tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post1212989082992859409..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Apologia for the Mass of Pope Paul VI, with Massive Traditional Documentation / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical ReformDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32914523488391347522012-12-23T12:01:15.249-05:002012-12-23T12:01:15.249-05:00Furthermore, any would-be refutation must be based...Furthermore, any would-be refutation must be based in some serious reading. It seems that insofar you claim the "Mass of Paul VI" has documentation from Catholic tradition, you equivocate. Tradition is not a dead thing but a living thing, and the "Mass of Paul VI" introduced a number of things which had died, many of them deservingly. (Thinking here of the responsorial psalm.) So to cite sources from "tradition" when you really cite dusty things from the attic is, basically, an equivocation. <br /><br />For that matter, can a serious rebuttal begin without reference to <a href="http://www.liturgysociety.org/JOURNAL/Volume10/10_3/Reid.pdf" rel="nofollow">the scholarship</a> in this area? I worry that, just as you say, liturgy is not your specialty and that you are out of your depth. Without reading Gamber, or Reid, or Hull, are you really "refuting" the charge of traditionalism? You have in the past said you are not interested in dialogue on these points, but you do write long papers and two (or three?) books. This seems incongruous. <br /><br />(Keep in mind, Voris and Davies, and even the SSPX materials, are pretty low-hanging fruit.)The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42328293210375139632012-12-23T11:52:07.149-05:002012-12-23T11:52:07.149-05:00Two questions, then:
1. Are there 22 rites within...Two questions, then: <br />1. Are there 22 rites within the Roman Rite? Ought there be? <br />2. Doesn't the revival of long-dead and somewhat hypothetical forms of worship <i>at the expense</i> of living forms of worship show a disregard and even a contempt for the organic development of the liturgy? (SC 23) <br /><br /><a href="http://www.adoremus.org/1104OrganicLiturgy.html" rel="nofollow">From then-Cardinal Ratzinger</a>, for what it's worth: <br /><br />"I should like just briefly to comment on two more perceptions which appear in Dom Alcuin Reid's book. Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism --which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism - are both equally wrong.<br /><br />"These two might be described as unholy twins. The first generation of liturgists were for the most part historians. Thus they were inclined to archaeological enthusiasm: They were trying to unearth the oldest form in its original purity; they regarded the liturgical books in current use, with the rites they offered, as the expression of the rampant proliferation through history of secondary growths which were the product of misunderstandings and of ignorance of the past. People were trying to reconstruct the oldest Roman Liturgy, and to cleanse it of all later additions.<br /><br />"A great deal of this was right, and yet liturgical reform is something different from archaeological excavation, and not all the developments of a living thing have to be logical in accordance with a rationalistic or historical standard. This is also the reason why -- as the author quite rightly remarks -- the experts ought not to be allowed to have the last word in liturgical reform. Experts and pastors each have their own part to play (just as, in politics, specialists and decision-makers represent two different planes). The knowledge of the scholars is important, yet it cannot be directly transmuted into the decisions of the pastors, for pastors still have their own responsibilities in listening to the faithful, in accompanying with understanding those who perform the things that help us to celebrate the sacrament with faith today, and the things that do not. It was one of the weaknesses of the first phase of reform after the Council that to a great extent the specialists were listened to almost exclusively. A greater independence on the part of the pastors would have been desirable."<br /><br />Now, Cdl. Ratzinger does not go so far as I would be more than happy to, but he does say enough to undermine any defense of what I would call archaism and what he calls archaeologism. The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2548168492433839072012-12-23T01:13:04.414-05:002012-12-23T01:13:04.414-05:00I would say that worship can develop in a number o...I would say that worship can develop in a number of directions and need not be one continuous development in one line as doctrine is. Hence, 22 rites in the Church, etc.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27660413581435610362012-12-23T01:05:50.810-05:002012-12-23T01:05:50.810-05:00(subscribe) (subscribe) The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88325641061844743792012-12-23T01:05:37.178-05:002012-12-23T01:05:37.178-05:00What of the charge of absurd archaism? What of the charge of absurd archaism? The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46848172382409225432011-07-14T20:31:03.670-04:002011-07-14T20:31:03.670-04:00Thanks for your comments. I think VII was trying t...Thanks for your comments. I think VII was trying to express the notion that the vernacular should be available, while the Latin ought to be retained and not jettisoned. But people have a tendency to be "either/or." When vernacular was allowed, most of the priests thought, I guess, that this was the end of Latin. <br /><br />We offer both every Sunday at my parish. I think this is what VII meant.<br /><br />But I'm by no means an expert on liturgical matters. I tried to do my best in this paper. I am gratified that you like it.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82779218223057362062011-07-14T17:42:14.938-04:002011-07-14T17:42:14.938-04:00I wanted to say separately, that I admire the good...I wanted to say separately, that I admire the good work you do. <br /><br />Also, that I admit that the NO can be very beautiful when celebrated reverently. I have experienced it in Latin, and it was wonderful -- not necessarily because of the Latin per se, but mainly because of the dignity and reverence with which it was carried out. <br /><br />That being said, while I don't fault V2 or the NO themselves, I think they were the occasion of many bad things arising in the Church, and for that reason, maybe it was imprudent that the Council and the revision of the mass took place at the time they did. <br /><br />I think it was especially imprudent to implement the revisions to the mass right after V2, since by then it had become obvious that a lot of people considered the Council to have "changed everything", and considered virtually every point of doctrine to be up for discussion. <br /><br />Changing the mass at that time, in that environment, I think was highly imprudent -- though perhaps by that time the tide of "change" had grown irresistible even to the Pope. Doing so did for liturgy what V2 had done for doctrine: Gave the impression that everything was up for grabs. <br /><br />So, although I consider the TM to be objectively superior in various ways, I think the NO still could have borne better fruit -- and received less resistance -- had it been introduced at another time and under better circumstances. And of course I think the NO should have conformed more closely to the Council's stated intentions -- retention of Latin except that the vernacular could have been extended in certain limited ways; and Gregorian chant retaining pride of place. <br /><br />In fact, I think if the NO had been introduced as a new rite, alongside the existing TM, that might have been the best thing all around. That way it would have been clear that the TM could continue and was not to be supplanted by the NO, thus avoiding a lot of anguish and strife. And NO would not have been subjected to charges that it was an illegitimate revision or bastardization of something long held sacred. <br /><br />But of course this is clearer in hindsight than it could have been at the time.Agelliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305597900813126268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-91130178086663201452011-07-14T17:40:27.629-04:002011-07-14T17:40:27.629-04:00Very interesting and thorough exposition, thank yo...Very interesting and thorough exposition, thank you. I'm going to bookmark it for future reference.<br /><br />One criticism I don't think you address adequately, is dispensing with Latin entirely in most NO masses (at least in my experience). It may be argued that this is a mere abuse, and not a fault of the NO itself. But the fact that the entire NO has been translated into the vernacular is what allows Latin to be jettisoned entirely. Yes, occasionally a parish will sprinkle a touch of Latin here and there, apparently just for a little spice. Much more rarely, you find NO masses entirely in Latin (except for the readings and homily). But there is no place where Latin is *mandatory* in the NO; it's always optional. <br /><br />So in what sense has the stated intention of V2 that "use of the Latin language is to be preserved" been fulfilled in the NO? <br /><br />Now I understand that when the NO was -- I guess "formulated" is the word? -- it was done in Latin, and the various translations into the vernacular were a separate step. So in that sense you may say it's not a fault of the NO itself that in most places it is entirely in the vernacular. <br /><br />But speaking like this, it rather becomes a semantic exercise, determining what is "essentially the NO", and what is merely the implementation of the NO, or abuses of the NO.<br /><br />But I think what people complain about when they complain about the NO, is the experience they have of it. Yes, strictly speaking, the NO itself -- if by that you mean the official published texts and instructions -- is legitimate and legal, and to a large extent even traditional. But in the way it is experienced by the vast majority of Catholics the vast majority of the time, it is perhaps not all of those things. <br /><br />And I think this may properly be called a fault of the NO itself, at least with regard to Latin: That it allows the individual priest or liturgical committee to eliminate Latin entirely, by not containing in its rubrics that Latin is mandatory in any place. Which I consider a violation of the intention of V2.Agelliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305597900813126268noreply@blogger.com