Friday, April 22, 2011

Holy Week Liturgies

Wherein I whine about my liturgical fantasies not being perfectly met. Here's what I've done/plan to do this week in Chicagoland; I may update this post throughout the Triduum with more thoughts on the liturgies as I experience them.

Palm Sunday I attended Solemn High Mass at the Institute of Christ the King with a friend. I have heard that the Institute uses pre-1955 versions for some of Holy Week, but (as discussed in the comments here at New Liturgical Movement in the context of a Palm Sunday celebration in France) there really seemed to be a mix of pre- and post-'55 elements. So, for example, the last part of the Gospel was sung after the Passion even though this was not present in post-'55. But, somewhat disappointingly, the blessing of palms was the much abridged post-'55 version, the Passion started with the Agony in the Garden rather than the Last Supper, etc.

Holy Thursday evening I attended the Institute shrine again for their Solemn High Mass. The service was beautiful and their Altar of Repose was all decked out even with flabella and stuff. A lot of things did capture my notice liturgically. For example, they did not do the mandatum/washing of feet after the homily. Apparently there's an option to do that separately, and traditionally it seems that it was always separate pre-'55. I guess not having it saved time, though I think integrating it into the Mass of the Last Supper makes sense.

That ritual is one that I have mixed feelings about how it's done in the West anyway. The bishop, say, washing the feet of his twelve canons in the Cathedral makes a lot of sense. Washing the feet of twelve (or, apparently, thirteen pre-'55) laymen is a bit more problematic for me just based on the question of which laymen get chosen? There is no "logical" college of 12 in a parish to fill this role, at least not how parishes are currently structured. Maybe if someday there were many part-time priests in a parish, twelve would be designated a sort of "chapter" of "parish canons" either permanently, or on some rotating basis, or just honorarily for Holy Week, etc. Also, based on arguments I've seen that the feet washing was actually part of the ordination of the Apostles at the Last Supper somehow, using the laity is somewhat problematic, though washing the feet of the poor is certainly a humbling of the priest that many need in opposition to clericalism.

Also, I have mixed feelings about parts of the ceremonies during Holy Week like that which basically just consist of singing antiphons in a row, and either omitting some or repeating some until the time needed is filled up. Something seems a little extra-liturgical about that to me, especially when the number of antiphons seems arbitrary (for example, in the feet washing, post-'55 at least, there are eight antiphons for twelve washings. Pre-'55 there are nine for thirteen.) In a similar vein, there is also something inelegant, to me, about just repeating verses of the Pange Lingua over and and over again just to fill time, but then not even singing the whole hymn again. So for example, the procession at the shrine was just long enough to need one extra verse, so just the "nobis natus, nobis datus" was randomly thrown in once more before the concluding "tantum ergo" verses. Recycling verses (but not even all the verses) like this seems untidy to me. If they need more time for a longer procession, I'd supply other hymns or antiphons to come first. I don't like chopping up the verses of hymns as if they are interchangeable.

The deacon sang "Ita missa est" at the end instead of "Benedicamus domino" and the priest did read the Last Gospel, which is not how it was done post-'55, so apparently this was pre-'55. To me, though, again in this case the change seems like a logical one given the procession that follows.

Strangely, there was some priest in attendance, vested in a Novus Ordo style alb and stole...who nevertheless just sat in the pews instead of in choir in the sanctuary. I'm hoping I didn't see him stick his hand out at the consecration to "concelebrate" misguidedly. But I may have. I also wondered why he, not doing anything else (not even helping distribute communion), didn't finish up the confessions that had to be cut short before Mass (as the confessor was also taking the role of subdeacon) as then some people had to wait until after Mass to confess and couldn't commune. It would have been nice for him to volunteer to finish them up as Mass started.

Also, during the stripping of the altars, I noticed that the verses that Baronius has in their hand-missal there did not match what the choir was singing. I didn't listen closely enough during the "bare bones" Compline sung afterward to see if those matched. When I got home, I found out that the Baronius missal, at least at this spot, had the "Pius XII" translation of psalm 21. Ugh. I don't know if this has been corrected in their new printing of it.

The weather was just perfect for Good Friday; all dreary and drizzly. I went to the Stations of the Cross at noon at my home parish. I'm less picky about tradition when it comes to non-liturgical devotions like that, and my parish actually uses a very thorough (albeit post-Vatican II) text for the stations; the whole thing takes like 45-minutes. The only problem is that the deacon who leads it, every year, reads "prostate" at several parts instead of "prostrate"...

I was planning to attend the Good Friday liturgy at the Institute shrine again, but the traffic was so bad on the way there that I knew I wasn't going to make it in time and decided to divert to St. John Cantius instead (it's significantly closer coming from the north). It reminded me why I really don't like it at Cantius and started going to Christ the King instead in the first place. It was, frustratingly, the Novus Ordo. Oh, it was all dressed-up in chant and (mostly) Latin and all that. But still, the new rite.

I never will understand why any group bothers with the "Reform of the Reform" anymore. At least since Summorum Pontificum, anyone is free to just do the old liturgy, so I don't know why some places still insist on putting lipstick on a pig and trying to do a smells-and-bells Latin Novus Ordo. It's the worst of both worlds, really. Is it because they want to help the Church "save face" by showing that the new liturgy itself is not at fault and "can be" done worthily? Is it because they have an authority fetish and want to use the "official" ordinary form of the liturgy that the Pope uses? Is it because they are trying to be political or "diplomatic" and don't want to seem "too trad"?? Does anyone really care? To me, having Latin makes sense for a text/body of texts written substantially at a time when Latin was actually spoken still, if not as the vernacular, then at least as the lingua franca and among the educated/clerical class. But using Latin for something newly-composed in 1970...I think is absurd.

So...yeah. Came in and they were wearing red vestments and most women didn't have their head covered and I knew right then and was rather despondent. The Passion was chanted in four parts instead of three, but with a polyphonic choir doing the part of the crowd, so the congregation didn't even get to say "our" parts, which from what I can tell was the whole point of making that change in the Novus Ordo in the first place! I also find it rather absurd that they've created Renaissance-esque polyphonic settings for an option created in 1970. And then (chanted, in English) those awful new politically correct Good Friday prayers which refuse to ask for the Jews' conversion explicitly and which mention (sigh) "religious freedom" (not even that I oppose that so much, as it is just so contingent on contemporary culture and values and lingo. Such a buzz-phrase concept as "religious freedom" has no place in liturgy!) And then we had to stand like an hour for the veneration of the cross because that went at a very slow pace with only one cross.

I had been planning on
going down to St. John Cantius for their tenebrae in the morning Saturday, but this experience has changed my mind. It's apparently a "simplified" version anyway and they don't say whether it will be old rite, but after this I'm guessing it won't be. I would have liked to attend traditional tenebrae all three days, but I had work, and the Institute shrine did not have any tenebrae publicly listed, so I don't know whether such a thing could be found in the area anyway, which is rather sad.

But this was really the last straw for me with Cantius. I never really liked their liturgies. They do things like sing the Gradual over the Epistle (I'm not even sure how this isn't an abuse) at their Old Masses and rather than just chant, are always doing elaborate polyphonic (and even orchestral) settings of the Mass with all sorts of motets and such. This is done in a manner that always feel very disjointed with what's going on at the altar, like there is a "choir's mass" and a "priest's mass" and the latter just proceeds without any particular connection to the former, like it's mainly a concert for the choir to preform rather than a liturgy.

The Cantians are liturgical chameleons. They act all traditional, and do have the old Mass, but also have the New, and the New in Latin. And their Office is the Novus Ordo. On their website, the listing for today just said "Latin" without specifying which Form, and I think many people felt there was a sort of bait-and-switch in that regard as I noticed many people there with Old Rite hand-missals sort of gritting their teeth. It seems to me that the Cantians are more about ostentatious baroque aesthetics rather than actually traditional liturgy, which is what matters to me. I really care about the text and ceremonies much more than the trappings; give me a Low Mass in a garage over the most dressed-up Novus Ordo any day.

It certainly wasn't worth driving down there to see simply a more uppity aesthetic (and one I do not share) of the same basic liturgy I could have seen at my home parish, except with snootier music and having to stand for a much longer period. One feels almost held-hostage by long liturgies and long homilies sometimes, and I could tell at this liturgy many people were getting annoyed by how unapologetically slow they were going with things. If the rite requires that much time, fine, then I'm all for it. But making everyone stay longer than necessary, longer than we had planned (because we're not just going to walk out on church!) just because you want to give a really long homily or go really "reverently" slow with the pace (in this case, of the veneration of the cross especially)...is rather inconsiderate.

But I suppose I have to trust that what happened with the traffic and all was all for the best, that there was some reason for it. Anyway, I'm going to attend a "Burial of the Lord" service adapted from Byzantine practice that my home parish has started having each year. It's actually usually very nice. We'll get the Easter food blessed Saturday afternoon at my home parish, and
I'll probably go back to the Institute (so much commuting! I wish there were an Old Rite parish closer to me) for the Easter Vigil. Sunday morning I'll go to Mass at my home parish with my family and then we spend Easter day at my grandma's with my mom's side (the Catholic side) of the family.

34 comments:

Mark of the Vineyard said...

It seems that there's a growing interest in the pre-'55 rite. Perhaps this boom is magnified by the internet and really isn't that big of a deal? I don't know. I find it funny though that people should be complaining that if we have the '62 then we should stick to it. How much of what we love in our Liturgy was not, in fact, the result of such "liturgical abuse" (not that I'm condoning liturgical abuse, mind you)? I recall that the Gloria was initially only to be said by bishops, and only on prescribed days.

I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison or something of the sort of the pre-'55 and post-'55 rite some day.

At the Good Friday service in our cathedral I saw something which annoys the hell out of me: the use of the humeral veil. Why use the humeral veil if your distributing communion in the hand? What's the point? What message are you trying to convey? That you suffer from schizophrenia?

A Sinner said...

"Why use the humeral veil if your distributing communion in the hand? What's the point? What message are you trying to convey? That you suffer from schizophrenia?"

Exactly!

When you give communion in the hand...you might as well not have any such protocol in the liturgy anymore. Like, they've kept things like that only a cleric can wash the vessels or put incense in a censer...but then some lay woman can touch the host Itself??

It is schizophrenic. Absolutely schizophrenic.

Anonymous said...

That is what I always say-lipstick on a pig. When I first saw a super "tradded-up" NO, I think that is when I really just put a fork in the whole enterprise. Every "tradded-up" NO is its own silly neo-neo-Gallican rite, usually each being unique that you could just call it the "Fr. So-and-So Rite" because you'll never see two of them in different parishes that are even close to being the same. If we are going to bother with all that, why not just go all out and do the TLM? The lack of ceremony, the lackluster texts, etc. really shines through when you try to pull of a "Solemn High Mass" in the NO. Ugh. If I have to go to a NO, let it be a "low Mass", much less painful that way. I almost think I'd rather just stay home than go to the NO Triduum, but I'd probably go if I had no option and offer it up.

The pre-55 and post-55 rites do not differ "that" much in externals aside from the Holy Week liturgies. The bigger difference is in the Office-the '62 is basically an abridged version of the '50s version which in turn was altered back in 1910 (or so) from the older Roman use.

I too find it (sadly) funny when clerics use things like the humeral veil or do other things to be intentionally reverent in the NO then proceed to have laywomen as EMHC, give Communion in the hand, etc. etc. Schizophrenic is the only way to describe it.

Anonymous said...

Why reform of the reform? Because no matter what the NO is here to stay. The EF will never gain acceptance among the great majority of Catholics (unfortunately) and a papal command will just be ignored.

Therefore our best hope for reaching out and converting the masses of so-called Catholics will be in celebrating the Novus Ordo - but in the Benedictine manner.

The EF mass will not save the Church (unless you see the Church as comprised of a few million - me, I want a Church that is strong, powerful - in worldly terms - and numerically vast which allows her to establish her triumphant rule over the whole world and crush the forces of secularism and liberal Christianity). The EF has too much baggage to do that unfortunately. But the reform of the reform could. It's our last great hope.

(Plus, I could never bear to hear the SSPX going...SEE WE WERE RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE POPE...after all...I'm an ultramontanist true and true... :P)

A Sinner said...

What you say shows your utter naivite, I'm sad to say.

You may be right that the great majority of Catholics wouldn't accept the EF (as it currently stands)...but it's not the text itself that they particularly care about. The elements they object to are the very elements that groups like Cantius try to put into the OF (Latin, old-timey music, baroque aesthetics, ad orientem, etc).

The people don't care one way or the other about the textual differences between OF and EF, the new calendar, the 3-year lectionary, etc. What they care about (and "would never accept") are the very elements the Reform of the Reform tries to force onto the Novus Ordo. Hence why I call it "worst of both worlds."

A vernacular Old Rite with more Gothic aesthetics (and more "sing-songy" settings of the music)...would, on the other hand, I think be the "best of both worlds."

Who Am I said...

@A Sinner:

You're ultimately still describing a "Reform of The Reform", fusing those redeemable elements of The OF onto The EF. The problem with that is that Traditionalists WON'T accept that being done (At least what Traditionalism initially stood for, well that is complicated.). The OF on the other hand HAS the ability to be tinkered with until it CAN be regularized to the point where it becomes something akin to The EF. I'm not saying that to save face, I'm reading what the above poster was attempting to convey. Any reform made whether this way or that way, would in essence still be a NO Mass. A reformed EF wouldn't be a EF if it were tinkered with. MOST Traditionalists WANT The EF to be enforced without regard for those raised with The OF. They DON'T (FTMP) want vernacular liturgies, sing songy music etc., they just want The EF to be the ONLY form without ANY organic development (Inculturation is still a VERY dirty word.), that was his point in mentioning The SSPX. I'm not affirming or denying his point there, but he's talking about Traditionalists who won't settle for anything other than The EF, NO compromises. What you're advocating would be seen as a compromise and anathema to all things Traditional in their eyes.

Who Am I said...

That being said, what pray tell IS IT that Traditionalists want ? If The EF can't be touched, then what happens to those from The OF ? The saving face is an attempt to find a middle way between both sides. Likewise, how Traditional shall we get ? Abbreviated Liturgies or Liturgies that run anywhere between 2 - 3 1/2 hours on average ?

I still think The NO was an attempt to bridge the gap between East and West as were most of the documents post VII. That isn't my saving face, just an observation between The Rituals I've visited. Roman Catholics will ALWAYS find certain elements bizarre, because they're not part of OUR Tradition. Cross pollination CAN'T happen in The Roman Rite, The NO attempted to do that. What if a Priest wished to employ elements from another Ritual not his own, he can't do that under The EF, but CAN under The OF. I PERSONALLY like the prayer said PRIOR to receiving The Eucharist in Eastern and Byzantine Liturgies and BELIEVE that it SHOULD be a part of The Roman Liturgy. Sure we say "Domine non sum dignus...", BUT the prayer itself BEAUTIFULLY expresses what the mystery you're partaking of IS.

"Prayers Right Before Communion

I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen

How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.

Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.
Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your Kingdom."

A Priest can't just add that in The EF, but a Priest sure as heck COULD in The OF. I'm looking at this from a anthropological perspective. There haven't been many attempts historically to adapt The EF to local custom that haven't been shot down, condemned or limited to a particular space.

Who Am I said...

I forgot to add, the baggage of The EF, refers to not only the historical baggage, but the politics of Traditionalism. When I can, I'll scan you a recent article (IIRC) that states that The EF is oriented/geared towards men and not really women.

James Kabala said...

Anonymous and Who Am I are right. I can't imagine a situation in which the NO/OF is abolished - not in my lifetime or yours, at least - WHETHER IT OUGHT TO BE OR NOT. And for every person who dislikes the Tridentine Mass solely because of Latin, there is someone who likes it solely because of Latin and would never accept a vernacular version. The time for slight tweaks to the old rite was the late 1960s, with no need to create a new rite at all, but unfortunately it was all botched and I don't see any prospect of getting back to Square One.

A Sinner said...

I just don't think Prayers at the Foot of the altar or only having the Roman Canon are issues that anyone cares about outside little ideological circles.

If you want to "reform" the novus ordo with such elements until it looks exactly like the Old Rite, that's just a semantic game.

Latin-fetishist trads could still have their all Latin Old Rite, and the rest of the people could have their vernacular version.

Seriously, if they're pushing this new translation on everyone, they might as well have just slipped a vernacular version of the old missal back in "under the radar" and just told everyone it was the "new translation." Would your average Catholic in the pew have any idea? Probably not. They don't know a responsorial psalm from a gradual, nor would they care. They're totally ignorant and uninvested in these questions.

Who Am I said...

You'd be surprised. I'll scan the recent remarks from the local Catholic newspaper to show you the tizzy that some people have gotten over with just The Creed itself. Trads aren't the only ones interested in Liturgy. Likewise, Anonymous made the point that a return to The EF (whether vernacular OR in Latin) is the equivalent of giving some Trads the satisfaction of saying they were right the whole time.

What I personally see coming of this is NOT a reform of the reform or the reinstitution of The EF (per se), but rather a fusion of BOTH with their redeemable elements. The goal is NOT to have two versions of the same Liturgy (Well unless The West is going to adopt different Liturgies for different seasons...) Having an EF in Latin and in the vernacular would be counterproductive in my opinion. One of tenets of Traditionalism is that Mass NEEDS to be in Latin and that vernacularizations of The Mass were mere dispensations. How exactly would that bring LATIN Traditionalists together with the mainstream Church ? I honestly DON'T understand WHY Priests who currently celebrate The TRM, don't just celebrate it in the vernacular. Wouldn't that open it up to a greater following ? There are PLENTY of translations that they could choose from, why not just do it ?

Lastly, The OF was an attempt to reach out to THE PEOPLE. I have yet to see an EF that attempts to do that. Many Traditionalists are QUITE content that The EF doesn't do that. I'm not talking about EOMHC, Lectors (Although The Byzantine and Eastern practice COULD be used in that regard...), etc. I'm talking about reaching out at the LOCAL level and baptizing those redeemable elements in the culture. What is stopping a trail of flowers from being used on The Feast of Our Lord's entry into Jerusalem (I'm thinking out loud here.) or vestments made with local textiles, but conforming to the rubrics of The Rite with minor variations. I get the reasons for not going overboard with that and openiing itself up to ethnophyletism, but you've got to bend just a little to show that it IS possible for those things to be incorporated. Not every nation shares a Roman/Latin history, why not allow for some inculturation then.

Who Am I said...

Lastly, The OF was likewise an experiment to show the unity between the various Rituals. I still find it a bit bizarre that people see a difference between The Latin Rites and The Eastern and Byzantine Rites. There is SO much overlap (I'm not talking about Latinizations, Hellenizations, etc.) between The Traditional Liturgies. The expressions/emphasis might be different, but it is ONE common faith. There are however things that make Latin Christians cringe in the context of Eastern and Byzantine Liturgies; married clergy, leavened bread, intinction, lack of statues (or in the case of Syriac Christians, sparse use of imagery...), standing during Liturgy and receiving The Eucharist standing, etc. Most Byzantine and Eastern Christians don't have problems with Latin Traditions (historically that is another matter), but it still seems to be a Latin thing to keep them under suspicion and constantly attempting to see how much they line up to OUR expressions of belief.

You've never seen that ? (Open question to all reading this.)

Dominic said...

If the NO was really an attempt to "bridge a gap" between East and West, it was a profound failure. I cannot imagine anything more un-Eastern than the NO. Especially as it is usually celebrated, it combines all the worst of the Latin Rite with influences of New Theology and Protestantism. Sure, there are some academic hat-tips to the East, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever walked in on a NO (ANY NO) and had any sort of thought that this had anything to do with Eastern liturgy.

The NO was for all intents and purposes pulled out of the air by commissions to push their own pet theological/liturgical/ecclesiological projects.

Who Am I said...

The New Theology was an attempted synthesis to recapture EARLY Thomistic thought and synthesize it with Patristic Theology (You know that theology that we in The West don't really like to talk about...).

The fact that you were able to recognize CERTAIN hat tips to The East (which is NOT hegemonic in its Traditions) proves my point. I didn't say it was successful, rather I said it was an ATTEMPT. As I stated previously, MANY Latin Catholics STILL cringe when they assist at a Eastern or Byzantine Liturgy which are viewed in many cases as mere novelties. That is what I meant to infer regarding trying to measure/line up Eastern and Byzantine Liturgical practices against Latin ones.

Some Eastern churches DON'T make much use of images, but that doesn't make them iconoclastic. Eastern Christians don't kneel during Liturgy, because of the canons related to NOT kneeling on Sundays. The same applies to reception of The Eucharist, The Kiss of Peace amongst The Congregation, Liturgical "Dancing", fulfilling one's Sunday obligation at a service the evening before (Vespers) etc. are all part of The Church's Tradition that survive in many liturgical traditions to this day. Their adoption into The Latin Rite is another matter.

The Traditions are complementary and as such it was an ATTEMPT (How successful it was is another matter.) to showcase elements from different Liturgical traditions East and West into one Liturgy.

Who Am I said...

Pardon the grammatical errors, it was written in a rush.

Dominic said...

All attempts that were massive failures and open doors to modernism.

What I mean by "hat-tips" are mostly arcane academic things that practically no one knows about unless they make some sort of study of liturgy. With both the liturgy and the new theology, the "Eastern" element (along with archaeologism) was just a convenient way of inserting novelties and giving them a veneer of legitimacy.

As to what Latin Catholics think about the Easterners, who cares. People who do that sort of thing are just ignorant. When one compares the Western and Eastern (traditional) liturgies, they see much more in common between the traditional Western and Eastern than between the NO and any Eastern Rite, except those which have been NO-ized.

Also, it goes both ways. I was in the Ukrainian Cathedral in Chicago on time and they had leaflets basically saying that yeah, the Latins do weird things now but they are still Catholic (in a much nicer way). Of course, I agreed with them but any human will tend to "look down" on things they are unfamiliar with and it will be met with some initial dislike based on this unfamiliarity.

However, the original point is that the NO is made up-and its not even a good fabrication. If we were going to make things up and try to get more "Eastern" (which I will debate is really not the way they were going) then we should have went the Neo-Gallican route and fancied up the TLM with more tunicles and copes and all sorts of crazy liturgical processions. At least then it would have "looked" more Eastern or more medieval.

Now, we just have a very anemic talkie Low Mass sort of thing going that tries to look Protestant.

Who Am I said...

"What I mean by "hat-tips" are mostly arcane academic things that practically no one knows about unless they make some sort of study of liturgy. With both the liturgy and the new theology, the "Eastern" element (along with archaeologism) was just a convenient way of inserting novelties and giving them a veneer of legitimacy."

Why not unpack what you mean by new theology. I at least went as far as indicating what I meant by it, you could do the same.

"...any human will tend to "look down" on things they are unfamiliar with and it will be met with some initial dislike based on this unfamiliarity. "

That's not true. I was born and raised Latin (TLM going) and have the OPPOSITE experience. Having a sense of habitus, does not mandate that one exhibits xenophobic tendencies (Whether liturgical or cultural.).

"However, the original point is that the NO is made up-and its not even a good fabrication. If we were going to make things up and try to get more "Eastern" (which I will debate is really not the way they were going) then we should have went the Neo-Gallican route and fancied up the TLM with more tunicles and copes and all sorts of crazy liturgical processions. At least then it would have "looked" more Eastern or more medieval."

I didn't say they were PER SE going more Eastern, rather that some of those VERY elements found their way in there. Arquaeologism is thrown around when contesting the value of certain traditions against others. Your neo Gallican Rite is just as affected. As I initially stated, the point was to ATTEMPT to bridge the gap with THE PEOPLE. In The West the movements always seem to be from the top down instead of a discourse between BOTH,those giving the commands and those receiving them.

Dominic said...

New Theology-the program of Rahner, Schillebeckx, de Lubac et al.

What I mean by "look down" is nothing really about xenophobia. Many times people just don't like things because they are different. This is where that dislike some exhibit towards the Eastern Rites would come from, they aren't used to it, they can't "understand" it so they don't like it. I personally liked the Byzantine/Ukrainian/Ruthenian etc. rites right off the bat because I did my homework.

Certain "Eastern" things found their way into the NO because some liturgical scholars have a fetish for the Eastern Rites that seem to be based on a certain self-loathing. They put "Eastern" things in the NO because they thought our own liturgy was somehow deficient. Yes, the Neo-Gallican rites were made up BS, but my point was that if we were going to have made up BS at least make it look good.

Who Am I said...

"What I mean by "look down" is nothing really about xenophobia. Many times people just don't like things because they are different. This is where that dislike some exhibit towards the Eastern Rites would come from, they aren't used to it, they can't "understand" it so they don't like it. I personally liked the Byzantine/Ukrainian/Ruthenian etc. rites right off the bat because I did my homework."

Utter hogwash. One doesn't necessarily have to do one's homework in order to appreciate the Liturgies. Each of them reflects the UNIVERSAL character of our faith. As I had said previously, the emphasis may be different, but the expressions are complementary, not contradictory. I assisted at a Coptic Catholic Liturgy recently without much research (save for a few basic questions (Will I have to remove my shoes during Liturgy ? etc.), but other than that I was a TOTAL noob. The Liturgy was conducted PREDOMINANTLY in Arabic (I assume SOME Coptic and Greek) and one or two hints of English (as regards to the scope of The Liturgy). I did just fine. As I told a few people afterwards, I was able to follow, because regardless of language, certain things just sound the same. When one prays with The Heart of The Church, one is able to bridge those gaps. I've likewise gone to Melkite Liturgies and have been able to follow QUITE well. That level of liturgical xenophobia hints at not being firmly grounded in one's Tradition and seeing it as the SOLE means of expression. Anything not conforming to one's liturgical sense of habitus is as I mentioned earlier a mere novelty or dangerous to one's faith.

Who Am I said...

"Certain "Eastern" things found their way into the NO because some liturgical scholars have a fetish for the Eastern Rites that seem to be based on a certain self-loathing. They put "Eastern" things in the NO because they thought our own liturgy was somehow deficient. Yes, the Neo-Gallican rites were made up BS, but my point was that if we were going to have made up BS at least make it look good."

It doesn't have to do with self loathing. Cross pollination DOES indeed occur. There are certain Eastern and Byzantine expressions that SHOULD carry over into The West (I cited the prayer prior to receiving The Eucharist.). Is it SO bad that perhaps The East has done things which would be beneficial for The Church Universal ? Why is it that for many a Traditionalist, it can only go one way ? I know you haven't said that, but you're implying it in one way or another. The Church's FIRST 7 Ecumenical Councils were held in THE EAST, how often we forget that. Many of the very things we consider Western are in fact Eastern. Such things include The Rosary, The Kyrie of The TRM, Mysticism among other things. It has NOTHING to do with deficiency, but rather a mutual enrichment. This differs from policies of Latinization/Romanization and Hellenization (Antiochian Orthodox/Melkites being Western Syriacs originally and post Chalcedon becoming Byzantine.)which have as their aim the FORCED abandonment of one Tradition in favour of another. This has happened especially in The East with the public recitation of The Rosary instead of The Akathist Hymn in a liturgical setting. There is nothing wrong with reciting either one, but from what I have read and heard, it has been motivated by seeking an abbreviation of that liturgical service.

Likewise, not everyone in The West perceives things in the same way. I was born and raised in a Western society and culture, yet I am the oddball in my Liturgical, cultural and aesthetic preferences. How would you explain that ?

You're describing the liturgy on the sole basis of aesthetic preference. Which brings up another question, why is it that in The West, the value of other cultural traditions have historically been downplayed in the context of Liturgy ? The Greek Orthodox in Alexandria have been able to incorporate TRADITIONAL African religiosity (singing,dancing) in the context of Liturgy without compromising The Faith, yet that would be anathema in The West. What is that about ?

I have a video to prove it, just in case you're interested.

Dominic said...

"Utter hogwash. One doesn't necessarily have to do one's homework in order to appreciate the Liturgies. Each of them reflects the UNIVERSAL character of our faith."

Yet, if one doesn't have a proper sense of things, that universal character doesn't necessary come out on its own unless your open to it. It doesn't have to be academic "homework", the mere openness to legitimate diversity is enough.


"It doesn't have to do with self loathing. Cross pollination DOES indeed occur."

If you read the writings of the architects of the NO, that ritual self-loathing certainly does come across. In this case, it has nothing to do with "cross pollination". Yes, legitimate influences go back and forth and always have. However, when its a case of a made up liturgy with various things just stuck into it, its not a case of cross pollination.

"There are certain Eastern and Byzantine expressions that SHOULD carry over into The West (I cited the prayer prior to receiving The Eucharist.)."

If you use "should" in an imperative sense, no, nothing "should" carry over. I know that prayer, and it is certainly beautiful but there is nothing objective about it that would in any way "require" it to be brought over other than your subjective like for it. There are plenty of devotional prayers that say practically the same thing, but again, nothing necessitates their insertion into the liturgy.

"Is it SO bad that perhaps The East has done things which would be beneficial for The Church Universal ? Why is it that for many a Traditionalist, it can only go one way? I know you haven't said that, but you're implying it in one way or another."

Well, what happens when we assume? Actually, I'd rather not have it go intentionally either way. I don't think they should or need to adopt anything Western, liturgical or devotional and I don't think we should or need to adopt anything Eastern, liturgical or devotional. They have their own legitimate customs and disciplines which are good and so do we. We do not need to mix them, yet if they happen to influence each other in a non-imposed way, that is fine too.


"The Church's FIRST 7 Ecumenical Councils were held in THE EAST, how often we forget that."

Yes, and why was that? All the big heresies came out of the East, the center of Imperial power was then in Constantinople and not Rome, etc.

Dominic said...

"Many of the very things we consider Western are in fact Eastern. Such things include The Rosary, The Kyrie of The TRM, Mysticism among other things. It has NOTHING to do with deficiency, but rather a mutual enrichment."

Those things came about naturally and on their own accord. What happened with the NO was a different subject all together.

"This differs from policies of Latinization/Romanization and Hellenization (Antiochian Orthodox/Melkites being Western Syriacs originally and post Chalcedon becoming Byzantine.)which have as their aim the FORCED abandonment of one Tradition in favour of another. This has happened especially in The East with the public recitation of The Rosary instead of The Akathist Hymn in a liturgical setting. There is nothing wrong with reciting either one, but from what I have read and heard, it has been motivated by seeking an abbreviation of that liturgical service."

We should also remember that it was Rome who said that we shouldn't be forcing the Easterners to Westernize and that some of these Latinizations were self-imposed. If they adopt the rosary instead of the Marian Akathist Hymn in order to abbreviate things, who's fault is that?

"Likewise, not everyone in The West perceives things in the same way. I was born and raised in a Western society and culture, yet I am the oddball in my Liturgical, cultural and aesthetic preferences. How would you explain that?"

Who knows, considering I don't know you from Adam.

"You're describing the liturgy on the sole basis of aesthetic preference. Which brings up another question, why is it that in The West, the value of other cultural traditions have historically been downplayed in the context of Liturgy ? The Greek Orthodox in Alexandria have been able to incorporate TRADITIONAL African religiosity (singing,dancing) in the context of Liturgy without compromising The Faith, yet that would be anathema in The West. What is that about?"

First of all, there are a number of things to unpack there. Actually, I've been describing liturgy from a number of facets, but I have been emphasizing the aesthetic aspect because that is the most obvious, the one that can strike anyone without necessarily having any sort of academic background or even understanding of the language being used.

Secondly, it depends. There has been room for local custom, especially in things like the marriage rite. However, generally speaking, it is much "cleaner" so to say to be careful what one tries to baptize into legitimacy. Regardless of the official program, lots of local custom and even superstition et al have been more that tolerated. Its just the way it goes, everything cannot be micromanaged.

Third, the Orthodox already have compromised the Faith. However, what they have maintained was established long ago. I would argue along the same lines as von Hildebrand that in this era most people are not capable of a proper liturgical sense. I'd even say its been that way for more than the last 50 or 100 years. Now is not the time to try to develop liturgy or to inculturate because we (collectively) are simply not capable of it.

Who Am I said...

"Yet, if one doesn't have a proper sense of things, that universal character doesn't necessary come out on its own unless your open to it. It doesn't have to be academic "homework", the mere openness to legitimate diversity is enough."

That is not necessarily true. Had I SOLELY gone to TRMs I would have probably been "scandalized" (Yes the term everyone likes to throw around outside of its proper context.) by the liturgical practices of non Latin Christians. How DARE they have married clergy, leavened eucharists, The Kiss of Peace, no statues, no kneelers etc. Do I REALLY need to go on with that one ? As much as it will pain Traditionalists to hear this, I was in a sense prepped for those things, because I had been exposed to SOME of those things within the context of The NO. What TRM have you been to that has a Kiss of Peace amongst The Congregation (and between The Deacon and congregation), stands during the reception of The Eucharist, etc. I'm not saying it was an ideal medium, but if it didn't exist, I'd probably think they weren't fully Catholic and should abandon their "schismatic" ways. *rollseyes* Think about that for a moment, every Trad who CONSTANTLY makes it a point to see how well Eastern and Byzantine Catholics line up with how we do things.

"If you use "should" in an imperative sense, no, nothing "should" carry over. I know that prayer, and it is certainly beautiful but there is nothing objective about it that would in any way "require" it to be brought over other than your subjective like for it. There are plenty of devotional prayers that say practically the same thing, but again, nothing necessitates their insertion into the liturgy."

I'd say in that case you're incorrect. The fact that The Real Presence came to be questioned in The West, came to lead to The Devotion of The Blessed Sacrament. That said, the devotion is a public/private devotion and not one in the context of Liturgy. What would be SO wrong with grafting that particular prayer INTO the Liturgy ? There are STILL plenty of people who have their doubts about The Real Presence (Its not only those raised in The NO. The fact that I've come across EX TRADS who've become Muslim says A LOT.), inserting a PUBLIC prayer such as that EXPLICITLY states what we believe regarding The Eucharist. It likewise provides a sense of pause prior to receiving. I'm sorry to say it, but there SHOULD exist a bit more decorum when it comes time to receive. It usually just looks like people climbing out of the pews and lining up. There should be some sense of awe in how people line up. As I stated, "Dominus non sum dignus.." hints at it, but isn't as explicit. I thought Trads were all about things being EXPLICITLY stated. What is an extra three minutes at Liturgy going to do ?

Who Am I said...

"
Well, what happens when we assume? Actually, I'd rather not have it go intentionally either way. I don't think they should or need to adopt anything Western, liturgical or devotional and I don't think we should or need to adopt anything Eastern, liturgical or devotional. They have their own legitimate customs and disciplines which are good and so do we. We do not need to mix them, yet if they happen to influence each other in a non-imposed way, that is fine too."

Really ? I've used the ASSume crack numerous times on here, but at least I can cite where you my assumption was justified.

BEHOLD !:

"Certain "Eastern" things found their way into the NO because some liturgical scholars have a fetish for the Eastern Rites that seem to be based on a certain self-loathing. They put "Eastern" things in the NO because they thought our own liturgy was somehow deficient."

You're ultimately stating that there isn't room for ANY further development of The TRM. It has nothing to do with being deficient, but organically developing The Liturgy to meet particular challenges that come throughout the ages. As I stated, I'm not saying The NO is ideal, but the fact that you still have people who have trouble with The Real Presence (not only people who assist at NO either) who have assisted at TRMs hints that something isn't being communicated. Sure it might be a problem of CERTAIN people, but the same is true of Devotion to The Blessed Sacrament. Its not that everyone doubted, but that it was a legitimate problem amongst the masses. Why is is that for SOME Roman Ritual Traditionalists the mere mention that something can be FURTHER developed is seen as an attack of Traditionalism. No liturgy has remained stagnant, each has developed organically, The TRM is no different. That is precisely one of my peeves WITH Traditionalists in relation to OTHER Rituals. Other Rituals need to further develop to keep in line with us (Romans), but we don't because we've reached the epitome of perfection. Isn't that just a bit arrogant ? I'm not saying you're explicitly stating that, but that sentiment is SLIGHTLY present therein. Lets not play semantical word games.

Likewise, you're equivocating. Each Ritual has its own Liturgical Traditions, true, however it ISN'T imposing IF a particular practice/prayer BETTER expresses and addresses a particular need. Why did we adopt The Greek form of The Kyrie (Triple) into The Roman Ritual ?

As I've said before, I am VEHEMENTLY against POLICIES that impose a foreign practice on another Ritual. HOWEVER that being said, I am not opposed to the introduction and incorporation of foreign elements that WOULD address the formation of individuals in the context of The Liturgy. Some things don't translate well, but others do.

"
"The Church's FIRST 7 Ecumenical Councils were held in THE EAST, how often we forget that."

Yes, and why was that? All the big heresies came out of the East, the center of Imperial power was then in Constantinople and not Rome, etc.

"Those things came about naturally and on their own accord."

"

You missed the point I was trying to make there. The point isn't where the heresies took place, but that those very heresies and councils had effects on THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL. It wasn't a matter of East vs West, but that iconoclasm and every other heresy effected THE CHURCH. Those dogmas and doctrines that defined at these councils shaped THE CHURCH as a whole. These weren't local synods, but ECUMENICAL councils.

Who Am I said...

"We should also remember that it was Rome who said that we shouldn't be forcing the Easterners to Westernize and that some of these Latinizations were self-imposed. If they adopt the rosary instead of the Marian Akathist Hymn in order to abbreviate things, who's fault is that? "

Jesuits amongst The Maronites and Syro Malabar Christians... It may not have been the OFFICIAL policy of Rome, but it indeed DID happen. What does that tell you of the Liturgical climate of the times ? To me it says, "If its not Roman, it just isn't right."

I admit that some of these Latinizations were self imposed (or rather self ingrained after a while), but what do you expect when that is being encouraged ? Look at The Maronites today. Many still believe they have NO equivalent amongst The Orthodox and as such can't restore themselves. That simply isn't true. They're Western Syriacs who DIDN'T get Hellenized (as was the case with The Melkites.). Contact with The Jesuits brought about Romanizations.

The Akathist Hymn is being ATTEMPTED to be restored amongst The Faithful in public recitations by members of The Clergy. The problem is The Faithful aren't as receptive to it.

"Who knows, considering I don't know you from Adam."

Take a wild guess. ;)

I was attempting to make a point by that statement.

Which addresses your point here:

"First of all, there are a number of things to unpack there. Actually, I've been describing liturgy from a number of facets, but I have been emphasizing the aesthetic aspect because that is the most obvious, the one that can strike anyone without necessarily having any sort of academic background or even understanding of the language being used."

"Secondly, it depends. There has been room for local custom, especially in things like the marriage rite. However, generally speaking, it is much "cleaner" so to say to be careful what one tries to baptize into legitimacy. Regardless of the official program, lots of local custom and even superstition et al have been more that tolerated. Its just the way it goes, everything cannot be micromanaged."

You're attempting to save face by that statement. In The West the policy is still, conform to Western forms OVER inculturation. We have yet to develop Theological approaches that draw from non Greco Roman schools of thought. The Jesuits attempted it in China and got slammed for it. The fact is, we're not exactly open to it. Why is that so hard to admit ?

"Third, the Orthodox already have compromised the Faith. However, what they have maintained was established long ago. I would argue along the same lines as von Hildebrand that in this era most people are not capable of a proper liturgical sense. I'd even say its been that way for more than the last 50 or 100 years. Now is not the time to try to develop liturgy or to inculturate because we (collectively) are simply not capable of it"

Perhaps not in THE WEST, but you see, there are OTHER areas of the world where it COULD be done in an ORTHODOX manner as The Orthodox have been currently doing. Just look at The Aleut Orthodox for one example. Eastern Ritual Churches for some reason or another are more receptive to the adoption of Local practices than we are in The West. Why is that ?

Who Am I said...

If I haven't cited it before, I'll cite it here again:

http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2009/12/traditionalism-not-merely-alternate.html

Read that.

Dominic said...

In my experience, for what its worth, its the Traddies that appreciate the Eastern DL and the Neo-Cons that are doing the tongue clicking or questioning of whether the Easterners are "really" Catholic.

As to that prayer, again, my point still stands. YOU want to interject it for YOUR own subjective reasons. I have no problem with adding another prayer to the Mass in principle I'm just saying that there is nothing objective about that prayer which would necessitate its addition to the TLM or NO for that matter. I also think we should be very careful in wanting to add things willy-nilly even for a good reason. St. Joseph's name in the Canon wasn't anything "bad" but it was altering something that hadn't been touched since the time (approx.) of St. Gregory the Great. A formal change to the Mass is nothing to be taken lightly. If something was to be interjected as a devotional practice (ala the Leonine prayers) that would be more readily acceptable.

Regardless, adding whatever prayer it may be won't just make people better Catholics. This is another problem with the NO mentality, if we just change things to "suit" people better they will understand, believe, do etc. better, more, etc. This is simply not true.

Dominic said...

"You're ultimately stating that there isn't room for ANY further development of The TRM."

No, and I simply cannot see how you get that out of what I wrote. I wrote of the problem of the liturgical scholars who made up the NO. There is nothing wrong with development and growth, but that is not the case when you have insta-liturgy by committee.

"It has nothing to do with being deficient, but organically developing The Liturgy to meet particular challenges that come throughout the ages. As I stated, I'm not saying The NO is ideal, but the fact that you still have people who have trouble with The Real Presence (not only people who assist at NO either) who have assisted at TRMs hints that something isn't being communicated."

Who's fault is that? You have all sorts of Catholics (Western and Eastern) who do not understand or believe in the Real Presence or have a seriously deficient concept of it-and we've ALWAYS had that problem. We can change up the liturgy in all sorts of ways, give them books and pamphlets, preach at them until we're blue in the face and you STILL will have people that don't get it. Let those with ears hear, and those with eyes see. It could be a matter of malice, of ignorance, stupidity, carelessness etc. etc. who knows. Let the liturgy speak for itself as it had spoke for centuries. Everyone has their own "journey" and they will get it eventually and it won't be because of being taught or having the liturgy suit them. We have to trust that God's grace truly can work wonders.

"Why is is that for SOME Roman Ritual Traditionalists the mere mention that something can be FURTHER developed is seen as an attack of Traditionalism."

Certainly, some folks are like that. They too have a deficient understanding of liturgy, especially the ones who think something like that the '62 books came down from On High and were used by Jesus and the Apostles.

However, there is another reasonable hesitancy. I trust the Apostolic development of liturgy, I think matters liturgical and theological are most competently handled by saints. I also agree with von Hildebrand that "modern man" doesn't have a liturgical bone in his body and now is the time to conserve, not mess with or change things. People who have problems with Original Sin and demonology shouldn't be rewriting the baptismal rite. The kind of people who wrote up the first GIRM shouldn't have been let within a 100 miles of a Vatican liturgy commission. Now, we are lucky enough to have preserved (in the West) at least the '62 liturgy and some of the other old rites (i.e. Ambrosian, Carmelite, Dominican, etc.) and with those liturgies we at least have an example of what liturgy should and could be. I personally think we need to roll things back to before '55/'10 and revisit those reforms. However, before we even dare do that, I would rather we marinate in what we have for a century or so. We do not need another ill-advised and ill-conceived reform to just screw things up more.

Dominic said...

"You're attempting to save face by that statement. In The West the policy is still, conform to Western forms OVER inculturation. We have yet to develop Theological approaches that draw from non Greco Roman schools of thought. The Jesuits attempted it in China and got slammed for it. The fact is, we're not exactly open to it. Why is that so hard to admit ?"

No, then I will state it plainly-I don't think we should be "inculturating" things especially in theological matters. Make altars and churches in native styles, encourage local devotional forms, but one can really only go so far without problem.

Also, I've read that previous post of this blog and I'm not inclined to agree.

Who Am I said...

"In my experience, for what its worth, its the Traddies that appreciate the Eastern DL and the Neo-Cons that are doing the tongue clicking or questioning of whether the Easterners are "really" Catholic."

Not mine, but I'll agree to disagree on that particular point as there is no way to definitively conduct a study on the matter, micro vs macro.

But to further impress my point, how many Traditionalists (or for that matter PRE VII Roman Catholics) were familiar with the other Western Liturgies and those of The East and Byzantium ? Every other Ritual is WELL aware of The Roman Ritual, but how many can say it went the other way ? I am EXTREMELY curious as to why Eastern and Byzantine Riual Parish schools weren't allowed to be built in The US. Sure The Churches were meant for those immigrants in The Diaspora, but why not allow their children to foster a Eastern and Byzantine Catholic education/formation. I would have probably done well if one of those parish schools would have been allowed. Think about that for a moment. What would have been SO bad of having RC children assist at Coptic,Syriac,Melkite,Maronite etc. schools. If it goes one way, why not the other ?


Most Traditionalists have a hard time reconciling what is meant by Christ uniting Himself to ALL mortal flesh, without realizing that numerous Saints had made that statement in the past. How quickly people forget Patristic theology.

"As to that prayer, again, my point still stands. YOU want to interject it for YOUR own subjective reasons. I have no problem with adding another prayer to the Mass in principle I'm just saying that there is nothing objective about that prayer which would necessitate its addition to the TLM or NO for that matter. I also think we should be very careful in wanting to add things willy-nilly even for a good reason. St. Joseph's name in the Canon wasn't anything "bad" but it was altering something that hadn't been touched since the time (approx.) of St. Gregory the Great. A formal change to the Mass is nothing to be taken lightly. If something was to be interjected as a devotional practice (ala the Leonine prayers) that would be more readily acceptable. "

You're kidding right ? There have been quite a few alterations in our Liturgy. Kneeling during The Credo was made acceptable, it wasn't originally part of the tradition. Like I said, its not a matter of adding things willy nilly, it is a matter of organically developing the Ritual. We ADDED The Filoque to CLARIFY what we believed, but was the term NECESSARY, no. It was originally intended for LOCAL usage, not on the UNIVERSAL level. That is the reason Eastern and Byzantine Ritual Christians aren't required to recite it during The Creed. What matters is that they understand that the very teaching in in The Creed as it stands. I guess that addition was done all willy nilly as well. ;) Maybe The Orthodox are right... :P

Who Am I said...

"Regardless, adding whatever prayer it may be won't just make people better Catholics. This is another problem with the NO mentality, if we just change things to "suit" people better they will understand, believe, do etc. better, more, etc. This is simply not true."

Read what I wrote above before you make such an unsubstantiated comment. Likewise, the shift from Patristic Theology to Thomistic Scholasticism, Greek to Latin was a result of shifting The Church's discourse to one readily understood by The Clergy/culture of its time. I guess its not so NO after all.

"No, and I simply cannot see how you get that out of what I wrote. I wrote of the problem of the liturgical scholars who made up the NO. There is nothing wrong with development and growth, but that is not the case when you have insta-liturgy by committee."

But I wasn't talking about The NO at this point. I'm talking about The TRM. How I got to that conclusion, see the second comment I quoted in this response.

"Who's fault is that? You have all sorts of Catholics (Western and Eastern) who do not understand or believe in the Real Presence or have a seriously deficient concept of it-and we've ALWAYS had that problem. We can change up the liturgy in all sorts of ways, give them books and pamphlets, preach at them until we're blue in the face and you STILL will have people that don't get it."

You wouldn't make for a good teacher. I'm sorry to say it. ANY good teacher knows that if their students are FAILING to COMPREHEND their lessons, that they need to approach the lesson from an alternate angle that does not compromise the lesson. Maybe the discourse is off, perhaps it is the discourse that needs to change. I've understood my Catholic faith MUCH better through Eastern Christendom. It doesn't mean I can't do so via Western Theology, but it isn't how I reason. That is the point I'm trying to get across.

Who Am I said...

"However, there is another reasonable hesitancy. I trust the Apostolic development of liturgy, I think matters liturgical and theological are most competently handled by saints."

We're all called to be Saints, but we are first and foremost sinners. Unless you have a foolproof way of detecting who will and won't be a Saint after death, then you're going to have to put some good will forward and hope for the best. That doesn't mean everyone's well equipped for it (that would include you and I as well), that however doesn't mean that there aren't others who COULD appropriately apply what I'm saying and what you're saying.

You keep bringing up Hildebrand, but I'm not concerned what he has to say on the matter. I'm more concerned with YOUR thoughts. But since you're so keen on his work, apply his statements to Catholicism of The Missionary Era, The Jesuit Encounters with The Eastern Rituals and local practice. Wasn't that meddling ? I guess they too were "modern men", perhaps we should go back to the period prior to Trent if we're going to follow that logic. There are TOO many vagueries with that argument.

"No, then I will state it plainly-I don't think we should be "inculturating" things especially in theological matters. Make altars and churches in native styles, encourage local devotional forms, but one can really only go so far without problem. "

Hogwash. That is the MAIN difference between an Indian Roman Catholic and a Syro Malabar/Malankara Catholic. One has the aesthetic veneer of being Indian, whereas the other is FULLY immersed in the culture without compromising doctrine and dogma. Like I said, it has more to do with not being able to approach foreign discourses for the sake of evangelization than it does with theology. Those in The West AREN'T versed in foreign philosophies and don't know HOW to think outside of those parameters. St.Thomas Aquinas came under HEAT for his work and lo and behold, it came to be the cornerstone of Western Christian thought. One must not forget that it wasn't always so.

Who Am I said...

Before what I wrote about being Roman Catholic and Indian is interpreted as derogatory, please read what I wrote in context. I am making a comparison between the two Rituals and their level of inculturation, not in terms of which is superior to the other.

An Indian Roman Catholic would likely obtain an education and formation that removes them from their cultural context. Why not develop their culture to the point of becoming both Indian and Catholic, why do they have to be at odds with one another ? Can not Western Ritual Roman Catholicism adapt itself so as to in some respect mirror what is seen amongst The Syro Malabar/Malankara ?

Anonymous said...

Fear not, when Benedict16 has left the scene, the TLM will go with him. Medieval aesthetics and mumbo jumbo before a plaster of paris altar and those countless genuflections, hand-wavings, and little torchbearers while monsignor in his fiddleback quietly muttera his dead language will be become more and more a trip down memory lane by right-wing eccentrics. An anomaly the Church had to put up with to please the SSPX and those who march with them.

With the German pope gone, the TLM can be tossed into the grave along with Benedict's remains. His successor will pay lip service to it, I have no doubt, for a couple of years; however, the Vatican will loosen the reigns and bishops will find loopholes for quietly putting it on the shelf. Something they've managed to do to date in a number of dioceses anyway.

Why you say? Because the extreme trads are just that, they're extreme. They've had their little run under Benedict,but a significant number of the worldwide hierarchy feel they've been imposed upon by old biddies with their liturgical demands imposed upon tired, over-worked, elederly priest who haven't studied latin in 50 years. While the bishop has been forced to redirect his precious priestly personnel to accommodate a handful of ultra trad flock and their "Temple police".

With Benedict gone, they'll feel emboldened to ignore the dictates of Vox Clara and the CDW. So, best to become accustomed to celebrating more traditional NO masses, with or without Latin. For the old TLM ,like all good antiques, will eventually end up in the new Pontifical Museum for Quaint Rites and Cults.