in a hieratic thees-and-thousarchaic maybe, not hieratic. In old English, "thee" and "thou" was the familiar, informal. "You" being the formal. Unlike languages that still have a formal and familiar, Modern English uses the formal, except for archaic uses of the familiar for God.
I understand what you're saying, but I speak relative to the modern world.Although ironically the informal forms at the actual time, the "Elizabethan" English would be now hieratic in the sense of being sacred inasmuch as it is set-apart and is (or would be) used primarily just for worship. So it becomes hieratic exactly by being archaic.
Wouldn't the adoption of Gospel music within The TRM get you labeled a modernist ? :PI don't see a problem with its adoption, BUT how would one reconcile its use in Liturgy in light of Tradition ? :P
How did they reconcile adding Polyphony and Orchestras over the old chant???Maybe if it were somehow based vaguely on the chant melodies somehow.
"How did they reconcile adding Polyphony and Orchestras over the old chant???"I was being sarcastic, hence these ":P"I don't see a problem with Gospel inspired hymnody, however it will be a harder sell for Liturgical purists. People associate Gospel music with Southern Baptists. Polyphony etc. is part of Western Tradition, whereas Gospel is the music of (I'll let you finish that statement.).This is precisely what I was getting in regard to the incorporation of non Western practices into Western culture and religious practice. There was a recent article on the rise of non-European Christendom (something you've discussed at length here) and how it would mean the death of Western Christianity as we know it. As it stands, Western Christianity wishes to preserve itself as Western Christianity. Everything else is a novelty. That is quite the depressing thought, given that diversity is the organic route of the livelihood of all cultures, people, civilizations etc.
Post a Comment