prayers (long since supplemented by even more) is that the guiding principle of innovations, that they be certainly required for the good of the Church was not heeded.
Still, as far as organic development is concerned, does it not admit of the introduction of elements outside of the traditional liturgy such as what occured with the Kyrie, Gloria, and even the Offertory Prayers and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? How and what extent should such introductions occur while remaining an organic development of the liturgy? On this question I remain unsure.
Pardon me if I borrow it from a totally different context :-), but as for organic development "I Know It When I See It". More seriously, organic development comes through an ethos that was clearly foreign to Mons. Bugnini.
Scholarship is important (and Bugnini didn't have much either, according to A. Rose) but understanding the liturgy and its development cannot be a purely human effort: the intellect must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Prayer and fasting is the recipe.
I think the lack of an organic quality mainly comes from the simple BULK of changes in the NO.
Few of the changes on their own cannot be defended. Few of the prayers we have are without merit, as anyone who has followed Fr. Zuhlsdorf's translations of the proper prayers of the day can easily see. Most of them, indeed, are derived from ancient Western sacramentaries.
Even the prayers for the Preparation of the Gifts have their excellencies--Pope Benedict used them beautifully for his homily today on Corpus Christi. And he CHOSE to use the Second Eucharistic Prayer--and on a great Feast Day, too. How it will be improved by phrases such as, "the dew of your Spirit"!
I believe Ratzinger hopes that the Novus Ordo will become organic over time, in a backwards fashion, if you like, through infusion of older forms and a return of the 'spirit' of the Roman liturgy operating on materials that are not entirely unworthy, by any means.
One must question a mass that was formulated by a man such as Bugnini who was a suspected and documented Freemason (no conspiracy theory here, was clearly published in Italian Newspapers) as well as being banished by 2 Popes
Why would the church continue to worship in a manner most unpleasing to God-though I have not talked to God directly nor has any so called Traditionalists that I know-but when a mass which is a sacrifice refuses to even acknoledge that a sacrifice is taking place (please check your NO Missae) then the proof is in the pudding. The same goes for homosexuality-I just got finished watching a show on Telecare/EWTN where the priests refused to denounce homosexual unions. Could it be because he and 50-75% of the priesthood is Gay? What draws these gays to the priesthood? Other Gays?
So no one should expect the Vatican nor these Bishops to do anything "conservative". Find Tradition and reverence whereever you must-but not within the mass as formulated by an evil and destructive man
Jeff,
Of course I agree with you that the sheer bulk of the changes is what makes the reform lack that certain organic quality. I also agree with you that the orthodoxy of the Latin texts can plainly be defended on their own merits, especially where changes come from other ancient sacramentaries and liturgical uses. At the same time, we must recognize that the criticisms of the missal are not merely concerned with the orthodoxy of the individual parts, but also with the prudence of such vast changes.
While an individual part may indeed be orthodox the individual parts may fall prey to the criticism of being inorganic - even if they are culled from other liturgical sources. That a particular portion is inorganic does not of itself mean that it is not suitable for the liturgy, that is, if the reasons for the change are certainly required for the good of the Church. Still, innovations should be carefully made to avoid the impression that the liturgy may be fabricated as well as taking care to preserve as much as possible the liturgical heritage of particular rites. Pope Benedict XIV, in the document Ex Quo (March 1, 1976) did this in the case of the Eastern Rites with regards to the Euchologion, especially as concerns the Greater Entrance. (See paragraphs 29 - 43 on this point.) But notice the difference on how the Pope handles this matter. Would that this is how our own sacred rites in the Latin Church had been treated by the Concilium.
N.B. That's Ex Quo (March 1, 1756).
Shawn,
Are you well acquainted with the Antiphon publication? I've had the great pleasure of meeting Mr. Michael Carlin (Book Review Editor). His father-in-law, Dr. Angelo Zoritas, was my Latin teacher for some 6 months. Both Mr. Carlin and Dr. Zoritas have my deepest respect as scholars and catholic gentlemen.
I don't think you and I disagree, Mr. Kenney.
I think where Ratzinger parts from many traditionalists is that he accepts that the changes in fact have been made and that we must FIRST learn to receive them anew and infuse them with a liturgical spirit before any substantial changes can be made.
THOSE changes--whatever they may be--will have to be made over a long time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A parallel return to and reacquaintance with the older forms will help THAT process to be an organic one and return to the liturgy those essential elements--whether in old or new forms--that may have been lost.
There is no HELP for the fact that a process that seemed--and in some ways WAS--artificial was used in the past. The result is now the normative liturgy of the Church. The processes outlined above (and proposed in God and the World and other places) are what we must rely on to "de-artificialize" the forms of our worship.
An illustration of Ratzinger's perhaps paradoxical seeming attitude can be gleaned from yesterday's Corpus Christi Mass.
The Pope deliberately chose--as he has at least once before (in Bari last year)--to use the Second Eucharistic Prayer. And in his homily, he drew from the words of the Prayers in Preparation of the Gifts (the ones that replace the Offertory Prayers, beginning with "Blessed are you, Lord God of all Creation, through your goodness we have this bread to offer..."). He sets us an example of the Pope being UNDER the liturgy and RECEIVING it along with the rest of us. This spirit, which he recommends to all of us, will in the end do more for liturgical tradition than many an obstreperous attitude.
I can't understand this fascination for the offertory of the Novus Ordo (the Jewish prayer before meals with a reference to the work of human hands to wink at the commies). I hope Pope Benedict is only doing this to appease those who would feel threatened if complete freedom to celebrate the classical Roman Rite were granted.
"Dr. Reid concludes (as Cardinal Ratzinger has also concluded) that the 1969 Ordo Missae cannot be understood as an organic development of the Roman liturgy. It has broken with this tradition."
Can anyone provide quotes and sources from Cardinal Ratzinger where he says this? Thanks.
Ryan, you may try this:
http://www.latin-mass-society.or...rg/
ratzshow.htm
"What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy."
"We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."
From Ratzinger's Preface to Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.
In which year were the Council Fathers surveyed on the implementation of SC?
Jeff:
Everyone should read your comments here. They are profoundly insightful. I've blogged them. You can find what I've written here: Organic Development, Innovation and Fabrication
pharmacy technician certification exam pharmacy technician certification exam pharmacy technician certification exam // best slot machines best slot machines best slot machines
Commenting by HaloScan
